The boys got together and predictably cut a deal on torture. Details are not as yet known but I wonder to what degree this deal will end up saving Bush's ass down the road. What do I mean? Click here and make sure to pay close attention to what law professor Jonathan Turley has to say (about 7 minutes into video).

Here's the transcript:

OLBERMANN: Have we been looking at this through the wrong end of the telescope, that the president‘s rush, fury to get this done in only his way is not about getting new information, about protecting against new threats, but about somehow trying to make the way we‘ve already treated detainees retroactively OK? Is he covering his own backside with this?

HURLEY: Quite frankly, I think that there‘s evidence to say he is. You know, the thing that is ticking here, in terms of a clock, is the fact that these 14 guys that were recently transferred just arrived not that long ago in Gitmo in Cuba. They are going to be, or have been, interviewed by the Red Cross. Most people believe that waterboarding, they where (ph) you are held underwater until you think that you‘re going to drown. That is undeniably torture under the international standard.

If that occurs in the coming days, the United States, and specifically the president, will be accused of committing a very serious violation of international law. Torture is one of the top three or four things that the international law is designed to prevent.

And so the reason there‘s this move to try to get legislation as fast as possible is because I think the administration senses that there‘s a lot of trouble coming down this mountain.

OLBERMANN: How would some sort of Senate authorization to adjust the Geneva Conventions, our end of it, after we‘ve signed the document, how would that, though, protect the president or anybody involved in the waterboarding or anything else they might be accused of?

HURLEY: Well, he would retroactively define what he did not to be a violation. That‘s pretty good, if you‘re going to commit a violation of law, to go and get the legislature to retroactively say what you did was not a violation.

But remember, the president stands accused of 30 felonies in the NSA controversy. Many of us believe he committed felony crimes there. If now he‘s going to be accused of intentionally and knowingly ordering serious violations of international law, it‘s not going to go well for the United States.

We‘re already viewed as a rogue nation around the world. But here‘s something the president most likely knew about and condoned.

Astounding:

Diebold machines can be opened with...a hotel minibar key

This poll -- taken days to follow the 5-year anniversary of 9/11 -- is like taking a
poll on FDR just days after D-Day! Let a week or two go by and we'll see if this bounce holds.

The most interesting tally of a question buried in the poll:

Based on what you have heard or read, do you, personally, think Iraq is -- or is not -- in a state of civil war right now?

Yes, in state of civil war: 72%
No, not state of civil war: 25%

For close to a year, I've been writing about -- for lack of a better phrase -- the New Federalism, namely states increasingly taking on the needed actions required to address problems that the federal government is either shirking or working against.

This NY Times article offers proof that such bold initiatives can and have worked. Proof that state by state, this country can be transformed into a better place, without the help or will of our federal leaders.

Kevin Drum writes the following about this article:

Actually, as the accompanying graph shows, it's [California] per capita electricity usage that's remained flat while it's increased 50% in the rest of the country. If you look at total per capita energy use, it's actually declined since 1970 (compared to a modest increase in the rest of the country). At the same time, smog levels in Southern California have been substantially reduced. And do you know why? Largely because California has passed laws forcing it to happen.

Of course, we all know the result, don't we? As the Republican Party and the corporate community are so fond of declaring, regulation like this inevitably leads to economic disaster. Businesses fail, incomes drop, and the economy goes into a tailspin. It's nothing short of a disaster.

And yet, the predictable screeching of the corporate community, delivered on pretty much an annual basis, appears to have been wrong. California's economy has been doing just fine during the decades we've pursued these policies. Imagine that.

Anyway, it's a good article, and goes to show the kinds of things we could be doing nationwide if conservative politicians could put their Chicken Little campaign contributors on hold for a few minutes and take a look at how it's possible to cut energy use dramatically — and reduce our dependence on foreign suppliers — without ruining the economy.

Still think the economy has been zipping along, helping workers of all income levels? Well over the past six years, guess in how many states median income has risen? 40? 30? 25? Try 20. Yup, in just 40% of the states is median income higher than when Bush took office.

