All Things "Gezellig" Between W And His Favored AG Mr. Gonzales

Finally, I think I'm agreeing with the President for a change. I know, hold on to your hats. But have a look at Monday's Joint Press Opportunity where W was hobnobbing with the Secretary General of NATO in Crawford. You will see how it's easy to concur with the President here:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. The Senate is considering a vote of no confidence in your Attorney General, and some Republican senators have joined Democrats in calling for his resignation. Is it your intention to keep Alberto Gonzales as your Attorney General for the rest of your administration, regardless of what the Senate does?

And, Mr. Secretary General, if I may, you mentioned the deaths of civilians in Afghanistan. Is it your concern that those deaths are eroding the ability of NATO forces to do their work?

Interesting question. Let's see what the President does this go-around.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Let me comment on that real quick. The Taliban likes to surround themselves with innocent civilians. That's their -- part of their modus operandi. They don't mind using human shields because they devalue human life. That's why they're willing to kill innocent people to achieve political objectives.

And, obviously, to the extent that the United States is working with our NATO allies in combat, we care deeply about protecting innocent life. And to those who -- Afghans who have lost innocent civilians, we grieve with you. To the Afghan families that have been affected by the Taliban using them as shields, we have great sympathy. We do not have sympathy, however, for the tactics of the Taliban.

Innocent people killed IS the modus operandi for the Taliban and the OBL style terrorists. The tactic is really reprehensible and the President is right here. We should harbor no sympathy for such tactics.

Unfortunately, those who would wish us harm can point to places where innocent Arabs and others were killed by US forces and contractors. Moreover, couldn't the whole green zone be construed as a similar civilian shield strategy? There are more Iraqi civilians working on and around military bases in Baghdad, no? What's the difference? I know folks that regularly comment here may disagree and suggest there is a moral difference between the civilians we kill and the civilians they kill, but really is that an debate worth having?

But what about Alberto?

Now, you asked about Alberto Gonzales. He has got my confidence. He has done nothing wrong. There's been enormous amount of attention on him -- that there's been no wrongdoing on his part. He has testified in front of Congress. And I, frankly, view what's taking place in Washington today as pure political theater. And it is this kind of political theater that has caused the American people to lose confidence in how Washington operates.

I stand by Al Gonzales and I would hope that people would be more sober in how they address these important issues. And they ought to get the job done of passing legislation, as opposed to figuring out how to be actors on the political theater stage.

Really, W may be correct in suggesting that AG Gonzales didn't do anything wrong. It's the people who were pulling the strings to get the judges fired that did, no? It's an ethically slippery slope, and the W, Rove and Co has been sloshing through that mud to the bottom of the moral pit for a great long while.

I love the line, "actors on the political theater stage." Isn't that why they call them politicians, of which he is one?

But I digress...what's the term gezellig mean? Look to the visiting SG for the answer:

Q I've just got one question. Mr. de Hoop Scheffer, how gezellig was it yesterday?

SECRETARY GENERAL DE HOOP SCHEFFER: It was very gezellig. I'll try to translate "gezellig" in American.

PRESIDENT BUSH: That's not in my vocabulary.

SECRETARY GENERAL DE HOOP SCHEFFER: Very friendly, cozy atmosphere. We had a very, very nice move around the ranch with Mrs. Bush and the President, my wife and I. We had a splendid dinner in the house here at the ranch. This morning, I can tell you that the President and I had a mountain bike ride together. We had our conversations. So you can speak about a very nice weekend, and we had good talks on top of it. So what can one wish more? It was very gezellig.

Sounds like a lovely weekend. I sure wish I got paid to ride mountain bikes with foreign dignitaries, don't you?

Soaking The Sand With American Blood

Well, it's Monday, and I'm in a sour mood. The number of dead GIs continues to ratchet up and the "right" continues to claim to be right. Their way is the only way. And, it's their way or the highway - or even more vehemently, you are a traitor to America...

I was doing some quick check of the usual suspects my blog roll and came up with the following musing...call this...drum roll please...

Windspike's Poetic Monday

As the blood continues
To soak Middle Eastern sands
Dear Leaders continues to preach
That pouring good blood after spilled
Will cleanse the gaping wound
Iraq of all it's evil

Surging more blood in between
The grains of sand
Is the only way
To clot up the hemorrhaging
Global War on Terror

But behind the mask
You find ideological strength
That can't be fought with bullets
Bombs just feed and fuel the hate

Iraq, The Up Side: W's Got Himself A Winning Job Creation Strategy

If you are an optimist, or you're a "half glass full" kinda guy, one way to look at Iraq is as a place of fantastic job opportunity. As of the start of this year, 146 new jobs vacancies were created for contractors there. Want to go? The pay is apparently good."

The insurgents are going after the softest targets and the contractors are softer targets than the military. The U.S. is being more aggressive over there and these contractor deaths go right along with it."
-LAWRENCE J. KORB, former assistant secretary of defense for manpower during the Reagan administration.

Ding Dong, The Wolf Is Dead

Wolfowitz resigns...despite the "full support of the president."

"The poorest people in the world ... deserve the very best we can deliver," Wolfowitz said in a statement issued by the bank's board. "Now it is necessary to find a way to move forward."

"I am announcing today that I will resign as president of the World Bank Group," he added.

My thoughts are why did it take this long? Discuss and blog on all...

"Constantly Reviewed" Is Not The Same As "Constantly Briefed"

The debate rages. Are the illegal warrantless wiretaps really on a solid legal platform? The President, of course, refuses to talk about the testimony of his former Dept. AG, and in the process falls back to trumpeting the Al Qaeda message to drive the fear factor into his argument and avoid legitimate questions.

Have a look at this statement from Thursday's joint press availability and see what you think. Remember, there is a big difference between reviewing a program before and during its implementation and being briefed on it. If you were seeking to ensure that your government is doing the right and legal thing, don't you think review should have been a better measure rather than resting on simple briefings?

Without dredging up the old reports about the outbreak of this scandal, as I remember it, it sounds like the President is misremembering his facts. Fudging the line between review and briefing is a nice way to not answer the questions isn't it? "Constantly!" Hmmm...was it?

Q Thank you, sir. There's been some very dramatic testimony before the Senate this week from one of your former top Justice Department officials, who describes a scene that some senators called "stunning," about a time when the wireless -- when the warrantless wiretap program was being reviewed. Sir, did you send your then Chief of Staff and White House Counsel to the bedside of John Ashcroft while he was ill to get him to approve that program? And do you believe that kind of conduct from White House officials is appropriate?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Kelly, there's a lot of speculation about what happened and what didn't happen; I'm not going to talk about it. It's a very sensitive program. I will tell you that, one, the program is necessary to protect the American people, and it's still necessary because there's still an enemy that wants to do us harm.

And therefore, I have an obligation to put in place programs that honor the civil liberties of the American people; a program that was, in this case, constantly reviewed and briefed to the United States Congress. And the program, as I say, is an essential part of protecting this country.

And so there will be all kinds of talk about it. As I say, I'm not going to move the issue forward by talking about something as highly sensitive -- highly classified subject. I will tell you, however, that the program is necessary.

Q Was it on your order, sir?

PRESIDENT BUSH: As I said, this program is a necessary program that was constantly reviewed and constantly briefed to the Congress. It's an important part of protecting the United States. And it's still an important part of our protection because there's still an enemy that would like to attack us. No matter how calm it may seem here in America, an enemy lurks. And they would like to strike. They would like to do harm to the American people because they have an agenda. They want to impose an ideology; they want us to retreat from the world; they want to find safe haven. And these just aren't empty words, these are the words of al Qaeda themselves.

And so we will put in place programs to protect the American people that honor the civil liberties of our people, and programs that we constantly brief to Congress.

"Blowhards," "hot-air artists," and "People With Something Fancy To Say..." Oh, My.

Lately, the blogisphere has laid off the Bushisms. But I found a fun one that demonstrates why I keep coming back to read the text of unscripted events hosted by the President.

Off the script you get a real flavor for who the man is. Here a segment from today's "Joint Press Availablity with Tony Blair.

I think you are going to love it as much as me.

PRESIDENT BUSH: You know, it's interesting, like trying to do a tap dance on his political grave, aren't you? I mean, this -- you don't understand how effective Blair is, I guess, because when we're in a room with world leaders and he speaks, people listen. And they -- they view his opinion as considered and his judgment as sound.

And I find it interesting the first two questions are, is this the right guy? Well, he happens to be your Prime Minister, but more importantly, he is a respected man in the international arena. People admire him. Even if they may not agree with him a hundred percent, they admire him a lot. And it's not just the American President who admires him; a lot of people admire him. And so he's effective. He's effective because he is -- his recommendations to solve problems are sound. He's also effective because he is the kind of person who follows through.

There's a lot of blowhards in the political process, you know, a lot of hot-air artists, people who have got something fancy to say. Tony Blair is somebody who actually follows through with his convictions, and therefore, is admired in the international community.

So I guess this is an appropriate question to ask -- right guy, is he still standing -- yes. This guy is a very strong, respected leader, and he's absolutely the right guy for me to be dealing with.

