With Friends Like These . . .

Josh Marshal points out what many of us have long suspected:

The real story with the Libya development is the light it's showing on where it likely got its nuclear starter kit: i.e., Pakistan.

New information from North Korea and particularly from Iran is starting to show us that, in essence, there really is no global weapons proliferation problem so much as there's a Pakistan problem.

We now know enough to say with increasing confidence that every state we're worrying about got either all of their help, or their most significant help, from the Pakistanis.

This raises so many questions and so many sharp-edged dilemmas that it is truly difficult to know where to start.

Since the Pakistanis were the primary authors and financial supporters of the Taliban and had long standing ties with Osama bin Lauden and company, it casts a very peculiar light on the Bush administration's coziness with the country's military dictatorship. This, combined with the Bushies refusal to seriously probe the obvious involvement of the Saudis in 9/11 and other terrorist acts, makes one wonder what Dubyah thinks is really going on.

Here we are, making war on Iraq, which had no tie to any of the parties involved in 9/11, while touting two of the worst offenders as our close allies. This becomes even more schizo when we recall that just over a decade ago Saddam was our good ally. Last year our president and his closest advisors were all over TV trying to frighten us about the prospect of Saddam giving WMDs (that apparently he didn't have) to Islamic terrorists (that hated him and that he didn't trust), and all the while our "friends" the Pakistanis - who do have WMDs - were in constant contact with those Islamic terrorists - and that doesn't seem to bother Bush and company at all.

Can you hear me now?

Bush vs Trial By Jury

One of the "issues" that has been gaining attention in the media lately - and that will no doubt be a large part of the 2004 Republican campaign - is the misnamed "tort reform." Like so many conservative contrived themes, this one has been defined in language that automatically creates a false case - much like "tax burden." Just as the question of whether or not any particular person's taxes are a "burden" is begged by calling any taxes a "tax burden", so the whole question of whether or not there is a problem with current judicial remedies for various injuries faced by ordinary citizens is begged by talking about "tort reform." This assumes the tort system needs reforming. The case that is constantly made is that we live in a society that sues so often and that juries are so irrational in awarding large money damages, that normal business cannot function. One of the best summaries of this nonsense is this piece on the Wampum blog, always a valuable source of information and perspective.

One of the most valuable aspects of this piece is pointing out that so much of the "tort reform" case is based on anecdotal situations that are either fabricated or totally distorted by partial reporting. One would have a very tough time finding actual solid evidence of widespread jury largesse based on the silly kinds of lawsuits typically reported. There are, no doubt, lots of "frivolous" lawsuits, but judges and juries are not so stupid that they can't distinguish truth from fiction - unlike many supporters of George W. Bush.

Continued Questions About Saddam's Capture

This is just one of the many stories circulating about inconsistencies and contradictions in the reporting of Saddam's capture:

It was 3:15pm Washington time when Donald Rumsfeld called George W Bush at Camp David. "Mr President, first reports are not always accurate," he began. "But we think we may have him."

First reports - indeed the very first report of Saddam's capture - were also coming out elsewhere. Jalal Talabani chose to leak the news and details of Rasul Ali's role in the deployment to the Iranian media and to be interviewed by them.

By early Sunday - way before Saddam's capture was being reported by the mainstream Western press - the Kurdish media ran the following news wire:

"Saddam Hussein, the former President of the Iraqi regime, was captured by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. A special intelligence unit led by Qusrat Rasul Ali, a high-ranking member of the PUK, found Saddam Hussein in the city of Tikrit, his birthplace. Qusrat's team was accompanied by a group of US soldiers. Further details of the capture will emerge during the day; but the global Kurdish party is about to begin!"

By the time Western press agencies were running the same story, the emphasis had changed, and the ousted Iraqi president had been "captured in a raid by US forces backed by Kurdish fighters."

Rasul Ali himself, meanwhile, had already been on air at the Iranian satellite station al-Alam insisting that his "PUK fighters sealed the area off before the arrival of the US forces".

By late Sunday as the story went global, the Kurdish role was reduced to a supportive one in what was described by the Pentagon and US military officials as a "joint operation". The Americans now somewhat reluctantly were admitting that PUK fighters were on the ground alongside them , while PUK sources were making more considered statements and playing down their precise role.

So just who did get to Saddam first, the Kurds or the Americans?

Seems we have every right to be suspicious - since so much else - from Jessica Lynch down to the Thanksgiving turkey - has proven to be one stage managed photo op after another - often with little relation to any truth. Some of the photos provided by the army of soldiers surrounding Saddam's hiding place show date palms with ripening dates - something that happens earlier in the summer and could not be true now. Are these pictures of something else? Was Saddam captured months ago and not revealed until now? Why so much hype and so little information?

Tom Ridge Proves Dean's Case

Dean has come in for very strong criticism from all sides because of his statement that the capture of Saddam had not made America more safe. Today Tom Ridge, the Tsar of National Insecurity, has raised the "threat" level from yellow to orange in response to a:

"substantial increase" in the volume of intelligence pointing to "near-term attacks that could either rival or exceed what we experienced on September 11."

This, by the funny "up is down" logic of this administration must mean that we are safer, right? That must be so, since the appropriate response to the increased threat level, according to Ridge, is:

to proceed with holiday plans despite the threat.

Gee, thanks a lot for the advice. Do any of us really think the Department of Homeland Security has done a damn thing to make us more secure?

Dean on Dean

Howard Dean has a very solid response in today's Washington Post countering the claims that his foreign policy views are too far from the mainstream. He sums up by saying:

The reasons I opposed the war in Iraq are clear. In the fall of 2002, Saddam Hussein did not pose an imminent threat to America. The administration had not (and still has not) presented clear evidence that Hussein was on the verge of attacking his neighbors or threatening the United States or the Middle East with weapons of mass destruction or supporting al Qaeda. The administration's failures to mobilize allies and plan effectively for the war's aftermath suggested difficulties ahead.

It is just as important that this president failed to level with the American people about the costs or potential consequences or about the nature of the threat. Our democratic tradition, our mainstream values, demand that government be open and honest with its governed. The consequences of the war are becoming clear, even beyond the loss of life, even beyond the $150 billion price tag -- so far. Our resources -- military, intelligence, diplomatic -- are strained. Our alliances are frayed. Around the world, too many are now under the false impression that the American people are bent on global domination and war against Islam.

A critical presidential campaign is now underway. Americans face a choice between two very different views of our role in the world. My agenda returns security policy to its fundamental course: protecting Americans and advancing our values and interests -- democracy, freedom, opportunity and peace -- through effective partnerships and global leadership, as well as military strength.

The current administration strays wildly from this course and from the time-honored manner of pursuing it. In the end, I believe it will be clear who is in the mainstream and who is swimming against the tide of history.

League of Liberals Weekly Vote

Check out Chris "Lefty" Brown's Corner - even if it does make me schizo since it uses the same template that I do.

Bush vs the Economy

Visit Economists for Dean. Check out the "spend like there's no tomorrow" credit card.

Why Howard Dean?

I am asked this a lot. Why him? Why is he the frontrunner. What do you see in this man?

Ok, just for me, this is the deal. I started sending Dean money more than a year ago - long before there was an Iraq war on the horizon - because he was willing, even then, to attack Bush on the important issues. Then, when it came to the needless war and Dean stood firm against it, well, after that he could do no wrong. Almost all the other Dem candidates to this day strive to "position" themselves. Dean just digs in and fights. It has been a l o n g time since most of us have experienced a Democratic candidate that was willing to roll up his sleeves and fight like this one does. That's why he has my support, my money, my time, and my encouragement.

The Courts vs Bush

Much to my surprise, this was a pretty good day for the anti-Bush crowd. He was smacked down by a federal appeals court that ruled he did not have the right to declare an American citizen to be an "enemy combatant" and hold him without access to an attorney or to the normal constitutional protections we assume all citizens have the rights to. Despite Bush's claims, he has been denied the right to keep prisoners such as Jose Padillio in solitary confinement, without charges, without access to an attorney or to any member of their family.

Are We Safer?

Today Howard Dean is being beat up by everyone - including his own party - for suggesting that we are not really safer because of the capture of Saddam Hussein. But it seems he has a demonstrably valid point. If we were safer, why are Americans being told to flee Saudi Arabia?

Bush vs Our Security

Hard to believe:
This is terribly important and you can bet that it won't be featured in the mainstream press:

For the first time, the chairman of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is saying publicly that 9/11 could have and should have been prevented, reports CBS News Correspondent Randall Pinkston.
"This is a very, very important part of history and we've got to tell it right," said Thomas Kean.

"As you read the report, you're going to have a pretty clear idea what wasn't done and what should have been done," he said. "This was not something that had to happen."

Appointed by the Bush administration, Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, is now pointing fingers inside the administration and laying blame.

"There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly not be in the position they were in at that time because they failed. They simply failed," Kean said.

There are so many investigations floating around, held at bay by the administration, but always threatening to erupt into real trouble. The energy task force. The WMD lies. The Plame Affair. But none are as potentially explosive as the 9-11 Commission.

The 9/11 Commission has never been major news - regardless of what it was dealing with. I don't know if this is deliberate avoidance or what, but it says a lot about our sense of priorities, and what it says isn't good. We simply are not willing to pay attention to what is important to our own security and that of our country.

Bush vs Presidential Safety

Today Bush family friend John Hinckley was granted the right to unsupervised visits with family outside St. Elizabeth's hospital where he has been confined ever since attempting to assassinate President Reagan more than two decades ago. The real story here is that no one in the mainstream press has ever tried to tell the "real story" here.

Amazing, isn't it? We see so little of what is right in front of our faces because it just doesn't fit the story the mainstream wants to hear. Consider this - there was never a real investigation of the attempted assassination of Reagan. It was stopped by Bush Senior - because there was no need. After all, it was clear that it was just the work of one lonely, demented individual - who just happened to be a friend of the Bush family (which was NOT widely publicized even though widely known by newsmen).

