Tuli Can't Stop Talking

These are just my thoughts on contemporary issues and an attempt to open up a dialogue.

My Photo
Location: New York City

A citizen who cares deeply about the United States Constitution and the Rule of Law.

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Finally, PeaceWins!

What can I say? This was one of the stupidest things that I had ever heard of. It says, unfortunately, that there are some incredibly stupid and misinformed folks out there. Were these folks part of the USA/Gallop 38% approval rating of George W. Bush?

Who are these people and where do they come from? I have to wonder if we have a very large group of extraterrestrials inhabiting this country. Really I do!

That said here is what the NYT put out today on the wreath story:

November 29, 2006

Pro-Peace Symbol Forces Win Battle in Colorado Town


DENVER, Nov. 28 — Peace is fighting back in Pagosa Springs.

Last week, a couple were threatened with fines of $25 a day by their homeowners’ association unless they removed a four-foot wreath shaped like a peace symbol from the front of their house.

The fines have been dropped, and the three-member board of the association has resigned, according to an e-mail message sent to residents on Monday.

Two board members have disconnected their telephones, apparently to escape the waves of callers asking what the board could have been thinking, residents said. The third board member, with a working phone, did not return a call for comment.

In its original letter to the couple, Lisa Jensen and Bill Trimarco, the association said some neighbors had found the peace symbol politically “divisive.”

A board member later told a newspaper that he thought the familiar circle with angled lines was also, perhaps, a sign of the devil.

The peace symbol came to prominence in the late 1950s as the logo for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, a British antiwar group, according to the group’s Web site. It incorporates the semaphore flag images for the letters in the group’s name, a “D” atop an “N.”

Other people have said the upright line with arms angled down, commonplace in the United States in the Vietnam War, especially, has roots in the early Christian era, representing a twisted or broken cross.

Mr. Trimarco said he put up the wreath as a general symbol of peace on earth, not as a commentary on the Iraq war or another political statement.

In any case, there are now more peace symbols in Pagosa Springs, a town of 1,700 people 200 miles southwest of Denver, than probably ever in its history.

On Tuesday morning, 20 people marched through the center carrying peace signs and then stomped a giant peace sign in the snow perhaps 300 feet across on a soccer field, where it could be easily seen.

“There’s quite a few now in our subdivision in a show of support,” Mr. Trimarco said.

A former president of the Loma Linda community, where Mr. Trimarco lives, said Tuesday that he had stepped in to help form an interim homeowners’ association.

The former president, Farrell C. Trask, described himself in a telephone interview as a military veteran who would fight for anyone’s right to free speech, peace symbols included.

Town Manager Mark Garcia said Pagosa Springs was building its own peace wreath, too. Mr. Garcia said it would be finished by late Tuesday and installed on a bell tower in the center of town.

The Times left out some of the grittier details like how the president of the association fired everyone who agreed with the proposition that hanging the wreath was legal. But, that said, the Times did bring out the fact that in the end “Peace Wins.”

What in God’s Name is happening to this country that this is even a controversey?

Due Process Indeed!

Andrew Cohen at Bench Conference in the Wapo has a take on due process, or not, at Gitmo, and as ususal he does not disappoint all us crazy “Civil Liberties” types.

Here is his “snarky” post on the Combat and Status Review Tribunals based on evidence of course:

Abbott and Costello Go to Gitmo

The following Buchwaldian dialogue is entirely fictional (except where the quotes appear) and the procedures used in real life are different from those depicted here. But the gist of the conversation, and the information contained in it, is real (the satire is my own, of course). In early 2005, a federal judge issued an important terror law ruling that shed a focused beam of light upon how our government is handling the detainees down at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. And, twice this year, Seton Hall University studies have taken declassified military records of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals--the initial hearing given to detainees at Gitmo to determine their status--and revealed the sheer scope of the legal farce that has been sold to us as due process. What follows below is based upon that information.

Prosecutor: Judge, we would like to try this detainee again because the first time we did so we did not get a result we wanted.

Judge: Wait a minute. I am looking at the record and I see that you are asking to put this detainee on trial for a third time. Are you saying that twice before you have been unable to come up with a satisfactory result--a designation that this man is a terrorist- so you want a third crack at it?

Prosecutor: That is precisely what we are saying, sir. And by the way, even though we are using declassified information against the detainee we do not want him to be able to use it, or even see it, himself. Can't be too careful about giving these terrorists too much information.

Judge: But of course so far we don't know that he is a terrorist, right? I mean the first two tribunals certainly didn't get us that far. But don't worry. I am going to grant your request to undertake a third Combatant Status Review Tribunal for this man and I'm also going to allow you to continue to withhold from him the declassified information you say you want to get him classified as a terrorist. Of course, I already have told you that the detainee may not have access to or use any classified information that you say you have against him.

Prosecutor: Thanks, sir.

Judge: And, just so you know, for this third trial, as with each of the other two, I am determining that the classified evidence you intend to offer against this detainee is reasonable and valid even though the means by which you obtained the information is suspect. But remember that I am only going to allow the detainee, if he is lucky, to submit to this tribunal in his own defense letters from family and friends. Since the detainee doesn't get to have a lawyer, and since his "personal representative," whatever that means, isn't going to exercise his right to comment upon our ruling anyway, I'm sure you will find this satisfactory.

Prosecutor: Yes sir. There is one more thing, sir. We are accusing another man of being associated with Al Qaeda because we believe that he knows someone who is a member of Al Qaeda. But when we asked him to confirm this for us he told us he couldn't.

Judge: Why not?

Prosecutor: He said he could not tell us whether he knew the Al Qaeda member because we would not and could not give him the name of the Al Qaeda member.

Judge: Well, why couldn't you or wouldn't you tell him the name of the person you were accusing him of knowing?

Prosecutor: Because that's classified, sir. We were only able to share with him information on an unclassified document and that information did not contain the name of the Al Qaeda member we believe the detainee knows.

Judge: But how can it be classified if you are convinced that he knows the person anyway?

Prosecutor: I can't answer that question, sir. That's classified.

Judge: Well, what exactly did the detainee say?

Prosecutor: He said "I asked the interrogators to tell me who this person was. Then I could tell you if I might have known this person, but not if this person is a terrorist. Maybe I knew this person as a friend. Maybe it was a person that worked with me. Maybe it was a person that was on my team. But I do not know if this person is Bosnian, Indian or whatever. If you tell me the name, then I can respond and defend myself against this accusation."

Judge: What else did the detainee say? I see here that we believe that he is suspected of planning an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Sarajevo.

