Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Time to come clean on UFO's

Photobucket Album

Meanwhile Back at the Ranch!

_______________________________________

Todays Laugh,

A Vow of ''Celebracy''
The Pope dies and, naturally, goes to heaven. He''s met by the reception committee, and after a whirlwind tour is told that he can enjoy any of the myriad recreations available.
He decides that he wants to read all of the ancient original text ofthe Holy Scriptures, and spends the next eon or so learning the languages.
After becoming a linguistic master,he sits down in the library and begins to pore over every versionof the Bible, working back from the most recent "Easy Reading" to the original script.
All of a sudden there is a screamin the library. The angels come running to him, only to find the Pope huddled in a chair, crying to himself, and muttering,
"An ''R''! They left out the ''R''."
God takes him aside, offering comfort and asks him what the problem is. After collecting his wits, the Pope sobs again,"It''s the letter ''R''... the word was supposed to be CELEBRATE!

_______________________________________

Todays Quote,

Joe Lieberman: "Yeah, Sure, What's Wrong With Supporting a Republican for President

_______________________________

Holocaust and Iraq War
Paul Wolfowitz Under Secretary of Defense
Andrew Bacevich a Boston University foreign policy expert who taught at John Hopkins school of International affairs while Wolfowitz was dean. Said about him " more than any of the other dramatis personae in contemporary Washington, Wolfowitz embodies the central convictions to which the United States in the age of Bush subscribe.’Bacevich wrote in 2005. He singled out " in particular and extraordinary certainty of the righteousness of American actions married to an extraordinary confidence in the efficacy of American Arms."
It is unusual for so much attention to be focused on a second level official of sub cabinet rank,
but Wolfowitz was destined to play an unusually central role on Iraq policy.
There really wasn’t a war party inside the Bush administration prior to 9/11. Rather there really was just Wolfowitz pleading for more attention to Iraq. .Four days after the attack the President and his advisors met at Camp David to discuss the response to 9/11.Three targets in the war on terrorism were discussed, al Qaeda, Afghanistan’s Taliban and Iraq. But only Paul Wolfowitz pressed the case that day for an attack on Iraq.
This wasn’t a new position for Wolfowitz he had been Under Secretary for Defense Under Defense Secretary Cheney in the first Bush administration. At that time he was pushing the president to go on to take out Saddam in the first Gulf War.
Wolfowitz had come to believe that the policy of containment in Iraq was immoral, like standing by and trying to contain Hitler’s Germany. It was a comparison to which he would often return. It carried weight from him as he had lost most of his extended family in the Holocaust. His line surviving because his father left Poland in 1920.
He told the New York Times’ Eric Schmidt that, " That what happened in Europe in World War two has shaped a lot of my views."" What if the west had tried to contain Hitler ?"This orientation toward Nazism would prove central to his thinking on Iraq. Again and again , he would describe Saddam Hussein and his security forces as the modern equivalent of the Gestapo- it was almost a verbal tic with him.
Another idea that he took from the Holocaust is the American people need to be pushed to do the right thing. By the time the Americans entered the war millions of Jews and other victims had been killed by the Nazis. He linked it to Iraq in this way." I think the world in general has a tendency to say if someone like Saddam is killing his own people , " That is too bad but that’s really not my business"." That’s dangerous he said, because Hussein was in a class with very few others-Stalin, Hitler, Kim Jong IL people of that order of evil tend not to keep evil at home
they tend to export it in various ways until it bites us".
The analogy to Hitler gave Wolfowitz a tactical advantage in that it instantly put critics on the defense. If one was convinced that Saddam was the equivalent of Hitler, and his security police the contemporary version of the Gestapo then it was easy to see that he had to be removed .
So for years Wolfowitz prodded the American people toward war with Iraq.
Another Iraq Hawk in the Bush Administration was the Under Secretary of Defense for policy
Douglas Fieth who because his father was the only survivor of the Holocaust, who had similar views. As did Senator Joe Lieberman whose mother in law was a survivor of Dachow. These three along with Donald Rumsfeld , Richard Pearle and Josh Bolton had sent a letter to President Clinton urging him to take action against Saddam. To Clintons credit he did not as the sanctions then in place were doing a good of keeping Saddam contained, even though he too was a hawk. Which probably explains why his wife Senator Hilary Clinton is also
Most of the above from" Fiasco, American Military adventure in Iraq" Tom Ricks
By the Way Paul Wolfowitz for his part as the instigator of the failed Iraq war was rewarded with a Medal of Freedom Award and a position as head of the World Bank ______________________________________
D'oh! We Still Don't Have Any Good Iraq Intel let us praise CQ's Jeff Stein for pointing out that among the casualties of Baghdad's continuing meltdown is... the CIA.
According to several well informed intelligence sources, hundreds of CIA operatives have become virtual prisoners in the Green Zone, the sprawling American enclave whose high walls and guards separate the U.S. embassy, military command and related civilian agencies from the raging sectarian violence in Baghdad’s streets.
The CIA operatives cannot safely roam the city to meet their few agents, much less recruit new ones.
It’s just too dangerous. CIA chiefs don’t want to risk one getting kidnapped, tortured on camera and beheaded.
That would certainly dampen the allure of a career in the CIA.
So "they spend their days playing cards and watching DVDs," said a former senior CIA operations official who maintains close ties in the agency.
You can't make this stuff up.

_______________________________________

Private Contractors!
The new Congress is promising far tighter oversight of Bush administration spending programs, and few targets are more in need of scrutiny and daylight than the outsourcing of government programs to private contractors. This highly lucrative world quietly ballooned by 86 percent — to $377 billion annually — during the first five years of the Bush administration, according to Congressional estimates. Outsourced spending, on Iraq, Katrina and other bonanzas, has grown twice as fast as other discretionary spending, according to Representative Henry Waxman, the California Democrat who is chairman of the oversight and reform committee.
Mr. Waxman is fairly itching to finally map the waste, fraud and abuse in private contracting that went largely ignored by the previous Republican Congress. Taxpayers should wish him well.
In a preliminary glimpse, 118 contracts worth $745 billion were found by government auditors to be rife with questionable award procedures, mismanagement, overcharging and skimpy to nonexistent oversight. Full inquiries and public hearings are vital if the rich and shadowy world of privatization is ever to be plumbed for the scandal it is nurturing. Taxpayers have only a vague notion of what’s gone on, mainly through reporting on the fantastic good fortune of Halliburton, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former company, whose contracts increased a whopping 600 percent across five years as the Iraq war costs cascaded. Not incidentally, privatization has been a cash cow in stirring campaign donations from successful contractors.
According to one recent audit reported in The Washington Post, among 49 privatized contracts, three out of five were awarded noncompetitively, lacked oversight, and raised questions of legality. What’s been going on out there? This question cries out for an answer from the new Congress.

______________________________________

AP
Air America Radio, in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings since October, will be rescued at the 11th hour by Manhattan real estate developer Stephen L. Green.
Al Franken, the best-known host of the liberal network, will announce his expected departure on his show later today, to explore a run for the U.S. Senate from Minnesota.
Green is the brother of Mark Green, the New York Democrat who served as the city's public advocate in the 90s and ran for mayor against Michael Bloomberg in 2001.
He has already signed a letter of intent, and plans to finalize a purchase agreement within the week.
Air America CEO Scott Elberg confirmed the sale. "This is a great thing, for our affiliates, the company, the audience and every employee in our organization."
Green is chairman of SL Green Realty Corp, a real estate investment trust specializing in office buildings with a market cap of $12 billion.
Brother Mark is a frequent guest on Air America, and sat in for David Bender, the host of the Air America show Politically Direct, for a couple of weeks earlier this month.
When Franken leaves the network in a few weeks, he'll be replaced by Thom Hartmann, who already has a syndicated show on the network's lineup.

______________________________________

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Liar, Liar

Photobucket Album

Most Loathsome People


26. Ann Coulter
Charges: It was a run of the mill year for Ann: openly calling for the murder of a Supreme Court justice and the entire staff of the New York Times, accusing 9/11 widows of "enjoying their husband’s deaths" and Bill Clinton of being a rapist. Coulter’s neck gained an amazing 3 vertical inches in 2006; inside sources attribute this to a strict regimen of deep-throating Satan’s scaly cock. It’s projected that by 2010 Coulter will be able to plagiarize the Illinois Right to Life Committee website more deftly than she did in this year’s ode to mindless intolerance of tolerance, Godless, simply by snaking her grotesque head-ladder through the ventilation ducts of their office and skulking away with their webmaster’s hard drive clenched firmly in her masculine jaw. Ann’s slipping, though; she’s become an unconvincing fascist parody, increasingly betraying herself in televised interviews, blushing at her own brazen idiocy. She’s faking it, and so are her tits.
Exhibit A: "Hi, I’m Ann Coulter."
Sentence: Most "controversial" statements redacted from "Exhibit A," as they’re a naked ploy for attention–-and Adam’s apple removed with a backhoe.

______________________________________

Todays laugh,

Doctor, doctor, I keep thinking I'm a bell.Well, just go home and if the feeling persists, give me a ring.
Doctor, doctor, people tell me I'm a wheelbarrow.Don't let people push you around. _______________________________________

Todays Quote,

Tony Snow: “I Don't Think [Bush] Really Thought A Lot About” Iraq Protest

_______________________________________

A Sweet JobPresident Bush's critics couldn't have planned it better themselves. According to Washington Wire, the White House has a new executive pastry chef, Bill Yosses, who also happens to be the author of Desserts for Dummies. _____________________________________

MR. WILLIAMS: Now, you've got a vote tomorrow in the Senate to consider a resolution opposing the troop buildup. Vice President Cheney said last week that vote would validate the insurgents' strategy. And so, do you agree?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, there's a lot of strong opinions about it. My attitude is – my feeling to the Senate echoes what Joe Lieberman said the other day – Senator Joe Lieberman – and that is it is ironic that the Senate would vote 81 to nothing to send a general into Iraq who believes he needs more troops to do the job and then send a contradictory message. The legislatures will – legislators will do what they feel like they've got to do, and, you know, we want to work with them as best we can to make it clear what the stakes of failure will be, and also make it clear to them that I think they have a responsibility to make sure our troops have what they need to do the missions.

