Dreams Of Liberty

Lazy Links

2007-07-03T09:49:00.000-07:00

- 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

2007-07-03T06:54:00.000-07:00

- 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.

Conservatives : Reinventing History One Site At A Time

2007-07-02T09:02:00.000-07:00

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.

London Bomb Threat - What's Next?

2007-06-29T08:14:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-29T07:31:00.000-07:00

- 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
-

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

2007-06-28T10:45:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-28T10:39:00.001-07:00

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.

Lazy Links

2007-06-21T07:25:00.000-07:00

- Cyber Attack Hits Pentagon
- Bush under new pressure to explain domestic spying
- Breaking: Senate Judiciary Committee Issues Subpoenas For NSA Domestic Spying Documents
- Twelve U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq: military
- Soldiers discover 24 emaciated children in Baghdad orphanage
- U.S.-backed Iraqi police get just 8 days of training.
- Report: Fatah on rampage in West Bank
- Pentagon Spends $78 Billion On "Gay Bomb," Psychic Teleportation, Human Commanded Sharks
- Order nixing habeas rights goes into effect.
- Spying fears lead to Blackberry ban for government workers
- China says cancels debt owed by Iraq
- U.S. nuclear envoy visits North Korea
- Bloomberg a Long Shot at Best
- Lieberman Holds Fundraiser For Republican Collins Tonight
- Missing: Large lake in southern Chile
- Bush vetoes embryonic stem cell funding
- Missing Soldier's Wife Faces Deportation
- Walter Reed Security Officer Arrested for Firing Gun
- Replacements named for indicted SC treasurer, Giuliani camp chair
- Giuliani Skipped ISG Meetings For Motivational Events Featuring ‘Christianity’ And ‘Pumping Music’
- New Orleans 'still a flood risk'
- Crowd kills passenger of car that struck child
- Pentagon Spends $78 Billion On "Gay Bomb," Psychic Teleportation, Human Commanded Sharks
- Reopen the investigation of Abu Ghraib
- Jobless claims rise unexpectedly
- Egypt invites leaders to peace summit

Comparing Palestinians To Nazi's

2007-06-20T09:14:00.000-07:00

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.

Lazy Links

2007-06-19T08:48:00.000-07:00

- Bomb kills 78 in Baghdad, U.S. in big offensive
- Book on Baghdad `Green Zone' Wins $59500 Samuel Johnson Prize
- Israeli tanks rumble into Gaza
- Bush, Olmert Praise Palestinian Leader
- British police break up pedophile ring, 31 children rescued
- Nine 'courageous firefighters' die in warehouse blaze
- Report slams deletion of White House e-mail
- Following Bush Signing Statements, Federal Agencies Ignore 30 Percent Of Laws Passed Last Year
- Democratic rivals trade jabs on Iraq
- Congressmen Back Off Bid That Delayed Energy Bill
- Giuliani Prioritizes Fundraising Over Iraq Strategy
- Woodward questions Thompson role in Watergate.

To The Democrats : Push Has Come To Shove

2007-06-18T10:12:00.001-07:00

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

2007-06-18T09:45:00.000-07:00

- 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’

Christian, Muslim or Jew - An Extremist Is An Extremist

2007-06-14T11:13:00.000-07:00

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,"

and

"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

2007-06-14T08:41:00.001-07:00

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

2007-06-14T08:28:00.000-07:00

- 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

Rudy's Twelve Commandments, er, Commitments

2007-06-13T13:24:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-13T07:48:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-13T07:06:00.000-07:00

- 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

Republicans More Concerned About Partisanship Than Integrity Of The Justice Department

2007-06-12T07:36:00.000-07:00

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
OR
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.

International Activists Say Bush Has Lost Credibility On Democracy

2007-06-10T09:35:00.000-07:00

International Activists Say Bush Has Lost Credibility On Democracy

Well, duh...

Urge Congress To Support The Habeas Corpus Restoration Act

2007-06-06T09:24:00.000-07:00

Email Congress and urge them to support the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act

CNN And The Republican Debate

2007-06-05T21:38:00.000-07:00

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.

9/11

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.

9/11

Democrats are baby killers.

9/11

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

9/11

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

9/11

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!

9/11

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

9/11

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.

9/11

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?!?

9/11

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

9/11

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.

9/11"

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

2007-06-05T20:51:00.000-07:00

- 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"

2007-06-05T12:07:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-05T07:42:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-05T06:47:00.000-07:00

- 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?

2007-06-05T05:36:00.000-07:00

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?

IN FACT

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.

Democrats Debate On CNN, It Starts To Get Interesting

2007-06-03T16:10:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-03T07:07:00.000-07:00

Music Video:ROCKIN' IN THE FREE WORLD (by Neil Young)

Music Video Code provided by VideoCodeZone.Com

Don't give up friends.

My Questions For The Democrats

2007-06-03T07:00:00.000-07:00

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?

Lazy Links

2007-06-01T05:45:00.000-07:00

- Lebanese army battles militants around refugee camp
- Mixed Reaction in Lebanon to UN Assassination Tribunal
- IAEA chief warns of "crazies" seeking Iran war
- Iraqi Sunnis revolt against terror group
- US forces impose a curfew in western of Baghdad (Extra)
- China Says 2 of Its Companies Played a Role in Poisonings
- Plame sues, accusing CIA of blocking her memoirs
- Critics Say Bush’s Global Warming Plan Falls Short
- RNC Fires All 65 Phone Solicitors As Grass Roots Donors Revolt
- Senate bill questions secret CIA prison system.
- Ex-aide to Rove resigns amid US attorney flap
- Longest-serving Bush aide to resign
- Thomas B. Edsall: Conservative Catholics Rally To Sink Rudy

Lazy Links

2007-05-31T08:07:00.000-07:00

- May toll for U.S. soldiers in Iraq climbs to 122
- 5 Americans among 7 dead in Afghan crash
- Lieberman Confronted By Troops In Iraq: ‘When Are We Going To Get Out Of Here?’
- The Ads That Kept Romney Out Of The US Senate
- ACLU Sues Boeing Subsidiary for Participation in CIA Kidnapping and Torture Flights
- U.S. "imperialism" means new arms race: Putin
- Hezbollah says UN tribunal decision violates Lebanese sovereignty
- Iraq suicide blast leaves up to 25 dead
- Israel Strikes Northern Gaza Strip
- Probe of Justice Department hiring expands
- Attorney targeted for protecting Native American votes.
- US Ranks As One Of World's Least Peaceful Nations
- Forecast : 17 major storms, 9 hurricanes, 5 of them intense
- Nagin: NO recovering, but still needs help
- Bush Takes On Opponents of Immigration Bill
- Jury selection begins in 1964 US race killing trial
- US: Dead detainee was of high value
- Bill O' Reilly : NYT, "Far Left" want to break down the white, Christian, male power structure
- Economy Stalls:Worst Growth Since 2002
- Government awards $20B telecom contract
- TB patient in Denver for treatment

Sheehan Calls It Quits After Repeated Left Hooks

2007-05-29T06:14:00.001-07:00

Cindy Sheehan is calling it quits, she cites disillusionment with both political parties as the cause. Read Cindy Sheehan's post at DailyKos for her explanation.

One can imagine many right wingers are championing the ouster of Cindy Sheehan and perhaps even breathing a collective sigh of relief. But it is the beating she took from the Left that appears to have done her in for the count.

Many on the left who used to love Cindy Sheehan turned against her the moment she started putting pressure on Democrats and held the Democrats to the same level of accountability as she had previously held the GOP. Some on the left did not like this and lashed out at Sheehan, instead of the spineless Democrats in Washington DC who are afraid to stand up to Bush.

My honest opinion about Cindy Sheehan?

Personally, from the beginning I found Sheehan to be slightly shrill and I felt that she undermined the antiwar movement and made it look silly.

It didn't take me long to see I was wrong about the latter, what started as a one woman movement gave many others the strength and courage to be openly antiwar. Cindy Sheehan truly did help change the tides.

Perhaps there was a time when I wished Cindy Sheehan would quietly go away, now I see she gave a voice to the antiwar crowd and brought a lot of attention to it.

It is wrong for the Left to lash out at Sheehan because she demands the same level of accountability from the Democrats as she does from the Republicans, that does not make her the enemy.

In fact it is wrong for those who have been antiwar to suddenly turn against Sheehan because she is not having any illusions about the Democratic Party or their intentions of [not] ending the war.

In all truth it is Liberals and Progressives who should be railing the hardest and loudest against the Democrats perceived weakness when it comes to standing up to Bush and the GOP and beginning the end of the war. Right?

Lazy Links

2007-05-29T05:45:00.000-07:00

- 8 Memorial Day deaths in Iraq
- Three Westerners abducted in Iraq; 8 U.S. troops die
- Five Britons 'seized in Baghdad'
- 22 dead in Baghdad minibus blast
- Sadr calls for Sunni co-operation
- Protests continue over station closure
- China's drugs agency chief sentenced to death
- Bush tightens sanctions on Sudan over Darfur
- Israeli Labor Party Leader Ousted
- US-Iranians charged with spying
- UN envoy says Israel attacks on Gaza excessive
- Spain Arrests 16 North Africans Accused of Recruiting Militants
- Private security guards: a weak link in homeland security
- Vandals shred US flags, plant swastikas on veterans' graves
- Group: Terrorism not focus of Homeland Security
- NY home standoff: 2 dead, child abused
- Reputed Klansman's Miss. trial to begin
- Obama offers universal health care plan
- New Poll: Obama Tops All '08 Candidates

Lazy Links

2007-05-27T13:19:00.000-07:00

- Sergeant: "Now, 95 Percent Of My Platoon" Wants To Get Out Of Iraq
- US Frees 42 al-Qaida Captives in Raid
- U.S., Iran to hold rare talks on Iraq violence
- Thousands have fled Lebanon refugee camp
- Almost 30 DOJ Officials Threatened To Resign Over Hospital Visit To Ashcroft

Memorial Day In A Time Of War

2007-05-27T08:48:00.000-07:00

Memorial Day was originally known as Decoration Day and was originally a day to honor Union soldiers who had died during the American Civil War. After World War 1 all American soldiers who had died in military action or war were included.

