"Return On Success?"

So, when people who disagree with the President's Iraq agenda suggest we pull out some troops, it's bad and "a win for the terrorists." But when George suggests that drawing down troops, it's a good thing because the process is going to be called "return on success?" Sounds rather spurious to me. Have a look:

Q Paul Bongiorno, Mr. President. As you noted, Australia will begin withdrawing 500 combat troops from southern Iraq. And I heard that you accept this decision, which did, as you say, play out in our election. But how does it fit with your view, expressed quite strongly again yesterday, that to withdraw troops at this time would be to retreat? And you've described our former Prime Minister as a "man of steel." I'm wondering how you'd describe Mr. Rudd.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Fine lad, fine lad. First of all, I didn't exactly say that. And by the way, we are withdrawing troops. It's called "return on success." And our intention is to have pulled down five battalions by July. Troops are coming out -- five brigades, excuse me -- troops are coming out, because we're successful. And so I would view the Australia decision as "return on success," returning home on success.

Does it really matter what the President calls a troop withdrawal? I wait patiently for the troops to return, but I think he should not berate those who advocate withdrawal and then claim that he's the saint for doing it,particularly given the nasty situation he has caused in Iraq and has yet to fix.

That's fundamentally different from saying, well, it's just too hard, pull them all out. That sends a different signal. This is a signal in which we're working collaboratively with the Iraqi government. They know our intentions, and they know we're not going to leave them.

In the very same speech, I talked about developing a long-term strategic relationship with Iraq, as well. And for those who didn't listen to the full speech, I will remind you that it's in our interests that we enter into such an arrangement. But a long-term strategic arrangement does not commit any future President to any troop level, nor does it talk about permanent bases. But it does talk about a joint strategic relationship to make sure that the Iraqi people know, and the Iraqi government knows that we're not going to leave them in the lurch.

And so we are taking troops out, just like the Australians are, because we're being successful. And his question -- Steven Lee's question was, well, are you going to bring any further out? Not, are you going to bring any out; are you going to bring any further troops out -- from that which we committed to do earlier. And the answer is, it depends on what our commanders say, and the folks in Washington say, and it depends upon conditions on the ground. His real question was, have the conditions changed such that you believe your commander is going to make a different recommendation that he might have two days ago? And I can't answer that question. I can only tell you what I'm going to do after we get back from NATO.

Thank you for coming. I've enjoyed it.

So, we are being successful in Iraq? Really? Have a gander at these pictures and decide for yourself. If this is what success looks like, the bar must be really by George Bush standards. Just goes to show us he was right to suggest that we "not misunderestimate" him.

Does any one else find it reprehensible that George Bush berates people for advocating withdrawal and then tries to take the high road by pasting some kind of euphamistic phrase over it? Moreover, it's reprehensible that he suggest what is ocuring in Iraq is a success.

President Bush Stokes The Empty Rhetorical Fire And Thrusts His Political Agenda Forward On the Backs of 4000 KIA GIs

One thing is clear in this, the defining "ideological struggle of the 21st century," is that the president is a master of empty rhetoric. Take a look at this paragraph and let's unpack it.

But there's one thing that is consistent. No matter what shortcomings these critics diagnose, their prescription is always the same -- retreat. They claim that our strategic interest is elsewhere, and that if we would just get out of Iraq, we could focus on the battles that really matter. This argument makes no sense. (Applause.) If America's strategic interests are not in Iraq -- the convergence point for the twin threats of al Qaeda and Iran, the nation Osama bin Laden's deputy has called "the place for the greatest battle," the country at the heart of the most volatile region on Earth -- then where are they?

Here we see Bush set up his straw man again and knock it down in front of a captive audience corralled by the GOP orchestrators and choir directors.

No is suggesting that we "retreat" from anything. In fact, a prescription for success in Iraq as authored by George and his war time profiteering brainiacs was at one point inclusive of withdrawing troops. You remember, "they stand up, we stand down?" The fact of the matter is that simply by withdrawing troops does not mean that victory is theirs.

So, now by articulating the new slogan for the Bush and co, mouthpiece for the terrorists, is to link Iran and OBL (where is he by the way?) in this brilliant piece of propaganda labeling the "twin threats." So, does this mean that we have gone from the triple threat of an axis of evil to the twin threats of Iran and Al Queda that things have improved or gotten worse for America? Really, the man is all hat and no cattle.

Asking the question "is Iraq in the strategic interest of the United States" is the rhetorical equivalent of the "when did you stop beating your wife" sort of question. It's irrelevant because we are there. We have no choice in that matter. Bush made it the central front on the war on terror because he was reckless and could care less about the civilians in Iraq.

To answer his question, the vital interests in our country right now seem to be located in our country. This doesn't mean that Iraq becomes less important, but right now it is clear that he values Iraq over the US as he's pouring money into that operation while simultaneously killing the very fabric of our country.

If he really believed in the cause, after he finishes his term, he would dedicate the remainder of his life to fixing Iraq. But is he moving his family to Baghdad after he leaves in January as a statement of his belief in the country and his cause? Doubtful. But that would be a move that proves his statement. Don't hold your breath.

What is more reprehensible about Bush and his team of propagandists arming the "presidential propaganda catapult," is their never ending flogging of the KIA GIs in Iraq to support their political aims.

Four thousand of our finest citizens have sacrificed their lives in this mission. Every one of them was loved. Every one is missed. And we thank God for the gift of these brave Americans

-- and we ask Him to comfort their families. Every one of them will be honored throughout our history. But the best way to honor the fallen is to complete the mission, and lay the foundation of peace. (Applause.)

What exactly is that mission Mr. Bush? It's changed so frequently, I can't keep it straight. Please, stop levering dead GIs to keep the fuel pouring on the conflagration that caused their deaths. Please.

Iraq Attack: Now You Can Relive It

Frontline has a new documentary that highlights the events that comprised/comprise "Bush's War." I caught it last night on the HD PBS channel.

If you would like to amplify your queasiness and heighten your belief that perhaps going to Iraq was the wrong thing to do, I suggest you watch it. The closing words, "Stalemate," really makes the whole Iraq "WMD Hunt, Liberation, Freedom and Democracy spreading" debacle more despicable and reprehensible on our part. Unloading the fury we unleashed on Iraq over these low five years seems less and less justified and more and more like a quagmire that could have been avoided if George Bush and his Administration was not there.

Unfortunately for America, we are now married to Iraq and much of it is all water under the bridge. Iraq has become a welfare state we can't afford (shoot, we can't even figure out how to fix social security. How can we be expected to support the Iraqis?) Can we apply for a divorce from Iraq under a new President? Doubt it. The bigger question is how do we hold the bastards that got us Iraq accountable for this mess? Perhaps it will never be allowed, but it that doesn't mean someone shouldn't be held accountable for it.

4000 KIA: Brought To You By George W. Bush

Civilian Deaths, Military Deaths...no end in sight.

No one would argue that this war has not come at a high cost in lives and treasure -- but those costs are necessary when we consider the cost of a strategic victory for our enemies in Iraq.

Perhaps the President's definition of victory is different from the one that involves the withdrawal of troops, but one could safely ague that withdrawal of troops doesn't necessarily equate to or ensure victory for our enemies.

Indeed, as originally intended, the Iraqis were supposed to "stand up, so we could stand down." Thus, by Bush's own definition, withdrawal of the troops is a necessary part of the victory equation not a sign of defeat. Again, we see the president trying to have his cake and eat it too.

What's most irksome about George Bush's Iraq "plan" is the shifting quicksand for both rationale for the initial invasion and the definition of victory that makes the whole debacle quite untenable. At nearly $ 5000 dollars per second, and many lives lost already and no end in sight, I ask this question once again. At what point does one more GI KIA no longer worth it?

Can you tell this kid filming his/her father's funeral that her/his dad was a "necessary cost?"

God Loves Guns

Based on the President's Easter benediction, you would think God loves guns. Certainly, it's plain: God loves strong military might.

On Easter, we hold in our hearts those who will be spending this holiday far from home -- our troops on the front lines. I deeply appreciate the sacrifices that they and their families are making. America is blessed with the world's greatest military, made up of men and women who fulfill their responsibilities with dignity, humility, and honor. Their dedication is an inspiration to our country and a cause for gratitude this Easter season.

God Bless America, may she always be right!









.....psst...what are you doing looking down here....yes, May God Bless America and may she always be right....That's what I typed....

















psstt....why do you continue to scroll down...what? We weren't right about WMD in Iraq? My goodness, do you think we are on shaky ground here?








Psst...why do you keep scrolling down....God does live the Military, particularly ours. God thus, must love guns, no? Am I wrong?







Allah Akbar!

