A Hollywood Conservative

I think it's hillarious that when the republicans need a "real" conservative they have to go to Hollywood, USA to find one.

Who was the last conservative republican president? Oh yeah, that would have been Ronnie Reagan.

Yes, I know, Fred Thompson has some moderate tendencies, but if he is to get the nomination he has to don the old knee pads and drop down for Jerry Falwell, that idiot Dobson and Pat Robertson, among others. I wonder how they will like his women chasing and being chased days. Hasn't he been divorced? Oh-My-God!

This weekend he portrays President Ulysses S. Grant in HBO's "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee". A good actor portraying a bad president. Let's hope this won't be a recurring role.

Like Ronnie, he might not know how to be president, but he can play one on television.

Of course, compared to Bush, he looks like a god.

Jim Martin

Moderates? What Moderates?

I have posted a fair amount recently about the search for moderates in the Republican Party or at least moderate republicans in the congress. WashingtonPost.com may have gotten to the root of it. It seems the republican base is anything but moderate and the base is too big for republican congressmen to ignore, if they want to keep their jobs, and you know they do.

Just ask Rep. Wayne Gilchrist (R-MD) when he voted to start bringing the troops home. He went to some town hall meetings and got called a coward and a traitor. This guy is a Marine Corp and Vietnam veteran.

Then there is Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) who voted for a non-binding resolution opposing a Bush troop increase. He had to kiss some major ass to avoid a primary for his seat.

This is more evidence that the Republican Party is dominated by right-wing shitheads and evangelicals. They've thrown in with the republicans and the republicans better deliver.

"That's the dilemma for Republicans going forward," Kohut said yesterday. "They've got to look out for their base, but they have to acknowledge the independents have aligned themselves with the way Democrats are thinking on the issue of Iraq."

The majority of Americans are for a timetable to end the war, but the lines are sharply drawn on both sides.

It is also the dilemma facing both sides of the stalemate as they try to write a war funding bill that can be signed into law. A poll last week by the Pew Center found that 59 percent of Americans want their members of Congress to support legislation calling for troop withdrawals by August 2008. Only a third wanted their representatives to oppose such a bill.
But neither side wants compromise. Most of those supporting a timeline for withdrawal -- 54 percent -- said Democratic leaders should insist on that position rather than compromising with Bush. The same percentage of opponents of withdrawal say that Bush should give no ground to the Democrats.

Unless the war turns around the republicans are in a tough spot. They're in this thing with all they have and it seems without the ability to compromise, the 2008 election will be worse for the right-wing than 2006.

The search for moderates in the republican delegation is becoming a huge waste of time. There aren't any, and unless the grass roots moderates get active and actually become the base then we are going to be blessed with a long-term democratic majority in addition to a democratic president.

A one party government is not good for this country even if it is a democratic one. We are suffering the consequences now of republican one party rule and it will take years to get over the effects at home and around the world. Of course, a competent president the last six years would have made a big difference.

The curious thing in all this is that there is a large contingent of moderates in the Democratic Party. Apparently there is another name for a moderate, it's called a democrat.

Jim Martin

[thanks to The Moderate Voice for the link]

Go forth and read

By Libby

It was moving day and I'm knee deep in boxes of stuff, so it's quick hits tonight.

Condi is definitely sounding shaky and looking a little more shifty-eyed than usual.

My pal Cernig has some cogent thoughts on why a rapid end to the occupation would make sense and breaks the news that Rick Moran of Right Wing Nuthouse has apparently jumped off the Bush bandwagon for good.

John Cole at Balloon Juice welcomes Rick aboard the good ship Defeatist. Just as well he didn't mention the afternoon schedule. The continous showings of Farhenheit 911 and An Inconvenient Truth probably would have scared Rick off.

The WaPo asks the experts if the war is lost and as Greg Sargent notes:

[I]t's pretty striking that the only three people the paper apparently could find to say "No" to the question were (1) someone who is President Bush's national security adviser (Hadley); (b) someone who actually helped create the current plan (Kagan); and (c) someone who -- well, someone who is Victor Davis Hanson.

That truly does speak for itself.

The privatization of our infrastructure has been going on for some time now and I have to agree it's a disturbing trend and extraordinarily shortsighted. Cities are so strapped for cash that the politicians selling the people's assets to avoid having to confront the economic squeeze on their own watch. Next time they run out of money, they'll have nothing to sell and meanwhile, the general public won't be able to afford to use the public byways. Somehow that doesn't sound like a good long range plan.

And hundreds marched in support of Impeachment Day during the president's visit in Miami. Not that Dear Leader would be troubled by it.

The president was escorted in and out of the campus through an entrance on the far side of the campus, where he could not see the protests. Two pro-Bush supporters rode their bicycles in front of the protesters screaming "Commies," but by and large, the rally drew few administration supporters.

No doubt. Those are getting harder to find all the time.

They Also Write Letters

Six former CIA officers wrote a letter referring to George Tenet, the failed CIA director, as the "Alberto Gonzales of the intelligence community". They also stated that Tenet has a "moral obligation" to return the Presidential Medal Freedom he received from Bush.

The letter, signed by Phil Giraldi, Ray McGovern, Larry Johnson, Jim Marcinkowski, Vince Cannistraro and David MacMichael, said Tenet should have resigned in protest rather than take part in the administration's buildup to the war.

In Tenet's book "At The Center Of The Storm" he claims victimhood over what he says was misuse of the term "slam dunk" when he described the intellligence regarding WMD's in Iraq.

The writers said they agree that Bush administration officials took the nation to war "for flimsy reasons," and that it has proved "ill-advised and wrong-headed."
But, they added, "your lament that you are a victim in a process you helped direct is self-serving, misleading and, as head of the intelligence community, an admission of failed leadership.
"You were not a victim. You were a willing participant in a poorly considered policy to start an unnecessary war and you share culpability with Dick Cheney and George Bush for the debacle in Iraq."

They accuse Tenet of ignoring or squandering intelligence that showd in 2002 there were no stockpiles of WMD's in Iraq. Tenet also signed off on Colin Powell's fabrication filled presentation to the U.N. Tenet actually sat behind him during the presentation.

The letter said CIA officers learned later that month Iraq had no contact with Osama bin Laden and that then-President Saddam Hussein considered the al Qaeda leader to be an enemy. Still, Tenet "went before Congress in February 2003 and testified that Iraq did indeed have links to al Qaeda.

"You showed a lack of leadership and courage in January of 2003 as the Bush administration pushed and cajoled analysts and managers to let them make the bogusclaim that Iraq was on the verge of getting its hands on uranium.

The Bush Administration was looking for justification for going to war and Tenet gave it to them.

The letter said Tenet's failure to resist pressures from Cheney and then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld helped build public support for a war that has cost more than 3,000 American lives and many times that among Iraqis.

"You betrayed the CIA officers who collected the intelligence that made it clear that Saddam did not pose an imminent threat. You betrayed the analysts who tried to withstand the pressure applied by Cheney and Rumsfeld.

"Most importantly and tragically, you failed to meet your obligations to the people of the United States."

George Tenet was just another one of the lying liars that enabled George Bush to take us to war for reasons that have never been clearly stated. The reasons have changed from fighting terrorism, removing WMDs, to freeing the peace loving Iraqi people. Mr. Bush has even called it a "crusade" of all things.

It is time for these people to stand up and tell us the truth.

Jim Martin

DC sex scandal about to go 24/7

By Libby

This story is going to get some big juice before it's over. The DC Madam won't be going to trial quietly and ex AIDS czar Randall L. Tobias won't be the only one who takes a hit on the way.

ABC is expected to air a report on Palfrey and her clients on "20/20" on May 4, during sweeps.

More revelations are in the offing. Ross said the list includes the names of some "very prominent people," as well as a number of women with "important and serious jobs" who had worked as escorts for the firm.

Pam Spaudling has more details.

"There are thousands of names, tens of thousands of phone numbers," Ross said. "And there are people there at the Pentagon, lobbyists, others at the White House, prominent lawyers - a long, long list." Ross added that the women who worked for the service, potentially as prostitutes, "include university professors, legal secretaries, scientists, military officers."

This is going to be a fun scandal. Unfortuntately, it's likely to turn into a media circus and will only distract from the real news which is getting uglier by the minute. One wonders if the feds didn't choose to bust Ms. Palfrey at just this moment for precisely that reason.

Endless War

The vastly over-rated and ineffectual Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice stated today that George Bush would not support a spending bill that contained benchmarks for Iraqi government commitment to make reforms in it's constitution, allocating resources and improving democratic participation. Ms. Rice, with a straight face, said they already had a plan.