Prosecutor: The detainee said: "The only thing I can tell you is I did not plan or even think of (attacking the Embassy). Did you find any explosives with me? Any weapons? Did you find me in front of the embassy? Did you find me in contact with the Americans? Did I threaten anyone? I am prepared now to tell you, if you have anything or any evidence, even if it just very little, that proves I went to the embassy and looked (at) the embassy, then I am ready to be punished."

Judge: Let me ask you. Based upon what you've determined so far, after five years, how many of these detainees do you believe are members of Al Qaeda or the Taliban or otherwise were inclined to take up arms against America?

Prosecutor: Well over 200 detainees were determined not to have committed a hostile act against the United States. And only eight percent of the detainees have been determined to be "Al Qaeda fighters" while 40 percent of the men had no connection with Al Qaeda and 18 percent had no connection with either Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

Judge: But there are well over 400 men here. What are they still doing here if those determinations have been made?

Prosecutor: I don't know, sir. That's classified.

Now this is snarky to be sure, but it is serious as a heart attack!

So, the question to be answered is: say you were an American detained by some unnamed country and this was your fate, my guess is that you would think that you had been dragged into a Kafkaesque drama and find it totally unjust? So, then why is it that this is happening in the United States and you and yours are not outraged?

What are you doing about this?

Or are you a good German circa 1933?

Yellow Ribbons on a SUV!

One of my favorite things to despise is the practice of putting a Magnetic (because a bumper sticker is so permanent) Yellow Ribbon, which is more than likely manufactured in China, on Americas’ gas guzzling SUV’s.

Micah Sifry has found a wonderful tune and video making extraordinary fun of it with a retake of the “Put a Yellow Ribbon on the Old Oak Tree.”

Watch the Asylum Street Spankers here:

Now wasn’t that worth your time? It is said that comedy comes from tragedy. This is a perfect example.

Thanks Mr. Sifry for finding this.

And a particular thanks to the Asylum Street Spankers for putting to music what so many of us think.

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Past Presidents!

I just watched President Jimmy Carter on the NewsHour. He has a new book out on the Palestinian and Israeli conflict. This lead me to wonder what George W. Bush would be doing when he became a past president.

Here is what President Carter is talking about:

"It's based on a minority of Israelis occupying, confiscating and colonizing land that belongs to the Palestinians," Carter told The Early Show co-anchor Harry Smith. "When Israel does occupy this territory deep within the West Bank and connects 200 or so settlements (to) each other with a road and prohibits the Palestinians from using that road, in many cases even crossing the road — this perpetrates even worse instances of … apartheid than we witnessed in South Africa."

Carter said the occupation of Palestinian land contradicts the peace agreement he brokered between Egypt and Israel and also violates a United Nations resolution. He said despite Israel's refusal to adhere to agreements and resolutions, the United States government has been consistently supportive of its actions.

"There's never been any debate on this issue of any significance, Carter said. "And the news media are acquiescent, members of the Congress are acquiescent, where the rest of the world debates this intensely, particularly in Israel."

The danger, Carter said, is that the conflict in Israel will become even more violent than it already is.

"Israel has the choice to make: Peace approved by all Arabs, by withdrawing from occupied territory, or the retention of those isolated settlements in the West Bank instead of peace," Carter said.

The former president is also critical of the way President George W. Bush has handled Iraq, a war he thought was a horrible mistake from the beginning. Carter said that one of the first steps he thinks the Bush administration should to improve the situation is open communication with leaders from Iran and Syria, even though Bush has refused to deal with the two nations because he says they sponsor terrorism.

"When we have a difference of agreement with a nation or people, the first thing we should do is to open up communications with them," Carter said.

Carter said he is looking forward for the Baker-Hamilton commission report on Iraq. Carter said he expects the committee, lead by former Secretary of State James Baker and former U.S. Representative Lee Hamilton, to set a time table to withdraw.

"I think as long as they can depend upon American troops being there indefinitely, they (Iraqi leaders) are less likely to take strong action on their own to control the violence," he said.

President Carter is totally engaged and informed about the world situation and is definitely committed to making it a better world.

I have to wonder what our current president will be doing when he is no long the 43rd. I wonder as he doesn’t seem committed to or engaged in the world situation as it is today. I am thinking that cutting shrub will be his major concern and activity in his later years.

What do you think?

Sunday, November 26, 2006

Black Friday

Just in case you didn’t know!

We Don’t Do It!

For more information and inspiration see the Rev. Billy!

Learn Something New Everyday.

Now this painting by Jacques-Louis David of Bonaparte crossing the Alps resides on my refrigerator. It was given to me in the form of a magnet by a guy I know who knew I was into horses, and refrigerator magnets, and I suppose knew instinctively that I was also a cheese eating surrender monkey (I don’t drink lattes usually.) So, because it is iconic it sits on my fridge next to my Skippy (Skip Away) magnet and my Hotel del Coronado (Del Mar) magnet. Both of which are icons in the horse biz.

Now on Friday, our second day of the festival that is our Thanksgiving, two folks were late to the festivities. They came with the excuse that they were held up at the Brooklyn Art Museum due to the crowd (they went to see Annie Leibovitz and Ron Muek) and then of course they had to bake an apple pie. Well at first I wasn’t having any of it. But, then we surfed the site and I saw the Ron Muek video. Wow!

And then Irshad’s mother saw the Bonaparte magnet and told me about a painting that Irshad was mesmerized by at the Museum.

And that is where this painting by Kehinde Wiley comes in.

Wow, again! Wiley is so young. Jacques-Louis David was 53 when he painted his iconic piece. Wiley is only 29 as we speak (or read as the case may be), and I think this piece he has produced is iconic indeed.

I think that this painting is loaded with meaning and timeliness. I am overwhelmed by it.

I love the Persian background.

What do you think?

Martha is right, learn something new everyday. It's a good thing! And it can even be an excuse for being unbelievably late to a social function and obligation.

Of course, bringing one of the best homemade apple pies doesn’t hurt either.

Thanksgiving: The Real Story?

As my two regular readers know the only holiday I actually celebrate is Thanksgiving. My friends and I have made it over into our own two day non-religious and non-patriotic festivity. In our observance it has little or nothing to do with the “First Thanksgiving,” It has to do with being thankful for our connections to each other, the world around us and the fact that we are all in this together. I love it. They are my two favorite days of the year.

That said, Max Sawicky, over at MaxSpeak, You Listen!, has a really interesting and quite relevant take on the “First Thanksgiving” and that which lead up to it. He has rewritten the story in a Pax Americana sort of way without the “faux peace part” spin. You know, picture Iraq! In fact, pick any other country that applies, there are a lot you know!

