Blowing It All Up

George W. Bush, when asked by Bob Woodward "how is history likely to judge your Iraq war?" replied, "History, we don't know. We'll all be dead." (Woodward Shares War Secrets, CBS News, 60 Minutes, April 18, 2004).

Buscho has decided this deal is profitable for Bushco. Who can say they are surprised that a treaty among nations would be ignored by Bushco especially when Bushco ignores our country's own laws? The kicker is that Bushco expects a nearly immediate $5 billion(chump change in the whole scheme of things) worth of conventional military equipment sales. Smells like a quid pro quo to me. America-the worlds largest and most profitable arms dealer.

What an God-awful country this has become.

Karen, good catch. I totally missed that in the news last week.

---

Karen has crossposted this at dailykos. Please go recommend if you think it worthy.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/27/8524/15468

For anyone in the Chicago area on Saturday, March 4...Free seminar on Nuclear Proliferation & Iran. I plan to go & will take notes...

Nuclear Proliferation and Iran!
March 4th, 2006 • 1:30 - 3:30 p.m.
Joseph Cirincione, Dir. of Non-Proliferation
Carnegie Endowment For International Peace
Alice Millar Chapel, Northwestern University

Joseph Cirincione is a senior associate & director for non-proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington DC. He is a frequent commentator on TV, radio, & in newspapers on security issues. He teaches at Georgetown University Graduate School of Foreign Service. The World Affairs Council of America in 2004 named him one of 500 people whose views have the most influence in shaping American foreign policy. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the International Institute for Strategic Studies. He is the publisher & editor of the internet site http://www.carnegieendowment.org/npp/

Issues addressed will include:
- What can be done to stop Iran & other Middle Eastern countries from developing nuclear weapons?
- What is the most effective longer-term strategy to stop nuclear proliferation?
- What is required of each of us to bring about these changes?

Sponsored by North Suburban Peace Intiative
http://www.nspipeace.org/

And if you can't make it to the Chicago discussion on nuclear proliferation, you can listen to an interview with Joseph Cirincione with Terry Gross on Fresh Air on Feb. 8, 2006...

The New Brinksmanship: Iran's Nuclear Threat

Iran's attempts to restart its nuclear program in defiance of the International Atomic Energy Agency is a game of nuclear chicken, says Joseph Cirincione, the director for non-proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5196002

As someone who is employed in military weapons, the plan to detonate nuclear weapons under the guise of weapons testing is well known.
For years, neocons have been harping about the need to test our weapons to ensure their shelf-life quality. As if they deteriorate like loaves of bread.
Bush wants a bunker-busting low-yield nuclear bomb to go after hard targets. Actually this goes back to Ronny-Rambo.
Bush wants to show the world we still have them and are willing to touch them off. Read this as a phony shot-across-the-bow of Iran.
The end result is the desire to rebirth the Nevada test sites for above-ground testing. This is all office-cooler stuff by folks who have been in the business for at least 30 years. As usual, BushCo will spring it on the populace; claim it is to defeat terror; say God told him it is OK. After all, they view collateral damage as just words. Real people don’t die; just terrorists.

Thank you. I have obsessed over this since I was a child. We had a fallout shelter in the early '60s and my 8th grade paper was about radioactive fallout. If a plane flew too low, I was afraid WWIII had started. Like the children that I just saw in a film who were asked about war, I knew that both sides thought the other was the enemy. That is why I never had a deep sense of patriotism or nationalism, especially knowing about Hiroshima and Auschwitz.

One report had said that Bush wants to have a closer relationship with India, as a counterweight to China. Since we're so in debt, it's loans from China that are helping finance our wars. (That's one way to think about it. The other is that our grandchildren are paying for the wars and China is paying for our rent and food).

I was thinking about the brouhaha over Dubai Ports being involved with our ports. 90% on the west coast are foreign-run (many by China), 50% on the east coast. & then I'd read that 40% of our mortgages are held by China .. and Saudi Arabia. Many economics-related articles talk about how China could decide to "pull the plug." It wouldn't take a bomb at all. Just shift some investments.

I received and read a French article just now and part of the title is "melee generale" - that's what the author believes is going on in Iraq. Not a mere civil war, because there are so many factions and militias. It's not just Sunni vs Shiite but there are pro-Iran Shiite sects vs other Shiites and on and on. I am not surprised if it may be true because I read a long article a few months ago about all the different factions, each having a militia, and some regions are still essentially tribal.

A nuclear-related topic:
I had read a little yesterday that Russia and Iran had worked out a deal where some of Iran's nuclear program would be done in Russia and supervised by Russia. That way it would be easier to monitor. Somehow that does not make me feel a whole lot safer.

Here is something else, from someone who is always good:

Paul Krugman: Graduates versus Oligarchs
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022706Z.shtml
According to Paul Krugman, it may take some time before we muster the political will to counter inequality. But the first step toward doing something about inequality is to abandon the 80-20 fallacy. It's time to face up to the fact that rising inequality is driven by the giant income gains of a tiny elite, not the modest gains of college graduates.

poster suskind at dailykos highlights the March issue of Harper's Magazine whose cover says:

Impeach Him

The article by editor Lewis Lapham is "The Case For Impeachment: Why We Can No Longer Afford George W. Bush," the inside lead is "Is There A Case For Impeachment." But the front cover says it all.

He also mentions that:

There will be a Town Hall meeting with Harper's editor Lapham, Congressman John Conyers, Michael Ratner of the Center for Congressional Rights, and Elizabeth Holtzmann, member of the House Judiciary Committee during Watergate, Thursday March 2, 8pm; Town Hall; 123 West 43rd Street, New York City; $10.00 at the Town Hall, or through Ticketmaster (212) 307-4100.

Go here to see a pic of the cover...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/26/211139/366

Bush (with Cheney) also are on the cover of the New Yorker. It's yet another Brokeback Mountain parody. This article talks about how the movie has permeated popular culture, with more people joking about it than have seen the movie. It also discusses the New Yorker cover. That issue also contains an explosive article called "The Memo," about Mora and Guantanamo and more.

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/reuters/0,24012,1167240_10_0_,00.html

There are many parodies. The first had a naughty name but now I've seen "Blowback Mountain," which may still be a double entendre, but a great one because alot of what we're seeing in the middle east is "blowback" from things the CIA did long ago.

Battlebob
What's your take on "missile defense shields?"
The Russians claim to have something that can penetrate them & also alter its course once launched.

I don't think alot of that stuff is meant to be used. I think it provides jobs for those in the military-industrial complex and profit for the owners. What a waste and accidents do happen.

Remember Czernobyl! Three Mile Island! & we have the closed Hanford plant right here in WA. We're still paying for cleanup years later and cancer rates nearby are horrendous.

Another commenter pointed out that The Nation had a cover on impeaching Bush in their Jan 30, 2006 issue.

Here's a link to the article by Elizabeth Holtzman titled "The Impeachment of George W. Bush". Ms. Holtzman is "a former member of Congress who sat on the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon".

