GOP Prowess

If nothing else, the W, Rove and Co is good at drilling for donations from their wealthy pals. My goodness the figures are staggering presented in Thursday's press gaggle with Tony the Snow job.

Might the publicized figures be conclusive proof that government at its highest levels is really only for the wealthy? I know that I wouldn't be able to generate that kind of "politica capital."

Have a look at how much they raised from fund raising recent events:

...And also at 1:20 p.m. remarks at Bob Riley for Governor Luncheon in Birmingham for expanded pool. We expect that event to raise $1.76 million for the Riley campaign, $750,000 for the Republican Governors Association. Approximately 2,100 attendees.

Q The $750,000 is in addition to the $1.76 million, or a part of it?

MR. SNOW: I think it's separate.

Q So the total is --

MR. SNOW: It looks like two-and-a-half. That's as I read it. I'll double check to make sure.

Then a Deb Pryce for Congress, closed press event in New Albany, Ohio. Expected to raise $500,000 for the reelection campaign and Ohio Victory 2006, which is a state party get out of the vote effort. Approximately 300 attendees. Returning to the White House at 8:35 p.m.

Truth Or Not?

I found an intersting quote in the NYTimes today that I thought was provocative. My mind is not clear about how much truth there is in this sentence. So, I thought I would put it to you. What say you?

There are four enemies of human rights: oil, gas, the war on terror and geopolitical considerations, and we have all four.

- Yevgeny A. Zhovtis of the Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law

Complaining About Complaining: Raising Things Philosophical

Really, if you think about it the only thing worse than blogging about blogging is complaining about complaining. I'm about to commit both sins.

Did you ever wonder why so many “frightwing” bloggers spend an inordinate amount of time complaining that you are questioning the W, Rove and Co? Really, if you are complaining about the current government at least you are kvetching. It gives some release for those of us without the funds to generate a PAC to lobby the appropriate politicians.

If you are a blogger who spends a great deal of time in comment columns complaining about all the kvetching, what does that make you?

Treading On Thin Ethical Ice: Tony Is Going To Raise Funds For The GOP

In case you didn't notice, Tony the Snow job had said yes to front the dog and pony political fund raising show for the GOP in the very near future. And, this really is not SOP for Whitehouse Press Secretaries.

Now if you ask me, that seems like he is treading on very thin ethical ice as a person who is supposed to be representing the president. Do notice that even he acknowledges that this was a tenuous situation and he consulted with Harriet Miers to make sure he wasn't going to get legally fried for doing it.

Anyway, you tell us: Is it proper and ethical for Tony Snow to raise cash for the flush GOP?

Q How did this all come about?

MR. SNOW: It came about when I was approached by the political office saying that we've got a lot of inquiries and a lot of people would like you to do this -- would you do it? What followed were a long series of conversations, because I think this is pretty unplowed ground -- Mark and I have been through this -- I think it's unplowed ground. And you want to make sure that you do it in such a way that you're still able to function effectively as the Press Secretary, which means that from a red meat standpoint, they're likely to be pretty dull.

What you have to do is to present a factual account of what the President is doing and not draw yourself into ongoing political disputes between Democrats and the President because that, to me, I think, would be crossing a line that I don't want to cross.

Q -- a fundraiser?

MR. SNOW: Yes, sort of.

Q Did you take some pause to think about the ethical considerations?

MR. SNOW: Oh, yes, and had a number of conversations with Harriet Miers and others. Absolutely, this was not like, oh, yes, no-brainer. You had to think it through and had to think it through in the way that would be appropriate to do it. And it's --

Q When were you approached by the political people? Last week?

MR. SNOW: No, no, no, it has been several months. It has been quite a while.

Q To your knowledge, have Press Secretaries in the past done fundraising?

MR. SNOW: I don't think so. I have not found any case in which -- there may be some cases, but I'm not aware of them.

Q Then why are doing one now? Why are you the one breaking this precedent?

MR. SNOW: I was asked.

Q Being "asked" is not sufficient -- you could have said, no.

MR. SNOW: I could have said no.

Q You've been a journalist most of your life. You tell us that all the time --

MR. SNOW: And I'm -- you know what, and I'm the President's Press Secretary, and one of the things I want to try to do is to help the President, but do it in a way that's consistent with my role as Press Secretary. And if we find that there is an unalterable conflict, then the Press Secretary role dominates. But keep your eyes out on --

Q Did people like Harriet Miers tell you what you could say and couldn't say, or you set the ground rules?

MR. SNOW: No, I've got to be able to be trusted to set the ground rules. And if I overstep, you can whack me. You don't have to blame Harriet or anybody else.

Q How will we know what you said?

Q But they're closed.

MR. SNOW: Well, most of these things are going to be open, so you'll have plenty of opportunities.

Q What are the ground rules?

MR. SNOW: The ground rules?

Q Yes.

MR. SNOW: What do you mean?

Q In terms of what you can and cannot say.

MR. SNOW: My ground rules are you stick to factual defenses and advocacy for the President.