Here is Max:

MaxSpeak Summary: the Puritan Christian fundamentalists, of whom the Pilgrims were a subgroup, were murderous, treacherous swine who made a treaty with the indigenous people around Plymouth until they had enough forces to wipe them out. This they later did with smallpox and guns, unless they were able to sell them into slavery, all of course for the greater glory of Jesus Christ.

Wait a minute. That wasn't quite right. Let's try it again. Here's how it goes.

The Puritans in England were subject to religious persecution, lo unto death. They needed a homeland where they could survive as a people and live in peace. They tried to settle in the Netherlands, but it proved inhospitable. Only the possibility of the New World seemed to beckon. It was a land without a people, and they were a people without a land.

Upon settling around Plymouth, the first Puritans (Pilgrims) established amicable relations with the Wampanoag Nation. The Wampanoag had already been depleted by disease brought by previous settlers. They were also subject to aggression by other Native American groups, so their alliance with the Puritans became an outpost of peace and freedom in the New World.

As more Puritans arrived, they required more breathing space. The Wampanoag, like other indigenous peoples, lacked a modern system of property rights. They did not see fit to build fences, put up street signs, or establish variable-rate mortgages. The Puritans remedied these defects of indigenous culture. It just happened that the Puritans ended up owning all the property, and Native Americans themselves became classified as property.

Taking umbrage at this advance of Judeo-Christian civilization, the indigenous people reduced themselves to terrorism. Some were sufficiently maniacal as to sacrifice their own lives in order to murder innocent settlers. There was a veritable cult of death. Underlying this irrationality was a primitive religious belief system that celebrated exterminating one's enemies, as well as the consumption of locoweed and psychedelic mushrooms.

In short, the natives hated the settlers for their freedom and no longer greeted them as liberators. They meant to establish dominion over the the entirety of Europe by summoning the Great Spirit as a weapon of mass destruction.

As a matter of self-defense, the Puritans were compelled to rise to the challenge of this clash of civilizations and wage a pre-emptive war of extermination of both the terrorists and the societies that nurtured them. There was no middle ground; you were either with them or against them.

Those Native Americans who were willing to live in peace were provided with alternative living arrangements, under the protection of the new government. Sadly, they proved unequal to the rigors of modern society and eventually disappeared, although they were given the opportunity to experience democracy before their demise.

Today we, "the people who build square things," celebrate Thanksgiving as a tribute to their memory, and to the invaluable assistance they unselfishly provided for the Christian arrival to America.

Now please pass the gravy.

Once again, Max continues to be one of the other things to be thankful for. And okay, so he does use the “faux peace part” spin, but only because it is necessary to move the narrative along. Isn’t it always?

Are all economists such great storytellers?

Just asking.

Monday, November 20, 2006

Have a Wonderful Thanksgiving!

Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday. It is the only holiday that I actually love and celebrate. My sister is into Christmas and she goes all out. There is not one Christmas tchotchkes that she does not possess. “No War Against Christmas” in her house! For her it is all Christmas all the time.

For my part Thanksgiving is about a Thursday Feast with a small group of friends and then Friday with a larger group of New York Family and loved ones. It is a two day celebration of thanksgiving for all our bounty and a weekend to recover.

So, as my son and I do our best to prepare this week, I am wishing you all a wonderful holiday and a wonderful year.

We have a lot to be thankful for this year and we should share it and celebrate with our loved ones.

We are all going this way only once and we need to go together.

Sunday, November 12, 2006

Mary Amelia “Jimmy” Sheehan Webber


1904 - 2006

Saturday, November 11, 2006

The Election Process as Bar Exam!

I often hear from folks that all politicians are crooks, etc. This takeover of the Congress has revived many arguments about how we shouldn’t be overly thrilled about throwing out the Repub bums and installing the Dem bums. Now, I have worked for Politicians and I have to admit that many of those that I have supported, and worked for, were deeply flawed human beings. As a generalization they are often possessed of an overly deluded sense of ego and ideology.

Now, I don’t so much object to the idea of having an ideology as it often reflects a philosophical bent. That ideology gives you a look into the soul of the politician is, I think, a window into the policies of any individual politician and I welcome that. I am not even going to go into the fact that some politicians actually do not believe or practice what their “ideology and philosophical beliefs” are. But, the delusional sense of self-importance, and ego, seems to be the rule and I find that problematic.

I have often said that anyone who wants to be President is someone that ipso facto you should not vote for. I believe that anyone who believes that they have what it takes to lead the “Free World” is someone who is seriously flawed, if not demented. Where would someone get the idea that they are better equipped, or more morally grounded, that they are the “One” to lead the “Free World?”

Now this also plays out in local, state, and nationally elected officials. Some politicos, of course, to a greater extent than others, fall into this category. There are those politicians who actually are about public service (and maybe actually start out this way) but to a great extent (anecdotally, of course) most believe that they have the answers that if only implemented would solve the world’s problems. I often suffer from the same disease, but then I am not so deluded as to run for political office (much to the chagrin of many of my friends). I actually know that I am a flawed human being. I am liberal, conservative and not much on certitude. I am a grey type of person. I guess I am into nuance!

So, how does this play out in the electoral system that is the U.S.A.? Well, we have a “First Past the Post” system. This means that like the Bar Exam you don’t get to vote for the right answer or candidate, you should be choosing the least wrong answer or least wrong candidate. This was one of the problems that I had to overcome in the Bar Exam. It was a tough lesson, but one well learned, and thankfully on the first try.

On the Bar Exam, the Multi-State part, you don’t get to pick the right answer as defined by law. You have to pick the least wrong answer as defined by law in the “Big Six” areas. It wasn’t until I came to grips with this reality that I truly understood our Electoral System in the U.S.A.

So, when faced with those who actively support tyranny in the political and governing sphere it is imperative that you vote for, and support, those who are the least likely to impose tyranny as a way of governing.

Sad to say folks, but that is our choice and what our system requires. So, that said, there are many candidates who won on Tuesday that I am philosophically opposed to, and given a “Perfect Union” I would have never celebrated their election to office. But, given our “First Past the Post Electoral System” I will celebrate as they are the least wrong answer that is our Electoral “Bar Exam” Test!

So until we get to the “Higher Ground” of being able to elect politicians who are “Perfect” we just have to do as Stevie Wonder says, “Keep on Trying.”


Ellen Willis


1941 – 2006

Friday, November 10, 2006

I Hope He is Right!

Okay folks, my feelings are all over the place here. So, I am trying to be reasonable about what may or may not happen in the future. That said, I have to hope that the Shrill One is right.

Here he is today from behind the wall:

The Great Revulsion


I’m not feeling giddy as much as greatly relieved. O.K., maybe a little giddy. Give ’em hell, Harry and Nancy!

