Recently in
Find The Hidden Frame Category

I have to confess that I rarely have the stomach to watch Limbaugh, Beck, Fox News, etc. For those of you who want to know what Rush is up to without having to sit through the show, Media Matters has started the Limbaugh Wire, an hour-by-hour critique of Rush's latest.

And then there is Glen Beck. Thanks to the comic genius of Stephen Colbert, I feel like I know everything I will ever want to know about Beck--Colbert leaves Beck's corpse on the floor. While I agree that the mainstream media often present a very distorted picture of the world, it is gratifying to know that there are popular shows on TV that can be funny and play smash-mouth politics at the same time.

First this:

Now this:

The U.S. military has introduced "religious enlightenment" and other education programs for Iraqi detainees, some of whom are as young as 11, Marine Maj. Gen. Douglas M. Stone, the commander of U.S. detention facilities in Iraq, said yesterday.

Stone said such efforts, aimed mainly at Iraqis who have been held for more than a year, are intended to "bend them back to our will" and are part of waging war in what he called "the battlefield of the mind." Most of the younger detainees are held in a facility that the military calls the "House of Wisdom."

The religious courses are led by Muslim clerics who "teach out of a moderate doctrine," Stone said, according to the transcript of a conference call he held from Baghdad with a group of defense bloggers. Such schooling "tears apart" the arguments of al-Qaeda, such as "Let's kill innocents," and helps to "bring some of the edge off" the detainees, he said.

[...]

Stone said his staff conducts polygraph tests for detainees who promise to change after undergoing the religious training program. "We were trying to figure out if they're messing with us. . . . You're not talking about radicals going to choirboys." But he also added that they're succeeding in countering extremists in the facilities. "We're busting them down, we're making whole moderate compounds that didn't exist before."

Stone described a sort of religious insurgency that occurred at one detention facility on Sept. 2. "We had a compound of moderates for the first time overtake . . . extremists. It's never happened before. Found them, identified them, threw them up against the fence and shaved their frickin' beards off of them. . . . I mean, that is historic."

I see some people paid attention in Spanish History class.

I'm sure this will all work out really, really well this time.

I don't know why I still do it... but I still do. On some level, it's the mental equivalent of being a self-mutilator. But I still do it. I watch the Today Show in the morning while I'm having coffee.

And thus my Friday morning began with what I am sure resulted in a major blood pressure increase, and death-defying proximity to a cerebral aneurism. Meredith Viera parsing out for the idiot-nation the subtle nuanced interpretation of Mr. Bush's pointless remarks Thursday evening (spewed no doubt to an utterly disinterested nation - strangely, haven't seen the Nielsen numbers on this).

Do you ever wonder why the antiwar movement has been so unsuccessful in bringing the war in Iraq to an end? Is there something missing? Is there some fundamental problem with the organizations that are supposed to be providing leadership? Or does spending time with antiwar organizers blind one to the reality that far too many of our fellow citizens continue to believe that Iraq is a noble cause?

These questions came to mind as I read through a Sunday Washington Post story by a reporter who accompanied Republican Georgia Senator Johnny Isakson on a three-day August recess trip through Georgia.

Here's the sentence that stabbed me in the heart:

"In three days on the road, not one Georgia resident urged Isakson to go back to Washington and end the war."

Let me repeat this sentence:

"In three days on the road, not one Georgia resident urged Isakson to go back to Washington and end the war."

How is it possible that ANY member of Congress could have gone home for this August recess, and not heard a single person ask him or her to go back to Washington and end the war? As Howard Dean so memorably demonstrated with his 50-state plan, it's a terrible mistake to turn your back on states just because you know you can't win there this time around.

Today I bring you, for our discussions, torture on the couch.

Last week, at the San Francisco meeting of the American Psychological Association, the ethical concerns of the members about any sanctioning of psychologists' presence at torture sessions at GITMO (or elsewhere), came up. Eight panels on the subject were formally scheduled. Countless conversations and strategy sessions ensued. As a result of overwhelming membership disapproval of the practice of having psychologists present at GITMO "information-gathering" sessions, the following was decided:

SAN FRANCISCO - The nation's largest group of psychologists scrapped a measure Sunday that would have prohibited members from assisting interrogators at Guantanamo Bay and other U.S. military detention centers.

The American Psychological Association's policy-making council voted against [editor's boldface] a proposal to ban psychologists from taking part in any interrogations at U.S. military prisons "in which detainees are deprived of adequate protection of their human rights."

A friend who attended the conference told me:

I just got back from the APA convention where I was a presenter on [one of eight] panels of an Ethics and Interrogations mini-convention and worked with my colleagues on the protest rally. We lost the vote but are winning the public relations war in the press except for a whitewash article in the Washington Post that reads like a puff piece put out by the APA. The meetings were constant, wild, tumultuous and exhausting. Specific APA collaborators with the DoD and White House were outed, leading to harangues and hate mail to the whistle blower [ ED note: presumedly from the WH and collaborators to the person who identified the collaborators].

They hoodwinked the Council of Reps with their completely scripted line and full court press, but they unleashed the floodgates as rank and file psychologists took notice and began to protest with us.

On a Friday morning, with not much to do (or rather, lots to do that seems so overwhelming, it's better to play some word games!), I decided to do a Google search for the word "democracy."

artwork by Phil Scroggs, for UCLA

There were 89,100,000 hits. I went through the first three pages of hits and made a spread sheet of the descriptor words for democracy, and the active verbs most closely associated with the concept of democracy. This seemed appropriate because the top sites are the ones most widely read, so I wanted to see what concepts we are associating with the idea of democracy, at least, this week.

I found, in those first three pages:

Democracy Now, the Democracy Journal, and a democracy game. Lots of blogs, including ours (although not in the first three pages), The Democracy Project on PBS (for kids), democracy.org (Bob in Washington, just a page with no links), the Center for Democracy and Technology, Democracy for America, democracy.com, the democracy channel, and, of course, de Tocqueville's essay on Democracy in America. Democracy is also a piece of apparently squirrely software.

But let's go to the videotape, so to speak:

[Photo credit of eggs frying on sidewalk: operapixels]

All the kids I know are asking if you can really do this...yes, you can, but it's disgusting. I give that answer alot these days.

[UPDATE: Harriet Miers blows off the subpoena. Conyers responds here. My response? Throw her ass in jail. Now. What's your response?]

Speaking of these days, you don't need me to tell you that it's summertime. The mercury is through the roof, and we're all seeking a little shelter. And while you seek that shelter, what are you talking about with your friends and neighbors? More important, what are you talking about with strangers? You know, the folks in line at the grocery store, or in my case, at the town pool.

I usually know what's on the minds of my close friends and neighbors, but I've found that what's on the minds of strangers usually provides the most insight as to what the country, as a whole, is talking about.

So here's what people are talking back about:

I was recently alerted to this article that Bill Maher has written about France-bashing as a tired propaganda device. Over the years, negative allusions to France have often been made as a propaganda move, one that was utilized in order to capitalize on fear and provincialism. It is always useful to have an "other" to blame; some sort of outsider. It's the flip side of the "regular guy drinking buddy" thing. Remember Freedom Fries? Remember allusions to the fact that John Kerry might actually speak French? Remember all things French as shorthand for eliteness and snobbery? If so, you may enjoy this article, as I did.

(Photo taken just before the 2003 invasion of Iraq)

John McCain thinks the voters are stupid. Really, it's the only explanation I can think of for this nonsense.

But Mike Pence and Lindsey Graham think the voters are even stupider. Really, it's the only explanation I can think of for THIS nonsense.

First, McCain's disingenuous version of reality on the ground in Baghdad, as he told reporters at a press conference held in the heavily-fortified Green Zone on, fittingly enough, April 1:

After a heavily guarded trip to a Baghdad market, Sen. John McCain insisted Sunday that a U.S.-Iraqi security crackdown in the capital was working and said Americans lacked a "full picture" of the progress.

McCain, a Republican presidential hopeful who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, acknowledged a difficult task lies ahead in Iraq, but criticized the media for not giving Americans enough information about the recent drop in execution-style sectarian killings, the establishment of security posts throughout the city and Sunni tribal efforts against al Qaeda in the western Anbar province.

"These and other indicators are reason for cautious, very cautious optimism about the effects of the new strategy," said McCain, who was leading a Republican congressional delegation to Iraq that included Sen. Lindsey Graham.

McCain, R-Ariz., was combative during the news conference, refusing to respond to a question about whether the U.S. had plans to attack Iran. He also replied testily to a question about remarks he had made in the United States last week that it was safe to walk some Baghdad streets.

"Things are better and there are encouraging signs. I've been here ... many times over the years. Never have I been able to drive from the airport, never have I been able go out into the city as I was today," he said.

We'll get back to the Bizzarro Planet aspect of those remarks in a moment. But let's listen to Pence's and Graham's versions of the same Sunday stroll through the park-like atmosphere of Baghdad's Shorja market:

"In a complex world, you need TV news that's faster... harder... scarier... all-knowing."

With those bold words, satirical website The Onion launched its latest campaign to put only the finest fake news into the hands of web users everywhere: the streaming vidcast-based Onion News Network.

According to their website, "The Onion News Network has set the standard for globe-encompassing 24-hour television news since it was founded in December, 1892. The network boasts channels in 171 languages and can be viewed in 4.2 billion households in 811 countries." With a strictly fact-based approach like that, they're bound to be at least as fair and balanced as Faux News already is.

The ONN service was officially launched only this morning, so there are just a few of their tongue-in-cheek parodies of the typical 24-hour cable news show segments on their website so far. The Onion plans to add more video clips to the site at the rate of two per week, and they encourage viewers to embed the growing list of feeds in their own web pages much the same way that YouTube does.

The production quality of the ONN videos available so far is quite high across the board. The writing is somewhat less consistent, but at its best it is wickedly funny stuff. Hard-core MSM critics like the people who read and post here at the Democracy Cell Project ought to have a field day with The Onion News Network's satiric fake-news videos. After all, with timely stories like this to choose from, what's not to like?

The Moon-owned Washington Times, which no one in his/er correct mind would ever call a left-wing or even a centrist newspaper, published this op-ed piece by Wade Sanders this morning.

Key point: you don't have to be a bleeding heart liberal to know that Sam Fox should not, repeat *not*, be confirmed by the Senate to a plum job as ambassador to Belgium -- no matter what his good buddy Heckuva-Job-Bushie thinks.

Please feel free to contact your favorite senators and remind them that dishonest fat-cat greedheads like Sam Fox should never be rewarded by being handed cushy gigs that they are not even remotely qualified for -- especially this particular dishonest fat-cat greedhead.

(FYI's: Sanders is former deputy assistant secretary of the Navy. Former secretary of the Navy Jim Webb has stated that he will under no circumstances vote to confirm Sam Fox. Fox's nomination is currently on hold but is still pending a confirmation vote at some point.)

As the skipper of a Swift Boat during the Vietnam War, I recently watched with interest as Sam Fox, a Missouri multimillionaire, small-talked his way through a confirmation hearing on his nomination to be the United States ambassador to Belgium. ... I have no personal interest in Belgium, but one feature on Mr. Fox's long list of support for all things Republican caught my attention: "Foxy," as President Bush affectionately calls him, had donated $50,000 to the distasteful smear machine known as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth during the 2004 election.

Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but one of the lessons drilled into me by the military and preserved through the memory of friends who were lucky enough to come home from Vietnam alive, is that truth matters above all else. And as a military man, it doesn't matter much who is being attacked -- John McCain, Max Cleland, John Kerry, or Jack Murtha -- I just don't believe that assaults on the military records of veterans belong in our politics. Nor do I believe that those who finance smears of decorated Vietnam veterans deserve to represent America on the world stage.

[snip]

So I read with great interest the hoopla over Mr. Fox's confirmation hearing. Given the long history of campaign contributions that Mr. Fox has spread around, it's no surprise that he had strong support from the Bush administration. Sure, "Foxy" lacks any background whatsoever in Belgium -- he can neither speak the language nor provide any hint of knowledge about the country, its culture, its people or its government. His background includes buying companies and making money -- not diplomacy.

