Olbermann on Obama's FISA second chance

Keith Olbermann took a few well-deserved kidney punches to Barack Obama the other night about the FISA bill. [For more on FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act), click Here.]

Olbermann is exactly right, too - no matter which way Obama votes on the FISA bill, Repubes will criticize him as "soft on terror" anyway, so he's in a no-win position in that regard. So, here's hoping that Obama does the right thing on FISA, and that's to vote against the telecom immunity provisions, period. Okay, it's pretty cool (actually, hilarious) that Republicans largely wrote the bill (at Bush's urging) and that they didn't give any criminal immunity to the telecom companies, only civil immunity. But, that doesn't do much, in my opinion, because Congressional Democrats have shown absolutely no willingness to do much to Bush administration officials who knowingly break the law while giving the finger to the Constitution.

However, Olbermann is off base about a would-be Obama administration subpoenaing documents, records, etc. from former Bush administration officials about FISA and other matters. Hmmm - something tells me that whether Obama wins or loses (but especially if he wins in November), there's going to be an Enron-like confetti party at the Bush Justice Department. Wait, scratch that - every Bush governmental department.

And don't think they can't get away with it, either. After all, how many millions of e-mails got "lost" when Congress demanded them when investigating the Valerie Plame incident (among others)? What's more, what did Congress do about it? Nothing. Worse yet, there have been more than a few reports that the Bush administration had the hard drives crushed that contained any incriminating e-mails, thwarting hopes that they will ever be recovered. (Just for fun, imagine if President Clinton or anyone associated with his administration would done the same thing about something infinitely less important, the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Clinton would have been burned at the stake on the National Mall.)

So my point is, Obama should vote No on the FISA bill, no matter what. Even if he votes yea (a horrible mistake), does any logical person think that Republicans aren't going to try to scare American voters to death with apocalyptic visions of an Obama presidency?

Bet on it.

Over the weekend, when I get a minute, I'm going to write Obama to urge him to vote the right way on FISA, and I will share my letter when it's done.

New Rules: McSame scares Maher (Me too)

Last night, Bill Maher's New Rules on his show, Real Time With Bill Maher, ended with some pretty poignant points about John McCain. Maher contends that McCain's supposed strength, foreign policy, is his weakness. Considering McCain's multiple gaffes this week in Iraq and Israel, I don't know how anyone could argue otherwise. Some in the media really have dismissed it as a "senior moment." Well, considering the firepower he would have at his disposal were he to become president, that sure is comforting.

This really was an edition of New Rules for the ages. Just in case the video gets taken down for some reason or is no longer available in the future, here's what Maher had to say about McSame:

New Rule: Old soldiers never die, they get young soldiers killed. This week John McCain said for the third time in two days, that Iran, a Shi’ite stronghold was training Al-Qaeda, a militant Sunni organization. That the Hatfields of the Muslim world would be working with the McCoys is so not true even Dick Cheney hasn't said it. Now the press, which loves McCain because he feeds them BBQ, dismissed this as just one of those senior moments. Not to worry, he's only going to have his finger on the nuclear trigger. But it's not just a 'gaffe,' it's what McCain really thinks. And therein lies the paradox of this campaign: McCain's strength is really his weakness. He's a warrior who's dumb about war. Whoever read The Art of War, chapter three of The Art of War says, "Know thy enemy." And John McCain plainly doesn't. He thinks the solution is our presence in the Middle East. No, the problem is our presence in the Middle East. [Emphasis Mine.]

That's why I don't care if John McCain is better than Bush on global warming or torture or campaign finance, because he's exactly the same as Bush on the war. They both don't get the same thing. As long as we're setting up shop in the heart of the Arab world, we're not keeping America safer. Bin Laden goes ballistic over cartoons in Danish newspapers, and Goober and Grandpa want to put up a Hooters in Fallujah. They don't "hate us for our freedom," they hate us for our fiefdom. [Emphasis Mine] Winning the War on Terror comes down to this: what will make us safer from pissed off Arab teenagers who are willing to die? There are a number of good answers to that question, but occupying their land for the next 100 years is not one of them.

Some people look at McCain and see a tough guy who is going to protect us from the "Islamofascists." I look at him and see a walking Tom Clancy action figure who is going to get us all killed. [Emphasis Mine] And yet a new poll shows that a majority of Americans believe John McCain is the candidate best qualified to answer when that red phone rings at 3 a.m., because he'd be up anyway, trying to pee. Yes, 55 percent of Americans think it's McCain who should answer that phone, because they know John McCain is a warrior. He will not waver or hesitate. He will answer that phone and give the order that sends men to die and it will turn out to be a recording asking him if he's happy with his mortgage.

I hear Maher loud and clear, but I'm not at all confident that the rest of America does. But, Obama & Hillary need to continue to hammer away at McCain's views on the war, including his getting wrong so many facts and assumptions about Iraq and the War on Terrorism. Soundbites as usual aren't going to get it done in '08.

By the way, Maher is right about Diet Chocolate Cherry Vanilla Dr. Pepper. As much as I love the Diet Dr. Pepper flavors, this one doesn't cut it. As I've written before, it tastes like the world's first dessert soda. It's something I want to drink about once a month or so. Just my 2¢.

An outrageous War With Iran montage

This is a great compilation of the War With Iran Rhetoric, put together by the fine folks at Talking Points Memo.

It's beyond frustrating, and in fact downright frightening that the corporate media continues to talk about a war with Iran as if it's an inevitability. This should bring back plenty of unpleasant memories of the run-up to the war with Iraq, but no one seems to be listening.

What's happening now is exactly what the Bush administration hopes will happen - keep repeating over and over and over that a war with Iran is all but inevitable, and eventually everyone will treat it as a fait accompli. This is the PR phase of Bush's next war, and so far, there is no resistance.

I hear these talking heads on television talk about a war with Iran, and it's hard to not get cynical about the lack of meaningful political discourse in America today, and by that I mean every day people. I'm guilty of it, too - I feel like I don't do enough, and I'm changing that very soon. I've made a commitment to myself to become even more politically active - to make my voice heard loud and clear - that we don't desire another war, and that all diplomatic possibilities must be brought to bear on any situation in the Middle East, including Iran.

