Debunking the bunk on Al Gore's speech

Well, the reception from Al Gore's speech yesterday has been pretty predictable in many ways. (A short clip from the full version of his speech is above - and it's the best part, where he challenges America to have 100 percent renewable energy within 10 years.) Those who oppose him for political reasons are still whining about his electricity bill while ignoring the real problems facing our country. After I blogged about Gore's speech yesterday, I sent out an e-mail to a bunch of people, imploring them to at least listen to Gore's speech with an open mind. Here are two very different responses (my comments follow each one).

Here's the predictable, negative, right-wing ideological tripe in an e-mail from an unidentified conservative who I know through someone else:

If Clinton hadn't vetoed the bill to drill in ANWR back in 1994, we wouldn't have such dependency on foreign oil and we wouldn't have the high gas prices we have now. I've written to my congressmen to 'Drill here, drill now'. We need to keep gas prices down while exploring cost effective alternatives. Food prices are soaring due to the regulations "forcing" the use of ethanol (ever notice how much stuff uses corn syrup?).

How can you take Algore seriously when he's the biggest hypocrite out there? The money paid for "Carbon Credits" goes to a company he owns. And his own home uses 20 times the national average in energy consumption (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/Story?id=2906888&page=1)

(silly you...you know I have a soap box too....and I remember the Carter years and the misery index and I fear for our country (and my hard earned income) if a Socialist is elected president :-( )

Hmm - where to start...

First, I'm actually pretty amused that some conservatives can actually find a way to tie 2008 fuel prices to President Clinton. And just when I thought the Blame Clinton fad had faded. How silly of me. Conservatives have spent the last eight years blaming Bill Clinton for just about everything bad, all while George W. Bush has been driving America into the ground on many fronts. I'm happy and proud that Clinton vetoed ANWR drilling. The idea that ANWR can alleviate our energy problem is a farce and a sham, perpetuated by those on the right who think that a little more oil from our modest (at best) oil reserves will lower prices. WRONG. ANWR, even by generous estimates, would only provide a fraction of oil that American uses on a daily basis (approx. 21 million barrels per day, as of 2008). To wit, according to a statistical report from the U.S. Department of Energy:

The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030. In the low and high ANWR oil resource cases, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR peaks in 2028 at 510,000 and 1.45 million barrels per day, respectively. Between 2018 and 2030, cumulative additional oil production is 2.6 billion barrels for the mean oil resource case, while the low and high resource cases project a cumulative additional oil production of 1.9 and 4.3 billion barrels, respectively.

What's all this mean? That we still need foreign oil, and lots of it, to function as we are right now with very little mass transit options, few explored alternative energy sources, and virtually no other automobile options, save a smattering of hybrids that are hitting the market, which still rely on oil to run.

There are a few more things that conservatives aren't considering, and that our corporate media (and Faux News) isn't telling us. One, has anyone considered that if we do start drilling on our outer continental shelf and in ANWR, OPEC could simply reduce production by the same amount, thereby keeping prices high? What or who is to stop them, other than begging by our politicians? The answer is, nothing, unless a Republican president wants to invade another country in the Middle East. (How much oil does Iran have again?)

Anyone who thinks that OPEC will sit on its collective hands and not lower production while we drill for more oil, thereby lowering the price of oil, raise your hand. Now go sit in the corner and put on a dunce cap.

Two, it amazes me that people think if we start drilling tomorrow that gas prices will magically come down. It ain't happenin', capt'n. These people (like the e-mailer above) who write their elected legislators demanding that we "drill here, drill now" don't realize that it's only going to line the pockets of Big Oil and the politicians they support (and we know who most of them are: G-O-P), and also destroy the environment in the process. It's just one more example on a tragically long list of ways that Republicans convince people to vote against their economic (and environmental) self interests.

Big Oil is NOT friendly to the environment, and there are many, many examples, most notably the Exxon Valdez. Sickeningly enough, ExxonMobile has fought in the courts tooth and nail the people whose livelihoods the company destroyed, refusing to make adequate restitution. So, should we open up a pristine refuge for Big Oil to come in and rape the land? How about, NO!?! No way. Big Oil has proven time and time again to be environmentally unfriendly (to be kind), yet now it claims it can extract oil from ANWR "in environmentally sensitive ways." (A line that President Bush happily pimps on TV, over and over and over.) That just sounds good for the political argument to turn our land over to Big Oil to be raped and pillaged.

Three, I seldom hear this argument voiced, but it's our oil, and by our I mean citizens of the United States - it's not Big Oil's. Currently, the oil companies pay the U.S. Government 12.5 percent of the oil's market value to get it out of the ground. If a law does get passed allowing Big Oil access to ANWR & the outer continental shelf, that rate should be doubled, and the money should go entirely toward development of alternative energy sources. What's more, a law should be passed imposing strict fines on the oil companies should they have an oil spill. What a novel concept - the polluter pays, not the taxpayer. In the last 30 years (since Reagan took office) - it's been the taxpayers who have largely been paying for corporate environmental disasters, not the polluter. That's an outrage of Biblical proportions.

As far as Al Gore and his electricity bill, I'm not going to waste a whole lot more time on it here, as I've blogged about this before, but I will repeat a few things (Note: it's "Al Gore," not "Algore," an elementary smear perpetuated by drug addict Rush Limbaugh, the uneducated Sean Hannity, and the asinine Newt Gingrich. It's sort of like saying the "Democrat Party" in lieu of the "Democratic Party," a McCarthy-era smear every bit as stupid and childish):

1. Gore has publicly stated that he purchases renewable energy and has taken many steps to reduce his carbon footprint, including putting up solar panels on his mansion in Tennessee, and I believe him. Hey, if the guy has one solar panel, it's one more than the White House has. But, the White House DID have solar panels when Jimmy Carter was president, but Reagan had them taken down. How stupid does that look, in hindsight?

2. The entire faux Gore Electricity Bill "story" has been endlessly flogged and pimped by a group called the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a right-wing funded group that has been out to smear Gore for years now, specifically the day after his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, won two Oscars. But, I'm sure the timing was entirely coincidental, right? Anyway, read more about the myths behind Gore's electricity bill Here and Here.

3. Quite frankly, I don't care if Gore criss-crosses the globe in a 747 by himself - he's done more to raise awareness about global warming in the last two years than George W. Bush (or his father) did in three presidential administrations.

4. It's tragically hilarious that President Bush went out of his way on television a few days ago to say that he would NOT encourage Americans to conserve energy, that it's "not his place to do that." Unreal. Like it would be a bad thing for the president to set an example for the American people. Then again, why start now?

5. One more thing about oil spills - the right has perpetuated the myth total lie that there were no oil spills during Hurricane Katrina. I will write more about this in a bit - it warrants a separate post, but it's absolutely, 100 percent FALSE. This is yet another blatant example of the right-wing media's strategy of repeating a lie over and over, hoping that people will believe it if they hear it often enough. Sell that crap to the tourists, because I ain't buyin' it.

