Remember when our Presidents had morals?

I still have a warm place in my heart for Jimmy. He was one of the good ones, and he was treated like shit by the Republicans.

But who has the Nobel Peace Prize bitch? Yeah that's right.

The IRA end their terrorist actions in fear that United States might retaliate by invading Scotland!

With America's well known habit of attacking the wrong country it seemed prudent for the Irish to stop all hostilities in an effort to protect their brethren to the north.

Timothy O'Brien summed it up. "Look we still hate the brits but, damn man, with their close ties to the Yanks we cannot afford to blow ennyfing up and get mistook for al-kayda. The fooking Yanks might blow the piss out o' the Scots by mistake! Can't have that now can we?"

So blundering America accidentally helps stop some terrorism. Good for us.

Would "Lame Duck" admit he was a "Lame Duck"?

This is some funny shit.

Free speech gets kicked in the teeth again!

I am proud to publicize any brave soldier who follows his conscience rather then to blindly follow our leaders into this terrible conflict. My hat is off to you soldier.

This is who I want protecting my country.

There is a reason that I personally did not go into the service (bad back, allergy to Khaki, and panty fetish aside), and the reason is because I question everything! It takes me fifteen minutes to choose a brand of toothpaste. If somebody tells me something I automatically doubt them. Could you imagine me as a soldier? I would argue about every order that I received. I would suck!

However, I do have a deep and residing respect for the type of person that responds without question to orders that place his life in danger. He trusts his commanders to know what they are doing and responds accordingly. But sometimes I believe a good soldier needs to stop and think. He needs to consider that the orders he is being given might not be right. And a good soldier might need to refuse those orders.

So I salute Sgt. Kevin Benderman, for being a good soldier.

Why do they hate us so much? Personally I think they blame us for all of the bad reality T.V..

Seriously this cuts to the core of the question of how to deal with Al-Qaida. What about us pisses them off so much?

For some experts, the attacks - whether in London or Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt - are aimed at the West for what it is doing: in other words for its policies, like the war in Iraq. Others insist that the perpetrators are more at odds with the ideals of the West and "who we are."

For the latter group, this is a war of civilizations or ideologies that the West has no choice but to fight aggressively, because anything else would entail appeasement and imply a retreat from identity and principles.

Yet for those who believe the violence is a result of what the West - primarily the United States - is doing in Muslim lands, one answer is to avoid actions that alienate and evoke the fears of peaceful Muslims while providing a windfall for the violent few. To some observers, the appeal of that argument is one reason talk is growing among policymakers in Washington of a drawdown of US troops in Iraq.

I certainly come down on the side of this hate being more a result of our policies then of our ideology.

The "what-we-do vs. who-we-are" debate over the extremists' motivations pits scholars like the Frenchman Olivier Roy, author of "Globalized Islam," against experts like Mr. Cole; former CIA officer Michael Scheuer, who led the hunt for Osama bin Laden in the late 1990s; and the University of Chicago's Robert Pape. The principal petri dish in which their views have formed is the war in Iraq.

Oh, I get it! It is just one giant science experiment! This might not frighten me near as much if it was not being conducted by a president who does not seem to really understand science.

If the initial reasons for the anger towards the West is still unkown to some, the recent fanning of the flames should be obvious to all. Our response to 9-11 that included attacking Iraq under false pretenses is universally accepted in the Middle east as justifying the recent attacks against America and its allies. We have added to our enemies number and that is the opposite of what war hopes to achieve.

Are we safer now?

Hell no!

By a show of hands, who did not see this coming?

Yep the investigation is getting a little too close. Time to kill the messenger.

I agree with the Christians that there is too much religious intolerance in this country. But I bet they didn't mean this.

Why can't we just all get along?

It is time to stop feeling sorry for Judith Miller!

Apparently Ms. Miller is not your typical source protecting, first amendment protecting, hard working Lois lane. She is just some administration shill. Check this out from Huffington.

First, there was the fact that she landed the plumb assignment in the first place. It would give her first dibs on the biggest story of the war… the hoped-for reveal of Saddam’s much-touted WMD (with much of the touting done by Miller herself and her special sources). Was this the reward for her pro-administration prewar reporting?

Foer cites military and New York Times sources as saying that Miller’s assignment was so sensitive that Don Rumsfeld himself signed off on it. Once embedded, Miller acted as much more than a reporter. Kurtz quotes one military officer as saying that the MET Alpha unit became a “Judith Miller team.” Another officer said that Miller “came in with a plan. She was leading them… She ended up almost hijacking the mission.” A third officer, a senior staffer of the 75th Exploitation Task Force, of which MET Alpha was a part, put it this way: “It’s impossible to exaggerate the impact she had on the mission of this unit, and not for the better.”

What did Miller do to create such an impression? According to Kurtz, she wasn’t afraid to throw her weight around, threatening to write critical stories and complain to her friends in very high places if things didn’t go her way. “Judith,” said an Army officer, “was always issuing threats of either going to the New York Times or to the secretary of defense. There was nothing veiled about that threat.”

In one specific instance, she used her friendship with Major General David Petraeus to force a lower ranking officer to reverse an order she was unhappy about. (Can we stop for a moment and take the full measure of how unbelievable this whole thing is?)
Miller also had a special, ten-year relationship with Ahmed Chalabi, which led to the MET Alpha unit, which had no special training in interrogation or intelligence, being given custody of Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law, Sultan. Miller was even allowed to sit in on the initial questioning of Sultan -- a turn of events that didn’t go down well with some Pentagon officials.

Miller apparently ended up developing an especially close relationship with Chief Warrant Officer Richard Gonzalez, the leader of the MET Alpha unit. Along with puffing him up in some of her dispatches -- once describing his “meeting tonight with Mr. Chalabi to discuss nonproliferation issues” -- Miller took the unusual step of taking part in the ceremony where Gonzalez was promoted, actually pinning his new rank to his uniform (has the bizarreness of all this hit you yet?).

Later, when Miller’s reporting came under serious fire, Gonzalez was only too happy to return the favor, writing an impassioned response to the Times’ Iraq reporting mea culpa. “We have been deeply disturbed,” Gonzalez wrote in a letter to the Times that was co-signed by a pair of his colleagues, “by the mischaracterizations of the operation and of [Miller’s] reporting… We were particularly disturbed by the recent New York Times editor’s note apologizing for having been ‘taken in’ by WMD ‘misinformation’ and citing one article she wrote while embedded with our unit… We strongly disagree with that assertion and remain firmly supportive of the accuracy of her accounts of the events she described, as well as other articles she wrote while embedded with our unit.” Wow. I’m kinda surprised he didn’t sign it “JM + MET Alpha, N.A.F (Now and Forever)”.