Good Ole Joe the Presidents best friend.

Of course we all know Joe will do anything to protect Israel.

_______________________________________

Monday, 29 January 2007, 22:30 GMT
'Hobbit' human 'is a new species'

The study suggests LB1 is a creature new to science
Enlarge ImageThe tiny skeletal remains of human "Hobbits" found on an Indonesian island belong to a completely new branch of our family tree, a study has found.
The finds caused a sensation when they were announced to the world in 2004.
But some researchers argued the bones belonged to a modern human with a combination of small stature and a brain disorder called microcephaly.
That claim is rejected by the latest study, which compares the tiny people with modern microcephalics.
LB1 has a highly evolved brain. It didn't get bigger, it got rewired and reorganised, and that's very interesting
Dean FalkFlorida State UniversityMicrocephaly is a rare pathological condition in humans characterised by a small brain and cognitive impairment.
In the new study, Dean Falk, of Florida State University, and her colleagues say the remains are those of a completely separate human species: Homo floresiensis.
They have published their findings in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The remains at the centre of the Hobbit controversy were discovered at Liang Bua, a limestone cave on the Indonesian island of Flores, in 2003.
Researchers found one near-complete skeleton, which they named LB1, along with the remains of at least eight other individuals.
The specimens were nicknamed Hobbits after the tiny creatures in JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy

_______________________________________

Who Wanted To Eliminate The Federal Minimum Wage?
Here's the Republican Senators who voted for the measure killed in the Senate yesterday that would have eliminated the Federal Minimum Wage entirely:
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thomas (R-WY)
For the record, those running for reelection in 2008 are Alexander, Bennett, Chambliss, Cochran, Cornyn, Craig, Enzi, Graham, Hagel, Inhofe, McConnell and Sununu.Oh, and that guy McCain is probably running for president and Brownback definitely is.

_______________________________________

Mad Kane Gets Greedy (Limerick)By Madeleine Begun Kane
I am blissful, contented, and happy.The election results weren’t crappy.But for pleasure inflated,To make me elated,Impeach Cheney/Bush. Make it snappy!_____________________________________



Call Him Caesar
by DarkSyde
Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 04:27:47 AM PST
For reasons that elude me, Republicans have stood idly by for years while George Bush and Dick Cheney pull out every pseudo-legal stop to evade the will of the people, while slowly transforming a once vibrant political party into what may soon become a fractured, regional joke for a generation. Here's the latest (H/T RS):
NYT -- In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the president’s priorities. This strengthens the hand of the White House in shaping rules that have, in the past, often been generated by civil servants and scientific experts.
Heads up to the legislative and legal branch, that includes Democrats, but most especially Republicans: For the good of the nation and your political skin, you need to think about how you're going to shut these neoclowns down, or look for a new line of work. They've proven themselves utterly inept at everything they touch. They have a well established track record of leaving ruined lives, dead or maimed bodies, and terminal political careers, in their wake. You or your constituents could well find yourselves in any of those three categories if this shit is allowed to continue. Pissed off people make unreliable voters. Capiche?

Monday, January 29, 2007

Lets stop this war before it starts!!!!!!!!

Also see below: Cheney: US Is Sending "Strong Signal" to Iran
Go to Original
America "Poised to Strike at Iran's Nuclear Sites" From Bases in Bulgaria and Romania By Gabriel Ronay The Sunday Herald UK
Sunday 28 January 2007
Reports suggest that "US defensive ring" may be new front in war on terror.
President Bush is preparing to attack Iran's nuclear facilities before the end of April and the US Air Force's new bases in Bulgaria and Romania would be used as back-up in the onslaught, according to an official report from Sofia.
"American forces could be using their two USAF bases in Bulgaria and one at Romania's Black Sea coast to launch an attack on Iran in April," the Bulgarian news agency Novinite said.
The American build-up along the Black Sea, coupled with the recent positioning of two US aircraft carrier battle groups off the Straits of Hormuz, appears to indicate president Bush has run out of patience with Tehran's nuclear misrepresentation and non-compliance with the UN Security Council's resolution. President Ahmeninejad of Iran has further ratcheted up tension in the region by putting on show his newly purchased state of the art Russian TOR-Ml anti-missile defence system.
Whether the Bulgarian news report is a tactical feint or a strategic event is hard to gauge at this stage. But, in conjunction with the beefing up of America's Italian bases and the acquisition of anti-missile defence bases in the Czech Republic and Poland, the Balkan developments seem to indicate a new phase in Bush's global war on terror.
Sofia's news of advanced war preparations along the Black Sea is backed up by some chilling details. One is the setting up of new refuelling places for US Stealth bombers, which would spearhead an attack on Iran. "The USAF's positioning of vital refuelling facilities for its B-2 bombers in unusual places, including Bulgaria, falls within the perspective of such an attack." Novinite named colonel Sam Gardiner, "a US secret service officer stationed in Bulgaria", as the source of this revelation.
Curiously, the report noted that although Tony Blair, Bush's main ally in the global war on terror, would be leaving office, the president had opted to press on with his attack on Iran in April.
Before the end of March, 3000 US military personnel are scheduled to arrive "on a rotating basis" at America's Bulgarian bases. Under the US-Bulgarian military co-operation accord, signed in April, 2006, an air base at Bezmer, a second airfield at Graf Ignitievo and a shooting range at Novo Selo were leased to America. Significantly, last year's bases negotiations had at one point run into difficulties due to Sofia's demand "for advance warning if Washington intends to use Bulgarian soil for attacks against other nations, particularly Iran".
Romania, the other Black Sea host to the US military, is enjoying a dollar bonanza as its Mihail Kogalniceanu base at Constanta is being transformed into an American "place d'arme". It is also vital to the Iran scenario.
Last week, the Bucharest daily Evenimentual Zilei revealed the USAF is to site several flights of F-l5, F-l6 and Al0 aircraft at the Kogalniceanu base. Admiral Gheorghe Marin, Romania's chief of staff, confirmed "up to 2000 American military personnel will be temporarily stationed in Romania".
In Central Europe, the Czech Republic and Poland have also found themselves in the Pentagon's strategic focus. Last week, Mirek Topolanek, the Czech prime minister, and the country's national security council agreed to the siting of a US anti-missile radar defence system at Nepolisy. Poland has also agreed to having a US anti-missile missile base and interceptor aircraft stationed in the country.
Russia, however, does not see the chain of new US bases on its doorstep as a "defensive ring". Russia's defence chief has branded the planned US anti-missile missile sites on Czech and Polish soil as "an open threat to Russia".
Sergey Ivanov, Russia's defence minister, spoke more circumspectly while emphasising Moscow's concern. He said: "Russia is not worried. Its strategic nuclear forces can assure in any circumstance its safety. Since neither Tehran, nor Pyongyang possess intercontinental missiles capable of threatening the USA, from whom is this new missile shield supposed to protect the West? All it actually amounts to is that Prague and Warsaw want to demonstrate their loyalty to Washington."
Bush's Iran attack plan has brought into sharp focus the possible costs to Central and Eastern Europe of being "pillars of Pax Americana."


Go to Original
Cheney Says US Is Sending "Strong Signal" to Iran By Michael Abramowitz The Washington Post
Monday 29 January 2007
Vice President Cheney said the deployment this month of a second aircraft-carrier task force to the Persian Gulf delivered a "strong signal" of the United States' commitment to confront Iran's growing influence in the region.
Countries in the Middle East "want us to have a major presence there," Cheney said in a Newsweek interview published online yesterday. Referring to the deployment of the carrier USS John C. Stennis, Cheney said, "That sends a very strong signal to everybody in the region that the United States is here to stay, that we clearly have significant capabilities, and that we are working with friends and allies as well as the international organizations to deal with the Iranian threat."
When the Stennis arrives in the Persian Gulf next month, the United States will have two carrier groups stationed there for the first time since the 2003 Iraq invasion.
The deployment is one of several recent steps by the United States to oppose Iran, which administration officials say is responsible for growing instability in the region. Other actions included a program to kill or capture Iranian agents operating inside Iraq as well as moves to squeeze the country financially.
In the interview, Cheney declined to speculate about possible military strikes against Iran. "We are doing what we can to try to resolve issues such as the nuclear question diplomatically through the United Nations, but we've also made it clear that we haven't taken any options off the table," he said.
The Newsweek interview was the third granted to the media this month by the vice president, who had been relatively quiet since Republicans lost both houses of Congress in November's midterm elections. Despite increasing GOP criticism of the White House on Iraq, Cheney said he thinks President Bush has shored up his position with his Republican base in the past week and evinced little concern about the prospect of resolutions formally condemning the president's plan to send another 21,500 troops to Iraq.
"Most members on our side of the aisle recognize that what's ultimately going to count here isn't sort of all the hoorah that surrounds these proposals so much as it's what happens on the ground in Iraq. And we're not going to know that for a while yet," said Cheney, who also offered a veiled shot at one of the president's strongest GOP critics, Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.). "Let's say I believe firmly in Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican," Cheney said. "But it's very hard sometimes to adhere to that where Chuck Hagel is involved."
In an appearance yesterday on ABC's "This Week," Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, dismissed suggestions from administration officials that his resolution condemning the military buildup would embolden the enemy.
"It's not the American people and the United States Congress who are emboldening the enemy," he said. "It's the failed policy of this president, going to war without a strategy, going to war prematurely, going to war without enough troops, going to war without enough equipment and, lastly, now sending 17,500 people in the middle of a city of 6 1/2 million people with bull's-eyes on their back, with no plan."