Of particular note in the video above is Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) - a walking, talking jackass in the Senate if there ever was one. He's the Senator who, while on one of John McCain's non-listening tours of Baghdad, snorted during a press conference, "I bought five rugs for five bucks!"

Whenever I hear his annoying voice and regurgitated White House talking points, I ask myself, "What in the hell are the people in South Carolina thinking?" I swear to God, there must be a five-foot string on the back of Graham's head, and all you have to to is pull it to hear five Bush talking points about the War in Iraq or the War on Terrorism.

South Carolina is currently suffering from one of the worst droughts on record, and it seems like that drought has also affected political coherence as well. How this moron ever made it to the U.S. Senate is beyond me.

GOP not only angers me, it frightens me, too

I should preface this post by saying that if you go looking for extremism, you can find it in any of the political parties in the United States, including the Democratic and Republican Parties. But that doesn't excuse it, no matter where it can be found.

These days, it's a whole lot easier to find it in the Republican Party than anywhere else. The latest example I found this morning is in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, via Crooks and Liars.

It's a quotation by new chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party, Dennis Milligan (above left), an ardent supporter of President Bush and the War in Iraq. In today's issue of the Gazette, this is what Milligan had to say about Bush:

"At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country," Milligan said.

It almost sounds as if Milligan is rooting for another attack, just so Republicans can stay in power. That's frightening, despicable and outrageous.

This is just the latest example of a long history of demagoguery by the Republican Party since 9-11. People like Milligan will continue to get away with it, if we let them.

Just so you don't think his quotation was taken out of context, here's the link to the entire original article in the Gazette:

Here's the text of a letter I sent to Milligan earlier today:

Dear Mr. Milligan:
I read with dismay an article about you in the Sunday online edition of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. In it, you are quoting as saying:

"'At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country,' Milligan said."

You ought to be ashamed of yourself. This is precisely the kind of language that doesn't unite America, it divides it. By using this language, you aren't trying to unite America anyway, you are just rooting for Republicans to stay in power.

Guess what? If, heaven forbid, there is another attack on American soil, the last thing I will do is unite around President Bush, because our homeland security remains woefully inadequate. I'm so glad we are fighting the wrong war in Iraq, and that the Taliban is experiencing a resurgence in Afghanistan.

But, if another attack happens on Bush's watch, I'm sure Republican ideologues like yourself will find a way to blame Democrats, just like people like you have done regarding 9-11.

Comments like yours don't do the Republican Party any favors. Your ill-advised and myopic views don't add to the political discourse, it takes away from it. People like you only make my voting decisions for 2008 easier, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

Outraged and paying attention,
R.J. Corby

Drop Dennis Milligan a line at info@arkansasgop.org and let him know what you think of his remarks. (Feel free to adapt the text above for your own letter.)

JFK Airport plot convenient excuse for W to crank up the PR machine

My first thought when I heard about the FBI's sting operation that uncovered the plot to blow up JFK International Airport and surrounding neighborhoods was, "thank God the FBI caught them." However, my second thought was, "I wonder if this is being milked by an administration that never misses an opportunity to remind us how safe it's keeping the country."

To me, that's a pretty pathetic thought for any American citizen to have, yet that's how cynical I've become in the face of the Bush administration's relentless PR and marketing effort to force feed their image as the Party That Can Keep Us the Safest. I'd invite anyone who thinks that's cynical to look up various quotations by Dick Cheney and Rudy Giuliani from this year alone - the evidence is easy to find. (You can find lots of it in CMB's archives.)

Of course, the media didn't miss an opportunity to hype the living daylights out of this story over the weekend, either. Don't get me wrong - of course it's a big story, and the media has a responsibility to cover it, and cover it well. But, the media never ceases to amaze me when something like this is uncovered. Just like the plot to attack Fort Dix last month - you would have thought that nothing else was happening in the world, at all.

Ever since 9-11, I just get the feeling that the media has overtly complied with the Bush administration's wishes to scare the living daylights out of us. History shows that a frightened public is a compliant public. Since the 9-11 attacks, there are examples too numerous to mention of this administration's taking advantage of our fears. The USA Patriot Act is probably the best example.

The FBI infiltrated the suspected Muslim terrorist cell that plotted to blow up the airport, its fuel tanks and a jet fuel artery, arresting three men, one of them a former member of Guyana's parliament. A fourth man is still being sought in Trinidad as part of the plot that authorities said they had been tracking for more than a year and was foiled in the planning stages.

Again, bravo to the FBI for a job well done (I really mean that), but this whole incident raises the question - how safe are we, really? Our ports, nuclear plants, food and water supply and many other areas are still wide open, all because of the War in Iraq. This administration has gotten way with homeland security on the cheap. I sure hope our luck continues, but Homeland Security shouldn't be left to chance with luck. Above, fuel tanks are seen at JFK International Airport in New York Sunday, June 3, 2007. I know that there's a great deal that I don't know about security at airports, but just from what I've seen from doing what little air travel I have done in the past few years, our security measures could use a great deal of improvement.

Above, yesterday an approaching aircraft flies overhead past a marker indicating the route of the jet fuel pipeline supplying JFK airport near 157 Ave. and 99th St. in the residential neighborhood of Howard Beach, Queens, N.Y. The lengthy pipeline was installed decades ago to replace barge deliveries of jet fuel. Should it be this easy for a would-be terrorist to identify and find a major jet fuel pipeline? Just a thought.

And one more thought - I did some reading about the plot that the FBI uncovered, and it seems that the terrorists had a difficult time acquiring explosives to do the job. Really? How hard is it to get explosives in America? Not that hard. Timothy McVeigh didn't find it very hard, and neither did the people who perpetrated the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. Either the media (and really, the FBI and this administration) are all blowing this threat way out of proportion (anything think that's far-fetched?), or these four terrorists are the dumbest people walking the planet. Or, it could be a combination of the two.

My point in all of this is that my feelings are yet another indication to me about how far this administration's credibility has fallen - it's to the point now that any report about terrorism or the War on Terrorism can and should be viewed with skepticism before being believed.

I'll feel much more safe, and a whole lot more trusting of our government, when Bush is out of office.

