If you don't speak up you accept what is happening. This site was born out of the mainstream media's inability to cover the news. I am just an American cititzen trying to spread the word in the era of FCC consolidation, post 9/11 Patriot Act hysteria, hackable voting machines and war without end. I rant and post news items I perceive to be relevant to our current situation.
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
- Thomas Jefferson
Social Security is not broken and therefore does not need to be fixed
So Called Social Security Crisis (SCSSC)
Comments, questions, corrections, rebuttals are always welcome.
Explosives and Editorials
So what's in the news today. Well If you want to know the true story of what happened in Iraq with all the weapons dumps this story will help get you up-to-date. It is done by Knight Ridder who was the only news service NOT to get suckered by the Bush administration on Iraq and WMD. Josh Marshall has it all.
The Friday Editorials:
On Sept. 14, 2001, as the Twin Towers in New York were still smoking, this column spoke of the coming response: "Blood will have blood; that's certain. But blood will not end it. For murder is fertile: It breeds more death, like a spider laden with a thousand eggs."
It's Not Just Al Qaqaa
Just in case, the right is already explaining away President Bush's defeat: it's all the fault of the "liberal media," particularly The New York Times, which, so the conspiracy theory goes, deliberately timed its report on the looted Al Qaqaa explosives - a report all the more dastardly because it was true - for the week before the election.
Letting Down the Troops
But when I asked this soldier, Eugene Simpson Jr., a 27-year-old staff sergeant from Dale City, Va., whom he had been fighting in Iraq - who, exactly, the enemy was - he looked up from his wheelchair and stared at me for a long moment. Then, in a voice much softer than he had been using for most of the interview, and with what seemed like a mixture of sorrow, regret and frustration, he said: "I don't know. That would be my answer. I don't know."
As I look back over the last four years it seems like an eternity. I remember going to bed on election night in 2000 thinking Al Gore was going to win and waking up to a mess. Now, almost for years removed, the mess the Supreme Court created by its partisan decision is still haunting us in the name of George W. Bush.
I've lived in Texas since 1976. I understand that in my state the Governor is a weak office. The Lieutenant Governor and Speaker of the House have all the power. It was done that way because of carpetbagger Governors appointed after the Civil War ruined it for all future governors. Another aspect of Texas, at least until the redistricting fiasco, was that we still had many "conservative" democrats which fostered the opportunity for bipartisanship. In reality it was the Democrat Speaker, Pete Laney, that was the true reason for bipartisanship in Texas. He allowed Republicans to chair committees and allowed them to get their legislation through as well. Speaker Laney was one of those "conservative" democrats. The reason I set all of this up is because that was George Bush's whole basis for the, "uniter not a divider" label. Not the reality of what he would face in Washington where partisanship is the rule, not the exception. Which gives us a theme for his entire Presidency, an elaborate ruse perpetrated on the American people to make him seem like someone he isn't.
Now to the issue at hand. In every way, shape, and form John Kerry stands head and shoulders above, literally and figuratively, George W. Bush as a candidate for President. My position is that we need a new President to change our course. I also think that John Kerry has shown over the course of his life that he can take on huge challenges and do what needs to be done. I also believe that John Kerry, as President, will need active participation and support by those who will be responsible for his election to make the changes that need to be made. If John Kerry becomes our next President and we then recede back into the background and fall silent we will be right back here in a very short period of time. Is John Kerry all that we need in a President for this time at this moment? No, but no President is when they are running. The fundamental question to me is which one of the two men can become the President we need. George W. Bush has already shown that he cannot become the President we need. John Kerry on the other hand will become the President this country needs and with our support he can put us back on the path to Peace and Prosperity!
Florida, 9/11 Truth, Abu Ghraib, A Bush Comparison, Good News, Ron Reagan, 100,000 and Al QaQaa
Do you think 56,000 votes could swing Florida?
Missing absentee ballots in Broward Co. could be a catastrophe
Broward County, Florida, has just announced that it is resending some 76,000 absentee ballots. Some 56,000 ballots, asserted by the Elections Office to have been mailed on October 7-8, have not been received.
Some people are never satisfied
Respected Leaders and Families Launch 9/11 Truth Statement Demanding Deeper Investigation into the Events of 9/11
On August 31, 2004, Zogby International, the official North American political polling agency for Reuters, released a poll that found nearly half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of those in New York state believe US leaders had foreknowledge of impending 9/11 attacks and "consciously failed" to act. Of the New York City residents, 66% called for a new probe of unanswered questions by Congress or the New York Attorney General.
In connection with this news, we have assembled 100 notable Americans and 40 family members of those who died to sign this 9/11 Statement, which calls for immediate public attention to unanswered questions that suggest that people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.
Abu Ghraib, Unresolved
Bush is no FDR, HST or JFK!
Bush takes hit for using JFK's words vs. Kerry
But Schlossberg said, ``Sen. Kerry has demonstrated his courage and commitment to a stronger America throughout his entire career. President Kennedy inspired and united the country and so will John Kerry. President Bush is doing just the opposite.''
An organized left is bad for the GOP
I have seen the present, and it works — I think.
I have spent the past week observing the official Democratic Party and unofficial 527 field operations in the battleground states of Ohio and Florida. And I have found something I’ve never before seen in my 36 or so years as a progressive activist and later as a journalist: an effective, fully functioning American left.
Here is what Ron Reagan said last night on Hardball when asked if he thought the 380 tons story is an SCLM October Surprise on Bush:
MATTHEWS: Ron Reagan, your view, your sense of smell about this?I've really grown to like our ex-Presidents son.
REAGAN: Pardon me?
Well, let me give you an example of what isn‘t a liberal bias in the media. I would maintain that there has been a double standard here. And it works to President Bush‘s advantage.
In the last week or two, we‘ve heard about how both sides are using scare tactics in this campaign. Kerry is talking about a potential draft and that Social Security might go away. And these politicians are doing what politicians do. But there is a difference.
George Bush is also going around the country and he is saying that John Kerry says—not that he believes, but that John Kerry says he will not defend America until we‘re attacked and only then with the permission of our foreign allies. Now, there‘s a word for that. And it is not hyperbole and it‘s not exaggeration. It is lying. Eric Alterman in “Newsweek” magazine had it exactly right this week.
Now, let me repeat that. George W. Bush, when he says that about John Kerry, is lying. Now, how many people in the press are willing to say that?
100,000 Excess Iraqi Deaths Since War - Study
Deaths of Iraqis have soared to 100,000 above normal since the Iraq war mainly due violence and many of the victims have been women and children, public health experts from the United States said Thursday.
Al QaQaa update
The last time those missing explosives were seen?
The news crew was based just south of Al Qaqaa, and drove two or three miles north of there with soldiers on April 18, 2003.One reason I think this story has legs is because everyone likes saying "QaQaa".
The IAEA says...
it warned U.S. about explosives
The U.N. nuclear agency said Thursday it warned the United States about the vulnerability of explosives stored at Iraq's Al-Qaqaa military installation after another facility - Iraq's main nuclear complex - was looted in April 2003.
This one too
4 Iraqis Tell of Looting at Munitions Site in '03
Looters stormed the weapons site at Al Qaqaa in the days after American troops swept through the area in early April 2003 on their way to Baghdad, gutting office buildings, carrying off munitions and even dismantling heavy machinery, three Iraqi witnesses and a regional security chief said Wednesday.