Here’s what I wrote more than three years ago, in the introduction to my column collection “The Great Unraveling”: “I have a vision — maybe just a hope — of a great revulsion: a moment in which the American people look at what is happening, realize how their good will and patriotism have been abused, and put a stop to this drive to destroy much of what is best in our country.”

At the time, the right was still celebrating the illusion of victory in Iraq, and the bizarre Bush personality cult was still in full flower. But now the great revulsion has arrived.

Tuesday’s election was a truly stunning victory for the Democrats. Candidates planning to caucus with the Democrats took 24 of the 33 Senate seats at stake this year, winning seven million more votes than Republicans. In House races, Democrats received about 53 percent of the two-party vote, giving them a margin more than twice as large as the 2.5-percentage-point lead that Mr. Bush claimed as a “mandate” two years ago — and the margin would have been even bigger if many Democrats hadn’t been running unopposed.

The election wasn’t just the end of the road for Mr. Bush’s reign of error. It was also the end of the 12-year Republican dominance of Congress. The Democrats will now hold a majority in the House that is about as big as the Republicans ever achieved during that era of dominance.

Moreover, the new Democratic majority may well be much more effective than the majority the party lost in 1994. Thanks to a great regional realignment, in which a solid Northeast has replaced the solid South, Democratic control no longer depends on a bloc of Dixiecrats whose ideological sympathies were often with the other side of the aisle.

Now, I don’t expect or want a permanent Democratic lock on power. But I do hope and believe that this election marks the beginning of the end for the conservative movement that has taken over the Republican Party.

In saying that, I’m not calling for or predicting the end of conservatism. There always have been and always will be conservatives on the American political scene. And that’s as it should be: a diversity of views is part of what makes democracy vital.

But we may be seeing the downfall of movement conservatism — the potent alliance of wealthy individuals, corporate interests and the religious right that took shape in the 1960s and 1970s. This alliance may once have had something to do with ideas, but it has become mainly a corrupt political machine, and America will be a better place if that machine breaks down.

Why do I want to see movement conservatism crushed? Partly because the movement is fundamentally undemocratic; its leaders don’t accept the legitimacy of opposition. Democrats will only become acceptable, declared Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, once they “are comfortable in their minority status.” He added, “Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they’ve been fixed, then they are happy and sedate.”

And the determination of the movement to hold on to power at any cost has poisoned our political culture. Just think about the campaign that just ended, with its coded racism, deceptive robo-calls, personal smears, homeless men bused in to hand out deceptive fliers, and more. Not to mention the constant implication that anyone who questions the Bush administration or its policies is very nearly a traitor.

When movement conservatism took it over, the Republican Party ceased to be the party of Dwight Eisenhower and became the party of Karl Rove. The good news is that Karl Rove and the political tendency he represents may both have just self-destructed.

Two years ago, people were talking about permanent right-wing dominance of American politics. But since then the American people have gotten a clearer sense of what rule by movement conservatives means. They’ve seen the movement take us into an unnecessary war, and botch every aspect of that war. They’ve seen a great American city left to drown; they’ve seen corruption reach deep into our political process; they’ve seen the hypocrisy of those who lecture us on morality.

And they just said no.

Now I have to say he isn’t sounding all that Shrill these days. In fact Krugman is sounding oh so rational and reasonable.

Hmmm! Times do change, don’t they MSM?

Frankly I think revulsion is, if not the right word, a little on the light side of what I feel.

Thank you Doctor Krugman for taking your space on the Park Avenue of Punditry to make the argument that many of us espouse!

PS: Okay, so I have to admit that though he has been tagged the Shrill One, I have been a fan from the beginning and frankly I always thought that I was shriller than he ever was. Krugman is the Man, Period the End.

To Asa and Chris:

Okay so for this first week after November 7, 2006 I do have “happy feet.” I admit that. That said, I do have to pass some of the love over to two of my favorite guys, my son and nephew.

Here is Stevie singing the song cause “I Just Called to Say I Love You!”

It’s their future folks.

Love, Tuli

Update: How could I have passed the love over to my two favorite guys with a song from Stevie Wonder without mentioning Levar? My Bad! You know I love you Levar, and so I apologize.

Another Update: In the continuing Youtube Wars here is another version of his song and my tribute to our boys.

A Presidential News Conference.

William Saletan gives us his take on the presser the President would have preferred to have given on Tuesday.

And it is hilarious and spot on:

Stay the CourseThe press conference Bush wanted to give.

Press Conference by the President
The East Room

1:01 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: And now I'll be glad to answer some of your questions. Mike.

Q: Mr. President, about the Democrats' victory in yesterday's elections—

THE PRESIDENT: Now, wait a minute, Mike. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I wouldn't be calling it a victory just yet.

Q: Well, sir, terminology aside, the Democrats have captured the House—

THE PRESIDENT: See, that's what I mean. Getting ahead of ourselves. As though the enemy has already won.

Q: The enemy, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, not exactly the enemy. I just mean their sympathizers here at home. The enemy here. You know, the Democrats.

Q: Ah. OK. Well, to get back to the point, Sir, the Democrats did win the election—

THE PRESIDENT: Define "win."

Q: Well, they won the House. And if the returns hold true in Virginia and Montana

THE PRESIDENT: See, that's what I'm talking about. Just because the enemy has been able to make some progress doesn't mean you cut and run. Quite the contrary; we ought to do everything we can to help prevent them from making progress. And that is what our strategy is. Elaine.

Q: Mr. President, the AP has called Montana for your opponents. You're down several thousand votes in Virginia. You're down, what, a dozen seats, at least, in the House. Why fight on? What do you hope to achieve?

THE PRESIDENT: This notion of cut and run, I just don't accept that, Elaine. Look, this is a conflict between a radical ideology that can't stand freedom, and moderate, reasonable people that hope to live in a peaceful society. I'm confident in our mission because I believe in the power of liberty. We have a plan for victory, and we will succeed. Jim.

Q: Sir, with all due respect, I'm confused. What exactly did you achieve in this election? Can you name a state where your party picked up seats in either the House or Senate?

THE PRESIDENT: Look, this is a hard fight, no question about it. But I believe that the strategy we have is going to work. We're building a Republican majority that can sustain itself, govern itself, and defend itself. I have great faith in our commanders on the ground to give the best advice about how to achieve victory. We're giving them the confidence necessary to come and make the right recommendations here in Washington, D.C. We'll give them the flexibility necessary to make the tactical changes to achieve victory. And so we've made changes, we'll continue to make changes. But we have the right strategy and the tactics necessary to achieve that goal. Terry.

