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.

Converting To A Photo Blog A Good Idea?

Thinking about a transition to a photo blog. How do you like this image. I had one thought, if you were to purchase a full resolution digital file of this picture that I took a few days ago, what would it be worth to you? I've been thinking about posting to some of those photo stock pages that earn you cash as it's downloaded. I thought people might like to get these images direct from the source. What say you?

Happy New Year All.

Blog on friends, Blog on all.

Who Is Smarter Than The President?

I finally got my sea legs back from this calf injury I've been nursing for months - gradually building up to my usual Sunday Long Run ~over 1 hour through the park mainly on trails. I got to thinking. I know, you hate it when I start regurgitating thoughts thunk up on my dawn related run-infused musings. But hey, I do my best cogitation out on the AM jaunt through the woods.

So, I got to thinking. For the first time in history, we finally have a sitting president by comparison whom I actually feel a grade smarter. This is not that I've gotten smarter, but that this President, Bush, actually seems substantially more dim witted than your average president.

Carter, I remember, as he ushered us through the Bicentennial. By comparision, I'm a slacker in the humanitarian smarts.

Reagan - again, smarter than me. He brought us the me generation through the 1980s effectively killing financial aid to college students and squashing my right to drink legally every year one day before I could be grandfathred in. He was a brilliant PR guy, practically perfecting the "plausible deniability" genera of presidential acting.

Bush after him, proved himself extremely smart by not actually going to Baghdad, unlike his son. In a quiet, subdued way, he was able to mastermind a very successful middle-east intervention. Definitely smarter than me.

And Clinton, the master of spin, providing the leadership to pull our country out of massive debts built over time by Republican Leadership. Seriously more smart than me.

Bush, on the other hand, has proven time and again that he is one of the most foolish people to lead our country of all time. He still thinks his cause in Iraq was right, and it's accomplishing the goal of keeping our country "safe." The debt accrued to pay for the "war" alone will sag like a 2 ton albatross hung around lady liberty's neck. He thinks the illusion of security and the charade of protection is a fair trade for the freedoms we have sacrificed for his "noble" cause.

Have a look at recent article about the TSA and the problems with traveling by air today:

How we got to this point is an interesting study in reactionary politics, fear-mongering and a disconcerting willingness of the American public to accept almost anything in the name of “security.” Conned and frightened, our nation demands not actual security, but security spectacle. And although a reasonable http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifpercentage of passengers, along with most security experts, would concur such theater serves no useful purpose, there has been surprisingly little outrage. In that regard, maybe we’ve gotten exactly the system we deserve.

Even so, the President is still working hard to lever the case for his "war" in Iraq off the backs of the GIs he sentenced to die there:

Dan and Maureen Murphy are two of these people. In June 2005, their son—Lt. Michael Murphy, a Navy SEAL—was conducting surveillance in Afghanistan when his four-man team came under attack. Lt. Murphy moved into a clearing where he could get a signal to call for help for his men, knowing it would make him a target. As he made the call, he came under heavy fire that cost him his life. In a meeting before I presented Maureen Murphy with her son’s Medal of Honor, she spoke of the boy she’d raised to manhood. I came away from that day hoping that Lt. Murphy’s story would inspire all Americans to live lives worthy of the sacrifices that have been made for our freedom.

Proving once again, that, not only is Bush one of the most foolish presidents of the modern era, but that he will sink to lows without limit to promote his war. Using dead GIs and his parents to support his agenda is perhaps the most reprehensible political parlor tricks and ploys I've experienced from this man. And In my book, makes him not only foolish, but stupid for thinking that we still buy this gambit.

Fun Quote For The Day

Scratch-off tickets are to the lottery what crack is to cocaine.
- ELIOT SHAPLEIGH, Texas state senator.

I had a good chuckle on this one. Obviously Mr. Shapleigh doesn't realize that all forms of lottery are really just a voluntary tax on people who are bad at math (statistics, generally, and probability in the specific sense).

Atrocity

I don't usually cut and paste whole emails into blog entry's. I haven't done the veracity check on this yet, but it sounds plausible to me and equally atrocious that this happened in every sense of what is gratuitously wrong with our whole approach to Iraq.

Jamie Leigh Jones was a 20-year-old woman working in Iraq for a subsidiary of Halliburton when she was drugged and brutally gang-raped by several co-workers.

The next day, Halliburton told her that if she left Iraq to get medical treatment, she could lose her job.1

Jamie's story gets even more horrific: For the last two years, she's been asking the US government to hold the perpetrators accountable. But the men who raped her may never be brought to justice because Halliburton and other contractors in Iraq aren't subject to US or Iraqi laws. They can't be tried for a crime in any court.2

This is one of the most disturbing stories we have come across in a while. We're calling on Congress to investigate Jamie's case, hold those involved accountable, and bring US contractors under the jurisdiction of US law so this can't happen again. If hundreds of thousands of us speak out against this outrageous story, we can force Congress to take action.