[snip]

Make no mistake: I remember. Mr. Fox had helped bankroll one of the nastiest, dirtiest negative campaign ads of the entire 2004 presidential campaign, if not in presidential history. But it was more than that. It was personal to me. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth sullied the reputation of one of the Navy's bravest, most dedicated fighting forces. Again and again I see the word "Swiftboating" used as a pejorative -- not the valiant, honorable term it was nearly 40 years ago when young men gave their lives on the Mekong Delta.

[snip]

Those of us who are real swift boaters know something about judgment and responsibility for our decisions. We live with the consequences of war every day. All decisions have consequences -- and so should Mr. Fox's decision in 2004. The Senate must reject Mr. Fox. We need to hold our public officials to the highest standards of integrity, judgment and honesty, and we need to honor the values that the Navy taught young men decades ago.

We here at the Democracy Cell Project don't campaign for particular candidates. We don't ask people for money to support particular causes. We don't take sides in any given battle between he-said-this and they-said-that. The basic rule of thumb here is:

"We don't have a dog in this fight."

That being said, though -- one part of our mission at the DCP is to educate, inform, activate, and empower the concept of a small-d-democratic citizenry. In the process, we sometimes point out incidents of spin, distortion, misinformation, and outright slanderous ad hominem attacks when we see that happening in the so-called Main Street Media, aka the MSM.

It's what we do. It's what we're here for.

The following is an example of that principle at work:

"Pro" means "for", and "life" is for "protecting life," right? So does "pro-life" mean protecting cells, or protecting the living and breathing here on earth?

I was forced to confront these questions today. And I, in return, attempted to force an unsuspecting telemarketer from a company called MDS Communications to confront them, too.

She contacted me because her firm was hired by Dr. Beverly Lahaye from the Concerned Women for America to fundraise for them. She explained how using her firm was more cost-effective for her client than if the CWFA did it on their own.

"Whatever!" I thought. I was just ticked that a telemarketer had somehow gotten my number. Yet because I had not heard of either organization before, I allowed her to continue with her script as I quickly wrote down the URLs.

"You are being contacted because we show you might be pro-life. Are you pro-life?"

"I am pro-life," I said in response. I suspected she might have meant 'anti-abortion,' but I wanted to hear more about what she had to say in case it would give me a clue as to how the CWFA got my number. Besides, I really am pro-life; I just don't consider anti-abortionists to be the only ones entitled to that label.

And so she continued with her pre-canned rap track...

This Way Lies Madness: A Movement Analysis of GWB's "Speech"

Last night George Bush stilled his usual side-to-side rocking, reduced his smirk to an almost-unchanging grimace, read his speech as a recitation of mere facts, and frightened the world.

What could possibly lie behind that blank stare that opened the speech? Was he nervous? Anxious? Was it guilt overridden by anger? As he read the monitor, only the merest of shifts took place; it was as if he was running a marathon and he needed to preserve all his energy for the long haul; no point in conveying any expression or communicating any real information.

What he said mattered little for his case; he ran through the homilies and platitudes without belief. This speech was all about conveying intention without serious rationale.

I laugh as I hear the punditocracy, particularly the more conservative, bemoan the onslaught of "San Francisco Values" taking over Congress in the form of the new Speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi. They talk about how she seems to be running from the right-wing inspired moniker used to describe her: "San Francisco Liberal".

As if San Francisco is so bad.

First of all, let's get down to the basics of what San Francisco truly is versus what some THINK it is.

#1. San Francisco likes children. Evidence the number of programs for families and children. Evidence the passage, by an overwhelming percentage of 75% of the voter turnout, of a half-billion dollar school improvement bond to fix its public schools. About the parents of children in public schools who attend Board of Ed meetings, volunteer hours of their time to their PTAs, or call and bug their local Supervisor to get things done to their local park, library or street.

#2. San Francisco likes a clean environment. Evidence the historic city's Clean Water Program which twenty-years later is still a national model of how a city can manage its wastewater so that its pristine beaches and bay can stay that way. Or the city's own department of environment, which monitors the city's air quality, and mitigates hazardous substances from our public buildings.

#3. San Francisco likes to take a good risk now and then. More artists start here and are nurtured here before they go on to their chosen destiny: Whoopi Goldberg, Bill Irwin, Robin Williams, to name a few. That's because we like cutting edge things. Like venture capitalism to develop start-up internet businesses--of which the strongest survived and are thriving to this day. Like supporting stem-cell research in our THREE major, world-class universities and hospital research labs. Like the biotech industry now 10 miles across the bridge in Emeryville. We like creating jobs for the future. These are risks worth taking for our citizens for the benefit of the world.

#4. San Franciscans learned to thrive through survival. This city was officially gone 100 years ago after the 1906 Earthquake and fire. But since that time, the spirit, commitment and dedication to re-build this place from the ground up has been a theme inspiring leadership in all political circles of this city. That leadership includes the new Speaker of the House.

Finally, think about the passengers of United Flight 93 on September 11. Many of those passengers who fought the hijackers on that plane were on their way home--to San Francisco.

Now I know here at DCP we represent all cities across the country that have a similar sense of commitment, compassion and vision as described above. But since it is my town, and I've lived here and worked for its public sector for a long time, I thought it was important to get this right before something or someone else tries to paint this town as something wrong and untrue. Especially now that there is new leadership at Congress' helm. I happen to know these things about this town because I live here and have been part of it in a very real way.

So before you let the drip drip drip of right-wing propaganda creep in and meme San Francisco as the crazy end of American culture wars, remember, there are longer-lasting values listed above that this city stands tall on and continues to this day. Those are values that are eternal to this town. And I for one, am glad its being brought in spirit to this nation.

Its about time.

[Today's thread header was guest-written by our Australian correspondent Wendy Lohse.]

During the 2004 leadup to the American presidential election I tuned into our Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) every afternoon here in Oz, to watch the candidates campaign.

I was convinced that the world was about to see an enormous shift. When the voting irregularities began to appear, and continued so blatantly until everyone wanted it all to stop - the rape - I gave up. I was so angry. You, the American voters were raped! Doesn't get much more violating than that does it?

During the campaign I found John Kerry was impressive but he did enter into the same spin of words that had been put out by the Bush machine. This war on words has gone on ever since. It's destructive. It's stupid. It has to stop.

Words I'd eliminate from conversation, blogs, Iraq Study Group Reports, media, campaigns and all other places that will come to me whenever I read, or hear one of these words used to prove something:

As we prepare for the holidays, in anticipation of the longest night of the year, let's take a quick look at what sunlight will look like when the 110th Congress convenes in January.

Enjoy.

"We'll succeed unless we quit".

Striking words from the former Texas Air National Guardsman, but here we have the irony of ironies, President Bush, comparing Vietnam to Iraq

This brings to mind another President, coincidentally also from Texas, who had a similar approach

AUSTIN, Texas - As American involvement in Vietnam deepened, President Lyndon Johnson railed against "the bunch of commies" running The New York Times and complained about the newspaper's criticism of the war, according to taped phone conversations released Friday.

..."They want to get out of Vietnam and yield it to them, and I don't think I can quite do that," the president said. At the time, as Defense Secretary Robert McNamara reported, there were 400,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam.

In my research, I came across this article written in May of this year by Charles J. Hanley, AP Special Correspondent which analyzes the difference between the two wars, with a far more subtle approach than either other two Presidents above.

"The two aspects of Vietnam and Iraq that show the most similarities involve an effort at state-building in an alien culture that is poorly understood by the United States, and the attempt to sustain U.S. domestic support for a prolonged war against an irregular enemy," ...

As with Vietnam, approval for the Iraq operation has plunged as U.S. casualties mount. "Casualty for casualty, support has declined far more quickly than it did during either the Korean War or the Vietnam War," says political scientist John Mueller of Ohio State University, an expert on wars and U.S. public opinion.

"If history is any indication, there is little the Bush administration can do to reverse this decline," Mueller adds.

What the Americans are trying to do is "Iraqization," training a new Iraqi army to move into the front line against the largely Sunni Arab insurgents, so U.S. troops can pull back.

"As the Iraqi security forces stand up, coalition forces can stand down," Bush says.

It's an eerie refrain of another presidential voice. "As South Vietnamese forces become stronger, the rate of American withdrawal can become greater," Richard M. Nixon said in announcing "Vietnamization" in 1969. Four years later, the American withdrawal was complete, and two years after that, in 1975, so was the failure, as triumphant communist forces rolled into Saigon.
...

In the worsening civil conflict among Iraq's Sunni Arabs, Shiites and Kurds, the new army is viewed by Sunni Arabs as a Shiite and Kurdish force and its deployment deepens their hostility.

The United States, more and more, is in a Vietnam-like bind in Iraq, many commentators say. It cannot stay; it cannot go.

If this article below is any indication, the people of Virginia may have done us a much bigger favor than we knew when they threw George Allen out of office and replaced him with Jim Webb.

There has always been a tough, populist streak beneath the gentlemanly surface of Virginia's politics. In this piece from the Wall Street Journal, Senator-elect Webb goes straight at the growing inequalities of income and opportunity in the U.S. since Ronald Reagan's election in 1980, as our country has moved towards an increasingly class-based society.

Class Struggle
American workers have a chance to be heard.
Wall Street Journal
November 15, 2006

by Jim Webb

The most important--and unfortunately the least debated--issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country. Few among them send their children to public schools; fewer still send their loved ones to fight our wars. They own most of our stocks, making the stock market an unreliable indicator of the economic health of working people. The top 1% now takes in an astounding 16% of national income, up from 8% in 1980. The tax codes protect them, just as they protect corporate America, through a vast system of loopholes.

[EDITOR'S NOTE: As Congressional leadership elections proceed, we will update the DCP Community on how proceedings will evolve and possible effects. In the meantime, this piece by Dick Bell gives us a flavor of what to expect from one of the beneficiaries of the 2006 midterms - The Congressional Progressive Caucus.]

Here's a different perspective on the impact of the elections on the new Congress. According to a press release from the Congressional Progressive Caucus:

PROGRESSIVES INCREASE THEIR NUMBERS AS LARGEST GROUP WITHIN THE HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Representatives Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey, Co-Chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), anticipate adding at least seven new CPC Members in the 110th Congress. This would increase the size of the CPC to at least 71 Members, making it by far the largest and most diverse sub-group among all Democrats in the new 110th Congress to take office in January and an increase of 14 new House Members in just the past 18 months.

“ Some inside-the-Beltway commentators, columnists, and conservatives want the American people to believe that last Tuesday’s election results have especially empowered moderate-to-conservative elements within the House Democratic Caucus in the 110th Congress, but that is an incomplete picture of the new political landscape on Capitol Hill,” Congresswoman Lee noted, pointing out that the newly-expanded Congressional Progressive Caucus will be decidedly larger than either the ‘Blue Dog’ or ‘New Democratic” Coalitions.”

“We also anticipate that at least half of the incoming chairs of the House standing committees will be Progressive Caucus Members,” Congresswoman Woolsey underscored, “and we are so pleased that our friend and leader –soon-to-be Speaker Nancy Pelosi – belonged to the CPC before assuming leadership duties for all House Democrats. We will support Speaker Pelosi in the adoption of strong ethics reforms, the restoration of open, free-wheeling debate on the House floor that gives voice to the hopes and needs of all Americans, and the offering of a wide range of floor amendments to major bills.”

CPC Members stand to benefit from the degree to which the election results vindicated their leading edge work to change President Bush’s policy in Iraq. In addition to the CPC Co-Chairs, it was CPC Members like Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA, and founder of the Out of Iraq Caucus) who first warned against authorizing President Bush to use military force in Iraq and they were the first to speak out in January, 2005 to end the occupation of Iraq and to bring our troops home. “This election made crystal clear that a growing majority of Americans across the political spectrum agree with us,” the CPC Co-Chairs pointed out. “The American people want an end to the Iraq fiasco and it will be progressives who will be dogged in making that happen.”