Top photo, Reuters
Second and third photos by David Karp, AP
Bottom photo by Rick Maiman, AP

Ron Paul gives Rudy a reading list; Foreign Policy for Dummies should top it

While I'm in an anti-Rudy mood (when am I not?), I wanted to bring you this footage from CNN's Cafferty File.

As usual, Jack Cafferty takes aim at ignorant, arrogant or ill-informed Republicans; three hats that America's Mayor wears quite well.

In this footage, Cafferty gets viewer reaction to Congressman Ron Paul's assigning Rudy Giuliani a reading list. Paul's press conference really did make for good political theater, because it had the added value of being true.

Whoever wrote in and said that he was "sick and disgusted" and the hoots, hollers and wild applause after arrogantly trying to dismiss Paul's remarks about the root causes of 9-11.

I'm glad that Paul is not withering in the face of criticism from within his own party about the war. Paul represents a dying breed in American politics (much like Joe Lieberman) - minority voices that are not only afraid to speak out and to stand up to the leadership within their own party.

That takes political courage, and I applaud Paul for having something that most do not in contemporary American politics.

America's Mayor just lost moderate voters

This piece of Rudy footage is even funnier than his spirited comments directed at Rep. Ron Paul about 9-11 at the GOP debate the other night.

Rudy Giuliani is an even worse presidential candidate than I thought, and he knows appallingly little about foreign policy. For Giuliani to go before the cameras (even on a Fox show) and to assert that American foreign policy "had nothing to do with 9-11" is a statement so absurd that it defies description.

The more I hear him speak, the more I'm convinced that a vote for Giuliani would be another vote for the policies of George W. Bush. Rudy is being even more blatant about his anti-DemocratIC party hatred than Karl Rove ever was.

"Most of these thoughts [the Democrats reasoning that our foreign policy had something to do with 9-11] are usually coming from the Democratic Party, and quite frankly, I'm surprised to hear it at a Republican debate," said Giuliani.

Breathtakingly arrogant, conceited, and most importantly, wrong.

For any candidate to win next fall, he or she must be able to court a portion of moderate voters. I'd certainly hope that Giuliani's comments this week will give voters a moment of pause.

37 years ago - tragic evidence of what a corrupt government can do to dissenters

I missed the exact anniversary by a day, but 37 years ago yesterday, four students were killed and scores more wounded when National Guard soldiers opened fire on students at Kent State University who were protesting the U.S. military's invasion of Cambodia.

I'll confess, this particular anniversary of one of the greatest tragedies by our government against protesters may have gone unnoticed were it not for a few things, most notably new audio of the actual event released last week.

The audio tape revealed the strong probability that National Guard soldiers may have actually been ordered to fire. On Tuesday, AP reported a former Kent State student, Terry Strubbe, who lived in a dormitory overlooking the anti-war rally site, placed a microphone on a windowsill and recorded nearly 30 minutes of the event on reel-to-reel tape. He sent a copy of the tape to the FBI and kept a copy in a safe deposit box. The government copy has been archived at Yale University.

According to Alan Canfora, who was shot in the wrist that day, a voice can be heard on the tape yelling, "Right here! Get Set! Point! Fire!" before there is the 13-second volley of gunfire.

In the aftermath of the shootings (above, students run following the gunshots), President Nixon, who was often incensed at anti-war protesters, asked his White House Chief of Staff, H.R. Haldeman, to consider the Huston Plan, which would have increased the governments efforts to infiltrate "left-wing protest groups." Ironically, the plan was only stopped when, of all people, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover intervened.

This type of behavior isn't out of the question in present-day American, either. In 2005, The New York Times revealed the New York Police Department has been infiltrating protest groups since the September 11 terrorist attacks to monitor them.

Of course, the NYPD and Mayor Bloomberg counter that since September 11, "we live in a different world." I guess that different world now involves government infiltrating groups and organizations that don't tow the government line.

Not surprising, but until Bush leaves office, this is the government we are stuck with - doing virtually anything it wants, all in the name of The War on Terror. I'm not suggesting there could be another Kent State - I certainly hope not. But, it's not out of the question. The one thing that could potentially ignite such governmental activity against civilians would be stepped-up war protests on a very wide scale. Considering the Bush administration's obstinacy on war funding, that's not out of the question, either.

Of course, if the federal government were to reinstitute the draft, then all bets are off. I'll write more about a potential draft tomorrow, but for now, I'll end with this thought:

Even if this war continues just through the end of Bush's term (unlikely), I really don't see how our military can keep this up without a draft.

Telling poll numbers from NBC's Russert

Speaking of the War in Iraq, last night on NBC News, Tim Russert had some pretty interesting poll results. They are indeed very telling.

I find Russert's comments on Rudy Giuliani spot on, too. Rudy is trying to take control of the issue of terrorism. Interesting how he thinks he's going to do that - he was mayor of New York City during 9-11. Okay, so that makes him qualified to lead the United States for the next four years as we battle worldwide terrorism?

People who honestly believe that Rudy would make a great leader and that he's qualified to be president really don't know much about him, or are wooed by Giuliani's slick campaign of sound bites and arrogance. His comments a few days ago about Democrats and their ability to fight the War on Terrorism may have sealed his fate - how many Democrats are going to jump across the political divide and vote for him now? I'd stay home before I'd vote for him, and I've never missed a vote in a presidential election.

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.

Thought provoking Brit piece on terrorism

I found this on YouTube the other day - it's a video, obviously English made, or at the very least told from the British point of view. It explores the question of why terrorism isn't being thought about differently, specifically in the wake of the 2005 bombings in London, which was only 18 months ago. I figure this is apropos to us in America for two reasons: We are England's most important ally (and vice versa), and also because of British soldier hostage crisis, which mercifully came to an end yesterday.

American society has become so corrupted and frightened in the face of 9-11, that many among us are now easily deceived by our leaders. It's not an exaggeration to say that our very way of life hangs in the balance - our Democracy. I don't count myself as among the gullible or easily deceived, but really, we (including me!) don't make it easy these days on politicians who operate with their own agenda, constituents be damned.

