Tuesday, July 03, 2007

Lazy Links

- At least 9 shot dead in clashes at Pakistan mosque
- White House Wants Another New Legal Category For Guantanamo Prisoners
- Al-Qaeda blamed for Yemen attack
- Europeans see U.S. as biggest world threat.
- Japanese Minister Resigns Over Remarks
- Israel, Palestinian Authority hold security talks
- 33 Militants Killed in Afghanistan
- Pressed for Money, McCain Cuts Campaign Staff
- Sen. Leahy digs in heels on subpoenas
- NYC Man Held for Reciting 1st Amendment
- CREW: Bush administration is ‘crossing the line.’
- Press Corps To Snow: "You're Insulting Our Intelligence"

Freedom... From Accountability For Scooter Libby

- The Update: Bush spares Libby

- Bush says doesn't rule out pardon for Libby

- Editorials Hit Libby's Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card

- Bush "Is Not To Be Believed"

- Only 21% Of Americans Support Decision

- Fitzgerald: "Fundamental To The Rule Of Law That All Citizens Stand Before The Bar Of Justice As Equals"


My biggest question to everyone is "Why are you so surprised?" that Bush let ole' Scoot off the hook?

Seriously, has this Administration ever led you to believe even once that they or their henchmen could actually be held accountable for their misconduct?

I can't even pretend to be outraged anymore. I'd be more surprised if the Bush Administration would have left Scootie Puff Junior sit in prison.

Now President Bush is saying not to rule out a full pardon, well.. duh. Should we expect anything different from the Great Leader?

By the way, if Bush is going to pardon someone why isn't Bush pardoning Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso, the right wing has repeatedly called for pardons for these men as well - so why pick Libby? Oh, that's right because Libby was doing the Bush Administrations bidding by helping to oust the CIA agent Valerie Plame, so of course he deserves a pardon.

The pattern is consistent, the Bush Administration will do everything in it's power to avoid any kind of accountability at all. These men truly feel they are above the law.

Monday, July 02, 2007

Conservatives : Reinventing History One Site At A Time

Back in May I wrote about the Conservative YouTube called QubeTV, today I bring you Conservapedia.

We all know about Townhall.Com and other "mainstream" Conservative publications and their blatant attempts to insert bigotry into our national dialogue and we know about their shameless and false reconstruction of history and current events.

We already knew that Conservatives couldn't cut it at YouTube, and now we also know they can't hang at Wikipedia either.

Conservapedia, what an interesting concept... Do we need a Leftapedia now so we can keep up with the constant flow of disinformation streaming out of Conservapedia?

Let's look at Conservapedia's entry on George W. Bush.

Economy :

"Though the liberal media continues to disparage Bush's handling of the economy, they often neglect to report the many aspects of the economy that Bush has improved. For example, during his term Exxon Mobil has posted the largest profit of any company in a single year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well." Emphasis is mine.

If you read between the lines you can see the Plutocrat that lies deep within all Conservatives.

These Conservatives are failing to see that to the majority of the country witnessing Exxon Mobile making huge profits while we suffer at the gas pump is not a good thing, it is something we view as very, very bad.

The majority of the American people who are just hard working people with families do not see CEO's getting 300 million dollar bonuses while we pay record high gas prices as something positive!

Furthermore we are even more disgusted that these high oil prices are blamed on a lack of refineries which the oil companies refuse to build, instead giving their executives outrageous bonuses.

Sorry Conservapedia, we do not see getting raped at the pump as a positive improvement and this so called entry about the economy shows how out of touch the Conservatives are with the American public.

So how accurate is Conservapedia?

Let's look at the "Family" section for GW Bush :

"George W. Bush is the son of George H. W. Bush, who served as vice-president from 1981 to 1989 and as president from 1989 to 1993.

George W. Bush is a member of the United Methodist Church, and many people feel that George W. Bush's faith is sincere and profound. The Faith of George W. Bush, a non-political book by author Stephen Strang, made the New York Times best-sellers list."

So Conservapedia doesn't even bother to mention Bush's daughters or his wife in the "Family" section? Is this supposed to be some sort of ultimate proof that Conservatives view woman as worthless?

If sexism is not the reason the President's daughters and wife are not mentioned in the "Family" section of the George W. Bush entry in Conservapedia then sloppiness and disregard for accuracy must be the answer. Quite a slapdash entry considering that you are writing a small bio for the current President of the United States...

Instead of mentioning the President's daughters and wife in his "Family" section Conservapedia finds it more important to discuss how "profound" Bush's faith is, according to some guy who is trying to sell a book.

Conservapedia also claims that "the anti-War movement was defeated" because Democrats were unable to pass a bill that included a withdrawal date.

What Conservapedia fails to mention is that President Bush vetoed two bills presented by Democrats that included timetables. Conservapedia also fails to observe that the antiwar movement has not been defeated, in reality public disapproval with it is at an all time high.

Comparing Conservapedia to Wikipedia is a joke.

Conservapedia's entry for the President is only 7 paragraphs long and offers zero insight into the life or career of George W. Bush.

Wikipedia's entry for the President on the other hand is at least 65 paragraphs long and offers information from his early life including controversies and it doesn't fail to mention his wife and daughters by name.

The bigger point of my post is that Conservatives are desperately and actively seeking to present an alternative to the truth (right wing domination of the radio, QubeTV, Conservapedia) that they are shameless in disseminating.

This brand of Conservatives disregard the facts that they find inconvenient to their narrative. It started with FOX and the right wing radio shows that dominate the air, now they are developing web platform which we need to be constantly aware of.

Conservatives always claim to set up these enterprises only in order to counter the "Liberal bias" that they see in everything imaginable- but the only thing I can really find "Liberal" about YouTube or Wikipedia is the fact that they are free and everyone is allowed to come in and only a rowdy few get kicked out.

When examining Conservapedia I am astounded at the lack of factual information. Only 7 paragraphs are offered on the current President and torture isn't even mentioned once. Warrantless wiretapping? Nope. Alberto Gonzales? Yeah, right...

But wait - Conservapedia's entry for Bill Clinton is 28 paragraphs long. Conservapedia offers some insight on their enemies, it's just their hero's they don't want you to know anything about.

But compare Conservapedia's 28 papragraphs to Wikipedia's 80 paragraphs for Bill Clinton and we can see that Conservapedia is light on the facts compared to Wikipedia, no matter what the subject is.

For Conservapedia and other Conservative media it is not about preserving the facts and the truth of the subject matter, it is about spinning the truth until it becomes favorable to Conservatives, no matter how many facts it omits and how many pretzel like contortions it has to make in order to do so.

Friday, June 29, 2007

London Bomb Threat - What's Next?

Reuters reports :
"Explosive experts defused a car bomb packed with petrol, gas and nails on Friday which could have caused huge loss of life in London's busy theatre district and raised fears of a terrorist attack"

Thank God or whoever that an explosion was somehow avoided. There are two things I worry about following a terrorist attack:

1) The loss of life.
2) The game of political "freak out" that will inevitably follow.