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060130&s=holtzman

Dianne,
Good question…What about the missile defense shield…a.k.a.…Star Wars.
It is a great name taken from a great movie stolen by another brain-dead President for an absurd neocon project.
Remember when Ronny Rambo proposed the idea; the USSR had 10K or so missiles aimed at us. The thought was we could prevent their first strike by shooting their missiles down in their launch phase and launch our first strike and wipe them out.
Then mass of ideas came next… The press pictured the US covered by a giant condom, but that was never the idea.
A few proposed ideas…
Space-based satellite weapons; either missles or laser
My tongue-in-cheek idea was to arm the International Space Station with weapons. Unfortunately, someone took it seriously before it wad rebuffed by our foreign partners.
Laser beam weapons mounted in airplanes…
Having satellites launch nets to capture the launched missiles. A proof-of-concept design was made. I don’t know the outcome.
Missiles that shoot down missiles; the old hit a bullet with a bullet idea.
We have tested the anti-missile missile with mixed results. The physics is pretty straight forward. The implementation is extremely difficult because of the speeds involved.
The Patriot missile in Gulf 1 was an example of this type of system. It got a lot of good press as its only verified kills happened on live TV. Most were misses.

The laser beam weapons do work but the range is limited and the results are mixed. We have airborne lasers now that shoot various beam weapons. Most don’t work. From this work came a chemical laser beam weapon that worked real well on artillery shells. Unfortunately, the chemicals released were more dangerous then the shells. Collateral damage anyone.

There are big issues such as validation and verification. We cannot test any system good enough to have any degree of confidence that it will work.
Which system to use? There are many ideas floating around. None are technology feasible, but all would advance the fields of laser and guidance systems.
IMHO, since most of the weapons are in politically unstable parts of the world such as the ‘stans, maybe we could do something that Clinton tried; buy them.
Police departments have programs to buy back guns. Clinton tried to buy back nukes. I thought it worked well; until Dumbo came along and angered the rest of the world. Now there are attempts if not outright sales of these weapons to really angry people.

So instead of putting billions into unverifiable and questionable technology, why not use the money as a buy-back program? They may not want money but can use schools, hospitals, power plants. I would think this idea resonates with neocons and other right wingnuts as it creates new markets to exploit. And the rest of the world may stop hating us for a while.

OT... but here's a completely different perspective on the Dubai Ports World issue by someone who works more closely with shipping and importing into the US than most people who've expressed an opinion. Hat tip to richards1052 on dailykos for the link.

excerpt from Jason Truesdell's post on his blog, Pursuing My Passions:

This is not about ceding U.S. control of our ports infrastructure to foreign companies, as Dubai Ports World has only gained control of a lease allowing them to operate terminals at US ports. This gives them the power to hire US labor to do such low-margin work as unloading shipping containers, and passing paperwork from one company to another. For their efforts, they will have the power to repeatedly touch high volumes of money that produce very low margins. Only an Arab buy-out of a municipal bond hedge fund could possibly be more uninteresting.

The way ports work is not a big secret; thanks to British trade practices dating back hundreds of years, almost every port in the world relies on the same tedious paperwork with un-memorable acronyms designed to squarely clarify title and liability for every piece of cargo and every set of hands that might touch it. The operational side is pretty much the same worldwide, except for variations in things like union-negotiated restrictions on which job description is allowed to do what kind of work. “The terrorists” aren’t going to gain substantially more insight into our security weaknesses than they could by working at any port closer to home for a few weeks.

read the rest at his site...
http://blog.jagaimo.com/archive/2006/02/25/2263.aspx

Eat more Cherry Garcia!

From Ben Cohen:

Energy prices are skyrocketing. President Bush, a former oil businessman, says that the United States is "addicted" to oil. Yet, at a time when we need to expand renewable energy sources, Congressman Don Young of Alaska is trying to kill the Cape Wind initiative on Nantucket Sound. Plans for our country's first offshore wind farm are at risk.

Our friends at Clean Power Now are leading the effort to stop Rep. Young's amendment that unfairly threatens offshore wind farms. Urgent action is needed, as a vote could take place this week. 

Tell your senator to support renewable energy sources and the Cape Wind project by voting against the Young amendment. If you're a TrueMajority member, just click "Reply" and "Send" to generate a message  to your senator (text below). If this message was forwarded to you or you'd like to edit the letter, visit the site below to take action:  

http://action.truemajority.org/campaign/capemaywind/w38ikge2v5bbe85?

Battlebob
Thanks for the insights!

Dwahzon
Interesting article. I have thought all along that the Dubai port thing is mostly a political hot potato, but it's a pretty good one because it got people riled up in both parties and the story is far from over!

Re the situation in Iran I elluded to (civil war or worse), here is a bit from Center for American Progress:

IRAQ: An Anarchic Civil War

THE LONG-PREDICTED CIVIL WAR: An anarchic civil war now grips Iraq, marked primarily by its lack of order and chaotic daily violence. Before the U.S. invasion, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) questioned, "What plans do we have to prevent Iraq from breaking up and descending into civil war?"
(snip)
EACH GROUP FOR ITSELF: Bush's exit strategy hinges on the training of Iraqi troops. He continually repeats, "As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down." But the Pentagon reported this weekend that zero Iraqi battalions are capable of fighting independently. In September of last year, the Pentagon said that the number of independent Iraqi army battalions had dropped from three to one.

(snip)

Militias have stepped in to provide the security that the government cannot. Among the most prominent militias are the Badr Corps, the 20,000-strong armed wing of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, and the Mahdi Army, the militia led by the emerging power-broker Moqtada al-Sadr. A leading cleric in Iraq, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, has called for Iraq's powerful tribes to protect themselves. (snip)
Indeed, the militias are said to be behind reported instances of death-squad killings and ethnic "cleansing." Hundreds of Iraqis are being tortured to death or summarily executed each month by death squads attached to the Interior Ministry in Baghdad; "quiet assassinations" are almost commonplace in areas of the country.

CONSERVATIVES DISTANCING THEMSELVES: While the Bush administration holds to the untenable "stay the course" strategy, high-profile conservatives are beginning to distance themselves and drawdown their support. William F. Buckley Jr., the influential conservative thinker and founder of the National Review, wrote recently, "One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed." Neoconservative Bill Kristol, who has been one of the war's staunchest defenders, now says "we have not had a serious three-year effort to fight a war inIraq." And conservative columnist George Will, asked to describe the situation in Iraq, refuted the Bush administration's spin and stated plainly, "This is a civil war."

Facing with such gloomy assessments, Fox News, the reliable bastion of conservative propaganda, tried to find a silver lining in the daily stream of violence, entitling one of its segments: "All-Out Civil War in Iraq: Could It Be a Good Thing?"

I still think that having the Democratic National Convention in the struggling southern city of New Orleans would send a great message if their hotel staffing and communications infrastucture is up to it. It would also remind voters of the failures of having a failed Republican prsident.As a Texan I would urge against choosing Dallas or San Antonio as their site.

"Sources close to the DNC tell The Note that later today, the DNC will announce that an "unprecedented" number of cities have expressed an interest in hosting the 2008 Democratic National Convention. Eleven cities, more than double the number that applied to host the 2004 convention, will receive official "Requests for Proposal." The 2008 Democratic National Convention will be held from August 25 - 28, 2008.

The cities: Anaheim, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Las Vegas, Minneapolis, New Orleans, New York, Orlando, Phoenix, and San Antonio. "

oncall maybe its time to start our petition drive to choose N.O. as the DNC looks like they are seriously considering it as their site.

As some of you may remember, I was in favor of US troops staying in Iraq to prevent a civil war. That was a huge error on my part as the US presence is causing a civil war.
I think the only smart move is for us to beg the UN to attempt to broker a deal among the warring factions.
If you follow William S. Lind on http://www.d-n-i.net/, one problem is who do you talk to? Even if the UN decides to get involved (which it won’t), who are the leaders of the warring factions?

