I'll be back here with much more in a day or two but wanted to mention that I did catch Rick Santorum vs. Bob Casey on Meet The Press this past Sunday. When watching it occurred to me how so much is relative when it comes to politics and that when choosing political representatives it's most often a search for the prettiest pig. They're all usually damaged in some way or another, but we need to find the least bad alternative. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, democracy is a bad form of government -- except all the others are worse.

That said, Santorum came off better than Casey in terms of TV-friendly answers, appearing to be quicker and more on-point. Casey came off as a bit lethargic and to a point smug. (I of course don't mean to imply that Santorum was on the correct side of issues -- far from it. He just sounded better than Casey). However, despite the fact that Casey will never be mistaken for Bill Clinton, it speaks volumes that he leads Santorum by double-digits. PA residents are not so much voting for Casey as they are voting against Santorum and Bush. Odds favor this being the trend heading into November with Democrats needing to make strong, concise statements regarding their positions, but even more so amplifying the I'm-not-with-GW message loud and clear. King Doofus has finally become kryptonite.

Just returned from another hiatus (the last for some time). Will once again spend the next day or two getting caught up on the news. Should be posting by tomorrow evening.

With McCain's recent lukewarm criticism of the Iraq war, it's obvious he was advised to once again stoke the "maverick" label. McCain is simply walking the pre-2008 tightrope, trying to appease the most with the least. A little Falwell fawning and Bob Jones U. consideration here, a little anti-Bush rhetoric there....

Instead of being on the correct side of issues, the best hope for conservatives: breed like crazy!

Some in the blogosphere are making the case that too much effort is being expended on the Lamont/Lieberman race in CT, and that more energy and time should be spent where Dems can defeat actual Republicans. Personally, I don't believe it's a waste of time or resources. Many other races around the country are watching the Lamont/Lieberman race very closely and in response will be influenced by it. If Lamont's poll numbers ascend, candidates will take note and be emboldened to voice anti-Iraq / anti-Bush language. If Lamont's poll numbers head south, they'll tone the criticism down and resort to alternatives. Either way, by influencing this race, one can influence many other races.

It was announced recently that Karl Rove will once again be turning the dials on the GOP election machine. Given the many unnamed sources we frequently read quoted, any chance we'll see a few from Republicans regarding resistance to Rove once again steering the electoral ship? With polls in the toilet, you'd think more than a few would have grave reservations about going to the well one more time with the evil genius. Rove has not reinvented anything for this time around, apparently just looking to force-feed the same old fear-mongering and painting Dems as weak -- hoping the public will be stupid (once again) when it counts.

However, fear-mongering is not working as well this time. When Republicans repeat the word "terror" it's reminding people not of 9/11 but of the failure in Iraq.

Lieberman hires pollster Neil Newhouse, a former Rick Santorum pollster!

Greg Sargent nails it: "Whenever the bad news starts flowing -- whether on Iraq or, more worrisome, on Bush's poll numbers -- the default strategy is to try to color that bad news with the idea that the media wants the news to be bad. The worse the news for Bush, the more intense the attacks on the press get." They don't govern, but instead spend most of their time conducting perception management. If truth becomes irksome, prop up fantasy by blaming and shifting the focus. It's what they do.

Don't you just love the way the GOP has abandoned their candidate in CT, supporting instead (D)/(I) Lieberman (notice: no (R)).

A. Yasmine Rassam recently wrote about the danger of Iran moving in if the U.S. were to withdraw from Iraq. Understood, but why is the Iran threat to Iraq possible at all? Could it be due to an ill-conceived, unwarranted, lied-into war that has descended the country into chaos, with rampant insurgent brutality providing the perfect conditions for Iran's rise? Hmm, maybe....

Right-wing talking head Joe Scarborough: "[Bush] lacks intellectual curiosity, and he inspires fear among allies every time he gets behind a microphone."

Ezra Klein recently wrote about Hillary's chances in 2008, and in one paragraph made the case for John Edwards beating her. The primary schedule appears to favor him over her. Did the Dems reshuffle the order on purpose to screw her and stack the deck in Edwards' favor? And I wonder how this new schedule would favor Gore....?

In yesterday’s editorial, the NY Times covered three topics all of which involved at least one common theme.

The first topic: “charter schools score worse in reading and math than their public school counterparts.” Not overly surprising, but the most telling tid-bit:

On average, charter schools that were affiliated with public school districts performed just as well as traditional public schools. That may be a disappointment to advocates who expected them to show clear superiority. But the real stunner was the performance of free-standing charter schools, which have no affiliation with public school systems and are often school districts unto themselves. It was this grouping that showed the worst performance.

As long as the charter school was affiliated with a public counterpart it did fine, but off on its own spelled trouble. Wow, talk about nail in the coffin of another right-wing assumption.

Next topic: "In coming weeks, the Internal Revenue Service plans to start siccing private debt collectors on people with up to $25,000 in unpaid income taxes and laying off nearly half of the auditors who examine estate tax returns of the wealthiest taxpayers." Private collectors will be paid with taxpayer money to go after past-due taxes of the less-than-rich, at the same time funding/personnel will be slashed in the area insuring that the rich pay their fair share. The little guy gets hounded while the fat cats get a pass. And the Times mentions private collection is more costly and raises privacy concerns. Recall how wonderful a job Halliburton and the hired soldiers have done in Iraq.

Final topic: our national parks, which are receiving increasingly less funding and thus falling into disrepair. In fact, "the past few years have been among the hardest in the history of the National Park Service, whose first principle -- preservation -- has been attacked by the very people in the Interior Department who are supposed to uphold it."

A common theme among the above three topics? Thomas Frank summed it up in the NY Times a week ago:

What happens when you elevate to high public office people who actually believe these things — who think that “the public interest” is a joke, that “reform” is a canard, and that every regulatory push is either a quest for monopoly by some company or a quest for bribes by some politician? What happens when the machinery of the state falls into the hands of people who laugh at the function for which it was designed?

The obvious answer is an auctioning-off of public policy in a manner we have not seen since the last full-blown antigovernment regime held office, in the 1920’s.

And look at some of the results from such moves: non-public schools worse than public, tax collection swayed against the average person in favor of the wealthy, and the increasing neglect of our national parks.

One of many things that's certain over the last 6+ years: Grover Norquist has been wrong about oh-so-much, in particular his "starve the beast" mantra. Under GOP control, the government has been anything but starved -- bigger than it was under Clinton -- and instead has been made less effective, less efficient, and more rotten to the core.

At this point, the comments of Katherine Harris cannot be taken anymore seriously than anything that comes out of the mouth of Ann Coulter. Both are desperate and have a bolt loose.

Max Boot recently wrote that Israel should've attacked Syria instead of Hezbollah, endorsing a preemptive strike of sorts. In a way, he's recommending the U.S. vs. Iraq move: attack the country that did not attack you. As GW stated in his press conference, Iraq had "nothing" to do with 9/11 and it was Hezbollah, not Syria, that abducted the Israeli soldiers. Yes, one can trace Hezbollah support back to Syria, but Hezbollah receives support from entities other than just Syria and nonetheless it was not a direct attack by Syria.

In fact, Boot crosses up his logic (surprise!) by later stating that "It is, of course, hard for a liberal democracy such as Israel to contemplate war if it hasn’t been attacked directly." But what the heck, it didn't stop GW with the once liberal democracy here in the U.S., so why should it stop Israel. And just look at what a success Iraq has been -- go for it!

Ah, the infinite intelligence of the neocon mind....

In the NY Times:

It was the most direct attack on Democrats that Mr. Bush has made from a White House lectern this election year, and it effectively signaled the beginning of a more outright political season for him and his aides as they work to help Republicans maintain control of Congress.

Make no mistake: Bush is going to fight dirty and fight hard to keep Congress GOP-controlled -- and it won't be to help those in his party. It will be to save his own skin. If the Dems gain control of at least one chamber, they should (emphasis added) initiate impeachment proceedings.

Why is "impeachment" such a verboten word? Unlike Clinton's charade, it won't be due to trumped up charges about a private sexual indiscretion. As opposed to lying about blowjobs, this president is guilty of lying about illegal wiretappings and lying about intel leading up to the Iraq debacle (among other things). And Bush can thank the Republicans for effectively lowering the bar to the point where if you proceeded against Clinton then you must proceed against Bush. But of course, for GW the bar is suddenly to the moon.