Many Americans will be spending this Memorial Day having barbeque's with their loved ones, some will be taking the time to visit memorials and cemeteries, others will spend Memorial Day thinking about their loved ones serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When people want the war to end, when people are angry at the politicians it does not mean they do not support the troops. Most people who oppose the war because they do not want to see one more American troop die for the disastrous policy of George W. Bush in Iraq.

Memorial Day takes on a special significance during a time of war, a time to honor the fallen becomes much more solemn when remembering that men and woman are still in the line of fire and that the country is divided over this.

I hate the war, I despise the politicians that got us there, but I support the troops. This Memorial Day I will pray for their safe return and hope that it will be sooner than later they are able to walk out of the line of fire and back to their loved ones.

Boo-Hoo Boehner

2007-05-26T10:16:00.000-07:00

Talk about looking like an emotional wreck - Someone get John Boehner his Prozac, he's losing it again.

ThinkProgress has the video of Boehner's most recent weeping episode.

...

May 24, 2007 marked the second time John Boehner (R-OH) cried in public while addressing the Iraq War. The first time John lost control over his emotions was back in February.

So this is supposed to be the tough guy Conservative with the perfect tan?

Hmph. It appears the man has the emotional frailty of a thirteen year old girl in love. Only Boehner's love is not for a junior high sweetheart, it is a love for the GOP, it a love for the war that he fears may end without a clear Republican victory. That is what John Boehner weeps for.

Boehner even invoked the memory of 9/11 in his wet display of emotion, saying

“After 3,000 of our fellow citizens died at the hands of these terrorists, when are we going to stand up and take them on? When are we going to defeat them?”

These terrorist? These terrorist? Meaning the Iraqi's we are fighting in Iraq? Is John Boehner getting his brown people mixed up again?

Because I don't remember any Iraqi's being involved in 9/11. What I do remember was that most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudi Arabians with box cutters who allegedly trained in Afghanistan.

Attacking Iraq and trying to connect it to 9/11 takes no less of a stretch of the imagination than attacking China and trying to blame it for Pearl Harbor, rather than Japan.

After all this time John Boehner is either that ignorant about who attacked us on September 11, 2001 or he is that deceitful that he is going to try to continue to connect Iraq to 9/11 even though there is absolutely no evidence to suggest such a thing.

You know what I honestly think about this apparent display of emotion?

Boo-hoo Boehner is not crying for the lost integrity of America, he is crying for the lost integrity of the Republican Party.

Boo-hoo Boehner is not weeping for the loss of over 3,000 civilians and over 3,000 soldiers in this Orwellian "war on terror", he is weeping for the loss his political party will face if they are not able to preform magic tricks in the next couple of months in Iraq.

That's what I think John Boehner is really crying about. Either that or he's got a needle he is jamming in his hand to draw tears.

Even if Boehner's emotion was genuine, which I doubt it was, that calls into question his emotional stability.

Question : What's wrong with the picture of a grown Congressman crying as he proclaims he didn't come to Congress to be a Congressman?
Answer : Everything.

Boehner and his Republican colleagues like to accuse the Democrats of "waving the white flag to al Qaeda", but what kind of message does anyone think al Qaeda is sent when a grown Republican Congressman is weeping on the house floor half a decade after 9/11 while he is talking about Iraq?

I bet the weeping Republican is very intimidating to al Qaeda. Did I write intimidating? Oops, I actually meant to write encouraging.

Lazy Links

2007-05-25T12:14:00.000-07:00

- Bush Administration To ‘Skim Off Border Patrol Agents’ For Duty In Iraq
- Report: Cheney aide clearing path to bomb Iran
- Sadr appears, Basra militia leader killed
- Aid From U.S., Allies Arrives in Lebanon
- Lawmakers predict shift in war policy
- Continuing airstrikes, Israel hits at Hamas
- IAEA inspects Iran nuclear center
- Talking to Iran — or Talking War?
- Congress' Iraq vote sets up big fight this fall
- Gates: Press Is Not the Enemy
- Warnings of Chaos Ignored
- Liberty Univ. student brings explosives to Falwell Funeral
- Chaos, uncertainty follow Lebanon's 'double refugees'
- Edwards offers support plan for troops
- Reagan On Giuliani: "I Think He's Crazy"
- Leahy, Specter To Rove’s Lawyer: Turn Over The ‘Lost’ RNC Emails

WE VOTED FOR CHANGE IN IRAQ, NOT THE STATUS QUO

2007-05-25T07:36:00.000-07:00

Do the Democrats believe that they were elected to the majority to continue to submit to the demands of George W. Bush and the Republican Party?

Do the Democrats believe that they were elected to the majority in order to protect the Status Quo?

Yesterdays vote was monumental because it proves to the American people which Democrats actually want to end the war and which Democrats say they want to end the war just to get elected.

I congratulate the Democrats who voted against the bill, who will be attacked as "not supporting the troops". Hogwash. Supporting the troops is getting them out of a civil war that has zero connections to September 11 and zero to do with real freedom and Democracy.

To the other Democrats I say "Where is your integrity? Where are your convictions? Do you actually believe cooperating with Bush is going to do you or America any good?

The Democrats just made a monumental mistake, their approval ratings will likely take a dip after backing down to Bush and the Republicans which the majority of the American people have grown to despise.

WE DIDN'T ELECT THEM TO COWAR DOWN TO THE GOP AND BUSH. WE ELECTED THEM TO STAND UP AND FIGHT THE GOP AND BUSH.

Some Democrats will say "Well, if we had voted 'no' we would have been called unpatriotic" and so on and so forth.

The reality is, no matter what way the Democrats would have voted, the Republicans already had ready made ammunition to use against them. It would not matter which way Democrats vote, Republicans have an angle to attack it from :

If Democrats vote "no" they will be accused of being unpatriotic, not supporting the troops, waving the flag to al-Qaeda, etc.
If Democrats vote "yes" the Republicans can in turn say Democrats did not even try to do what they said they would do, which was end the war. Therefore, Democrats don't do what they say they will do so why vote for them anyway?

So if the other Democrats had any brains or integrity they should have just bit the bullet like the brave Democrats who voted "no" did.

I admit that I originally thought that the Democrats should let Bush have a bill without time-lines.

But after witnessing the spoiled brat Bush dig his heels in and refuse to sign two bills, one which the time-lines could have been waived I realized that it is high time for the Democrats to put an end to this shit and fight back, see how the other side likes it.

But what happened? The Democrats backed down, or I should say the majority of Democrats backed down to the evilness that can only have power if they continue to allow it to have power.

Word of advice to the Democrats : Stop acting like the minority and stop treating the Bush GOP like they are the majority. You have the upper hand - you just have to figure out how to play it to your advantage.

The majority of the American people are thoroughly fed up and disgusted with the Bush Administration and the war, now is not the time to back down.

Lazy Links

2007-05-24T08:38:00.000-07:00

- Bush 'Surge' Fails To Prevent Rise In Iraq Killings
- U.S. confirms body of missing soldier found in Iraq
- Car bomber kills 27 at funeral in Iraq
- Israelis arrest Hamas leaders
- Palestinians urge help for refugees
- Obstacles to peace: Refugees
- Iran 3-8 Years From Atomic Weapons
- Today's Must Read
- Poll: 2 of 3 U.S. Muslim Converts Left Christian Roots
- New Nuclear Warhead's Funding Eliminated
- Pressure Builds On Democrats To Vote Against Iraq Bill That Excludes Timetables
- Lawmakers brace for immigration backlash
- Human rights 'eroded worldwide'
- Britain Tracks 3 Who Fled in Terror Case
- Prime Minister of Japan urges world to cut emissions 50% by 2050
- Peacekeepers in Congo traded in gold, weapons

Don't Give King George Another Blank Check - Vote NO On The Supplemental

2007-05-24T08:26:00.001-07:00

It's this plain and this simple : Congress needs to vote "no" on the Iraq Supplemental today.

It's this clear : The Democrats were elected to end this war, if they do not fight Bush and the war machine they will face real political ramifications in 2008 from the people who support them.

If Democrats lose in '08 the war in Iraq will not end.

Killing In The Name Of Falwell

2007-05-23T08:14:00.000-07:00

A 19 year old Liberty University student was arrested for having "napalm like" bombs" he planned on using against a group of protesters who had gathered near the funeral service of Jerry Falwell.

ABC Reports :

"Campbell County authorities arrested a Liberty University student for having several homemade bombs in his car.

The student, 19-year-old Mark D. Uhl of Amissville, Va., reportedly told authorities that he was making the bombs to stop protesters from disrupting the funeral service."

Authorities say that the chemicals would have produced a slow burn and would not have been very destructive, but I am willing to bet that's not what the guy who made them was thinking.

Let's hope this is an isolated burst of Christian radicalism driven by the loss of one of their misguided and revered leaders.

I can only imagine what the headlines would have been though if it had been a "Secular Leftist" who was caught with any kind of bomb at Jerry Falwell's funeral.

UPDATE :

Max Blumenthal, blogging for Huffington Post offers some insight into the would-be bomber in "Diary of a Christian Terrorist"

"Visitors to Mark David Uhl's Myspace page will quickly learn that Uhl is a student at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, that he is a devoted Christian, that his name means "Mighty Warrior"
[...]
Uhl was an a devout evangelical Christian who advocated religious violence in the name of American nationalism. Uhl's blog, featured on his Myspace page, offers a window into the political underpinnings of his bomb plot.

In one post, Uhl implores Christians to die on the battlefield for "Uncle Sam." He justifies his call to arms by quoting several Biblical passages and reminding his readers that the "gift of God" is eternal life." Read full blog at Huffington Post.

Lazy Links

2007-05-23T07:36:00.000-07:00

- Former Gonzales aide admits "crossing the line"
- Nine U.S. soldiers killed in five Iraq attacks
- Refugees flee Lebanon camp
- Abbas, Haniyeh try to work out new cease-fire deal
- Amnesty International Releases 2007 Report, 2006 Bad Year For Human Rights
- Pope acknowledges colonial injustice in Americas
- Iran hikes gasoline prices 25 percent
- Democrats Blink, Angering Antiwar Ranks
- McCain and Romney's War of Words
- Bird Flu Virus Samples Must Be Shared, Officials Say
- Bush: Bin Laden Ordered 2005 Strikes
- Iran expanding uranium enrichment program, U.N. says

Spinning The "Islamist" Polls And Why It's Damaging

2007-05-23T05:55:00.000-07:00

Remember the good old days when the Liberal Media was, well, Liberal?