Bowling for Saddam

Michael Moore has this to say about the capture of Saddam (and I'm quoting it at lenghth because it is so true and so direct - and so rare in this timid time):

Thank God Saddam is finally back in American hands! He must have really missed us. Man, he sure looked bad! But, at least he got a free dental exam today. That's something most Americans can't get.

America used to like Saddam. We loved Saddam. We funded him. We armed him. We helped him gas Iranian troops.

But then he screwed up. He invaded the dictatorship of Kuwait and, in doing so, did the worst thing imaginable – he threatened an even better friend of ours: the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia, and its vast oil reserves. The Bushes and the Saudi royal family were and are close business partners, and Saddam, back in 1990, committed a royal blunder by getting a little too close to their wealthy holdings. Things went downhill for Saddam from there.

But it wasn't always that way. Saddam was our good friend and ally. We supported his regime. It wasn't the first time we had helped a murderer. We liked playing Dr. Frankenstein. We created a lot of monsters – the Shah of Iran, Somoza of Nicaragua, Pinochet of Chile – and then we expressed ignorance or shock when they ran amok and massacred people. We liked Saddam because he was willing to fight the Ayatollah. So we made sure that he got billions of dollars to purchase weapons. Weapons of mass destruction. That's right, he had them. We should know – we gave them to him!

We allowed and encouraged American corporations to do business with Saddam in the 1980s. That's how he got chemical and biological agents so he could use them in chemical and biological weapons. Here's the list of some of the stuff we sent him (according to a 1994 U.S. Senate report):

Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.

Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.

Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart.

Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.

Clostridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.

Clostridium tetani, a highly toxigenic substance.

And here are some of the American corporations who helped to prop Saddam up by doing business with him: AT&T, Bechtel, Caterpillar, Dow Chemical, Dupont, Kodak, Hewlett-Packard, and IBM (Read a full list of companies and descriptions of how they helped Saddam).

We were so cozy with dear old Saddam that we decided to feed him satellite images so he could locate where the Iranian troops were. We pretty much knew how he would use the information, and sure enough, as soon as we sent him the spy photos, he gassed those troops. And we kept quiet. Because he was our friend, and the Iranians were the "enemy." A year after he first gassed the Iranians, we reestablished full diplomatic relations with him!

Later he gassed his own people, the Kurds. You would think that would force us to disassociate ourselves from him. Congress tried to impose economic sanctions on Saddam, but the Reagan White House quickly rejected that idea – they wouldn't let anything derail their good buddy Saddam. We had a virtual love fest with this Frankenstein whom we (in part) created.

And, just like the mythical Frankenstein, Saddam eventually spun out of control. He would no longer do what he was told by his master. Saddam had to be caught. And now that he has been brought back from the wilderness, perhaps he will have something to say about his creators. Maybe we can learn something... interesting. Maybe Don Rumsfeld could smile and shake Saddam's hand again. Just like he did when he went to see him in 1983.

Maybe we never would have been in the situation we're in if Rumsfeld, Bush, Sr., and company hadn't been so excited back in the 80s about their friendly monster in the desert.

Meanwhile, anybody know where the guy is who killed 3,000 people on 9/11? Our other Frankenstein?? Maybe he's in a mouse hole.

So many of our little monsters, so little time before the next election.

Stay strong, Democratic candidates. Quit sounding like a bunch of wusses. These bastards sent us to war on a lie, the killing will not stop, the Arab world hates us with a passion, and we will pay for this out of our pockets for years to come. Nothing that happened today (or in the past nine months) has made us one bit safer in our post-9/11 world. Saddam was never a threat to our national security.

Only our desire to play Dr. Frankenstein dooms us all.

I can't wait for Moore's new film - to deal with the topics dicsussed above. This is just what we need out there during the election year.

Republicans Against Good Government

This has been a terrible week for Republicans who don't happened to be named Bush. Two Repub governors have had a really bad time with ethical and legal problems. Gov. John Rowland of Connecticut admitted to lying about receiving favors from State contractors and three newspapers in this state have called for his resignation. And today, former Gov. George Ryan of Illinois was indicted on federal charges of taking bribes for a wide variety of favors while serving as Secretary of State for Illinois.

And, lest you believe - as I once did - that Republicans only had money scandals while Democrats had sexual scandals - a long submerged story was finally confirmed with the announcement that the very late Senator Strom Thurmond fathered a child with a black maid in his family's home early in his extremely segregationist life.

Remember, the Republicans are the party of ethics, moral clarity, and family values.

We Caught the Wrong Guy

In another take on the capture of Saddam, William Rivers Pitt - ever the contrarian - has this to say:

Saddam Hussein, former employee of the American federal government, was captured near a farmhouse in Tikrit in a raid performed by other employees of the American federal government. That sounds pretty deranged, right? Perhaps, but it is also accurate. The unifying thread binding together everyone assembled at that Tikrit farmhouse is the simple fact that all of them – the soldiers as well as Hussein – have received pay from the United States for services rendered.

It is no small irony that Hussein, the Butcher of Baghdad, the monster under your bed lo these last twelve years, was paid probably ten thousand times more during his time as an American employee than the soldiers who caught him on Saturday night. The boys in the Reagan White House were generous with your tax dollars, and Hussein was a recipient of their largesse for the better part of a decade.

This is a part of the history of our relations with Saddam that might now be revisited if he actually is allowed to go "on trial". But the news blackout of former General Wesley Clark's testimony in the trial of Slobodan Milosevic doesn't bode well for actually getting the truth out to the public. The Bush administration is, after all, the most obsessively secretive administration in American history and the dark story that Saddam could tell would not put Bush's father in a favorable light. So I'm not holding my breath expecting that Saddam will ever get a chance to testify in open court. He will either be killed or muzzled. Count on it.

Pitt's essay ends with words that I couldn't agree with more and have expressed in other words over this last weekend:

Hussein was never a threat to the United States. His capture means nothing to the safety and security of the American people. The money we spent to put the bag on him might have gone towards capturing bin Laden, who is a threat, but that did not happen. We can be happy for the people of Iraq, because their Hussein problem is over. Here in America, our Hussein problem is just beginning. The other problem – that Osama fellow we should have been trying to capture this whole time – remains perched over our door like the raven.

Money in Politics

Can a system where less than one-tenth of one percent of the U.S. population gives 83 percent of all campaign contributions of $200 or more – as data from the Center for Responsive Politics shows – truly represent the will of all the people?

Bush vs the Godfather

Q:What's the difference between the Bush administration and the Mafia?

A:The Mafia doesn't pretend to be compassionate.

Lieberman the Neocon

Watching a CSPAN presentation of the Hudson Institute's seminar on the future of the Neocons I hear an audience member ask if there are any Democrat "neocons", and the universal answer is, Joe Lieberman.

Bush vs the Constitution

Bush takes every opportunity to lie and confuse issues. In his live news conference Monday he reprised an old theme of his that his sworn duty is to make the country safe:

"I've got a solemn duty to do everything I can to protect the American people," the president said in response to a question about whether he would speed up the withdrawal of troops from Iraq before next November's election. "I will never forget the lessons of September the 11th, 2001."

The "lessons of September the 11th" seem to be that he can say anyhing he wants and not really be questioned about it. The President has no "solemn duty" to do anything to protect the American people. We would hope that would be a priority for him, but in truth, his sworn obligation - his actual oath of office - says:

"I, name, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Dig it? He is not sworn to protect you and me. He is sworn to protect the Constitution - which has not been an obvioius priority. Of course, the Constitution doesn't vote and can't be frightened into letting big, strong George protect it from the evil guys that "hate our freedoms" and, uh, "gas their own people" - even if they don't have anything to do with 9/11 - but then knowing how to take advantage of irrational fear is one of those "lessons" of 9/11.

War and the Death Penalty

When a democracy takes a life, who is responsible?

Saddam: a U. S. Creation

A little of the seldom mentioned dirty laundry of U. S. support for Saddam.

Bush vs Dean

A truly ugly TV ad directed against Howard Dean has a voice-over behind a picture of the Time magazine cover of Osama bin Laden, proclaiming that there are "those" who want to destroy America, but that Howard Dean has "no military or foreign policy experience. It's time for Democrats to think about Dean's inexperience."

This is actually pretty funny. Are we supposed to contrast Dean with Bush? Bush? A man who doesn't know other countries, who was in the "military" only in the sense of having his father's friends make a place for him in the Texas Air National Guard. After all, he scored in the 25th percentile on his pilot's qualifying tests (far below what is desired) yet was vaulted over many others to gain the slot as a pilot trainee. Then disappeared - it seems when he was expected to show up for a drug test - and didn't serve at all his last year (according to his commanding officer).

Is America a great country or what?

As for his experience dealing with terrorists, well, that is encompassed by the destruction of the World Trade Center and a portion of the Pentagon. Does allowing the worst terrorist attack ever in our history to occur on one's watch qualify as valid experience in the war on terror? Is Bush a better person for the job because he didn't send any planes into the air to protect America that day - even though that is the standard plan, and because he didn't do anything in response to the Clinton administration's admonition that Osam bin Laden was his greatest challenge?

This nasty ad directed against Dean was produced by "Americans for Jobs, Healthcare and Progressive Values." Is that not a joke? A faux organization headed by Edward F. Feigham, product of Borromeo Catholic University (where is Rick Santorum in this equation?), former conservative Congressperson, currently an employee of the Century Insurance Group. Yes, this certainly makes him an credible source in my book. NOT!

Bush's response to 9/11 has been to mostly ignore Osama - a family member of one of the Bush family's many business partners (just check out the Carlyle Group for starters) and focus on irrelevant factors such as Iraq. Iraq doesn't figure anywhere in the bin Laden "war on America." Iraq is a poor country (because of U. S. insprired and UN imposed economic sanctions) that is potentially rich (because of its untapped oil reserves) but that has NOTHING to do with 9/11 and has never threatened - or threatened to threaten - America. Yet Bush was able to sell this empty sack as a poison package that we must fight against at all costs. We're talking Twilight Zone shit here. Truly very strange.

