Evidence that K Street is alive and well: in closed session the GOP gift-wraps a $22 billion giveaway to the health insurance industry.

This quote from a Democrat is particularly infuriating:

"It happens in the dead of night when lobbyists get a [Republican lawmaker] in the corner and say, 'We've got to have this,' " said Rep. Fortney "Pete" Stark (Calif.), the Democrats' point man on Medicare issues. "It's a pattern that just goes on and on, and at some point the public's going to rise up."

Oh really Pete? When? When will the public finally rise up? If they haven't done so already given the numerous transgressions and willful knocks against them, then why should they suddenly revolt anytime soon? And with regards to this latest slimy maneuver, how would the general public even have been made aware of it since it was a closed session, "dead of night" deal?

No Mr. Stark, it's the job of you and your Democratic colleagues to inform the public of such outrageous acts and to do so forcefully and with great passion to fuel the people's rage. As a public servant, you are supposed to clearly and repeatedly let us know when we're getting screwed. Do that enough times and done effectively and then, and only then, can you rightfully expect the public to clamor for change. Short of that occurring, nothing will happen.

It's no wonder this party continues to be one in the minority. They're clueless (and a bit lazy I might add).

The Dirty Secret

A Bush defense for the illegal wiretappings is 9-11, with the obligatory appeal that it changed everything. Yes, once again this tragic event is being used to inch that much closer to a neofascist state in the name of protecting the people.

In reality, this administration is making the case that our Constitution is now antiquated (heck, everything is different now, right?). This document has outlived its usefulness when it comes to a "War on Terror" era. It's apparently understandable to do what's deemed necessary to protect the people -- even if it's unconstitutional or against the rule of law.

So when will King GW & Co. finally come out and make this case? When will they assert for the record that the Constitution is of little use in these dangerous, modern times? When will they propose that the Constitution needs to be changed or updated to better suit our current global reality?

I assure you it won't happen anytime soon, but the weak-kneed Dems should make the above clear to the American public and press the issue.

Mission Accomplished?

BAGHDAD — The number of attacks against coalition troops, Iraqi security forces and civilians increased 29% last year.... Insurgents launched 34,131 attacks last year, up from 26,496 the year before, according to U.S. military figures released Sunday.

This guy is going to clean up the House?? Hah!

NY Times: "Six former heads of the Environmental Protection Agency, including five who served Republican presidents, said Wednesday that the Bush administration needed to act more aggressively to limit the emission of greenhouse gases linked to climate change."

Some interesting questions and ponderings regarding the latest Bin Laden tape:

"Back in 2002, the Bush administration was chagrined when the world's foremost voice identification experts, a group in Swizterland called IDIAP analyzed several Bin Laden tapes and concluded that a 'CIA-verified' bin Laden tape was NOT Bin Laden, but someone whose voice patterns resembled the terrorist's. Now again we have a Bin Laden tape that arrives just when Bush needs a 'terrorist diversion.' And once again, we have only the CIA 'experts' verifying the authenticity. So why since 2002 hasn't the IDIAP been called in to verify these always conveniently timed tapes? And why is no CIA expert ever actually named?"

"Duke University Bin Laden expert Bruce Lawrence, who is the head of Duke's religious department, also thinks the tape was faked.... Lawrence has just published 'Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin Laden,' a book translating bin Laden's writing. He is skeptical of Thursday's message.... He thinks bin Laden is dead and has doubts about the tape. Lawrence recently analyzed more than 20 complete speeches and interviews of the al Qaida leader for his book. He says the new message is missing several key elements.

"There's nothing in this from the Koran. He's, by his own standards, a faithful Muslim, " Lawrence said. "He quotes scripture in defense of his actions. There's no quotation from the Koran in the excerpts we got, no reference to specific events, no reference to past atrocities."
<..>
"Another element that Lawrence takes issue with in bin Laden's latest message is it's length - - only 10 minutes. Previously, the shortest was 18 minutes. "

I thought it was an appropriate time to re-post this non-Photoshopped, genuine (see Snopes.com) photo -- speaks volumes:

Want a classic example of how the GOP-led Congress has become one with corporate interests and lobbyists?

Paul Krugman: Thomas Scully was a hospital industry lobbyist before President Bush appointed him to run Medicare. In that job, Mr. Scully famously threatened to fire his chief actuary if he told Congress the truth about cost projections for the Medicare drug program.

Mr. Scully had good reasons not to let anything stand in the way of the drug bill. He had received a special ethics waiver from his superiors allowing him to negotiate for future jobs with lobbying and investment firms - firms that had a strong financial stake in the form of the bill - while still in public office. He left public service, if that's what it was, almost as soon as the bill was passed, and is once again a lobbyist, now for drug companies.

Meanwhile, Representative Billy Tauzin, the bill's point man on Capitol Hill, quickly left Congress once the bill was passed to become president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the powerful drug industry lobby.

If true, this emerging story will (should!) be HUGE:

In an exclusive last night on Air America Radio's The Majority Report, Rep. Louise Slaughter alleged that day-traders had been operating inside the offices of Senator Frist and Congressman Delay. Telling us that her source was "as good as gold," Rep. Slaughter promised to investigate further and get back to us.

"I'm going to track this down, I know it's true," Slaughter told us,"that Frist, DeLay and probably others had some day traders working out of their offices." Those working out of the Congressional offices "would find out there's a bill being written by lobbyists, that there would be no asbestos bill ... and when the market opened the next day, the cost of asbestos stock had doubled."

Even more proof that King GW's spying on US citizens is illegal.

"Judicial activism" only applies to liberal judges. For Scalia & Co., what's it called?

Mark Kleiman: Responding to Mike O'Hare's complaint that justice-to-be Alito lacks any sense of ... well ... justice, several conservative and conservatarian blogs, including the estimable Professor Bainbridge, pointed out that a judge is supposed to judge by the law, not by his or her personal sense of right and wrong. Indeed, they said, that's the difference between good (i.e., conservative) judging and bad, liberal judging: conservatives judges know their place in the democratic order and don't try to impose their own views in preference to the views of the people expressed through their elected representatives.

Now comes Justice Scalia, in dissent in the Oregon assisted-suicide case.
<..>
I'm glad Scalia's opinion was a dissent, not so much because a few Oregonians will continue to have access to physician assistance in ending their lives - the job can be done without the use of controlled substances, for example by using a breathing mask hooked up to a tank of an inert gas or nitrous oxide - as for the sake of striking down what seemed to me a clearly illegitimate power grab by the Federal government on behalf of the prejudices of the "God" faction of ruling God-and-Mammon coalition that is the political base of the current ruling oligarchy. But it's also worth noticing how empty the conservatarian promise of "neutral" judging turns out to be when push comes to shove.

Maybe this has happened because many of the corporations who pay the lobbyists are also big-time advertisers of such media outlets (i.e. pressured silence).

A great take on the incredibly inept Medicare roll-out:

Golden State Column: The defining fiasco of the Bush Administration may prove to be the utterly disastrous Medicare prescription drug benefit, formally known as Medicare Part D. Already the newspapers are filled with stories about Medicare-Medicaid patients, the poorest of the poor, being denied prescriptions by the thousands because the government, with only two full years to prepare, didn't have its computer systems tested, up, and running when the program launched January 1. The pain is just beginning.

What's instructive about this project is that it provides a concrete illustration of what Social Security would have looked like after a Bush privatization job: A program that should be designed to serve citizens turned instead into a plaything for lobbyists and business interests.... Is there a saving grace in the disaster? Only that, considering that most eligible people will be signing up in early May, then discovering the flaws in the system through the summer and early fall, they'll be reaching the peak of fury and be well poised to wreak vengeance on the perpetrators at the ballot box in November. Good riddance.
<..>
It's worth remembering that the prescription drug program was born in an act of fraud. The Bush Administration sold it to Congress in 2003 by estimating its cost at less than $400 billion over 10 years. Scarcely a month after its enactment, the White House issued a new estimate: $535 billion. That figure might well have killed the bill, which had passed the House by a razor-thin margin even with the lower price tag.

It soon came to light that Richard Foster, Medicare's chief actuary, had known of the higher estimate - but had been told he'd be fired if he warned Congress before the vote. (The current estimate is $700 billion.)

As written, the legislation complied with a drug industry demand that Medicare be prohibited from negotiating with manufacturers for lower drug prices. Among those helping the industry make its stand was Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-Louisiana), whose committee on energy and commerce oversaw Medicare. In an odoriferous development, Tauzin soon quit Congress to become president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America - Big Pharma's Washington lobbying group.