Yesterday I commented that CNN's Heidi Collins reported on a poll that showed an overwhelming majority of Muslims living in the US as not only having strong work ethics, but also being opposed the suicide bombings.

78% believe that suicide bombings are NOT justified.
8% believed that suicide bombings ARE justified.
15% of young Muslims believe that suicide bombings are justified.

At any rate and any age suicide bombings are a massively unpopular idea amongst a very clear majority of Muslims living in America.

But CNN, perhaps sensing the wrath of the Patriotism Police has repeatedly spun this poll - which should make Muslims look better, into something which is making Muslims look worse.

This morning CNN's Kiran Chetry jumped on the poll spinning bandwagon.

Again, the majority of Muslims who did not approve of suicide bombings were ignored and the minority of Muslims who did approve of such attacks was highlighted.

Polls are taken to find out what a majority of people think, not what a minority of people think.

I bet there are at least 8% of whites who still think hanging African Americans is acceptable and wishes slavery was still permissible.

I bet 15% of young people think that school shootings are acceptable and justified.

The point is a minority of people are always going to be off balance, no matter what country you are from. I believe that about 30% of any given population is off balance in whatever way is unique to them.

That's why it's important to look at what the majority of people are saying, because there is always going to be crackpots that think that Timothy McVeigh was a hero or the Anarchist Cookbook is the best piece of "literature" ever.

The majority of Muslims in America are saying that suicide bombings are not justified. That majority is being insulted every time their numbers are ignored to focus on the 8% of nutcases who believe the bombings are justified.

It's just another example of biased and unfair reporting.

Why not report on the good and obvious news? 78% of Muslims in the US do not condone this type of violence. I believe this indicates the "martyr jihad-jihad" ideology is a regional and political problem in the middle east, and not a problem within the religion itself.

Because of the violence and extremism in Iraq and other scattered regions of the Middle East there is a perception that every single Muslim is an "Islamist". I think this is a mistake that not only isolates us from the moderate Muslims but also weakens the moderate Muslims and empowers the extremist.

So as long as were willing to lump all these people together regardless of what they believe or how they act, rail about all the negative while ignoring their positive accomplishments and the progression they do make, then how are we encouraging anyone to be more Democratic?

When you are in control and people are "good" you should reward them with praise and incentives, that way they are inclined to continue the "good" behavior.

But when you are in control and people are "good" and you instead start looking for something bad to highlight you are not giving the people any incentive to repeat the "good" behavior". It's really that simple.

Or, as Benjamin Franklin said :

"If you would persuade, you must appeal to interest rather than intellect."

All of this, of course, only persuades me to buy a TV card for my PC, that way I can post video in the future, I can't always rely on someone else having the video of something I want to post.

And it reminds me to remind everyone else who hasn't seen "Buying The War" yet to watch it soon.

UPDATE:

Thankfully not everyone is spinning the poll, but some people are getting hysterical over it. Let's compare and contrast some headlines.

From the corner where they are spinning so much they are dizzy and that must explain their incoherence :

'Troubling' views on suicide bombings - From the SF Chronicle which cited a hate group leader as expert in an article two days ago.

THIS TINY LUNATIC FRINGE ADDS UP TO A BIG THREAT - From the irrational and yellow stained New York Post, no elaboration needed.

Check out how the transparently biased Jerusalem Post has padded the numbers by 10% with the headline "25% of Muslim teens: Suicide bombs OK"

Now, let's look at some of the more rational reactions to the poll :

Survey: US Muslims Assimilated, Opposed to Extremism

Survey of US Muslims shows moderate views

Muslims content with lives in US

Muslim survey overall points to tranquil lives

Spinning the Polls About The "Islamist"

2007-05-22T08:33:00.000-07:00

OK, so I was just watching CNN, and Heidi Collins was reporting on a recent poll that asked Muslims in America how they felt about a number of things.

The majority of Muslims polled were born outside the US and believed in American work ethics.

When asked about suicide bombings a very clear majority - 78% said the bombings were not justified, just 8% believed that the bombings were justified. A graphic on the screen displayed the poll results.

But when Collins reported on the poll she only stated the number of the minority of Muslims who believed suicide bombings were justified and ignored the clear majority who believed the bombings were not justified.

Yet another example of manipulating or ignoring the facts.

I will update this post as soon as I can get a transcript and/or video.

Words Have Meaning

2007-05-22T06:27:00.000-07:00

I'm not a linguist, I am not an expert at framing debate. I am a 25 year old who is not a formal writer but a blogger, and not a very good one at that.

But I understand something about vocabulary and the way words can be manipulated to give false impressions.

The recent use of vocabulary by the Mainstream Media, Political Pundits and the Politicians seems quite abusive of the normal boundaries of language.

The way words are being manipulated recently seems to be something new, but maybe it's not.

"The Patriot Act" is not patriotic, it expands the powers of the government therefore the act is unpatriotic.

"Prisoners of War" become "enemy combatants".

The wording is just a clever way to strip human beings, however bad they may or may not be, of the rights laid forth in the Geneva Convention.

"Torture" becomes "interrogation techniques".

Question : Would they be called "interrogation techniques" if someone practiced them on an American soldier? I bet it would be called "torture" so it must be "torture".

"Islamic Militants" or "Islamic Extremist" becomes "Islamist"

Islamist is a slur in my eyes, it's a way to try to tie the Islamic militancy directly to all Islamic people and that don't fly in my book.

If your good at manipulating language you can almost manipulate reality.

Abraham Lincoln said "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."

George W. Bush said "You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on."

Lazy Links

2007-05-22T05:48:00.000-07:00

- UN Troops Sold Weapons To Militia They Were Sent To Disarm
- Journalists urge Maliki to stop limiting the media
- Islamic Militants offer truce on third day of Lebanon battles
- The Simpsons v. the media
- Report: US missile data leaked in Japan
- Giuliani's 9/11 Stories Contradicted By His Emergency Management Chief
- Britain demands handover of Russian polonium suspect
- Palestinians: Israel attacks Hamas camps
- Lebanese army, militants resume fight
- Car bombing in Baghdad market kills 25, injures 60
- Troops mass in Pakistan mosque faceoff
- Large blast hits Lebanese capital
- Death toll angers Afghan government
- Timeline dropped from war funding bill
- Carter eases back on criticism of Bush
- Padilla trial draws little fanfare
- Rove Given "One Last" Chance To Testify Before Subpoena
-

Gingrich Reaffirms His Radical Reverence For The Right

2007-05-21T08:53:00.000-07:00

Gingrich Cites ‘Opportunity’ To ‘Convert All Of America’ To Fundamentalism

Who's Really Irreverent, Reckless And Unfortunate?

2007-05-21T05:38:00.000-07:00

Jimmy Carter may have been a bad president but he tried to be a good man who exhibited fairness and honesty that is unmatched by any other former Presidents who are still living.

Indeed, although I can tolerate Jimmy Carter's simple countryman demeanor I would be likely to vote him to be one of the least successful Democratic Presidents of all time.

But as far as I know it is two Republicans, Nixon and Bush, who are still competing to be the most unsuccessful and corruption driven President's of all time.

With that written I note that recently Jimmy Carter commented that the Bush Administration was the worst Administration in American history.

Well, of course the White House fired back, calling Jimmy Carter "irreverent" and his comments "sad", "reckless" and "unfortunate".

But I challenge the White House or anyone else for that matter to find a more counterproductive and disastrous Administration in American history than the Bush Administration.

I disagree with the opportunistic soothsayers who believe that history will vindicate the Bush Administration and see President Bush as tackling Islamic extremism.

History will be leveled against the Bush Administration in a way that will likely make today's Conservative political commentators look deceitful or deluded.

The vision of history will not be tainted by the fresh emotional memories of 9/11, but based on the cold hard facts.

A President elected under controversy.

9/11, a terrorist attack that could have been prevented if the Bush Administration had heeded the warnings.

The Iraq War, preemptive invasion based on fabricated and fraudulent intelligence.

Guantanamo, a torture haven that symbolizes what is wrong with American Democracy.

Abramoff. Signing statements. Katrina. Scooter Libby. The Attorney General scandal. Illegal spying. Ashcroft in the hospital.

The impact of George W. Bush is much more significant and much more negative than any other President in recent history.

President Bush has gone far beyond the actions of Nixon and the only reason he is still in the White House is because the 109th and 110th Congress refuse to hold him accountable for his actions.

In the future historians will no longer look to Richard Nixon as being the prime example of great rises to power that were destroyed by their own scandal, corruption and overall lawlessness, it will be President George W. Bush.

Maybe Carter has become irreverent and sad in his own respects.

But it is the Bush Administration that is so wracked with failure and corruption that it is they who have become the very definition of reckless and unfortunate.

Lazy Links

2007-05-21T05:23:00.000-07:00

- DOJ Accused Of Using Voter Fraud Investigations To Suppress Minority Vote
- Guiliani Slips To Third In Iowa Polls
- Gunbattles rage around Lebanon refugee camp
- Clinton wants pre-K for all 4-year-olds
- Lebanese army battles militants, 8 civilians dead
- Lebanon media see Syria behind violence
- 25 killed in southern Afghanistan
- Turks Rally Again for Secular Government
- Iraqi Shiite leader diagnosed with lung cancer
- Specter sees Gonzales quitting
- Richardson to officially launch campaign
- Off-duty NYPD cops accused of drug ring involvement
- Bible spared "indecent" classification
- Dr. Laura son linked to lurid Web page

BANNING THE BAD NEWS

2007-05-18T06:58:00.000-07:00

UPDATE : Journalists urge Maliki to stop limiting the media.

Related :
- No photos allowed after Iraqi blasts
- Pentagon Blocks MySpace and YouTube
Older :
- U.S. officials exclude car bombs in touting drop in Iraq violence
- Iraq refuses to provide civilian casualty figures to U.N.

For years we have witnessed the war advocates complain that the press was not covering the "good news" coming out of Iraq.

Never mind that whatever minimal amount of good news that was coming out of Iraq was overshadowed by the tremendously large amount of bad news coming out of Iraq

Now apparently if the media is not willing to ignore the bad news coming out if Iraq the government will try to force them - by not allowing photos or video after bombs then refusing to include car bomb victims in the official "casualty figures" aka DEATH TOLL.

... But what good are "casualty figures" when the Iraqi government actually refuses to provide those figures? Even if the government produced the figures, the figures would lie because victims of car bombings would not even be included.