But Gonzalez and his pals seem to be the only ones standing behind the accuracy of Miller’s reporting. Even the administration is no longer barking up that tree, with top weapons hunter Charles Duelfer closing his investigation this spring saying that the search for WMD “has been exhausted” without finding any -- while at the same time dismissing the Miller-touted claim that WMD had been shipped to Syria just before the U.S. invaded.
So the WMD investigation has ended. But the investigation into Judy Miller’s role -- both in the WMD fiasco and the Plame scandal -- is just beginning.

Maybe it is time to get the bitch to talk about her "source"! Now if only we knew some place to send her where they still believe in torture......hmmmm.

Bolton a Liar! Who'da thunk it?

Now this is the problem with lying on the record. it is on the RECORD! These people are unbelievably arrogant and stupid. How come we have such a hard time stopping them when they are so clearly amoral? Puzzles the shit right out of me!

Republicans begin to eat their own!

It was only a matter of time that this administration found itself desperately trying to keep the rest of the party dancing to their tune. I actually find it stunning that Bush and Co. were able to keep anybody on board with the horribly incompetent job they have done. I swear they must have dirt on almost everybody on the hill!

Okay even Jessica Simpson knows the news from Iraq is censored!

Well then who is left that has not figured this out? Wouldn't you hate to be a couple steps behind Jessica Simpson?

Rumsfeld says "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!"

It is not like these videos and pictures are not going to be leaked one way or the other, we know they will. If we were really interested in being seen by the world as just and moral we would put a spotlight on these atrocities and then publicly punish the ones responsible.

"i am going down to Yasgur's farm to join....an Evolution Woodstock?

Interesting! The real scientists give the Intelligent Design folks a much needed spanking.

Here is some of the disagreement within the scientific community that give the ID'ers so much hope that the Evolutionary theory is in trouble.

The next lecture would have sent Darwinian fundamentalists into skeptical paroxysms, as Leticia Aviles, a zoologist at the University of British Columbia, summarized the evidence for "multilevel selection." Darwinian fundamentalists (an intentionally pejorative term coined by Stephen Jay Gould) believe that the individual organism is the sole target of natural selection. Aviles said that below the individual, selection may occur at the level of genes, chromosomes, organelles, and cells. Above the individual, selection may occur at the level of social groups, demes, species, and multispecies communities. In that sense, Aviles said, "individual" depends on the frame of reference. She then applied multilevel selection to research on sex ratios, cooperation among non-relatives, and multicellularity. Social spiders are an example of group selection, Aviles continued. And sex ratios that depart from 1:1 cannot be accounted for by inbreeding alone, so group selection is here invoked. Likewise, the equilibrium of sex ratios is explained by both within-group selection and between-group selection. "When cooperation is not costly, groups, grouping, and cooperation evolve readily. But with increasing costs of cooperation, levels of cooperation decrease."

This sort of falls short of discounting the veracity of Evolutionary biology doesn't it?

Here is where the group confronts the Creationists and ID'ers attack on their science.

I was slated as the keynote entertainment for Saturday night, and gave a lecture on Intelligent Design creationism. Since I certainly did not need to explain evolution to this eminent group, I focused instead on the IDers own works, beginning with their intellectual leader (these are slides from my Powerpoint presentation):

"Intelligent design is a strictly scientific theory devoid of religious commitments. Whereas the creator underlying scientific creationism conforms to a strict, literalist interpretation of the Bible, the designer underlying intelligent design need not even be a deity." --William Dembski, The Design Revolution, 2003

Baloney. (I used a stronger descriptor this evening.) The fact is that virtually all Intelligent Design creationists are Evangelical Christians who privately believe that ID and God are one and the same. There is nothing wrong with that, but if they would at least be honest about it I would respect them more. In point of fact, this is just a public façade constructed for public school consumption. In other venues they are forthright. For example:

"Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration." --William Dembski, "Intelligent Design's Contribution to the Debate over Evolution: A Reply to Henry Morris," 2005

"The objective is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'" --Phillip Johnson, "Missionary Man." Church & State magazine, 1999

As I also demonstrated in my talk, IDers are disingenuous about their "science." They are not doing science and they know it. To wit:

"Because of ID's outstanding success at gaining a cultural hearing, the scientific research part of ID is now lagging behind." --William Dembski, "Research and Progress in Intelligent Design," 2002 conference on Intelligent Design

"We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as 'irreducible complexity' and 'specified complexity'--but, as yet, no general theory of biological design." --Dr. Paul Nelson. "The Measure of Design." Touchstone magazine, 2004.

To drive home the point, I show that even Christian biologists have no use for ID, as in this observation from Dr. Lee Anne Chaney, Professor of Biology at the Christian-based Whitworth College, from their house publication Whitworth Today, 1995:
"As a Christian, part of my belief system is that God is ultimately responsible. But as a biologist, I need to look at the evidence. Scientifically speaking, I don't think intelligent design is very helpful because it does not provide things that are refutable--there is no way in the world you can show it's not true. Drawing inferences about the deity does not seem to me to be the function of science because it's very subjective."

I then summarized the cognitive style of ID thusly:1. X looks designed2. I can't think of how X was designed naturally3. Therefore X was designed supernaturally

This is the old "God of the Gaps" argument: wherever there is a gap in scientific knowledge, God is invoked as the causal agent. This is comparable to the "Plane problem" of Isaac Newton's time: the planets all lie in a plane (the plane of the ecliptic). Newton found this arrangement to be so improbable that he invoked God as an explanation in Principia Mathematica: "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." Why don't IDers use this argument any more? Because astronomers have filled that gap with a natural explanation.

I also summarized ID in practice thusly:1. Scientists do not accept ID as science 2. Therefore ID is not taught in public school science classes 3. I think ID is science 4. Therefore I will lobby the government to force teachers to teach ID as science.

This is what I call the "God of the Government" argument: if you can't convince teachers to teach your idea based on its own merits, ask the government to force teachers to teach it. By analogy, in the early 1990s, I published a series of articles applying chaos and complexity theory to history. It is, of sorts, a theory of history, and I had high hopes that historians would adopt my theory, put it to practice, and perhaps even teach it to their students. They haven't. Maybe I didn't communicate my theory very clearly. Maybe my theory is wrong. Should I go to my congressman to complain? Should I lobby school board members to force history teachers to teach my theory of history? See how absurd this sounds? I particularly like this approach to ID because most IDers are Christians, most Christians are politically conservative, and most conservatives are in favor of small government. In fact, I close my lecture with an analogy between natural selection in nature and the invisible hand in the economy, where both produce design complexity without a top-down designer. Since most conservatives understand and support the workings of free markets, they should intuitively embrace the analogy.

Any questions class? Good.

How long do you think it will Take Bush to realize that we have left Iraq?

George and Co. keep spouting how we are making progress in Iraq to anybody who will listen and in the meantime the military and other goverments are packing up and getting ready to bail.

Someone needs to tell King George that you cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube. There is no way to come out of this as a winner. We should never have gone in, and once we were there the die was cast. The best we can do now is save as many of our men as possible and try to use diplomacy to try and mend fences once they have set up their own brand of government. (Which is going to look nothing like what the Neo-cons envisioned.)