Watch Out For "The Heckle Zone" Tony, Because Helen Has Got A Cast Iron Skillet

I love Helen Thomas because she has no fear of people resting behind bully pulpits. Wednesday's press briefing was a hot house - or as Jon Stewart would say, the "seat of heat" - for Tony the Snow job. He was busy dodging the NIE bullets and trying to defend his master all the while trying to explain why W thinks he is "winning the war on terror." This is a job I would never want.

Helen raises a very good issue that springs forth from a concern for the people of Iraq, who I might add have been extremely marginalized by our actions there. She asks, essentially, what right do we have to turn Iraq into the "central front on the war on terror?" And, more importantly, who specifically is responsible for doing that?

Have a look at how Tony gets tangled up in what he calls "The Heckle Zone." It strikes me that it only feels like the "heckle zone" because indeed there is some truth laced within these questions. Enjoy:

Q Change of subject, but not venue. The Washington Post is carrying a series of polls saying that the Iraqi people most affected by our so-called war want us out, want us out of Iraq. What is the President's reaction?

MR. SNOW: Not really surprised. I mean, nobody wants to have an occupying army. It's understanding that when you have an army on your soil, that you want them out. But on the other hand, the Iraqi government has made it clear, and you've heard statements by Prime Minister Maliki, and now President Talabani, as recently as last week, saying, don't leave until the job is done.

We understand the sentiments of the Iraqi people and we'd love to be out of there as soon as possible, but you have to have the end state --

Q Well, do they count?

MR. SNOW: Of course, they count -- and one of the reasons why their elected officials want us to stay is that they don't want them subjected to tyranny. They want the ability to win the battle of terror on Iraqi soil. So the President does understand it. It's also interesting, Helen --

Q -- on Iraqi soil. We want it on Iraqi soil.

MR. SNOW: Let me just finish the -- I'm sorry, what?

Q I said, the question of winning, we declared Iraq a central front and so forth -- we want it there, instead -- and they want out.

MR. SNOW: Well, no, we didn't declare Iraq the central front, bin Laden did.

Q Yes, we did.

MR. SNOW: Bin Laden declared it the central front in the war on terror. But we're quibbling here. They want us out. Yes, of course. The Europeans wanted us out after World War II. We ended --

Q Why do we stay there?

MR. SNOW: The reason we're staying is that we have made a commitment to providing a government -- a democracy --

Q A commitment to whom?

MR. SNOW: To the people of Iraq and to their government, a government than can sustain itself, defend itself, and govern itself. And we are continuing --

Q We invaded that country.

MR. SNOW: Please, please, we're getting into the heckle zone here. The point is that the government has asked us and you have now had a Shia prime minister and a Kurdish President saying, stay, finish the job.

The other interesting thing is if you look in the region, there are only two countries that want us to leave immediately. And you know what they are? They're Syria and Iran. They're the key supporters of terror. They understand that our departure is good for them, and success for us in the region is bad for them. And we're simply not going to back off our commitment.

Excuse me? The government asked us? For what? To invade their country and turn it into the "central front on the war on terror? My goodness.

Since When Does "Confluence Of Shared Purpose And Dispersed Actors Will Make It Harder To Find And Undermine Jihadist Groups" Mean We Are Winning?

With the declassification of the NIE document segments, Tony the Snow job had a difficult time defending the president's suggestion that we are "winning the war on terror."

If you dare go to the whitehouse web location and read through the transcripts of Wednesday's press briefing, you will see the fur flying all about as Tony scratches for an answer that is defendable.

Do you think he wins his argument? have a look:

Q Well, again, the report says, "factors fueling the movement outweigh the vulnerabilities." It says they're not --

MR. SNOW: Yes, but --

Q -- that the movement has grown, and that it's harder to find and harder to prevent attacks.

MR. SNOW: I believe what it says. You've gotten it about right.

Q And they're training new leaders who are being battle-tested in Iraq.

MR. SNOW: No, it says -- let's run through it, because these are all good questions. First, it says -- let's see -- what you're talking about -- I'm sorry. Where are we here? Rephrase the one that you're going after here.

Q Let's see --

Q The vulnerabilities question.

Q Right. Well, we can go back over -- I can read you verbatim --

MR. SNOW: All right, here we go. Yes, the -- okay, that's -- thank you.

Q -- but we're also talking about harder -- you know, the "confluence of shared purpose and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups."

MR. SNOW: Right. Which is precisely why the President has said -- if you look back at what the President has been saying, he says it's numerous and more dispersed. We're not disagreeing with that. I'm not trying to pick a fight with it.

What I'm trying to tell you is, there's a difference between an al Qaeda that has training camps, that has the operational ability. What this is talking about is the ability to get people to say, I'm a jihadist, and be angry, to identify themselves as part of a movement. It's not the same --

Q Tony, he says we're winning the war on terrorism. That's what he says.

MR. SNOW: I know.

As one reporter later in the briefing suggests, it seems that the release of the declassified segments of the NIE are like a "political Rorschach test. If you're looking at the NIE and you're predisposed to be critical of the war in Iraq, you see -- you read it that more terrorists are being created." But, if you read it like the President and his pals, it reads like we are winning the war on terror. What say you?