"Why tie our own hands in using the means that we have to help get the right outcomes in Iraq?" Rice said. "That's the problem with having so-called consequences for missing the benchmarks."
Rice said that the Iraqi government is not moving forward fast enough, but "General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have a plan and a way forward."

Of course, no one has tied their hands for the past four years and they have had a myriad of plans that promised a way forward that always went backwards.

Ms. Rice states that Mr. Bush is not going to allow the congress to compromise on a spending bill that he will veto this week. If he won't allow benchmarks instead of a timetable for withdrawal you would have to think he would spark a revolt within his own party. Unfortunately the republicans are so used to bending over for King George that they are no longer able to stand up.

I guess it's possible that self-preservation may stiffen some spines as almost 65 percent of Americans favor a timetable for withdrawal.

Rice said it makes sense to give Iraq's leaders time to meet the goals they have set. She said Bush has made clear to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that people in the United States have limited patience.

I would bet that the only date that will be imposed on the Iraqi PM is the date that has been imposed upon us, January 20, 2009.

Jim Martin

Peggy reflects on fear

By Libby

I tried to avoid reading Peggy Noonan all day, but I finally broke down and looked at her incomprehensible column. She's worried about the kids this week. We're creating a culture of fear she says and casts about for who to blame. She has no trouble pinpointing the problem.

It's the artists who depict history too literally. It's the media. It's the rappers. It's Rosie, and Imus and anti-smoking campaigns. It's the focus on global warming. She pines for the good old days of the 60s when all we had to worry about was communists. Duck and cover drills weren't as scary as this. According to Peg, we don't care enough about our children to stop warning them of the dangers they face in life. We need to shut up about politics to save them from their fears.

Oddly she doesn't mention the war on terror. Somehow she forgets that the administration she loyally supported for the last six years created the culture of fear for their own political gain and continue to play the politics of fear daily. The president she so loved until recently, speaks of nothing but 9/11 and the evil boogeymen that are out to get us. The same president whose lies and self-serving political machinations are only now being exposed.

To paraphrase Ms. Noonan: This is what paid punditry will be like in Purgatory.

The world has always been a dangerous place and kids have always suffered from their fears. The difference between now and the 60s is that now their parents are scared too. Ours weren't and we found our strength in them.

Our parents had reason to trust their government and to believe in the American dream. Our parents were proud of our country and believed in our might. Today's parents are proud of their SUVs and believe in the almighty dollar and little else. It's every man for himself. There's no communal concern in wedge politics and this mindset has been fostered and flourished in the last six years by the materialistic conservatives Noonan very much helped put into power.

If Peggy wants to know why our children are scared, I'd suggest she look in the mirror.

[cross-posted to The Reaction]

Mr. Buckley Gets To The Point

William F. Buckley, as usual, gets right to the point about the GOP's situation in Iraq. He makes an excellent case for the the war being lost without using those exact words.

But beyond affirming executive supremacy in matters of war, what is George Bush going to do? It is simply untrue that we are making decisive progress in Iraq. The indicators rise and fall from day to day, week to week, month to month. The political fallout will be worse. The president's veto of the supplemental spending bill will certainly firm up pubic opinion against the war.
The political problem of the Bush administration is grave, possibly beyond the point of rescue. The opinion polls are savagely decisive on the Iraq question. About 60 percent of Americans wish the war ended — wish at least a timetable for orderly withdrawal. What is going on in Congress is in the nature of accompaniment. The vote in Congress is simply another salient in the war against war in Iraq. Republican forces, with a couple of exceptions, held fast against the Democrats’ attempt to force Bush out of Iraq even if it required fiddling with the Constitution. President Bush will of course veto the bill, but its impact is critically important in the consolidation of public opinion. It can now accurately be said that the legislature, which writes the people’s laws, opposes the war.

The publicity around George Tenet's book is not helpful to Bush and the republicans. It shows clearly the rush to war and the grasping for any excuse.

Meanwhile, George Tenet, former head of the CIA, has just published a book which seems to demonstrate that there was one part ignorance, one part bullheadedness, in the high-level discussions before war became policy. Mr. Tenet at least appears to demonstrate that there was nothing in the nature of a genuine debate on the question. What he succeeded in doing was aborting a speech by Vice President Cheney which alleged a Saddam/al Qaeda relationship which had not in fact been established.

Mr. Buckley goes on to wonder what if anything can be done to defeat an insurgency that's like an endemic disease. A good question.

General Petraeus is a wonderfully commanding figure. But if the enemy is in thenature of a disease, he cannot win against it. Students of politics ask then the derivative question: How can the Republican party, headed by a president determined on a war he can’t see an end to, attract the support of a majority of the voters? General Petraeus, in his Pentagon briefing on April 26, reported persuasively that there has been progress, but cautioned, "I want to be very clear that there is vastly more work to be done across the board and in many areas, and again I note that we are really just getting started with the new effort."
The general makes it a point to steer away from the political implications of the struggle, but this cannot be done in the wider arena. There are grounds for wondering whether the Republican party will survive this dilemma.

This is certainly Mr. Bush's war and the republicans in this and past congresses have accepted, with Mr. Bush, majority ownership of this disaster.

I keep waiting for some moderate republicans in congress to distance themselves from this mess but I think they're going over the cliff together.

What happened to the common sense of conservatism? The republicans in congress call themselves conservatives, but if you think of Goldwater, Reagan and Buckley there is certainly no comparison.

I know how I would refer to them, I would use a baseball term: bush leaguers.

Jim M

Rush the right wing hero

By Libby

Well since Digby articulated my disgust with Limbaugh's latest foray into bad taste and bigotry so well, I'm just going to post the little parody I made up for my Detroit News blog.

Rush the right wing hero, is just a shameless pig.
He trades on hate, the reprobate
is Cheney's Mr. Big.

Little Dickie Cheney loves his gruesome hog.
They trade their sneers, rank on blacks and queers
rolling in the slime they love.

Rush the scumbag smear-o, a creep he'll always be.
He get his yucks, rakes in GOP bucks
from his cesspool of bigotry.

There's a lot of Rush fans in Detroit. I expect some hate mail on this one and I have to admit I feel a little soiled by sinking to Limbaugh's level but I needed to release a little outrage myself.

The Scarlett O'Hara school of foreign policy

By Libby

White House: We won't think about that today. We'll think about that tomorrow...

WASHINGTON, April 27 — The Bush administration will not try to assess whether the troop increase in Iraq is producing signs of political progress or greater security until September, and many of Mr. Bush’s top advisers now anticipate that any gains by then will be limited, according to senior administration officials.

In interviews over the past week, the officials made clear that the White House is gradually scaling back its expectations for the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. The timelines they are now discussing suggest that the White House may maintain the increased numbers of American troops in Iraq well into next year.

Could it be any clearer that the surge strategy has become another tragedy of miscalulation? Maliki is useless. Violence is not really abating countrywide and we've given up on training the Iraqis. The new plan is to go back to the old plan and hunt down the insurgents -- whoever they are this week -- one by one.

Every "new" plan appears to have one ultimate goal. Hang onto to the occupation until a miracle occurs and the sectarian factions make peace or until Bush leaves office so he can skulk out of town and leave his mess for somebody else to clean up.

Sadly that's the best we can hope for. I keep thinking about that suspension of Posse Comitatus provision the White House snuck through last year. The conspiracy theorist in me still can't quite discount the possibility that the real plan is to create such a mess in the Middle East that when 08 rolls around, Bush might decide that elections have to be suspended in a time of war. It sure would be useful to have authority to call out the troops against their fellow Americans in case the hoi polloi insist on upholding that goddamned piece of paper.

Terrorism is winning the WOT

By Libby

The latest figures on terrorist attacks will be reluctantly released by Condi Rice and it doesn't look good.

WASHINGTON - A State Department report on terrorism due out next week will show a nearly 30 percent increase in terrorist attacks worldwide in 2006 to more than 14,000, almost all of the boost due to growing violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. officials said Friday.
...Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her top aides earlier this week had considered postponing or downplaying the release of this year's edition of the terrorism report, officials in several agencies and on Capitol Hill said.

They've tried that ploy before but at least Condi appears to understand that the new Democratic order on Capitol Hill won't sit quietly by as the White House sweeps unflattering statistics under the rug. And these stats just show non-combatant deaths, it doesn't include soldiers.

The White House will no doubt tout figures that suggest worldwide terrorist attacks are actually down and claim this proves that Iraq is the central front on terror. That ought to play well for democracy building on the Arab Street. Let the US "liberate" your country and you too can become the prize winner in the death by terrorism sweepstakes. Hard to believe the rest of the Middle Eastern countries aren't lining up to buy tickets for that contest.