So maybe the smart move is to do what we can to get the infrastructure fixed; toss the Iraq’s the keys and get out of Dodge. We may end up violating the Pottery Barn rule about ownership. Unfortunately, that rule deals with clay pots and not people.

I am all for NOLA for the 2008 DNC Convention--

Here is something from Louise Slaughter, one of my personal heroes, and the Representative for my parents:

Last week, my office from the House Rules Committee released a report, America for Sale: The Cost of Republican Corruption , which explains how the Republican culture of corruption is harming our country. For the first time, this report tries to quantify the damage the Republican Congress and Bush White House have inflicted on our country. It shows how the harmful policies Republicans have passed into law over the past few years are the result of a corrupt process that gives "K Street Project" lobbyists more power to shape legislation than the legislators the people have elected to
represent them in Washington.

To view the report in its entirety, click here :

http://www.votelouise.com/page/file/260225323712d4368c_pam6btw03.pdf/AmericaForSale.pdf

Our report clearly demonstrates that when the GOP Congressional leaders allow Republican lobbyists to set the agenda and write the bills, the American people suffer the consequences. While the special interests walk away with billions of dollars in tax breaks, subsidies, and federal contracts, Americans must live with the bad laws this system produces. The political corruption we associate with now-notorious figures such as Duke Cunningham and Jack Abramoff comes at a very real cost to each and every one of us.

America for Sale, explains in detail how, under the control of the Republican party:

* 14.2 million American seniors (including millions of our sickest and most vulnerable seniors) are stuck in a complicated, expensive, and inefficient Medicare prescription drug program
because the Republican Congress and the Bush Administration allowed lobbyists from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries to design this program.

* 60 million American families who heat their homes with natural gas and 8 million families who heat with heating oil are paying higher bills this winter, even though the Republican Congress recently passed their "national energy plan" into law. Although this plan gives the energy industry billions in new tax breaks and subsidies, it doesn't lower prices for consumers or make our country more energy independent.

* The 150,000 U.S. troops currently deployed in Iraq may not have the equipment they need because of waste, fraud and cronyism by the Republican Congress and the Department of Defense. While Halliburton and other companies with Republican connections get their contracts, our soldiers still don't have the body armor and armored vehicles they need to fight the war.

* 750,000 households in the Gulf regions are still displaced today, more than 5 months after Hurricane Katrina hit that region, at least in part because the political hacks the Bush Administration put in charge of crucial homeland security functions were not adequately prepared to prepare for or respond to this disaster.

* More than 10 million students and their families will have larger student loans to repay because House Republicans, led by new Majority Leader John Boehner working hand-in-hand with his
commercial loan industry allies, cut $12 billion from the student loan program in the recent reconciliation bill and shifted the costs on to students and their families.

These are just some of the examples from the report which shows how the recent unprecedented, subversion of our legislative process and federal government is not simply an "inside the beltway" problem. Again, please read the report and pass it on to your family, friends, and neighbors by clicking here:

http://www.votelouise.com/page/invite/AmericaforSale

Thank you again for all you do to restore faith in our democracy.

In Solidarity,

Rep. Louise M. Slaughter----

SO LET'S PASS IT ON>>>

We are really making a tactical mistake when we bring up impeaching Bush. That idea will go nowhere and tends to deflect the argument away from what Bush has done and what we should do to something that won’t happen.
Since Repubs own the country, we have to turn that into our advantage. There are enough points to attack the Repubs on that we don’t need to get lost on topics that won’t happen.
So remember what Clinton said to do.
We have to do what Bushco is doing only better.
We have to do things that Bushco won’t do.
We have to stop doing things Bushco is doing and propose better solutions.

So we need to divide the issues into the above groups and stay on them. Forget the impeachment stuff; it sounds good in print but is going nowhere and takes energy away from what we really need to do.

We had a discussion on this blog about election results and future tactics.
Blogger nick on the LUTD blog wrote a series of excellent articles with election stats and future actions. I thought it was transferred to the forums on this site but I can't find it...
Will someone post the path here?

thanks

oncall maybe its time to start our petition drive to choose N.O. as the DNC looks like they are seriously considering it as their site.

Posted by: Ira at February 27, 2006 12:51 PM

I'm with you Ira.

battlebob, I have really missed your common sense approach to politics. I agree that Bush deserves impeachment more than Nixon, but to run on that in November or if we should be fortunate enough to take over Congress in Nov. and immediately start impeachment inquiries will be problematic at best.

I sense voters are loooking for a way out of the Iraq quagmire. Redeployment rather than withdrawl seems to be the sensible option (and thank you for admitting you were wrong about Iraq, its too bad our leaders don't have such integrity). Secondarily in importance should be a comprehensive plan for Energy Independence. Just think of how much stronger we would be as a nation if we were independent of Middle East Oil and could just tell them all to go to hell. Fixing the Medicare Prescription drug disaster and restoring ethics to Congress should be the other leg to our Nov. campaign to connect with reliable elderly voters who have desserted us battlebob.People I have spoken with who have family members in nursing homes like many boomers are totally confused with how the new prescription drug program works and are angry that it primarily lines the pockets of the pharmacutical industry rather than truly helping their families. And what can we do to make our voices heard by the DNC to have an '08 convention in N.O.? That would be our John Edward's voice saying that we are serious about being viewed credibly in the south and addressing poverty.

All 50 Governors Say Bush Policies Weakening National Guard
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022706P.shtml
Governors of both parties said Sunday that Bush administration policies were stripping the National Guard of equipment and personnel needed to respond to hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, forest fires and other emergencies.

Wow

Battlebob
Sounds like you had the same realization Muhrta did. I never thought we should go there but wondered about an immediate pullout - how could it possibly implemented. Then I read the James Fallows Atlantic Monthly article & it was a precursor to what we're hearing and seeing now. He predicted this but it seems even worse. It has not been possible to train Iraqi battalians by US troops, to operate independently or to implement a government and constitution for a unified Iraq. There never was a unified Iraq but we have bloodied the waters further.

Battlebob
Re Impeaching Bush - it has to get to where the Republicans want it. My mom has coffee at the "German table," as she calls it (rural North Dakota). Some of the old Republicans predict "He won't last his term" and they do want him out.
Impeachment proceedings were launched for Nixon and Clinton for less but at that time, the Republicans had less overall power. In any event, my "Impeach Bush" sign has been in the same window since 2000 and they're all over town, along with "No Iraq War" and Kerry/Edwards signs people do not wish to remove.

Most know, but I'm in Seattle, not North Dakota!
I did wear a "Hands off Our Social Security" shirt when I was there - yellow-orange with bold black letters.

Hi Ira...it has been a while...
I don't know what Iraq redeployment means.
Does that mean we stay there until the locals take over? It won't happen while we are there.
I think Bush wants to redeploy into Iran.
You have to really hand it to Iran.
The flip Bush the bird and then make oil and gas agreements with Russia, China and Japan. Brilliant moves.
If we attack Iran, Iran threatens to cut off energy to those who own us. I am sure China and Japan are telling Bush that now.
They got Bush by the short hairs. That is the real reason for his pseudo energy independence program. He wants to be able to bully folks without repercussions to his oil buddies.

Actually I have heard that from Murtha and Biden, the term redeployment as an alternative to pure withdrawl, to places like Kuwait, Turkey and possibly the UAE. In fact maybe that is why Bush is so gung ho on UAE. Personally it would be politically disastrous for any middle eastern leader to allow our 130,000 troops to leave Iraq and set up in out lying middle eastern countries. Domestically though it might be easier to digest than just bringing all of the troops home.