To be fair, I will say this about the e-mail above - she brings up two points that I sort of agree with, so there is some common ground.

First, ethanol is NOT the answer - I totally agree. Burning food for fuel is a monumentally stupid idea. But, it's not Gore who has been pimping ethanol, it's been President Bush. Spend 15 minutes on YouTube and you can find plenty of Bush speeches where he's talking so favorably about ethanol, you'd think we have enough corn to power the entire planet.

Second, I've never been a big fan of carbon credits, but I don't yet know too much about it. However, I'm not keen on giving a corporation my money, with which it promises to "plant a tree" or something of the like. I'll make my own decisions about how I help the environment, thanks very much. Hey, I may be a big fan of Al Gore (notice the spelling), but I'm not slavishly devoted to every idea he has. Just most of them. And I'm hearing more ideas and bold goals come out of his mouth about the environment than I've heard from Bush in 7+ years, but I'm repeating myself. (But that point bears repeating, to be sure.)

However, if Gore chooses to invest in a carbon credit company, so what? I'm sure he's invested in a great deal of "green" companies. How is that a bad thing? People who accuse him of promoting green ideas because he owns stock in some innovative green companies are missing the point, and are stuck in a Rush Limbaugh-like drug-induced haze, where being critical of Al Gore is supposed to be the right's answer to his innovative ideas, as well as our energy problems.

Speaking of investments, I guess the conservative e-mailer above has never heard of Halliburton, a company headed by Dick Cheney until he became vice president, and also the same company that's received no-bid contract after no-bid contract in Iraq. (Also a company that recently moved its world headquarters to the Middle East, away from prying eyes in the U.S. Anyone care to bet how much cash Cheney is lavished with from the company once he leaves office?) Halliburton has made hundreds of millions during this administration, due in no small part to its connections at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

And finally, I got a kick out of this line from the e-mail above: I remember the Carter years and the misery index. ... (Read: Hey, you stupid kid, I know more than you because I've been around longer.) Please - get a grip. What's more, turn off Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Lielly and their ilk and get some real news. Here's a few recent news items that this person may have missed: Consumer prices jumped 1.2 percent in June, the biggest one-month jump since another Republican recession, circa 1982. And a recent Washington Post poll revealed that consumer confidence is at a 16-year low, the lowest since 1992, another year of a Republican recession. But hey, let's not facts get in the way.

I also laugh and laugh at Repubes bringing up Carter whenever they get the chance, including McCain, who impressed no one with the witless remark, "Obama keeps saying I'm running for a third Bush term, but it sounds like he's running for Jimmy Carter's second term." Funny how McCain never mentions the eight years of President Clinton, which were mostly a time of economic growth. If Jimmy Carter's all McCain's got, he's going to have the look of a candidate who's going to get his ass kicked this November.

I'll bring up the other e-mail shortly in a separate post.

Rendell to Bill Clinton: "Get over it"

Gov. Rendell hit the nail right on the head - President Clinton really does need to "get over it."

If Clinton can regain his bearings (and he certainly seemed lost, bitter, angry and at times politically incoherent during the primaries), he can be a tremendous asset to Barack Obama.

President Clinton has a tremendous role to play in this election, if he wants it.

Bill Clinton & heckler spar over health care

This is some pretty interesting footage of former President Bill Clinton taking on a heckler during a speech this past week in Fayetteville, West Virginia over Hillary's role in health care. I have to confess, I've always liked the president's combative style, especially when it comes to hecklers.

I'm an Obama supporter, but to be fair, the president is right in this instance. As for Ruth Callibra, the woman who remembers so clearly Hillary's role with regard to health care...

My first thought after hearing this was it's no wonder eye-witness testimony is so unreliable in criminal cases - it's because the mind can play tricks on many people's imaginations, and memories.

I distinctly remember Hillary Clinton as first lady taking center stage in the health care debate, and getting downright crucified for it, too. I also remember Republicans busing people in to disrupt Hillary's speeches around the country, and also the absurd Harry and Louise ads that were run on major networks by insurance companies. These commercials were conceived to scare the living daylights out of everyone, and to a certain extent, they worked. Here's two of the ads:

I get angry all over again watching these, and I get into full partisan mode, circa the 1990s "smear the Clintons at all costs" political atmosphere.

For the record, I like Hillary's health care plan a little bit better than Obama's - by most accounts that I've read, it covers more people. One of her big mistakes in this campaign has been not talking about her health care plan enough; she is more experienced than Obama in this area, and certainly has more experience in waging the health care wars with Repubes.

If Obama wins the presidency, Hillary will have a critical role to play in trying to get universal health care passed, because like the 1990s, the GOP won't just roll over and die, thereby letting the Democrats pass "socialized health care."

This Modern World: Bill & Hill strategy

[Click the image for the full cartoon]

This one about nails it - I've been no fan of the way the Clintons have conducted themselves for months now, but the Obama camps doesn't exactly have its hands clean in the Democratic battle, either. A month ago, I was 100 percent for Obama, but right now I'm about 80 percent for him. However, I do not think that she should withdraw from the race - as far as I'm concerned, the voters should decide, not the empty headed pundits in the media, or the people masquerading as humans on Faux News.

Obama's closing the gap here in Pennsylvania, and quite frankly, it's getting fun watching the candidates get more desperate. Who would have thought a year ago that Hillary and her supporters would be decrying how much money Obama is spending against her? What a turn of events this past year has been.

I think Hillary will carry the state, but it still won't be enough - she has to win big, and do well in the remaining primaries, blah blah blah. We've all heard the scenarios.

One thing is for certain, though - both Obama and Clinton have been the victims of some pretty ridiculous press coverage. More on that in a bit.

Hill & Bill have made million$ - so what?

[Click for larger image]

I have to give GOP hack Matt Drudge credit for one thing - he's brilliant at coming up with new reasons for totally despising him.

Splashed across his site when I got home tonight - the above headline - which probably marks the 988th time he's taken the GOP lead in attacking the Clintons. If I could get good enough odds from a sucker, I'd bet a few c-notes that this dominates the news over the weekend, especially the Sunday morning talk shows.

After I saw this headline, I got into 1990s mode all over again - frothing at the mouth with partisan outrage. Both Hillary and President Clinton have disappointed me immensely and on more than one occasion during this presidential campaign, but I have no problem at all with this and I really wonder what the big deal is.

Why? Well, first of all, all modern presidents get rich when they leave office. Reagan certainly did. Bush Sr. hasn't been hurting for cash, that's for sure. Neither has Clinton. Quickly now, look into your crystal ball - how many millions do you think Dubya and Laura will be worth? Each successive president cashes in, and Clinton is no exception.