Can you sign the petition? The text is in the blue box at the right. Clicking below will add your name.

http://pol.moveon.org/contractors_accountable/o.pl?id=11800-4861130-Yyk1Bd&t=3

After you sign, please forward this email to friends, family and colleagues—we all need to speak out together.

When you get an email from us, it doesn't usually include a graphic description of a brutal attack. But when we heard this story, we knew we had to do something about it.

Here's how Jamie described what happened after the attack:

I awoke the next morning in the barracks to find my naked body battered and bruised. I was still groggy from whatever had been put in my drink. I was bleeding... After getting to the clinic and having a rape kit performed...I was locked in a container with no food, no way to call my parents, and was placed under armed guard by Halliburton.3

Jamie's attackers aren't the only ones exploiting a legal loophole to get away with their violent crimes. Another female employee of Halliburton says she was raped by her co-workers in Iraq.4 Employees of Blackwater, another private contracting firm in Iraq, were accused of killing innocent Iraqi civilians, and that incident turned into an international scandal. Worst of all, they may never be punished.5

Private contractors in Iraq are making massive amounts of money, operating above the law and are accountable to no one. This has to stop.

Congress needs to act now to bring these contractors under the rule of law. If they don't, nothing will prevent a case like Jamie's from happening again. No man or woman working in Iraq should have to fear that they can be attacked without consequences.

Please sign on to the petition: "Congress must investigate the rape of Jamie Leigh Jones and others, hold those involved accountable, and bring US contractors under the jurisdiction of US law." Clicking below adds your name:

http://pol.moveon.org/contractors_accountable/o.pl?id=11800-4861130-Yyk1Bd&t=4

Thanks for all you do,

–Nita, Wes, Karin, Marika, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Friday, December 14th, 2007

Meanwhile, The Iraq Sands Turn Another Shade of Red

While the President is busy demonstrating how much he doesn't like children, we find that his "freedom spreading" experiment in Iraq is still stuck in the you've got to bleed for freedom mode.

Three car bombs exploded in quick succession in Amarah on Wednesday, killing at least 41 people and injuring 128 in what has been a relatively calm Shiite Muslim city, police and hospital officials said.

Burning Torture Tapes Is Good For America

Is any one getting tired of the usual line from the Whitehouse as they try to get forgiveness for their transgressions? Before you jump into this blurb from today's Whitehouse Press Briefing given by the vivacious and lovely Dana Perino, be sure to put on your deja vu goggles. If you think you have heard these deflections before, it's because you have.

Let's have a look:

Q Dana, there's an ongoing debate in the country about sort of where the lines are, as regards torture, and -- or enhanced interrogation. And I'm wondering if you feel that this report -- which I don't think anyone's contesting that the destruction of the tapes took place -- does this undermine the administration's position?

MS. PERINO: I think I would say -- I would take this opportunity, though, to take a step back and remind people about this interrogation program, which was put in place to deal with a very limited number of people; the most intransigent of terrorists. This program has saved lives. It is legal, safe, effective; it is limited, it is tough, and it has led to the capture of individuals -- terrorists -- who had information that was able to lead us to others. These are the -- General Hayden has talked about this several times, in terms of how many people -- we had this debate earlier this year, and the program is critical to the safety of the country.

Q And if it's so defensible, then why destroy any part of it?

MS. PERINO: Again, I'm not going to comment on that. The CIA has made its comment. They've said that they -- that the agency made its decision, and it was based -- and it was done in consultation with their legal counsel. And let's let the CIA Director gather those facts, and we'll see what they come up -- what they say after that.

Q Dana, what were the circumstances of General Hayden telling the President about this? Was it a report? Was Bush asking about the report? Was it --

MS. PERINO: All I know, Wendell, is that yesterday in the President's briefing with the intelligence folks, of which General Hayden is the one who comes to brief the President, that's when he was told about it.

Q Dana, when you say the President supports General Hayden, you're specifically singling out the current director, not the previous one who actually made the decision --

MS. PERINO: Well, I didn't ask the President about that. But I don't have any reason for -- I think -- I don't think that we have any reason to doubt what the CIA's legal counsel -- the advice that they gave to the CIA at the time. I said I think that those facts need to be gathered before that can be said.

Wow, if it really was safe, and good for saving lives, where's the proof and why did they need to destroy the tapes? Sounds awful fishy to me. Of course, they are not going to comment any further beyond the comments they are shoveling that try to absolve the president and his administration of any wrongdoing, and try to convince us, once again, that torture is good for America, but not her enemies.

