Let's Help The CIA Catch Osama

Seems like the President is having a difficult time collecting on his promise to bring OBL to justice "Dead or Alive." So, when some one calls the administration to the carpet for not doing just that, they get all defensive - see quote from Tony the Snow-job below.

So, I thought we could do a little bit to help out and at least let them know where OBL is not, kind of like setting up a null hypothesis and disproving it. So, if we all raise our voices and tell them were he is not, then it narrows down the locations of where he might be, thus making it increasingly easy to find him as more people report in. So, with out further ado, he's no where I've been in the last six years. Come on every body chime in. Where is not OBL, and eventually we will find him. Come out, come out where every you are!

There have been a number of allegations in the last few days by Democrats -- and I'll just read you one from Senator Harry Reid yesterday. "Five years after 9/11, al Qaeda has morphed into a global franchise operation. Terror attacks have increased sharply across the world, and the President has shut down the program designed to catch Osama bin Laden." This has become a fairly common refrain, so I thought I would take a couple of minutes to knock it down.

It's flatly untrue. Now, what has happened is that the CIA, in response to exactly what Senator Reid was talking about, a more diffuse al Qaeda, has, in fact, reshaped its unit dealing with al Qaeda to reflect that diffuse threat. But the notion that the President has shut down a program designed to catch Osama bin Laden is utterly without foundation. It was a reorganization, not a reduction, in effort and commitment.

The CIA's efforts to locate bin Laden and other senior al Qaeda figures has not been downgraded. To the contrary, it remains fully committed to locating bin Laden and his collaborators, and is devoting more resources, not less, toward the effort. The decision to reorganize, as I said, reflected changes in al Qaeda. And it's important to note that the effort to capture bin Laden is continuing unabated, and that the CIA's most experienced personnel working this issue remain fully engaged in the fight.

Some of the people making the allegations about the bin Laden unit know perfectly well what the facts are, and you do, too.

Ah, and "reorganization" is a eupahmism for what exactly?

Ct. GOP Tells The President To "Stand Down?" My Ass

Since when does a State level GOP party organization get to tell the President what to do with his endorsment? Now, we still don't know why Rove gave Lieberman a love call on the day of the primary, but you have to know that the President and Rove call the political shots (well, okay, maybe it's The Big Dick Cheney calling the political shots).

I do think it is very important to see here that the W, Rove and Co is not endorsing a GOP candidate for a very important race. So, in effect, what they are saying is that no all republicans are good republicans. And they say it's bad to play politics. Ha! I would venture to say that pretty much there is no such thing as a good republican, period, but that would be exterme.

Anyway, have a look at this pack of lies from Tony the Snow-job and let me know what you think:

Q -- and the Vice President today said that "The Dean Democrats have defeated Joe Lieberman. Their choice instead is a candidate whose explicit goal is to give up the fight against the terrorists in Iraq." Why is the Vice President making such comments? And does he support Senator Lieberman's independence?

MR. SNOW: No. Number one, we are not making any endorsement in Connecticut. The Republican Party of Connecticut has suggested that we not make an endorsement in that race, and so we're not. We are certainly not going to be endorsing between Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont because both of them are going to caucus as Democrats if they're elected to the United States Senate.

But as we were talking about last week, Ned Lamont ran on a campaign of getting out of Iraq, period; getting out. You have to ask yourself at a time of choosing what this does in the war on terror, what the consequences of that are going to be. Does this help the people of Iraq or does it create a power vacuum? Does it, in fact, support Osama bin Laden's comments -- and I want to thank one of your colleagues for setting me right on this; it was after Mogadishu, when we left Mogadishu -- that the Americans, you stay at them long enough, they're going to lose their will, they're going to walk away -- and he used that as inspiration to persuade people to conduct the September 11th attacks.

So it is important to understand what the consequences of an idea are. And I think the Vice President was well within his rights, and I think correct, in making that analysis and assessment. But in terms of the race, the Connecticut Republican Party has asked us to stand down on it, so we will.

Q You don't find that a little odd?

MR. SNOW: Nope.

Q Why not?