Incompetence and Where We are Headed (If we don't make a change)
Eyewitness to a failure in Iraq
I also described two particularly disturbing incidents -- one I had witnessed and the other I had heard about. On April 16, 2003, a mob attacked and looted the Iraqi equivalent of the Centers for Disease Control, taking live HIV and black fever virus among other potentially lethal materials. US troops were stationed across the street but did not intervene because they didn't know the building was important.
I like how the writer describer herself: Debi Smith -- meal making, laundry washing, toilet swishing, bill paying, teen transporting, hug giving, information gathering concerned American
To Be Silenced, Or Not to Be: That is the Question
How have we come to such a point where advocating for protection of our civil liberties is obscene?? Of course, that’s a silly question come post 9/11, right? Obviously, 9/11 (which was the all too convenient"catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor" that the neo-cons had been frothing at the mouth for since writing their thesis Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century in 2000) meant that in order for ordinary American citizens to experience security we’d have to give up many of our freedoms. Duh. Fall in line sheeple. Don’t ask questions. Don’t be unpatriotic. Don’t dissent. For heaven’s sake, go shopping. Go to Disney World. But whatever you do, don’t think… your security’s at stake.
William Rivers Pitt, Vote Fraud, Evangelicals and 380 Tons
Another one for the undecideds
Promises to Keep
Yet the stubborn facts and evidence remain, and no amount of red-faced bellowing by partisans and paid operatives can change their nature. The following facts are addressed to the fence-sitters, to the undecided voters, to the independent voters, to those who have come to see voting as a waste of time, and to the millions upon millions of Republicans in America who are of good conscience, who voted for George W. Bush four years ago and wonder now at the wisdom of their choice.
What's happening here?
The GOP's Shameful Vote Strategy
With Election Day almost upon us, it's not clear whether President Bush is running a campaign or plotting a coup d'etat. By all accounts, Republicans are spending these last precious days devoting nearly as much energy to suppressing the Democratic vote as they are to mobilizing their own.
This looks interesting
Conflicted Evangelicals Could Cost Bush Votes
"It's hard for me to say that Christians should be marching against abortion and carrying signs, and then turn around and giving a pep rally for the war in Iraq without even contemplating that hundreds and hundreds of people are being killed on a regular basis over there," Urcavich said.
The lates on the 380 tons
No Check of Bunker, Unit Commander Says
"We happened to stumble on it,'' he said. "I didn't know what the place was supposed to be. We did not get involved in any of the bunkers. It was not our mission. It was not our focus. We were just stopping there on our way to Baghdad. The plan was to leave that very same day. The plan was not to go in there and start searching. It looked like all the other ammunition supply points we had seen already."
Tora Bora, Cover-ups and A Libertarian Speaks Out
How Bush blew it in Tora Bora
So it was a major Pentagon blunder. It was a major Rumsfeld-Franks blunder. It was a major White House blunder. And there were two reasons for it: 1) The Pentagon outsourced the war in eastern Afghanistan to the wrong warlords, who were collecting suitcases full of cash with one hand and spreading disinformation with the other. 2) The White House's and the Pentagon's attention were already directed toward toppling Saddam. This all amounts to Senator John Kerry being fundamentally correct when he charges on the campaign trail that Bush blew it in Tora Bora. This is not a "wild claim", as Bush puts it: it's a serious charge that debunks the whole myth of Bush as a strong and resolute commander-in-chief of the "war on terror".
A Culture of Cover-Ups
What really happened on 9/11, or in Iraq? Next week's election may determine whether we ever find out.
More fuel for the undecided
Why this pro-life libertarian is voting for Kerry
At the age of 50, I get few chances to try something entirely new. Come Nov. 2, I plan to take one of those rare opportunities. I'm going to vote for a Democrat for president.
Missing Explosives, Reasons and Election 2000
Josh Marshall debunks the administration spin on...
the missing explosives
My point here is not to say that this could not have occurred. What I am trying to show is that Pentagon appointees like Di Rita don't seem to have any clear idea what happened to this stuff. And in an attempt to push back the story, they're cooking up various theories, most with very short half-lives, that just don't seem credible to a lot of folks who follow these issues.
If you know someone that still needs to be persuaded
Attention Fence Sitters: 101 Points to Ponder Before Taking to the Polls
Though the country is more polarized than it?s been since the Vietnam War, a palpable sense of "we?re in it togetherness" exists below the rancor and angst. Because of this, the question, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" has been replaced with the broader, "Is the country better off"?
Vanity Fair article on the 2000 election
THE PATH TO FLORIDA
Zeroing in on the frenzied 36 days that followed the 2000 election, investigate the ?Brooks Brothers riot,? Jeb Bush?s high-tech felon hunt, and the new voting machines that leave no paper trail, and ask, Could it happen again?
The New Yorker endorses Kerry
The End of Democracy
Portrait of a country on the verge of a nervous breakdown
Quagmire and Incompetence
How many times have you heard these words? "The world is better off with Saddam Hussein in jail". I'm not sure how anyone can believe that. When even Iraq isn't better off with Saddam in jail. If you can read this, 49 Iraqi soldiers executed in attack designed to send message to US, and still be able to stomach your President saying that "freedom is on the march" you are definitely drinking the Kool-Aid. Iraq is on fire. Car bombs all the time. Daily US bombings of Iraqi towns which are causing massive civilian casualties and suffering. We are killing the people we came to "liberate". Do you honestly believe that Iraqis feel they are better off with Saddam gone?
For a President who has made security a focal point of his campaign today's breaking story on the 380 tons of super-powerful explosives doesn't help his case. Juan Cole has a good wrap-up of the story, Bush is Making us Safer? So again we see that a purported Bush strength is actually a weakness.
Robert Fisk is one of the best writers about what is happening in Iraq. He has a tremendous grasp of Middle East history and the realitites on the ground. As you will see in this article, Iraq Disaster Will Haunt Future Generations.
Tomorrow's big story today
Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq
The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives - used to demolish buildings, produce missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons - are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations.
These are what those killing our soldiers in Iraq are using to do it!
Who are we fighting in Iraq?
Estimates by U.S. See More Rebels With More Funds
Senior American officials are beginning to assemble a new portrait of the insurgency that has continued to inflict casualties on American and Iraqi forces, showing that it has significantly more fighters and far greater financial resources than had been estimated.
It looks like Iraq planning did take the focus off Afghanistan (Osama) after all
Afghanistan, Iraq: Two Wars Collide.
In the second half of March 2002, as the Bush administration mapped its next steps against al Qaeda, Deputy CIA Director John E. McLaughlin brought an unexpected message to the White House Situation Room. According to two people with firsthand knowledge, he told senior members of the president's national security team that the CIA was scaling back operations in Afghanistan.
Voting and Counting
If the election were held today and the votes were counted fairly, Senator John Kerry would probably win. But the votes won't be counted fairly, and the disenfranchisement of minority voters may determine the outcome.
Now we come at last to the heart of darkness. Now we know, from their own words, that the Bush Regime is a cult -- a cult whose god is Power, whose adherents believe that they alone control reality, that indeed they create the world anew with each act of their iron will. And the goal of this will -- undergirded by the cult's supreme virtues of war, fury and blind faith -- is likewise openly declared: "Empire.
Like we really needed evidence
Most Bush Supporters Are Raging Ignoramuses
That may as well be the headline for the new study from the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA).
