Dell Looks Out For The Bottom Line

Today Dell announced it was cutting 10 per cent of it's worldwide workforce, or around 8,800 jobs. Wall St. was wowed.

Dell shares jumped more than 7 percent in after-hours trading on the news after finishing about 2 percent higher on the Nasdaq in regular trading.
The Round Rock, Texas, computer maker reported net income of $759 million, or 34 cents a share, for its fiscal first quarter ended May 4, compared with net earnings of $762 million, or 33 cents a share, a year earlier. Analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial had expected earnings of 26 cents a share.

Now I'm sure Wall St. was thrilled as investors could expect to make more profits, but I sort of think about the 8,800 moms and dads now worrying about if their number will come up. Does this mean anything? Well, no, except I'm a softie and unless you've been one these 8,800 people, it's just numbers.

As I scrolled down this story, yes wondering about my Dell stock, I noticed a link to a related story.

Computer marker Dell plans to start selling personal computers at 3,000 Wal-Mart stores in the United States and Canada as of June 10, launching a major drive to sell its PCs through retailers, a company spokesman said on Thursday

I don't have any proof, but do you see some sort of linkage between these stories? The question I have is where in the world are these job cuts going to be? I haven't been able to find out, but when you agree to sell computers to the largest retailer in the world, you better deliver the lowest price.

These stories came out one week apart, the story concerning Wal-Mart came out a week ago.

How much you want to bet the job cuts are all in this country and then there will be corresponding hirings in China? I guess it's good business, but you don't have to like it.

I think it's ironic that some of Dell's ex-employees will end up working at Wal-Mart, but won't be able to afford to buy the computers they used to make.

Jim Martin

Thompson reading for the wrong role

By Libby

Here's a study in contrasts for you. Take first the words of a man who has never fought a war except in his imagination.

I can tell you, our response would look nothing like Israel's restrained and pinpoint reactions to daily missile attacks from Gaza. We would use whatever means necessary to win the war. There would likely be numerous casualties on our enemy's side, but we would rightfully hold those who attacked us responsible.

...Imagine what it would be like to live, knowing that a rocket could fall on you or your children at any minute. Half of those who live nearest to Gaza have fled their homes. Those remaining are traumatized by daily warning sirens and explosions.

The irony is that Israel has the military might to easily win the war that is being waged against them today. They haven't used that might, in the past, out of compassion for Palestinian civilians and because it could trigger a wider regional conflict.

No, it's not Bush. It's another ego-maniac who wants to act out the role of war president, Fred Thompson.

Constrast the vapid, chest thumping arrogance of Thompson to these observations from a man forced to live out that other draft dodger's delusions of grandeur.

I came here as part of the first wave of this so called “troop surge”, but so far it has effectively done nothing to quell insurgent violence. I have seen the rise in violence between the Sunni and Shiite.

...Why are we here when this country still to date does not want us here? Why does our president’s personal agenda consume him so much, that he can not pay attention to what is really going on here?

...Now I am still here in this country wondering why, and having to pick up the pieces of what is left of my friend in our room. I would just like to know what is the true reason we are here? This country poses no threat to our own. So why must we waste the lives of good men on a country that does not give a damn about itself? Most of my friends here share my views, but do not have the courage to say anything.

"Donald C. Hudson Jr. is a private assigned to the 1st Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division." He is currently serving in Baghdad, where the generals are claiming progress is being made.

Republicans have a problem if this is what it takes to win the nomination. In a field where the bar is already set pretty damn low with candidates trying to out-do each other with their own versions of war porn, the professional pretender Thompson may well be the best the GOP has to offer, but he's not the best America could do. Especially since he appears to believe the role should be interpreted exactly as it has been, only as an even bigger Dick.

Maybe somebody should tell him the people did a rewrite on that role in 06 and he still has the old script.

[thanks to My Musings for the link]

Time for a Section 12*

By Libby

There's stupid, pig-headed stubborness like refusing to admit mistakes and desperate cluelessness like clinging to small moments of success that don't amount to any sort of victory. There's failure to accept reality like avoiding news reports that don't fit a preconceived scenario and there's deliberate deceit like knowingly telling outrageous lies even as the glaring truth makes a mockery of the words.

And then there is flat out bat shit crazy.

Friends of his from Texas were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated "I am the president!" He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of "our country's destiny."

Forget impeachment or frogwalking out of the White House. What we need is the men in white coats to take him away and get this man some badly needed treatment for a complete mental breakdown.

I've been thinking for some time that so many administration insiders have been speaking up against the Commander Guy not just out of political expediency in running from a lame duck, but also because they know he's having a mental breakdown and have a genuine fear of what insane measures he might take in his remaining months in office. That quote pretty much seals it as far as I can see.

[*Section 12 is a term used in Masschusetts courts for involuntary commitment to a mental health facility for the criminally insane.]

[thanks to Liberty Street, Blue Collar Heresy and World Gone Mad for the links]

Rove operative to change roles

By Libby

It appears to be official. Rove's star pupil in political sabotage, Tim Griffin, now the U.S. attorney in Arkansas who became the face of the ongoing attorney purge scandal, has resigned effective Friday. Think Progress and Raw Story flesh out Griffin's history of hackery which runs all the back to an illustrious record of political back stabbing during the Clinton administration and minority voter disenfranchisement in 2004.

Meanwhile, via TPMmuckracker, it appears Mr. Griffin won't be unemployed for long. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Griffin is being wooed for a top spot in Fred Thompson's impending presidential campaign. I think that pretty much says it all, as Rummy might have said, about the unknown knowns of the mysterious non-declared candidate who has managed to ride to top of popular opinion by so far appearing presidential while saying exactly nothing of substance through creative use of technology.

Unfortunately for him, I think the public has bought that hat trick one too many times and Mr. Thompson will find that no matter how good a coach Griffin may be, simply acting the part is no longer enough to get a ticket to the Oval office. The real winner in this arrangement will be Griffin, whom I assume will command a hefty salary as a prince among smearmeisters.

Fred Thompson; Actor, Politician, Statesman, Did I Mention Actor?

I'm sitting here taking a break from work and thought I would go ahead and post something. So I went to Memeorandum and took a look around and man oh man it's Fred D. Thompson time.

I am tickled pink about this, if he's actually going to run. Yeah, right. He's in baby, he's in. I can just see them polishing up that red pick-up truck now and his tailor is making those Levi's look as good as they can look on old Fred's geriatric ass.

I wonder how many roles Fred will play? You know he'll be in the red pick-up all over the south and west. He'll probably adopt his gruff but urbane lawyer look for the northeast and California. I wonder if he has a bolo for the desert southwest?

Well whatever it will take, Fred can come up with some role he's played. Hell, could you see him playing the Mission Accomplished role on an aircraft carrier? I've seen him in uniform, God, what a commanding presence. He'd need a bigger plane though.

I suppose Fred thinks it's his last best chance. He's getting old and his health is not so hot. He also thinks that he can beat Hillary, if it's Hillary, even in this down republican cycle.

He might be right, I'm pretty damned liberal, but I'm not sure I can vote for Ms. Clinton. Besides, Fred is my idol because like me he has a face made for radio, but he made it with that mug in Hollywood. What an actor.

Jim Martin

Cheney's heart of darkness

By Libby

Speaking of Cheney cover-ups this morning, it appears our vice president doesn't only want to become the most powerful second stringer in government but also the most secretive. From his refusal to disclose the participants in the White House powwows that led to the industry favoring energy bill, to rumored back room manuvering to force Bush into a confrontation with Iran, Cheney's tenure has been little more than one continous black-op against the American people. So little wonder that he issued this order some time ago.

Regarding visitor information, the Secret Service “shall not retain any copy of these documents and information” once the material is given to the office of the vice president, says the September 2006 letter by Shannen Coffin, counsel to the vice president.

That shouldn't even be legal and speaks volumes about Cheney's malevolent intentions. Not to mention that the people who pay his salary -- that would be us -- should be able to keep track of his activities short of proven matters of national security. As the saying goes, if he's got nothing to hide....

In Cheney's case he apparently has nothing he doesn't want to hide.

[thanks to The Moderate Voice for the link]

Plame was covert - Cheney is a jerk

By Libby

It's official. According to newly declassified employment records submitted by Patrick Fitzgerald in his sentencing memo on the Scooter Libby case, Plame was indeed a cover agent at the time of her outing and the CIA was actively trying to protect her status. That should put to rest all those complaints among the Bush loyalists that Libby shouldn't have been prosecuted because there was no underlying crime -- but don't hold your breath waiting for wingnuttia to admit they were wrong.