Tony Blair Good - Every one who opposes him = blowhard, hot-air artists or people with something fancy to say...holy shit. It doesn't get any better than that.

Blog on friends, blog on all.

"...On To Victory of Some Sort Or Another"

Here's another fun Mark Fiore video, enjoy.

Can You Justify Iraq In Light Of This Man's Experience, Mr. Bush?

I don't think so.

“But what can you say to somebody who’s lost his only son in Iraq?” Professor Corgan said. “What makes it hard is we all know how Andy feels about this war.”

Professor Bacevich declined to be interviewed on Tuesday, but his views on Iraq are well known, and they appeared to be given a certain weight in public discourse, in part because of his background as a retired Army lieutenant colonel, an observant Roman Catholic and a self-described political conservative.

Last month in The Los Angeles Times, he wrote: “The truth is that next to nothing can be done to salvage Iraq. It no longer lies within the capacity of the United States to determine the outcome of events there. Iraqis will decide their own fate. We are spectators, witnesses, bystanders caught in a conflagration that we ourselves, in an act of monumental folly, touched off.”

And in the May issue of The Atlantic Monthly, he called the conflict a “disastrous war,” and noted that “the thousands of Americans killed in Iraq include no members of Congress and not a single general.”

Is Tony Snow Lying Again?

Found this on today's text from the Tony the Snow-job's Whitehouse whitewashing of the news:

Q Tony, I noticed on one of your press releases today about Lieutenant General Lute that there were several quotes -- you may have done this in the past, but there were quotes from General Petraeus saying how great he is, and Ambassador Crocker. Are these things -- you have your press office solicit quotes from people, particularly someone in uniform, to make positive comments about people you know?

MR. SNOW: No, I don't know how the quotes came about. We didn't do it out of the White House press office. But on the other hand --

The senior press secretary for the president who just appointed a "War Czar" didn't know about how certain quotes supporting Lute "came about?" Come on, how stupid do you think we are Tony? What say you blogisphere? Is Tony lying?

Another interesting question emerged later in the press briefing...

Q Tony, on the newly created Lute position, is the President adding a new layer of bureaucracy in an attempt to cut through the bureaucracy?

MR. SNOW: That's an interesting way of putting it. What he's doing, I think, is adding -- what he's doing is he's just creating an action officer who can actually deal with the people involved on the ground, to make sure that you've got the proper kind of information flow, you're getting the inputs you need to make the proper judgments about what's working and what's not -- if something is not working, you adjust, and if people need additional assistance in order to get their mission done properly, you try to provide it.

Well, that does it for me...that justifies bigger government brought to you by the supposedly "small" government party. Why aren't there more GOP members disavowing this administration is beyond me as the W, Rove and Co has abandoned just about everything it means to be a good republican, haven't they?

Beware "Internal Whitehouse Deliberations"

You say "terrorist surveillance," I say illegal wire tapping of domestic phones. Let's unpack this interchange from Tuesday's Whitehouse press briefing where Tony the Snow Job rolls his snowballs into a pile of horse shit.

Q Tony, following on that. Whenever the President has received criticism about the terrorist surveillance program, he has said, look, top Justice Department officials are monitoring this for abuses. Okay, very dramatic testimony on Capitol Hill today -- James Comey, who in 2004 was the Acting Attorney general, testified that when he raised objections to the terrorist surveillance program, that Alberto Gonzales, as White House Counsel, and the White House Chief of Staff, Andy Card, took this extraordinary measure -- they went to the hospital room of John Ashcroft to try to get him to override what Jim Comey was saying, about how this needs proper legal footing. So wasn't that an end run by the White House to try to get John Ashcroft to overrule James Comey?

Well, that's one doozy of a question. Has any one seen this testimony? I don't general watch CSPAN, but this may be really interesting to have a gander at. How does Tony respond, you ask?

MR. SNOW: Well, number one, you've got a representation of internal White House deliberations, and we simply don't talk about that and are not going to.

Q But he's testified on Capitol Hill. I mean, he --

MR. SNOW: I understand that, but --

Q All that "you have to tell the truth to the American people" -- he's testified about this now, it's public.

The truth is going to come out eventually, and spear the Whitehouse right through it's heart. Some day, and I have said this before, some one very close to the President or one of the other Rove and Co. automatons is going to experience a crisis of conscience and write a tell-all that will eventually bring down the W, Rove and Co house of cards. It has to happen as this much bungling of the business of America is not going to go unnoticed....but I digress.

What say you Mr. Snow?

MR. SNOW: Let me give you a couple of things. Also, what had always been noted is the terrorist surveillance program was, in fact, something that was constantly reviewed by the Department of Justice at either 45- or 90-day periods, and furthermore was reviewed by the Inspectors General at the Department of Justice and at the National Security Agency. In addition, there was review by the FISA Court. The terrorist surveillance program saved lives, period.

Really? Until you can prove it in public, this is a hypothetical in any book. The days of trust us because we work for the President are over.

What else have you got Tony?

Number two, those who had questions about the FISA Court sat down and worked with the administration last year, and we worked out legislation that I think has met any questions that anybody had. But the fact is, you've got reforms, and I'm not going to talk about old conversations.

Really? We don't know that for sure, do we Tony? We've been side tracked by many more scandals plaguing your president's administration, such that we have lost sight of the illegal wire tapping concern.

Q But you had the Acting Attorney General at the time saying, in regards to what Inspectors General -- the acting -- chief law enforcement officer in the country is saying in 2004, I've got problems with this, and then you've got the Chief of Staff and the Counsel, Alberto Gonzales at the time, going -- and according to James Comey, they were trying to take advantage of a sick man who was in intensive care.

This doesn't surprise me in the very least, and is completely believable. The W, Rove and Co are that sick a bunch of folk that they would do this.

MR. SNOW: Trying to take advantage of a sick man -- because he had an appendectomy, his brain didn't work?

Q Yes, "I was very upset, I was angry." He was in intensive care at GW. "I thought I had just witnessed an effort" --

MR. SNOW: I --

Q -- let me just tell you -- "I thought I had just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man." Okay? Did any White House officials come and try to take advantage of you -- I mean, that's really not applicable in terms of this.

MR. SNOW: You know what, Ed --

Q They were trying to take advantage of him, according to James Comey.

MR. SNOW: Ed, I'm just telling you, I don't know anything about the conversations. I've also told you the relevant thing, which is, you wanted to ask from a substantive point of view, were there protections in terms of the terrorist surveillance program -- the answer is yes. It had multiple layers of review, both within the Department of Justice and the National Security Agency. Jim Comey can talk about whatever reservations he may have had, but the fact is that there were strong protections in there. This is a program that saved lives, that is vital for national security, and furthermore has been reformed in a bipartisan way that is in keeping with everybody. And you can go -- frankly, ask him. I'm not talking about --

Okay, you are really digging a big hole here Tony...but there is more. This isn't just some left-wing attack. There are Republicans jumping on the bandwagon here...Q

Last question. The Republican, Arlen Specter, not James Comey, reacted to this by comparing it to the Saturday night massacre during Watergate. Are you concerned about Republicans now comparing this White House to the Nixon White House?

MR. SNOW: What I'm concerned about is -- I'm not even going to get there. That's too tempting and probably not responsible on my part. I think what you really want to do is --

Q Oh, go ahead. (Laughter.)

MR. SNOW: That's my way of counting to 10. (Laughter.)

The fact is, you've got somebody who has splashy testimony on Capitol Hill. Good for him. We're not talking about internal deliberations.

"We're not talking about internal deliberations" is all you've got? That's not very substantial in terms of repudiating the claims of this person's testimony, no is it?

Q Let me just read one other thing that Senator Specter said today about the Attorney General. He spoke about Mr. McNulty's resignation, and called it "a significant step and evidence that a department really cannot function with the continued leadership or lack of leadership of Attorney General Gonzales." That is the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. How can he continue with that kind of comment?

MR. SNOW: He's going to continue, he's going to continue. We have faith in him. We disagree with Senator Specter, but we understand that he's got his concerns. Members of Congress are free to express them.

Why stop now? The W, Rove and Co has a history of backing people that cause calamity for or are an embarrassment to the American people.

The fact is, if you take a look at personnel throughout the administration, we actually continue to recruit first-rate people for this administration, and Paul McNulty served the administration well. He's decided that it's time that he wants to move on. We thank him for his service, and we are sure that there is going to be a new deputy attorney general who is going to meet the same high standard. And we have full confidence in Alberto Gonzales.

Just like Brownie, et al? Yes, even moral deviants and ethically slippery folk like Wolfowitz...have a look at this tidbit...

Q Tony, on Wolfowitz. ABC was reporting that -- on Wolfowitz's future -- "all options are on the table," and second, that it's an "open question" whether he should stay. Does that reflect the White House views?

MR. SNOW: Let me explain. There are two separate things going on. Number one, there is an inquiry right now -- I believe Mr. Wolfowitz today is talking to the World Bank, presenting his side -- on personnel matters. And what we've said all along is, first, we do support Paul Wolfowitz.

Of course they do, because he is a reflection of them. The time for impeachment is not slipping away. Proceedings can be started at any time.