Any one out there holding their breath for a full explanation of the leak about Valarie Plame case should know full well that there will be no forthcoming explanation about this matter either. You see, the President has a whole series of promises broken to prove me right. Near as I can tell Scooter's case is closed, but has the President explained what really happened in the Whitehouse around the Plame controversy? Nope.

Well, then. No comment during an on going investigation really means "fuck you America, we don't have to explain nothing to you..." or am I getting my translation mixed up.

Here's An Interesting Man

Have a gander:



Here's his location where you can follow the progress.

Blog on friends, blog on all.

If The President Was Regularly Putting Your Family Members In The Grave For No Reason, You Would Start To Sour On His Agenda Sooner Than Later, No?

The military families I know have had a strong distaste for Bush and his cronies for a great long while. It's not enough that he's "all hat and no cattle," but he's putting people into harms way for no real legitimate reason and continues to toss good money after bad to the tune of billions of dollars owed to the Chinese that our following generations will be working on paying down until their grandchildren have grandchildren.

I'm not certain why this is now news (well, it's because some person decided to run a poll to sell newspapers), but for those of us with friends and family that have served our country know the support for Bush was extinguished quite some time ago.

Families with ties to the military, long a reliable source of support for wartime presidents, disapprove of President Bush and his handling of the war in Iraq, with a majority concluding the invasion was not worth it, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found...

...Nearly six out of every 10 military families disapprove of Bush's job performance and the way he has run the war, rating him only slightly better than the general population does.

And among those families with soldiers, sailors and Marines who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, 60% say that the war in Iraq was not worth the cost, the same result as all adults surveyed.

"I don't see gains for the people of Iraq . . . and, oh, my God, so many wonderful young people, and these are the ones who felt they were really doing something, that's why they signed up," said poll respondent Sue Datta, 61, whose youngest son, an Army staff sergeant, was seriously wounded in Iraq last year and is scheduled to redeploy in 2009. "I pray to God that they did not die in vain, but I don't think our president is even sensitive at all to what it's like to have a child serving over there."

Patience with the war, which has now lasted longer than the U.S. involvement in World War II, is wearing thin -- particularly among families who have sent a service member to the conflict. One-quarter say American troops should stay "as long as it takes to win." Nearly seven in 10 favor a withdrawal within the coming year or "right away."

Military families tend to be relatively quite of their disdain for this man because they are used to doing their duty, as promised. Even so, it's dramatic when a sitting president fails the military he was "elected" to lead.

The President Has A Sick Sense Of Humor

The man makes me ill. Sometimes his ten-gallon-all-hat-and-no-cattle mentality leaves me feeling like he is vapid and arrogant all at the same time. His humor reveals how callous and shallow he really is. Remember, "what is said in jest is oft meant in leisure."

Here's his response to the only question asked of him today while he was on another Presidential Propaganda Catapulting Mission in Omaha Nebraska (leaving an hour before a local terrorist took his own brand of sick and twisted logic to a mall):

Q Iran’s President said the NIE is a victory for Iran. They want an apology from the United States, and compensation, sir. Will you do that? Is the NIE a victory for Iran?

THE PRESIDENT: (Laughter.) You can mark down I chuckled.

Nice, sensitive man, the President. Granted the question was rather stupid, but the answer was equally such. Makes me want to wretch.

Simple Simon Was The...President?

If you ask me, we shouldn't speculate and guess about certain intelligence facts and use that as a basis to take our country to war with Iran. That's a fool's bet, much like Iraq was and is.

Just ask yourself how many billions of dollars are being borrowed as a future tax on your grandchildren's grandchildren for the president's Iraq "Freedom Spreading Experiment." Can you fathom how much it would cost to open up a can o' whoop ass on Iran? Can we afford it?

I don't think we aught to double down, particularly because we are already owning the loan sharks from China a sizable chunk of our per capita income for generations to come. It would suck if China calls in the marker because they would most certainly have to break our knee caps just for Iraq alone. Lastly, I wouldn't want to send our GIs into harms way when OBL isn't any where close to Iran, or is he? Hell, why haven't we brought him in for justice? Could it be we are too distracted by Iraq?

Well, if we take the simpleton logic that our president uses to make decisions, we are going in some time before the end of his term is up.

Look, Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous, and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.

What a fool. Any one with internet access can acquire the knowledge to make nuclear weapons. By his measure, the bombing should "start in five minutes."

Are you ready to double down on the Middle East with our blood, sweat, tears, and payola (read hard earned and easily forfited taxpayer dollars) based on the word of a president who's logic is as sophomoric as Simple Simon? Remember who the poster children were for WMD in Iraq?

Not in my name!

Yellow Cake On Bush's Face

What's worse than having egg on one's face? Over blowing the Iran situation to get us into another war we don't need a la the Iraq Freedom Spreading experiment?

The US intelligence community said in a new report Monday that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, and that US charges about Tehran's atomic goals have been overblown for at least two years.