"I don't know what Iraq redeployment means.
Does that mean we stay there until the locals take over? It won't happen while we are there.
I think Bush wants to redeploy into Iran."

Dianne,
When you mention Impeachment, most Repubs will defend their actions because it is not a specific activity or program.
But go after deficit spending as a cost to the kids and grand kids and a specific action is linked to a specific target.
You can link the new Medicare program to seniors going without medicine because it is both not affordable and no longer available.
We need an action and who is affected. Keep it short and snappy. Repubs do this very well.

If we can win either the House or Senate in November then Bush is toast. I am not sure if the Repubs are aware of the anger out there. I am not even sure if the sheeples are awake yet?

This is the god old Democrat populism that is the backbone of our party. It is why Edwards is so compelling.

Hopefully, someone can find Nick’s essays. Some of the suggestions are guaranteed to anger folks; for instance, he suggests blowing off the Mississippi and Alabama as they are unlikely to ever vote Democrat and just suck resources away. But they are a worthy read.

BattleBob,

It is so refreshing to see your level headed posts back here on the blog. As I understand it, Murtha is advocating a redeployment such that the U.S. soldiers would be pulled back and out of Iraq. Subsequently they would be stationed in "friendly" Arab nations and ready to get back into Iraq if necessary. The obvious question becomes how likely are we to find those Arab nations willing to house U.S. troops?

Ira,
I agree...no way is any middle eastern country going to allow us there. By middle east, maybe Bush means New Jersey?

The 45 day cooling off period will result in the same port deal as now. The press will be concentrating on something else.

This Iraq thing is causing me to relive the Nixon peace-with-honor garbage. We should have left when we realized the error of our ways in 1966 or so. Instead we bled bodies until the mid 1970s.
The stay-the-course rhetoric gives me the chills again. The same logic from Bush was used before.
People won’t trust us….will make us look weak…allows terrorists to win (was communism before)…same old stuff again.
Which is why we should just get out now. Take our weapons with us but leave all the construction equipment and supplies.

The 45 day cooling off period will result in the same port deal as now. The press will be concentrating on something else.

Posted by: battlebob at February 27, 2006 02:45 PM

BINGO...

Short Attention Span Theatre

WASHINGTON Feb 27, 2006 (AP)— The White House on Monday rejected the call by several House Democrats for a special counsel to investigate the Bush administration's eavesdropping program.

"I think that where these Democrats who are calling for this ought to spend their time is on what was the source of the unauthorized disclosure of this vital, incredible program in the war on terrorism," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. "I really don't think there is any basis for a special counsel. … But the fact that this information was disclosed about the existence of this program has given the enemy some of our playbook."

more... http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1667322&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

I am really disturbed with folks who say violating the 4th amendment is just fine as illegal wiretapping has been done by secret government snoops for ages.
So breaking the law is fine if you can say it is for national security reasons?
The question that needs to be asked is:
Was anyone in the White House aware they were breaking the law?

Yes they are criminals; no they are stupid...

Guess I missed my window of opportunity LOL

If you’re planning to reserve tickets to the Marijuana Policy Project’s party at the Playboy Mansion in Los Angeles, you only have until tomorrow (Tuesday) night to purchase them at the reduced price of $500. At midnight that night (Pacific time), the ticket price will increase to $650.

Playmates will give tours of the Mansion grounds as partiers enjoy the pool area, with its lagoon-shaped swimming pool, waterfalls, and the famous grotto.

From Yahoo:

Senator Clinton says Rove "obsessed" with her.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060227/ap_on_el_pr/clinton2008

I laughed so hard I might have tinkled a little.

Redeployment means being sent out again. I hear Navy talking about it all the time up north where I work. It's when you thought you were going home, usually, or you go out sooner.

Bush earlier proposed to cut down on the number of Guard units and Reserves that are in Iraq and Afghanistan and that will be politically popular at home. But then he'll move in troops from other areas, as they are all over the globe.

It's cosmetic. John Kerry had good ideas all along but they were hard to sell. Many people weren't listening, or thinking on the left or right. The IWR vote hurt him but being an antiwar candidate might have meant losing 49 states like McGovern, at that time. If the election were held now, it would be a shifted story.

Neither Bring Them Home Now or Nuke Em are realistic ideas - both simplistic. They sell though because they're short and mindless and catchy.

Democrats really ought to revisit promises the Administration made. For example, Rumsfeld predicted the war would last 5 days, 5 weeks or at most 5 months. He thought it could be done with a small footprint on the ground. It was a failure from the start. Remember the convoys headed to Bagdad and they didn't even have enough to drink or eat?! No body armor?!

Short Attention Span Theater is right!

DiAnne,
Bringing the troops home now is not simplistic; when there is no other way to avoid needless violence then it is the only way.
We either leave them there and continue the death and destruction or we bring them home. When we leave, who is left to hate?
I see us as a catalyst for violence; not peace.

"The greatest price of refusing to participate in politics is being governed by your inferiors."

- Plato, The Republic

Battlebob
I agree.
I was referring to when people act/ed as though it's something that can be done overnight.
That is what I mean by simplistic.
It sounds like a platitude if there isn't a plan for doing it. & they haven't had one.

To rephrase John Kerry....

Who is going to be the last to die for a mistake?

Bush dreams of being peacemaker on India/Pakistan Trip (imagine..)

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/28Feb2006_news23.php

This is a good explanation r/t today's thread topic.

Peace at the end of a pop-gun...

George W. Bush aka The Paper Cowboy

Posted by: DiAnne at February 27, 2006 03:55 PM

This is a really good example of how out of touch BushCo is with reality because according to William S. Lind (http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_2_23_06.htm),
"But in Pakistan, the immediate target of the riots is all too evident: Pakistani President Musharraf and his working relationship with America’s President Bush (in Pakistan, Musharraf is often called Busharraf)."

So now Bush is going there to do what? Drive Musharraf out of power?

The relationship with India is different and worries me.
We have export restrictions to India that cover any software that has navigation and guidance systems. My big fear is not that India will attack Pakistan, but sell the information to those that need the technology to launch nuclear weapons. India repeatedly ignores licensing restrictions. Maybe that is no longer a worry because missle information is now easily available from other sources on the internet(s). So maybe bush is bringing repub values such as sell anything and anyone out for a buck.

Here's Rep. Markey's press release from the press conference earlier today at the Capitol.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – On the eve of President Bush’s visit to India, Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), co-chair of the Bipartisan Task Force on Nonproliferation and senior Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee joined by a coalition of groups opposed to the Bush nuclear deal with India including the Arms Control Association, Friends of the Earth, Peace Action, Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation and Friends Committee on National Legislation held a press conference today to warn the President of the dangers of his bi-lateral nuclear agreement. Rep. Markey and Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) are the authors of a resolution against granting India any loophole to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

“This Administration’s push to share nuclear technology with India is dangerous and has grave security implications for South Asia and the entire world. Pakistan has already said that if India gets the special exemptions the Bush Administration is pushing for, then it wants the same deal. Supplying nuclear fuel to countries that are not party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) de-rails the delicate balance that has been established between nuclear nations and destroys our credibility when insisting that other nations continue to follow this important nonproliferation policy,” said Rep. Markey. “By signing this deal President Bush is opening up a nuclear proliferation Pandora’s box – that will be impossible to put back under the lid.”