Is it any wonder polls show most Americans are concerned and unhappy about the economy? (Note: using median, not average, is the correct metric. Folks like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet distort averages).

We've heard this line of reasoning too many times from GW: "I'm often asked why we're in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat....The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power."

However, that's like saying in response to a criminal who robbed a bank and left many innocent people dead, by later capturing a notorious, heinous rapist hundreds of miles away from the scene, who had nothing to do with this robbery, that the country is now safer thanks to this capture. Huh?

Yet the media repeatedly allows Bush to get away with this evasive, lame attempt at connecting Saddam/Iraq with 9/11 and the war on terror. Enough already.

This administration holding out for torture is the last straw -- how much longer do we need to suffer under their rule?

Three prominent senators from their own party have broke ranks -- a huge symbolic gesture given the pressure within the GOP to kiss GW's ass often and always. One of the three, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a military lawyer no less, said "This whole thing has been just one mess after another. It started with Abu Ghraib. How many more times do we need to create legislation that's defective, that's going to confuse people, that's got not a snowball's chance in hell of passing Supreme Court muster?"

Colin Powell has apparently recovered from his much-deserved acute case of shame to utter some criticism about this administration, stating "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism." Really Colin, you think? Nah, can't be. This president is all about God, morality, and the American way. You must have your former boss confused with someone else....

And then 27 (not two, or five, or 10, but almost 30) retired military leaders wrote a letter to the Armed Services Committee urging rejection of Bush's pro-torture proposal.

From a recent Washington Post editorial: "President Bush rarely visits Congress. So it was a measure of his painfully skewed priorities that Mr. Bush made the unaccustomed trip yesterday to seek legislative permission for the CIA to make people disappear into secret prisons and have information extracted from them by means he dare not describe publicly." Yes, "painfully skewed priorities" indeed.

Look, to witness this president and VP pulling out all the stops to insure that torture is permissible, regardless of the repercussions to our Constitution, prior international accords, or the future treatment of our own soldiers, is to conclude just one thing: they're mad -- as in stark-raving, Howard Beal mad. Voting for anyone who aligns with them is a tragic act in support of sociopathic, repugnant derangement. In doing so, you will (should) look back on such a decision with great shame, and may you be forced to admit your sin to grandchildren, close relatives, and friends.

Right-wing talking head and admitted recovering alcoholic Glenn Beck had this to say about himself in the latest TV Guide: "I've got like 10 minutes of education. I ain't smart. I'm a schmo."

Besides the fact that description would ring true of a certain president in office, don't you just love the boasting when it comes to a lack of education? As if not going to college or dropping out of school is cool or leads down the road to, gulp, becoming a liberal.

It's absurd. The wingnuts will complain about public schools and want vouchers for choice, and yet more than one of their talking heads seem to enjoy bragging about their lightness when it comes to education (recall O'Reilly trying to paint his education as average-Joe, despite going to a private high school). By obviously trying to appeal to the more blue collar audience that pays their bloated salaries, they end up glorifying less time spent at school and demonizing the overly-intellectual liberals who, heaven forbid, perhaps aspired to learning more in our schools.

Wow, what a terrific message to send our youth. You too can have your own radio and TV talk shows if you just become dumber by getting less formal education. Don't be ashamed of it or try to hide it or play it down, but rather embrace it, wear it like a badge of honor. Oh, and I guess suffering through a bout of alcoholism can't hurt. (And yet recall the horror of what the kids might think regarding the Clinton/Monica "affair"; once again, BJs bad, being a "schmo" that ain't smart good).

But most curiously, what reasonable person would want to rely on someone for political commentary who admits that he/she has ten minutes of education and ain't smart? Is that what it's come down to for many on the right, to shun the educated in favor of regular-guy ignorance? Or are we supposed to believe that Beck doesn't need all that "book learning" to be smart on the issues? If so, then the right should stop the hypocrisy about public vs. private schools since apparently it doesn't matter; kids should do just fine without a formal education -- just look at street-smart Glenn Beck!