Sunday, January 28, 2007

War Monger 1

Photobucket Album

Most Loathsome people!
6. Dick Cheney
Charges: The dark master of the White House, Cheney strikes fear into the blackest of hearts. Only surfaces occasionally to nod and grunt at a reporter from Fox News, the only station he ever sees, before returning to the White House boiler room to continue planning the apocalypse. Almost certainly ignores everything Bush says. Vindictive and secretive to the point of absurdity, Cheney has his heart set on total global hegemony, and doesn’t really care if you know it.
Exhibit A: How evil does a guy have to be for his buddy to apologize for getting shot in the face by him?
Sentence: A 30-year vacation at Gitmo.

_______________________________________

Todays Laugh,

A very shy guy goes into a bar and sees a beautiful woman sitting at the bar. After an hour of gathering up his courage, he finally goes over to her and asks, tentatively, "Um, would you mind if I chatted with you for a while?"
She responds by yelling, at the top of her lungs, "NO! I won't sleep with you tonight!" Everyone in the bar is now staring at them. Naturally, the guy is hopelessly and completely embarrassed and he slinks back to his table.
After a few minutes, the woman walks over to him and apologizes. She smiles at him and says, "I'm sorry if I embarrassed you. You see, I'm a graduate student in psychology, and I'm studying how people respond to embarrassing situations."
To which he responds, at the top of his lungs, "What do you mean $200?!"

_______________________________________

Todays Quote
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force. - Ayn Rand, The Nature of Government

______________________________________


(January 28, 2007
Joe Lieberman tells Chris Wallace he's not sure he'll support a Democrat for President in 2008:
WALLACE: Let's look ahead to 2008. Are there any Democrats who appear to be running at this point that you could support for president?
LIEBERMAN: Are there any Democrats who don't appear to be running at this point? Look, I've had a very political couple of years in Connecticut, and I'm stepping back for a while to concentrate on being the best senator I can be for my state and my country. ( I wonder if he really believes his own Bullshit?)
I'm also an Independent-Democrat now, and I'm going to do what most Independents and a lot of Democrats and Republicans in America do, which is to take a look at all the candidates and then in the end, regardless of party, decide who I think will be best for the future of our country.
So I'm open to supporting a Democrat, Republican or even an Independent, if there's a strong one. Stay tuned.
. . .
WALLACE: . . . You're saying you might vote Republican in 2008.
LIEBERMAN: I am, because we have so much on the line both in terms of the Islamist terrorists, who are an enemy as brutal as the fascists and communists we faced in the last century, and we have great challenges here at home to make our economy continue to produce good jobs, to deal with our crises in health care, education, immigration, energy.
I want to choose the person that I believe is best for the future of our country. What I'm saying is what I said last year and what I think the voters said in November. Party is important, but more important is the national interest. And that's the basis that I will decide who to support for president.
Implied in Lieberman's comments is that he's new to this whole idea of putting the national interest first. I guess in elections past he just checked the name of the Democrat. Wonder what he really thought of Al Gore.
-- David Kurtz

_______________________________________

Is $10 a box of cornflakes in our future?
A Culinary and Cultural Staple in CrisisMexico Grapples With Soaring Prices for Corn -- and Tortillas

Mexico is in the grip of the worst tortilla crisis in its modern history. Dramatically rising international corn prices, spurred by demand for the grain-based fuel ethanol, have led to expensive tortillas. That, in turn, has led to lower sales for vendors such as Rosales and angry protests by consumers.

In another place, a rise in the cost of a single food product might not set off a tidal wave of discontent. But Mexico is different.
"When you talk about Mexico, when you talk about culture and societal roots, when you talk about the economy, you talk about the tortilla," said Lorenzo Mejía, president of a tortilla makers trade group. "Everything revolves around the tortilla."

_______________________________________


They Likey Tim
Shocking:
Memo to Tim Russert: Dick Cheney thinks he controls you.This delicious morsel about the "Meet the Press" host and the vice president was part of the extensive dish Cathie Martin served up yesterday when the former Cheney communications director took the stand in the perjury trial of former Cheney chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.Flashed on the courtroom computer screens were her notes from 2004 about how Cheney could respond to allegations that the Bush administration had played fast and loose with evidence of Iraq's nuclear ambitions. Option 1: "MTP-VP," she wrote, then listed the pros and cons of a vice presidential appearance on the Sunday show. Under "pro," she wrote: "control message.""I suggested we put the vice president on 'Meet the Press,' which was a tactic we often used," Martin testified. "It's our best format."

Friday, January 26, 2007

How we got here part 4

Todays Laugh,
After the first takeoff of the fully automatic airplane, the passengers heard the soothing, reassuring voice of the pilot: "Ladies and gentlemen, this is your automatic pilot. In my modern and carefully tested sytem an error is absolutely impossible, absolutely impossible, absolutely impossible, ..."
_______________________________________________
Todays Quote
The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century."
...Governor George W. Bush, 9/15/95
_______________________________________________
Justice Antonin Scalia made his remarks Tuesday at Iona College in New York.
Scalia, answering questions after a speech, also said that critics of the 5-4 ruling in Bush v. Gore need to move on six years after the electoral drama of December 2000, when it seemed the whole nation hung by a chad awaiting the outcome of the presidential election.
"It's water over the deck — get over it," Scalia said, drawing laughs from his audience. His remarks were reported in the Gannett Co.'s Journal-News

I wonder how long if ever the families of the troops killed in Iraq will need to get over it.
I'm not over it!!
_________________________________________________
By Gary Kamyia Where's the outrage?
A real antiwar movement would end our Iraq disaster. But the middle class doesn't care enough to protest, so the kids who go to community college will keep dying.
By Gary Kamyia
The sad truth is that America is not one nation. We may not be Iraq, breaking up in hatred and a primeval battle for power, but the fissures are deep. There is one America that fights, and another America that doesn't. The elites talk and the kids who go to community college get blown up. Sens. James Webb and John McCain are anomalies: Almost none of the politicians in Washington who are debating the war have children whose lives are on the line. Neither do the pundits and commentators.
The fact is, except for that comparatively small number of Americans who have fought there, Iraq is just a name on a map. The deaths there, too, are unreal. And if by chance their reality becomes undeniable, they happen to other people.
When America got rid of the draft, it also got rid of the ultimate check against presidents who lead the nation into foolish wars: people power. I am not advocating a return of the draft. But its absence is undeniably the single largest reason that there is no antiwar movement. People are capable of genuine concern for their fellow citizens, but self-interest is an exponentially more powerful driving force.
The sad truth is that America is not one nation. We may not be Iraq, breaking up in hatred and a primeval battle for power, but the fissures are deep. There is one America that fights, and another America that doesn't. The elites talk and the kids who go to community college get blown up. Sens. James Webb and John McCain are anomalies: Almost none of the politicians in Washington who are debating the war have children whose lives are on the line. Neither do the pundits and commentators.
The fact is, except for that comparatively small number of Americans who have fought there, Iraq is just a name on a map. The deaths there, too, are unreal. And if by chance their reality becomes undeniable, they happen to other people.
When America got rid of the draft, it also got rid of the ultimate check against presidents who lead the nation into foolish wars: people power. I am not advocating a return of the draft. But its absence is undeniably the single largest reason that there is no antiwar movement. People are capable of genuine concern for their fellow citizens, but self-interest is an exponentially more powerful driving force.
_________________________________________________
How we got here part 4 ( last)
Part of this difference of opinion stems from the starkly different concepts of warfare held by the hawks and the military. Hawks envision a quicker, more agile, make-it-up-on-the-fly model of warfare--one which actually showed itself rather well in Afghanistan. Simply put, they don't subscribe to the Powell Doctrine. But that's not all that's in play. The hawks' first priority is not how it is done or even that it is done right--it is ensuring that the opportunity to finish off Saddam does not, once again, slip away. More than anything else, they are animated by the desire to get America into the fight and committed, even if that means doing so without the full commitment of manpower and military hardware that may eventually prove necessary or fully apprising the American people of what they may be getting into. And that is what has the uniformed services nervous: that the civilians at the Pentagon and the White House may bow to the hawks' wishes and attempt to do this on the cheap. "The fear that a lot of us have is that a really honest debate is not being conducted," says a recently retired career officer with experience working the Iraq file. "There's a sense among a number of us that the American public doesn't understand the party they're being invited to. This is going to cost big bucks. There's going to be lots of bad things going to happen. A lot of terrible things you're going to see on TV."
Hope Is Not A Plan
Another terrible thing critics worry about is that attacking Saddam might rattle Arab populations in nearby countries, to the point where regimes in Egypt, Jordan, or Saudi Arabia could fall. The hawks insist that any instability will be fleeting and easily weathered, and that a demonstration of American resolve will firm up wobbly allies. Again, we are in best-case-scenario land here. Press the point further, and the hawks do a clever bit of intellectual jujitsu, insisting that it would be a good thing if the repressive governments of Egypt or Saudi Arabia fell. "Mubarak is no great shakes," says Perle of the Egyptian president. "Surely we can do better than Mubarak." I put the same question to Perle's colleague from the Reagan administration and fellow hawk, Ken Adelman. Did he think wobbly or upended regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia were worth the price of removing Saddam? "All the better if you ask me."
These neoconservatives are not just being glib. They see toppling Saddam as the first domino to fall, with other corrupt Middle Eastern regimes following--just as the fall of the Berlin Wall was followed by the collapse of communism.
Here, as in so many other cases, the hawks have an amazing vision, but a deeply flawed grasp of how to act operationally and in the moment. It may not be in our long-term interests to ally ourselves with corrupt authoritarian governments in the Arab world. But it's quite possible that these governments, which are at least nominal allies of the U.S., will be replaced by corrupt authoritarian regimes that hate us. Moreover, the U.S. military understandably does not want Saudi Arabia disintegrating at its rear while it's in the midst of an operation in Iraq.
What the national security establishment does want is for the other Middle East regimes to be brought in as part of the anti-Saddam alliance. The hawks scorn such coalition building as a brake on our ability to act with moral clarity and decision. We're right and we don't need anyone else's permission, is the underlying mindset. But combining an intense diplomatic effort with military action is not about getting other countries' permission. It's about covering your flanks. One of the reasons American force worked in Kosovo in 1999 is that the U.S. had Slobodan Milosevic cornered not only militarily but diplomatically. He had no one to turn to, to play off against us. Given the state of opinion in the Arab world today, we probably cannot expect open support from the Saudis or the Egyptians or other frontline Arab states. But we do need an understanding with them because we cannot afford to see Crown Prince Abdullah materialize in Baghdad with a "peace plan" just as we are readying our assault.
The same goes for the State Department's efforts to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq. The hawks tend to view weapons inspections as a contemptible joke, a half-measure that will bog us down with kibitzing at the U.N. and rob us of our justification for invasion. Properly done, however, inspections are not a way to avoid war but to build the ground work for it. Before a single soldier hits the ground in Iraq, the U.S. should demand a virtually air-tight inspection regime--not the half-measures the U.N. is currently negotiating with Saddam. Our European allies would oppose this strenuously, as will Russia and China. But it is well worth drawing them into that conversation, because the force and logic of our argument is quite strong. Once the concept of inspections is granted, the need to make them effective is difficult to refute. If Saddam were to accept a truly robust inspections regime--one which would allow the inspectors to roam the country more or less at will--we will have achieved our aim of neutralizing the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. But, of course, when he doesn't agree--and he won't--then we will have forced our allies to confront the reality of Iraqi intransigence head-on. Some may still oppose our imminent military action. But others might join us, and that will make us stronger.
Taking our time, deploying large numbers of troops and weaponry, working the diplomatic channels, defusing possible sources of opposition from European states and the Arab world, all will help accomplish another aim. It will telegraph our seriousness, and by so doing increase the chance that domestic forces will overthrow (or at least weaken) Saddam before our soldiers even have to begin an attack.
It's difficult to imagine that the establishment and national security bureaucracies would have brought us to our current and correct focus on Iraq. But it's even more clear that the hawks' record of breezy planning, reckless prediction, and indifferent fidelity to the truth makes them unfit to be the ones in control of how the job gets done. The hawks have a vision. But as the folks in uniform are so fond of saying, "Hope is not a plan." If Getting rid of Saddam really is necessary. But it has to be done right. So, Mr. President, when the time comes for you to make a decision about Iraq, talk with Paul Wolfowitz and let him tell you what the goal should be. Escort him to the door and lock it behind you. Then sit down for a serious talk with Colin Powell.