Drawing upon their Progressive Promise agenda first unveiled in June, 2005, CPC Members are also expected to advocate:

(1) for a different national security strategy that uses diplomacy and conflict mediation and beyond over-reliance upon using military force to protect U.S. national security and combat terrorism;

(2) for reducing poverty and promoting economic fairness beyond raising the minimum wage;

(3) for election reform beyond voter verifiable paper trails to ensuring the voting rights of all Americans and voluntary public financing; and

(4) for energy independence beyond repealing tax breaks for oil and gas companies to curb reliance upon imported oil from the Middle East and reduce global warming.

Image courtesy of PS2

As Congress convenes this week, it looks as though there's about to be point of either critical mass or departure for those who have justified the war in Iraq as primary to our national defense and central to America's War on Terror. As reported today in the New York Times:

An excerpt from the article:

The White House, apparently concerned that reports of the intelligence assessment could undercut one of its most fundamental arguments for staying in Iraq, quickly issued a statement seeking to rebut points about it that were reported in The New York Times and later in The Washington Post today.

It takes alot more energy to prop up a lie rather than tell the truth, doesn't it? Read the article and weigh in on this ongoing smackdown between Rhetoric and Reality.

As many of you know, I am an actor and core member of the Medea Project - Theater for Incarcerated Women. As the name says, our work is primarily about and for women in jail. We have been proceeding with rehearsals the last three months. Part of the rehearsal process is to bring information to the women to share and become part of the discussion about the new show we're producing.

This show, based on Nigerian author Amos Tutuola's "My Life in the Bush of Ghosts", talks about, among other things--disappearing, invisibility, and the ramifications of war and oppression.

Dick's article yesterday had me so incensed I rushed off a copy on the printer and brought it to rehearsal last night, and had the women on the inside read it aloud.

The realizations inside incited flames of thought. They attested to the fact that government-provided MEDICAL DOES NOT COMPARE with privately-owned HMOs--particularly in the manner of treatment. One woman said the difference in a few short years for her mother's health care under an HMO versus MEDICAL was startling.

A post-operative stay under an HMO allows a person the ability to recuperate for days, weeks even. A post-operative stay under MEDICAL means you get kicked out sooner than intended, and in this case to the detriment of her mother's health.

Its not hard to see the meanness and recalcitrance of the privileged in this country nowadays, and in the callous ways this sense of entitlement makes the poor invisible. And demonized.

Watching and listening to this group of women read, with incredulousness, the description of the VIP physical that Dick wrote about was one thing. Their questions about who is rich now, who is poor now and what it is to be middle class in America now were heartbreaking.

This is a sad reminder of the ghost of a safety net this country once had for its most vulnerable. Dick is right. This is our snapshot of Bush's America. And some ARE more equal than others.

We have known about this for years. But this government doesn't give a damn if you know about it, if you're mad about it, or whether you live or die because of it.

What a wonderful outpouring of love and affection for Ann Richards in the previous post. Whenever someone starts into the "all politicians are scum" routine, just remember how deeply a really good politician can touch peoples' hearts.

And speaking of hearts, and other bodily organs, sometimes an ad can say more about the state of the world than the most eloquent editorial.

Take today's Washington Post, on page A13 of the print version, which is dominated by a 5-column, 3/4ths page ad with the enticing headline:

"Is it decadent to offer a VIP physical? Not if it actually makes you get a physical."

For the ever-expanding number of Americans with no health insurance, there's not going to be any physical at all, much less a VIP physical.

So what do you get for your $3,500 VIP physical at Virginia Hospital Center?

We'll start you off in a private VIP lounge, with telephone, television and internet access, newspapers and magazines, and a full day's supply of peace and quiet as needed. Meals will be made to order. Snacks available as you need them. We can even arrange for a soothing massage--any style. (What about a Bloomberg ticker to keep up with the market--is this a real VIP physical or a cheap-o knockoff?)

Wow, that sounds exactly like the set up for my last physical--how about you?

And for those of you who are so important that the simple fact that you were even thinking about your health might shake the foundations of the stock market:

For the sake of your privacy, arrival by special entrance can be arranged. You can even be brought here by private town car if you wish.

(I have to say that I think the ad guy lost his composure in this last graph: of course your VIP would be arriving in a town car--what idiot VIP drives his (or her) own car.)

Well slap me upside the head and call me Bubba, but if you want a reminder of just how fast inequality in America is growing, think about yourself, getting a hot stone massage while a staffer pops grapes into your mouth, while your "personal escort [who] will deftly move you through the hospital halls" hovers in the wings, waiting to take you to your next specialist. Your insurance doesn't pay for this kind of service? And your stock options don't vest until next year? Damn. Get used to it. This is George Bush's America.

[Marie Antoinette, 1783]

Last month, in one of the more laughable attempts at plutocracy-in-action by the 109th Congress, the same Congress that voted itself a pay raise this year, the House majority presented their minimum wage increase bill attached with cuts to the estate tax.

The wage increase was to address nine long years of the minimum wage standard remaining static at $5.15/hour. The bill would increase wages to $7.25/hour phased over a period of three years, affecting over 6.6 million American workers trying to keep up with energy prices, the cost of living and healthcare.

The estate tax (aka Paris Hilton tax) break would cost the treasury $350 to $750 billion in lost tax revenue over ten years and would benefit just over 8,000 individuals representing America's wealthiest families. Ostensibly, the tax cut would bring the estate tax down from 55% to 15% for estates worth $10 million to $25 million, and for those estates larger that $25 million, from 55% to 30%.

This also means that 900 of the wealthiest Americans whose estates are worth more than $25 million will see a benefit of $5.6 million in return.

The Bill, HR 5970, failed in the Senate by vote of 56-42.

Gerald W. McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), said, "This was a transparent attempt to dangle a minimum-wage increase for families struggling to make ends meet to secure yet another Texas-size tax handout for the wealthiest."

Not content to let this defeat slide, the Senate majority plans to bring the minimum wage issue back to the floor after the Labor Day Weekend--hopefully, giving American workers most in need of bread a wage break to survive in this day and age.

There are growing numbers of cities and states that want to move the issue forward. I hope that if Congress decides to move forward on this issue in the remaining weeks it has left before the midterms, that they do it while NOT while dolefully licking the cake frosting off their gloved hands.

Do you think its possible?

Is he President of The United States, or is he auditioning for the 1970's disco band, The Village People? Let's review the costumes.

First up, the President as...

The Cheerleader

The Construction Worker

The Fighter Pilot

The Cowboy

The Fashionista

And The Latest...The Biker

And now ...

The Village People

So what is it--President or member of The Village People? You be the judge.

At long last, people in the media are beginning to question some of their own, and do so out loud, and proud.

From Media Matters:

Media Matters to CNN: Will anchor Roberts be disciplined for suggesting Lamont is "the Al Qaeda candidate"?

Dear Messrs. Klein and Santos:

I am writing to express my great concern over an incident that occurred on your network Friday, August 11, 2006. As the Think Progress weblog noted, during a discussion on CNN Headline News of the recent Connecticut Senate Democratic primary won by Ned Lamont, anchor Chuck Roberts asked: "Might some argue, as some have, that Lamont is the Al Qaeda candidate?"

One expects to hear this kind of hyperbolic rhetoric -- which also perfectly plays into the Republican Party's baseless smears of Democrats as soft on national security -- coming from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, or Michael Savage. CNN, however, is supposed to be a legitimate news organization.

Mr. Roberts might have a defense if it were actually the case that people were calling Mr. Lamont "the Al Qaeda candidate." But as Arianna Huffington pointed out on CNN's own Reliable Sources yesterday, the smear appears to be entirely the creation of Mr. Roberts. We note that Mr. Lamont's opposition to the Iraq war is shared by a majority of the American people; we hope it is not common practice among CNN anchors to refer to most Americans as Al Qaeda sympathizers.

As Huffington clearly demonstrated in her column, the only person saying that about Lamont, was, in fact, Mr. Roberts. She mentions having done an exhaustive news database search and not come up with a single instance of anyone else using Mr. Roberts' construction.

I'm all for free speech and the 1st amendment, but I believe that CNN, and any other institution that claims to be a legitimate media outlet, has a responsibility to the public that goes beyond the 1st amendment.

The media's presentation of the world changes how we understand the world. When someone who is ostensibly presenting the news comes up with such a hate-filled, destructive metaphor like one, the management of that institution has a moral responsibility to show the world that such remarks are outside the accepted bounds of journalism.

I don't know anything about CNN's internal disciplinary processes, but if there ever were a time to haul a reporter on the carpet and publicly admonish him, that time is now.

What is CNN going to do about Mr. Roberts that will show him and the American people that there are still limits which decent people do not cross?

Lying is an effective way of governing, if no one calls your bluff. For months, David A. Prentice, a scientist with the right-wing Family Research Council and Senator Sam Brownback (both strong opponents of loosening restrictions) have claimed that adult stem cells were just as useful as embyronic stem cells, and that adult stem cells were already treating more than 65 diseases. Prentice cited scientific studies, which he said demonstrated the use of adult stem cells against these 65 diseases.

Only one problem. Prentice was lying. According to a letter from three scientists in the latest issue of Science, Prentice's footnotes do refer to scientific studies: it's just that most of these studies have nothing to do with the treatment of any disease with adult stem cells.

To take one example: Prentice cites a study he claims shows the use of adult stem cells in treating testicular cancer. Nope. The study is about isolating adult stems cells.

Another "study" turned out to be "a layperson's statement in a newspaper article."

At best, the studies Prentice cites refer to adult stem cells being used to treat 9 diseases, not 65.

This story was in yesterday's papers. But this morning, in a Boston Globe story on the Senate showdown, we find the head of the Family Research Council, Tony Perkins, telling the Globe:

Embryonic stem-cell research has produced no successful tretment for human beings, whereas adult stem cell research has produced results for over 70 different medical conditions.

Notice that Perkins, after his organization has been exposed as lying about the effectiveness of adult stem cells, has expanded the lie by raising the total to 70.

And note that the Boston Globe's reporter and editors are asleep at the switch. The Globe should be ashamed of itself for printing such trash without any acknowledgement that this Perkins' number is based on a "study" that has been completely discredited.

Clash Over Stem Cell Research Heats Up
Scientists Dispute Claims of Leading Foe of Bill to Ease Embryo Restrictions
Washington Post, July 15, 2006

Senate showdown nears over embryonic stem-cell policy
Boston Globe, July 16, 2006

I sent this out to my master mailing list as a 4th of July message, following the example of a local Professor Emeritus in the UW Department of Communications. It's easy to call this administration on their incompetence, but this latest piece by George Lakoff, Marc Ettlinger and Sam Ferguson of the Rockridge Institute warns us against such a simple trap.

Subject: Reframe competence & conservatism

Bush Is Not Incompetent!

Progressives have fallen into a trap. Emboldened by President Bush's plummeting approval ratings, progressives increasingly point to Bush's "failures" and label him and his administration as incompetent. For example, Nancy Pelosi said "The situation in Iraq and the reckless economic policies in the United States speak to one issue for me, and that is the competence of our leader." Self-satisfying as this criticism may be, it misses the bigger point. Bush's disasters - Katrina, the Iraq War, the budget deficit - are not so much a testament to his incompetence or a failure of execution. Rather, they are the natural, even inevitable result of his conservative governing philosophy. It is conservatism itself, carried out according to plan, that is at fault. Bush will not be running again, but other conservatives will. His governing philosophy is theirs as well. We should be putting the onus where it belongs, on all conservative office holders and candidates who would lead us off the same cliff.