It makes it even easier to control the news coming out of Iraq when you prevent the American troops from being able to access MySpace or YouTube to share their experiences.

I sense a slow and subtle attempt by both the US and Iraqi governments to control the information coming out of Iraq.

If there is not any good news coming out of Iraq they will try to block the bad news by banning photos and releasing misleading casualty figures.

To display that progress is being made they will force the figures to lie by not including certain types of attacks in the violence.

Lazy Links

2007-05-18T05:35:00.000-07:00

- Must Read : Nixon Rides Again
- Cops Spied On Everyone From A Pie Throwing Hippie To Jay-Z
- Dems Seek No-Confidence Vote On Gonzales
- Hunt for 3 U.S. soldiers in Iraq enters 7th day
- Two ABC News journalists killed in Iraq
- Death in Iraq spawns grim subcultures
- Army Punished 2 Officers in ’06 After Failures in Iraq Ambush
- Mosque Bombing In India Leaves 5 Dead
- 10 killed in southern Afghan bombings
- The World Bank after Wolfowitz
- Guiliani's wife got $125G to craft speeches
- Giuliani, Edwards have Sudan holdings
- Christian Leader Will Not Vote For Guiliani
- Minority population grows to 100 million -- 1 of 3 in U.S.
- YouTube Founders Challenge Pentagon's Ban On Websites
- The Last Temptation of Al Gore
- Gun Giveaway Draws Hundreds
- ABC and CBS ignore Comey testimony
- McCain Likes To Skip Iraq War Votes
- CENSORSHIP! No photos allowed after Iraqi blasts
- To 'War Czar,' Solution to Iraq Conflict Won't Be Purely Military
- Analysis: now war looms in Gaza
- 47 Palestinians Killed In Six Days Of Infighting And Gunfire Exchange With Israel
- White House Opposes Pay Raises for Troops, Increases in Widows’ Benefits

Iraq Decapitated

2007-05-17T06:13:00.000-07:00

A new report out by a British think tank Chatham House, which is "regarded as one of world's leading think tanks on international affairs" suggests that the Iraqi Government is rendered nearly powerless is many regions of the country.

The British think tank "urges a radical change in American and British strategy to try to rescue the situation." the BBC reports.

The summary of the Chatham House report claims :

Iraq has fractured into regional power bases. Political, security and economic power has devolved to local sectarian, ethnic or tribal political groupings. The Iraqi government is only one of several ‘state-like’ actors.

There is not ‘a’ civil war in Iraq, but many civil wars and insurgencies involving a number of communities and organizations struggling for power.

The conflicts have become internalized between Iraqis as the polarization of sectarian and ethnic identities reaches ever deeper into Iraqi society and causes the breakdown of social cohesion.

Critical destabilizing issues will come to the fore in 2007–8. Federalism, the control of oil and control of disputed territories need to be resolved.

Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey have different reasons for seeing the instability in Iraq continue, and each uses different methods to influence developments.

The full report can be read at this link.

BBC reports that Dr Gareth Stansfield, an expert on the Middle East who wrote the paper also said the American troop surge is not overcoming violence but moving the violence to different areas.

Lazy Links

2007-05-17T05:27:00.000-07:00

- CIA leak lawsuit set to resume
- Israeli air attack destroys Hamas security building
- Unity Fractures as Palestinians Battle in Gaza
- 400 million people live in "minefields": report
- Prince Harry and Iraq: Reaction
- War-torn Iraq 'facing collapse'
- Report says soldiers were not protected
- 20 Killed in Gunbattles in North Mexico
- Mortar Barrage Hammers U.S.-Controlled Green Zone Yet Again
- Justice Dept To Congress: Ask Rove For Missing E-mails
- World Bank leadership crisis could come to head
- Lawyers Representing Bush In 2000 Election Case Signed Off On Wolfowitz’s Compensation Package
- Documents Show NYPD Spied On Groups Suspected To Be Raising Anti-GOP Funds
- U.S.-Iran talks on Iraq to begin May 28
- Clash of Hope and Fear as Venezuela Seizes Land
- At Least 26 Prosecutors Were Listed for Firing
- Gallup : Only 25% of Americans Happy With Current State Of Country

Gen. Wesley Clark, Afganistan Veteran Breen Launch New Ad

2007-05-16T10:13:00.000-07:00

From VoteVets.Org :
"In our final ad in the “Generals” series, General Wesley Clark and VoteVets.org member Mike Breen, speak to the drain the Iraq war is having on our troops’ ability to achieve their mission against the real threat to America – al Qaeda"

Lazy Links

2007-05-16T10:02:00.000-07:00

- Whatever happened to Ahmed Chalabi? (the man whose lies about WMDs took us to war)
- British Judge For Terrorist Doesn't Even Know What A Website Is
- McCain telling supporters to spam conservative blogs
- Threats end Harry's Iraq mission
- Lowlites from the GOP debate
- Waterboarding Ashcroft
- Toronto among cities to go green under Clinton plan
- Fresh violence in Gaza kills 17
- Two killed in attack on Baghdad's Green Zone
- Car Bomb Kills 32 in Shiite Enclave
- Bush Finds A War Czar
- McCain, Clinton, Romney, Edwards, Giuliani Refuse To Release Tax Returns
-Comey’s Revelations Suggest Either Gonzales Is Lying Or More Spying Programs Exist
- GOP Senator Hagel: "Gonzales Should Resign Now"
- Bolton : We must attack Iran before it gets the bomb
- S.C. considers allowing guns on campuses

Fatah - Hamas Fighting Erupts, Traps Journalist

2007-05-16T09:50:00.000-07:00

CNN International is reporting that gunfire has erupted between Hamas and Fatah in Gaza, trapping several journalist, stroking fear of a civil war.

Updates as more information becomes available.

Conservative Media VS The Liberal Internet

2007-05-16T07:43:00.000-07:00

The right wing has always had an upper edge when it comes to AM radio.

Twelve out of thirteen pundits you will hear on talk radio are Conservatives.

As far as AM radio goes, it is a Liberals no man's land only to be ventured into by a few brave souls who know no one is listening.

This though, can be explained quite easily.

Who listens to AM radio?

On average older people listen to AM radio, young people don't even seem to know AM radio even exists.

And why should they? With FM, Satellite Radio and Pod-casts what use can they really derive out of listening to diapered and dusty Conservative pundits on the radio? None.

Soon analog cable will be gone, and my prediction is AM radio will go extinct shortly thereafter.

Back to the point...

On average people over 50 are going to be Conservative.

Why?

They were raised in a different time and place where racism was not only acceptable it was the norm in most, if not all American homes.

Racism and dominance was practically part of the American dream, from the slaughtering of the Indians to the enslavement of African Americans to the substandard treatment of woman and the handicapped, which was prevalent until very recently.

The "folks" were raised in a time and place where religion trumped science, tradition trumped reason and a woman had "illegitimate children" or married into a life sentence of silent domestic servitude.

Most importantly, they were raised in a time before The Civil Rights Movement.

So naturally this archetype, when turning on the radio is going to listen to someone they can agree and sympathize with.

The "folks" need someone who can put into words just how "rough" it is out there for the privileged white man. Someone who shares their ignorantly prejudiced points of view, their hardcore take on crime and punishment and their unusually high bar of standards that they themselves cannot even live up to.

They won't find much solace in a Liberal who will preach that we are all equal and should be treated as such. They can't agree with a Liberal who suggest sometimes we should turn the other cheek, even though that is a direct suggestion of Christ, Messiah to the Christians. They hate a Liberal who says human rights are Universal and the Constitution trumps the Bible in America.

These chest beating, bible thumping self proclaimed right wing patriots do not realize their beliefs are the polar opposite of those of Christ, or the visionary founding fathers of this country.

Back to the point, that is why Conservatives dominate the radio. Now we know what audience tunes into these pundits we can understand why they are popular. Old people, mostly bigots, who wish we could still live in the glory days of the "yes sir" of the Negro. Their children as well, because bigotry takes more than a single generation to die.

These are the people and children of the people who protested the integration of schools and held up signs that read "Go Home N*gger" when African American students wanted a fair education.

The more unacceptable the "Go Home N*gger" banner becomes the more angry the "folks" become. They complain of "political correctness" but it is just having common respect for your fellow man that they have a problem with.

So they tune into the Rush Limbaugh's of the world to make them feel a little better about their once socially acceptable beliefs, that are now becoming intolerable and bigoted to the new generations who were born and raised long after The Civil Rights Movement.

Some Liberals complain of the Rights stranglehold on AM radio, I'm not concerned with it.

Why? I think the Liberals have the blogosphere, true public opinion, by the balls.

Liberals have helped engineer and master the new media. Liberals understand how to use "the Google" on "the Internets" and the "series of tubes" to broadcast their political message of Democracy and equality. We understand this is the true new media - small man to small man, not big man to small man.

Liberals understand how to use the new media in the same way Conservative pundits use the dinosaur AM radio to broadcast their message of plutocracy and cloaked racism in the old media - big man to small man.

Not only have Liberals mastered the new media, the generations sympathetic to Right Wing pundits like Limbaugh and O'Reilly are dieing out.

Meanwhile young people are growing up to be more Liberally inclined even before they are turning on the computer, not the radio, to get their dose of political punditry.

Add the fact that each generation is less tolerant of bigotry and plutocracy than the last...

So who do I think will win in this battle? It's obvious isn't it?

Creepy Conservatives

2007-05-16T07:40:00.000-07:00

- Audience Applauds As Giuliani, Tancredo Endorse Waterboarding Torture
- Romney: ‘We Ought To Double Guantanamo’

Does anyone need anymore evidence to be convinced these people are facist and dangerous to our Freedom? I don't.

Lazy Links

2007-05-15T11:26:00.000-07:00

- U.S. fights for Wolfowitz to stay at World Bank
- Gonzales Throws McNulty Under The Bus
- Gonzales Claims Deputy Attorney General And Chief Of Staff Are Not ‘Top Aides’
- Alberto Throws Paul Under Bus; Ditto James to Alberto
- NYT = Nuclear Chicken Little?
- Palestinians under rule of the gun
- Suicide bombing in Pakistan kills 25
- Karachi police told to go unarmed
- Jordan's king urges Olmert to stop all escalation steps
- Is the Noose Tightening on Gonzales
- U.S. Senate Democrats want Iraq war deadline
- Governors say war has gutted Guard
- Speaking of Iraq Deadlines

Reverend Jerry Falwell Dies

2007-05-15T10:57:00.000-07:00

CNN - Evangelist Jerry Falwell died Tuesday after he was found unresponsive in his office, an official at Liberty University told CNN.