Yep, Bush attacked and "defeated" the wrong country. And now he doesn't know what to do. We can't just leave and we can't really afford to stay. I love it. We are expected to support this ignorant administration's costly mistakes but are supposed to be afraid of a thoughtful and measured approach to foreign policy by Dean? Give me a fucking break!

Sorry, I'm way beyond any willingness to compromise or be "nice." It was, after all, Bush who declared war on all those who don't agree with him completely. So be it.

The Washington Post vs Children

The Washington Post editorial position is that killing kids is just part of the price we have to pay to be "tough" in a tough world. They try to walk a fine line and make it ok:

The trick is to mount a campaign that is tough enough to find and defeat insurgents but also precise, humane and accountable.

OK, can you name me one of those, as opposed to campaigns that result in many civilian deaths and much suffering - and usually the defeat of the invading power?

Let me say it cleary, you make me sick.

Paul Bremer vs My Mental Health

I have to confess - I don't get it. The continued hoopla over the capture of Saddam, as if it somehow proves something or concludes something - which is not likely to be the case. More immediately, I'm truly sick of CNN constantly replaying Paul Bremer's idiotic announcement, "We got him!" - with attendant cheers. OK, you "got" him. Now what? Try him? In what venue? On what charges? Can a dictator be charged with violating the laws in his country that don't - by definition - apply to the dictator? If not, do you write laws after the fact and impose them retroactively? Nothing I can imagine will be a satisfactory resolution here. The face we are presenting on TV is so self-satisfied, but where will we go from here that will not blow up in our faces? After all, "we" (by whom I mean the U. S. government, CIA, and American businesses) are as responsible for Saddam and his evil regime as anyone.

Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." For Bush, the self-professed Christian, that will be a very tall order, especially since he was recorded before the war as having proclaimed, "Fuck Saddam. We're going to take him out."

Yeah, there's nothing like that good old Christian spirit. Onward Christian soldiers! The Crusades apparently taught us nothing.

What Next?

After the initial euphoria wears off, the capture of Saddam may prove a two edged sword for the Bush administration. Killing him would have had a finality about it that would allow the Bushies to close the book on many troubling questions and issues. Now, with talk of putting him on trial, there is the very real prospect that the whole sordid history of U. S. support for Saddam - including from Bush Senior - will be retold. As one joke last year went, "We know that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, we still have the receipts." That is only a slight exaggeration. America, and other industrial nations, supplied Saddam's regime with advanced weapons, biological warfare agents, chemical precursors for poison gas, plus intelligence and financing.

Going back through the historical record and seeing just when Saddam became such a "bad" guy would be an instructive exercise. Will our media do it? Since they haven't so far - and this information is a readily available part of the public record - it doesn't bode well for future "news" coverage that might be embarrassing to the Bushies.

On the same topic, there is a lot of speculation in the blogsphere that Saddam might not live to tell his tale. Not to be too cynical, but wasn't Jack Ruby's intervention awfully "convenient" in the JFK assassination case? Given how many people would like to see Saddam dead, who would question it if some enterprising Iraqi managed to get to him - preferably on camera, right? Especially given the response of many Iraqis to hearing that he was captured:

Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez showed video of Saddam, who had graying hair and a long beard, undergoing a medical examination after his capture.

Several Iraqi journalists stood up and shouted "Death to Saddam" after the video was shown.

Yeah, I fear the reality is that we are in for another hectic round of media hype, misdirection, and dramatic trivia. We can forget about Enron, Ken Lay, Valerie Plame, Halliburton, and Osama bin Forgotten. Let's all focus on the evil dictator in chains - and pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Saddam vs Sanity

The electronic media has been in full frenzy this morning about the capture of Saddam Hussein in Tikrit last night. Will this make a real difference in the situation in Iraq? That remains to be seen, but no one seems to be questioning the way that the war with Iraq has been personalized and turned into a hugely expensive version of "America's Most Wanted." This is what a couple of decades of focusing on sports, sit-coms, and sensationalism has led to - no perspective. Our foreign policy has been reduced to an ugly version of "High Noon."

What Do They Have To Hide?

This from Daily Kos:

Republican agenda passed in the dead of night
by kos
Sat Dec 13th, 2003 at 20:14:13 UTC

From Ohio Democrat Sherrod Brown:
Never before has the House of Representatives operated in such secrecy:
At 2:54 a.m. on a Friday in March, the House cut veterans benefits by three votes.

At 2:39 a.m. on a Friday in April, the House slashed education and health care by five votes.

At 1:56 a.m. on a Friday in May, the House passed the Leave No Millionaire Behind tax-cut bill by a handful of votes.

At 2:33 a.m. on a Friday in June, the House passed the Medicare privatization and prescription drug bill by one vote.

At 12:57 a.m. on a Friday in July, the House eviscerated Head Start by one vote.

And then, after returning from summer recess, at 12:12 a.m. on a Friday in October, the House voted $87 billion for Iraq.

Always in the middle of the night. Always after the press had passed their deadlines. Always after the American people had turned off the news and gone to bed.

Gore and Dean vs Bush

This from The Nation:

Gore's a Dean Man Now
by John Nichols

Al Gore endorsed Howard Dean for President for the same reason that so many other Democrats have: He wanted to be where the action is in his party. The man who while carrying the Democratic banner in 2000 won the most votes for President said as much when he announced his decision at a Harlem event, declaring, "Howard Dean really is the only candidate who has been able to inspire at the grassroots level all over this country the kind of passion and enthusiasm for democracy and change and transformation of America that we need in this country. We need to remake the Democratic Party, we need to remake America, we need to take it back on behalf of the people of this country."

Whatever else one thinks of Howard Dean, he IS where the action is in the Democratic party. Who else would have had the balls to take the fight to Bush's own home state of Texas, where the Dean campaign early ran a series of ads that were essentially giving the finger to the first pretender? Other candidates would have felt that to be a waste of limited financial resources? Dean recognized that to take the fight to the enemy's front door is exactly what would energize the Democratic base - and open the purse strings that increasingly have been closed to faux Dems who really have been acting like Republican-lite. And there is this:

Gore is well aware that the Vermonter's biggest applause line is a promise that "this time the person with the most votes is going to the White House."

We shouldn't let anyone forget that our "president" has chosen to ignore the majority of Americans when they don't agree with him. To pay attention to majority public opinion is like governing by "focus groups" according to Bush. So, then, what is "representative" democracy all about - it if doesn't REPRESENT the will of the majority?

Howard Dean at least represents a large percentage of Americans who feel that for a long time they have had no voice on the national stage. Whether we are a majority or not is still to be determined, but I'd say it's looking good. Otherwise he wouldn't be such a constant target. According to the Washington Post:

President Bush's political advisers are now all but certain that Howard Dean will be the Democratic presidential nominee and they are planning a campaign that takes account of what they see as Dr. Dean's strengths and weaknesses, Republicans with ties to the White House said.
. . .
"They do not underestimate Dean, because Dean is able to stir the energy in the Democratic party grass roots," said Deal W. Hudson, the editor of Crisis Magazine and an influential religious conservative who is in regular contact with the White House. "That makes him potentially the most formidable of the Democratic nominees."

Fasten your seat belts. It's going to be a bumpy ride, and I can hardly wait.

This is Real "Progress"

It seems that the Bush effort to rebuild the Iraqi army is falling on hard times. In fact, almost half of the newly recruited "soldiers" have "resigned." That's strange, I didn't know that soldiers could just decide to quit their duty whenever they felt like it. I thought that was going AWOL and subject to serious consequences (unless one is a "fortunate son" in the Texas Air National Guard - and then it's a prelude to being chief executive).

It is, indeed, a strange world.

Bush vs Ordinary Justice

When confronted with evidence that his Vice President's "former" employer, Halliburton, had over charged the government by more than $60 million, Bush declared that if this were the case "we expect that money to be repaid." Well, excuse me, but if I were a con artist and had just been caught filing false claims for compensation against the federal government, I suspect that I would be arrested, charged with a felony, put on trial, and, if convicted, sent to prison - as well as being required to repay what I had "stolen." But that, it seems, is only for small time crooks. For the really big operators no question of prosecution even enters into the picture. The nice Mr. President - he is, after all, a "Compassionate" Conservative - says "bad boy" to the wayward big business and insists on putting the purloined money back. We'll just all pretend that it never happened.

This is the way that defense companies, for example, that have defrauded the taxpayer year after year, are able to continue doing business with the government. If caught in their regular game of theft, they either pay back the loot or - more often - pay a fine that is some trivial fraction of what they have stolen - and everything is forgiven.

Bush vs the Taxpayer

In justifying restricting Iraq rebuilding contracts to those countries that supported the war against Iraq, Bush has suggested that this is what the rest of us want:

"It's very simple," Bush told reporters after a Cabinet meeting. "Our people risked their lives. Friendly coalition folks risked their lives, and therefore the contracting is going to reflect that, and that's what the U.S. taxpayers expect."

Really? Is this what the taxpayer's expect. I got the impression that taxpayers were unpleasantly surprised by the $87 billion supplementary appropriation for Iraq. Remember, Defense Undersecretary Paul Wolfowitz, before the war, had delcared that Iraq could pay for its own reconstruction "and fairly quickly." Now we poor taxpayers are learning that this same Wolfowitz has intervened to prevent the government's own oversight authority in Iraq from investigating:

When Congress voted the $87 billion for military expenditures and reconstruction in Iraq they were keen to create an office of Inspector General at the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) to watch out for all manner of waste,

Now it seems that Paul Wolfowitz has gutted that provision.

And this is coming just as reports are surfacing that the government has officially determined that Dick Cheney's old company, Halliburton, has overcharged the taxpayers by as much as $67 million in Iraq. And they've only been on the job a year! Way to go! Should we be surprised that this is happening?

Axis of Incoherence

According to Jim Lobe:

On the one hand, the CPA's job is to convince Iraqis that US troops are there to help them to rebuild and make a transition to democratic Iraq.