Polls, DeLay, Cheney and Secrecy
Monday night I watched a little Hardball and a few other shows while channel surfing and by the way they were talking you would think that Kerry should just pack it in, that the election has already been decided. But then I remembered that they were basing their opinions on Polls. Especially the Gallup poll which is having problems, Gallup Poll Racially-Biased. Basically what they have been doing is polling more R's than D's because they think more R's are going to vote. So who do you think will win a poll if you poll more of one party than the other? But the reason those shows on Monday were doing this is they are trying to create a feeling of inevitability that the President is going to be reelected. But read this post:
I'm sick of the fake confidence from the wing-nuts. And those meaningless national polls (many of which Kerry has tied up). We need to start making it part of our mindset AND our discussions with everyone (including fellow Dems) that our boy is winning. We need to BELIEVE! And we need America to BELIEVE! And, of course, the numbers back it up.So the media is cheerleading for Bush. What else is new. So remember they can't fix an election that the polls are showing is a blowout. That's why the polls look the way they do.
DeLay actually showed up for his debate last night, DeLay takes debate club by surprise. I will still be shocked if he loses. Although I heard something today that I remembered hearing during the redistricting debacle last year. That DeLay let his district be drawn a little more democratic than before because he was, at that time, confident of his reelection. So that's something else to think about in this race. Get all your DeLay and Houston area coverage here, OffTheKuff.
Cheney has only one thing to say for the rest of the campaign. "Vote for Kerry and you will die!" Cheney: Terrorists May Bomb U.S. Cities. A couple of things here. First, do you remember who was in charge on September 11th? I'm, pretty sure it was Bush and Cheney. The other thing is this line from the article, "Cheney, speaking to an invitation-only crowd.." These guys go around the country and speak at invitation only events. They make people take loyalty oaths and expel people for the clothes they wear. They are afraid of dissent. To me that means their positions are weak and they cannot defend them or in terms they understand, they're chicken. While on the other hand Kerry/Edwards allows anyone into their events whether they are for or against. So who is the weaker of the two?
More secrecy from this administration, Lawmakers Prod CIA for Pre-9/11 Accountability Report.
Check out the...
Florida Ballot. Just try and vote for Kerry/Edwards. See what happens when you submit you vote.
Paul Krugman tells us in today's article, Feeling the Draft, that Bush has lied to us about so much already why should we trust him when he says there won't be a draft.
This one, U.S. Has Contingency Plans for a Draft of Medical Workers, makes me think of the line from the song Mammas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be Cowboys, "Let 'em be doctors and lawyers and such." I don't think many Mammas will want their children growing up to be military doctors.
Al Gore, Iraq, Afghanistan, The Media and what Bush has done for abortion
Al Gore gave a great speech yesterday (text or video). It's a long speech but he does an excellent job of laying out how this Administration willingly and knowingly intended to deceive the American people on all of its decisions since taking power.
I did not accuse the president of intentionally deceiving the American people, but rather, noted the remarkable coincidence that all of his arguments turned out to be based on falsehoods. But since that time, we have learned that, in virtually every case, the president chose to ignore and indeed often to suppress, studies, reports and facts that were contrary to the false impressions he was giving to the American people. In most every case he chose to reject information that was prepared by objective analysts and rely instead on information that was prepared by sources of questionable reliability who had a private interest in the policy choice he was recommending that conflicted with the public interest.Not just Iraq and foreign policy but economic and social issues and everything else. Whether you voted for him last time or not the speech it worth it. This part on Chalabi along is worth it:
In another example, we now know that two months before the war began, Bush received two detailed and comprehensive secret reports warning him that the likely result of an American-led invasion of Iraq would be increased support for Islamic fundamentalism, deep division of Iraqi society with high levels of violent internal conflict and guerilla warfare aimed against U.S. forces. Yes, in spite of these analyses, Bush chose to suppress the warnings and instead convey to the American people the absurdly Polyanna-ish view of highly questionable and obviously biased sources like Ahmad Chalabi, the convicted felon and known swindler, who the Bush administration put on its payroll and gave a seat adjacent to Laura Bush at the State of the Union address. They flew him into Baghdad on a military jet with a private security force, but then decided the following year he was actually a spy for Iran, who had been hoodwinking President Bush all along with phony facts and false predictions.Iraq News:
This article, The Strategy to Secure Iraq Did Not Foresee a 2nd War, shows how the administration and the Defense Department came up with the post-war plan for Iraq. No matter that the State Department already had a plan that had worked in the Bosnia/Kosovo war. But that plan had a major flaw. It was used by the previous administration so therefore it could not be used.
It appears Fallujah has turned into one of the mainstreet scenes in an old western. When everyone clears off the street and hides to watch the battle. Fallujans flee from US, Zarqawi fight
We are training the Iraqi National Guard(ING), they are living amongst our soldiers and they are double agents. So there is deep mistrust between American troops and Iraqi soldiers they are training. I'm sure that makes for a good working relationship.
How's the planning for the upcoming Iraqi election coming you ask? It looks like the UN will be understaffed and the Iraqis will handle it, Limited U.N. Role Hinders Iraq Vote
But the big question is will there be any Iraqis left alive to vote? Not if this pace keeps up, How Many Iraqis Are Dying? By One Count, 208 in a Week.
Things are not as they seem or shall we say as the media what them to seem, Bush triumphalism masks mission unaccomplished in Afghanistan: analysts.
More on the media and its Orwellian Twist on the Campaign. An American loses his job for speaking out, Sinclair Broadcast Group's Washington bureau chief, Jon Leiberman, says he's been fired for his public criticism of the company's plans...
This story tells us that a person's financial situation influences their decision making process. And tells us Why abortion rate is up in Bush years.
Texas Redistricting shot down by Supreme Court! Won't change this election though.
Supreme Court orders new look at Texas' congressional districts
The Supreme Court today ordered a lower court to reconsider a Texas congressional map that could give Republicans six more seats in Congress in upcoming elections and help the GOP protect its majority.
War and Lies
I'm sure president's have always lied, especially in time of war. George W. Bush lying about how things are going in Iraq is understandable, to a certain extent, but let me put this in context. I'm sure FDR lied about how things were going during WWII at times. I'm sure early on he didn't want the citizenry to get too down when things weren't going well. And in that respect, morale of the country during a war, I think most people can understand a few untruths about conditions in Iraq. Sooner or later, if it goes on too long, the lying that is, people start to believe you have a problem with reality. But I see major differences between the two wars. WWII was a cause the majority if not most of the country was for, understood, sacrificed for and believed had to be fought and won. Whatever you think about Iraq none of that applies. It may have applied at the start of the War on Terror(WoT) and Afghanistan in particular. I think most people in this country believed and understood and were for and willing to sacrifice for at the beginning of the WoT and the invasion of Afghanistan. Iraq on the other hand is a war of choice and more and more Americans every day are realizing it was a bad choice. And I think that is why George W. Bush's lies are now coming home to roost. Now most are not for this war, do not understand why we are still there, not only are they unwilling to sacrifice but most have not been asked, and they don't believe it needed to be fought.
So when I read articles like this, A War Without Reason and this, General Reported Shortages In Iraq, is it any wonder that I believe that we never intended to leave Iraq and that chaos was the post-war plan? The issue of the citizenry not believing in the war is a big one but an even bigger one is when the military starts to understand that the cause is not worth dying for, Platoon defies orders in Iraq. I wonder what new lie our Commander-in-Chief (The War President) will tell us about this?
Sunday Night Blogging
A couple of good articles about the discontent in the Republican Party.
They are pissed at the neocons, Fixin' for a fight: In the GOP, the long knives are out for the neoconservatives
The coming civil war, Party Down
If you can read this and don't understand that the post war plan for Iraq was chaos, you have a problem, Post-war planning non-existent.