Fox News: Tool of The Devil, Tool Of The Right

News? You be the judge:



"Icky?" Karl Rove is a happy man every time he has lunch with Rupert Murdoch.

"Becase We Acted..."

No doubt, we are all tired of listening to the sound bites carefully selected from today's Presidential Propaganda Catapult launch from the Pentagon. I just want to unpack one paragraph. Have a gander and see what you think:

Because we acted, Saddam Hussein no longer fills fields with the remains of innocent men, women and children.

Saddam's dead, sure. But we have been responsible for putting a lot of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children in the ground too.

Because we acted, Saddam's torture chambers and rape rooms and children's prisons have been closed for good.

Sure, Saddam is dead and cannot open the McFrancise version of his "torture" chambers, but this claim is hollow because Bush and his cronies still allow torture anyway, and by our own hands (Waterboards for Every One).

Because we acted, Saddam's regime is no longer invading its neighbors or attacking them with chemical weapons and ballistic missiles.

But with all the saber rattling toward Iran, it's looking a lot like we may invade that neighbor. Or is all the threatening rhetoric about Iran getting the nuke just a lot of hot air?

Because we acted, Saddam's regime is no longer paying the families of suicide bombers in the Holy Land.

But the suicide bombers keep coming, and the IEDs, which are more threatening are still exploding. It could be argued that our presence in Iraq has led the recruiting drive for the Jihadists making it substantially easier for the terrorists to recruit more terrorists because we acted in Iraq.

Because we acted, Saddam's regime is no longer shooting at American and British aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones and defying the will of the United Nations.

I may be quibbling about grammar here, but regimes don't act. People do. And last I checked our troops are still in harms way getting shot at. Does it matter that it's not a "regime" but a reconstituted army of believers who used to follow Saddam?

Because we acted, the world is better and United States of America is safer.(Applause.)

Well, that's most certainly debatable, and in the face of the threatening language George Bush used yesterday when talking about Iran, it doesn't pass muster. You can't spur fear and simultaneously say we are safe. Bush continues to dance the fine line between foolishness and faith preferring to lead via faith over fact, and all I know is I most certainly don't feel safer for it.

Ever The Fear Monger: Bush Set To Beat The Drum For The Terrorists Once Again

Amidst the backdrop of protests happening around the globe, George Bush is scheduled to again spout his usual fear laden diatribe to drum up more support for his grand "democracy spreading" experiment in Iraq. Really, however you like to slice it, OBL couldn't ask for a better person to beat the fear drum for his cause.

President Bush says he has no doubts about waging the unpopular war in Iraq despite the "high cost in lives and treasure." He says that retreat now would embolden Iran and provide al-Qaida with money for weapons of mass destruction to attack the United States.

Bush has taken our country down the road we never should had traveled and there's no easy way out of it. I just wish he would stop mongering the fear to get us to support him and his ungodly and unfathomably costly war to assuage his on guilty conscience (if he has one). No doubt, these words come easy to the man who hasn't lost a child nor had his child incapacitated because of his Iraq mess. "High Cost in lives and treasure" my God. He has no idea how bad it is does he?

No Basis For Comparison

Found out this about Barack Obama's mother:

Kansas was merely a way station in her childhood, wheeling westward in the slipstream of her furniture-salesman father. In Hawaii, she married an African student at age 18. Then she married an Indonesian, moved to Jakarta, became an anthropologist, wrote an 800-page dissertation on peasant blacksmithing in Java, worked for the Ford Foundation, championed women’s work and helped bring microcredit to the world’s poor.

Makes me wonder what George W. Bush's mother has done to advance the world. I'm sure there's no basis for comparison, but it looks to me that Barak Obama is coming from a solid rather the entirely privileged lineage like some Presidents we know.

George Bush (Brillant Master Of The Obvious) Says, "In The Long Run, Our Economy Is Going To Be Fine"

No one ever claimed that George Bush has a powerful intellect. Certainly, you can't expect more from the man who claimed a while back that we should "not misunderestimate" him. I cannot help but hearken back to that wonderful scene in the classic movie Animal House - where with the hoards roaring at him, the ROTC cadet yelling "all is well, remain calm" while getting flattened by the onrushing mob.

George Bush is so insignificant to the economy except for the inexcusable abuse of his administrations authority to get our country into this situation. His recent one minute speechifying is proof that he is irrelevant at this point in time:

9:40 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for coming by today to talk about the economic situation -- we'll be meeting later on this afternoon with the President's Task Force on Financial Markets.

First of all, the Secretary has given me an update. One thing is for certain -- we're in challenging times. But another thing is for certain -- that we've taken strong and decisive action. The Federal Reserve has moved quickly to bring order to the financial markets. Secretary Paulson has been -- is supportive of that action, as am I. And I want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for working over the weekend. You've shown the country and the world that the United States is on top of the situation.

Secondly, you've reaffirmed the fact that our financial institutions are strong and that our capital markets are functioning efficiently and effectively. We obviously will continue to monitor the situation and when need be, will act decisively, in a way that continues to bring order to the financial markets.

In the long run, our economy is going to be fine. Right now we're dealing with a difficult situation and, Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you very much for your steady and strong and consistent leadership.

Thank you very much.

END 9:41 A.M. EDT

So, in the one minute it took George Bush to deliver his comments, has he been able to restore your faith in his leadership to deliver us from the mess he helped cultivate? Right, of course our economy will be fine in the long run. We recovered from the Depression right? It's what's happening right now that hurts.

Pretty soon, they are going to foreclose on the undelivered FEMA trailers and then what? Too bad George can't think past saving his pals in big business. If he was so keen to screw the little guy by routing the Chapter 11 laws, why wouldn't they have let Bear Sterns sink in it's own sauce?

When it gets right down to it, we see the President and his staff doing the time honored W, Rove and Co thing, saving their friends asses, screwing the little guy, and then blaming some one else for the economy they delivered.

Q For people who are losing their homes, or losing their jobs, and then they see the government helping engineer this $30 billion line of credit for Bear Stearns, and help for other financial investment firms on Wall Street, how do you reconcile the two?

MS. PERINO: Well, the way I would answer that question is in two parts. One, this isn't about bailing anyone out. These actions are intended, as I said earlier today, to minimize financial market disruptions. And investors in Bear Stearns are taking large and significant losses in this transaction. And that's not what happens in a bail-out. They bought into a company, they took a financial risk -- and it had paid off quite well for them a while ago, but today they're looking at a stock that's only worth $2. And the Fed, what they did last night, is try to provide liquidity to the markets so it would stabilize, and we could have orderliness in the system.

But I would also say that a major market disruption would have very damaging consequences and be very painful for everybody, from the small business owner to the homeowner, for everybody all the way up and down the economic food chain. And the goal here is to prevent a major disruption in financial markets. And the Fed is taking decisive action when necessary, and that is what they saw last night.

In addition to that, homeowners and small business owners and everyone across America needs to know that we've acted on multiple fronts, starting back in August -- that was when the President recognized that we might be heading into some headwinds in the economy, with several different aspects of it. And if you look back consistently over those past several months, he has said that we needed to take some action. And over time, we proposed legislation, dealing with the housing market. We also worked with the private sector to help homeowners, through HOPE NOW, and then Project Lifeline. We supported legislation that would not penalize people for writing down mortgage debt when they did a refinancing. And that finally became law.

We haven't had Congress act on one of the most important things they could do, which is Federal Housing Administration -- changes in reforms that we've asked for. It's been about seven months since the President first announced that, and Congress is now and again on a two-week recess, and nothing is going to happen.

But at the same time, back in January, the President said, when we worked on the stimulus package, that the reason that we're doing that is because we could see in the future there could be a potential downturn in the economy. And so if things were to get worse, we would have a stimulus package in effect. We called that, remember, an insurance policy, a booster shot, that we said would take effect and have impact later in the summer. And the President and Congress were right to work together on that bipartisan package, because those tax rebates will be going out to people all across the country, including the homeowners that you talk about.

Q But, Dana, how does this square with sort of traditional conservative economic principles of limited government involvement in terms of, sort of, maybe culling the herd a little bit, letting the firms that are going to fail, fail, and thus more can sort of live on the back end?

MS. PERINO: Well, I would point out again that, remember, investors -- Bear Stearns basically went from a company that was doing quite well to failure, and at $2 a share, I should think that those investors are seeing -- feeling today the consequences of that risk in a marketplace. But I would remind you that what's right for the markets and stability for the financial system had to be taken into consideration. And that's what the Fed decided to do, is to act quickly, to act decisively, to make sure that we could provide what's needed right now, which is stability and liquidity and orderliness.

And the Treasury Department is able to answer lots more of detailed questions, and the Fed certainly on historical questions in this matter.