And yet you have Roy Blunt writing in the WSJ about the many accomplishments of the House Republicans. You have to read his piece, it's hilarious, and note how much he doesn't talk about or conveniently excludes.

Again I ask, when will the death count begin, for those unfortunate souls who perished due to this mismanaged healthcare debacle?

On the heels of hiring Bill Bennett and Glenn Beck, with CNN next hiring JC Watts it won't be long before the news station has morphed into Fox News 2.

If the U.S. places sanctions against Iran, of the Mideast countries considered to be our allies how many do you think will completely and fully honor these sanctions? And for those countries that don't, do you think King GW will demand that they do??

In the meantime Iran will try to stall for time as it further courts and aligns its friends, the biggies being Russia, Venezuela, and Syria.

From Merrill Lynch economist David Rosenberg:

In the USA, companies are spending a mere 5% of their cash flow on
wages/supplements and the trend is going down, which is indicative of a market that retains slack. In the late 1990s, the Fed was correct in raising rates as it became clear as the jobless rate moved to and below 4% that wage pressures were accelerating and this is seen by the ever-rising share of corporate profits being devoted to labor income. This has not happened this cycle.... You have to go back to 1929 to find a business cycle – and the one we are in is four years old now – in which the wage and salary share was as low as it is today this far into an expansion. Bloomberg News quotes the legendary Nobel-prize winning economist Robert Solow as saying that an economy that generates productivity gains which see those gains concentrated only at the corporate level is an economy that is actually “performing poorly”.

I'm all for laughing to relieve stress, but this is repulsive:

When the stress of the war in Iraq becomes too severe, the Pentagon has a suggestion for military families: Learn how to laugh. With help from the Pentagon's chief laughter instructor, families of National Guard members are learning to walk like a penguin, laugh like a lion and blurt "ha, ha, hee, hee and ho, ho." No joke.

In response to Gore's stinging speech yesterday, this administration did the only thing it knows how to do: it distorted, lied and smeared.

From RawStory.com:

In response to White House comments that Gore exhibited "hypocrisy" in calling for a Special Prosecutor, saying that the Clinton administration had wiretapped some Americans, Gore will make this statement shortly. It was leaked to RAW STORY in advance.

Former Vice President Al Gore: "The Administration's response to my speech illustrates perfectly the need for a special counsel to review the legality of the NSA wiretapping program.

The Attorney General is making a political defense of the President without even addressing the substantive legal questions that have so troubled millions of Americans in both political parties.

There are two problems with the Attorney General's effort to focus attention on the past instead of the present Administration's behavior. First, as others have thoroughly documented, his charges are factually wrong. Both before and after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was amended in 1995, the Clinton/Gore Administration complied fully and completely with the terms of the law.

Second, the Attorney General's attempt to cite a previous administration's activity as precedent for theirs - even though factually wrong - ironically demonstrates another reason why we must be so vigilant about their brazen disregard for the law. If unchecked, their behavior would serve as a precedent to encourage future presidents to claim these same powers, which many legal experts in both parties believe are clearly illegal.

The issue, simply put, is that for more than four years, the executive branch has been wiretapping many thousands of American citizens without warrants in direct contradiction of American law. It is clearly wrong and disrespectful to the American people to allow a close political associate of the president to be in charge of reviewing serious charges against him.

The country needs a full and independent investigation into the facts and legality of the present Administration's program."

A prescient reminder:

You can have your Washingtons, your Jeffersons, and your Madisons. All great men, to be sure. But for my money, the greatest of them all was Benjamin Franklin, my favorite founding father and the first great American liberal.

I heartily agree, although I have Jefferson (another great liberal) coming in a close second.

The next time a staunch right-wing Republican refers to our founding fathers, please remember that many if not most in this illustrious group would be tagged as a liberal today.

Really David, you think O'Reilly is a clown?

King GW orders more purging of environmental data so the public remains even less informed.

When will a death count begin as a result of this boondoggle of a health bill and its disastrous roll-out? The GOP has even more blood on its hands....

Many stories out today about the price of oil shooting higher if sanctions were to be enforced against Iran. I've written here in the recent past that it wouldn't have to take sanctions for Iran to turn off its oil spigot. It's not lost on them the tight supply situation currently; they can use this unfortunate fact as an economic weapon with tremendous leverage.

From a recent PEW poll:

There has been little change recently in views of which party is more honest and ethical, and which is better able to manage the federal government well. Currently, 37% believe the phrase "governs in an honest and ethical way" better describes the Democratic Party; 30% say it better describes the GOP.

Needless to say, the GOP corruption scandals will be a huge issue for the Dems in this year's election. A 37%/30% margin is not wide enough, at all. If they fail (again!) to capitalize on this opening, then they deserve to be a minority party. The raw material is just sitting there for them to assemble and package into a damning indictment against the GOP. Let's go people!

Joe Conason:

It would be interesting to hear Lapin - or Falwell or Robertson, both of whom have defended these crooks until now - explain how swindling Indian tribes and handing out money and favors to legislators fits into the "biblical worldview" they supposedly espouse. A decade ago, [Ralph] Reed described his mission as "changing the soul of American politics," but he proved perfectly willing to sell the soul of his movement as soon as the opportunity arose. In fact, he pleaded with Abramoff to send him the business.

Not many politicians have been as bold as DeLay in publicly claiming the mandate of heaven. Who can forget his justification for pushing the impeachment of Bill Clinton, whom he accused of having the "wrong worldview"? While the Hammer cavorted on Scottish golf courses and gorged himself on Malaysian banquets, he was assuring the faithful on Capitol Hill that the Almighty had chosen him for leadership and was teaching him how to do his job.

Several years ago, at one of many fundamentalist meetings he has addressed, DeLay explained: "He [God] has been walking me through an incredible journey, and it all comes down to worldview. He is using me, all the time, everywhere, to stand up for biblical worldview in everything that I do and everywhere I am. He is training me, He is working with me."

And didn't GW say God is working through him too? So if God is "working with" both DeLay and Bush, what does this say about God? Shouldn't God have a chance to speak for him/herself regarding this matter? Doesn't he/she deserve a chance to clear his/her good name?!

Another one bites the dust....

The GOP implosion continues on pace.

In today's NY Times:

From Louis Uchitelle:

Mr. Nordhaus is the economist who put the subject back on the table with the publication of a prescient prewar paper that compared the coming [Iraq] conflict to a "giant role of the dice." He warned that "if the United States had a string of bad luck or misjudgments during or after the war, the outcome could reach $1.9 trillion," once all the secondary costs over many years were included.

So far, the string of bad luck has materialized, and Mr. Nordhaus's forecast has been partially fulfilled. In recent studies by other economists, the high-end estimates of the war's actual cost, broadly measured, are already moving into the $1 trillion range.... "We did not have to fight this war, and we did not have to go to war when we did," Mr. Stiglitz said. "We could have waited until we had more safe body armor and we chose not to wait."

Leave it up to Brooks to praise blowhard Biden.

And more silencing of science and facts by this administration:

NASA has quietly terminated the Deep Space Climate Observatory, citing "competing priorities." The news media took little notice. Few Americans, after all, had even heard of the program. But the entire world may come to mourn its passing.
<..>
The better experiment when it comes to global warming was to be the climate observatory, situated in space at the neutral-gravity point between the Sun and Earth. Called Lagrange 1, or L1, this point is about one million miles from Earth.
<..>
Development began in November 1998 and it was ready for launching three years later. The cost was only about $100 million. For comparison, that is only one-thousandth the cost of the International Space Station, which serves no useful purpose.

Before Triana could be launched, however, there was a presidential election. Many of the industries favored by the new Bush White House were not anxious to have the cause of global warming pinned down. The launching was put on hold. -- Robert L.Park, a professor of physics at the University of Maryland.

Some segments from a recent Bob Herbert column (he's on a roll!). By the way, for those who gripe that we bloggers should abstain from citing NY Times columnists due to the TimeSelect pay-for access, I tend to agree with the in-spirit boycott. However, let's face it, there are some decent columnists to be read there and if I can present some choice chunks of what's written, many can then get for free the general theme of what's being written. OK?

The segments:

The country has set the bar so low for the performance of George W. Bush as president that it is effectively on the ground.

No one expects very much from Mr. Bush. He's currently breaking the law by spying on Americans in America without getting warrants, but for a lot of people that's just George being George....

It has become fashionable to say that this controversy is about the always difficult problem of balancing civil liberties and national security. But I think the issue is starker than that. The real issue is President Bush's apparent belief - stoked at every opportunity by that zealot of zealots, Dick Cheney - that he can do just about anything he wants (mistreat prisoners, lock people up forever without filing charges), and justify it in the name of fighting terror....