MR. SNOW: Well, there are times --

Q -- I don't recall it ever happening, when the White House has been asked to stay out of Republican race.

MR. SNOW: No, actually, there have been races in the past where candidates didn't meet the expectations of the local parties and Presidents have stayed out, Democrats and Republicans, in the past.

Q I'd like to see a list.

MR. SNOW: You know what? Perfect. We'll do the asterisk for you. (Laughter.)

P.S. there was no asterisk as promised.

Poll Numbers Do Not Say What They Think They Say

Really, the poll numbers only say what they say - not what the administration wishes they would say. But here we have another case of the W, Rove and Co trying to have their cake and eating it too:

Q Tony, isn't one of the reasons the poll numbers look bad is because Americans hear the administration say again and again, we've captured or killed two-thirds of the known leadership of al Qaeda, we've got them on the run, and, yet, a plot like this is uncovered?

MR. SNOW: Well -- no. I really am not going to sit here and do a seance about public opinion polls because I don't know. I don't think anybody knows. I think it's pretty -- when you're in a war like this, and especially with a vague and unseen enemy, you can understand that people are going to have anxiety. And one of the frustrations is you can't show everybody the kinds of things that are going on each and every day. But the fact is, just because you've degraded a lot of al Qaeda doesn't mean that you still don't have people who are committed to killing Americans. And that is an important ingredient.

So are we winning the war on terror or not? You can't simultaneously say we are winning the war on terror and then turn around and suggest we should fear terrorism...unless, of course, it's to your political advantage and we are heading in to November....

Dancing In Circles And Never Answering The Iraq Question

Today's press briefing was so dizying right off the bat that you have to get off the carosel to ease the spin. Really, the reporters get to the heart of a question that has no propper answer that the W, Rove and Co. can give.

Q But what about this central Democratic argument that the money spent on the Iraq war has taken away from homeland security and the war on terrorism?

This is a legitimate question, but not going to recieve an answer from Tony the Snow job. Straight away, he goes about building up his straw argument to knock over instead:

MR. SNOW: Well, it's an argument that seems to indicate the war on terror would not exist if we were not in Iraq. Let me remind everybody that the war -- that terrorists spent years plotting September 11th. Hezbollah has been active as a terrorist organization for decades. Hamas has been on the terror watch list for many years. Jimiya Islamia and other groups have also been on the terror watch list for years. So the fact is that the Iraq war has become a central point as Prime Minister Maliki has pointed out and the President said, as well, because terrorists are trying to figure out if Western governments have the will -- and also governments in the region have the will to stand up to isolated acts of terror that are designed to frighten and disrupt nations. The President said, no, it's not going to happen in the case of the United States of America.

But it's also pretty clear that in the war on terror we have, in fact, been doing a lot of things pretty ably. We had the arrests in London last week, and that was the result of cooperation between the United States, Britain, Pakistan. In addition, what you saw is the United States government -- for those of you who were traveling -- that within a very short period of time we sort of ironed out procedures at airports, which is pretty miraculous. This is not the sort of thing that would have happened before September 11th.

And we see that he even resorts to confusion, manipulation, and then he trots out the Nine Eleven monkey to spank it one more time to his advantage. And he goes further to monger a bit more fear:

And so I think what you're seeing is also some evidence of the very kinds of efforts that the President was being briefed on today, but also a reminder that the challenges are always there, that terrorists, in fact, are busy trying to do these -- are always trying to come up with innovative ways to murder innocent people. And the President is encouraging all of his people to think creatively so that we can try to prevent that.

Rightly so, another reporter tries to extract an actual answer to the real question:

Q I think, to follow up on Steve's point, the argument is not that the war on terror would not exist if the U.S. was not pursuing a war in Iraq, it's that it's a drain on resources, not only in dollars, but also in the capacities that the government has.