I remember a time not so long ago that people were outraged and outright LIVID that President Clinton raised in the neighborhood of $500 million for his presidential library in Little Rock, Arkansas. His political opponents to this day are furious that the list of donors have not been disclosed, and they do have a point. I don't like the fact that outgoing presidents can do all sorts of favors (ahem, pardons) in return for a fat wad of cash for the monument under construction to himself, i.e., the presidential library.

But guess what?

President Bush hasn't disclosed the hundreds, if not thousands of donors to his presidential library. Current estimates have the cost of his self-serving monument costing in the neighborhood of $1 billion. When the day comes that Bush discloses all of his donors and how much they have given, I will be the first to condemn President Clinton and give kudos to Bush on this Website. Guess what? It's not gonna happen. No, let me rephrase that - look right - THAT'S when Bush will come clean with all of his political favors.

I'm not happy about political favors in exchange for money or political donations on the part of any politician in our country. But, it happens, and it's been part of the system for so long, it's impossible to single out any politician for particular scorn, unless it's a hugely corrupt politician or a very special case.

The bottom line is that our Natural Embarrassment, the clown currently in the Oval Office, is the most secretive president since at least Nixon, and I'd make the case the most secretive ever. We probably won't even ever know the extent to his secrecy and under-handed dealings, but I do know this - Kenneth Lay, before the rape and pillage fall of Enron, donated hundreds of thousands to Bush's inaugural ball in January 2001. Following 9-11, guess which company got tens of millions in tax breaks? C'mon, I don't really need to write it, do I?

Here's another cheerful thought - the Clintons were millions and millions in debt when they left office due to legal bills from the GOP witch hunt to get them at all costs. And by the way, Drudge played no small part in that.

One final thought - I wonder if Mitt Romney or America's Profiteer, Rudy Giuliani, would be getting this kind of financial scrutiny if they were still in the presidential race? In a word, no.

I can only hope and pray that McSame will be stupid enough to pick Romney or Giuliani as his running mate. Please, God, PLEASE.

Update:
It's already starting. I don't expect HuffPo to be as blatantly partisan as Drudge is, but really, Arianna?

Maher's New Rules, the coarse edition

Warning: This clip is for mature audiences and it not safe to play at work!

Bill Maher's New Rules last night were some of his funniest yet. He certainly took plenty of swipes at Hillary last night, from his humor piece on her Bosnia gaffe lie (see below) to his making fun of her not becoming president (with a beard), he made good sport of roughing her up last night. I'm sure it was mostly in good fun, and if, by some slim chance, she becomes the nominee, Maher will support her. As irritated as I am with the Clintons and their borderline despicable behavior (more on that in a bit in a separate post), I too will support her if she gets the nod to go up against McCain.

Anyway, enjoy, but again, be careful at work and who you play this one around - it's probably one of his rawest version yet. The upside: this version of New Rules would not have been nearly as funny on regular, network TV.

We're been waiting for... this?!?

This one gave me a laugh in the middle of a very hectic day - a just-released ad from the McCain campaign, telling us that McCain is "the president we've been waiting for." I find it interesting and just a bit sleazy that McCain uses footage from his time as a POW in Vietnam. He's a hero, and I'm not questioning whether he is or not, but I AM pointing out the hypocrisy in the Republican ranks; after all, John Kerry was vilified for bringing up his Vietnam service during the '04 race.

But hey, we all know from experience that Republican opinions don't transfer from one election to another. After all, Bill Clinton's draft dodging was fodder for the GOP cannon in 1992, but in 2000 then-candidate George Bush "served his country" by dodging the draft and "serving" in the Texas Air National Guard, leapfrogging over hundreds of men on the waiting list.

We're already seeing it this year, too; now, McCain's experience counts for everything in the world, but Bush's inexperience was "no big deal" in 2000. I will always feel for and admire McCain for surviving in the hellhole called the Hanoi Hilton, but I fail to see how being a POW for five years makes you an expert on foreign affairs. And based on his comments last week, the proof is in the pudding. This is a guy that's gotten everything wrong about Iraq, but now we're to believe everything he says?

Preposterous.

Bill Clinton & Jeremiah Wright pic - BFD

This picture appeared in The New York Times yesterday, which shows President Clinton shaking hands with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Evidently, this picture was released by the Obama campaign. (You will need a NYT premium account to view this article after one week.)

My only question about this picture is, "Where's the news?" (My college newspaper adviser used to say this to us when we ran a non-newsy story, or one that hadn't been adequately updated with the latest developments; I'll cop to running more of those than I should, but I was learning.)

Anyway, the fact that this is such a non-story is really the story here; that the media would even devote any time or space to it says a great deal about the levels the media will go to to get a "story" in this hotly contested Democratic primary.

First of all, it's a rather pathetic attempt by the Obama camp to divert attention away from the issue of Wright's relationship with him. I've gone on record as saying I think it's a problem, but not one that should disqualify Obama from becoming president. His speech earlier this week went a long way toward his moving past this pseudo-scandal, as I've called it. But, this is the sort of Clinton-like tactic that Obama has been complaining about since the beginning of the year. Pretty amateurish.

What's even more damning, though, is the absurd coverage the Times gives this picture - it's amazing that they actually found stuff to write about, including going so far as to post copies of the invitation from the president. (Full disclosure - it's on the Times' blog for the '08 race, The Caucus, but I question its newsworthiness.) I'm just disappointed that I didn't find out what the party favors were, or how tasty the food was, or if Rev. Wright put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance (actually, that WOULD be newsworthy, now that I think about it), or if the president put his napkin in his lap and talked with his mouth full or not.

Cripes - I don't know who's more desperate in this campaign - the press to find some sort of scoop, any scoop, or the Clinton & Obama camps, clawing, kicking and screaming to finally come out on top with the nomination.

Weekend cartoons

Here's another edition of weekend cartoons. It's going to be a good year for them; presidential election years always are. Enjoy.

Funny how the whole issue of where in the world the tens of thousands of deleted White House e-mails went. What's worse, Congress doesn't seem to be doing anything about it. But, thank GOD we are looking into steroids in baseball. Rep. Henry Waxman and the rest of the Democratic Party "leadership" in Congress are a disgrace.

Bubble is right - it seems to me that Bush is more out of touch than ever (maybe he is learning the lessons from his father's playbook from 1991-1992). I'd say it seems like Bush is merely playing out the string, but he's been doing that since right after the '04 election.

It certainly makes sense. I still find it stunning that an intellectual midget like Our National Embarrassment has an MBA from one of the top business schools in the country. Of course, he's probably the only president to joke and even "brag" about his "C" average in college.

The beef recall from a few weeks back is simply amazing to me. Seems like nothing in this country is safe any longer. The oversight of our food and even our drugs seems to be so lax and wanting, it's amazing that we don't have more incidents of people becoming sick from both.