White House unable to headfake press away from Rove story.

It brings a tear to this old Liberal's eye to see the press doing their job with such diligence. I am so proud!

Look here come the smart people!

"I fear for my country. That sounds like a radical notion, something from the '60s, but there is a pervasive fear, a scariness," said Richard Lawrence, 63, a retired Environmental Protection Agency employee who voted for Nixon. "We're just a small group, maybe with a powerful idea. We don't have a clue, but we're not letting go."

The simplicity of the above statement fills me with hope. This is what needs to happen more and more. Small groups of concerned people who get organized and speak out against the direction that this country is headed. Where do I sign up?

America's Right Wing calls Prime Minister Blair a pussy!

Yeah, what is with all of the human rights Mr. P.m.? Don't you know the secret is to lock up all potential terrorists before they can do anything damaging? And that will surely make the other citizens love you. Surely.

Why does George W. Bush love Al-Qaida?

I have said it before, and I will say it again, Bin Laden could not have asked for a better foil then George W. Bush. Bin Laden can pull our strings all day long and this administration cannot do a thing to stop him. We are being led by the ignorant, the selfish, the immoral, and it plays right into the hands of a man who has shown himself to be this presidents superior in every way.

I want Clinton back! Give me a leader who is smart, damnit!

Is the "War on Terror" simply a diversion?

History handed George W. the opportunity to take away our freedoms and tell us it was for our own good. He is the lowest form of life on the planet, a political opportunist with not one ounce of compassion.

For those of you who tuned in late: Iraq War is making more terrorists then it is killing!

I am still amazed by those who did not see this coming. Unbelievably obvious to anybody with a brain.

Doonesbury shares my fantasies.

Garry Trudeau helped to politicize me when I was just starting college and needed something to read on the plane, I grabbed three "Doonesbury" pocketbooks and the rest is history.

I love this quote!

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."-Stephen Roberts

This pretty much sums up my philosophy.

Iraq Insurgents "last throes" are destroying the country!

The road to victory is not to underestimate your enemy! This administrations incompetence is biblical!

11 reasons why this administration sucks

Of course there are many, many others as well, but you get the drift.

Oh Please, Please, Please let this be true!

You know it seems to warm for it to be Christmas and yet....

Panda's Thumb has a spy at 2005 Creation Mega Conference

Well let's take a little look at the anti-science crowd okay-dokey?

I arrived in Lynchburg without incident and located my host for the next few days; the Sleep Inn. Check-in went smoothly. The nice person at the desk pointed me towards the Liberty University campus. I decided to walk.

So far, so good. Oooh it's at Lynchburg, He might have a Jerry Falwell sighting!

It was rather hot and humid and I was sweating quite a bit when I managed to locate the Vines Center, which was the main facility for the conference.

That's because air conditioning requires science and science is bad! Get hot with the Lord!

I go inside, let my eyes adjust to the dim lighting, and locate the conference registration table. I waited my turn, paid my $150 (!!)registration fee, and received my conference package. A complete schedule of the presentations. A notebook. Promotional material for various creationist groups. A copy of Ken Ham's subtly titled book The Lie: Evolution. Ham is the President of Answers in Genesis, co-sponsor of the conference.
I already had a copy of Ham's book, and had read it a few years ago. My brother, thinking he was being amusing, got it for me as a birthday present. The second paragraph of the book's introduction says, “My parents knew that evolution was wrong because it was obvious from Genesis that God had given us the details of the creation of the world.” One of the presenters at the conference expressed the same thought more directly: “God said it, that settles it.”

Well there you go then. Debates over. I don't know why I was so confused. Thanks for straightening me out.

They hate the fact that they must wage this war on science's turf. They want to be able to cite the authority of scripture and have everyone else take them seriously. It is already a major defeat for them that they must argue in scientific terms.
That is why many of the scientific assertions they make are jaw-droppingly ignorant. That is why they are able to stand in front of audiences, and, without apparent shame, speak with great confidence on subjects they obviously know nothing about. That is why one of the rallying cries I heard several times during the conference was, "It doesn't take a PhD!" Getting it right is not something that is important to them. Victory over the enemy is what's important. If achieving that victory means playing fast and loose with the facts then so be it.

Let's hear it for Ignorance!

People start taking their seats and Jerry Falwell approaches the platform. Golly! He's famous. I've seen him on television.

Oooh here we go.

He describes the conference as an historic event, and claims around 2000 attendees. My own informal count says that's a plausible number. He then asserts that all the polls show that 2/3 to 3/4 of Americans agree with AiG on this issue, which is total nonsense. The polls have consistently shown that the percentage of people accepting the Young-Earth position is just under fifty percent.

He boasts that the debate is being won by the church. He says that despite having the media, Hollywood and academe against them, the church of Jesus Christ returned George W. Bush to the White House. And this is about science, right?

Then he launches into the standard pitch about creation being necessary to redemption. If Genesis is unreliable, then how can they be confident that the crucifixion account is true.
Evolution implies humans are worthless animals that have no value except to PETA. Laughter.

If God could create an adult Adam with apparent age, why couldn't he do the same with the universe? (I suppose He could have, but why would He?)

Wow! Man that creeps me out! These people are in an ideological war! And they think they are winning. Are they? Next up was Ken Ham, author of "The Lie: Evolution". I wonder what his take will be?

Here's a list of the things Ham described as needing to be retrieved by the Christian community: Christian Institutions, History, Creation, Chemistry, DNA, Marriage, Dinosaurs, Animal Kinds, Biology, Genetics, The Meaning of Death, Physics, Geology, The Grand Canyon, People Groups, Education and Genesis 1-11.

Dinosaurs? Not Dinosaurs you bastards, we love Dinosaurs!

Okay that is enough! I have waded in the shallow end of the gene pool long enough. These people need to be stopped! They can teach their own inbred children any damn thing they want, but that is not good enough. They want to retard our children's education so that won't feel so inferior to those "stupid intellecktewels".

I say NO! We did not survive millions of years of hardships and civilization building just so some lazy southern imbeciles could demand that we stop being so smart and start allowing them to feel superior once in a while. Too damn bad! You want to feel smart, get smart! Read, study, explore, and allow your tiny minds to open up to new and possibly life altering knowledge.

In other words stop being a Dumbass!

"Leaving a trail of slime wherever he goes". The history of Karl Rove

Karl looks very resourceful I am sure that he will quickly organize some prison elections and begin smearing the Hispanics to gain an edge, and then pit them against the blacks to clear the way for his own Aryan Nation party, right up until they all turn on him and gut him like an over ripe Christmas goose. What a delightful thought.

Why does the President of Sudan hate Andrea Mitchell?

Andrea Mitchell tries to ask the President of Sudan a perfectly legitimate question and gets roughed up and given the bums rush.