But this is not China or the old Soviet Union. The United States should be the one place on the planet where even a devastating terror strike by Al Qaeda is unable to shake the foundations of the government, which is grounded in the rule of law, the separation of powers and a constitution that guarantees the fundamental rights of the citizenry....

President Bush and others in the administration have repeatedly argued that the president's wartime powers trump some of the important constitutional guarantees and civil liberties that Americans had previously taken for granted. They don't seem to see the irony of fighting on behalf of liberty in Afghanistan and Iraq while curtailing precious liberties here at home.

Regarding the nuclear situation in Iran, Kevin Drum writes as if it will be a growing concern for quite some time, with nothing done until this summer or fall. However, I've read more than a few news items mentioning that Israel may act on this matter much sooner -- say by March. The pre-emptive air strikes are expected to involve cruise missiles and F15E bombers.

What's scary is assuming it happens, what will happen after such a strike? What other nations will be sucked in and which side will they take? Will nuclear weapons eventually be employed? Bush playing the bully vs. hapless Iraq is one thing, but could this eventual conflict be WAY out of his league?

Those who worked on the WTC site after 9-11 are coming down with fatal ailments. Recall at the time that Bush had the EPA deem the area A-OK.

Signed by fourteen constitutional scholars and former government officials, this 8-page document lays out why Bush's secret NSA wiretapping program is illegal. The concluding paragraph:

The DOJ letter fails to offer a plausible legal defense of the NSA domestic spying program. If the Administration felt that FISA was insufficient, the proper course was to seek legislative amendment, as it did with other aspects of FISA in the Patriot Act, and as Congress expressly contemplated when it enacted the wartime wiretap provision in FISA. One of the crucial features of a constitutional democracy is that it is always open to the President--or anyone else--to seek to change the law. But it is also beyond dispute that, in such a democracy, the President cannot simply violate criminal laws behind closed doors because he deems them obsolete or impracticable.

If it was Clinton, he would've been booted out by now.

Re Alito: He's not qualified if he's purposefully evasive to the point of lying. Answer the questions truthfully else be judged as unfit, period. Read this.

From a Kevin Drum post, despite the fact that the working poor are responsible for approx. $9 bil. in tax fraud [with odds favoring a good amount of that "fraud" due to filing ignorance] as compared to the more affluent who rob the IRS coffers of approx. $340 bil., guess which group gets the most attention from IRS enforcement under this administration? Yes, the working poor -- again, despite more fraud occurring by the affluent by a magnitude of 37x!

And percentages don't matter here: facing a whopping federal deficit combined with limited resources at the IRS (thanks to GOP stripping the IRS budget), it only makes sense to go after the bigger fish to fry, i.e. the absolute figure of $340 bil. vs. measly $9 bil. Also, despite the IRS freezing hundreds of thousands of refund checks for the poor due to suspicion of fraud, when such folks pressed the IRS it was found that 2/3 of them deserved their check (no fraud), adding credence to my suggestion that much of the "fraud" by the poor is likely due to innocent filing ignorance.

With a stroke of his pen, King George decides once again not to follow the law of the land:

[The White House] is explicitly reserving the right to abuse prisoners, while denying them any opportunity to seek redress in court. Having publicly accepted the ban on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, Mr. Bush is planning to ignore it whenever he chooses.

"A former U.S. Marine who participated in capturing ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein said the public version of his capture was fabricated."

"The nation's coal mines have been required to pay only a fraction of the federal fines imposed after deadly accidents since 1999." Is it just a coincidence that payment of fines has gone down in the post-Clinton era?

Chicago Tribune:

Less than three months after registering as a lobbyist, former Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft has banked at least $269,000.
<..>
Former lawmakers and other senior government officials routinely pass through the Washington revolving door and become advocates for commercial interests seeking to influence government, but the practice of former attorneys general has been to move to think tanks or academia, or return to the practice of law.

The office of the attorney general, along with the secretaries of state, defense and treasury, is among the oldest and most prestigious in the president's Cabinet.

"One would have thought that a former attorney general wouldn't be doing that," said John Schmidt, an associate attorney general in the Clinton administration who now is a lawyer at Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw of Chicago. "To take the kind of prestige and stature of the attorney general [and lobby].... It seems a little demeaning of the office, honestly."

Can someone tell me what Sen. Lautenberg (D-NJ) was doing giving the introduction for Alito??

Talk about intellectual dishonesty, just read this George Will column. He goes on and on (like only he can), stating in 20 words what can be said in 10, discussing the K Street problem in Congress and yet not once does he mention or make clear that what is first and foremost wrong in this case is that illegal acts have occurred. Yeah, lobbyists have bought our government, but that's not yet a crime. Yup, Will is the master at writing so much and saying so little.

"When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." -- Richard Nixon. Bob Herbert cites this quote in his recent excellent column. A segment:

As the controversy grew over the warrantless eavesdropping on U.S. citizens by the National Security Agency, Mr. Bush, apparently annoyed, said at a press conference, "The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy."

Well, Mr. President, one of the great things about democracy American style is that important national issues are always subject to a robust national discussion. And few things are more important than making sure that a president with a demonstrated tendency to abuse the powers of his office is not allowed to lay the foundation for the systematic surveillance of the American people.

For a president - any president - to O.K. eavesdropping on U.S. citizens on American soil without a warrant is an abomination. First, it's illegal - and for very good reasons. Spying on the populace is a giant step toward totalitarianism. In the worst-case scenario, it's the nightmare of Soviet-style surveillance.

Oh the incredible irony: the right-wing's extreme hatred for the former USSR vs. the current Kremlin-like ways of this administration.

From a recent TNR editorial:

Democrats risk fumbling a great opportunity to score gains in the run-up to the 2006 midterm elections.... The Democrats need to be out in front on this issue, pairing substantial proposals for reform with a narrative about Republican indiscretion and incompetence—linking outright bribery to rule-manipulation designed to pay off fat cats and ram through an unpopular agenda. A line about the “Republican culture of corruption” has started to creep into Democratic talking points. But this needs to be a sustained effort, with points scored at every opportunity and the whole caucus involved, not just four congressmen.

Agreed, but a big problem: Harry Reid. As I've written before, he has been an ineffectual, MIA leader for the Dems. After all, whatever happened to Reid after his closed session surprise? I gave him kudos then for that abrupt act of bravado, but where's the follow-up? Lacking any evidence of continued pressure and demands, the closed session edges that much closer to convincing many that indeed it was simply a stunt.

As far as I've been able to tell, Reid is not a gutsy, born-leader type -- exactly the type of person needed right now. The Dems need their own version of McCain, a self-proclaimed maverick who is willing to piss people off at times. For that matter, Pelosi doesn't fit the right mold either as she's not much of a stirring presence (to say the least).

They're the wrong people steering the ship at -- as TNR correctly asserts -- an opportune time.

Recall when the right-wing attack dogs would frequently bait the U.N. oil-for-food scandal whenever one of their own many scandals would hit the headlines. In every case, Kofi Annan was the target of their fulminating ire.

It should surprise no one to read this column, making the case for Annan's innocence. As a rule, the more they froth at the mouth concerning supposed guilt concerning the opposition, or vice versa the more they blather about the innocence of one of their own (see DeLay, Rove, etc.), the more you should believe the opposite of whatever they're proclaiming.

GW is a scary, psycho hypocrite!

As if you needed more evidence, play this video clip (and email it to all friends).

Economists say cost of war could top $2 trillion. GW Cheney Inc. has professed it would cost 1/4 this figure. Given how trustworthy and straight-shooting this administration has been regarding just about everything (note sarcasm), which cost estimate do you think will be closer to the truth?

Poll finds most in US reject secret snooping. The item mentions Bush using as his defense that fast-aging "We're at war" excuse for his decision to ignore the law and do anything he wants. Can someone tell me when this "war" will end, approximately? What event will occur to signify it's over? Is it realistic to even think the threat of terrorist attack will ever be out of the question, making this "war" a permanent effort and mindset? If you haven't figured it out, this excuse is a crock of sh*t; only the most naive and foolhardy citizen(s) will continue to fall for this red-herring.

Washington Post:

On one side of the machine, a hose vacuumed the pockets of large corporations, wealthy individuals and legions of lobbyists on K Street, all instructed by DeLay to contribute only to Republicans. Out the other side, at some later date, came legislation of interest to many of the donors. Inside the machine, twisting its knobs and pulling its levers, was DeLay -- who was unabashed about his pay-to-play philosophy and relentless in enforcing his political rules.