“We are gathered here today to remind the President that there are strong voices of opposition to his nuclear side-deals.. With one swoop of a pen President Bush is about to serve a devastating blow to the existing nuclear regime that has protected the world from nuclear destruction for over thirty years, create a lopsided nuclear balance in one of the most dangerous, terrorist-ridden parts of the world while turning his back on the possibility of addressing climate change with one of the world’s largest polluters. We will not sit by and let that happen.”

“Such a deal is neither the U.S.’s interest nor in India’s long-term interest. Both countries rely principally on coal for electrical generation. Both will likely continue to rely on coal for most of their power generation for the next 50 years. We should be partnering on clean coal technology, not on a nuclear power agenda that threatens international security.”

Representative Markey and Representative Fred Upton (R-MI), introduced a bipartisan resolution H. Con. Res. 318 on December 15, 2005 opposing President Bush’s proposed nuclear cooperation with India. Current law prohibits the sale of nuclear technology to any country such as India which refuses to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, refuses to allow full-scope safeguards under the treaty, and which develops new nuclear weapons and detonates nuclear tests in defiance of the treaty.

For more information on Rep. Markey’s work to address the proliferation of nuclear weapons or a copy of the Resolution, please visit www.house.gov/markey.

Anyone care to respond to Devil Doc's post in our Action Alert forum?

http://www.democracycellproject.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=1027&view=findpost&p=3995

Thanks dw, responses to Devil Doc are in order... made a few points myself.

Cruella

Boy, George didn't just stick his foot in his mouth on this port deal. He chewed it off!

Ratings plummet.

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
20 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Citing broad gaps in U.S. intelligence, the Coast Guard cautioned the Bush administration weeks ago that it could not determine whether a United Arab Emirates-based company seeking a stake in some U.S. port operations might support terrorist operations.

The disclosure came during a hearing Monday on Dubai-owned DP World's plans to take over significant operations at six leading U.S. ports.

The Bush administration said the Coast Guard's concerns were raised during its review of the deal, which it approved Jan. 17, and that all those questions were resolved.

The port operations are now handled by London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

"There are many intelligence gaps, concerning the potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist operations, that precludes an overall threat assessment" of the potential merger, the unclassified Coast Guard intelligence assessment said.

"The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities," the assessment said.

more... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060227/ap_on_go_ot/ports_security

well the White House can't be happy over this poll report from CBS news:

(CBS) The latest CBS News poll finds President Bush's approval rating has fallen to an all-time low of 34 percent, while pessimism about the Iraq war has risen to a new high.

Americans are also overwhelmingly opposed to the Bush-backed deal giving a Dubai-owned company operational control over six major U.S. ports. Seven in 10 Americans, including 58 percent of Republicans, say they're opposed to the agreement.

The troubling results for the Bush administration come amid reminders about the devastating impact of Hurricane Katrina and negative assessments of how the government and the president have handled it for six months.

In a separate poll, two out of three Americans said they do not think President Bush has responded adequately to the needs of Katrina victims. Only 32 percent approve of the way President Bush is responding to those needs, a drop of 12 points from last September’s poll, taken just two weeks after the storm made landfall.

Mr. Bush's overall job rating has fallen to 34 percent, down from 42 percent last month. Fifty-nine percent disapprove of the job the president is doing.

For the first time in this poll, most Americans say the president does not care much about people like themselves. Fifty-one percent now think he doesn't care, compared to 47 percent last fall.

Just 30 percent approve of how Mr. Bush is handling the Iraq war, another all-time low.

By two to one, the poll finds Americans think U.S. efforts to bring stability to Iraq are going badly – the worst assessment yet of progress in Iraq.

Even on fighting terrorism, which has long been a strong suit for Mr. Bush, his ratings dropped lower than ever. Half of Americans say they disapprove of how he's handling the war on terror, while 43 percent approve.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/27/opinion/polls/main1350874.shtml

Although not scientific by any means, similar numbers here... there always seems to be a 30-40% that supports the president no matter what the issue.

CNN QuickVote: Should a special counsel be appointed to investigate the legality of the Bush administration's eavesdropping program?

Yes 66% 92426 votes

No 34% 48104 votes
Total: 140530 votes

This ought to be good...

NYT sues Pentagon over domestic spying

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The New York Times sued the U.S. Defense Department on Monday demanding that it hand over documents about the National Security Agency's domestic spying program.

The Times wants a list of documents including all internal memos and e-mails about the program of monitoring phone calls without court approval. It also seeks the names of the people or groups identified by it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060227/ts_nm/security_nsa_nytimes_dc

AOL poll on Scotty McClellan:

http://news.aol.com/dailypulse/022706?id=20060227101609990001&ncid=NWS00010000000001

Which side do you trust more?
The press corps 64%
The White House 36%
Total Votes: 34,129
Note on Poll Results

Which side is more combative in press briefings?
The press corps 51%
The White House 49%
Total Votes: 19,108

Which side is more informative?
The press corps 69%
The White House 31%
Total Votes: 17,545

What grade would you give Press Secretary Scott McClellan?
F 45%
D 17%
B 15%
A 13%
C 10%
Total Votes: 17,014

What grade would you give the White House press corps?
F 29%
B 25%
C 24%
D 11%
A 11%
Total Votes: 16,177

Posted by: ralpheh at February 27, 2006 07:25 PM

Again, notice the 30-40% who support the WH.

Roughly one turd.

http://tinyurl.com/jvrkv

Haliburton gets everything it wants again- even disputed costs of operation.
What a huge shock.

BattleBob

It's a gloomy & overcast day, perfect for a rant.

I agree the overriding problem with the stupid foreign policy decision making is BushCo's "anything for a buck." (Ditto for domestic, and his inability to veto anything corporations want.)

Why can't India SIGN the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? What are they hiding? As for Pakistan, if Musharaf goes down, who do they have in mind? A different General/Dictator? If it's up to the people, they will probably head toward a fundamentalist system. I don't think it would have happened had we not meddled.

It happened in Iran, it happened in Afghanistan, it's happening in Iraq. Wherever we go to install democracies, already pissed-off people seem to get madder still & then end up with fundamentalism. I guess they figure it's a better system if you're dirt poor anyway.
I remember when Iran was under the Shah and there were two sets of rebels - some wanted Marxism, some wanted religious fundamentalism. I don't think these extreme groups would have developed their strength had the CIA not meddled in the internal affairs of the country. The current mad leader is a former student rebel/hostage taker.

It seems there are at least three interacting factors in the outcomes for nations (type of political system they end up with).

- the greed for more money for our top 1% (& their international buddies, as depicted in Michael Moore's 'Fahrenheit 9/11' and described in detail in Greg Palast's ' The Best Democracy Money Can Buy')

- the drive toward religious fundamentalism as the poor become poorer & become more susceptible to easy answers promised in the afterlife (in themiddle east with Islamic fundamentalism and in our own country with Christian fundamentalism)

- competition for the bottom niches in society by the disenfranchised, with their numbers increasing as the rich get richer. This is exaggerated by the manner in which citizens in different region of the world end up living almost in separate centuries, as poverty deepens.

As we drift toward the authoritarian right (fascism being at the rightmost pole) in which government exists to serve corporations, there is a backlash toward the authoritarian left (where the corporations exist to serve the government, and this is the leftmost pole). This is illustrated by the rift between the Bush administration and the governments of Cuba, Ecuador, Venezuela. The other backlash is toward religious fundamentalism (this is illustrated by popular movements in the middle east, even in countries that were far more secular and moderate three decades ago).