The day journalism died

By Libby

Digby posts a reflective piece about Ashleigh Banfield of MSNBC, who emerged from the coverage of 9/11 as something of a hero and a media star. She led the way on embedded journalists in Afghanistan but she made a fatal mistake. Two really.

First she reported the whole story, interviewing parties from both sides of the conflict. That wounded her career but the fatal blow came when she told the truth in a speech at Kansas State University shortly after the invasion of Iraq. She criticized the embedding process and its santized coverage designed to glorify the war without showing its real life consequences.

You really should read the whole post, but here's a key quote.

This TV show that we just gave you was extraordinarily entertaining, and I really hope that the legacy that it leaves behind is not one that shows war as glorious, because there's nothing more dangerous than a democracy that thinks this is a glorious thing to do.

War is ugly and it's dangerous, and in this world the way we are discussed on the Arab street, it feeds and fuels their hatred and their desire to kill themselves to take out Americans. It's a dangerous thing to propagate.

She was demoted immediately and fired a few months later and the rest of the journalists got the message loud and clear. The path to success was in wrapping oneself in the flag and uncritically delivering the White House press releases. Truthiness was the new order of the day and anyone who dared to offer the bare facts in any public forum, no matter how obscure, would find themselves banished to the Siberia of TV's wasteland.

Banfield lost a promising career. The rest of us lost our only access to televised truth when Fox "News" was anointed as standard bearer for the White House and chief cheerleader of the GOP.

Army practices legal discrimination

By Libby

If you wanted to deliberately destroy troop morale, this would be a pretty good way to do it. Wait until an Army unit is deployed and waiting in Kuwait, most probably to be sent into the meatgrinder of Iraq and strip search them for tattoos.

Army officials said the searches last May of 58 New Mexico National Guardsmen in a unit called Task Force Cobra were proper and legal.
But Brig. Gen. Kenny Montoya, head of the state National Guard, said he believes ethnicity played a role in the episode - the unit is 55 percent Hispanic.

The military previously looked into the incident and cleared the Army of any wrongdoing. It said that before the searches were conducted, the Army was advised by a military attorney that having soldiers remove their shirts to check them for gang tattoos would be legal.

Maybe it's legal but it's certainly a slap in the face to those soldiers who have signed up to risk their lives as pawns in Bush's war games. For one thing, shouldn't they have been checking for tattoos and gang affiliations before they signed these guys up? And for another, why just search this unit that happens to be mostly Hispanic? It reeks of racism.

If this is the Bush administration's definition of supporting the troops, I think they should invest in a better dictionary.

Rush hits rock bottom

By Libby

Now THIS is offensive. This is not a parody. It's a hateful racist smear and no disclaimer by the station can make it less odious.

Words fail to express my disgust.

DC Madam not going down alone

By Libby

Well, it's a new scandal every hour inside the Beltway. This one is sort of amusing and for a change of pace it's about sex and not corruption, although it does come with a healthy dose of hypocrisy.

Deputy Secretary of State Randall L. Tobias submitted his resignation Friday, one day after confirming to ABC News that he had been a customer of a Washington, D.C. escort service whose owner has been charged by federal prosecutors with running a prostitution operation.

...A State Department press release late Friday afternoon said only he was leaving for "personal reasons." On Thursday, Tobias told ABC News he had several times called the "Pamela Martin and Associates" escort service "to have gals come over to the condo to give me a massage." Tobias, who is married, said there had been "no sex," and that recently he had been using another service "with Central Americans" to provide massages.

...As the Bush administration's so-called "AIDS czar," Tobias was criticized for emphasizing faithfulness and abstinence over condom use to prevent the spread of AIDS.

Ever notice that the self-proclaimed moral conservatives are always caught at whatever they rail the loudest against? It's like they're trying to save their souls by "protecting" others from their own percieved failings.

Meanwhile, now that ABC has the little black book, I can't wait to see who else turns up in those thousands of phone numbers.

A new scandal at Justice

By Libby

The House that Abramoff built continues to crumple taking down the key figures with it. Today's casualty comes from the Justice Department.

WASHINGTON - A senior Justice Department official has resigned after coming under scrutiny in the Department’s expanding investigation of convicted super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, according to a Justice Department official with knowledge of the case.

Making the situation more awkward for the embattled Department, the official, Robert E. Coughlin II, was deputy chief of staff for the criminal division, which is overseeing the Department’s probe of Abramoff.

He stepped down effective April 6 as investigators in Coughlin’s own division ratcheted up their investigation of lobbyist Kevin Ring, Coughlin’s long-time friend and a key associate of Abramoff.

How very cozy. Coughlin would like to make it perfectly clear that he is leaving voluntarily. Isn't that what they all say before they get indicted? But still Coughlin is a small fish in this big sea of corruption. I'm still waiting for Rove's name to be added to the list.

Not that I'm holding my breath. I have a feeling the best evidence is lost in all those missing emails and Jack is unlikely to roll on Rove in the absence of the proofs.

Convenient "capture" of AQ operative

By Libby

Oh yippee. We "captured" another AQ bigwig. Well except that we didn't just capture him. He's actually been in custody in one of those CIA secret prisons that Bush was finally forced to admit existed but claimed were empty at the same time Mr Big was being held in one. And he allegedly gave up a bunch of great intel after being subjected to interrogation methods that aren't -- you know -- torture but kind of alternative questioning.

The real burning question is why announce it now? Couldn't have anything to do with the news of the Pentagon's lies about Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch could it? Or the rising US troop body counts out of Baghdad? Nah. Just one of those crazy coincindences I suppose. Anybody keeping track of how many Mr. Bigs we've caught at just such oddly convenient times? I've lost count.

The sad part is, if this guy really is the Mr. Big, who can believe what he says after being held in secret rendition for at least six months? Hell, we can't even believe what the Pentagon says anymore. As usual, my go-to guy Cernig has the links and the pertinent analysis. All I can say is if this guy was such a high value target, why didn't they trot him out for the dog and pony show when they first caught him?

A Moderate Is Good To Find

Pete Abel over at The Moderate Voice has post up about Congressman Phil Hare from Illinois' 17th district.
Even though he's not a republican, he's a moderate and the best example you'll
find in this day and age of a disappearing breed; the citizen legislator.

Our conversation also made me wonder if perhaps "citizen legislators" might be a workable idea, after all, in this modern age. No, Phil’s not exactly a citizen legislator. He worked in politics for 24 years before elected to office. Still, he’s got that citizen legislator sense about him; he knows he’s there to represent his constituents, and go to bat for them, not make a name for himself.

Although I have been on a quest to find a republican moderate, finding a democratic one is still pretty darn refreshing.

Maybe it's time to start a new quest.

I'm a totalitarian?

I love my critics. I figure if they're reduced to attacking me personally instead of refuting my points, I'm doing my job pretty well. Occasionally one stands out though and I have to give the lifetime achievement award for most voluminous and creative arguments against what I didn't say to Lee at Postpolitical in a post his friend Lance at Second Hand Conjecture finds brilliant...

In this take down of the Libby Spencer smearing Manny Lopez. It also has one of the better analysis of the totalitarian mindset I have read in a while. A must read.

Maybe Lance believes that, or maybe he's just mad at me for blaming him for Lee's other post but if anybody can read the few short grafs I wrote -- follow the links to my comments at The Reaction -- and come to the same conclusions as to my politics and my point, please explain it to me.

As far as I can see they're both still engaging in the same conduct they're accusing me of, that being smearing the critic -- me -- to avoid addressing the points of the argument. It appears to me that neither of them are Venezuelan nor do they spend much time there, however they continue to dismiss the views of those who do live under Chavez' rule as inconsequential and beneath consideration. For myself, I find it rather amusing to be called a communist and a totalitarian for pointing out that alternative views exist.

If you read my comments at The Reaction, you can see they ignored my apology to the extent that I made a declarative statement on Manny's social background. I certainly had no intent to smear Manny, I happen to like the guy, and I should have said he was espousing the oligarchy's talking points without implying he was one himself. But otherwise I stand by my posts and in fact, let's just try that little thought exercise these two guys refuse to address. It works no matter who is pitching the anti-Chavez line. Lee said in this last post:

For a fuller breakfast, is Libby willing to trade her right to freedom of press, for one where criticism of the president is criminalized? Is she willing to trade a liberal society for a paramilitary cult, so that she has a cheaper health service?

