prev
Liberal Blogs
next
The Brand New Bag
Books about the Iraq War
July 30, 2003
Red House
Here is a fun site, Public Debt Online, where you can use its numbers to calculate changes in the US debt for any given period of time. Using site's data and a $3 calculator, I compared the change in our debt for the 30-month period starting on Bush's Inauguration Day, 1/20/01, to the same 30 month period leading up to that day (amounts rounded to the nearest billion): DATE________DEBT_________________________CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS 7/20/98______$5,533,000,000,000_____________ ---------------------- 1/20/01______$5,728,000,000,000_____________$195,000,000,000 7/20/03______$6,722,000,000,000_____________$994,000,000,000 There you have it. During Clinton's last 30 months in office the debt increased approx. $200 billion. In Bush's first 30 months, the debt increased approx. $1 TRILLION, or five times the previous amount. So much for conservative Republican fiscal policies. Just wait until the latest tax refunds (in the mail now), tax cuts for the rich and costs for the war are all cashed in. I'm thinking it's time to start calling the President's residence the Red House rather than the White House.
Army of One
I checked out this flash presentation recommended by Buzzflash. It runs a little slow (unless you're a slow reader or drunk or stoned), but it reinforces the growing perception that the Bush Administration supports the policy of cutting back financial support to our soldiers, including the ones currently in Iraq.
It's HOPE-less
US tributes to Bob Hope
Matt Keating
Wednesday July 30, 2003 The Guardian
Comedian Bob Hope died on Sunday, two months after celebrating his 100th birthday. Yesterday America paid its tributes. George Bush ordered all US flags on government buildings to be lowered to half-mast for the funeral, while the papers ran front-page tributes and obituaries. I have nothing against Bob Hope. He had a looooong life, was very rich, people liked him, and he made me chuckle a few times over the years. We can only dream of living such a life. It is ironic that we mourn one who is most famous for entertaining U.S. troops during war, at the same time soldiers are dying or wounded daily in a war no one (except rich Republicans) wants. Where are the half-mast flags for our dead and crippled young men? We've been more or less "waiting" for Bob to die for a while now, with our obituatries and tributes and TV specials prepared probably twenty years ago. At the same time the wealthy, neoconservative, neoChristian, neo-dispassionate, ultra-right Republican tribe was waiting for the opportunity to throw our young, promising, idealistic, poor young men and women across the oceans to secure lands that are rich in resources that will benefit only the wallets of the former (don't make me repeat the description again). Now they've gotten the opportunity and are hell-bent on achieving it, consequences be damned. So why are we mourning Bob's life when we should be mourning the utter failure of the Bush Administration to accomplish a single positive thing, for a single American who's income is less than $100,000, since the day he took office in January, 2001? WHAT IS WRONG WITH US?
Word of the Day for Wednesday July 30, 2003: tchotchke\CHOCH-kuh\, noun: A trinket; a knickknack. I always wondered how to spell that word!
Fervor is the weapon of choice for the impotent. __Frantz Fanon
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. __ Isaac Asimov, Salvor Hardin in "Foundation"
July 29, 2003
Loyalty 1, Correct 0
Bush received a lot of information that he used to justify his case for invading Iraq. He was told by advisers that most of the info was bad, and he was also given accurate (and thus conflicting) information (e.g.: cost of war, # of troops needed, existence of WMD and nuclear program, etc.) by the same and other advisers. So, what has happened to these providers of important information? How secure were/are their jobs in the Bush Administration? Tom Raum has the details, and it's not pretty (but also not unexpected). Snippets: In the rising controversy over how the Bush administration built its case for war in Iraq, one curious fact stands out. Some who gave President Bush unwelcome information that turned out to be accurate are gone. Those who did the opposite are still around.
Former economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey, retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni and former Army chief of staff Gen. Eric Shinseki voiced concerns about the expense, aftermath and forces that would be needed -- concerns now proving to be true. These men are no longer in the picture. By contrast, nobody so far has come under apparent pressure to resign in the events that led up to the president's mention in his State of the Union address in January of a British intelligence report that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa. That claim was based on forged documents and challenged by the CIA.[SNIP]
While resignations may yet come, all the major players in the drama have expressed strong loyalty to Bush, noted Stephen Hess, a scholar with the Brookings Institution. ``And it's pretty hard to lose much by being loyal to the boss.'' Meanwhile, the naysayers on Iraq are becoming an endangered species. Lindsey, while chairman of Bush's National Economic Council, suggested in September that the cost of war with Iraq could range from $100 billion to $200 billion. The White House openly contradicted him, saying that figure was far too high. He was eased out in a winter shake-up of Bush's economic team. But his estimates are bearing out.[SNIP]
YIPPEE!
Swing Voters See Through the Smoke and Mirrors
PIPA today released the results of their poll that examined swing voters' beliefs that Bush was truthful about Iraq in his SOTU. U.S. Newswire gives a summary of the findings. Excerpts: COLLEGE PARK, Md., July 29 /U.S. Newswire/ -- An analysis of recent polls conducted by Program on International Policy Attitudes/Knowledge Networks finds that swing voters are considerably more critical of Bush's handling of Iraq than the general population, with majorities saying that Bush was being misleading when he presented evidence to justify going to war and questioning the necessity of going to war. Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes of the University of Maryland comments, "The president is in some trouble with swing voters." Swing voters were defined as respondents who said they were extremely confident that they would vote in the upcoming election and identified themselves as independents.
Swing voters are more critical of Bush's handling of Iraq than is the general population. While the general public leans toward giving him positive ratings overall (49 percent positive, 33 percent negative) swing voters lean toward giving him negative ratings (38 percent positive, 46 percent negative). Among swing voters 52 percent said the US government was being misleading and just as many -- 53 percent -- said President Bush was being misleading when they "presented the evidence to justify going to war with Iraq." Among the general public 42 percent said the US government was being misleading and only 36 percent said this was true of President Bush.
