Just Foreign Policy Iraqi Death Estimator    

Friday, May 23, 2008

Lieberman's Step-Son: I'm Voting For Obama

There's one less Democrat listening to Sen. Joe Lieberman. Rabbi Ethan Tucker, the senator's step son, offered up his opinion on the difficulties facing Obama in reaching out to the Jewish community:
Tucker, 32, the biological son of Lieberman's wife, Hadassah, opines that an age split is apparent within the Jewish community in attitudes about Obama (as has also been shown in the overall Democratic constituency). Tucker, as paraphrased by reporter Jodi Kantor, asserts that younger Jews "have grown up in diverse settings and are therefore less likely to be troubled by Mr. Obama's associations than their elders."
So where does Rabbi Tucker fall on Obama, whose foreign policy bona fides were bashed by his stepfather in a recent editorial? Actually, he's backing Obama. Apparently,
Obama's associations aren't a problem for him:
"Rabbi Tucker said he had given money to Mr. Obama and would vote for him in the fall. 'If association was the litmus test of identity, everyone would be a hopeless mishmash of confusion, or you'd have no friends,' he said."


Thursday, May 22, 2008

Race a factor in US presidential election - 19 May 08

Vietnam Veterans Against McCain

US Documents pertaining to McCain’s COLLABORATIONS with the Communist

This document is a transcript of a Hanoi correspondent broadcast to Cuba quoting newly captured POW John McCain detailing U.S. military information about ...

Senate Republicans have broken with President Bush to help Democrats add support for veterans and the unemployed to a bill paying for another year of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Obama Launching Tour Of Purple States Next Week

By Greg Sargent - May 22, 2008, 6:15PM
In a sign that Obama is shifting more aggressively into general election mode, the Illinois Senator will undertake a tour of three purple states -- New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado -- on the first three days of next week, I've learned from a senior Obama campaign aide.
Obama will visit the Las Cruces area on Monday, the Las Vegas area on Tuesday, and and the Denver area on Wednesday, the Obama aide confirms.
The tour will draw attention to three states that Camp Obama has argued he can run well in this fall -- an assertion that's key to deflecting Hillary's case to super-delegates that she's more electable in a general election.
More to the point, it will continue to broadcast the signal -- as have his visits to other general election states -- that the Obama camp views the primary as effectively over and that his showdown with McCain has begun in earnest.


For His Treatment of Children in the ‘War on Terror,’

By Dave LindorffFor his abuse, imprisonment and killing of children, this president should stand trial for war crimes.

Ahahahahahaha I luv it

The enthusiasm for Obama appears to go beyond the human race. An Obama supporting parrot is making the rounds on YouTube. A couple blogs, including The Washington Post's "The Trail" and Gawker have written posts on the latest Obama megaphone. The authenticity of the tape has yet to be confirmed. So judge for yourselves.

Smokey says Yes, We Can!

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Georgia Newspaper Puts Obama In Crosshairs

Via Wonkette, a small paper serving the Atlanta suburb of Roswell, Georgia called the Roswell Beacon is drawing fire for running a cover that depicts Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama in the crosshairs of a gun sight. The cover image promotes a story by freelance reporter Alan Sverdlik, who penned the article because "he was curious how law enforcement agencies were handling the increased number of threats lodged against Obama by white supremacist groups" in the Fulton County area. Sverdlik has told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that he had no input on the cover design that accompanied the article.
A diary on the popular liberal blog DailyKos is driving much of the outrage at the Roswell Beacon.
As Kos Diarist "Spiral Stairs" puts it:
The accompanying article is about hate groups in the area who are upset about Senator Obama's candidacy and concerns the local authorities have about possible violent acts from these groups. The article itself is not offensive, but the cover is beyond the pale. As indicated by the article, there are some serious racists in the area, and Obama's candidacy has brought out the worst in a lot of people. The last thing we need is a newspaper to suggest assassination with an incendiary cover such as this.
The AJC reports that the outcry has had limited effect:
Readers -- Kos receives more than 1.3 million visits a day, according to sitemeter.com -- were encouraged to contact the newspaper and its advertisers. By day's end, Holiday Inn announced it would no longer do business with the Beacon, though the paper's publisher, John Fredericks, said editorial decisions would not be influenced by "liberal blogger thuggery."
"Good, bad or ugly, we tell the truth," he said.
Fredericks and senior editor Tim Altork said there was little internal debate over the appropriateness of the imagery, though they were aware it was likely to create a stir.
"We knew we were on the provocative edge," Altork said. "But it's a very fair piece, a smart piece."
Nevertheless, this "fair...smart piece"
has been seemingly expunged from the newspaper's website.