I just happened to flip on The McLaughlin Group (talk about everything that's wrong with political discourse on TV!) in time to hear Pat Buchanan adamantly state we're in jeopardy of losing both wars (Iraq and Afghanistan). Mr. McLaughlin himself then cuts off Buchanan (no one gets to finish a complete thought on the show) to blare that we're not in jeopardy of losing two wars, but three, reminding Buchanan you must include the war on terror as the third.

Geez, these nitwits on the right. Can't they even recite the GOP/GW/Rove talking points correctly! For how long has Bush been trying to convince the American public that the Iraq war is a central part of the war on terror, that the two are actually one? Bush (stupidly) admitted that the toughest job he has as president is linking the two (duh, it wouldn't be so tough to convince if it were true). Yet, McLaughlin and Buchanan talk in terms of two and three wars, not one. Idiots, all of them.

GW's most hilarious quote of the year (and that's saying something):

"I think I’m pretty good about filtering out which is real and which is not."

A recent poll by the Pew Center found that "as many as 36% say they see their ballot this fall as a vote against the president. Far more voters express this sentiment in the current election cycle than in any midterm campaign dating to 1982." In addition, there's "no evidence that the renewed focus on terrorism has improved Bush's standing; his job approval rating stands at 37%, unchanged from August."

Related to this wonderful news, Sen. Mary Landrieu's beautiful tirade:

America is tired of the wrongheaded and boneheaded leadership of the Republican party that has sent six and a half billion a month to Iraq while the front line was Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. That led this country to attack Saddam Hussein, when we were attacked by Osama bin Laden. Who captured a man who did not attack the country and let loose a man that did. Americans are tired of boneheaded Republican leadership that alienates our allies when we need them the most. Americans are most certainly tired of leadership that despite documenting mistake after mistake after mistake, even of their own party admitting mistakes, never admit they do anything wrong. That's the kind of leadership Americans are tired of.

May a few more Dems start to speak out loudly and in no uncertain terms, i.e. using plain english.

Conservative Fred Barnes writes, "the Bush administration hasn't made the capture of Osama bin Laden a paramount goal of the war on terror. Emphasis on bin Laden doesn't fit with the administration's strategy for combating terrorism....Rather, Bush says there's a better way to stay on offense against terrorists. 'The way you win the war on terror,' Bush said, 'is to find people [who are terrorists] and get them to give you information about what their buddies are fixing to do.'"

Uh, Freddie and Mr. Prez, don't you think what the terrorists are "fixing to do" most likely originates from bin Laden, their leader? Making that bold assumption, then isn't it kind of important to make capturing bin Laden "a paramount goal"?

These guys fail when it comes to comprehending base Logic 101.

This past Tuesday, two highly partisan political pundits, Bill Kristol and Rich Lowry, put out a piece urging that we send more troops to Iraq. In direct response, Ronald Reagan's former assistant secretary of defense, Lawrence Korb, along with the national security expert at the Center for American Progress, Peter Ogden, teamed up to pen a piece stating the Kristol/Lowry plan would "threaten to break our nation's all-volunteer Army and undermine our national security." They also wrote, "the signs of strain on the active Army are evident. In July an official report revealed that two-thirds of the active U.S. Army was classified as 'not ready for combat.'.... The active Army has close to zero combat-ready brigades in reserve....the head of the National Guard said that his military branch was 'in an even more dire situation than the active Army.'"

And General Wesley Clark on Air America likewise described our military as "nearing a breaking point," one that could soon result in something tragic.

Uh, I think I'll side with a general, the head of the National Guard, Reagan's former asst. sec. of defense, and a national security expert over two neocon-crazed screwballs.

I give you Dan Froomkin:

The White House and the Republican leadership believe embracing the president's warrantless wiretapping program and detainee proposals are key to surviving the November elections.