For once, Lester - one of the regular "two part" questioners in the pool - has a point worth repeating:

Q Okay. In view of the extensive media coverage, there are millions of Americans who are wondering, how does the President, as a devout Christian and faithful husband, believe that the Bush administration is rightfully serving this country and providing moral guidance to our young people by saying that it is not a firing offense for a man who boosted the salary of his mistress to head the World Bank?

MR. SNOW: Well, I believe what we are talking about here is so-called firing offenses in terms of personnel policies and communications. I like the fact that you presented it in a colorful and moralistic way, but I don't believe that those particular issues were the approximate issues before the World Bank, or before the President, or before the board of governors at the World Bank.

Well, then, what are the issues and are they not related...

The President Introduces His New Scapegoat-in-Waiting

Voila - we introduce another level of beuracracy from the party that pretends to be about smaller, more efficient government. Really, if you ask me, W's just looking for a scapegoat to blame things on if the "surge" doesn't go well.

In his new position, General Lute will be the full-time manager for the implementation and execution of our strategies for Iraq and Afghanistan, and will manage the interagency policy development process for these two theaters, working closely with my National Security Advisor Steve Hadley, members of my Cabinet, and me.

I thought we already had a "war czar" and his name was Mr. President.

Is It Heaven Or Hell For Falwell?

If you were a betting person, would you think Jerry Falwell will be arriving shortly in heaven or hell?

U.S. evangelist Jerry Falwell, a leader of the religious right who battled in the political arena against abortion and homosexuality, died on Tuesday after collapsing in his Virginia office.

I know where my money would be placed....

Life In Iraq Better After Saddam?

Have a look at this and see if you can answer the question: Are American Forces Doing Good In Iraq?


Is America good for Iraq or are we providing incentive for terrorist recruiters?

Damn Responsibility

Have a look at this reply the Big Dick Cheney gave to a very legitimate question from interview conducted earlier today and see if you can identify the flaws in logic here. I've found a few.

First, when the Big Dick Cheney suggests people take responsibility for a possible outcome, don't you think that outcome should be based on something beyond a hypothetical? That's the reason they say they don't engage in hypotheticals.

Second, if he is going to engage in hypothetical, there is another story to be painted here and that is if we stay, we might well increase the chances we lose this "war" in Iraq. What about the hypothetical that the longer we stay the more we lose? Who's taking responsibility for that?

The last that I'll pose right now is to suggest that the "will of the American people" can be broken. I flat out disagree with the Big Dick here. I don't think we are weak in that category, not one iota. Iraq may be as good as we can make it, but we don't advocate surrendering to the terrorists. In fact, it may take a stonger willed American to decide to cut Iraq lose than to stay in, don't you think?

And, to whom would we surrender in the first place. Moreover, wouldn't it be good if we pretended to surrender, OBL moved in and then we exterminated him because he was exposed as he moved in?

Damn the responsibility - it's always easier to thrust responsibility on others when posing hypothetical outcomes to things that have not occurred than accept responsibility to what could be characterized as the biggest geopolitical blunder ever perpetrated by a sitting president and his cronies in the history of the United States.

QUESTION: On the debate about Iraq at home, do you believe that someone who opposes the war wants terrorists to win?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I think they have to be responsible for the consequences of the policy recommendations they make. If, in fact, they advocate complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, then they are, to some extent, accountable for what would happen when that policy followed, what happens inside Iraq, what kind of encouragement that might give to al Qaeda. Al Qaeda has based its entire strategy on the proposition that they can break the will of the American people, that if they kill enough that eventually the U.S. Government will withdraw. They believe that. They think they saw that before in Beirut in 1983, for example.

So if you're going to be a public official advocating withdrawal from Iraq, you, in fact, are also saying that what you're recommending is validating the al Qaeda strategy. There are consequences to all of these decisions and all of these actions, and a responsible public official has to accept the responsibility for the consequences of what they recommend.

Now, I think there's been not enough attention paid to the consequences that would flow if we were to adopt the policies that have been recommended by a majority of the Democrats. Nancy Pelosi and 169 Democrats last week voted for immediate withdrawal from Iraq. I think that would be a disaster. Everybody I've talked to in the region - everybody - thinks it would be a disaster.

And it's important that we succeed in Iraq. If we can't succeed in Iraq, then it does have consequences for the broader war on terror. There's no question about it. Yet some people want to say they want to fight the good war in Afghanistan, not the bad war in Iraq. Well, I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way in the real world. We've got al Qaeda in both places right now. Al Qaeda has said Iraq is the central front in their war on the United States. You do not want to withdraw and give them a victory in Iraq.

I don't get any warm fuzzy feelings and my faith in the W, Rove and Co to lead us out of this nightmare is diminishing every time I read these kinds of statements.

But hey, at least they put their money where their mouths are by supporting people who do good work, right?:

QUESTION: Last thing, on the home front. Your friend Paul Wolfowitz, head of World Bank, is under fire. Do you believe he should stay in his job?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I do. I think Paul is one of the most able public servants I've ever known and I've worked with him a lot over the years. I think he's a very good president of the World Bank and I hope he will be able to continue.

Damn responsibility. These guys are experts at shirking it.

A Glimmer of Hope, Or More Political Machinations?

Given the history of the W, Rove and Co, is it possible to see a glimmer of hope?

The U.S. and Iran will hold rare meetings within the next few weeks in Baghdad to discuss the insurgency in Iraq, officials from the two nations said Sunday.

The talks, to be conducted between the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad and Iranian officials, would be the highest-level negotiations acknowledged between the two countries in recent years. The announcement suggested a new willingness on the part of the Bush administration to reach out to a longtime foe.

Could be the trek that Nancy Pelosi took a while back lead to this small thread of a bridge. I don't know. But as long as the W, Rove and Co is not announcing that they are authorizing the carpet bombing of Iran, it's a good step.

Even so, because just about everything the W, Rove and Co does has some kind of political ramifications, overtones or subtext, I can't help but be cynical about this move. Are they trying to divert our attention for some other egregious or nefarious action perpetrated by one of them (that is about to be leaked to the press)? I sure wish I could trust the W, Rove and Co. I really do. Unfortunately for us and them, their deeds speak louder than their rhetoric, and their deeds lead to a negative rather than positive cumulative affect, in my book.

A Box For Mommy

Dear Mr. President Bush,

Last year at this time, we sent my mommy a Mother's Day care package so it would reach her unit in Baghdad in time for the holiday. We had to squeeze our hugs over the internet. They didn't fit.

This year, she was supposed to be home from her last tour of duty in time for us to hug her in person. We had big plans to celebrate her all day. But thanks to your war in Iraq, she got the gift of a three month extension to her tour. This turned out to be a hand full of days too long. And instead, she came home from Baghdad in a flag draped box.

Can you explain to me one more time what this “noble” cause is that my mommy was killed for? What's going on over there?

Let me tell you this, Mr. President Bush; I would trade all of Iraq for one more hug from my mommy on Mother's day. Meanwhile, we go to the cemetery today to hug the cold gravestone in the garden of stones.

Thank you very much, Mr. President...For nothing.

Miserably yours,

Jessica (8th grader)


P.S. This is a fictitious letter that I crafted as I reflected on my AM run one day. I do apologize in advance for not being present for the ensuing discourse as I will be out camping for the weekend. Feel free to grab this for your blog and distribute it widely as I don't think many 8th graders with similar experiences will have their voices lifted for them.

When Your National Guard Is Sucked To Iraq and Other Non US Locals, States May Be Left With Their Pants Down

I was trying to articulate this point a few days ago, but the Governor of Kansas wasn't so eloquent an example to use as leverage into the argument. The fact that the W, Rove and Co are having deep trouble securing "volunteers" for their "war" in Iraq, they have been relying heavily on mercenaries (at great taxpayer expense) and the National Guard. Sure, that's the point of the National Guard, to be utilized and activated in times of war. However, this protracted engagement in Iraq is looking a lot less like a war and more like a policing endeavor, if you ask me. But I digress.

Really, the point here is that, as States have their National Guard unites sucked to parts in harms way, they are no longer readily available to deploy at home should the need arise. From a State standpoint, the Iraq war is drying up already scant and scarce resources. Should there be some kind of natural disaster (not unlike Katrina) or terrorist event on our soil, would they be able to respond well and as swiftly or will the State get caught with their pants down around their ankles. Not unlike a drug dealer running away from the cops, it's challenging to to hold onto one's sagging pants and make good time.

There were a couple of articles today that make the point better than the Kansas Governor's attempt after the devastating tornado that "reaped a whirlwind" on one of her fair communities.

Have a look at this slice:

As state forestry officials predict an unusually harsh fire season this summer, the California National Guard says equipment shortages could hinder the guard's response to a large-scale disaster.

A dearth of equipment such as trucks and radios -- caused in part by the war in Iraq -- has state military officials worried they would be slow in providing help in the event of a major fire, earthquake or terrorist attack.

The readiness of the Guard has been described as a national problem and has become a political liability for the Bush administration, which came under fire this week when the governor of Kansas complained that the National Guard response to a devastating tornado in her state was inadequate. National Guard readiness has become a growing concern as the Guard has taken on extra responsibilities caused by the Iraq war and the increased threat of terrorism.