As I watched this video, I thought back to an interview of General Tommy Franks I read in Cigar Aficionado three or four years ago. I've referred to this quote several times, but it bears repeating:

What is the worst thing that can happen in our country? The worst thing that can happen is, perhaps—and this is my personal opinion—two steps. The first step would be a nexus between weapons of mass destruction of any variety. It could be chemical, it could be biological, it could be some nuclear device; and terrorism. Terrorists or any human being who is committed to the proposition of terror, try to just create casualties, not for the purpose of annihilation, but to terrify a population. We see it in the Middle East today, in order to change the mannerisms, the behavior, the sociology and, ultimately, the anthropology of a society.

That goes to step number two, which is that the western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we've seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy.

That's about as succinct of a quote as I've heard from anyone about terrorism, the 9-11 attacks, or post-9-11 America.

The right-wing political talking heads among us are so busy marginalizing not only the terrorists who did this to us, but everyone like them. They are also shameless to attack and smear anyone who doesn't agree with them politically - the phrase "If you don't ____________, then you're siding with the terrorists" has become very mainstream in the Republican Party and Dick Cheney is the proud father. It doesn't hurt one bit to go back and remember what some have said.

I'm not going to do a laundry list here, there are a few that stick out in my mind, most notably asinine Ann Coulter: "We should go in and bomb these countries and convert them all to Christianity."

When you read that, you might laugh - I do, on a certain level. But, when I think about the many people who agree with her, millions in fact, my smile disappears quicker than it came.

What we really need to do is to analyze WHY the terrorists did to us (and our allies like the U.K. and Spain) what they did, and then try and think about what we can possibly do to prevent it. Of course, this has been suggested before.

Remember what the Right, and the Bush Campaign, did to John Kerry in 2003-2004 when he merely insinuated this approach? He was portrayed as the biggest pussy in America this side of Jane Fonda (and some called him worse things than she ever heard, and no, I'm not defending what Fonda did in North Vietnam).

But, Kerry was right about the necessity for a new approach.

Our foreign policy could be twice as effective for arguably half the money we spend annually on defense. I heard this on Thom Hartman's show the other day, and since he is quite literally the smartest guy I've ever heard on radio, I'm inclined to believe him - the U.S. spends more on defense than every other country on Earth combined. Even if that's not true, it can't be far off from the truth.

Just like the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty and the War on Illiteracy need to be rethought, so does our War on Terrorism.

Any right-winger reading this would immediately call me a name to make him/her feel better, such as a Pinko Commie. Fine - we live in America. But, for heaven's sake, get a new slur, will you? Pinko is so 1955. I'm a good American and I pay my taxes and obey the law - the least the right could do is have the common decency to use a contemporary slur when I opine that war should be the last resort, not the first one.

Anyway, I'm fairly certain I'm right - we need a fresh approach to terrorism - a new way of thinking to help our country get out of the hole we are in domestically and internationally.

President Bush only has 654 days to go. That's a looong time to wait for new leadership. I urge you all to write your members of Congress to address these important issues: most notably Defense, Homeland Security, the War in Iraq, and the Environment.

I'm waaaaaay behind on letter writing, but I plan on catching up this weekend and on Monday. I will share with you what I write.

My thoughts on Bush's State of the Union

I've been stewing about President Bush's State of the Union Speech for a few weeks now, and to be honest, I've been a bit too busy to have the time to finish off my thoughts - the beginning of the semester, along with our trip to Vegas have both not allowed me to have much time to write (plus a nasty cold that I'm fighting), but I'm ready at last.

But, before I comment on Bush's last relevant State of the Union speech, I figured it would be cool to look at his SOTU from a few years ago. Watch the clip above, and then read on...

Too funny, eh? God, I have to add video-editing capabilities to my list of New Year's resolutions. I got a kick out of that one.

###



Before getting to my comments, the clip above is worth a look - it's of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann did a quick review of Bush's past SOTU speeches.

Okay, on to Bush's real speech, delivered a little over two weeks ago. Better late than never, right?

Bush's last SOTU address that even matters (next year’s will be an irrelevant lame duck speech, and his '09 goodbye will be a yawner, just like Clinton's was in January '01) should have aired on Comedy Central, because it was about the funniest speech I've ever heard him deliver.

First, I laughed out loud when I heard Bush intone that he's ready for bipartisanship and to work with Democrats. Anyone who's paid attention to five minutes of Bush's Presidency knows that line is fit for the B.S. Hall of Fame. Bush and his speechwriters must really hold the American public in low regard, if they think we are this frickin' stupid.

A few things about Bush's bipartisan olive branch, and I'll move on to other topics of his speech. When you include the '00 presidential primaries and election, Bush and his Rasputin, Karl Rove, have spent the last seven years doing their best to divide, conquer and scare the American electorate, and they've been mostly successful.

During the Bush Presidency, whenever it's an election year, the playbook has become all too predictable – terrorism, 9-11, terrorism, 9-11, abortion and its first cousin - stem cell research, terrorism, 9-11, gay marriage, terrorism, terrorism, 9-11, Iraq was a danger *cough cough Al-Quaeda – hey we didn’t say that!*, terrorism, 9-11, ban flag burning, terrorism, 9-11, etc. You get the idea. And they've been able to get away with it, because, up until the '06 election, voters have not given this administration a proper check and balance in the form of Democratic control in one or both Houses of Congress. But, all that’s changed now, and Bush is putting on his bipartisan face, a face that even a passive follower of politics knows is about as genuine as Pamela Anderson’s bust.

So, he comes before the American people, congratulates Nancy Pelosi (that must have reeeeeeeeaaaaaalllllllllly hurt) and then proclaims he's ready to work with Democrats. Like he has a choice! I would have given the president credit had he sounded a note of magnanimity when Republicans were still in control of Congress, but for him to say that now is the sound of a desperate man. And I like seeing him desperate. It's a face I wish he had to wear long before now, but history's history – nothing to be gained by looking back now.

Anyway, the one thing that really irked me from jump was how he referred to the Democratically controlled Congress:

"Some in this chamber are new to the House and the Senate, and I congratulate the Democrat majority," said Bush.

How childish. One may expect a certain level of churlishness (and sometimes, vulgarity) from a progressive, liberal blogger *ahem*, but not from the President of the United States.

(Oh, and before Bill O'Reilly, six months from now, gets on the air during his Fox News Show and declares, "Bush never said it! Never said it!" click on the link of the transcript from the Washington Post Here.)