Q But people who are facing, say, foreclosure, the individuals, the little guys who are facing a foreclosure are looking at the big guys getting government, if not brokered, certainly they're overseeing deals that are engineered to sort of keep the big picture financial community afloat, and they're saying, well, where's my boost of liquidity?

MS. PERINO: They're going to get that boost of liquidity in the form of a stimulus package and a tax rebate that's coming to them the second week of May.

Q But that's not going to save their houses.

MS. PERINO: The other way to help work on the housing issues is to take advantage of some of the programs that we have in place, to talk with HOPE NOW or Project Lifeline, for those who are in more serious dire straits, and also to work -- for us to continue from the administration to call on Congress to finally take action on Federal Housing Administration reforms, which we think are necessary to help homeowners across-the-board.

But I would remind you, and remind consumers all across America, that the decisive action taken by the Fed yesterday was precisely to prevent long-term economic harm to everybody in the United States, including, as you said, the little guy.

Right, so they are suggesting the 300 or 800 so dollars you and I get are the equivalent of the multi-billion dollar bail out of the investment industry? Right. When was the last time Reagan applied strategy of "trickle down economics" actually worked to help leverage the little guy up out of an economic hole she or he didn't create?

Uh Oh!

Sure fire way to get the market to tank even further? Add President Bush's sharp intellect to solving the fiscal woes of our country:

President George W. Bush plans to meet on Monday with top U.S. financial policymakers, the White House said, at a time of increased strains in credit markets and fears of a recession.

What's that sucking sound? That's the market drowning in corporate bail outs (read: Corporate welfare for the already rich (Bear Sterns ring a bell any one). Any one taking bets on if Bush will be able to fix this situation like he's fixed Iraq?

Dear President Bush, Thanks For The STD!

One of George Bush's educational mainstays beyond the nutty notion that bringing mediocrity to our schools via No Child Left Behind is good was "abstinence only" education. Of course, what does that get you? Apparently, uneducated kids with large amounts of STDs.

The first national study of four common sexually transmitted diseases among girls and young women has found that one in four are infected with at least one of the diseases, federal health officials reported Tuesday.

How much did it cost us to learn that abstinence education really is a flop (not unlike energy deregulation)?

“The national policy of promoting abstinence-only programs is a $1.5 billion failure,” Ms. Richards said, “and teenage girls are paying the real price.”

I suggest all teens with STDs who were forced into abstinence only courses send a nice post card to the Whitehouse and to George Bush saying "Thanks for the STD, Mr. Bush."

Meanwhile, Bush Leverages Young Iraqi Girl For Political Gain

As the bombs continue to kill our GIs in Bush's Iraqi "Democracy Spreading" experiment, W continues to prove he there is no low to which he will sink to advance his political agenda. While he was busy preaching to the choir, he took an opportunity to leverage the situation involving a young Iraqi girl for his own political gain:

THE PRESIDENT: This is Dr. Christian, Dr. Karla Christian, who really symbolizes the best of America. She and a team of hers have performed surgery on a little Iraqi girl who was discovered by United States Marines. People in Nashville raised the money for the family; they were supported by the Marines there in Iraq, some of the Marines raised money; and they sent this little girl, whose heart was ailing, to America, right here to Nashville. And Karla and her team healed the little girl and she's back in Iraq.

And the contrast couldn't be more vivid. We got people in Iraq who murder the innocent to achieve their political objectives -- and we've got Americans, who heal the broken hearts of little Iraqi girls. Ours is a compassionate nation, that believes in the universality of freedom -- and ours is a nation full of loving souls that when they find a stranger in need will lend their God-given talents to help that stranger. And that's precisely what happened.

DR. CHRISTIAN: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: I want you to thank your -- thank your team there for all the good work they've done.

DR. CHRISTIAN: Thank you for all you've done.

THE PRESIDENT: God bless.

The ultimate Irony would be if this little girl is subsequently blown up in some collateral damage scenario caused by Bush's war in Iraq, wouldn't it? Think of it, GIs find young girl needs expensive heart surgery, raise funds to get fix her up in the good old US of A, send her back to Iraq, and bingo, she's on the wrong side of an explosive vest, or gets accidentally smoked by some young GI busy greasing some bad guys in some Baghdad neighborhood. Could happen, no?

Sure this is a rather fanciful hypothetical, but certainly probable. The thing I find more reprehensible is Bush's lame attempt at advancing his agenda, trying to win the "defining ideological war" of our generation on the backs of a young girl.

$ 125K For Public School Teacher Salaries? Sounds Like A Good Idea To Me

I'm very much in favor of paying teachers 125K per year, particularly if the school year expands to a full year operation rather than this silly notion that kids these days need a summer off.

I would much rather put a phenomenal, great teacher in a field with 30 kids and nothing else than take the mediocre teacher and give them half the number of students and give them all the technology in the world, - Mr. Vanderhoek.

Sure kids need breaks, but not a full three months. That was a nice agrarian philosophy which was fine when every one had to be around to pull the crops in (which oddly enough happens mainly in the fall). But as some one who taught for a while at a school with a very active FFA, I know that life on the farm is much more challenging than the gift of summers off offers in terms of output on the farm. I recall students falling dead asleep in class because they spent the night birthing sheep in the tail end of October. But I digress.

Paying teachers what they are worth rather than the paltry sums they now receive is a long overdue notion that aught to be highly supported by our capitalistic oriented society. Bonus as well, for performance? Good idea. How many people are pissed when they don't get their annual bumps in the business sector or the bonuses that match their sales performance? Why should you expect less for a teacher?

Blog on friends. Blog on all.

Working The Economic Voodoo: Bush's Magic "Shot In The Arm"

If you listen to W, today, you would think we are all but one shopping spree away from fixing what ails our economy.

Secondly, the growth package will provide tax rebates to more than 130 million American households. These rebates will begin reaching American families in May. And when the money reaches the American people, we expect they will use it to boost consumer spending, and that will spur job creation, as well.

Well, we all wish that were true. Unfortunately, it's our reckless spending on wars and mortgages we can not afford that his killed George Bush's economic plan.

When a person suggest that all we need do is go out and spend our way out of recession, she or he misses the whole point. It's not spending that we have trouble with; it's spending without the means to cover the costs. All Bush is doing is feeding our habitual spending beyond our means by encouraging "retail therapy." That's like giving crack free to the local crack head. Before you know it the blow is gone and you are back to the debt ridden operation you had before the check arrived. Sounds like more of that twisted brand of GOP fiscal conservatism that put us where we are now; in a very large hole with no ladder big enough to reach the rim out.

Well, shoot, if I get one extra Starbucks Latte out of my rebate check I'll be happy, but I doubt it will create a new job. In fact, if I were responsible, I will simply have to sign over the rebate check back to the government to pay my tax bill in April.

Just out of curiosity, what do you plan to do with your check to accomplish the President's aims?

If "We Cannot Impose Peace," Why The Hell Did We Go Into Iraq?

Don't you just love a president who likes to eat his cake and have it too? Have a look at this commentary from an unscripted President Bush as today he flummoxes his whole rationale for going into Iraq with one simple statement: "We can't impose peace."

Q Mr. President, as you mentioned, you know, as you approach the end of your term in office, you mentioned that you still feel that establishing the Palestinian state is still achievable. What is the exact vision that you have, you know, with this short time left?

THE PRESIDENT: Sure, I appreciate it. First of all, 10 months is a long time. May seem short to you, but it's -- there's plenty of time to get a deal done.

Secondly, I have visited with the leaders, you know, on a one-on-one basis quite frequently, and I understand that it's -- this is a difficult subject. But I also feel very comfortable with the commitment they have made to try to work out subjects that have been difficult for other leaders to work out in the past.

The role of the United States -- we can't impose peace. We can help leaders come to agreement and come to the table and make hard decisions. We can help facilitate the bridging of gaps, if there are gaps. And that's exactly what our diplomacy is in the process of doing.

And by the way, there is -- and one of the reasons why His Majesty is so important in this process, as the other leaders in the Middle East, including my close friend, King Abdallah of Saudi Arabia and President Mubarak of Egypt, is that both these leaders are going to need the support of the Arab world in order to make tough decisions. But first it's up to them. And so I'm optimistic that they can conclude tough negotiations. And we'll try to facilitate that.

First, you notice that Bush must have his head where the sun don't shine and the air ain't clear because otherwise he would know that the Israel/Palestine situation is so bereft with conflict and years of aggressions that it won't be solved in 10 months. Hell, it hasn't been solved from the outset of the establishment of Israel. What makes him think that simply by having "Condi over there" that it will get done.

Second, if we "cannot impose peace" on any nation, why did we go into Iraq in the first place? Really, as more GIs return with mental as well as physical wounds and the number of flag draped boxes get flown for burial in Arlington, the rationale seems less and less legit for having done it.