LA Times:

Reps. John T. Doolittle and Richard W. Pombo joined forces with former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas to oppose an investigation by federal banking regulators into the affairs of Houston millionaire Charles Hurwitz, documents recently obtained by The Times show. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was seeking $300 million from Hurwitz for his role in the collapse of a Texas savings and loan that cost taxpayers $1.6 billion. The investigation was ultimately dropped.

The effort to help Hurwitz began in 1999 when DeLay wrote a letter to the chairman of the FDIC denouncing the investigation of Hurwitz as a "form of harassment and deceit on the part of government employees." When the FDIC persisted, Doolittle and Pombo — both considered proteges of DeLay — used their power as members of the House Resources Committee to subpoena the agency's confidential records on the case, including details of the evidence FDIC investigators had compiled on Hurwitz.

Then, in 2001, the two congressmen inserted many of the sensitive documents into the Congressional Record, making them public and accessible to Hurwitz's lawyers, a move that FDIC officials said damaged the government's ability to pursue the banker.

The FDIC's chief spokesman characterized what Doolittle and Pombo did as "a seamy abuse of the legislative process." But soon afterward, in 2002, the FDIC dropped its case against Hurwitz, who had owned a controlling interest in the United Savings Assn. of Texas. United Savings' failure was one of the worst of the S&L debacles in the 1980s. Doolittle and Pombo did not respond to requests for interviews last week.

And the christian right supports this guy (notice the recent silence from that side re DeLay).... Enough to make you flee the church.

This has to be the saddest, most pitiful news item yet in brief 2006:

A secret Pentagon study has found that as many as 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to the upper body could have survived if they had had extra body armor. Such armor has been available since 2003, but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.

So apparently it's highly likely Bush did break the law. For many legal scholars, there's no doubt. From today's Washington Post:

A report by Congress's research arm concluded yesterday that the administration's justification for the warrantless eavesdropping authorized by President Bush conflicts with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments.

The Congressional Research Service's report rebuts the central assertions made recently by Bush and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales about the president's authority to order secret intercepts of telephone and e-mail exchanges between people inside the United States and their contacts abroad.

The findings, the first nonpartisan assessment of the program's legality to date, prompted Democratic lawmakers and civil liberties advocates to repeat calls yesterday for Congress to conduct hearings on the monitoring program and attempt to halt it.
<..>
"This report contradicts the president's claim that his spying on Americans was legal," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), one of the lawmakers who asked the CRS to research the issue. "It looks like the president's wiretapping was not only illegal, but also ensnared innocent Americans who did nothing more than place a phone call."
<..>
Some law professors have been skeptical of the president's assertions, and several said yesterday that the report's conclusions were expected. "Ultimately, the administration's position is not persuasive," said Carl W. Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor and an expert on constitutional law. "Congress has made it pretty clear it has legislated pretty comprehensively on this issue with FISA," he said, referring to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. "And there begins to be a pattern of unilateral executive decision making. Time and again, there's the executive acting alone without consulting the courts or Congress."

It's worth repeating this last quote, "there's the executive acting alone without consulting the courts or Congress." Exactly, we have a rogue president who believes himself to be more of a king or dictator than an elected leader by and for the people.

The continuing shame is when are the people going to wake up and see this fact. Instead, they still want to believe in the office of president (not Bush per say), always remaining optimistic about our institutions and historical norms -- despite the fact that in the last five years much of this tradition has been transformed and often wrecked beyond recognition. If the good public doesn't toss off the rose-colored glasses pretty darn soon, we'll never be able to rebuild the Republic to its former self.

UPDATE: So the Bugman won't try to regain his House leadership position -- shocker. Funny how this psychopath still contends the charges are "baseless."

Great web site ThinkProgress.org reports on TIME disclosing Rep. Cunningham wore a wire. Republicans are reportedly sweating buckets. Look for that GOP implosion I keep writing about to accelerate, fast and furious.

In addition, ThinkProgress writes:

The Hill reports that Majority Leader Bill Frist is enlisting the support of Sen. Rick Santorum to craft a conservative version of a lobbying reform bill. The selection of Santorum suggests that the Senate leadership is not seriously committed to lobbying reform. Santorum cannot reasonably be considered a credible messenger for reform because he was largely responsible for creating the culture and environment in which Abramoff’s criminal activity thrived.

Santorum was a key player in implementing the “K Street Project,” an effort by conservatives in the wake of Bush’s 2000 victory to monopolize influential positions at trade associations and corporate government affairs offices.
<..>
Having recently returned his campaign contributions from Jack Abramoff, Santorum has apparently been deemed clean enough to help fix the problem he once helped create.

The Abramoff Scandal Is a Republican Scandal

Oh, and I thought I'd include an example of what is so typical. With all that's going on in this country and the world, when there's a ton of sh*t hitting the fan for GW and the GOP, you can count on the likes of O'Reilly, Bill Bennett, Hannity, Brooks and the like to talk about such weighty issues as teen promiscuity and welfare fraud. Here we have George Will pissed off about the subject of NCAA sports teams with Native American-type names. Need I say more?

When Kevin Drum was away on vacation, Steve Benen was his guest blogger -- and he was terrific. Here's some of what you may have missed:

Santorum and the GOP's "small government" hypocrisy,

The minimum wage as a key Dem wedge issue,

Snoopgate and it's many-sided problems, including potentially reversing cases of already-ruled guilt (thanks for making us safer GW!),

The ignorant public (still!) when it comes to 9-11 myths, including this doozy: "24% said several of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis. Ten months ago, 44% believed this. (In case you've forgotten, the actual number of Iraqi hijackers on 9/11 is zero.)",

To GW, the Snoopgate leak is MUCH more important than the Plame leak ("Bush circumvented the law with warrantless searches, but it's the whistleblower who's facing a criminal investigation."),

GW doesn't care about cyber identity theft (netting an est. $105 bil. in 2004),

Ashcroft and his top deputy balked at the snooping request,

Recall when "circumventing the rule of law" drove the wingnuts bat-crazy regarding a guy named Clinton?

But I thought Iraq's oil was supposed to pay for the war??

Get a load of this exchange from an interview with Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal:

You became notorious in New York when Mayor Giuliani declined to accept a $10 million donation from you to victims' families after you suggested that the U.S. was too friendly with Israel.

By the way, my check was taken to the bank and cashed. The problem was with my statement. I accepted that. Subject closed.

Subject reopened. The money was returned to you. Have you told Harvard, as you told the City of New York, that the U.S. needs to "adopt a more balanced stance toward the Palestinian cause"?

Let me tell you my position. We need to have good relations between the Arab world and Israel. When I sold my Plaza Hotel in New York, it was sold to Elad, which is an Israeli company.

Doing business with the citizens of a country is not the same thing as believing in that country's right to exist.

We are doing so many things to bridge the gap between Christianity and Islam and Judaism. For example, at my hotel in Paris, George V, you are going to find the Christian Bible, the Jewish Bible and the Islamic Koran in each single room.

That's a wonderful idea, but a luxury hotel in Paris is a long way from Saudi Arabia, where you could surely spend more money on Judeo-Christian studies.

Look. You have to understand that the population of Saudi Arabia has zero Christians.

That's the point. Why shouldn't you should spend your millions educating your own students before you educate kids at Harvard?

Obviously, it could be something we are contemplating.

Are you spending any money in Iraq?

So far, I am investing nothing. Zero.Very simple. I have investments in 150 nations, but I will not invest in Iraq until they have political tranquility and a functioning government.

But where will they get money to rebuild?

Uncle Sam. The United States is spending like hell over there.

Why don't you help us?

If I go there right now and say, "I want to build a hotel," they will laugh at me. You need schools and hospitals and the airport, and then after, you can talk about the hotels.

You find the situation very volatile still?

You have not done a very good job there. After 9/11, the U.S. needed to have a big revenge, and Saddam Hussein was a sitting duck. The U.S., with its huge ego, needed to have something big and dramatic.

That's not what I would call a bridge-building sentiment.

You have to understand. I am a friend of the United States, and these days to be in the Arab world and to be a friend of the United States is a liability. But nevertheless I say it. I am a great friend.

Wow, where to start. First, kudos to the Times for fairly hard-hitting questions. I read this exchange and kept having to remind myself that this guy heads up a country that is supposedly our ally, a country that Bush has been chummy with for many, many years.

