True or False? Saddam Was Connected To Zarqawi or al Queda

Am I both deaf and stupid? Have I been drinking the democratic kool-aid to think that the president has more than once linked Saddam to a whole host of terrorists?

Today, Tony the Snow job gets into the finer points of what the president supposedly didn't say:

Q Well, one more, Tony, just one more. Do you believe -- does the President still believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to Zarqawi or al Qaeda before the invasion?

MR. SNOW: The President has never said that there was a direct, operational relationship between the two, and this is important. Zarqawi was in Iraq.

Q There was a link --

MR. SNOW: Well, and there was a relationship -- there was a relationship in this sense: Zarqawi was in Iraq; al Qaeda members were in Iraq; they were operating, and in some cases, operating freely from Iraq. Zarqawi, for instance, directed the assassination of an American diplomat in Amman, Jordan. But they did they have a corner office at the Mukhabarat? No. Were they getting a line item in Saddam's budget? No. There was no direct operational relationship, but there was a relationship. They were in the country, and I think you understand that the Iraqis knew they were there. That's the relationship.

Q Saddam Hussein knew they were there; that's it for the relationship?

MR. SNOW: That's pretty much it.

Q The Senate report said they didn't turn a blind eye.

MR. SNOW: The Senate report -- rather than get -- you know what, I don't want to get into the vagaries of the Senate report, but it is pretty clear, among other things, again, that there were al Qaeda operators inside Iraq, and they included Zarqawi, they included a cleric who had been described as the best friend of bin Laden who was delivering sermons on TV. But we are simply not going to go to the point that the President is -- the President has never made the statement that there was an operational relationship, and that's the important thing, because I think there's a tendency to say, aha, he said that they were in cahoots and they were planning and doing stuff; there's no evidence of that.

Is Tony true or false? Or, does it look more like he spinning the rhetoric to split hairs so no one can call Bush a liar?

Really, does it matter whether or not the inference is that there was not an "opperational" connection when President Bush says,

Saddam Hussein is used to deceiving the world and he continues to do so. Saddam Hussein has got ties to terrorist networks. Saddam Hussein is a danger, and that's why he will be disarmed -- one way or the other.

Who is the great "deciever" here?

Tony Snow Admits: "I Think The Formulation Is, If Trends Continue, Then We Could Move Towards Civil War"

Sectarian violence versus Civil war: Is the distinction important? I don't know.

Regardless, in today's press briefing, you will see Tony the Snow job - who speeks for the President - admit that there is a danger Iraq will get to full blow civil war.

Have a look:

Q Tony, your own commanders have said the biggest threat in Iraq is sectarian violence, the threat of civil war. And, yet, the President keeps talking about the threat of terror. You're again saying the biggest threat there is Osama bin Laden. The President last night said the safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad. Why do your commanders say the biggest threat is civil war? The President keeps saying it's terror.

MR. SNOW: I think they say sectarian violence. I think we're leading to the same place, Martha, which is if you have --

Q Which is the threat of civil war, sectarian violence.

MR. SNOW: -- if you have an anarchic society that collapses, and therefore you end up having a rudderless, weak, divided society -- as you had in Afghanistan, which paved the way for the Taliban to take over -- then you've got a situation that is ripe for the kind of terrorist breakthrough that we're talking about in Iraq. I think that the disagreement you're looking for is more apparent than real here. The President is aware, and he talks regularly -- he's got a conversation later this week with General Casey. We keep constant watch on this stuff, and we do care about it and we do know the sectarian violence is a key factor. And the end result of sectarian violence -- civil war, if you want to put it that way -- I think the formulation is, if trends continue, then we could move towards civil war, that was what General Abizaid told Congress.

So it's several -- I don't think anybody is projecting imminent civil war, but if you have instability --

Q But they're also saying the threat of terrorism is small, percentage-wise.

Are Democrats More Interested In Protecting The Terrorists Than America

You would think that the day after the President gives a speech on the annivesary of Nine Eleven that the press briefing would be a slam dunk for Tony the Snow job. Guess again.