This is the kind of stuff that makes me truly despise people like Republican strategist Frank Luntz, who rates a close second behind Karl Rove on my political hate meter. It's people like Luntz who make me ashamed that I teach public relations. I really mean that. To people like him, it's not the policy or the position that's important, it's how you say it. One could imagine him working for Adolf Hitler and advising him: "It's not the Final Solution, Mr. Hitler. Let’s call it Jewish relocation." I mean, really? Could Luntz (and Bush, by his use of this phrase) be any more petty or spiteful about the Democratic victory last November?

After the speech, there were even traditionally strong conservatives were on TV poking fun at the president's having said "Democrat Majority": Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough and Chris Matthews, to name a few.

Seriously, can you imagine if Clinton had done that during his presidency? I truly believe Fox News would have been calling for Congress to go to Defcon 2. Well, I don't mean to keep repeating myself, but it was petty and stupid (and don’t think for a second it was unintentional), but there were even better laughers in the speech, for sure.

The president's health care initiative is dead on arrival, as it should be. The last time Bush tried to sell us something this disingenuous, it was the privatization of Social Security. Now, the president wants to find another way to award his corporate buddies (Read: political donors), while simultaneously sticking it to the middle class, right where the sun doesn’t shine. Sorry, Mr. President – I know the difference between you-know-what from Shinola.

It's truly amazing that even a president with the set the size of Bush's could bring this before Congress and the American people. He now wants people who are lucky enough to have medical benefits through their jobs to have those benefits taxed? He must be joking, right? Someone please e-mail me and tell me when his real State of the Union speech is, because this has got to be April Fool's Day, but earlier. Wait, maybe we were all being Punk'd?

I admittedly won't pretend to know all of the fine print of the Bush's health care proposal, but so far, from what I've read, I’m less than impressed, as are most experts. It's amazing how hard most Republicans fight against doing the right thing on Social Security and Universal Health Care. I've previously blogged about Social Security, so I won't get into it much here, other than to reiterate once more that there was never anything urgently wrong with Social Security in the first place. It wasn't due to go broke for decades, yet GOPers saw that as a great excuse to try and mess with a system that has worked for nearly 70 years, all the while promising that "current recipients will receive no reduction in their checks." It doesn't take a genius to read between the lines in that statement: "If you're years away from retirement, count on getting a lot less than you thought."

I've been paying into the system since I was 15 years old, and now you’re telling me I'm going to see greatly reduced benefits so your buddies on Wall Street can get some of my money to play with under the guise of "private accounts?" Dream on. I've done plenty of reading on what Bush wanted to do with Social Security, and it was just another way to award his big political donors – stock brokers, big business, accountants, and a whole slew of other people who are just dying to get their mitts on some of the billions in the Social Security trust. No sale. And thankfully, the American public wasn't buying it, either. Funny how I haven't heard Bush mention Social Security recently. He knows it's DOA, just like he knows his new scheme for health benefits will suffer the same fate.

As far as universal health coverage, I don’t think I'll ever understand why our government just cannot or will not get it done. As wealthy of a country as we are (at least in theory – actually, Bush is bankrupting us, but that's another post), it's stupefying how politicians can sleep at night knowing that tens of millions of Americans lack health care.

Oh well, on to other topics.

I loved his comments on balancing the federal budget, without raising taxes. One could audibly hear the laughter when the president uttered that doozy. In the name of political ideology, Bush would rather bankrupt future generations than get the government back on the right course by repealing his ludicrous tax cuts from earlier this decade that were enacted in the first place on projected surpluses that no one really believed were going to come to fruition, anyway. (And those rosy predictions were before 9-11 and the contemporary War on Terrorism.)

Fast-forward to the president’s radio address from yesterday, when Bush warned that there will have to be domestic spending cuts to keep the budget in "balance," or his version of balanced, anyway. Bush calling for "fiscal discipline" in Washington during his SOTU speech is analogous to Mark Foley chairing the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children. Oops.



One of my favorite parts of his speech, though, was his calls for energy independence. Coming from a president and his party, both of whom have done nothing to that end in nearly six years, it rang pretty hollow. Even more hilarious was Vice President Dick Cheney, who visibly snickers from behind the president’s shoulder. (See the YouTube clip above.) It was almost as if Dick was snickering to the rest of us, "I know something you don’t know." When it comes to the Big Oil, there's plenty that Dick knows. Big Oil hasn’t been performing energy exploration, it's been exploitation.

I do give Bush at least some credit in a few areas, though:

1. Taking a stand against fossil fuels at all, since he’s done little more than lip service during his presidency. We'll see if this is more of the same, or if he really means it.

2. Calling on increased nuclear power production. No question about it, this is a critical part of our energy solution. However, we need to find a way to safely store the waste. Yucca Mountain appears dead in the water, so proposing increases in the number of nuclear plants requires a solution to this problem, too, and there aren't any easy answers.

3. Bush acknowledged global warming, which is no small admission by this president. But, I'm sure this will prove to be hollow, but I pray it doesn't. I’ll be writing lots more on global warming in the next day or two – it's been in the news quite a bit this past week.

As usual, his speech contained plenty of fear mongering about the War on Terrorism. His rehashed bravado about stopping a plot to fly an airliner into the tallest building on the west coast is older than old news. That one I knew about, but Keith Olbermann discovered plenty of other instances, too. Check out the YouTube clip above.

The president's call to increase the size of our active armed forces by 92,000 over the next five years is seems like small potatoes to me. If I were president, I’d double that, and while I was at it, I'd damn near double the pay of what our soldiers are getting now, which isn't much. Sure, the cost would be high, but you know what would cost even more, in terms of money and blood? Restituting the draft. And if we keep going the way we are, that's precisely what we are going to have to do.

Most incredible is not one word in his speech about New Orleans or Hurricane Katrina, despite the fact that the city isn't even close to being where it was before the storm about 18 months ago. (I mentioned this in an earlier post yesterday.)

And then there was Bush's call for America to continue to support the "cause of freedom in places like Cuba, Belarus and Burma," and to "continue to awaken the conscience of the world to save the people of Darfur."

Two things – 1. Thank God we've got Belarus, Burma and Cuba covered, and 2. What in the world has the president done for the people of Darfur? It sounds good for the press to mention it, but what has Bush really done?