Unlike the general public, a slight majority of swing voters say that the war with Iraq was not necessary. In one question 47 percent said the war was necessary while 51 percent said it was not necessary. Among the general public 53 percent said it was necessary, while 44 percent said it was not necessary.
Debunking the Uranium Spin
Did Bush lie about Iraq's pursuit of African uranium? Are the critics of Bush's SOTU reference to African uranium correct, or did they go overboard? SpinSanity has all the answers!
BringThemHomeNow.Org
Here's a brand new site supported by military families and personnel who..... well, read what they say: BRING THEM HOME NOW! is a coordinating committee of military families, veterans, active duty personnel, reservists and others opposed to the ongoing war in Iraq and galvanized to action by George W. Bush's inane and reckless challenge to armed Iraqis resisting occupation to "Bring 'em on."
Our mission is to mobilize military families, veterans, and GIs themselves to demand: an end to the occupation of Iraq and other misguided military adventures; and an immediate return of all US troops to their home duty stations.
The truth is coming out. The American public was deceived by the Bush administration about the motivation for and intent of the invasion of Iraq. It is equally apparent that the administration is stubbornly and incompetently adhering to a destructive course. Many Americans do not want our troops there. Many military families do not want our troops there. Many troops themselves do not want to be there. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis do not want US troops there. Our troops are embroiled in a regional quagmire largely of our own government's making. These military actions are not perceived as liberations, but as occupations, and our troops are now subject to daily attacks. Meanwhile, without a clear mission, they are living in conditions of relentless austerity and hardship. At home, their families are forced to endure extended separations and ongoing uncertainty. As military veterans and families, we understand that hardship is sometimes part of the job. But there has to be an honest and compelling reason to impose these hardships and risks on our troops, our families, and our communities. The reasons given for the occupation of Iraq does not rise to this standard.
Without just cause for war, we say bring the troops home now! Not one more troop killed in action. Not one more troop wounded in action. Not one more troop psychologically damaged by the act of terrifying, humiliating, injuring or killing innocent people. Not one more troop spending one more day inhaling depleted uranium. Not one more troop separated from spouse and children. This is the only way to truly support these troops, and the families who are just as much part of the military as they are.
Bush says "Bring 'em on." We say "BRING THEM HOME NOW!" If you have a few moments, stop by and see how these people, who are like you and me, are dealing with all this.
July 28, 2003
Calling Tom DeLay...calling Tom DeLay
Texas Democratic legislatures do it again! July 28, 2003, 4:05PM Texas Democrats bolt again By CLAY ROBISON
Copyright 2003 Houston Chronicle
AUSTIN -- Eleven of 12 Democratic state senators abruptly left the state Capitol this afternoon and headed for Albuquerque after learning that Gov. Rick Perry was about to call a second special session on congressional redistricting. The second special session officially began at 3:15 p.m. with congressional redistricting as the only issue in the governor's proclamation. Neither the House nor the Senate had a quorum.
One Democratic senator who asked not to be named told the Chronicle that 11 Democrats were flying this afternoon to Albuquerque, N.M. The Senate requires two-thirds, or 21 senators, to be present to conduct business, meaning the absence of 11 senators breaks a quorum. The senator said the action was precipitated by Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst's decision to bypass a traditional Senate rule that requires a two-thirds vote to debate any bill. That rule, which has been in effect during the current special session, has so far blocked redistricting in the Senate. The senator said the Democrats fled because they feared Perry would immediately call a second special session and Dewhurst would lock down the Senate chambers and prevent members from leaving.
Promises in Philadelphia
The DLC reviews Bush's 2000 nomination speech at the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia. How well has Bush kept his promises? You'll be quite surprised (if you've been living under a rock for the past three years).
Where's Bobby?
Lifted from Mark Kleiman: A STORY MAKING THE ROUNDS, REPORTEDLY FROM PLAYBOY
Attorney General John Ashcroft visited an elementary school to give a civics presentation. After he finished, he asked the young boys and girls, "Are there any questions?"
Bobby raised his hand and said, "I have three questions. How did Bush win the election with fewer votes than Gore? Are you using the Patriot Act to limit civil liberties? And why haven't you caught Osama bin Laden yet?"
Just then, the bell rang and the teacher announced it was recess. Half an hour later, the children returned. Ashcroft said, "Let's start where we left off. Are there any more questions?"
A girl raised her hand and asked, "Is it really legal to hold suspected terrorists without letting them talk to attorneys? Why did the recess bell go off ten minutes early? And where the hell is Bobby?"
July 25, 2003
LEFT is RIGHT is at the top of the Democratic Terrorists listing! Hooray! (Thanks to Jason for the lead.)
Terror Alert Level for Farmers Markets Raised to ELMO
Elderly Driver Hits People at Florida Farmer's MarketI'm starting to see a pattern here, and either the Saudis or the Neoconservatives are behind it. I'm sure of this.
Message from MoveOn
THE BIG CHOICE
MoveOn Bulletin Op-Ed by Eli Pariser
We recently invited all MoveOn members to join together and articulate a positive vision for our nation, based from the ground up on core principles. To kick off the process, members were asked to take an hour to interview each other about their fears and hopes for our country. People paired up randomly: folks in Maine called folks in Texas; nineteen-year-old college students called septuagenarians.
I've spent the last few days reading through the thousands of pages of reports from these thousands of calls. Read together, these interviews highlight the stark choice we face. When we asked participants to talk about the values that the Bush Administration lacks, integrity, honesty, respect, compassion, and fairness were at the top of the list. Interviewees were furious at the duplicity and secrecy of the Bush Administration; so many of them mentioned lies that one could pick out the word scores of times on a single page.
It's no coincidence that these attributes occur together. The President's ideology is predicated on the idea that society is essentially a group of selfish individuals scrambling for power. Respect, compassion and fairness, in this view, are attributes of the weak: in order to "win," individuals must seize every competitive advantage. And truthfulness is less important than the appearance of credibility. Communications are just a means to an end.