When progressing threw the 21st century we must be constantly aware that our progression can and probably will be interrupted by terrorist and political madmen.

One thing we can never allow to happen is for the terrorist to intimidate us into giving up essential liberties for the temporary illusion of security.

We cannot allow the inhumanity of the terrorist cause us to abandon our own humanity in pursuit of justice or revenge.

Most of all we should not allow fear mongering politicians to take advantage of our vulnerability and use it as an opportunity to bolster their own self image.

Let there be no doubt that Conservatives will attempt to exploit the latest foiled plot in London as just another example of the reasons they believe we need to continue the war in Iraq and the War on Terror.

Shortly thereafter, once the message has been disseminated the Conservatives that are seeking to bolster their self image will then attack their Democratic adversaries, predictably stating that if we leave Iraq that the same types of plots will continue.

The truth is that as long as the Middle East is politically unstable and the United States contributes to that instability is as long as Islamic extremist will try to attack us.

As long as we continue to see the Israeli/Palestinian issue as a one sided matter, as long as we occupy the Middle East, as long as we don't secure our own ports and borders, and as long as we are dependent on Middle Eastern oil we will always be vulnerable to extremist.

Furthermore, as long as we are vulnerable to extremist we are easy prey for political ideologues seeking to position themselves as the so called protectors of America while advocating a policy that is actually detrimental to national security.

UPDATE: Second car found rigged with explosives

Lazy Links

- The Update: London car bomb defused
- Police called to second suspect vehicle in London
- Powell Tells Of Dysfunctional White House, ‘We Weren’t Aware Of The Advice Cheney Was Giving’
- Justices reject school integration efforts
- Blair, Bush's Enabler, Can't Pacify Mideast: Margaret Carlson
- In the West Bank, Hamas supporters forced to lie low
- Israel kills militant from Abbas's Fatah movement
- Lebanese soldiers fire on Palestinian refugees in north, wound several
- Baghdad Roadside Bomb Kills Five US Soldiers, Injures Seven
- 22 killed as blast rips Baghdad bus station
- Romney's in the doghouse with some voters
- Romney Strapped Dog To Car Roof

Thursday, June 28, 2007

White House Claims Executive Privilege After Claiming VP, Pres Not Executives

Related :

- Cheney claims a non-executive privilege
- Bush claims oversight exemption too
- House Claims executive privilege to avoid senate subpoenas

But I thought they said they were not executives?

After all it was only a few days ago that Vice President Dick Cheney claimed he did not have to comply with executive record keeping laws because he is not an executive. The next day the President made the same claim.

In Article II, Section 1, of the United States Constitution it is written:

"The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America."

Meaning the president is the head of the executive branch of the federal government. So not only is the President an executive, he is the executive.

So a few days ago George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were not executives, but now they are executives so it turns out they have executive privilege?

This is quite a grandstanding claim to make. You can't have it both ways.

You can't claim you are not an executive but have executive privilege.

You can't claim your not an executive to avoid record keeping laws and then claim you don't have to show the records anyway because you have executive privilege. It just doesn't work that way in a system of logic and truth. It doesn't work that way in a democracy either, by the way.

This is absolutely ridiculous. Democrats need to be on every talk show in America informing the American people about the outrageous claims of the Bush Administration and making the case against the Bush Administration.

As for the media, what can I say? They have failed the American people by not enlightening them about the terribly abnormal time we are living in. They refuse to go into details thinking the American people are too stupid to understand them. They refuse to offer insightful exposes in fear of being called "unpatriotic" by the treasonous bastards who have hijacked this country and used it as a weapon of war. They fail to provide balance and wisdom, instead we get Paris Hilton and Tom Delay.

These are last ditch attempts by the Bush Administration to avoid oversight and accountability. If the Bush Administration was not doing anything illegal or unethical then it should have no problems handing over it's records.

The true problem lies in what is in the documents the Bush Administration is trying so desperately to keep secret from the rest of the government.

What is perhaps ironic is that the Bush Administration is fighting to keep documents about the warrantless wiretapping program secret, when all along the Bush Administration claimed that if Americans were not doing anything illegal then they should not be worried about all their personal emails and phone calls being monitored by the NSA.

The same logic can be applied to the documents which the Bush administration is trying to keep secret from Congress and the National Archives. If the Bush Administration was not doing anything illegal or unethical then why is it so afraid of sharing it's information with the rest of the government?

And don't even try to feed me that "national security" BS, it's not going to work.

Gap In Blog

Hello everyone. I would like to apologize for my lengthy disappearance. I had to attend to personal matters which prevented me from being online.

Update : comments will now be enabled on this blog. In the past I allowed comments but had problems with spam being posted so I blocked comments, I am going to try this again.

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Comparing Palestinians To Nazi's

ThinkProgress reports that Ben Shapiro on Townhall.Com recently said of the Palestinians:

"The problem runs deeper than a few figureheads. The Palestinian Arab population is rotten to the core."

Orthodox Jew and radically Conservative Shapiro also claimed :

"They are as responsible for their government’s longstanding evil as the Germans were for the Nazis’."

Why doesn't Shapiro just come out and say what he means? Shapiro obviously despises all Palestinian people. It is Shapiro who sounds "rotten to the core." This guy gives me the chills.

By this very same misguided logic every American citizen is also guilty of the torture and sexual violation of inmates in Abu Ghraib. By this logic every American citizen is responsible for the all the atrocities our government ever carried out.

I've heard this logic before.... where was it? Oh yeah, it was Osama bin Laden when he said it was OK to kill American civilians because we elect our leaders so we are responsible for what they do.

Shapiro's animosity and hatred towards all Palestinians is not justified, I don't understand his viciousness. Is this simple transference?

The Germans had contempt for all Jews and hated everything about them, just like Shapiro has contempt for all Palestinians and hates everything about them. So to my ears Shapiro is the one who sounds like the fascist.

Why compare the Palestinians to the Nazi's?

The Nazi's had concentration camps, gas chambers, and modern weaponry.

The Palestinians live in walled cities which they are not allowed to leave from without the permission of the Israeli's. The weapons of the bad guys? Malfunctioning AK-47's and homemade "rockets".

There are so many fundamental differences between the Nazi's and the Palestinians it isn't even funny.

For one, there are not hundreds of thousands of armed Palestinians with tanks and airplanes making line invasions into a neighboring country and throwing a particular ethnic group into ovens.

More importantly, it is the Palestinians who are living in strife and oppression. I see a holocaust of sorts, but it isn't happening to the Jews. I see a destruction of a society, a destruction being pushed from the outside and aided from the inside. I see injustice, which leads to widespread anger and eventual violence.

The German Nazi's invaded neighboring countries in a quest for world domination, the Palestinians want their own country and there has to be a way to work on that, but as long as their are pretentious self serving racist around like Shapiro it will be an uphill battle.

This archetype of people only feed into the militants hostility and anger and only make it easier for them to find recruits.