Killing Saddam "Was Thing Right Decision Then; It's The Right Deicision Today..."

One can never fault the president for going off message as he spins his reality his way. Have a look at this interesting response to a very interesting question and see what you think. While you read the president (unscripted as the way I like to read him) ask yourself if he is in denial:

Q Thank you. Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister, the war in Iraq, if we could stay on that subject for just a minute. I mean, it's been going on for almost five years. Is there anything you would have done differently, Mr. President, if you had known back then in 2003 what you know today?

PRESIDENT BUSH: That's an interesting question. One thing I wouldn't do differently is leave Saddam Hussein in power. It was the right decision then; it's the right decision today; and it will be viewed as the right decision when history is finally written.

Look, I mean, there's going to be ample time to second-guess decisions, and I'll let the historians do that. A war is constantly changing, and what appears to have been an easy decision today might have been a lot difficult when you take it -- put it in historical context. And so my focus, sir, is moving forward and making sure this progress that we're watching continues.

And there's been some ups and downs, obviously. I mean, the great moments were, of course, the writing of a modern constitution for the Middle East, and votes for a president and a parliament. And then 2006 came along, and an enemy was able to stir up unbelievable sectarian hatred and violence. And so I had a choice to make, you know -- accept it and allow for failure, or do something about it. And obviously I chose the latter, which was -- I wouldn't call that exactly a popular decision. But if you follow popularity as your guide, then you sacrifice principle and vision.

And so -- look, this is a -- this will be an important chapter of my presidency, and they'll be analyzing these decisions for a long time. And I just got to tell you, I've got great faith in the capacity of democracy to be transformative, not only for the people of Iraq, but for the region. And that's why we're discussing with the Iraqis a long-term security agreement to have a -- have the kind of effect that will enable people to be confident to make hard decisions when it comes to reconciliation and political progress.

But the historians, I'm sure, will find ample -- well, there's some short-term historians already trying to find some ample opportunity to figure out what went right or what went wrong, what we could have done differently. But there's no such thing as accurate short-term history, as far as I'm concerned. There needs to be time for people to be able to see and put things in proper perspective.

If you ask me, the fundamental flaw with Bush's position is that one middle statement: as if any decision to enter war is "easy." I don't think so. That is the chutzpah driven notion that his position was and always has been right, and to make decisions based on faith over fact.

We are witnessing the very damaging effect of exactly that. When some one makes decisions based on beliefs and faith over fact, it seems that could be one thing we would expect a president to rectify. It's funny how the president interpreted this question, and even more disturbing was his answer.

What say you blogosphere?

Blog on friends, blog on all.

Bush: A Tragedy?

If only the consequences of Bush's legacy were fictional:

Is the story of George W. Bush in fact a tragedy? Many Americans, of course, believe that his presidency has been a tragedy for the nation and for the world. But Weisberg provides few reasons to think it has been a tragedy for Bush himself. He portrays Bush as a willfully careless figure, only glancingly interested in his legacy or even his popularity. “To challenge a thoughtful, moderate and pragmatic father,” Weisberg argues, “he trained himself to be hasty, extreme and unbending. He learned to overcome all forms of doubt through the exercise of will.” Tragedy, in the Shakespearean form that Weisberg seems to cite (although there is nothing tragic about Henry V either), requires self-awareness and at least some level of greatness squandered. The Bush whom Weisberg skillfully and largely convincingly portrays is a man who has rarely reflected, who has almost never looked back, and who has constructed a self-image of strength, courage and boldness that has little basis in the reality of his life. He is driven less by bold vision than by a desire to get elected (and settle scores), less by real strength than by unfocused ambition, and less by courage than by an almost passive acquiescence in disastrous plans that the people he empowered pursued in his name.

You decide. Bush: Triumph or Tragedy? Discuss...

Bush: Kiling David Before He Can Swing His Stone At Goliath

I love it when the President subjects himself to the Q & A process by reporters because, unscripted, he often reveals who he really is. Have a look at how he fumbles through a question about the possibility he is authorizing illegal wire taps on American citizens and see if you find his answer satisfactory.

Remember the fundamental question here is that if the telecommunications companies are not doing anything illegal, why would they need immunity?

Q You can get the Congress to protect telecom companies from lawsuits, but then there's no recourse for Americans who feel that they've been caught up in this. I know it's not intended to spy on Americans, but in the collection process, information about everybody gets swept up and then it gets sorted. So if Americans don't have any recourse, are you just telling them, when it comes to their privacy, to suck it up?

THE PRESIDENT: I wouldn't put it that way, if I were you, in public. Well, you've been long been long enough to -- anyway, yes, I -- look, there's -- people who analyze the program fully understand that America's civil liberties are well protected. There is a constant check to make sure that our civil liberties of our citizens aren't -- you know, are treated with respect. And that's what I want, and that's what most -- all Americans want.

Now let me talk about the phone companies. You cannot expect phone companies to participate if they feel like they're going to be sued. I mean, it is -- these people are responsible for shareholders; they're private companies. The government said to those who have alleged to have helped us that it is in our national interests and it's legal. It's in our national interests because we want to know who's calling who from overseas into America. We need to know in order to protect the people.

It was legal. And now, all of a sudden, plaintiffs attorneys, class-action plaintiffs attorneys, you know -- I don't want to try to get inside their head; I suspect they see, you know, a financial gravy train -- are trying to sue these companies. First, it's unfair. It is patently unfair. And secondly, these lawsuits create doubts amongst those who will -- whose help we need.

I guess you could be relaxed about all this if you didn't think there was a true threat to the country. I know there's a threat to the country. And the American people expect our Congress to give the professionals the tools they need to listen to foreigners who may be calling into the United States with information that could cause us great harm. So, on the one hand, the civil liberties of our citizens are guaranteed by a lot of checks in the system, scrutinized by the United States Congress.

And secondly, I cannot emphasize to you how important it is that the Congress solve this problem. The Senate has solved the problem. And people say, would you ever compromise on the issue? The Senate bill is a compromise. And there's enough votes in the House of Representatives to pass the Senate bill. It's a bipartisan bill. And the House leaders need to put it on the floor, let the will of the House work. In my judgment, it happens to be the will of the people, to give the professionals the tools they need to protect the country.

Really, if what the Bush Administration is doing is completely on the up-and-up, legal, legitimate, and scrutinized by the Congress, what's the worry? What if you or I get sued by some nut ball attorney? Would we get immunity because what they are doing is unfair? Hell no.

If the President's wiretap program is indeed a legal and legit operation, the Telecoms would have nothing to fear and the lawsuits would be dismissed. Moreover, if, just possibly, if it might be the case that the "government" has violated our rights, don't you think those who have done so should be held accountable?

Law suits are not patently unfair, are they? They are designed to bring people doing illegal things to justice. If you believe the President, and feel that they have not done anything illegal, will the plaintiffs and their fancy lawyers win? Not a chance. You have got to know that Telecoms have extremely good and highly paid lawyers to protect themselves from such lawsuits. That such lawsuits are unfair is outright foolish.

So, I ask the question again, do the telecoms really need such protection, or is this just another case where George Bush is advocating another subtraction of the ordinary citizens' rights and denying her or him the proper channels to get recourse to illegal behavior? It seems that this is clearly another case where George Bush is advocating that the meek get squashed by the mighty Goliath that is the W, Rove and Co. by killing our David before he can sling his stone.

Your Rights Haven't Been Violated, You've Been "Minimized"

I love the political rhetorical spin the W, Rove and Co has deployed to try and get out of a tight spot now and again. You might enjoy this exchange as some "Senior Administration Official (SAO)" who will be nameless tries to explain why the telecommunications industry may need immunity from lawsuits given their transgressions in the illegal wiretapping of Americans.

It's really quite a simple question and one reporter or another keeps asking because they don't receive satisfactory answers: "Why do the telecommunications companies need immunity if no laws have been broken?" If there were no legal grounds to the claims filed by some 40 individuals, they wouldn't sweat it would they?

Have a look at how this SAO tries to worm her/his way out of a legit answer:

Q But did they act under law? They knew they were acting under the law?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes, the Attorney General --

Q Why give them immunity if they were legal?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Because to show that somebody was acting under the law, under the allegations and the numerous lawsuits that were filed, first they would have to show what exactly was done, they would have to show whether or not they engaged in the activity --

Q All they have to do is get from the White House -- say we gave them permission under the law.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, if the Senate committee reports suffice, which says that the President authorized this, and the legality was -- assurances of legality were provided to them, I wish that were sufficient to make the lawsuits go away. But that's not sufficient.