What's the alternative? We asked folks what American values they resonated most strongly with. "Compassion, equality, fairness and respect," they responded. These also begin to shape a positive world view, a view based on the idea that collaboration and community build stronger societies -- that if we strengthen the bonds between each other, if we trust, respect, and empathize with each other, we will be more creative, more resilient, more fair, and ultimately more collectively powerful. Political strategists like to talk about swing states and target demographics for voter turnout. These tactics are important, but it's also important to keep at least one eye on the big question: In 2004, do we want a President who believes in trust, respect, and community, or one who believes in power?
Shrubbery Row
Here's the latest news from Shrubbery Row: 9/11 report: No Iraq link to al-QaidaRepublican-controlled Senate squelches attempts by Dems to justify military spending. David Sirota, ”The Amazing Stories of Condoleezza Rice”Cheney's speech yesterday, and analysies of it by Steve Gilliard and Timothy Noah. E-voting system flaws 'risk election fraud'Did Bushies blow cover of CIA operative?
Morford in the Shrubs
Read Mark Morford's column in the SF Gate, about Bush's apparently accelerating downfall. Snippets: Shrub's ratings have dropped below 50 percent for the first (and probably not the last) time since they surged hugely right after 9/11 and he was hoisted in front of a wary America and puffed out his chest and pretended like he could find Afghanistan on a map and promised he would bomb every damn country on the planet that didn't have a McDonald's or an Exxon or a secret U.S. chemical-weapons deal. Shrub's numbers are down. The nation is catching on. The armor of money and power is cracking. The smirk is waning. Dick's defibrillator is running on fumes.
Funny how the BS can wear you down. Funny how it can make you feel like someone's been piling huge rocks on our collective chest for the past three years and stomping on them with ugly polished right-wing loafers until we can hardly breathe. And all you have to do is ask any schoolteacher or grandparent or health-care worker or conscious sensual attuned soulful organism anywhere, and the answer is unavoidable: The nation is gasping for air. Cities are desperate, basic services are being slashed, schools are broke, the environment's molested, the GOP has promised a ridiculous array of cuts and dedicated billions they can't possibly deliver in light of inane tax cuts and the biggest deficit in U.S. history. Hey, how's your portfolio doing?
It is not yet time to relish Junior's slide into abject failure and scathing ratings and one-term histrionics -- you know, just like those suffered by his dear old dad. We are still too fragile, the feelings too raw, the wounds too recent from the current administration's mugging of the country. But we are healing fast. We are coming back to life. We are opening our blackened eyes, realizing we have been massively and systematically and enthusiastically and intentionally duped by some very rich, very impotent white males three years running and it's damn near time for a domestic regime change and let's just float a Dean/Kerry (Kerry/Dean?) presidential ticket out there to the cosmic Void, see how it plays, shall we?
Friday Fun
101 Amazing Facts about the EarthWorld's Smallest MotorWhat Makes a Political Conservative (Okay, it's not necessarily fun, but it's interesting.) Mark Fiore's Grunt Vision Goggles"There are a terrible lot of lies going around the world, and the worst of it is half of them are true." --Sir Winston Churchill
July 24, 2003
LXG Reviewed!
The ReviewOlogist has just released a much-anticipated review of the film, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Read it all HERE.
Matt Jeffries dies. From Space.com: CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. -- Matt Jeffries, the man who designed the fictional Starship Enterprise for the original television series "Star Trek", passed away Monday at the age of 82.
With its saucer-shaped primary hull, separate engineering section and twin warp nacelles, the U.S.S. Enterprise, NCC-1701, has become one of the most recognizable icons of the space age.
Jeffries came up with the ship design for "Star Trek" creator Gene Roddenberry during the mid 1960s. The design evolved as the original show gave way to a string of movies and four new television series.
"Matt was a gentle soul. He has put his stamp on everything we have done since his brilliant, classic Enterprise," Herman Zimmerman, production designer for the current series "Enterprise," said in a statement posted on the official Star Trek web site. References to Jeffries' contribution continues in almost every episode and movie as the engineering tunnels that run inside each starship are called "Jeffries Tubes" by the characters.
Often considered the true star of the show, the original Starship Enterprise and the series it represented was so popular that following a mail and phone campaign by fans NASA named the prototype shuttle Enterprise after the ship Jeffries designed. 
July 23, 2003
Pay Taxes
Arianna Huffington thinks that corporations should pay their fair share of taxes. Fine. So what's new?
Class Assignment
Okay, class. HERE is today's speech by Bush regarding the murder of Hussein's two sons. Your assignment is to find two things in the speech that are actually true. You have 10 minutes. Begin.
HERE is a letter written by an unnamed American on the Eric Alterman's MSNBC Altercation blog: Name: Rich Enough to Forget My Name; Hometown: Burlington, VT
Eric, This weekend I finally had a chance to catch up with my cousin in-law who just got back from Iraq last week. Twenty years old he is now a different person than when he left and not in a good way. His pictures tell the story. The first few rolls are of him and his buddies clowning around and striking posses with their various weapons in Kuwait. It looks like a regular old NRA wet dream, young boys and guns. The sad thing about the pictures is how young they look. When you see the Marines on TV in full combat gear they look very menacing, but strip them down to t-shirts and baseball hats and you see what the kids that they really are. The pictures at first almost made it look like a good time. There was regular college hijinx going on. It was Frat Row Baghdad style. In the latter rolls the mood started to change. You never saw any of them without helmets or vests on. He told me the night they rode into Baghdad was the scariest night of his life. The vacation was over and the shooting began. An RPG scorched the hood of his Humvee. They felt the heat in the cab. He estimated that he was 1-2 feet away from being blown to pieces. Which is a lot better than one of his friends fared. Last he saw that guy all they could find was the body and a bunch of brains sprayed all over the inside of a truck, no face or head left. He also fared better than the family he watched get killed. His unit emptied their weapons into a home when they took fire. He watched as a four year old was, in his words, “vaporized.” After looking at about three rolls of film I asked him where the rest were. (He took 12 in all). He told me that he threw them away. Everything that happened after the first three rolls he wants to forget. He said he looked at them once and wanted to vomit. Do you really need the Kodak version of a scene that is already burned into your mind? The biggest tragedy of all is that his belief in America has been shattered. He went over there idealistic. He was protecting US and freeing the citizens of Iraq. Now he just feels used. “It was all a f**king waste,” he told me without emotion. And he is one of the lucky ones; he is home.