What do they need propaganda video's for when all they really need is a few articles written by Ben Shapiro and Dennis Prager translated into Arabic? Then the militants can say "See how much they hate you? They don't want peace, peace is a lie."

Comparing the Palestinians to the Nazi's is to compare apples and oranges and I think this Shapiro character must have a hideous mind.

Monday, June 18, 2007

To The Democrats : Push Has Come To Shove

The Democrats are afraid to use their power against the Bush Administration and the corruption that has engulfed the majority of the Republican party.

Some of this apprehension may stem from the fact that the Bush Administration has spent the past 6 years routinely abusing power.

Perhaps this makes the Democrats fear they could be perceived in the same partisan and powerhungry way if they became too zealous in going after the Bush Administration and their corrupted lackey's for their overt crimes.

So the result is this : The Republicans refuse to carry out the will of the majority of the American people and the Democrats are still afraid to.

I don't care if I anger or offend my Democratic friends, the time has come that we put all the energy that we put into exposing the Bush Administration and Republicans into pressuring the Democrats into taking action on it.

Why? Because the future of our country depends on it. It's really that simple.

We as Democrats are constantly accused of being "weak" by the other side. I believe it is high time the Democrats start asserting themselves and reclaiming the power of Congress. This horse and pony show that has been going on for the last six years has got to end.

The Democrats seem afraid to push back at the Bush Administration and the Republican minority for their blatant abuse and disrespect of our laws and our system of checks and balances.

I shouldn't need to remind anyone about the battering the image of the United States has suffered under the leadership of George W. Bush and his Republican enablers.

This is not normal. This is not even close to how things are supposed to be, the policies of our nation have drifted far beyond the realm of the norm. This is not just another war and this is not just another bad President, this is an utter breakdown of civility and accountability in the highest office of the land.

The American people are not content with the current state of affairs and the Democrats need to establish themselves as those who bring justice to the American people by making genuine efforts to end the war in Iraq and hold the Bush Administration accountable for it's questionable acts and decisions.

The Democrats should not relent in their pursuit of the truth regarding the Attorney General scandal and the politicization of the Justice Department.

We are now just receiving new information about the horrors that were committed at Abu Ghraib, including a recording of the forced sodomization of a female inmate and a man who was sexually humiliated in front of his son.

It is time for the real Democrats to shove back, not only against the Bush Administration and the GOP, but also against the people within the party who are preventing them from making progress in these areas.

If the Democrats fail to hold the Bush Administration accountable for their actions they will damage not only the Democratic Party but the next phase of this country.

There is much work to be done and many balances to correct, I don't think enough people realize how close we were to something I could only describe as a silent coup that used 9/11 and the "War on Terror" as a pretext for control.

The Democrats should not be afraid of using the power that the voters gave them.

The American voters did not vote for Democrats to see the war grow larger and the Bush Administration grow bolder.

No, the American people gave Democrats the power of Congress because they wanted to see the War in Iraq come to an end and they no longer trusted the Republicans to hold the Bush Administration accountable.

The Democrats seemed to realize this in the early hours after they were elected, but something has made them back down from the stance which we all assumed would be much more aggressive.

Of course the Republicans and the Bush Administration is going to attack every move you make and try to make it sound as disastrous as possible, that is something the Democrats are going to need to learn to deal with.

It's quite natural the Republicans attack the Democrats if the Democrats are trying to hold them responsible for their actions, but it doesn't make them right.

Push has come to shove, and if you ask me it's time to fight, not play nice with the people who have nearly destroyed our image and the checks and balances of the our nation.

Lazy Links

- Abbas wins Western pledges, vows to control Gaza
- Investigation Uncovers ‘Extensive Destruction’ Of RNC Emails, Violations Of Records Act
- Federal Prosecution Cases Undermined By US Attorney Scandal
- Voters Upset With Democrats : Want End To Iraq War
- Palestinian cabinet meets, seeks plan to end anarchy (2nd Roundup)
- Iraq now ranked second among world's failed states
- Four Years Later: US, Britain Propose Official End To Hunt For WMDs
- Internet porn sting snares 700
- U.S.-led air raid kills seven Afghan children
- Kabul bus bomb kills 35 in worst attack since ousting of Taliban
- Lebanon Militants Fire Rockets At Israel
- China slave scandal brings resignation calls
- Italy CIA kidnap trial adjourned
- Clinton leads Obama by double digits in new poll
- Applebee's Serves 2 Year Old Margaritta In Sippy Cup
- Abu Ghraib Investigator Details Pentagon Cover-Up: ‘I Thought I Was In The Mafia’

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Christian, Muslim or Jew - An Extremist Is An Extremist

Security think tank EastWest Institute has issued a report that according to the AP shows :

"Violent Muslim, Christian and Jewish extremists invoke the same rhetoric of "good" and "evil" and the best way to fight them is to tackle the problems that drive people to extremism,"


"extremists from each of the three faiths often have tangible grievances -- but they invoke religion to recruit followers and to justify breaking the law, including killing civilians and members of their own faith."

While this report shows many of us something we have already suspected for years - it helps shed light on the fact that Islam is not the only religion that can be radicalized, all religion can be radicalized in the wrong hands.

We should always be aware of extremism in our backyard, it doesn't matter if a person is willing to kill in the name of Jesus, Mohammad or Moses - if they are willing to kill and have their unruly conviction in God behind them, then they are in fact dangerous.

This post is not intended to be demeaning or condescending towards people of faith, it is intended to highlight the fact that all religion can be radicalized, Christianity and Judaism is not somehow immune and Islam is not the only religion that can be hijacked and used for violent and political purposes that are actually in contradiction with many of the core religious teachings.

We have to understand and identify extremist in our own mist to ensure our own people are not using faith and religion to guide our country into it's own form of extremism.

Side note : And yes, I know I am not telling many of you anything you don't already know... But now you have a think tank report to add to your evidence arsenal against the radical religious right.

FOX Dissed Again

FOX thinks it is being censored, but in reality it is being dissed.

Actress Angelina Jolie has joined the growing crowd of of free thinking individuals who had decided to ignore or boycott FOX snooze.

According to FOX snooze webslight before the premier of "A Mighty Heart":

"Her [Jolie's] lawyer required all journalists to sign a contract before talking to her, and Jolie instructed publicists at first to ban FOX News from the red carpet of her premiere."

FOX is screaming censorship, but the fact of the matter is access to these affairs is a privilege, not a right, not just anyone calling themselves a news organization can stroll in. Besides that Anjolina Jolie is not the government, so censorship is not quite what happened there.

FOX is being slighted and it doesn't like it.

First the Democrats decided they would not do a debate with FOX, which I believe is an appropriate solution to dealing with a source that absolutely refuses to present both sides of the debate in the first place.

After all, it is better to just ignore the pundits on FOX than to try to engage them. When you go on their shows and argue with their idiotic points of view all you do in essence is make their program ratings go up and help them sell their Culture Kampf recipe books.

Now it appears Hollywood's most pretty humanitarian face tried to reject them as well.