Truth, Reason(s), Corn and Your President
This is the second time Kerry has defined the test. Each time, he has made clear that it's a test of evidence, not opinion, and that Americans, "your own countrypeople," are the first people to whom the evidence must be shown.
When Bush replied last night that he refuses to pass this "truth standard," there's really no other way to interpret his position. He's saying that he doesn't have to show you any evidence, because evidence is the sort of thing a Frenchman would ask for.
I know I've been hard on the president lately. I'd like to say something nice about him. I'd like to be "fair and balanced." But my first responsibility as a reporter is to the truth. When one candidate tells half the truth, and the other says the truth doesn't matter, it becomes irresponsible for me or any other journalist not to report that by that standard?the standard of respecting the truth standard?one candidate is head and shoulders above the other.
You want reasons? I've got reasons.
94 REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR GEORGE W. BUSH
59 Reasons Why Bush Sucks
David Corn on the media
Is it time yet to start blaming the media?
Here are the two main gripes. First, the mainstream media cover the presidential contest as a sporting event (a.k.a. the horserace complaint), and the major news outfits do a piss-poor job of evaluating the rhetoric and claims of candidates.
Which brings me to the second gripe: the media?s general reluctance to vigorously truth-test the assertions made by candidates (or presidents).
Without a Doubt
''Just in the past few months,'' Bartlett said, ''I think a light has gone off for people who've spent time up close to Bush: that this instinct he's always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do.'' Bartlett, a 53-year-old columnist and self-described libertarian Republican who has lately been a champion for traditional Republicans concerned about Bush's governance, went on to say: ''This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them. . . .
LBJ, Pigs and Rove
Being from Texas makes one real familiar with dirty politics. One of our most famous politicians is, or course, LBJ. Many people have referred to him as one of the best politicians ever. One story that I've been reminded of recently is this one:
There is a story about Johnson from his halcyon political days in Texas that is pertinent today. The rough and tumble politician was running for re-election to the Senate in 1952 and while on one of his trademark barnstorming campaign swings through the state he met an old Democratic political colleague?a small town sheriff who was also running for re-election. The sheriff told Johnson that he was facing an unexpectedly strong challenger in his re-election bid. Not thinking twice, Johnson told the sheriff to put out the word that his opponent "fucked pigs." The sheriff responded coolly to the idea, saying that it just wasn't true. Johnson replied, "So what! Make the son of a bitch deny it!" The Democrats of today should take a lesson from LBJ. This election cannot be played by Marquess of Queensberry rules. The Bush thugs have to be hoisted on their own petards.Can there be any doubt that BC04 are the modern day descendants of these tactics? Rove and his mentor Lee Atwater definitely learned this lesson well. This year their "pigs", shall we say, are the Swift Boat Liars for Bush (SBLfB). We now know that the SBLfB are telling lies, lies and nothing but lies. But our wonderful SCLM has played along every step of the way. Treating there story like it's just another side of the story in a he said/she said type of argument. My hope is that this has been played up too much and that people are tired of hearing about it. That maybe the whole Sinclair thing will push it over the edge -- a tipping point maybe? That people will start to see Kerry for who he is and that BC04 has been lying all along. The tactic definitely worked by making Kerry answer the charge. Maybe he didn't do it directly but his campaign and Democrats were forced to deal with it for a long time. Will bringing it up again cause a backlash?
I think it is the overall strategy that I've pointed our before. Why Bush has done bad in the debates was because his record is horrible and he has no policy going forward to fix it. Most people see the country is going in the wrong direction and the only way Bush can win is to focus people on John Kerry and not on him and his record.
More on Rove
Karl Rove in a Corner
Karl Rove is at his most formidable when running close races, and his skills would be notable even if he used no extreme methods. But he does use them. His campaign history shows his willingness, when challenged, to employ savage tactics
Friday: Floyd and Krugman
Chris Floyd really writes some of the most eye-popping articles. Especially on the web of corruption, not only in the Bush administration, but all throughout our world. Today's is, Dream Team.
Paul Krugman does a very good job as well. In this one he runs through some of the vote scandals so far, Block the Vote. Remember, "It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes". EXCERPT:
The important point to realize is that these abuses aren't aberrations. They're the inevitable result of a Republican Party culture in which dirty tricks that distort the vote are rewarded, not punished. It's a culture that will persist until voters - whose will still does count, if expressed strongly enough - hold that party accountable
Molly Ivins asks, How dumb does Bush think we are? Read this to find out if you are as dumb as Bush thinks you are.
Tipping point, Friedman and my debate(s) wrap-up
ON a daily basis I wonder what it's going to take to make some in this country realize that we have a problem in this country. What will the tipping point be? Each day there are more and more tales of horror, lies, corruption and so on. I've had people comment to me many times after reading this blog about me not reporting good news. It goes like this, "you just post the bad things that are happening, isn't there any good news out there?" Frankly there is. I guess in my opinion people too easily latch onto the good news to trick there minds into believing everything is OK. Well some things are OK but we are miles away from everything being OK. The best news we have right now is the fact that in less than three weeks we can vote this President, and all that and those that come with him, out of office and inaugurate a new one in about three months. If that's not enough good news for you then you haven't reached the tipping point yet.
500 U.S. national-security specialists say, Iraq War Most Misguided Policy Since Vietnam.
You don't say, Halliburton's Interests Assisted by White House.
GOP-paid firm faces voter-fraud charge.
Who's next if they steal this election too? Bush's Endless 'Predictive' Wars, and are your kids young enough to escape them?
Tom Friedman was pissing me off before he took his vacation but it seems to have done him dome good. I think he reached his tipping point, Addicted to 9/11. It's all the Bush administration has. Without fear then you have to look at the record and that's their fear.
I didn't take my advice on the debate last night. It probably had everything to do with the fact that this was the only debate I've been able to watch live so far. It's also because it was the same as the other three only different. What I mean by that is that it was Kerry looking good and Bush trying not to look bad. Kerry answering the questions with serious answers and Bush trying to answer the questions the right way, the way he's been trained to do. Also the questions were bad and the moderator did a bad job. More on that from dkos:
This was billed as a debate on domestic issues. So where were the questions on:I'm not sure how it is where you live but gas prices here are if not within a few cents of an all time high and that hurts bad. No mention of that. Nothing about the corporate crime we had to suffer through or worker rights either. The cheap labor conservatives will always steer clear of those issues. I also thought there were too many touchy feely questions, too many about religion. Bob Scheiffer did his best to pimp for Bush by laying of the serious questions. We all know that CBS has been through enough this election season. I didn't watch much of the post debate spin. I did listen to the phone calls on C-SPAN afterwards and they all thought their candidate won. The interesting thing was how most of those for Bush included his religion as why they are voting for him. Is that why Bob did it? To help Bush shore up his base? Shame on you Bob!
Stem cell research
But to wrap up the debates I think the biggest thing to come out of them is the fact that Kerry won all three and for a sitting President, war President that is, to go 0 for 3 makes him look weak and the challenger look strong. It makes Kerry into a viable challenger and that is exactly what the BC04 didn't want. So in that respect the debates were very good for Kerry.
Two From William Rivers Pitt
No WMD in Iraq, Bearing Bloody Witness. He wrote the book on it:
"The case for war against Iraq has not been made. This is a fact. It is doubtful in the extreme that Saddam Hussein has retained any aspect of the chemical, nuclear and biological weapons programs so thoroughly dismantled by the United Nations weapons inspectors who worked tirelessly in Iraq for seven years. This is also a fact. The idea that Hussein has connections to fundamentalist Islamic terrorists is laughable - he is a secular leader who has worked for years to crush fundamentalist Islam within Iraq, and if he were to give weapons of any kind to Qaeda, they would use those weapons on him first." - p. 9
On how Kerry went 3-0 in the debates, Game. Set. Match. The biggest lie Bush told last night:
"Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations."