I do give Bush credit for increasing U.S. funding to combat AIDS in Africa, and other humanitarian aid, too. Bush remarked:

"We hear the call to take on the challenges of hunger and poverty and disease. And that is precisely what America is doing. We must continue to fight HIV/AIDS, especially on the continent of Africa. Because you funded the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the number of people receiving life-saving drugs has grown from 50,000 to more than 800,000 in three short years. I ask you to continue funding our efforts to fight HIV/AIDS. And I ask you to provide $1.2 billion over five years so we can combat malaria in 15 African countries."

Again, it's a start, but we could and should be doing so much more. Too bad Bush is so ideologically driven and that this administration won’t fund family planning in Africa, which would also go really far in helping combat AIDS. I know what many religious people believe, too: "Don’t have sex and you can’t get AIDS." I'm not going to get into that too much now, other than to say that it’s as myopic as it is unrealistic.

Even better than Bush's speech is some of the coverage after it. Here are two clips of coverage that I found entertaining – Keith Olbermann (of course!) and a pretty ignorant clip from Fox News, with college drop-out Sean Insanity and another rube named Karen Hanretty. Pretty entertaining.



Above, Keith Olbermann ticks off the lies from Bush's SOTU speech. Take a listen (above).



Here is the Fox News piece I referred to above. Can't you just feel the hatred?

Corporate stupidity 101: Turner Broadcasting

I couldn't help but be amused at the furor that swept Boston and a few other cities this week when suspicious electronic devices (above) were discovered throughout the city.

But, after reflecting on it for a moment, I can certainly understand why first responders and city officials in Boston and other major cities responded the way they did.

One would think that in a post-9-11 world, major corporations, with millions of dollars at their disposal, could think of a better way to promote a television program. (Here's an idea - how about television?)

The devices were intended to advertise a show on the Cartoon Network, "Aqua Teen Hunger Force," a series about a talking milkshake, a box of fries and a meatball distributed by Turner Broadcasting, a division of Time Warner Inc. But in Boston, the signs, some with protruding wires, sent a wave of panic across the city Wednesday, bringing out bomb squads and prompting officials to shut down highways, bridges and part of the Charles River.

"Just a little over a mile away from the placement of the first device, a group of terrorists boarded airplanes and launched an attack on New York City," police Commissioner Edward Davis said in an interview with AP.

"The city clearly did not overreact. Had we taken any other steps, we would have been endangering the public," he said.

Davis said that as calls were coming in about the electronic signs in rapid succession Wednesday afternoon, police also received reports of two devices that resembled pipe bombs and had a confirmed report of a man walking down the hallways of New England Medical Center making a rambling speech about "God getting us today" and "This would be a sorry day."

Boston officials found 38 blinking electronic signs on bridges, a subway station, a hospital, Fenway Park, and other high-profile spots in and around the city.

In New York, officers went to various locations and found only two of the devices - both attached to a highway overpass. Police said it did not appear it was targeting any landmarks such as the subway, Empire State Building or Brooklyn Bridge.

"People can be smug and say all you have to do is look at this and know this is not an explosive device, but the truth of the matter is that you can't tell what it is until it's disrupted," Davis said.
He's right.

In Boston, two men were charged with placing devices around the city. Above, Sean Stevens, 28, left, and Peter Berdovsky, 27, jump down stairs as they leave Charlestown District Court in Boston yesterday after pleading not guilty to placing a hoax device and disorderly conduct. The two men, who authorities say placed electronic advertising devices around the city, were released on $2,500 cash bond.

However, I'm not without a sense of humor, either, and I'm not alone. The men had a few supporters outside the courthouse yesterday. Above, Tracy O'Connor (left) and Jennifer Mason, hold signs outside Charlestown District Court in Boston yesterday in support of Stevens and Berdovsky.

In the end, though, I agree with Boston Police Commissioner Davis. Can you imagine if the city had ignored the devices and, heaven forbid, they turned out to be real bombs?

Imagine the outrage then.

People had really ought to be smarter when considering publicity stunts to promote anything.

Sometimes television executives have the common sense of a newborn, and they are people who get paid high salaries to come up with these ideas. This is the best that they can do?

Perhaps I missed my calling.

Bennett & Bachmann - perfect together

I found this audio clip on Wonkette, probably the best political blog of all time. Who would make that determination, anyway? Okay, well, it's my favorite political blog ever.

Anyway, this piece is from my favorite gambling addict and yours, too -- Bill Bennett. On his show, he has freshman Rep. Michele Bachmann, mother of 23 children. You read the right -- 23. At least only 6 are biological. Shouldn't there be a limit? I mean, REALLY, 23 kids? What's the quality of life? She's going to have to do many favors for lots of lobbyists to pay for all of that college education.

Anyway, listen to the audio clip - it's pretty hilarious. Who knew that President Bush is the only person in the world who can fight terrorism? The way she fawns over Bush, you'd think he's David Koresh.

Hey Michele, when you return from your journey in your parallel universe, why not drop by the mother planet and see what the rest of us are up to?

Oh, and I didn't add the fart noises at the end of the clip, but you never know -- they could be from the bloated Bennett.

Pat Tillman - unwitting PR flack for the misguided War in Iraq

From the Tillman family through TruthDig.com

The disgusting PR effort to win an election by this administration knows no bounds. It's been revealed that the verdict of Saddam Hussein was timed to happen right before the election (surprise!), but that Hussein doesn't know WHY he was found guilty, because the full verdict isn't ready yet - it won't be ready until Thursday. I don't know whether to get angry at that news, laugh at it, or ignore it. One thing's for sure - I'll never ignore stuff like this.

But, I've got some more evidence of some mind-blowingly wretched, gutter PR tactics by our federal government to keep enthusiasm going in the War on Terror.

Over the weekend, I read a pretty powerful essay on TruthDig by Kevin Tillman (above, right) brother of Pat Tillman (above, left), the latter by now a household name for having given up a multi-million dollar NFL contract from the Arizona Cardinals to serve his country. Pat, an Army Ranger, was killed in Afghanistan on April 22, 2004. When Tillman died, there were numerous reports in the media that he was killed while leading his troops and giving orders under fire.