If the Dems do succeed this November and finally win back some power in Washington, here's hoping Bush will be forced to hire a team of good lawyers.

Dan Froomkin points out one of many lies spoken by Bush in his recent press conference. Regarding Iraq, Bush said, "Nobody wants to turn on their TV on a daily basis and see havoc wrought by terrorists." Froomkin correctly replies, "Americans are most certainly not seeing havoc wrought by terrorist on a daily basis on their televisions. The violence in Iraq is almost entirely taking place off camera. When was the last time you saw a dead or grievously wounded American soldier on TV?"

How true. Americans continue to be insulated from such graphic and disturbing images -- by design. Who is Bush kidding? Instead, the horrible footage we are allowed to witness is of the Israel/Hezbollah fighting. From Eric Effron of The Week:

The images reaching us from the war have been stark and jarring. We’ve been bombarded with close-ups of bombed-out apartment buildings, of mortally wounded soldiers, of maimed civilians, including children. We have watched interviews of grieving mothers, and of rescue workers desperately digging through smoldering rubble. We have seen the anger, the fear, and the anguish. We have beheld the faces of the dead and the dying. In short, we have witnessed what war looks like. Only not our war.

The photographs and video footage that I just described were from the Israel-Hezbollah conflict. But while news coverage of the fighting in Lebanon has been relentless and strikingly vivid, the same cannot be said of the war in Iraq. Thanks to a combination of military controls, self-censorship by the media, and the far-flung nature of the battle, Americans have been privy to virtually no pictures of wounded or dead GIs. We don’t even get to glimpse the coffins. Images of the war’s massive toll on civilians have been just as elusive. In July, the insurgency and the sectarian warfare in Iraq claimed 3,438 Iraqi civilians, according to the Iraqi Health Ministry—that’s an average of 110 a day. The deaths of far fewer civilians in Lebanon have generated far more outcry, no doubt in part because we have been unable to avoid those pictures. Yet much of the carnage in Iraq has been invisible to us. This may be one reason the war can at times seem more surreal than real, something vaguely taking place on the periphery of our vision. It’s so easy not to see.

Most Americans now believe Iraq will generate more terrorism, not less.

An AP-Ipsos poll released Wednesday found that 60 percent of Americans believe that in the long run there will be more terrorism in the United States because of the war in Iraq.

Could it be the public has finally spit-up the Kool-Aid?

Yesterday I wrote, "Sounds like Israel PM Olmert can feel GW's pain. He's declaring the Hezbollah attack a triumph, but admits to 'failings and shortcomings.' OK, it took GW years to admit any such fault with his offensive, but both underestimated and lacked the proper planning of what they were getting themselves into. There's now a growing call for Olmert's resignation."

On a related note, Kevin Drum writes:

Israel fights a four-week war that fails to achieve its aims and the public is so irate that the prime minister is almost immediately forced to create a panel with the teeth to (possibly) bring down the government. Here in America, we fight a three-year war that has not only failed to achieve its objectives but has demonstrably weakened our national security, and the collective response is a yawn. What a contrast.

The military is utilizing what appears to be a "soft" or "back-door" draft, under the name of Individual Ready Reserve. Soldiers are being called back to duty mainly because voluntary recruits have become so hard to come by.

"All that happy talk about getting down to 100,000 by the end of this year, that's not on the cards for this year," said John Pike, the director of GlobalSecurity.org, a military thinktank in Washington.

"Instead, they might bump up the numbers even further ... They are going to do whatever it takes to keep a lid on this damn thing in Baghdad, because if there's anywhere it's going to fly off the handle it's in Baghdad. And if ethnic cleansing takes on a life of its own, people in this town are going to say it's time to leave."

In addition, Colonel Guy Stratton is quoted as saying "this is going to be a long war."

If that's true, that this war is going to be a long one, then doesn't it logically follow that a mandatory draft is just around the corner? If not, then the shorthanded U.S. forces will continue to be in harms way with less than adequate support. But if so, then imagine what will happen to poll numbers when this already unpopular war necessitates a draft.

The always-enlightening Robert Reich recently stated on Air America that wage earners (80% of the U.S. work force) are earning less today in inflation-adjusted dollars than thirty years ago. Incredible.

Apparently Bush's poll numbers have bumped up, by about 5% to 42%. Most cite the recent terrorist break-up as the reason -- uh, despite the fact it was the Brits who used old-fashioned intel techniques (as opposed to shock & awe bombing) to foil the entire thing! As a reminder, even the worst of stocks always tend to enjoy periodic mean-reverting "dead cat" bounces before heading south again.

With Israel/Lebanon, we once again observe that shock & awe bombing = fueling deep-seated hate which lays groundwork for future terrorism. In the NYT:

Like many of the people who were finding their way back to their old neighborhoods, Mr. Kubaisy blamed the United States as much as Israel for the destruction, saying the conflict had only redoubled his allegiance to Hezbollah. "If Nasrallah will raise his hand, everyone will follow," he said. "This time we defended our land, next time we will take the offensive."

Meanwhile, sounds like Israel PM Olmert can feel GW's pain. He's declaring the Hezbollah attack a triumph, but admits to "failings and shortcomings." OK, it took GW years to admit any such fault with his offensive, but both underestimated and lacked the proper planning of what they were getting themselves into. There's now a growing call for Olmert's resignation.

In July, nearly 3,500 Iraqi civilians were killed making it the most lethal month of the war thus far, and surpasses the number killed in the Israeli/Lebanon conflict by at least threefold. From the NYT:

“The insurgency has gotten worse by almost all measures, with insurgent attacks at historically high levels,” said a senior Defense Department official who agreed to discuss the issue only on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for attribution. “The insurgency has more public support and is demonstrably more capable in numbers of people active and in its ability to direct violence than at any point in time.”

Bush's plan? To repeat "stay the course" and pray. Oh, and he still maintains democracy is the goal in Iraq, stating such just a few days ago, despite this:

“Senior administration officials have acknowledged to me that they are considering alternatives other than democracy,” said one military affairs expert who received an Iraq briefing at the White House last month and agreed to speak only on condition of anonymity.

“Everybody in the administration is being quite circumspect,” the expert said, “but you can sense their own concern that this is drifting away from democracy.”

I wonder what form of government -- other than democracy -- they'll decide on?

Just returning from vacation, will take a day or two to get caught up on world events.

In the meantime, while away I came across this fitting quote that sums up the GOP's playbook:

“Naturally, the common people don’t want war. But after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.”
--- Hermann Goering, Hitler’s Reich Marshall, at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II.

Ah yes, the bracing, lucid wisdom of Cheney:

Vice President Dick Cheney went so far as to suggest that the ouster of Mr. Lieberman might encourage "al Qaeda types."

"It’s an unfortunate development, I think, from the standpoint of the Democratic Party, to see a man like Lieberman pushed aside because of his willingness to support an aggressive posture in terms of our national security strategy," Mr. Cheney said.... Al-Qaida is "betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task."

Yes, that's right, supporters of Lamont = aiding Al-Qaida. Does anybody still believe this tired connection? When will this old, decrepit, hate-mongering demagogue just fade away?

Dick, it's called freedom of choice -- you know, a democratic ideal. As opposed to blindly following a neocon ideology down the road to apparent ruin.

Party Be Damned

Lieberman loses, 52-48, and immediately announces he'll run as an Independent. Notably this is only the fourth time since 1980 that an incumbent senator has lost his party's nomination.

What does this tell you? It says people have had enough of the continued failure in Iraq. It says Lieberman is willing to put himself before party unity and helping in the cause to amass a large enough Dem majority post-November to hopefully change the power structure of key positions.

It's amazing that not too long ago this guy ran as the Dem's VP. Meanwhile, Hillary has to be concerned about this outcome.

Heading into tomorrow's primary, Lieberman has apparently moved within six points of Lamont, still trailing but closing the double-digit gap.

At this point, even if Lieberman were to squeak out a win, in many ways he and the established Dems still suffer a big blow to the belly. This Iraq thing isn't going away and it's not likely to suddenly become popular again before November. It will be a huge fly in the ointment for many candidates in both parties.

An interesting thought being discussed is how this CT primary outcome will strengthen Gore's prospects for 2008 and weaken Hillary's. It makes sense.

For one, Bill Clinton did Hillary a favor by stumping for Lieberman, thus backing another senator who voted for and strongly supported this war. But as I wrote earlier this morning, even the great Bill Clinton could not do much to boost Joe's standing in the polls. That does indeed say something about the deeply felt emotions and opinions concerning this issue.