Clinton compares the Florida and Michigan fight to civil rights movement

My colleague Ken Vogel reports:

BOCA RATON, Fla. - Hillary Clinton compared her effort to seat Florida and Michigan delegates to epic American struggles, including those to free the slaves and win the right to vote for blacks and women.

The current stalemate over the two states' primary votes threatens to replicate the disputed 2000 presidential election in Florida, she warned an elderly crowd in Palm Beach County - one of the jurisdictions where Democrats allege voters were disenfranchised in 2000.

The pointed speech marked the kick-off of a last-gasp effort by Clinton to prolong her Democratic presidential campaign by making the states count, which would cut into rival Barack Obama's leads in popular votes and pledged delegates.

"In Florida, you learned the hard way what happens when your votes aren't counted and the candidate with fewer votes is declared the winner," she said. "The lesson of 2000 here in Florida is crystal clear: if any votes aren't count, the will of the people isn't realized and our democracy is diminished."

Clinton, at times sounding like a modern history professor, praised the abolitionists, suffragettes and civil rights pioneers and talked about her own efforts to fight legislative redistricting and voter identification initiatives that she said dilute minority voting power.

"This work to extend the franchise to all of our citizens is a core mission of the modern Democratic party," she said. "From signing the Voting Rights Act and fighting racial discrimination at the ballot box to lowering the voting age so those old enough to fight and die in war would have the right to choose their commander in chief, to fighting for multi-lingual ballots so you can make your voice heard no matter what language you speak."


Iceland rated most peaceful (USA is #97)

Source: Associated Press
Canada is among the more peaceful countries in the world, but still a ways from the top, according to the Global Peace Index released Tuesday by Britain's Economist Intelligence Unit.
The index, which ranks a number of internal and external factors, found Scandinavian countries among the most peaceful, taking the top three spots.
Canada came in at No. 11, one spot ahead of Switzerland and two ahead of Sweden, which came in 13th.
That compared with Britain at 49th spot and the United States at 97, a ranking that had it behind countries such as Kuwait, Nicaragua and Libya.
... The U.S. ranking was one place lower than last year and way below countries such as Costa Rica, Madagascar and Chile.

Global Peace Index Rankings

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Yes You Can

Monday, May 19, 2008

We covered up Iraqi bomb attack which destroyed a £30million Hercules, admits MoD:

The Ministry of Defence covered up the fact that Iraqi insurgents destroyed a £30million RAF Hercules transport aircraft by planting bombs next to a runway