AP - The Rev. Jerry Falwell, who founded the Moral Majority and built the religious right into a political force, died Tuesday shortly after being found unconscious in his office at Liberty University, a school executive said. He was 73.

General Eaton Ad Unveiled

2007-05-14T07:43:00.000-07:00

From VoteVets.Org :

"On the heels of the ad that rocked the political world, retired Major General Paul Eaton takes to the airwaves to say that the President doesn’t listen to his commanders on the ground. General Eaton should know whether the President really listens to his commanders on the ground, or not. General Eaton recently retired from the US Army after more than 33 years service. His most recent operational assignment was Commanding General of the command charged with reestablishing Iraqi Security Forces from 2003-2004, where he built the command and established the structure and infrastructure for the Iraqi Armed Forces."

Lazy Links

2007-05-14T07:05:00.000-07:00

- 234 bodies dumped in Baghdad in only 11 days
- Tenet Agrees To Cooperate With Congressional Investigation Into Niger Fraud
- Democrats prod automakers on mileage
- Voter-Fraud Complaints by GOP Drove Dismissals
- Guiliani Loses To Bloomberg In Poll
- Guiliani's WTC Problem
- Pentagon, State Department fueding in Iraq
- Pakistani cities virtually shut down by strike
- Militants kill U.S., Pakistani troops in convoy attack
- From 'dirty bomb' to dud, Padilla case is a lesson in how not to fight terrorism
- Zealot who destroyed Bamiyan Buddhas
- NY Gov. Wants DNA Data in Most Crimes
- Texas Town Approves Ban On Renting to Illegal Migrants
- Microsoft takes on the free world
- Pentagon Blocks MySpace and YouTube
- Palestinian crisis after new gun battles
- No Love Affair for the Pope in Brazil
- Japan Sets Referendum on Pacifist Constitution
- Russia cafe blast leaves 10 dead
- U.S. forces search for missing soldiers
- Hagel Hints At Independent Run, Expresses Frustration With GOP

A Victory For The Reich, Silencing A Voice Of Dissent

2007-05-11T09:17:00.000-07:00

CBS has fired Iraq War veteran General John Batiste from his position as a consultant over a VoteVets ad which targeted and criticized President Bush and handling of the Iraq War. The ad can be watched at YouTube or at the VoteVets website.

So what do the right wingers who lashed out about "free speech" when CBS canceled Don Imanass feel about that?

Do the Imanass supporters believe Don has the "right" to call African American females "nappy headed ho's" on the air but a retired General does not have the right to give a candid opinion about a war?

The ideology behind the concept of free speech was in part to protect political speech that dissented from the "norm" or the established power structure, to allow Americans to assert their political opinions without being silenced, not to allow silly old white cowboys to use racial and sexual slurs.

The ousting of Batiste from CBS is a reminder to watch Bill Moyers "Buying the War". The Bush Administration and apparently some members of the media are still trying to salvage this war and public opinion on it and are willing to try silence voices of dissent that hinder their efforts.

Will the Reich champion the ousting of Batiste from CBS? One can almost be certain.

Does the Right enjoy "censorship" now? I don't know yet for sure because I try to avoid the right wing blogs and opinions because the kool aid they have over there induces involuntary vomiting and often results in seizures and I don't have my Dilantin so I'm not willing to find out.

But on a more serious note I do find the firing of Batiste to be somewhat disturbing. So now the mainstream media will only allow us to see or hear are people who are willing to sell the official Administration Party line, even if they do it somewhat begrudgingly?

I trust the MSM less with each passing day and I am so thankful that we have the Internet and access to newspapers, blogs and Op-Eds from all around the world and political spectrum, hopefully they don't find a way to bring that down as well.

UPDATE : Think Progress is following the story :

- CBS VP On Batiste: ‘The Viewer Might Have The Feeling Everything He Says Is Anti-Bush’
- CBS Fires Batiste For Anti-Bush Advocacy, Hires Bush Aide To Engage In Pro-Bush Advocacy
- CBS has a consultant who advocates in favor of President Bush’s war policies and against Congressional action
- CBS Has Allowed McCain Campaign Aide To Advocate For McCain On Air

Lazy Links

2007-05-11T07:26:00.000-07:00

- U.S. commander in Iraq wants more troops
- Iraq may demand timetable for U.S. to get out
- House passes Iraq funds bill Bush would veto
- Another Hearing [For Gonzalas], Another Chance to Say Nothing
- White House sought investigations of voter fraud allegations before elections
- U.S. commander in Iraq urges troops to fight fair
- EU to highlight support for Arab Peace initiative
- No Charges For Officers Who Murdered Unarmed Man
- India Marks 150th Anniversary of Revolt Against British Rule
- Rival groups clash in Gaza
- Something Something Darkness, Something Something Cheney, Something Something Iran
- 12 dead in bombings at Baghdad bridges
- Putting American Jouranlist Out Of Work
- Romney: Polygamy "Awful" Even Though My Great-Grandfather Practiced It
- Last Time I Checked, Rape Jokes Still Not Funny

Palestine Is Not Hamas

2007-05-10T06:56:00.000-07:00

There is nothing that I am more sick of than hearing people equate all Palestinians to militants like Hamas. This weakens the moderates and empowers the extremist.

Hamas has suspended a TV show that has a character named Farfour, who looked and sounded suspiciously like Mickey Mouse.

Farfour told impressionable young Palestinian children :

"You and I are laying the foundation for a world led by Islamists,"

"We will return the Islamic community to its former greatness, and liberate Jerusalem, God willing, liberate Iraq, God willing, and liberate all the countries of the Muslims invaded by the murderers."

The brain pollution was yanked off the air and the AP reports that :

"Information Minister Mustafa Barghouti said the character — a giant black-and-white rodent with a high-pitched voice — represented a "mistaken approach" to the Palestinian struggle against Israeli occupation."

While the AP reported the story as it was : Hamas aired the offensive material, Hamas pulled the show off the air - many sources have decided to pounce on it as follows "Palestinians shelve 'martyr mouse' kids show".

Yes, the "martyr mouse" part is funny. But it masks the misleading first word "Palestinians", it should read "Hamas shelves 'martyr mouse' kids show"

Not every Palestinian is Hamas, just like every American is not Republican.

Hamas steps out of line, the Palestinian people as a whole are blamed.

Why bother to even pay attention to the fact that politically the Fatah/Hamas split is about as evenly split as between any Liberals and Conservatives in any country in the world?

Fatah is more Liberal, more open to dealing with Israel where Hamas in Conservative, old school and not willing to deal with Israel or anyone else for that matter, so it seems.

Let's get this strait, when Hamas or even Fatah does something drastic, stupid, anarchic it does not mean it has the seal of approval from the majority of the Palestinian people who actually want to live in peace.

So it is unfair to write "Palestinians shelve martyr mouse". Writing "Hamas shelves martyr mouse is just as effective and certainly much more accurate.

UPDATE: Mickey Mouse lookalike back on Hamas TV

On Discovering The "Title" Line

2007-05-10T06:44:00.001-07:00

Today I discovered the "title field" for blog posts.

When I signed up for blogger it seems the default settings had the "title field" turned off.

For those who have the same problem go to the "dashboard" click on "Settings" then click on "Formatting" scroll down and turn on the "Title Field".

Lazy Links

2007-05-10T05:21:00.000-07:00

- G.O.P. "Moderates" Warn Bush Iraq Must Show Gains
- Britain's Blair bows out after 10 years
- Gates sees a fall scenario for fewer troops
- Marine Testifies to Urinating on Body
- Marine says found live children among Haditha dead
- Militant 'Mickey Mouse' pulled off Hamas TV
- Police teams walk tough beat for peace
- Somali forces ban women's veils
- Number of Fired Prosecutors Grows
- Romney: Sharpton remark on faith was bigoted
- Romney's wife made contribution to Planned Parenthood
- Friend: Terror suspect had bomb recipes
- Michael Moore faces U.S. Treasury probe

2007-05-09T10:27:00.001-07:00

Wash. Post, NY Times, AP reported Boehner's new timeline for Iraq progress without noting his previous one

2007-05-09T09:47:00.000-07:00

Lazy Links

- 60 Percent Of Americans Want Timetable To Get Troops Out
- Contractor Surge
- In Iraq, Cheney Sticks to the Script
- Gates Contradicts Bush, Says ‘I Don’t Know’ If 2002 War Authorization Is Still Valid
- Higher chance of Gulf Coast hurricane in '07
- U.S. greenhouse gas emissions up
- Cheney's Middle East Trip and the Iraq Oil Law
- Democrats plan 'short leash' for war funds
- Churches to provide immigrants sanctuary
- Academic from U.S. center arrested in Iran
- 21 Civilians Dead in Afghan Airstrikes
- Hamas 'Mickey Mouse' Wants Islam Takeover
- Taliban Cannot Be Defeated by Force Alone, NATO Says

2007-05-09T05:32:00.000-07:00

Coulter Claims Obama Lead In Polls Helps Terrorist

Of course Ann Coulter, the self described polemicist never mentions any facts to support her conspiracy theory.

Because facts are a pesky nuisance, developed by Liberals to make Conservatives look bad. That is, when Conservatives aren't busy making themselves look bad.

Coulter claimed that Newsweek was "doing more push polling for al-Qaida," during an interview with Geraldo Rivera on "At Large" because a recent Newsweek poll showed Democrat Barack Obama leading top Republican presidential hopefuls.

Coulter also indicated that she thought Newsweek would make up the poll with about as much earnest as a four year old insists there is a Santa Clause.

The hidden meaning behind Coulters statement is painfully transparent :

Conservatives fear Barack Obama, perhaps sensing he will be more difficult to defeat than Hillary Clinton. Obama's got the kind of appeal that could bring the young voters out in record masses and he offers the kind of hope many other adults are seeking after several years of Bush disparity.

It's not easy to come up with real dirt on Barack Obama, so smearing him and associating his name with terrorism (Obama-Osama) will have to do if your a Conservative. Playing up the fear of terrorism "the folks at home" feel is now a time honored technique among Conservatives.