On the other hand, the military, which lost a record number of troops to hostile fire last month, is now embarked on a military campaign in the region that increasingly apes Israeli tactics. Razor-wire fences, checkpoints, nighttime raids and roundups, bombing, and the demolition of houses and other buildings have never persuaded Palestinians that Israeli soldiers are in the West Bank to help them.

The CPA and the military now have "opposing goals," noted ret. Rear Adm. David Oliver, who just returned from a high-level CPA job. While Gen. Ricardo Sanchez's forces are focused on "tactical and immediate" goals of hunting down suspected guerrillas and maintaining order, CPA chief L. Paul Bremer is trying to win the confidence of the Iraqi people. "The military's goal has nothing to do with the (Coalition's) success," Oliver said.

This incoherence – or rather the exasperating difficulty of reconciling military tactics to strategic goals – was best expressed this week by Lt. Col. Nathan Sussaman, the commander of a battalion that that has surrounded the town of Abu Hishma with a razor wire fence. "With a heavy dose of fear and violence, and a lot of money for projects," he told the New York Times, "I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them."

Reminds me of the old joke - "Hi. We're from the government. We're here to help you."

Yeah, be grateful or we'll wrap your neighborhood in razer wire and threaten to shoot you. Is this really the message we should be sending?

Krugman vs the Neocons

Paul Krugman sees Paul Wolfowitz's untimely memo reserving Iraq rebuilding contracts for our allies as part of an effort by administration hard liners to sabotage any reconciliation between America and "Old" Europe:

In short, this week's diplomatic debacle probably reflects an internal power struggle, with hawks using the contracts issue as a way to prevent Republican grown-ups from regaining control of U.S. foreign policy. And initial indications are that the ploy is working — that the hawks have, once again, managed to tap into Mr. Bush's fondness for moralistic, good-versus-evil formulations.

The only good news here for the rest of us is the clear evidence of division within the administration, and, as Lincoln observed, "a house divided against itself cannot stand."

Let's hope. It's past time for the Bush White House to be a thing of the past.

Molly Ivins on Howard Dean

I'm for Howard Dean – because he's going to win

The Best American Christmas Movie

"The Man Who Came to Dinner"

Forget all the sentimental and uplifting shit. This cynical and celebrity critical story is the perfect expression of both the positive and negative sides of American media obsession. It provides the perfect expression for excess and stupidity - a phrase that could be used to sum up much of the Bushie's agenda"

"I may vomit."

Great show. If you haven't seen it, do.

Good News? Or Bad News?

The financial numbers today are a glass half full, half empty kind of thing:

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Jobless claims rose in the United States last week, the government said Thursday, coming in higher than Wall Street forecasts.

The Labor Department said 378,000 people filed new claims for state unemployment benefits in the week ended Dec. 6, compared with a revised reading of 365,000 the prior week. Economists, on average, expected 359,000 new claims, according to Briefing.com.

On Wall Street, stocks edged higher after the report while Treasury bond prices fell after a separate report showing surprising strength in retail sales in November.

Retail sales rose 0.9 percent to $322.4 billion last month, the Commerce Department reported, topping analysts' forecasts, as consumer spending rebounded from a slump in October.

So, if you can afford to participate in the great crap shoot on Wall Street you are doing better. If you are an ordinary guy or gal in the trenches, you are in danger of losing your job.

Welcome to the Bush 'recovery.'

Bush vs Common Sense

How can we explain this stupidity? The Bush administration is simultaneously insulting countries like France, Germany, and Russia by refusing to allow them to contend for any of the rebuilding contracts in Iraq, and at the same time asking them to forgive billions of dollars in debt Iraq owes them:

Under the Pentagon rules, only companies whose countries are on the American list of "coalition nations" are eligible to compete for the prime contracts, though they could act as subcontractors. The result is that the Solomon Islands, Uganda and Samoa may compete for the contracts, but China, whose premier just left the White House with promises of an expanded trade relationship, is excluded, along with Israel.

Several of Mr. Bush's aides wondered why the administration had not simply adopted a policy of giving preference to prime contracts to members of the coalition, without barring any countries outright.

"What we did was toss away our leverage," one senior American diplomat said. "We could have put together a policy that said, `The more you help, the more contracts you may be able to gain.' " Instead, the official said, "we found a new way to alienate them."

I guess now we will get to see if Jim Baker is as good as his reputation suggests.

Bush Trash

For a great collection of trash on America's premier multigenerational criminal conspiracy, see Sam Smith's catalogue of Bush material at Progressive Review.

Bush vs Himself

Do the relevant members of the Bush administration realize that if they continue with this silly propoganda mission to support a tribunal trying war crimes and crimes against humanity in Iraq they are likely to implicate themselves? And their families (if their name is Bush)?

We can only hope.

Bush vs Most of US

Just for the sake of perspective, revisit these thoughts I expressed prior to our illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq:

Saturday, January 25, 2003

Headlines in yesterday's paper proclaimed that Bush's State of the Union speech would focus on Iraq. Isn't that something? Our president sees the state of our union as being determined by a country half way around the world that he probably knows almost nothing about. Unemployment? Declining stock market? Rising crime rate? Balance of trade problems? Increasing inequality? Racism? Sexism? None of these really register on his "bold" and "muscular" radar. No, he wants to wage war. Or, more precisely, he wants to order others to wage war. The reasons are many and none are very good. All we can do is protest as best we can. The public is really not in favor of this nonsense but it doesn't seem to make any difference to this administration. They seem to believe their own propaganda and that means they are dangerously out of touch with reality.

Almost a full year later and this is even more true. The rationale for war - the supposed threat of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction - has proven to be a great fiction. Saddam is missing. The Iraqi people have not welcomed us as liberators. In fact, we are suffering deaths and casualties at an alarming rate and the attacks are increasing in sophistication and intensity. The rest of the world is largely against us and their opposition continues. And even as the Bush administration increases its praise for the "freedom" we have brought to Iraq, our soldiers are wrapping whole villages in razor wire, destroying houses of "suspected terrorists", bombing empty buildings suspected of sometimes being used by opposition forces, and planning a whole regime based on the experience of the Israelis experience in dealing with the Palestinians.

Wow! That should be great! Israel has been so successful in reducing violence and chaos in the occupied territories - and in Israel itself. NOT.

What a crock. It is so obvious that the hard line policies of the Israeli government have not produced any positive results, yet the dim bulb dominated Bushies wish to employ the same policies - no doubt because they are "STRONG" and "MUSCULAR". Stupid, yes, but "masculine." OK, men are basically dumb. Come on ladies, figure out some way of getting all these testosterone impaired assholes out of the way. PLEASE. I mean, FEMALES ARE A MAJORITY in this country. Get with it girls. We need a major change here.

Senator Simon Dies

Today Senator Paul Simon passed away after undergoing heart surgery. I feel strongly about his passing having met him on the streets of D. C. and thus seeing him as a real flesh and blood person. I own one of his bow ties that he signed (a peculiar "prize" that very few people would recognize the value of).

Bush vs The Rest of the Free World

Is this a trip or what?

The Pentagon has barred French, German and Russian companies from competing for $18.6 billion in contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq, saying it was acting to protect "the essential security interests of the United States."

The directive, issued Friday by Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, represents the most substantive retaliation to date by the Bush administration against American allies who opposed its decision to go to war in Iraq.

The administration had warned before the war that countries that did not join in an American-led coalition would not have a voice in decisions about the rebuilding of Iraq. But it had not previously made clear that companies in those countries would be excluded from competing for a share in the money for Iraq's reconstruction that the United States approved last month.

How tacky is this? So, what more do we need to prove that this was all about money?

Jim Baker vs The Rest of Us

Greg Palast has an excellent article about the appointment of James Baker to "restructure" Iraq's foreign debt.

All year the elves at his law firm, Baker Botts of Texas, have been working day and night to prevent the families of the victims of the September 11 attack from seeking information from Saudi Arabia on the Kingdom's funding of Al Qaeda fronts.

It's tough work, but this week came the payoff when President Bush appointed Baker Botts' senior partner to "restructure" the debts of the nation of Iraq.

And who will net the big bucks under Jim Baker's plan? Answer: his client, Saudi Arabia, which claims $30.7 billion due from Iraq (plus $12 billion in "reparations" from the First Gulf war).

Got that? The Saudis - the same folks who brought us 9/11! Saddam, as should be clear to everyone by now, was all "bait and switch." The real threat is with the money - the Saudis, the Pakistanis, and the various other marginal but very moneyed players in this arena. The Saudis provided most of the 9/11 terrorists plus most of their financial support. Certainly they have provided the financial support for Osama bin Laden. And the Pakistanis, who were largely responsible for the Taliban, provide another interesting piece of the puzzle.

So, how in hell are these two active terrorist states our "good allies" while Iraq - that never did anything even slightly threatening to us - gets crushed by our total military might? It is, indeed, a strange world.

Bush vs the Chinese - Unless They Are Communists

Today's statements by George W. Bush about mainland China and Taiwan raise some interesting questions about what he "believes" in and what he is willing to compromise in the name of political expediency:

As he sat in the Oval Office today with Prime Minister Wen Jiabao of China, President Bush repeated his administration's warning to Taiwan not to provoke the Beijing government. The Chinese leader expressed his appreciation for Mr. Bush's stance.

"We oppose any unilateral decision, by either China or Taiwan, to change the status quo," said Mr. Bush, who had earlier nudged Mr. Wen to do more to promote human rights in his country. "The comments and actions made by the leader of Taiwan indicate that he may be willing to make decisions unilaterally that change the status quo, which we oppose."

Got that? Bush is opposed to "unilateral" decisions - unless he is making them. And he is warning Taiwan not to "provoke" China? Well, why not? This is, after all, the idiot that believes that Iraq - a third rate, third world country with a marginal military and a deteriorating economy, was a "threat" to the United States - a country whose military budget is greater than that of the next twenty countries COMBINED.

We truly do live in the Twilight Zone.