FOX is losing it's legitimacy because of flaming xenophobes like Bill O' Reilly and the obscure and hateful rants coming from Sean Hannity and guests like Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter, "experts" like Bill Kristol - who were wrong about Iraq and everything from the beginning but are still treated like experts.

As a result of all this oddball programming the image of FOX has been radically tarnished and has made it an entity that more people are simply refusing to engage with, it has nothing to do with censorship, it has everything to do with credibility.

Why don't you get it FOX? No one wants you to come to their parties anymore, your the unpopular guy who everyone is sick of being polite to. You've become the butt of our joke and the source of our scorn.

And before you kid yourself into believing that people don't like you because your honest you should realize that people don't like you because you spread a lot of rumors and innuendo, gossip news.

Perhaps people are refusing to do business with you not because they are trying to censor you, but because of the simple fact that they don't like you. If you keep on the same path it is destined that soon you will be breaking bread with folks from the National Inquirer.

Lazy Links

- Abbas declares emergency
- Mosques, Green Zone attacked despite Iraq curfew
- Religious extremists in 3 faiths share views: report
- Hamas hails Gaza victory after seizing base
- MPs hide after Beirut killing
- Pentagon: Iraq Violence Increasing
- Several Sunni mosques in Iraq attacked
- Iraq mosques attacked, curfew enforced
- US goals elusive for Iraqis
- Big Boost In Iraqi Forces Is Urged
- IAEA head: Attacking Iran would be 'madness'
- 33 militants killed in Afghanistan
- Thousands Protest Pakistani President
- Death toll reaches 289 in sizzling Pakistan
- Blair weighs in on battle between Sony and the Church (Round up)
- Bush to name former Republican chief as top aide
- Abortion feud has Republicans on edge
- Lawmakers profit from gold mines, books
- Internal Audit Says FBI Violated Agency Rules Over 1,000 Times In Collecting Private Information
- FBI agent testifies against reputed Klansman
- Angelina Tries To Bar Fox News From "Mighty Heart" Premiere

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Rudy's Twelve Commandments, er, Commitments

Rudy Giuliani has released a grocery list of things he claims he will be able to do if he were to become President. Giuliani's commandments, er, commitments are in bold text. They are as follows :

"I will keep America on offense in the Terrorists' War on Us."

Does that mean bombing the hell out of all Muslim nations? You know, fight them before they even get a chance to fight us?

"I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation."

How does Giuliani propose he carries this massive feat off? 200 foot high fences and laser precision missiles on the border? Does Giuliani have a task force mounted that is going to knock on every door in America and identify every non-citizen? Didn't think so.

"I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending."

I guess you better get rid of all the politicians and lobbyist then.

"I will cut taxes and reform the tax code."

Translation : I will give the rich more tax cuts, find ways to make the poor pay more. I will put less money into health care and welfare.

"I will impose accountability on Washington."

Ah, buddy, the minute you enter the White House the accountability of Washington will hit rock bottom.

"I will lead America towards energy independence."

Really? That sounds odd coming from the guy who's firm has a very oil rich client, Hugo Chavez.

"I will give Americans more control over, and access to, health care with affordable and portable free-market solutions."

"Portable free market solutions?" Hmm. Sounds like a capitalist solution. A solution that pumps money into the health care systems pockets without actually improving the quality of care patients.

"I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children."

How? How does Socrates here think he is going to "increase adoptions, decrease abortions"? Birthing bribes? Adoption bribes? Common... Giuliani is only talking about adoption because he is pro-abortion and trying to avoid that subject.

"I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges."

Whatever, stay away from my legal system, serpentine one. Just step back and put the judges down Giuliani. I don't think your friend Tony Soprano over there will do a very keen job of reforming the legal system.

"I will ensure that every community in America is prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters."

Every community? Yeah right superman. Aren't you the guy who like put emergency response IN the world trade centers? Yeah... You can't even keep us safe from the thief's, rapist and murders in every community, let alone the terrorist. There is no such thing as 100% secure.

"I will provide access to a quality education to every child in America by giving real school choice to parents."

I don't have much to say about this one except that I know it's not the truth. Sounds good, and that is the point, Giuliani will never actually do any of these things, even if he is elected.

"I will expand America's involvement in the global economy and strengthen our reputation around the world."

Globalism baby! Say yes to American dominion! Never mind that is part of the reason other people hate us! Everyone in the world has to drink Coke and eat Hershey Bars and be wasteful otherwise they must not be happy, right? Seriously, how is Giuliani going to strengthen our reputation? Giuliani is pro Iraq War, pro stirring up tensions in the Middle East. How would another Bush strengthen our reputation?

"And I am Superman and I can make everything all better, including the weather."

Well, I just made that one up.

Back down to earth, Giuliani has composed this political poetry and some people will actually buy it. These people will think "boy, this Giuliani guy really has a plan for America" when in reality anyone can say these kinds of things to get elected.

Notice that the first three "commitments" are Conservative red meat, Giuliani is trying to position himself as strong on security, immigration and fiscal responsibility because Conservatives find everything else about the man utterly repulsive, and I can't say I blame them.

Furthermore, if I hear too many "commitments" from a single politician I grow suspicious. After all, there are only so many commitments a single politician can fulfill, the more they make the more they break, and that saying goes for Democrats and Republicans.

Rudy Giuliani can't possibly carry out all of these commitments, even if he wanted to, which I sincerely doubt.

But the Rudester realizes there is a whole constituency of voters who actual believe this kind of unrealistic dribble. Undecided voters are the easiest people in America to hoodwink and Giuliani is taking full advantage of this fact.

Rudy Giuliani suddenly gets security expert status because his city was attacked on 9/11? The guy who couldn't keep New York safe from terrorist is supposed to keep the entire country safe from terrorist? Common, you have got to be kidding me.

To make a long post short(er) no one should believe in a grocery list of commitments coming from any politician, specifically if that politician has a history of flip flopping on social issues.

I can grab some index cards and scribble something meaningful on them that I think will entice most Americans to like and trust in me, but then I would be lowering myself to the level of lying, or at the very least exaggerating what my capabilities or intentions actually are, just like Rudiani did.

Hopefully Americans are not the brain-dead fear drones they were in 2004. Hopefully they realize that what Rudy Giuliani is proclaiming about his abilities to secure America is far fetched in the light of the fact that his city was attacked by Islamic extremist in 2001 after it should have had some foresight, after all it had already been attacked in 1993.

Rudy Giuliani's self proclaimed security and emergency expertise doesn't match up very well with his true record and earning the scorn of the largest and most trusted Firefighters Union in the US after 9/11 doesn't say so much about Giuliani's real credentials, if you know what I mean.

Tell Rudy Giuliani to quit capitalizing off from 9/11, it was the worst day in recent history, and to politicians who try to elevate themselves because of that day - shame on you.

New Subpoenas In The Eternal General Scandal

It's going to be interesting to watch the "Eternal General" Alberto " I-Don't-Recall " Gonzales scandal play out.

The AP is reporting that subpoenas have been issued "for testimony from former White House counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor on their roles in the firings of eight federal prosecutors, according to two officials familiar with the investigation."