Thursday, January 25, 2007

By the numbers

Todays Laugh,
While cruising at 40,000 feet, the airplane shuddered and Mr. Benson looked out the window. "Good lord!" he screamed, "one of the engines just blew up!"
Other passengers left their seats and came running over; suddenly the aircraft was rocked by a second blast as yet another engine exploded on the other side.
The passengers were in a panic now, and even the stewardesses couldn't maintain order. Just then, standing tall and smiling confidently, the pilot strode from the cockpit and assured everyone that there was nothing to worry about. His words and his demeanor seemed made most of the passengers feel better, and they sat down as the pilot calmly walked to the door of the aircraft. There, he grabbed several packages from under the seatsand began handing them to the flight attendants. Each crew member attatched the package to their backs.
"Say," spoke up an alert passenger, "aren't those parachutes?"
The pilot said they were.
The passenger went on, "But I thought you said there was nothing to worry about?"
"There isn't," replied the pilot as a third engine exploded. "We're going to get help.
___________________________________
Todays Quote,
DEMS RESPOND…JIM WEBB: WE HAVE "PATIENTLY ENDURED A MISMANAGED WAR FOR NEARLY FOUR YEARS”…
_________________________________________________
President Bush haled the state of the union as strong tonight, but for Americans worrying about how to make ends meet, the country is headed in the wrong direction, according to numbers compiled today by the Campaign for America's Future.
On Incomes:
--Median household income in 2000: $47,599--Median household income in 2005: $46,326(US Census Bureau, Table H-8. Median Household Income by State: 1984 to 2005)
--Salary of a full-time minimum wage employee without vacation: $10,712--Average time for top CEOs to earn that sum: 2.06 hours(Forbes Magazine. "What the Boss Makes." April 20, 2006)
--Federal minimum wage in 2000: $5.15/hr--Federal minimum wage in 2006: $5.15/hr--Loss in purchasing power, full time worker annually: $1,562
On Energy Prices:
--Average price of home heating oil on Jan. 3, 2000: $1.15 per gallon--Average price of home heating oil on Jan. 1, 2007: $2.42 per gallon(U.S. Energy Information Admin. Jan. 4, 2007)
--Average price of gasoline on Jan. 3, 2000: $1.31 per gallon--Average price of gasoline on Jan. 1, 2007: $2.38 per gallon(U.S. Energy Information Admin. Jan. 5, 2007)
--Exxon Mobil profits in 2000: $7.9 billion--Exxon Mobil profits in 2006: $36.1 billion(CNNMoney.com, accessed Jan. 19, 2007)
On Education:
--Average cost of a year at a public four-year college in 2000: $9,958--Average cost of a year at a public four-year college in 2006: $12,796(Costs include tuition, fees, room & board. MSN Money 2000/Associated Press. Jan. 14, 2005. College Board. Trends in College Pricing 2007)
On Health Care Costs:
--Americans without health insurance, 2000: 38.2 million--Americans without health insurance, 2005: 46.6 million(US Census Bureau, Sept. 2001; US Census Bureau, Aug. 2006)
--Average monthly worker contribution for family coverage in 2000: $135--Average monthly worker contribution for family coverage in 2006: $248--Personal bankruptcies due to medical bills: 55 percent(The Kaiser Family Foundation, Sept. 26, 2006; Health Affairs Health Policy Journal, Feb. 2, 2005)
On Debts and Deficits:
--Monthly U.S. Trade Deficit in October 2000: $33.8 billion--Monthly U.S. Trade Deficit in October 2006: $58.9 billion(U.S. Census Bureau Foreign Trade Statistics. Jan. 10, 2007)
--Loss of value of U.S. dollar relative to the Euro, Jan. 24, 2000 to Jan. 23, 2006: 23 percent(X-rate.com, accessed Jan. 23, 2006)
--US Budget Deficit in FY 2000: $230 billion surplus--US Budget Deficit in FY 2006: $423 billion deficit(White House Office of Management and Budget. Budget of the United States Government, Historical Tables, Fiscal Year 2007; White House Office of Management and Budget. Table S-1. 2006 budget totals)
--US National Debt in FY 2000: $5.7 trillion--US National Debt in FY 2006: $8.5 trillion(Bureau of the Public Debt, Jan. 16, 2007)
_______________________________________

Quick Reaction to SOTU From Around the Nation. What follows is a thumbnail of some of the reaction to Bush's speech along with lobby figures prepared by the Center for Responsive Politics.
• Health:
The lobbies and their donations:
• Pharmaceuticals/Health Products: $17,865,648, 68 percent to Republicans• Health Professionals: $49,717,325, 63 percent to Republicans• Accident and Health Insurance: $7,320,915, 68 percent to Republicans
• Oil:
Bush insists on drilling in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge, which is at best just a drop in the bucket for our energy supply. Our dependence on foreign oil continues. As Bush speaks, the Iraq government readies a new oil law that will place the once nationalized industry into the hands of the international oil companies.
Gas Guzzlers: The president talks about improved mileage rates, but won't change the law to require them. "The President assumes that fuel economy will increase but fails to order an increase when a 40 mile per gallon standard is the single biggest step we could take to curb global warming and end oil dependence," says Frances G. Beinecke, president of the Natural Defense Council. "We would be less dubious of the president's intentions if he had promised to raise the standards instead of assuming that they will rise four percent a year."
Ethanol: "A lot of it depends on the efficiency with which ethanol is produced," says Mike Casey, an environmental consultant who in the past worked for the Environmental Working Group. "It's better than imported oil, [but] it's not the long term. We can't base our entire energy policy on it. Here's what George Bush needs to do tonight: he needs to announce an aggressive initiative to move this country to the alternative sources of energy tomorrow based on technology available today."
Again, the lobbies and their donations:• Oil & Gas: $17,576,986, 83 percent to Republicans• Mining: $4,022,031, 83 percent to Republicans• Electric Utilities: $14,970,532, 66 percent to Republicans• Misc. Energy: $3,142,220, 76 percent to Republicans• Environment: $889,748, 83 percent to Democrats • The Budget:
Critics give Bush a plus for just mentioning bringing the budget deficit in line, but the president promises a balanced budget in 2012, but as Bob Greenstein of Center for Budget and Policy Priorities pointed out in a press call today, the real problem comes in the following decade. Another game of smoke and mirrors by the administration: the budget situation will actually get worse because Bush wants to make his tax cuts to the rich permanent. Bush says the tax cuts resulted in a robust economy, but Greenstein says the growth is unexceptional.
Again, the lobbies:
• Business Associations: $1,976,248, 84 percent to Republicans• Labor: $62,599,397, 86 percent to Democrats
-- James Ridgeway
________________________________________________
Pa. Man's Letter Brings Secret Service
Sunday, January 21, 2007
(01-21) 11:51 PST Bethlehem, Pa. (AP) --
An elderly man who wrote in a letter to the editor about Saddam Hussein's execution that "they hanged the wrong man" got a visit from Secret Service agents concerned he was threatening President Bush.
The letter by Dan Tilli, 81, was published in Monday's edition of The Express-Times of Easton, Pa. It ended with the line, "I still believe they hanged the wrong man."
Tilli said the statement was not a threat. "I didn't say who — I could've meant (Osama) bin Laden," he said Friday.
Two Secret Service agents questioned Tilli at his Bethlehem apartment Thursday, briefly searching the place and taking pictures of him, he said.
The Secret Service confirmed the encounter. Bob Slama, special agent in charge of the Secret Service's Philadelphia office, said it was the agency's duty to investigate.
The agents almost immediately decided Tilli was not a threat, Slama said
"We have no further interest in Dan," he said.
Tilli said the agents appeared more relaxed when he dug out a scrapbook containing more than 200 letters that he has written over the years, almost all on political topics.
"He said, 'Keep writing, but just don't make no threats,'" Tilli said of one of the agents.
It wasn't Tilli's first run-in with the federal government over his letter writing. Two FBI agents from Allentown showed up at his home last year about a letter he wrote advocating a civil war to unseat Bush, he said

