More "Who's In Charge in Iraq?"

MSNBC is reporting that the bodies of four of seven contractors missing since an attack on a convoy at the end of last week have been found buried near the site of the convoy attack.

I keep thinking about Hamill, the missing debt-ridden dairy farmer who had to take a job in Iraq to pay his bills. Has anyone heard a word from him? I don't need to close my eyes to see his face, trying to remain brave in the face of his captors. Or those of the Japanese humanitarian workers.

Who's Running Iraq Again?

This from International Reuters:

BERLIN (Reuters) - German aid organizations evacuated their last four workers from Iraq on Monday due to the deteriorating security situation, a spokesman for one of the groups said.
The government said two embassy guards feared killed in an ambush last week remained missing.

A spokesman for the "Aktion Deutschland Hilft" said the last four members of a 10-person team removing munitions from residential areas left Baghdad on a U.N. aircraft for Amman. He said they hoped to return to Baghdad as soon as possible.

Plus kidnappers of Italians want the Italians out of Iraq. And we have a bunch more unaccounted for hostages. Death tolls must be going up in Fallujah, but we're still hearing the grave "600" Iraqis number - mostly women, children, and the elderly. LOTS more are missing.

Tonight, however, the president will tell us only a tiny number of people are involved while the rest of Iraq loves us and we're only there to help ("We're from the American goverment and we're here to hur.. help you."). I wish they would let Helen Thomas ask a question. Ahem.

MoveOn Wants Your Support

MoveOn.org is soliciting signatures for a petition to ask the US to hand over authority over Iraq to the United Nations (I'm not sure the UN wants it, however). Go here to add your name. A personal note isn't bad either. The more voices, the better.

New Complaints about Bush

I've been mildly amused and... er... amazed that people are complaining that Bush will speak tonight in one of his few, heavily scripted press conferences... specifically because it bumps part of American Idol and thus, Fox is pulling the show tonight.

While I have many complaints about our feckless leader, this is the one time I'm happy. Not just because no Idol, but because I doubt he'll do any better at this scripted press conference than he has at the others. And if recent history proves correct, at least one critic will question what medication he's on.

Who is Praying for Whom?

According to this report from ABC News Australia, troops are still being asked to pray each day for the president, his family, and staff. Think the president canceled a moment of his fishing trip to pray for them?

They may be the ones facing danger on the battlefield, but US soldiers in Iraq are being asked to pray for President George W Bush.

Thousands of marines have been given a pamphlet called "A Christian's Duty," a mini prayer book which includes a tear-out section to be mailed to the White House pledging the soldier who sends it in has been praying for Bush.

"I have committed to pray for you, your family, your staff and our troops during this time of uncertainty and tumult. May God's peace be your guide," says the pledge, according to a journalist embedded with coalition forces.

FBI to Condi: Say What???

From Saturday's Newsday:

WASHINGTON -- The FBI on Friday disputed National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice's testimony that it was conducting 70 separate investigations of al-Qaida cells in the United States before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Rice, testifying before the Sept. 11 commission Thursday, said that those 70 investigations were mentioned in a CIA briefing to the president and satisfied the White House that the FBI was doing its job in response to dire warnings that attacks were imminent and that the administration felt it had no need to act further.

But the FBI Friday said that those investigations were not limited to al-Qaida and did not focus on al-Qaida cells. FBI spokesman Ed Coggswell said the bureau was trying to determine how the number 70 got into the report.

Musharraf Runs Democracy the Bush-Cheney Way

From CNN:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- Javed Hashmi, leader of the multi-party alliance against Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, has been sentenced to 23 years in prison on charges of sedition.

...Hashmi was arrested on October 29 on charges of defaming the government and the army.

The charges came after Hashmi, a member of parliament, circulated a letter allegedly written by an army officer opposing the role of the army in national politics.

Twenty-three years for criticism.

Howard Stern

The piece on Keith Olbermann tonight about Howard and the war against Bush is quite interesting. It does seem unique that Clear Channel chose to drop him only once Howard began to criticize Mr. Bush, after several years of supporting almost entirely right-sy candidates. Yet there's also this busy buzz-buzz with the FCC and decency.

But what Howard decent when he was geared to the right, while he's indecent now? The dates are just awful close for pure coincidence, Janet Jackson's nipple aside.

Hey, I make no secret: I don't like Howard. I did for a short time, when he first appeared on WNBC in New York. He was a bad boy, and I pined for the days when I was still pretty young when Imus was stoned out of his gourd and being a reeeeeaaaaalllllyyyyyy bad boy.