For instance, when Keith Ellison - a Democrat who is Muslim - was elected to the House of Representatives a number of Conservatives attacked his nomination calling it a victory for the Jihadist.

Where in reality Ellison's election went unnoticed and uncelebrated by extremist. Islamic extremist are anti-Democracy and attack any other extremist groups who seem even slightly inclined to participate in a Democracy.

The attacks against Ellison that are now being leveled against Obama are just another tactic of the right wing to intimidate and mislead the Americans and make them fear their Democratic choice.

I used to be offended by Ann Coulter and all these other loose cannon Conservatives before I realized how deprived their minds were of any logical thinking and I thought what a sad place that must be. So then I began to feel sorry for them, but then I just realized how dangerous they were and stopped feeling sorry for them.

Ann Coulter in particular has the money to prove she can plagiarize a paragraph and distort the facts to sell a book that will appeal to a very strange demographic that has to be composed of white supremacist and perhaps even a few Uncle Ruckus characters.

By now it's obvious, Ann Coulter will say anything to get on TV and is working extra hard to stretch her fifteen minutes of fame into twenty. So the only real question would be : Is Ann virile enough to pull it off?

2007-05-08T08:35:00.000-07:00

Lazy Links

- Pentagon tells 35,000: Prepare to deploy
- Six jailed in plot to attack NJ army base
- Congress probes allegations of politicized hiring
- Second night of rioting in France
- Rep. Poe Quotes Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard On House Floor
- Once again, L.A. pledges to end police brutality
- Car bomb kills 16 in Iraq city
- Herod's tomb reportedly found inside his desert palace
- Running for president of the GOP country club
- NASA's Chandra Sees Brightest Supernova Ever - Coming Soon To A Universe Near You?
- Iran accepts agenda deal
- China to Send Military Unit to Darfur
- Iraq Is Last in Child Survival Rankings
- OR-Sen: The Conservative Case Against Gordon Smith
- Weak Labor Laws In US Perpetuate Wal-Mart Abuses

2007-05-08T06:46:00.000-07:00

Don't Stop To Help The Guy Splattered On The Pavement Or Anything

The AP Reports :

"More than two dozen Israeli motorists manoeuvred around the dead body of a road accident victim lying in the middle of a busy intersection, failing to stop to help in an incident captured by a traffic camera." Full Story

WHAT?!?

In America I believe that's a crime and it's called leaving the scene of an accident. Besides the legal factor, where is the humanity of people - to leave a dead man in the street?

I guess living in a "Democracy" is not a call to decency and compassion for your fellow man.

Have Israeli's become so numbed and indifferent to suffering and death that they can allow themselves to ignore a dead body in the middle of the road?

Well, someone ought to call and ambulance or clean that up - but we're too busy. It's not like it's the holocaust or something. Swerve around it, and try not to get the blood on the tires dear...

I am truly disgusted by this. It touches off that rare and deep disgust I feel when I see hospital workers in Los Angeles kick the sick homeless hospital patients out on the streets, in some cases drugged with medical equipment still haphazardly attached to them.

Travel tip to self :

When in Israel, make sure you don't get hurt, people will leave your injured body in the streets until it turns into a corpse.

-----

Note : Maybe I am more personally offended by this than some people would be. When I was young my cousin was hit by a car and the man who hit him did not stop or call an ambulance immediately, costing my cousin precious minutes that may have saved his life.

2007-05-08T06:24:00.000-07:00

Video Vets Chooses John Bruhns Video For Commercial

His name is John Bruhns he is a former sergeant in the Army who served in Iraq.

He said the following of the Administration and the Iraq War:

" I feel used and misled by the administration."

"I feel as if my patriotism has been used and exploited, my willingness to fight for this country has been used and exploited.

I'm very proud of my military service and I'm very disappointed in the civilian leadership and the administration for sending us needlessly into combat."

VideoVets reports that John said in an interview on CNN that he hopes Americans will see his ad and realize that "there are veterans that are coming home from this war that are very patriotic, that love America, but just are not going to blindly follow this president and this failed policy continually."

Director Oliver Stone (Born On The Fourth Of July, World Trade Center) made the TV ad which features voice over by Ron Kovic, Vietnam Vet and author of Born On The Fourth Of July.

Now VideoVets is working on raising the money to get the commercial put on the air to spread the message to a larger audience. If you would like to help you can contribute visit the VoteVets website or post the John Bruhms video on your own blog.

2007-05-07T07:28:00.000-07:00

All Dressed Up With Nowhere To Go

Few things in American history will be remembered with as much contempt and embarrassment as Guantanamo Bay.

The Washington Post reported over a week ago that 82 inmates at Guantanamo Bay have been cleared of charges but are still being held in prison.

The problem is multifaceted. Even though the men have been cleared of charges, in many cases their own countries do not want them back.

Another problem stems from the fact that the United States cannot legally send detainees to countries where they may be tortured, which is about every country in the middle east when you think about it.

Add in the fact that the US and Europe will not allow the men to roam their countries and now you have nation-less men, forced to be imprisoned because no one will allow them on their soil.

I can certainly see why countries would be hesitant to take these men back. Just because they were cleared doesn't necessarily mean they are innocent, BUT just because they were detained does not necessarily make them guilty either.

But we certainly cannot just leave these people behind bars to rot, there has to be a solution to this problem that is both humane and logical.

82 guys doesn't seem like an awful lot of people to keep tabs on, especially when they are already employing vast dragnets on tens of millions of innocent Americans.

So if there is some kind of concern that these men were cleared but may still pose a threat what is preventing the law from releasing them and then obtaining a warrant (which would be simple considering these men were just leaving Guantanamo) and monitoring their movement?

I'd say let's put them all on an island somewhere, but that doesn't seem like a very logical or humane solution. Something has to be done with them and leaving them in prison is not the solution.

These are people, not animals. They can't be held in cages or euthanized just because you can't find a home for them, your going to have to find a home for them somehow- these are just some of the ramifications that should have been considered before the prison of torture was even dreamed of to begin with.

2007-05-07T07:06:00.000-07:00

Lazy Links

- Humvee doors can trap troops
- Backpack blast near Vegas casino kills 1
- Injured soldier still denied benefits
- Tornado Cleanup Equipment In Iraq
- Suicide car bombs kill 25 near Iraq's Ramadi
- Iraqi blocs opposed to draft oil bill
- Congress considers broadening Justice Department inquiry
- 8 U.S. Troops Killed In Iraq Bomb Attacks
- Cars burnt, police hurt in French election violence
- States compete for deadly disease lab
- Boehner: GOP Support on Iraq Could Waver
- Chief takes May Day officers off street
- In Gaza, attack at UN-run school adds to growing chaos
- A decade of race-blind admissions at Cal
- Talking (or Not) to the Iranians

2007-05-07T07:01:00.000-07:00

The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood?

To the US the Muslim Brotherhood is an Islamic Extremist group, but to terrorist like Al Qaeda's Ayman al-Zawahiri the Muslim brotherhood is "lur[ing] thousands of young Muslim men into lines for elections ... instead of into the lines of jihad."

Full Story

2007-05-05T11:10:00.000-07:00

Conservatives Can't Cut It At YouTube

Who would have thought YouTube had a Liberal bias?

I mean, who would have thought YouTube had any kind of bias, period?

In fact when millions of people from all over the world are uploading their favorite videos 24/7 - chances are there is no real overall bias and the videos are of a random nature.

This just in from the world of crazy :

Apparently some Conservatives think YouTube is Liberally biased and they need a warm and special place where Conservative videos won't brush shoulders with dirty Liberal videos, an idea that is truly laughable. And can you say paranoid?

What's next? Accusations that the Google Search Engine is Liberally biased?

Is the sun Liberally biased as well? We had better get the Conservatives their own sun because they believe the sun shines a little brighter on Liberals so therefore the sun must be Liberally biased...

Seriously though, the Conservatives have decided to start their own YouTube called "Qube TV". Qube TV? They might as well call it "Square TV", TV for Squares.

Are Conservatives really that whiny and prissy that they can't cut it at YouTube like the rest of us? Do they feel discriminated against because their views are unpopular?

Ahhh yeah, well - I'm sure the Kluxers feel the exact same way.

So, Conservatives have decided to start a video streaming website designed specifically for Conservatives? Are they they afraid of hearing the criticism of the rest of the world that doesn't see things threw a Conservatives rosy and narrow perspective?

The Conservatives want to segregate their videos from YouTube, and you know what?

Not only is that idea funny it also works out rather well for Liberals because normal, oops I mean average people aren't going to be on Qube TV looking for something to watch, they are going to be on YouTube.

Because we all know when average people go looking for entertainment and fun, the last place they go is where the holy rollers and snobs are hanging out, so I don't see a very expansive future for Qube TV and I can't see them appealing to an audience that is even a quarter as large as YouTube.

This idea is about as wonderful as the "Half Hour News Hour" which was intended to compete with Jon Stewart but was about as funny as [insert the least funny thing you can think of here]. Is that show even still on the air??

2007-05-05T08:36:00.000-07:00

Yellow Snow Bracelets

"ABC News' Jessica Yellin Reports: The White House press office has handed out yellow cancer bracelets that say 'Tony Snow' to reporters.

Member of the press office said they would like the press corps to wear these bracelets during Snow's on camera briefing Wednesday, scheduled for 1:00pmET.

Reporters are divided, some plan to wear them but others are aren't." - Political Radar, ABC

**********************

What kind of move is this and what is it designed to inspire?

Here, wear this bracelet of support for Tony Snow, you know - the man who routinely refuses to honestly answer your questions and seems to genuinely enjoy evading and bullying you.

Don't forget to observe your "I Support Yellow Snow" bracelet as your raise your hand and please refrain from asking any serious or hard hitting questions because remember, he has cancer...

Puh-leeze!

2007-05-05T07:58:00.000-07:00

Lazy Links

- Did Rove mislead Congress on attorney firings?
- Study finds couples open to embryo donation
- Beating global warming needn't cost the earth: U.N
- Israel Resists US Peace Timeline
-Pope Benedict XVI Meets With Ex-President of Iran
- GOP convention papers ordered opened
- Lawyer: Military women worked for 'madam'
- Iraq, Afghan Wars Cause Concern in US Military About Readiness
- Former Gonzales aide praises fired prosecutors
- With veterans care under strain, VA hands out hefty bonuses to senior officials
- Trojan impersonates Windows activation
- Heavy drinking ‘shrinks the brain’
- AIDS Activists Protest in Thailand
- Iranians cycle for world peace
- GOP lawmakers: Loyalty to Bush may hurt

2007-05-05T07:47:00.000-07:00

Troubling Battlefield Ethics For Alleged Liberators

The AP Reports :

- Less than half of Marines and a little more than half of Army soldiers said they would report a member of their unit for killing or wounding an innocent civilian.