- George W. Bush, 10/13/04
"So I don't know where he is. Nor - you know, I just don't spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you. I...I truly am not that concerned about him."
- George W. Bush, 03/13/02
Watch the debate, make up you own mind.
James Baker's Double Life
An Entrails Reader’s Guide to the November Election
Freedom to Fascism -- A Bumpy Ride
What's happening in Iraq. Bad things, Terror Command in Falluja Is Half Destroyed, U.S. Says and Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh spills the secrets of the Iraq quagmire and the war on terror.
Soldiers speak, Conservatives jump ship
This article from David Hackworth show us that the line form the "Republicans" that when you say bad things about Iraq it hurts the soldiers. The soldiers say they're full of s**t, Muzzling Soldiers Is Nothing New:
Then there?s the personal attack on anyone with a point of view that?s different from the party line: You?re un-American; or you?re supporting the enemy or not supporting the troops. The latest tactic is to say you?re sending out mixed messages that hurt troop morale.I also like when Hackworth refers to the email coming from troops as the, "electronic tsunami of truth".
But according to our soldiers in Iraq, this is just not true. They say their morale is in the toilet because of how badly the war?s been handled, not because of what?s being reported or debated by politicians.
?I resent the fascist-style approach that tries to paint any objection of current policy as traitorous,? says Ken Druhut. ?I am a proud vet and gratefully enjoy the freedoms that our military has provided. But this Gestapo stuff has to stop.?
More from the soldiers, Breaking Ranks:
More and more U.S. soldiers are speaking out against the war in Iraq -- and some are refusing to fight
True conservatives are jumping ship:
Conservatives Must Face Iraq Facts:
The Duelfer report confirms that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction, was hardly engaged in serious efforts to produce them and Saddam Hussein?s nuclear capabilities were actually deteriorating rather than advancing.Once Again, America First:
On May 4, American conservatism took an unexpected turn. That morning, George Will -- the movement's most influential columnist, one of its icons -- slapped George W. Bush with a tart reprimand. For a year, Will had obliquely hinted of his grave misgivings about the Iraq war and the push to democratize the Middle East. But with the insurgency escalating, he now felt obliged to state his frustration bluntly. ''This administration cannot be trusted to govern if it cannot be counted on to think and, having thought, to have second thoughts,'' he wrote. (Some good history in this one).
What's the difference?
George Bush in August 30, 2004:
When asked “Can we win?” the war on terror, Bush said, “I don’t think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are — less acceptable in parts of the world.”Kerry October 10, 2004
When I asked Kerry what it would take for Americans to feel safe again, he displayed a much less apocalyptic worldview. ''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' Kerry said. ''As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''
Polls, Cheney and Yellow Journalism
I want to make a comment on polls. Generally speaking most of them are probably not a true gauge of what will happen with the election. For one reason we do not elect a President by popular vote. So what matters more is state to state how things are going. The one thing I think we can take from the polls is the fact that the President is running under 50% in most of them and for an incumbent that's bad. History shows that the undecided voters usually break for the challenger. And as this poll shows, Bush's approval rating slipping:
Unease about the country's direction has eroded Bush's job approval rating into dangerous territory for an incumbent president. And Kerry holds a decided advantage on the domestic issues that will be the focus of their last face-to-face encounter.I've heard Howard Dean and others say that before the voters will look at the other candidate they have to first make the decision that the incumbent does not deserve to be reelected. The incumbents approval rating being below 50% is an indication of that being true. If that number is staying consistently under 50%, even nationally, that's bad for the incumbent. Historically if an election breaks against the incumbent it happens late and the challenger winds up with a pretty decent majority (Reagan in 1980). Another thing to remember is that most polls are done on likely voters, which does not take into account those that have registered in this election cycle. Remember they cannot fix an election if the polls are showing a blowout.
But Bush's approval rating the most reliable measure of a president's re-election prospects has dropped to 47%, the lowest since July. Anything below 50% is considered a red flag for incumbents.
Bush on Friday night:
So I tried diplomacy, went to the United Nations. But as we learned in the same report I quoted, Saddam Hussein was gaming the oil-for-food program to get rid of sanctions. He was trying to get rid of sanctions for a reason: He wanted to restart his weapons programs.Look who else was gaming it, Cheney's Oil-for-Food Switcheroo
But the one company that helped Saddam exploit the oil-for-food program in the mid-1990s that wasn't identified in Duelfer's report was Halliburton, and the person at the helm of Halliburton at the time of the scheme was Dick Cheney.
What has happened to your media? Yellow Journalism in Washington.
There, right in paragraph one, were those unnamed "senior administration and military officials" who so populate our elite press that they sometimes present crowd-control problems. These are the people our most prestigious newspapers just love to trust and who, anonymous as they are, make reading those papers a ridiculous act of faith for the rest of us.
How is Iraq going you ask? Don't take it from Bush or Kerry. Take if from the soldiers, For Marines, a Frustrating Fight.
The reporters have something to say as well, Get Me Rewrite. Now. Bullets Are Flying.
My take on Friday's debate
It's pretty hard for me to be objective on these debates. It's hard for me because I just believe that Bush is the worst President of my lifetime, I'm 37 years old. So from that starting point it's hard. He is wrong on every issue. With that in mind He appeared to be tight, again. He didn't lie as much as Cheney, that may be the best thing I can say about it. Another problem I had was when the guy asked the question about the Patriot Act and bush said, "I really don't think you rights are being watered down". I don't think that man bought that answer and I don't think many people watching did either. But that's not a big issue for most people. So to sum up I think Kerry comes across as someone who is right on the issues, had command of the subjects at hand and of the English language. He also is a sharp contrast to President Bush as well. I think Bush is wrong on all the issues and comes across as a babbling idiot who fumbles for words, often choosing the wrong one, and makes little sense and someone who hasn't made any mistakes, that he knows of, since becoming President.
Check this out:
A few weeks ago after the problems CBS had with their Bush/National Guard story they decided to pull a well documented, accurate story for political reasons, The Cowardly Broadcasting System. This weekend we found out that Sinclair Broadcast Group is going to Air Anti-Kerry Film. It is nothing but a smear job on behalf of the Bush administration. Sinclair is a "wing-nut" owned company best known for not showing Nightline earlier this year when they aired the show "The Fallen". It was the show where Ted Koppel read the names and showed a picture of those who had died up to that time in Iraq. They also overwhelmingly give their financial support to Republicans. But what else would you expect from the SCLM? This is media bias at its worst.
Get all your Sinclair info here: StopSinclair.org and Media Matters
Bush's Vietnam Lesson
Here he is with Tim Russert in February 2004
Russert: Were you favor of the war in Vietnam?Interesting. I know there are many lies in the quoted section above but today we are just focusing on the highlighted section.
President Bush: I supported my government. I did. And would have gone had my unit been called up, by the way.
Russert: But you didn't volunteer or enlist to go.
President Bush: No, I didn't. You're right. I served. I flew fighters and enjoyed it, and provided a service to our country. In those days we had what was called "air defense command," and it was a part of the air defense command system.
The thing about the Vietnam War that troubles me as I look back was it was a political war. We had politicians making military decisions, and it is lessons that any president must learn, and that is to the set the goal and the objective and allow the military to come up with the plans to achieve that objective. And those are essential lessons to be learned from the Vietnam War.