Joe Lieberman is an Idiot

As much as I hate George W. Bush, certain members of the Democratic Party are almost equally repulsive. Today, as Al Gore was in the process of endorsing Howard Dean, Leiberman engaged in a bit of bad faith rhetoric that clearly indicates why no one in their right mind would vote for him:

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) turned his rejection by former vice president Al Gore into a sharp attack on Howard Dean on Tuesday, questioning Gore's judgment and warning that the former Vermont governor would lead the Democratic Party back into the political wilderness.

Say what? "back" into the political wilderness? As if we are out of it now - in a world where we have lost almost three million jobs since Bush became "president", a huge budget surplus turned into an unmanageable and seemingly permanent deficit, an unnecessary war with a country that had not threatened us but that is now a tremendous drag on both the economy and the position of the U. S. in the world community, a run-away Republican Party arm twisting and bullying its way to one "victory" after another that target ordinary people, the environment, the economy, civil rights, labor rights, media ownership, reproductive rights, privacy rights,
and on and on. Come on! THIS world we are all living in IS the "political wilderness." Howard Dean has inspired a large number of ordinary citizens to do something about that - AND NONE OF THE OTHER CANDIDATES HAS MANANGED TO DO THAT.

Sorry Joe, those are the facts. You lose. Go home and shut up.

Why Contemporary Journalism Sucks

If you try to understand our world by reading the major newspapers and watching even the most responsible of electronic news media you will be both consistently misinformed and largely uninformed. This results from professional journalism's adoption of a policy of neutrality that obligates it to simply report what it is told by "responsible sources." These, of course, are mostly the official voices of those in power. Whatever they say is reported, largely without comment, in order to maintain "objectivity" and "balance."

But, as the King of Investigative Reporters, I. F. Stone, maintained:

"The first rule of journalism is that governments lie. All governments lie."

Wouldn't we be better served by journalists more cynical and questioning? Even if they are not always justified in their criticism? Rather than these tame, crawling, scraping and bowing, pathetic imitations of journalists?

What do we have instead? We have "journalists" who, rather than actually put a source's words in context and/or attempt to support or refute them with facts, resort to ad homonym attacks on those they don't personally care for and sycophantic exaggerated praise for those they do. Hypocrisy all the way around.

Bush BS

Every now and then you see a statement that so clearly sums things up that you want to shout it from the rooftops. In an article about Noam Chomsky, the Guerrilla News Network sums up his point of view in these words:

The foundation of Chomsky's moral universe is the belief that intentions and rhetoric have no meaning outside of actions. In other words, you can talk all the bullshit you want about democracy, but when you're blowing up children, you're a fascist.

That just about says it all. Let's cut through all the crap. No amount of talk can justify the horrible things we have done - and continue to do - in the name of "freedom", "democracy", and "moral clarity."

What the Hell?

A story in the British newspaper The Independent reports something unlikely to be heard in the big pharma dominated American press:

A senior executive with Britain's biggest drugs company has admitted that most prescription medicines do not work on most people who take them.

Allen Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), said fewer than half of the patients prescribed some of the most expensive drugs actually derived any benefit from them.

It is an open secret within the drugs industry that most of its products are ineffective in most patients but this is the first time that such a senior drugs boss has gone public

I would love to hear Mitch Daniel comment on that. And remember that the new Medicare drug law contains numerous provisions aimed at keeping the cost of prescription drugs high, thus rewarding the drug companies. Does that make sense if the drugs are effective less than half the time? What are people paying for?

Winning Hearts and Minds in Afghanistan

THIS is ugly:

U.S. Raid Kills 9 Children

Their embroidered caps, shredded with shrapnel, lay beside a half-dozen small rubber galoshes and caked pools of blood. Seven boys and two girls died here on Saturday morning in an American airstrike, and their bodies were still lying in the dust when American soldiers arrived by helicopter to assess the results of the attack three hours later, villagers and American soldiers at the scene said Sunday.
. . .
The attack has raised questions about the quality of American military intelligence and the effectiveness of using air power to kill fugitive members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda who are hiding in villages.

No shit.

Newt vs Bush

THIS is interesting:

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich said yesterday that the Bush administration has gone "off a cliff" in postwar Iraq and that "the White House has to get a grip on this."

Dubyah can laugh off criticism from Democrats and "liberals" but he can't really ignore the increasing criticism of his financial and foreign policies that are coming from Republican and conservative voices.

Shrinking Coalition of the Un-willing

Bush's much touted coalition in Iraq is getting smaller by the week. Most countries that supported the Bush war with Iraq didn't actually provide personnel, and those that did mostly provided non combat support. Now the foreign presence in Iraq is augmented by contractors from many countries doing work that the Iraqis claim could be done cheaper and perhaps better by Iraqis. So it isn't surprising that these foreigners have been the target of increasing violence recently. The result is expected, more and more of them are pulling out - just as the UN did - because the situation there is not conducive to doing work safely. The latest defection are South Koreans:

A week after two of their colleagues were killed in an ambush, the remaining 60 South Korean contract engineers and technicians working for the U.S. government on a project north of the capital have decided to leave the country.

It is the largest known withdrawal of contractors over security issues and follows a week of confrontations between the workers and their managers that culminated with yelling and punches Sunday afternoon.

The decision by the men, who were working to fix electrical power lines, is likely to delay one of Iraq's most critical reconstruction projects. The workers are subcontractors for the Washington Group International Inc., a construction firm based in Boise, Idaho, that has a $110 million contract with the Army Corps of Engineers to repair sections of Iraq's power grid.

Remember this story next time you hear Donald Rumsfeld preach privatization as the wave of the future for the American military. This is the untold side of privatizing functions that would previously have been performed by the military itself - there is no control or ultimate accountability. If it were members of the Corp of Engineers doing this work they wouldn't be free to pack up and go home whenever they wanted.

This particular defection represents a larger trend that is likely to continue affecting the reconstruction work in Iraq in a negative way:

Anxiety over security is increasing among the thousands of contractors in Iraq, as attacks in recent weeks have appeared to focus on unarmed civilians who look like foreigners. Recent victims include a Colombian working for Kellogg Brown & Root, an oil and military support contractor, and two Americans working for EOD Technology Inc., a company specializing in the removal of old munitions.

Many large contracting companies concede that employees have left Iraq recently or have declined assignments because of safety concerns. The lack of security is complicating efforts to hire the thousands of contractors necessary to staff the $18 billion worth of new reconstruction projects recently approved by the U.S. government.

So, let me ask the question that tens of thousands of Iraqis have been asking, "Why is this work being farmed out to foreigners when the economy in Iraq is in terrible trouble and most men are unemployed? Why aren't Iraqi firms and Iraqi workers given this work to rebuild their own country?" After all, they have the motivation and there is a large pool of skilled workers, including professionals (engineers, architects, etc) who are currently not employed and are likely to be increasingly bitter as they watch their country slide further into chaos and misery.

A "Must See" Animation

How tolerable is the death toll in Iraq?

And Now, the Rest of the Story

A few days ago I blogged about a woman trampled at a Wal-mart store. Alas, seems I was taken - along with the mainstream press, by a traditional American con artist. The woman in question, it seems, has a history of such complaints.

An investigation by WKMG-Local 6 reveals Vanlester has filed 16 previous claims of injuries at Wal-Mart stores and other places she has shopped or worked, according to Wal-Mart, court files and state records. Her sister, who accompanied her Friday on the visit to Wal-Mart, has also filed a prior injury claim against Wal-Mart, with Vanlester as her witness, a company spokeswoman said yesterday.

The land of opportunity. Is America a great country, or what?

Bush vs Accountability

Remember all the times while campaigning Dubyah insisted that accountability is essential in government and business? That schools, politicians, businesses and countries all had to be accountable - suggesting repeatedly that HE certainly would be the model of accountability. Well, in one of those ironic twists that would be painfully entertaining if it were not just so painfully painful, the Bush administration is trying to have Iraq's foreign debt reduced.

President Bush tapped veteran statesman James A. Baker III yesterday to lead a diplomatic campaign to reduce Iraq's crushing debt load, turning to a longtime troubleshooter and family friend to ease the international anger that has complicated Iraq's reconstruction.

Bush picked Baker, a former secretary of state and secretary of the Treasury who is well regarded in foreign capitals, to appeal to allies in Europe and the Middle East to forgive a large chunk of as much as $125 billion in debt amassed by Saddam Hussein's government. Payments on the debt of more than $7 billion a year promise to overwhelm any new government that is formed in that country.

I mean, we didn't care about Iraq's debt until we took over and, well, it became OUR debt - so naturally we want it reduced. If Iraq had stayed its own country it would have been expected to be accoutable and thus responsible for its whole debt, but since we have taken over responsibilty for things there, well, I guess we can't be expected to be accountable for someone else's debt, even though we knew what we were getting into when we invaded. Didn't we?

Bush vs Our Future

Read Paul Krugman's take on the current round of Bush fiction and the ongoing looting of America:

One thing you have to say about George W. Bush: he's got a great sense of humor. At a recent fund-raiser, according to The Associated Press, he described eliminating weapons of mass destruction from Iraq and ensuring the solvency of Medicare as some of his administration's accomplishments.

Then came the punch line: "I came to this office to solve problems and not pass them on to future presidents and future generations." He must have had them rolling in the aisles.

In the early months of the Bush administration, one often heard that "the grown-ups are back in charge." But if being a grown-up means planning for the future — in fact, if it means anything beyond marital fidelity — then this is the least grown-up administration in American history. It governs like there's no tomorrow.

Earth to Bush!

Because "the vision thing" is a problem for this particular family, staffers for our faux president have been hard at work trying to come up with a list of "ideas for a fresh agenda" for the last year of this term.

The development of big ideas for Bush's 2004 agenda is being led by the president's senior adviser, Karl Rove, the officials said. Administration officials said options have not been presented to the president, let alone decided, but the search is active for ambitious initiatives to flesh out a reelection agenda that also includes limiting lawsuits, making the tax cuts permanent and adding private investment accounts to the Social Security system.