To Bush's base, his bumbling folksiness is part of his charm - it fosters conservative populism. Bush plays up this image by proudly stating his lack of interest in reading and current events, his fondness for naps land vacations and his self-deprecating jokes. This image causes the opposition to underestimate his capacities - disregarding him as a complete idiot - and deflects criticism of his conservative allies. If incompetence is the problem, it's all about Bush. But, if conservatism is the problem, it is about a set of ideas, a movement and its many adherents.

As we head into the 4th of July, I thought it would be good to remind ourselves that patriotism wasn't invented by ultraconservatives, and that some of our most cherished pledges and songs were written by the progressives of their times. (And don't miss the revised "Declaration of Impeachment" at the end!)

The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a Christian socialist, Francis Bellamy: "One nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" referred to corporate robber barons vs oppressed workers.

This Land is Your Land was written by Woody Guthrie, a progressive who wrote protest songs and wrote for "The People's Weekly."

The Statue of Liberty's "Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" was written by a progressive poet, Emma Lazarus. She challenged the anti-immigrant sentiment of the time.

"American the Beautiful" was written by Katherine Lee Bates, a Wellesley graduate involved in feminism and worker's rights. Her life partner was Katherine Coman, also an activist.

Here are a couple of patriotic quotes that I've always liked:

"I love America more than any other country in this world, and exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticise her perpetually" - James Baldwin

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to th American public" - Theodore Roosevelt

"Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one unAmerican act tht could most easily defeat us" - Justice William O. Douglas

"Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and excusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let them label you as they may" - Mark Twain

Flag desecration is being debated in the Senate. It must be close to the Fourth of July.

And once again, the media lapdogs oblige those who are against desecrating the flag, but clearly in favor of desecrating the Constitution.

It's hard to find a media lapdog more willing to let herself be used than Dana Bash. In her coverage of this story, she manages to use her "media math" skills, slant the story to Republican advantage, and give an example of flag desecration that isn't.

In the lead of her story she showed a Rock the Vote ad from the last century, with Madonna wrapped in the US flag, as an example of desecrating the flag, but the amendment being considered says nothing about wrapping oneself in the flag.

Why not show this picture of George Bush from a couple of weeks ago, writing his name on flags with a permanent marker, as an example of actual flag desecration that would be covered in the proposed amendment?

Her story is not just misleading. It's wrong.

As Editor and Publisher reports, the Republican Congressman from my birthplace, Peter King (R-NY), has labeled the actions of anyone who discloses classified information during wartime "treasonous". (emphasis mine)

WASHINGTON The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee urged the Bush administration Sunday to seek criminal charges against The New York Times for reporting on a secret financial-monitoring program used to trace terrorists.

Rep. Peter King blasted the newspaper's decision last week to report that the Treasury Department was working with the CIA to examine messages within a massive international database of money-transfer records.

"I am asking the Attorney General to begin an investigation and prosecution of The New York Times -- the reporters, the editors and the publisher," said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y. "We're at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous."

While King was referring to the NY Times' reports of US Treasury Department's massive mining of financial database records, I am sure that in his quest to be the uber-patriot, he would include anyone who leaked such information during wartime.

As such, I am sure he is extremely concerned about Scooter Libby's role in the leaking of Valerie Plame's name to the press, and will be asking for Karl Rove to step down.

Or will he? Regardless of whether the courts ever pass judgement of the actions of the New York Times, does Congressman King also believe that Scooter Libby should also be charged with treason?

Enquiring minds want to know. And those enquiring minds can reach Congressman King's office to ask those question at 202-225-7896.

Please let us know if Congressman King supports the troops by removing traitors in his midst.

Did you see this headline?

No, of course you didn't. And you won't. Because this is not part of the narrative that the media has set forth.

According to the media, setting a timetable for Iraq is cutting and running. But apparently, only if you are a Democrat.

Here's the real question: Other than Russ Feingold, why aren't Democrats all over the media about this narrative. This is a golden opportunity to demolish this nonsense.

What are they going to do with the opportunity? It's a simple question for the media: Why is it cutting and running when the Democrats want to set a timetable, but it's phased redeployment when the Republicans do it?

It's a question that every single Democrat in elected office should be asking on every media outlet everywhere.

The real swiftboating of Murtha is beginning.

The Agonist and Taylor Marsh are tracking things down. They are conducting a full and detailed fact-finding investigation on those behind it. They could always use help.

If you read through the comments, it's an interesting unfolding of how the smear merchants behind the campaign operate. The internet research line is very instructive.

Reporters should take note. This is how it's done.

Anyone feel like it's August 2004 again?

I do. The media is suckling at the Republican narrative "Dems are divided...Dems are weak on National Security..." teat and what are the Democrats doing? I mean, what are the Democrats doing?

Moreover, what should they be doing?

Here's some advice from TRex over at FDL and I'd like to know what people think of this:

Which brings me to tonight’s topic. As netroots activists, we hear a lot of talk about the importance of "reframing the arguments", and I couldn’t agree more. But so few of our advocates in the public sphere seem to be taking that advice to heart. The whole "Lie and Die" thing is a nice try, Mr. Kerry, it’s short and it rhymes, sure, but it is still a response to the GOP’s charges of us being "cut and run" liberals. It still places us in the argument in a defensive crouch.

As long as we continue to form our strategies and sound bites around defending ourselves, the GOP will always win. They have consistently set the tone for every debate from gay marriage to the War in Iraq by arriving there first, seizing the moral high ground, and hurling accusations, which the vichy Dems seem more than willing to waste their time parrying, ducking and weaving around in a doomed effort to justify themselves to the electorate, no matter how absurd and disingenuous the accusations are. We always enter the debate on terms set by the Republicans. If we continue to do that, we will always, always lose.

Listen to me, Democrats! Never defend. Never explain. Attack, attack, attack! When a right-winger accuses you of something, back up, reframe, ignore the charges, just ATTACK. How hard can this be? Ann Coulter doesn’t waste her time defending herself against our accusations. Neither does Rush Limbaugh. They launch their attacks and the terms of the debate are set from there, and once again, as liberals, we are bringing knives to a gun fight.

To whit:

A Republican says, "All you liberals are cut-and-run traitors! You don’t support the troops!"

Instead of frantically beginning to tap dance and show that you’re not a traitor and that you do support the troops, you fire back, "Why are you Republicans such cowards? Your leaders are all draft-dodgers who’ve never fired a shot at anything but a bunch of canned quails and old lawyers. You’re using the troops as human shields against the midterm elections! Do you like seeing our brave men and women in uniform slaughtered and killed? Or are you just too much of a coward to face the consequences of your failed policies in Iraq? Which is it? Do you just hate the soldiers or do you hate your constituents?"

There. You have just put the burden of proof on the Repugnican that he/she isn’t a coward and that they don’t hate the troops. Then you set up a false dichotomy that they can’t answer without looking like a fool.

The rest of the entry is here. I'd like to know what people think of this approach. Please comment.

There are a couple of other strategies being floated out there and I will post on them later today for discussion.

I am posting these, because, as I have written on before, the Democrats will not be in charge of the narrative, because they are not in charge of the media. The only topics that will be covered in the media wil be Iraq, Immigration, fear and loathing. And it's up to the Democrats to deal with it. So the DCP will be posting several options, and we would appreciate your feedback.

This week we've enjoyed seeing a number of new messages and initiatives on Iraq by Senate Democrats and others answering to indictment-free Karl Rove's remarks last week that an Iraq exit strategy was "cut and run".

Jack Murtha's lively reponse, "Stay and Pay" came Sunday on Meet the Press, where he excoriated Mr. Rove, his cavalier attitude towards our military from his position of priviledge behind a desk in the White House and the main portion of his anatomy that occupies his desk chair.

This week, Senators Feingold, Boxer and Kerry presented a joint resolution calling for phased withdrawal from Iraq. As Sen. Kerry put it, the current Administration's plan is: Lie and die.

For as long as I can remember reading about the glories of online communications, people have been celebrating the anonymity that the net can bestow. My favorite New Yorker cartoon for many years featured a dog in a chair sitting at a keyboard, telling a feline friend, "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog!"

But as we've learned this year, our friends over at the NSA and other Pentagon-based outfits not only know whether you're a dog, they know what kind of dog food you like, how many a times a day you go for walks, and what happened the last time you went to the vet's.

So when someone at the Pentagon sits down to read blogs, he or she can very quickly determine the identity of the writers of everything they're reading, and apply the appropriate filters and discounts.

But what about the rest of us? How much work should we have to do to determine the ideological underpinnings of a report of an organization we've never heard from before? Or how seriously do we need to take the latest rumor about the indictment of yet another Bush associate or member of Congress?

The time it takes to check out the backgrounds of the sources of rumors is not free: it's a cost, even if we're not billing anyone for it, and no one's paying us either. It's true that trust becomes a critical factor here, but trust takes times to build and nurture, and by its very nature, the net allows rumors to propagate much faster than the time it takes to establish whether a rumor is coming from a trusted source or not.

Without the multi-billion dollar resources of the NSA, the rest of us have had to develop our own systems for evaluating news from sources about which we knew little or nothing. I sometimes feel like every message should have a little box attached to the beginning or the ending where the sender could reveal as much, or as little, as he or she wanted about the background of the sender.

There would still be times when someone would legitimately want to keep such information murky or hidden, like corporate or government whistleblowers; but these people are far too few and far between.

So what do you do when you hit a comment or a claim that you wished were true, but don't know the author? Let's talk.

Michael Kinsley writing in WaPo. As the blog folks say, just go read the whole thing...

The Name Is Kafka . . . Franz Kafka

By Michael Kinsley
Friday, June 16, 2006; A25

"So put aside your Captain Crunch decoder ring," recommends the Central Intelligence Agency, "for the moment." This is on the Internet site of the CIA's legal department. It's part of a pitch for recruits so startlingly moronic -- even as an attempt at adorable self-mockery -- that you think it must be some subtle comment on the double meaning of the word "intelligence." In good hall-of-mirrors fashion, it's lifted from some book, but the book quotes supposedly real CIA employees. Whatever, this is the agency's self-presentation on its own Web site.

"If the theme music from Mission Impossible runs through your head," it says, "or you get the urge to order a martini 'shaken, not stirred,' at the mention of the letters 'CIA,' '' -- why, then, you're just the kind of lawyer we want!

"We've been a major player in developing the law of national security vs. the First Amendment," the agency deadpans. "Or the Fourth Amendment. . . ." When "Americans [abroad] come across on our screen, they've got constitutional rights we've got to think about . . . . Or electronic surveillance . . . . In areas like that, we're helping to create the law, and that's a real rush."

God help us...

And it's all true. The CIA is in the forefront of efforts to make sure that democracy, individual rights and stuff like that don't get in the way of our crusade for the spread of democracy, individual rights and stuff like that.

Go. Read.

(hattip to DW and Jim P at Dkos)

We woke up this morning to the snarling face of Condoleezza Rice on the front page of the Post. While we are used to unsettling photographs in the Post and tend to brace ourselves as we open the door and prepare for the stomach-turning headlines, today's was startling in its ferocity. Casey had called and warned us, but even that heads-up was not enough.

Under the photograph, Rice is quoted as saying that "Iran needs to make some changes." Hmmmmm. We didn't know we were in a position to demand "changes". Iran hasn't been terribly interested in getting back into our good graces. In the dating world, demanding changes from someone who has shown no interest in a relationship does not win points towards the cool lunch table...

Is this the new "robust diplomacy" President Bush refers to? We reflect upon the history of such ultimatums in previous international relationships...

Personally, while I celebrate the entrance of the new IDEA of diplomacy, I am not sure that the Bush Administration really has the same operational definition that I do.

How about you? How do you define diplomacy? If it was YOUR picture on the front page of the Post, and they were quoting YOU, what would it look like? What would it say?

How much is enough? As humanity has been warned again and again over the ages, by sages on every continent, the inability to limit our appetites and desires is a recurring theme in the decline and fall of civilizations. Not the only cause, but a good indicator that a civilization is going down.