Everyone Congressperson Loves A Republican Lead Congress Because...

It' means V A C A T I O N! Following the President's lead is wonderful if you work in Congress:

This Congress hit the ground stumbling and has not lifted itself into an upright position. With few accomplishments and an overloaded agenda, it is set to finish its tenure with the fewest number of days in session in our lifetimes, falling well below 100 days this year.

Oh, but that's not all.

This new modern record is even more staggering when one realizes that more than 25 of those days had no votes scheduled before 6:30 p.m., making them half- or quarter-days at best. The typical workweek in Congress (when there is a week spent in Washington) starts late Tuesday evening and finishes by noon Thursday. No wonder satirist Mark Russell closes many of his shows by telling his audiences what members of Congress tell their colleagues every Wednesday: "Have a nice weekend."

Perhaps they like going to their hobby ranches while they are busy not voting on issues that concern all Americans. But wait, there's more:

This part-time Congress has other parallels to the famous "Do-Nothing 80th Congress" that Harry Truman ran against successfully in 1948. The output of the 109th is pathetic measured against its predecessors and considering its priorities, which included a comprehensive immigration bill, tax reform and the research and development tax credit, lobbying and ethics reform, healthcare costs and insurance coverage, trade agreements, procedures for the detention and trial of suspected terrorists, and regulations for the oversight of domestic wiretaps, among many others. With just days to go before Congress adjourns and the fiscal year begins, not a single one of the 11 appropriations bills that make up the range of government programs has been enacted into law.

Click on over to the actual article if you like to read more.

Just as an aside, don't you wish that people paid attention to the goings on in Congress to the same degree they pay professional sports? Wouldn't it be a different world if there were box scores reported daily for congressional votes?

Cut, Run, Or What?

Over time, the republican propaganda machine has been trying to push the Iraqi malaise down our throats as something that will, with a nice spoon full of sugar, be good for us. In the process, they have tried to paint all those who would disagree with their actions with one brush: "Cut and Runners."

Contrary to the belief on the "right," I don't believe that all who disagree with the war in Iraq suggest that we should "cut and run." Moreover, I think it does a great disservice to resolving the republican lead, republican fueled, and republican sustained Iraqi conflagration. Oh, and before you slap me with the "it wasn't just the republicans who supported the war," bit - yes I know that the Dems voted for it, but it was the republicans who led the charge and spoon fed us the intelligence that got that vote. But I digress.

Iraq a serious problem that requires a serious solution, not more dualistic rhetorical arguments that pose as debate. In fact, we don't need debate. We need solutions. It does no one any good to paint those who point out it was wrong to go in to Iraq in the first place as something other than those who disagree with the president and his ilk. Wagging the finger of blame expose facto does a similar amount of good, although, I do think that there will be a time for folk who brought us the war in Iraq to be judged for their actions and justice meted out. Even so, we can't eat food purchased with predictions of what might have been if our government behaved differently.

Certainly, the release of recently declassified documents (timed politically, of course) doesn't seem to do anything to resolve the Iraq crisis:

Mr. Bush said he wanted to release the document so voters would not be confused about terrorism or the war when they voted for Congressional candidates in November. But the three declassified pages from what is certainly a voluminous report told us what any American with a newspaper, television or Internet connection should already know. The invasion of Iraq was a cataclysmic disaster. The current situation will get worse if American forces leave. Unfortunately, neither the report nor the president provide even a glimmer of a suggestion about how to avoid that inevitable disaster.

I think it is time to put aside our disagreement about the legitimacy of the Iraq invasion and come up with real solutions. What say you?

Say What, Mr. President?

I have ten questions that you should keep in mind as you read through the President's words that stem from just one answer to one reporter's question at Tuesday's Press Availability with President Karzai.

1. Did the president admit that Iraq has become a recruiting tool for terrorists?


2. W is still defending the decision to go into Iraq, but does he give us a different rationale for it yet again?


3. Is the reason W cites for why terrorists are in Iraq the real reason why terrorists are in Iraq?


4. What will happen to the terrorists if we "defeat them in Iraq?"


5. Does W try one more time to subliminally link Nine Eleven and Iraq?


6. If we kill to achieve our objectives, how does that separate us from the the terrorists who "kill to achieve their objectives?"


7. To whom is W referring when he suggests we are not going to let "lies and propaganda by the enemy dictate how we win this war?"


8. Does W openly admit that yet another person in W, Rove and Co. administration has leaked classified information?


9. Might there be another reason other than what W holds in his mind as to why whomever leaked it did so?


10. If you accept the president at his challenge, what conclusions do you draw?

Q Thank you, sir. Even after hearing that one of the major conclusions of the National Intelligence Estimate in April was that the Iraq war has fueled terror growth around the world, why have you continued to say that the Iraq war has made this country safer?

And to President Karzai, if I might, what do you think of President Musharraf's comments that you need to get to know your own country better when you're talking about where terror threats and the Taliban threat is coming from?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Do you want to start?