And again, Tony delivers no real answer:

MR. SNOW: Well, Michael Chertoff is not suiting up and going to Iraq. The fact is that you can have different departments and agencies doing this. This has been a war that has cost a lot of money -- $250 billion or more. And we've lost a lot of American lives. But it does not mean that our government is incapable of doing this. And I think one thing that we have to combine is both optimism and determination. What I hear is, well, it's tough on the Pentagon, so therefore, the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Justice or the Department of National Intelligence somehow are unable to do their jobs. What we saw in the briefings -- and, frankly, the State Department. What we saw in the briefings in the last two days is not only are they capable, but they are eager, because they share the same sort of passion for making sure this doesn't happen again.

I think what is lost in trying to reduce this to a balance sheet is the passion with which people approach this job. Anybody who was here on September 11th -- and that includes most of the people in this room -- know that the memories of that day may fade, but it doesn't take long for them to come flaring back, vividly. And each and every day, when people are taking a look at intelligence estimates, and when you get new terror reports, it's pretty obvious that there's a lot of work to be done. And the idea that somehow the men and women who are engaged in this on a daily basis are somehow distracted or don't have the resources -- don't tell that to them, because they certainly don't buy it.

Ah, more fear to monger and slaping the nine eleven monkey furiously to distract us. Stipulating that because we question the government does not mean we disrespect or think those actually doing the fighting are incompetent as Tony would have you think. But, you see, this is an election year and the W, Rove and Co are up to their usual political parlor tricks....

Having Your Fear And Screwing The Democrats Too

So, here the Big Dick Cheney is trying to have it both ways once again...one of their special Rovian political parlor tricks. Paint the opponent one way:

The Chairman of the Democratic Party, Howard Dean, said the capture of Saddam Hussein would not make America any safer.

Okay, is that bad? Supposedly so given the context of the Veep's speechification today. But really, the next phase of the trick is to suggest that we are not safe from terrorism at this point in time. So, in my book it's either bad or not, but not a problem for one party to point out the same thing the other does.

There is still hard work ahead in the war on terror, and the central front of this war today is in Iraq. We can expect further acts of violence and destruction by the enemies of freedom

So, are we safer or not, Mr. Vice President? And why is it bad for the Democrats to point out the very thing you are saying yourself in a bold faced attempt to fleece the party loyal out of more dollars for yet another political campaign? Oh, no wait...that is the purpose. Nice trick Dick.

Dead Men Tell No Lies, But The Vice President Fabricates More For Us

Of course, when things are deeply troubling about the globe, what do you expect our nation's "leaders" to be doing? Campaigning for their pals! That's right. Here we have another case of The Big Dick Cheney putting words into a dead man's mouth at another fundraising function this Tuesday:

If Ronald Reagan were with us now, he would be proud of this country, and I believe he'd be proud of the man who lives in the White House today.

Sure, The Veep can put these words forward, but that doesn't make them true. This leads me to....drum roll please....

Windpike's Dead Men Tell No Lies Question Du Jour

Do you think Ronald Reagan would approve of the job George W. Bush is doing or take him out in back of the Whitehouse garden shed for a good old fashioned switching?

More Proof The "Right" Only Favors The Already Wealthy

Believe it or not, the Pension Protection Act is looking to disallow donations of what they consider trivial amounts that total up to at least some kind of deductions in your taxes.

For charitable contributions made after the date of enactment (most likely this Thursday), no deduction is allowed for clothing and household items that are of minimal value. The law states that no deduction is allowed unless such clothing or household item is in good used condition or better. Household items include furniture and furnishings, electronics, appliances, and linens...

...Also, beginning in 2007, cash contributions will no longer include the small amounts given to Salvation Army bell ringers, cash put in the church collection basket, or other miscellaneous contributions that were not paid by check or acknowledged in writing by the charity.

As to why this particular set of stipulations are articulated in a pension "protection" program is a bit beyond me. But the effect of it is that those who are only able to donate small sums of money are not going to be able deduct said amounts from their taxable income, unlike wealthy donors of large sums of money.

What will the outcome be? Charities like the Salvation Army will see a downturn in donations I think. Is that another law that is "good for America" or do the Republicans have their heads and hands down so far the wealthy folks pants that they are too preoccupied sucking on genitalia? Shouldn't many Christians be up in arms about this as well give that many donate regularly to their own churches?