This is where this lethargic and cumbersome scandal can possibly get much more interesting.

The following is all theory, only conjecture at this point, the evidence has yet to be unveiled.

If Harriet Miers was involved with the politicization of the justice system this could have serious implications because at one point in time Bush nominated auntie Harriet to serve on the Supreme Court, of course that bid failed.

That could have been the final nail in the casket, the cork in the bottle, the ace in the hole, the bullet that stopped the heart of our ailing democracy.

In that situation not only would the Justice Department be politicized, the Supreme Court would be as well. That scenario calls into question the other nominations of Bush that did succeed, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito.

Remember, Bush had the luxury of choosing 2 supreme court justices and if the goal was to politicize justice then the Supreme Court would have to be stacked.

Back to the here and now, the failure of the Alberto Gonzales "no confidence" vote has been nagging at me. But it was in the middle of all this fuming that I realized that Alberto Gonzales is doing himself and the plan he was involved in a great disservice by not resigning.

If the "no confidence" vote had passed and/or Alberto Gonzales had resigned it would be likely the problem would be declared as solved, life would go on and we would never be able to get to the root of and produce the evidence of what exactly happened at the Justice Department and what the ultimate goal was.

I also realized that the more Alberto Gonzales resisted resignation and the more the Bush Administration refused to cooperate the harder the Democrats would justifiably push back.

Now we have subpoenas for Harriet Miers and Sara Taylor, and we are going to eventually fully expose this fanatical plan to politicize the justice system and we are going to figure out the true and long term intentions of trying to hatch such a plan, and I am sure it isn't all daisies.

UPDATE: Why Sara Taylor is also important

Lazy Links

- Explosion kills four near Beirut seafront
- Officials: Subpeonas for Bush figures
- Iraqis Fail To Reach Nearly All US Benchmarks
- Human rights laws do apply to case of man who died in UK custody in Iraq
- Minarets blown up at Iraq Shi'ite shrine
- A new attack on Samarra’s Golden Mosque
- Hamas pressure on Fatah mounts in Gaza battles
- Palestinian security HQ blown up in Gaza UPDATE
- Abbas warns of collapse in Gaza
- Peres Elected President of Israel
- 8 Afghan police die in mix-up with US
- Press reaction: Blair on the media
- Iran brushes off new sanctions threat in atom row
- E-mails: TB patient's family little help
- Poll: Thompson Ties McCain for No. 2 Spot Among Republicans
- US military camp water pollution, cancer link investigated
- Gen. Wesley Clark: Joe Lieberman Is At It Again
- Bush pleads for GOP immigration support

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Republicans More Concerned About Partisanship Than Integrity Of The Justice Department

Related :
- GOP Blocks Senate Majority From Voting No Confidence On Gonzales
- Conservatives kill Gonzales no-confidence vote

Are Conservatives still so bitter over Bill Clinton they are still willing to hold the Bush Administrations head above water while the Administration is so clearly trying to drown itself?

The Conservatives are apparently willing to do this at their own expense. Because everyone knows a drowning person is likely to pull their rescuer under if the rescuer is not a strong swimmer, and it looks like the Conservatives can barely manage to doggie paddle for themselves right now. So trying to save the Bush Administration is probably not the wisest idea.

If there is one person in Washington D.C. who deserves a "no confidence" vote it is "Eternal General" Alberto " I-Don't-Recall " Gonzales who participated in what is one of the most damaging things one can do to a democracy - politicize the justice system.

Some fury towards the mainstream media, as per usual members of the MSM were quick to repeat Conservative talking points as to why the Republicans were refusing to hold Gonzales accountable, for at the very least his stupidity and at the very worse his blatant politicization of the justice system.

One's impression from the MSM is that the Democrats are just being a pain in the Presidents behind FOR NO GOOD REASON EXCEPT PARTISANSHIP.

Well, let me tell you - after the Clinton years and Republican impeachment attempts over Clinton lying about getting a BJ, after six years of impotence in Congress when everything that was slightly Liberal was constantly berated and slandered, you know it wouldn't be such a stretch of imagination to believe that Democrats were "just being partisan" and trying to "get back" at Republicans for all of the misery including the Iraq War BUT

The truth should be told, by any intelligent standard Alberto Gonzales is either

A : a meandering fool who's memory has apparently been erased who never fully understood his role at the Justice Department
B : he is a very deceptive and clever man who is wearing sheep's clothing to avoid punishment.

Well, since Gonzales is a lawyer I really have to go with "B".

By this point in time it doesn't matter whether Gonzales is "A" or "B" because being either incompetent or crooked should immediately render any person unfit for the job of the top law enforcement official in this country, dammit.

I don't care if a person is a Democrat or Republican, if they are doing the wrong thing get them out. It's that simple.

Which brings me to this point : What is WRONG with this country? How come politicians are THE WORST EMPLOYEES IN THE WORLD?? If anyone else did as terrible of a job as politicians do at their jobs - they would be fired or seriously demoted. Seriously.

In the real world this "I don't recall" and "I don't remember" excuse doesn't fly very far. Usually if your memory is that sketchy then so were your activities. In the real world people are distrusted for such excuses.

Having a "no confidence" vote was perfectly legitimate and it's unfortunate the Republicans did not use this as an opportunity to try to restore trust with the American people, and frankly I don't understand why they didn't use it.

Conservatives have lost a great deal of credibility in this country and I am starting to believe they are the only ones who do not realize it yet.

Is it because Republicans are in denial? Is it because they do not care if the American people no longer trust them? Do Republicans even care, if that is the case? I don't think so.

Conservatives have yet to realize the tables have turned.

Where in the 1990's the American people felt they were being lied to by Democrats about Bill Clinton and that the Conservatives were telling the truth, today it is the EXACT opposite and the issues are much more serious and complex than sexual liaisons between two consenting adults.

Today we know we are being lied to by the Republicans about George W. Bush, the Iraq War, torture, spying, oh, and politicizing the Justice Department.

The Republicans are threatening their own very existence with shenanigans like this and they should give the American people a little more credit than trying to convince us this guy who can't recall politicizing our justice system should remain in power.

Conservatives are refusing to be objective and refusing to see how seriously they would take the same situation if any political party other than the Republicans were politicizing the justice system.

Both parties need to understand that this is a country that is built on a system of checks and balances and both parties and our nations survival is dependent on this balance. As we hold others accountable and suspect for their actions, so should we ourselves to preserve the heritage of what is right about this country.

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

CNN And The Republican Debate

First I noticed that CNN held the Republican debate in the same format as the Democratic debate, asking each candidate to give their names first and to say a little something about themselves.

So you could tell the Democrats were caught off guard with the simple question, so all most of them manage to get out is "I'm Senator so and so from such a place". They were not able to craft a charismatic introduction because they had no prior warning that such an trivial exercise was coming.

But the Republicans were able to go second, as they were able to do during the MSNBC debate so they had plenty of time to craft a charismatic introduction. I'm not implying a conspiracy was afoot, I just see now that going second in the debate can have it's advantages.