For the record, I am disturbed by Hugo's censoring of the Venezuelan opposition press however, I'm more concerned that our own president censors our press. And Lee might want to ask Brett Bursey, or the Denver Three or the schoolteachers who were ejected from a public rally for wearing t-shirts that simply said "Protect our civil liberties" before he condemns another sovereign leader for criminalizing dissent.

If he wants to talk about press suppression, perhaps he could explain why the White House is so willing to vigorously pursue press leaks that expose their malfeasance and yet conduct no investigation into leaks from within the White House that compromised national security, despite our president's assurances that he welcomed investigation into the matter and falsely assured us no one in his administration was responsible.

And if we're to speak of a "paramilitary cult", perhaps Lee would like to address the White House ploy to negate Posse Comitatus.

In October 2006, Bush signed into law the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Quietly slipped into the law at the last minute, at the request of the Bush administration, were sections changing important legal principles, dating back 200 years, which limit the U.S. government's ability to use the military to intervene in domestic affairs. These changes would allow Bush, whenever he thinks it necessary, to institute martial law--under which the military takes direct control over civilian administration.

I'm sure you get the point, so I'm done with this little spat. I find it hard to take critics whose arguments rest on ad hominem attacks all that seriously and I'm not going to waste my time defending Chavez when his own countrymen are willing to do so. If you have a burning interest in the question, I suggest you read this comment at the Detroit News from Nestor, who apparently lives there and underscores the few points I did make.

As for Lee and Lance, I'd respectfully suggest they leave Chavez bashing to Venezuelans and focus their considerable efforts on the disintegration of democracy in our own country.

Oh Those Lying Liars

This Sunday on 60 Minutes George Tenet is going to try to explain how his "slam dunk" comment was misused by the White House in the run up to war.

Ex-CIA Director George Tenet says the way the Bush administration has used his now famous "slam dunk" comment — which he admits saying in reference to making the public case for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq — is both disingenuous and dishonorable.

He says Bush and his crew are dishonorable liars. No kidding, I guess you don't get to be the nation's top spy without a first class analytical mind.

He goes on to say that the improper use of the term cost him his job and his reputation.

Good.

Jim M

Muir's mistake

Rick Moran asks if Chris Muir jumped the shark. The answer is yes, but not because of the blackfaced Hillary. I don't think that's so offensive. Blackface has a historical connotation and within the context of the strip it clearly wasn't meant as a slur against black people.

What I did find completely offensive was the panel before that suggests Republicans care about individuals and the Democratic party only cares about demographic groups that can get them elected. As Holly of Cincinatti pointed out in the comment section at TMV, that premise is simply untenable. It would in fact be laughable if he wasn't so deadly serious about it.

As the Democratic investigations begin to shed light on the Bush adminstration's darkest secrets, it has become undeniably clear that the Bush and his rubberstamp GOP Congress spent six years converting our government into a tool for Republican party power. The GOP has shown zero respect for individual rights.

Muir is not stupid, so I can only surmise that he is deliberately planting a false and divisive meme at a time when our country badly needs to come together and reach a middle ground. I find that irresponsible and maybe even unforgiveable.

I Just Don't Like Bush

There has been some discussion the last couple of days about my search for moderate republicans in the congress. It has forced a bit of self-reflection on my part. Although I am a liberal to the core, I have always been a social liberal, a fiscal moderate and very much to the right when it comes to security and the war on terrorists. Why did I take a sharp turn to the left? I don't really think I did. I think Bush and the republicans went to the right so far I can no longer even see the middle of the road.

George Bush has to take the blame for the direction this nation has gone since 2000. He has divided this country along party lines for the purpose of political gain.

I don't like George Bush. Nothing about him. It bothers me a lot. I was born when Truman was president, yep, I'm that old. I have found something to like or admire about every president, until this George Bush. I absolutely despise him and for a long time I really didn't know why and then I realized it was simple, he wasn't likeable.

He's not very bright, he's not very nice, he's not very honest and he seems to be totally inept. He chooses people to serve our government not because they are smart and competent, he chooses them because they are loyal to him in spite of his shortcomings.

It made me question my own judgment. You have all of these elected officials, congressmen and senators who do everything he wants them to do. Of course, he allowed them to raid the treasury and spend untold billions on pork-barrel products, but still, they toe the Bush line.

Could I be right and all of those people be wrong?

Remember this, Bush is a divider, not a uniter. Everything he does is to gain political advantage. He has politicized 9-11, the war on terror(remember the color coded threat level that you saw so much of before Nov. 2004 and haven't seen since?), the war in Iraq, everything. He has allowed the U.S. government to spy on it's own citizens, he has condoned and authorized torture. He has wrapped himself in the flag and accused anyone who disagrees with him of aiding the enemy. He is beneath contempt.

Now, has any person in his own party, with the possible exception of Chuck Hagel, called him to task? Has anyone said to him, "enough sir, you have gone too far"?
The short answer is no, they have not.

I go back to my question, could I be right and all of these republicans be wrong?
I believe I am.

I think this explains my feelings fairly well. Although it is somewhat over the top, it's honest. As long as George Bush is president I will not be moderate. It just isn't possible. Until this man is gone, this nation will stay divided. The damage he has done will take years to repair.

I'm going to stop this search for moderate republicans in the U.S. government, they aren't there today. If they are there tomorrow, you'll hear it from me.

Jim M

Quick - call 911

Oh. My. God. I'm beginning to think they're spiking the White House kool-ade with PCP these days. How else to explain such bizarre behavior? This races beyond the painfully embarrassing into the realm of the psychotic breakdown. I believe an intervention is in order. [via]

Shake your moneymaker

Video of the day via Michael van der Galien. I thought Bush decided to give up stand up comedy...

Update: It looks like that "man of the people" moment didn't work out so well. Here's a poll that puts Bush at a 28% approval rating.

Don't make me defend Chavez

By Libby

This is choice. Lance Lee at Postpolitical disses me for a comment I made at The Reaction on Michael's post about Hugo Chavez.

Libby Spencer (who blogs at Michael’s blog as well as with Manny at The Detroit News), had chimed in with perfunctory criticism of Chavez, weighted with subtle apologies for the purposes of his deeds. In so doing, Libby’s views represent the bad side of the American Left, which I was earlier praising Mr. Stickings’ views at the expense of.

In reading her remarks, notice how she almost immediately turns the attention away from Chavez and Venezuela and onto his critics, seeking to delegitimize them.

Now if you actually follow his links to my comment, you will see he's done the exact same thing he's accusing me of doing. He smears me to distract attention from my links to Charles Hardy, who has lived for decades in Venezuela and offers an opposing view to Manny.

Since you have to go through some kind of tiresome registration to offer a response at Lance's blog, I'm just going to post my response here. I did not and still do not have any specific knowledge about Manny's background but he is espousing the view of the oligarchy whose organizations are being underwritten to some extent by US interests. [And by the way, as far as I know the funding organization is a GOP front for Bush.]

My remarks were not meant to defend Chavez but merely to point out that there is an alternative view to Manny's that I believe deserves to be heard.

My support for Chavez has softened in the last couple of years and frankly I don't follow the politics there like I used to. I've been focused on Iraq and there's simply not enough time in my day to stay on top of every front. But I met Charles Hardy and a few other Venezuelan journalists at a ten day conference several years ago. They lived through the one day coup in the early 2000s and had a hand in ending it.

Their stories were inspiring. This was truly what democracy looks like. Chavez was elected from a real life grass roots movement; one that bubbled up from the very bottom of their society and took back their government without receiving any funding from monied interests. Whatever Chavez has done wrong, what he did right was deliver on his promise to his people. The truly poor are better off now than they were under the former rule of the oligarchy.

That's why Chavez was elected and why he continues to enjoy the support of the majority of Venezuelans. Hugo's arrogance notwithstanding, I'm not so sure Bolivar wouldn't be proud of what Chavez has accomplished. And I still suggest you read Manny's interview and just as a thought exercise, substitute the word Bush for Chavez and see if it doesn't read like a history of the last six years of the Bush administration.

If Google Can't Find Any, Well.....

I did a Google search for "moderate republicans". The results were interesting, but not surprising. I found just two sites on the first two pages that had a date in 2007.
There was a piece by Taegan Goddard's Political Wire with this interesting quote:

"During the 12 years that Republicans controlled the House, moderate Republicans were the stepchildren of their party, expected to vote with their conservative leadership on crucial issues, even if it meant taking positions that could anger centrist voters back home." However, now that Democrats have taken control of the House, moderate Republicans "are vowing to pursue their centrist positions more assertively, even if it means endorsing Democratic initiatives."