Self explanatory.

Another cartoon that is self explanatory. Most of the people I know of, especially the right-wing neo-con artists I see on TV, wouldn't know the meaning of patriotism if it bit them in the face. Yet, whenever people don't toe the line to conform to the neo-con version of Democracy, those people are unpatriotic. Riiiight.

Every voter in this country, especially the working class, should consider the results of our disastrous energy policy before they step into the voting booth in December. I could only laugh with amazement last week when Bush said he "hadn't heard" that fuel prices could reach $4 a gallon. Even if he had, would he care? His oil buddies continue to line his political coffer, and now it's for his presidential library. (By the way, just try finding out the donors to his library, and how much they are donating. Best of luck.)

I've said it before and I'll say it again - the economic stimulus package that's being pimped by Congress and the Bush administration is one of the biggest shams of this young 21st century. We are borrowing $170 billion from countries such as China to give to the American people in the hopes they all "buy something." Wow, what quality leaders we have in Washington.

Once Hillary Clinton is out of the campaign, which could happen as early as next week, the debate will rage on about whether she reigned in President Clinton too much, or not enough. I would have to say "too much"; the former prez is still enormously popular with a large majority of Democratic voters, and they probably should have heard more from him. However, it's only the one of literally dozens of strategic mistakes that Hillary has made during her presidential candidacy.

I don't completely agree with this cartoon, but it does have a point. There has been more than a few times when the former president has overdone it on the stump. I know that seems like a contradiction to what I just said about the cartoon above this one, but I would say that voters haven't heard enough of the proper President Clinton.

This one is proper and dead on, but too bad Democrats and Republicans alike don't believe this to be true, or not nearly enough of them. I've written it before, and I'll write it again - it's not the domestic surveillance program I have a problem with - it's the lack of oversight. (And I believe that many Democrats in Congress share this point of view.)

Bush's rhetoric lies about the necessity of the surveillance program, as well as his line that opponents threaten America's safety, is nothing short of profoundly disgraceful. Gee, I wonder how the Clinton administration (despite what the right-wing media would have its sheep who view and read it believe) kept America relatively safe in the 1990s? Sure, there were incidents, but there were far more incidents that were foiled, too, including many around the turn of the millennium. Ahh, but why let facts get in the way?

If the morons in our government spent as much time trying to fix what's wrong with our economy as they do debating whether something is wrong with the economy, we probably wouldn't be in anywhere near the mess we are in now.

The sage cartoon of the week. If you listen to John McCain and follow his stance on the issues, it's pretty obvious that McCain would be tantamount to Bush Term III. Quickly now, who wants that? According to the latest polls, less than 20 percent of Americans.

BOR... making s--- up again

Pathological Liar Bill O'Reilly's pathetic jihad against the Website Daily Kos continues. His latest? That the site "advocates the overthrow of the U.S. government." Umm Hmm. I read the site nearly every day, and nowhere, anywhere have I ever read anything even remotely close to that. But hey, why let truth get in the way of a good "story," right? Notice that BOR neglects to give specific examples of how the authors of Daily Kos want to overthrow the government, he just throws it out there.

This is from a well-worn page right out of the Republican playbook:

Throw a lie out there, and the damage will be done. Even though the truth will eventually come out, that won't spread as far and wide as the lie itself.

The list of lies by the right that have been debunked is getting rather lengthy. A fraction of that list...

• The Clintons murdered Vince Foster
• Bill Clinton could have had bin Laden, but turned him down
• Al Gore invented the Internet
• John Kerry didn't deserve his purple hearts
• Sidney Blumenthal abused his wife
• Media Matters is funded by George Soros
• Al Gore's carbon footprint is bigger than Greenland
• Barack HUSSEIN Obama was educated in a madrassa
• Daily Kos authors want to overthrow the government

I can't wait to see what the GOP Network comes up with next.

By the way, BOR actually says this in the clip above, and it bears repeating: "Doing business with people who traffic in hate-filled diatribes is unacceptable."

Jon Stewart must be delighted that BOR has gone to work for Comedy Central.

Oh, and that Pepsi boycott regarding Ludacris? Totally phony, just like his boycott against France and Jet Blue. I just remembered that I have to write Jet Blue to tell them to keep up the good work. Thanks for reminding me, Billy.

FDNY stokes Rudy ire fire

This is a pretty damning video by the national firefighters union, the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF), about Rudy Giuliani and his "leadership" before, during and after 9-11. It's too early to tell whether it will have any political ramifications, but if anything, it must be pretty embarrassing to a man who could turn a Girl Scout cookie sale into a lesson about 9-11.

"The urban legend of America's Mayor need to be balanced by truth," a line uttered pretty early on in this video, is perhaps the best single sentence I've heard yet about Giuliani, who really has profited monetarily from 9-11 more than the any other individual, by far. (Of course, the award for who has profited politically the most from 9-11 is the most obvious of all - President Bush.)

It's pretty amazing that I hear Giuliani on television now never missing an opportunity to slam Democrats, particularly the Clinton administration, for the 1990s and how poorly prepared we were for 9-11. I've been writing for months that Giuliani's preparation in NYC for an attack following the 1993 WTC attack deserves closer scrutiny. I'm glad the firefighters union is stepping up efforts to inform an American public that has been snowed over by the mayor's slick, expensive PR effort to paint him as an American hero.

I find two allegations by the IAFF particularly disturbing: the pathetic radios that the Giuliani administration authorized the purchase and use of by FDNY without testing, and Giuliani's brilliant decision to locate his crisis command center at World Trade, despite the 1993 attack.

The radio controversy is particular damning - it's not like the city didn't have years to fix the problem -- 8 1/2 years elapsed between the World Trade Center attacks. And why a no-bid contract for the radios? Someone got paid, that's for sure. Why would I not be surprised if that someone is the mayor himself? It's not a stretch to say (and several firefighters do in the video above) that the pathetically inadequate radios the firefighters were equipped with cost dozens and dozens of firefighters their lives on 9-11.

Locating the command center at the World Trade Center is so utterly idiotic of a decision that it almost defies description. Just imagine if Japan was discovered to have sabotaged the U.S. Navy's base at Pearl Harbor in 1939, and Roosevelt insisted that the entire Atlantic fleet should still be located at Pearl? Then, boom - December 7, 1941. That's pretty much what Giuliani did in New York City - he decided to locate his crisis command center at the one place in NYC with the biggest bulls eye - the World Trade Center. I suppose he deserves credit for not putting the command center at the top of the Empire State Building, or on the 101st floor of the North Tower.

With stupid, ill-advised decisions like these, perhaps Giuliani could be described as a bald George W. Bush. Yea, just what we need - four (or, GASP! EIGHT!) more years of decision making like we've had to endure since 1.20.01.