In another case of, "you can't make this shit up," Tony admits that any one suggesting (including members of the extreme "fright wing") the Dems are more interested in protecting the terrorists over America would be wrong.

Have a look. It starts with a very interesting question:

Q As you well know, this is not a campaign season about whether America is a great place or not, right? I mean, it's a lot more substantive than that, and it has to do with the path that this President took the country after 9/11.

Now, when a Republican leader of Congress says, "I wonder if Democrats are more interested in protecting terrorists than they are in protecting the American people," as a spokesman for the President, do you think that it's your duty to say that that's out of bounds or not?

MR. SNOW: Frankly, again, this is one of these things -- I haven't even seen the Boehner statement. But let me make a larger point. When people call the President a liar or a loser, that happens. There have been all sorts of names and smears aimed at the President. And he understands and he's a big enough boy to deal with that.

The other thing is that in this present political season, unfortunately there will be a lot of -- there's going to be some name-calling. You know what? I think you and I agree. Let's figure out what the substantive issues are, let's get past the name-calling, and let's get down to it and let's talk about it.

Nice deflection Tony, but that isn't going to work.

Q But this is important, because, as a matter of fact, the Vice President said over the weekend to Tim Russert that the sort of debate we're having in this country, about withdrawing troops from Iraq, emboldens the terrorists. Now you have a Republican leader of Congress saying the Democrats may be more interested in protecting terrorists than the American people. Does the President agree with that?

MR. SNOW: What you've done is you've taken two things. Let's focus on what the Vice President said, which is that withdrawal from Iraq would embolden the terrorists. I think it's true. Osama bin Laden has made it clear. And one of the things he says is if the United States is pushed from Iraq, it will be to the eternal humiliation of the United States.

So it is clear from the standpoint of bin Laden, who, in the past -- and you quite kindly corrected me on a misstatement back in August, when I got it wrong -- bin Laden drew the conclusion when we left Somalia that the Americans didn't have what it took to stick it out. See, that's the way that the enemy is looking at this. So as an objective statement about the way in which bin Laden views the United States, that is a true statement. I'm not going to get into trying to characterize what John Boehner said.

Certainly, there is a bit of a double standard going on here. Let's see if we can drag a decent answer out of Tony:

Q Because you certainly would get into it if somebody accused the President of being a liar. I mean, do you want to let a statement like this stand from a Republican leader of Congress?

MR. SNOW: Like I said, you're presenting me with a statement I haven't seen. I'll tell you what, I'll get back to you on it.

Q It's been out there for a couple of hours. I think you had ample time to see it.

MR. SNOW: Well, actually, no --

Let's cut the crap and get to the heart of the matter:

Q Let me ask you this final point. Can you describe how it's possible to oppose the President on the war on Iraq without emboldening the terrorists?

MR. SNOW: Yes. Yes, absolutely. There are ways to do it. But also, if you say we need to leave right now, without preconditions -- and I'm not sure anybody says that, but I'll give you a hypothetical -- that would embolden the terrorists. If the end result was that we left Iraq and we did not have an Iraq that was able to sustain itself, govern itself and defend itself, that would embolden the terrorists.

If the terrorists have the ability, if the terrorists draw the conclusion that they can use political means -- because they can't defeat us militarily, so it has to be a political battle -- if they can use political means to drive us from Iraq and make Iraq a place from which -- like Afghanistan before -- that could mount terrorist attacks and set up their own headquarters, and this time have, in addition, oil as a weapon -- then that, in fact, is the kind of situation that we can't let stand.

But there are ways of -- you can disagree over a lot of things. If you share the objective of having an Iraq -- and this is what's kind of interesting about the debate last night, because if you look at the President's speech, he talks about an Iraq that's going to be able to be democratic -- I don't know that that's controversial with anybody -- an Iraq where Iraqi forces are going to be able to defend Iraqi ground. I don't know that that's controversial. I think those are the things -- to answer your question, and I'll let you get back to this, to answer your question, it is possible to disagree. But on the other hand, if you are proposing a position that says to bin Laden, in effect, Iraq is yours, then that is not the kind of thing that I think is going to lead to victory.