- More than 40 percent support the idea of torture in some cases, and 10 percent reported personally abusing Iraqi civilians.

- Only 47 percent of the soldiers and 38 percent of Marines said noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect.

- About a third of troops said they had insulted or cursed at civilians in their presence.

- About 10 percent of soldiers and Marines reported mistreating civilians or damaging property when it was not necessary. Mistreatment includes hitting or kicking a civilian.

The survey of US troops in combat in Iraq was conducted by the Pentagon in it's first ethics study of troops on the war front.

2007-05-04T23:13:00.000-07:00

Wolf Blitzer Cites Democratic Sex Scandals But Ignores Republican Ones

This just in : the latest example of why the saying "there is no such thing as the Liberal Media" is true...

Media Matters reports that CNN's Wolf Blitzer, while discussing the current "DC Madam" scandal cited several sex scandals of Democrats without mentioning the 2006 scandal of Republican Representative Mark Foley - who was having inappropriate relationships with underage male pages.

Blitzer also failed to mention Newt Gingrich's 1999 extramarital affair with then congressional aide Callista Bisek -- whom he later married.

2007-05-04T19:35:00.000-07:00

NRA : Terror Suspects Should Be Allowed To Buy Guns
Talk about aiding and abetting the enemy...

The AP Reports :

"The National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms. Backed by the Justice Department, the measure would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales, licenses or permits to terror suspects."

Keeping guns out of the hands of potential terrorist sounds like a good idea to most Americans, but not to NRA executive director Chris Cox who believes that denying terror suspects the access to guns would only

"allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere 'suspicions' of a terrorist threat."

Hmmm.

Common sense would suggest that if you can deny a person the right to fly on a plane based on "mere 'suspicions' of a terrorist threat" that it would only make sense to deny that same person the right to purchase a gun based on "mere 'suspicions' of a terrorist threat."

So let me make sure I have this strait, apparently in the Ultra Conservative world of NRA junkies this is how reality works:

Terror suspects on planes = BAD
Terror suspects with guns = GOOD

Giving terrorist suspects the right to habeas corpus = BAD
Giving terrorist suspect the right to bear arms = GOOD

Banning weapons on school campus = BAD
Allowing students to carry weapons = GOOD

Up is down, left is right and black is white. The stuff is so bold and reckless you can't believe anyone can say it with a strait face and a clear mind.

I'm all for second amendment rights, but if a person has found their way onto a terrorist suspect list there is probably a good reason they shouldn't have a gun until they are no longer under investigation for terrorist activities.

I love a good conspiracy theory but NRA people seem to be the grand masters of Conspiracy Theories that involve the evil government coming and taking away our weapons and making us slaves.

But let's be realistic, the redcoats are not coming and if the government was really that evil and wanted to placate the American people what good do you really think your rifle or pistol is going to do against smallpox or any of the other arsenal the government has at it's hands? So that Conspiracy Theory is "out there" as far as I am concerned.

We don't allow terror suspects to fly on planes so we shouldn't allow terror suspects to own guns, it's a pretty simple logic to follow.

Furthermore, I don't think there is anything "arbitrary" about keeping guns out of the hands of people who may intend to use those guns on other people in terrorist attacks.

2007-05-02T07:45:00.000-07:00

Loyalty Day, huh? That's pretty absurd considering ...

2007-05-02T06:33:00.000-07:00

Abu Ayyub Al Masri Is Dead Again, Or Maybe He's Not

Al Masri is dead, again.

This is the second time that al Masri has died, last time he died it was February. Just like Zarqawi who died one thousand deaths before his true demise, news of Masri seems to materialize just when the Bush Administration needs it the most.

Yesterday was Mission Accomplished Day, the day Bush was set to veto money for his own war and the news that terrorism is up about 30% was traveling fast.

Then the media announced a pipe dream that alleged anti al-Qaeda insurgents may have killed al Masri. Yeah right, and ABC didn't seem to be buying it either when they ran this banner :

"SOURCES TELL ABC NEWS THAT REPORTS OF THE DEATH OF HAMZA AL MASRI, LEADER OF AL QAEDA IN IRAQ, ARE UNCONFIRMED AND PART OF A MISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN. DEVELOPING... "

Furthermore, those in the know would remember that shortly before the demise of Zarqawi the son of bin Laden's mentor Abdallah Azzam was claiming Zarqawi had already been replaced by a man they were calling Abdullah bin Rashid al-Baghdadi.

It seemed within hours of Abu Musab al Zarqawi's death the US had already fingered this Masri character as being the new head of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

But there seems to be at least some confusion over who this man really is. BBC reported that "A prominent Cairo lawyer says the Egyptian man identified by the US as the new al-Qaeda leader in Iraq has been in jail in Egypt for seven years."

Psyops

The information coming out of Iraq is becoming increasingly unreliable and I believe this is due to massive disinformation campaigns by both the United States and the insurgents in Iraq.
Remember the Pentagons Information Operations Roadmap?

If not, then maybe you should read it and learn about a wide "range of military activities: public affairs officers who brief journalists, psychological operations troops who try to manipulate the thoughts and beliefs of an enemy, computer network attack specialists who seek to destroy enemy networks"

"Information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and Psyops, is increasingly consumed by our domestic audience," the roadmap reads.

"Psyops messages will often be replayed by the news media for much larger audiences, including the American public,"

The United States has been using what they call "psychological operations" for quite some time and these operations are not limited to the Middle East and most likely not limited to only the enemy.

One example may have been militant Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Shorty before Zarqawi's death The Washington Post reported in an article titled "Military Plays Up Role Of Zarqawi" that :

"The U.S. military is conducting a propaganda campaign to magnify the role of the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, according to internal military documents and officers familiar with the program. The effort has raised his profile in a way that some military intelligence officials believe may have overstated his importance and helped the Bush administration tie the war to the organization responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."

So what news can you trust that's coming out of Iraq? It seems like every tidbit of information is twisted and squeezed by the Mainstream Media and military in an effort to mislead "the enemy" but in actuality they just mislead the public.

2007-05-02T06:20:00.000-07:00

Seven Lies Multiplied By Seven, Multiplied By Seven Again

The video below is something I found on YouTube.Com and found to be incredibly creative and entertaining.

Is it hyperbolic? Is it provocative? The answer is yes, but in this case perhaps that is what makes it so entertaining.

2007-05-02T05:45:00.000-07:00

Lazy Links

- Blair rejects 7/7 inquiry calls
- Bush vetoes war funding bill, but fight isn’t over
- 4,000 U.S. soldiers arrive in Baghdad
- With No Body, Al-Masri Death in Question
- Spy court rejects no requests in 2006
- Immigration Protest In L.A. Turns Ugly
- Brain changes seen in some Gulf War vets
- U.S. diplomats returning from Iraq with post-traumatic stress disorder
- Calls for Olmert to Resign Growing
- ICC judges issue arrest warrants for Darfur suspects
- Arctic ice cap melting 30 years ahead of forecast

2007-05-01T17:46:00.000-07:00

Bush Vetoes Troop Withdrawal Bill

2007-05-01T13:32:00.000-07:00

Iraqi PM Maliki Purged Officers Who Cracked Down On Shia Militias

The Washington Post is reporting :

"A department of the Iraqi prime minister's office is playing a leading role in the arrest and removal of senior Iraqi army and national police officers, some of whom had apparently worked too aggressively to combat violent Shiite militias, according to U.S. military officials in Baghdad."

I have had my own suspicions about Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki for some time. I had suspected the Prime Minster may be involved in cracking down on Sunni militias but letting Shia militias roam free, Maliki's close ties with Muqtada al-Sadr seemed to confirm that notion.

Maliki does have his defenders though, who claim he has been equal in his distribution of justice.

Read Full Story At The Washington Post

2007-04-29T08:05:00.000-07:00

7 Out Of 8 "Successful" Projects In Iraq In Shambles

Rebuilding Iraq, one failure at a time.

The New York Times is reporting that :

"In a troubling sign for the American-financed rebuilding program in Iraq, inspectors for a federal oversight agency have found that in a sampling of eight projects that the United States had declared successes, seven were no longer operating as designed because of plumbing and electrical failures, lack of proper maintenance, apparent looting and expensive equipment that lay idle."

Read Full Story

So in other words 7 out of 8 "success stories" are now failures, so is the typical story of the entire story of the Iraq war.

It really leaves me to wonder how the Bush Administration and it's loyalist can continue to claim there are "real success stories in Iraq that the media isn't telling you."

One example is 11.8 billion that was spent on generators for an airport, now 8.6 billion dollars worth are not even working. That's a job well done!

Another example was medical workers who could not find the keys to an expensive medical incinerator, as a result medical waste including used syringes and dirty bandages were "clogging the sewage system and probably contaminating the water system."

Here's the real kick, the Officials said they wanted to sample various projects from various regions but :

"they were constrained from taking a true random sample in part because many projects were in areas too unsafe to visit."

This, they claim means that :

"the initial set of eight projects — which cost a total of about $150 million — cannot be seen as a true statistical measure of the thousands of projects in the roughly $30 billion American rebuilding program."

Common sense would suggest that if 7 out of 8 projects in so called safe areas had failed then projects in areas too dangerous to visit have most likely failed as well.

But asking for common sense to be used in the war or rebuilding is like, I don't know, walking on water.

2007-04-28T09:17:00.000-07:00

Retired General Says Bush Should Sign Iraq Bill

The AP Reports :

President Bush should sign legislation starting the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq on Oct. 1, retired Army Lt. Gen. William Odom said
Saturday.

"I hope the president seizes this moment for a basic change in course and signs the bill Congress has sent him," Odom said, delivering the Democrats' weekly radio address.

Read Full Story

Go Odem!

2007-04-27T21:14:00.000-07:00

Republican Rhetoric Center For A Brainwashed America

I made the following picture over a year ago for giggles. It's still true, maybe even more so than it was a year ago.
The "Vote Republican, Your Life May Depend On It" seems especially relevant in light of Rudy Giuliani's recent comments.