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Bipartisanship

Todays Laugh,
Chocolate Nuts
A tour bus driver is driving with a bus load of seniors down a highway when he is tapped on his shoulder by a little old lady. She offers him a handful of peanuts, which he gratefully munches up. After about 15 minutes, she taps him on his shoulder again and she hands him another handful of peanuts. She repeats this gesture about five more times. When she is about to hand him another batch again he asks the little old lady, " Why then don't you eat the peanuts yourself?"."We can't chew them because we've no teeth," she replied.The puzzled driver asks, "Why do you buy them then?"The old lady replied, "We just love the chocolate around
______________________________________
Now he wants to work with the Dems and have a balanced budget.

Bush can't reclaim bipartisanship that never existed
By Steven Thomma
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON - George Bush tried to go home Tuesday night.
His goal was what he thought he left behind in Texas when he was a Republican governor with a Democratic legislature. But the mythical bipartisan place he tried to reach out to in his State of the Union address Tuesday was never like the one he romanticized in Texas. It's not what he's built in six years in Washington. And today it's as elusive as Oz.
"We can work through our differences," Bush said hopefully Tuesday.
He spoke the language of cooperation, singling out four big issues on which he and Democrats both want action: education, energy, health care and immigration
Bush wanted to convince Americans watching on television that he's heard them and that he wants again to work with Democrats.
"Our citizens don't much care which side of the aisle we sit on," he said, "as long as we're willing to cross that aisle when there's work to be done."
Yet the chasm between the parties is wide and deep, the politics between them are poisonous and Bush bears much of the blame.
After reaching out to Democrats his first year, Bush governed after the 2001 terrorist attacks as the leader of a one-party state.
In Congress, his party locked Democrats out of negotiations, then hammered votes through without chance of input.
From the White House, Bush tacked "signing statements" onto bills he signed and used the threat of terrorism in three successive elections to attack Democrats as weak or, worse, aiding the enemy. Last fall he warned that if the Democrats won control of Congress, "terrorists win and America loses."
That makes it hard for Democrats to take his olive branch Tuesday without looking for thorns.
Democrats, too, share responsibility for the nation's polarized politics. These aren't the go-along, get-along, conservative Democrats that Bush ruled with in Texas.
"Dangerously incompetent," was the way Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., described Bush during last year's campaign. "A loser," he said another time.
Then there's the Iraq war. .
He said he's sending more troops to Iraq regardless of what the Democrats, the Congress or the country thinks.
The Democrats signaled in response that they're not in the mood for compromise either - on Iraq or at home. They want Bush to get U.S. troops out of Iraq and shift the government away from the wealthy and toward the poor.
"If he does, we will join him," said Sen. James Webb. D-Va., who gave his party's formal response to Bush's speech. "If he does not, we will be showing him the way."
_______________________________________
From the Onion
CIA Director Quietly Buys Nuclear Attack Insurance
BETHESDA, MD—According to sources at the Allstate Insurance Company, CIA Director Michael Hayden purchased nuclear-attack insurance Wednesday, paying a $100,000 monthly premium for his homes in suburban Washington, Pittsburgh, and near Cheyenne Mountain, CO. "It's a typical nuclear policy that protects the insured from damages caused by fallout—pretty straightforward, though at that monthly rate, I don't usually sell too many of them," said Bethesda, MD–based Allstate agent Gary Rutter, adding that Hayden paid for the first premium with a certified bank check to guarantee that the policy would take effect no later than next Monday. "After he purchased the insurance, he asked again if everything was set for Monday. I assured him it was, and then he left." Insurance agents throughout the D.C. area reported selling 35 such policies in the last week, all to high-ranking
government officials.
_______________________________________
Most Loathsome Persons

42. Joe Lieberman
Charges: For a brief, shining moment in ‘06, it looked like the nation might finally be rid of this sniveling sitzpinkler, but Joe Lieberman just keeps coming back, like herpes. Now Lieberman is an unknown quantity and subsequently the most powerful vote in the Senate. Routinely scolds Democrats for "undermining" the president, whose balls have resided in Lieberman’s mouth since 9/11. Exhibit A: "Our troops believe they can win, and that’s important."
Sentence: Malfunctioning Connecticut-manufactured artillery shells coat Lieberman with white phosphorus at next Iraq photo op
______________________________________
Liberals on TV??
Jonathan Schwarz:
The incredibly broad and invigorating debate found on American TV
David Swanson tells me he was just at an event featuring George McGovern. And in a conversation afterwards with several people, McGovern said that he’s been trying to get on television to talk about Iraq. But producers and hosts are telling him that they "already have too many anti-war people on."
How many is "too many"? I’m guessing that number may be as high as one
_______________________________________
How we got here Part 3

Hawk Heaven
The hawks began pressing the case for overthrowing Saddam in 1998 with a letter to the Clinton administration drafted by Perle and signed by 40 neocon luminaries. Many of the signatories became advisers to then-Gov. George W. Bush. Some won top jobs in the new administration. Hawks include, at the Pentagon, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Luti, and Harold Rhode; at the Office of the Vice President, Lewis "Scooter" Libby and John Hannah; at the State Department, David Wurmser; and at the National Security Council, former Gen. Wayne Downing.
The hawks came in wanting to put regime change at or near the top of the Bush administration's foreign policy agenda. What they didn't figure on was how much of a hurdle Colin Powell, and his deputy, Richard Armitage, would present (despite Armitage's having signed Perle's '98 manifesto). In bureaucratic battles over the summer of 2001, Powell and Armitage made sure that "regime change," though nominally administration policy, lacked teeth.
All of that changed after September 11. Suddenly the prospect of Saddam slipping a dirty bomb to terrorists to blow up in, say, Milwaukee, didn't seem so far-fetched. It also became clear that our efforts to contain Saddam--sanctions that wound up hurting Iraqi civilians, U.S. troops on Saudi soil--were ideal recruitment tools for Osama bin Laden. Removing Saddam was back at the top of the administration's agenda. There was even talk, briefly, of launching an attack on Iraq prior to moving against Afghanistan. Cooler heads prevailed. But by last winter, the Bush administration had come around, with the State Department securely--if reluctantly--on board.
This presented a question that most hawks had not seriously considered. Namely, how exactly to bring down Saddam. The war in Afghanistan offered a compelling model. With a combination of precision assault from the air, special forces on the ground, and the aid of local insurgents ready to do some of the heavy lifting, the U.S. broke the Taliban with surprising ease. In fact, the Afghan campaign bore a striking resemblance to a plan that Iraq hawks had been pitching to Washington for several years: Arm the Iraqi opposition and let them advance on Saddam under cover of U.S. air power. This plan no longer seemed so far-fetched. It didn't require the lengthy pre-positioning of forces that the Joint Chiefs demanded. And it allowed for quick action, before the anger and intensity of September 11 faded.
But the closer officials and military experts looked at the plans that the hawks put forward, the more holes they found. For while the hawks possess a real talent for crafting bold theories, the same cannot be said for their ability to execute in the real world. A striking example on the diplomatic front was their strategy, eagerly adopted by the president, of not engaging in peace efforts between Israel and the Palestinians. Such efforts, the hawks reasoned, were not worth the political capital and would only detract from bigger priorities like bringing down Saddam. The result, however, is that the U.S. was not there to keep the violence from spinning out of control. The fallout from the bloodletting has almost certainly delayed the war with Iraq that the hawks had hoped to be waging by now.
Getting to Know the General
Despite stark disagreements within the administration about the costs and benefits of toppling Saddam's regime, both sides agree on some key points about how a military campaign would unfold. Much of northern Iraq is already controlled by the Kurds, who have some 70,000 armed and trained paramilitaries and are wholly beyond Saddam's authority. southern Iraq has a restive but unarmed Shi'a population held in check by garrisons of some of the regime's least reliable troops. Any invasion would require a substantial number of U.S. ground troops in the south. But even staunch critics believe that the United States would quickly roll up the north and the south of the country with relative ease and few casualties. Then the U.S. forces would move toward Baghdad and its environs--and that's where the agreement breaks down.
Most of Saddam's elite Republican Guard and key military installations would be in and around Baghdad and his nearby hometown of Tikrit. The hawks assume that when U.S. troops converge on Baghdad, few of these troops would choose to go down with the regime. Most would defect or simply flee.
Again, the hawks may be right. Recently, I sat down with Najib Salhi, an Iraqi general who defected in 1995 and now heads the Iraqi Free Officers Movement. Salhi has been living in the Washington area since 2001 and like many exiles in recent months he is, in effect, auditioning for the coveted role as Washington's favored exile leader. Salhi insists that Saddam's regime is far weaker than we imagine. This is not a surprising statement coming from an exile eager for United States. support. But Salhi added something that did surprise me. One source of Saddam's strength, he says, is that he has convinced many in the Republican Guard and his inner circle that the U.S. doesn't really want him gone. "Don't worry about what you see on TV," Salhi described Saddam as saying. "I have a special relationship with the U.S. I am very strong with them. They want me to stay as leader of Iraq. I am like a buffer zone between the Arabian countries and Iran. I have to contain Iran. Iran is Shi'a and extremist. I have to contain them. I have been told to attack other Arab countries and keep them in their place. Just ignore what you see on TV and in the media."
One need not believe Saddam's story, or even Salhi's, to see that the United States has, over the years, given such mixed messages to potential plotters in Saddam's ranks that they might reasonably conclude that the U.nited States really hasn't decided whether it wants him there or not. If, however, we were to act boldly to remove him, Saddam's military could well abandon him in droves before the fighting got too heavy.
But what if that didn't happen? What if Saddam's troops remained loyal? Perle didn't have an entirely satisfactory answer to this point. Instead, he insisted that without access to his ports, and the ability to sell his oil, Saddam would not be able to hunker down in Baghdad: "I think we can put him in a situation where he's got to try to assert authority over his own territory. And when he does, he's highly vulnerable, his forces are highly vulnerable."
The problem with this reasoning is that it assumes Saddam would court his own destruction on the least favorable terms. Would Saddam send his outnumbered Republican Guard out into the open to be annihilated by American airpower? Or would he hold them back in his redoubts in Baghdad, place his soldiers and heavy artillery among civilians, and dare the United States to come in and dislodge him?
This sort of ugly, worst-case scenario is precisely what the professional military fears and insists on preparing for. In an attack on a metropolis like Baghdad, the U.S. could have far less of the advantages of its high-tech military and precision-guided bombs. If the Iraqi army were spread throughout the city, the toll of civilian casualties would simply be too high to destroy the Iraqi military from the air. Going in with the sort of overwhelming power that the professional military envisions is actually the only strategy that would make Perle's waiting-game scenario feasible. If the U.S. invaded and bottled up Saddam and a portion of the Republican Guard in Baghdad, war planners could then survey the rest of the country and gauge the reaction of the civilian population. If it was generally positive (or at least quiescent) we could likely hold back and wait them out. But if one of the darker scenarios began to unfold--a restive civilian population, a Kurdish declaration of independence, an Iranian mobilization to the east--then we would have to choke off resistance fast. Rather than go in with relatively few troops--as the hawks propose--and risk being drawn into a volatile and dangerous waiting game outside Baghdad, the professional military wants to go in with overwhelming force --at least 200,000 troops--to do whatever is required in Baghdad rapidly, and on our terms. Many lives would certainly still be lost; but there would be fewer Iraqi civilians and American GIs among them. Equally important, moving in with overwhelming force would make a quick American victory a near certainty, greatly increasing the odds that the Iraqi army would remove Saddam before a final assault became necessary