PRESIDENT KARZAI: Go ahead, please. (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT BUSH: I, of course, read the key judgments on the NIE. I agree with their conclusion that because of our successes against the leadership of al Qaeda, the enemy is becoming more diffuse and independent. I'm not surprised the enemy is exploiting the situation in Iraq and using it as a propaganda tool to try to recruit more people to their -- to their murderous ways.

Some people have guessed what's in the report and have concluded that going into Iraq was a mistake. I strongly disagree. I think it's naive. I think it's a mistake for people to believe that going on the offense against people that want to do harm to the American people makes us less safe. The terrorists fight us in Iraq for a reason: They want to try to stop a young democracy from developing, just like they're trying to fight another young democracy in Afghanistan. And they use it as a recruitment tool, because they understand the stakes. They understand what will happen to them when we defeat them in Iraq.

You know, to suggest that if we weren't in Iraq, we would see a rosier scenario with fewer extremists joining the radical movement requires us to ignore 20 years of experience. We weren't in Iraq when we got attacked on September the 11th. We weren't in Iraq, and thousands of fighters were trained in terror camps inside your country, Mr. President. We weren't in Iraq when they first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993. We weren't in Iraq when they bombed the Cole. We weren't in Iraq when they blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. My judgment is, if we weren't in Iraq, they'd find some other excuse, because they have ambitions. They kill in order to achieve their objectives.

You know, in the past, Osama bin Laden used Somalia as an excuse for people to join his jihadist movement. In the past, they used the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It was a convenient way to try to recruit people to their jihadist movement. They've used all kinds of excuses.

This government is going to do whatever it takes to protect this homeland. We're not going to let their excuses stop us from staying on the offense. The best way to protect America is defeat these killers overseas so we do not have to face them here at home. We're not going to let lies and propaganda by the enemy dictate how we win this war.

Now, you know what's interesting about the NIE -- it was a intelligence report done last April. As I understand, the conclusions -- the evidence on the conclusions reached was stopped being gathered on February -- at the end of February. And here we are, coming down the stretch in an election campaign, and it's on the front page of your newspapers. Isn't that interesting? Somebody has taken it upon themselves to leak classified information for political purposes.

I talked to John Negroponte today, the DNI. You know, I think it's a bad habit for our government to declassify every time there's a leak, because it means that it's going to be hard to get good product out of our analysts. Those of you who have been around here long enough know what I'm talking about. But once again, there's a leak out of our government, coming right down the stretch in this campaign, -- to create confusion in the minds of the American people, in my judgment, is why they leaked it.

And so we're going to -- I told the DNI to declassify this document. You can read it for yourself. We'll stop all the speculation, all the politics about somebody saying something about Iraq, somebody trying to confuse the American people about the nature of this enemy. And so John Negroponte, the DNI, is going to declassify the document as quickly as possible. He'll declassify the key judgments for you to read yourself. And he'll do so in such a way that we'll be able to protect sources and methods that our intelligence community uses. And then everybody can draw their own conclusions about what the report says.

Thank you.

Why Must The President Run A Cloak And Dagger Fund Raising Strategy?

In case you didn't notice, there are some republicans that may be a tad wary of having the president kiss them in public. Could it be that the overuse of "private" fundraising events is a sign the president is losing public credibility and political capital?

It seems to me that there is a growing trend by the W, Rove and Co to deploy a cloak and dagger style fundraising strategy. That is, under the guise of holding a fundraising event at a "private" home, they use that as leverage to "close" the event and block out the public spotlight. This got me wondering, might this ruse be a euphemistic way to keep dirty little things secret? Getting right to the heart of the matter, I have a few related questions for the blogisphere.

First, we do know that the President has not nor will he come out and publicly endorse the Connecticut GOP elected candidate for Senate. Even so, the President will be in CT to raise money there, but for whom?

Second, I am not the only one suspicious of the W, Rove and Co.’s cloak and dagger strategy for fund raising. The bigger questions are who are going to be at these fundraisers, and why do you think they are purposefully held at private homes?

Lastly, when money is raised privately for public campaigns, should we be concerned about how those monies raised flow to various agencies? Moreover, toward what end and means will those funds be deployed?

Of course, you are not going to get anything but the standard, stock answer from Tony the Snow job, but I would be curious to hear what you all think:

Q Tony, the President is doing five closed fundraisers this week, beginning with these two today. We're in Connecticut, and then he's going to Ohio -- places where candidates maybe have not been entirely eager to be seen with him. Is that why we're having all these closed fundraisers? Are Republicans --

MR. SNOW: No, we're having them because they're in private homes. So I think you're going to find in a lot of places we're going to be doing -- as I've already told you before, Sheryl -- we'll have a lot of open events -- we'll let your phone turn off.

Q Sorry.

MR. SNOW: It's really quite elegant; it fits the circumstances. But there will be plenty of open events.

Q Can you tell us a little bit about who's inside? Is the Republican Senate candidate inside, or any --

MR. SNOW: I'll go and check. I saw Chris Shays, but I don't know who else.