Isn't it funny how even the Repubs don't pretend that Shrub does any of his own thinking. These "big ideas" haven't been presented to the president yet - probably because he is busy cutting brush, taking a nap, or fund raising. Like his speeches, carefully crafted by others, his agenda is prepared for him and he inhabits it as his own - but only so long as things are going well. Remember the State of the Union address where he made the bogus claim about Iraq and yellow cake uranium from Africa. Despite the fact that he said it, when the statement was revealed as untrue he blamed a staffer for "putting" the words in his speech.

Now, what new ideas are going to be put into Bush's brain?

An ambitious plan for space travel is one possibility, though Republican officials said they are wary of repeating what they consider the mistakes of Bush's father. On July 20, 1989, the 20th anniversary of the first human moon landing, President George H.W. Bush issued a call for a sustained commitment to human exploration of the solar system, with a return to the moon as a steppingstone to the main destination -- Mars. NASA responded with a budget-shattering $400 billion plan to fulfill that goal, and it swiftly sank under its own weight.

This PR kind of approach to policy and decision making would be funny and sad had it not proved so successful for the Bushies so far. Consider, he is actually holding up his "no child left behind" program as a success, when all the evidence is that it will likely bankrupt numerous school systems and force major rewritting of laws relating to education just to deal with the fallout from schools identified as "failing" - for which no provision was made in the law. Likewise, the Medicare/prescription drug bill is viewed as a success because it defuses a Democratic issue while providing billions of dollars to drug companies - and no mechanism for restraining costs or actually providing for the long term financial health of the system. And these guys are still claiming that Iraq and Afghanistan are successes despite the fact that both are still running sores that will continue to trouble us long into the future.

So what is the underlying dynamic behind this current search for a new agenda? According to "a senior administration official":

Bush's closest aides are promoting big initiatives on the theory that they contribute to Bush's image as a decisive leader even if people disagree with some of the specifics. "Iraq was big. AIDS is big," the official said. "Big works. Big grabs attention."

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Big deficits, big lies, big unemployment numbers, big problems with the international community, big money for big pharma, big payback for big business supporters etc. After all, this guy is a Texan, and for Texicans BIG is all there is.

Republican Stupidity Coming to New York

As the recent flap over Tom Delay's plans to house thousands of Republican convention delegates aboard a docked cruise ship rather than actually within New York demonstrates, the GOP doesn't quite seem to be in touch with reality:

House GOP leader Tom DeLay came up with a plan to house 2,200 or so members of Congress, lobbyists and big-time contributors on a massive luxury cruise ship moored in the Hudson River not far from the convention site.

The idea was that the ship would provide privacy and security for convention goers, meaning that merriment and wheeling and dealing could be conducted out of sight of the press and voters, and fastidious Republican precinct captains would not be forced to share the sidewalks with muggers and Democrats.

The press, of course, was ecstatic at the idea. Conventions have become tediously scripted and sanitized affairs, devoid of suspense and interest, and President Bush's promises to be even duller than most since it will basically be a coronation.

Across the land, pundits happily began work on columns around the theme "Ship of Fools." TV technicians ordered up footage and music from the movie "Titanic" to work into their coverage. Cable broadcasters began loading up on nautical word plays and similes _ "mutiny," "keelhaul," "rats deserting a sinking ship."

Preliminary coverage dwelled lovingly on the size and amenities of the ship, the Norwegian Dawn -- 15 decks, 14 bars, 10 restaurants, swimming pools, spas and a children's park with a dinosaur theme -- and the fact that, at $240 to $430 a night, it was more expensive than the convention hotels.

Even if it was their own money, the Republicans don't need more attention drawn to their new laurels as the party of big spenders. And then there was the Norwegian connection. Like Norway, the current Republican Congress is overwhelmingly white and inclined toward socialism.

What planet are these people from? Oh, right, Texas. I keep forgetting. Nothing like deliberately offending one's hosts - and believe me, you really don't want to piss off the citizens of the Big Apple and try to use them as a propaganda backdrop at the same time. This convention - despite asswipe's lack of any Repub competition - could turn out to be REALLY interesting. Remember, Dubyah stood at Ground Zero and made a LOT of promises to NY and it's first responders - not one of which has been fulfilled. The GOP scheduled their convention here when they thought it would be a great backdrop to what they expected to be a great victory. It isn't likely they foresaw an ongoing ugly war in Iraq and a Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan.

A Conservative Military Critic of Bush Policies in Iraq

A very interesting interview by David Corn for "The Nation's" online pages features retired Major Bob Bevelacqua, a Fox News military analyst, who has a very informed and unflattering view of the Bush policies in Iraq:

I thought going to war in Iraq was a good thing. But we are screwing it up. If we change our policies and truly work with the Iraqi people, things can change. If they do not change, we will have another Beirut, another Somalia. We will end up leaving, and it will implode. And that will give us negative PR in the eyes of 1.6 billion Muslims. This is the Super Bowl. Look, we trained and advised the Afghanistan mujaheddin [who battled the Soviet Union in the 1980s] and some of them managed to fight against us later. Our ability to screw things up is immense.

Who would have expected to hear such hard truth from a Fox News spokesperson? Maybe we have a future after all.

Bush vs Children

In his 2000 election arsenal, no claim was made more often or with greater pride than the candidate's supposed success at creating what has been termed the "Texas miracle" in education. George W. Bush, wanted to be the "education president" and got his wish. Now the New York Times is reporting what has long been known but generally ignored by the nation's press - the Texas miracle was a fraud, a cheap trick conjured out of statistical juggling, bad testing, and what has come to be recognized as the Bush penchant for image over substance:

But an examination of the performance of students in Houston by The New York Times raises serious doubts . . . Scores on a national exam that Houston students took alongside the Texas exam from 1999 to 2002 showed much smaller gains and falling scores in high school reading.

Compared with the rest of the country, Houston's gains on the national exam, the Stanford Achievement Test, were modest. The improvements in middle and elementary school were a fraction of those depicted by the Texas test and were similar to those posted on the Stanford test by students in Los Angeles.

Over all, a comparison of the performance of Houston students who took the Stanford exam in 2002 and in 1999 showed most did not advance in relation to their counterparts across the nation. More than half of them either remained in the same place or lost ground in reading and math.

This information was widely available at the time of the 2000 election but largely ignored. Because of this and other unexposed myths pushed by the Bushies we now have an un-compassionate, un-conservative, un-believable, and basically un-elected, president.

And, to add insult to injury, we have Rod Paige, the former Houston School Superintendent, as Secretary of Education.

Bush Justice Dept vs Justice

Among the many horror stories of U. S. Government overreation in its treatment of detained terrorist "suspects" is this story of a man kept in solitary confinement even after it was determined that he wasn't a terrorist.

Benatta's tale, as told in the Nov. 29 edition of the Washington Post, is the kind of thing that would lead to the immediate firing of those responsible, assuming that the authorities in question had any sense of shame.

Since the authorities in question include John Ashcroft it seems unlikely that any heads will roll, metaphorically speaking. As for Benemar Benatta, he is remarkably understanding: "I don't blame the United States," he says. "They've never had to deal with terrorists, and 3,000 people died."

We do have to deal with terrorists -- and some of them are employed by our legal system.

More "War" on Drugs Nonsense

In yet another illustration that some topics are simply not available for public debate and discussion, Rep. Ernest J. Istook Jr. (R-Okla.) recently had a mental melt down on the D. C. Metro when he encountered an ad advocating that we "Legalize and Tax Marijuana".

In a Nov. 10 letter to Jim Graham, chairman of the Metro board, Istook called the ad "shocking" and said the board had "exercised the poorest possible judgment, so I must assure that [Metro] will learn the proper lessons from this experience and will only accept appropriate ads in the future."

This week, Istook inserted into a bill language that would cut Metro's funds by $92,500 and prohibit any transit system that receives federal funds from running advertising from a group that wants to decriminalize marijuana.

The congressman's office claims that "Metro is using taxpayer facilities to promote illegal activity." What? It's now illegal to suggest changing the law? Does this mean that any unlikely thing we delcare "war" on is off limits to criticism?

One of the reasons we continue to spend billions of dollars annually on this basically unpopular and completely unproductive "war" on drugs is because no politician is willing to risk dealing with this kind of closed minded and simplistic response. To just suggest that one consider decriminalizing pot is to run the risk of being branded an "advocate" of drug use or worse.

Oh brave new world . . .

Bush vs the Dollar

We have warned before about a likely currency crisis as an outcome of Republican excessive spending coupled with tax cuts that underfund the government and result in ongoing support based on borrowing. The ongoing decline in the value of the dollar in comparison to the Euro, the Pound and the Yen, is a clear indication of troubles to come.

"In a word, market players are cutting dollar positions in a show of dislike of what is going in on in the Middle East and (U.S. President George W.) Bush's policies," said Kosuke Hanao, head of forex sales at Royal Bank of Scotland in Tokyo.

Remember, when we must turn to borrowing to fund government, we are dependent on foreign countries who more and more are the U. S.'s creditors. If the current trend continues we will find ourselves unable to borrow in sufficient amounts to keep pace with the increasing sea of Republican red ink. Then what?

Bush Courts vs Labor

Just in case you thought the judiciary was too left wing, consider this example of judical activism:

Apparently, demanding that a toilet be available within a quarter mile of where you labor in the fields is too much decency to ask.

And folks wonder why I hate courts that are more anti-labor than the Bush Administration itself.

Update: Thinking about this post, I'm having a stronger reaction, mostly because I know this decision will get zero attention, from the media and most liberal columnists. The right to humane working conditions is a baseline human right -- the right to take a shit in dignity is pretty much a bottomline issue. Yet there is explosive attention on the Massachusetts gay marriage decision, and zero attention on this one, and the many rightwing economic decisions by the courts.

Maybe it's just not "news" that farmworkers are treated so badly in this country.

But as long as liberals don't agitate to make this kind of court-driven economic assault "news", you'll end up with all the attention on courts being "activist" on social issues, with none of the attention on court activism on economic issues that effect working families.

Just imagine what these judges would do if they had to go half a mile to find the nearest restroom. JEZZZ! I mean, after all, farm workers are one thing, but JUDGES?