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

How we got here Part 2

Todays Laugh,
A doctor is going round the ward with a nurse and they come to the first bed where the chap is laying half dead."Did you give this man two tablets every eight hours?" asks the doctor."Oh, no," replies the nurse, "I gave him eight tablets every two hours!"
At the next bed the next patient also appears half dead."Nurse, did you give this man one tablet every twelve hours?""Oops, I gave him twelve tablets every one hour," replies the nurse.
Unfortunately at the next bed the patient is well and truly deceased, not an ounce of life. "Nurse," asks the doctor, "did you prick his boil?""OH MY GOODNESS!" replies the nurse.
________________________________________
How we got here Part 2
Frank Anderson is neither. As the former chief of the Near East division of the CIA's Directorate of Operations (which runs the agency's clandestine efforts), he is a certified member of the national security establishment. When asked a question, he pauses, sorting through the many complexities, before giving an answer that is balanced, hedged, and honest. Anderson told me that Saddam could probably be deterred from using weapons of mass destruction should he acquire them. "He probably will be further along the way to having a weapon of massive destruction. [But] I think it's highly unlikely that we'll be telling the story of 'and he used it.' The bad news is that if I'm wrong, I'm wrong big time." Anderson worries about the neocons' readiness to employ cowboy tactics to bring down Saddam, a concern evidently rooted in his own experience running clandestine operations--and witnessing how often things go awry.Richard Perle could not be more different. Dubbed the "Prince of Darkness" during the Reagan years for his hatred of the Soviets and his eagerness to confront them, he radiates a cool, effortless intelligence which is both cocky and oracular. He doesn't know many of the details about Iraq or the Middle East. But, he works you like a used car salesman, avoiding questions he'd prefer not to or cannot answer, responding to uncomfortable queries (what if Saddam's Republican Guards stay loyal to him and fight?) with best case scenarios (don't worry, they won't). When asked what would happen if America encountered an embittered civilian population after fighting a grisly battle for Baghdad, Perle replied with a question: "Suppose the Iraqis are dancing in the streets after Saddam is gone?" His arguments tend to rest on abstractions and mechanistic reasoning: Saddam is bad. Ergo the Iraqis hate Saddam. Ergo they like us. That might be true. But if such arguments were chairs you would hear them creaking beneath you.Perle's case for invading Iraq, which mirrors that of other hawks, is basically an escalating series of true or false propositions that leads inexorably toward massive military confrontation: Do you believe that Saddam Hussein is an evil tyrant who would use weapons of mass destruction against us or our allies if he got them? Check. Do you believe he is trying to acquire nuclear or biological weapons and the means to deliver them? Check. If so, doesn't it stand to reason that he will eventually succeed in getting them? Check. Aren't we then obligated to stop him? Check! Sooner, rather than later? Check!!The trouble is that this is a syllogism--one conspicuously short on details about Iraq, geopolitics, or anything else. And yet the logic is still pretty compelling, an impression that only grows when you talk to his critics. While they can point to an endless number of pitfalls and hurdles that the hawks either gloss over or ignore, they're less able to break apart the tight chain of reasoning that gets the hawks on their war footing.Judith Yaphe, for one, a career CIA intelligence analyst now at the National Defense University in Washington, D.C., thinks the costs of attacking Saddam probably outweigh the benefits. But when I asked her whether Saddam was as dangerous as the hawks maintain, her reply was not so different from theirs. "I'm of the school that says this guy had better never have [weapons of mass destruction] because I don't know what he'd do. You can't ignore him," she told me. "[Costs aside] you've gotta take him out because if you don't you're going to have to continue to live with this festering wound and I don't have much confidence that it can be done short of something significant. I don't think that you just rely on a little covert action. This isn't Mission Impossible." In other words, Yaphe's underlying assumptions about Saddam are not so different from those of the hawks. She's just better informed and more cautious.Boxing SaddamSince the end of the Gulf War, U.S. policy on Iraq has been premised on two notions. First, that we would never again accept Saddam Hussein's regime as just another player in the international state system. Second, that Saddam was trying to develop weapons of mass destruction and that we could not, and would not, let him do so. In the early 1990s, we quite reasonably assumed his regime could not last long in the face of his loss of Kuwait and heavy international economic sanctions--an assumption, of course, that proved entirely wrong. In the mid-1990s, the U.S. was preoccupied with the Middle Eastern peace process and the Balkans. It's easy to second guess America's inattention to Iraq, as the hawks do. But at the time, these issues were more pressing. And as long as the UNSCOM inspectors remained in Iraq and Saddam could be sufficiently prevented from procuring weapons of mass destruction, the status quo seemed tenable. The strategy of keeping Saddam "in a box," as Clinton officials liked to put it, made sense.But as early as 1996 and 1997, this was no longer clearly true. Saddam's regime was thriving under sanctions, even as his people suffered under them (a condition he could have alleviated, but didn't). As their condition deteriorated, so too did the U.N. Security Council's support for maintaining the U.S.-backed sanctions. We were in the box now just as much as Saddam was. And time was on his side, not ours.In late 1998, the other shoe finally dropped: Iraq expelled UNSCOM weapons inspectors. The U.S. and Great Britain responded with a thunderous four-day bombardment of cruise missiles and air strikes--Operation Desert Fox. But when the bombing was over, the inspectors were still gone and have never returned. From that point on, U.S. policy was at war with itself. There were (and are) only two real options: to accept Saddam as a regional power (and thus to risk having his weapons and control of oil dictate terms in the Middle East and elsewhere), or take him outHawk HeavenThe hawks began pressing the case for overthrowing Saddam in 1998 with a letter to the Clinton administration drafted by Perle and signed by 40 neocon luminaries. Many of the signatories became advisers to then-Gov. George W. Bush. Some won top jobs in the new administration. Hawks include, at the Pentagon, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Luti, and Harold Rhode; at the Office of the Vice President, Lewis "Scooter" Libby and John Hannah; at the State Department, David Wurmser; and at the National Security Council, former Gen. Wayne Downing.The hawks came in wanting to put regime change at or near the top of the Bush administration's foreign policy agenda. What they didn't figure on was how much of a hurdle Colin Powell, and his deputy, Richard Armitage, would present (despite Armitage's having signed Perle's '98 manifesto). In bureaucratic battles over the summer of 2001, Powell and Armitage made sure that "regime change," though nominally administration policy, lacked teeth.All of that changed after September 11. Suddenly the prospect of Saddam slipping a dirty bomb to terrorists to blow up in, say, Milwaukee, didn't seem so far-fetched. It also became clear that our efforts to contain Saddam--sanctions that wound up hurting Iraqi civilians, U.S. troops on Saudi soil--were ideal recruitment tools for Osama bin Laden. Removing Saddam was back at the top of the administration's agenda. There was even talk, briefly, of launching an attack on Iraq prior to moving against Afghanistan. Cooler heads prevailed. But by last winter, the Bush administration had come around, with the State Department securely--if reluctantly--on board.This presented a question that most hawks had not seriously considered. Namely, how exactly to bring down Saddam. The war in Afghanistan offered a compelling model. With a combination of precision assault from the air, special forces on the ground, and the aid of local insurgents ready to do some of the heavy lifting, the U.S. broke the Taliban with surprising ease. In fact, the Afghan campaign bore a striking resemblance to a plan that Iraq hawks had been pitching to Washington for several years: Arm the Iraqi opposition and let them advance on Saddam under cover of U.S. air power. This plan no longer seemed so far-fetched. It didn't require the lengthy pre-positioning of forces that the Joint Chiefs demanded. And it allowed for quick action, before the anger and intensity of September 11 faded.But the closer officials and military experts looked at the plans that the hawks put forward, the more holes they found. For while the hawks possess a real talent for crafting bold theories, the same cannot be said for their ability to execute in the real world. A striking example on the diplomatic front was their strategy, eagerly adopted by the president, of not engaging in peace efforts between Israel and the Palestinians. Such efforts, the hawks reasoned, were not worth the political capital and would only detract from bigger priorities like bringing down Saddam. The result, however, is that the U.S. was not there to keep the violence from spinning out of control. The fallout from the bloodletting has almost certainly delayed the war with Iraq that the hawks had hoped to be waging by now.