In California, half of the equipment the National Guard needs is not in the state, either because it is deployed in Iraq or other parts of the world or because it hasn't been funded, according to Lt. Col. John Siepmann. While the Guard is in good shape to handle small-scale incidents, "our concern is a catastrophic event,'' he said.

"You would see a less effective response (to a major incident),'' he said.

And what about the affect it would have on those remaining on the home front:

"This thing is so crazy,'' said Christy Arellano. "Over there, you never know who's going to do what.''

Over there means Iraq, not an easy word to say for the families of departing soldiers. Arellano held her 16-month-old daughter in one arm and hugged her Iraq-bound husband, Carlos, with the other.

"Daddy's going to Iraq,'' Lt. Carlos Arellano, 29, told his daughter, Ayiana. "You don't get to go. Just Daddy.''

The three of them hugged. Eyes were dabbed all around.

Thank you very much Mr. Bush. Your war sucks.

Truthiness: Pentagon Style

Here is another fun Mark Fiore Video: Enjoy.

Meanwhile, The Big Dick Cheney Continues To Stroke and Stoke The Nine Eleven Monkey: But To What End?

In the odd event you missed this Fox "news" interview of the Big Dick Cheney, have a look at his answers to see if he stands and delivers or falls on his face.

There are several questions one should consider as you review his answers:

1 - Do you think Cheney concerns himself with those who have died for his sins?

2 - Does he care about the damage he and his war mongering pals have inflicted on Iraq?

3 - Why is the alternative to staying in Iraq always painted so bleakly and in such a losing proposition borderline hyperbole in terms of possible outcomes?

QUESTION: You are portrayed by your opponents and some in the media as this sinister figure, as this cold-blooded warmonger who doesn't care about the number of body bags going back. I know you read the casualty reports every day. I know you and Mrs. Cheney visit wounded troops privately. And I saw you in Iraq with troops in Iraq. But how do you feel about the cost of this war in blood and treasure four years later? And I guess the question most Americans have is how much is enough.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, obviously, any casualty is to be regretted. Nobody likes to be in the position where they have to make those kinds of decisions. Obviously, the President bears the major part of the burden. He's the man with the authority to commit the force.

This is not a new problem for me. I served as Secretary of Defense during the Gulf war. I went to the services at Arlington after it was over with for the 148 killed in action that we couldn't bring home again. We got everybody else home, but we couldn't get them home. And when you see the wounded and the price they paid for their service to the nation and talk with the families of those who have been killed or wounded in action, it's a very emotional experience, and it ought to be. Nobody should ever be in a position of authority to take that for granted.

But I also have strong feelings about the cost if we don't act, about the cost if we allow the United States to be run out of town, so to speak, by al Qaeda. We saw what happened on 9/11. 9/11 had a lasting significance in my mind because it was a watershed event where what was going on in a country thousands of miles away in Afghanistan, where training camps had been established in the late '90s, where al Qaeda had been trained, put together the attack that came to New York and Washington on 9/11 and killed 3,000 of our fellow citizens armed with airline tickets and box cutters.

The real threat we face today is the possibility of an al Qaeda cell in the midst of one of our cities armed with a nuclear weapon, and if they ever were to achieve that, and we know they're trying, but if they were ever to pull that off and detonate a nuclear weapon in one of our major cities, it would rival all the casualties we've suffered in all the wars in over 200 years of American history. So this question of saying, you know, we're suffering casualties, isn't the cost too high, I don't think it is when you lay it over against what it is we need to prevent.

And one of the lessons we learned on 9/11 was that we can't hide behind our oceans and ignore what's going on in the Middle East and be safe and secure; we have to be actively and aggressively involved there. We've got to go after the terrorists. We've got to go after states that sponsor terror. We've got to go after people that can provide them with that kind of deadly capability.

Right now, Iraq is the centerpiece in that global war on terror. Al Qaeda has made it that way. Osama bin Laden has said that. That's where, in fact, we're operating now against al Qaeda on a consistent basis. It's not the only issue that's involved in Iraq by any means, but we need to get it right in Iraq. We need not to fold our tent and go home. If we do that, all we do is validate the al Qaeda strategy.

QUESTION: There's a cost politically, obviously, as -

THE VICE PRESIDENT: There certainly is.

QUESTION: Six in ten Americans say they feel it was a mistake to go to war. About as many say they think it's hopeless on the ground. And then you had a group of moderate Republicans at the White House who said they delivered a frank message that they are really worried about the future of the Republican Party after this - how the war is going. What do you say to those people?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, what I say and I know what the President says is that we were elected to do a job and to do what we think is right for the country. When we ran, nobody had any idea that 9/11 was going to happen just a few months later or that we would be faced with the kinds of problems that we're faced with now, in effect a worldwide conflict that has seen attacks not only in New York and Washington, but in London, in Madrid, in Istanbul and all the way around the world; an al Qaeda organization that's still very active today trying to marshal the resources and acquire the weapons to launch further attacks against the United States. We've been enormously successful at defending the country for the last five and a half years against another one of those attacks. It doesn't mean there won't be more attacks. There may well be.

But the things we've done, sometimes unpopular such as aggressively get involved in the Middle East with military force or set up a terrorist surveillance program at home that allows us to monitor communications between Americans and people overseas at suspect phone numbers or the controversy over the detainee program and how we interrogate prisoners. So I got labeled under that, obviously, because I stood up and defended the importance of that program. It's been absolutely vital.

We didn't get elected to be popular. We didn't get elected to worry just about the fate of the Republican Party. Our mission is to do everything we can to prevail on what is now, we believe, a global conflict, a fundamental test of the character of the American people, whether or not we're going to be able to prevail against one of the most evil opponents we've ever faced. And on our watch, we're going to do absolutely everything we can to see to it that we do succeed and that we do prevail in that conflict, and sometimes that means that we don't do well in the polls or people want to be critical. That's their prerogative. But we sit there every morning and read the intelligence reports in the Oval Office and we know what's happening out there. We know how committed our adversaries are to try to get at us. And we've done what we thought was right for the country.

Excuse me? Elected? I don't recall that the W, Rove and Co was elected more than they were selected in Y2K, do you? Perhaps more tragically unfortunate, the whole of the W, Rove and Co. haven't faced or even remotely owned up to the very real probablity that what they thought was "right for the country (ours and theirs)" was not even remotely the right thing to do.

Will There Be A September Surprise?

What is it about September that's keeping Helen Thomas awake here? Any one know?

Q The President emphasized September and he emphasized General Petraeus' report -- all week you moved away from September. Is it a real important date for us to decide things?

MR. SNOW: I think what the President is saying is --

Q Does he know that we have civilian rule in this country?

MR. SNOW: Yes. Do you?

Q I do.

MR. SNOW: Okay, good.

Q I'm not waiting for Petraeus.

MR. SNOW: Well, he does understand, however, that -- oh, so you're thinking what he's doing -- no, I'm not even going to get into that. What people want is a detailed accounting of what's going on in Iraq. And so --

Q But you guys set the date for September, you keep --

MR. SNOW: No, I think he actually -- General Petraeus originally mentioned that, and I don't want to try to -- he mentioned the month, and so --

Q Is it important, or not?

MR. SNOW: Look, what's important is for people to continue to take a look -- May is important; June is important; July is important; August is important; September is important. It's --

Q You're telling people to hold off on their opinions --

MR. SNOW: No, what I'm telling people is to keep their eyes open to the situation as it develops.

What the bleep does this mean? Our eyes have been open for a great long while...and the fact is we don't like what we are seeing. What will happen by September? Maybe some kind of troop draw down? But as we have come to know about the W, Rove and Co, this won't be done until the penultimate political advantage can be levered.

Thump, Thump, Thump, Is This Thing On? Is The President Listening To The American People?

Success in Iraq can be measured differently, but that doesn't matter. Many American's don't believe the investment has been or ever will be worth it. The bigger question is whether or not the elected official, supposedly serving the American people is listening. Clearly, winning at all costs is not acceptable:

One told Mr. Bush that voters back home favored a withdrawal even if it meant the war was judged a loss.

But really, have we lost? We went to clear the place of WMD. Seeing none there, Mission Accomplished.

We went to topple a dictator. Saddam dead, Mission Accomplished.

There were several byproducts of the Iraq conflagration that could also point to the Mission being finished: Vote taken, parlement elected. That they refuse to be a puppet to the W, Rove and Co. should not be an indication that we have lost. Mission Accomplished.

If these and many other missions have been accomplished, why are we still there? Might we not, if we continue on the current course, actually increase rather than decrease the possiblity that we "win" in Iraq? Where's the harm in pulling out our troops?

If you believe the president, we are killing them there, so we don't have to kill them here. That's a broad hypothetical that has yet to be proven. What say you Mr. president?

If you're worried about Iran, then it's really important that people understand the consequences of us leaving before the job is done. I am deeply concerned about what would happen in the Middle East should America's credibility be diminished as a result of us not keeping our word, as a result of us abandoning millions of people who are anxious to live in a stable, secure, free society. I worry about the signal it would send to al Qaeda. As I told you earlier, and as David Petraeus said -- let me put it in his words -- al Qaeda is public enemy number one in Iraq. Al Qaeda also should be viewed as public enemy number one in America.