Q -- go along with that they were legal when you say they're legal, when the government says they are legal, acting under the law?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, we've seen there are, what, 40-some suits out there right now, and we've seen --

Q So they think they must have something. They think they're valid, don't they? Their lawyers obviously do.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I'm not going to speak to what the lawyers of the other parties think. But bottom line is that some of these cases have gotten some traction. But we have been resisting on a number of different grounds. The problem is, is that aside what effort it puts us to, the providers are being sued. And they are in a position where they can't really defend themselves, because this is all classified, confidential information. Their reputations are in some danger, they go through the expense and the disruption of a litigation process, all because they really stepped forward and were good citizens after 9/11. And it's just --

Q Well, you can't just show the judge the classified information and let them make a decision?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, what we've done is we've shown this to members of Congress, and to the Judiciary Committees and the Intelligence Committees, shown the documents -- the documents that contain the assurances that were given from the administration to the providers at the time when they were asked to assist. And those -- the Senate intelligence report, as [my colleague] said, found those were good faith -- those were assurances that the program was legal and that it was directed by the President, and that the providers had a good-faith basis for going ahead and stepping up and assisting the government and protecting the country against another attack.

Q I just have one more question. I know I'm being -- don't mean to monopolize -- but can you honestly say that no American has been wiretapped without a warrant in this country -- has not been wiretapped -- has been wiretapped, yes, who has been wiretapped without a warrant -- warrantless wiretapping in this country.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The reason I hesitate is because, as [my colleague] said, we will target surveillance against somebody overseas, and that person might -- 90 percent of the time that person is probably talking to people overseas, but sometimes that person is talking to somebody in the United States, and we intercept that communication. And as we've always done, we review that communication, and if it's irrelevant, we minimize it.

Q What do you mean, minimize?

Good question. What do you mean Minimized:

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, this is what [my colleague] was talking about. If it's an American -- United States person -- let's say we're targeting somebody, a terrorist suspect in the Middle East. That person calls over to an American phone number and gets a United States person. There are minimization rules in place that the intelligence community has been following for decades, for whenever they do target surveillance overseas they follow these rules. And if that communication is captured -- and [I], United States person, am on that phone call, there are rules that limit the dissemination of information about [me,] because I'm a U.S. person. My name can't be disseminated in intelligence reports in this kind of thing.

So there are protections in place to protect the privacy of Americans, but still allow us to target surveillance against targets overseas, where we really need to find out about threats.

Q Without a warrant?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Without a warrant, yes.

Okay, so the reason the W, Rove and Co is concerned about the legal jeopardy that these companies may be in is that they could very well have illegally wiretapped a US Citizen in this country.

This leaves me with some remaining questions: Even if those warrantless wiretaps were executed accidentally but were "minimized," are they against the Constitution and thus against the law? Whoops, I violated your rights, so sorry? That's not what government is supposed to be about, no? Are they not supposed to be protecting our rights, not violating them?

Flip Flopping And Waterboarding

You may not remember this:

Q Sir, do you agree with the Vice President that a dunk in the water is a "no brainer" when it comes to interrogating a terror suspect?

PRESIDENT BUSH: This country doesn't torture, we're not going to torture.

You may not know this:

Our closest allies, the British, reaffirmed Tuesday that they consider waterboarding a form of torture prohibited by international law. That's an opinion shared by the U.N. human rights commissioner.

You also may be distracted by the tight Democratic race to the Whitehouse and not have heard about this:

on Wednesday the Senate joined the House in passing legislation that prohibits the CIA from using waterboarding or any similar "harsh" interrogation techniques.

But contrary to the President's earlier assertion, he's a flip flopper:

But President Bush says he'll veto the bill.

It is apparent that the President's agenda for waging war on terrorists does nothing to reduce but strongly increases the reasons why otherwise reasonable people in the Middle East who should like America no longer do. Hypocrisy is no way to run our government. When you decry atrocities like torture and waterboarding publicly, but refuse to stop using it yourself, you place the entire nation at risk of being considered untrustworthy.

But the President is an expert at spreading malaise for his own political gain. For example, there is no doubt that the terrorists will and can proclaim one more victory because they have the strongest trumpet for their cause in the man called President of the USA, George W. Bush:

At this moment, somewhere in the world, terrorists are planning new attacks on our country. Their goal is to bring destruction to our shores that will make September the 11th pale by comparison.

Any time he makes this kind of remark, he spreads fear not hope and all but assures the terrorists that they have won because they couldn't ask for a better spokesperson to instill terror into the hearts and minds of good Americans everywhere.

Excuse me for a second Mr. President, but you are speaking in generalities. Of course there are people still out there planning to attack us. You don't need to remind us. We were paying you to find them, route them out and kill them. Instead, you got us into an intractable war in Iraq that has cost us an incalculable amount with very little return.

Given the wherewithal of the American Military Might and the Intelligence Community, I would expect the President at this point in time be not speaking in generalities but specifics. Would it be refreshing if, after this many years pursuing terrorists, he would say something like, "We know where the terrorists are, and we now how to get them. We will get them, and fear not, they will be brought to justice." Of course, for W, that would require bold leadership instead of slinging more fear for the terrorists in order to play political games with Congress and the American People.

Does any one else find this man ridiculous? Fortunately (or is it unfortunate), though, like the boy who cried wolf, no one responds to this rant any more.

Why We Are Not Winning In Iraq

This should be no surprise to anyone:

After 18 months of research, RAND submitted a report in the summer of 2005 called “Rebuilding Iraq.” RAND researchers provided an unclassified version of the report along with a secret one, hoping that its publication would contribute to the public debate on how to prepare for future conflicts.

But the study’s wide-ranging critique of the White House, the Defense Department and other government agencies was a concern for Army generals, and the Army has sought to keep the report under lock and key.

A review of the lengthy report — a draft of which was obtained by The New York Times — shows that it identified problems with nearly every organization that had a role in planning the war. That assessment parallels the verdicts of numerous former officials and independent analysts.

We are not winning in Iraq because it really was an ill planned and poorly executed operation as a whole (not to mention ill advised - see George Bush Senior's book on the subject as to why he didn't go to Baghdad in Desert Storm if you don't believe me).

Indeed, the fault rests with those who pushed the green go button - each and every one of them - with the penultimate responsibility resting on the shoulders of George W. Bush (which of course, he will deny with his strongest deflection and denial techniques).

Watch George and his pals play the blame game (which they claim to abhor) as this dialog surfaces in the coming days. The Whitehouse's enormous wagging middle finger of blame will no doubt point in all directions except at themselves.

Gitmo Indictments: Why Now?

The GOP needs a boost in the polls? The President is trying to sprint out of office? The sagging numbers weighing heavy on our ratcheting national debt? The economy going down the toilet? Obama and Clinton getting too much positive press? The Pentagon just now finally figured out what to charge these men for? The world is short of martyrs caused by the USA?

The Pentagon is charging six detainees at Guantanamo Bay with murder and war crimes in connection with the Sept. 11 terror attacks on America, and will seek the death penalty.

This leaves us with a very nagging and troubling question as to why now? Why not when within the first year they were brought to Guantanamo?

Fiscally Conservative?

Just one short question emerges for me about this recent budget proposal from the Whitehouse's current batch of Republicans who vociferously proclaim to be fiscally conservative.

President Bush on Monday submitted a $3.1-trillion budget for the next fiscal year that reflected his strategy for dealing with a costly war and a troubled economy: substantially boost military expenditures, rein in domestic spending -- including for Medicare -- and more than double the deficit.

Indeed, where is the fiscal responsibility here? I wrote this thought in a prior post: "I'm...just suggesting that there is nothing fiscally conservative about the current batch of “conservatives” in the White House."

Craig, one of the regular commentators over at bio had this to sum up in response to a prior post and it fits well here.

Absolutely true. The first clue that this would be a problem was Bush's claim to represent compassionate conservatism. For "compassionate", read "when someone is hurting, it's the government's job to do something about it." While Bush's actual record is rather dubious about whether he is a consistent compassionate conservative, he is certainly a big government (if such a thing is not an oxymoron) conservative and, thus, the largest expansion of any government social welfare program in decades, Medicare Part D, "No Child Left Behind", expansion of public funding of "Faith-Based" programs, and the Terry Schiavo affair.

If President Clinton declared that the era of big government was dead, it has clearly been revived by President Bush in a sort of Frankensteinian fusion of liberal ideas with conservative sensibilities (read tax-cuts). If liberals are often painted as tax and spend happy, Bush appears to be tax-cut and spend happy. The worst of both worlds.

This Economy Is Good For Whom?

Well, you may already know this, but every time some rightwinger suggests lowering taxes is the answer to what ails our economy, you should ask them how they expect to pay for those things we expect our government to do. Where is all the fiscal conservatism in the GOP these days? Certainly there is none when it comes to the W, Rove and Co.