Curiously, there was no moderate republican named.
CNN's Political Ticker had another interesting piece, but again no mention of serving "moderates".

The Republican Leadership Council was founded in 1993 to expand the party's base, but has not been very involved in campaigns since 2003. It's now attempting to recruit candidates that are fiscally conservative, but moderate on social issues.
Former Gov. Christie Whitman of New Jersey, former Sen. John Danforth of Missouri and former Maryland lieutenant governor Michael Steele want to revitalize the RLC, which has a counterpart in the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. The RLC is being combined with Whitman's political action committee IMP-PAC -- It's My Party, Too.
"After the losses in 2006, the reaction was overwhelming that we need to get the Republican Party back to its fiscally conservative roots," Whitman said, adding that the GOP needs to be "a little less judgmental."

Would these people even be welcomed in the present republican party?

There were great websites with titles like these:
Bush's Re-election Would Doom Moderate Republicans
Moderate Republicans Feeling Endangered
The Moderate Republican Scam
This one here is my favorite. It lists those things that make a republican a moderate:

A passion for civil liberties;
A disdain for conformity and suspicion of authority;
A belief that the Constitution is a living, breathing document with timeless values that must be made relevant in a modern age;
A commitment to protect the environment and not engage in mindless exploitation of the nation's natural beauty. A spirited case must be made for reusable energy sources like solar power. Modern technology provides many options before the earth is harshly, brutally, and needlessly pillaged.
A strong belief that diversity -- gender, racial, social, sexual, ethnic, and religious -- should be celebrated because it gives the United States moral strength. Diversity -- in the long-term, encourages respect, understanding, and a greater sense of community;
A commitment to fiscal prudence and limited government;
A recognition that government does have a basic social responsibility to help those in need;
A belief that the nation does have international responsibilities;
A belief that God and religion have a very important place in America -- at the dinner table and in churches, temples, and mosques. But it should never be used by politicians to advance a narrow moral agenda;
A belief that the national government should be used in a limited manner to advance the common good;
A commitment never to put party above country; and
A responsibility to publicly criticize those who call themselves Republican when the situation merits. Moderate/Progressives have a duty to vote against the party line when it doesn't serve the greater good. Doing so doesn't make them less Republican; it demonstrates that they have the honor, political courage, and intellectual honesty to put nation above party.

Does this sound like the republicans serving in congress? Hell, that doesn't sound like anyone, but it sounds great. I'd join a moderate republican party in a second, if there was one

The search continues.

Jim M

Righties on the run from Reid

By Libby

I wrote this a couple of days ago but didn't post it because I thought it might be a little over the top. But then Greg Sargent asked the same question I was asking myself that night.

Has anybody else noticed that every day brings palpably more wild-eyed and unhinged attacks from the folks who either are in favor of the war or the folks who are for some reason instinctually opposed to the Dems' aggressive antiwar stance?

Yeah, I've noticed. I come from a long line of women of some clairvoyance. Me, I'm not so prone to visions. I'm more an empath so it's painful for me to watch the remaining Bush loyalists flounder for responses to counter the irrefutable reality on the ground in Iraq. By that I mean, I look at Broder and Kristol and I'll admit my first thought is -- why are these people being paid money to spout such nonsenical tripe? But my second thought is how awful it must be to have hitched your wagon to a collapsing star. I can feel their panic as their vainglorious predictions get sucked into the black hole of increasingly undeniable reality.

Simply put, the warmongering wingnuts have been wrong about everything. So what's a wrong right-winger to do? Why, blame the Democrats of course. Their terror of the truth becomes more apparent every day. Cheney has gone into full attack mode and DeLay crawls out of the woodwork to call Reid's honest assessment of the war, treason. Steve Benen dispatches DeLay with great finesse so let's look at another loyalist who perhaps best exemplifies the wingers malaise.

It's excruitiating to read the aptly named Hot Air. Bryan reached for every worn out smear a couple of days ago, from the Democrats' inattendance to Petraeus to Pelosi's successful talks with Syria but this quote from Insty sums up their paucity of their arguments.

The goal, I think, is to ensure that the war is seen as a failure, but to make sure that Democrats don’t get blamed.

[Bryan responds with] Yup. And that’s called “abdication.”

I might ask why the hell the Democrats should take the blame for a war they didn't start, and a president who screwed up its execution by ignoring all sane advice. But Bryan argues that now that the Democrats are in power, the occupation and its aftermath are their responsibility. But his complaints rest on the fact that the Dems are taking action to solve the problems Bush created and wrest the decision making process out of the sole hands of a president run amok. Just witnessing that level of cognitive dissonance makes my head want to explode. I can hardly bear to imagine what it must be like to have to live with it full time.

Corrupt Republicans

There is a great article in the New York Times about how OSHA is now being run by the people from the industries it used to oversee. These are political appointees whose interest is allowing big business to make more money and the workers be damned.

Since George W. Bush became president, OSHA has issued the fewest significant standards in its history, public health experts say. It has imposed only one major safety rule. The only significant health standard it issued was ordered by a federal court.
The agency has killed dozens of existing and proposed regulations and delayed adopting others. For example, OSHA has repeatedly identified silica dust, which can cause lung cancer, and construction site noise as health hazards that warrant new safeguards for nearly three million workers, but it has yet to require them.

The politcal hack now running the agency, Edwin G. Foulke Jr., the former chairman of the South Carolina republican party and top fund-raiser, describes himself as a Ronald Reagan republican. I guess that means he's a crummy actor, not too smart, probably becoming senile, yet cleans up well and delivers a great one-liner.

Instead of regulations, Mr. Foulke and top officials at other agencies favor a "voluntary compliance strategy," reaching agreements with industry associations and companies to police themselves. What this means is that industry can set their own standards for worker safety and workplace chemical exposure.

The proverbial case of the fox guarding the henhouse. No business likes regulations, so they decided to go out and buy themselves a little bit of the government.

The agency had long been the target of businesses that criticized its rules as arbitrary, costly and confusing. Three of the biggest industries regulated by OSHA — transportation, agribusiness and construction — have given more than $630 million in political campaign contributions since 2000, with nearly three-quarters of that money going to Republicans. The Bush administration has
promised to address their concerns.

Address their concerns? Oh yeah, they're helping these businesses screw their employees. This is just another example of how the republicans have allowed the American government to become a wholly owned subsidiary of big business. These corrupt bastards are bought and paid for.

On another note, I'm still looking for moderate republicans. I haven't found any, yet, but I'm hopeful. Maybe they're just bashful and don't like speaking up about what they truly believe.

Jim M

[thanks to The Blog Report for the link]

Mini breakdowns

By Libby

How much longer before they have to take Bill O'Reilly off the set in a straight-jacket? The man is clearly on the verge of a major meltdown.

Short answer to Max Boot's question: Probably not and I wouldn't be trotting out Ramadi as a success story if I was him. Heavy casualties on our side for a "massive loss" by the insurgents is only impressive if it actually makes a difference in the overall level of violence. It's really a little depressing to think we've spent so many resources to basically secure one street.

This officer makes a point that's crossed my mind as well. Why are we going into national mourning for 33 victims of random violence in Virginia while virtually ignoring 3,300 victims who have deliberately sent to their deaths by our president? It seems to me to be rather a slap in the face to be flying the flag at half mast for the former on the bases of the latter.

And this irritates me although it illustrates why our media is such a sorry state. Perhaps if our DC media elite behaved more like news reporters and less like Hollywood stars, the quality of our news coverage would improve.

Surge dirge

By Libby

Today's signs of progress in the so-called surge strategy don't seem to be much to celebrate. The great wall of Baghdad is off the table because of strenuous objections by the residents of the city. That's a little embarrassing since the military brass were pumping this up as a major part of the grand counterinsurgent strategy. On the bright side it does take the focus off the recent announcement that training Iraqi security forces is now considered a lost cause and the US troops are back into search and destroy mode.

Meanwhile, 9 US soldiers dead and many wounded in a car bomb suicide attack on a US patrol base in Diyala. This of course is the fatal flaw in the "security" plan. Scattering small patrol bases around the cities leaves our soldiers more vulnerable to attack since they don't have the numbers to defend themselves.

And who are these new foes?

In Diyala province northeast of Baghdad, the American military is engaged in an intractable guerrilla fight against an elusive and sophisticated enemy more deadly than many battle-hardened soldiers have ever encountered in Iraq. The attacks on U.S. and Iraqi soldiers here have risen sharply in recent months, a problem compounded by an influx of fighters in search of safer havens outside Baghdad. Many of the insurgents are well-trained, highly mobile fighters who refuse to get dragged into open confrontations in which American forces can deploy their overpowering weaponry.