I don't really like Andrea Mitchell. I don't know why exactly, she seems so shrewish. Maybe it is because if she withholds sex from her husband Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve Board Chairman, he will raise the interests rates. Bitch should just not have that much power.

Oh hell, she is one of us let's invade them! Sorry had a neo-con moment there.

Losing respect for the people you love.

My grandmother died this weekend.

This, of course, brought our distended family together. After she had passed we spent some time catching up with each other. I got into a discussion with my brother and sister (who lives in Maine) about the war, politics, and the state of our country. I was very gratified to find that their beliefs and opinions were very similar to mine. I cannot tell you how happy that made me. My wife begs me not to talk politics when we have people over, and usually I respect her wishes. Because of this I don't have a clear idea of what members of my family think of Bush or if they voted for him.

Before the election I did broach the subject with my mother who sounded very much like she wanted to stick with Bush because she felt that it was not a good idea to change leaders in a time of war. I tried to reason with her but she did not seem willing to alter her thinking. After that discussion I found myself feeling differently about Mom then I had before. Bush's bullshit seemed so obvious to me and I was upset that I had failed to enlighten somebody who I love and feel is allowing herself to be manipulated by these bastards.

When I see the 2004 election map all covered in red I feel so sorry for our country and for the hopes of all those people who believed in this president and who must now feel so betrayed. I see Bush's approval rating and I know that there must be many, many people who have dramatically altered their opinion. Why did they not listen to us? What more did we need to do to show them that they were being lied to? It seems we missed the opportunity to save this country. I worry everyday about what is happening to America. It is so disconcerting.

I am going to be much more vocal in my opinions with family and friends I have encouraged them to read this blog and to listen to alternate news sources. It is my duty to enlighten them. We cannot allow this administration to get away with this anymore. It is time that we pointed out every lie and called them every media sleight of hand trick that they pull. And some of that needs to start at home, in our neighborhoods, and with our own families.

Man is my wife going to be pissed at me!

Mephostopheles and Pluto lord of the Underworld scan the room for edible babies!

"Okay here is the plan! You casually slip into the janitors closet and I will create a diversion, grab some KY, and make all of your dreams come true."

Daddy why did we have to attack Iraq?

This is a very well done response with the tongue firmly planted in the cheek.


Q:
Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A:
Because they had weapons of mass destruction.
Q:
But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A:
That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q:
And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A:
Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q:
But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A:
That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q:
Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A:
To use them in a war, silly.
Q:
I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A:
Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q:
That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A:
It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q:
I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A:
Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q:
And what was that?
A:
Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q:
Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A:
Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q:
Kind of like what they do in China?
A:
Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q:
So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A:
Right.
Q:
Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A:
For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q:
Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A:
I told you, China is different.
Q:
What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A:
Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
Q:
Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A:
No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q:
How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A:
Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q:
Like in Iraq?
A:
Exactly.
Q:
And like in China, too?
A:
I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q:
How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A:
Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q:
But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A:
Don't be a smart-ass.
Q:
I didn't think I was being one.
A:
Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q:
Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A:
I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.
Q:
What's a military coup?
A:
That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q:
Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A:
You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q:
Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A:
I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q:
Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A:
Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q:
Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A:
Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q:
What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A:
Well, on September 11th, nineteen men - fifteen of them Saudi Arabians - hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings in New York and Washington, killing 3,000 innocent people.
Q:
So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A:
Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q:
Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?
A:
Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
Q:
Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A:
Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Q:
Fighting drugs?
A:
Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
Q:
How did they do such a good job?
A:
Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q:
So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
A:
Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.
Q:
Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A:
That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q:
Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A:
No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
Q:
What's the difference?
A:
The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.
Q:
It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A:
Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
Q:
But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A:
Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q:
Who trained them?
A:
A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q:
Was he from Afghanistan?
A:
Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q:
I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A:
Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q:
Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A:
There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q:
So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends?
A:
Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
Q:
So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A:
Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q:
Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A:
No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
Q:
But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A:
Well, yeah. For a while.
Q:
Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A:
Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q:
Why did that make him our friend?
A:
Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q:
Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A:
Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q:
So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A:
Most of the time, yes.
Q:
And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A:
Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
Q:
Why?
A:
Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless unAmerican Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q:
I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A:
Yes.
Q:
But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A:
Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q:
So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A:
Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.
Q:
Good night, Daddy.

Man! This guy hates Turdblossom!

I like his creative sentence structure though.

"the man in question is perhaps the slipperiest and sweatiest and most powerful adviser of a major world leader since an invisible purple demon hissed sweet nothings into Mussolini's ear".

Good stuff! Here is more.

"Rove, with his meager education and porcine sheen and this-one's-for-all-the-girls-who-shunned-me-in-high-school revenge demeanor, essentially reinvented American politics, created a new language of hate and fear, rewrote the GOP rule book to include the notion that actual facts don't matter and a politician can get away with absolutely anything if the denials are orchestrated just right and if the accusers are immediately counterattacked and mistakes are admitted absolutely never. "

Gotta love the porcine sheen comment. Ya know Rove does have a hog-like corpulence to him.

Liar, Liar, pants on fire!

I don't thing Rove is going to be able to B.S. his way out of this.

White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove did not disclose that he had ever discussed CIA officer Valerie Plame with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper during Rove’s first interview with the FBI, according to legal sources with firsthand knowledge of the matter.

The omission by Rove created doubt for federal investigators, almost from the inception of their criminal probe into who leaked Plame's name to columnist Robert Novak, as to whether Rove was withholding crucial information from them, and perhaps even misleading or lying to them, the sources said.

Hot Damn, this is good!

The classified memorandum, dated June 10, 2003, was written by Marc Grossman, then the undersecretary of state for political affairs, and reportedly made claims similar to those made by Wilson: that the Bush administration had relied on faulty intelligence to exaggerate the threat posed by Hussein to make the case to go to war with Iraq. The report was circulated to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell and a slew of other senior administration officials who were then traveling with President Bush to Africa.

Okay does anybody ever see George without Rove somewhere close sniffing his ass? No!

So if this document was circulated to a slew of administration officials then you can bet your last dollar that Karl was right in the middle of that "slew". Lying sumbitch is going down!

Oh and don't think that we can be distracted by the new supreme court nominee, you might be able to head fake the MSM but the bloggers are not done chasing this story.

Who are the oppressed in his country? Is it really the Christians?

I see a time when there will be atheist only drinking fountains, and special restaurant prices for non-believers, and no room in hotels for evolutionists.

I don't know why churches freak me out so much. They seem so welcoming.

Now you have done it, you have pissed off the CIA!

This story comes courtesy of our friends at Crooks and Liars.


18 July 2005

AN OPEN STATEMENT TO THE LEADERS OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE.