But the effects of the legislation Congress is considering this week will last far beyond November. And critics argue that the White House's approach won't help protect the country so much as put captured American soldiers at risk, further blacken America's image abroad, legitimize unconstitutional treatment of detainees, erode privacy rights, cede congressional authority and institutionalize what has thus far been the extralegal assertion of nearly unchecked, and therefore potentially corrupting power, to this president as well as those to come.

Regarding the recent revelations concerning the Valerie Plame outing, Kevin Drum writes:

So that's whose cover Robert Novak, Richard Armitage, Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, and God knows who else blew. The woman who was in charge of the entire CIA team trying to locate Saddam's WMD.

Of course, this also sheds some light on why Dick Cheney and the entire White House crew seemed so interested in discrediting Wilson: because her team didn't find anything. Cheney was visiting Langley, writing memos, demanding answers, and just generally obsessing over Iraqi WMD programs, and it was Valerie Wilson's team that was failing to find what he wanted. I think it's safe to say that he was displeased with Wilson and her team.

And yet Cheney has the gall to appear on Meet The Press this weekend and state "[Saddam] did not have stockpiles—clearly the intelligence that said he did was wrong." But the UN inspectors repeatedly reported that Iraq was bare concerning WMD, only to have such reports rebuffed and rejected by the likes of Cheney. In addition, we now learn Valerie Plame was conducting similar work at the CIA and coming up with same conclusions -- the kind Cheney didn't like.

We know what happened to Plame after that but just how craven and disingenuous is it to hear Cheney lament about the bad intel? A good deal of the credible intel at the time was dead-on correct, only ignored. And here you have a CIA agent coming up with the "wrong" findings so she was dealt with. Meanwhile, it was the intel Cheney et al chose to focus on strictly that was bad.

Where's the accountability for this purposeful negligence?

From the terrific Carpetbagger Report, it appears as if at least a few Democrats are seeing huge jumps in their poll numbers even after GW/Rove unleashed the old and tired tactic of frightening the masses and blaring the Dems-are-weak-appeasers rhetoric. Very encouraging.

There's this recent headline, "I no longer have power to save Iraq from civil war, warns Shia leader" and there's this one from a few days ago, "Situation Called Dire in West Iraq," with the story leading off, "The chief of intelligence for the Marine Corps in Iraq recently filed an unusual secret report concluding that the prospects for securing that country's western Anbar province are dim and that there is almost nothing the U.S. military can do to improve the political and social situation there."

But I guess I'm "appeasing" the enemy by pointing out these stories. Shame on me.

GW speechifies of a united Iraq progressing along nicely -- an absolute fantasy!

BAGHDAD, Sept. 10 -- The main Sunni Arab political bloc boycotted parliament Sunday to protest legislation supported by Shiite Muslims and Kurds that would carve Iraq into a federation of three autonomous states.

As violence escalates, so does talk of a divided Iraq

Sir, stop lying to the American people about Iraq. It's too important a matter, dealing with real human lives, to be using it as a political football to win elections.

David Brooks gets it wrong, again. In his latest column, he writes, "There are many cultural ways to strengthen marriage, but financially, the government could extend the earned income tax credit to single males." OK, except that the EITC already applies to single males.

As I wrote a few days ago, "Brooks is a blithering idiot who seemingly spends little if any time conducting research before typing out his column in time to receive a paycheck."

When does the NY Times finally jettison this lazy right-wing tool?

Regarding GW's primetime 9/11 address, Dan Froomkin yesterday:

The occasion called for reflection and an attempt to unify the nation in its grief and determination. In fact, it was billed as such by the White House.

Instead, Bush delivered a leaden rehash of his unpersuasive rationales for his response to the threat of terrorism. He made a carefully crafted attempt to terrify Americans into supporting his deeply unpopular war in Iraq. He was misleading. He mischaracterized his critics.

It's hard to imagine that he could have been more divisive if he'd tried. And with most Americans no longer trusting the president, it's hard to imagine the speech served him well.

From an editorial in today's Financial Times:

While it still amazes how comprehensively Iraq was bungled by the US occupation, it was always foreseeable that the invasion would proliferate, not combat, the clear and present threat to liberal values and international stability, which was jihadi extremism not Saddam Hussein. In that respect, the Bush administration and its exiguous allies in this misadventure might as well have taken a hammer to a ball of mercury.