Q: Mr. President, about the Senate race in Missouri.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm glad you brought that up, Terry. Missouri is the central front in this war. It's going to take a long time, but I'm confident we will succeed there. And the reason I'm confident we'll succeed is because Missourians want to succeed. A defeat there—if we were to withdraw before the job is done, it would embolden extremists. The only way we lose in Missouri is if we leave before the job is done.

Q: But, Sir, your candidate there, Sen. Talent, has conceded.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have our differences with Sen. Talent from time to time. He's a good man. In this case, I just think he's wrong. We're confident we can achieve the mission there. Jessica.

Q: Mr. President, I'm not sure I understand your position here. The election's over.

THE PRESIDENT: Look, I understand here in Washington, some people say it's over. I know that. They're just wrong in my opinion. The enemy still wants to strike us. The enemy still wants to achieve safe haven from which to plot and plan. And we must do everything we can to protect the American people, including questioning detainees, or listening to their phone calls from outside the country to inside the country.

Q: I'm sorry, Sir. Do you mean, listen to the Democrats' phone calls?

THE PRESIDENT: Only if one party is outside the country. Our lawyers have vetted this. David.

Q: Mr. President, how do you plan to deal with the Congress you'll be facing when your party vacates its majorities in the House and Senate next January? What issues and proposals will you put on the table?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm sorry, David, I just don't accept your premise. This notion of, you know, a fixed timetable of withdrawal—I can't accept that. That's defeat. Withdrawing on an artificial timetable means we lose. You can't leave until the job is done.

Q: Sir, it's in the Constitution. You have to leave office if you're voted out.

THE PRESIDENT: Dick, is that true?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: We're working on it, Mr. President. There'll be some changes to that in the conference report with regard to the new terrorist surveillance provisions. But for now, yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we'll get back to you on that, David. Listen, thank you all. See you on the campaign trail.

The really horrible truth out of this imaginary, and hilarious, presser is that if anyone in the last six years had read this transcript they wouldn’t have even yawned. Though this seems funny, even outrageous, to many of us unfortunately is seems rather innocuous to most of the electorate and the MSM.

When is someone in the MSM going to call this guy and his coterie on what they say and then what they do?

Time is running out folks!

Two Years Out: Fix Our Voting Problems!

In 2000 it was evident that this nation had serious ballot casting and counting problems. So, it is now 2006 and what have we done about it?

Well, we passed the Help America Vote Act and we are nationally just as f**ked as up as ever.

Here is a piece from the NYT from around the country:

Blogs Take Lead in Reporting Polling Problems, With Supporting Evidence on YouTube


Correction Appended

Blogs of all political stripes spent most of yesterday detailing reports of voting machine malfunctions and ballot shortages, effectively becoming an online national clearinghouse of the polling problems that still face the election system.

And in a new twist this year, many bloggers buttressed their accounts of electoral shenanigans with links to videos posted on the video Web site YouTube.

RedState.com, the conservative journal, heralded a “massive meltdown in Pennsylvania” early in the day, citing “widespread reports of an electoral nightmare shaping up in Pennsylvania with certain types of electronic voting machines.”

Erick Erickson, RedState’s chief blogger, also included a report of poll watcher intimidation in Philadelphia, along with a link to a video on YouTube that appeared to show a certified poll observer (armed with a video camera) being blocked from a polling station.www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-HK_VT81Pk&e

Brad Friedman, perhaps the most dogged critic of electronic voting machine technology in the blogosphere, said he saw his site traffic spike at left-leaning Bradblog.com, as reports of machine malfunctions began pouring in from around the country.

“Folks understand by now that I’ll get these stories out so that they’ll get confirmed,” Mr. Friedman said.

That the blog now has a firm place in the choreography of national events — and in elections perhaps more so than in any other cultural exercise — is a boon to the democratic process, said Jonathan Zittrain, a professor of Internet governance at Oxford University and a co-founder of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard.

“In a lot of ways they’re helping to set the agenda for the mainstream media in fast-moving events like this,” Mr. Zittrain said. “They just need to be able to produce enough that’s credible quickly to give a lead.”

Alluding to some of the voter intimidation reports that unfolded on Election Day, he added, “There’s also a real difference between hearing about a call that tells someone they’re not allowed to vote and actually hearing the call as if you are receiving it.”

Some bloggers placed what were said to be digital recordings of such calls online for the world to hear.

Elsewhere online, voting machine problems also filled many posts on Talking Points Memo, a liberal site that seemed to take the initiative in tracking complaints, malfunctions and alleged malfeasance by Republicans.

Among the litany of issues cited at Talking Points: computer problems that caused long lines in Denver; polling stations that stayed open later in Indiana after voting problems and delays; votes for Claire C. McCaskill in the Missouri Senate race that somehow registered for her opponent, Jim Talent; complaints that crashed an Ohio county phone system.

It was impossible to gauge the veracity of every report cited. Some blogs linked to reports in local or national news media. Others copied e-mail messages or cited phone calls with local polling officials, while still others merely created open threads for readers to contribute their personal accounts of voting problems.

Not every site thought chaos was at hand, however. Ed Morrissey of the conservative Captain’s Quarters blog said traffic to his site yesterday was about two or three times normal. But Mr. Morrissey added that though he had heard some talk of voting woes, he thought on the whole they were “pretty minor” and would not have any effect on the overall outcome.

One of the biggest controversies of the last national election cycle — the discrepancy between the exit polls that showed John Kerry with a lead and the final results — continued to animate discussions on many liberal blogs. With the 2004 discrepancy in mind, major news organizations were embargoed yesterday from releasing poll data for most of the day, and had generally agreed to refrain from releasing detailed numbers until most polls had closed.

The big question mark, however, was whether the numbers would leak in the blogs, and by 6 p.m. that had already begun to happen. Chris Bowers of MyDD.com, a liberal blog, posted “unconfirmed Senate numbers” at 5:47 p.m. — though he added a caveat.

“Double super caution: these numbers are both unconfirmed, and they are exit polls,” Mr. Bowers wrote. “I am going to keep looking into this.”

Even so, many of the biggest names in political blogging — including John Aravosis of Americablog, John Amato of Crooks and Liars, Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit and Mr. Morrissey of Captain’s Quarters — had been corralled by a member of the mainstream news media, CNN, at Tryst, a trendy Washington coffeehouse, last night.

Constantine Stavropoulos, the owner of the cafe, said he had closed its doors for the “blog party,” which the network periodically broadcast and streamed online. He said he expected the bloggers — an attractive bunch, he said — to linger long after the votes were in.

“Bloggers look a lot better than I thought they would,” Mr. Stavropoulos said.

Michael McElroy contributed reporting.