Meanwhile, Dan Froomkin puts it into context. It's clear that the investigation uncovered criminal wrongdoing in the highest levels of the White House. As Fitzgerald himself put it:

"To accept the argument that Mr. Libby's prosecution is the inappropriate product of an investigation that should have been closed at an early stage, one must accept the proposition that the investigation should have been closed after at least three high-ranking government officials were identified as having disclosed to reporters classified information about covert agent Valerie Wilson, where the account of one of them was directly contradicted by other witnesses, where there was reason to believe that some of the relevant activity may have been coordinated, and where there was an indication from Mr. Libby himself that his disclosures to the press may have been personally sanctioned by the Vice President."

In other words, evidence existed but criminality was unable to be proved specifically and only because Scooter lied to protect Cheney. Froomkin rightly points out that history is likely to read this story as a tale of one of the most successful cover-ups of criminal malfeasance in the history of our country.

Harry Potter Once Again Triumphs Over Ignorance

Today a judge in Georgia ruled that the Harry Potter books could stay in the school libraries.

Laura Mallory, who argued the popular fiction series is an attempt to indoctrinate children in witchcraft, said she still wants the best-selling books removed and may take her case to federal court.

The would be banner of books will probably not be deterred. People who want to subject other people's children to their beliefs usually don't know when to shut up.

Superior Court Judge Ronnie Batchelor's ruling upheld a decision by the Georgia Board of Education, which had supported local school officials.

County school board members have said the books are good tools to encourage children to read and to spark creativity and imagination

Indeed, most books give people in school and out of school what they need more of; education.
The close minded mother had an interesting observation.

"I have a dream that God will be welcomed back in our schools again," Mallory said. "I think we need him."

I have a dream that education will be welcomed back into our schools. I have a dream that these people will actually get a clue and work on those things that are important in school; reading, mathematics and an honest desire to experience thought and ideas that are outside of their normal experiences. These thoughts and ideas are usually sparked by the contents and messages in those things called books.

I have another dream that these people like Ms. Mallory would not expect public schools to teach their children those things that should be taught at home and in church. If this mother feels so strongly about those things she wishes to shield her children from then perhaps she should find a private school that mirrors her beliefs.

Jim Martin

Terrorists and the Nuclear Threat

This past Saturday night on C-Span's Q&A program Brian Lamb was interviewing Joseph Cirincione the author of "Bomb Scare". Mr. Cirinicione is an expert on nuclear proliferation. In the course of discussing his book he described how to build and deliver a nuclear weapon in addition to the problems of controlling the spread of nuclear weapons.

In the course of this interview there was one question and answer that is central to the war on terror and how this quagmire in Iraq has distracted us from the key battle in that war which is the prevention of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of Osama bin Laden.

Mr. Cirincione answered the question of which country now possessing nuclear weapons worried him the most when it came to proliferation.

I recently made headlines in the Indian press because I was testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee and I was asked this question by some of the members. What’s the - some of the members seem to think that China’s the most dangerous country to us, but it’s really Pakistan for a couple of reasons. One is that it’s a - it’s been the source of a great deal of proliferation. It would be A.Q. Kahn network, the scientist who helped create the Pakistan nuclear program, who spread this technology to Iran, to Libya, probably some to North Korea and perhaps other countries. This has been - if it wasn’t for Pakistan, there wouldn’t be an Iranian nuclear program to worry about. That’s one set of problems and the second is that Iran - that Pakistan has enough material for between 50 and 100 nuclear weapons, it has an unstable government, strong Islamic fundamentalist influences in the army. Armed Islamic fundamentalist groups operating in the territory - Osama bin Laden has reestablished terrorist training camps in Pakistan. What happens if President Musharraf is assassinated? There were two attempts on his life in recent years - missed by a matter of seconds - what if his motorcade is slower next time? Who gets the bombs? Who gets the material? Who gets the scientists who know how to build those bombs?

Pakistan could go from a major NATO - non-NATO ally to our worst nuclear nightmare overnight. Overnight. That’s, to me, our most serious state proliferation threat and we’ve got to - in order to deal with that threat, it’s not a Pakistan specific solution. We can’t keep playing nuclear ”Whack-a-mole” where we try to solve this one state at a time, you have to have a systemic change. You have to have a comprehensive approach that deals with our weapons, that deals with terrorist supplies, that deals with the rules of the road and that goes after the underlying conflict that seeks to resolve them. Those tensions, those disputes that give rise to the proliferation imperative in the first place. It’s like - I started saying recently - like I think of it, like playing Parcheesi, where you got to move several pieces down the board at the same time and get them all over the finish line in order to win.

It’s - to me it’s like three-dimensional Parcheesi. And if you’re going to solve a problem as difficult as Pakistan, as difficult as Iran, you got to have a comprehensive approach, you got to work like crazy on it. You have to have the smartest, most talented people you can find, you’ve got to give them the money and you got to give them your personal attention as a leader of this country in order to get that job done. It’s doable, we just have to decide to do it.

The biggest threat the U.S. faces in the next 10-20 years is the detonation of a nuclear weapon in this country. It will kill hundreds of thousands of people, devastate our economy and will certainly plunge us into a state of perpetual war.

Mr. Cirincione is not a doomsayer, he is very positive and upbeat about our ability to deal with this problem successfully if the problem is given the priority it deserves. Nevertheless, he believes we will probably be attacked within the next 10-20 years.

I ordered this book this weekend and will talk about this a lot more. He scared the hell out of me.

The one thing I took from this interview was that we need vision and leadership of a type that has been lacking in this country for many years. Let's hope it's not too late.

Jim Martin

A Look At Bush's Brain

Well now we know. The question as to why Bush doesn't listen to reason is that he doesn't hear the same as everyone else does. He doesn't read the same or see the same. He is quite unique in that he is apparently a total moron and he still convinced a lot of people that he was capable of being the President of the United States of America. Was he an actor before he was president? Didn't he play Forrest Gump so convincingly?

President Bush has said that there is no controversy over why he doesn't listen to the people. He does, he says the people agree with him

"Last November, the American people said they were frustrated and wanted a change in our strategy in Iraq," he said April 24, ahead of a veto showdown with congressional Democrats over their desire to legislation a troop withdrawal timeline. "I listened. Today, General David Petraeus is carrying out a strategy that is dramatically different from our previous course."

Yup, he slipped the bonds of gravity and started floating away. Here is where he hit escape velocity.

"I recognize there are a handful there, or some, who just say, `Get out, you know, it's just not worth it. Let's just leave.' I strongly disagree with that attitude. Most Americans do as well."

The truth of the matter is that a large majority of Americans do agree with that statement and we're starting to get pissed off that Bush doesn't get it.

In one poll released Friday by CBS and the New York Times, 63 percent supported a troop withdrawal timetable of sometime next year. Another earlier this month from USA Today and Gallup found 59 percent backing a withdrawal deadline that the U.S. should stick to no matter what's happening in Iraq.

Again and again and then one more time; Bush understands all of this, he just doesn't care what the people think. He cannot give this up, he has nothing else to offer, no goals, no nothing. His domestic agenda does not exist. Condeleeza Rice is trying to salvage something on the diplomatic front, even having talks with Iran. Something she has said repeatedly that she would not do.

Bush just thinks he can lie his way through this, but he's being, not acting stupid.

Wayne Fields, an expert on presidential rhetoric at Washington University in St. Louis, said the president's new language exploits the fact that there is no one alternative strategy for the public to coalesce around, which clearly spells out how to bring troops home. Bush can argue that people agree with him because no one can define the alternative, Fields said.

The truth of the matter is that he is either out of touch, or he's lying. Either way it's just what you would expect from the worst president in U.S. history.

Jim Martin

New meanings for surge success

By Libby

Well here's shocking news for you -- not.

WASHINGTON — U.S. military leaders in Iraq are increasingly convinced that most of the broad political goals President Bush laid out early this year in his announcement of a troop buildup will not be met this summer and are seeking ways to redefine success.

That pretty well could describe any three month period in the entire history of the invasion and ensuing occupation and so could this.

With overhauls by the central government stalled and with security in Baghdad still a distant goal, Petraeus' advisors hope to focus on smaller achievements that they see as signs of progress, including local deals among Iraq's rival factions to establish areas of peace in some provincial cities.