Bush vs Trade Policy

For those who continue to believe that Bush is a true conservative and "good for business", consider this little observation from "The Economist"; an article entitled "Failing on Trade":

Failure is really too kind a word for this squalid mess. Some may defend the policy as an instance of robust unilateralism, but the failure of the administration's multilateral and regional initiatives was not a price that had to be paid to defend America's interests: on the contrary, those failures directly harm the American economy. The failure to reform the farm-support regime as part of the Doha process hurts far more Americans than it helps. The steel tariffs hurt most Americans--as the growing complaints from America's industrial consumers of steel attest. The quotas on Chinese textiles hurt most Americans. In all this, America has gained nothing, and lost much; unless the rot is stopped, it will lose a lot more.

More and more, serious conservative and business oriented voices are speaking out against the stupid and destructive policies of the Bush administration. Funny, I don't remember "The Economist" ever attacking Clinton's business polices, yet he is supposed to be the evil LIBERAL.

Sorrows of Empire

Chalmers Johnson predicts that because of the Bush administration's foreign policies the U. S. must suffer the Sorrows of Empire:

Four sorrows, it seems to me, are certain to be visited on the United States. Their cumulative effect guarantees that the U.S. will cease to resemble the country outlined in the Constitution of 1787. First, there will be a state of perpetual war, leading to more terrorism against Americans wherever they may be and a spreading reliance on nuclear weapons among smaller nations as they try to ward off the imperial juggernaut. Second is a loss of democracy and Constitutional rights as the presidency eclipses Congress and is itself transformed from a co-equal "executive branch" of government into a military junta. Third is the replacement of truth by propaganda, disinformation, and the glorification of war, power, and the military legions. Lastly, there is bankruptcy, as the United States pours its economic resources into ever more grandiose military projects and shortchanges the education, health, and safety of its citizens.

Well, isn't that uplifting? Yes sir, I can really see why people want to support George W. Bush - they have this great desire to live in a poverty stricken, totalitarian, war ravaged former great power. Once again, nostalgia proves more powerful than immediate engagement.

I've been thinking a lot about Canada lately: they don't live in perpetually encouraged fear, they are not ruled by a servile legislature and a dictatorial executive, they have universal healthcare, they don't have military bases in almost every country in the world, and - very basic stuff - they tend to practice what they preach (and they don't preach much).

If America doesn't change it's way of living we may find that we are suffering from another wave of migration to the north. Survival is a very basic and honorable instinct.

Bush vs Fiscal Responisbility

According to Republican Senator John McCain, the current congress is "spending money like a drunken sailor" and Bush is responsible for not reigning in the excesses:

"The numbers are astonishing," McCain said on "Fox News Sunday."

"Congress is now spending money like a drunken sailor," said McCain, a former Navy officer, "and I've never known a sailor, drunk or sober, with the imagination that this Congress has."

He said growth of spending had been capped at 4 percent, but it was at least 8 percent higher. He said he will continue urging Bush to veto profligate spending bills. The president has not veto a single bill since he took office.

Asked if the president bears some responsibility for what is going on, McCain said:

"Yes, because I think that the president cannot say, as he has many times, that `I'm going to tell Congress to enforce some spending discipline' and then not veto bills."

Well, Bush hasn't followed words with consistent action on any position he has taken yet - except for cutting taxes - and even there the actual results are quite different from what he consistently advertised. But why not, this administration has discovered that PR is much more cost effective than actually trying to do something to address problems. Rather, they try for a "virtual" solution using oft repeated words and phrases, and largely ignore the hard reality.

The Ragin' Cajun Makes My Day

By way of James Carvelle's latest book, this observation made my Thanksgiving weekend: according to former Senator Bob Kerrey, " 'Rick Santorum' is Latin for 'Asshole'."

Christmas Comes to the White House

I just took a walk on this chilly Sunday morning down the street to check out the Texas neighbors. Of course, the Bush family circus is back home on the brush farm in Crawford for another week long rest up, but in their absence the rent-a-decor folks are busy installing all the Christmas trimmins - garlands for the White House porch, wreaths for the gates, and outsized red ribbons for the iron fence. Even the White House tree, which was being manhandled from a semi by a crew on the officially closed portion of Pennsylvania Ave directly in front of the official abode.

There is something really disturbing to me about a man who starts a war, invading a country that poses no threat to us and is not even in a position to mount a realistic defense, causing the unnecessary deaths of thousands of innocent, ordinary people, including hundreds of American men and women, imposing a huge financial burden on ordinary citizens now and far into the future, and costing us the good will of most of the world's populace, decorating his home in celebration of the birthday of the Prince of Peace.

And people claimed that Bill Clinton was a hypocrite.

Family Values, Bush-style

Remember when, after 9/11, Bush suggested that what Americans really needed to do to thwart terrorists was to travel and shop? Little did we realize how dangerous that could be:

A woman shopping in Florida has been trampled by bargain hunters who stepped over her as she suffered a seizure on the floor of a department store.

Television station WKMG Local 6 reported Patricia Van Lester waited in line for three hours early Friday to buy a DVD player on sale at a Wal-Mart store in Orange City, Florida. When the doors opened at 6am, she entered and picked up a DVD player but was knocked to the ground by the crowd that had gathered for the start of the Christmas shopping season.

Van Lester hit her head on the floor, lost consciousness and suffered a seizure, while others in the crowd stepped over her. Paramedics were called and arrived to find shoppers ignoring the 41-year-old who was still unconscious.

She was flown to a hospital in Daytona Beach, Florida, where she is expected to be kept for several days.

Ah, the Christmas spirit. God bless us everyone.

The Good News, the Bad News

According to The Emerging Democratic Majority, The Good News Is the Medicare Bill Passed, The Bad News Is the Medicare Bill Passed.

Bush vs America's Kids

Maybe this is the actual idea behind the No Child Left Behind Act, a school district in Cheshire, CT simply walks away from the program because it is too complex and restrictive:

Cheshire is one of only three school districts in the nation to have done this. And its superintendent, David Cressy, may have found a lone chink in the sweeping education reform act. Still, he insists the move was more administrative than political - practical rather than renegade.

But scratch the surface, and another story unfolds - a quiet manifestation of nationwide frustration with the new federal education law. Few school districts are in a financial position to be able to take the stand that the 5,100-student Cheshire district has. But for many, the idea of simply walking away from the complications of the nation's education overhaul might have tremendous appeal.

The No Child Left Behind Act has turned out to be a kind of poison for local school districts. Its arbitrary all-or-nothing kind of categorization, along with the absolute requirements to demonstrate specific quantitative improvement annually whether that level of change is possible or not, insures that many otherwise excellent schools will "fail". No room for human judgment or unique circumstances have been provided for. Plus, as is so often the case with federally mandated programs and standards, huge overhead costs have been imposed but not funded in the law.

"I'm not sure you'll find many educators who are fans of NCLB," says Anne Sweeney, principal of Chapman Elementary School.

A recent study by the research group Public Agenda found that nearly 9 in 10 superintendents and principals have embraced standards and accountability. But only 5 percent of superintendents and 4 percent of principals believe NCLB will work as it stands today.
. . .
The most piercing criticism of NCLB has been aimed at the tangle of sanctions that await schools that don't measure up.

Penalties include requiring under- performing schools to pay for students to attend higher-performing schools, or provide them with extra services, like private tutoring. After three years of inadequate progress, a school's staff may be replaced. And after five years, the school can be taken over by the state.

The only clear beneficiary of NCLB is Educational Testing Service (ETS), the nation's largest provider of standardized tests, that stands to make many millions of dollars of profit from this law. The losers are likely to be the students who will be the victim of this bureaucratic nonsense year after year. Being "left behind" may turn out to be the least of their worries, for ironically, the Bush administration, supposedly conservative and opposed to big government, has created one of the largest, most intrusive, draconian bureaucratic entities to have ever been imposed on local Americans. This law, more than anything else the federal government has ever done, stands to restrict local freedom and choice for millions of Americans for decades to come. And despite the rhetoric and "good intentions", no positive result can reasonably be predicted.

So Bush like.

Be Careful What You Wish For

As much as we want to see Dubyah leave D.C. and go home to Crawford for good, the challenge that will face his replacement is daunting. No American public figure since Sherman has left so much scorched earth to be revived and nurtured back to health as has this president. In virtually every area of foreign and domestic policy, the next president will find a deliberate ruin, a wasteland of debt, corporate pork, deceit, abrogated treaties, sabotaged negotiations, bribed and coerced officials, compromised "science", ignored and eviscerated regulations, starved regulatory bodies, extreme right wing religious influence in the judiciary and legislative branches, unsupportable tax laws, oppressive military spending, police state powers that threaten the legitimate government itself, and a public media owned and operated for the benefit of the wealthiest and most conservative forces in American society.

Faced with such a landscape - what can the new president do? This is something we need to start considering now. We may very well be able to effect a transition from this administration to another we feel more aligned with, but how will the new guy manage to pick up the pieces from this great train wreck that Bushco has deliberately created? This is not an insignificant problem. No president in American history has ever had the problem of rebuilding the country from scratch after it has been so completely and systematically looted and sabotaged by a previous administration.

The new president will have to repair international relations that have not been at such a low ebb for the U. S. in all of its history. He will be faced with a huge debt that will require an increase in taxation and/or cutting government spending - neither conducive to popular support. He will have to revisit multiple issues of regulation that will cause strong opposition from business. He will have to force certain issues of civil liberties to be reconsidered by the population as a whole, challenge public media for its private, corporate bias, fight for a balance between public and private forces in their impact on government policy, restart a public dialogue focused on the future of the nation and the world, engage all levels of U. S. society in a common enterprise aimed at rebuilding a sense of community and patriotic public spirit, calm the fears that have been deliberately cultivated during the past few years, and help American citizens to accept the prospect of a future and a world outside our country, that is not necessarily threatening and evil.

It is going to be one helluva difficult job. If Bush is elected to a second term, it will be, when it comes, an almost impossible job.