So, what you are saying Tony, is that any one who disagrees with you is suggesting we turn over Iraq to the terrorists? Isn't that the same thing as saying Dems are more for terrorists than they are for America? Let's ask him straight up:

Q Do Democrats want to protect terrorists more than the American people? What do you think?

MR. SNOW: Again, I know you think that in the last hour -- I had an hour to prepare, because we had long meetings --

Q I'm asking you that question -- forget about what John Boehner said, I'm putting the proposition to you. Do you have an opinion on that topic?

MR. SNOW: Do I think -- no, I think --

Q That Democrats are more interested in protecting terrorists than the American people?

MR. SNOW: No.

Ah, there you have it...after several minutes of rhetorical spin, you have an correct answer out of the mouth of the presidential spokesmodel. Thank you.

I Told You The President Was Going To Use Nine Eleven As A Political Lever

When the Press Secretary suggested on Monday during his press gaggle that the President's address to the people on an otherwise "wordless day" was not going to be political, you would be right to suggest he was lying. I hate to say it, but I told you so.

Look, for yourself:

On this solemn anniversary, we rededicate ourselves to this cause. Our nation has endured trials, and we face a difficult road ahead. Winning this war will require the determined efforts of a unified country, and we must put aside our differences and work together to meet the test that history has given us. We will defeat our enemies. We will protect our people. And we will lead the 21st century into a shining age of human liberty.

The bulk of the President's address to the people yesterday was riddled with political references and commentary. I won't subject you to a complete dissection of the whole speech, but just by the above slice you can tell for yourself that it was most certainly a political speech.

Should we say shame on Tony the Snow Job for lying to us? Or should we say shame on the President for using the auspicious date to stroke the Nine Eleven Monkey to one more political climax?

Is It Good For The President To Be "Wordless" Until Tonight?

Tony's not doing his job:

Q -- expecting the benediction in Shanksville? Did you know that was going to happen?

MR. SNOW: You know what, I did not study the schedule.

Excuse me? You don't know the president's schedule? I find that hard to swallow or is Tony lying?

I have a better question: Is it good for the President to be "wordless" until the specification to come this evening?

Q Can you give us any hints of what's to come in the speech tonight, and whether or not the President will say anything at the Pentagon, or will we have sort of a wordless day from the President until the speech?

MR. SNOW: You will have, effectively, to use your phrase, a wordless day until the speech. A wreath-laying -- the President will be meeting with the Defense Secretary and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. There will be some family members also and he will meet with them at the Pentagon. But there will be no formal remarks until the Oval Office tonight.

As I said before, really it's a reflective speech, what we have learned since September 11th, where we're going. But it is, as I've been at some pains to say in the last few days, it's not a political speech, it's not trying to draw political distinctions or issue calls to action. I think this is a time to try to talk in a way that unifies the American people.

Is anything that a politician to say going to be apolitical? I think, quite the contrary. If it was not to be a political event, then why give a speech in the first place? Wordless may have been the way to go altogether if they were honest to their espoused motive of remaining apolitical today.

Let's see. If it wasn't political, then why the planned "spontaneous" changes in schedule?

Q Can you talk about the unscripted stop, the unscheduled stop last night to the firehouse and the memorial site? When was it planned, and just tell us a little about the specifics behind that?

MR. SNOW: Honestly, I don't know. I mean, I knew it had been in the works. This is a site that formally opened today and had just been previewed yesterday morning by some of the family members. This had been organized in part by family members of September 11th.

Q Why was it not on the schedule? Why was it a surprise?

MR. SNOW: Because we wanted to add some spice and zest to your life.

Oh, "zest;" it's just what we need from the Whitehouse today.

Is George Bush Gift Wrapping Victory For The Terrorists?

I am not able to pay a great deal of attention to all the MSM goings on revolving around today's auspicious date. I've got to work today. Even my local PBS station has a call in show where listeners were encouraged to pipe in their two cents. But, I don't have a lot of patients today for listening to people spout off about who did what and how we could have done things differently in the aftermath.