But again, this primary hugely bolsters Gore's chances for 2008. He defines the anti-GW. Hell, he beat the guy and then was robbed. Most sane people admit that this country would've been much better off the last six years under Gore's leadership (I know, not going out on a limb). And whereas Hillary voted for the war, Gore has always been against it. On top of that, related topics that seem to be resonating with the public, becoming more of a real concern with each blistering hot day, are the environment, global warming, and energy conservation -- all made-to-order issues for Gore that starkly contrast with the do-nothing actions of GW.

Re-elect Gore in 2008!

"You know, I hear people say, well, civil war this, civil war that," Bush said.

Steve Benen writes:

Yes, the president really did say, "civil war this, civil war that," as if it were a vaguely trivial matter that's hardly worth considering.

As for the efficacy of the unity government..."More than 100 Iraqi civilians are dying per day, mostly in sectarian violence, according to a recent U.N. report." It sounds like just another concern for Bush to dismiss with his trademark cavalier attitude.

"Church members say the troops deserve to die because they fight on behalf of a government that does not adequately condemn homosexuality."

Ah yes, that incredible love from the religious right -- and so patriotic too!

I've written several times about the banal idiocy of David Brooks. It's not difficult, and here Greg Mitchell of E&P takes a crack at it:

[W]hat is truly bankrupt about his [Israel/Lebanon] stance is his admission that the current U.S. policy has little chance for success....Because, he admits, America's standing and influence has been fatally crippled by its Iraq debacle -- which Brooks strongly backed and still supports....In other words, Brooks in the end admits that all of his fulminating about a solution to the conflict is crippled by a U.S. war in Iraq -- which he always thought, and still thinks, was a swell idea, launched and managed by an administration he still showers with "enormous credit."

Greg, don't feel bad, I can never get through a Brooks column without wanting to take a sledgehammer to my head.

As with many of the last hold-outs on the lunatic right, still pathetically defending what's obviously now indefensible, they're more than willing to shill and pander to this administration in exchange for swift disposal of all credibility.

Brooks is a flat-out joke.

Get ready to lose, Joe

You have to sort of love the fact that in the final hours, Lieberman is desperately trying to convince voters that he's not Bush. He trails Lamont by 13% in the latest poll.

Although in his most recent speech, Lieberman does list quite a few issues where he voted against GW, apparently all that matters is Iraq. This fact should resonate with all Dems as anti-Bush furor easily trumps any nostalgic love for Bill Clinton (stumped for Joe). That fact in itself should send shivers through many pro-Bush/pro-Iraq November candidates.

Paul Krugman is on quite a roll. In his latest column, he criticized the Sierra Club, of all things, for endorsing Sen. Chafee, a good environmentalist but nonetheless a Republican. His point? Given the extreme views held by the GOP and the fact they're pulling all the triggers in DC, we can no longer afford to just align with individuals who offer personal virtue, but rather must face the fact that we need to adopt an "us vs. them" stance (as they have for years now).

Those who wield the power are extreme Republican partisans, who have not been willing to compromise and reach across the aisle on anything (a theme taken from the K Street project). To rid Congress of these non-mainstream top dogs requires booting the entire team en masse, thus explaining why a vote for moderate Chafee -- no matter how well-deserved or intended -- is a vote for keeping the true nutjobs in power positions. As Krugman writes:

But while this principle [Sierra Club's "We choose people, not parties."] might once have made sense, it’s just naïve today. Given both the radicalism of the majority party’s leadership and the ruthlessness with which it exercises its control of the Senate, Mr. Chafee’s personal environmentalism is nearly irrelevant when it comes to actual policy outcomes; the only thing that really matters for the issues the Sierra Club cares about is the “R” after his name.
<..>
The point is that those who cling to the belief that politics can be conducted in terms of people rather than parties — a group that also includes would-be centrist Democrats like Joe Lieberman and many members of the punditocracy — are kidding themselves.
<..>
We’re living in an age of one-letter politics, in which a politician’s partisan affiliation is almost always far more important than his or her personal beliefs. And those who refuse to recognize this reality end up being useful idiots for those, like President Bush, who have been consistently ruthless in their partisanship.

Real change in policy and legislation will not occur until these zealots are tossed out of control. Yes, Chafee is a good guy regarding the environment as well as a number of other issues for that matter, but a vote for him is unfortunately just one more precious vote needed by the Dems to change majority control of key power positions.

The Sierra Club is correct in theory (as they say, "we value performance above party affiliation"), but Krugman is right when considering the reality-based world as we've come to know it, in all it's ugliness and ruthlessness.

Some interesting factoids from Mother Jones magazine that further helps to illustrate the expanding income gap in this country.

It wasn't too long ago that the military and this administration would not dare even hint at the possibility of civil war breaking out in Iraq. That's all changed at least for the military, with Army Gen. John Abizaid, who commands U.S. forces in the Mideast, stating "Iraq could move toward civil war....The sectarian violence is probably as bad as I have seen it." Meanwhile, the administration continues to live in denial as Defense Secretary Rumsfeld testified today, stating the situation in Iraq "is not a classic civil war at this stage."

Former ambassador Peter Galbraith: "Iraq still exists on a map, but it no longer functions as a single country. We're trying to build national institutions right now — like the army and the police — when there is no nation."

Thank the government for any job growth at all: Private-sector jobs created by defense spending from 2001-2006: 1.5 million; Private-sector jobs created by other government spending from 2001-2006: 1.3 million; Private-sector jobs lost from 2001-2006: 1 million.

The Hezbollah/Iran connection could be keeping the Saudi elite up at night. Iran very much wants to expand its Shiite influence and Saudi Arabia is ruled by Sunnis, so one could see where Saudi Arabia is a likely next-target in line given all the mayhem breaking out between Israel and Lebanon/Hezbollah. Oh, and guess who would be forced to come to their aid? Yes, Uncle Sam, esp. since we absolutely depend on their oil and GW is one of their best buddies.

More "good" news from Iraq. The U.S. is going to hand over reconstruction responsibilities to Iraq but doing so with no plan in place, no outline, no proposals, no suggestions, zilch. In a few years (or perhaps less), as Iraq descends into (bloody?) chaos riddled with rampant corruption, the invasion will be universally deemed a complete waste of human lives and U.S. taxpayer money -- much like Vietnam has been regarded.

It appears as if Pentagon officials lied to the 9/11 commission: "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. "The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years....This is not spin. This is not true." Isn't it about time a new, comprehensive, truly independent investigation be opened to get to the bottom of the truth concerning this national tragedy? Will we have to endure the incessant guessing games over the years, much like JFK's assassination? Has political chicanery risen to the level where it's overtaken any sense of duty to what's owed the American people?

I've received a few emails commenting on my apparent lack of postings regarding the Israel/Lebanon situation.

I've been putting together a somewhat comprehensive take on the subject when I came across Paul Krugman's recent column on the matter. As usual, he says it best. I urge reading the entire piece, an excellent, lucid analysis of the quagmire.

Also, note that General McCaffrey stated on Monday's Keith Olbermann show that Israel did not learn from the U.S. in Iraq and is unfortunately conducting this attack "on the cheap," with air bombings emphasized more so than on the ground operations. The result: little damage to Hezbollah, widespread civilian deaths, horrifying images for global consumption (and exploiting by radicals), and growing world condemnation.

As for Iraq, we may not have a choice in staying longer:

The temperamental Rumsfeld erupted at Schoomaker after the general revealed the Army’s lack of readiness in painful detail to the House Armed Services Committee. "I remain concerned about the serious demands we face," Schoomaker said in asking Congress for $17 billion in an emergency appropriation. The ranking Democrat member of that committee, Rep. Ike Skelton, cited Schoomaker’s blunt honesty in a letter he wrote to President Bush last week. “When I asked General Schoomaker in recent testimony if he was comfortable with the readiness level for the non-deployed units located within the continental United States, he simply answered no,” said Skelton. Equipment like tanks and Humvees are badly worn down after three years in the sand and heat, and the Army is cannibalizing units still based in the United States. It is also asking soldiers to prepare for third overseas deployments in a row, which many fear could trigger an exodus of professionals.