Some will inevitably ask: "What does all of this have to do with Giuliani running for president?" Plenty. If the mayor of America's largest city makes idiotic decisions like this, what would he do as president?

Another potential Repube counter-attack will predictably go something like this:

Democrats complained about the supposed Swiftboating of John Kerry in 2004, but now they are gleefully cheering the IAFF slamming Rudy Giuliani in this election season. What about this hypocrisy, Ann Coulter?

Wow, that was pretty good - I wonder if Karl Rove is hiring? Seriously though, how hard is it to envision Sean Insanity or Bill O'Lielly blabbering the above lines on their respective shows, and the sheeple who listen to them sopping it up on a plate with a biscuit?

This is not similar to Kerry's '04 Swiftboating, which was a despicable attack funded by far right financiers. This is the firefighters union, which Giuliani has pimped himself as being a champion of, slamming him for his decisions during 9-11 and for his lack of adequate preparation in the wake of the 1993 attacks.

The fallout from this will be the most interesting of all. Hopefully the 2008 Democratic candidates for president are storing this Giuliani stuff away; if the mayor receives the GOP nomination, fire away.

I still maintain my belief that Giuliani will not even receive the nomination, however. For once, I'm cheer leading the far fright right - he's moderate on a number of things that make him completely unacceptable to hardcore conservatives.

Bravo.

Bad Iraq news continues; Look! Over here! A Gore speech from '92

[Click for larger image]

It's interesting that the right-wing smear machine is already gearing up for Al Gore's potential candidacy. Of course, GOP shill Matt Drudge leads the way. The screen capture above is from The Drudge Report this past Tuesday. Of course, he's highlighting an Al Gore speech from 1992, part of which is below.

This speech is interesting to watch. Our country's past with Iraq and Saddam Hussein is a complicated one, and by complicated I don't mean that President Clinton is completely innocent, but he's far from the guiltiest, either.

What I found particularly poignant was Gore's Cliff-Note-tour of our country's involvement with Iraq in the 1980s. I won't get into it too much more in this piece, other than to say I've read the exact same things Gore speaks of in this video clip, lest anyone think Gore was merely spouting campaign rhetoric (the video dates from 1992).

Richard Clarke, who worked counter-terrorism under presidents Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and Dubya, discussed in detail how Saddam brutally murdered hundreds of thousands of Iranians and Iraqis during that decade, all of which were under Republican, um, "leadership" in the White House. These facts often don't fit into the well-worn rhetoric of Republicans - that Saddam was a "brutal dictator" who "murdered his own people." Clarke details all of this and more in his stunning tome Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror, a book I highly recommend.

Sidney Blumenthal also covers our relations with Iraq in the 1980s (but less than Clarke) in his outstanding book, The Clinton Wars. Blumenthal served as President's Clinton senior political advisor during his second term.

The bottom line here is that America (Read: Ronald Reagan, and later, Bush Sr.) didn't feel the need to do anything about Iraq until the flow of oil was threatened by Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. I can still remember, with my own two ears, Bush Sr. on television declaring that "We are going to war to defend our way of life." Seems patently absurd now, doesn't it? If it doesn't, it should.

If you read about Kuwait, it's anything but a democracy, too.

Now that the neocons' grand experiment has failed MISERABLY in Iraq, setting our foreign policy back 25 years, people like Drudge are busy digging up video tape from 15 years ago in a lame, half-baked attempt to smear a undeclared candidate for president INSTEAD OF rightfully criticizing Bush's Iraq policy of perpetual war.

It's easy for someone like Drudge to dig up old video of Gore, ignoring the events of the past 15 years. What it does NOT take into consideration is what happened following Desert Storm; sanctions, no-fly zones and close monitoring during the 1990s had Saddam mostly boxed in - he had no nuclear program, and, we now know, no WMDs.

Over 3,500 hundred Dead Americans later, to say nothing of the $500+ billion in American dollars spent in Iraq, but Drudge chooses to not talk about that; instead, a Gore speech from 15 years ago takes priority.

What a pathetic canard, even for Drudge.

Drudge screws up again

It never gets old pointing out when right-wing blogger Matt Drudge screws up a story.

According to Media Matters, Drudge has claimed that Media Matters is a "[George] Soros operation."

No so, says the Website:

"In fact, Media Matters has never received funding from progressive philanthropist George Soros," read a statement earlier today on the site.

Soros has donated millions of his billions to liberal causes and organizations, including about $25 million of his own money in 2004 to PACs to try and get President Bush out of the White House.

My guess is, MM irks Drudge by exposing his lies. MM does it in quick fashion, too - I'm not sure how many people work for the Website, but they are always on top of questionable stories from the right-wing noise machine.

If you aren't familiar with MM, and you enjoy reading the news behind the news, then MM is a can't-miss Website. MM was founded in 2004 by David Brock to fight back against right-wing talk radio, Fox News and any other right-wing leaning organizations that don't have any problem putting misleading stories in the media.

Brock is an ex-conservative - he used to write for The American Spectator, a far-right, conservative magazine. During the Clarence Thomas hearings, Brock famously wrote in the Spectator's pages that Anita Hill was, "a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty." He also participated in a few of the more notable stories to attempt to discredit Bill Clinton before and during the early years of his presidency, including Troopergate and The Arkansas Project.

Brock repented and wrote Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative and never looked back. He even apologized to President Clinton, Anita Hill, and many other people he smeared during his career as a right-wing hatchet man.

Founding Media Matters for America is part of his transformation.

Gone are the days when people like Drudge can print something with the flimsiest of proof (if any), only to take the story off of his Website when the truth came out (if, in fact, it did at all).

Drudge's clumsy attempt to smear CNN's Michael Ware, after he made a fool of Judas John McCain about Iraq, fell flat. And Drudge's motives were transparent, too - Ware made McCain look bad, so it was payback time.

I urge you to visit MM often, and support the site if you have the means. It really is a one-stop shop for the liberal looking to debunk the right's lies, distortions and smears.

I click it every day and use a great deal of the media available on the site.

Tom DeLay kills puppies*

Kind of ridiculous, right? Of course it is, but this is the sort of thing that people like Tom DeLay do to people each and every day who disagree with Republicans.

Hmm, it's been about, what, three or four weeks? Time for DeLay to show his true colors again. The song remains the same - say something stupid, ridiculous and wildly intolerant, get on the news, sell more books. Rinse, Repeat.

No need to even discuss his use of the Titanic cliché of politics, the Nazis; I couldn't be any more tired of pointing out Republicans' and conservative political pundits' use of fascist or Nazi when someone disagrees with them. But, I will continue to point it out, because it's unacceptable, and it denigrates people on the left who really do care about their country.