Monday, January 22, 2007

How we got here Part 1

Todays Laugh,
The child comes home from his first day at school. Mother asks, "What did you learn today?"The kid replies, "Not enough. I have to go back tomorrow."
_______________________________________
Election 2008
Among named hypothetical matchups only John Edwards wins all pairings:
Edwards 48%, McCain 43%
Clinton 48%, McCain 47%
Obama 46%, McCain 44%
Edwards 48%, Giuliani 45%
Giuliani 48%, Clinton 47%
Giuliani 47%, Obama 45%
______________________________________
How we got here Part 1
Bomb Saddam?
How the obsession of a few neocon hawks became the central goal of U.S. foreign policy
By Joshua Micah Marshall

Imagine for a moment that you're President George W. Bush. At some point in the next several months you will have to decide whether to overthrow Saddam Hussein--not just to threaten and saber-rattle and hope something gives, but actually to pull the trigger on what could be a very costly and risky military venture. How precisely will you make that decision? It will almost certainly come down to a choice between which of two groups of advisers you choose to believe. One side is comprised of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, most of the career military, nearly every Middle East expert at the State Department, and the vast majority of intelligence analysts and CIA operations officers who know the region. These folks generally think that the idea of attacking Saddam is questionable at best, reckless at worst. On the other side are a few dozen neoconservative think tank scholars and defense policy intellectuals. Few of them have any serious knowledge of the Arab world, the Middle East, or Islam. Fewer still have served in the armed forces. In other words, to give the go-ahead to war with Iraq, you'd have to decide that the experienced hands are all wrong, and throw in your lot with a bunch of hot-headed ideologues. Oh, and one other thing: The last few times, the ideologues have turned out to be right.
To anyone who's followed foreign affairs for the last couple of decades, the names of the neoconservative hawks will be familiar--or, if you're a liberal, chilling. Their eminence grise is Richard Perle, who serves simultaneously as a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, a heretofore somnolent committee of foreign policy old-timers that Perle has refashioned into a key advisory group. Of all the hawks, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz probably has the most powerful job inside the Bush administration. A dozen others hold key posts at the State Department and the White House. Most are acolytes of Perle, and also Jewish, passionately pro-Israel, and pro-Likud. And all are united by a shared idea: that America should be unafraid to use its military power early and often to advance its interests and values. It is an idea that infuriates most members of the national security establishment at the Pentagon, State, and the CIA, who believe that America's military force should be used rarely and only as a last resort, preferably in concert with allies.White House.
The neocons have been clashing with the establishment since the 1970s. Back then, the consensus view among foreign policy elites was that the Cold War was an indefinite or perhaps even a permanent fact of world politics, to be managed with diplomacy and nuclear deterrence. The neocons argued for deliberately tipping the balance of power in America's direction. Ronald Reagan championed their ideas, and brought a number of neocons into his administration, including Perle and Wolfowitz. Reagan's huge defense buildup and harsh, even provocative, rhetoric contributed significantly to running the Soviet military-industrial complex into the ground.The president went for the Hail Mary pass--whatever the dangers--and it worked.
While arguments for and against invading Iraq continue, preparations for an attack are well underway. The Pentagon is moving troops and armaments to U.S.-allied Arab emirates that ring the Persian Gulf. The State Department is getting serious about organizing and uniting the Iraqi opposition. Diplomats are discussing with allies like Turkey and Kuwait the role they would play in a U.S. attack. There is talk of a military assault on Iraq as early as this winter, though a more likely target date is 12 to 18 months from now. (With victory scheduled in time for the '04 elections? Perish the thought!) Whatever the date, some kind of war seems increasingly certain--and probably wise, for the hawks have a much better argument for attacking Iraq than many people imagine. Neocons led the successful effort to kill Bush senior's policy, fashioned by the establishment, of conditioning U.S. aid to Israel on freezing expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank--a policy that seems, in the wake of recent bloodshed in the Middle East, visionary. Even on Iraq the neocons' record has been marred by errors of judgment and manifest recklessness and dishonesty. Their favored means of toppling Saddam is a CIA-created opposition leader, Ahmed Chalabi, a glib exile who hasn't lived in Iraq since he was a teenager and has no discernable support, let alone control over armed forces, inside the country. In the aftermath of September 11, neocons repeatedly tried to tie Saddam to either the World Trade Center attacks or the anthrax mailings. The evidence for such a connection was always slight to nonexistent, which they understood. But they made the argument anyway. That's how they operate.
Mission Impossible?
Deciding whether or not we should topple Saddam raises a number of questions that we are in a painfully poor position to answer. How close is Saddam to having weapons of mass destruction? How long will our deterrents hold him in check? How resilient would his regime be against sustained military force? And, perhaps most important, what geopolitical collateral damage would result, even if we were successful? Anyone who claims to have the answers is either a liar or a fool.Frank Anderson is neither. As the former chief of the Near East division of the CIA's Directorate of Operations (which runs the agency's clandestine efforts), he is a certified member of the national security establishment. When asked a question, he pauses, sorting through the many complexities, before giving an answer that is balanced, hedged, and honest. Anderson told me that Saddam could probably be deterred from using weapons of mass destruction should he acquire them. "He probably will be further along the way to having a weapon of massive destruction. [But] I think it's highly unlikely that we'll be telling the story of 'and he used it.' The bad news is that if I'm wrong, I'm wrong big time." Anderson worries about the neocons' readiness to employ cowboy tactics to bring down Saddam, a concern evidently rooted in his own experience running clandestine operations--and witnessing how often things go awry

Sunday, January 21, 2007

It goes on

Todays Laugh,
Spanish newspapers are reporting that Fidel Castro is in very grave condition, very ill health. In fact, his priest told him, “You will soon be in a better place.” And Castro said, “I’m going to Miami?” Jay Leno
____________________________________
BUSH SEEKS TAX CHANGES TO HELP COVER THE UNINSURED...
It’s a bad policy," Representative Charles B. Rangel, the New York Democrat who is chairman of the House committee that writes tax legislation, said in an interview Friday night. "We are trying to bring tax relief to the middle class. The president is trying to increase their tax liability. This proposal is inconsistent with what the majority is seeking in the House and the Senate."
______________________________________

20, 2007
Heckuva job, Brownie:
Party politics played a role in decisions over whether to take federal control of Louisiana and other areas affected by Hurricane Katrina, former FEMA director Michael Brown said Friday.
Some in the White House suggested only Louisiana should be federalized because it was run by a Democrat, Gov. Kathleen Blanco, Brown told a group of graduate students at a lecture on politics and emergency management at Metropolitan College of New York.
Brown said he had recommended to President Bush that all 90,000 square miles along the Gulf Coast affected by the hurricane be federalized, making the federal government in charge of all agencies responding to the disaster.
"Unbeknownst to me, certain people in the White House were thinking we had to federalize Louisiana because she's a white, female Democratic governor and we have a chance to rub her nose in it," he said.
Paging Sen. Lieberman. Sen. Lieberman? Joe, where are you?
_______________________________________
Fifty Worst People # 3

George W. Bush
Charges: This spoiled, whiny pinhead is, regrettably, responsible for the nauseating fiasco he’s made of America and the world. Employs an effective strategy of creating so many deplorable scandals that it’s impossible for anyone to keep up, guaranteeing that most will slip by with little notice. Has managed to staff the entire federal regulatory system with obedient corporate drones intent on destroying it from within. More concerned with the fate of discarded embryos than the actual humans being shot at from both sides in an idiot war he conned us into. Is clearly annoyed to be president at this point. Dumber than Paris Hilton and almost as popular.
Exhibit A: "The point now is how do we work together to achieve important goals. And one such goal is a democracy in Germany."
Sentence: Trapped in a library with no picture books.
_______________________________________
More than 3,500 Rally in Memphis for Media Reform: Why It Matters

Bill Moyers
On the whole all high ranking
officials had to do was say it, and the press repeated it until it became gospel. The height of myopia came with the admission (or was it bragging?) by one of the Beltway's most prominent anchors that his responsibility is to provide officials a forum to be heard, that what they say is more newsworthy than what they do. [Media reform] means helping protect news-gathering from predatory forces. It means fighting for more participatory media, hospitable to a full range of expression. ...It means bringing broadband service to those many millions of Americans too poor to participate so far in the digital revolution. It means ownership and participation for people of color and women. And let me tell you, it means reclaiming public broadcasting and restoring it to its original feisty, robust, fearless mission as an alternative to the dominant media, offering journalism you can afford and can trust, public affairs of which you are a part, and a wide range of civic and cultural discourse that leaves no one out.
_______________________________________