Iraq is now a broken state, the cockpit for a sectarian war between Sunni and Shia Muslims that not only takes up to 100 lives a day but threatens to suck in Iraq's neighbours. It is also a new and target-rich frontline for the itinerant holy warriors of the al-Qaeda franchise, creating a new generation of battle-hardened cadres skilled in the urban terrorism favoured by Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's strategist.
<..>
The dispiriting story here is that the US under President George W. Bush has lost the near-universal sympathy and solidarity provoked by 9/11. It has forfeited nearly all legitimacy in the Arab and Muslim worlds where, in one of the great dramas of our time, several recent polls reveal that democratic America is perceived as a greater threat than theocratic Iran.
<..>
The way the Bush administration has trampled on the international rule of law and Geneva conventions, while abrogating civil liberties and expanding executive power at home, has done huge damage not only to America's reputation but, more broadly, to the attractive power of western values.

And in The New Yorker:

The wider counterpart to our traumatized togetherness at home was an astonishing burst abroad of what can only be called pro-Americanism....No one realistically expected that the mood of fellow-feeling and coöperation would long persist in the extraordinarily powerful form it took in the immediate wake of September 11th.
<..>
What few expected was how comprehensively that initial spirit would be ruined by the policies and the behavior of our government, culminating in, though hardly limited to, the disastrous occupation of Iraq. This shouldn’t have been so surprising. George W. Bush campaigned in 2000 as a “compassionate conservative,” one who recognized that government was not the enemy, praised bipartisanship, proclaimed his intention to “change the tone in Washington,” and advocated a foreign policy of humility and respect. None of that happened.

On this the fifth anniversary of 9/11, while we take time to remember all those lost in the tragic attacks, we learn that Cheney has decided to admit that although the country went to war in Iraq on false intelligence and he himself misjudged the Iraqi insurgency, if he had to do it all over again he would. He said this on Meet The Press, where Tim Russert once again served as the resident buffoon, neglecting to follow-up numerous times concerning Cheney's continued willingness to lie despite the above admissions.

Of course, as for the admissions, Cheney can conveniently portray the false intel realization as something learned now in looking back, which is a lie. We know that during the build-up to the Iraq war there was ample good evidence that was buried or suppressed in favor of the false intel! With Richard Clarke stating he was told repeatedly to go back and find anything to support attacking Iraq, and the multiple reports of Powell and others knowing the "yellow cake" inclusion was bogus intel and used anyway, and then the Downing Street memos providing evidence of Bush/Cheney building policy around an Iraqi attack.

And as for Cheney misjudging the strength of the insurgency, we know there was ample written and voiced support prior to the war from military personnel and related think tanks stating that the troop level needed to be three to four times larger than the 100,000 sent troops to properly deal with the expected insurgency. The fact that Cheney now says he simply misjudged is outrageous.

The entire interview would be astounding if it were anyone else but Cheney. Russert shows him a poll that has 54% of Americans believing we're creating more terrorists with the Iraq war, as opposed to 15% who believe we're eliminating more, and Cheney simply dismisses it, "I can't buy that." These guys just toss that which they disagree with whether it be opinions or facts. He later states that Al Qaeda and our "adversaries" want to test our will so that "the American people don’t have the stomach for the fight." That's bullsh*t. Americans have always had the will to fight, as we did right after 9/11. If anything has weakened that resolve and brought into question any will to fight it's been the debacle in Iraq. Al Qaeda or any other terrorist threat has not caused the American public to go weak-kneed; instead, it's been our own leaders! To a large extent, by working to cripple the will to fight in this country through the incompetent management of Iraq, it's also kept Americans frightened and disillusioned -- potentially helping the GOP at the polls, as it at least has in the past.