Five years ago, after watching the planes dive into the Trade Centers in shock and horror, I did the same thing I am going to do today. I am going to work. It's probably the single most important thing I could have done at that time, and perhaps today.

On that day in 2001, I jumped on my usual public transit commute to work and things were surreal - like a scene out of some movie. There were more police (many with dogs and automatic weapons drawn) than passengers. The eery thing about it was that despite the police presence, I didn't feel safer for it.

Today's date, I think more importantly marks another day to begin the rest of our lives. And life is for the living. Rehashing the events is only as important as it leads us to a better path forward. The wagging middle finger of blame is best put away for the day, and focus turned inward. Beyond that, the rest is ceremonial. And as the Talking Heads sang long ago, it may not matter, "well, how did I get here," more than where are we going from here.

Several questions spring to mind as we move forward into the future. Are we really on the path to "victory" in the GWoT? Might the current path only hand victory to the terrorist thugs with very little effort on their part? Has George Bush fallen victim to the pure intent of these terrorist actions and begun gift wrapping victory and delivering it daily to these thugs?

Having handed the enemy its first gift by attacking a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, Mr. Bush now bestows on them a second: victory on the battlefield of psychological warfare. The President's terror alerts, whatever their motivation, are enough to do it. Osama bin Laden is like David, slingshot at the ready, in the center of the ring. His Goliath, George Bush, cowers in the corner, repeatedly sending out warnings to his people to run for cover.

If indeed, we are now engaged in the "decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century," I don't think we are poised to win it with the current raft of people leading the charge forward. It's time to hunker down and do what we do - which makes us dramatically different than many other nations - vote to change the regime here at home with nary the need to lift a weapon to do so.

Blog on friends, blog on all. And may our memories live with us, for if they don't we are destined to repeat our past mistakes.

Problems, Problems, Problems

Does any one listen to the President's radio address? I find that the President scripted tends to expose a good deal of trouble with the W, Rove and Co logic. Let me break it down for you:

On Tuesday in Washington, I described in the terrorists own words what they believe, what they hope to accomplish, and how they intend to accomplish it.

• Problem 1 - When the President elevates the status of the "terrorist own words," he places them in a category of human beings that don't deserve the status nor the stature such mention warrants.

Osama bin Laden has called the 9/11 attacks, "A great step towards the unity of Muslims and establishing the righteous [Caliphate]."

• Problem 2 - The President and Osama himself overestimate the ability of bin Laden's hateful course of action to unify the Muslim people. Can there be anything that can unify such a diverse set of peoples?

Information from the terrorists in CIA custody has also played a role in the capture or questioning of nearly every senior al Qaeda member or associate detained by the U.S. and its allies since this program began.

• Problem 3 - If we have held supposed terrorists for this long, why does it seem that they have not been brought fully to justice?

As soon as Congress acts to authorize these military commissions, we will prosecute these men and send a clear message to those who kill Americans: No matter how long it takes, we will find you and bring you to justice.

• Problem 4 - On the face of it, it appears that the President is trying to legislate his way around the SCOTUS rather than follow already existing laws regarding the treatment of prisoners.

We are safer today because we've acted to address the gaps in security, intelligence, and information sharing that the terrorists exploited in the 9/11 attacks.

• Problem 5 - Given that I live near a major port, I certainly don't feel safer because of the actions taken by the administration.

The war on terror will be long and difficult, and more tough days lie ahead. Yet, we can have confidence in the final outcome, because we know what America can achieve when our Nation acts with resolve and clear purpose.

• Problem 6 - As the GWoT turns rhetorically for the W, Rove and Co to the "decisive ideological struggle of the 21st Century," how can there ever be an end? Is it going to become similar to the never ending "war on drugs?"

Ten Experts Tell Us How To Avoid The Next Catastrophe: What Say You?

Any one else out there tired of the fifth anniversary barrage of Nine Eleven retrospectives? Here's an different slant on the subject: The NY Times invited ten authors to tell us what they think.