Of the several disturbing replies in the interview, I think the most unnerving is the prince's response to the question regarding investing in Iraq. He flatly states, "I am investing nothing. Zero." Lovely. Again, this sentiment coming from a supposed staunch ally. Saudi Arabia has a few gazillion dollars and yet they can't (refuse to) throw a few billion Iraq's way for the sake of imagery and goodwill -- which is obviously the aim with the prince giving $20 mil. to both Harvard and Georgetown to advance the study of Islam. Nope, he will not drop one dime in Iraq until there is "political tranquility" there, a demand that affords him great flexibility and discretion. When will it officially be decreed that Iraq is a tranquil state? Don't odds favor Iraq remaining less-than-tranquil (if not worse) for many years to come?

So he'll sit on the sidelines and allow us to take on the brunt of throwing dollars at Iraq, letting us shoulder the financial risks so that he may then eventually step in at a later date to invest and then, and only then, reap the rewards. Sounds like shrewd investing to me -- can you blame him? He's not feeling or receiving any pressure to do otherwise. Yes, it's an outrage, but it's just the sound of crickets from GW Cheney Inc.

When asked why doesn't he help in the spending of money, he oddly asserts that he'd be the object of laughter, with his ability to give money relegated strictly to hotels -- forget about infrastructure and other base necessities. He then goes on to do what Democrats get lambasted for doing: criticizing the entire Iraq operation. He pointblank states we "have not done a very good job" in Iraq and in addition, he strongly implies that the U.S. attacked Iraq post-9/11 because we needed "big revenge" against something, anything, and Saddam "was a sitting duck." Hmm, that sounds a bit different than the Cheney / neocon view on this topic.

If this were a Dem, he'd be promptly skewered by GOP attack dogs, or if this were an administration lackey he'd at the very least be taken aside, harshly disciplined and force-fed talking points. Yet, in this case, it's an extremely powerful & rich leader of a nation that is in GW's back-pocket. We'll hear nothing.

"...Na Na Na Na, Hey Hey Hey, Goodbye..."



Happy New Year! May this coming year be one of correcting for the last five.

It's been several days since I last posted anything here. Normally I try to remain very diligent about making blog entries. I've never been a big fan of other bloggers who post something once in a blue moon.

So what gives? It's not that I've suddenly run dry of any informed opinions -- ha, ha, quite the contrary. I suppose the true reason for the prolonged absence has been the timing of this holiday season arriving just as we learn of GW/Cheney hitting new all-time lows with the secret eavesdropping controversy. Yes, this administration, incredibly, reached an even lower low. Even some (not many) hardened wingnuts had to suck it up, swallow hard, and condemn this latest bit of abhorrent news.

It would've been difficult enough learning of this wholly un-American, Nixonian act during any other time of the year, but to learn of it around the holiday season was just too much to take. After spending the entire year observing this administration and Republican-controlled congress do one thing after another to embarrass this country and further shift us from a democracy to a corporate-backed, neo-fascist state, I simply could no longer stomach venting my frustration up here while at the same time trying to get into the holiday spirit. Enough is enough and I wasn't going to let this despicable cretin in office do to me at this time of year what he's been doing to this country for the last five years. I needed a break -- and I'm sure many of you did too.

I must admit I do feel somewhat recharged and I'll be hard at it again in a few days, posting what I hope many of you find to be fresh, clearly stated opinions that ring true and don't pander to or insult your intelligence. Yes, these clowns are down, but make no mistake, they'll do all that is necessary to try to rebound -- whatever it takes. Have you ever seen rats cornered? Get ready for a flood of lies, deception, and ruthless behavior, continuing like a train off the rails until it all finally comes to an ugly boil.

Last year around this time, I predicted the GOP would implode. Well, if you ask me, for much of 2005, that's what we witnessed. It was not a full-blown, clear-the-decks implosion, but given the butt-cheek-clenched tightness in which this party has been run, what happened this year was in a relative sense a very bad implosion.

The scandals are all in full motion, proceeding forward, the party has begun to fracture, with McCain in particular lining up (shrewdly) as the opposing alternative. Many of the rats are seeking cover (recall Santorum placing blame for his poor polling numbers on GW). Look for this fracturing to continue in 2006. If these scandals result in some blockbuster outcomes, look for massive changes to occur in all levels of government.

That said, with what little time I have spent online recently, it's been to find year-end "best of" lists in newspapers and magazines. Best movies, best music, best books -- whatever. I usually put off the buying of such leisure items until I can peruse these year-end lists. It's not just because I'm able to gather a sort of master consensus from top critics around the country, but also because I have found these same critics are overly generous during the year and now with a year's worth of product to consider, they're able to review their reviews and reconsider where they may have been off the mark. An example: a few years ago, Rolling Stone magazine gave Mick Jagger's solo album its highest-rating, 5*; by year-end, you couldn't find the release anywhere on most best-of lists.

The following are some links. Let me know if you want me to continue to post such links as I find them:

Washington Post best-of

LA Times best-of music

LA Times best-of movies

SF Gate best-of music

Newsday best-of music

Newsday worst-of

UPDATE: Some new 2005 year-end best-of links: Boston Phoenix best-of movies (also, while there, go ahead and read their terrific editorial), Baltimore Sun best movies and music, Seattle Times best movies, Rolling Stone best movies and music, more to come....

Paul Krugman, 12/19/05:

Now, I never had any illusions about intellectual integrity in the world of right-wing think tanks. It has been clear for a long time that so-called analysts at many of these think tanks are, in effect, paid to support selected policies and politicians. But it never occurred to me that the pay-for-play schemes were so blatant.

In fact, most deals between lobbyists and conservative intellectuals probably aren't that blatant. For the most part, people employed by right-wing think tanks don't have to be specifically paid to support certain positions, because they understand that supporting those positions comes with the job. Senior fellows at Cato don't decide, after reconsidering the issue, that Social Security shouldn't be privatized. Policy analysts at the Heritage Foundation don't take another look at the data and realize that farmers and small-business owners have nothing to gain from estate tax repeal.

But it turns out that implicit deals between think tanks and the interests that finance them are sometimes, perhaps often, supplemented with explicit payments for punditry. In return for Abramoff checks, Mr. Bandow and Mr. Ferrara wrote op-ed articles about such unlikely subjects as the entrepreneurial spirit of the Mississippi Choctaws and the free-market glories of the Northern Mariana Islands.
<..>
There will be the temptation to ignore the backstory - to treat Mr. Abramoff as a rogue, unrepresentative actor. In fact, before his indictment, Mr. Abramoff wasn't off on his own. He wasn't even a lobbyist in the traditional sense; he's better described as a bag man, running a slush fund for Tom DeLay and other Republican leaders. The point is that there really isn't much difference between Mr. Abramoff's paying Mr. Ferrara to praise the sweatshops of the Marianas and the Department of Education's paying Armstrong Williams to praise No Child Left Behind. In both cases, the ultimate paymaster was the Republican political machine.

And inquiring minds want to know: Who else is on the take? Or has the culture of corruption spread so far that the question is, Who isn't?

Hilzoy, 12/18/05:

Since the President apparently feels that he doesn't need to concern himself with what's legal, why can't we "afford to be without this law for a single moment"? How on earth could not having it "endanger the lives of our citizens"?

As far as I can tell, Bush and his crack legal team think that it wouldn't matter if the law said that he could order wiretaps only at midnight on Hallowe'en while dangling from a chandelier wearing a gold lamé evening gown and stiletto heels. He can do whatever he wants.

So why on earth does the fate of the PATRIOT Act matter to him?
---------
The role of the Legislature is to write the laws and to impose taxes. The role of the Executive is to carry out those laws.... When one branch takes it upon itself to usurp the powers of the others, the separation of powers is threatened, and our liberty is at risk.
<..>
What George Bush has done, by signing his Presidential Order, is to produce exactly that accumulation of powers that Madison and the other framers of the Constitution were determined to prevent. He has decided to circumvent the courts' power to decide whether the government has enough evidence to place someone under surveillance, thereby removing a crucial check on executive power, and arrogating one of the powers of the judiciary to himself.
<..>
In addition, in deciding that he has the right to disregard clear statutes, President Bush is arrogating to himself the power of the legislature as well. The Legislature has the power to make laws; the Executive carries out the laws the Legislature has written. Had George W. Bush wanted to, he could have gone to Congress and asked it to change the laws. Instead, he decided to simply ignore them: to act as though he had the powers that the Constitution reserves to the legislative branch.

He is, essentially, claiming that he has the right not just to execute the laws, but to write them himself, and then to judge their application. Moreover, he claims the right to do this in secret. Were he to announce openly that he had decided to concentrate all the powers of government in his own hands, we could at least argue about whether or not we thought that was a good idea. But by acting in secret, he is, essentially, asserting the right to amend the Constitution unilaterally and without having the decency to let us know.