Some relevant quotes which speak to the development of extreme religious fundamentalism:

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." - Karl Marx

I learned that when the gap between the rich and poor becomes too large, systems snap like a rubber band breaking. The idea was that they would then lean toward a leftist populist type of government. We can see now that idea is outmoded, because the other alternative is an authoritarian populist type of religious government, as happened in Iran.

Media as opiate (not just extreme religion):

"Media exist to reinforce the status quo, to reinforce people's fears and prejudices and to guarantee that citizens will not rock the boat," Michael Moore said in an interview. "It is meant to sedate people, to numb their minds."

I don't think extreme leftists will ever see their world revolution because the rich of various countries stick together. Also, so many companies are multinational so the poor in one country do not even know exactly who they are oppressed by. Guardian blog today cited a German article which claimed that Germany privately supported the war, and publicly opposed it. I think that the religious fundamentalists compete for the same populist yearnings.

Those who seek to "spread democracy" may keep running into "incorrigible" factions. We were unable to control the outcome of the Palestinian election. Condi Rice didn't get everything she wanted on her mideast mission. Bush probably won't either.

Movements of desperate people are gaining enough strength that they are intimidating Europeans more than one might expect. A friend who teaches high school in Paris was sent as a substitute to a school inside the city (not in the suburbs where the riots occurred). It was a predominantly Muslim area and she ran into people conservative enough to tell her to put on a veil. She said the law didn't require it and she wasn't Muslim. The men said that they should not be forced to look at an uncovered woman.

There are many moderate religious people in Europe and in US, but the influx of immigrants has been relatively faster there. Terror attacks have ratcheted up anti-immigrant sentiment here (attacks on Sikhs after 9/11, presence of militia men at the borders) and there (cartoon riots, car burning riots, antihate protest after kidnap and violent killing of a Jew, etc.)

This may be a big factor in gaining support for rightwing candidates who champion "law and order" and security at the expense of civil liberties, with border walls, biometric ID cards and other things that we hope remain conspiracy theories.

A counterbalance may be the constant leaks and mess-ups that cause citizens to become less trusting of the government (wars going poorly, obvious manipulation of media, shaky elections, Plame affair, Libby scandal, Delay scandal, 9/11 Commission, Katrina messup, VP who can't shoot straight and many more).

My friend Bert was saying some of the news would be almost comical were it not resulting in death, destruction and mayhem.

Posted by: monkey at February 27, 2006 07:30 PM

Ya think maybe they are the devoted kool-aid drinkers who never watch/listen to anything but Faux Nooze or the evil disciplies like Limberger and O'Lielly, never read print media with dissenting opinions, and can thus qualify as brainwashed fanatics???

I don't get why the number supporting The Cretin and his Criminal Cabal is even up to 'one turd.' If it were 'one turd of one turd'... maybe, but 'one turd' seems a bit high.... (Skewed polls to get it up to 'one turd' to make someone feel good that he even registers that high in the polls???)

Thanks to a heads-up from Larisa at The Raw Story, we were able to captured this broadcast of CNBC's Tim Russert show. Russert interviewed James Risen and Robert O'Harrow, Jr. The video contains about 24 minutes of clips from CNBC's Saturday broadcast.

James Risen broke the NSA warrantless domestic spying story for the New York Times. He also has a new book out, State of War: The Secret History of the CIA And The Bush Administration. Risen is known to have sources within various intelligence agencies and has received information from several NSA whistleblowers. One of those whistleblowers, Russell Tice, recently testified before congress that NSA domestic surveillance programs may be much more widespread than the "limited" program that the Bush Administration has admitted. Tice has said that some programs could be monitoring "millions of Americans".

Robert O'Harrow, Jr. is an award-winning reporter for the Washington Post with an expertise data mining and privacy issues. His recent book, No Place to Hide: Behind the Scenes of Our Emerging Surveillance Society, describes "a surveillance society that's less centralized and more a joint public/private venture".

Together, Risen and O'Harrow paint a picture of an enormous partnership between U.S. intelligence agencies and private data collection firms. Spying agencies like the NSA can leverage its' massive computing power to mine data collected by these private firms. The result is a mind-boggling domestic surveillance capability with access to nearly any information imaginable. Phone calls, email, video as well as financial, criminal and other personal records can all be searched at the same time. The NSA's powerful computers can mine the data to find otherwise imperceptible links for profiling groups and individuals.

Russert calls it a "sobering" discussion. The interview only scratches the surface of how extensive the scope of Big Brother's monitoring of Americans may be. The surveillance programs are a dramatic departure from what the public has come to believe. It's easy to see why the Bush Administration has avoided legislation and oversight.

It's quite possible that the American people would not stand for Bush's spying policies if they had a sense of the true nature of the government's surveillance.

http://www.bradblog.com/

Posted by: dwahzon at February 27, 2006 05:56 PM

Thanks, DW. I offered him my "hostess" treatment.

battlebob:

The tentative plan that's only being TALKED about now (Murtha favors it) is for regular military troops to be re-deployed to neighboring countries close to Iraq so they will be near "in case of emergency" (the type of 'emergency' is not defined) and that ALL guard and reserves in Iraq and Afghanistan would be brought home by the end of '06.

At the moment, it's ALL TALK, NO ACTION. I fully expect that IF any action is ever taken on this "plan" that's only in the talking stages, it will happen closer to the Nov. election, so both Repubs and Dems can say they take credit for it. It will be good political strategy. No mention is made of whether or not the guard and reserves would be re-deployed back to Iraq or Afghanistan after the '06 election.

I think Howard Dean sent out a letter about all of that, and there have been links to stories about that 'plan' in the talking stages two or three threads back. My emphasis: it's only in the TALKING stages. (I went on a rant about this a few threads back. I don't see why they can't send the guard and reserve troops home on the next available troop transport, and the regular miltitary could be withdrawn in the same time frame it took to get them there - a few weeks at best.)

IMHO, Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq, then the torture at Abu Ghraib, the transport of prisoners to Gitmo and torture there, and the imposed democratic elections have caused the civil war in Iraq - or, at the very least, contributed to the causes of the civil war. I saw no reason for the original illegal, unjust, immoral, unethical, and dishonorable invasion of Iraq in the first place (there is no way to "win" an illegal war for which our "leaders" could be brought before The Hague for war crimes), and I see no reason for our troops to stay in Iraq and get killed in the crossfire of a civil war there. Ditto staying in Afghanistan and the intertribal warfare that erupts there, too. We have no understanding of inter-tribal feuds that have their orgins some 1000-1500 years ago, and I see no reason for our people to get killed over those centuries-old feuds, since we did not start the original feuds (the US wasn't even a nation then!). Oh, yes, I blame Bu$hCo & PNAC for the present war for the sake of oil, but when it comes to the other inter-tribal feuds, I believe we should butt out. It's none of our business; we didn't start those feuds, we should not take sides, and our people don't need to get killed in someone else's civil war.

The only thing that has surprised me is that the various factions/tribes in the Mideast have not temporarily called a truce to their differences and united against the US (and 'allies'), but are resorting to fighting against each other, just as they have for many centuries.