This is from an article today, Major Assaults on Hold Until After U.S. Vote
The Bush administration plans to delay major assaults on rebel-held cities in Iraq until after U.S. elections in November, say administration officials, mindful that large-scale military offensives could affect the U.S. presidential race.Is that what I think it is? Couldn't be! No, it sure is. It's "politicians making military decisions". Is that a flip-flop?
Scott Ritter on the Duelfer Report
The source Duelfer didn't quote
Charles Duelfer has to date provided no documentation to back up his assertion regarding Saddam's "intent". Nor has he produced any confession from Saddam Hussein or any senior Iraqi official regarding the same. What has been offered is a compilation of hearsay and conjecture linked to unnamed sources whose identities remain shrouded in secrecy.
Bad job numbers, turmped up terrorist alerts. Just another day in George Bush's America!
More on today's pathetic jobs numbers as well as the rest of the economy. Another one from this blog. Remember the terrorist threats against schools? Well check this out, GOTCHA: Bushies caught exaggerating "Al Qaeda's gonna kill your kids" alert (scroll up for it from jobs post):
The Department of Homeland Security official said the material was associated with a person in Iraq, and it could not be established that this person had any ties to terrorism. He did have a connection to civic groups doing planning for schools in Iraq, the official said.Paul Krugman on this administrations problem with reality, Ignorance Isn't Strength.
Gee, a man working with a nonprofit that helps plan schools downloaded an architectural plan of a - get this - school! Best we shut the country down right this minute and put body armor on every kindergartener in America. Someone in Iraq actually got on the Internet. Let's invade the Internet next.
Chris Floyd on Bush's latest flip-flop, Dirty Glass.
The New York Times shows how In His New Attacks, Bush Pushes Limit on the Facts. That sure is a nice way of calling the President a liar.
A marine tells us why he will not vote for Bush again, Bush's Awful Mess.
When you read this, Cheney once pushed to lift Iran sanctions, you begin to understand why Cheney's terrorism task force never met. It would have been bad for business. Or as you Vice President said, "The problem is that the good Lord didn't see fit to always put oil and gas resources where there are democratic governments."
Kos with a good DeLay roundup, DeLay's imminent indictment.
Scott Ritter: CNN (Wolf Blitzer) Try to apologize for what they did , but not really
Scott Ritter was the most demonized of any American before the war. I always thought was happened to him was horrible. All he tried to do was tell the American people what he knew about Iraq and Saddam in the runup to the war and he was made out to be all sorts of things for that. Just another huge mistake the media in this is responsible for in the runup to the war. So yesterday CNN tried to make up for their part with this article, Was Ritter right? and a Wolf Blitzer interview. If you don't remember what was done to him maybe this will help you, CNN's Hatchet Job on Scott Ritter:
First CNN had on its own news chief, Eason Jordan, who had just returned from Baghdad where he was bagging the rights to cover the war. (Imagine the ratings!) He dismissed Ritter with a "Well, Scott Ritter's chameleon-like behavior has really bewildered a lot of people..." and a "Well, U.S. officials no longer give Scott Ritter much credibility..."He got all of for what? He just wanted some simple things from his government before going to war.
The network followed up with more interviews vilifying Ritter, neither of which cut to the heart of the matter: Why declare war? On what grounds? At what cost? Ritter was characterized as "misguided," "disloyal" and "an apologist for and a defender of Saddam Hussein."
By Monday, professional hairdo Paula Zahn told viewers Ritter had "drunk Saddam Hussein's Kool-Aid."
"As an American citizen, I have an obligation to speak out when I feel my government is acting in a manner, which is inconsistent with the - with the principles of our founding fathers," said Ritter. "It's the most patriotic thing I can do."He wanted facts? He should have known better than that. Didn't he know that 9/11 changed everything and the facts no longer mattered? So what did he get for wanting the tacts? Banishment! He was also accused of being a child molester and our mainstream media acted like he didn't exist anymore. But now we know he was right. I remember reading his stuff before the war either at commondreams or alternet and he knew Saddam had no WMD and was not a threat. He wasn't pro-Saddam he just wanted someone to prove to him that Saddam had something. After we went into Iraq and I would get into a discussion with someone that was pro-Bush/war about no WMD being found in Iraq. They would always use the line, "everyone in the world thought Saddam had WMD", to justify their case. I would always start with, "Scott Ritter didn't!".
...I went to war against Saddam Hussein in 1991. I spent seven years of my life in this country hunting down weapons of mass destruction. I believe I've done a lot about Saddam Hussein," he replied. "You show me where Saddam Hussein can be substantiated as a threat against the United States and I'll go to war again. I'm not going to sit back idly and let anybody threaten the United States. But at this point in time, no one has made a case based upon facts that Saddam Hussein or his government is a threat to the United States worthy of war."
I'm going to post the transcript of Wolf Blitzer trying to make up to Scott Ritter yesterday. Wolf is still trying to justify this administrations case for war. What else should we expect from a media whore, right? It was a weak attempt. See what you think:
BLITZER: Brian Todd, thanks very much for that report.When you read this transcript you have to embrace one of these two things about Wolf Blitzer. He is either an idiot -- not to be able to realize this report has an out for the Bush administration -- or he is shilling for them -- they wouldn't do that with something so important. Take your pick. I think Scott Ritter makes it very plain and easy to understand that even the little bit of an out that Charles Duelfer left for the Bush administration has no basis in fact. So who are you going to believe? Scott Ritter or the Bush administration?
And let's bring in the man himself, Scott Ritter, the former U.N. weapons inspector, joining us now from Albany, New York.
Scott, as you take a look right now at what Charles Duelfer has reported, David Kay has reported, the fact that no significant stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction have been found, what goes through your mind looking back on what you went through personally, how you were hammered before the war?
RITTER: Well, I try to keep myself out of the debate, because it's not about me. It's about the United States of America and the decisions that our elected officials make in our name. Look, I said what I said. I wasn't guessing. I was basing it upon factual data derived from seven years experience in Iraq.
If you read my book that I write in 1998, "Endgame," it's almost a mirror image of the report that Charles Duelfer just produced. It's the same data. We used the same facts. The problem is, in 1998, I was willing to embrace these facts. Unfortunately, it's taken us five years and a war and over 1,060 dead Americans before government officials have come to the same conclusion that was very reachable in 1998, indeed reachable in 2002 on the eve of war.
BLITZER: Well, what is your interpretation? You came up with the right conclusion before the war. The administration came up with the wrong conclusion. You didn't have access to the latest intelligence reports. You had access to information you had collected years earlier.
RITTER: Well, let's keep in mind that I acknowledge that all of the analysis that I made was derived from seven years of accumulated data that I had not updated the database since I left in 1998. And I made it clear in my discussion since 1998 that unless someone can demonstrate that there is a new stream of intelligence, that there is new data out there that significantly alters what I knew to be the case in 1998, then I would stick to the data that existed.
No one could provide any hard substantive data to sustain the assertions made by the Bush administration post-2001 that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. It simply wasn't possible.
BLITZER: Scott, one final question. I want to cut this relatively short, because we have breaking news coming out of the Middle East in Taba, Egypt, as you know.
There was a suggestion from Charles Duelfer in his report saying that if the sanctions were lifted, Saddam Hussein would then go ahead, his intention was to reconstitute a weapons of mass destruction program. Do you accept that one?
RITTER: Absolutely not.
First of all, Charles Duelfer in his report acknowledges that this assessment is based on fragmentary speculation. He doesn't have a confession from Saddam. He doesn't have a confession from any of the senior leadership. He doesn't have any documentation to back this up.