Of course, the tactical genuises who engineered this plan anticipate that the lack of measureable progress won't sit well with either Congress or the public, especially considering the rising death rates for US troops, but they do at least have a plan to respond to critics.

Military officers said they understood that any report that key goals had not been met would add to congressional Democrats' skepticism. But some counterinsurgency advisors to Petraeus have said it was never realistic to expect that Iraqis would reach agreement on some of their most divisive issues after just a few months of the American troop buildup.

Well that's certainly not what they said when they unveiled this grand "new" plan that Bush imperiously ordered in the face of overwhelming objections by nearly all quarters.

In other words, they lied through their teeth -- again -- in order to gain support for another Friedman unit worth of delay of the inevitable, that they knew all along wouldn't be enough to solve anything and with apparent full knowledge that it would likely make things much worse in the short run, all the better to excuse an continued escalation into the foreseeable future.

These people aren't running a war, they're playing a demented game of Risk where human lives are treated as being as expendable as playing cards and the only winners are going to be the corporations and politicians who make money on and accrue power with endless wars.

If this sort of deceit isn't criminal - it sure as hell should be.

Thanks Cindy

I had intended to write something entirely different as my Memorial Day post but I came home and see that Cindy Sheehan has quit the peace movement with a heart breaking post at Kos that evokes the Cindy that we remember from the beginning of her long odyssey. Whatever you think of Cindy, this women has bled for her beliefs and I think in many ways she still embodies the true meaning of patriotism.

America owes Cindy a huge debt of thanks. That fateful summer day when she stood down the President of the United States from a ditch in Crawford, changed everything. In that moment she became the voice for all those Americans who had been silently watching the occupation falling apart and hadn't spoken out for fear of being labeled unpatriotic. Cindy's bravery in asking that one simple question inspired hundreds of thousands of people to come forward. If Cindy hadn't asked what her son died for, almost 70% of the country might not be asking that today.

I understand why Cindy feels used and abused. She has been. She was so effective that she inspired a syndrome on the right akin to the fabled BDS. People hated her for no real reason but worse was how those on the left who loved her, exploited her spirit and turned her into a carcariature.

I don't blame Cindy for feeling betrayed. She was. Those who claimed they would help advance her cause, instead rendered her ineffective by advancing their own, so stepping out of the limelight is a good decision. But she shouldn't feel that she accomplished nothing.

The peace movement she nutured may have borne bitter and inedible fruit, but she also started a national conversation on the streets and in the living rooms of America that is still going on today. I'm not so sure that the 06 rollover would have happened if Cindy hadn't kicked that ball in the first place.

So if no one else says it, at least let me. Goodbye and thanks Cindy. You did change the world, at least a little bit and I think we owe you a lot.

Wolfowitz: I'm The Victim Here.

Today Paul Wolfowitz blamed his firing from his position as director of the World Bank on the media, declaring it had nothing to do with the enhanced pay package he gave his girlfriend.

"I think it tells us more about the media than about the bank and I'll leave it at that," he told the British Broadcasting Corp. "People were reacting to a whole string of inaccurate statements and by the time we got to anything approximating accuracy the passions were around the bend."

Wolfowitz is the primary author of the Bush Doctrine and chief neoconservative architect of the fight against Saddam Hussein. The obviously ethically challenged Wolfowitz certainly didn't come to the World Bank without controversy and over the objections of the western European powers. Historically the U.S. chooses the director the the World Bank.

The New York Times reported on the subplot surrounding Wolfowitz at the World Bank.

When President Bush appointed Paul D. Wolfowitz as the president of the World Bank two years ago, the White House had to put down an insurrection among European nations that viewed the administration’s best-known neoconservative as a symbol of American unilateralism and arrogance.

He came with the goal of fighting corruption in the third world nations that depend on the World Bank for development funds.

In foreign capitals, and among the bank’s staff members, it has been noted that Mr. Wolfowitz’s passion for fighting corruption, which he has said saps economic life from the world’s poorest nations, seemed to evaporate when it came to reviewing lending to Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, three countries that the United States considers strategically vital. Some longtime bank staff members complained that Mr. Wolfowitz relied too little on experts in international development and too much on a pair of aides who served with him in the administration.

It would seem that Mr. Wolfowitz left the Defense Department with some of his aides and just moved to the World Bank to further the Bush policy of unilateralism. The arrogance of these people is beyond belief.

Over time, Mr. Wolfowitz created an impression that at critical moments he was putting American foreign policy interests first, most notably when he suspended a program in Uzbekistan after the country denied landing rights to American military aircraft, and directed huge amounts of aid to the countries he once recruited to sign on to Washington’s counterterrorism agenda.

Of course payback is certainly hell and Mr. Wolfowitz had some coming.

In the backlash against Mr. Wolfowitz, though, there is also an undercurrent of settling scores — including those that go beyond the World Bank. Europeans still fume over Mr. Bush’s decision to send John R. Bolton, one of the biggest critics of the United Nations, to New York to serve as ambassador there — an experiment that ended when it became clear that the newly Democratic Senate would not confirm him to finish Mr. Bush’s term.

Not everything in this world is black an white as Mr. Bush would want you to believe. Mr. Wolfowitz was certainly a victim of payback, but as we all know you should not give your enemies ammunition to use against you. Mr. Wolfowitz let his ego and his libido bring him down.

He should have stood tall and accepted that he made a mistake, just another in a long string. Instead he blamed the media. How pathetic.

Jim Martin

Failing the fallen soldiers

By Libby

The NYT has an interesting piece this Memorial Day morning, on ignoring the war dead. David Carr is right in that we aren't doing our soldiers any favors by preventing the American public from witnessing the true costs of the war. I can see wanting to protect the families from seeing their loved ones dead faces on the morning news but this restriction surprised me.

Until last year, no permission was required to publish photographs of the wounded, but families had to be notified of the soldier’s injury first. Now, not only is permission required, but any image of casualties that shows a recognizable name or unit is off-limits. And memorials for the fallen in Iraq can no longer be shown, even when the unit in question invites coverage.

I assume this means the impromptu memorials the soldiers hold on the field to honor their fallen comrades. I don't really see the point of this other than to miminize the public's awareness of just how many of these memorials are held. It seems to me to be rather disrespectful of the troops sacrifice to restrict it.

I've often seen returning soldiers quoted as expressing surprise and disappointment in how most Americans seem to be oblivious to the occupation. Well, this is why. When they have a president who urges them to carry on with their shopping and prevents them from seeing even the tributes to those who made the ultimate sacrifice, it keeps the conflict that much farther from their day to day existence.

Love that bottled water

By Libby

Hospital calendars know no holidays so I'm back to work today and only have time for a quick post this morning. Oregon is thinking of expanding it's bottle bill to include water bottles. I think that's a good idea. I never understood why they didn't include non-carbonated beverages in these bottle bills in the first place.

Granted bottled water was not the multi-million dollar business inthe 70s when these bills were passed, as it is today but still a bottle is a bottle. As I recall, it was the bottlers lobby who succeeded in exempting their containers on some convoluted grounds.

Time has proven that these deposits do reduce litter and I don't know why every state doesn't have one, including my current home base, North Carolina where they could certainly use it. I found it was a great help when I lived in Massachusetts.

I never actually returned a bottle myself in over a decade but it was easy to find someone who would take them in exchange for the money. At first it was the old man who lived at the end of my building and when he died, I recruited a semi-homeless guy who did odd jobs around the complex. They were glad to get the few extra bucks a month and I felt good about recycling without having to do any work.

It's a win-win proposal that should be adopted nationwide.

Homeland Insecurity

Fighting terrorism is apparently not the focus of the Dept. of Homeland Security. According the research group TRAC, Transactional Records Action Clearinghouse, only .01 of charges filed in court involved terror activities. The Bush administration has repeatedly stated that fighting terrorism is the primary focus of DHS.

Of the 814,073 people charged by DHS in immigration courts during the past three years, 12 faced charges of terrorism, TRAC said.

Those 12 cases represent 0.0015 percent of the total number of cases filed.

"The DHS claims it is focused on terrorism. Well that's just not true," said David Burnham, a TRAC spokesman. "Either there's no terrorism, or they're terrible at catching them. Either way it's bad for all of us."

TRAC is reporting that most of the charges filed had to do with student visas or just not having a valid visa.

If this is all this huge and costly agency can do then perhaps our dollars can be put to better use elsewhere or perhaps some new leadership. Michael Chertoff certainly seemed to be uninformed two years ago when he was defending the government's action after Hurricane Katrina. He stated, erroneously, that there was no Katrina scenario.