The Honorable Dennis Hastert, Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives
The Honorable Dr. William Frist, Majority Leader of the Senate
The Honorable Harry Reid, Minority Leader of the Senate

We, the undersigned former U.S. intelligence officers are concerned with the tone and substance of the public debate over the ongoing Department of Justice investigation into who leaked the name of Valerie Plame, wife of former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, to syndicated columnist Robert Novak and other members of the media, which exposed her status as an undercover CIA officer. The disclosure of Ms. Plame’s name was a shameful event in American history and, in our professional judgment, may have damaged U.S. national security and poses a threat to the ability of U.S. intelligence gathering using human sources. Any breach of the code of confidentiality and cover weakens the overall fabric of intelligence, and, directly or indirectly, jeopardizes the work and safety of intelligence workers and their sources.

The Republican National Committee has circulated talking points to supporters to use as part of a coordinated strategy to discredit Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. As part of this campaign a common theme is the idea that Ambassador Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame was not undercover and deserved no protection. The following are four recent examples of this "talking point":

Michael Medved stated on Larry King Live on July 12, 2005, "And let's be honest about this. Mrs. Plame, Mrs. Wilson, had a desk job at Langley. She went back and forth every single day."

Victoria Toensing stated on a Fox News program with John Gibson on July 12, 2005 that, "Well, they weren't taking affirmative measures to protect that identity. They gave her a desk job in Langley. You don't really have somebody deep undercover going back and forth to Langley, where people can see them."

Ed Rodgers, Washington Lobbyist and former Republican official, said on July 13, 2005 on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, "And also I think it is now a matter of established fact that Mrs. Plame was not a protected covert agent, and I don't think there's any meaningful investigation about that."

House majority whip Roy Blunt (R, Mo), on Face the Nation, July 17, 2005, "It certainly wouldn't be the first time that the CIA might have been overzealous in sort of maintaining the kind of top-secret definition on things longer than they needed to. You know, this was a job that the ambassador's wife had that she went to every day. It was a desk job. I think many people in Washington understood that her employment was at the CIA, and she went to that office every day."

These comments reveal an astonishing ignorance of the intelligence community and the role of cover. The fact is that there are thousands of U.S. intelligence officers who "work at a desk" in the Washington, D.C. area every day who are undercover. Some have official cover, and some have non-official cover. Both classes of cover must and should be protected.
While we are pleased that the U.S. Department of Justice is conducting an investigation and that the U.S. Attorney General has recused himself, we believe that the partisan attacks against Valerie Plame are sending a deeply discouraging message to the men and women who have agreed to work undercover for their nation’s security.

We are not lawyers and are not qualified to determine whether the leakers technically violated the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act. However, we are confident that Valerie Plame was working in a cover status and that our nation’s leaders, regardless of political party, have a duty to protect all intelligence officers. We believe it is appropriate for the President to move proactively to dismiss from office or administratively punish any official who participated in any way in revealing Valerie Plame's status. Such an act by the President would send an unambiguous message that leaks of this nature will not be tolerated and would be consistent with his duties as the Commander-in-Chief.
We also believe it is important that Congress speak with one non-partisan voice on this issue. Intelligence officers should not be used as political footballs. In the case of Valerie Plame, she still works for the CIA and is not in a position to publicly defend her reputation and honor. We stand in her stead and ask that Republicans and Democrats honor her service to her country and stop the campaign of disparagement and innuendo aimed at discrediting Mrs. Wilson and her husband.

Our friends and colleagues have difficult jobs gathering the intelligence, which helps, for example, to prevent terrorist attacks against Americans at home and abroad. They sometimes face great personal risk and must spend long hours away from family and friends. They serve because they love this country and are committed to protecting it from threats from abroad and to defending the principles of liberty and freedom. They do not expect public acknowledgement for their work, but they do expect and deserve their government’s protection of their covert status.

For the good of our country, we ask you to please stand up for every man and woman who works for the U.S. intelligence community and help protect their ability to live their cover.
Sincerely yours,

Larry C. Johnson, former Analyst, CIA
JOINED BY:
Mr. Brent Cavan, former Analyst, CIA
Mr. Vince Cannistraro, former Case Officer, CIA
Mr. Michael Grimaldi, former Analyst, CIA
Mr. Mel Goodman, former senior Analyst, CIA
Col. W. Patrick Lang (US Army retired), former Director, Defense Humint Services, DIA
Mr. David MacMichael, former senior estimates officer, National Intelligence Council, CIA
Mr. James Marcinkowski, former Case Officer, CIA
Mr. Ray McGovern, former senior Analyst and PDB Briefer, CIA
Mr. Jim Smith, former Case Officer, CIA
Mr. William C. Wagner, former Case Officer

Does this clear this up for you conservatives? Good.

Release the Dogs of War!

Is there a problem with this nominee? Let's see...conservative, ok.....49 years old, no problem.....associate council to President Reagan, to be expected.....argued for overruling Roe vs. Wade, Uh oh!

Things are going to get ugly!

Might I suggest the Marquis of Queensbury rules? No biting, no eye gouging, and no outing of any covert CIA agents.

Okay go, have fun, but do not forget about Rove and the Downing Street memo's!

Waxman spanks President Bush! (Sounds naughtier then it is.)

Gotta love this.

Waxman: Bush Statement on Rove Conflicts with Executive Order By Rep. Henry A. Waxman Monday 18 July 2005

Dear Mr. President:

In June 2004, you said that you would fire anyone found to be involved in the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's identity as a covert CIA agent. Today, you significantly changed your position, stating that you would remove Karl Rove or other White House officials involved in the security breach only "if someone committed a crime."

Your new standard is not consistent with your obligations to enforce Executive Order 12958, which governs the protection of national security secrets. The executive order states: "Officers and employees of the United States Government ... shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently ... disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified." Under the executive order, the available sanctions include "reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions."

Under the executive order, you may not wait until criminal intent and liability are proved by a prosecutor. Instead, you have an affirmative obligation to take "appropriate and prompt corrective action." And the standards of proof are much different. A criminal violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald is investigating, requires a finding that Mr. Rove "intentionally disclose[d]" the identity of a covert agent. In contrast, the administrative sanctions under Executive Order 12958 can be imposed without a finding of intent. Under the express terms of the executive order, you are required to impose administrative sanctions - such as removal of office or termination of security clearance - if Mr. Rove or other officials acted "negligently" in disclosing or confirming information about Ms. Wilson's identity.

I have enclosed a fact sheet on Karl Rove's Nondisclosure Agreement and its legal implications, which provides additional detail about the President's national security obligations. I urge you to act in compliance with Executive Order 12958 and your responsibility to safeguard national security secrets.

Sincerely,

Henry A. Waxman
Ranking Minority Member

Hee Hee Hee

Finally! Somebody gets to the bottom of what is wrong with this country! It's Lois Lane!

Thankfully the conservative community does not waste their intellectual capital trying to solve the moral deficit in the Republican party, when they could focus their gourd-like noggins on the moral decay of a fictional character. Lois lane is such a slut now!

Notice the caring language that this Neanderthal uses to describe the ladies.

classy dames of the 1940's
Don't tell me broads aren't into looks as much a dudes.

But this line pretty much sums it up.