Why Iraq Is Such A Big Mess

A friend of mine pointed my mouse to a good location that, as he typed, is a trove of "the usual Administration incompetence made plain."

There are many things wrong with how the Iraq conflagration is burning, not the least of which was the incorrect decision to open up a front in "the war on terror" where there were no terrorists:

As we now know, Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon had no plan to secure any part of Baghdad. It allowed looters to destroy Iraq's governmental infrastructure and to steal thousands of tons of high explosives, weapons, and radioactive materials. And it had no coherent plan for Iraq's postwar governance. Gordon and Trainor retell very clearly the now familiar story (at least to readers of The New York Review) of the Bush administration's cavalier approach to postwar issues, but they also provide stunning insights into one key aspect of the postwar failure: the decision to invade Iraq with too few troops.

These failed and spurious decisions were made by men with big egos and the tendency to lead by hunch and faith over "assessment by generals on the ground."

Convinced of his own brilliance, Rumsfeld freely substituted his often hastily formed opinions for the considered judgments of his military professionals. He placed in the most senior positions compliant yes-men, like Myers, and punished those who questioned his casually formed judgments. He enjoyed belittling his subordinates. The day before the September 11 attacks, Rumsfeld told a Pentagon meeting that the Defense Department bureaucracy "disrupts the defense of the United States and places the lives of men and women in uniform at risk." His aides followed the same approach: Steve Cambone, Rumsfeld's closest aide, "jested that Rumsfeld thought the Army's problems could be solved by lining up fifty of its generals in the Pentagon and gunning them down."

And the very troubling issue that the W, Rove and Co was hellbent on going into Iraq even when strategically, it was the entirely wrong thing to do:

Saddam Hussein knew it made no strategic sense for the US to invade Iraq and therefore he assumed it wouldn't happen. He had maintained ambiguity about whether he had WMDs not because he had something to hide but to intimidate the two enemies about whom he really was worried, the Iranians and Iraq's Shiite majority.

Even after the invasion began, according to Gordon and Trainor, Saddam could not quite believe the United States intended to go all the way to Baghdad...

Saddam could not imagine that the United States would see an advantage in replacing him with a pro-Iranian, Shiite-dominated regime. Knowing very little about American politics, he could not grasp the ideological fervor of the Pentagon neoconservatives who believed Iraq's democratic transformation would revolutionize the Middle East. Rumsfeld and the neoconservatives could not imagine that Iraqis would not embrace liberation and pro-Western democracy and they assumed that both the invasion and occupation to follow would be easy. For the American generals, to challenge the petty tyrant on the Potomac could have ended their careers; for their Iraqi counterparts, taking on the tyrant on the Tigris could have ended their lives.

American Taxpayer dollars well spent? Nope - the ROI in Iraq has never nor ever been worth the outlay.

Will Lieberman Receive Another Kiss Of Death From Bush In November?

There is no telling that Joe Lieberman will actually make it to the ballots in Connecticut this November, but I found an interesting line of query in today's Whitehouse washing of the news via the press briefing.

Perhaps, last week's love phone call by Rove to Joe means more for the Republicans than we can speculate here. As you read through this quick exchange, ask yourselves this: Why doesn't this question recieve a simple "yes" reply and thusly move onto the next reporter? Who is playing politics and executing parlor tricks here?

Q Does the President support the Republican candidate for Senate in Connecticut?
MR. SNOW: The President supports the democratic process in the state of Connecticut, and wishes them a successful election in November.

Q Wait a minute. I realize he supports democracy, but I'm wondering, does he actually support his own party's candidate?

MR. SNOW: I know that's not news --

Q Why aren't you committing -- why wouldn't the President commit support for the Republican candidate in that --

MR. SNOW: I don't know. Why do you ask? Is there something about the candidate that I should know about that would lead to judgments?

Q I'm just asking you --

MR. SNOW: No, that's just a --

Q -- it seems like a very natural thing, why wouldn't he support a member of his own party? Is it because he's well behind in the polls? Is it because the President likes Joe Lieberman? What's -- why not?