I have not had time to scour these articles, but I thought I would toss the link here and have at it when I have some more spare time. Have a gander and tell us what you think are ways for us to avoid the next terrorst catastrophe:

The Op-Ed page asked 10 people with experience in security and counterterrorism to answer the following question: What is one major reason the United States has not suffered a major attack since 2001, and what is the one thing you would recommend the nation do in order to avoid attacks in the future?

CIA Repudiates Links Between Saddam and Terrorist Leaders

Why does this matter?

The disclosure undercuts continuing assertions by the Bush administration that such ties existed, and that they provided evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The Republican-controlled committee, in a second report, also sharply criticized the administration for its reliance on the Iraqi National Congress during the prelude to the war in Iraq.

Another Important Question Goes Unanswered

Here's a really important question not given any answer by Tony the Snow job in Friday's briefing:

Q How long has the President known Richard Armitage leaked Valerie Plame's name?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. I don't know if he knew.

Q Could you find out for us?

MR. SNOW: No.

Q Why not?

MR. SNOW: Because when you get into these things what you're asking about is details on which we're not commenting. Why don't you ask when everything has been fully litigated and when we're in a position to be able to say whatever we might want to say. But in the context of an ongoing investigation and ongoing litigation that involves Scooter Libby, as inviting as it may be to ask who ought to apologize, or who knew what when, or to do that sort of thing, it's best just to keep my mouth shut. And that's what I'm going to do.

Q Who does know?

MR. SNOW: You're the reporter. You're the reporter. You're asking me --

Q Well, you may not know because you came in late. But who in the administration does?

MR. SNOW: Again, let me repeat what I said. We've got ongoing litigation. I'm just not going to get into any of this stuff. Ask Richard Armitage who he talked to. Maybe he'll be able to do it. He's writing op-eds now.

"I don't know if he knew?" Which is worse: that he didn't know, or that he knew it and took no action as promised?

Are Democrats Bad For America?

I love reading the transcripts of Whitehouse Press Briefings. They are very entertaining.

But more than that they reveal to us how rhetorically twisted the W, Rove and Co is. Based on their logic, they must think the American people are stupid to use rhetoric to cover up and divorce themselves from the consequences of their actions. Indeed, actions do speak louder than words.

Have a look and let me see if you buy what Tony the Snow job was selling today. Ask yourself as you read this: What is the W, Rove and Co up to here? Are they uniting or dividing America?

Q Returning to the bright lines being drawn between Democrats and Republicans, I'd like to follow on a question the President was asked yesterday in an interview. He was asked by Charlie Gibson, does the President believe if the Democrats control one House or another of Congress, that America will be -- that security for America will be somewhat compromised in some way, that it's a less safe country if the Democrats control one of the Houses?

MR. SNOW: I'm just not playing ball on that.

Q It's not playing ball. It's a legitimate question, based on the last four speeches in eight days.

MR. SNOW: But I would invite you to go back and look at every one of those speeches and find for me the area in which the President tried to cleave between Democrats and Republicans.

Q So there's no attempt right now to show a distinction between Democrats and Republicans in how they handle the war on terror?

MR. SNOW: No, I think what's happening is that the President is making clear what his position is, and critics will respond, and people will be able to draw their distinctions.

Q Hang on a second. It is implicit what the President is doing.

MR. SNOW: No, but wait a minute -- the question -- no, it's not. Let me walk through a couple of things here, and I'm glad you asked.

For instance, to the notion that in coming up with suggestions for handling detainees that somehow was timed politically -- this was the first time it was possible to introduce this. The Hamdan decision came down in late June. It took a long time for people to go through this. We have had ongoing and very active efforts of senior members of this administration going back and forth to Capitol Hill, working with members of congress to try to deal with this seriously because it has interrupted out ability to collect intelligence. It has denied people the opportunity to know that people who have been charged with acts of terrorism are going to face justice. This is the first opportunity. Wednesday is the first day that both Houses of Congress were back from recess. That was the time to do it.

But what you've asked is, is there some sort of -- we're just not going to engage in speculation because we think we're going to win both Houses.

Q Okay, but -- I guess, let me rephrase that, because maybe I've done a poor job of setting up the premise. Obviously, the President is engaged in a process of drawing distinctions between Republicans and Democrats to lay out for the American people what the differences in the parties are.