Let's get serious about employee performance reviews
This kind of nitpicky stuff is all well and good, but now that the Democrats/Progressives seem to be developing some political momentum it is time to adjust our focus and concentrate on what will happen during the period between now and the '04 election. We must contest every bill and every action initiated by the Republican Administration and Congress. We must take the initiative and propose ways to get out of Iraq immediately with as little negative consequence as possible to, firstly, the Iraqi citizens whom we have thrashed, and secondly to American GI's whom we have indiscriminantly thrown into an impossible predicament. We must apologise to the UN (and thusly the world) for our wrongheaded actions (that may have to wait until we get a compassionate liberal into office). At the same time we must attack with full force the domestic policies and proposals of said Administration, including those already implemented since inauguration day, 2001, and those yet to be finalized. We elected our Senators and Congressmen to do such things and we need to increase the pressure on them to act (i.e. to do their job). These elected office-holders are OUR employees and we must hold them accountable for their work product or else replace them. If we take this approach with our government, the voters will be more interested in being involved, especially if we take the "employees" route.
Kucinich Asks Cheney for Answers
Never the shy one, Kucinich wants answers: Kucinich Challenges Cheney in Iraq Flap
Tuesday July 22, 2003 4:59 PM By MALIA RULON Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential aspirant Dennis Kucinich is calling on Vice President Dick Cheney to explain his role in how the now-disavowed claim that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa ended up in President Bush's State of the Union address. In a letter sent to the vice president, the Ohio congressman and two members of the House Government Reform subcommittee on national security, emerging threats and international relations asked Cheney to explain his multiple visits to CIA headquarters. "These visits were unprecedented. Normally, vice presidents, yourself included, receive regular briefings from CIA in your office ... there is no reason for the vice president to make personal visits to CIA analysts,'' said the letter, which was sent late Monday.
Kucinich and Reps. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., posed 10 questions that they want the vice president to answer, such as: "Did you or a member of your staff at any time direct or encourage CIA analysts to disseminate unreliable intelligence?''
Cheney's office did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment. The lawmakers also are seeking an explanation on the vice president's involvement in the CIA sending Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador, to Niger to investigate the possible sale of uranium. The lawmakers want to know who in the vice president's office was briefed on the contents of Wilson's report, what efforts were made to share the findings with other members of the Bush administration and whether Cheney's office found the report to be accurate. The letter also asks Cheney to explain why he and other high-ranking members of the administration claimed Iraq had a nuclear weapons program even after the uranium sale could not be proven by Wilson's investigation.
Kucinich, an outspoken critic of the Iraq war, issued another call Tuesday for the administration to withdraw American troops from Iraq immediately. "This administration, whose entry strategy was based on falsehood, with no exit strategy, has trapped our troops in Iraq and exposed them to greater harm,'' Kucinich said in a speech on the House floor. We all know Cheney isn't going to respond to Kucinich's letter, much less give him the time of day. Kucinich should now move on to other issues and other people, like George Bush for example. There are so many questionable issues about which to query Rice, Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell, etc. Keep those questions coming, Dennis!
July 22, 2003
Bennett Bites
Check out this snippet from an article written by William J. Bennett over at NRO: Israel, ironically, is also one of the world's greatest exemplars of democracies.
In the wake of September 11, many argued that we brought the attack upon ourselves because of our support for Israel. Even were this true, we should no more end that support than we should eliminate religious freedom and women's rights in our country — hallmarks of our democracy that also engage the wrath of the terrorists who attacked us. And it beggars belief to think our support for Israel played much of any part for the attack upon us. A massive occupation of Palestine does not make Israel one of the world's greatest exemplars of democracies. Puleeez. And, Osama did not attack us because of our religious freedom and women's rights - he attacked because we cozy up to Saudi Arabia and Israel (oh, and because he's a crazy man).
AmeriCorps becoming AmeriCorpse
The DLC explains how the Republican Administration and Congress are systematically destroying the effective and worthy AmeriCorps by rejecting appropriations bills for the Corporation for National Service, which is the governing body for AmeriCorps.
"The enormous gap between what U.S. leaders do in the world and what Americans think their leaders are doing is one of the great propaganda accomplishments of the dominant political mythology." -- Michael Parenti Read this expose, by Maureen Farrell, of our secret federal government.
Paper or Touch Screen, Sir?
HERE is a well-researched article by Dan Gillmor of the Mercury News about an upcoming critical decision by California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley to require counties to buy electronic voting machines that include paper backup. There are some good links there, too.
70 sextillion stars: banned by internet filters?
I just found another good reason to move to Australia or New Zealand. These people are so laid back that they have time to count the number of stars in the universe: Star survey reaches 70 sextillion
Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Posted: 9:12 AM EDT (1312 GMT) SYDNEY, Australia (CNN) --
Ever wanted to wish upon a star? Well, you have 70,000 million million million to choose from. That's the total number of stars in the known universe, according to a study by Australian astronomers. It's also about 10 times as many stars as grains of sand on all the world's beaches and deserts.
The figure -- 7 followed by 22 zeros or, more accurately, 70 sextillion -- was calculated by a team of stargazers based at the Australian National University.