However, on May 28, 2004, the Pentagon told Tillman's family that he was killed by friendly fire. Critics allege that the Tillman family wasn't told right away about the cause of Pat's death because the military wanted to maintain a good image of the armed forces. Considering the track record of this administration, I find it extremely difficult to believe a good story wasn't cooked up to keep public opinion going the right way for the War on Terror; at the time, things in Iraq were worsening, but since this administration ties the war in Iraq & Afghanistan together, Tillman suited their purposes, for a time.

Anyway, Pat's brother Kevin, also an Army Ranger, had this to say on TruthDig (Get the whole story Here.), and it's pretty poignant. It reads, in part:

Somehow the more soldiers that die, the more legitimate the illegal invasion becomes.

Somehow American leadership, whose only credit is lying to its people and illegally invading a nation, has been allowed to steal the courage, virtue and honor of its soldiers on the ground.
Somehow those afraid to fight an illegal invasion decades ago are allowed to send soldiers to die for an illegal invasion they started.

Somehow faking character, virtue and strength is tolerated.

Somehow profiting from tragedy and horror is tolerated.

Somehow the death of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people is tolerated.

Somehow subversion of the Bill of Rights and The Constitution is tolerated.

Somehow suspension of Habeas Corpus is supposed to keep this country safe.

Somehow torture is tolerated.

Somehow lying is tolerated.

Somehow reason is being discarded for faith, dogma, and nonsense.

Somehow American leadership managed to create a more dangerous world.

Somehow a narrative is more important than reality.

Somehow America has become a country that projects everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is.

Somehow the most reasonable, trusted and respected country in the world has become one of the most irrational, belligerent, feared, and distrusted countries in the world.

Somehow being politically informed, diligent, and skeptical has been replaced by apathy through active ignorance.

Somehow the same incompetent, narcissistic, virtueless, vacuous, malicious criminals are still in charge of this country.

Somehow this is tolerated.

Somehow nobody is accountable for this.

In a democracy, the policy of the leaders is the policy of the people. So don’t be shocked when our grandkids bury much of this generation as traitors to the nation, to the world and to humanity. Most likely, they will come to know that “somehow” was nurtured by fear, insecurity and indifference, leaving the country vulnerable to unchecked, unchallenged parasites.

Luckily this country is still a democracy. People still have a voice. People still can take action. It can start after Pat’s birthday.

###

Pat's birthday was yesterday. Kevin Tillman's essay is a moving one, and a pretty stinging indictment of this administration and how it's conducting the War on Terror in Iraq (& Afghanistan).

I wonder if Kevin will get Swiftboated like every other prominent critic of President Bush? I suspect not, but really, nothing would surprise me any longer. Considering this administration's handy work of slander, libel, slash and burn against its opponents, anything is possible.

There are sooo many examples of the American people being lied to by this administration - the Hussein trial is simply the latest case, joining the death of Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch, WMDs, and on and on.

The B.S. & P.R. could all prove to be for naught if you get out and vote - vote for change, give the Democrats a chance. Could they possibly do any worse than the Republicans at this point?

The old campaigner still has it

Okay, I won't be looking for former President Bill Clinton on Comedy Central any time soon, but he's got a point here. And at least he doesn't screw up the joke (Kerry, are you listening?).

Slick Willie still has it, and when I look at him and look back on his eight years in the White House, those years look inviting compared to the mess we are in now.

Hmmm... sex in the oval office on one hand... almost 2,900 dead Americans for a lie in Iraq on the other. Pretty easy decision, in my mind.

Okay, I know that's a gross oversimplification, because it's impossible to look back on the 1990s now without considering 9-11, which changed everything. Clinton was far from a perfect president, but he gets no press for any of the good things he did as president, including many terrorist attacks that were foiled because his administration was obsessed with terror.

Like Clinton said on the now infamous Chris Wallace interview - "We failed [to get bin Laden], but at least we tried."

Sage words from a man who would be into his fourth term, were it not for the 22nd Amendment.

Hussein guilty, & so is GOP...

...of staging the verdict. It's been widely reported that the U.S. government (specifically the Pentagon) pushed for a quicker verdict/sentencing in the trial of Saddam Hussein, moving it up to November 5. Hmmm, I wonder why they did that?

I'll bet it takes about, oh, I dunno, less than 24 hours for Republicans to hit the campaign trail boasting that "Hussein is guilty of genocide, and we removed this evil dictator from power." Snore.

History shows that Hussein was largely a dictator in the 80s, when he was our dictator in his war vs. Iran. During that war, he gassed his own people as well as Iranians, and following Dessert Storm, he slaughtered thousands of Kurds during the Kurdish Uprisings. Of course, all of these facts were used to hype why we should go to war in 2003, and they will now be used to hype why he was found guilty.

We've been fed such a steady diet of bullshit about this war, it's hard to determine what's real anymore. We're now being told that Iraq is the front line of the War on Terrorism, and that's true. That's because we invaded the country. We're told that Al-Qaeda is in Iraq, and that's true, too. Again, because we're there, and the organization's members want to kill Americans. Well, tragically, Iraq is the place to find them.

The next 48 hours will no doubt be rife with self-congratulatory blarney from the Republican noise machine as they try to convince what I hope is a disbelieving public that we are now safe because of the Hussein verdict. In a way, I can't blame Republicans, since they have absolutely nothing else to run on - they might as well try the old stand-by - terrorism. Put another way, you could say they like to scare the shit out of Americans to vote for them. And that's not my political bias talking - Bush and Cheney have said so during this campaign. A sample from the October 29 edition of The New York Times:

Vice President Dick Cheney has charged that the Democrats' talk of withdrawing the troops from Iraq ''validates the strategy of the terrorists,'' and John Boehner, the House majority leader, had phrased the matter even more harshly, saying of the Democrats, ''I wonder if they're more interested in protecting the terrorists than they are in protecting the American people.''

The New York Times article goes on to detail how Snow defended Cheney's comments:

''Osama bin Laden has made it clear . . . if the United States is pushed from Iraq, it will be to the eternal humiliation of the United States,'' Snow said. ''Bin Laden drew the conclusion when we left Somalia that the Americans didn't have what it took to stick it out.'' He continued, ''So, as an objective assessment about the way in which bin Laden views the United States,'' Cheney's saying Democratic debates over Iraq withdrawal would strengthen terrorists ''is a true statement.''