This is political spin. Charles Duelfer, a nice guy, I like him a lot and I respect him, but he's a political appointee whose task is to spin this data to the political advantage of the president, and that's all this issue of intent is.
BLITZER: Well, if that was what he was intending to do, to spin it for the political advantage of the president, he certainly didn't do it in that 1,000-page document, most of which contradicted dramatically what the president, the vice president, the secretary of defense were saying on the eve of the war, so you have to give him a little bit more credit than that.
Again, the issue of intention provides the Bush administration a convenient out. Witness the statements made by the president and the vice president just today, where they say that because Saddam Hussein intended to have his weapons, this war was justified. That's a dramatic, you know, new approach to why we went to war with Iraq, and I don't think the American public or the American Congress should buy it in the least.
We should demand that the data used by Charles Duelfer to derive this conclusion of intention be declassified, so that we all could be privy to why he believes Saddam Hussein had such intentions.
BLITZER: Scott Ritter joining us today -- Scott, thanks very much.
RITTER: Thank you.
Why does David Kay hate America?
Bush administration in denial about lack of Iraq WMD: Kay
"They will focus on issues such as intent. You will also hear that although we haven't found the weapons or manufacturing capability, they could have been shipped across the border. You can't ship that which you haven't produced. You can't bury that which you haven't obtained or produced."
"Look, Saddam was delusional. He had a lot of intent. He wanted to be Saladin the Great, of the Middle East yet again. He wanted to put Iraq in a preeminent position to remove the US from the region," Kay added.
"He had a lot of intent. He didn't have capabilities. Intent without capabilities is not an imminent threat."
Bad news, send out a terrorist alert
These people are sick. This is them saying, "vote for me or you kids are in danger". U.S. Alerts Schools About Terror Threat. The internal polls must be much worse than what we are seeing. Because they never release them when his poll numbers are good, Terror Warnings and Bush's Job Approval.
A McCainiac for Kerry
Moose on the Loose
If John Kerry wins, it remains to be seen whether his administration will be more willing to break with its ideological base than a Bush team that has been slavishly loyal to its corporate paymasters. But there is no remaining shred of doubt that another four years of a Bush presidency would have a toxic effect on American politics. If George W. Bush is re-elected, unlimited corporate power, cynicism, and division will ride high in the saddle.
Neocons, WMD, Cheney Lies, and DeLay
Last night as I watched Charlie Rose on PBS. It was just another one of those times in the last few years where I realized that to the Neocons have a total disregard for the truth. The first part of the show was an interview with Richard Perle. Now I didn't watch the whole thing but the lead-in was Perle discussing Fallujah and how you can't let the insurgents/terrorists hide behind civilians and how sometimes some civilians may have to die. He said it so matter of fact, like those civilians aren't even human. I'm not sure if he meant like this, 'I saw dogs eating the body of a woman' or not. Some of what I did see was him trying to refute the WMD report that came out yesterday. "Saddam was a threat", is the mantra of the Neocons. The best the report could come up with was that Saddam had the intent to have WMD again. Now if we are going to invade everyone who has the intent...Well you can fill in the rest. But one of their tricks has always been to put enough qualifiers in a quote so they can explain it away later while still being able to imply a false, yet scary, fabrication.
But the second half was an interview with two of the reporters, one the writer as well, of the Sunday NY Times story on the aluminum tubes, How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelligence. What I was reminded of when I was watching these guys talk is that the administration knew before the war, even before they started really lobbying for this war, that these aluminum tubes were meant for rockets and not for nuclear centrifuges. This reinforces my belief that they didn't care about the truthfulness of anything they said before the war. Remember this?
"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason," Wolfowitz was quoted as saying in a Pentagon transcript of an interview with Vanity Fair.The goal was to con the American people that Saddam was a threat so they could use our military to oust him and setup a military outpost in Iraq. To bilk the taxpayers of America of their money through an ongoing reconstruction. Also to use the bases as the foundation from which to launch future wars. In other words we just need to get in, once we're in we can stay there as long as we want. If they went in, got rid of Saddam, setup a democracy, and made Iraq a livable place in a relatively short period of time they would have to leave. And that was never their intention. So as far as they're concerned the lying was worth it because the end justifies the means. They honestly believe that this had to be done as well as the future wars they have planned. Of course they don't mention that they made the decision to do this at least as far back as 1998. More than likely the decision was made the day that Daddy decided not to do it back in 1991.
The other thing that the report about the tubes pointed out was the fact that the problem before the war was not the intelligence. The problem was that they rejected any intelligence that conflicted with their preconceived notions. In other words they let the policy set the intelligence instead of letting the intelligence set the policy.
Here is yesterday's big snooker by the Bush administration on the media, You Call That a Major Policy Address?They lied to the press about a major policy address to get them to broadcast Bush's new stump speech. It became apparent soon into this speech that it had nothing to do with a new policy and they showed the whole thing anyway. I sure hope you don't expect the media to keep you up to date on what is really happening in this Presidential election.
Juan Cole has more on the WMD report and Saddam's state of mind
WMD Myth Meant to Deter Iran
They reveal that Saddam feared using chemical weapons against Coalition troops in 1990-1991 because he was convinced that this move would cost him the support of all his backers. He said, "Do you think we are mad? What would the world have thought about us? We would have completely discredited those who had supported us."
Did Cheney lie when he said to John Edwards during the debate, "The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight."? Yes! But he also said this, "I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session." Was that a lie? That depends on what up in the Senate means. As the article below shows if he meant presiding over the Senate of Tuesdays then he was lying. If he meant going to the Republican Senate Caucus on Tuesdays then the answer is no he wasn't lying. But he definitely wouldn't see Edwards at the Caucus meeting. But once again how was it meant. If you watched the debate he meant he's on the Senate floor most Tuesdays presiding and he has never met Edwards there. Well, that's no surprise since he isn't there most Tuesdays.
Cheney's Senate Attendance Record
Cheney's lie about never meeting Edwards has been exposed repeatedly and by many sources. However, the first part is actually a much bigger lie. As Senate attendance records show, in the 126 Tuesdays the Senate has been in session during Cheney's tenure as Vice-President, he has actually only presided over the Senate as President on two occasions. During the same stretch, to fill in for Cheney's repeated absence, Edwards has served as acting President of the Senate on two occasions
Cheney lies again! Cheney lies again!
With virtually all of the administration's original case for war in Iraq in tatters, Vice President Dick Cheney provided shifting (They mean flip-flop, right? -LH) and sometimes misleading arguments in last night's debate with John Edwards about Saddam Hussein's ties to terrorists and his access to weapons of mass destruction.
Tom DeLay is a crook! Tom DeLay is a crook!
Pelosi, Hoyer Slam DeLay's Ethical Cloud
"Twelve years ago, a Republican member took to the House floor and stated: 'When someone is in power for an inordinate amount of time, then this kind of oversight, this kind of corruption, if you will, continues and builds upon itself and sort of feeds on itself.'
"Two years later, that same member stated: 'We need to clean our own House for the sake of the institution.' That member was Tom DeLay. It is time for the American people to clean this House."
If you were still holding out hope...
Report Discounts Iraqi Arms Threat
The government's most definitive account of Iraq's arms programs, to be released today, will show that Saddam Hussein posed a diminishing threat at the time the United States invaded and did not possess, or have concrete plans to develop, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, U.S. officials said yesterday.
Look under documents for summaries and the full report as well.