Waiter: Make That One Italian Pizza, Please
This is the best news I've heard all year: Pizza may keep cancer at bay
Last Updated: 2003-07-21 16:54:52 -0400 (Reuters Health) By Karla Gale
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Eating Italian pizza on a regular basis may lower your odds of getting certain cancers, new research suggests.
Dr. Silvano Gallus at the Institute of Pharmacologic Research in Milan and his associates analyzed data from studies conducted in Italy between 1991 and 2000. Included were more than 3000 patients with a variety of cancers involving the digestive tract, such as in the esophagus or colon. For comparison, the authors included nearly 5000 similar patients without any evidence of cancer.
The subjects were interviewed regarding lifestyle habits. People who ate pizza at least once a week were considered regular pizza eaters, while those who ate pizza up to 3 times a month were considered occasional eaters. As reported in the International Journal of Cancer, people who ate pizza at least once a week were less likely to develop any of the digestive tract cancers than people who did not eat pizza. In addition, for most types of cancer, the risk dropped steadily the more often pizza was eaten. Despite these findings, "our suggestion is not simply 'eat pizza and you will be protected against cancers'," Gallus told Reuters Health said, since "pizza may simply represent an indicator of a healthy Italian diet." On the other hand, "Italian pizzas could be quite different from other kinds of pizza." He and his colleagues suggest that pizza's favorable influence may be related to the content of cooked tomatoes, which are rich in lycopene, and olive oil.
SOURCE: International Journal of Cancer, July 21, 2003
Emma on Kucinich
Emma at Notes on the Atrocities recently saw Kucinich speak in Portland and expresses her feelings about his slim chances. Snippet: I don't know if the man has any chance to win the Presidency. But as I was listening to him, I had a thought: revolutions occasionally happen. They arise when the circumstances for the unlikely ripen. By their very nature, they're unlikely--at the front end of revolutions, what they always look like are a bunch of idealists on doomed ventures. But in order for the circumstances for revolutions to happen, you've got to have people willing to give the unlikely a chance.
Watching Kucinich, I saw the doomed idealists. They're so doomed that Kos--a Democratic blogger, not Fox News--won't even consider his candidacy legitimate enough to comment on it. And yet I look at Kucinich's positions, and I think they're actually closer to what most Americans believe than the other Democratic candidates, and certainly the President's. So really, the big problem is that no one wants to stand with the doomed idealists.
Well friends, revolutions are always longshots. So the question is, do you want one? And here is the comment I left at her post: Hi. I have to agree with many of your views about Kucinich. However, I disagree that KOSonians are doomed idealists. I don't think they are idealists, but good writers and researchers. I do enjoy reading such blogs and have honed many of my newly-discovered ideals by reading their words. You and I are idealists because we embrace that which is morally and ethically sound, rather than that which is practical and realistic. Practically and realistically speaking, Kucinich has a bat's chance in hell of successfully garnering the Democratic nomination and would otherwise be eaten alive by the Republican juggernaut. However, we will support him to his political death because he represents to us what is good about our country and speaks his mind and acts according to his own convictions, not according to the whims of the largest campaign contributer. He gives us hope where none can otherwise be found, and he seems to be the only candidate who sincerely believes what he says, all of which are reasons he won't succeed in today's corporation-sponsored, wealth-controlled, political state.
July 21, 2003
So, here's where we stand today: 1. Every justification Bush used, since 2002, for invading Iraq has been proven to be questionable at best, and fabricated at worst. 2. The military equipment and weapons found in Iraq since March 20, 2003 are no more dangerous than what one might find in a sweep of South-Central Los Angeles. 3. Between 6,000 and 8,000 (and possibly many more) Iraqi civilians have been murdered as a direct result of the US invasion. Tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers have been slaughtered by the US military. Hundreds of American, British and other soldiers have died in Iraq since the March 20 invasion. 4. Much of Iraq lay in ruins, with massive unemployment, rampant crime, starvation, rape, sickness, lack of clean water and electricity, all a result of the US invasion. 5. The US has lost much of its international credibility which will take years, if not decades, to rebuild. And that's not even mentioning our domestic problems. How can 50+ percent of the American public believe that Bush has done a great job since March 20?
One O.D. Does Not Make a Case
The assertion that Kobe Bryant's accuser overdosed two months before the alleged attack should not be a factor in the case for or against Kobe, unless the defense can show that the plaintiff has an ongoing history of drug abuse.
Slate Whopper
From SLATE: "[W]e gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region." —President Bush, in a Q and A with reporters after an Oval Office meeting with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, July 14.
"Yesterday [the U.N. Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission], the [International] Atomic [Energy] Agency, and myself got information from the United States authorities that it would be prudent not to leave our staff in the [Iraq] region. I have just informed the Council that we will withdraw the UNMOVIC and Atomic Agency inspectors. …" —U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in a Q and A with reporters, announcing the reluctant withdrawal of U.N. inspectors from Iraq, as necessitated by the imminent U.S. invasion, March 17. The inspections had gone on since November 2002, when Saddam Hussein, in deference to the just-passed U.N. Resolution 1441 (and to the United States' quite visible preparations for war) allowed the U.N. inspectors back in. Saddam had kicked U.N. inspectors out--or rather (to be more precise), refused to allow them back in after they'd withdrawn in protest against Iraqi interference--in 1998. I hope Bush never walks around the streets of my neck of the woods while I'm out driving; I have a huge blind spot for liars.
Stark: "you little wimp"
Angry Bear gives a humorous slant to the story about the Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee calling the Capitol Police on the lone, 71 y/o Democrat present in the room because they (the Republicans) feared for their lives.
Vote
Don't know how long it will be posted, but CNN has a QuickVote Poll, "Is President Bush doing a good job?" HERE. Currently the Yes/No ratio is 51/49.
Not Surprisingly, Bush Failed to Fully Read Report on Iraq for SOTU
While prepping his State of the Union speech, "President Bush and his national security adviser did not entirely read the most authoritative prewar assessment of U.S. intelligence on Iraq, including a State Department claim that an allegation Bush would later use in his State of the Union address was "highly dubious," White House officials said yesterday."Read the entire report from the Washington Post HERE.