This debate is inescapably boring and it's like listening to my grandfather tell me why his outdated beliefs make him qualified to be President of the United States.

Not only is the debate boring and grandfatherly - Wolf Blitzer is a terrible moderator and is so stiff I think he might crack if he smiles. I would have mentioned this the other night when the Democrats debated but I didn't want to sound like I was stating this "just because..."

So, Mitt Romney reminds me of a used car salesman, a good looking one who is smooth enough that you just might purchase that fairly rusty pinto because he sounds like he genuinely cares about getting you into an affordable vehicle.

Rudy Giuliani, this is the guy everyone knows wouldn't even be in the room had it not been for the terrible events on 9/11 and the media's willingness to portray Giuliani as "America's Mayor".

But here Giuliani is and he licks his lips constantly and squints his eyes too much, it reminds me of a snake. When he does that it looks like he is trying to give the appearance of thinking but it actually just looks like a grimace. The man is also very excitable and jerky in movement and I don't like that either.

John McCain, how do I count the ways I loath thee? I used to love you so much, back when you seemed honest, but you blew that long ago and I have moved onto new lovers...

At one point during the debate Johnny boy goes on and on and on and on and on about immigration, as if he believes he is the only one there to discuss it. The other candidates begin to grow impatient, I just grow bored.

Tancredo comes off as a little xenophobic when he stated that he thinks that the United States should limit legal immigration even more.

There was a guy named Tommy Thompson who had interesting hair but didn't seem to have anything interesting to say.

Senator Brownback didn't say anything that caught my ear but his loud pea green tie caught my eye in a not so good way.

Ron Paul sounds like a Democrat when he talks about the Iraq War, but don't be fooled - he is an enemy to Liberals.

Oh, and my favorite ~ Mike Huckabee shows he knows more about you than you do by stating that there are only two types of people : Those who believe God created us and those who believe it was "an accident". In other words Huckabee is saying that if you believe in evolution that you can't believe in God and vice versa. Huckabee is a perfect example of a person who cannot reconcile faith and logic, God and science.

Huckabee's broad generalization : You don't believe in God if you believe in evolution - anger intelligent people, because there are many of us who have reconciled faith and logic and find it very easy and quite comfortable to believe in God and understand evolution at the same time.

It was ironic that when Giuliani spoke about abortion lightning struck, but it is the season of spring in New Hampshire and the coming storm had been well anticipated. So the incident is nothing more than an ironic coincidence. But I am quite sure that isn't stopping some Conservatives from claiming the lighting was "divine intervention". Snort.

With all that said I didn't feel any of the candidates offered any kind of solutions to the multiple problems they kept bringing up, furthermore I don't want my country being ruled by anyone who thinks creationism should be taught in public schools.

If you want your kid believing the world is flat and that every time something bad happens God is "punishing" them then that is your choice, but don't try brainwashing my kid and take away his/her potential for truth and knowledge...

I don't think any of the Republican candidates even live in the same reality as the average American and that's quite a disadvantage in a world disenchanted with conservatism.

Most of the candidates were asked how they would feel about the war if in the magic month of September General Petraeus did not deliver a gleaming report proclaiming progress in Iraq.

Naturally the candidates tried to dodge this question and start rambling on about security threats and yes even 9/11. Umm, but the question was... Ah, never mind...

At this point in the debate I don't understand why the Republican candidates don't just go on stage and blurt this out :

"9/11 was bad.

Commie Liberals suck and they hope that terrorist blow you up.


Did I mention that Democrats hate America? Well, they do, they hate America like you wouldn't believe..

The terrorist will likely kill your children if we don't stay in Iraq forever.


Democrats are baby killers.


If elected I promise to do something about all the Muslims, flag burners and gays who are destroying America.


Since we can't believe in evolution and God I say the best decision would be to totally do away with science.


Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has a terror dome that is hidden in the Potomac River and he is plotting to kill the Jews...with Hitler! So I say, bomb the hell out of Iran!


We should give more tax cuts to the rich because we all know the one thing rich people need is more money.


I hate social programs, I don't like helping poor people. I think if God loves you then you are born power or the money to buy power.


I don't believe big oil should be regulated and kept from robbing you at the pump, they just need to build more refineries!!

I hate campaign finance reform. Politicians should be able to take as much money and gifts as they want to and no one should question their integrity or allegiance. We can't live on $150,000 a year! Who will shine our shoes?!?


But I hate welfare and don't feel people who make less than $10,000 a year should be helped.


It doesn't bother me to reduce or eliminate funding for programs that inoculate children or put them threw preschool. It does bother me to increase spending for prescription drugs for seniors though.


Now my last few paragraphs may sound like an extreme generalization of Republicans, but if you look between the lines this is really what many of them are saying, they just find an eloquent way to describe it so it doesn't sound offensive but in fact sounds reasonable.

Yawn. These guys suck, for lack of better words...

I sure hope America can see that.

One thing I can say is : after the Democratic Debate there was a lot of buzz around it, today there is not much about what the Republicans had to say, I almost feel like I am the only one who watched the Republicans Debate, and I even went to (tortured scream) Townhall.Com.

No one on the Left or in the Middle seem to really care about what the Republicans had to say, and even the Right seems to be focusing their giddy hopes on Fred Thompson, the guy who doesn't like to work hard, hehe.

Well, if things continue on this path I would say the path to a Democratic White House is definitely looking good for the Democrats.

But the Democrats can still screw it up for themselves. I don't think the Republicans can destroy it for the Democrats, but I think the Democrats could destroy it for themselves if they don't maintain the correct balance.

Attorney General Scandal Update

- Bradley Schlozman 101: How To Politicize The Justice Department
- Leahy To Schlozman: ‘You’re Trying To Break Gonzales’ Record’ Of Saying ‘I Don’t Recall’
- Gonzales Contradicts His Sworn Testimony About Bush’s Warrantless Spying Program
- Schlozman’s Inadvertent Confession: Any Group That Works With Minorities Is ‘Liberal’
- Schlozman Admits To ‘Boasting’ About The Number Of Republicans He Hired

"We'll Leave When The Iraqi's Ask Us To Leave"

So has been the mantra of the Bush Administration since at least 2004 : that if the Iraqi Government wanted the United States to leave Iraq the United States would comply. Or so the statement suggest. Even Colin Powell claimed America would leave Iraq if asked by the new leadership.

The most recent occurrence I can find of the Bush Administration "we'll leave if the Iraqi's want us to leave" myth is May 24, 2007, when President Bush again repeated the empty slogan when addressing reporters when he was still battling Congress about “arbitrary timetables” in the Iraq spending bill.

"We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It’s their government’s choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave." Bush claimed.

Invitation huh? Did the invitation go something like "Hey you! American guys!! Come over here! Come occupy us, we invite you!! Please, steal our oil while your here!" I must have missed the press conference in which the Iraqi government that didn't exist yet invited us to occupy Iraq.

But in all seriousness here is what happened...