Q Tony, how do you justify five events where the public has no idea what the President is saying, what the pitch is, who he's meeting with -- in some cases, how much money is raised --

MR. SNOW: I think people understand what the President stands for. It's not as if -- typically, you try to make sure that if you're having an event in somebody's private home, that it remains private. That's been a standard not only in this administration, but prior. It's not like the administration is pulling rabbits out of his hat. He's saying things that you've heard before and that you're aware of.

Q Well, actually, in the previous administration they started this way and there were a lot of protests from the media -- and from Republicans, as a matter of fact -- and they allowed a feed to come out to reporters and they allowed a print reporter to be in.

MR. SNOW: Understood.

Q So are you all considering that at all?

MR. SNOW: No.

Q Why not?

MR. SNOW: As I said, because, frankly, we're just not in the business of revisiting this. The President is certainly going to be plenty accessible to you guys and he's going to be accessible to the public and you know what his positions are. And we're going to continue to express them.

Q But is this the way for Republican candidates who perhaps might not want to be pictured publicly with the President to avail themselves of his fundraising prowess while not being seen with him?

MR. SNOW: You're going to have ask them. That's not my reading, but feel free to ask them.

Blog on friends, blog on all.

What Happens When The Facts Are In Direct Contrast With What The President Says?

A while back I wrote a post about the trouble caused by reducing complex geopolitical issues to dichotomous rhetorical points. As practiced by many a W, Rove and Co. stalwart, this supposedly passes for debate mainly framed by dualistic choices between only good and bad options.

Of course, the President and his pals continue this exercise of oversimplification to the detriment of us all. Witness this week's Presidential radio address (which I am still waiting for some one to admit they actually listen to this propaganda). There in rest at least two more examples of such a reduction; and it's not the wine and persimmon reduction I might toss on to some medium rare steaks to go with a snazzy glass of Petite Syrah.

Before I provide you with a taste, let me prep you with some questions that may help you cogitate your way through the rhetoric.

• First, might there be another option that provides a better way to peace than those choices provided by the president?

I said that every nation must make a choice: We can support the moderates and reformers working for change across the broader Middle East, or we can yield the future to the terrorists and extremists. America has made its choice - we're standing with the moderates and reformers.



• Second, what happens when what the president suggests will happen should we follow him is in direct contrast with the outcomes of what he has been doing for the last few years?

In the broader Middle East, the world faces a straightforward choice: We can allow that region to continue on the course it was headed before September the 11th, and a generation from now our children will face a region dominated by terrorist states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons; or we can stop that from happening by confronting the ideology of hate and helping the people of the Middle East build a future of hope.

It seems to me, in this latter case, that the President again is choosing to see the reports he wants to see and disregard the rest.

The war in Iraq has made global terrorism worse by fanning Islamic radicalism and providing a training ground for lethal methods that are increasingly being exported to other countries, according to a sweeping assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies.

GWB's War On Terror = Bad For America

So, I guess all the left wing nuts who suggested that Iraq was and is a bad idea weren't so far off, eh?

The war in Iraq has made global terrorism worse by fanning Islamic radicalism and providing a training ground for lethal methods that are increasingly being exported to other countries, according to a sweeping assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies.

I know I don't feel as safe as the W, Rove and Co suggest I should because of their actions in this theoretical "Global War on Terror."

Have We Been Fooled By Another W, Rove And Co. Political Ruse?

Regarding the Detainee Treatment Act that just came to fruition Thursday, it seems rather suspicious that the W, Rove and Co. didn't have to give up one inch of their position on the matter. This is very curious and leads me to a number of questions.

• Did the GOP folk who squawked about the original version of the DTA proposed by the President really care about the details?


• Or, was this a ruse to feign care about the original version so that certain potential Republican candidates could look strong by standing up to the President just prior to the elections cycle?


• If so, who would be devious enough to plot out such a strategy?


• Would I be wrong for assuming that this rouse could have been perpetrated by our dear old GOP friends?


• Is any one else sickened by the very fact that these thoughts have crossed my mind?

Have a look at Thursday’s press briefing with Steve Hadley acting as W's trumpet:

Q What did the administration give up in this negotiation? Because it seems like you got everything that you asked for.

MR. HADLEY: This was a situation where both the Congress and the administration shared a common objective. And what we did in a fairly creative way was come up with ways that we could all support to achieve that objective. And that's really what I think is the most important thing. And it really came out of the commentary subsequent to the President's speech of two weeks ago, that everybody came together on the proposition that we need this very important program to go forward. It's one of the best tools we have in the war on terror. We need to do it in a way that gives clear guidance to our men and women in -- our men and women who run this program, clear congressional support, and legal protections. And everybody agreed we ought to try and do it in a way that did not involve modifying or amending our international obligations.

That was the objective that we all came to here in the last week. And the goal was whether we could find language mutually agreed between the Senate and the White House that would achieve those objectives. And the good news is, we could and did.

Q Was there anything that you didn't get that you would have wanted to see on this?