Correction: Nov. 10, 2006

An article on Wednesday about accounts on blogs of voting machine malfunctions and other polling problems misspelled the name of the political blog of John Aravosis. It is Americablog, not Americblog.

Damn those bloggers and netroots!

That being the obligatory comment, it seems to me that we have two years before the election in 2008 to get our national voting system together.

The question is: do we have the political will?

Now What?

Eugene Robinson, who I often refer to as the “Sunday Show Talking Heads’ Designated Driver,” has some thoughts on where the Decider must go from here. He also has some suggestions on how the Dems can help get him there:

Now the Decider Must Listen

By Eugene Robinson
Friday, November 10, 2006; A31

Short of actual insurrection, I don't think the country could have spoken more clearly than it did Tuesday. But there's one question still to be answered, and in honor of Donald Rumsfeld, who now can devote full time and attention to stretching the boundaries of modern philosophy, let's call it a "known unknown": Did George W. Bush really hear what the nation told him about Iraq?

I think he did, but I'm pessimistic that he'll listen.

Since the election, the president has been saying all the right things about bipartisanship, about how eager he is to work with the new Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill. But what choice does he have after an electoral "thumpin' " of such historic proportions?

Power rules in Washington the way money rules in New York or celebrity in Los Angeles, and the White House has measurably less power today than it had a week ago. If Bush doesn't find a way to work with the opposition, he might as well spend the rest of his term at the ranch out in Crawford, riding his mountain bike and clearing all that pesky brush.

Never mind that after each of his slim victories, Bush claimed the kind of mandate that can be conferred only by a landslide. Never mind that he made no effort to govern from the center, with bipartisan support. He acted as if Democrats didn't exist, except as foils for his overheated rhetoric. Now they are indispensable to the remainder of his presidency and to the legacy he ultimately leaves behind.

There are indeed issues on which Bush and the Democrats will find the "common ground" that everyone claims to be seeking. The president's plan on immigration was blocked by Republicans, and now that the Great Wall of Arizona has been approved, maybe Washington will be able to come up with a reasonable, workable solution to the problem of undocumented migrants.

In exit polls, voters said they were deeply concerned about "corruption" in Washington -- a perfect issue to tackle in the new bipartisan spirit. Both parties will agree to ignore the basic problem, which is the corrosive effect that money has on our whole political system. The president and Congress will bravely declare their opposition to influence-peddling and various other sins. Then they will join in crafting "reform" legislation that might have some effect on the margins and that definitely will create more paperwork for lawyers -- but that leaves the current system pretty much in place.

Hey, Republican lobbyists have been gorging themselves at the public trough for a decade. Wouldn't be fair to deny Democratic lobbyists their turn, would it?

Iraq is another story. The election was also a referendum on George W. Bush's war, and clearly he understands that. He had been working on Rumsfeld's ouster for some time, but announcing it the day after the thumpin' seemed to be a concession.

What I haven't heard from Bush is any willingness to change his basic policy in Iraq. In his news conference Wednesday, he essentially retracted the aspersions he had cast on the Democratic Party's patriotism. But his message was that he's happy to work with the Democrats -- as long as they agree to his basic war policy, which is to keep American troops in Iraq "until the job is done."

I haven't heard an admission from Bush that the conflict has fundamentally changed, that American soldiers are now dying not to overthrow a tyrant (done that) or, primarily, even to fight an insurgency (still doing that), but to tamp down a sectarian civil war. I haven't heard an admission from Bush that the war was poorly planned, that the occupation has been poorly handled or that our supposed Iraqi allies have their own interests that don't necessarily coincide with ours.

I haven't seen any indication that Bush is ready to ask himself the questions that millions of Americans posed on Tuesday: What are we accomplishing in Iraq? What kind of country, realistically, will we leave behind? Will leaving Iraq, in, say, five years make us any safer than leaving Iraq now? Will our extended presence even make life better for Iraqis?

Democrats were restrained during the campaign, which was smart. But now it's time for them to ask those hard questions -- and use their new power to compel answers. Even if they have to be unfashionably partisan about it.

The sober Mr. Robinson is right.

And here are some thoughts from one of my other favorite sober “Talking Heads,” Col. W. Patrick Lang:

A Mass Delusion?

For days now my telephone has been ringing with calls from people who want me to tell them that sanity and adult leadership are returning to the shores of the Potomac. A man called today to have me say a few words for his national radio network. The theme of his program was clearly supposed to be that the cumulative effect of; the Iraq Study Group, the wipeout of Republican power in the Congress, the assembly of Bush '41 elders and the coming of the newly resuscitated Robert Gates to the Pentagon mean that - ALL WILL BE WELL!!!

I told the foreign gent that I would believe that to be true when I begin to see something in the President and Commander in Chief of the armed forces which makes me think that "the decider" has decided a different decision. I don't see it yet.

I watched his press conference yesterday and what I saw is a man who is writhing in what must be torture for him. He is no longer able to scold the American people for fear that they may savage him yet further, but is still enraged by resistance to his will.

Let's see what his reactions are to the recommendations of the Baker -Hamilton Group ..... Then we will know.

My thoughts exactly! We need to take a watch, wait and see stance. Though I have “Happy Feet” due to the trouncing or “thumpin” the crowd in control has taken, I am not such a moron that I believe all is well, and will be healed, in the “Crystal City.” But as a “die-hard atheist” I still have faith and hope.

More Happy Feet!

Steven Cambone to go as well!

According to “Fair and Balanced” Fox:

WASHINGTON — More senior Pentagon officials are likely to step down in the coming days in the wake of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's announced departure, Pentagon officials told FOX News on Thursday.

Meanwhile, at Kansas State University, Rumsfeld said it was the "highest honor in my life" to serve as defense secretary. He also joked about the timing of the resignation announcement, one day before the long-planned speech for the Landon Lecture Series.

"I hope all of you appreciate how I have managed so skillfully public affairs for this event. I wanted to put the Landon Lecture on the map, so I did my best," Rumsfeld said to laughter from the audience.

Asked afterward what grade he would give himself as head of the Defense Department, Rumsfeld said he'd "let history decide that."

Among those expected to hand in resignation letters alongside Rumsfeld's is the Pentagon's top intelligence official, Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Steve Cambone, a close Rumsfeld associate and a key architect in planning for the Iraq war and the War on Terror.

Cambone is the first person to hold the post of intelligence under secretary, and in doing so helped the Pentagon step up its own intelligence gathering assets, a role traditionally overseen by the CIA. The new system led to turf battles between the two agencies in recent years.

A spokesman for Cambone would not speculate on whether the under secretary plans to stay after Rumsfeld resigns but said he knows of no change in his plans right now.

We can only hope that Steve goes the way of all those faux (sort of like faux news) “Weapons of Mass Destruction” he warned us about!