For example, in the current Smallville series, the females of this subset of the DC comics universe no longer adorn themselves like the classy dames of the 1940's or even with the elegant look of Margot Kidder or Annette O'Toole in the movies of the 1980's but rather drink and whore around with the best of them all the while leaving little to the imagination as to the appearance of their bellies and lower backs.

"The appearance of their bellies and lower backs" Does this guy have issues or what? He reminds me of those mysognistic frat boys that used to say "She was asking for it. Look how she was dressed!"

Now I personally disliked Margot Kidder in the role of Lois Lane, and therefore look forward to Kate Bosworth's interpretation of the constantly endangered love interest. (Maybe I will get to see her bare belly or....her....her lower back. Damn!)

White House press corps bitch slaps McClelland

I love this part.

Q What is his problem? Two years, and he can't call Rove in and find out what the hell is going on? I mean, why is it so difficult to find out the facts? It costs thousands, millions of dollars, two years, it tied up how many lawyers? All he's got to do is call him in.
MR. McCLELLAN: You just heard from the President. He said he doesn't know all the facts. I don't know all the facts.
Q Why?
MR. McCLELLAN: We want to know what the facts are. Because --
Q Why doesn't he ask him?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'll tell you why, because there's an investigation that is continuing at this point, and the appropriate people to handle these issues are the ones who are overseeing that investigation. There is a special prosecutor that has been appointed. And it's important that we let all the facts come out. And then at that point, we'll be glad to talk about it, but we shouldn't be getting into --
Q You talked about it to reporters.
MR. McCLELLAN: We shouldn't be getting into prejudging the outcome.

You know if I worked everyday with my friend and he was accused of something that might in some way adversely affect me you could goddamn well count on the fact that I would ask him everyday if he had anything to do with it. And if it turned out he did do it and it made me look guilty I would throw his loser ass to the wolves!

I love my friends too but if you purposefully sabotage my life you are dead to me.

New Downing Street Memos: "Need to Wrongfoot Saddam".

Here is yet another log for the fire.

This new memo is is dated March 18th, 2002. The author is one Sir Christopher Meyer, British Ambassador to the United States.

The US could go it alone if it wanted to. But if it wanted to act with partners, there had to be a strategy for building support for military action against Saddam. I then went through the need to wrongfoot Saddam on the inspectors and the UN SORs and the critical importance of the MEPP as an integral part of the anti-Saddam strategy. If all this could be accomplished skilfully, [sic] we were fairly confident that a number of countries would come on board.

Lot's of manipulating cited here, not much doubt that they knew the case was thin. Bastards!

A reporter in the forest steps back from the trees and still sees the forest.

Damn straight Ms. Dawn Turner Trice!

Now here is somebody not suffering from reporter ADD. She remembers what the real question is and she asks it.

We have seen the enemy, and he is us!

George and co. may have fooled most of the Americans but he has not fooled many others who share our planet.

The World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI) held its culminating session in Istanbul June 24-27, the last and most elaborate of sixteen condemnations of the Iraq War held worldwide in the past two years, in Barcelona, Tokyo, Brussels, Seoul, New York, London, Mumbai and other cities.

Its core conclusion condemned the Iraq War as a war of aggression in violation of the UN Charter and international law, and determined that those responsible for planning and waging it should be held criminally responsible. George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and Paul Wolfowitz were listed in the verdict by name. Less predictable was that the UN was faulted for failing to fulfill its responsibilities to protect member states against aggression. One recommendation supported the rights of the Iraqi people to resist an illegal occupation, as authorized by international law. Further recommendations specified that US media be held responsible for contributing to the war of aggression, that American products associated with corporations doing business in Iraq--like Halliburton, Coca-Cola, Bechtel and Boeing--be boycotted and that peace movement activists around the world urge the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Iraq.

Arundhati Roy imparted the prevailing spirit of civic dedication and moral leadership in a public statement at the culminating session. Her words summarize the experience for many of us: "The World Tribunal on Iraq places its faith in the consciences of millions of people across the world who do not wish to stand by and watch while the people of Iraq are being slaughtered, subjugated and humiliated."

Once again, I am ashamed.

The U.S. Economy: The latest casualty of the war.

It grates on me everyday how easy it was for Osama to outwit our president. When he had us attacked he did it on the cheap. He manipulated us into spending billions on national security and billions more in an unnecessary war. In the words of "Survivor" creator Mark Burnett, we were outwitted, outplayed, and we are about to be outlasted. Out leader has mislead us and we are far worse off because of it.

The Terrorists hurt us, George Bush is destroying us.

"Osama (bin Laden) doesn't have to win; he will just bleed us to death," said Michael Scheuer, a former counterterrorism official at the CIA who led the pursuit of bin Laden and recently retired after writing two books critical of the Clinton and Bush administrations. "He's well on his way to doing it."

They have taken our measure and found us wanting.

Why I do not miss working in an office.

Here is a little video to help those Pro-Life morons know just what the hell they are protesting.

Very informative and I found it kind of hot. But of course I am immoral.

And for those of you who are not paying attention.....

There are some days when I hate being right.

''Some may disagree with my decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, but all of us can agree that the world's terrorists have now made Iraq a central front in the war on terror," Bush said in a radio address last month.

I am almost impressed with the incredible balls it takes to fuck up this badly and then act as if it is really making us safer and that all is going according to plan. I said almost.

A separate Israeli analysis of 154 foreign fighters compiled by a leading terrorism researcher found that despite the presence of some senior Al Qaeda operatives who are organizing the volunteers, ''the vast majority of [non-Iraqi] Arabs killed in Iraq have never taken part in any terrorist activity prior to their arrival in Iraq."

''Only a few were involved in past Islamic insurgencies in Afghanistan, Bosnia, or Chechnya," the Israeli study says. Out of the 154 fighters analyzed, only a handful had past associations with terrorism, including six who had fathers who fought the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, said the report, compiled by the Global Research in International Affairs Center in Herzliya, Israel.

Hmm how can I put this delicately....BUSH AND HIS CABINET ARE FULL OF FUCKING LIARS! That was delicate right?

Frank Rich fans away the smoke to reveal the fire.

There are so many red herrings in this case that it is almost impossible to keep your eye on the ball. The net is closing in and this is looking to be bigger then Watergate.

The Daily Kos wraps up the wilson timeline with a neat little bow.

Man seeing it all laid out like this makes you almost nauseous.

I am putting my tinfoil hat in storage! There is just no story so unbelievable that it won't turn out to be true!

I had my doubts about this Diebold story at first but damn if it does not look like we all got screwed by them and the Republicans.

It is not enough to be Christian! You have to be the right kind of Christian!

Nope, no intolerance here.

Rove has a history of this crap!

What is the saying? If it walks like a duck. and talks like a duck, it's a damn duck!

Political Capital just does not go as far as it used to anymore.