Shakespeare's Sister, 12/18/05:

The question each American, irrespective of political leanings, has to ask her- or himself is whether the circumvention of checks and balances, the evasion of official oversight, the subversion of civil liberties—including, possibly, your own—is, in the end, a bigger threat to freedom than the threats (of terrorism? of peaceful demonstration?) used to justify an abandonment of the rule of law in the first place.

Shakespeare's Sister, 12/17/05:

I always find it particularly curious when a self-identified born-again Christian seems so patently incapable of admitting being wrong, as forgiveness is such a significant part of Christian doctrine. When a Messiah has died for your sins, surely it indicates an expectation that you’ll commit some.

Back in July, Mannion penned (so to speak) a brilliant post on why (certain) conservatives feel free to cast the first stone, which included one of my favorite lines of all time:

[I]f Jesus were around today and a woman taken in adultery ran to him for protection and he said to the crowd, Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone, forty-six Republican adulterers would bean her with rocks.

Are you fed up yet?

Today, Bob Herbert described the "outing" of Bush's eavesdropping without court-approved warrants as "encouraging." Really? Perhaps, but it won't be encouraging enough until most of America gets mad, and I mean blood-boiling mad. Sure, we've seen GW's poll numbers head south, but what gives with those remaining 35-40% who approve? And these low numbers could potentially reverse with enough of the usual applied snake oil and scary -- but apparently effective -- deception.

What I'm talking about is the degree of fed-up disgust and outrage to where there's no going back, when it's finally realized in earnest, to the core, just how bad this administration has been and will be for this country. I mean for crying out loud, he's been approving illegal spying / eavesdropping -- yes, illegal. Even far-to-the-right Bob Barr is stating this fact!

Another president was impeached for acts based on sexual infidelity (not illegal), yet this current stooge admits to such un-American acts and nothing happens! Where's the public outcry? What other politicians have to say about it is meaningless unless the public follows suit with vocal demands for change -- now!

This guy just goes from bad to worse, from hardly appearing before average citizens, ever, to publicly stating DeLay is innocent -- yet continued no comment on another figure under investigation (Rove), to supporting torture until he reluctantly caved to McCain, to this recent admission of violating the law. Where does it end? Using taxpayer $$ to finance propaganda in Iraqi newspapers, extending tax cut deadlines despite deficits and choosing instead to cut programs for children, the poor, and the elderly.

How f*cking clueless are the average citizens in this country? What the hell are they watching / reading / listening to? If they're religious, do they really think this is the guy Jesus would've chosen? Is Fox News, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter, Hannity and the rest of that cabal really that powerful?

As a country, we are f*cking doomed if the public stays in its collective coma while a fascist state continues to replace what little we have left of anything resembling a democracy. How insanely ironic that this crazed madman keeps talking about wanting to spread democracy around the world while he's hard at work destroying the greatest democratic state in history.

It's the most massive and damaging bait-and-switch ever orchestrated, and at this point this witless general citizenry deserves to get fleeced.

McCain wins, GW/Cheney lose. Get used to it, it's the future.

"It is true that much of the [prewar] intelligence turned out to be wrong." -- GW, 12/14/05. However, Bush went on to say that despite this failure, the invasion was "still the right decision." Well then I ask: why have intel at all? If it's wrong and yet decisions based on the incorrect intel are right, why bother spending all that taxpayer money on collecting the stuff?? Let's not forget that this president was put into power with God's backing, so I guess he doesn't really need to see or know of the mortal-generated intel anyway, since he's getting his info from a much higher source....

Great stuff going on at WashingtonMonthly.com while Kevin is away. This entry from Hilzoy would be beyond belief if it was about any other government official other than our president. The cited press exchange involving Scott McClellan is simply incredible, a classic example of sheer Orwellian double-speak -- it's enough to make your skin crawl. McClellan's non-response is the kind of thing you'd expect from a no-name spokesperson for a two-bit, raving lunatic dictator. Ahh, my bad, that's about right.

Joan Vennochi writes about the idiotic bullying that has become a truly unfortunate trademark of the right and GOP:

Charles Knight of the Commonwealth Institute, a public policy research center in Cambridge, has spent time analyzing what he calls the ''toughness discourse" in American politics, especially after 9/11. When it comes to national security, he says, ''tough" means ''using violence as a priority tool for international relations."

Backed into a corner by conservatives who equate ''liberal" with unmanly and weak, Democrats are buying into their opponents' definition. Accepting it means agreeing that a punch is the answer to every insult, that violence solves every dispute.

It is believing brawn always beats brains, a conclusion that defies logic, reason, and reality.

Toughness defined in a strictly physical way does not always achieve victory. Might does not make right, nor does it always make everything right. And it is not unmanly to say that.

Might makes right is the credo of the warrior. But there is simple power in right as might.

It is the power of great leaders in religion and politics, from Jesus Christ to Martin Luther King. Throughout history, brave men and women have taken the high moral ground.

Only in America today do we dare call them wimps.

The DeLay orchestrated redistricting in Texas resulted in a net +8 seats for the Republicans -- a HUGE pickup in seats. And yet we learn the Justice Department had ruled this brazen act violated the law but was overruled by political hacks. The same kind of chicanery plays out repeatedly in the EPA as well as other agencies. Uh, hello David Brooks, can you see why the public is skeptical about our government?!

If the Iraq war lasts another five years, it will have cost us $1.4 trillion. Remember this item the next time you hear a wingnut bitching about their money being wasted on government spending. Boston's "Big Dig" will be a pittance compared to this enormous boondoggle (and at least we know how much has been spent on the Big Dig -- compared to the many billions unaccounted for in Iraq).

Al Sharpton is a jerk, a charlatan, and a disgrace to/for the Democrats. There. Now let's see those on the right offer up such condemnation for their expansive lot of a-hole cretins and louts. (Doesn't happen).

Conservative columnist, John Tierney, in the NY Times recently wrote that Wal-Mart "has been one of the most successful antipoverty programs in America." Paul Krugman then later wrote in a column, "there's every reason to believe that as Wal-Mart expands, it destroys at least as many jobs as it creates, and drives down workers' wages in the process." In fact, Krugman cites a study showing that retail employment fell when Wal-Mart opened in a county, and average wages fell. Once again, the conservative has it wrong.

The House and Senate recently agreed to increase the budget of the NIH by far less than was originally budgeted ($253 mil. vs. $1.05 bil.). This amounts to the smallest increase in 36 years. It's another sign of this Republican-led Congress thumbing its nose at science. The NIH will not be able to fund as much research, and it will limit the number of scientists coming from our schools (limited grant money). Instead, they will head abroad. Wonderful.

Please go and read Elizabeth Kolbert's latest piece on global warming in The New Yorker. Here's a segment:

The Administration’s chief climate negotiator, Harlan Watson, has been touting the efficacy of the voluntary approach, pointing out that between 2000 and 2003 the United States’ carbon-dioxide emissions dropped by .8 per cent. Conveniently left out is the fact that since 2003 they have shot back up again. According to the latest government figures, the country’s CO2 emissions are now three per cent higher than they were three years ago. (The brief dip, it should be noted, had nothing to do with government policy; it was entirely a function of the downturn in the economy.)

When it comes to science and facts, they can't deceive enough, can they....

That pillar of wide-eyed intelligence, David Brooks, recently put out another gem of a column, titled "The Age of Skepticism."

He writes, "There has been a sharp drop in Americans' faith in their institutions. Trust in government has fallen back to about half of where it was in 2001." Hmm, do you think GW's lies, Karl Rove, DeLay, Abramoff, Frist, etc. have anything to do with this drop in faith? You'd never know it from Brooks' column.

Another quote, "the Democrats may win elections in 2006 or 2008, but that doesn't mean they will have the public's confidence or a mandate for change." You just can't make this stuff up. This moron did write this -- amazing. So let me understand, GW "wins" in 2000 and barely wins in 2004 but of course there existed mandate for change and political capital to be spent in both instances -- but if the Dems were to finally win one, it means notta with regards to mandate change. Oh, I see.

Look, not once does Brooks nail the recent trial & tribulations & failures of the GOP for 51% or more of the blame for this "cycle of skepticism... tinged with cynicism." He chooses instead to lump both parties together and lamely finger-wag at both -- shame on you all.