Oh what a surprise - they're the AQ.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq, operating under the banner of an umbrella group called the Islamic State of Iraq, has managed to drive out Shiites from many cities and villages in Diyala. Shiites in Baqubah, who once made up about 45 percent of the population, now account for about 20 percent, said Sutherland. In March, gunmen laid siege to the Shiite village of Towakel, northeast of Muqdadiyah, burning dozens of homes, slaughtering livestock and leaving a smoldering ghost town in their wake. On wall after wall they scrawled graffiti proclaiming the village the domain of the Islamic State of Iraq.

And where did they come from?

"They just stormed in one night and started on the southwest side and started burning their way all the way up this one road," said Von Plinsky. The Shiite villagers "had defenses built up . . . but they just got overpowered. They got decimated."

As in suddenly one night after the "surge" started? The brass has deployed 2,000 additional soldiers to Diyala to fend off this growing insurgency. The problem is the AQ have better intelligence than we do and disappear before the search and destroy missions arrive. The US could send 20,000 more troops but all it would effectively accomplish in the end is to move the AQ base of operations somewhere else.

How much longer is our president going to listen to his own war drum while leaving the troops to pay the piper?

Read My Lips

George Bush The Elder declared today that Americans are suffering from "Bush Fatigue".

Mitt Romney, another right-wing candidate for president stated that Jeb Bush would be the frontrunner if he had a different last name.

"There's something to that -- there might be a little Bush fatigue now,"formerPresident Bush told CNN's Larry King

In November of 1992 we had "Bush Fatigue". In December of 2000 right after the election debacle we had worked up to Bush chronic fatigue syndrome. We are now up to what would have to be a Bush persistent vegetative state.

It's gotten so bad I had to change the brand of canned baked beans I eat. My wife and I were out at Home Depot and she found a plant she liked. It turned out to be a bush. I bought a tree.

Bush fatigue? You betcha.
Jim M

A Sad State Of Affairs

Sorry about the lack of posts today, Libby is moving and I am changing jobs at my place of employment. In addtition, I have been off-line for about the last four hours. Thanks, Comcast, you're the best!

This piece in the New York Times reminded me once again of the terrible poverty in the deep South. It seems that after many years of declining infant mortality rates, infant deaths are again on the upswing. The deep cuts in Medicaid would seem to be the culprit. I know, that's pure conjecture, but when the cuts are so deep there has to be some effect.
The costs of Medicaid are rising sharply.
When Haley Barbour took over the Governorship of Mississippi in 2004 he promised no new taxes and cuts in Medicaid.

In 2004, Gov. Haley Barbour came to office promising not to raise taxes and to cut Medicaid. Face-to-face meetings were required for annual re-enrollment in Medicaid and CHIP,the children’s health insurance program; locations and hours for enrollment changed, and documentation requirements became more stringent.

As a result, the number of non-elderly people, mainly children, covered by the Medicaid and CHIP programs declined by 54,000 in the 2005 and 2006 fiscal years. According to the Mississippi Health Advocacy Program in Jackson, some eligible pregnant women were deterred by the new procedures from enrolling.

Look at a few of the numbers;
51 per cent of all children in the state are on Medicaid.
451,000 low income children are enrolled.
102,000 children in Mississippi are ininsured. 75 percent of these children are eligible for Medicaid but not enrolled.
Mississippi loses $3.15 in matching federal funds for every $1 it cuts in state money.

There have also been rises in the rates in Alabama, Tennessee, North Carolina, Louisiana, and South Carolina. All of these state's legislatures as well as their congressional delegations are controlled by Republicans. It has become a sad state of affairs when American children are dying from lack of health care.

It would seem that the right-wing, right-to-life movement is more interested in fetuses than it is in children.

I think Barney Frank got it right when he said that for Republicans life begins at conception and ends at birth.

Jim M

Delayed posting

Sorry, posting was light this weekend since I'm packing for the big move next week and I have nothing ready to throw up this morning. I hope to grab a few minutes this afternoon, but no guarantees in my line of work, so expect me when you see me. I will be back.

Postal Service sells out to Time Warner

I'm sure you've heard that the price of stamps is about to go up again at the beginning of May but I hadn't heard a word about this egregious abuse of the postal service until today. It's simply ungodly. Is there any place left in our public services where corporations are not dictating policy?

[P]ostal regulators have now rejected a rate plan put forth by the Postal Service itself, and instead are preparing to accept a proposal from media giant Time Warner -- a rate plan that would stifle small and independent publishers in America. The plan unfairly burdens smaller companies (such as the publishers of Mother Jones, Ms. Magazine and Sojourners) with higher postage rates, while locking in special privileges for bigger media companies. The stunning move is an unprecedented abuse of the agency's discretion.

The Post Office simply should not use its monopoly power to favor the largest publishers and undermine the ability of smaller publishers to compete. It must be held accountable for a plan that could drive smaller publications to the brink of bankruptcy. With public involvement, we can reverse the regulators' decision and restore the postal system that has served free speech in America so well.

Why on earth Time Warner should even be making proposals is beyond me and I think they have this thing ass backwards. If anything, the big media corporations already have the advantage under eased consolidation rules and should pay more of the burden, not less.

There's going to a hearing on Tuesday. Working for Change has a petition at the link that I signed and I also left a outraged comment to be passed on to the regulators. I'd suggest you do the same.

Good Boy

Yesterday George W. Bush thanked Australian Prime Minister John Howard for his steadfast support and cooperation in the "war on terror."

The US president "thanked the Prime Minister for the decision of Australia to send additional troops to help secure the peace in Afghanistan and for Australia's steadfast and important commitment in Iraq."

Mr. Bush then whistled and Mr. Howard ran over and jumped onto the president's lap to have his ears scratched.

Jim M

Things are not always what they seem

By Libby

Lukery at Wot Is It Good4 sees a previously unremarked danger in The White House prosecution of the two members of AIPAC for passing state secrets.

The object of this exercise has been broadly misunderstood by many who have followed it—and particularly by Iraq War critics who delight in a perceived slap-down of AIPAC. But this is tragically short-sighted. If the prosecution succeeds, the Bush Administration will have converted the Espionage Act of 1917 into something it was never intended to be: an American copy of the British Official Secrets Act. It is likely to lead quickly to efforts to criminalize journalists dealing with sensitive information in the national security sector, as well as their sources.

Let's imagine America with the Gonzales-McNulty contortion of the law in effect. We'd never know how the Bush Administration came to embrace torture as a tactic in the war on terror. We'd know nothing about the torture-by-proxy system developed with key administration allies such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen—not to mention the system of “blacksites” established by the CIA in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. We wouldn't know that the administration was violating the FISA statute with a massive surveillance program. And to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, that's just the known unknowns.

This would be a dream world for Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales. And a nightmare for the rest of us. And the AIPAC case could, if it succeeds, bring the nation much closer to its realization.

As the author Lukery cited notes, "It seems clear that Franklin and the two AIPAC employees had a common object, which was to invite critical public attention to U.S. policy towards Iran." Attention that is badly needed to clear away the smokescreen around Bush's propaganda blitz to pave the way to his heart's desire for yet another war.

And speaking of Iran, Cernig has the must read of the day -- an on the ground account of Peter Hitchens recent trip there. As Cernig reminds us Hitchens is no leftie - he is to the Right of his brother Christopher on most social issues so his agenda is not an issue and his observations should not be taken lightly. Hitchens paints a much different picture than one gets from the White House pressers.

Sunday fun

By Libby

Via Cliff Schecter, here's this morning's amusement for your weekend pleasure. Take the quizzes.

Who said that? Lieberman or the White House. I did badly on this one and I read the Lieberman statement it's based on.

And check your knowledge on current events. Like Cliff, I also got a 96% on this but it was a pretty easy quiz.

Wingnuttia hits new low

By Libby

Hilzoy is on a roll this weekend. This morning she takes on some idiotic rant at the badly named, The American Mind where some misguided opportunist is using the Virginia Tech massacre as an excuse to flog the wingnuts favorite fallacy that academia is being taken over by commie pink-o professors.

Read the whole post. Hilzoy rakes this foolishness over the coals but you don't have to take her word for it. Even fellow rightwing extremist Dan Riehl is appalled.

Perhaps not as insane as Seung-Hui Cho, it's frighteningly close and represents one of those times when certain pundits embarrass the Right as a whole.

I have nothing to add to that. This reckless wingnuttery has already received far more attention than it deserves.