Attention: Iraq is Dangerous!
This analysis by George Bush on the official White House web site sounds frightening. I think we should Invade Iraq and overthrow Hussein as soon as possible!
More on Saudi 9-11 Connection
Was the Saudi government a component of the terrorism of 9-11? New evidence suggests it. Intro: Exclusive—The 9-11 Report: Slamming the FBI
By Michael Isikoff NEWSWEEK July 28 issue
The FBI blew repeated chances to uncover the 9-11 plot because it failed to aggressively investigate evidence of Al Qaeda’s presence in the United States, especially in the San Diego area, where two of the hijackers were living with one of the bureau’s own informants, according to the congressional report set for release this week.
The long-delayed 900-page report also contains potentially explosive new evidence suggesting that Omar al-Bayoumi, a key associate of two of the hijackers, may have been a Saudi-government agent, sources tell NEWSWEEK. The report documents extensive ties between al-Bayoumi and the hijackers. But the bureau never kept tabs on al-Bayoumi—despite receiving prior information he was a secret Saudi agent, the report says. In January 2000, al-Bayoumi had a meeting at the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles—and then went directly to a restaurant where he met future hijackers Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, whom he took back with him to San Diego. (Al-Bayoumi later arranged for the men to get an apartment next to his and fronted them their first two months rent.) The report is sure to reignite questions about whether some Saudi officials were secretly monitoring the hijackers—or even facilitating their conduct. Questions about the Saudi role arose repeatedly during last year’s joint House-Senate intelligence-committees inquiry. But the Bush administration has refused to declassify many key passages of the committees’ findings. A 28-page section of the report dealing with the Saudis and other foreign governments will be deleted. “They are protecting a foreign government,” charged Sen. Bob Graham, who oversaw the inquiry.
Eat My Dust, Harry Potter
CafePress will now allow you to publish your own book. Amazing! And for you chemistry geeks, here is the ultimate Periodic Table. (Note: Turn off pop-up stoppers; broadband connection recommented.)
July 18, 2003
Friday Fun
The human brain starts working the moment you are born and never stops until you stand up to speak in public. -- George Jessel Bad DesignsIsn't it time to visit Hatten again? Welcome to Zombo.com. Welcome, welcome, welcome. Look out for Cows with guns. Just plain bad art, and not quite as bad Wiener Dog Art
Don't Say I Didn't Warn You
Whatever you do, do not click this.
Call Me a Conspiracist
Last week we had the "accidental" death of one of Private Jessica Lynch's rescuers. Now we wake up this morning to the murder of a British WMD inspector: WMD scientist's death rocks British government By Gideon Long
LONGWORTH, England, July 18 — A mild-mannered British scientist was found dead in the woods on Friday after being unwittingly dragged into a fierce political dispute about intelligence used to justify war on Iraq.
British police said they had found a body matching that of soft-spoken defence ministry biologist David Kelly, a former U.N. weapons inspector, who had been grilled in parliament over allegations the government hyped intelligence to justify war. The question isn't, "Is this a conspiracy?" but rather, "Who's next?"
WORD
The publick perceives scarcely any alteration [in its fortunes, from war], but an increase of debt; and the few individuals who are benefited are not supposed to have the clearest right to their advantages. If he that shared the danger enjoyed the profit, and, after bleeding in the battle, grew rich by the victory, he might show his gains without envy. But, at the conclusion of a ten years' war, how are we recompensed for the death of multitudes, and the expense of millions, but by contemplating the sudden glories of paymasters and agents, contractors and commissaries, whose equipages shine like meteors, and whose palaces rise like exhalations!
These are the men who, without virtue, labour, or hazard, are growing rich, as their country is impoverished; they rejoice, when obstinacy or ambition adds another year to slaughter and devastation; and laugh, from their desks, at bravery and science, while they are adding figure to figure, and cipher to cipher, hoping for a new contract from a new armament, and computing the profits of a siege or tempest. - Samuel Johnson
Screwed by the Democrats... AGAIN
The Democrats in the House of Representatives have let us down again. In a very important bill which will allow employers to prevent employees from receiving overtime pay for working overtime hours, several Democtrats, whose votes would have made defeat of the bill likely, were absent from the voting. AWOL Dems included presidential candidate Richard Gephardt.
Sooner or Later Oil be Convincing You
So you're STILL not convinced that the Iraq War was for oil? Then read this article from Judicial Watch. Snippet: Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and abuse, said today that documents turned over by the Commerce Department, under court order as a result of Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force, contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” The documents, which are dated March 2001, are available on the Internet at: www.JudicialWatch.org.
July 17, 2003
"Bush is not a leader. He is a hanger on."
From today's DAILY KOS (I know, grammar is not one of the strong points...): In the end, the question will not boil down to if Bush can be defeated, but even if he can run. Bush bet everything on a successful Iraq policy, one which is elusive and lacks all but the most nominal support of our allies. That policy and the arguments used to start the war are now collapsing. Bush has no alternative to offer except success in Iraq. The economy is a shambles, the tax cuts exploded the deficit, without Iraq, he doesn't have much to offer, especially when his personal credibility is questioned.
Niger is the tip of a deep iceberg of lies and lies from the White House ultimately benefit one person, the President. It is only a matter of time before it becomes a story not of what to do in Iraq, but what to do with George. Read the entire post HERE.