And why do I say that? Well, al Qaeda attacked us once and killed thousands of citizens on our soil. I believe they want to attack us again. I believe failure in Iraq would only embolden al Qaeda further. I know that vacuums in the Middle East are likely to be filled by radicals and extremists, who, at the very minimum, would share a common enemy, the United States, and some of our strongest allies.

And so it's vital we succeed. The debate in Washington is, how fast can we withdraw, amongst some. The debate ought to be, what do we need to do to make sure that we not only don't fail, but succeed.

In addition to flogging the Nine Eleven Monkey one more time, we see that W and his Rovian cronies are again baiting and switching us on Iraq. The new bait is Iran, and a healthy dose of fear.

But really, should we accept such a broad hypothetical proposition from an administration that suggests they don't talk about hypotehicals (numerous references to that effect such as this: "MR. SNOW: And the point is we -- again, I'm not going to entertain hypotheticals, except in this way"...read, it's to our political gain)? And this from the man who swore up and down and would have over a stack of bibles that there were WMD in Iraq? Well, this proves once again that just becuase the President says something doesn't make it true or possible. In fact, it could be less plausible.

The fact of the matter is that our reputation is not doing too well over there even as we stay the course. Afterall, why did W hire that woman (I do apologgize that I have forgetten her name, but to be sure she was another crony from Texas) to improve our image with Arabic Nations?

Is the President listening to his constituents? Clearly not. He's fabricating his own audiance and consistently portends when he likes as it serves his political gain. But what choice does the man who suggests he's president have? The alternative is to say he was wrong, and then be chargible for perpetrating war on a undeserving target...which eventually would be punishible at The Hague.

But let's have a look at least at what the President's Spokesmodel is saying the president is thinking on this. Tony?

Q What does it tell the administration when the former head of the Republican campaign committee goes on the air and says that in this meeting, the sense of the meeting was people saying, my constituents are saying they don't care if we lose this war, they just want out?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, I think -- take a look, and I've been talking about what the polls are saying -- Americans do care, and the President does care. Still walking that tightrope, because I'm not going to respond even to stated quotes in the papers. It's important to realize -- the Americans really do understand, and the President does always make it clear, it is not a -- you don't walk away and suddenly peace breaks out. As I said the other day, you walk away, bin Laden doesn't become a flower child. You walk away, and as the Baker-Hamilton commission said, as the National Intelligence Estimate said, virtually every other careful study has said, you reap the whirlwind. So what you have to do is to make sure that as a matter of national security, you do it right. And that's why the efforts are on doing it right.

I suspect if you said to people, would you be happy if you -- the Baghdad security plan, or whatever, that stuff worked, the answer would be yes. As Helen says, who could say no to that? And so the focal point of administration efforts is, the whole aim is to make sure that we're doing the right thing, so that we move towards success.

Really, OBL as a flowerchild? Where is he by the way? Reaping a whirlwind? That Tony the Snow job has a flair for the hyperbole, no? Indeed, that's some wild speculation and a mighty fine hypothetical...straight from the man who doesn't engage in such...unless it's to his political advantage. Oh, yeah. That's right. I forgot. It's okay for them to do it, but for us, hypotheticals are a no-no.

"In The Name Of God, The Merciful, The Compassionate..."

Well, it looks like The Big Dick Cheney has traveled to Iraq (at great expense to taxpayers) in another PR stunt to prove to the American People that there is some real reason to have our toops dying over there. With this quote by Maliki, it's no wonder the W, Rove and Co love this man.

PRIME MINISTER MALIKI: (via interpreter) In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate; my meeting with the Vice President of the United States, Mr. Dick Cheney, was positive and serious.

Do you think Cheney winced when Maliki used the word Allah as he referred to his god?

This trip should raise two questions for the American people: 1) What's the purpose of this "visit?" And 2) Who's in charge of the Iraq conflagration, Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney?

Q Cheney's visit to Baghdad today, what's the purpose of it?

MR. SNOW: Well -- what's the purpose of it? He's there -- he's meeting with General Petraeus, he's meeting with the Prime Minister, he's meeting with key officials in Baghdad. And one of the things he's doing is not only reiterating support, but also saying something that I think a lot of Americans realize, which is it really is time for action; we're here to help, let's get going.

Q Is there going to be kind of warnings about the political situation in the United States, how political support over here is waning?

MR. SNOW: You know, I think what you -- you've got to be careful what you try -- because you're dealing with a sovereign government that has it's own political concerns, but on the other hand, I'm sure the Vice President -- look, when the President talks to the Prime Minister, they're candid with each other. They're also practical. The point here is not to engage in stagecraft, it's to engage in statesmanship. It is to find ways to work with this government so they can do things that are going to build confidence with the Iraqi people in terms of developing national unity and national capability, and certainly also developing confidence with the American people, as well.

This makes me wonder, if we can't fix NOLA, how can we fix Iraq?

Meanwhile, the President proves once again that he doesn't know how to negotiate as his spokesmodel threatens another Veto. Such is the challenge for a man who had his way with Congress for so long. When they no longer bend over and take it up the ass for the American people, the President proves that he is as adroit a politician as he is at insulting the Queen of England.

Q A quick question on Iraq. It seems like the House Democrats' plan is taking shape to fund the war in the short-term for a few months and then require a progress report before releasing more money. What's the administration's position on that?

MR. SNOW: The bill that was at least being whipped yesterday contains elements of the bill the President vetoed already, and if it were to come to his desk, it would be vetoed.

We continue to have conversations with members of the House and Senate, trying to put together something that's acceptable. But again, you take a look, there are a number of spending items, there are also some of the restrictions. Again, this is what we saw yesterday at the end of the day, at any rate. And certainly conditions that were a part of a veto message the first time are still going to be vetoed if they were to come back.

Q Make sure I'm clear on that. As you understand the bill as it's working through the process, the President would veto it?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Shouldn't the president be practicing some powerful diplomacy or does he have to always go to extremes to get anything political accomplished. With out his "majority" in Congress, he's lost. He may not think it's healthy for "America," but when he suggest that, he really means it's not healthy for the W, Rove and Co.

Disagreement and powerful diplomacy is what built this country, and I don't want ideas that can stand that test executed on my behalf, thank you very much. The fact that W and his host of GOP supporters can't craft an amenable solution is very telling.

"Deadly Week of American Soldiers - Of Military Dead:" Do They Count?

Have a look at this exchange from Tuesday's Whitehouse Press Briefing with Tony the Snow-job on full blow. Tell us what you make of it and see if you can answer the question to the title of this post:"

Q I'm seeing an incredibly deadly week of American soldiers -- of military dead.

MR. SNOW: What you're saying is --

Q My point is this -- my point is if you are seeing these things happen, for instance, over the course of this weekend, and the administration, every time they're asked about it, says, it's going to take a couple of months, don't make any judgments -- I'm just asking, at what point is it fair to make a judgment?

MR. SNOW: Well, Jim, but --

Q You're saying September is not --

MR. SNOW: Notice what you did. You referred to body counts. What you've said is, anytime al Qaeda can blow up a truck, they win. And the President --

Q But, Tony, notice what you did. You never have to answer the question as to what's significant --

That is a sick and twisted argument, don't you think? Anything that is contrary to the W, Rove and Co position on the war in Iraq is aiding and abetting Al Qaeda? My goodness, they've had their heads steeped for so long in the stinking pile of shit that comprises the Iraqi quagmire, they see every one that disagrees with them as enemies of the state.

But of course, there is more:.

..And in fact, the data are out there, but if all we're going to talk about is EFPs, then you're allowing bin Laden to govern the terms of this debate, as opposed to --

Q Where is he?

MR. SNOW: -- wish I knew -- as opposed to taking a fuller look at what U.S. forces are going to do. And I think it's one of the reasons why it's useful for General Petraeus to give that kind of a comprehensive report.

Q We're now at the point where we can have an incredibly bloody weekend in terms of troop count, and you can say, you know what, that's really not the most effective, accurate thing to point to.

MR. SNOW: Well, apparently, success doesn't work for you. So I don't know --

Q That's not what I'm saying at all.

MR. SNOW: It is, it is -- I mean, of course -- look --

Q Tony, I think we're looking for metrics. You're saying, Jim or whoever, is not looking at the good news. And I think we're all looking in part at the good news, but we're looking at other metrics, as well.

MR. SNOW: Well, of course.

Q And if you're going to say now, look, we have all this success, then what are you going to say different in September?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, let's take a look at what happens. Let me give you a couple of things --

Well, that's what we were doing. It's been a bloody mess, so do they KIA troops count?

Q Tony, I think we're looking for metrics. You're saying, Jim or whoever, is not looking at the good news. And I think we're all looking in part at the good news, but we're looking at other metrics, as well.

MR. SNOW: Well, of course.

Q And if you're going to say now, look, we have all this success, then what are you going to say different in September?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, let's take a look at what happens. Let me give you a couple of things --

Well, that's what we were doing. It's been a bloody mess, so do they KIA troops count?