DeLay is a corrupt, sleazy and disgusting excuse for a human being (or politician, whichever you consider lower). Funny how the "politics of personal destruction" was great sport in the 1990s, when he was on the giving and not the receiving end. You're getting your just desserts, buddy. I can only hope you go to prison and that you are forced to share a cell with a 350-pound liberal who is a big fan of Bill Clinton. Now that is what I'd call justice.

Funny how it's always Repubes making the news saying this stuff. I defy you to find me a liberal commentator with an audience of more than 10 resorting to this type of behavior. Find me one, and I'll condemn him or her just as I do conservative pundits for calling people Nazis or fascists. Why is it always Republicans?

I'm not referring to liberals bloggers or voters, a number of whom have compared Bush to Hitler. I'm not one of them, although, I think Bush is now about as popular in America as Hitler now is in Germany - not very much.

* - Tom DeLay doesn't kill puppies, but I thought it would get your attention, and I thought for a nanosecond I would get down in the gutter and say hi to Tom.

Romney "Didn't Inhale"

I don't really believe this is the big story the media is making it out to be, other than revealing that maybe Mitt Romney is trying to be all things to all people to improve his poll numbers.

When I look at this footage of Romney, I'm reminded of then-candidate Bill Clinton's infamous I didn't inhale answer in 1992 when asked about his marijuana use in college. Ultimately, it didn't kill his chances of becoming president, but it sure did hurt his credibility.

Anyone else believe Romney has the charisma and political savvy of Bill Clinton? Yea, me neither.

Russ Feingold on Bush's threatened veto

Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold appeared on Countdown With Keith Olbermann a few nights ago to talk about President Bush's promised veto and rhetoric about the emergency appropriation for the War in Iraq. Feingold is as spot on and articulate as anyone I've heard on the subject.

Feingold rightfully points out that there is plenty of precedent on ending funding for combat operations during war time, most notably during the Clinton Administration when we had forces in Somalia during Operation Restore Hope. After we lost 18 U.S. troops in the Battle of Mogadishu. (By the way, I tire of hearing Repubes deride Clinton for the loss of those soldiers - he deserves some blame, but it was President George H.W. Bush who put our troops in Somalia in December 1992.)

Anyway, Feingold hit it right on the head - if Bush vetoes the spending bill, it's going to be on his head, or at least partially. He rightfully reasons that the Democrats were sent to Congress to do the bidding of the people, and that's to end this war:

Well, it's just incredible to me that the president of the United States is planning on vetoing a bill that actually provides the funds that he wants for this next phase of the war. And the reason is, is, that he thinks he shouldn't have to follow the will of the American people, which was expressed in November, and that is that somehow this war has to start to end.

The bill is a very reasonable approach, and the president is being beyond stubborn in saying that we have to provide the funds and have no reaction at all to the fact that the people of this country want us out of this war. It's incredible to me that the president is this detached from reality.

Of course, some hear this and get all hysterical, that the Democrats are simply Bush hating. No, they are not. What we are seeing now is a president who had no oversight for the first six years of his presidency. Bush is totally incapable of compromise, or reaching across party lines. For a man who ran in 2000 as "A uniter, not a divider," he's shown a shocking indifference to even having a dialogue with the Democrats. More from the interview:

OLBERMANN: He referred to, in this news conference, in some of the questions, some who believe our strategy there is not working, a group who believes that we should not be there in the first place. Is it possible, do you think, Senator, that the president does not realize that this group of some people constitutes about seven out of every 10 Americans?

FEINGOLD: Well, he must know at some level, but he refers to the fact that we're back in our states, listening to the people in our states, as a vacation. Well, he needs a vacation like that, or he needs to get back onto a place like Wisconsin, in the rural areas where I am this week, Keith, doing town meetings, where people are telling me, For God's sakes, when are you going to get out of there? How can you possibly have this thing continue? What is the president thinking?

He is truly out of touch with the people of this country. This is not a position of a few people in the Democratic Party. It is virtually a consensus of the American people that we have got to have an orderly end to this war, safely redeploy the troops in the next few months.

[...]

Senator Harry Reid and I have concluded that a bill or an amendment that would make that date a year from now, March 31, 2008, is the next step, if necessary, if he truly does veto the supplemental bill.

OLBERMANN: To the power of the purse, for all the president's talk of alleged irresponsibility on the part of Congress in his news event this morning, it would seem, in his answer to that question about the power of the purse, the president was forced to admit that what you and your colleagues are doing is, in fact, entirely legitimate. And if that's true, and he says it's true, doesn't that make his veto the cause of any interruption of funding for the troops, in the unlikely event that happens?

FEINGOLD: Absolutely, Keith, unless we've shifted into a monarchy. The whole idea of our system is that these powers are divided. The president's the commander in chief, but the Congress is given the power of the funding, the appropriations power. We had to provide the funding in the first place, and if we decide this war is a bad idea, which I think just about everybody's concluded, then it's our—not just our right, but our responsibility to say, "Well, by X date, we will no longer do the funding."

And if you—you can ask Republican senators who say this is a bad idea, why did they vote for a date to cut off the funding for Somalia in the early '90s? Remember Black Hawk Down, we lost those 18 brave Americans, and we said, You know, this isn't working out very well, we ought to stop this.

And so John McCain and John Warner and all of us voted for a date certain by which the troops were safely redeployed. And at the end of it, the funding was cut off. They've already voted for this approach. It's not extreme. It's right in the absolute core of our constitutional powers and our responsibilities as members of Congress.

###

Uh oh - I'm bringing up those pesky 1990s again. How inconvenient. I not-so-fondly remember Repubes howling and screaming whenever President Clinton did anything militarily. No matter the cause, he never, ever had the support of a Republican-controlled Congress - Somalia (which he inherited), Bosnia, Kosovo or any actions to combat terrorism.

At every turn, it was Republicans who were screaming about Clinton's misuse of the military, or worse. Funny how I never heard "When troops are in harm's way, we don't question the operation - we get behind the president." Feingold rightfully reminded viewers of this the other night.

Speaking of supporting the president, one final thought. I realize that it's difficult for most of us (myself included, on most occasions) to reflect on our foreign policy in the 1990s through a 9-11 looking glass. Fine.

But, what really roils me is the persistent, idiotic rumors that float around the Internet about Clinton not doing enough about Osama bin Laden while he was president. Part of that is a valid point - he even admitted as much during his contentious interview on Fox News with Chris Wallace last September.

However, I also vaguely remember President Clinton wanting to do more to fight terrorism, but the Republican-controlled Senate and House wouldn't give him the budget increases he asked for. I also remember his missile attacks on Baghdad in retaliation for the attempted assassination of President Bush Sr. in Kuwait, and also the missile attack on a bin Laden compound that missed the terrorist by hours.