Things to read when you're avoiding reality

By Libby

I really hate moving. I was supposed to be packing last night but rather than face that odious chore, I did some very important reading. Here's a few random stops on my train of thought.

As I recall, there was a time when this would have been bigger news. But that was before the news stations went all tabloid on us.

It's true. I was reading my referral list to avoid packing. Google hit of the day: I was number one in some wishful thinker's search for "Paul Wolfowitz in jail."

I'm probably the only person in all of Blogtopia who has never heard of Phil Ringnalda but he appears to be the geek of my dreams. I followed this link and discovered Phil has invented a very cool new toy - Randomblog. You click the link and it takes you to a random recently updated blog. I don't understand how it works but it's addictive. Most useful for work avoidance.

This is bizzare. One wrong word and we'll ban you? What good is free muni-wi-fi if they censor the sites you can reach? This reminds me of the time I tried to post to my drug war policy blog and found out it was blocked by the public library's filter system. It's a weird feeling to be banned. You're not sure whether you should be pissed or secretly proud.

Speaking of secrets, whenever I remember to visit Postsecret I want to send in a postcard but I don't have any secrets. I'm an open book. I blog everything. Would it be bad of me to make one up?

Hill and Bill Or Al

I hate to contradict myself from one post to the next, but I have to do it this time. As much as I would love to have Bill Clinton back in the White House, voting for Hillary is still going to be pretty tough. It now appears that a campaign team for Al Gore is being assembled. This from the Telegraph:

Two members of Mr Gore's staff from his unsuccessful attempt in 2000 say they have been approached to see if they would be available to work with him again.

Everything is sort of ambiguous at this point, but he hasn't ruled out a run. He would be a hard man to beat next November and he doesn't have Ms. Clinton's problem with polling showing growing negative feelings about her. In the media he seems to be much more popular today that he did in 2000.

The second aide approached by Vice-President Gore's allies said: "There is no love lost between Gore and Hillary. They don't think she can win and they're probably right. If Gore runs, he's got a really good chance of getting thenomination. And he has a good chance of pulling off the election, too."

I liked Gore in 2000 and this country would be in a lot better shape today if the election had turned out differently. He's probably the best candidate the democrats could field.

A poll of leading Democratic and Republican strategists found that one in four thought Mr Gore would emerge a strong contender. "He already has emerged - he just has to announce," a Democrat told the magazine Opinion Journal.
A Republican said: "Gore could be the toughest Democrat to beat."

This is going to get interesting, I hope.

Jim M

Hill and Bill, That Sounds Pretty Good

I certainly have mixed emotions about Hillary Clinton getting the democratic nomination. She would certainly motivate the base for the left and the right and the middle would be broader than ever. She just came up with a good reason to vote for her. She plans on using former President Bill Clinton as a roving ambassador-at-large, improving America's standing abroad after eight years of the bungling Bush.

I can't think of a better cheerleader for America than Bill Clinton, can you?" the Democratic senator from New York asked a crowd jammed into a junior high school gymnasium. "He has said he would do anything I asked him to do. I would put him to work."

Bill Clinton is an experienced diplomat and has standing around the world having proven himself in the wake of the tsunami disaster raising billions in relief funds.

"I believe in using former presidents, particularly what my husband has done,to really get people around the world feeling better about our country," she said."We're going to need that. Right now they're rooting against us and they need to root for us."

Yes ma'am, I couldn't agree more. If I have to vote for Hillary to get Bill then I'll do it. It will good for our country.

Besides, it will be fun watching Rush Limbaugh's head explode.

Jim M

No visa for Lancet study researcher

By Libby

It's difficult to read this as anything other than suppression of relevant research.

Riyadh Lafta and his colleagues have been trying for months to get a U.S. travel visa so the doctor could speak at a medical conference at the University of Washington today.

The State Department has cited miscommunication as the reason for the visa holdup.

As an alternative, Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, B.C., invited Lafta to deliver his lecture today, which was to have been broadcast by video to the UW. But this week, the British government denied him a four-hour transit visa for a stopover between the Middle East and Canada.

Despite the State Department's protestations, it's painfully clear the co-author of the controversial Lancet study on civilian deaths in Iraq is deliberately being prevented from sharing his work with his US peers and it's no surprise that the UK would aid and abet this campaign. Both governments have a vested interest in protecting their shady statistics from challenge.

Interestingly, Dr. Lafta wasn't scheduled to speak on civilian deaths but rather was to present his findings on cancer rates, particularly among children in southern Iraq. I suppose our governments would rather that subject not be publicly broached either. It just might get the people all worked up about DU weaponry again. I suspect there is a connection between the two that could be made.

[cross-posted to The Reaction]

Why I love Blogtopia

Hilzoy puts her finger on why I haven't read Maureen Dowd's columns in two years and Matthew Yglesias explains why I stopped watching the talking heads on TV a decade ago.

Heretik's graphic says a thousand words about the SCOTUS decision on abortion.

I have to agree with Ron Chusid. I'm just not excited by any of the candidates currently in reach of the presidency either but I'm not so sure Gore or Richardson would interest me more. I'm still looking for an eleventh hour dark horse that can energize the electorate and inspire the average Jake to engage in the process again.

Neil Shakespeare is -- well -- Neil Shakespeare. I can't pick a favorite. Choose for yourself. The stellar graphics alone are worth the click.

Stone Soup has got the links to the anti-Bush protest in Michigan and a healthy serving of the latest dish on the many ways the GOP is dis-serving the little guys.

And last but certainly not least, one of my favorite snarkers, Kvatch, wonders who supports the troops and looks into his froggy crystal ball to predict the future.

Video of the day

I like to try to post some lighter fare on the weekends and this is one I haven't seen before that actually made me laugh out loud. For your viewing pleasure, the latest in Apple technology.

glumbert.com

[hat tip J.Z. Souweine]

Just another brick in the wall

By Libby

I remember when the Berlin wall came down. It seemed to be such a sign of hope at the time. I wondered if finally we had realized as a civil society that wars and walls aren't a good way to solve conflicts. It turned out to be a fool's hope. Since then we've seen many walls erected, literally and figuratively. The polarization of politics has divided us as nation just as surely as any bricks and mortar structure could have and all too many people advocate reaching for the trowel to solve our problems. Hate immigrants? Build a wall on the border. Loathe the hoi polloi? Build a wall around your community. Dislike opposing views? Close off comments on your blog.

Walls have been built in troubled locations in the Middle East from Israel to Tal Afar but as far as I can see they haven't done a thing towards building peaceful coexistence. They've only served to reinforce the divisions between warring factions. Now, in the latest attempt to close down conflict, the US has abruptly decided to erect a physical barrier between two Baghdad neighborhoods, effectively blocking whatever cordial relationships existed between two largely sectarion enclaves.

My man Cernig has this story well covered so I won't repeat his points but I would add that it seems to me to be a completely counterproductive tactic that is already the subject of much criticism from the affected Iraqis, who were not warned or consulted prior to the construction. It serves no practical purpose and symbolically it sends the wrong message on all counts. Better we should be building bridges, not barriers.

Harry Reid is right

By Libby
Updated below

Alleged Independent Joe Lieberman continues to carry the White House whitewash with this statement. The choice cuts:

Al Qaeda's strategy for victory in Iraq is clear. They are trying to murder as many innocent civilians as possible in an effort to reignite sectarian fighting and drive us to retreat from Iraq.

This is exactly the wrong time to conclude that we have lost the war in Iraq, or that our new strategy has failed. Instead, we should provide General Petraeus and his troops with the time and the resources to succeed. We should not surrender in the face of barbarism."

I see this is the emerging meme this week in the president's current dog and pony road show and among the few remaining loyalists. Blame AQ for what is obviously an upsurge in locally based sectarian violence in Iraq. Funny, I thought we had already chased the AQ out of Baghdad more than once and they're all hiding in Anbar.

According to reports, 230 people died from suicide attacks in the city of Baghdad yesterday. The surge supporters have been telling us for weeks now how this surge thing is working so well that violence is down, but as is typical when the news is bad, they blame the critics for demoralizing the troops. As if telling the truth is going to demoralize them more than being stuck in a (now extended) deployment from hell and witnessing the carnage with their own eyes?

The loyalists keep saying give it more time. Excuse me, but aren't these the same people who told us give Petraeus six months to prove his surge theory will work? Well it's been almost five months since Bush ordered the surge against the advice of his experts and in direct opposition to the will of the people. So where are those early signs of success again?