MR. SNOW: There may be -- there are a whole host of reasons the President -- I'm just not going to play.

Q It's not really a game --

MR. SNOW: It's not a game. It's not a game, but I'll -- okay, I'll tell you what. I'll refer you to the political office to give you the full judgments on that. I think you know the situation in Connecticut.

Yes, it is not really a game...so, why is Tony playing one? Another reporter tries to squeeze an answer out of him later in the briefing:

Q Following on Keith's question, so we should not routinely assume that the President is supporting the Republican nominee --

MR. SNOW: I think there's some peculiar characteristics going on in the Republican Party with the President candidate, and why don't you wait and see what happens?

Q What are those characteristics?

MR. SNOW: I think I was asking you and you wouldn't play, so --

Q Are there any other states where there are peculiar characteristics, or is this one unique?

MR. SNOW: I think this one may be unique. But we'll find out. Look, I know what you're trying to do and it's great and it's great fun, but --

Q -- get an answer.

MR. SNOW: Yes, well, they know the answer.

Proving Once Again, That If The W, Rove And Co Doesn't Like The Laws They Simply Choose To Construe And Interpret Them In Their Favor

Helen got Tony's Snow-balls in a vice today. Have a look at this Q & A and see if you can intrepret what the W, Rove and Co is trying to do with the Geneva Convetions.

In particular, ask yourselves why does Tony use the words "construe" and "interpret" to address the question as oppose to answer the question directly?

Q My second question: Why does the President want to modify the Geneva accords, conventions, to prevent inhumane, cruel treatment of detainees?

MR. SNOW: The President has never suggested modifying the Geneva conventions.

Q You mean that all these stories are wrong?

MR. SNOW: Well, the Geneva conventions, as has been construed -- there are two things you've got to keep in mind. Number one, the Geneva conventions always must be construed especially -- you're talking about Common Article Three?

Q Yes.

MR. SNOW: -- in manners that are consistent with the U.S. law. The second thing is this is a new situation because the Geneva conventions in the past have not been construed as applying to those who do not fight for duly constituted military forces. We will wait to see when we have a final decision on how to implement the Hamdan case. I think, at this point, what you're reacting to is things that you've seen, and I'll be happy to entertain more specific questions when we have a proffer.

Q Are these all speculative and not true?

MR. SNOW: No, it's all trying to figure out the proper way also. One of the difficulties in Common Article Three is that there's a great deal of vague language and rather than, "trying to change the Geneva accords," what we're trying to do is to interpret them.

So, really, the reason why they want to construe and interpret the conventions is that they know they are in trouble and have violated them - and they want to build in an escape valve so they don't get caught in the legal thicket when they are tried for war crimes....but I could be wrong here. What do you think?

How You Can Tell That You Have Been Hanging Around The Whitehouse Too Long

There is an interesting quesion posed at the top of today's press briefing with Tony the Snow job.

Usually Tony's pretty good a artfully producing good spin, but I suggest that maybe he's been hanging around the President too long. Have a look at his reply and see if you agree with me:

Q As you look at this, the month-long war in the Mideast, who won?

MR. SNOW: I'm not sure -- right now what's won is diplomacy has won. There has been an attempt to make effective U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559, which called for the abolition of militias in the southern part of Lebanon, and also -- by the way, that would include Hezbollah or any other militias -- and also the cessation of attempts to arm such militias from abroad. That is now the focus of efforts by the United States, the United Nations, the international community.

At this point, we are hoping that the people of Lebanon will be the ultimate victors because they'll be able to have a government in which the democratic will of the people is expressed through the policies of that government, and they don't have to be worrying about Hezbollah having its own independent foreign policy or the ability to try to wage war and engage neighboring states.

Now, the personification of the term "diplomacy" is a neat little Rovian trick. A better question might be, who has lost? I would argue that all parties involved have lost to some degree. Certainly, there are others who believe they have won over "diplomacy:"

BEIRUT, Lebanon - Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said Monday that his guerrillas achieved a "strategic, historic victory" against Israel — a declaration that prompted celebratory gunfire across the Lebanese capital

Ah, what's a good victory celebration with out some shells raining down on the tarmac and bullets randomly landing on various heads.