President Bush wants to cut funding for teaching hospitals and freeze medical research in a $3 trillion budget for 2009 that is still likely to generate a record deficit once war costs are tallied up.

The Bush budget to be submitted Monday would cut the budget for the Health and Human Services Department by $2 billion, or 3 percent. By contrast, the Pentagon would get a $35 billion increase to $515 billion for core programs, with war costs additional.

With tax revenue falling as the economy slows - and with the deficit-financed economic stimulus bill adding more than $150 billion in red ink to federal ledgers over 2008-09 - the White House acknowledges that the budget deficit for this year and next is projected to reach $400 billion or more.

The largest-ever budget deficit, $413 billion, was recorded in 2004. Bush's budget will forecast a deficit for 2009 that's below that, an administration official said. But that assumes costs of $70 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, well below the almost $200 billion request for this year.

How the bleep are we going to pay down this debt? Well, of course, this is another heaping problem that Bush is loading onto whomever is in charge next. Perhaps it would be good to have McCain win then it would be his mess to clean up. Trouble is the GOP has not demonstrated one shred of fiscal conservatism they proclaim to advocate. Likely, if McCain is elected we would drown further down in the money pit the W, Rove and Co has been struggling to widen via their illustrious freedom spreading experiment in Iraq.

Think about it. It's a brilliant ploy. Defer expenses and costs. Cut taxes. Increase the debt so that the next democrat in charge has to raise taxes to recover. Then suggest that democrats are fiscally irresponsible for raising necessary taxes. Brilliant.

The question remains for whom is this economy good? Looks like the predators are winning:

Exxon Mobil Corp. shattered its own record as the world's most profitable publicly traded corporation, as rising oil prices helped the company bring in better-than-ever income and revenue for the fourth quarter and 2007.

Irving, Texas-based Exxon's net income rose 3% to $40.6 billion in 2007, surpassing its 2006 record of $39.5 billion.

Chevron Corp. also posted strong earnings despite lower production and lagging profit from making and selling gasoline. Full-year profit at the San Ramon, Calif.-based oil company jumped 9% to $18.7 billion.

Well, there's no surprises there. W is, after all, an oil man.

What Is George Afraid Of San Francisco For?

I know the title is grammatically challenged, but hey, I'm just reflecting the language of our fair president.

President Bush paid an unusual visit to the Bay Area on Wednesday, ending a day in California that was all economics, all the time. Bush kept intact his record of never visiting San Francisco during his presidency

Already there are over 200 comments to this article, some of which are quite fun over at SF Gate.

George Bush, over the last seven years has visited numerous locations about the globe, including Iraq and Afghanistan a number of times. What is it about San Francisco that scares this man to such a degree that he wouldn't set foot in this town? I have my theories. Any guesses?

Pell Grants For Kids = Vouchers In Disquise

This is the first I've heard of this, and so I've not had a chance to review the President's proposal. However, it seems like he's got another plan to divert public funds to parochial and private education. Watch as the separation of church and state shrinks again.

The fact is, parents who can afford to send their children to private schools don't need the assistance. Moreover, there are a tremendous number of things broken with our public educational system. Can't Bush find something in the system that needs a remedy and fix that instead of creating a new welfare system for the rich?

White House counselor Ed Gillespie, describing Bush's plans for a new school initiative, said Monday afternoon that Bush "has some concerns about the declining number of faith-based and parochial schools in inner cities around the country and low-income neighborhoods." Because of this, Gillespie said, Bush is ready to "urge Congress to enact a program he calls `Pell Grants for Kids.' "

The money would "provide alternatives for children now trapped in struggling public schools," Gillespie told reporters.

Right. Ask any educator currently working as a teacher in a public school if No Child Left Behind has been good for America's school children and you will discover how good Bush is at fixing what's wrong with our public schools.

Incidentally, does any one else wonder why didn't the Education Secretary make this announcement? Does the president always trot out lawyers because he has something to hide?

If you want to take a look at some more detail about my views on how to fix education, have a gander at this post, that post,,this other post, and how about searching my whole blog for the term education and see what comes up.

Just as an aside,do you think Bush would be in favor having a serious chunk of his "pell grants for kids" money going to some Islamic Private Education Organizations that start up? They would be faith-based, wouldn't they?

The State Of Our Union Reality Check

Given that the Presidential Propaganda Catapult will be on full tilt this evening (and if you need proof of this just have a look at Laura Bush's Guest roster for her box this evening), I thought I would post a question for us to consider today. This will follow below.

Q How long are we looking at? How long?

MS. PERINO: It's still running at about 40 minutes, without any interruptions.

Q Without interruption. So it's probably being closer to like 50 minutes.

MS. PERINO: Forty-five, 46 -- I don't know, it depends on how long the applause is.

Applause? Really, can anyone stomach the President and tune in live? I don't think I'll be able to endure with out a vomit bag at the ready. Admit it, are you going to watch live or click on something else? The upside of tonight's address: This is George Bush's last one. We will not have to endure another; ever! And for that, I'll grant you is a whole other reason to issue some applause.

Remember some of the famous slogans that W proclaimed as he prognosticated about the future in years past?

I'm a uniter, not a divider

True state of the Union seems divided to me.

OBL, Dead or Alive?

No result either way there.

The State of our Economy is Strong.

Any one else lose value on their stock portfolios? Have their home foreclosed on them? How about that rate cut by the Fed? Is that an indicator that our economy is headed in the right direction? How about that continuous hemorrhaging of funds to the freedom spreading experiment in Iraq? Is that good for America?

The list goes on.

It's your turn. Let's call this....drum roll please...

Windspike's State Of The Union Reality Check

How do you characterize the State of Our Union? Explain.

Steal This Post: Alan Greyson

One of the things that ticks me off about the one sided war in Iraq is the non-stop “No Bid” contract awards. With those awarded contracts comes a lot of corruption and waste. The waste is called double billing, triple billing or just plain outright billing without doing a damn thing. The money that pays for all of this abuse and neglect is our tax dollars. Wouldn’t you think that all of them pesky Conservative Republican’s would want to clean this mess up right away? That isn’t even close to the facts of the matter. Looking the other way is the mantra of the Bush 2 dynasty.

What it takes to clean this mess up and prosecute the bastards stealing all of our children’s future is to put people in the Congress that will aggressively go after anyone that steals from the American people. One of the most feared terms of any company that does business with any state or federal agency is called Disbarment. If any company is found guilty of thievery then they face disbarment. Over at Down With Tyranny they have this great piece on Alan Grayson that will go after war profiteers in the next Congress.

There's probably no one who knows more about war profiteers in Iraq-- outside of Cheney and the folks at Halliburton and KBR-- than Alan Grayson, an attorney prosecuting numerous war profiteering cases. We came across him because he is running for Congress against corrupt Republican rubber stamp Ric Keller in central Florida's 8th CD (Orlando area). Next weekend Alan will be our guest at Blue America sessions at Firedoglake and Crooks and Liars. But I called him today and asked him this tough question-- the one about Republican voters. Do these Americans actually support this kind of behavior?Before we take a look at what Alan told me take a look at this CBS News clip I found on his website:

"I think that the Republicans, from top to bottom, are genuinely trying to change America into Amerika with a 'k.' They want America to be a place where ordinary workers cannot organize, where everybody tries to undercut everybody else in the labor market, and where the people in charge are the people who can best tap into war profiteering profits... These people want to change America and change it to make it something that Eisenhower warned us about half a century ago. They want everything in America to be under the control-- and in the teeth-- of the military-industrial complex."When I talk to Republicans in general these days, they're very unhappy about the war. The problem is, they're unhappy about the war because they don't like to lose-- and that's just the wrong way of looking at it. They have become willing participants in a war that at this point is approaching imperialism. If they read in newspapers everyday that we were winning the war, they would be just as happy with the war as the characters in Orwell's 1984 are happy with their endless war against some unnamed enemy that they can never clearly understand the purpose of. Republican voters have, in effect, collaborated in this effort despite their misgivings about the war and the primary reason why they're not happy right now isn't because the war is wrong or unjustifiable but because we're not not winning." - Down With Tyranny

Over the last two terms of President Bush we have witnessed our nation being hijacked by so called leaders of the people that were stuffing their friends pockets with millions of dollars. Washington has become the city to steal money from our nations treasury and that is simply wrong. One Congressional seat in Florida may not seem big news but it is.

Alan Grayson isn’t running to bring the bacon home and fatten his own wallet. His progressive liberal thoughts are what conservatives used to be in the Barry Goldwater days. Changing our government and the practices of corruption, bribes and outright lies to the people can change from one voice on Capitol Hill and it just might start with Alan Grayson. One squeaky wheel just might get the oil special interest out of politics.

Good luck to you Mr. Grayson on your up and coming election.