Now it seems that DHS is just another immigration enforcement agency. One that isn't doing so hot with that either.

DHS spokesman Russ Knocke called the TRAC report "ill-conceived" and said the group "lacked a grasp of the DHS mission."

Knocke said that, by clamping down on all forms of immigration, DHS has made it difficult for terrorists to come to the United States.

I think I'll just let that stand without comment.

Jim Martin

George Bush, Al Qaeda's Enabler

In the latest example of "Damn I Wish I Had Said That", Andrew Sullivan has a post up titled, "Al Qaeda's Enabler". He is, of course, referring to our president, George Bush. Wow, and this from one of the most ardent supporters of the war way back when and up until Sully realized Bush was a bumbling fool. But still, a startling post. This is just one of several hard hitting paragraphs.

Here is Bush's gift to the victims of 9/11: two new al Qaeda safe havens - in Anbar and in Pakistan. He gave Zarqawi a second career, by refusing to kill him when had a clear shot in 2003, and then allowing him to run rampant across Iraq for several years. Islamists, moreover, are far closer now to getting their hands on WMDs than they were when Bush became president - the very casus belli I foolishly bought to go to war with Saddam. Given the financial boost al Qaeda has gotten from the Iraq invasion, the massive propaganda coup they have won by Bush's authorization of torture, and the triumph of Iran as a consequence of Bush's non-existent "strategy", isn't it simply a fact that Bush is the best thing to happen to al Qaeda since its founding? Is not the record now clear that, whatever their intentions, Bush and Cheney have actually advanced the day when Islamist terrorists will kill and murder more Americans?

In my own defense I have said a lot of this myself but without the talent and style of this experienced journalist and writer. He gets this right and I can't find a thing with which I disagree.

Jim Martin

Thoughts On Patriotism This Memorial Day

I was sitting here pondering patriotism on this Memorial Day weekend and I was struck by how my feelings of patriotism have narrowed from a total belief and pride in the innate goodness of this country to a more narrowly focused feeling.

My parents and uncles were all members of that great World War II generation and they were all veterans. My Mother and Father were members of the naval hospital corps, my Mother serving in this country and my Father serving as a navy corpsman who went the entire way across the pacific and then served in occupied Japan. My uncles, being raised in Bedford County, Virginia, were in the same outfit that produced the famed Bedford Boys who were slaughtered on Omaha Beach. My uncles were fortunate to have been in a different Higgins boat.

I was raised by these people and the one thing I learned from them is that we were the good guys. They didn't go to war just to protect their homes and families, they went to war to fight against evil and for the freedom of people all over the world. They were proud of themselves and proud of their country and they instilled in me that pride. They're all gone now, they are now among the Honored Dead and honor them I do.

My thoughts go now to all of those men and women serving our country around the world, but especially in Afghanistan and Iraq. My heart swells with pride at the sacrifices that they are making for the sake of country and duty. Whatever may be happening in this country politically, it has nothing to do with these troops in the field. They should have nothing but pride in the fact that they answered the call of their country and were willing to give that last full measure.

These people fighting today are where my proud feelings of patriotism are focused for I feel that the government that is ordering and controlling these great people is failing them and us miserably.

It has been said, as about the sixth reason for this war, that we're fighting for the freedom of the Iraqi people, but surely if they wanted freedom, they would have fought Saddam themselves. If they had been, as a people, oppressed and unhappy wouldn't they have been willing to fight for freedom, for to be free, you have to be willing to die for it. What bothers me now is that perhaps the Iraqis are dying to be free from us. If that is true, it is too sad to contemplate that our troops would be thought of as oppressors. We have always been the good guys and I know our troops certainly think of themselves the same way.

Our government, led by George Bush, has as policy chosen to disregard the Geneva Conventions. This is a government that has sanctioned and encourages the use of torture against our enemies. Most of the republicans running for president have also come out in favor of torture. I can't imagine that we could have become so cowardly and afraid that we must abandon 200 years of tradition. We have become more like our enemies signifying that in some ways they are defeating us.

It is shameful to think that I all I could say in comparing my country to those countries and groups that oppose us is that we're not as bad as they are.

Jim Martin

Planned incompetence

By Libby

I think we've been giving the Commander Guy a bad rap. He's not as clueless or incompetent as we thought he was. He did have a plan. He clearly wanted a war that would haunt America for generations and his plan is working perfectly -- well except for the part where he's being exposed as a pathological liar. I'd guess he never counted on having to account for why he ignored these reports.

WASHINGTON — Two months before the invasion of Iraq, U.S. intelligence agencies twice warned the Bush administration that establishing a democracy there would prove difficult and that Al Qaeda would use political instability to increase its operations, according to a Senate report released Friday.

The report, issued by the Senate Intelligence Committee, brought to light once-classified warnings that accurately forecasted many of the military and political problems the Bush administration and Iraqi officials have faced since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.

These warnings were distributed to senior officials with daily access to President Bush and others at the very top of the administration, the report states.

If you read the list of bullet points at the link, every one of those warnings came true. So why would the Great Decider deliberately ignore and fail to disclose these salient points to the Congress and the people in his selling of the war? One can only conclude it's because that is the exactly the result he intended from the beginning. Not that he isn't trying to cover up by playing the incompetency card.

President Bush said at a news conference Thursday that his administration was "warned about a lot of things, some of which happened, some of which didn't happen."

But, he added, "The world's better off without Saddam Hussein in power. I know the Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein in power. I think America is safer without Saddam Hussein in power. As to al-Qaida in Iraq, al-Qaida's going to fight us wherever we are."

The only predictions that didn't come true were his and Cheney and Rumsfeld's rosy predictions of a fast clean war with a quick getaway. Of course, the public wouldn't have bought into the invasion in the first place if he had shared the damaging intelligence and his real plan, instead of the discredited reports he chose to selectively leak.

This report is long in coming and almost five years too late.
Steve Benen posting at TPM has a timeline on the delay and ultimate refusal to complete this report under the GOP rubberstamp Congress who preferred to keep Americans in the dark about the President's wilful incompetence in order to protect their electoral interests in 04.

Steve also raises an interesting question.

In January 2007, after the Senate changed hands, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) agreed that it was finally time to take this investigation seriously.

As for why Rockefeller and committee Dems decided to release the report on a Friday afternoon before Memorial Day weekend ... well, I can't figure that one out.

I'm afraid the answer to that is the Democrats have no real interest in ending the occupation either. They appear to prefer to make political hay with its continued failures while pretending to be against it, than actually act in the best interests of the country and bring this debacle to a long overdue close.

Should we stay or should we go

By Libby

Dale at QandO and Oliver Willis had quite the extended conversation in response to Dale's original question and thanks to Dale for linking to my small contribution. I'd add another two cents as long as I'm thinking about it.

What to do about Iraq? My short answer is leave, as soon as possible. The success of the surge is predicated on Maliki being able to cobble together a consensus government and deliver those oil contracts. It's not going to happen. Maliki is seen as a US puppet and rightly so, and Sadr is consolidating his power. Ultimately, I think Iraq will become a Shia theocracy and we're just going to have to deal with it. But I digress. The question is about withdrawal.

I don't think it will necessarily be as bad as the doomsayers are predicting. Why are we assuming the violence would increase? Are the factions holding back because we're there? Maybe, but I doubt it and a fair amount of the violence is targeted at US "collaborators." Of course, the civil strife will continue, but we're simply not stopping it by being there and I see no real reason to expect it to get much worse if we leave since we would be eliminating one cause.

As for Iraq becoming an AQ base -- it already is, not to mention the best training camp they have. They come and go at will and every day that they force us to stay is a win for them. It makes them look strong. But they would lose a lot of prestige on the Arab Street if they were just killing Iraqis without the excuse of collaboration.

And the idea they could "take over" Iraq is laughable. They're a terrorist group, not an army. If they could do it, they would have done it long ago. Even if by some impossible chance they tried, I expect that would unite the Iraqis in a way we haven't been able to in these four years. A common enemy will buy a lot of consensus.

Of course, as a practical matter, it doesn't really matter what any of us think. The only thing that's truly clear is that we're not leaving as long as Bush is president.

Learning from Nancy Reagan

By Libby

In the four+ years I've been blogging, I've been invited to co-blog rather often and I've never refused. I always think I can do it all. That's how I ended up commited to five blogs today.