Bush vs the Troops, Again: Part II

One specific part of Bush's remarks to the troops he shared Thanksgiving dinner with is worth looking at closely. He repeated something that has become a common mantra of his administration:

"You are defeating the terrorists here in Iraq, so that we don't have to face them in our own country."

This is such a stupid and disingenuous remark that I continue to be surprised that people allow him to get away with it. In order for this statement to make any sense at all, all terrorists would have to actually be in Iraq and we would have to be able to identify and defeat all of them. In truth, as most of us know, there are terrorists in most countries in the world, we have no idea who they are in advance, and thus have no way to defeat them.

Rather than defeating "the terrorists", the war in Iraq has served to swell the ranks of terrorist organizations. According to Britain's The Guardian:

War in Iraq has swollen the ranks of al-Qaida and "galvanised its will" by increasing radical passions among Muslims, an authoritative think-tank said yesterday.
The warning, echoing earlier ones by MI5 and MI6, was made in the annual report of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, The Military Balance.

It said US claims after the invasion of Iraq that al-Qaida was on the run, and that the "war on terror" had turned the corner, were "over-confident". John Chipman, the institute's director, warned that the full effect of the war might never be known, because of the chaos it had left behind.

Thus the "war" on terrorism is very much like the "war" on drugs, wherein every action taken by our government to deal with the problem actually exacerbates the problem. With the war on drugs, our various efforts - costing billions of dollars of taxpayer's money - serve to keep the price of drugs high enough to continue to make illegal drug trafficing profitable, thus insuring that it continues even in the face of strong anti drug police action. Likewise, in the war on terrorism, our heavy handed military attacks on muslim countries, resulting in thousands of civilian deaths and injuries and widespread destruction of property and infrastructure, inspire fanatical - indeed, suicidal, resistance.

The president goes on to say that:

"We will prevail. We will win because our cause is just. We will win because we will stay on the offensive. And we will win because you're part of the finest military ever assembled. And we will prevail because the Iraqis want their freedom. "

Alas, it isn't at all clear what "our cause" is, much less that is is "just." We were sold the war as a preventive attack in order to "disarm" Saddam. Now it seems that he had none of the WMDs that we were going to take away from him. SO, those have been conveniently forgotten and now we are supposed to focus on the liberation of Iraq. That is also a problem, for when Bush says "the Iraqis want their freedom" he is no doubt correct. However, it seems that they mostly want to be free of us.

Bush vs the Troops, Again

President Bush's "stealth" trip to Baghdad for his latest shameless photo op with U. S. troops, is receiving the expected amount of media attention, mostly positive, largely uncritical and unreflective. The Washington Post reports his message to the troops without comment, despite its serious shortcomings. Consider this line:

"Together, you and I have taken an oath to defend our country."

A quick Google search will reveal numerous citations of Bush speaking of "the oath" he took and always in connection with defending America, yet the Presidential Oath of Office says nothing about defending the country. Rather, it obligates the president to defend the Constitution:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

That's it. Nothing about defending the country, protecting citizens from terrorists, attacking suspected "threats." The president is obligated by his oath to protect that document that was designed to insure the very freedoms and rights that he professes to believe in but has actively suppressed in favor of "fighting terrorism."

On this president's watch, police powers and arbitrary policies of the federal government have been dramatically expanded so that - contrary to the constitution's specifications - we are no longer free from unwarranted searches and seizures, we are no longer guaranteed the right to freedom of the press and assembly, we are not even assured of a trial by a jury of our peers, or freedom from cruel and unusual punishments, or in many cases, the right to vote.

Worse, the president, against the specific instructions of the constitution, has arrogated to himself the right to declare war, even when it violates international agreements - which by extension are (according to the constitution itself) to be considered part of the constitution once they have been ratified.

So, the long and short of it is this - "president" Bush has violated his oath of office but isn't called on it, while at the same time he is allowed to brag about keeping an oath he didn't make.

It is a shame that we don't really have a free press any more in this country. The servile Washington Post, which pretends to a kind of limp journalistic objectivity, refuses to comment on such obvious bad faith statements as those Bush regularly employs. We - and the troops - are the losers in such a situation. The president gets to say any stupid and insincere thing he wants with impunity - and others always suffer the consequences.

Things You Have To Believe To Be A Republican

This, of course, is just a partial list. All of us are invited to add our own:

o Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you’re a conservative radio host. Then it’s an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

o The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

o Government should relax regulation of Big Business and Big Money but crack down on individuals who use marijuana to relieve the pain of illness.

o “Standing Tall for America” means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.

o A woman can’t be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

o Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

o The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans’ benefits and combat pay.

o Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican.

o If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won’t have sex.

o A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

o HMOs and insurance companies have the interest of the public at heart.

o Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

o Global warming and tobacco’s link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

o Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush’s daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a “we can’t find Bin Laden” diversion.

o A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

o Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

o The public has a right to know about Hillary’s cattle trades, but George Bush’s driving record is none of our business.

o You support states’ rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have a right to adopt.

o What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the ’80s is irrelevant.

o Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

Damage Report

Say "Hello," to Damage, the League of Liberals suggested new blog entry of the week.

Bush vs Truth

Via Eric Alterman in a really good reference to a piece by Richard Cohen:

Quote of the day: “I love my country and I love the truth and I always thought the best thing about being an American is that you don’t have to choose.”

Alas, that has all changed now.

Bush vs Free Speech

Remember when last week in England Bush was asked about the many protestors of his visit and he said he appreciated free speech. Well, that seems unlikely given his track record - most recently in Colorado when he spoke to the troops yesterday:

Before the press was herded into the giant hangar in advance of George W. Bush's pep rally/photo op with the Fort Carson troops, we were given the rules.

No talking to the troops before the rally.

No talking to the troops during the rally.

No talking to the troops after the rally.

In other words, if I've done the math right, that means no conversation at all - at least, while on base - with any soldiers. After all, who knows where that kind of thing could lead?

Just as an example: It could lead to a discussion about why the president has time to get to so many fund-raisers and no time to attend a single funeral of a soldier killed in Iraq.

Of course, he did meet privately with family's of a number of slain servicemen - and that, I think, was a first (and probably prompted by criticism of his meeting with family's of British dead but not Americans). But of course we can't know what was said, because - like everything else about the Bush presidency - it is a secret.

Bush vs Family Values

Remembering that the Republicans are the party of "family values" and that Dubyah was going to restore honor to the White House makes the current revelations about his sleazy brother Neil ironically pleasing:

Neil Bush, younger brother of President Bush, detailed lucrative business deals and admitted to engaging in sex romps with women in Asia in a deposition taken in March as part of his divorce from now ex-wife Sharon Bush.

According to legal documents disclosed today, Sharon Bush's lawyers questioned Neil Bush closely about the deals, especially a contract with Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing Corp., a firm backed by Jiang Mianheng, the son of former Chinese President Jiang Zemin, that would pay him $2 million in stock over five years.

Marshall Davis Brown, lawyer for Sharon Bush, expressed bewilderment at why Grace would want Bush and at such a high price since he knew little about the semiconductor business.

"You have absolutely no educational background in semiconductors do you?" asked Brown in the March 4 deposition, which was seen by Reuters.

"That's correct," Bush, 48, responded.

Obviously. They aren't interested in his expertise, they're interested in his connection to the president of the United States. Just as early investors in George W's always failing oil enterprises were not interested in oil so much as access. Oh well, like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, Dubyah may well wish he were an only child before this is over:

The Bush divorce, completed in April, was prompted in part by Bush's relationship with another woman. He admitted in the deposition that he previously had sex with several other women while on trips to Thailand and Hong Kong at least five years ago.

The women, he said, simply knocked on the door of his hotel room, entered and engaged in sex with him. He said he did not know if they were prostitutes because they never asked for money and he did not pay them.

"Mr Bush, you have to admit it's a pretty remarkable thing for a man just to go to a hotel room door and open it and have a woman standing there and have sex with her," Brown said.

"It was very unusual," Bush said.

Even though the Bush divorce is final, legal problems continue.

Sharon Bush has been sued by Robert Andrews, the former husband of Neil Bush's girlfriend, Maria Andrews, for allegedly charging that the Andrews' 2-year-old son, was fathered by Bush, not Andrews.

Bush this week gave a DNA sample at the request of his ex-wife, but it is not clear when it will be tested, her lawyer, David Berg, said today.

Wonder what "born again" and his brother talk about when they are together. At least they seem to have a fondness for money in common, but they may have other interests as well:

At the Republican National Convention in 1988, he was asked by a Hartford Courant reporter about what he and his father talked about when they weren't talking about politics.

"PUSSY," Bush replied.

Bush vs Any Sense of Shame

Today our miserable failure of a president signed the largest military appropriations bill ever, totaling over $401 billion. Not being one to ever miss out on an embarrassingly tawdry photo op, he then stopped - on his way home for a week at the "ranch" - at Fort Carson, Colorado, where - dressed in a military jumpsuit (a shameless affectation no other president has ever lowered himself to) - he gave a speech to hundreds of cheering service personnel. Among the words of wisdom he spoke were these:

"The United States of America will not be intimidated by a bunch of thugs."

I doubt that Bush realizes how apt that quote is. The term "thug" comes from an East Indian group of religious fanatics and assassins who existed for centuries and eventually opposed the British in their occupation of India during the 19th century. The Brits were largely successful against the Thugees, over the long haul, but of course eventually had to give up control of India. The Indians - even those who were not thugs, really didn't want them there.

Whenever I hear anyone talk about us "bringing" democracy to the Iraqis I remember the words attributed to Ghandi when questioned about the good government the British had brought them; he said, "Who would not rather have their own bad government, than the "good" government imposed by someone else?"

Indeed.

Dem Deep Pockets

I am currently reading George Soros's new book, _The Bubble of American Supremacy: Corrrecting the Misuse of American Power. Given the amount of criticism he has received for recently making big money donations to liberal groups such as MoveON.org, it is well to consider how seldom big money interests ever contribute to our side of the isle. In this vein, consider this comparison of Soros to that patron of right wing causes, the Rev. Moon.

Iraq = Death

As we have found out today even more. Read Anarchy Xero's take.