"When Does The President Want To End This War?"

Q When does the President want to end this war?

MR. SNOW: Yesterday.

Do you believe Tony?

Why The Convoluted Answer When A Simple Yes Will Do?

Those of you following the federal response to the tornado in Kansas, may be keen on this segment from Tuesday's Whitehouse Press Briefing. As to why Tony the Snow-job insists on delivering a convoluted answer versus a simple yes, when that is probably the only good answer boils down to pure politics. In other words, he is trying to spin it his way rather than the honest way.

Q Just back to the National Guard for a moment. You said it's a success story, they moved in quickly. But could you have gotten equipment there any sooner were we not in Iraq? I mean, could it have been closer, would there have been units that were closer, equipment closer?

Stop right there. The only honest answer is, yes, if we had more Kansas National Guard resources in Kansas, the response could have been more swift. Instead, here's Tony's gut reaction. Remember, he "speaks for the President."

MR. SNOW: I don't -- that's a hypothetical question that I'm not sure --

Q It's not hypothetical.

Damn right it’s not hypothetical. The facts are in place. The situation happened. You can at least answer honestly, can't you Tony?

MR. SNOW: Well, it is -- let me put it this way. We have no indication that people did not get what they needed as soon as they needed it.

What? That's not a proper answer to a very straight forward question.

Q So they couldn't have moved in sooner had they --

MR. SNOW: Again, things were moved -- again, some of the things -- let me just give you a sense --

Q As quickly as they could now doesn't mean as quickly as they could were they not deployed.

Let's see if rephrasing the question gives Tony the resolve to honestly answer the question. Really, it's a straight forward question with technically only one reply: Yes. But what do we get?

MR. SNOW: Let me give you a sense of what's available in the state, because I think -- resources available: I already told you 83,000 National Guard units in the region, 99 bulldozers, 61 loaders, 246 dump trucks, 59 graders, 228 heavy expandable mobility tactical trucks, 2,243 2.5 and 5-ton trucks, 70 palletalized load systems. There's a lot of stuff available. So, again, I think this is one where the equipment was available and everybody was moving as rapidly as possible.

Okay, so this sounds like an answer, but is it? Not in my book. To answer the question in the title of this post - Why the convoluted answer when a simple yes will do? It's all about the politics for the W, Rove and Co. Any one who says different is "itchin' for a fight."

But really, is it only about the politics? I don't think so. If you dig deep enough into Tony's "briefing," you will find the real reason the W, Rove and Co doesn't want you to ask about this. It's because the American Taxpayer is going to be hit with the bill that is substantially more expensive becuase they are "privatizing" the response, much like they are privatizing the military by hiring Blackwater to do the dirty work.

Q I'm not trying to do that. The Governor has said she didn't have all of the equipment and that she was concerned about the personnel.

MR. SNOW: And again, when you're talking about the availability of literally tens of thousands of personnel, and thousands of vehicles, and people willing to deploy them -- and it's not merely, by the way, it's not merely the National Guard in surrounding states. You have EMS, you have fire departments, you have private vendors. The President signed a declaration that made private help available immediately -- just writes the check, boom, you just -- have them do it, we'll write the check for you. So we did everything possible to make available any resource necessary.

Except, that still does not answer the question honestly, now does it. The answer to the original question is still yes. Anything else is indirect lies and diversion to keep the American people ignorant of the truth.

Let's give Tony one more chance to dig himself into a bigger hole. Have a look at a more general but related question and see if he answers it adequately or honestly. You be the judge:

Q Tony, how much is the disaster response effort impacted by the war?

MR. SNOW: I think they're separate issues. The war --

Q Aren't they shared resources?

MR. SNOW: They're shared resources, but on the other hand, it is not something that you can't -- just as in a time of war, the Pentagon plans for more than one conflict at a time, you have to be able to do more than one thing at a time. So the fact that you have people deployed in a time of war to protect Americans is important; but at the same time, you also maintain your capability of dealing with domestic concerns.

Q There is no impact?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. I don't know how you measure. How would I measure -- I'm not being snarky in giving -- I just don't know how you measure that.

Q You look at the available equipment and you see how much of it is overseas.

MR. SNOW: Well, the fact is, again, taking a look at what you're talking about, in many cases, vital equipment for Kansas -- they have more than 100 percent of their National Guard requisition in Kansas now, including 2.5-ton trucks, and 5-ton trucks and a lot of that stuff.

There are a number of things that are appropriate for a time of war that are not necessarily going to be helpful to you in a time of rescue. Also keep in mind, it is not solely a National Guard responsibility. And in a time like this, again, great American tradition, pulling together assets from a variety of different sources so that you respond to the needs and you get to the site what you need. And in this particular case, people responded swiftly.

And the Governor and others -- if you look at some of the immediate responses, people said, yes, they were pleased with the response. And the most important thing to do is to continue working with the Governor and with authorities in Kansas to help these people.

Where Does The "Equipment" Do The Most Good?

With the news of the recent tornado in Kansas, one would think the National Guard would have been mobilized. Trouble is, the necessary equipment is in Iraq.

Q The governor of Kansas, in the wake of the tornadoes, has talked about the fact that she can't get equipment into the areas that have been ravaged because the equipment is now over in Iraq. What type of help is the federal government going to provide?

MR. SNOW: Well, first, take a look at whether such help has been requested. But what I would do is I would ask you to go ahead to DOD for really the specific answers about that. But there's been an enormous amount of help on the scene already, frankly, when it comes to what's been going on with the tornado. FEMA has certainly been actively engaged, and the administration is doing whatever it can. And if there's a need for equipment, it's going to be arrived -- it will arrive.

As you know, there are prepositioning points throughout the country for National Guard and other equipment in the case of emergency. So some of those plans, again, if called upon, are going to be put into motion. But I just can't tell you precisely how it goes. And in order to get -- the best way to get an accurate response is to call DOD on that one.

I love the "answer a question by raising a question" tactic here. Given the photos I've seen of the small Kansas town flattened by the disaster, if there is any one else left, they would be asking, and shouldn't need to ask. Don't you think the help should come regardless, not at the behest of some official doing some asking?

Even so, if nothing else, Katrina taught us not to rely too heavily on FEMA to get anything done, particularly if you have a Democrat in charge of any particular area.

But surely, if the missing equipment isn't deployable to Kansas, it must be doing some good in Iraq, no?

The White House warning came on a day when 25 people were killed near Ramadi in two suicide bombings police blamed on al Qaeda. They were the latest in a string of big car bombings across Iraq in recent weeks that have killed hundreds despite a U.S.-backed security crackdown in Baghdad and outlying areas.

"We are getting to the point now with the Baghdad security plan where there is going to be real engagement in tougher neighborhoods and you're likely to see escalating levels of casualties," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

Oh, great, more casualties. That sounds like a winning strategy. No wonder Bush is polling below thirty these days in some polls.

But there is always the tried and true spanking of the Nine Eleven Monkey that has gotten the W, Rove and Co support before. Will it work again?

Q Are you saying we want this war, the American people want this war?

MR. SNOW: No, the American people don't want this war, but they --

Q Well, you say the will -- they had the will?

MR. SNOW: Helen, the American people also do not want the Middle East in flames. They do not want millions of people dying. They do not want the economic dislocation, the geopolitical danger that would be ignited should, in fact, Zawahiri and others get their way. Americans still remember September 11th; they remember the fear it inspired --

Q But the Iraqis had nothing to do with it.

MR. SNOW: I understand that. But on the other hand, al Qaeda now has decided to make Iraq the central front. And it's pretty clear --

Q We decided that.

MR. SNOW: No, I don't think so. But --

Q Historically.

MR. SNOW: We've gone through this many times.

Yes we have, but you and the whole of the W, Rove and Co are clearly not getting the message. The American people are tired of having our troops killed for your adventure and grand experiment with Iraq. Phase withdrawal looks like a good option.

What Is More Powerful Than Prayer? Windspike's Weekend Wonderment Challenge

In the odd event you missed it, Thursday was a "National Day of Prayer." Here's how we know that our President is about image over action. He had this to say:

The greatest gift we can offer anyone is the gift of our prayers, because our prayers have power beyond our imagining.

I can think of about a dozen or so gifts that are greater than saying a prayer. Let me start and see if you can come up with some of your own.

Let's call this...drum roll please....

Windspike's Weekend Wonderment Challenge

• Answer this question and explain in a comment to this post: What is one or so gifts that we can give that are greater than prayer?

I'll start:

1. Not bombing the shit out of innocent civilians.
2. Building a home for the homeless.
3. Spending positive quality time with your family.
4. Working toward peace instead of waging war?

....you get the idea. It's your turn...I'll add more in a comment should it be necessary.

Blog on friends, blog on all.

Bill O'Reilly - The Insult Machine

You have got to love the poster children held up by republicans as their role models and spokes models. For example, Dick Cheney has been interviewed by Rush Limbaugh numerous times. Bill O'Reilly? Here's an interesting set of statistics for him:

Three University of Indiana scholars just released a "content analysis" of O'Reilly's trademark "Talking Points Memo," the brief commentary with which he opens his daily Fox News show, "The O'Reilly Factor." The authors begin by informing us, with some consternation, that four in 10 Americans actually think O'Reilly is "a journalist." But after many charts and numbers, they conclude that he's really just a big right-wing bully.