The Army’s budgetary squeeze raises questions about whether the United States can “stay the course” in Iraq even if it wants to. While the world has focused on Lebanon, Iraq has been sliding downhill fast. U.S. officials battling the counterinsurgency who were positive six months ago are now far more skeptical that the center can hold.

Now, back to trying to find some good news about Iraq....

Yesterday's NY Times had an article about the rich avoiding taxes, an exploding trend to the point of epidemic ("So many superrich Americans evade taxes using offshore accounts that law enforcement cannot control the growing misconduct").

The right will say it's the oppressive, onerous tax code forcing the hand of the super-rich, serving as an unfortunate catalyst in the shielding of income. One problem: there's never been a six year period of tax cut nirvana like we've seen under King George, and yet still the rampant income sheltering, in fact accelerating to the point where it's "out of control."

What gives? Hmm, could it be naked greed combined with massive gutting/easing of tax enforcement on the wealthy?

Recall that billionaire Ross Perot once stated his effective tax rate was much lower than the average American, mainly due to exploiting tax loopholes and shelters and obviously not even referring to the illegal activity mentioned in this article.

The income gap continues to expand and you have to wonder at what point will ugly class warfare break out in earnest in this country?

"Rick Santorum has reached a new low in gutter politics by trying to ridiculously link Bob Casey to terrorists."

Mel Gibson: "Fucking Jews … The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world"

More of the the New Federalism (i.e. states giving the finger to GW) and beyond (I've been documenting this trend here for months; everyday I come across examples of states deviating from Bush Inc. and deciding their own fate.... Soon the likes of California will govern itself like a mini-nation).

Dems united regarding Iraq pullout.

More David Brooks idiocy....

"Tar baby": first Tony Snow uses, now Republican Gov. Mitch Romney -- which Republican is next?

Regarding Rumsfeld: "He seems literally in a parallel universe and slightly deranged." That's just what we need now given all that's occurring in the world, a psycho Sec. of Defense....

Daily video segments....

Kevin Drum was recently surprised to learn that 30% of Brits believe Blair's relationship with GW is "about right."

Why so shocked? After all, 30% in this country support Bush! Let's call it the "brain-dead threshold." Apparently, every country is comprised of 30% brain-dead individuals. It's that simple (literally).

Elsewhere, regarding maverick-not McCain, Drum asks, "Can we start keeping score on the number of positions that Mr. Straight Talk has abandoned now that he thinks he has a serious shot at the presidency?" Kevin lists his caving to the religious right (via Falwell), giving in on torture, and then suddenly MIA concerning campaign financing.

My bet is McCain buckles on global warming -- something even the religious right still has a big problem accepting. (I suppose Jesus would've been A-OK with humans releasing tons and tons of noxious fumes and pollutants into the air....)

In case you missed it, this "little" bombshell about blackbox voting machines and security flaws (don't you love how we're fighting to establish democracy over there but have no problem with allowing our own democracy to be flushed down the toilet):

Recently, computer security expert Harri Hursti revealed serious
security vulnerabilities in Diebold's software. According to Michael
Shamos, a computer scientist and voting system examiner in
Pennsylvania, "It's the most severe security flaw ever discovered in a
voting system."

Even more shockingly, we learned recently that Diebold and the State of
Maryland had been aware of these vulnerabilities for at least two
years. They were documented in analysis, commissioned by Maryland and
conducted by RABA Technologies, published in January 2004. For over
two years, Diebold has chosen not to fix the security holes, and
Maryland has chosen not to alert other states or national officials
about these problems.

Basically, Diebold included a "back door" in its software, allowing
anyone to change or modify the software. There are no technical
safeguards in place to ensure that only authorized people can make
changes.

A malicious individual with access to a voting machine could rig the
software without being detected. Worse yet, if the attacker rigged the
machine used to compute the totals for some precinct, he or she could
alter the results of that precinct. The only fix the RABA authors
suggested was to warn people that manipulating an election is against
the law.
<..>
We must ask, how did software containing such an outrageous violation come to be certified, and what other flaws, yet to be uncovered, lurk in other certified systems?

Uh, yeah, good questions.... But does anyone care?

On global warming, at least this electric utility openly admits it pays researchers to distort the real evidence and confuse the public (as opposed to ExxonMobil and countless other corporations that prefer to remain in the shadows).

One Colorado electric cooperative has openly admitted that it has paid $100,000 to a university academic who prides himself on being a global warming skeptic.
<..>
IREA contributed $100,000 to Patrick Michaels, a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.

Michaels is one of about a dozen academics who for years have cast doubt on the science surrounding global warming while downplaying the scientifically accepted idea that humans are causing it.

"We have had many apocalypses through the ages that haven't shown up, and this is likely to be another one," Michaels said on CNN earlier this year.
<..>
"There is clearly a well-organized and well-funded effort to undermine the science and cause confusion in the minds of the public," said Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. "And several contrarians have benefited solely to carry this disinformation campaign out."
<..>
Experts and journalists, however, who have documented a 15-year campaign funded by major companies in the fossil fuel industry to cast doubt on global warming science say the intent is to create confusion.

"This coal industry disinformation campaign is a repeat of a similar campaign launched in the early 1990s by Western Fuels and other coal interests," said Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author Ross Gelbspan.
<..>
Gelbspan says that continued efforts to confuse the public in the face of the evidence are "particularly sinister" given that they follow "by almost 10 years the conclusion of more than 2,000 scientists from 100 countries in what is the largest and most rigorously peer-reviewed scientific collaboration in history."

But it's not just corporations muddying up the waters when it comes to confusing the public and keeping this topic described as a "debate." No, we also have the likes of James Dobson and other far right religious figures and organizations siding with the denial folks. (For a reminder on the extent of the bought-and-paid-for scientists, read Chris Mooney's lengthy article in MoJo).

But we at least have this recent piece from Naomi Oreskes, who states that a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal got it all wrong (surprise!):

AN OP-ED article in the Wall Street Journal a month ago claimed that a published study affirming the existence of a scientific consensus on the reality of global warming had been refuted. This charge was repeated again last week, in a hearing of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

I am the author of that study, which appeared two years ago in the journal Science, and I'm here to tell you that the consensus stands. The argument put forward in the Wall Street Journal was based on an Internet posting; it has not appeared in a peer-reviewed journal — the normal way to challenge an academic finding. (The Wall Street Journal didn't even get my name right!)

My study demonstrated that there is no significant disagreement within the scientific community that the Earth is warming and that human activities are the principal cause.

Papers that continue to rehash arguments that have already been addressed and questions that have already been answered will, of course, be rejected by scientific journals, and this explains my findings. Not a single paper in a large sample of peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 refuted the consensus position, summarized by the National Academy of Sciences, that "most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."
<..>
In 1988, the World Meteorological Assn. and the United Nations Environment Program joined forces to create the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action. The panel has issued three assessments (1990, 1995, 2001), representing the combined expertise of 2,000 scientists from more than 100 countries, and a fourth report is due out shortly. Its conclusions — global warming is occurring, humans have a major role in it — have been ratified by scientists around the world in published scientific papers, in statements issued by professional scientific societies and in reports of the National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society and many other national and royal academies of science worldwide.

It's like shouting at the wall.

Conservative icon William F. Buckley deems Iraq a failure and suggests that Bush should resign.

Sen. Arlen Specter is putting together a bill to sue Bush. Good for him, but let's see who votes for it. (By the way, imagine the massive GOP outcry if Bill Clinton had issued signing statements on 800+ laws -- more than all other presidents combined).

Speaking of Bill Clinton, this move was as head-scratching as when Bill teamed up with Bush Sr. for charity. But apparently Hillary had something to do with it. Meanwhile, the nutty NY Post endorsed Lieberman -- that truly says it all about this race.

Equating scientists with Nazis? How low will those on the crazed right go?

Wow, we as a country are truly doomed. Just incredible.

Yet, outlets like Fox News continue to spread the BS regarding WMDs....

Worst President In History?

As we approach 2008, we'll likely see more and more of this: experts and the like offering educated guesses that GW will go down as the worst U.S. president ever. Perhaps the best and most thorough take on this matter so far is by Princeton history professor Sean Wilentz in the Rolling Stone.

This past Sunday, the Boston Globe likened Bush to Warren G. Harding. From the editorial:

Genial with his many friends and bored with the trappings of high office, Harding entered the White House in 1921 with apparent ease and confidence, but it was soon clear that he was not up to the job, and his administration ended in a shambles of mismanagement and corruption.
<..>
Harding, like Bush, was a pro-business Republican who succeeded a two-term Democrat (Woodrow Wilson in Harding's case). Neither was confrontational by nature: Harding cast the fewest vetoes of any 20th-century president -- six; Bush cast his first last week. Both liked to golf and fish.