No one agrees on how much is too much; embedded in the myth of the freedom of the individual in America (the American Dream) is a belief that nothing is too much, that as long as a person is making money by legally accepted methods, there should be no ceiling on the amount of compensation he or she can receive.

So what do I think is too much? I'm reminded of a famous remark by Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart while he was wrestling with another of humankind's most long-standing problems (sex). Ruling in a 1964 pornography case, Justice Stewart said: "I shall not today attempt to further define pornography...but I know it when I see it."

How about here in the good old U.S.of A? Two stories today reminded me of how greed is gnawing away at the foundations of our country, as inequalities in wealth become greater by the day.

The first story is a perfect illustration of Justice Potter's point: today's corporate executives are essentially looting their companies and their shareholders by manipulating their boards to pay them sums of money which are unconscionable.

As today's poster boy, let's look at the New York Times feature on Lee R. Raymond, the outgoing chairman and chief executive for Exxon, where's worked for the last 43 years.

Counting his pension, Raymond has earned an AVERAGE of $144,573 a day over those 43 years.
That's right: an average of $144,573 a day.

William F. Buckley, America's leading conservative and founder of the National Review Magazine (and NRO) penned a column last week, declaring the Iraq War Is Lost.

Bill Buckley has never been what anyone would characterize as a cheerleader of the Iraq War, either before or during what has now become a barely organized carnage-in-the-sand/civil war. However as a well-mannered conservative, he was willing to stand by and watch uncritically as the Bush Administration proceeded to destabilize the entire Middle East, throwing the hope of peace in that troubled region, in our time, or our children's time, out the window.

All of that has now officially changed. He has now declared the war lost. Ya think, Bill?

I'd be fascinated to know upon which particular disaster he has based his pronouncement. Is it one incompetent choice, or the sum of the incompetent parts that has caused the clouds to lift and Buckley to have a clear view of what has been obvious to over 60% of Americans for some time now (despite the media ignoring that fact). Among the bare points he makes against the administration his arguments run mostly towards the Iraqi blaming front: America gave Iraq a great chance at democracy-too bad they just weren't up to the magnificent opportunity we blessed them with. Or a hearty, "Hey, we gave it our best shot," as if the politics-first decision making over the policy-last decision making had no influence whatsoever on how the war was lost. As such, while Buckley's made a step in turning his face toward the reality in Mecca, his body politic has not yet followed.

Even this much though, is enough to blow the burnt embers of free thought on right into Buckley effigy-burning flames of indignation.

To be sure, there has been a clash of reaction among the third-rate fifth columnists of the fourth estate to Buckley's about-face in facing reality. I generally don't have either the time or the stomach to read them all.

Yet, there has been one standout among the Buckley opinionists, Jeff Goldstein.

Goldstein has only dim view of Buckley's enlightenment. He seems to think that since Buckley is a conservative purist, the fact that he has prounounced the war is lost, doesn't really count against him, you know, the way it would if he were on the political left, which has always seen the war as a losing proposition.

That is just a bizarre accounting of responsibility, no matter how you look at it.

No, Goldstein contends that is wasn't the Bush Administration mismanagement of the war that has caused this result, but rather the failure of those opposed to the war before its beginning, to then fall in line and goose-step our way to a cheery victory. If only we hadn't noticed that the war wasn't going well and said something critical about the poor decisions being made, it would all be different. Bill Buckley is not included among the non-marchers who have caused this sad result. He is excluded by virtue of the fact that even though he knew better, and believed the war was wrong, he did nothing to dissent.

I see. To stand and watch massacre and do nothing is now a virtue.

Well, there have been a number of reactions to Goldstein's idiotic contention, many snarky and witty, but amongst them there was this gem of an interesting point that is important and not snarky, from Sifu Tweety at The Poorman Institute:

Got that? He accepts complete responsibility for his continuing support of the war, because it’s totally going awesome and will work out great. Unless it doesn’t turn out great, in which case liberal critics of the war need to understand their grave responsibility for pointing out from the very beginning how not-great it would, in fact, turn out to be.

Here’s my little translator’s key to this emerging talking point: Republicans attach incredible importance to media criticism of the war, because they genuinely believe that the war is won and lost IN THE MEDIA. The American media, that is. Their partisan selves are so thoroughly embedded in the culture-jamming electioneering of the Rovist personality cult the GOP has become that they genuinely don’t recognize the difference between actually achieving peace and a non-doomed secular democracy in Iraq, and just being able to plausibly claim that peace on American TV.

Such is the state of the American media. Such is the power that the consolidation of the media into the voice of corporatism, instead of voice of the people, wields. The power to wage war, or at the very least, the power to sharply and decidedly influence the conduct and outcome of a war.

So the new reality is now the war is all the media's fault. And when it's not the media's fault, it's the Iraqis fault, for not being responsible enough to handle democracy. And when it's not the Iraqis fault, it's the political left's fault for not clapping harder for Peter Pan.

I wonder how long it will be until the pro war gang blame the left for the United States going to war in the first place.

Sadly, I doubt it will be very long. It seems that blame-shifting is the new black.

[Editor's note: The version of this article that was first published was a draft, and not the final product (such as it is) as is seen here. Blog software, user error, argghhh, blah, blah, blah. You've heard it all before. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused. Thanks for understanding.]

From today's WaPo:

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales appeared to suggest yesterday that the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance operations may extend beyond the outlines that the president acknowledged in mid-December.

In a letter yesterday to senators in which he asked to clarify his Feb. 6 testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gonzales also seemed to imply that the administration's original legal justification for the program was not as clear-cut as he indicated three weeks ago.

At that appearance, Gonzales confined his comments to the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program, saying that President Bush had authorized it "and that is all that he has authorized."

But in yesterday's letter, Gonzales, citing that quote, wrote: "I did not and could not address . . . any other classified intelligence activities." Using the administration's term for the recently disclosed operation, he continued, "I was confining my remarks to the Terrorist Surveillance Program as described by the President, the legality of which was the subject" of the Feb. 6 hearing.

Well, all suspected as much, didn't we?

The real questions are WHAT ELSE are they doing? And WHO is going to find out what else they are doing? And then when is THE PUBLIC going to find out what else they are doing?

What is the process for holding people accountable? Is there one?

As we have discussed in this space many times, the media skews right. It's almost impossible not to notice the mulititude of conservatives vs. neutral reporters/very occasional progressive, on Sunday morning newschat shows. And yet we have seen something of a debate taking place over at Media Matters over just that fact.

Media Matters produces a study, states its methodology, and then the television folks from the traditional media strain credulity in their eagerness to refute the study's findings. In separate letters/columns to Media Matters, CBS's Public Eye's Vaughn Ververs, and Meet The Press' Executive Producer Betsey Fischer snipe at Media Matter's findings for not studying things that Media Matters never claimed it was studying in the first place, and, in fact, specifically claimed it wasn't going to study. It's roughly the equivalent of me doing a study on Idaho potatoes and including the methodology that I was studying only Idaho potatoes, and you sniping at me because I didn't include in my study the fact that there are also potatoes grown in parts of Russia.

Here's an excerpt from the back and forth between Media Matters and Fischer:

Betsy,

You ask why our report did not discuss Clinton's first term, and you say that "perhaps it's because statistics from Clinton's first term do not support their ill-defined 'conclusion.' " Later, you call our study "intellectually dishonest." You seem to be suggesting that we analyzed the data from those years, decided it didn't fit the point we wanted to make, and thus excluded it from our public report. That would have been appallingly dishonest, and it is frankly offensive for you to suggest that we have done so. I have been asked in a number of interviews why there is an imbalance on the Sunday shows, and I am always careful to say that we ascribe no sinister intentions to the producers. It is unfortunate that you apparently couldn't bring yourself to extend us the same courtesy.

Let me be clear: We didn't examine the guests from those years, so we have no idea what doing so would have showed. We decided to go back only as far as the second Clinton term because there were gaps in the Lexis-Nexis data, and we had to stop somewhere. Gathering and analyzing the data for all the nine years was itself an enormous task. Since you seem to have a complete list of guests on Meet the Press available, if you send it to us, we would be happy to analyze the first Clinton term.

As for the numbers you provide, it is you who have mixed apples and oranges. You say that for the first Clinton term, the guest breakdown was 56 percent Democrats to 44 percent Republicans. Since you are speaking only of Democrats and Republicans, the relevant comparison in our data is not the overall guest list, which includes not only elected and administration officials but all guests, including journalists; the relevant comparison is the list of elected and administration officials.

The complete inability for the traditional media to even hear the word bias, let alone be willing to examine that bias honestly and forthrightly is disturbing. This sort of snarky knee-jerk response that Fischer gave to Media Matters provides nearly as much insight into the problem as the Media Matters study itself. For how can you solve a problem, when you spend all of your time denying its very existence?

Editor's Note: No, this is not a mistake that this post is still up. We made an editorial decision that this post will remain up for two days in order to give as wide an audience time to see it as possible, and to post about it here and everywhere else you can. This story is being largely ignored by the traditional media, and not just because Dick Cheney shot someone in the face. It's being ignored because the images are disturbing, and nobody wants to think that Americans do that to people.

Well, here's the news. Americans DO THAT to other people. And the media reaction of, "Oh, this is more of the photos from Abu Ghraib, and those people were already tried. Let's move on," just doesn't cut it. These photos represent the cover up of torture of prisoners, sexual abuse, and flagrant violations of the Geneva Conventions.

And it wasn't just some 11 "bad actors", as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was fond of saying when photos first surfaced. It was most likely people hired by the US government, in addition to US military personnel, who were carrying out instructions to torture people at Abu Ghraib. After all, I don't imagine Lynndie England got the studded dog collar, leather helmut and leash in a care package from her family back in West Virginia. I don't think there has ever been a satisfactory explanation for how the chain of command of torture worked. It's past time that there was.

So I would ask that you pass this link around to everyone you know. Put pressure on the traditional media to cover the story, and abandon their heretofore attitude of "torture is icky", in favor of a more dignified approach, like a commitment to finding out and reporting the truth.

For years, the Bush Administration has been trying to prevent the release of photos that finally saw the light of day in media outlets from Australia.

From The Sydney Morning Herald:

Tonight the SBS Dateline program plans to broadcast around 60 previously unpublished photographs that the US Government has been fighting to keep secret in a court case with the American Civil Liberties Union.

Although a US judge last year granted the union access to the photographs following a freedom-of-information request, the US Administration has appealed against the decision on the grounds their release would fuel anti-American sentiment.

Some of the photos are similar to those published in 2004, others are different. They include photographs of six corpses, although the circumstances of their deaths are not clear. There are also pictures of what appear to be burns and wounds from shotgun pellets.

After having seen the photos, I can certainly understand why the Pentagon is concerned these will fuel anti-American sentiment. These images and actions of torture from American or American directed armed personnel, upon Iraqis, are beyond inhumane. If cartoons depicting images of the prophet Mohammed spurred the outrage we are seeing throughout both the Middle East, Asia and Europe are any sign, they going to be some serious hell to pay over these photos.

If you wish to view these photos, you can see them on Kos at Waitingtoderail's diary. They are sick and sickening.

I seriously doubt that the prosecution and convictions of a handful of "bad actors" will do anything whatsoever to mitigate the situation, and I suspect the White House will continue to do everything in its power to shoo this story down the memory hole, just like last time.

But isn't it time for America to demand a little bit more from its leadership?

Isn't it time that the moral outrage in America over what is being done in our name to innocent Iraq civilians, matches the moral outrage of some of the Iraqis?

This is what is being done in your name, America. Shouldn't those responsible be made to take responsibility for their complicity in war crimes?

Isn't it past time for Donald Rumsfeld, the most incompetent Defense Secretary in history, to resign?

If the United States citizens allow Rumsfeld to continue to serve, it does so at the risk of putting its stamp of approval on the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. And God help us all if that happens.

These two pieces should once and for all put to bed the common nonsense meme of "the liberal media" that is so widely circulated in the echo chamber of traditional media.