“It’s a bad period for the president,” said Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted the survey with Republican Bill McInturff. Hart attributes Bush’s problems to “one part the economy, two parts Iraq, and one part everything else.” In fact, he is somewhat surprised that Bush’s ratings didn’t increase slightly after the London attacks. “I am sort of surprised we don’t see more a skew toward rallying around anti-terrorism.”

Hey does it bother anyone else that this president looks to terrorist attacks to improve his poll numbers? It just seems wrong to me.

Here is the Joe Wilson article that the Bushies are lying about.

Now let's find the mistakes.

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

Aha! No wait that is true. But he did say that Cheney sent him to Niger, and that is a lie.

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

Wait, who sent him? Not the vice president.


I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.

There! There's the mistake! No wait...it did turn out that Niger did not sell yellowcake to Iraq, right?

Hmmm. Maybe the mistake is in the next part.

I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life. (I did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment regime backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion.) In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.
Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.

The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case.
Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.

This seems pretty straight forward to me. So where is the mistake?

The mistake is in not agreeing with the administrations talking points and for that my friend you are villified and your wife's job and safety are put at risk.

There is your mistake Mr. Joe Wilson. And next time you better remember that and not dare to write the truth.

Vietnam and Iraq have nothing in common, except everything.

When Defense Secretary Robert McNamara visited Vietnam for the first time, he came back and told the press that he'd seen "nothing but progress and hopeful indications of further progress in the future." McNamara made that statement in May 1962.

Now the above statement has nothing in common with the one below. Nothing.

On Tuesday night, host Jim Lehrer asked Gen. Myers: "Do you consider Iraq a success from your point of view?" The general replied: "I do now, I do. I mean I don't know why I said now. I do, absolutely; I think it's a success." A couple of minutes later he was exuding confidence about the future: "It's going to be a difficult fight, but we're going to be successful in this fight."

Yep, I am sleeping with the night light on tonight.

Rove talking points

You know I have heard of these but this is the first time I have actually seen a copy.

It's like all of those reports about Big Foot. You just don't believe you will ever see one.

"Pack up the kids Ma! We'all is heading to Jesusland!"

This works for me. I can just run around being immoral all day without those uppity Christians getting their panties in a wad. Actually that might take all of the fun out of it.

Man they don't even try to hide their ultimate agenda anymore.

According to the Christian Exodus Web site, the organization was founded by Jim Taylor and Cory Burnell in November 2003 "as a response to the moral degeneration of our nation and the lack of any determination by the Republican Party to return our nation to its constitutional moors.
"ChristianExodus.org seeks a return to constitutionally limited government founded upon Christian principles, and has decided that the best strategy for achieving this goal is to reform the local and state governments. To accomplish this reform, we will relocate thousands of Christian constitutionalists to one particular sovereign State (South Carolina) so that our numbers will make an effective difference in electoral politics," the Web site says.

Can you imagine the television choices in this place? "Touched by an Angel" and "Little House on the Prairie" 24 hours a day. Yep looks like heaven on earth to me.

Wow, this really takes Christian ignorance to a whole new level!

Damn! I hate it when Jesus stands me up! Not only won't he even return my calls but I have it on good authority that he loves EVERYBODY! I just don't feel special anymore.

I thought reporters were not allowed to ask these kind of questions anymore.

Hot Damn! Finally somebody is asking the questions that I want to know about.

QUESTION: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003, when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliot Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this"?

QUESTION: Do you stand by that statement?

MCCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that, as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation, we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time as well.

QUESTION: Scott, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us, after having commented with that level of detail, and tell people watching this that somehow you've decided not to talk.
You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium or not?

MCCLELLAN: I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said. And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation...

QUESTION: (inaudible) when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?

MCCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish.

QUESTION: No, you're not finishing. You're not saying anything.
You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation. Was he involved or was he not? Because contrary to what you told the American people, he did indeed talk about his wife, didn't he?

MCCLELLAN: There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.

QUESTION: Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?

MCCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.

QUESTION: You're in a bad spot here, Scott...
(LAUGHTER)
... because after the investigation began -- after the criminal investigation was under way -- you said, October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby. As I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this," from that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began.
Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation.
MCCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization. And I think you are well aware of that.
We know each other very well. And it was after that period that the investigators had requested that we not get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation.
And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this. Because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States.
I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that.

QUESTION: So you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore and since then you haven't.

MCCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation and I'm just not going to respond to them. QUESTION: When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you pin down a date?

MCCLELLAN: Back in that time period.

QUESTION: Well, then the president commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?

MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.

The press must smell blood in the water.

And now a word from from those religious right nutjobs!

But even if we don’t change our evil ways, this is all leading directly to the return of Jesus Christ. That is the best possible news this world could ever hear! This evil world of terrorism and war is about to end forever. It will soon be replaced by a world full of prosperity and peace. Then all mankind will understand and be fulfilling their incredible human potential.

See? There is nothing to worry about. Everything is going to work out.

Morons!

This guy sums it up well.

It is like spanking our children to get them to stop hitting each other. It does not work.

I will file this under "Duh Ralph"!

You know what the difference between the 9/11 attacks and the next attack is going to be? In 9/11 we were seen as victims. Most of the world saw us as being innocent and blameless for the terrible thing that happened to us. I am sure that there were some people and even countries that felt that we had it coming, but that was the minority.

The next time it happens, and no doubt it will happen, the world will be far less sympathetic and more likely see us as at fault. This time we are "asking for it".

One of the things that was very noticeable about the attacks in London was how fast the citizens blamed it on the war in Iraq. We can expect the same response here at home and from other nations. This may seem like a small consideration, but it is not. The way to beat terrorism is not through military might. It is through diplomacy. Not with the terrorists, with the audience of terrorism. The rest of the world. The way to stop terrorism, or at least diminish it, is to gain the sympathy of the audience.

We have to be right.

We have to be moral.

We have to be better.

That is why it is extremely important for us to get rid of Abu Ghraib. It is important for us to get out of Iraq. It is important for us to get rid of this administration. We will never be seen as anything but criminals in the world as long as our leader is George W. Bush.

Just spending a peaceful Sunday watching Anderson Cooper getting buffeted by hurricane Dennis.

The drama! The pathos! The same damn thing we watched last summer!

C'mon Florida! Are hurricanes all you are about? Is that what defines you? I mean c'mon a couple of shark attacks and then you bring out the big guns.

Now bear with me, what about a volcano? That would be cool. So instead of evacuating inland you could run to the water this time. Just an idea. Mull it over.

Quick, get Rumsfeld to put a spin on this. Because right now it sounds like really bad news!

“The problem is that the Americans have no vision and no clear policy on how to go about in Iraq,” said Allawi, a long-time ally of Washington.

Truer words were never spoken.

You know who I pity? I pity the next president and her administration. Because this is an unbelievable mess. If I were a politician thinking about running I would be having serious misgivings about now.

Terrorism expert sees "endless war".

What we have here is a case of a "self fulfilling prophecy". Bush warned us that we were under attack by people who "hated our way of life". And now it appears that he has created the circumstances to make that definition come true.