Some more basic personal similarities may be evident in descriptions of Harding by a biographer, Robert K. Murray: "Harding tended to accept the pat answer rather than reason through to a more sophisticated solution." "There is no indication that he ever spent much time reading." "His indiscriminate loyalty placed him in constant peril." "Often he simply endorsed a solution worked out by others."

With Bush, as with Harding, the performance raises the question of who is really in charge. Bush's earnest claim, "I am the decider," sounds much like Nixon's desperate "I am not a crook" -- a defensive cry that shouldn't have to be made because it is obviously true, but isn't.

Of course, Harding's administration was riddled with corruption and his subordinates were extremely powerful and called many of the shots (sound familiar?).

Many polls have consistently ranked Harding as one of the worst presidents ever. Look for Junior to edge him out in the next few years -- no matter how desperately the GOP attempts to invoke memories of Truman.

How can anyone take Bush's position on abortion and/or stem cell research seriously? Tony Snow recently stated that Bush "thinks murder is wrong." Yes, in the context of stem cell research Snow used the word "murder."

Yet, apparently it's OK for such "murder" to occur in private industry, just as long as it's not receiving any federal funding. Huh? If it's murder, it should be wrong and condemned no matter what -- why allow exclusions? Private citizens cannot get away with murder, so why is it private companies are allowed to....?

Also, I've asked this question many times (and it would be nice to see a reporter ask it for a change) but if taking the life of the unborn is "murder" then why did Bush endorse pro-choice Specter over pro-life Toomey in the Pennsylvania U.S. Senate race in 2004? Did Bush actually choose politics over siding against "murder"?

Kevin Drum recently wrote about the ever-widening income gap. He cited a stat that the average weekly wage for the bottom 10% earners declined by 2.7% from 2000 to 2005 but for the top 10% it increased by 5.3%.

I wonder if these figures include yearly bonuses (doubtful since the stat specifies "weekly wages"). If not, then these percentages woefully understate the already expansive gap.

For many if not most in the top 10%, it's their bonuses, and not their weekly salary/wage, that is the mother load of their annual compensation. Not true for the bottom 10%, or even the bottom 50% for that matter.

Drum rightfully states, "Maybe Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or some other Democratic worthy will start barnstorming the country asking middle class workers why their wages have barely budged during a period when the economy has nearly doubled."

Is it any wonder two out of every three Americans feel the country is on the wrong track?

Many Republicans wonder how can this be given the economy appears to be doing so well. The widening income gap (above) is a big reason, with most Americans not participating in the recovery, but also the economic data is misleading and a bit cooked (surprise!). Example: the Household Survey of employment in May reported job gains of +288k; however, all the gains were in part-time work, with full-time jobs plunging by 292k in the month.

In addition to the part-time work distortion, another reason the unemployment rate is so low is not because of strong job creation -- quite the contrary. Since late 2001, the annual rate of job growth has been 0.6% on average, or the lowest figure on record for a recovery (typically that figure is 2.8%). But due to limited job prospects, the number of new entrants to the workforce has fallen dramatically, further artificially shrinking the unemployment rate. If the labor force were defined in a more inclusive fashion, unemployment would be closer to 8%.

Want more? Since 2001, the most expensive homes have appreciated by 57% on average, vs. half that rate for the rest of America. The bottom 20% earners spend 15% of their entire income on healthcare costs, vs. just 3% for upper-income earners. The top 1% earners now control 33.4% of our country's net worth.

Yes, as Drum states, the Democrats should aggressively run on this issue. There are many swing voters that do not qualify for the top-10% earnings group.

No really, are good columnists that hard to find and hire??

In her most recent column, when it comes to global warming Peggy Noonan decides to just lash out at all scientists, stating they all have agendas, "they are politicized," and therefore none should be believed. Years from now, she says we'll have a right to "blame the scientists."

This crap is typical right-wing pablum where rather than truly look into an issue, instead just opt for irresponsible, broad-sweeping rhetoric with nothing to back it up.

We all know that ExxonMobil has funded many a scientist to support the denial side of global warming (I've cited several examples and offered proof here on this blog), but where's the proof that the same occurs on the other side of this "debate"? It occurs frequently on the denial side (in fact, in almost every case), but couldn't Noonan provide at least one instance of a "kooky" enviro group paying off a scientist(s)?

Ah yes, the intellectual rigor of Peggy Noonan. Ayn Rand she is not!!

Are good columnists that difficult to find and hire?

At the Economist's View, a recent column by Robert Samuelson is examined. In it, Samuelson correctly takes issue with the Republicans patting themselves on the back for being responsible for a deficit that's not as big as bogus estimates once projected. The fact remains with a recovery comes balanced budgets and we're not close to that yet.

But Samuelson elects to whack the Democrats also and does so by contradicting himself in the same column. He writes, "With the unemployment rate at 4.6 percent (close to 'full employment' by anyone's definition), the White House and Congress still can't balance the budget....the budget should be balanced -- or run a surplus -- when the economy is close to 'full employment'." However, he then later writes:

Just as Republicans now say their policies have cut deficits, Democrats contend their policies produced budget surpluses from 1998 to 2001. Nonsense. Those surpluses resulted mainly from the end of the Cold War (which lowered defense spending) and the economic boom (which created an unpredicted surge of taxes).

Economist's View responds:

He [Samuelson] contradicts himself in his misguided attempt to try and be 'fair' and make sure to criticize both parties. He says first that Republicans are to blame because with an economy near full employment, we should be running surpluses, not deficits. That we aren't is a policy mistake. But when it comes to Democrats who did just that in 1998 to 2001, ran a surplus during a boom, he says it's nonsense that they had anything to do with it and they deserve no credit, only scorn.

Samuelson's two-faced contradiction is so plain as day it's embarrassing. Also, show me the defense spending fell off a cliff under Clinton to provide for the surplus -- talk about nonsense! (Samuelson offers no proof or numbers). But "despite" Clinton's more fair taxation rates, the economy did boom and tax revenues flooded in, and in addition to prudent spending, helped to create a surplus.

What the hell is Samuelson talking about? Is this just more offered-up fabrications in the name of appearing non-partisan?

A right-wing friend emailed to ask if I had any thoughts regarding the Israel/Lebanon situation (and requested that I simply not go against whatever Bush's policy happens to be). My response:

Actually, from what I've read Bush does have a policy: he doesn't have one (surprise!). In fact, once again the conservatives are attacking him for his lack of stated policy and/or planned resolution on the matter (see below). You see, the only foreign policy they've ever had was to invade Iraq (see confessions from ex-government officials Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neal, that Bush/Cheney had been planning that attack pre-9/11). BTW, notice the North Korean non-foreign policy (threaten the hell out of them, but when they fire seven missiles, do nothing).

As for me re Israel/Lebanon, the fact is it's a very tough situation BUT as many have written, WE ARE NOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE U.S. We don't necessarily have to have a "policy" on the matter, but GW does (part of his job!).

These two sides have been at war for decades, and yet whereas Hezbollah provoked this latest fighting, Israel's military strikes -- while justified -- are not the long-term solution and will only incite further hatred in the long-run. Diplomacy and attempts at brokered deals are needed, and typically the U.S. has served a central role in this regard, but this administration is not equipped to perform these duties, nor will any nations respect their efforts (if forthcoming) based on their track record over the last six years. GW in no way is a Carter!!

Whether it be Iran, North Korea, or this Israel/Lebanon situation, the nations involved are simply not going to respect or act on anything the U.S. may attempt to offer. Bush/Cheney have been about "Cowboy Diplomacy" and everyone now realizes that's dead and useless -- so what are Bush/Cheney/Rice left with? Zilch. GW's political capital has run dry, but even more so his diplomacy capital has long been bone dry.

This lesser-realized fact has always been a greater danger for the U.S. and the world given we are a superpower that while possessing tons of bombs and WMD has very little teeth regarding non-violent means of persuasion. That's a big reason why other countries realize they NEED to acquire nuclear bombs: the U.S. under Bush/Cheney only operate via brute force, not reason, policy, treaties, or agreements. It's why they've made the world a much more dangerous place since 2000. We're no longer a stabilizing force (such as during the Cold War) but rather a destabilizing, disruptive, hypocritical & schizophrenic bully.
-----------------------------------

WASHINGTON, July 19 (UPI) -- U.S. President George Bush's conservative coalition, already irked over domestic policies, seems now to be targeting his foreign policy.