But again, to hear Republicans talk about it, they all wanted to invade Afghanistan and get bin Laden immediately, but Clinton didn't want to. Lies, lies, lies. In fact, when Clinton was leaving office, the one thing that the Clinton team told the incoming Bush administration to pay particular attention to was bin Laden. Call that one Operation Ignore, as the Bushies did nothing.

Richard Clarke, the counter-terrorism expert, served under presidents Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and until 2003, President George W. Bush. He's confirmed the current Bush administration's willful indifference to bin Laden during the first eight months of the administration. And this has also been confirmed by Bob Woodward and Paul O'Neill, the former treasury secretary. But, they're all lying, right Mr. President?

For more reading, I highly recommend Richard Clarke's book, Against All Enemies; and Ron Suskind's book, The Price of Loyalty : George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill.

These are two fantastic books, told by former Bush administration insiders, and they both offer insight into how Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq before 9-11, a conveniently forgotten fact.

The truth of the matter is that Bush and the far right want perpetual war, with no end in sight. It's hard to conclude otherwise, considering their stubbornness and obfuscation in the face of Democrats' attempts to end this war.

Theron to play Susan McDougal?

U.S. News & World Report is reporting that a movie about Susan McDougal is in the works, and Charlize Theron (below) will play the lead. Very cool - a great story that should be told, portrayed by an actress with sex appeal. Of course, Jay Leno made the joke that if this is the case, Bill Clinton will play himself. The blurb from U.S. News:

Susan McDougal, the bit player of the Clinton-era Whitewater scandal, is making a comeback. We hear that Hollywood producers are looking at making a story of her life. You remember her: She was the young woman once married to scandal figure Jim McDougal who went to jail for 18 months instead of testifying. Moviemakers like Paul Haggis of Oscar winners Crash and Million Dollar Baby were in Little Rock last week scouting locations, and word is that Charlize Theron is their McDougal choice.

I've had McDougal's book, Susan McDougal: The Woman Who Wouldn't Talk, for some time, but I'm yet to read it, so I'll have to put that on my extensive summer reading list. I've no doubt it's a great read. If you're interested in the book, it's now available on Amazon.com, in paper back for $5.99.

Before I even read the book, I'm going into it thinking that Susan McDougal was the victim of a political witch hunt by Whitewater Special Prosecutor Kenneth W. Starr. She wouldn't give Starr what he wanted - to smear the Clintons so she was convicted on four counts of fraud and conspiracy relating to the Whitewater after she refused to answer questions on the witness stand.

She's got courage, moxie and verve, and if a movie is being made about her, she sure deserves it.

Tony Snowjob slips on a banana peel, suffers from a nasty case of amnesia

Tony Snowjob's divorce from reality is continuing apace. Take a look at this exchange a few days between Snow and CBS This Morning's Harry Smith:



Tony's got a short circuit, selective memory, or just outright denial. Let's take a look at what he had to say during the height of the Clinton impeachment craze, when Special Prosecutor Kenneth W. Starr issued subpoenas to just about everyone in the White House, including Clinton's top advisers, and Secret Service Agents (the latter of which was an unprecedented step.)...

"Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.

"Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.

"One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public's faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold — the rule of law."

Hmm. Double-standard police - pull your vehicle to the side of the road, Mr. Snow.

This is another example of people having selective memories. The Congressional Research Service tells a different story. (The CRS is the non-partisan research arm of Congress.) According to a 2002 CRS report, during President Clinton's eight years in office, 31 people from the White House testified under oath before Congress. You may have heard of some of them:

Former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger...

Clinton Presidential Council Lloyd Cutler...

And John Podesta, President Clinton's fourth and final White House Chief of Staff.

As usual, Snow's credibility is melting under his feet.

It's funny how Tony Snow is so slow to learn from his mistakes, in particular his name calling.



Here, in response to some tough questioning, Snow calls NBC White House Correspondent David Gregory "partisan," hardly a compliment.



Snow later apologizes, but he's slow to learn his lesson. He should take the word partisan out of his vocabulary, because when he uses it, he only sounds like what he's complaining about - partisan. As a White House press secretary, he's supposed to be above that.

Considering his pedigree from Fox News, it's pretty unlikely Snow will change.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's confession ~ Count me skeptical

Yesterday, to great fanfare, the Pentagon released transcripts of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's confession of his role in 9-11. Mohammed, a high-level Al-Qaeda operative, has been in custody since 2003 or 2004 (depending on where you get your information - our government is so secretive, it's tough to tell). He was moved to Guantanamo Bay in September of last year. Funny how not too long after he gets moved to Guantanamo, he confesses. More on that last point later.

What really strikes me is how neat and tidy the story seems. To believe Mohammed, you'd think that he was responsible for every terrorist act since Watergate. Okay, a bit of hyperbole there, but take a read on some of the things he confessed to: Masterminding the September 11th terrorist attacks; the Richard Reid shoe bombing attempt to blow up an airliner over the Atlantic Ocean; the Bali nightclub bombing in Indonesia, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; the Operation Bojinka plot, an aborted 2002 attack on Los Angeles' U.S. Bank Tower; the failed bombing of American Airlines Flight 63; planned assassination attempts on Pope John Paul II, Pervez Musharraf and Bill Clinton; planned attacks on Heathrow Airport and Big Ben clock tower in London; the Millennium Plot; and the murder of Daniel Pearl, a Wall Street Journal reporter who was beheaded in 2002.

Formerly a member of Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda organization in Kuwait, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, he was "the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks." If all of this is true, great. But, will we ever know if it's true? This administration has lied so much, it's hard to believe what's true and what's not true anymore. When listening to the Bush Administration's spin on just about anything, I'm much more inclined to not believe it than believe it.
Following American politics today is like being an airline pilot, flying through a thick fog, who doesn't trust his instruments.

I'm highly skeptical of anything Mohammed says, and I'm not alone. One CIA official has been quoted as saying that anything Mohammed says should be treated with a high amount of skepticism, even referring to at least some of his confessions as white noise - useless chatter devised to get himself through another day's interrogation, and more importantly to send the U.S. government on wild goose chases. Unfortunately, our government has been on many of those before, especially since 9-11.

He's claiming responsibility for quite a laundry list of terrorism. Are we now supposed to believe that Osama bin Laden is inconsequential? The Bush Administration would no doubt love that, but I hope the rest of America isn't buying into this bull - the bottom line is that ultimately Osama bin Laden is responsible for 9-11. Not to go all X-Files on you, but The Truth is Out There.

I also find the timing of this announcement awfully convenient. In the last month, the Bush Administration has had these crises to deal with: Continuing debate on the troop surge, the firing of eight federal prosecutors, the Scooter Libby trial, the Walter Reed scandal, and a host of smaller prickly issues I'm sure Bush wishes would just go away. Many of above have been flashing hot lately, so why not release a bit of good news to get all of the bad press off the front pages of Websites and newspapers?