Can anyone say, “House Cleaning?”

Actually, I think that this Administration would like all of the “likely suspects” to be reduced to ex-administration officials before they are subpoenaed and sworn in. But then what do I know?


Another Reality Check!

Tony over at Mtanga, via Chris Floyd, brings us back down to earth. “Back in the Day,” I was indeed a Farina fan so I understand the “Been Down So Long it Looks Like Up to Me” feeling. And that is certainly the feeling. Chris Floyd, formerly of the Moscow Times, has it right.

Here is what he has to say:

Ordinarily, the elevation of a gaggle of corporate bagmen, spine-free time-servers and craven accomplices of tyranny and aggression to the control of Congress would not be a cause for rejoicing. With a few notable exceptions, the Democratic Party has displayed nothing but cowardice and cluelessness over the past five years, betraying the interests of the American people at every single gut-check point in the long march to the self-proclaimed "Unitary Executive" dictatorship of George W. Bush. Whenever it really counted – Supreme Court nominations, tax cuts for the rich, the class-warfare nuclear bomb of the Bankruptcy Bill, the appointment of sleazy, third-rate officials such as torture-enabler and Constitution-gutter Alberto Gonzales to high office, and of course, the eager goose-stepping into the war crime of Iraq (which was, let us remember, approved by a Democratic-controlled Senate) – the Democrats folded, would not even go down fighting.

Is there any greater example of this than the vote, just a few weeks ago, on the "Military Commissions Act," the republic-killing measure that gave the president virtually unlimited, unchecked, unappealable powers over the life and liberty of every citizen? The Democratic "leadership" – now suddenly basking in media lionization – would not even mount a filibuster to defend the Constitution (not to mention the Magna Carta). Many Democrats actually voted in favor of ending the American Republic. (Harold Ford Jr. of Tennessee was one of these – and now he has reaped his reward: defeat. That's how it goes, Harold; you can make a deal with the devil, but he'll always cheat you in the end. You sold out the nation for nothing – and now Bob Corker, yet another feckless, faceless, money-grubbing tycoon will pollute the Senate chamber.) The MCA debacle was the last full measure of fear and servility from a group whose collective record is one long tissue of shame.

And yet, and yet…this is indeed a time – a brief, brief time – for celebration. For the fact remains that the Republican Congress is – as Matt Taibbi has detailed so forcefully – the worst in American history: corrupt, incompetent, dysfunctional, lazy, and ignorant almost beyond measuring. As often mentioned here, they are the very picture of the Roman Senate described by Tiberius, after they'd voted him yet another grovelling set of honors and powers: "Men fit to be slaves." The damage they have done to the nation, and the world, as the bootlicking handmaidens of George W. Bush and his militarist mafia is incalculable, and will go on producing foul repercussions for years, perhaps generations.

And so it is meet indeed that we praise the parting of these wretched fools from their dominance of the legislature. And even though Democratic control of one or both houses of Congress will certainly not usher in a new Golden Age of enlightened and noble governance, it would be churlish and wilfully perverse not to acknowledge that genuine benefits will accrue from the change. Giving subpoena power to Rep. Henry Waxman – one of the few Democrats who have served in opposition with honor, vigor and fire – is a mighty boon in itself, no matter how tepidly the Democratic leadership conducts itself in the months to come. Even though the Bush Faction has already promised a Nixon-style stonewall on every single investigation – and although Bush has already openly declared, in his "signing statements," that he doesn't feel bound to provide Congress with even routine information required by law – the probes launched by the new majority (or at least their bulldogs like Waxman) will doubtless produce many nuggets of truth from the Regime's mountainous slapheap of lies and secrecy.

And that's really all that we can expect at this point – or perhaps at any point. The Democratic leadership is a deeply embedded part of the Establishment; multimillionaires like our soon-to-be Speaker, Nancy Pelosi (who is probably richer than Bush) aren't going to seriously challenge the near-total domination of American politics and society by Big Business and wealthy elites. They may re-arrange the display a little, but they are not going to upset the golden applecart. So while we may see a slight goosing of the minimum wage, we will almost certainly not see a major rollback of the relentless rightwing assault on the rights, protections and well-being of working people and the poor. We can hope for some modifications of the bizarre and punitive prescription drug "reforms" imposed by the Bush Party; but we won't see anything resembling a national health insurance system, despite the majority of Americans in favor of one. We won't see a reinstatement of the safety net that was gutted, pre-Bush, by Democrat Bill Clinton. We won't see major reductions – or indeed, any reductions – in military spending from a party that has faithfully approved every cent of every "special spending bill" that Bush has submitted to finance his off-the-books wars. We won't see a lessening of international tensions from a crew that has spent most of the past year bashing the Bush Administration for not being bellicose enough in threatening Iran, and for not larding Israel with even more deadly weaponry to carry out its aggression in Lebanon and its increasingly frenzied decimation in Gaza. We will not see an immediate withdrawal from Iraq; at best, we will see a few tentative timetables based on unreal and unrealizable "benchmarks" produced by some grandly gassy "bipartisan agreement" based on the face-saving formulas of the "Baker Commission."

Now Mr. Floyd makes may very good points here that should not be ignored.

That said, as my two readers know, I certainly have not been a Biden fan prior to, and definetly after, his Bankruptcy Bill vote (just picking on one offender). And I have obvious differences with the latest round of Democrats for anti-choice. However, for this particular Election in 2006, I am all about the numbers folks. Because I believe the numbers have power. Now I am not so delusional as to believe that in this “Big Tent” (cat wrangling being impossible, and very humorous) we can completely turn back the tide and put us back on the road to the “Perfect Union,” ala Abe Lincoln, but in these perilous times, and they are perilous folks, any thing that will start to put the breaks on tyranny is a “good start.”

Our job is to articulate the dangers, and Anti-Americanism, inherent in the particular road to tyranny that America, in its SUV, has been tooling down.

So, go read all of Mr. Floyd’s piece and then take a trip to Orcinus and pay particular attention to what David Neiwert has to say about Tyranny and where we have been heading.

Then take heart that we may, just may, be able to reverse this horrific trend and possible destiny.

We must be vigilant. As I recently told a friend, “It makes no difference how much you resist once you are in the camp. It is too late then. It matters only how much you resist before anyone is in the camp.” I am horrified that I had to say those words to a Jewish American in 2006.

What have we, as a nation, become? It really is that “We Have Been Down So Long it Looks Like Up to Me!”


Thursday, November 09, 2006

Ed Bradley


1941 – 2006

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Whew, and the Senate Too?