Lying By Citation: Ann Coulter Proves She Is As Misleading As Her Pals In The W, Rove and Co

Has anyone picked up Coulter's book? I looked at it at the bookstore and nearly fainted with palpitations after reading the first and last pages. Well, okay, I didn't faint. But really, it was like picking up a handbook from hell - blessed by Satan. It nearly burned my fingers. Well, okay, it didn't burn my fingers, but I did have a visceral reaction to her writing.

Also, her dedication is simple: "For George" or something like that - no doubt whose ass she is kissing there. Anyway, here's some more evidence as to how misleading she is:

With Liberty And Justice For All?

There were more than two lines of thinking ruminating in my head on the run this morning. I was pushing my second son in the jogger stroller thinking about fear and freedom. Also, I've been working on a bigger post, not yet published, related to the psychology of fear over the last several days.

Interestingly, last evening I watched V for Vendetta (you have got to love Netflix, btw). I do believe that political bloggers of all stripe would love to have a go at dissecting it's meaning. It's a really interesting movie if you know anything about the history of the graphic novel. Given that it was written and illustrated about 20 years ago, it really does transcend time to become a salient and powerful statement about the abdication of freedom by a whole population of people and it's cooptation by a minority of politicians and their pals. There were many poignant lines in the movie - among which was the oft repeated gem:

One man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

And another interesting challenge to the W, Rove and Co sponsored belief that they can extinguish an ideology with weapons of mass destruction:

You can't kill me, I'm an idea.

The ideas expanded or blossomed on my run and I thought it would make a great post unto itself. Moreover, if I could crystallize the thrust of my yet to be published lengthier post, I could fit it into two or so sentences as follows (I know, which may preclude the posting of the longer one altogether, which wouldn't be so bad):

If freedom is for all, then fear is for fools; particularly those who would sacrifice liberty and justice for a false sense of security. When you trade for "security" at the expense of your freedom, then indeed, the terrorists and fear mongers have won.

Joe Darby: Hero or Terrorist?

There was an interesting article at SF Gate today that talked about Joe Darby as the person who blew the whistle on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. In the article, Darby said that folks in his home town still call him a terrorist rather than a hero. I think that is rather ironic given that his actions seem tremendously heroic to me:

The soldier who triggered the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal by sending incriminating photos to military investigators says he feared deadly retaliation by other GIs and was shocked when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld mentioned his name at a Senate hearing.

Within days, Joe Darby was spirited out of Iraq at his own request. But his family was besieged by news media, and close relatives called him a traitor. Ultimately he was forced to move away from his hometown in western Maryland.

"I had the choice between what I knew was morally right and my loyalty to other soldiers. I couldn't have it both ways," the 27-year-old military policeman said in the just-released September issue of Gentleman's Quarterly.

This leads me to a quick poll for the weekend. Let's call this...

Windspike's Quickie Poll To Identify Which Side You're On

• Answer this question: Joe Darby, hero or terrorist? Discuss

Meanwhile, Uncle Karl's Makes A Love Call To Lieberman

It's very hard to get Uncle Karl's fingerprints on any dasterdly deed. And it is almost as rare to have his name mentioned in the whitehouse press gaggle, but here's what I found out today:

Q Can I ask on a different topic? Can you clarify the Karl Rove call to Joe Lieberman and what that was all about?

MR. SNOW: It was a personal call. Yes, as I sent you -- in fact, I may get Karl back here, if you're interested.

Q Yes.

MR. SNOW: It's probably best to let him describe, because he was in on the call. But this was not a call after the polls closed; it was not a political offer; it was not a political conversation. It was a personal conversation. And, you know, he's expressed some willingness to do it, so maybe I'll just grab him -- yank his tie and make him come back here.