Some projects never really got off the ground. Sometimes, like Unity08, it wasn't a good fit and I did a couple of posts and then never went back. Sometimes, the blog owner decides to shut down as at the late, and much lamented, Pennywit. I wonder what ever happened to him? I miss that kid. Once, I got kicked out. That was at Tonguetied, where I'd still be today if Scott Norvell hadn't wussed out.

Anyway, I got another invitation this week to contribute to To the Center , and for the first time, I finally took Nancy's advice. I just said no. I was sorry to turn them down though. It looks like a great project and I like the theme. They're looking to become a forum for the average Jake who doesn't subscribe to partisan politics and they've already built a robust community with almost 500 members.

Click over and check them out.

Down on Dems

By Libby

Don't let the dearth of posts here fool you. I've been dissing the Democrats all over Blogtopia. I have a couple of rants at Newshoggers right now. I discovered the alleged big no vote, was just a parliamentary trick that allowed the Democrats to appear to vote against the supplemental but in reality, it was a elaborate ploy to cede the procedure to the Republicans. The Dems didn't vote against anything except common sense and the will of the people.

Even worse, the vaunted goals they "forced" Bush to accept were in fact a gift to the Commander Guy, giving him the one benchmark his heart desired -- control of the Iraqi oilfields. Perfidy hardly describes the depths of the Dems betrayal in my book.

And I guess I must have struck the right chord of discontent from the outset, since that incurable neo-con Jules Crittenden almost approvingly linked to this post about why this was such a tactical mistake on the Dems part. A theme I expanded on at the Detroit News.

But lest you think I've become a closet Republican with all this Dem-bashing, have no fear. My ire is bi-partisan. With this latest news on the politicalization of the judiciary, I've moved past thoughts of impeachment and am now calling for indictments of this morally bereft and criminally manipulative administration.

The return of Sadr

By Libby

As I recall, in the crowing about the early signs of success of the surge strategy, much was made of Sadr "fleeing" from the increased US troops. Many of the surge doubters, myself included, perceived it as an expected tactical move on the cleric's part. It's the not the first time the "insurgents," however they're defined at the moment, sensibly melted away in the face of superior military might, only to resurface with greater strength in another location.

The idea that Sadr was "on the run" in a cowardly retreat always seemed to me to be little more than childish taunting and wishful thinking. Any objective analysis of his disappearance would lead to the conclusion that he was simply biding his time for an opportune moment, and sure enough he's back - bigger and badder than ever.

He began the sermon with the familiar anti-U.S. rhetoric on which he has built his nationalist credentials, asking his followers to chant three times, "No to injustice! No to Israel! No to America! No to the devils!"

"I renew my request that the occupiers should withdraw or schedule their withdrawal," said Sadr, who appeared in his traditional black robe and turban, and wore a white cloak symbolizing willingness to die as a martyr. "The government should not allow the occupiers to extend their stay in Iraq, not even for one more day."

Ironically, the "emotional crowd surged forward and showered him with sweets." Last I heard, our troops are still waiting for that promised event to happen to themselves.

Whatever Sadr is, what he isn't is stupid or a coward. With this move he's shown himself to be a brilliant tactician who understands his people. He rejects the occupation while calling for national unity and credibly decries the intercine violence, even as his own loyalists perpetrate it. Something for everyone in his fiery rhetoric, except us.

How ever this debacle ultimately ends, if I was a bookmaker I'd be laying my odds on Sadr and his theocrats coming out as the big winners. Hardly an outcome desirable for our interests and all the more reason to fold our cards and get out of the game. The longer we keep raising the ante, the more we strengthen his hand and enlarge his jackpot.

[thanks to Gun Toting Liberal for the link]

Blackhawks over Baghdad

By Libby

Wondering what would happen if a disaster hit your town? One thing for sure, if you live in Nebraska, Arkansas, or Colorado you can't count on the National Guard flying in to help with their Blackhawk helicopters. You know the ones your tax dollars paid for? According to an an ABCNews.com investigation most, it not all, of theirs are in Iraq providing target practice for terrorists.

But not to worry, there's a Blackwater facility located nearby. They can send in a rescue team for a mere $950 bucks a day per man, just like the hundreds they hired in NOLA.

However, if you prefer your rescues to be delivered by the taxpayer funded equipment you paid for, there's only two places to be.

Not all state National Guard headquarters in the region contacted by ABCNews.com had bleak numbers. The Wyoming National Guard has eight Blackhawk helicopters on hand and more than 70 percent of its other authorized equipment, a spokeswoman told ABCNews.com. That is much higher than the national average, which currently hovers near 40 percent.

The Texas National Guard is also neatly outfitted, its lack of helicopters aside, from trucks to generators to night-vision goggles, its equipment levels were "comparable to redeployment," typically near 70 percent, according to a spokeswoman.

Hmmm.... Don't we know someone with ranches in those states? No wonder Dick and George feel so much safer.

Onward Christian Lawyers

To continue with the Monica Goodling theme here, Hanna Rosin has an article at the Washington Post about the the growing number of evangelical lawyers that are graduating from christian colleges around the country. Ms. Rosin's contention is that Ms. Goodling and her ilk are part of the establishment in Washington, so you better get used to the Ms. Goodlings of the world. They can certainly get a job at the White House for a couple more years and according to Ms. Rosin there are 150 congressmen who call themselves evangelicals.

Ms Rosin has a book coming out this fall and this opinion piece seems to be a great way to promote the book.

Hanna Rosin, who covered religion for The Post, is the author of "God's Harvard: A Christian College on a Mission to Save America," due out in September.

She speaks of how sharp these young people are and how dedicated to serve in what she called the right-wing's "peace corp".

Recently, I spent a lot of time among the students at Patrick Henry College, a seven-year-old school founded in much the same spirit as Regent. The students there easily matched Goodling's description of herself as "anal retentive." They input their daily schedules into Palm Pilots in 15-minute increments -- read Bible, do crunches, take shower, study for Latin quiz. They intern at the White House. The atmosphere is much more Harvard than Bob Jones.

The school seems more into indoctrination than education. This is the mission statement of what Ms. Rosin seems to think is like Harvard:

The Mission of Patrick Henry College is to prepare Christian men and women who will lead our nation and shape our culture with timeless biblical values and fidelity to the spirit of the American founding. Educating students according to a classical liberal arts curriculum, and training them with apprenticeship methodology, the College provides academically excellent baccalaureate level higher education with a biblical world view.

This is a scary scenario, but it's ok with me if this is your view of America. I like to have plenty of crazies around, it makes me seem almost sane. What Ms. Rosin has not really discussed is how they got these big government jobs in the first place. Were they the best and the brightest or were they just properly indoctrinated. It's obvious that the right-wing crazies have totally corrupted the republican party with their brand of evangelical lunacy and talent has nothing to do with it. If they have the diploma, someone will tell them what to do as in Ms. Goodling's case.
According to everyone from the justice dept including Ms. Goodling, the list of who to fire must have been created by some form of immaculate conception. The list just appeared as if from some right-wing republican god smiting the vile liberals.

Here is how Ms. Goodling and her law school is described:

The graduate from Regent -- which is ranked a "tier four" school by US News & World Report, the lowest score and essentially a tie for 136th place -- was not the only lawyer with modest credentials to be hired by the Civil Rights Division after the administration imposed greater political control over career hiring.

The changes resulted in a sometimes dramatic alteration to the profile of new hires beginning in 2003, as the Globe reported last year after obtaining resumes from 2001-2006 to three sections in the civil rights division. Conservative credentials rose, while prior experience in civil rights law and the average ranking of the law school attended by the applicant dropped.

In other words, you could be a less than ideal candidate as long as you were the right kind of candidate. Read that as a right-wing theocrat with dreams of dominionism.

The Monica Goodlings of the world scare me, but talent and training will tell. Plus, when they live in this world for a while the truth might actually dawn upon them.

Jim Martin

Governing for God

By Libby

I haven't weighed in on the Justice Dept. scandal in a while and since Monica Goodling is on my mind, it seems a good time for a little review. I said from the beginning that the attorney purge was just the key that would open a door revealing widespread malfeasance and Monica's testimony certainly widens the scope of inquiry. That the Justice Dept was wrongfully politicized is now beyond the doubt of any reasonable, objective assessment.

Over and above using a political loyalty test for career employees, Monica, without being asked, volunteered a confession of impropriety on the hiring of Immigration Judges, clearly to extend her immunity to that act. That doesn't sound to me like someone who "thinks" she "may have" crossed the line. It sounds more like someone who knows she did something illegal.