The Washington Post says the backlash from some conservatives against the president's foreign policy derives from what they see as administration timidity and confusion over long-standing problems such as Iran and North Korea. These conservatives also are concerned over the latest crisis between Israel and Hezbollah.

"I don't have a friend in the administration, on Capitol Hill or any part of the conservative foreign policy establishment who is not beside themselves with fury at the administration," Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, told the Post.

The Post report said the conservatives' complaints include lack of a U.S. strategy to crush the insurgency in Iraq, no U.S. comment on the crackdown on dissenters in Egypt and Russia, North Korea's missile firing with consequence, and Iran's nuclear weapons program.

The conservatives also feel the United States being perceived as weak is emboldening Syria, Iran and their Hezbollah radicals.

The Dems are receiving criticism for showing flag-draped coffins returning from Iraq (at least they're showing the American public these images, unlike the cooperative MSM), and yet it's apparently A-OK for the GOP to continue to use 9/11 and images of the dead from that tragedy.

Greg Sargent has posted a terrific piece on this matter. Apparently, Republican House Majority Leader John Boehner attempts to make the case that those who died on 9/11 are fair game for political ads, but not the coffins returning from Iraq. In the Cincinatti Enquirer piece, Boehner is clueless when it comes to making the distinction:

Questioned by reporters on what the difference was, Boehner seemed tongue-tied. "These were American citizens killed by terrorists. That is a very different policy issue than American soldiers dying on the battlefield protecting the rights and freedoms of American people."

"How so?" a reporter asked.

"How so? You want me to describe the difference between men and women of the military out there defending the American people, and victims - victims - of terrorist activities?" Boehner asked.

"They were both killed by opponents, right? Terrorists or Islamic insurgents?" a reporter pressed.

An exasperated Boehner said: "The World Trade Center victims were victims of a terrorist act here on our shore and I think all Americans were appalled that this did in fact happen. But I think the differences, in terms of the images, are as clear as night and day."

Wow, it's wonderful to see that one dim bulb replaced another as GOP house leader.... Does the GOP have any elected official who can think themself out of a paper bag?

Kudos to this reporter for staying with it and pursuing Boehner's obvious lack of logic and reason. Many in the MSM (Tim Russert being the best example) would've just moved on, letting it go.

It's been a week or two since it first came out but not sure if everyone caught the exclusive interview Stars and Stripes conducted with King GW. The key question asked of him: why hasn't he attended even one funeral for a fallen U.S. soldier from Iraq? GW's reply, "Because which funeral do you go to? In my judgment, I think if I go to one I should go to all. How do you honor one person but not another?"

Wow, what a BS answer. As it is in Arlington there exists the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, serving as a symbolic gesture to all those who died in wars and were not properly identified. When you pay respect to this monument you are honoring all of the unidentified dead soldiers.

Likewise, King GW could attend one or even a few funerals, doing so in a symbolic effort to honor all of our fallen soldiers. The families of the soldiers would completely understand this practical and yet respectful act. I don't believe anyone would expect any president to attend all 2500+ funerals and for GW to insinuate such an asinine expectation is not surprising coming from him.

Past presidents have honored countless numbers of people and events through the use of symbolic ceremonies. In this case, for Bush to fudge and dodge concerning this matter is pitiful and typically gutless. He's a weak, spineless man who has no problem sending Americans off to fight in Iraq but will not honor any who arrive back here in a casket.

In his recent column, Paul Krugman writes:

The nature of the right-wing attack on The New York Times — an attack not on the newspaper's judgment, but on its motives — seems to have startled many people in the news media. After an editorial in The Wall Street Journal declared that The Times has what amount to treasonous intentions — that it "has as a major goal not winning the war on terror but obstructing it" — The Journal's own political editor pronounced himself "shocked," saying that "I don't know anybody on the news staff of The Wall Street Journal that believes that."

Further proof that the editorial page of the WSJ is an extreme right-wing outlet for GOP talking points that's apparently detached from the rest of the fine, sober journalists on staff. Amazing that the paper's political editor was forced to come out against his own editorial page, "shocked" at what he, like us, read.

Can credibility sink any lower for this already laughable editorial page?

As Krugman states, it's all part of a larger effort "to create a political environment in which nobody dares to criticize the administration or reveal inconvenient facts about its actions. And that attempt has relied, from the beginning, on ascribing treasonous motives to those who refuse to toe the line."

They use bully tactics and intimidation to cow any voice into submission that may be critical of their actions, to an extent that as John Dean has confirmed, would make Nixon blush. Plainly spoken, this is Fascism 101.

Krugman still has faith:

I think that most Americans still believe in the principle that the president isn't a king, that he isn't entitled to operate without checks and balances. And President Bush is especially unworthy of our trust, because on every front — from his refusal to protect chemical plants to his officials' exposure of Valerie Plame, from his toleration of war profiteering to his decision to place the C.I.A. in the hands of an incompetent crony — he has consistently played politics with national security.
<..>
Mr. Bush's ability to wrap his power grab in the flag has diminished now that most Americans no longer consider him either competent or honest. But the administration and its supporters still believe that they can win political battles by impugning the patriotism of those who won't go along.

For the sake of our country, let's hope that they're wrong.

Yes, let's hope (and pray).

In the recent OMB report, I find it ridiculous that individual & corporate income tax revenues came in at +66% and +55% respectively above February estimates. It's clear that the administration has taken up the practice of low-balling tax revenue estimates and high-balling deficit projections so that they can bask in the glory when the former comes in much higher than expected versus already bogus estimates and the latter comes in much lower.

In addition, the administration does not include the cost of the Iraq war or war on terror -- isn't that a HUGE omission?

I've written before about how deficient David Brooks is as a columnist (his latest column is about (surprise!) how we need to give Iraq time to mature into a magnificent democratic state -- which happen to be the latest GOP talking points: be patient, Rome wasn't built in a day, Truman was very much disliked when leaving office, etc.).

But perhaps an even more deficient columnist is John Fund at the WSJ, who recently wrote about how Mexico can teach us to run clean elections. Wow, I was shocked at the title, expecting Fund to just avoid that subject altogether as most right-wingers do. Before reading the column, at the very least I expected him to mention blackbox, electronic voting machines, with all of their many problems, and the need for a paper trail.

Alas, not one word mentioned. Nope, instead Fund focuses on the need for a photo voter ID, mainly because he feels too many people vote several times on election day.

The implication there of course is against the Dems, but does Fund offer any proof that this is a widespread problem, much less that it occurs frequently? Nope. Like Brooks, more concocted notions from thin air to support a flimsy column.

I believe it's safe to say that blackbox, paper-less electronic vote machines are a MUCH greater threat to our country, and impede clean elections, more so than supposed multi-voters.

Here's a history lesson from the late-great Thomas Paine, from "Common Sense":

THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered.

"Summer soldier" today are all the chicken-littles that send our youth to war and yet dodged service when they should've likewise served.

"Sunshine patriot" today are all the ignorant, rah-rah-we-love-the-USA dopes that listen to Sean Hannity for "truth". Real patriots that truly care call out what's wrong and stay informed; dissent can be good (OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WERE DISSENTERS!!! DISSENTING FROM ENGLAND!!!).

"Tyranny...is not easily conquered": one can look at Iraq in that way, although Iraq was not a tyrant to us, not 9/11 involved, and if we're going to purge all tyranny why didn't we bomb North Korea after they blasted off seven missiles? But I choose to look at tyranny within our own borders, as we speak (e.g. labeling those who dissent as traitors, president ignores over 750 laws on the books, illegal wiretappings, outing covert CIA agents as payback, blacking out and editing government documents, using torture in violation of international agreements, selling our legislative process to highest bidders (energy, pharma) -- it goes on and on).

Yes, the wingnuts can continue to hope that Iraq will be a glorious victory, but in meantime what's much more certain is history will not treat GW kindly, and that our Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves like rotisserie chickens.

Dare I ask, is the war on terror being politicized? From a story in yesterday's NY Times:

The National Asset Database, as it is known, is so flawed, the inspector general found, that as of January, Indiana, with 8,591 potential terrorist targets, had 50 percent more listed sites than New York (5,687) and more than twice as many as California (3,212), ranking the state the most target-rich place in the nation.