If you think this administration is above manipulating the press in that way, think again. A few quick examples...

1. In December 2003, Saddam Hussein was captured, conveniently right before the primaries for the 2004 election were set to begin. Patently absurd that it took the biggest and best military in the world nine months to catch him. Kind of like how absurd it is that we are going on six years since 9-11, and still no bin Laden. But, I digress.

2. The announcement of Saddam's verdict in his trial, 48 hours before the 2006 mid-term elections. When the press protested, Tony Snowjob had the nerve to go before the press and declare that the U.S. would never interfere with the Iraqi judicial process. Unreal. Press reports later confirmed that the actual verdict was not completely ready until four days later. Hussein heard that he was guilty, then had to wait four days to find out what he was guilty of. Yea, no tampering there.

3. In the spring and summer of 2004, anyone remember the numerous "terror threats" that were issued? You remember, the color coded system that we heard about all throughout 2004? Seems funny that we haven't heard about many of them since the '04 election. I expected to hear lots of them again in '06 before the November election, but we didn't. I half wonder that the reason we didn't is because of all of the negative press about Republicans trying to scare everyone to death before the '04 election. Have the threats gone away? I don't think so.

4. How about in February 2006, when Bush publicly boasted about the administration's foiling of a plot to blow up the "Liberty Tower" in Los Angeles. (He probably meant to say "Library" Tower, but, you know, a president can get the tallest building in LA wrong, especially when talking about its potential destruction when delivering a major anti-terrorism speech.)

What's more, we should distrust anything that might have been confessed to under any form of torture. I love analogies, so allow me to turn to a brilliant movie, Reservoir Dogs:

Mr. Blonde (played by Michael Madsen) is part of a criminal enterprise that just robbed a jewelry store. At the very beginning of the heist, the cops show up. Quickly. Too quickly in the eyes of the criminals. They begin to turn on one another. Blonde shoots his way out of the robbery, taking an officer hostage to get away. Mr. Blonde has just cut off a police officer's ear, trying to find out about a possible snitch in the group. Chris Penn walks in, and he starts screaming at Mr. Blonde, bellowing, "This guy will tell you he started the Chicago Fire if you beat him hard enough, but that doesn't fucking necessarily make it so!"

I'm sure you can see where I'm going here - just because someone confesses to something under torture (something that is oft-speculated about in Guantanamo Bay, where Mohammed is being imprisoned), that doesn't mean it's true. Often, it's not.



Of course, Sean Insanity was all over the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confession, treating it like the Bush Administration had just captured the real man responsible for 9-11, Osama bin Forgotten.

It's funny to hear Insanity talk about Rosie O'Donnell's "irresponsible rhetoric," something which he has a Ph.D. in. Wait, I forgot - he's a college dropout. Scratch that. By the way, I'm in no way defending O'Donnell - a true blabbermouth moron.

I got a kick out of Hannity's leading questions to Slade Gorton in this piece, too, especially when he said to Gorton, "So, these statements [by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed] were not made under duress, RIGHT?" Of course, Hannity didn't get the answer he wanted, as Groton stated he wasn't sure under what conditions Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's statements were made. Swing and a miss for Insanity. But, that never stops him.

The thing that enrages me the most about this particular piece of footage is Insanity's beating the oft-beaten drum about the United States refusing to take bin Laden when he was offered, during the Clinton Administration. This has been thoroughly debunked, yet the right won't give up on this story. Hey, it's the old adage of the right - keep on repeating a lie, over and over and over, until people begin to believe it. And there are many who believe that Clinton refused to take bin Laden into custody, but that we could have. (By the way, can there ever be any sort of national debate, specifically when it's about the GOP's bread and butter, the War on Terrorism, without bringing up Bill Clinton's supposed "shortcomings"?)

I'm not going to get into this again here, other than to briefly say this about Clinton and terrorism. Yes, the Clinton Administration could have done more to combat terrorism - Clinton himself will freely admit that, and he has, very publicly, on many occasions. But, he did as much as he could at the time. Clinton tried to increase the terrorism budget, but was rebuffed by the GOP-controlled Congress every time he did it. When he once closed off Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House, he was called "hysterical" by many people, almost all Republicans. What's more, Clinton gets very little press about the various successes in combating terrorism that happened on his watch.

The evidence is strong, given by people who were inside the Bush Administration prior to 9-11, that Bush and his cabal did little to combat terrorism. In fact, John Ashcroft even cut the terrorism budget in the summer of 2001, a few months before the attacks. Then there's the August 6, 2001 memo, entitled Bin Laden determined to Strike in US, which was included in the presidential daily brief, that gets consistently ignored, and conveniently forgotten, by the likes of Sean Insanity. But instead, let's keep harping about Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Advisor, about taking some classified documents from the National Archives. What's more important here?

About those files that Berger took ~ he pleaded guilty to taking classified information, and was sentenced to pay a $50,000 fine, two years probation and 100 hours community service. And he also lost his top secret security clearance for three years.

But, morons like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Insanity won't let a good conspiracy theory go. The Wall Street Journal, which has one of the most conservative editorial pages in the country, wrote this about the Berger incident:

Justice says the picture that emerged is of a man who knowingly and recklessly violated the law in handling classified documents, but who was not trying to hide any evidence. Prosecutors believe Mr. Berger genuinely wanted to prepare for his testimony before the 9/11 Commission but felt he was somehow above having to spend numerous hours in the Archives as the rules required, and that he didn't exactly know how to return the documents once he'd taken them out... We called Justice Department Public Integrity chief prosecutor Noel Hillman, who assured us that Mr. Berger did not deny any documents to history. "There is no evidence that he intended to destroy originals," said Mr. Hillman. "There is no evidence that he did destroy originals. We have objectively and affirmatively confirmed that the contents of all the five documents at issue exist today and were made available to the 9/11 Commission."

Keeping sizzling that Berger though, Hannity. Some sheep are bound to believe you.

The things that I loved most about Insanity's rant in the clip above is the "death score card" that Faux News posts about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, which totals 3,197.

Hmm. Let me think about that for a minute. That number, 3,200, that means something to me. Where have I seen that before?

Oh yea, the number of Americans killed in Iraq since the war began four years ago this Tuesday. (The current total sits at 3,204 at this writing, with 12 more inconfirmed.)

Whether you agree with the War in Iraq or not, don't buy into all of the spin about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's "confession," specifically from an administration that's in as much political trouble as this one. (Bush's approval ratings remain in the toilet, at 30 percent. The most recent Newsweek Poll rates his embattled Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, more popular than he is. Ouch.)

In my humble opinion, it's probably just another clumsy attempt by Bush and his cabal to reintroduce common knowledge into the mainstream media as "news" in order to turn around the president's sagging approval ratings.

Only time will tell if it's another Mission Accomplished by President Bush.