According to IraqSlogger :

"Iraqi Parliament voted on Tuesday to approve a decision that gives it the upper hand in deciding any future extension of the presence of foreign troops in Iraq, according to Sadrist MP Nassar Al-Rubai'i.

Al-Rubai'i said that 85 legislators, out of 144 present, voted in support of the bill. "The vote came after a bill submitted by the Sadrist Bloc to the parliament, which stated that all decisions to extend the presence of the occupying forces in Iraq should be referred to the parliament," al-Rubaie told the independent news agency Voices of Iraq (VOI).

Some Iraqi parliamentarians, most notably Kurdish MP Mahmoud Othman, had stated weeks ago that the vote would be regarded as a non-binding petition rather than a law that would require withdrawal." (Emphasis is mine)

So in other words, over half the Iraqi government that voted wants us to leave YET the Iraqi government is unwilling to pass a law saying so, they can only manage a non-binding petition. Sounds like they have about as much spine as some of the politicians I know ... However, it is a statement so is Bush listening?

I wouldn't bet on it.

The Sadrist Bloc only holds 30 seats in the 275 member Iraqi parliament and doesn't even make up the majority of the votes cast in support of the petition, blowing the whole "only the extremists want us to leave" line right out of the water.

We have also known for quite some time that the majority of the Iraqi people want us gone and feel their lives are worse now than under Saddam Hussein. I don't think anyone needs to remind anyone else that the majority of this country is opposed to the war as well.

The petition is non-binding but is a clear indication that the Iraqi government is going to ask us to leave for real sooner than latter. What will George Bush do when the Iraqi government asks the United States to leave? Will he respect the wishes of a sovereign government?

Again, I wouldn't bet on it.

Republicans To Debate On CNN Tonight

Tonight the Republicans will face off in their debate on CNN, having two days to brush up on their talking points and to create rebuttals from statements made by the Democrats the Republicans should be ready for battle.

The actor who wants to be President, Fred Thompson has decided to skip out on the event. This is not a surprising development considering a former colleague of Thompson indicated that "he didn't like to work real hard" and a veteran lobbyist said "He was viewed as a lazy son of gun who would say at two in the afternoon, 'I'm done.' Can you name one major piece of legislation he authored? I can't." Sounds like Fred Thomspon is too lazy to be President.

However tonight the spotlight will be on Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney, three choices the GOP base is not exactly thrilled with, so watching the sport of Conservatives try to out-Reagan Ronald Reagan ought to be interesting.

So, the other day I prepared some questions for the Democrats, today I prepare some questions for the Republicans.

Question for Mitt Romney :
What kind of terrible person names their child "Tag"? Hahaha, no, here's the real question :

Who is Mitt Romney, really? Explain to me how you reconcile your very Liberal past in which you claimed you were "far left" of Kennedy to social Conservatives. One can say they "saw the light" but how do you plan on convincing Conservative voters you will not just flip back to the other side when it becomes convenient to do so?

Question for Rudolf Giuliani :

As mayor of New York you witnessed the terrorist attacks of 9/11. You built on your role as a savior of the city and as "America's mayor." Your now campaigning as a hero in the aftermath of 9/11 - yet the firefighters union has spoken out publicly against you, saying you hampered search and rescue efforts. Why should Americans continue to see you as a hero in the aftermath of 9/11 when the real hero's of that day claim you hurt their efforts?

Question for John McCain :

Months ago you took a trip to Baghdad in which you claimed real progress was being made and that westerners could walk freely on the streets of Baghdad. To illustrate your point you went to a Baghdad marketplace surrounded by 100 soldiers and four helicopters. Your marketplace trip drew a lot of criticism, many said if Baghdad was as safe as you were claiming it was that there would be no need for such kind of protection.

Although you have been a big supporter of President Bush's policy in Iraq you have stated that you do not see a "Plan B" if the troop buildup in Iraq does not succeed.

Why should the voters trust you to lead their country when you have given inaccurate descriptions of security in Iraq and admitted openly that you had no "Plan B" for Iraq?

My next question for McCain would be "how do you go from calling Jerry Falwell an extremist to being a close friend of his?"

Will I watch the Republican debate? Maybe. I know if I don't I will miss out on a lot of "gotcha" moments that the media is too blind or complicit to notice.

One final question : 600 journalist converged on New Hampshire to cover the Democratic debate, how many journalist will be covering the Republican debate? Also, I wonder who, the Democrats or the Republicans, will have the larger viewing audience?

Lazy Links

- Military Judges Dismiss The Charges Against Two Gitmo Detainees
- Judge's ruling casts doubt on Guantanamo trials
- White House disagrees with Gitmo trial ruling
- ‘Staying here is like committing suicide.’
- Most of Baghdad 'not controlled'
- Baghdad security push falls short, assessment finds
- Iraq police shoot female bomber in foiled attack
- UN Warns of Effects of Global Thaw
- Forty years on, Palestinians recall Israeli victory
- Rallies oppose Israeli occupation
- 1967 Middle East War
- Mid-East marks start of 1967 War
- Hundreds arrested in crackdown on Pakistani opposition
- Sentencing Day For Scooter Libby
- Libby Gets Two And A Half Years In Prison
- Why is Jefferson still in the House?

What The Cheney Did He Just Say?

ThinkProgress is reporting that during a speech to Wyoming High School Vice President Dick Cheney "Lies To High Schoolers About Debunked Iraq/al Qaeda Connection" and also claimed that the United States was making significant progress in Iraq.

Yup. You guessed it, the VP is coming to a high school near you soon to lie to your children personally...

Never mind that all indicators show that ground is being lost in Iraq and that according to a new military assessment less than one third of Baghdad neighborhoods are under control three months into the so called "surge".

The Vice President also brings up Abu Musab al- Zarqawi and follows with the baseless claim that during fighting in Afganistan Zarqawi was wounded and fled into Baghdad for medical treatment, no one ever bothered to ask why Zarqawi would travel across borders and miles to seek medical treatment when there were cities much closer.

The Bush Administration has used the "Zarqawi was treated by Saddam" card as one of their lies in attempting to connect Iraq to al-Qaeda, claiming that Zarqawi had lost a leg in Afghanistan and traveled to Baghdad to get medical treatment and a prosthetic leg, possibly a gift from Saddam himself...

But let's examine this debunked claim a moment. Zarqawi would have had to have made it over the Afghanistan border into Iran without being detected, then he would have had to sneak across Iran and make it across the Iraqi border undetected. Seems like quite a feat for a supposedly injured man who should have been bleeding all over the place.

Again, no one asks how a bleeding and injured man, supposedly missing a leg makes it all the way to Baghdad from Afghanistan.

Look at it this way; in miles - (let's not even discuss the difficulties of navigating the harsh mountainous terrain in Afghanistan and Iran and desert conditions in Iran and Iraq)) this would be about the equivalent of going from Kansas to Washington D.C to get medical treatment and going directly over the Appalachians to do it. Do you think you could make it with one missing leg, in which the bleeding must be profuse? Didn't think so.