GOOD vs. DECISIVE
Read Jack Balkin's wonderful essay on our current, dismal state of affairs. Snippet: Being a decisive leader is not the same thing as being a good leader. Decisive action may make a person appear tough and principled, but it may just be a cover for recklessness, stubbornness and the refusal to listen to reason. These are characteristics that leaders can do without. For that sort of leadership, willfully blind to consequences, engaged in wishful thinking, and disgusing its real motives, may cause enormous problems for the country down the road. I have long believed that this President, and this Administration, are not providing strong leadership, but rather reckless leadership. That recklessness is becoming more apparent every day, as the economy worsens, the deficits soar, and more and more Americans die in a war that the President stated was officially over as he strutted like a popinjay up and down the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln. Good government is not a crap shoot, nor is it best achieved through bluffing. It is a sign of the President's failure of leadership that all he has to offer now is what he has always offered-- tough talk, vague generalities, and attempts to change the subject. Such forced machismo rings increasingly hollow as the casualties mount, the predicted duration of occupation lengthens, the forces necessary to our self-defense are stretched to the breaking point, and the long term economic health of the nation is endangered by a massive redistirbution to the wealthy and the powerful.
America deserves a better government than this.
Story's in the Numbers, Folks
Angry Bear gives a nice, concise analysis of the budget deficits (has pretty graphs, too!). Snippet: Tom DeLay says spending is causing the deficit. Is he right? What's really causing the deficit? War? Recession? Spending? Tax Cuts? Some of each? If the latter, how much of each?
To take a quick look at some of these issues, I grabbed data on Federal Revenue, Spending, and GDP from 1992-2004E. First, the Revenue and Spending Numbers. Note that the Bush budgets and tax plans were in effect from roughly 2002 onward (Spending in 2001 was authored by Clinton; Bush's 2001 rebate did cut into what 2001 revenue was under Clinton's budget).
First, in raw numbers (inflation has been modest, so while these are not inflation-adjusted, doing so would only have a minor effect). Under Bush, Federal Spending has skyrocketed. It was $1.86 trillion under Clinton's last budget but 2.01 trillion under Bush's first budget. Under Bush's third budget (authored with a Republican House, Republican Senate, and Republican White House), spending will be $2.27 trillion. That's a 22% increase over Clinton's last year, at most 3-5% of which is due to inflation. Now that's big government. How to pay for all of this?
Certainly not with tax revenue. That's down from $2 trillion in 2001 to $1.8 trillion in 2004. But that must be the fault of the recession, right? Wrong. Here are the GDP numbers:
2000: $9.7 trillion; 2001: $10 trillion; 2002: $10.34 trillion; 2003: $10.76 trillion; 2004E: $11.3 trillion.
So while slow and accompanied by rising unemployment, growth is still positive, meaning the tax base of national income increased. The only mechanism by which terrorism could affect revenue, as opposed to spending, is by reducing GDP, and that just hasn't happened. The only explanation is the Bush Tax Cuts. If we're not paying for the Bush spending now, when do we pay? Later, starting right around when the Baby Boomers retire. Also read THIS analysis.
It's "Deception", not "Lying"
Eric Alterman's version of Bush's State of the Union speech: “Saddam Hussein has no nuclear-weapons program. He has destroyed most of his weapons of mass destruction. He has no ties with al-Qaida, nor, insofar as we can determine, with any other major terrorist group, and even the CIA can’t pin anything on him for at least a decade. He’s a bad guy, to be sure, but one of many in the world, and we’ve used his badness when we thought it convenient. Hell, Don Rumsfeld even paid him a visit as Ronald Reagan’s private emissary and didn’t find time to mention it.
Now, we are about to embark on a war that may never end. Sure, we will cream them in the main combat phase — how could we not? — but after that our troops will remain in Iraq, alone and vulnerable to daily attacks, and increasingly resented by the population, surrounded by murderous chaos. We will pay for this war by increasing the time of service of our enlisted men and women to at least a year in that country, away from their families, while I explode the deficit (robbing future generations), and cut deeply needed services to give enormous tax breaks to the wealthy.
Meanwhile, the world will hate us; Hussein and bin Laden will remain at large, finding fresh terrorist recruits. And homeland security, a sick joke. Whaddya say, folks?”
One (make that A LOT) for the record books
Here are a few tidbits of info on Bush's administration of our economy: First president likely to run up a trillion-dollar deficit in one term: Yesterday, the Office of Management and Budget projected a $1.9 trillion increase in the national debt over the next five years.
Sharpest plunge from surplus to deficit: The Clinton administration delivered a record budget surplus in its final year of $236 billion. Bush has delivered a stunning $691 billion reversal of fortune in just three years.
Most dramatic swing in long-term outlook: When Bush took office, the 10-year budget of the United States forecast a surplus of $5.6 trillion dollars, a nice cushion to have in place with the Baby Boom set to retire. But after two big sets of tax cuts and a variety of spending increases, a reasonable projection of the ten-year deficit now exceeds $5 trillion -- an $11 trillion swing.
Most jobs killed in a first term: The economy has lost 2.6 million jobs since Bush took office. He's almost certain to become the first president since Herbert Hoover to leave the economy with fewer jobs than when he took office. Wow. I'm thinking that the Guinness Book people will be knockin on Bush's door any day now...
July 16, 2003
"The aces in my deck are Paul Bremer, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush and Paul Wolfowitz"
The fact that our soldiers are irate at our government and no longer trusting anyone (from Bush on down) except their junior officers is a serious concern for themselves, the Iraqis and Americans at home. Read the latest HERE.
July 13, 2003
See Ya Later
On a short vacation. Back July 17th. Browse the "Pages of Links" and help yourself to the free ice cream and lemonade.While I'm gone, I sure hope THIS gets resolved, and maybe THIS too. (Yeah, right.)
July 11, 2003
My Fear
Now that things are slowly unravelling for the Bush Administration, I fear that Bush is going to pull something out of his hat to halt the developing political chaos. What might it be? Another 9-11 type terrorist attack to regain our fear? Another invasion for us to rally around? A Cheney heart attack? A staged assassination attempt on himself? I fear he (well, not actually "he", but rather his cartel) is going to do something rather quickly to change the attention of the American public. He'd better do it quickly if he desires success, because he's rapidly losing his credibility.