And it doesn't appear she's going to be willing to fall on her sword for the party, what with the coy mention of her discomfort when Gonzales "comforted her" by reviewing his version of the events leading to the investigation. Her testimony also makes clear that Gonzales was aware he improperly attempted to influence her testimony. Why else would he lie to Congress about it?

But beyond the subversion of Justice into a political tool for the GOP, the evangelicalization of our entire government troubles me the most. Goodling harks from the ranks of eager Christian graduates who "no longer aim to create a parallel subculture" but rather seek to be "Christian leaders to change the world," and remake it in their own image -- not merely as simple Christians of faith, but as Christians of only their own brand of faith. The scary part is, under this administration, they're succeeding.

It used to be that being 33 and in charge of 93 U.S. attorneys would mean you'd been top of your class at Harvard or Yale or clerked at the Supreme Court. Now, Christian schools are joining that mix. Regent has had 150 of its graduates working in the White House; the school estimates that one-sixth of its alumni are in government work.

Think about that for a minute. Monica got caught but there's 150 other little Goodling ideologues that have been setting policy for this country's government. Little wonder competency has suffered when religiosity trumps academic achievement. One doubts many of those Regent grads could have cut it at Yale or Harvard. And how far are these young Christian warriors willing to go to fulfil their mission for God?

While testifying this week, Goodling admitted that she had asked inappropriately partisan questions of applicants for civil service jobs. But she never asked about religion, she said.

That may be true but it's not inconceivable she conducted some undercover oppo research to get the answers to that question. I somehow doubt very many atheists were hired on her watch.

Of course, that's just one of many questions still unanswered in this scandal, the primary one being who gave Goodling her orders? She claimed to be in charge of nothing, as has Sampson and McNulty and even Gonzales. So who was at the top of this perverse chain of command? It's a question the Congress seems very slow in pursuing.

Meanwhile, the only certain thing is Bush is going to stand by his man Fredo as he continues to insist the disgraced AG is doing a heckva job.

"If there's wrongdoing, it will be taken care of," Bush said.

Yeah, it will taken care of all right, in the typical White House manner that every scandal from Abu Ghraib to Katrina to the Plame leak has been taken care of; by stalling and obfuscating until they can figure out who to throw under the bus to take the blame.

The Continuing Pattern Of Lies

The report is out this morning that the CIA predicted all the problems of toppling Saddam Hussein. The Senate Select Committee On Intelligence will release selected portions of pre-war intelligence that warned of the consequences of going to war in Iraq.

Among other things, the 40-page Senate report reveals that two intelligence assessments before the war accurately predicted that toppling Saddam could lead to a dangerous period of internal violence and provide a boost to terrorists. But those warnings were seemingly ignored.

Seemingly ignored? I'd say so, but it's just more of the same from this administration. If the assessment had been positive the report would have been declassified over four years ago. The fact that this info was not released is just the continuing trend of lies and wishful thinking.

In January 2003, two months before the invasion, the intelligence community's think tank — the National Intelligence Council — issued an assessment warning that after Saddam was toppled, there was “a significant chance that domestic groups would engage in violent conflict with each other and that rogue Saddam loyalists would wage guerilla warfare either by themselves or in alliance with terrorists.”

It also warned that “many angry young recruits” would fuel the rank of Islamic extremists and "Iraqi political culture is so embued with mores (opposed) to the democratic experience … that it may resist the most rigorous and prolonged democratic tutorials."

In other words what happened is just the opposite of what Bush and Cheney and that whole gang predicted and they had intelligence that their predictions were not based on any facts but on politically appropriate lies.
This is the statement Cheney made the day before the start of the war. He was not only wrong, but he knew it was a lie. It seems that Mr. Cheney believed Chalabi more than the CIA.

“Now, I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.”

There was more than one assessment. In a briefing book prepared for a Sept. 2002 White House meeting there was a paper included titled: ‘The Perfect Storm: Planning for the Negative Consequences of Invading Iraq.’ It had a list that is like the CIA had a crystal ball.

• Anarchy and the territorial breakup of Iraq;
• Region-threatening instability in key Arab states;
• A surge of global terrorism against US interests fueled by (militant) Islamism;
• Major oil supply disruptions and severe strains in the Atlantic Alliance.”

Both of these CIA assessments warned of the possible consequences and Bush ignored them. They even warned that Bush would be creating terrorists and making terrorism worse. Bush has strengthened our enemy and placed us all in more danger. It is time for everyone to realize this.

What's my reaction on all this? Yawn, ho hum. There is no surprise here. I would be surprised if these reports did not exist. The only question I have is how much more is out there and will we ever have the whole story.

Jim Martin

Thanks to Michael van der Galien for the link.

The Lord works in mysterious ways

By Libby

Random chance or a a holy commentary from the president's avowed First Counselor?

As President Bush took a question Thursday in the White House Rose Garden about scandals involving his Attorney General, he remarked, "I've got confidence in Al Gonzales doin' the job."

Simultaneously, a sparrow flew overhead and left a splash on the President's sleeve, which Bush tried several times to wipe off. [video]

If it was a sign from God, I don't think Bush got the message. He continued to propel the propaganda, unfazed. Not that it's surprising. That's how he deals with all the shit that hits the fan.

[h/t Judith Hanford]

Quote of the day

By Libby

Digby's got it.

Watching Modo's little cabal whisper and giggle about whether the Clintons are "doin' it" and pointing and jeering at Gore scarfing the clam dip is like being at a perpetual eighth grade slumber party with the meanest girls in the world. It makes mature adults want to reach for the bourbon and hide out in the garage.

Take that Jack.

Bill Schneider Of CNN Is A Hack

Bill Schneider at CNN has an article at CNN.com that democrats want it both ways. They want to be tough on Bush and set a timeline for redeployment, but they don't want to cut off money to the troops.

So the troops will get funded with no timelines for withdrawal. But most Democrats can say, "Don't blame me -- I voted against it."

Pretty clever. Maybe too clever. Because a Democratic Congress allowed it to happen.

Well, what would you have them do Bill? They are trying to compromise, they are trying to do the work of the people and still take care of the troops. Why aren't you saying that Bush forced it into happening? Wouldn't you be standing there with your look of serious disdain berating the democrats for their cutting of troop funding in time of war? You're the one trying to have it both ways. You want to be gullible and stupid.

Here's the question Bill, have you ever questioned Bush's motives? Have you said he's bull-headed or using the troops to political advantage? Have you ever once said the republicans are being too clever by hiding behind the Bush veto? Have you once questioned the vast difference between what Bush says about the troops and what he does?

No, you gave them a free ride for over six years. You didn't say they were too clever when they passed every law that Bush ask for. Did you say they were clever when they legislated away some of our rights without any safeguards. Did you say they were clever when they cut the democrats out of the legislative process over the last six years? You didn't say they were too clever when they lied us into this war. The people voted for a change, have you asked why the republicans and Bush refuse to compromise?

The democrats are trying to get a timetable set up for the withdrawal of our troops and benchmarks for those worthless bastards in Baghdad to work towards. All Bush says is that he will veto any bill that doesn't give him a blank check. Have you asked the republicans in congress why he deserves more money and more time? Have you asked them why their policies have failed over the last four years. Have you asked them why they want it not both ways but every way?

Bill, have you once asked the question why there are no moderate republicans in congress? Have you questioned their moderate rhetoric and far right-wing votes?

Nope, you have questioned none of those things. You're a hack, Bill.

Jim Martin

Broken crockery and civilized discourse

By Libby

I read the refreshingly civilized exchange between Dale at QandO and Oliver Willis and thought Oliver got it exactly right except for one point. The Pottery Barn Rule.

Progressives are making a huge mistake by validating the GOP framing. Cernig is the only blogger I know who has the correct intepretation on this. To begin with the rule is "you broke it, you bought it." It's not "you broke it, you fix it."

If you break the crockery at Pottery Barn, you pay for it and go home. You're free to take the pieces with you, but you don't send in your gang of home boys to take over the store while you run out to buy some glue to put it back together. Neither do you get to fix it, put it back on the shelf and then tell the store owner how to run his business. All you get is a flawed item that may be repairable to functionality, but will never be perfect again.

But Bush didn't just break a random crock. He busted out the plate glass window because he just couldn't wait for the store to open. He got his statue but it got broken in the crush of looters he let him in behind him and now he, and by extension we, are responsible for all the lost merchandise.