What I saw last night
I think after watching two debates the main problem that Bush/Cheney 04 (BC04) have is that they are having to, finally, address the issues. And when you see them address the issues you realize all the things they have messed up. That is the problem BC04 have. They have other problems as well but when you are just wrong on most issues and lying about so many too it would take overwhelming, Keenedyesque, style, which Bush and Cheney don't have, to overcome their record. So I believe that to be BC04's main problem in this last month. I think Cheney took a few shots but other than that once you fact check the debate you know that one of Cheney's best shots was his comment about not having met Edwards before last night, despite the fact that he is President of the Senate. But then we see these two pictures, here and here. So once again the problem with Cheney is that you can't believe anything that comes out of his mouth.
If you need the lies broken down William Rivers Pitt gets the ball rolling, Cheney's Avalanche of Lies. This on stands out:
Yes, the lies were thick before Cheney took his seat at the desk on Tuesday night. They got thicker. Edwards, in a theme repeated throughout the night, stated that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks of September 11, and that the Bush administration had erred grievously by diverting attention from Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda and into Iraq. Several times, Edwards accused Cheney of rhetorically combining Iraq and 9/11.Now if that's not lying I don't know what is. So what I saw was one my trying to lay out his administration would do (Edwards) and another man trying to justify the mistakes his administration has made (Cheney). One made a good case and the other did nothing but lie. I'm sure you know which man made which case.
"I have not," replied Cheney, "suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."
"His regime has had high-level contacts with al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to al Qaeda terrorists." - Cheney, 12/2/02
"His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us." - Cheney, 1/30/03
"I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government." - Cheney, 1/22/04
"There's been enormous confusion over the Iraq and al-Qaeda connection, Gloria. First of all, on the question of - of whether or not there was any kind of a relationship, there was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming. It goes back to the early '90s...There's clearly been a relationship." - Cheney, 6/17/04
Read these and ask yourself and tell others, can you take four more years of this?
The former Viceroy overstates the obvious, Bremer Criticizes Troop Levels.
Paul Krugman, The Falling Scales, the mask is slipping.
Read 'em and weep, literally, Dear Mike, Iraq sucks. I've got two daughters but if this schmuck gets reelected their is no telling how long this will go and who they will take.
If you still think Saddam and Al Qaeda/Zarqawi were working together read this, CIA review finds no evidence Saddam had ties to Islamic terrorists you won't think that anymore. Actually you will know it to be false.
There's no dispute that al-Zarqawi spent time in Iraq before the U.S. invasion, but virtually all that time was in a portion of northeastern Iraq that wasn't under Saddam's control.There are many Americans that think, "Well all those people over there are working together to kill us". But just like in America, over there, everyone doesn't just get along. This is the part that those people have a problem with. He (Zarqawi) was in Iraq before 9/11. But as the quote above states he was in the northeastern part of Iraq. That are as with all of northern Iraq from the end of the Gulf War up to "shock and awe" was controlled by the Kurds, not Saddam. Get it. Saddam was not harboring this guy. Our "allies" the Kurds were. Now I'm not saying that the Kurds let this guy stay in their part of the country but it sure was Saddam that was giving him asylum. So down goes another Bush/Cheney/Rummy/Wolfie/Condie/etc.. prewar justification.
This just in, How US fuelled myth of Zarqawi the mastermind.
Several sources said the importance of Zarqawi, blamed for many of the most spectacular acts of violence in Iraq, has been exaggerated by flawed intelligence and the Bush administration's desire to find "a villain" for the post-invasion mayhem.No way. Zarqawi is just the boogie man? You mean like Osama? OK so now he may not even exist. Except for he is the reason we are flattening Fallujah. Does this seem wrong to you as well? Read this whole article though, it explains a lot.
Who the hell are these people?
USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll found that 42% of those surveyed thought the former Iraqi leader was involved in the attacks on New York City and Washington. In response to another question, 32% said they thought Saddam had personally planned them.We all need to find a couple of these people and talk some sense into them. I'm probably related to a few.
This should comfort you though, U.S. Faces Complex Insurgency in Iraq. They sure can plan chaos.
Bush still talks about the fact that Saddam Hussein had to be disarmed. I just have one question about this. How do you disarm soemone of WMD's that they don't have?
Truth and George Bush, Incurious George.
Thom Hartmann on the "global test", Who Was Right About the "Global Test"- Jefferson or Hitler?
Always remember and don't ever forget, PNAC!
It's been a while friends since I brought this up. It's the reason we are where we are. It's, and you know what I'm about to say don't you? It's The Project for a New American Century -- Rebuilding America's Defenses is linked on the right. That document is the blueprint for what is happening. Now you can say 9/11 was the excuse for this or that the excuse for 9/11 was this but either way it's what the Bush foreign policy is.
Remember regime change? Remember WMD? Those were the main reasons we were given for going to Iraq. Now it has changed to liberation. But the main question is: Why are we killing so many of the people we, ahem, went to liberate?
And once again was it the intelligence that set the policy or the policy that set the intelligence? The New York Times may be trying to make up for it's f**k up on pre-war reporting with this piece, How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelligence.
Last post on the debate
The day before the debate I told my wife that if Kerry just acts like himself and clearly lays out his positions he will be fine. I think that is what happened. The biggest thing that happened in that debate was, whether you think that it's unfortunate or not, was the way the two came off on TV. Don't worry, Kerry beat him on substance as well. But in this day and age how you come off on TV matters just as much if not more. Don't forget Al Gore in 2000 and how the press killed him on how he came off in the debates. It wasn't just one thing Bush did, it was everything he did. Before this debate we had never seen these two guys on the same stage together and when put side by side Kerry looks more like a President than our current one. I'm not talking about height or looks but the overall package of the candidates. How they speak, react, think on their feet, etc... That is the one difference no matter how much everyone whines and moans that is going to stick. Myself, I remember many times seeing Bush in a press conference with a foreign leader, Blair in particular coming to mind, and saying I wish our President could talk like that. That is my shallow take on the non-substantive part of the debate.
Will Bush show up for the next two debates?
Will Rivers Pitt
It Was a Rout
No amount of spin will be able to undo the reality of what took place in Florida on Thursday night. What happened on that stage was an absolute, immutable truth. Bush looked bad. Worse, he looked uninformed, overmatched and angry. Worst of all, he's going to have to go through it two more times.
If he shows up.
"Kerry Smoked Him"
My first initial reaction was, "Kerry Smoked Him". I did what I recommended last night. No pre-debate, no post-debate turn off the TV, a little discussion with the wife and off to bed. I didn't get to see it live, I watched it on tape, but I had seen nor heard nothing about it. I was quite happy with how clear and concise Kerry was and what a contrast that was to Bush's slow and rambling answers. Another thing that I miss in a President and they are supposed to have, Kerry has it and Bush doesn't, is he knows history. When during the discussion about North Korea Kerry mentioned the armistice of 1952 and so many other issues involving North Korea it just made me smile inside. The difference between the two couldn't have been more stark, I thought. Kerry made Bush look like a C student, no offense to any C students out there, of which I was one. But I have to continued learning, unlike the President. You can go to many of the blogs listed on the right especially Daily Kos for the post debate analysis.
Posting will be light today. I am home with my daughters for the next two days while my wife and a friend or hers put on a charity garage sale. It's for Lisa's Hope Chest. She is a very special lady and she runs a clothes closet primarily but it is so much more. She teaches life skills to help people get back on their feet after a bad life experience. Check it out and also donate if you can, doesn't have to be money, she will take all the used clothes you want to get rid of as well.