MR. SNOW: Sure.

Q Okay --

MR. SNOW: He's framing the debate.

Q So let's take that to its logical conclusion. If the Democrats win, is America less safe?

MR. SNOW: We don't think the Democrats are going to win.

So, is it me or are the lies Tony is trying to feed us that transparent? Oh, and I do think they might be in for a big surprise in November, don't you?

Hope: Squashed, Spindled, Mutilated & Squandered

One of the tragic consequences that seem to be a direct result of the fear-driven & fear-mongering leadership of the W, Rove and Co is that America has lost her hope. Nay, the hope that once fed and led this fair country of ours; that rang from sea to shining sea has been squashed, spindled, mutilated, and squandered.

Hope, it appears, was traded by the W, Rove and Co for political capital and squandered on a war that has too many fronts; one of which we know to be rather suspect as it was predicated on misinformation, faulty intelligence, and the grand WMD bait and switch. And now, this Global War on Terror (GWoT) has morphed into the "decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century."

But if, as the President says "we're only in its opening stages" of this "ideological struggle," things are sure to get worse before they get better. Bush goes further to suggest that, "to win this struggle, we have to defeat the ideology of the terrorists with a more hopeful vision." Well, Mr. President, where is it?

My hopes have been repeatedly squashed by the W, Rove and Co and I challenge any one to find a message of hope threaded throughout any speech delivered by any one in the W, Rove and Co. Please, if you do find any, share the link because, I for one can use a dash as we tread closer to 11 September 2006 (a much different day than five years ago). Share with us the words spoken by W (or any Rove and Co lackey) that bring you hope and liven your step, because mine has been regularly and brazenly mutilated.

I am tired of having my hopes spindled by the fear-laced rhetoric spewed by the W, Rove and Co talking heads that has us simultaneously terrified and placated. Certainly,

President Clinton was often mocked for his declarations that he still believed “in a place called Hope.” But he understood that instilling hope is a critical part of leadership. Other than a few special interest programs — like cutting taxes on the wealthy and giving various incentives to business — it is hard to think of areas in which the Bush administration has raised the nation’s hopes and met them. This president has, instead, tried to focus the American people on the fear of terrorism, for which there is no cure, only bad choices or something worse.

As the few war-time profiteers prosper, it is our nation that suffers and grows weary of blood spilled for ideological reasons. Can we look to our President to lead us out of this morass? I say no. It's time to vote the bastards out and look for hope else where.

For decent example that illustrates my meaning, have a look at the President's proclamation regarding "Patriot Day" and see if there is any hope in there. I argue that any such hope is mutilated by the overlay of fear, which has become the hallmark of this Administration. I may be the only one, but I just can't see it, and I need help finding my way!

A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America

On the fifth anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 2001, we recall the fire and horror at the twin towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a Pennsylvania field. America will always remember the thousands of innocent lives taken by the enemies of freedom that morning.

In the face of these unspeakable attacks, we were reminded that the great strength of America is found in the hearts and souls of our citizens. We witnessed firefighters, police officers, other public safety officials, and ordinary Americans demonstrate extraordinary courage, risking their lives to save innocent victims. We saw our country united in compassion as Americans came together to provide relief and bring hope to others.

Today, America is fighting a war that is testing our Nation's resolve. We are once again answering history's call with confidence, and we know that freedom will prevail. Our brave men and women in uniform have stepped forward to fight our enemies abroad so that we do not have to face them here at home, and we are grateful for the courageous individuals bringing terrorists to justice around the world.

We are also confronting the extremists in the great ideological struggle of the 21st century. September the 11th made clear that, in the long run, the only way to secure our Nation is to advance liberty and democracy as the great alternatives to repression and radicalism. By working together with our friends and allies, we are helping spread the blessings of freedom and laying the foundations of peace for generations to come.

The events of September 11, 2001, will always be a defining moment in our history. We hold the victims and their families in our hearts, and we lift them up in our prayers.