I think someone in military circles has read Caesar's tactics against the ancient Celts in Gaul, Germania, and Brittania a little over 2000 years ago: divide and conquer. The primary reason the Celts were defeated, even though they vastly outnumbered the Roman legions, is that no Celtic leader could unite their various Celtic tribes long enough to get some sort of military discipline formed to defeat Roman armies. The ancient Celts were good at guerilla warfare and individual combat, but once the battle was done, they were more interested in having a feast, eating, drinking, singing, dancing, and listening to the most respected members of their tribes, the bards, sing songs and recite poetry. The Celts had no discipline to sustain any long drawn-out battles, nor were they interested in having a standing army to fight any conquerors like Rome... they were too interested in their inter-tribal feuds and clan wars, but they understood the rules of engagement for inter-tribal warfare as they knew it: quick attack; battle; it's over and done with, and that's that - battle over, time for a feast (the Irish and British Celts seem to have done a lot of cattle raiding as their primary form of 'warfare'). In 60-61 ACE the British Celtic tribes came close to defeating Rome under the leadership of Boudicca, Queen of the Iceni, who united several tribes and utterly destroyed three towns and killed everyone in them, and were well on their way to destroying a fourth before the Roman legion who had just destroyed the school of the druids on Mona and high-tailed it across Britain to stop them; the Celts outnumbered the Roman legions, but they had no discipline, so they were slaughtered en masse by a pincer move on the part of the Roman army. Before and after the Boudiccan Rebellion, the European and British Celts were defeated, co-opted, coerced, and bribed into Roman rule, and when the Roman Empire fell and Rome withdrew her occupying armies, Europe and Brittania fell into the chaos of the Dark Ages for many centuries - that's the era of the Arthurian legends; then came the Anglo-Saxon invasions, then the Viking invasions, then more wars and chaos for a few centuries until the various peoples united to form individual countries instead of giving their allegiance to any elected Celtic tribal king or queen (the ancient Celts elected their rulers who did not rule by right of birth as later monarchs of countries have), etc.

The reason for that historical parallel? I sometimes wonder if that's the PNAC and Pentagon objective for the Middle East.... Divide, conquer, create chaos, impose US rule on the Middle East by dividing and conquering the various tribal factions who really want to fight only each other, not the US, and when the oil reserves are gone, leave the region high and dry to sort things out for themselves, which will be another era of chaos for the Middle East, because they will be left economically devastated by the US oil corporations.... (I have read lots of Celtic history over many years. I'd like to be wrong in the parallels I see....)

Since 2 turds of my extended family still supports W, I can tell you why. No, they don't read newspapers. All their news comes from TV, and they insist on only watching Fox- the rest of the news channel anchors are unpatriotic liars who hate America and should pack up and leave the country immediately. W is moral because he's never gotten a BJ, all Democrats are STILL immoral because they failed to hate Bill Clinton to the proper degree when he got his (BJ). Abortion is the most important issue in the country-anyone who believes differently is a baby-killing, God hating, commie-pinko and, well- see above instructions about news anchors. Male children who do not consider joining the military at age 18, or earlier if they can get an "early enlistment", are either gay, cowardly, or un-American- probably all three. And all religious people except for Baptists, Methodists, and SOME Presbyterians, are going straight to hell as soon as they die. There's no point in even mentioning the non-religious, or those who claim to be religious but don't attend Sunday morning and Wednesday night services regularly- they're doomed from the get-go. It's amazing that God even lets them continue to walk the planet and, if he does, it's just to test the faith of the truly chosen.
Questioning the President is the greatest sin of these heathen individuals, as God has put W into office, and questioning his judgement is to question God. The USA has never done anything wrong in its history, the "colors don't run", and if you don't agree- see the instructions for non-Fox news anchors above.
My mother believes this way, my sister believes this way, her sons and their wives believe this way, all the extended family on my husband's side believes this way.
Why- because they're good,God Loving, Country Loving, fundamentalist Southerners (Midwesterners will do too) and that makes them Good Amurcans.
And if they EVER, EVER, EVER questioned anything that W did while in office, it would confuse them. It would shake their faith, it would make their world off-kilter somehow, and mostly, it would interrupt their nightly sit-com, reality show TV schedule because they might actually have to think for a change to try and figure out what God is up to by making them question W's judgement. In short, it would mess with the comfort zone they've created in their minds by trusting God and the USA completely, and they might not be able to sleep at night.
They don't want to hear it. About a turd of Americans don't want to hear it, and they'll turn it off when it invades their TV sets.
That's the turd that is always with Georgy, and he knows it.
And they're also the turd that pays for W's sins with their sons and daughters lives in Iraq, and then never asks why. That's the greatest shame of it all, and Georgy doesn't even care.

Bumper sticker seen around Austin area by my sister...

"Republicans for Voldemort"

Clueless George is showing how much he supports the troops again... This ought to help his (sinking) polls...

Veterans May Fact Budget Cuts in 2008
WASHINGTON - At least tens of thousands of veterans with non-critical medical issues could suffer delayed or even denied care in coming years to enable President Bush to meet his promise of cutting the deficit in half — if the White House is serious about its proposed budget.

After an increase for next year, the Bush budget would turn current trends on their head. Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing by leaps and bounds, White House budget documents assume a cutback in 2008 and further cuts thereafter.

In fact, the proposed cuts are so draconian that it seems to some that the White House is simply making them up to make its long-term deficit figures look better. More realistic numbers, however, would raise doubts as to whether Bush can keep his promise to wrestle the deficit under control by the time he leaves office.

"Either the administration is proposing gutting VA health care over the next five years or it is not serious about its own budget," said Rep. Chet Edwards (news, bio, voting record) of Texas, top Democrat on the panel overseeing the VA's budget. "If the proposals aren't serious, then that would undermine the administration's argument that they intend to reduce the deficit in half over the next several years."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060227/ap_on_go_pr_wh/budget_cuts_veterans

Posted by: Linda Enterkin at February 27, 2006 08:11 PM

Oh, yikes. You have my deepest sympathy!

The death toll in Iraq for last week is worse than we were led to believe... I heard a report on NPR from Anne Garrels this evening that was along these lines too. You could hear the distraught cries of women in the background. It was truly heart-wrenching...

Iraq Death Toll Higher Than First Thought
Violence Unleashed Last Week Killed More Than 1,300

By Ellen Knickmeyer and Bassam Sebti
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, February 27, 2006; 7:12 PM

BAGHDAD, Feb. 27 -- Grisly attacks and other sectarian violence unleashed by last week's bombing of a Shiite shrine have killed more than 1,300 Iraqis, making the past few days the deadliest of the war outside major U.S. offensives, according to Baghdad's main morgue. The toll was more than three times higher than the figure previously reported by the U.S. military and the news media.

Hundreds of unclaimed dead lay at the morgue at midday Monday -- sprawled, blood-caked men who had been shot, knifed, garroted or apparently suffocated by the plastic bags still over their heads. Many of the bodies had their hands still bound -- and many of them had wound up at the morgue after what their families said was their abduction by the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/27/AR2006022701128.html

my contribution for the day.

These are quotes collected by The Nation's Marc Cooper at Restoration Weekend, an annual festival where conservatives gather to plot, celebrate themselves and brew potions:

Conservative Arizona Congressman Jeff Flake: He pleaded with fellow conservatives to take the high road of liberalized immigration reform in the escalating debate and not go down the immigrant-bashing path. "I encourage Republicans to not repeat what happened in California in 1994," he said referring to GOP support for Prop 187. "It works for one cycle and then you pay a price for a decade."