But what does it matter? We know know Zarqawi never sought medical treatment in Baghdad and it is unlikely he was ever injured in Afghanistan. Why? Because almost a year ago we killed Zarqawi, and the man had both his legs.

Going back even further we see that prior to the Iraq War, Zarqawi and Bin Laden were competitors not allies. This helps prove the United States preemptive war in Iraq has not diminished terrorism, but helped unite some extremist groups who used to be opposed to each other.

But hey, that doesn't stop the Vice President from strolling into a local high school of young, impressionable teens and filling their heads with fairy tales, now does it?


As Think Progress Reports :

"The implication that Zarqawi helped justify the war was thoroughly debunked last year by the Senate Intelligence Committee, then chaired by Bush loyalist Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS.)

It found:

Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and…the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi. [p. 109]"

Dick Cheney proves that there are some people who will refuse to deal in the the truth and insist on dolling out lies even when contradictory evidence has been stapled to their foreheads repeatedly.

Sorry Dick, but history will never vindicate your lies, in fact history may be a crueler judge than we.

Sunday, June 03, 2007

Democrats Debate On CNN, It Starts To Get Interesting

Tonight CNN hosted a Democratic debate in New Hampshire, and Democrats got a little more defensive than in the past, some of the cordial niceties of the last debate abandoned.

Number three in the Democratic polls John Edwards confronted Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on their late "No" vote for Iraq spending bill, claiming they showed a lack of leadership by waiting until the last minute to cast their vote.

Edwards appears ready to fight with Democrats to prove his "worth", which may or may not be good decision this early in the race.

Perhaps John Edwards energy would have been better spent confronting Biden for not only his "Yes" vote on the spending bill but also on Biden agreeing to attend a FOX/CBC debate.

But that's silly because John Edwards knows Biden is not a threat, but Hillary and Obama are and that's why he confronted them.

I thought Barack Obama came off very well, his answers seemed well thought out and insightful, showing that his lack of experience is not an indicator of a lack of intelligence or competence.

Even Hillary Clinton gained a few points with me tonight. Not only did she look smashing she stayed on point and appeared much more relaxed than she did in the MSNBC debate.

However, Clinton did come off as a little presumptuous to me when she said "When I become President" rather than "if America elects/chooses me as the next President". But as pointed out to me by a commenter on DailyKos, that is confidence and it is important for candidates to appear certain that they are the next best candidate.

CNN was wise to start the debate on Iraq, security and the War on Terror because these are the issues that Americans are most concerned about today.

"Everybody supports the troops." Obama said, "The best way to support the troops is not to impose a military solution to a political problem in Iraq."

John Edwards touched base on the recent perceived weakness of the newly Democratic Congress when he proclaimed that it is "critical for Congress to stand firm" and that Congress has a "mandate" from the American people to end the war. Indeed.

Hillary didn't speak for all but she spoke for me when she stated "This is George Bush's war, he is responsible for it."

Although Democrats failed to stop George Bush from launching a war on Iraq there is no doubt in my mind that this is George Bush's war, and it is most likely a continuation of his fathers war. It is through and through George Bush's war.

"We are trying to end the war" stated Clinton, even though she plans for troops in Iraq for years to come. Clinton said the United States needs to "put pressure on the Iraqi government" and take away aid when the Iraqi's don't follow threw.

Senator Chris Dodd from Connecticut states that Iraq is civil war and that America is "less secure, more vulnerable".

Wolf Blitzer moves on over to New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who is outspoken about the genocide in Darfur and asks Richardson what if an Iraq pullout leads to genocide.

Richardson states that he believed that there is a civil war in Iraq, reminding the audience that seven Americans died in Iraq today.

Richardson claims he would deauthorize the war, and leave no residual forces, but lets it slip that he would keep troops in Kuwait.

Kucinich steps in saying that the Iraq war has been based on lies and that "no money would end the war, stop the funding. Let's end the war."

Boisterous Joe Biden stated "Your going to end the war when you have a Democratic president." He also claimed that "The only one who has emboldened the enemy is the President."

Hillary later noted that President Bush had no intention of letting the UN inspectors finish looking for Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq and that she believed that the troops did their job, they searched for WMD, and took down Saddam.

Perhaps trying to balance his earlier confrontation Edwards stated that "Obama deserves credit for being right about war from the beginning"

Edwards could not have been more right when he noted that "We have to reestablish trust between the American people and the President."

But which of these candidates to trust the most? All the top tier candidates seem very desirable and competent to do the job and after six years of Bush rule hearing the Democrats and their common sense was a breath of fresh air.

Though I am pleased with the debate I believe Progressives need to keep putting pressure on the Democrats to do the right thing.

Keep On Rockin' In The Free World

Don't give up friends.

My Questions For The Democrats

Tonight is the Democratic Debate on CNN, which promises to be the first debate to "take questions from the voters".

Well, I am a voter and I have some questions.

1) Some people feel the United States image and popularity has been damaged by not only the wars in the Middle East but also by the United States close and one sided relationship with Israel. Do you agree or disagree with this assertion?

2) What is your opinion about lobbying groups and how much influence do you feel they should have on our government?

3) Democrats have campaigned primarily on an antiwar platform but have Democrats reached any consensus on how to end the Iraq War? [To this question I know the answer is "no" so I follow up with the next question]

4) How do Democrats plan on getting the United States out of Iraq if there is no agreement among them on how or when to do it?

5) Democratic candidates have identified themselves to be against the Iraq War, but when push came to shove the majority of Democrats caved in and allowed the president to have his way on the Iraq spending bill. How are voters to be sure if Democratic candidates have true intentions of ending the war, or if it is just the Democratic candidates intentions of using antiwar sentiments to get elected?

6) If indeed your plan is to draw down the Iraq War when would this draw down begin and when could Americans and Iraqi's expect to see all US troops gone by?

7) What are your feelings about permanent bases in Iraq and the Middle East?

8) If elected what are your plans regarding torture and Guantanamo Bay?

9) What do you plan to do about Democrats who endorse torture, like Senator Bill Nelson from Florida?

10) If the Democrats are not strong enough to take on the GOP and hold George W. Bush accountable then why should Americans be convinced the Democrats are strong enough to take on our enemies?

11) If elected, what step would you take to repair America's image and relationships around the world?

12) Illegal immigration and a bill that resembles amnesty. How is this good for the American people?

13) During George W. Bush's presidency America built up a huge debt with China. What would you plan be to reduce and eliminate this debt?

14) Millions of Americans are uninsured and under-insured, how would you address this growing problem?

15) Young people are worried about the future, they see a world sinking deeper into disparity and violence. College education becomes more expensive every year, making it impossible for many young Americans to get an education. They are then told that the social security they have paid into their whole lives may not even be there when they need it. Jobs for under-trained and undereducated people are often given to illegal immigrants, making it seem impossible to get ahead in many situations. America is facing serious problems, it's young people are becoming disenfranchised with the entire system. What makes you feel you are capable not only to address these problems, but fix these problems?