Russert cites the much-quoted poll that the majority of Americans now believe Iraq is not part of the war on terror, and Cheney 1) disagrees ("I beg to differ"), again simply dismissing any poll he disagrees with, as if the public is stupid and ignorant when it's convenient (funny how this same public was so intelligent when such polls were to Cheney's liking), and 2) he spends the bulk of his time making the case that the world is better off without Saddam in power. Duh! No one has ever or will ever argue that Saddam was a great guy, but that still doesn't address the question of relating war in Iraq -- a country with zero ties to 9/11 -- with the war on terror.

As for WMD in Iraq, the inspectors reported repeatedly that they found nothing, and it appears as if they weren't lying based on the fact we've found nothing since but some rusty old weapons used in the Iran/Iraq war. Yet, Cheney doesn't mention that intel rather stating "clearly the intelligence that said he did was wrong. That was the intelligence all of us saw, that was the intelligence all of us believed." Again, they selectively believed some intel -- and tossed the rest.

I could go on and on with more examples of lies and misrepresentations in that interview. Please read it for yourself. Wow, they seemingly come clean on some things only to lie some more.

The Pentagon recently released a report that said, "Conditions that could lead to civil war exist in Iraq." That's from the Pentagon!

One of the best and most important pieces I've read in quite some time discusses how conditions within a country are what give rise to the worst kind of dictators and tyrants. The Hitlers of the world never just sort of popped up out of nowhere and decided to take power. Instead, the conditions within such countries were ripe for such a person to become popular and thereafter take control to conduct atrocities.

The piece I'm referring to was posted by the blog Legal Fiction. Below are some key segments:

What these individuals are capable of, though, are some nasty terrorist attacks that could kill a lot of people. But the answer to that is to go find these individuals and arrest or kill them — as opposed to invading countries and then justifying that with kindergarten level stories about how the invasion is necessary to prevent the impending return of the Caliphate.
<..>
Bush is making a common error by looking at the rise of Lenin and Hitler backwards. He’s treating Hitler and Lenin as the causes of great political and societal change. In reality, they are reflections of it.
<..>
The question is what underlying historical and cultural forces made the rise of Lenin possible. Same deal with Hitler. What are the underlying forces that made Hitler possible....If Lenin died in exile, there would have been another “Lenin” because the underlying forces were in place to create one. Same deal with Hitler....What made Lenin and Hitler politically viable was not their evilness, but the state of their respective countries. In other words, the underlying material and cultural conditions made the public receptive to their message.
<..>
To prevent Lenins and Hitlers, you have to prevent the conditions that give rise to Hitlers and Lenins....The problem though is the neocons' complete disconnect with any sort of empirical or objective reality regarding the effectiveness of their means. For instance, it should be more than clear by now that regime change and democracy-at-the-barrel-of-a-gun undermines our broader (and to an extent, shared) goals.
<..>
Our own policies — ostensibly in the name of fighting terrorism — are giving rise to the very conditions that gave rise to the Hitlers and Lenins of history....Iraq is essentially a failed state caught in a destabilizing civil war that is only going to get worse. On top of that, Muslims have endured cultural humiliation in the face of Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, etc.

The mix of instability, military impotence, and humiliation has proven in the past to be a volatile one. That’s why it’s no accident that Hezbollah or Sadr’s militia has so much support right now. It has less to do with Sadr and Nasrallah as individual agents of History and everything to do with the conditions these individuals have found themselves in.

Exactly why the invasion of Iraq has made us less safe, now and in the future. It has laid the fertile foundation for a future Lenin or Hitler to arise from the brutal chaos.

Thanks Bush & Co. for manipulating us into a $500 bil. unnecessary war that will ultimately be the root cause for more terrorism and violence wrought across the globe. For that reason alone, this "president" is the worst in history.

An excellent response by Kevin Drum to another super-light David Brooks column, proving once again that Brooks is a blithering idiot who seemingly spends little if any time conducting research before typing out his column in time to receive a paycheck. He's an embarrassment to the NY Times and he should be an embarrassment to all serious, credible right-wing thinkers. For related retorts to Brooks' column, click here and here.