The database is used by the Homeland Security Department to help divvy up the hundreds of millions of dollars in antiterrorism grants each year, including the program announced in May that cut money to New York City and Washington by 40 percent, while significantly increasing spending for cities including Louisville, Ky., and Omaha.

Terrorists have it in for Indiana or Kentucky more so than NY or California? Even this hugely-important database appears to be fair game for earmarked pork. Likewise, when it comes down to it, politicians balk at passing the laws necessary to make our ports, chemical factories, and nuclear facilities safe. To them, it's all business-as-usual politics. A disgrace.

Is Lieberman so desperate as to threaten blackmailing Dems due to sour grapes and selfishness?

(If Gore does run in '08, he better not pick this guy again....)

I've written several times before about the dazzling intellect of columnist David Brooks. He makes Jonah Goldberg read like Descartes.

Greg Sargent recently chimed in on the subject, pointing out the shortcomings in a Brooks column. Sargent summarized:

The whole column is a massive intellectual failure. There's no originality of thought, no effort to marshal facts, no original reporting, nothing. In short, Brooks has added absolutely zippo of value to the larger conversation.

Brooks has penned many a column like this one; for him to base a column on rigorous research and facts is rare indeed.

As Sargent states elsewhere, shame on his editors to allow such light fodder to make it to print. Sadly, because of the Times stature, Brooks' evidence-free opinions likely pass for truth in rightwing circles. I mean my gosh, it's the NY Times, it must be more plausible than Fox News! Yet, all too often Brooks peddles the same kind of lazy crap that his less-overtly-sophisticated brethren (Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc.) make a nice living manufacturing.

To that end, his assumed credibility makes him that much more a dangerous voice for the right.

Based on the most recent data from the Department of Energy, our demand for gasoline has not declined -- despite the price at the pump hitting $3 near everywhere. In fact, just the opposite is occurring as demand is above year ago levels. Gas prices were up 59.6% in May vs. the prior year, and yet in that same time demand had risen by nearly 1%, no drop-off. In fact, although the price of gas has dramatically increased this year, demand has increased in four of the first five months of the year.

Apparently, $3 per gallon is not high enough to curb our behavior, and it's obvious at this point that $2 per gallon was ridiculously cheap. Will $4 per gallon put a dent in our addiction?

It wasn't too long ago that Thomas Friedman wrote a column on a potential gas tax. He stated, "Only by bringing the total price of gasoline into the $3.50-to-$4-per-gallon range — and keeping it there — will large numbers of Americans demand plug-in hybrid cars that run on biofuels like ethanol. When large numbers of Americans do that, U.S. automakers will move quickly down the innovation curve."

Based on the data I cited above, Friedman is likely correct. The price of gas 1) needs to go higher, and 2) needs to stay there for some time. It's not just the level but also duration since Americans won't change behavior until they realize higher prices are here to stay. And note that when the tax is presented as a means to reduce global warming, nearly 60% of respondents favor it.

Get a load of this guy!

When reading the below, replace "North Korea" with "Iraq" and imagine yourself a few months before the Iraq invasion:

WASHINGTON Jul 6, 2006 (AP)— President Bush said Thursday it is hard to read North Korea's motives in firing a missile with the potential to hit the United States or Canada, but said the U.S. cannot afford to misjudge the situation.

"I think we've got to plan for the worst and hope for the best," Bush said.

Bush stressed that the United States is seeking a diplomatic solution to the nuclear standoff with North Korea. He cautioned that diplomacy will take time.
<..>
"My message was that we want to solve this problem diplomatically, and the best way to solve this problem diplomatically is for all of us to be working in concert," Bush said.
<..>
"And it's just really important for, for the American president to see the world the way it is, not the way we would hope it would be."
<..>
....the White House stressed the need for a unified response to North Korea in the U.N. and elsewhere.

Diplomacy? Be patient? The U.N.?? Funny how GW's take on North Korea differs so drastically from his rhetoric pre-Iraq invasion. It's outrageous. Is the American public that stupid to not see the obvious double standard?

As I wrote yesterday, "Can you imagine if Saddam had done this in Iraq a few years ago?! Bush/Cheney would've LOVED it -- no need for cooked up intel, bogus Iraq sources, blatant lying, etc. We would've been bombs-away the next day." Don't you think our soldiers in Iraq are wondering why the double standard??

UPDATE: TOKYO (AP) - North Korea targeted waters near Hawaii when it fired a long-range missile this week.

With Giuliani exhibiting all signs of running for president in 2008, do we really need another guy in our highest office with an innate ability to promote incompetents and crooks?

Just because conventional economic indicators may suggest that we should be very happy does not make it so in the land of actual living. This story may help to explain the current widespread discontent despite what other metrics may lead one to conclude.

As usual, Greg Sargent nails it:

Here's the situation in a nutshell. Those hurling these reckless charges of treason at the Times have a very specific agenda: First, they want to reunite the Republican base, which is fracturing because of the Iraq war, the GOP's betrayal of various conservative principles, and the fact that Bush's Presidency is so obviously a failure that all but the most diehard supporters can see it. And second, they want to convince great masses of people that there's a traitor in our midst that would weaken America -- an obvious ploy designed to divert attention from the catastrophic failures of the Bush administration, the Republican Party and, most important, the discredited ideas which drive them. At bottom this is all about salvaging a political movement that's in real trouble.

Years from now, we'll look back at this moment, when they demonized the Times, and realize it's when the GOP jumped the shark.

The LA Times recently ran a story ("Congress Faces Dilemma on Terror Trials") that states Congress is facing two choices regarding the Supreme Court's rebuke of Bush's Gitmo tribunals: run rough-shod over the court's decision and thus "run the risk that it too will be struck down by the high court. Or they can follow the path suggested by the court and devise a system embracing the procedural and other principles of the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention, but risk the possibility that few, if any, of the alleged terrorists will be convicted."

Catch that? If they follow the court's guidelines, i.e. that which is most lawful, they "risk the possibility that few, if any, of the alleged terrorists will be convicted." So what does that tell you about the entire Gitmo fiasco? That it's been ill-advised, poorly conceived, and unlawful all along.

The point is Gitmo has been unlawful for nearly five years. If Congress wants to suddenly act and make changes to satisfy legal constraints, that's a separate matter. It doesn't change the fact that Bush/Cheney have violated what the court finally ruled and that the administration should've better constructed a legal framework for Gitmo from the start, before being forced to do so via a SC bitch slap.

It's the same with so many other programs and proceedings by this regime, where care for existing laws and conventions have been completely ignored or at best given cursory consideration.

This story profiles a truly heinous side of the "family values" crowd, as they stand in the way of scientific progress that can save lives all due to unfounded fears of supposed sexual promiscuity.

I receive many right-wing chain emails. It never fails: 99.9% of the time (no, make that 100%) they're either completely false, misleading, or both. Nothing more than spam.

Don't you just love the fact that many wingnuts adamantly dismiss stories in the MSM, quickly criticizing anything they read and don't like as lefty-liberal propaganda, and yet they'll latch on to and believe these oft-circulated chain emails conveying supposed truths -- nearly all of which prove to be hoaxes?

Where's the harsh skepticism in these instances? Hell, where's the fact-checking? It simply takes two minutes of Googling to discover the fiction.

But then again, it's these same folks who fall for the same lies and fiction peddled by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and Bill O'Reilly. These big-name "news" purveyors are equivalent to the junk chain-letter emails, passing on B.S. to the hapless public who sadly are either too lazy and/or to delusional with partisan hate to spend a few minutes looking into the validity of such stories.

Nah, better to just accept the tripe at face value because it simply confirms preconceived notions. Who cares about truth?! They just thirst for validation -- like a four-year old child. The echo-sphere is their reality. Frightening.

To them, an email from Lord knows where, riddled with spelling mistakes and bad grammar, is something to be trusted over anything published in the NY Times or Washington Post.

We live in a very sad and dangerous time thanks to such willful ignorance and stupidity.

So North Korea went ahead and defied the United States by shooting off not one, not two, not three, but seven missiles -- on of all days, our July 4th (by design I imagine...?). Yes, the entire exercise was a complete failure, an embarrassment to Kim; it's all good.