Interesting reads on what Alan Grayson is all about…

Vanity Fair

Rolling Stone

CBS News

And of course Alan Grayson Campaign site…

You be the judge and the voter and decide if this guy deserves to go to Washington and kick some ass! If you care to contribute to the campaign by all means do so. Click on Act Blue to vote with your wallet.

On Friday 1/25 Crooks and Liars will have an exclusive interview with Alan Grayson so feel free to check that out when it comes on the site.

Papamoka

Originally posted at Papamoka Straight Talk

Feel free to link to this post or borrow it...

Which Is More Dangerous To Your Health: Al Queda or The Department of Homeland Secuirty?

Good question. Here's an article that can unpack the answer for you:

An intriguing new study suggests the answer is not so clear-cut. Although it’s impossible to calculate the pain that terrorist attacks inflict on victims and society, when statisticians look at cold numbers, they have variously estimated the chances of the average person dying in America at the hands of international terrorists to be comparable to the risk of dying from eating peanuts, being struck by an asteroid or drowning in a toilet.

But worrying about terrorism could be taking a toll on the hearts of millions of Americans. The evidence, published last week in the Archives of General Psychiatry, comes from researchers who began tracking the health of a representative sample of more than 2,700 Americans before September 2001. After the attacks of Sept. 11, the scientists monitored people’s fears of terrorism over the next several years and found that the most fearful people were three to five times more likely than the rest to receive diagnoses of new cardiovascular ailments.

Could it be that all of the W, Rove and Co fear mongering to push their War Machine forward has done more damage to the People of America than Al Queda could have done or dreamed of? I think the answer to that is a "You bethcya." How do we hold the President accountable for that?

Are We Responsible For This?

I don't know about you, but prior to our invasion of Iraq, I didn't consider the casual suicide bombing incident. Moreover, it was clear to me that we had no cause to feel remotely responsible for this nutty behavior.

This all changed when George Bush pulled the trigger and decided that invading Iraq was good for our national security (and worth doing over say spending more money on public schools or homes for the homeless in the USA, but that's another post). These days, I feel like crying when I read reports such as this:

For the second time in two days, a suicide bomber struck outside a Shiite mosque in Diyala Province north of Baghdad on Thursday, as worshipers prepared for one of the most important days in the Shiite calendar. The police and witnesses said at least 11 people were killed.

Sure, no American casualties occurred in this instance, but the bigger question is to what degree are we responsible for this event? If we had not gone into Iraq would there be an environment there that would prevent such attacks? Do we bear some burden of responsibility for the deaths?

I know some would say "no, it's the bombers own." On the flip side, if we were not there, perhaps there would have been no cause for this bomber to execute these people. Thus, the causal relationship could be drawn that indicates we own some sliver of responsibility for it. What say you?

On another front, I can't imagine what it would be like to live in a place where suicide bombers were a fact of life, but this quote sheds some light on it:

People go to the bazaar and make jokes: ‘Is this going to be my last trip?’HUMAIR BILOUR, on violence by militants in Peshawar, Pakistan.

I still think that if we had, instead of launching a massive and massively expensive operation in Iraq and directed our resources toward thousands of surgical operations executed by expertly trained special forces units, we could and would have produced a much better climate in the Middle East at this point in time. More importantly, we would have perhaps captured or killed those who would do us harm rather than the massive amounts of civilians that are the collateral damage justified by the Bush Administration in their glorious "freedom spreading" experiment.

Unfortunately, that's not the way our "leaders" directed the operations. And in the end, I do believe, that we bear the burden of some responsibility for these types of events, which is most certainly not an improvement over the way things were before we invaded Iraq.

What say you blogosphere?

Blog on friends, blog on all.

Fun for Monday

For some reason, the ebbed function wasn't working, so trust me, you will enjoy this video link. Have a wonderful Monday.

Blog on friends, blog on all.

Meanwhile....

As you may or may not know, the President and his posse, the entourage surrounding Air Force One is gallivanting about the Middle East in his Ten Gallon Hat, at great taxpayer expense. Meanwhile, things are glum:

Nine American soldiers were killed in the first two days of a new offensive to root out al Qaeda in Iraq fighters holed up in districts north of the capital, the U.S. military reported Wednesday.

The toll marked some of the deadliest days for U.S. forces in Iraq since the fall. For all of December, 23 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq.

Nine less voters for candidates to be concerned about this fall. And there are more:

A booby-trapped home exploded Wednesday, killing six American soldiers and injuring four others. The U.S. military also reported that three service members were killed by small-arms fire the day before. The two-day toll makes the latest effort to flush out the militant group Al Qaeda in Iraq the deadliest military operation in months.

Of course, we have less to gripe about because the largest number of deaths caused by Iraq Democracy Spreading Experiment is substantially larger than the number of people killed on Nine Eleven:

About 151,000 Iraqis died from violence in the three years after the United States invaded, concludes the best effort yet to count deaths - one that still may not settle the fierce debate over the war's true toll on civilians and others.

I'm sure that's a conservative estimate.

And, just for fun, we do allow Blackwater to do it's business in Iraq too, some of whom are funded by US Taxpayer dollars (well that is after China calls in all our markers):

Suddenly, on that May day in 2005, the copter dropped CS gas, a riot-control substance the American military in Iraq can use only under the strictest conditions and with the approval of top military commanders. An armored vehicle on the ground also released the gas, temporarily blinding drivers, passers-by and at least 10 American soldiers operating the checkpoint.

“This was decidedly uncool and very, very dangerous,” Capt. Kincy Clark of the Army, the senior officer at the scene, wrote later that day. “It’s not a good thing to cause soldiers who are standing guard against car bombs, snipers and suicide bombers to cover their faces, choke, cough and otherwise degrade our awareness.”

Both the helicopter and the vehicle involved in the incident at the Assassins’ Gate checkpoint were not from the United States military, but were part of a convoy operated by Blackwater Worldwide, the private security contractor that is under scrutiny for its role in a series of violent episodes in Iraq, including a September shooting in downtown Baghdad that left 17 Iraqis dead.

Sure, that was a 2005 incident, but why is it coming out just now? Who's been held accountable for it?

Wanted...Dead Or Alive

Incidentally, in the odd chance you were wondering:

Q Do we think that bin Laden is alive or dead?

MS. PERINO: I don't think we have a reason to believe that he's dead.

Q Pardon?

MS. PERINO: I don't believe we have a reason to think that he's dead.

Ah, that clears it up for us today. Whew. I feel safer for knowing that.

For Better or Worse, The Whitehouse PR Trumpet Is Going To Start Blogging

That's right. In the odd chance that you were paying attention to what was happening in New Hampshire instead of what the Whitehouse is doing. Get this:

One note. As we leave for the Middle East trip today, we will begin posting periodic updates from the senior staff that's traveling with the President on a website -- on our website, whitehouse.gov. It will be called "Trip Notes from the Middle East." This is new to us. We encourage you to log on and to check back often to read some of the updates that the staff will be posting throughout the trip. So it will be just a little bit of a blog.

Those of us who have been blogging for a long while (dinosaurs I might qualify us as) can see through the veneer of what this really is.

So, for fun, I thought I'd have a little game. Let's call this....drum roll please...

Windspike's Musings On Whitehouse Blogging

You know that when the Whitehouse Press Secretary starts to blog, it's...

I'll start...

...a lot like RJ Reynolds starting to blog about the pleasures of smoking...
....a peak opportunity to sharpen your snarkiness for the comments, if they allow them
...another venue for the NSA to secretly surveil US citizens without a warrant.
....your turn...

Two Videos For Today

We already knew that there are three types of lies: Lies, damn lies, and then statistics. Penn and Teller actually catch a couple of fraud related items perpetrated by...well, you guessed it Fox News. Have a look:



Let's contrast this with some of the genuine article - some one with some high quality speaking skills who does not have to rest on misleading numbers and hiring actors to demonstrate believability. Barak Obama's Iowa victory speech. He's got some great speech writers to be sure, but the delivery is amazing as well. Enjoy:



Funny, in thinking about the differences between these two videos aside from the obvious, it may be that it points to the contrast between the ethical values that under gird the people that comprise the republican and democratic parties. Which one has the most ethically challenge value set? Perhaps it is time to dredge up the "culture of corruption" slogan one more time as it appears to apply to the GOP modus operandi.

"We Don't Haveta Splain Ourselves Ta Youse"

The president never ceases to amaze does he? He has all manner of chutzpah to deliver. Unscripted, we find his true self exposed. While everyone else is sidetracked by the outcome of the Iowa Caucuses, you may have missed the following quote:

Our beef is not with the Iranian people. Our beef is with a government that has hidden the program -- and by the way, back to the NIE very quickly. The international response ought to be that, okay, whether or not you agree with the NIE or not, at least recognize that they had a program at one point in time, and demand that Iran explain it. We shouldn't be trying to explain why we know what we know. We ought to be focusing on the Iranians to say, you tell us why you had a program; you tell us about the -- if you want to be an international player, it's up to you to explain.