Former Congressman Pat Toomey, current head of The Club for Growth: "We have to acknowledge we have a President who is not popular… The war in Iraq is the 800 lb. gorilla in the room and a major downturn could drown anything we do… We won in 1994 because we promised small government and going into the 2006 elections this is key idea we have abandoned."

Former Colorado State Senator John Andrews: "I feel the Republican Party in my state and nationally is a party that has lost its way… we need to find our way back to a reason to vote Republican."

Missouri Lt. Governor Pete Kinder on the state of the party: "The demoralization of the base is real. I hear it everywhere."

Conservative Arizona Congressman John Shaddeg on the Abramoff scandal: "I believe these scandals are the end of the 1994 Revolution… all this seriously threatens the Republican majority. It might be hard to shrink government as we promised. But it's not that hard to be honest and we haven't."

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=64204

Posted by: sparrow at February 27, 2006 09:21 PM

Now, how to convince people that the official vote count doesn't come close to the sentiment on the ground...??

Posted by: Veritas at February 27, 2006 09:36 PM

Well, at UofM games they have flyovers by planes with their messages streaming behind them. I wonder how much that costs!

SHOOTING: CHENEY DOESN'T CALL WHITE HOUSE UNTIL SUNDAY - DOESN'T EVEN TALK TO DUMBYA - (even Britt Hume is surprised that the Veep just dumped the problem onto Andy Card and apparently hung-up.)

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

CHENEY: As we saw, if we'd put out a report Saturday night on what we heard then — one report came in that said, superficial injuries. If we'd gone with a statement at that point, we'd have been wrong. And it was also important, I thought, to get the story out as accurately as possible, and this is a complicated story that, frankly, most reporters would never have dealt with before, so —

HUME: Had you discussed this with colleagues in the White House, with the President, and so on?

CHENEY: I did not. The White House was notified, but I did not discuss it directly, myself. I talked to Andy Card, I guess it was Sunday morning.

HUME: Not until Sunday morning? Was that the first conversation you'd had with anybody in the — at the White House?

CHENEY: Yes.

HUME: And did you discuss this with Karl Rove at any time, as has been reported?

CHENEY: No, Karl talks to — I don't recall talking to Karl. Karl did talk with Katherine Armstrong, who is a good mutual friend to both of us. Karl hunts at the Armstrong, as well —

HUME: Say that again?

CHENEY: I said Karl has hunted at the Armstrong, as well, and we're both good friends of the Armstrongs and of Katherine Armstrong. And Katherine suggested, and I agreed, that she would go make the announcement, that is that she'd put the story out. And I thought that made good sense for several reasons. First of all, she was an eye-witness. She'd seen the whole thing. Secondly, she'd grown up on the ranch, she'd hunted there all of her life. Third, she was the immediate past head of the Texas Wildlife and Parks Department, the game control commission in the state of Texas, an acknowledged expert in all of this.

And she wanted to go to the Corpus Christi Caller-Times, which is the local newspaper, covers that area, to reporters she knew. And I thought that made good sense because you can get as accurate a story as possible from somebody who knew and understood hunting. And then it would immediately go up to the wires and be posted on the website, which is the way it went out. And I thought that was the right call.

@@@@@@@

Hume seems more than a little surprised about the LACK of communication whit the White House - Cheney didn't talk to anyone - directly - in authority at the White House. Cheney just left the message with Card.....

Posted by: Linda Enterkin at February 27, 2006 08:11 PM

It's my party, and I'll cry if I want to. (Turds in the punchbowl.) Punch, anyone?

Boy, George didn't just stick his foot in his mouth on this port deal. He chewed it off!

Ratings plummet.

Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at February 27, 2006 06:41 PM

Yeah, but my awful, just vile GOP congressman is using this to his advantage. He's standing up for our ports! Forget about all his earmarks and connections to Abramobb. *sigh*

Gee, those insurgents are smart...

Iraq Violence Puts Troop Cuts in Doubt
The U.S. military needs to decide in coming weeks whether it can recommend an anticipated substantial reduction in force levels.

By Mark Mazzetti, Times Staff Writer
February 28 2006

WASHINGTON — The recent explosion of violence in Iraq is forcing a debate inside the Pentagon about whether the U.S. military can proceed with plans to cut the number of troops in Iraq, Defense officials said Monday.

The violence came at a crucial time for the U.S. military: Top generals must decide within weeks whether to carry out a long-anticipated reduction in American troops this summer. Threats of civil war in the country have raised questions about the wisdom of a troop drawdown in the next few months.

"One perspective certainly is that with so much turmoil, how can you possibly think about drawing down at this point?" said a senior Defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

For nearly a year, senior commanders have said that political progress in Baghdad and the development of new Iraqi army units could lead to a substantial U.S. troop reduction this year. They have pointed to mid-2006 as a pivotal period, making the decisions on troop levels a telling indicator of progress.

Defense officials said that Army Gens. John P. Abizaid and George W. Casey, the top commanders of U.S. forces in Iraq, soon would travel to Washington to advise President Bush on future troop levels. Because the moves under consideration will be critical to overall U.S. progress in Iraq this year, officials said Abizaid and Casey would brief the president in person.

"The president wants to hear it directly from the commanders, so he can get the straight scoop," the senior Defense official said.

more... http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-troops28feb28,0,2017038.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Lou Dobbs reported today that "Dubai Ports World" officials have tried to silence him and get CNN to suppress his reports.

Mark Dennis, spokesman for Dubai Ports World: "CNN won't shut up Lou Dobbs."

They are refusing to give any more interviews to CNN or allow them to video tape their operations overseas. To CNN's credit they have refused to comply with their demands.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/02/27.html#a7324

I would like to suggest that, as we ARE the media, we continue to point out the connections among all the administration's fauz pas--

THEY ARE EMBEZZLING: The treasury, the planet, the future of our children, and the peace. They are stealing, obfuscating, lying, cheating, conning.

Just keep saying it.

An op-ed from Nicholas Kristof in today's NYTimes (Select) says that in a recent Zogby poll of 900+ soldiers in Iraq...

"Only 23 percent backed Mr. Bush's position that they should stay as long as necessary.

In contrast, 72 percent said that U.S. troops should be pulled out within one year. Of those, 29 percent said they should withdraw "immediately."

That's one more bit of evidence that our grim stay-the-course policy in Iraq has failed. Even the American troops on the ground don't buy into it — and having administration officials pontificate from the safety of Washington about the need for ordinary soldiers to stay the course further erodes military morale.

While the White House emphasizes the threat from non-Iraqi terrorists, only 26 percent of the U.S. troops say that the insurgency would end if those foreign fighters could be kept out. A plurality believes that the insurgency is made up overwhelmingly of discontented Iraqi Sunnis.

So what would it take to win in Iraq? Maybe that was the single most depressing finding in this poll.

By a two-to-one ratio, the troops said that "to control the insurgency we need to double the level of ground troops and bombing missions." And since there is zero chance of that happening, a majority of troops seemed to be saying that they believe this war to be unwinnable."

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.html

Posted by: karen at February 28, 2006 07:45 AM

How do we set up a press office and deliver press releases, video, photos to the media? How do we start inviting the media to accompany us as we engage in our events or shepherd them through our side of the story? How do we take it beyond the LTE and blog stage? Businesses, even large non-profits, have their own press offices...how do we join them?

Posted by: Veritas at February 28, 2006 09:26 AM

GREAT Veritas!

I want us to think about this, seriously. Let's meet in the IRC tonight and discuss it.