If we're going to apply the Pottery Barn rule, then it's time to accept we're going to have to go home with nothing of real value and we're going to have leave all those shiny new fixtures we paid so dearly to replace, behind. Paying for the damage doesn't give us ownership of the store and breaking in the first place doesn't really give us the right to decide who ultimately gets to run the business.

[thanks to Liberty Street for the link]

Romney: I Am Not Intolerant Of Gays

Mitt Romney said today that although he was opposed to same sex marriages he was not intolerant of gays.

He noted that one of his Cabinet members was gay and that he appointed gays to positions of responsibility in his administration.

I don't know if he said he had a lot of friends who were gay, but it wouldn't surprise me.

"I oppose discrimination against gay people," Romney said. "I am not anti-gay. I know there are some Republicans, or some people in the country who are looking for someone who is anti-gay and that's not me."

When it comes to the power in the republican party, tolerance is not high on the agenda.

Mitt says he's not intolerant of gays. Maybe he better work on that.

Jim Martin

A little sad housekeeping

Although we didn't agree on much, I used to be a big fan but I've been watching him go over to the dark side for some time now. I kept hoping he would regain his former somewhat moderate, albeit right-leaning tendencies, but he hasn't written anything except Kool-aid chugging White House steno posts in weeks now, not to mention he dropped every sensible progressive voice outside of Gun Toting Liberal -- including mine -- and populated his blogroll (with a very few exceptions) with the most rabid of the right wing screechers.

I'm finding it painful to even read his posts anymore, so it is with great regret that I'm formally delinking Don Surber. Good-bye Don. Call me when you regain your objectivity -- we'll talk.

The Liberal Media At Work

MSNBC, a member of the so-called liberal media, was headlining an article about how the democratic contenders would vote on the Iraq spending bill.

Two front-runners, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, declined to say how they intended to vote on the measure.

Both have voted against binding timetables for troop withdrawals in the past, before public sentiment against the war hardened or they became presidential contenders. Last week, the two voted to advance legislation that would have cut off money for U.S. combat operations by March 31, 2008, cutoff.

This quote just shows that like all of the so-called "main stream media" they do nothing but parrot the republican talking points. The old, they were for it before they were against it, bullshit. It is good to see that some candidates have the ability to reason and understand the facts when the situation changes. This would be in stark contrast to the republicans who wish us to believe that black is white and up is down, the surge is working, give it more time. The only people that believe right-wing lies seems to be the media.

The media wants everyone to think this vote is all about the democrats when it is about the republican's continued support of the policies of George Bush. These are the policies the media not only accepted at face value but actually acted as the government's cheerleaders, cheering them on to the American public. Instead of being the voice for the people, they became propagandists for the government.

Also included in the MSNBC article was a listing of what was in the bill that Bush did not request and what was taken out in some attempt by the democrats to be reasonable to the unreasoning.

What they left in that Bush did not request is even more illuminating as these are the things Bush cares nothing about. Spending on Katrina recovery and spending to improve the lives of our military families who are the only people sacrificing anything in this war. Money for any kind of healthcare and education are two more things that Bush and republicans have severely underfunded while giving rich people untold billions in tax breaks.

Congress cut $4 billion in money not requested by President Bush from an earlier version of the Iraq war spending bill. About $17 billion worth remain.What's out:
• $400 million for low-income heating assistance.
• $663 million for pandemic flu preparedness
• $1.2 billion in further homeland security funding
What’s in:
• $3 billion above Bush's request for Gulf Coast hurricane recovery.
• $3 billion for disaster farm aid.
• $1.2 above Bush's request for mine-resistant vehicles
• $1.1 billion for homeland security, including airport, border and cargo container screening.
• $1.1 billion for military housing allowances
• $1.6 billion for military readiness.
• $1.8 billion for veterans health care.
• $949 million for Afghanistan.
• $650 million for low-income children's health care.
• $465 million for fighting wildfires.
• $425 million for rural schools.

This is an awful bill, but I'm still not sure it isn't the best that can be done when there is no will to lay it all on the line. We have politicians and what we need are leaders.

Jim Martin

Thanks to The Moderate Voice for the link.

Bloggers on the move

By Libby

My friend Michael van der Galien and I don't agree on much but we're in perfect accord on this point.

The Gun Toting Liberal has a great new co-blogger… Ron Beasly of Middle Earth Journal. A mighty fine addition to what already was one of the best blogs on the Net.

Amen to that.

The poor get richer?

By Libby

The Wall Street Journal pulls a little sleight of hand with a Bush-kissing editorial today. Of course, a lowly, underpaid blogger like myself can't afford to subscribe so I only saw the preview, but the well-heeled Jon Chait read the whole thing and nails the fatal flaw in the Republican funded study. If you choose the right parameters, you can make even the most dismally failed economic policy look good.

Perhaps the study will convince the investor class that their exploitation of Bushenomics is something more noble than simple greed. Maybe the one percenters will even find it amusing that it was so easy to paint their shameless robbery of the economic security of the average American as such a rosy picture. But for the working class Jake, who can't afford health care and is struggling to make ends meet, Bushenomics is a bad joke and nobody is laughing.

Cooking the books won't make that any more palatable for them.

Some dare call it betrayal

By Libby

I have been bitching for over a week now about the Democrats' inexcusable failure to stand up to our reckless Feckless Leader, but it's not a real smackdown until Keith Olbermann delivers it and rightly so, since he does it so well.

Of course it's all the all the buzz this morning while Dan DiRito adds a prediction I made so long ago I can't find the link.

…if the above comes to pass, rest assured that the deafening drone that will emerge will be the sound of the collective awareness and awakening of an American voter tsunami hell bent on tearing up the template of our two party system and starting over.

Such is the loneliness of the B-list blogger. You can talk tough but nobody notices outside of your cadre of loyal readers. I don't mind though. I'm just thrilled to see more influential voices give this meme some legs.

It's clear the only way we're going to get any meaningful oversight out of the Democrats is with a good swift kick where it hurts the most - in their re-election prospects. Contact your Beltway blowhards and tell them to end this occupation or start looking for a buyer for their DC digs because they're not going to need them come November 08.

Bush Plays The Fear Card, Again

Today Bush once again played the fear card hoping Americans are just as cowardly as they were in 2001. He's hoping for just one more chance to keep us safe. One more chance to keep torturing people. One more chance to lie and conceal. One more chance to paint his critics as traitors, real heroes as cowards and people of substance insubstantial. Bush wants to keep on lying and misleading.

In other words he wants a little more time and money to try and save his legacy. No one would want to go down in history as the worst of anything. Bush, as of today, will go down in history as our worst president. No one else is even close.

Today Bush, speaking at the commencement of The Coast Guard Academy, once again told us what we already know.

"In the minds of al-Qaida leaders, 9/11 was just a down payment on violence yet to come," Bush said during a commencement speech at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in which he defended his decision to order a troop buildup in Iraq. "It is tempting to believe that the calm here at home after 9/11 means that the danger to our country has passed."

"Here in America, we are living in the eye of a storm," he said. "All around us, dangerous winds are swirling and these winds could reach our shores at any moment."

This all an attempt to get more time in Iraq, his argument being that it's where the terrorists are. They weren't there before we went in and through sheer incompetence gave them their chance. Al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq until we showed up and dismantled Iraq's internal security apparatus. We should have dismantled it but a plan to replace it would have been nice.

"Hear the words of Osama bin Laden: He calls the struggle in Iraq a `war of destiny,'" Bush said. "He proclaimed `The war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever.'"

George Bush is a desperate man, the man he would bring to justice or take justice to, is being quoted to America to invoke fear.

Bush is trying to convince everyone that Osama has the power to control post-occupation Iraq. He wants us to believe that the fighting over there has nothing to do with fighting between Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. This is absolute nonsense. While the U.S. is bogged down in Iraq Osama is safe in Pakistan planning and carrying out terrorist attacks.

We know the world is a dangerous place and we know the terrorists want us dead. We also know that we will attacked in this country. We just don't think that Bush has a clue about how to deal with this. He has made the world's terror threat greater due to his mishandling of his Iraq adventure. He has taken his eye off of the ball and allowed Osama to be safe and secure somewhere in Pakistan.

Osama doesn't need Iraq, he has George Bush.

Jim Martin

The Return of the Leaker-in-Chief

By Libby

Bush declassified reports that bin Laden ordered creation of a terrorist unit to hit targets outside Iraq, including the United States, in 2005. The Decider/Commander Guy has declassified the information to convince Americans the threat of terrorism is real.