I see. Isn't this what got us into trouble with Iraq? We went in thinking one thing because at one time there was a program for WMD, but the result is what? There's no program. Might this not also be the case with Iran? Who is playing whom here?

Let's dig a little deeper and see if you can find the places where George Bush is playing us for fools:

And so I trust Olmert. His --

Q Do you?

THE PRESIDENT: I do trust him.

Q You trust Olmert, period?

THE PRESIDENT: I trust him. I hope -- hopefully he'll say the same about me. Hopefully -- you see, one of the things in politics that happens often is people sometimes won't tell you really what's on their mind. It happens here in America, for example. You'll have politicians walk in the Oval Office and say, hey, President, I'm with you. And then all of a sudden the heat gets on -- (laughter) -- and it turns out they're not with you.

Q You feel it at your back.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, I feel -- and I've had enough conversations, heart-to-heart conversations with the Prime Minister. I understand Israeli politics is very complicated. It's tough. It is full-contact karate. (Laughter.) And --

Q Not unlike American --

THE PRESIDENT: Not really. Not really. Because the President is -- even though we've got our politics, and even though I've got tough relations at times with Congress, the President sets foreign policy. He is constantly worried about a coalition. And I understand that. I understand the difficulty he faces. But in spite of those difficulties, I'm interested in strategic visions based upon peace.

The man is very good at shoveling it:

Q But still, Mr. President, do you see a chance to sign a comprehensive peace agreement between Israel and the --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I do, before I leave.

Q Before you leave?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I do. I do. I'm an optimistic guy.

Q -- by initials, or by full execution?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all -- no. First of all, the -- I envision Israel and Palestine sitting down at a table, signing, this is what a state would look like, subject to the road map. There's work to be done.

Q And concluding an agreement?

THE PRESIDENT: On what the state would look like, absolutely. Yes, I do. I think it can happen.

Are you buying it? Frankly, I don't think that Bush nor his crack team of senior level diplomats (read Condi) have proven themselves capable in the category of bringing much peace to anywhere at this point.

Yet, here is where the president goes rhetorically astray. Have a gander at this and see if you can actually tell what his plan is:

As I said, realities on the ground will help define the border -- the eventual border of what the Palestinian state will look like. And the state will come into being subject to the conditions set out in the road map, which means we've got a lot of work to do. One of the things I'll be doing is visiting with Tony Blair there in order to make -- to catch up on what he is doing to help the Palestinians -- look, developing a state out of -- is difficult. There's got to be institutions that provide stability, and it's hard to do.

Duh, really. Wow, that's a fascinating position on how you are going to broker the peace in the Israel and Palistinian situation. Let's see. That has to be a lot like...well...a lot like...

That's what happening in Iraq. It's hard to go from dictatorship, like they had in Iraq, to one in which there is solid institutions that will enable a democracy to survive. I have come to the conclusion that it's absolutely necessary work for the sake of peace because if we're in an ideological struggle, the only way to defeat the ideology that preys upon fear and hate is through the development of societies that respond to the will of the people. And democracies, it turns out, democracies throughout our history tend not to fight each other, because democracies respond to the will of the people and most people do not want war and bloodshed and violence. Most people just want to live a normal, peaceful life.

Oh, yes. Iraq. I think he is forgetting the bulk of human history. Has he not read the Bible? There is a great deal of violence and bloodshed therein as well. Most people are not Osama bin Laden, of course. But, I'm still not getting any clue as to what his solution might be. What's your plan, Mr. Bush?

I tell the American people all the time that Iraqi mothers want the same thing for their children that American mothers want for theirs: a place for their child to grow up and get a good education and be able to realize dreams. Same thing for the Palestinian mothers and the Israeli mothers. There's a commonality there and yet, unfortunately, in the world in which we live today, there are people who simply do not like the idea of societies based upon the will of the people and will use violence to stop the advance of freedom. And it's not just in the Palestinian Territories that you find the violence; you find it in Lebanon, you find it in Iraq, you find it in Afghanistan, you find it in Pakistan.

Q You find it in Gaza.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. You find people who will kill innocent life to stop the advance of freedom, which should call the world to -- should cause the world to rally. If killers want to stop liberty, it should be a clear signal to all of us that we must do everything we can to advance liberty. And one of the things I find very hopeful about a Palestinian state is that many in the world want to help the Palestinians develop institutions and stability. And I -- President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad are committed to the development of a state. They need a lot of help. And one of the things we can provide help for -- besides some practical help on organizing their security forces and obviously to encourage investment -- is to -- there's got to be a vision, see. People have got to be for something. And that's where we're trying to take the process over the next year.

Wow...I'm drowning in so much illogical rhetorical argument here that it's hard to pick apart because the president can't sustain a quality argument or thread without reverting back to his typical message of this being an ideological struggle. What's the plan, dude? Where is this vision of which you speak? I see it not.

But Because you brought it up, Mr. President. What about Iraq?

Q Mr. President, you just mentioned Iraq. Can you clarify to us whether there was any Israeli involvement in your decision to invade Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: No, not at all. None whatsoever. My decision was based upon U.S. intelligence, based upon the desire to provide security for our peoples and others. It was based upon my willingness to work with the international community on this issue. Remember, if you look back at the history, there was a unanimous vote in the Security Council: disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences. And when he defied, when he refused to allow the inspectors in, when he made a statement by his actions that he didn't really care what the international community said, that I decided to make sure words meant something.

And so I acted based upon our own security interests. And -- but it also fit into this notion of -- and remember, Zarqawi, there was some terrorist connections -- not with the 9/11 attacks, but terrorist connections; Abu Nadal; he had been using -- he'd been funding families of suicide bombers. In other words, as far as we were concerned, he had weapons of mass destruction which could have been used in a deadly way. It turns out he didn't have the weapons, but he had the know-how on how to make weapons, which could easily have been reconstituted. The sanctions regime turns out to have been corrupt and wasn't working. In other words, there's a variety of aspects to my decision, all of which were aimed at making sure that U.S. security, first and foremost, was enhanced.

"The Sanctions regime turns out to have been corrupt and wasn't working?" What the hell does that mean? Is any one following what the president is tying to convey or am I just stupid here?

If we engage any country based on the potential capacity to develop weapons, we would be at war with just about every nation. I've typed this before, but any one with an internet connection can find out how to build IEDs and weapons of mass destruction for that matter. When every possible enemy is your target, you end up with too many enemies and not many friends. And, I've typed this before, might we have not been better to have shifted the ideology from the outset? Wouldn't it have been better if it wasn't "if you are not with us, your against us," but "if you are not against us, you are with us?"

Here's where the President sticks the nail in his own rhetorical coffin. Note, before you get to the last sentence quoted here that, if you think about it, what he is saying that what the Whitehouse's message is cannot believed. I explain at the end:

Q When you are talking about vision, Mr. President -- and this will be our last question -- how do you wish to be remembered in world history?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, I'll be dead before the true history of the Bush administration is written. Here in the Oval Office, there are portraits of two Presidents, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. In the past couple of years, I have read extensive analyses of both of those men's presidencies. My attitude is that it's going to take a while for objective historians to realize the contributions that this administration has made to peace.

Q Like Harry Truman's legacy, which developed.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, each President has his own set of circumstances with which to deal. I would hope that people, when they look back at this administration, would say that President Bush and his administration worked diligently to protect the American people from harm; that he recognized the threats of the 21st century; that he acted in a -- when he needed to be tough, he acted strong, and when he needed to have vision he understood the power of freedom to be transformative.

Our foreign policy is more than just confronting terrorists. Our foreign policy is to confront the conditions that enable these ideologues to recruit, such as HIV/AIDS on the continent of Africa, or feeding the hungry, or dealing with malaria. Our foreign policy is based upon our great trust in the capacity of the common person to dictate a peaceful course for government. But just so you know, I fully understand, I'll be long gone before the accurate history of this administration is reflected in the history books.

If you need be dead for us to know the truth, then how can we believe what you say today?

It's the "Wimpy" argument. If you say you would gladly pay me Tuesday for a hamburger today, why should I believe that you will pay me Tuesday when you won't pay me today? If the truth be not known from what you tell us today, how can we trust you to tell us the truth altogether?

Any one else out their sick of this "history will be the judge of me" argument?

Happy New Year All

This shot I took at the Japanese Tea Garden in our local Park. I loved the contrasting outline of the leaves. It looked good in color, but really popped in sepia. Let me know if you like it.