Want a little more? Here's an article I found this morning on Salon.com:

Out on the campaign trail, Dick Cheney warns Republican audiences that Tuesday's election will have "enormous consequences" for the nation. The election, Cheney said last night in Colorado, "will determine whether this government remains firm and resolute in the war on terror, or falls into confusion, doubt, and indecision."

But, in the end, the public's unhappiness with how the war is being fought in Iraq matter little anyway, election be damned. More from Salon:

In an interview with ABC's "This Week," Cheney suggests that the election doesn't really matter because the White House is going to keep doing what it's doing in Iraq no matter what happens on Tuesday. Cheney vows to go "full-speed ahead" with the administration's Iraq strategy whatever the American public might think about it. Acknowledging that the war "may not be popular with the public," Cheney says that it "doesn't matter in the sense that we have to continue the mission and do what we think is right. And that's exactly what we're doing. We're not running for office. We're doing what we think is right."

Anyone else wildly offended at Cheney's hubris and arrogance? I not really surprised, though. It's just Dick being a dick - I've grown used to it over these last six years. What Cheney fails to grasp is that the American people will have a say, on Tuesday, and if the Democrats retake even part of Congress, they will have a say on the war, too.

The GOP has gone back to the politics of smear and fear one too many times. Again, in a way, I can't blame them - it's delivered them many electoral triumphs.

But, this time it isn't working.

How are 8-tracks & habeas corpus alike?

I know, I know, I keep bringing you Keith Olbermann Countdown clips. It's not my fault, though - it's just that he's been better than ever during the last three weeks or so.

The other night, Olbermann's rant on Bush's new Detainee Bill that he's set to sign into law was at times witty, frightening and sobering. He took on the president directly and had some not-so-great things to say about the new Bill - most notably the provisions on habeas corpus and what it means to every American.

(By the way, habeas corpus is Latin for "you [should] have the body." A writ of habeas corpus is a court order addressed to a prison official (or other custodian) ordering that a detainee be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he or she should be released from custody. The writ of habeas corpus in common law countries is an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action. (For more, click on the link - Wikipedia does a pretty decent job of explaining it.)

Habeas corpus is a basic right that every American has a right to, and yes, it's something we take for granted.

Olbermann is pissed about how this new Bill could us to abuses of power by politicians who dislike dissenting voices. You should be pissed, too.

Just when I think I'm completely amazed at what this administration will do in the name of "fighting" the War on Terror, I'm amazed yet again.

If this Bill is allowed to stand (must less if the GOP somehow prevails in the upcoming election), habeas corpus could go the way of...

...the 8-track tape.

The Democrats can and must prevail in the upcoming election.

White House v. Woodward: Who's lying?

The Washington Post's Bob Woodward appeared on Meet the Press yesterday to talk about his book, State of Denial - take a listen above. I get a tremendous kick out of this entire video clip, specifically White House Press Secretary Tony Snow (of Fox News fame) trying to impugn the integrity of Bob Woodward. Who do you believe?

That's like choosing between used cat litter and Godiva chocolate. Please.

I don't want to say I told you so, but I'm saying I told you so. I blogged a few days ago about how the Mark Foley scandal had derailed the Republicans coming after Woodward for this book. Score! The Foley scandal is about a week old, and here comes the White House. I guess it happened a bit sooner than I thought it would, but hey people, we've got an election in less than a month! Do I think they are lying? Hmmm. Did the Cowboys get their asses kicked yesterday? The answer to both is an obvious yes.

As I've written, I'm listening to State of Denial on audio, and I'll be finished by the end of the week. I'll give you my thoughts on the book this weekend, but I'll give you an early one now.

Woodward has written a stunning indictment of this administration and the lies & half truths we get on a daily basis about the War on Terror and the War in Iraq. It's throughly documented and pretty breathtaking in its scope. It's little wonder that the White House is in a full-court press about the book - we'll see if they can run roughshod over Woodward like they did Richard Clarke and John Kerry. My guess is no, but one thing's for sure - they will sure as hell try. They've got an election to try to win, and they will not lose power and go quietly.

Two apropos political quotes

One thing about working in academia - you run across many quotes hanging in, around or outside offices that people consider witty. I must confess, it's one of the things I like about my new job.

Anyway, I ran across two today that I feel are worth sharing.

The first one, I hesitate to write at all though, because it's attributed to a Nazi. Not that a quote from a Nazi is automatically off-limits; we can always learn, even from abhorrant monsters. The reason I hesitate is because "Nazi" is so trite in the U.S. these days. I'm sick to death of politicos slapping the "Nazi" label on enemies and people who disagree with them.

Anyway, the quote is by Hermann Göring, the Nazi commander of the German Luftwaffe and second in command of the Third Reich:

Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

Parts of that certainly apply to our political landscape today, do they not? Specifically when discussing the War in Iraq and the War on Terrorism with some people. The minute you disagree, you are "siding with the terrorists." Am I calling Republicans Nazis? No, but certain elements of their fearmongering does have shades of Nazism.

The second quote is from Richard Perle, who served on the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee from 1987 to 2004 (and as Chairman of the Board from 2001 to 2003 under the Bush Administration.) It reads:

If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely, and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war, our children will sing great songs about us years from now.

Wow, that was pretty accurate - about as accurate as Vice President Cheney saying on Meet the Press in March 2003 that we'd be greeted as liberators if (when) we invaded Iraq.

One other interesting tidbit about Perle that I found on Wikipedia today regards a feud he has with noted author Tom Clancy. It reads:

When discussing his new book "Battle Ready" co-authored with retired general Anthony Zinni, author Tom Clancy stated that he almost came to blows with Perle. According to Clancy:

"He was saying how (Secretary of State) Colin Powell was being a wuss because he was overly concerned with the lives of the troops," Clancy said. "And I said, 'Look ..., he's supposed to think that way!' And Perle didn't agree with me on that. People like that worry me."

###

I found the the Perle quote on Wikipedia, and I'm wary about that site, as much as I love it, because lots of inaccurate information can be posted there. But, it raises interesting quesitons.

If the Perle quotes/stories are true, it wouldn't be the first instance of an unscrupulous character working in the Bush administration.