No reasonably objective observer could possibly claim the "surge" is working. For one thing, it's made painfully clear that we don't have the manpower since we haven't even been able to muster half the promised numbers of troops in all these months and nothing has changed. Baghdad experienced a temporary drop in civilian deaths, only to see increased violence in areas outside the city. Now even the formerly secure Green Zone is being breached regularly and as this week's slaughter demonstrates, any lull inside Baghdad is unsustainable in the long run.

Not to mention a key premise of the Petreaus plan was the stepped up training of Iraqi security forces - a central plank of the plan that has now been abandoned. The new, "new" strategy is to focus on security, meaning we're going to go back to routing out the insurgents on our own. How is this progress? And why should it convince us, as the deadenders like Lieberman suggest, to give it more time?

Harry is right. The war is lost and it won't be any less lost in six months or six years. The only thing that will change is there will be more dead bodies to count while we're waiting for the empty promise of a victory the supporters still can't define.

And speaking of empty-headed rhetoric, I expect the armchair military geniuses like these two, who so carelessly throw around accusations of treason, to be publishing their next posts from their family vacations in Baghdad. To hear them tell it, since the surge started, it's just about as safe as DisneyWorld now. I'm sure the lodgings are cheap and they would get to enjoy free fireworks at least three times a day.

Update: The Gun Toting Liberal makes a good point. The war by the orginal definition of the mission, was won long ago. What we have here is an arrogant and clueless administration who turned the initial victory into a long running defeat.

Endless War

Coming as a surprise to no one, the military is planning for the "surge" to last longer than originally projected. Right now it looks like it will last at least two more Friedman Units.

A Friedman Unit is a period of time between six to nine months when something good will happen in Iraq. The unit is named after the New York Times columnist who has claimed over and over that the next six months will decide the outcome in Iraq. The first Fiedman Unit started in November, 2003. Friedman Units are sort of vague and undefinable, sort of like Tom Friedman's columns.

Unfortunately, we have at least three more Friedman Units until Bush is gone.

Jim M

The Search For Republican Moderates

Republican senator Olympia Snowe of Maine became one of the few republicans that support a framework to withdraw from Iraq. She introduced a bill late Thursday that gives Iraq 120 days to meet benchmarks.

"The Iraq government needs to understand that our commitment is not infinite," Snowe said in a statement. "Americans are losing patience with the failure of the leadership in Baghdad to end the sectarian violence and move toward national reconciliation."

The senator voted with the republicans last month opposing a supplemental spending bill that included a timeframe for withdrawal from Iraq.

It's nice to see one of the moderates showing a little moderation, isn't it? You think it's because she is from the Maine and the republicans seem to be on the run in the northeast? A little distance from Mr. Bush on the war is probably a good thing for her. Nonetheless, when the supplemental conference report hits the floor for a vote she will do as she is told and vote "no".

I think her quote above about Americans losing patience with Iraqi leadership is off the mark. I think the American people lost their patience with Iraqi leadership years ago, and with George Bush and the majority of republicans in congress last year.

Hopefully, the people of Maine are losing patience with Ms. Snowe.
Jim M

They got impeachment down below.

By Libby

The DC Dems may have taken impeachment off the table but the people are clamoring to get it back on the menu.

When Pelosi arrives at the California Democratic Convention in San Diego on April 28--the same day that activists nationwide will rally for presidential accountability--she'll find on the agenda a resolution that declares that the actions of President Bush and Vice President Cheney "warrant impeachment and trial, and removal from office." Delegates are expected to endorse the measure.

Outside Washington, however, an "impeachment from below" movement is gathering steam. ... Talk of impeachment gains traction when it becomes clear that an Administration is unwilling to respect the system of checks and balances or the rule of law.

Citing Thomas Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice, which makes reference to the authority of state legislatures to propose impeachment, legislators in at least ten states, including Vermont, have now done so.

The DC Dems are dragging their feet, pulling the Cheney card. "Activists have countered with an "Impeach Cheney First!" campaign and a reminder that the Constitution in no way prohibits holding more than one official to account at the same time."

My dear friend D.G. Hall wonders if enough states will get on board. I have a feeling, as this bubbles up from the local city councils, that D.G. will see a much stronger groundswell than he, or I, ever expected.

Friday night highlights

By Libby

It's been a long week and there's more news you can use than I can do justice to, so here's the handpicked linkfest.

Why politicians should stay out of show biz. You would think McCain would have learned something from Ashcroft and Rove. You would be wrong.

Tough week for Republicans. "Rep. Rick Renzi stepped down temporarily from the House Intelligence Committee on Thursday, after the FBI raided his family's business in connection with an ongoing federal investigation." Details are sketchy. I'm thinking it's related to Abramoff.

Speaking of Abramoff scandals, former Deputy Interior Secretary J. Steven Griles and Sue Ellen Wooldridge, who have both been implicated in Jack's empire of corruption, got married three days "after Griles pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about his relationship with Abramoff and a previous romantic partner." That previous partner being the ever elusive Italia Federici, who runs a Republican front group with strong ties to Abramoff. Last I heard, she's on the lam.

One can't fail to immediately remember that spouses can refuse to testify against each other but we're assured this is not the case here.

Griles attorney Barry Hartman angrily rejected any notion that spousal privilege had any bearing on Griles and Wooldridge’s decision to marry.

“Steve Griles and Sue Ellen Wooldridge got married because they love each other,” Hartman said. “Any other suggestion is wrong.”

Oh of course they're marrying for love. The timing is just a coincidence.

Finally, this man is the leader of the free world? Small wonder so many of us are on tranquilizers.

Perino to press: It's just a job

By Libby

From the White House presser, after asking about Gonzales and Wolfowitz, this is definitely the question of the day.

Q:Does the President ever get tired of having to express his full confidence in the people around him these days?

MS. PERINO: When you're President of the United States and you have this many folks that you are employing, it's a pretty small number that he's had to express full confidence in. All of us who serve at the pleasure of the President, if the moment he doesn't have full confidence in you, you no longer work for him. And we all take that very seriously.

Poor Dana. Not an easy job to be the mouth of Bush but then again, nobody forced her to take the job. Personally I'd rather starve than have to abase myself like that for such a petty man. In any event, we might remind her that the President works at the pleasure of the people and the mood on the street is dark. The way things are going, she might find none of them have a job, sooner than she thinks.

Not Standing Up, Not Stepping Down

President Bush has said it over and over.

"Our strategy can be summed up this way," Bush said. "As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."

Well, so much for that. On to plan B, oops there's no "Plan B" is there. Of course, to call the "surge" Plan A is pretty disingenuous anyway. Aren't we up to like Plan F? Slate has it down in detail.

But defining the current surge as a "Plan A" is a dangerously dishonest move that ignores the history of the Iraq war to date. In fact, since 2003, we have run through at least six plans, none of which has succeeded. The Petraeus plan is something more akin to Plan F—truly, the last Hail Mary play in the fourth quarter. And if it fails, then we better start considering Plan G, also known as "Get out of Iraq."

The biggest threat to our troops is the incredible incompetence of George Bush.
When Bush stands up maybe our troops can step down.

Jim M

When Is A Good Time?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said yesterday that the war in Iraq can not be won by military means.

"I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and -you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows -- (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," said Reid, D-Nevada.

The republicans wasted no time accusing the democrats of not supporting the troops.

"I can't begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat leader of the United States Senate has declared the war is lost," said Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky.

I don't think the troops hearing that the war is lost would be upset or surprised by that statement. They should know better than anyone. I think they would have been more upset about their deployments being lengthened from twelve to fifteen months.

Larry Kudlow, blogging at The Corner, was righteously indignant about Reid's statement.

So, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared yesterday that the U.S. has officially “lost” the war in Iraq. Well, I’ve got a problem with that statement.
At this point, declaring the Iraq war lost is not only factually incorrect, it
is incredibly demoralizing for our troops whose lives are on the line.

Is there any point at which it would be okay? How much longer does this have to go on before you can say it's over. Every conservative leader and Joe Lieberman have been saying "just six more months" for the last two years.

He then opened mouth and inserted large foot, figuratively of course.

Let's remember that this isn't the Dems' first stab at undermining our war effort. Initially, Harry Reid & Co. were attempting to telegraph to our enemy precisely when we would withdraw our troops. That’s unheard of in the history of warfare. Now, even worse, they’re out saying the war is lost. Huh? Where’s General Grant now we need him? Where’s Robert E. Lee?

Am I missing something here? Is he saying that our present military leaders are not getting the job done? Does he want Lee running the insurgency and fighting against a present day Grant?

How about this question Larry. Where is Abraham Lincoln? We could use him now, hell, we could use Herbert Hoover right about now.

Jim M