MR. HADLEY: I've said all I said -- I can say on that issue. I just want to thank everybody for their time, and thanks very much for your time and attention.

The Growing List Of Disavowed Republicans

Let's see, there's the republican candidate running in Connecticut. Now there is Katerine Harris that may escape with no endorsement from the W.

The question remains to be seen if a non-endorsement from W is a good thing or a bad thing. Or could the stain of W's kiss remain that of death for incumbents?

Any thoughts?

Q Katherine Harris says that she's going to be at the GOP's meeting at 4 p.m., at the Ritz Carlton. Does the President plan to meet with her as the Republican nominee for the Senate race?

MS. PERINO: I don't know if there is any specific separate meeting, but I believe she is going to be there as part of the event.

Q Does he have any plans to raise money for her?

MS. PERINO: I don't know of anything that's scheduled.

Psst: "When There Is Actionable Information, That Osama Bin Laden Will Be Brought To Justice"

Fitting squarely in the WTF does that mean category, we see another cryptic message coming from yet another Whitehouse spokes model delivered in another Presidential PR junket to Florida. As to why the President feels like he needs to go to Florida again is beyond me. Certainly, there are other States in this Union that would be happy to host the Presidential Propaganda Catapult Parade, but I digress.

Today, Dana Perino, subbing in for Tony the Snow job held a press gaggle aboard Air Force One. In that meeting one reporter asked an interesting question about OBL. Her answer was rather cryptic, which leads me to the following question:

If we read between the lines, should we anticipate that OBL will be caught, nicely tied, and delivered to justice with a snazzy red bow affixed atop his turban some time before November's election?

Q Would the President find it necessary to seek General Musharraf's permission to launch military action against Osama bin Laden inside Pakistan?

MS. PERINO: Let me tell you what I'll say on that. You know that President Musharraf is going to be at the White House tomorrow, and there will be an availability in the late morning hours. As we've said before, Pakistan is an important partner in the war on terror and a friend to the United States. We've had excellent cooperation in many areas, including counterterrorism. And the President has repeatedly said how much he appreciates Musharraf's commitment to pursuing al Qaeda and continuing to work with us in cooperation in the search for Osama bin Laden. Pakistan and the United States remain close allies, working not only on the war on terror together, but on many other areas.

What I can tell you is that -- without getting into any operational details -- that when there is actionable information, that Osama bin Laden will be brought to justice.

Do You Know What The President Thinks?

It's hard to tell what the President is thinking now that a number of political leaders that are not beholden to the US of A for any reason spoke their minds freely at the UN over the past few days.

Have a look at how Tony the Snow job deflects some interesting questions at his last press gaggle:

Q Did the President watch President Ahmadinejad's speech last night?

MR. SNOW: No.

Q He didn't. Has he been briefed on it? Does he have any reaction?

MR. SNOW: He's been briefed on it and his reaction was that we've been pretty clear on conditions for meeting with and talking with the Iranians -- which is to suspend the enrichment and reprocessing related activities and come to the table. There are a whole variety of benefits we want to make available to them, but we're not going to engage on specific points in his speech.

...Q Does the White House or the President have any reaction to the assertions that Ahmadinejad made regarding the U.S. having too much power in the U.N.?

MR. SNOW: No

...Q There have been a number of deadlines already set in the past. Specifically, how much longer would the U.S. wait -- days, weeks, months?

MR. SNOW: We're working with our allies.

What exactly is the President thinking? Hard to say.

A more important question is why he refused to meet with these people as they have flown to US soil on their own dime to be here. It would have been a very inexpensive way to build new bridges. Instead the W, Rove and Co. insists on using the three year-old-child's "we-won't-talk-to-you-if-you-don't-do-what-we-tell-you-to-do" approach to diplomacy? It's clearly a winning approach, isn't it?

The Big Dick: Spilled Lemonade On The Trail All The Way Up To The Veep's Office

This is a very interesting read regarding our illustrious Vice President; The Big Dick Cheney.

He reached public life with every reason to believe that he would continue to both court failure and overcome it, take the lemons he seemed determined to pick for himself and make the lemonade, then spill it, let someone else clean up.

The President Gives Us Yet Another Reason We Should Not Have Invaded Iraq

In case you didn't notice, today marked another PR attempt by W speechifying in front of the UN General Assembly. Via our professsional presidential propaganda catapult, we see one more reason why we never should have invaded Iraq:

Freedom, by its nature, cannot be imposed -- it must be chosen

Hmmm, so, are we imposing freedom, spreading freedom, or something else in Iraq?

P.S. I just started a new job on Monday and should be back up to posting spec in a week or two once I figure out what the hell I am doing time-wise.

Blog on all.

The Iraq Distraction: When Their "Right" Hand Strokes And Their Left Hand Slaps, The Outcome Is All Bad For America

Say it ain't so. Could it be that there is one more reason why the decision to invade Iraq was wrong?

Certainly, it doesn't help to point out more failures of the W, Rove and Co. On the other hand, here's another sign that things have been going south under the W, Rove and Co for a great long time.

As you read through the first paragraph, ask yourselves which country is this reporter discusssing?