As if the Dems have any power whatsoever to direct this country (hah!). They are and have been as powerless an opposition party as any in recent memory. By definition, more of the blame must be attributed to this version of the GOP, a bereft bunch of special interest pleasing whores that don't really lead as much as they seek to blame others for their own incompetence.

Bob Herbert has been producing many excellent columns of late concerning GW and Iraq.

In his December 1st column, he lays out how Bush is attempting to sound very Churchill-like ("We will never back down.... We will never give in") -- quite laughable when you think about it -- but Herbert also states "Members of Mr. Bush's own party are nervously eyeing next year's Congressional elections. They would abandon Iraq in a heartbeat if it meant the difference between getting re-elected or having to hunt for a real job."

Exactly, which is why GW/Cheney are (reluctantly) agreeing to bring home some troops. BUT, as I've repeatedly posted here, they do have the blame factor set-up to nail the Dems if Iraq got worse after such withdrawals. If we stay, the GOP will take all the credit for any good news from Iraq and none of the blame for the bad news; if we leave, they'll dump all bad news on the Dems for "forcing" them to withdraw troops before the "mission" was completed.

Herbert goes on to write, "This war (which has already cost the lives of more than 2,100 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis) was cynically launched (it was never about Sept. 11) and incompetently fought (we have never sent enough troops or sufficient equipment), and will be brought to a close by people obsessed not with the security of the United States and the welfare of the troops, but with the political calendar."

The Dems need to point out, loudly, that pressure to withdraw is also coming from within the GOP. It's not simply Dem-centric. The problem is many such Republicans, who indeed are lobbying for this reduced presence in Iraq to make their respective political races in 2006 that much more to the people's liking, are doing such lobbying very quietly. GW/Cheney is hearing their cries loud and clear, just not through media channels, with the party very likely urging them to, wink-wink, keep it quiet, or you'll ruin our plan to blame the Dems for any adverse outcomes in Iraq post-troop withdrawal.

James Surowiecki in The New Yorker helps put to rest some of the right-wing complaints about Sarbanes-Oxley. Yes SarbOx can be a pain in the ass for companies, and costly for smaller ones, yet Surowiecki discusses the social costs of corporate fraud. Read it and discover how "faulty accounting" has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars in real money. And he also points out it wasn't just a matter of a few companies (Enron, Worldcom) doing it, with a thousand earnings restatements reported between 1997-2002.

Kevin Drum recently cited a Henry Kissinger quote about the expected withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Frankly, not that I could give a hoot what Kissinger has to say about anything these days, but his quote brings up a point I've been pounding home.

He said the key is "whether, in the end, withdrawal will be perceived as a forced retreat or as an aspect of a prudent and carefully planned move on behalf of international security." As I've been writing, GW/Cheney favor public perception of the former, leaving open the blame factor, i.e. to hoist responsibility for any Iraqi meltdown onto the Dems ("they pressured us into a hasty retreat"). By doing so, they'd attempt to forever leave open the question of how Iraq could've turned out if only we stayed.

Yes Kevin, benchmarks and a carefully laid out withdrawal would do much to nix the above -- all the more reason we'll never see it.

Several days ago, I wrote about how the GOP has decided on a new group to target and raise the ire of their love-to-hate base: illegal immigrants. Last night, "60 Minutes" had a segment on the growing problem of hundreds upon hundreds of illegals being found dead attempting to cross the border, and meanwhile the influx is as bad as it's ever been.

Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo is featured and he plays up the GOP stance, stating MUCH more needs to be done. He believes the federal government should fund the construction of a wall sealing off the entire Mexican-U.S. border. "If you only put the fence for this five miles of border, people will go around it, naturally. You have to secure your borders!" says Rep. Tancredo. When asked how much should the deficit-strapped government pay, he replies "Whatever it takes. Billions more. Billions more. ...It is our job. It is what the federal government should be doing!"

Note that Tancredo mentions only the Mexican border -- not that other one, the Canadian border. How does this look that he wishes to completely seal off the Mexican border but not the other? Forget the fact that many, many more illegal immigrants come from Mexico as opposed to Canada, that's not the point here. As a government policy and to maintain consistency in relations between both neighboring countries, I don't see how we can send the overt signal to one by spending the many billions to build a 2,000 mile wall and yet leave the other more/less completely open. So we'll tolerate any illegals that happen to come through from the north (Canada) but no way are we going to accept one more person that sneaks through from the south (Mexico)....

Oh, and what about the red-herring the GOP trumps up about potential terrorists coming through our unsecured borders? University of California’s Wayne Cornelius, a national authority on immigration, is quoted on the program saying, "They [terrorists] don’t need to come in that way. They can purchase the best forged documents in the world. The real danger is that they will come through our legal ports of entry with valid visas, just like the 9/11 terrorists did."

Even still, if the GOP wanted to make a more credible case for blocking entry of terrorists at our borders, they should endorse the wall-building for both borders. If a wall is built on the Mexican border and yet not the Canadian, why wouldn't terrorists simply then opt to enter the U.S. via the Canadian border? By emphasizing closure of the Mexican border strictly, it reveals their true aim and target. It's not potential terrorists or even just any illegal immigrants but more specifically those dang illegal Mexicans.

The program points out some obvious truisms about the entire illegal immigrant problem, a biggie being that by far the number one reason Mexicans risk their lives to cross the border is simply to get a job. If employment didn't await them in the U.S. then they'd have little incentive to come here. So why don't we blame the companies who hire them and punish these entities?

For one, it's easier and smarter politically to punish and target those who are Mexican and than that which is American. But also the fact is can we afford to clamp down on these companies? The dirty secret is these companies hire illegal immigrants because all too often they can't find Americans who want such jobs. And most often these jobs are anything but glamorous, and yet they're crucial to the lifeblood of this country -- whether it be providing for cheap and plentiful produce, or cooking fast food, cleaning up restaurants and hotel rooms, toiling at residential construction, meat-packing work, etc. They provide the willing supply for jobs that would otherwise go unfilled, thus keeping wages down and in turn the cost of goods to the U.S. consumer low.

But go ahead oh wise GOP, continue to target these folks. No one ever accused you of thinking things through, so why start now. And besides, your whole motivation is to simply stoke emotional flames to win over votes -- not to legislate from an area of expertise and reason that will actually solve problems.

Just a few days ago, WSJ's James Taranto bemoaned that in his experience, the right-wing has been name-called and bullied by the left -- the so-called "you're an idiot!" contingent. Yup, Robert Reich and Al Franken are the snarky acid-tongue bomb throwers, not Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, or Rush Limbaugh.

Well let's see, just yesterday and the day before, the editorial page of the right-wing newspaper NY Post used the following terms to describe Howard Dean: "Defeatist," "surrender monkey," "who now is working overtime for a terrorist victory in Iraq," "devoid of anything approaching vision," "le Weasel," and "an old loud-mouth." Yeah James, I see your point. This language is really high-minded, persuasive stuff, esp. compared to the potty-mouth talk on the left.

The above wouldn't be complete if we didn't offer at least one reference proving the paper-thin case against Dean, the content mainly being personal attacks, is as usual wrong. In The New Republic, John Judis provides a list of points showing Dean's track record has been pretty darn good on Iraq -- far better than most in the GOP.

In today's column, Bob Herbert asks, "If it is true, as President Bush and many others have argued, that horrific consequences will result if American forces are pulled from Iraq in the near future, then how is it that we are even considering a significant drawdown of troops in advance of next fall's Congressional elections?"

Bush/Cheney will eventually withdraw troops -- but not before making it clear to the public that they're doing so begrudgingly, in part due to pressure from Dems. They will play both sides of the coin: setting up the "I told you so" for when Iraq inevitably does slip into chaos, but rest assured they'll bring home some troops to appease the GOP candidates running for reelection. So get ready, when Iraq falls into complete disarray we'll hear "we really wanted to stay, we told you we needed to remain and finish the job."

Just look at the quote Herbert offers from Cheney:

Vice President Dick Cheney told troops at Fort Drum, N.Y., on Tuesday that in the event of a swift withdrawal of American troops, Iraq "would return to the rule of tyrants, become a massive source of instability in the Middle East and be a staging area for ever greater attacks against America and other civilized nations."

See, he's setting up the blame, ultimately looking to dump the entire Iraq fiasco and legacy on to Dems for it to be their albatross for years to come.

So instead we should stay, and eventually spend over $1 trillion, suffer thousands of US soldier deaths, all in the name of nation building (which is truly what's going on over there, make no mistake). With the complete mismanagement of this invasion and occupation, the damage has long been done and the ultimate blame will always reside with this administration. For that to change means the American public is gullible (and ignorant) to a point beyond belief and that Democrats are truly neutered and without a clue when it comes to responding to these cretins. Sad -- very sad.