Tenet Takes the Blame for CIA-Uranium Mess and thus the TPM Analysis; also see MWO and KOS analyses TPM analyzes the developing Niger Uranium ScandalNiger Uranium TimelineMORE on Bush liesBush Popularity Beginning to NosediveWe Are Losing This WarCoulter Spins SpinsanityA Repentant Nader VoterIs Kobe on the ropes?
I give you Steve Gilliard's quest for accountability by Bush: "Have you no sense of decency, sir?"
By Steve Gilliard
"Have you no sense of decency, sir?" were the words Joseph Welch used to ruin Joe McCarthy, who went a witch hunt too far. It is time for ALL Americans to ask the same question of the President and the men around him. He lied to the American people to get them to endorse a war they would not have otherwise.
To say we are glad to be rid of Saddam is to be besides the point. This Administration made certain claims about matters vital to national security. None of which involved dead Shia or democracy in Iraq. There are 250 dead, 1,000 wounded, some crippled for life, behind our invasion. The same invasion which makes it impossible to intervene in Liberia or any other crisis which may arise. The same that offers only poverty to the Iraqis and a distant hope of self government.
An adminstration so inept that is unable to live up to the duties of the Occupying Power in Iraq while now begging the Allies we so casually disdained in starting this war. Suddenly we now need old Europe to help us control the Iraqi beasties. They just won't have a nice, docile colony for us and seek to express themselves. It's time to bring back the days of Mad Dogs and Englishmen and disciplining the wog.
They were told this is what would happen. Only Ken Pollack, who people still, unaccountably cut slack for, said differently. Every other Iraq expert, every one, said this adventure would end badly. Anthony Cordesman, a former Army officer, said without planning for the peace, disaster would strike. Former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki, a man who lost his leg in combat, was humiliated by Rummy and the PNAC gang for telling the truth.
Bush and his men are liars. Inept, bad liars. Men who told transparent lies. Who slandered others, from Scott Ritter to Hans Blix, because they did not share their world view and delivered what is apparently the truth. But unlike blowjobs, or even Watergate, Bush's lies are far, far worse. Because he lied about war and 1250 families will live with that lie forever. Based on biases and lies, starting with the trickster Chalabi, who needs to be dragged before a US Senate or House committee under penalty of perjury, to tell the truth, Americans were sent to die in the Iraqi desert. Because lies were the only way he could get his war.
Desposing Saddam, in and of itself, was not a bad thing. But what is wrong is how and why we did it. To invade and occupy a country where we are expected to either perform miracles or die by the day was not a gross mistake or excuse. It was the natural outcome of a policy based on lies and biases.
It is now clear that the President and those closest to him either disregarded the truth or purposely ignored it. They have misused the Armed forces of this country for a fantasy of empire and children are dying for it. We are at the begining of a series of lies to be revealed, Niger is just the start. We may find, at the end of this process, that nothing Bush said about Iraq, other than Saddam was a murderer, was true. Nothing.
For we can now no longer believe him about anything. A man desperate enough to lie to get us into war would lie about anything, for any reason. Bush and the men around him have betrayed this country with these lies. As surely as Benedict Arnold. But their betrayal was not for greed or born of avarice or malice, but of hubris. They thought our power was unlimited and that we could remake the world. Unfortunately, like King Canute and the tide, some things are beyond us. Like running Iraq.
Decent people would, after looking at the horror of their work apologize and resign in disgrace. I expect these people will have to dragged out by their heels.
Friday Fun
Marketing from a woman's point of view.Well, if crime fighters fight crime and fire fighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight? They never mention that part to us, do they? --- George CarlinDeleted scenes from King Kong.
July 10, 2003
More Green Footballs
I'm having some fun over at Little Green Footballs. If you want to see how Bush supporters respond to my comments, go to THIS page and start at comment #79 (I left several responses). And please go to this site and those like it and start similar discussions on your own because we have to stop patting only ourselves on the back (by visiting only our own types) and start listening to others; it's the only way we'll ever understand other opposing viewpoints (besides our parents'). Remember, these people are our fellow countrymen. UPDATE: WELL, APPARENTLY THEY COULDN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH. THEY CUT ME OFF.
Did we stop spinning into the sun?
Get ready to catch your breath, then go read this FOX News Channel article: Bush Administration Accused of Misrepresenting WMD Intelligence.
QUOTE OF THE DAY
From a NY Times article July 9, 2003: I think the American people continue to express their support for ridding the world of Saddam Hussein based on just cause, knowing that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons that were unaccounted for that we're still confident we'll find," Mr. Fleischer said. "I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are." WHAAAAAA? Those of us who don't think there were WMD should tell the world where the weapons are? Good thing Mr. Fleischer will soon be going back to a real job. (Note: one-time registration required - it's worth it)
Let's Start the Pressure Now
Calling all Democrats: At this site watch the video (sorry, its a bit cheesy) and then sign the petition (a good thing).
Lynch Rescuer "Dies"
From the Greenville News: A Marine who was home for the first time since fighting in Iraq died Sunday morning when the vehicle he was driving veered off State 11 and crashed into some trees, authorities said. Josh Daniel Speer, 21, died instantly about 8 a.m. while en route to his fiancee's house, said Kent Dill, a Greenville County deputy coroner.
Speer was a member of a unit that helped rescue Jessica Lynch, the Army private captured by Iraqis near Nasiriyah, said Capt. Shawn Turner, a corps spokesman. Details of the unit's role weren't available, he said. The reason for this post is because sometimes a story becomes fodder for conspiracy theories. The rescue of Jessica Lynch created a storm of controversy when the media revealed that it was staged, and then the parents "refused" to discuss the story and Jessica developed "amnesia" when asked about the incident. Was Mr. Daniel planning to reveal his story to the media and was consequently "removed"? Who knows... (Note: I moved this post up because it was actually getting some feedback. Keep it coming!)
A Ping and a Pong
| 