We were attacked in 9/11, not by crazy people who hated our freedom, but rather by people who felt they were already under attack by our policies overseas. These people hated us for what we were doing, not who we are. However, now they do indeed hate us for who we are.

We are the ones who attacked innocent civilians in Iraq.

We are the ones who made up a reason to go to war in the middle east.

We are the ones who are building permanent bases in Muslim countries.

We are the ones who represent the enemy just by existing.

We are the ones who are fucked.

There was a way to respond to 9/11 that would have been appropriate and sane. But instead we are led by people who are like children playing with dynamite. They did not understand the damage they would cause. Well here it is, it is called "endless war".

You know this is EXACTLY how the Inquisition started!

So much for the Catholic church being the voice of reason concerning the debate over Evolution.

Is Bush the worst President ever?

I absolutely believe that this is true!

I am constantly amazed at the free pass this man is given to create policy that seems obviously poorly thought out or to have hidden ulterior motives.

The real villians in all of this is the Republican party who have a responsibility to reign this man in, but instead have supported his twisted world views and allowed him to treat our allies with contempt. The man may very well end up being the death of the Republicans.

Bastards!

Yeah I knew this was bound to happen sooner or later but it still pisses me off!

It makes me wonder if they chose London because of the G-8 summit or if it was because of them getting the Olympic nod. In my paranoid mind I visualize Al-Qaida operatives standing by waiting for the Olympic announcement and then implementing the attack in the city that is chosen and sparing the ones that were not. Hopefully I have given them too much credit.

A sign of the times if Creationists keep being taken seriously.

In no time students will just have to flip a coin to determine how to answer a science question.

I really appreciate the tongue in cheek approach here.

The Bush family don't need no stinking seperation of church and state!

You know what I think is so wonderful about this is how it completely respects the various beliefs of Florida residents.

You can almost see Jeb just scratching his head and wondering why this is a a problem. "I am doing it for the families. The white, Christian, two parent, Republican families. How is this bad?"

How can this not be wrong?

I have looked at this from a variety of angles and I cannot figure out why it is necesary to send this woman to jail. I, like everyone else, want someone to force Bob Novak to confess as to how he evaded jail time.

You just know Novak flipped like a flapjack the minute anybody mentioned prison.

Tony is trapped in an abusive relationship.

Tony, Tony, Tony, buddy you need to see the light. Sure he says he won't hurt you again but you know deep down inside that he will. You need to make a clean break.

You can get help. Actually you can do more. You can provide evidence of exactly what lies Bush told you and when. You can help both Britain and America heal by bringing out the truth. I mean really isn't revenge better then sucking it up and letting yourself take the fall for the Bush administrations duplicity?

C'mon Tony be a man.

Hmm wonder what the Moral Majority is doing today?

Color me not surprised. Hey check out this grouping.

We cannot afford to lose. The very future of our nation may depend on what we do today. Every abortion group, every gay and lesbian organization, the liberal media, environmentalist extremists, anti-American protesters and Bush haters. These groups are united in at least one area, to prevent a pro-family, pro-life conservative from being placed on the Supreme Court.

Don't you just love how everyone who they have any disagreement with is automatically grouped together? How much do you think Planned Parenthood and gays really have in common? You know we could find that out if it wasn't for that damn liberal media!

Further proof that Bush is soulless demon!

I do often wonder how Bush can continue spouting rhetoric when all of the evidence points to the fact that he is completely wrong. Maybe this will help to clear it up.

Cindy Sheehan has already had her heart ripped into a million pieces by the illegal Iraqi war, losing the son she loved more than life itself only five days after he arrived in Baghdad in April 2004.

So when Sheehan received an invitation to meet privately with President Bush at the White House two months after her son died, the least she could have expected was a bit of compassion or a kind word coming from the heart.

Instead of a kind gesture or a warm handshake, Sheehan said she immediately got a taste of Bush arrogance when he entered the room and "in a condescending tone and with a disgusting loud Texas accent," said: "Who we all honoring here today?"

"His mouth kept moving, but there was nothing in his eyes or anything else about him that showed me he really cared or had any real compassion at all. This is a human being totally disconnected from humanity and reality. His eyes were empty, hollow shells and he was acting like I should be proud to just be in his presence when it was my son who died for his illegal war! It was one of the most disgusting experiences I ever had and it took me almost a year to even talk about it," said Sheehan in a telephone conversation from Washington D.C. where she was attending a July 4th anti-war rally.

So there we have it. Bush sees these dead soldiers as a means to an end and not as human beings. It is common in times of war for people to see their enemies as less then human but not at all common for them to see their own people as commodities. This man is evil!

I have lost the will to Blog!

What happened? Where are those carefree days of yore when I had so much passion about sticking it to the Conservatives. Oh how I loved pointing out there inconsistencies and the lies, oh sweet Jesus, the lies were so delightful.

But now, now I feel all drained of fascination. I find myself surfing political sites and then getting bored and looking at porn, and then getting bored and looking at E-bay. I bought a nice lava lamp. Only slightly used. Reminds of my childhood.

Oh it is no use. Nobody is talking about the Downing Street Memos anymore. They are too busy getting worked up over the possible Supreme Court Justice that Bush will pick. They are too busy salivating over the possibility that Karl Rove might be prosecuted.

Heh Heh. That would be great wouldn't it? I mean the man who is most responsible for George Bush being in the White House, the man who is referred to as the "Architect", the man who redefined dirty politicking, being prosecuted and sent to jail! It's...It's...fucking great! Yeah first we send his ass up the river and then we start knocking them down one by one! Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice, and then.....We prosecute George W. For killing all of those innocent soldiers so that he could look like a man at family get togethers. Pussy!

You know I feel better. I feel a little of the old fire in the belly. Could be the tacos I just ate, but no, I think that it is my sense of indignation returning.

No more feeling sorry for an embarrassing lack of internet traffic! No more sitting around touchng myself! (Well maybe sometimes.) No more letting these assholes distract us from holding their feet to the fire until they scream "Mercy"! (Please insert Howard Dean screem here.)

So check back here for concise, up to date, relevant information about things that matter to Progressives and freedom loving Americans everywhere. Cause by God I will occasionally have it! (Oh, and go ahead, tell your friends. We love feedback.)

My question is how could the Vietnam Generation have let this happen?

From the very beginning I knew exactly where this war was heading. Now I would love to present myself as some sort of Nostradamus but the reality is that it was just obvious.
Too fucking obvious!

Oh Shit!

Okay everybody stay low!

The war in Iraq is going to fall behind in the number of daily casualties when compared to this.

There is no way that Bush is not going to put on the most conservative judge he can possibly squeak by with. Maybe if we hurry and impeach his ass, and overloading Cheney's heart in the process, we might be able to save the Supreme court from becoming the new Inquisition.

Everything old is new again.

The Republicans are out of new ideas. Too bad the old ones still work.