No, those aren't their words. Being scholarly types, they favor phrases such as "O'Reilly injects fear into his commentaries," and they punctiliously compare O'Reilly's rhetoric to that used by 1930s radio broadcaster Father Charles Coughlin, whose pro-fascist rants made him infamous.

But O'Reilly leaves Coughlin in the shade. When it comes to "name-calling," for instance (which the study helpfully defines as giving "a person or idea a bad label to make the audience reject them without examining the evidence"), Coughlin's radio broadcasts averaged 3.42 incidents per minute, while O'Reilly managed an impressive 8.88 name-calling incidents per minute — an insult every 6.8 seconds!

In sum, the report concludes, "It is fair to say that O'Reilly emerged as a name-caller."

Well, color me crazy, but I think we need to give the guy a little credit here. Do you think it's easy to engage in name-calling every 6.8 seconds? It's not. To match O'Reilly's performance, I would have to insult people 35.52 times in the course of this column.

Well, no wonder the Rovian ploy of calling people names first and then letting the target deal with the flack is used by many a right wing blogger as a surrogate for logical argument. They take the lead from such talking heads as O'Reilly.

Well, you can mark the author of the above column down for one insult for not knowing that Indiana University does not like its moniker flipped to the common mistake made by those outside of Indiana by calling my Alma Mater “University of Indiana” (for no such place exists).

Go Hoosiers!

Blog on friends; Blog on all.

What Is An "Acceptable Level Of Violence?"

Here's how you know that the President and his administration are completely out of touch with reality and what normal Americans think. You may have missed this in his veto explanation. But the President apparently thinks that some levels of violence are completely acceptable. As a person who travels through high crime districts on a bicycle to get to work most ever day, I have to speak up and say that the President and his administration are completely wrong.

The job of the executive branch is to enforce the laws put into place by Congress, not selectively enforce whatever rules they believe to be worth enforcing. Moreover, it's Congress that has power to control the budget specifically to have some kind of oversight as constitutionally established by our forefathers.

The trouble is, any level of violence is unacceptable and to suggest otherwise means that the President has given up on his job...to enforce the laws. It's time to give up on this President. It's never too late to start the impeachment proceedings.

Q The President earlier today defined success in Iraq. He said, "Success is not, no violence. There are parts of our country that, as you know, have a certain level of violence to it. But success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives, and that's what we're trying to achieve." What is the President talking about when he says there's parts in our own country where a certain level of violence that people will accept?

MR. SNOW: It means that you have places with high crime rates. And it is something that is quite often a fact of American life that we don't like and it is something that is a matter of constant and ongoing concern. But you could construe that as violence, and it is. If you take a look at drug-related violence that has wracked many of our cities -- and now, increasingly, in rural areas, as well as suburban -- that is a form of violence. If you read stories over the years that constantly take a look at murder rates and rape rates, and every time we come out with either the Bureau of Justice statistics or FBI with its reports, it's a standard part of reporting.

So what he's really talking about is that there's certain kinds of violence that do, unfortunately, exist in a society, but he was not arguing, for instance, that there are militias afoot or that sort of thing. He was simply saying, at some point, you need a level of violence in a society, crime or whatever, that is not going to be undermining your ability to have a functional democracy. And of course, the endless experiment within democracy is always to make it more effective and attending to the needs and safety of the people.

Excuse me..."you need" a level of violence? No level of violence is the preferable target here. No wonder they are having difficulty finding a workable strategy in Iraq. They can't even get the simple targets down pat.

There's more from Wednesday's Whitehouse Press Briefing that reveals the trap the W has set for his people. You may ask yourself what is an acceptable level of violence?

Q If the President is using that as an example of saying that the Iraqis, if they find a certain level of violence that is acceptable, that's defined now as success?

MR. SNOW: Yes, in other words, what he's saying is that if you can have a society that can function more or less normally, where you will have effective police forces that are able to dispense justice fairly, regardless of who you are; you have a growing economy; you have a rule of law; you have political institutions that reflect and protect the rights of all; you have a political system that is able to adjust over time and to -- amid compromise and full debate; you have diplomatic roots set down so you are a strong and functional player within the region. All of those are parts of being a successful state.

Q But the President -- he argued that this is about freedom, this is about democracy. But when the President defines success as a level of violence, where people feel comfortable about living their daily lives -- that bar is very, very low. That's much lower than a democracy or freedom agenda.

MR. SNOW: No, it's not. No, it's not. I mean, look, Washington for many years was the murder capital of the United States of America. I believe we are still able to do our jobs. Now, really what he's talking about -- he's talking about that. He is not talking about --

Q How do you define an acceptable level of violence? I mean, how can that possibly be defined?

MR. SNOW: That's a very good question. I don't have an answer.

The W, Rove and Co has been war mongering for so long, they haven't got a clue how to shape peace and democracy in a way that doesn't involve violence. The real answer is thus: No level of violence is acceptable. And, when the President of the United States doesn't understand that very simple principle, I say it's time to impeach.

Really the President has backed himself into a very tight corner between the rock (which continues to shed the blood of many) and the hard place (where innocent Iraqis weep). And we let him do it. Where's the plan to get us out and leave the Iraqis in a place where their society, how ever they choose to shape it, is viable? Answer: there isn't one beyond stay there for ever. Have a look:

Q The President said earlier today, he said, "Either we'll succeed or won't succeed" regarding the Iraq mission. And six months ago, he was asked, are we winning? He said, absolutely. And then it turned to, we're not winning, we're not losing. Now we're here at, we'll either succeed or won't succeed. It doesn't sound like a vote of confidence for the Iraqi -- what should the soldiers make of that statement?

MR. SNOW: I think the soldiers should make that they've got somebody who supports them. And they understand that the mission is not to leave, but to succeed and then leave.

Q But he says, we'll succeed or we won't succeed. He doesn't sound very confident in our ability to succeed.

MR. SNOW: What he's really talking about is the nature of political debate. Will the United States send a message that we are going to provide the support that will enable the forces to do what they want? As you know, Suzanne, again, the testimony General Petraeus has been giving indicates that there has been some marginal progress. He does not want, again, for people to reach too far in the analysis, but it's there -- not only in Anbar, which predates the Baghdad security plan, but within Baghdad proper.

The point is that the goal here is success, and the President -- success is still an Iraq that can sustain, govern, and defend itself. It's one where you will have levels of violence that will not jeopardize the ability of the government to function on an ongoing basis.

So, no, this is not a stepping back, this is not the President embracing gloom, but realizing that it is a complex situation that ultimately the American people -- and you have to understand what the military understands, which is it is tough business, but it is vital, absolutely vital for our long-term security. This is not -- this is a place where failure really is not and should not be an option.

Q Sustain, govern, and defend, could Iraq do any of those three now?

MR. SNOW: I don't think it is in a position independently to do the three at this juncture. That's one of the reasons why.

Execellent - that was four years, heaping sums of money, and countless dead bodies of an investment for what kind of return? This whole gamble has not, nor ever has been worth the ROI in my book. But those of you who read here often already knew that about me.

Blog on friends, blog on alll.

"Now Fund My War"

Here's another fun vid from Mark Fiore. Enjoy.

Predicting The Future With The President

In case you don't ever look at a veto rationalization, you can witness more future predictions from GW.

Ask yourself this as you review this material, "Why should we believe a man's prediction of the future when we know he can't do it well even with "all available intelligence?"

Remember who told us there were WMDs in Iraq?

May 1, 2007

TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 1591, the "U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007."

This legislation is objectionable because it would set an arbitrary date for beginning the withdrawal of American troops without regard to conditions on the ground; it would micromanage the commanders in the field by restricting their ability to direct the fight in Iraq; and it contains billions of dollars of spending and other provisions completely unrelated to the war.

Precipitous withdrawal from Iraq is not a plan to bring peace to the region or to make our people safer here at home. The mandated withdrawal in this bill could embolden our enemies -- and confirm their belief that America will not stand behind its commitments. It could lead to a safe haven in Iraq for terrorism that could be used to attack America and freedom-loving people around the world, and is likely to unleash chaos in Iraq that could spread across the region. Ultimately, a precipitous withdrawal could increase the probability that American troops would have to one day return to Iraq -- to confront an even more dangerous enemy.

The micromanagement in this legislation is unacceptable because it would create a series of requirements that do not provide the flexibility needed to conduct the war. It would constrict how and where our Armed Forces could engage the enemy and defend the national interest, and would provide confusing guidance on which of our enemies the military could engage. The result would be a marked advantage for our enemies and greater

danger for our troops, as well as an unprecedented interference with the judgments of those who are charged with commanding the military.

Beyond its direction of the operation of the war, the legislation is also unacceptable for including billions of dollars in spending and other provisions that are unrelated to the war, are not an emergency, or are not justified. The Congress should not use an emergency war supplemental to add billions in spending to avoid its own rules for budget discipline and the normal budget process. War supplemental funding bills should remain focused on the war and the needs of our men and women in uniform who are risking their lives to defend our freedoms and preserve our Nation's security.