By a joint resolution approved December 18, 2001 (Public Law 107-89), the Congress has designated September 11 of each year as "Patriot Day."

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim September 11, 2006, as Patriot Day. I call upon the Governors of the United States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, as well as appropriate officials of all units of government, to direct that the flag be flown at half staff on Patriot Day. I also call upon the people of the United States to observe Patriot Day with appropriate ceremonies, activities, and remembrance services, to display the flag at half staff from their homes on that day, and to observe a moment of silence beginning at 8:46 a.m. eastern daylight time to honor the innocent Americans and people from around the world who lost their lives as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this seventh day of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand six, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first.

GEORGE W. BUSH

Is Any One Taking Bets As To Who Will Be The First To Be Impeached Come November?

Come November, things may look dramatically different in Congress. Let's hope the voters turn out in masses to prove to the idiots in charge that we don't like the path they have taken and we need to venture down a new direction.

Given the number of impeachable offenses that could be slathered on a wide number of the W, Rove and Co personnel, I got to thinking. Perhaps there is money to be made in Vegas or elsewhere by placing bets as to who will be the first to be impeached.

It might be fun to speculate as to who will be the indicted under articles of impeachment. Who will be the first found guilty of impeachable offenses, etc? Bookies aught to be all over this one.

What odds would you give Rummy, et al?:

The first and most obvious means is through the impeachment process. As a Cabinet secretary, Rumsfeld may be impeached and removed from office under Article 2 of the Constitution for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors." Rumsfeld's critics charge him with a long list of what they say are impeachable offenses, including incompetence and ordering the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and other military detention centers.

Because historical practices and the weight of legal opinion suggest that impeachable misconduct generally requires not just a bad act but a malicious intent as well, it's not clear that incompetence qualifies as an impeachable offense. Although it's true that one federal judge was removed from office in 1803 for mental incompetence, Congress has never again impeached, much less removed, anyone for incompetence.

Avoiding Ahmadinejad: Why Are We Not Getting A "Steel Cage Grudge Match?"

So, correct me if I am wrong, but if Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is going to address the UN General Assembly, that means he is coming to NYC. Could it be that this man would/should be allowed into our country?

And, if so, why can't we have a "Steel Cage Grudge Match" between him and our fair President Bush? That would be something I think many would buy tickets to see. Moreover, it might save lives if these two men sat down in a room, and they key was tossed out until they came to a peaceful resolution to their disagreements, no?

But you know, it looks to me like the President is avoiding Ahmadinejad in advance of his visit. Could it be our president is the “chicken hawk” many describe him to be?

Q What about the idea of Ahmadinejad -- speaking at the General Assembly on the 19th? Has the President heard about that? What does he think of that idea?

MR. SNOW: Well, you may recall, President Ahmadinejad spoke last year at the U.N. General Assembly. I believe that's where he thought people perceived a halo. And it was standard practice at the General Assembly to have heads of state attend and, if they wish, speak. So it's standard procedure.

Q Is he at all concerned about any kind of debate that might be -- pursuant to that? It's something that, obviously, Ahmadinejad is interested in.

MR. SNOW: There's not going to be a steel cage grudge match between the President and Ahmadinejad. The President will deliver his speech and at some other juncture, President Ahmadinejad, if the General Assembly so decides, will speak. This is not going to be a U.N. version of "Crossfire.'

Q Will the President be there when he speaks?

MR. SNOW: I have no idea.

All right. Well, thank you.

W Uses Another Dead Soldier To Prop Up His Argument

I've talked about this before. Really, I don't think it appropriate for the President to use GIs KIA in Iraq to prop up his argument to stay the course. This is a sick political ploy to jack up our sympathies that must have been dreamed up and designed by Uncle Karl himself. It's just wrong.

How do we get him to stop doing this?