Hat tip to Atrios for providing this information:

When liberals do appear, the balance is often stacked against them. For nearly three years in the late 1990s, the regular roundtable on "This Week" featured George Will and William Kristol double-teaming George Stephanopoulos. On five occasions, Stephanopoulos was absent, and Will's establishment conservatism had to provide "balance" to Kristol's triumphalist conservatism. But even when the former Clinton aide was in the studio, he was in the process of trying to shed his political reputation and become a "Journalist," he who expresses no personal views, making the debate even more lopsided than it otherwise would have been.

The consequence of all this is that in every year since 1997, conservative journalists have dramatically outnumbered liberal journalists, in some years by two-to-one or more. Why would the producers of the shows believe that a William Safire (56 appearances since 1997) or Bob Novak (37 appearances) is somehow "balanced" by a Gwen Ifill (27) or Dan Balz (22)? It suggests that some may have internalized the conservative critique of the media, which assumes that daily journalists are "liberal" almost by definition, and thus can provide a counterpoint to highly partisan conservative pundits.

What gets left behind, of course, is the real liberal. Not only do openly liberal columnists like Paul Krugman appear far less frequently than their conservative colleagues, writers, and editors from magazines like The Nation, The American Prospect, and The New Republic are seldom seen (forget about the Progressive, Mother Jones or In These Times), while the Weekly Standard and the National Review are regularly represented. Last year saw eleven appearances by writers from the two conservative magazines, but only two from liberal magazines. (There was one bright spot in the data: A December 1998 episode of "Meet the Press" featured none other than Charles Peters, this magazine's founder. Unfortunately, that was the last time anyone from The Washington Monthly graced the Sunday shows.)

There is a very good article by Kirsten Powers at Huffington Post on just how the RNC has gone about, and is going about, implanting the "negative narrative" about either a Democratic candidate for office, or a member of the opposition party.

Here is a sample:

This week, we saw Republicans launch their first attempt to negatively brand one of the contenders for the 2006 Democratic presidential nomination. Regardless if you are a Hillary lover or Hillary hater, anyone who is a Democrat should have their antennae up as a result of the RNC Chairman’s statement that “Hillary looks angry.” Republicans are trying out a narrative that will scare most Americans: the specter of the “Angry Woman.”

If you have any doubt about the complicity of the media, just check out the headlines on "Hardball". In less than 24 hours, RNC leader Ken Mehlmen's remarks that Hillary "looks" angry, has become Hillary "is" angry, with a not so subtle question mark after it.

Ms. Powers continues:

If this strategy seems eerily familiar, it’s because it is. It’s been relentlessly used in the last two presidential elections and it’s known in political circles as the “negative master narrative.” What it means is that Republicans test out different negative narrative threads about Democratic candidates in an attempt to caricature some minor trait – real or imagined – that they have determined American voters will reject. Reporters latch onto the caricature because they like themes. Before you know what happened, the average American voter is claiming John Kerry seems “French” (read: not like me) or that Al Gore lies and exaggerates and claims he invented the Internet (which he never said).

This is just the first two paragraphs of the article. She goes on to deconstruct the process and provide a great education on the issue.

Along the same theme of discussing the importance of narratives, is this Peter Daou piece. Peter's article gets at the same issue, but provides more context for the media's role in the process. I also recommend Peter's piece as part of a great education on media and electoral politics.

What both of these articles have in common is their agreement that something is seriously wrong with how the news is reported and the role of the media in electoral politics.

The role of news outlets, both television and print media, has changed dramatically, beginning with the mass and rapid dissemination of information available worldwide. If the news isn't "new", what is their role?

Their new role is the narrative. No longer is the reporting of events their central role. Their role is now to provide the narrative, the emotional context and meaning for any event that occurs. Which might be fine, if the narrative had anything to do with the truth. Unfortunately, the narrative has a much closer relationship to truthiness, than truth.

What is the effect on modern electoral politics?

Simple. He who wins the positive narrative game for their candidate, has the edge. And if you win the positive narrative for your candidate, while winning the negative narrative against your opponent, you can get anyone elected to office.

Just one problem-getting elected by means of the truthiness narrative, doesn't mean that the guy getting elected knows anything whatsoever about governing, and woe betide the electorate who bought the narrative.

More and more, it looks like the biggest role of the modern media is that of seriously damaging democracy.

UPDATE: Well, there you have it. The Attorney General just told Senator Biden that we will be at war forever, as long as there is one person alive that could possibly be considered a threat to the United States or its interests. Any questions?

Glenn Greenwald will be doing much of the legal-blogging coverage, as he's both a lawyer and an expert on these issues.

And if you are up, Glenn will be on C-SPAN's Washington Journal tomorrow morning from 7:45-8:30 a.m EST debating the NSA scandal with University of Virginia Professor Robert Turner.

Glenn sez:

This clip of George Bush should be talked about all week -- why, if the Administration had all the legal authority in the world to eavesdrop without warrants and outside of FISA did it repeatedly make false statements to the public and to the Congress assuring us all that it was eavesdropping only in accordance with FISA? Parties make false statements in order to conceal their behavior only when their behavior is improper and wrong, not when it is justified and legal. And deliberately false statements of that sort from our government officials happen to be unacceptable and wrong, and really constitute a scandal unto itself.

Or at least they should constitute a scandal in and of themselves.

Glenn also has the inside scoop on Ted Kennedy's line of questioning and you can read about that here.

While Senator Kennedy's line of approach may be unexpected, it shouldn't be. There are only two real ways to win this fight, and one of them is already been somewhat lost. The first way, would have been to control the conversation. The White House wanted the coversation to be about National Security, while the rest of the folks who have read the Constitution, want it to be about The Constitution. That point has been lost, I fear.

So Senator Kennedy has done what I think is a wise move, which it appears would be to pivot, to cede nothing to the administration or Gonzales on National Security, but rather make them prove that this program actually worked, and worked so damn well, that it was worth breaking the law, et cetera.

Of course, having seen this committee at work during the Alito hearings, I kicked my expectations to the curb last week for any democratic coordination or effectiveness during this set of hearings.

I'm with Dr. Greenwald on this one - we'll all wait and see.

Consider this an open thread on the NSA hearings.

I just don't understand and maybe someone can help me.

Say, for example, I am the leader of the reconstruction effort in Iraq for 18 months, and during those 18 months, I repeatedly lie about any number of things, including the state of the reconstruction, the state of the war there, the cost of the reconstruction. And not only do I lie, I lie about it on camera, repeatedly, and often, during many, many interviews with journalists covering the war.

Fast forward to a year later. I have now left the job and written a book about it. And almost everything I have to say in the book is in direct opposition to what I claimed was the truth only a year ago when I made statements to the reporters in Iraq.

Moving along, I begin to go on my book promotion tour and, lo and behold, a journalist has some minimum wage staffer pull up the video tape of me lying on camera and shows it to me during our interview and asks the inevitable questions about the discrepencies.

Here's the question, why am I shocked at this? If you had behaved that way, would you be shocked?

So why was former Ambassador-cum-Reconstruction Czar in Iraq, shocked and maybe a teeny bit irritated when Wolf Blitzer did just that? From CNN transcripts:

"They hate us for our freedoms."

So sayeth President Bush on many, many, many occasions, when fumbling to explain why any number of people in the Middle East and elsewhere, wish to blow Americans up, kill Americans, et cetera.

I've been meaning to get around to writing about this for a while, and I would like to write more about it in the future. Given this week's Alito hearings, it seems appropriate to at least comment on this phony statement.

More and more, I am wondering what freedoms he is talking about?

Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure? Gone.

Freedom from being thrown in jail without a writ of habeas corpus? Gone.

Freedom from unwarranted intrusions by government into privacy, whether it be privacy in who we talk to, what we read, where we go. Gone.

Freedom over the privacy of our bodies? Going, going, gone.

It seems to me that when Judge Samuel Alito becomes Justice Samuel Alito, and the unitary executive theory becomes the de facto law of the land, the President moves out of reach of all of the laws of the land, because he becomes out of reach of both other branches of government and the checks on the Executive's power envisioned necessary by the founders and framers.

And once the President becomes above the law, all of our freedoms are gone. It is solely the checks on one person's power run amok which is at the core of the liberties that we all enjoy, to the extent that we can still enjoy them.

It's clear to me that the President believes wholeheartedly in the theory of the unitary executive. And in so believing, he also believes himself to be above the law, and that he can remove any person he wishes from enjoying any "freedoms" once guaranteed by the Constitution and the laws which have since followed.

So really, if the President's view of the Constitution is that his power is unfettered by the Constitutional legal contraints on limiting another's freedom without due process, what "freedoms" is he talking about?

If any and all of my actions, no matter how benign, are under the sole discretionary authority of the unitary executive, the President, what freedom do I really have?

What "freedoms" do any of us have?

I'm shocked, shocked...oh, nevermind.

From HuffPo, what we all knew:

The Huffington Post has learned the Bush administration recently asked high ranking military leaders to denounce Congressman John Murtha. Congressman Murtha has called for the Bush Administration to withdraw US troops from Iraq.

The Bush Administration first attacked Rep. Murtha for his Iraq views by associating him with the filmmaker Michael Moore and Representative Jean Schmidt likened him to a coward on the floor of the House of Representatives. When those tactics backfired, Dick Cheney called Murtha "A good man, a marine, a patriot and he's taking a clear stand in an entirely legitimate discussion."

Though the White House has backed off publicly, administration officials have nevertheless recently made calls to military leaders to condemn the congressman. So far they have refused.

{Editor's Note: This DCP Blogger shares her reaction to the Abramoff Scandals with us and offers advice to the Democratic party. Please be reminded that the DCP is non-partisan. If there is someone out there who would like to advise the Republicans on how best to handle their involvement with the Abramoff Scandals during the 2006 election cycle, please send it to us for considered publication at info@democracycellproject.net. Thanks.]

In case there are members of the Democratic leadership waiting for the MEMO that will tell them what to do, here it is:

Stand up right now. Every single one of you worth your salt needs to stand up together - TODAY - with the list of Abramoff love recipients, and say all together:

"This is a list of Republicans who have received money from Jack Abramoff, the most corrupt lobbyist in the history of Washington. THERE ARE NO DEMOCRATS ON THIS LIST."

And then you need to proceed to outline, in simple language, the list of lies, failures, disasters, and crimes that embody the Bush administration. You need to do this TODAY.

If you were an administration engaging in illegal wiretapping, who would you want to argue the legality of doing so, Scott McClellan or Samuel Alito?

In the Washington Post we read that new documents released showed that Alito made a similar argument, one favoring immunity from lawsuits stemming from illegal wiretapping, while he was an attorney with the Reagan administration.

Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. once argued that the nation's top law enforcement official deserves blanket protection from lawsuits when acting in the name of national security, even when those actions involve the illegal wiretapping of American citizens, documents released yesterday show.

[Note: Thanks to our friend, Joe Schickspack, for sharing his thoughts about the Men Behind the Curtain and the "war on terriss." Joe is a relatively new DCPer, and we're happy to have his contributions. I hear that Joe also knows a lot about music, so perhaps he'll do some writing about music and politics some time.--KB]

*******

In America there are words so true and powerful that the government thinks that we should not speak them aloud, lest our Security be Threatened.

Our Fearleader-in-Chief tells us that it is a "Shameful Thing" for a media outlet to have run a story that indicates that the Men Behind The Curtain may be breaking the law, illegally spying on American citizens, allegedly to keep us all safe.

The Washington Post's polling editor Richard Morin recently sounded off during a chat about why the Post had never asked a question about impeaching Bush. Morin offered lame excuses, and attacked those who were writing to him asking him to include an impeachment question. (See Impeachpac for the transcript.)

Why won't the Post ask the Big I question? One minute of research was sufficient to destroy Morin's two claims. I came up with two others. In the end, it's hard not to conclude that Morin's refusal is based entirely on politics. What do you think?