With Contempt

An Open letter to Dianne Feinstein
By Michael PiotrowskiDianne,18/05/08 "ICH"
-- -You may be surprised and offended by my familiar salutation, but you have lost the right to be addressed as Senator Feinstein. Although I have voted for you in every single election I could (a lot, I'm 60), you have failed miserably as my elected Senator. I now completely withdraw my support for you and the Democratic Party. For the past seven years I have begged and pleaded with you do your job and uphold the solemn oaths you have repeatedly sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of these United States and its laws. Your standard pablum response has been a patronizing pat on the head and a vacuous reassurance that someday something might be accomplished through further legislation, providing Bush doesn't veto it or your colleagues disapprove. Your latest such response (written correspondence, 29 April 2008, regarding torture) is the final straw. I am tired of your sorry excuses and dilatory tactics. Your failure to do your duty has helped bring us to this sorry state of affairs.
I was deeply disappointed, but completely unsurprised, by your utter disregard for the Constitution, the law and what is morally right. From what I can deduce from your actions, words and behaviors, protecting your position, your party, and your class are your driving motivations, not governing, not protecting the NATION (you remember the 99% of us who aren't wealthy?), not respecting the rule of law. Despite his assertations to the contrary and your obsequeious submission to them, the President is not, repeat NOT, above or beyond the law whether in peacetime or wartime. In wartime, the President is Commander-in-Chief, and as such is subject to the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice as much as the lowest private is. He stands in violation of that code, and YOU accept it. Beyond the many laws this criminal has violated and could be prosecuted for, there is the Constitutional remedy you have repeatedly refused to employ: impeachment.
It is far too late for you to ever regain the respect I once had for you and your party, but at least you might reduce the degree of contempt in which I now hold you. DO THE RIGHT THING: stand up for immediate impeachment. Before you tell me that it is the House's responsibility (trust me, I apparently know more about this than you do), let me point out that it is YOUR responsibility to LEAD. The House will do nothing unless and until the Senate signals its willingness to go forward with it. If your argument is that elections are near and soon he will be out of office, kindly explain to me in a written response that actually addresses the points I'm raising, why that excuses criminal behavior (illegal wiretaps, use of outlawed torture, kidnapping and assassination as government policy, corruption, fraud, cronyism, lying as official policy [Pat Tilman, Abu Graib, Jessica whatever-her-name was}). Failure to impeach this criminal will be the deathblow for this nation. We may stagger on a few years, but I see the end of the United States looming as clearly as the demise of the USSR. Failure to impeach, to hold a fellow member of your socioeconomic class actually responsible for the harm he has caused us will make most doubt the whether the return on investment, the cost of supporting a system that works against 99% of us, is worth it. The Soviet citizens decided that their system wasn't worthy of support and ended it: the same is already happening here.
As an example of why this is occuring, I cite the response I will receive from your office regarding this email. Despite the time, care and thought I have put into it, not only will you not read this, you will probably be completely oblivious to it. I will recieve yet another pablum response thanking me for my interest, citing some meaningless future bill that might be remotely related to one or two of the issues I've raised, written by some juvenile intern hoping to make his or her fortune in politics. In other words, I have wasted my time and thought with trying to communicate with you: you and this system are unworthy of any further support. I will be showing the response I receive from you to many people in my social circle, and advise them to vote one last time for true change. No, not for Obama or Hilary or McCain or any other Democrat or Republican. I will advise them to vote for ANYONE who is not a Republicrat. When that fails to get the message through, as it will, my advice will be to start doing what the Senate does: ignore any laws and resposibilities they don't like, as there is no longer a valid contract between the citizens and their "elected" officials.

Israel Must Be Held To Same Nuclear Scrutiny As Iran

Israel is using nuclear blackmail against the U.S. Essentially, Israel is saying that if we don't agree to use our nuclear weapons against Iran, then they will use theirs. Israel is determined to keep its monopoly on nuclear weapons in the Middle East and is using its nuclear arsenal to force the U.S. to support its demand.


Fuel Cost Worries Extend to Pentagon

Writing for Army Times, William H. McMichael and Rick Maze say, "The skyrocketing cost of fuel isn't just hitting US drivers in the pocketbook - it's blowing a bit of a hole in the Pentagon budget as well."

McCain Can Run, but Bush Won't Hide

Frank Rich of The New York Times says, "The biggest gift President Bush has given his party this year was to keep his daughter's wedding nearly as private as Connie Corleone's. Now that his disapproval rating has reached the Nixon nadir of negativity, even a joyous familial ritual isn't enough to make the country glad to see him. The GOP's best hope would be for both the president and Dick Cheney to lock themselves in a closet until the morning after Election Day."

I won't hold my breath waiting, 'm still waiting for you to impeach Bush

Finally. More than seven years too late, it appears as if a growing number of congresspersons are realizing that they are part of a co-equal branch of government. After allowing their institution to be disrespected and at times ignored by the executive branch, top officials in Congress are finally expressing a willingness to use their full power under the Constitution to rein in an out-of-control administration.

The current target: Karl Rove.

Rove has been asked by the House Judiciary Committee to testify about his involvement in the Justice Department’s prosecution and imprisonment of former Alabama Governor Don Siegleman. As Rove has so far refused to testify voluntarily, members of Congress have started sending signals that they are prepared to go to the mattresses over this.

Yesterday, Rep. Robert Wexler sent out a strongly worded E-mail advocating the use of “inherent contempt” against Rove, which would allow the House Sergeant-of-Arms to forcibly bring Rove to the House to testify.