We see that full measure and the strength of this nation in the men and women in uniform who fight this war, and we have -- and who have given their lives in the cause of liberty and freedom. One of these soldiers was a young lieutenant named Noah Harris, who was killed last summer in Iraq when his Humvee was hit by a roadside bomb. Noah grew up here in Georgia; he graduated from the University of Georgia. He volunteered for the Army after September the 11th, 2001. He told his dad that people had an obligation to serve a cause higher than themselves. In Iraq, Lieutenant Harris was an officer known for his toughness and his skill in battle -- and for the Beanie Babies that he carried with him to hand out to Iraqi children. He was also known for the photo of his parents' home in Ellijay that he used as a screen-saver on his computer. When his troops asked why he chose that picture, he explained, "That is why I'm here."

Lieutenant Harris understood the stakes in Iraq. He knew that to protect his loved ones at home, America must defeat our enemies overseas. If America pulls out of Iraq before the Iraqis can defend themselves, the terrorists will follow us here, home. The best way to honor the memory of brave Americans like Lieutenant Harris is to complete the mission they began -- so we will stay, we will fight, and we will win in Iraq. (Applause.)

Too bad dead GIs can't vote in November.

Am I Misundercomprehending Something About What I Am Rememberin'?

Here's another great Mark Fiore vid. View, enjoy, and Discuss.

Every So Often Another Blogger Hits It Right On The Head

I was surfing my blog roll, i recommend to you, this evening because some times another person is just pissed off enough to lay it out better then I ever could.

Isa over at Learning to Sequence is not really a political blogger. She mainly is fun to read and a nice diversion from the usual rants. But today, I found that she really hits the nail on the head in two places.

First, reagarding Condi:

And reading about yet another bunch of twisted justification of the Iraq debacle from Condi Rice, wherein she compared this enormous fuckup in Iraq to the American Civil War, it was beyond irony to think how much she sounded like the good ole boys in the South. Uncle Tommin' it to the utmost. She's a poster child for "separate but equal."

And second reagarding who the real threat is:

The world's changing rapidly, and it's frightening to have to keep figuring out who the predators are, how to keep apace or try to moderate the pace.
The predators to watch are denned up in D.C. Not in a cave in Pakistan. If you pay attention to their howls, you can tell what's coming. And they'll eat their own if they have to.

Who Is More Like The Nazis?

Well all know that turnabout is fair play.

For a fun tour down memory lane, I defer to Shea over at Constantly Amazed. He's got it spelled out quite nicely for those deficient in the Nazi history category:

So Rumsfeld wishes to compare us (who stand in opposition to the neocon bloodbath) to Nazis. Rumsfeld, a Nazi who works for Nazis! I know the web is awash with great responses. I thought I might add a few bits from an article called How Hitler Became a Dictator by Jacob G. Hornberger.

Compare this to the 9/11 incident:
The Reichstag fire: On February 27, Hitler was enjoying supper at the Goebbels home when the telephone rang with an emergency message: “The Reichstag is on fire!” Hitler and Goebbels rushed to the

Who is more like Nazis?

More Presidential Logic: W Tries Draw Parallels Between The Nazis And The MSM

You are not fooling us, Mr. President. Have a look at this new youtube upload:

The Fundamental Problem With The GOP Terrorist Solution

It strikes me that the President hinted, but didn't realize he was doing so, at the real problem with the GOP Terrorist Solution: That the W, Rove and Co has forgotten to address the very issues that cause would-be-terrorists to hate us.

You see, it doesn't matter how many terrorists are incarcerated in how ever many secret prisons the president is willing to admit to, like the wack-a-mole game at your local carnival, more pop up to take their place.

Even the President agrees with me:

As we prosecute suspected terrorist leaders and operatives who have now been transferred to Guantanamo, we'll continue searching for those who have stepped forward to take their places

Sure, you could blame activist judges for tying your hands in the prosecute of said detainees, but that doesn't address the fundamental roots of terrorism, now does it?

Some may ask: Why are you acknowledging this program now? There are two reasons why I'm making these limited disclosures today. First, we have largely completed our questioning of the men -- and to start the process for bringing them to trial, we must bring them into the open. Second, the Supreme Court's recent decision has impaired our ability to prosecute terrorists through military commissions, and has put in question the future of the CIA program.

Or perhaps, your actions may actually violate the law, which in turn causes more people to turn toward the extreme methods of expressing their anger over the secret incarceration of their family members?