A car bomb rips through a U.S. military convoy in the capital. A suicide bomber assassinates a provincial governor; another bomber kills six guests at the governor's funeral the following day. Gunmen launch fierce daily attacks on Western troops and government security forces.

However much it sounds like the war in Iraq, this is the war in Afghanistan, started in 2001 to oust the radical Taliban regime, capture Osama bin Laden and destroy the safe haven for his terrorist network al Qaeda.

Five years later, U.S. and NATO troops are fighting a resurgent Taliban at the highest scale since the government was toppled in November 2001. Bin Laden remains at large, opium production is at a record high, and Afghanistan resembles a feudal hodgepodge of fiefdoms run by warlords instead of a centrally governed nation of 31 million people.

Is it me, or does anyone else find it ironic that we are improving things for the illegal opium industry by fighting the GWoT? Given that we have been running a "war on drugs" longer than a "war on terror," could it be we haven't learn from the mistakes in execution of the former to win both? It's like the W, Rove and Co stroke and stoke the fires of war on terror only to slap our guys fighting the war on drugs.

Rhetorical Dualism Is No Substitute For Real Debate

I am convinced that the next time the President, the Vice President or another of their GOP surrogates suggest that they are open to honest, “healthy debate” about the issues facing our country, we should simultaneously stand up and say: “Okay, lets have one right now.” The trouble is, as we have seen over and over again, the W, Rove and Co is very good at espousing a desire for debate, but not so good at following through with that promise.

If said politician does not agree to the debate then and there, ask: “When are you going to host one?" It would be entirely refreshing to have a debate rather than subject the people to more speechifying at great expense to the American Taxpayers. Speeches delivered in front of friendly audiences and from podiums equiped with telepromters and microphones hold no room at all for opposing views.

But the issue is bigger than the simple void of real, healthy debate in the town halls across America and on national stages. Do the republicans truly welcome healthy debate or are they simply blowing more smoke up our skirts, not unlike the smoking "mushroom cloud" Condi was hinting at a while back?

Certainly, if you review the text of many of the W, Rove and Co's top brass over the course of a hand full of days (and stretching way back to the outset of their political travesty started long ago when W was selected, not elected), you will find evidence that they are not the least bit interested in "healthy debate," unless they control your side of the argument.

Beware the dualistic argument, my friends. It's a simple, but deliberate trick issued by the W, Rove and Co to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Rhetorical dualism is no substitute for genuine, healthy debate. You are right or wrong, black or white, or "with us or against us." Rhetorical props such as these are not a form of debate, but debate killers. Would you call this healthy? Not me.

Using dualistic rhetoric as a surrogate for debate is like handing your opponent broken crutches and telling him or her to use the sharp end under one arm. It hurts when you lean on one side of the argument. This practice is not only deceitful and disingenuous, it is dangerous for America. It presents only one viable choice for voters. Folks with little to no time to digest very complex issues rest their decisions on whom to vote for based on which option they believe to be the answer to all of America’s ills.

The W, Rove and Co has proven time and again that they are getting nothing but rich by appealing to the lowest common denominator as they present their arguments to the American people. Dualistic rhetorical arguments riddle the speeches of those in the W, Rove and Co.

Dualistic thinking is almost at the very lowest rung of behavioral development for responsible humans. It is dangerous for America because it reduces complex situations that require complex thinking and complex solutions to sound bites that further divide our country. They do nothing to forward positive solutions to very troubling geopolitical problems created by the same dualistic thinking.

Let’s have a look at some illustrations from speeches given by various W, Rove and Co agents so you can see for yourselves how pervasive this practice is. Together we can "out" this practice as the Rovian designed political parlor trick it is, shall we?

Let's start with a classic case. We are all now, unfortunately, deeply familiar with the post Nine Twelve slogan "You are either with us or against us," made famous by our glorious president. It is only one small example of the dangerous dualistic surrogate for diplomacy that has put America at great risk. Moreover, it is a terrible approach for argument, debate and political reason because the W, Rove and Co. brand of dualism is a forced choice option where one side of the choices is always wrong. There is always one false argument presented as one side of two options. The latter is almost always bad, and the former the GOP party line. What is more, if you choose neither, you are seen as a treacherous traitor.

Here's a classic double dose from the Big Dick:

But there is a difference between healthy debate and self-defeating pessimism. We have only two options in Iraq -- victory or defeat.

Of course, we can't just have one day of this rhetorical nonsense from the Big Dick. The very next day, he gave another speech to yet another friendly (and maybe even captive) audience at an Air Force base in Nebraska.

Here The Veep hits the Political dualist's trifecta: Three pairs for the price of one. To finish it off, the Big Dick gives you a double couplet, where in one fell swoop he hands us two broken crutches with the pointed end inserted directly under our armpits.

But there is a difference between healthy debate and self-defeating pessimism. We have only two options in Iraq -- victory or defeat. And I want you to know, as members of the United States military, that the American people do not support a policy of retreat or defeat.

Oh, don't you love that last couplet - it even rhymes.