So, we are supposed to believe that there was nothing political and it was all personal discourse between Rove and Lieberman? Hmmm

Conspiracy or Coincidence? You Be The Judge. Subtitle - A Very Interesting Answer To A Very Interesting Question

I know the blogisphere was percolating all over the place with conspiracy theory regarding the terrorists round up earlier Thursday the coincidence that it diverted media attention from the Lieberman/Lamont situation. Here's an interesting question in today's press gaggle with Tony the Snow job.

Q Did you all know that this was going to break today, yesterday, when there was this massive response to the Connecticut primary, discussion of terrorism, al Qaeda?

Notice Tony's fuzziness in his reply regarding the timing of it all:

MR. SNOW: I don't want to get into operational details. This was not -- however, it was not explicit -- let me put it this way, I don't want to encourage that line of thought. I don't think it's fully accurate, but I also don't want -- I know it's frustrating, but we really don't want to get too much into who knew what, where, when.

Why is that Tony? Why is that?

Incidentially, there's a good question resting within a statement that Tony makes later in the press gaggle that I think folk in the blogisphere might like to wrestle with:

Q You said there is going to be some inconvenience to travelers. There were some complaints this morning that all liquids and gels might be going a little overboard on this. Do you guys have any comment on that?

MR. SNOW: You can't go overboard when you're trying to protect lives.

Let's ask this directly: Is there a point when the government goes too far in trying to protect lives? Discuss.

What Happens When "Kleptocrats" Claim to Try And Defeat "Kleptocracy?" Subtitle - The President's Plan to Co-opt the Phrase "Culture Of Corruption"

Taking chutzpah to a whole new level, the president is using his bully pulpit to see if he can wrestle away the phrase "Culture of Corruption" by making like he is doing something about it.

In case you didn't notice because you were stuck on the tarmac or in a security line pitching hundred dollar bottles of moisturizer in the bin at the airport, the President announced a new "National Strategy to Internationalize Efforts Against Kleptocracy."

Sit down and brace yourself, because you are really going to have to stop yourself from screaming at the W, Rove and Co on this next quote I'm pasting in here. Are you ready for the rolling out of the most hypocritical paragraph uttered by a president in a great long time? Drum roll please...

For too long, the culture of corruption has undercut development and good governance and bred criminality and mistrust around the world. High-level corruption by senior government officials, or kleptocracy, is a grave and corrosive abuse of power and represents the most invidious type of public corruption. It threatens our national interest and violates our values. It impedes our efforts to promote freedom and democracy, end poverty, and combat international crime and terrorism. Kleptocracy is an obstacle to democratic progress, undermines faith in government institutions, and steals prosperity from the people. Promoting transparent, accountable governance is a critical component of our freedom agenda.

By using the Democratic coined term "culture of corruption, W makes like this problem is something he and his administration will be good at defeating...My advice to them is to turn the microscope inward and rid the GOP of all the Kleptocrats and we will be better for it.

Focusing attention of the government in the way they suggest is yet another distraction and does as much good at turning the terror threat level up from yellow to red.

Who Really Lacks The Spine For The Fight? Why Iraq Is The Perfect Example Of The W, Rove And Co Falling Down On The Job

Sometimes a person's comments serve to sum up exactly the point you were trying to make in a much better fashion and more succinctly than you did. An anonymous poster at my location did that yesterday. Here's his/her comment that I thought I would elevate to post level to give her/his opinions more exposure.

On my post, I quoted Cheney from his AP press "availability" yesterday:

... al Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task.

Anonymous said...

'Will' means nothing unless you know who you're fighting. Without intel on terrorists there is no sensible fight against terror. Iraq is an example of a defect in US intelligence. Osama on the loose is an example of a defect. Retreating behind oceans, worthless as that is, is better than running around attacking people who meant you no harm.

Iraq is an example of a lack of will by George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Rumsfeld to put the number of troops into Iraq necessary initially to prevent an insurgency. The first responsibility of an invading force is to provide security for the local population. We didn't do that. The rule of thumb is 20 troops per 1000 population. Iraq's population is 20-25 million, indicating the need for 400,000-500,000 troops. We didn't provide them. That's why we're not winning the peace. That is the fault of the President.