Also yesterday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers alluded to the use of inherent contempt. "We'll do what any self-respecting committee would do,” Conyers said. “We'd hold him in contempt. Either that or go and have him arrested."

It is time for all of us to let our representatives know that we support this forceful action. That is why I just sent an E-mail to my representative through the American Freedom Campaign Web site. I hope that you will join me. To do so, just use the following link to get started:


Together, we can restore balance in our system of checks and balances.

Thanks for taking action.

Republican desperation pours into OEN

by John R MoffettThe article submission queue here at OEN has experienced an increasing flow of anti-Obama articles that are ugly, and border on desperate. Often, the articles are poorly written, and don’t bother to enumerate any specific reasons why people should not vote for Obama.
Barack Obama isn’t the official candidate of the Democratic party yet, but the Republican attacks are coming rapidly, and with typical Republican venom and innuendo. The perennial “swift boat” defamation of the presumptive candidate is already in full swing.
The desperation is predicated on the simple fact that Barack Obama is a very popular candidate who draws huge crowds, and who is bringing young people into politics at unprecedented levels, whereas John McCain is a flip-flopping, unpopular, lobbyist-tied Republican in an election year when Republicans are as popular as warts. This fact is certain to bring out the worst in Republicans who are not known for their statesmanship, comity or fair play.
One article that was rejected at OEN this morning was quite telling with regard to the desperation and near panic that has become emblematic of McCain supporters. The article was addressed to Hillary Clinton supporters, and was a plea to them to not write-in Clinton in the upcoming election because that would be as good as a vote for Barack Obama.
The article urged Hillary Clinton supporters to go to John McCain's website to try to find one or two points on which they can agree with him. No mention was made of why Clinton supporters should not vote for Obama other than to call him “the enemy”. The author explains his thesis to Clinton supporters thusly: “Please go to McCain’s web site, or read articles about him - try to find something in his platform that appeals to you so that you won’t feel like you’re selling your soul (yes, that very soul which MO claims BO will heal for you - insert emoticon of disgust here…)”.“Try to find something in his platform that

A SOLDIER'S TRAGIC TALE A victim of the war within

Suicides of Houston Army recruiter and his wife leave questions of struggle that endured after Iraq
Another One
PTSD Marine Kills Brother, Self:
The Troubled Marine Had Met With President Bush Just Weeks Before Driving To The Grand Canyon To Commit Suicide

McCain's YouTube Problem Just Became a Nightmare

Charles Manson Prosecutor: Try President Bush For Murder

Are there no consequences for committing a crime of colossal proportions?
The Legal Framework for the Prosecution
That the king can do no wrong is a necessary and fundamental principle of the English constitution. -Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765
No living Homo sapiens is above the law. -(Notwithstanding our good friends and legal ancestors across the water, this is a fact that requires no citation.)
With respect to the position I take about the crimes of George Bush, I want to state at the outset that my motivation is not political. Although I've been a longtime Democrat (primarily because, unless there is some very compelling reason to be otherwise, I am always for "the little guy"), my political orientation is not rigid. For instance, I supported John McCain's run for the presidency in 2000. More to the point, whether I'm giving a final summation to the jury or writing one of my true crime books, credibility has always meant everything to me. Therefore, my only master and my only mistress are the facts and objectivity. I have no others. This is why I can give you, the reader, a 100 percent guarantee that if a Democratic president had done what Bush did, I would be writing the same, identical piece you are about to read.
Perhaps the most amazing thing to me about the belief of many that George Bush lied to the American public in starting his war with Iraq is that the liberal columnists who have accused him of doing this merely make this point, and then go on to the next paragraph in their columns. Only very infrequently does a columnist add that because of it Bush should be impeached. If the charges are true, of course Bush should have been impeached, convicted, and removed from office. That's almost too self-evident to state. But he deserves much more than impeachment. I mean, in America, we apparently impeach presidents for having consensual sex outside of marriage and trying to cover it up. If we impeach presidents for that, then if the president takes the country to war on a lie where thousands of American soldiers die horrible, violent deaths and over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, including women and children, even babies are killed, the punishment obviously has to be much, much more severe. That's just common sense. If Bush were impeached, convicted in the Senate, and removed from office, he'd still be a free man, still be able to wake up in the morning with his cup of coffee and freshly squeezed orange juice and read the morning paper, still travel widely and lead a life of privilege, still belong to his country club and get standing ovations whenever he chose to speak to the Republican faithful. This, for being responsible for over 100,000 horrible deaths?* For anyone interested in true justice, impeachment alone would be a joke for what Bush did.
Let's look at the way some of the leading liberal lights (and, of course, the rest of the entire nation with the exception of those few recommending impeachment) have treated the issue of punishment for Bush's cardinal sins. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote about "the false selling of the Iraq War. We were railroaded into an unnecessary war." Fine, I agree. Now what? Krugman just goes on to the next paragraph. But if Bush falsely railroaded the nation into a war where over 100,000 people died, including 4,000 American soldiers, how can you go on to the next paragraph as if you had been writing that Bush spent the weekend at Camp David with his wife? For doing what Krugman believes Bush did, doesn't Bush have to be punished commensurately in some way? Are there no consequences for committing a crime of colossal proportions? >>>cont