The President takes lessons from his pals and even tries to sway us with dualistic arguments that split the world into only two camps: The good guys (that would be us) and the bad guys (that would be those against us):

The war we fight today is more than a military conflict; it is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century. (Applause.) On one side are those who believe in the values of freedom and moderation -- the right of all people to speak, and worship, and live in liberty. And on the other side are those driven by the values of tyranny and extremism -- the right of a self-appointed few to impose their fanatical views on all the rest. As veterans, you have seen this kind of enemy before. They're successors to Fascists, to Nazis, to Communists, and other totalitarians of the 20th century. And history shows what the outcome will be: This war will be difficult; this war will be long; and this war will end in the defeat of the terrorists and totalitarians, and a victory for the cause of freedom and liberty. (Applause.)

Isn't magical the way W paints us such a stark and easily definable picture of the good and bad. Unfortunately, he leaves out a whole lot of ugly ignored by this Administration.

By the way, if it really is an ideological struggle, can't we have the ideologs duke it out instead of having to endure the death of so many of our and their folk in the name of said struggle? But I digresss.

The President even works to amplify his argument by lacing one side of the dualism with the support of the "Almighty."

On this struggle are those who believe in the universality of liberty. I personally believe there's an Almighty, and I believe that one of the great gifts of that Almighty to every man, woman and child on the face of the Earth is the desire to live in freedom. (Applause.)

And on the other side of this ideological struggle are those who are driven by tyranny and extremism, the right of a self-appointed few to impose their fanatical views over the rest of us. And that's the struggle. And it's important that our fellow citizens understand that struggle.

The Grand Prize winner for the Presidential Lowest Common Denominator Rhetorical Dualist medal goes to the President himself. This example is taken from GW’s political speech designed to lever our sympathies for the victims of Nine Eleven for his political gain.

At the start of this young century, America looks to the day when the people of the Middle East leave the desert of despotism for the fertile gardens of liberty, and resume their rightful place in a world of peace and prosperity.

Zowie! “The desert of despotism” versus “the fertile gardens of liberty?” Which do you choose: Sodom, Gomorra, or Eden?

The very next day we get to witness Tony the Snow job’s attempt to defend the President once again – a thankless job, and I’m glad it’s his not mine.

Q Last night, the President asked Democrats and Republicans to put aside differences in the war on terrorism. And I wanted to see how you think that's going, a day later, when Harry Reid accuses the President of playing election year politics and House Majority Leader Boehner says of Democrats, "I wonder if they're more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people. They certainly don't want to take the terrorists on and defeat them." So --

MR. SNOW: Apparently, there are differing points of view. (Laughter.)

Q Even at that, you don't think it's -- so did the President fail in his mission?

MR. SNOW: No, I don't think so. It's interesting, we're going to have a lot of political conflict this year. Perfectly understandable, acceptable, predictable. That's the way it works. But yesterday gave the American people a chance to reflect on September 11th and how it froze us in an instant and made us understand that there was something out there we hadn't seen before, hadn't even expected, didn't have any suspicion that it existed. And that was a network of terrorists who would use any means possible, including things that are -- at least for you and me -- unimaginable, which was to turn airliners into weapons of mass destruction.

It also revealed that there was an ideology abroad that said that freedom is a terrible thing and that people were going to twist and pervert the Koran in an attempt to create a holy war, when, in fact, theirs was an ideology of despotism and terror, and that they were serious about it; that they had plans; that they were organized and that they were trying to kill Americans. We all realize that. Before that day, I daresay very few people in this room were then focusing in any serious way on Osama bin Laden.

So we learned about that. And as a nation, we remain united to beat those guys. And we remain united in our desire to remember the people who died -- the President yesterday having met with friends and family of many of them.

So, no, I think Americans are united on the important things, and they also understand that in politics there will be a vigorous debate about how best to pursue the goal. But I don't think there's any disagreement that, ultimately, our freedoms are precious, and that this country is an extraordinary place that remains not only the beacon of the world but the envy of many, and that it is our responsibility to preserve that for this and every future generation. And Americans also understand political seasons.

Q But, Tony, wait --

Q Do you think that both sides -- Democrats and Republicans -- want to defeat the terrorists?

MR. SNOW: Yes, I do. I mean, I think -- I don't think --

Q So you disagree with --

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to get in a debate over statements that I haven't seen. I think that there are going to be plenty of debates about who is going to be more effective in waging that battle. But I'll let John Boehner and Harry Reid duke it out on their own. I'll speak for the President.

So you may find yourself asking, "when do we get our promised 'plenty of debate?'” Better yet, if and when we eventually do, we should not swallow the rhetorical dualist’s pill as it certainly does nothing to pull our country out of the mess created by the GOP and their leaders.

Leaning on crutches handed to you by your political foe is not only bad for debate, but it is bad for America. Throw them back at the person offering them to you. Then ask them to debate you on the issues instead of the rhetoric offered. If you look sharply at the current administration's record, they have warehouses full of broken crutches (not to mention morgues and hospitals full of wonded and KIA), and not a single leg to stand on.