******
Richard,[Washington Post polling editor]

I read a transcript of your explanation for why you get angry about being asked to ask a question about impeachment on the Post's polls. Your explanation sounds like you are shooting the messenger without paying any attention to the message.

There are four possible explanations for your refusal to poll on impeachment: the two you offered in this discussion, and two that I will suggest.

White phosphorus (WP) is a fearsome military weapon. WP burns fiercely until it is deprived of oxygen; a small piece of WP on the skin will continue burning all the way down to the bone as long as its air supply is not cut off.

WP has been in the news recently because of a report that the United States used WP in attacking Fallujah. In the media melee that followed, the questions of what actually happened, and whether U.S. actions fell within or outside the boundaries of international law during war, became increasingly difficult to discern.

John Pike, the director of globalsecurity.org and a long-time analyst of WP and chemical weaponry, argues that this story is a classic case of how confusing the public debate can be when the critics don't have their facts straight and the U.S. government is trying to cover up actions which, according to Pike, were entirely legal. This whole story is yet another demonstration that once you let loose the dogs of war, it is very difficult to recall them. If only our Congress had had the bravery to say no in 2002.

The truth about WP
By John Pike
Los Angeles Times
November 30, 2005

DESPITE EFFORTS to improve its image abroad, the United States has just suffered a damaging global propaganda defeat. And unfortunately, some of the wounds were self-inflicted.

Since last Friday when Congressman John Murtha (D-PA) made his historic call for redeployment of troops from Iraq, people have been wondering why his statement has garnered such attention.

Russ Feingold made a proposal earlier this year. Dennis Kucinich has been calling for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq since the beginning of the war.

Why is John Murtha different?

If you ask Congressman Murtha, he will tell you that even he doesn't know for sure, but he thinks that people know we are losing this war, and they are thirsting for a solution.

That may be close, but I don't think that is quite right.

I think John Murtha has become the tipping point for the moderate Republicans who supported Iraq War for the same reason that Cindy Sheehan became the tipping point for the centrist Democrats who supported the Iraq War. They both have absolute moral authority.

Cindy Sheehan's absolute moral authority arose from her's son Casey's death on April 4, 2004, moving her forever from motherhood to iconic peace activist. She became the voice of all parents in America who question the government's moral authority to send our children to war for a cause that cannot, to this day, be enunciated.

But something was still missing from the fight against the War In Iraq.

Watching the Republican Political Machine is an awful lot like watching snakes limbo. Just when you think the belly-crawling crowd has gone as low as they can go, they just slither right under the morality bar one more time.

Take United States Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison's (R-TX) performance on Meet The Press yesterday morning:

I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn’t indict on the crime so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation were not a waste of time and dollars.

I was watching the show with my older sister who was visiting for the weekend. Now, you should know that I call my sister nearly every day with my "political outrage of the day". And everyday, her response is a stunned, "Are you kidding me?".

I always give her the same response, "I can't make this up."

Last week, ABC News’ Ann Compton told us that at 9:45 AM (Thursday), we’d be able to watch President Bush talking with US troops in Iraq in a live video teleconference. She said: "The live teleconference will actually be President Bush getting live feedback from the field—10 American soldiers and one Iraqi—telling him about security in the city of Tikrit for this constitutional referendum.”

Sounds great Ann. But aren’t you supposed to be a “reporter”? As opposed to a robotic shill for blatant Bush administration propaganda? We know that you have to earn a living, and a very good one, no doubt, but how much is your soul worth to you? How could anyone who has not been in a persistent vegetative state for the last five years say what you said with a straight face?

The next day, we awoke to discover that your very own network, ABC, is reporting “Bush Teleconference With Soldiers Staged.” Subhead: “President Bush Teleconference With U.S. Troops Was Choreographed to Match His Goals for Iraq War.” (To be perfectly correct here, this story is from the AP, written by Deb Reichmann, and posted on the ABC News website on Friday morning.)

Are you shocked, shocked to discover that Bush is (yet again) faking the news?

Shocked that deputy assistant defense secretary Allison Barber was on hand in Iraq to coach the “troops” (five of whom were officers)?

Shocked that the “troops” delivered an upbeat report?

Shocked that White House press secretary Scott McClellan insisted that the troops were just telling the president what was on their minds?

Wouldn’t it have been more accurate, that morning, to have said: “The White House has announced the President Bush will participate in a live teleconference this morning with a group of hand-picked, carefully scripted, scared-for-their-careers officers in Iraq, who will tell the president exactly what Karl Rove has told their superiors to tell them to say.”

And if you really wanted to be helpful to your fellow citizens, Ann, most of whom have a hell of a lot more things to do than sit around and watch the president do some more of his pathetic playacting, while simultaneously debasing the bravery and dedication of every man and woman who wears our military’s uniforms, how about a little warning: “Anyone who watches this live teleconference will not learn anything that they do not already know about President Bush’s policies (or lack thereof) in Iraq.”

Deb Reichmann’s story is the kind of reporting we need. Here’s her story: I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

After two disastrous weeks of media coverage, the White House assembled a team of 20 high powered professional image gurus and legal coaches to remake their candidate for the Supreme Court, Harriet Miers.

Yesterday was the unveiling, and yesterday their efforts to manipulate the media fell as flat as their efforts to manipulate the media did last week.

Meet the new Harriet Miers. The same as the old Harriet Miers.

Confused and confusing.

Trying to woo senators who will determine whether she is confirmed for the court, Miers aided the White House as it scrambled yesterday to quell controversy over a published report that two Texas judges said she opposes the 1973 decision that affirmed the right to an abortion in all 50 states. "She said, 'No one knows how I would rule on Roe v. Wade ,' " Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) told reporters after their private meeting.

But as Miers sought to distance herself from the judges' assertions, her day on Capitol Hill ended in confusion over how far she went in telling senators that she believes there is a constitutional right to privacy -- the right that is the legal premise of Roe.

Sid Blumenthal has a great piece pulling together all of the loose threads of the Bush administration into one grand oligarchy, with no ideology beyond the accumulation of power in the executive branch and the simultaneous enrichment of the wealthiest people in the country.

There's a lot going on right now, and with the various prosecutors poking around, the next couple of weeks are going to be strenuous. Clip and save Sid's piece as a handy guide to which strand of the mega-conspiracy is collapsing today.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/100705K.shtml

Keep it simple say the message gurus.

OK. What are we looking at in Washington DC?

ANSWER: "A FAILED PRESIDENCY"

From this moment forward, don't talk about anything having to do with current events, politics, gasoline, hurricanes, the war in Iraq, the ever-swelling federal deficit, the ever-lengthening list of members of Congress sweating in their offices waiting for the subpoenas to arrive, the flunkies scattered through every branch of the government who saw what happened when the spotlight settled on the equally unqualified Michael Brown, day in, day out, on every blog you visit, in every email you send, repeat, repeat, repeat: "A FAILED PRESIDENT."

Rush Transcript with commentary: Please note--after Matt Carnicelli raised a point in comments asking what was real, I changed the transcript to reflect the following. Thanks for pointing out the need for clarity, Matt.

TRANSCRIPT KEY:

1)In bold type: Exact quotes from a speaker

2)In plain type: Paraphrases of a speaker, but I couldn't get the exact quote written down.

3)In Italics: My thoughts, comments, snark, sarcasm and other expressions of fear.

To speak on the Mehlman call: Speaking, Ken Mehlman, Charles Colson, James Dobson, Sara Taylor, Leonard Leo, Dr. Land (?), Jay Sekulow

So Far:

Here's the key point of coordination. Lovely, Chuck (Charles Colson, Watergate criminal) Colson: I had lunch with her. She's modest. So she's good.

But here's the key point of strategy from National Headquarters, I can tell, coming from Mehlman:
Harriet Miers is good for the court because we need an advisor of the President so we don't have judicial activist judges messing up the War on Terror. Hence the President's speech on the WoT this morning. Got it. Harriet Mehlman is part of our War on Terror. Well, what isn't, I ask you? And did he just say , "Mr. President, your Supreme Court nominee wears combat boots?" Probably not. But if he did, it's a good thing and part of the war on terror. Everyone got that? WaronTerrorWaronTerrorWaronTerror. And with that, Ken Mehlman just officially jumped the 9/11 shark.

Our friend Casey is lying abed recovering from surgery. But whatever drugs she is taking haven't slowed her mind down one bit. She's figured out what the Democrats should do.

But first a little story. A man's neighbor comes over and tells him that a terrible storm is coming, and that he should evacuate. The man says, No, God will take care of me. The neighbor offers a life preserver, but the man refuses. Sure enough, the rains fall, and the flood rises. A policeboat comes by, and offers to pick up the man, but again he refuses, saying that God will take care of me. The waters rise, and the man retreats to his roof. A helicopter comes by, but the man refuses to be rescued, shouting over the din that God will take care of him. An hour later, his house collapses, and he drowns in the flood.

Between the war on Iraq and the rebuilding of New Orleans, you have to wonder whether there will be even a shred left of the rule of law that was once one of our country’s claim to fame. The term “rank opportunism” does not begin to describe the Machiavellian grandiosity of the shameless assaults which George Bush and his supporters in the Congress are mounting against an ever-growing number of the laws of our great country.

Let’s start with Iraq. A federal appeals court has ruled that as commander-in-chief, with no legislative authorization, the president now has the power to designate anyone, including citizens of the United States, as an “enemy combatant,” and after having done so, to arrest this person and imprison him or her for the rest of his or her natural life, with no charges, no trial, and no access to an attorney.

How do you like them apples? Sounds pretty much like every Communist police state I was warned about growing up during the Cold War.

[Editor's Note: Art has always been a powerful medium for political expression and remains so, perhaps now more than ever. As such, the Democracy Cell Project is pleased to announce a new Saturday morning feature, "Art and Politics". Each Saturday morning, we wil be presenting an item of political expression in art we have discovered or has been brought to our attention. Since we would like to present a range of items, we would also ask your participation. If you come across something that would fit here, please send it to casey@democracycellproject.net. You can submit a blurb with it or not. If we publish it, we will be sure to give you credit for submission. Thank you. ]

This week's submission is from a British graffiti artist, Banksy, who is painting murals on The Wall being built by Israel. Whether you believe that Israel has every right to build this wall for self-defense and to secure its borders, or think the wall is illegal, as some courts have opined, there is little doubt that it is stirring feelings in the region.

This is one artist's acting on his feelings. Some of his work is submitted here. For a tour of his online gallery, please click here.

Window on the West Bank

Indicating why he undertook the trip from London, where he made his name as a 'guerrilla' artist, Banksy's website says the West Bank barrier is "the ultimate activity holiday destination for graffiti writers".


Escapism

(Conversation reported on www.banksy.co.uk)

Soldier: What the f*** are you doing?
Banksy: You'll have to wait until it's finished. Soldier (to colleagues): Safety's off

Unwelcome intervention

Banksy also records on his website how an old Palestinian man said his painting made the wall look beautiful. Banksy thanked him, only to be told: 'We don't want it to be beautiful, we hate this wall. Go home.'

Jim Wallis wrote an op-ed appearing in this morning's New York Times, that, in the wake of the Paul Hackett-Jean Schmidt campaign in Ohio, presents some interesting points for discussion left, right and center.

The Message Thing
By JIM WALLIS
Published: August 4, 2005

SINCE the 2004 election, there has been much soul-searching and hand-wringing, especially among Democrats, about how to "frame" political messages. The loss to George W. Bush was painful enough, but the Republicans' post-election claims of mandate, and their triumphal promises to relegate the Democrats to permanent minority status, left political liberals in a state of panic.

So the minority party has been searching, some would say desperately, for the right "narrative": the best story line, metaphors, even magic words to bring back electoral success. The operative term among Democratic politicians and strategists has become "framing." How to tell the story has become more important than the story itself. And that could be a bigger mistake for the Democrats than the ones they made during the election.