A New One - Almost There

Dan Rather interviews Barack Obama

Bush Uses Holy Land Pulpit to Launch Smear Campaign

George W. Bush is unworthy of the presidency. He is a disgrace to himself, our Nation, and the high office he holds.
In a speech to the Israeli Knesset on Thursday, Mr. Bush forfeited the last scraps of his moral authority, dishonoring himself by using one of the world's most important pulpits to launch a false and vicious political attack against Barack Obama.
I am such a strong supporter of Israel that when I worked in the White House some of my friends called me a "Likkud Democrat." It is especially appalling to supporters of Israel that Mr. Bush would stand on a hilltop in Jerusalem to invoke the Holocaust in order to make a cheap and deeply dishonest political point.
I am a person of faith, so it is especially galling that a man who calls himself a brother in faith would stand in the Holy Land and violate one of the Commandments God gave to Moses: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
This is what Mr. Bush said, according to the text released by the White House:
"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
His attack was disgraceful, demeaning and dishonest. Bush's own government has repeatedly conducted negotiations with terrorists and radicals, including:
Iran. Bush sent Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, then posted to Baghdad, to negotiate with Iran over security issues affecting Iraq. Bush's current Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, told ABC News, "We are willing to sit down with Iran face to face for talks on Iraqi security at the invitation of the Iraqi government. We've had three rounds of those talks and we've told them we are ready to again."
Libya. Although Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi was behind the December, 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland, which killed 270 people, most of them Americans, the Bush Administration conducted months of negotiations with the terrorists, culminating in a 2003 agreement to dismantle Libyan long-range missiles and weapons of mass destruction;
North Korea. The Bush Administration, led by Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, has held numerous direct negotiations with the North Korean regime, a charter member of Mr. Bush's "axis of evil."
It should be noted that in each instance, the negotiations actually advanced America's security position. So even the Bush administration, by its actions, attests to the efficacy of negotiating with evildoers.
All this is to say George W. Bush is a hypocrite. So deep is his cynicism that he would go on foreign soil to invoke history's greatest crime to condemn conduct he himself has engaged in.
As an American I am ashamed that such a man represents me.
I say this as someone who has not supported Barack Obama in the Democratic primaries; someone who has reservations about Sen. Obama's plan to engage Iran in talks without any preconditions. But there comes a time when intra-party rivalries must yield, and all of us must

stand together against the degradation of the Office of the Presidency.

Sunday, May 18, 2008

Yes You Can Obama for President

Caroline Kennedy and Bob Casey both cited their children as part of the reason they joined this campaign for change, now former United States Representative, former Senator, and former Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern credits his as well:
“I have three daughters and one son, and 10 grandchildren,” McGovern said. “After I endorsed Senator Clinton, all 14 of them enlisted in the Obama campaign. That is some measure of the influence I had at home.”

Senator McGovern for Obama, in South Dakota

This is Friking Montana!!!!!!
Folks are crawling all over themselves, line around the block, to get their Obama tickets.