Though usually a half-full glass type, after the 2004 election I was a skeptic. I am now feeling my “happy feet.” Getting the House was great, but the prospect of the Senate was beyond my ken this morning.

Okay, I have now just heard on Olbermann (MSNBC) that George Felix Allen (Mr. Macaca) is more than likely not going to go for the recount (no link). So, that would mean that the Democratic Caucus has 51 seats in the Senate and control of the House. We should probably find out tomorrow just how it is going down (pun intended).

Hopefully, this should mean that the Jackbooted Juggernaut has had the breaks but to it.

Earlier today, around noon, the coup de grace came with the inevitable resignation of Donald Rumsfeld.

I also have to mention that though I am no fan of Robert Gates, it seems to me that Bush 41 and his buds have finally decided to take Bush 43 by the ears and try to reign him in. This is probably a last ditch effort to save the GOP. Will it work, who knows?

That said, at this point from this administration, and the folks who have been running the country, it may be the best we can expect, Darwin and all.

So, break out the “bubbly,” if it is your drink of choice, and celebrate and then hunker down for what it to come.

We are talking cornered animals, and all, folks.

Sunday, November 05, 2006


I have been thinking about this for sometime now. Why is it that these Repubs always seem to be revealed as doing that which they rail about as being morally abhorant?

Nathaniel Frank asks the question:

In the latest sign of rank hypocrisy among social conservatives, the president of the 30-million member National Association of Evangelicals has resigned amidst accusations that he had a relationship with a male prostitute. Ted Haggard, who is married with five children, is a frequent adviser to the White House, and a staunch advocate of banning marriage rights for gays and lesbians.

The news, of course, comes just a month after Florida GOP Congressman, Mark Foley, who had pushed legislation to protect youth from "exploitation by adults using the internet," was revealed to be an internet sexual predator. And it adds to the sense among weary voters that their leaders, especially if they happen to be Republicans, cannot be trusted to do the right thing. Indeed, the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee acknowledged he had been aware of Foley's inappropriate emails for months, but took no steps to protect the children who were in harm's way. Instead, he spearheaded a series of TV ads attacking a Democratic challenger for, yes, being soft on child molesters.

What are we to make of a reigning conservative regime that lists the following inglorious claims to fame: Strom Thurmond, a notoriously racist senator who turned out to have a black lover; a Republican indictment of President Clinton's sexual license headed up by a team of philanderers; a Congress full of divorces passing an anti-gay law known as the "Defense of Marriage Act"?

In the pundit corner, we recently saw three giants of conservative moralizing unmasked as incapable of restraining their own vices: William Bennett turned out to be addicted to gambling, Rush Limbaugh to drugs. Meanwhile, Ralph Reed, the hand-picked youthful leader of the religious right, was quietly helping the corrupt lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, enable everything that religious conservatives oppose: casinos on Indian reservations and compelled abortions and sex slavery in the Northern Mariana Islands, an American territory.

And this is not even to mention the Catholic Church's strident indictment of sexual freedom as it shuffled its own cadre of child-molesting priests from parish to parish.

The cover-ups and power grabs, of course, are simply raw politics. But the pattern here may reveal something more striking than the obvious reality that those in power will sacrifice almost anything to stay there. The Republican Party appears to be chock full of people who make a life of preaching against the very vices they can't shake. Why?

Well, I think it is projection. You know, “the tendency to ascribe to another person feelings, thoughts, or attitudes present in oneself, or to regard external reality as embodying such feelings, thoughts, etc., in some way.” Not to mention, under psychoanalysis, “such an ascription relieving the ego of a sense of guilt or other intolerable feeling.”

Now I say that because that is facially what is happening. Foley with his legislation against cyberspace predators is what: a cyberspace predator. Haggard is anti-gay and what is he: gay, and a drug user to boot.

I have also looked at the Bush Administrations constant accusations that Democrats and anyone who disagrees with their policies as supporting the Terrorists and I have wondered if this isn’t also projection.

After all Osama was opposed to Saddam, the Infidel, and what did Bush do, he took out the Infidel that Osama hated. This made the supposed Enemy Number One of the U.S.A., who was actually responsible for September 11, 2001, a very happy camper. Then of course Bush let him go at Tora Bora.

So, when Bush levies the “You’re with us or against us” rhetoric against those who reject his policies as being with the Terrorists, I have to think that he is just projecting on us his “tendency to ascribe to another person feelings, thoughts, or attitudes present in oneself, or to regard external reality as embodying such feelings, thoughts, etc., in some way.”

Because after all, “Why is Osama still out there?” And why are we in Iraq creating more terrorists and doing what Osama wanted us to do?

The question is why does this administration appear to support the terrorist’s goals and not the goals of the U.S.A.?

One word: Projection! How else do you explain it?

Because it is as Keith says, "All about keeping Power."

Have You Had Enough?

Iraq for Sale, Indeed!

Okay, so this is not news to many of the folks out there who are on top of the situation, but that said, the scope and hubris involved in this War Profiteering is horrifying. I am also sure that Robert Greenwald’s film is just the tip of this particular iceberg.

Now it seems that though, as reported by Greenwald and Halliburton’s employees, Halliburton doesn’t seem to worry about the lives of its employees, Bechtel and Kroll do care about theirs. They are pulling out of Iraq. Apparently there is a limit to their greed. But, the greed of our Vice-President’s former employer, not so much.

My astute son keeps telling me that War is all about Profiteering whenever I rant and rave. He is right!

War Profiteering is a Criminal Act. How come we aren’t prosecuting it?

Ah, yes, Halliburton, Cheney, Bechtel, Bush, CACI, etc., big RNC contributions.

The Movie! Watch it!

Have You Had Enough?

The TWU’s Two Guys Campaign!

This campaign is brought to you by the AFLCIONow. It features Joe and Jim, two regular guys from Philly, who have a lot to say about George Bush and the Rubber-Stamp Congress. These youtube.com videos talk about Health Care and Iraq, Outsourcing, What Bush has Done for Working People, the Minimum Wage, and Just Who George Bush Represents. I love the video of Talk to Bush. Being from Philly they have a few words about Senator Ricky as well.

Joe and Jim, to say the least, are not fans of this administration and their enablers.

Along that line, apparently our regular Joes, Jills, and Jims in Iraq, are no longer fans as well. This weekend the Military Times, the Navy, Air Force, Marines and Army are all putting out the same Editorial calling for Rumsfeld to be fired.

Someone isn’t exactly supporting our troops and it ain’t the Democrats.

Here is the point from the Army Times:

Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.

This Administration’s call to “support our troops” is no more than that: words, but no actions.

Watch the videos and read the Editorial.

Then really “Support our Troops,” and vote the fake patriots out!

Have You Had Enough?