Once again, I delve into the deluded world of James Taranto -- I just can't help it. I guess I find it irresistably amusing to keep up with the current thinking of those Walter Mitty-types on the right. As much as it's often frustrating and perplexing, the reward is frequent laughs and moments of howling disbelief.

The below is a recent item from the great Taranto:

Why Conservatives Are Smarter
Writing in the Jerusalem Post, Jonathan Rosenblum of Jewish Media Resources ponders the careers of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice-designate Sam Alito, and in the process makes an excellent point about Ivy League conservatives and liberals:

Because of their minority status it is far more difficult for conservative students to entertain the illusion that all smart people think like them. They are exposed to many obviously bright young men and women whose opinions on almost every issue vary radically from their own. . . .

Being forced to recognize that there are different points of view helps make bright young conservatives such good debaters. They learn early on the limited persuasiveness of shouting at someone with whom they disagree, "You're an idiot." Of necessity they have to develop the ability to cast their arguments in ways that appeal to those starting from very different premises. . . .

Liberals can be wonderful people, and boon companions, but they often have a hard time dealing with people of opposing views--especially when they cannot dismiss them out of hand as idiots. Too often they have spent their entire adult lives surrounded almost entirely by those who think just like them, and it comes naturally to dismiss those of other views as intellectually or morally challenged.

This is true beyond the Ivy League, as we noted just after the 2004 election. With liberalism the dominant ideology in the news and entertainment media, it is virtually inescapable to any American who doesn't go to great lengths to insulate himself from it. Big-city liberals, by contrast, can easily filter out conservative ideas, and thus need contend only with their own prejudices. Thus conservatives are smarter than liberals--not necessarily in terms of native intelligence, but of understanding the world around them.

The above is absolute horse crap written by a complete idiot! But seriously, even before my days in college right up to the current day, it's my experience that the "you're an idiot!" crowd is MUCH more populated by right-wingnuts than liberals. In fact, if anything, I often find fellow liberals trying too hard to swallow or make sense of right-wing arguments that clearly fall apart on their face.

Just look at right-wing talk radio and FOX news -- who's doing the yelling and dismissive name-calling here? (And as part of their wonderful debate training, to adeptly persuade the opposition they simply create "facts" from thin air -- that'll work! Who bothers to look anything up these days, right?) Compare that to the more sober -- and quiet -- NPR, Air America, and even Ralph Nader.

"Big-city liberals, by contrast, can easily filter out conservative ideas." Oh really? Last time I looked such urban papers as the NY Times and LA Times had several right-wing columnists. (Might I mention that the WSJ and NY Post nary have a one.... Talk about filtering out!).

The fact is those on the right are far more close-minded and intolerant of how others think than are those on the left. Just recall VP Cheney telling Sen. Pat Leahy to go f*ck himself -- a gesture that spoke symbolic volumes. Need I say more?

Amazingly, failed FEMA head Michael Brown has launched his own disaster consulting firm, Michael D. Brown LLC. If anything, this is more proof of just how much cronyism rules Washington. How is it possible this guy will be able to attract even one client? Whelp, odds are he already has many potential clients lined up. Once a friend of GW, always a friend -- and Brown's soon-to-be clients understand this fact full well.

Yes, in time GW will be regarded as the worst President ever.

Have you noticed that when Bush does speak before a group, it's either military personnel or at a fundraiser. He avoids regular folk -- you know, the people who supposedly voted for him -- like the plague. Another reminder of GW as King George, as most emperors met only with those of influence (fundraisers) or with his knights (military). The "peasants" be damned!

What the War on Terror could've been about under another U.S. president and vice-president (vs. the sideshow diversion in Iraq they chose to get us into).

From Harper's:

Projected cost of disability payments to Iraq War veterans by 2050, based on rates for Gulf War veterans: $285,000,000,000

Number of “veterans of the global war on terrorism” that the VA budget assumed for 2005: 23,553

Estimated number today: 103,000

So if I understand this correctly, the estimated number is actually five times larger than first assumed, which would equal 5 X $285 bil. = nearly $1.5 trillion by 2050....? What?!

A few days ago, Kevin Drum wrote about some of the reasons we're not so good at battling insurgents:

The U.S. military likes big wars against big enemies, not messy little pissant wars, and this keeps the contractors happy and makes counterinsurgency a career killer for ambitious military professionals.

But I think there's at least one other critical point to all this: nobody ever thinks these wars are going to last very long. The very act of fighting a counterinsurgency is an admission that you're going to be around for years, because that's how long insurgencies last. If your war planning — driven by neocon ideologues — is so wildly divorced from reality that you don't plan to be around for more than a few months, what's the point of even thinking about counterinsurgency?

Perhaps it's ignorant, wishful thinking on the neocons part, but also it very well could just be calculating politics since they know full well if they present the possibility of a long stay (due to insurgents) then they'd never gain the backing of the Amercian people -- and therefore Congress. It's all a knowing cover, a dance of sick manipulation.

The end result: Iraq (and Vietnam).

In today's Boston Globe, Jeff Jacoby makes the point that strictly on political grounds if Roe were to be overturned it may turn out to benefit the Democrats:

An overruling of Roe would be a boon to the Democrats. Abortion would return to the state legislatures, where Democrats, free at last of the Roe albatross, would no longer be compelled to stake out the most extreme prochoice positions. Instead it is Republicans who would be squirming, prodded by their prolife base to make abortion illegal, but knowing that any such attempt would be politically catastrophic.

On this topic, I wrote something similar a month ago, stating:

How about this, regarding Roe, I say let them overturn it. Yeah, it will be a disaster, but the blood (literally) will then be on the GOP's hands. The Dems will be able to make a direct connection back to the GOP folks who put in the judges to get this to happen, and they should be able to eventually cite news stories on a daily basis regarding coat hangars, deaths due to botched back-alley procedures, teen suicides due to unwanted pregnancies, etc. That combined with the public favoring choice all along (all polls show this fact) will have the public awaken to the nightmare and rightfully blame the GOP.

It's the same with the nuclear option re the filibuster. Go ahead, let them do it. In fact, a good number of the GOP positions actually would be very unpopular if they were allowed to run their due course for all citizens to witness and digest.

Tom DeLay will likely be removed permanently as House leader. The stench is even too much for many Republicans to withstand -- and that's saying something!

Ever-so revealing:

Even if DeLay is never implicated, his return to the majority leader's post would create political "havoc," said one Republican House member, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The lawmaker pointed to DeLay's decision in October to fly to Texas ahead of his first courtroom appearance aboard a corporate jet owned by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

"The fact that he flew down on a corporate jet for his mug shot, and not just any corporate jet but Big Tobacco's corporate jet, that's a double whammy," the lawmaker said. "A number of my colleagues say he just doesn't get it. He doesn't understand how this plays."

It's called power-drunk, Megalomania, delusional, and sociopath.

So it was illegal after all, overruled by GOP cronies and then buried via gag order. Figures. But the damage is done, right?

Kevin Drum writes about the possibility that Abramoff may soon be singing to save at least part of his hide. If he does, look for many roaches to be scurrying from the light.

This time (finally) the NY Post's John Podhoretz may be correct about a subject. He recently wrote, "Disgust is a powerful force in politics, and the Abramoff case is one that seems to be churning the stomachs of those Republicans and Democrats alike who know about it. If the whole country comes to know about it, watch out, GOP."

These days, when you read something critical about flawed, lazy right-wing thinking, the targeted subject seems to almost always be David Brooks.

A fairly recent example was in The New Republic. Franklin Foer cites a Brooks' column where he claims the Dems had access to the same intel leading up to Iraq as did GW. Foer responds,

When the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace published a definitive study of the administration’s presentation of the WMD intelligence last year, it found that “officials systematically misrepresented the threat.” While Democrats may have believed that Saddam posed a long-term threat, they didn’t exaggerate evidence and stifle government experts to justify an imminent invasion. As Kenneth Pollack—one of the Democrats cited by Brooks—wrote last year in the Atlantic, “Only the Administration has access to all the information available to various agencies of the US government--and withholding or downplaying some of that information for its own purposes is a betrayal of that responsibility.”

Hmm, it appears Brooks got it wrong -- again. Gads, and he's supposed to be one of the few less-blowhardy spouting heads from the right.

Want another example? Click here.

Ah well, at least Brooks might be aware of his shortcomings, with him quoted as saying, "I've been exemplifying our ignorance on a daily basis ever since."