Progressive Vision Failure: The Real Scandal of Bush’s Knesset Speech

Chris Floyd , Empire Burlesque
Sunday, 18 May 2008
There has been much throwing about of brains in the "progressosphere" about George W. Bush's shocking and unseemly injection of – gasp! – partisanship into his address to the Israeli Knesset the other day. Evidently this was the first time in American history that a president has ever indulged in such un-statesmanlike behavior while gadding about in foreign parts. And what exactly did Bush do, what was this act of unprecedented moral and political depravity? Brace yourself: he made a remark that could be construed as an implied criticism of Barack Obama.Now, it so happens that there was indeed a very grave and sinister scandal in Bush's appearance before the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's founding. But it had nothing to do with his witless ejaculation of that clapped-out right-wing trope of yore: the "Neville Chamberlain gambit," in which anyone who fails to evince sufficient eagerness to immediately obliterate Washington's designated enemy of the day is accused of "appeasement," paving the way for the next Hitler, etc. No; the real scandal lies elsewhere. But the fact that it was universally ignored, in favor of starchy outrage over the non-issue of Bush's remark, tells us a great deal about the clueless – and gutless – nature of so much of what passes for political dissent in America today.(Continued after the jump.)I.We will get to the genuine outrage shortly, but first let's cut through some of the starch. The reaction of Will Bunch, who writes the Attywood blog for the Philadelphia Daily News, is a good example of the overwrought reaction that greeted Bush's typically bug-eyed reading of the words that someone put on the autocue for him. This is the offending passage, which Bunch took from this CNN story:
"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," said Bush, in what White House aides privately acknowledged was a reference to calls by Obama and other Democrats for the U.S. president to sit down for talks with leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."We have heard this foolish delusion before,” Bush said in remarks to the Israeli Knesset. "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American Senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."That's it. A tired, ludicrous, irrelevant and meaningless analogy, from the most unpopular president in American history – a despised, pathetic wretch whose words sway no one beyond a fanatic minority of zealots – and a cynical, profit-seeking elite -- already committed to his murderous vision. The speech will have no impact whatsoever on the outcome of the presidential race. It tells us nothing that we don't already know about the Bush gang's lust for war with Iran, a nation the gang has long painted in the colors of Nazi Germany. But because this pointless regurgitation contained a dig at the likely Democratic nominee, Bunch calls it an act of "political treason." In fact, in a truly remarkable – and to me genuinely shocking – outburst, he says that Bush's tweaking of Obama in the speech was actually worse than the Watergate scandal, the Iran-Contra scandal, and all of the Bush Regime's own depredations in the past seven years, including the "flagrant disregard for the Constitution, the launching of a 'pre-emptive' war on false pretenses, and discussions about torture and other shocking abuses inside the White House inner sanctum." All of this -- crime, deceit, mass murder in a war of aggression -- pales in comparison to Bush's Knesset speech, which Bunch calls "a new low that I never imagined was even possible."I don't want to pick on Bunch. He seems like a nice guy, and he has worked hard over the years in detailing some of the outrages of the Bush Regime. But I must confess that I simply cannot comprehend the mindset that would lead to such a statement. Bush goading Obama in an overseas appearance is a "new low"? Worse than torture? Worse than unrestricted spying on the American people? Worse than the subversion of the electoral process in Watergate (not to mention the 2000 and 2004 campaigns)? Worse than running guns to the Iranian mullahs to help fund a terrorist insurgency in Nicaragua? Worse than aggressive war launched on false pretenses? Worse than a million people dead and more than four million driven from their homes? What kind of moral algebra could lead to such a conclusion? How could anything that Bush says at this point be worse than what he has already done?Part of it stems, I think, from the deeply ingrained and deeply self-righteous "American exceptionalism" that characterizes most "progressive" viewpoints. What we have here, first, is the temporary insanity that afflicts almost all partisans during an election year, in which the slightest perturbation on the American political scene far outweighs any other event in moral importance. Second, there is the upsurge of patriotic bunkum that arises during presidential campaigns, where partisanship so often wraps itself in the robes of a violated idealism. Witness the quivering sanctimony of Bunch's indignation (and try not to let the humming chorus of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" – from, say, the soundtrack of "Doctor Strangelove" – drown out the prose as you read):
As a believer in free speech, I think Bush has a right to say what he wants, but as a President of the United States who swore to uphold the Constitution, his freedom also carries an awesome and solemn responsibility, and what this president said today is a serious breach of that high moral standard.Of course, there are differences of opinion on how America should handle Iran, and that's why we're having an election here at home, to sort these issues out -- hopefully with respect and not with emotional and inaccurate appeals….[Here Bunch accurately describes the hypocrisy of Bush's remarks in respect to other American dealings with Libya and, indeed, Iran. Then the bunkum kicks into overdrive.]But what Bush did in Israel this morning goes well beyond the accepted confines of American political debate. When the president speaks to a foreign parliament on behalf of our country, his message needs to be clear and unambiguous. Our democracy may look messy to outsiders, and we may have our disagreements with some sharp elbows thrown around, but at the end of the day we are not Republicans or Democrats or liberals or conservatives.We are Americans.O, e pluribus unum! Let the mighty eagle soar! Yeah, we may mix it up a little bit, but at the end of the day we are all one, we are all….family. One can only assume that Bunch has not been reading his own admirable pieces for the past several years. Or anything else for that matter. Throughout this entire decade, the public "debate" has been packed to the rafters with fierce excommunications of Bush regime critics as "un-American," not "real Americans," not "one of us," "traitors," "enemies" and so on and so forth. (My own in-box has groaned with such messages for years. Indeed, if I had a dollar for every time I've been told by a fellow American that I am not their fellow American, I could probably run for president myself. At least for a week or two. I imagine that Bunch, writing for a much larger public platform, has gotten even more of this kind of hysterical shunning.) Yet still the bunkum goes on:
And you, Mr. Bush, are the leader of us all. To use a diplomatic setting on foreign soil to score a cheap political point at home is way beneath your office, way beneath your country, and way beneath the people you serve. You have been handed an office once uplifted to great heights by fellow countrymen from Washington to Lincoln to Roosevelt to Eisenhower, and have plunged it so deeply into the Karl-Rove- and-Rush-Limbaugh-fueled world of political destruction and survival of all costs that [you] have lost all perspective -- and all sense of decency. To travel to Israel and to associate a sitting American senator and your possible successor in the Oval Office with those who at one time gave comfort to an enemy of the United States is, in and of itself, an act of political treason. >>>>cont