Poetry, perhaps even more than pictures, makes war live. We understand the true horror of World War I not because of newsreels, but because of the searing words of Erich Maria Remarque and Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon. And Iraq has produced its own poet, Brian Turner, who was an infantry team leader there for a year. In 2005, he published a collection of poems, "Here, Bullet," that is destined to endure long after the shrill arguments about the war have been forgotten.
In a poem titled "2000 lbs," Turner opens with a description of a suicide bomber in Mosul's Ashur Square, who is watching in his rearview mirror for a convoy. He writes of two men, an Iraqi taxi driver named Sefwan and an American Guardsman named Sgt. Ledouix, who are also in Ashur Square.

flight of gold, that's what Sefwan thinks as he lights a Miami, draws in the smoke and waits in his taxi at the traffic circle. He thinks of summer 1974, lifting pitchforks of grain high in the air, the slow drift of it like the fall of Shatha's hair, and although it was decades ago, he still loves her, remembers her standing at the canebrake where the buffalo cooled shoulder-deep in the water,pleased with the orange cups of flowers he brought her, and he regrets how much can go wrong in a life, how easily the years slip by, light as grain, bright as the street's concussion of metal, shrapnel traveling at the speed of sound to open him up in blood and shock, a man whose last thoughts are of love and wreckage, with no one there to whisper him gone.

Sgt. Ledouix of the National Guard speaks but cannot hear the words coming out, and it's just as well his eardrums ruptured because it lends the world a certain calm, though the traffic circle is filled with people running in panic, their legs a blur like horses in a carousel, turning and turning the way the tires spin on the Humvee flipped to its side, the gunner's hatch he was thrown froma mystery to him now, a dark hole in metal the color of sand, and if he could, he would crawl back inside of it, and though his fingertips scratch at the asphalthe hasn't the strength to move: shrapnel has torn into his ribcage and he will bleed to death in minutes, but he finds himself surrounded by a strange beauty, the shine of light on the broken, a woman's hand touching his face, tenderlythe way his wife might, amazed to find a wedding ring on his crushed hand, the bright gold sinking in fleshgoing to bone.
______________________________________

20 US Service Members Killed In Iraq...
Associated Press BASSEM MROUE January 20, 2007 07:53 PM

At least 20 American service personnel were killed in military operations Saturday in one of the deadliest days for U.S. forces since the Iraq war began, and authorities also announced two U.S. combat deaths from the previous day.
The day's worst loss came from the crash of a U.S. Army helicopter northeast of Baghdad that killed 13 service members. An attack Saturday night blamed on militiamen in the city of Karbala killed five soldiers. Roadside bombs killed another soldier in the capital and one in Nineveh province north of Baghdad.

Saturday, January 20, 2007

Saturday

Cost of the War in Iraq
$359,799,708,291 Up to this minute
______________________________________
Todays Laugh,
A Post Office worker at the main sorting office finds an unstamped, poorly hand-written envelope addressed to God. He opens it and discovers it is from an elderly lady, distressed because some thief robbed her of 100 dollars. She will be cold and hungry for the rest of the month if she doesn't receive some divine intervention.
The worker organizes a collection amongst the other postal workers, who dig deep and come up with 96 dollars. They get it to her by special courier the same morning.
A week later, the same postal worker recognizes the same hand on another envelope. He opens it and reads: "Dear God, Thank you for the 100 dollars. This month would have been so bleak otherwise. P.S. It was four dollars short but that was probably those thieving bastards at the Post Office."
______________________________________
Todays Quote
"I’m in," she said on her new campaign Web site. "And I’m in to win."
Senator Hilary Clinton
_______________________________________

More Media Adopt Repubspeak Jan. 20,2007
READ MORE: Democrat Party, George W. Bush, United States
There are two major political parties in the United States -- the Republican and the Democratic -- but you wouldn't know that from many of today's supposedly "objective" journalists. No, like GOP speakers and rightwing talk radio hosts, more and more "reporters" talk about the Democrat Party, considered an epithet (and not a kindly one). CBS's Scott Pelley irked more than a few people in his 60 Minutes interview with President Bush by his regular references to the "Democrat Party," and I've heard similar references on NPR, among others.
Media Matters has been all over this issue, with examples from the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, AP, CNN and CBS among others, and continues to track them. Why does it matter? Words mean something -- and that's not just the editor-within obsessing about style guides. Media Matters cites Hendrik Hertzberg's essay in The New Yorker:
There's no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. "Democrat Party" is a slur, or intended to be--a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but "Democrat Party" is jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams "rat." At a slightly higher level of sophistication, it's an attempt to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation.
Hertzberg says that Sen. Joe McCarthy "made it [the 'Democrat' party] a regular part of his arsenal of insults," but the usage was pushed in the 1990s by Newt Gingrich and Frank Luntz, whom he quotes:
"Those two letters actually do matter," Luntz said the other day. He added that he recently finished writing a book--it's entitled Words That Work--and has been diligently going through the galley proofs taking out the hundreds of "ic"s that his copy editor, one of those partisan Dems, had stuck in.
President George W. Bush, unlike his GOP predecessors GHW Bush and Ronald Reagan, uses the party slur exclusively. And while some MSM journos follow suit, a few such as Washington Post blogger Dan Froomkin, object, pointing out that "Bush's alleged commitment to bipartisanship would probably be easier to swallow if he referred to the opposition party by its proper name."
_______________________________________
Jan,20,2007
Walter Mondale on Friday criticized Vice President Dick Cheney's role in the White House, and said former president Jimmy Carter never would have tolerated Cheney's actions.
"I think that Cheney has stepped way over the line," Mondale said.
Mondale, who was vice president under Carter, made the comments at a three-day conference about Carter's presidency that opened Friday at the University of Georgia.
Mondale said Cheney and his assistants pressured federal agencies as they prepared information for President Bush.
"I think Cheney's been at the center of cooking up farcical estimates of national risks, weapons of mass destruction and the 9/11 connection to Iraq," he said.
_______________________________________
by Jonathan Stein on 01/16/07
The Iraq War, Brought to You by Your Friends at Lockheed Martin
Remember the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq? Much like Citizens for a Free Kuwait, a front group established by Hill & Knowlton before the first Gulf War, it was a made-to-order pressure group formed for the sole purpose of building support -- and providing a rationale -- for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. I'd long since forgotten about the organization -- which was supported by such neocon luminaries as James Woolsey, Richard Perle, and William Kristol and quietly disbanded after the invasion -- until I read the interesting investigative piece in the current issue of Playboy (yes, Playboy) that Liz references below. Titled "Lockheed Stock and Two Smoking Barrels," the article boldly bills itself as "the story of how Lockheed's interests -- as opposed to those of the American Citizenry -- set the course of U.S. Policy After 9/11."
According to the article, in November 2002 Stephen Hadley, then the deputy national security advisor, had a meeting with a Lockheed official named Bruce Jackson, telling him that the U.S. was "going to war" but "struggling with a rationale." Reportedly, Hadley then asked Jackson to "set up something like the Committee on Nato" -- referring to another group previously formed by Jackson -- to fill this void. The result was the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.
If the names and organizations connected to the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq seem to blur together, it’s no coincidence. Many of the people involved had been in and out of that set of revolving doors connecting government, conservative think tanks, lobbying firms and the defense industry. And many shared another common bond, as well: a link to Lockheed Martin.
By the time the committee had assembled, they had a number of contacts in the Bush administration—many of whom also had Lockheed connections. Bush had appointed Powell A. Moore assistant secretary of defense for legislative affairs serving directly under Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. From 1983 until 1998, when he had become chief of staff to Republican Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee, Moore was a consultant and vice president for legislative affairs for Lockheed.
Albert Smith, Lockheed’s executive vice president for integrated systems and solutions, was appointed to the Defense Science Board. Bush had appointed former Lockheed chief operating officer Peter B. Teets as undersecretary of the Air Force and director of the National Reconnaissance Office, where he made decisions on the acquisition of reconnaissance satellites and space-based elements of missile defense. Former Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, the only Democrat appointed by Bush to his cabinet, worked for Lockheed, as did Bush’s Secretary of the Navy, Gordon England. Haley Barbour, chairman of the Republican National Committee before becoming the governor of Mississippi, worked for a Lockheed lobbying firm. Joe Allbaugh, national campaign manager of the Bush-Cheney ticket and director of FEMA during the first two years of the Bush administration (he appointed his college friend Michael Brown as FEMA’s general counsel), was a Lockheed lobbyist for its rapidly growing intelligence division.
Dick Cheney’s son-in-law, Philip J. Perry, a registered Lockheed lobbyist who had, while working for a law firm, represented Lockheed with the Department of Homeland Security, had been nominated by Bush to serve as general counsel to the Department of Homeland Security. His wife, Elizabeth Cheney, serves as deputy assistant secretary of state for Middle Eastern affairs.
Vice President Cheney’s wife, Lynne, had, until her husband took office, served on the board of Lockheed, receiving deferred compensation in the form of half a million dollars in stock and fees. Even President Bush himself has a Lockheed Martin connection. As governor of Texas, he had attempted to give Lockheed a multimillion-dollar contract to reform the state’s welfare system.
Jackson, who while serving as vice president of strategy and planning for Lockheed was also "responsible for the foreign policy platform at the Republican National Convention," told the author that "only ‘literary types’ would see a connection between Lockheed Martin and the Iraq war as ‘seamless,’" insisting "that his own activities were ‘not part of my day job.’" He then offered up this bizarre example: "There are lesbians who work for Lockheed Martin. One of them might be a belly dancer at night."

Blog Archive