I got news for the President. We never doubted that the threat of terrorism is real. We know that bin Laden hates us and wants to attack the US again. Declassify away, but all it proves is every bloody decision he has made in the last six years has made it worse. There's no intelligence to refute that, since it would require smarts over stubborn arrogance to come up with a policy that defuses the danger.

Maybe the genuises in the think tanks should stop trying to rescue Iraq from itself and come up with a new surge plan to fix what wrong with our leadership at home. Impeachment comes immediately to mind. I'm not sure this country can survive another year and half of this presidency.

[Thanks to The Moderate Voice for the link.]

Yet another new plan for Iraq

By Libby

It's a weighty tome, with "more than 20 annexes" but the only thing new about it is it admits the so-called surge was a really a plan for long term escalation.

The overarching aim of the new plan, which sets goals for the end of this year and the end of 2008, is more political than military: to negotiate settlements between warring factions in Iraq from the national level down to the local level. In essence, it is as much about the political deals needed to defuse a civil war as about the military operations aimed at quelling a complex insurgency, said officials with knowledge of the plan.

Excuse me for remembering but wasn't that also the purported goals of the current surge plan? And you have to love this part. They're no longer planning to "clear, hold and build." The sequential thing wasn't really working out for them so they're now planning to protect, cajole and organize a government coup simultaneously. Even worse, the whole plan still hinges on empowering Maliki against "abusive" sectarians in power.

I don't know about you but it sounds like the same load of crapola and wishful thinking to me. And I am the only one who thinks every "new" plan sounds worse than the last?

There He Goes Again

The Decider-In-Chief once again decided to de-classify an intel report for political reasons. In trying to rally support for the war Bush has selectively declassified intel that puts his policies in a positive light.

I wonder how long it took for a team to find something that makes him look good.

It surrounds a plan that OBL put together with Abu Musab al- Zarqawi to establish targets for attack preferably in the U.S.

Bush released this info to illustrate what a great job he's doing. Frances Townsend the Homeland Security Adviser made this statement with a glaring mistake.

She said the information was declassified because the intelligence community has tracked all leads from the information, and that the players were either dead or in U.S. custody.

All of the players are in custody or dead. You mean Bush finally has brought Osama to justice or took justice to him? I don't think so. They sure wouldn't keep that a secret.

What Bush is trying to show is that if we leave Iraq the vacuum will be filled by al Qaeda. Maybe, maybe not, but if Bush hadn't totally failed in his post-war plan then we wouldn't be talking about this.

Any blame for the strengthening of the terrorist position in Iraq can be given to Bush.

He's the decider.

Jim Martin

What Else Could The Democrats Do?

Shaun Mullen at The Moderate Voice has a post up expressing his dissatisfaction with the democratic decision to leave out any mention of timetables in the Iraq spending bill.

I agree wholeheartedly with his feelings of betrayal, but I have thought long and hard on this and I cannot come up with any alternative scenario that Bush would not veto.

The Democrats were given an unambiguous mandate in the mid-term elections to bring the troops home. Even though they are short of a veto-proof majority, an increasing number of Republicans were jumping ship to join them in agreeing to legislation with a troop withdrawal timeline.

I'm not sure about what other senators would join Chuck Hagel and Gordon Smith and oppose Bush. Maybe Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe, but never enough to sustain a veto. Lindsey Graham and John McCain didn't vote the last time and you know how they will vote.

The last vote was 51-46 so you add a couple to the nays and add three to the yeas and you still are far short of the 60 they need.

With the current makeup of the Senate the democrats are never going to come up with a spending bill that would over-ride Bush's veto. The republicans will not give an inch on this, they can't, it is all they have. If they can't at least pull out the appearance of a draw in Iraq their party is going down in flames.

The other thing that can be done is just not presenting a bill, but that is political suicide as the polls are pretty clear that although the large majority wants out of Iraq, an equally large majority is opposed to cutting any funding that affects the safety of the troops.

Give the bastard the bill he wants and make sure that America understands that this is the republican's war and they are loyal to Bush and not to the people.

It's time for the democrats to get back to their domestic agenda and let Mr. Bush have his funding, I don't see where they have any choice.

Jim Martin

Thompson's Record Will Make Conservatives Happy

So, is Fred Thompson the candidate that the moderate republicans can get behind? Doesn't look like it. He was a solid conservative voter during his time in the senate, consistently coming down against abortion, gun legislation, and same sex marriage. We certainly remember his stint as a sort of mentor to far right-wing justice John Roberts during the confirmation process. The right loved him for that.

The ideological right seems to have no problem with him and he seems to be ready to compete against the three front runners in the "R" column. McCain, Rudy and Mitt all have serious problems convincing the right-wing base that they are base enough to satisfy them. (Did that sentence sound right? Yeah, I like it.)

Walking away from the 2002 election was close to genius or maybe he just missed the Hollywood dating scene, but one way or the other he gets to cast himself as an outsider. Office holding senators have a woeful record in presidential politics.

One of Thompson's few problems with the right was his support for campaign finance reform in the McCain-Feingold bill. He made a few enemies there, but since the law was garbage anyway, he can talk his way out of it.

Can he appeal to moderate republicans? I just don't think so. He is solid right-wing as his voting record attests.
He'll run toward traditional conservatives and away from social conservatives. He'll appeal to the center and even to center right democrats who still can't imagine voting for Hillary or Obama.

As a matter of fact, I can't see myself voting for either one of the dem front runners either. If Al Gore doesn't step up then Fred will start to look like a decent compromise.

I'll just have to hope that he's a contemplative thinker with a streak of common sense. That would be a refreshing change from what we've had the last few years.

I hope he's a closet republican moderate, whatever that is.

Jim Martin

Dear Joe

By Libby

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

Let Lieberman leave. Hell, they should kick him out of the caucus. So what if he disturbs the symbolic balance of the Democrats' tenous hold on the Senate? It's not like there's ever going to be a tie between the two parties. Holy Joe votes with the GOP already. He's Cheney's proxy now.

Lieberman is irrelevant. The only way the Democrats are going to pass anything substantive through the Senate chambers is to recruit some of those moderate Republicans and get some real bi-partisan action going. In the unlikely event it comes down to a tie, let Cheney come out of his spider hole and make the public face of the GOP's policies his sneering contenance.

I can't think of a better way for the Democrats to lock up 08.

The Maginot Line

By Libby

I haven't weighed in on the immigration bill because I haven't had time to read it and I'm at a loss as to what to do about the situation in general. But my friend and Detroit News Blog alumnus, The Mayor of Simpleton, has some definite thoughts on the subject. Congrats to Hizzoner for cracking the USA Today LTE page.

This was my favorite line and the one point I'm certain about myself.

Until we start showing a real deterrent, a wall on our border will be merely an ineffective "Maginot line," benefiting no one but the lucky contractors who are hired to build it.

He's so right. The wall is a dumb idea. It won't do a blessed thing and the symbolism is all wrong for America. If for some reason that link rots, you can read Kevin's entire letter at his own blog.

Bush May Be Planning Second Surge

Hearst Newspapers is reporting in the San Francisco Chronicle that Bush is quietly on track to nearly double the number of combat troops in Iraq by years end.

The actions could boost the number of combat soldiers from 52,500 in early January to as many as 98,000 by the end of this year if the Pentagon overlaps arriving and departing combat brigades.
Separately, when additional support troops are included in this second troop increase, the total number of U.S. troops in Iraq could increase from 162,000 now to more than 200,000 -- a record-high number -- by the end of the year.

This analysis was done by Hearst Newspapers using Pentagon deployment orders.

This could be the normal result of overlapping deployments.

Army spokesman Lt. Col. Carl S. Ey said there was no effort by the Army to carry out "a secret surge" beyond the 20 combat brigades ordered by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
"There isn't a second surge going on; we've got what we've got," Ey said. "The idea that there are ever going to be more combat brigades in theater in the future than the secretary of defense has authorized is pure speculation."

I think some healthy speculation is called for here. Mr. Bush doesn't have a lot of credibility where it comes to Iraq. He certainly wasn't honest in the run-up to war and his administration of the war has been grossly incompetent.

Boosting the number of combat brigades in Iraq from the agreed upon 20 to 28 would be just the sort of thing he would do in an attempt to salvage his presidency and his legacy.

Jim Martin

Thanks to The Populist and The Blog Report for the link.