Q&A with Don Siegelman: I think this will make Watergate look like child's play! This will make Watergate look like child's play when it's fully inves

This will make Watergate look like child's play when it's fully investigated,not so much this case because certainly it's not about me. It's about restoring justice & protecting our democracy &,because this case shows the lengths to which those who are obsessed with power will go in order to gain power or retain power,it has attracted the attention of the national press,the only case that has led Congress directly to the WH.

Webb: Bush Would Be First President In History To Veto Benefits For Vets

by Amanda Lang
On NBC’s “Meet the Press” this morning, Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) discussed his
21st Century GI Bill, which would dramatically expand educational benefits for returning veterans. President Bush, however, has vowed to veto the bill. Webb blasted Bush for this unprecedented action:
No president in history has vetoed a benefits bill for those who served. … The Republican party is on the block here, to clearly demonstrate that they value military service or suffer the consequences of losing the support of people who’ve served. … The president has a choice here to show how much he values military service.
Webb Criticizes Bush For Threatening To Veto GI Bill


Military analysts in NYT exposé appeared or quoted 4,500 times on broadcast, cable, NPR

Source: Media Matters for AmericaOn April 20, The New York Times published an article by investigative reporter David Barstow that detailed the connection between numerous media military analysts and the Pentagon and defense industries. Barstow reported that "the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform" media military analysts, many of whom have clients or work for companies with an interest in obtaining Pentagon contracts, "into a kind of media Trojan horse -- an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks." A Media Matters review found that since January 1, 2002, the analysts named in Barstow's article -- many identified as having ties to the defense industry -- collectively appeared or were quoted as experts more than 4,500 times on ABC, ABC News Now, CBS, CBS Radio Network, NBC, CNN, CNN Headline News, Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC, and NPR in segments covering the Iraq war both before and after the invasion, as well as numerous other national security or government policy issues. A spreadsheet listing each of the analysts' appearances documented by Media Matters is available here. (NOTE: Link available in article text.)The following chart lists 20 analysts included in Barstow's article, the network or networks on which each analyst appeared, and the number of appearances made by each analyst since January 1, 2002, as tabulated by Media Matters: (NOTE: Chart available in article text.)...
free hit counter