So ABC managed to send out approximately 900 preview copies of the 9/11 miniseries to every right-wing blog on the internet but refuses to send copies to Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, or Sandy Berger, not to mention any progressive blogger. What was once billed as a "documentary" has now been modified to a "dramatization." It was also once stated to be objective, but Max Blumenthal uncovers that the people and groups behind this farce are anything but objective. Firedoglake lists tons more on this new low for the MSM. And may we no longer hear the right's empty-headed complaining about the liberal media -- it was never true but this travesty just drove a stake through the heart of that canard.

At what point does ABC try to salvage a shred of credibility by just shit-canning this completely partisan yet pushed as otherwise piece of garbage? Do they really think last-minute editing is going to change anything at this point? The damage is done and they have only themselves to blame.

In reviewing the many news items over the past 7-10 days, the following appeared interesting:

I see that Rumsfeld insinuated Democrats were appeasing terrorists. When will this straw man bullshit stop! He also complained there was not enough praise for those who win medals for military service. Hmm, does he mean like the praise and respect his party directed towards medal winners Kerry, Murtha, Cleland, and Gore?

As I've been writing about for nearly a year, California offers up another example of the new federalism, i.e. states stepping in and doing when the federal government won't.

The Taliban is thriving in Afghanistan with the opium crop -- providing 90% of the global supply and financing terrorist activities -- doing better than ever. Yes, what I wise move that was to quickly avert attention away from this country to invade Iraq.

Good to see at least a few Republican strategists concede that the Dems will likely take the House in November.

I recently wrote, "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." I now read that Rove doesn't have nearly the power or sway with Republican candidates that he wielded in prior elections.

As for the Dems taking over one if not both chambers of Congress, they're going to have to run the gauntlet successfully this time. What gauntlet? The GOP shit chute: voter intimidation, push polls, Swift Boating, fear mongering, lies, voting machine oddities -- have I missed any?

It's good to see the liberal blogosphere take ABC to task over the fictional 9/11 miniseries that they were going to pass off as objective and fact-based. Based on the reaction generated, as with the Lamont campaign it once again proves that blogs have arrived and can collectively exert tremendous influence.

How sad. It's bad enough half the public still believes Iraq had WMDs, but nearly half also believe Saddam was connected to 9/11 -- despite GW himself proclaiming just a few weeks ago that Saddam had "nothing" to do with it. You talk about conspiracy fanatics....

Surprise! Another hardcore Republican with at least one homosexual in the family tree.

Excellent post by AMERICAblog: "What this idiot [GW] doesn't understand, or chooses to ignore, is that regardless of how evil the enemy, the problem isn't that the American people don't understand the dangers we face. The problem is that the American people have finally understood that we have an incompetent buffoon in charge of tackling said danger. And no amount of prattling about Lenin or Hitler is going to quell people's concerns that Bush is simply not up to the task."

Whereas he used to behave as if the man didn't exist, now Bush is suddenly trotting out bin Laden's name any chance he gets. What's changed? Simply that Bush & Co. are desperate and are willing to take the risk of reminding people that this heinous man is still alive in exchange for the benefit of creating fear. They take the risk not because they choose to but rather because they have to.

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright requested a copy of ABC's 9/11 miniseries to view and ABC turned her down -- this despite sending out hundreds of copies to a variety of people including one to Rush Limbaugh. Albright said, "I have been informed by some who had been given the right to view the broadcast that the drama depicts scenes that never happened, events that never took place, decisions that were never made and conversations that never occurred; it asserts as fact things that are not fact." Bill Clinton has also been denied a copy to view.

This bit of news is HUGE: "The AP-Ipsos poll showed that while 54 percent of southern women -- almost all white -- voted for Bush in 2004, 60 percent of those surveyed plan on voting Democratic in November."

Prudential's political strategist, Charles Gabriel, wrote in a report released yesterday, "After no improvement for Republicans in the six weeks we've been reading political gauges in this report, we now predict that Democrats will retake control of the House on November 7." Given his firm's Wall Street connections, I doubt Gabriel is a hardcore Dem.

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?