Finally, this legislation is unconstitutional because it purports to direct the conduct of the operations of the war in a way that infringes upon the powers vested in the Presidency by the Constitution, including as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. For these reasons, I must veto this bill.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

May 1, 2007.

That's a rather large "COULD" there Mr. President. "Could" is rather poor justification for action when people's lives are on the line, don't you think? Who's to say some one else's prediction isn't more or at least equally likely to occur? Frankly, I don't believe him. Do you?

Anon has it right:

Where would Bush be without terror?

Fear, Osama's best friend, brought to you fresh daily by your President, keeping them both in power.

Bush's inspired lie.

''We have taken the fight to the enemy where they live, so we don't have to face them where we live.''

And Yet, W Still Manages To Find Friendly Choirs To Preach To

I am completely astonished, but they couldn't have pitched bigger and slower softballs for the President to hit if they were paying people to do it. Where do they find these people?

One day, the President is actually going to find himself in front of an audience that is going to ask him some difficult questions, but alas, today's not that day. And, his handlers wouldn't let it happen in a million years.

I'll spare you the usual A to the Q & A as it's more of the same fear mongering and deceit. But here are the Q's. If they don't leave you flabbergasted, I don't know what will:

Q Thank you. In May of 2006, my second cousin was on his second tour in Iraq. Corporal Cory Palmer, he's in the Marines, he was on patrol in a Humvee, and they ran over a roadside bomb. He and many others in that Humvee perished. What do I need to do, what does the media need to do to help you, so that my second cousin, and others like him, have not died or been injured in vain?

Q I'd like to know, like a lot of other people in this room, we have family members -- we have family members who are actively involved in the security of this country in various ways. From them, we've received positive information that we consider credible, who say about the success and the good things that are happening as a result of us being in Iraq. I would like to know why and what can be done about we, the American people, receiving some of that information more from the media, or (inaudible.) (Applause.)

Q We're General Contractors of America, and what are we doing -- I don't hear anything about the reconstruction of Iraq. Could you fill us in on that? Are we doing enough, as general contractors? And we are at your disposal.

And second is a personal question. What do you pray about, and how we can we pray for you?

Q You talked about the terror of 9/11, and what I wanted to share with you, my wife and I had our first child two months after 9/11. We named her Grace, because we felt that the world needed some grace at the time. And what I wanted to (inaudible) is the fact that our appreciation and keeping my family and also the families of America safe for the past five years is (inaudible).

That's about par for the course - three people, three slow pitches. Did you fill your vomit bag yet?

Blog on friends, blog on all.

Gore Is No Hitler - And It's Green For You And Me

You know, some Pundit’s are simply buffoons and idiots. And for some, idiot is too mild a term. I was pointed to an article by one of the Team BIO folks written by Glenn Beck. In it, he likens Al Gore to Hitler. That’s a bit extreme, but here’s what he said:

On the April 30 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Glenn Beck likened former Vice President Al Gore's fight against global warming to Adolf Hitler's use of eugenics as justification for exterminating 6 million European Jews. Beck stated: "Al Gore's not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization. The goal is global carbon tax. The goal is the United Nations running the world. That is the goal.

I still don't understand the anti-environmental movement. Really, if you think about this situation like a capitalist (and most reichwingers would suggest they are), then this is nothing but pure business opportunity. Why the “conservative” right would shed their capitalist skins to try and debunk global warming as opposed to embracing the new business opportunity is beyond me.

If you think about this logically, there is going to be a serious amount of new industries popping up and new business opportunities that result in IPOs etc...that spawn a whole new green and sustainable segment of the world market. And if they don't want a piece of this action, then fuck ‘em. I'll be laughing all the way to the bank.

The markets dictate, fortunately for us; not the pundits. And what they - those that would oppose the greening of industry - don't understand - which the Iranians actually do - is that the oil and carbon based industrial energy sources are not renewable. Why do you think that the Iranians are hell bent on generating nuclear power? Not because they want to bomb us, but that they know and admit the obvious. By a certain date in the future - and this is nothing artificial about this timeline - the oil will dry up and they will need to heat their homes some way other than burning fossil fuels.

So, in the near term, green and sustainable business operations are the best and single smartest investments a person can make. The carbon based burning for energy industries will disappear, making green related energy companies more and more powerful and popular. Investing in this new segment of the market – not unlike Benjamin’s “Plastics” in The Graduate – Green makes perfect sense.

Gore is no Hitler. And those that suggest that he is should put their money where their mouths are. Sure you can invest in Chevron and Exxon and BP. But they will either need to change and convert to sustainable operations, or become extinct like the dinosaurs before them. I simply choose to invest differently.

Don't be fooled into thinking that the existing energy behemoths can bend the their current operating paradigms to make that kind of change. They are simply wrapping themselves in too much disposable income to think differently. They think they are winners and winning. Really, the trouble with monetary success is that you continuously use it as justification for status quo protection. The more money you make, the harder it is to change your ways.

That is, the folks in the carbon based energy industry may be making heaping sums upon heaping sums of money, but that's because the supply side is shrinking, not because they are extremely good at what they do. Once the supply dries up, they go out of business. Change or die. It's up to them. If some reichwing pundit chooses to go tits up with ‘em that’s his or her choice, but don’t suggest Al Gore is like Hitler. That’s ludicrous.

I, on the other hand, choose to invest in green and sustainable industries, not only because it's the right thing to do, but because it's a winnable model for investing - why do you think Toyota just beat out their major rivals? It’s green for me, green for us, green for the globe, and if you are a pundit and want to invest your dollars foolishly, then by all means go for the short term gain, much like your beloved president, you will find short term gain doesn’t translate to a winning strategy.

Blog on friends, blog on all.

I've Been Tagged as aThinking Blogger and Here's Five More For You

I hadn't heard from Moxie Grrrl in a long while. Low and behold, she pops in and tags me with this "thinking blog" award. It reminded me of the twist on Warhol's fifteen minutes for those of the blog-set - that we won't be famous for fifteen minutes, but to fifteen people.

I don't know if that's the case here at Educational Whisper. In fact, it's hard to know how many people actually do read my blog, even though I'm creeping upwards toward 70K page views (which translates to nearly 46K unique visits).

Even so, I'm game as I like this idea. Hopefully, it will link me with some others and find me some new reads as those who blog over here regularly know I've been on a mission to find a few more good blogs.

Here are the rules:

1. If, and only if, you get tagged, write a post with links to 5 blogs that make you think,
2. Link to this post so that people can easily find the exact origin of the meme
3. Optional: Proudly display the 'Thinking Blogger Award' with a link to the post that you wrote.

Here are the five I currently visit the most and cause me to think:

1 - Kvatch over at Blognonymous
2 - Pissed Off Patricia at the Morning Martini
3 - Neil Shakespeare over at his eponymous location
4 - The many folks at Bring it On
5 - And, although it's not a blog, I do have to give a nod to the Whitehouse web page as it is a must read for me. It makes me think and is endless in its supply of hypocrisy, rhetorical shenanigans, and down right blog worthy subjects. My rule of thumb is thus: If your stuck for something to write about, pop on over to the Whitehouse location and you will be continuously surprised at the relentless rate of political ass-hattery to rant about.

Blog on friends, blog on all.

The President Specializes in Having His Cake And Eating It Too

I don't know about your house, but when the cake is gone in our home, it's gone. You don't get to admire it any more unless you go through the trouble to make another.

It appears that life is different for the President and his appointed numb-nuts in charge. Apparently, the President likes to have it both ways...we are winning the war, but there still are terrorists producing horrific results in real time about the globe.

Have a look at today's speechifying by W and expect more from W this evening as he discusses his only second veto in front of the public this evening. In nearly the same breath - in adjacent paragraphs - W tells us that we are winning, and then that we should still be very, very afraid...

There has been a decline in sectarian violence. And in some areas of the capital, Iraqis are returning to their neighborhoods with an increased feeling of security.

Terrorists and the extremists continue to unleash horrific acts of violence.

Really, it's the continuous presentation of this dichotomy that make my stomach turn. How can we be winning, but at the same time losing? Bingo you say! It's the W, Rove and Co way! Shovelfuls of American Taxpayer dollars are being disappeared before we even print it in order to support this un-winnable war.

Frankly, I'm getting very tired of the "we're winning but we must still fear" proposition. From it, there is no end. We can't force a loss when we area already losing, can we?

If you think about it, as presented, W's position sits atop an untenable proposition. Even so, his adoring public laps it as their lives, peace, love, freedom and security depend up the W, Rove and Co as if they are the lone and only qualified providers and guarantors of homeland security.

But fortunately for us, the Constitution will endure, and there will be a change in regime by peaceful means. At the end of his tenure, when W and the Rove and Co. pass the buck to the next administration, we may see a real change in the strategy. The fact that Congress is standing up to the W, Rove and Co is an indication that perhaps, the tide is turning for this administration.

What say you?

Blog on friends, blog on all.