The American people don't lack 'will.' We also don't lack politicians who go around blaming the people for their own failings.

More Evidence The W, Rove And Co Is Purposefully, Knowingly, and Willfully Misleading The American People

Okay, by show of hands, how many democrats are for "retreat behind our oceans and not be actively engaged in this conflict [meaning with terrorists]?" Thought so.

Again, we see that the W, Rove and Co is on full tilt spin mode to try and knowingly, willfully, and purposefully mislead the American people.

Contrary to what The Big Dick Cheney would have us believe, I think the vote in Connecticut Tuesday suggest that the American people are not going to stand for the republican brand of propaganda - that the reichwing-way is the right and the only way.

It's time for America to stand up and she is - to stipulate that we cannot solve the terrorist problem with the same leadership that brought us into the Iraqi quagmire. We need a new direction, and Tuesday was a step down the right path:

The thing that's partly disturbing about it is the fact that, the standpoint of our adversaries, if you will, in this conflict, and the al Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task. And when we see the Democratic Party reject one of its own, a man they selected to be their vice presidential nominee just a few short years ago, it would seem to say a lot about the state the party is in today if that's becoming the dominant view of the Democratic Party, the basic, fundamental notion that somehow we can retreat behind our oceans and not be actively engaged in this conflict and be safe here at home, which clearly we know we won't -- we can't be. So we have to be actively engaged not only in Afghanistan and Iraq, but on a global basis if we're going to succeed in prevailing in this long-term conflict.

Methinks the Veep is misreading the democratic message, misleading us, and is up to his usual political parlor tricks. What do you think?

The W, Rove And Co Doesn't Make Decisions Based On Polls, But They Read Blogs: Subtitle - Walking Away From Iraq?

Have a look at this paragraph that poses as an answer to a good question asked at the today's Whitehouse Press Breifing.

Note to some - recall, if you will, which administration has most recently walked away from catching OBL?

Another question to consider when reading this paragraph: Why does the W, Rove and Co continue to paint complex geopolitical situations with dualistic brush? Certainly, solving the global problems are going to be more difficult than suggesting that those who advocate peace are advocating walking away from the situation wholesale, no?

Q On Lieberman, are you telling us you now want to make the November election a referendum on the Democrats' position on the Iraq war?

MR. SNOW: No, I'm saying that there are some Democrats who have said that the key issue is leaving, and that there are some elements within the Democratic Party who are pushing hard to say, look, if you don't agree with us, you no longer belong in the party. You know, you take a look at the blogs today, they're pretty hot.

And the real question for the American people to ask themselves is, do you take the war on terror seriously, with all the developments going on around the world? And, if so, how do you fight it to win? There seem to be two approaches. And in the Connecticut race one of the approaches is ignore the difficulties and walk away.

Now, when the United States walked away, in the opinion of Osama bin Laden in 1991, bin Laden drew from that the conclusion that Americans were weak and wouldn't stay the course, and that led to September 11th. And it's important to realize that terrorists are not simply inspired by American engagement in the world, but they have their own agenda and it is an agenda that if we turn around and look the other way, they're not going to ignore -- they will continue to build strength and they will continue to build adherence. And it is a vitally important debate to have.

And it's really up to Democratic candidates and the Democratic Party to figure out how they want to stand in the war on terror: do they want to have the sort of timetable approach, leave by a date-certain; do they not want to have something constructive to say about gathering threats from Iran and elsewhere. Or do they want to acknowledge that fact that in a dangerous world it takes commitment, it take persistence.

Throughout American history, generation after generation has been faced with difficulties. And each generation has risen to the challenge, and we're confident that this generation will do the same.

Perhaps, just perhaps, Mr. Snow, the other side of the coin is not as black or bleak in contrast to your white or rosy outlook? Certainly, if you read Lamont's position on the war in Iraq, it's not a walk away stance:

While we will continue to provide logistical and training support as long as we are asked, our frontline military troops should begin to be redeployed and our troops should start heading home.

So, I would suggest that to portray his position as Tony does is to be at the very least misleading, and at the very worse, a political ploy to confuse to American people as we head into November.