Language is clearly important in politics, but the message remains more important than the messaging. In the interests of full disclosure, let me note that I have been talking to the Democrats about both. But I believe that first, you must get your message straight. What are your best ideas, and what are you for-as opposed to what you're against in the other party's message? Only when you answer those questions can you figure out how to present your message to the American people.

Because the Republicans, with the help of the religious right, have captured the language of values and religion (narrowly conceived as only abortion and gay marriage), the Democrats have also been asking how to "take back the faith." But that means far more than throwing a few Bible verses into policy discussions, offering candidates some good lines from famous hymns, or teaching them how to clap at the right times in black churches. Democrats need to focus on the content of religious convictions and the values that underlie them.

The discussion that shapes our political future should be one about moral values, but the questions to ask are these: Whose values? Which values? And how broadly and deeply will our political values be defined? Democrats must offer new ideas and a fresh agenda, rather than linguistic strategies to sell an old set of ideologies and interest group demands.

To be specific, I offer five areas in which the Democrats should change their message and then their messaging.

Billmon has a very good analysis of the President's speech on Tuesday night and its more subtle signals in language change that are very instructive. With apologies to Billmon to reprinting his column here:

Same Old Same Old

With only a few interesting twists. I'm going to let others parse the recycled evasions, half-truths and downright lies in Bush's speech. (160,000 "trained and equipped" Iraqi forces??? That ain't true even in Shrub's parallel universe, much less ours.) I've been doing this kind of thing for more than two years now, and it's grinding me down.

I'll also dispense with the detailed analysis of whether the speech will help Bush or not. The New York minute version: It buys him a favorable news cycle and a week, maybe two, of extreme lapdog obedience from the corporate media. It could move the polls his way by a couple of points. But after a month, and another 40 or 50 dead GIs, nobody will remember a word of it, not even G.W.

But I do want to take a longer minute to point out a subtle, and at times bizarre, shift in the propaganda rhetoric -- one that, as predicted, appears to set the stage (or at least leaves the door open) for further negotiations with some of the bad guys. It starts with this line:

Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war. Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women, and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. (emphasis added.)

Many of them?? So what murderous ideology do the rest of them follow? Utilitarianism? Bush's use of an adjective that's at least several terrorists short of "all" or "every" is echoed in this line:

Some of the violence you see in Iraq is being carried out by ruthless killers who are converging on Iraq to fight the advance of peace and freedom. (emphasis added)

Once again, the DCP brings you an OPEN THREAD for tonight's revelations from our leader. We hope you will lnk to other blogs (and back here) as brilliant reflections can and do occur all over the 'net.

The discussion today has been rich and appropriate to the issues at hand. But feel free to have a LITTLE fun tonight--we are seeking witty and thoughtful responses that people can share in LTES, op-eds, and phone calls/emails to friends.

Unmask those frames! Re-frame at will! Bring perspective to the art form! Draw conclusions! Paint a new day! OK, I'll stop now...

As many of you know, I live on Capitol Hill, a part of Washington DC that also houses the Capitol, the Senate, the House, and the Supreme Court (as well as Murky Coffee, the Best Damn Coffee in the world, Eastern Market, with the best blueberry pancakes in the world, and several other community-based centers of culture and deliciousness).

[Editor's Note: In response to the post reporting the Progressive Agenda from the Take Back America Conference, there was an interesting conversation ensuing about the war in Iraq, strategy for ending it, and how the nature of our language regarding war itself has changed. In an effort to explore some of these ideas more thoroughly, I asked Victoria to please write a thread header about them. Thanks.]

I inadvertantly began a small war on a thread today when I wrote about a "Progressive Agenda" in an attempt to initiate discussion on Iraq, National Security, etc... I believe that these issues must be addressed from the Progressive viewpoint.

The responses were myriad, but in reading down the thread, I was struck by a consistent sense of discomfort with this topic. Part of it seemed to be my use of the word "win" in relation to Iraq. Using the word "win" seemed to somehow imply consent, approval, acceptance -none of which I feel. But it also felt like Progressives reminding me that we didn't start this war. Which is true. That doesn't mean we won't be responsible for ending it. And it's that reality that we have to deal with. I'm done talking about whether or not the war is right or wrong. We all know the answer to that. The question now is "what do we do about it?" Which brings me to my real point here...

A national database with your driver's license, social security, and all your records will keep us safe, right?

Well, let's consider two recent reports I've heard. First, from the alumni office of MSU: their database was hacked into and names and credit cards were stolen. We were just notified that somebody might be using our credit cards.

Then, let's consider the latest hacked database from some MAJOR credit companies. MSNBC states:

More than 100,000 customers of Wachovia Corp. and Bank of America Corp. have been notified that their financial records may have been stolen by bank employees and sold to collection agencies. In all, nearly 700,000 customers of four banks may be affected, according to police in Hackensack, N.J., where the investigation was centered.

Consider this: Identity theft is one of the biggest crimes Americans are facing today. Statistics show that 10 million Americans were victims of identity theft. Furthermore, Identity theft is getting more sophisticated and more profitable. According to Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, "Rings of international terrorists, money launderers, and petty street thieves are in the business."

Remember those "terrorists"? We all know terrorists are law abiding citizens and will certainly drop into the local Department of Motor Vehicles to properly obtain a drivers license...

Seriously! If it's this easy to steal an identity from a corporation, how will our identities be protected from a terrorist who happens to be a pretty good hacker too?

Maybe we need to rethink the national database after all. Or, rather, maybe we need to get used to living in a police state and taking charge of the information access we now have. We can fight back.

There is something called the "Darknet"--it consists of the databases that cannot be accessed by Google or other search engines. But those databases are accessible to those who know how to use them. Maybe we need to learn too...

DCP Blogger attends White House meeting on Social Security. John Sweeney of the AFL-CIO (not the Congressman from New York) also shares his perspective.

I was part of a delegation that attended a meeting at the White House Monday morning to discuss Social Security with several Bush Administration officials. After our morning session at the White House, we attended further meetings in the DC area where we met with John Sweeney from the AFL-CIO and also listened to a panel discussion on Social Security reform.

Let's start with the awards...

BEST POLITICAL KNEECAPPING AND THE BIG STORY

President Bush left Frist, Dobson, Perkins, and the rest of the Fristian Right out on a big limb all by themselves with this exchange from NBC's David Gregory:

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has defended the claim that opponents of President Bush’s judicial nominees are “against people of faith.” Tonight President Bush was asked if he agreed, and his answer was clear:

BUSH: … I just don’t agree with it.

QUESTION: You don’t agree with it?

BUSH: No. I think people oppose my nominees because of judicial philosophy.

QUESTION: Sir, I asked you about what you think of…

BUSH: No, I know what you asked me.

QUESTION: … the way faith is being used in our political debates, not just in society generally.

BUSH: Well, I can only speak to myself. And I am mindful that people in political office should not say to somebody, You’re not equally American if you don’t happen to agree with my view of religion.

Good night, Senator Dr. Mr. Frist, James, Dobson, Tony Perkins, and the rest of the Fristians. Don't let the door hit you on the way out...

BEST DISPLAY OF BAMBOOZLING (ALSO KNOWN AS THE JOSH MARSHALL AWARD)

The award goes to...President Bush!

There was so much bamboozling going on tonight in that press conference that it was easy to miss one essential contradiction in the president's argument. You don't have to worry about private accounts, he said, because if you want you can fill your account with US Treasury bonds which have no risk at all. They're backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. But he says that the very same Treasury notes, when they're in the Trust Fund, are just worthless IOUs.

BEST IDIOTIC BUSH QUOTE TO ADD TO THE LIST OF 1,205,305,472 BUSHISMS

Bush On Terrorism

"We need to find those people who intend to do us harm and remove them from harm's way."

BEST MISSING IN ACTION-NEWSMAKERS THAT REPORTERS FORGOT TO ASK ABOUT:TOM DELAY AND OSAMA BIN LADEN

It's hard to believe that in a press conference so long that it went over its scheduled time, reporters never got around to asking about embattled House Majority leader Tom DeLay, or the status of the government's ongoing efforts to capture or kill the criminal responsible for the worst terrorist attack on American soil, Osama Bin Laden. It was particularly surprising given the fact that both partisanship and 9/11-terrorism were discussed by the President. Well, we don't call them the White House Press Corpse for nothing.

And our last award

BEST PRESS CONFERENCE BLOGGING BONUS NUGGET OF FUN

In a daring move, NBC, CBS, FOX and other television networks pulled the plug on the President's press conference to return to scheduled programming, despite the fact that the conference continued for nearly another fifteen minutes.

You have to wonder who the decision maker was over at CBS who said, "Cut the President. Go to Survivor! NOW, dammit." At NBC, they cut him off for "The Apprentice", which, is weird, because you would think that if the audience liked one apprentice, they would like them all. And on Fox, in a strangly similar twist of fate as NBC faced, the President was given the ax in favor of "The Simple Life: The Interns".

Okay, so I was wrong. Apparently,if you've seen one intern you haven't seen them all.

Now, we go below the fold to the grim reality...with a huge assist from the Think Progress Team. You have my deepest gratitude and thanks for the rapid response research.

Just a little reminder for everyone:

Per CNN, the President's rare, unusual, hardly ever done, once-a- yearish-if-he-feels-like-it press conference has been rescheduled from its original time of 8:30PM-EDT, to 8:00PM-EDT.

Tonight, on the IRC (CHAT ROOM), we will be deconstructing the frames (and maybe a few other things...people..) that President Bush will be using tonight in his attempt to bolster his Social Security debacle.

Join us after 8 pm EST. Discussions and blogging will ensue.

We WELCOME new participants! You have to download a small piece of java software if you do not already have it. The link is provided on the DCP Live Chat page.

If you have trouble logging in, please let the tech staff know HERE.

From Tom DeLay's softball session, oh, I mean interview, with the office of Rev. Sun Myung Moon, sorry, I mean Washington Times yesterday:

Tom DeLay on Spending:

When Bush came here, the Senate was still the lowest common denominator. And we had to deal with them. Now that sounds like an excuse, and I guess it is. But if you look at the real record, sans the effort to fight a war - and we'll spend whatever it takes to win the war on terror - but if you look at the other spending, it's actually been going down. The rate of growth has gone from - I'll get you the numbers, but as I can recall - after the first year, in the second year - that's when Bush really had control and provided discipline - the rate of growth was about 5 percent. The next year, it was 4 percent. The next year, it was 3 percent. Last year, on discretionary spending, we increased spending ever so slightly, but you can say we froze discretionary spending.

Umm, not so much, Tom. As a matter of fact and record, no, you didn't.

[Editor's Note: DCP blogger Tutterfly makes several interesting points in her post about the goals of Radical Christian Fundamentalism. We have elevated her post to its own thread to give everyone an opportunity to read it and comment.]

The Religious Right seems to feel that the power to control people's lives is almost in their grasp.

Daily, they evidence their unrelenting need to dictate a kind of SUPER-MORALITY. It was not enough for them to have a following within their own churches. They have begun to imagine that if people do not follow them willingly, then they must expand outward to force their will upon the unwilling people. For them, a free society only means that you are free to follow them, and if you don't, then they are free to impose their will on you by making laws that would make it impossible, and illegal not to follow them. With these laws, they would solve the problem of individual morality by making it a criminal ideal.

I shudder to imagine a society where their stated missions would actually come to exist. Let's just think about the plans they have. It started with abortion, so let's ban that. Then there are those horrible gay people wanting to get married. Nope, that's against the law. The ten commandments are going up in every classroom in the country. All children will be taught the fundementalist doctrines in these homemade madrases. There will be no sex education of any kind.

Suppose they could make all that come true. Why stop there?

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation, (under God), indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Schoolchildren and teachers stand up every day and repeat this mantra. But what does it mean when they do that? There are only 31 words, unless you take out the “under God” part, which was added in 1954 and is at the core of a firestorm in our nation. I won't go into that here; but I hope Matthew Carnicelli addresses it in one of his Sunday pieces.