2007-04-27T11:12:00.000-07:00

Bush Vows to Veto Troop Withdrawal Plan

Duh.

2007-04-27T11:06:00.000-07:00

U.S. Attorney General Scandal Coverage

McClatchy is proving an excellent resource for continuing coverage and archives of the Attorney General scandal, including PDF files of released documents.

Yahoo! is also offering "Full Coverage".

2007-04-27T09:18:00.000-07:00

...Fox News’ reporting was parody, but reporting parody news is a new low.

Think Progress Reports :

"On Tuesday, Fox News morning show “Fox & Friends” aired at least eight segments on a purported “news” story that was actually a parody article written by a publication similar to The Onion.

The backstory: Last week in the town of Lewiston, Maine, a group of Somalian Muslim middle school students were the subject of a cruel prank when their peers placed a ham steak next to them in order to personally offend the students. School officials filed a report because the
students considered the act to be a hate/bias crime.

This actual story was then spoofed by a parody site called Associated Content, which made up quotes and details, such as the school’s intention to “create an anti-ham ‘response plan.’”

On Tuesday, Fox & Friends reported these parody quotes and details as actual news. Poking fun at the students, hosts asked whether ham was “a hate crime…or lunch?” and showed screen shots of ham sandwiches, starving Somalians, belching, animal noises, and mock “reenactments” of the incident. Ironically, the hosts assured viewers several times, “We’re not making this
up!”

Fox’s careless blunder made news in the town and “launched an immediate avalanche of angry phone calls and ugly e-mails to the school system.”

Read Full Story

Faux News is always finding new lows to slink to. Fox News is to legitimate journalism what Jerry Springer is to a serious talk show: sensationalist, over the top and absurd.

2007-04-27T06:07:00.000-07:00

Why Republicans Are Fighting An Uphill Battle In '08

Pity the Republicans, their base is so radical that when they appeal to their base they appal the rest of Americans.

The Republican base is the 28-30% of ideological neoconservative Americans who still support an unpopular war and an unpopular President. The base also has many other defining characteristics that will not be discussed today because war is the issue at hand.

Republican politicians [specifically this time around] are desperate to pander to their base and believe that pandering to their base is the only way to be elected.

The only problem with that notion is when your base is far outside the mainstream there is no way to appeal to the base and the majority of American voters, which are desperately needed to be elected.

On one hand you have John McCain who supports the recent troop surge that most Americans were opposed to and still defends going to war with Iraq although there were not any WMD's or 9/11 connection.

John McCain used to be favored by a number of Moderate and Independent voters before he started keeping company with radical Jerry Falwell, after admitting him to be an extremist.

McCain lost even more credibility with the independent minded when he gave out misleading information regarding the security of Iraq and then made a photo op trip to Baghdad to try to give the illusion of security in Baghdad. His misinformation was quickly noted by correspondents on the ground in Iraq as being "beyond ludicrous."

McCain didn't help himself either when he admitted that he sees no "plan b" for Iraq if the troop surge does not work.

McCain's latest incidents include singing "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys hit "Barbara Ann" and then deciding to use the "Barbara Ann" song at events.

McCain also flubbed when he "joked" to Jon Stewart that he had a present for him — an IED that he could place under his desk.

Leaving some to wonder that perhaps someone who cannot give honest assessments about the Iraq War and has no "plan b" for it, who takes lightly the possibility of having to bomb Iran and makes jokes about Improvised Explosive Devices should not be the next President of the United States.

On the other hand you have Rudy Giuliani, America's so called mayor. Giuliani can't get it right with the Conservatives he needs to pander to because he has been married three times and is just not Conservative enough for the real neocons, even though he advocates war.

Since Giuliani is having a hard time convincing the hardliners that he is a true neocon he has recently begun invoking the spirit of Ronald Reagan (the hero of the right) and referencing to his "leadership" after 9/11, even though Giuliani was slammed by the International Association of Fire Fighters, which is nation's largest firefighters union.

I had once viewed Giuliani as a real contender until recently because of his ability to siphon off Independent and Moderate voters still nostalgic for that courageous post 9/11 leader.

But Giuliani is driving a wedge between himself and the American people by pandering to neoconservatives by advocating an unpopular war and claiming only Republicans can keep America safe, especially if it is him. (wink, wink.) His mob ties aren't helping him either.

So there they are, the Republican front runners who can barely impress people in the same political party that make up their base.

So they have to try even harder to impress "the base" so it's essential to them to hammer extreme on the rhetoric which in turn only alienates them further from the rest of the voters who are a lot smarter and much less intimidated by threats and fear than they were a few years ago.

That's why the Republicans face an uphill battle in '08.

2007-04-27T05:03:00.000-07:00

Rudy Giuliani - Married Three Times, Pro Abortion, Cross Dresser BUT HE CAN KEEP YOU SAFE.

Ahem ... Like he kept New York City safe on September 11, 2001.

"They [Democrats] do not seem to get the fact that there are people, terrorists in this world, really dangerous people that want to come here and kill us," Giuliani said. But, he said, if a Republican wins, "we will remain on offense" trying to anticipate what the terrorists are going to do and "trying to stop them before they do it."

Giuliani didn't mention that it was a Republican who was mayor of NYC when the 9/11 terrorist attacks happened, a Republican who should have anticipated terrorism because of the first WTC attack in 1993, a Republican who was him.

Giuliani also didn't mention that a Republican was in the White House when 9/11 happened, a Republican who had all but had a warning memo pinned to his shirt, that guy happened to be the President.

Giuliani also forgets to mention that Congress was also controlled by Republicans when America was attacked on 9/11.

So what was that again about Republicans anticipating terror and preventing it? I forgot.

2007-04-26T22:42:00.000-07:00

Buying The War Or Selling The War?

Last night PBS aired what is perhaps the most important documentary about the Mainstream Media, it's interaction with the Bush Administration and how they helped push the American people into an unnecessary war with Iraq.

Buying The War takes an extensive look at the role journalist played in the run up to the war and their failure to even investigate the Bush Administrations claims about Weapons of Mass Destruction, or their claims of an Iraqi connection to 9/11.

Instead the media became lapdogs where traditionally they were watchdogs. Gone was the investigative efforts and cynicism that used to be present during the Nixon and Clinton years.

In the emotional aftermath of 9/11 journalist let their patriotism, instead of their logic lead them.

Instead of investigating any of the claims being made by the Bush Administration or taking seriously the evidence contrary to the Bush Administration claims, the feeling was that no one wanted to "question a popular 'wartime' President".

How could the Mainstream Media ignore the implications of scripted press conferences where only "friendly" journalist were allowed to ask questions like "How is your faith guiding you?" instead of "So where are those WMD's you have been telling us about?"

Any ruler knows one of the most important steps to becoming an absolute authority is to have control over the Press and the Press let themselves be put under the spell of George W. Bush and therefore became a failure to our Free Press.

Listen to this statement by former member of the allegedly Liberal media, Dan Rather:

"George Bush is the President, he makes the decisions and you know, as just one American wherever he wants me to line up, just tell me where."

I think it's fair to say that this is the way all the journalist were feeling after 9/11, raw emotion coupled with blind patriotism.

Truth, accountability and objectivity was no longer important to journalist, subservience to the President was, showing what a patriotic bootlicker was what was really important. It was a new order in which the Press was no longer independent from the government.

Journalist who stepped out of the official line were quickly attacked by what many have referred to as the "Patriotism Police".

The documentary illustrates a complete failure of our so called Free Press, who hold at least some culpability in persuading the American people to go to war by failing to be objective and failing to investigate claims being made - all out of fear of having their patriotism questioned.

What else can be noted is that all the neoconservative warhawk pundits who are calling themselves "experts" who claimed "We would be greeted as liberators" and "there are WMD's in Iraq" and that "there is a connection between 9/11 and Iraq" are still being giving platforms on televisions, even after all of their fervent beliefs have been proven to be false.

Several journalist were skeptical of claims being made by the Bush Administration but they were not given the same spotlight as those who were beating the drum for war.

Furthermore it wasn't like the evidence contrary to what the Bush Administration was claiming was very hard to find.

Time after time independent journalist and journalist outside the "beltway bubble" released reports contrary to what the Bush Administration was claiming but the Mainstream Media failed to pick it up or research the claims themselves.

I can't possibly do this documentary any justice by blogging about it, you have to watch it to believe it. The amount of details and information provided by Bill Moyers is impossible to condense into a blog.

The failure of the Mainstream Media becomes painfully obvious in hindsight when watching the documentary, which is a "must see" for any critic of the Mainstream Media or the Iraq War.

For broadband users the video can be watched at this link.
For dial up users a transcript can be read at this link.

After watching the documentary one realizes how easy it is for the Media to be wrong on the facts but rally for war anyway.

One also realizes there are still several journalist who are under the control of the "Patriotism Police".

2007-04-26T13:24:00.000-07:00

Senate OK's War Bill With Timeline, Bush Job Ratings Lowest Ever - 28%

AP Reports : "A defiant Democratic-controlled Senate passed legislation Thursday that would require the start of troop withdrawals from Iraq by Oct. 1, propelling Congress toward a historic veto showdown with President Bush on the war."

We also know by the recent elections and polls that the American people themselves want to start redeploying from Iraq sooner than later.

Now, we know that this bill will most likely be vetoed by President Bush, but what does this mean about the President?

Why does the President refuse to authorize money for the troops? The President is the man who is holding our troops hostage by refusing to cooperate with the will of the Congress and of the American people.

Is it because his pride is more important to him than the welfare of the troops? By signing the bill does the President feel as if he is acknowledging his mistakes in Iraq and his failure as a commander in chief?

President Bush has an approval rating of 28%, a full 11 points lower than Richard Nixon's 39% approval rating during the height of the Watergate scandal.

But you can't expect that to have an effect on the President. He will continue to be the same bullheaded and arrogant man who got us into this unnecessary mess in Iraq in the first place.

Now we will move into showdown mode with the 28% of loyal Bushies eager to take on the rest of the country to either force us into staying in the Iraq War or scare us into staying in the Iraq War.

This President was very interested in starting this war, but has little interest in ending this war.

2007-04-26T08:42:00.000-07:00

Quick Note : It's easy to claim sectarian violence has been reduced, when your no longer counting suicide and car bombings in the equation. Welcome to Oceania folks.