However, I wonder: how is it that seven missiles were launched despite all of the blustering and threats by Bush? They even talked of using our extremely expensive Star Wars anti-missile defense system -- what happened? It was decided better not to use it to avoid an embarrassment of our own? And what will Bush do now, given that Kim has brazenly defied the mighty U.S.? Do we escalate rhetoric against North Korea? Or do we go further and use the military to deliver a message, ASAP? Will Bush be consistent and apply to North Korea the same standards applied to Iraq? After all, North Korea clearly has more menacing WMD than Iraq ever did.

If this quote is any example, it appears as if our bully-boys in high office are backing off their cock-sure swagger (not wanting another Iraq on their hands pre-November?):

"The Taepodong obviously was a failure - that tells you something about capabilities," Stephen Hadley, President Bush's national security adviser, told reporters in a phone call on Tuesday evening in Washington.

I don't believe Iraq was ever granted such a conciliatory, benefit-of-the-doubt summation. So because the missile tests (multiple!) failed, that's what truly matters? I thought the very act of testing was the problem, that it defied international protocols and set the stage for further problems down the road?

Nope, instead from these guys you get a pathetic, weak-kneed, dismissive response. Can you imagine if Saddam had done this in Iraq a few years ago?! Bush/Cheney would've LOVED it -- no need for cooked up intel, bogus Iraq sources, blatant lying, etc. We would've been bombs-away the next day.

But so much for consistency, and needless to say it sheds that much more light on why we invaded Iraq in the first place, and why we haven't and won't do so regarding other more threatening nations. (It has to do with little things called oil and actual WMD....).

Have a wonderful July 4th, and again, please give this JFK speech snippet a listen -- it truly sums up the many troubling things about our nation at this time.

Finally, this from the terrific Elizabeth Drew:

During the presidency of George W. Bush, the White House has made an unprecedented reach for power. It has systematically attempted to defy, control, or threaten the institutions that could challenge it: Congress, the courts, and the press. It has attempted to upset the balance of power among the three branches of government provided for in the Constitution; but its most aggressive and consistent assaults have been against the legislative branch: Bush has time and again said that he feels free to carry out a law as he sees fit, not as Congress wrote it. Through secrecy and contemptuous treatment of Congress, the Bush White House has made the executive branch less accountable than at any time in modern American history. And because of the complaisance of Congress, it has largely succeeded in its efforts.
<..>
James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper No. 47:

The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

That extraordinary powers have, under Bush, been accumulated in the "same hands" is now undeniable. For the first time in more than thirty years, and to a greater extent than even then, our constitutional form of government is in jeopardy.

I wrote this on May 16th. Glad to read this on June 27th.

"I'm a uniter, not a divider" -- my ass!

It's almost to the point where anything that comes from King George's mouth, you can just assume the opposite.

Harold Meyerson recently wrote about the Nixon parallels with this current administration:

....by nurturing such deep divisions in the body politic, Nixon created the very kind of political landscape on which he was a master at maneuvering....Democrats railed against the war in Vietnam; Nixon railed against the demonstrators and Democrats, whom he gleefully conflated, at home. It was an asymmetric conflict, and Nixon won it going away, defeating George McGovern in 1972 by more than 20 percentage points.

Today Republicans in general and Karl Rove in particular have resurrected the Nixon game plan. They are not mounting a point-by-point defense of the administration's plan for Iraq, not least because the administration doesn't really have a plan for Iraq....[They're] not really defending the war per se but attacking the Democrats for seeking to end it. This was Nixonism of the highest order. [Yet they go Nixon one better by playing it both ways, ala General Casey's September withdrawal plan].

....That the president's war of choice has created a disaster in Iraq so profound that no course of action is likely to result in a safe, livable nation, then, may perversely work in the president's favor....The Democrats think too much, say the Republicans; such men are dangerous. Vote for us; we're dumb but tough.

Yes, this strategy (brawn over brains, might over right) has worked before with an electorate that doesn't think enough, following instead the whims of their emotions -- something Rove is a master at stoking and manipulating. Such voters should feel ashamed and "dirty" in the morning, badly in need of a shower.

But as long as this is the sad state of affairs, how can you even try to do the right thing and win?

Here's some of what Richard Clarke and Roger Cressey, counterterrorism officials on the National Security Council under both President Clinton and the current Bush, had to say about the much-ado being made about the Times publishing a story about the financial monitoring program. The op-ed is entitled "A Secret the Terrorists Already Knew":

They want the public to believe that it had not already occurred to every terrorist on the planet that his telephone was probably monitored and his international bank transfers subject to scrutiny. How gullible does the administration take the American citizenry to be?

Terrorists have for many years employed nontraditional communications and money transfers — including the ancient Middle Eastern hawala system, involving couriers and a loosely linked network of money brokers — precisely because they assume that international calls, e-mail and banking are monitored not only by the United States but by Britain, France, Israel, Russia and even many third-world countries.

While this was not news to terrorists, it may, it appears, have been news to some Americans, including some in Congress. But should the press really be called unpatriotic by the administration, and even threatened with prosecution by politicians, for disclosing things the terrorists already assumed?
<..>
There is, of course, another possible explanation for all the outraged bloviating. It is an election year....The attacks on the press are part of a political effort by administration officials to use terrorism to divide America, and to scare their supporters to the polls again this year.

Isn't it also a bit peculiar how the NY Times is being singled out, without any criticism likewise directed at the right-wing Wall Street Journal...? The WSJ published the same story on the same day as the NYT -- what gives?

My out-on-a-limb guess: for those on the right, the NYT is the centerpiece symbol for what's wrong with the MSM, namely that it's too liberal. Needless to say, the WSJ is far from being such a symbol, with its crazed editorial page literally echoing GOP talking points on a daily basis. Never mind the fact that the NYT incessantly hounded Bill Clinton with Whitewater and Monica stories, or that it played a pivotal role in aiding Bush/Cheney in the run-up to Iraq. The cliche is what matters here and the right-wing base will always regard the NYT as an "evil" pinko-left rag.

Thus, the reason for targeting the NYT and not the WSJ. As usual, it's all about Rovian politics, not the truth.

It's bad enough King George has been defying over 750 laws on the books (ruling as only he sees fit), but now he plans to defy the U.S. Supreme Court!

At what point does the naive, head-in-sand public finally cry foul and "defy" the King? In the name of "WAR ON TERROR", our democratic ideals, the ones our Founding Fathers put in place and so many Americans have fought to protect, have been undermined, subverted, and dissolved by this current regime. Instead, this cabal has chosen to take the country down the road to fascism and consolidated power, all under the absurd guise of patriotism.

On this July 4th, I implore everyone to listen to this 5-minute segment of an extremely prophetic speech by President John F. Kennedy. His words exactly nail what's going on today in our nation.

God (please!) Bless America.

Regarding the recent ruling against the Gitmo military tribunals, the Supreme Court wrote, "the executive nevertheless must comply with the prevailing rule of law."

Hmm, sound familiar? The GOP incessantly echoed this refrain ("rule of law") concerning Bill Clinton but apparently when the Supreme Court states it concerning Bush, we hear nothing, or at worse it's scoffed at and dismissed.

The GOP, the party of hypocrisy and playing politics.

Every so often I tune in to right-wing radio to get a dose of idiocy passing for smarts and it never fails, within minutes of tuning in I'm revolted.

This time it was Sean Hannity's show. A stand-in was filling in and amazingly a caller got through that was not rah-rah for Bush. She was asked if given everything that's happened would she vote for Bush again (hypothetically) and she said no (due to Iraq mess). The fill-in for Hannity went on to say that he had on the show family members of three fallen U.S. soldiers in Iraq who were behind Bush, did this fact change her mind? You could hear the woman hee-and-haw with discomfort but still sticking by her decision.

It was awful to sit through and truly a cheap shot. Of the 2500+ dead U.S. soldiers, the Sean Hannity show amazingly had on the air a whopping three GW-supportive families -- I'm sure it was just pot luck. And I'm sure those three families spoke for the thousands of other families. Why didn't they cherry-pick Cindy Sheehan and have her on the show? I don't recall a liberal talk show host using Sheehan as a battering ram to make pro-Bush callers squirm in discomfort, attempting to sway their political views.

Welcome to right-wing radio, where they use the unfortunate deaths of our armed forces for political reasons. They use fear-mongering to intimidate and frighten voters and in this case they use guilt and emotional manipulation (of the worst kind) in an attempt to change opinions. Anything goes for them, nothing is beyond the pale.