But I realized Howard was never going to grow up so I turned him off. Just like listeners can do now - turn him off. He doesn't have to be your cup of tea to be allowed to be on the air. Radio is filled with voices and genres I don't like. So I don't listen. No biggy.

Tastes change, too. For example, I used to think Alan Colmes was a very good program host and was quite smart. I don't listen to him now either.

Another Legitimate Question

Even the mainstream press is asking the question, "Why is you say the information from the 8/6/01 memo was too vague to act upon to prevent 9/11/2001 yet similarly sketchy information was used to push us fast and furiously into the Iraq war?"

For some of us, this is not a new question. Still, it's nice to hear others begin to ask it.

The Horse Rides Again?

From Roger Ailes (the good one) from David Neiwert, news that Media Whores Online may return as soon as May.

I'd love to see that. Even though the "Out to Pasture" sign has been up for a bit, I keep dropping in there, because MWO was my first blog love. They're good and we need them now more than ever.

Bush Beats Clinton Any Day of the Week

From CounterSpin:

LET'S LOOK AT THE TOTE BOARD: Total number of Americans killed by Islamic terrorists during the entire 8 years of Bill Clinton's Presidency: 54.

These were from the first World trade Center attack, in which 6 were killed

The Khobar Towers attack, which resulted in the deaths of 19 U.S. service members.

The African Embassy bombings that killed 12 Americans.

And, of course, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors.

Total number of Americans killed on George W. Bush's watch? Well over 1500. Probably closer to 2000. Not everyone who died in the WTC, for examle, were U.S. citizens. In fact, a significant percentage weren't.

In any event, it's pretty clear that the death toll for Americans on that day dwarfed the entire total for Bill Clinton's Presidency.

That's true even if you count the 200 citizens of other countries killed in the African Embassy bombings and the 150 or so who died in the domestic terrorism of Oklahoma City.

In fact, more of our citizens have been killed in IRAQ than died through either war, or terrorism during Bill Clinton's entire 8 years in office.

"Follow the Exit Signs"

That's the title of this Washington Post piece by Sen. Robert Byrd. Notably:

It's clear that the war in Iraq should never have been fought. The administration's claims on which we went to war simply are not true. In seeking to stop Saddam Hussein, we have created a vortex of violence. In rushing to act without the strong support of the community of nations, America is isolated, and our few allies are targets.

However, of course, we can't just pull out. We need to do everything possible to hand this off in a way where we can try to fix some of what we've damaged - water, electricity, hospitals, and not killing so many women and children would be really nice, too. But we can't hand this off to Chalabi who has no one's respect but perhaps a few stalwarts in the Bush Administration. I doubt Jordan would be too happy about that arrangement either.

Louis Freeh and 9/11

It was Louis Freeh's turn at the 9/11 investigatory commission. Now here's a man, former FBI director under Clinton, whom I feel probably deserves to shoulder some blame.

Freeh, if I read correctly, was rather liberal with his vacations, even at a time when we were seeing increased terrorism, and there were some real questions raised about how the FBI was doing business (the scandals in the FBI forensic labs, for example). Freeh, a Republican, may have been kept in place by Clinton, but he bent over backwards to help any Republican who wanted to launch yet another investigation into Clinton or any of Clinton's administration.

What bugs me is not just that Clinton was being investigated for some new thing almost every minute of every day. What bothers me most is that all too often, what he was being investigated on mattered so little. Monica. White Water. The list goes on.

Clinton made some errors that I feel should have been thoroughly gone through, but none of them involved fellatio, interns, penny-anty land deals, and "murdering" Vince Foster.

The resources of the FBI, Secret Service, et al, should have been far better used in the years leading up to September 2001. One of the main distractions, instead, was the right wing trying to make Clinton sound like a sexual deviant.

That so many died because the government was so focused on trying to operate around all the Monica et all investigations is unforgiveable. Louis Freeh helped perpetrate these distractions.

Question

I didn't see much of the Mubarek-Bush press conference following their meeting together at the Crawford Ranch (Bush still can't tear himself away from vacation), but what little I saw prompts me to ask a question. Actually, two questions:

1. Since Bush says there can be no Palestinian state until "there are no longer terrorists willing to kill", when did the plan end to have the Palestinian state? Terrorists will always be willing to kill. Bush isn't going to change that. No one is.

2. Are we paying for the drugs Mr. Bush is taking?

And yes, I'm serious on the latter point. Get a transcript of the press conference.

"Bush Speaks of Truth, But Doesn't Tell it"

That's the headline of Cynthia Tucker's piece in the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

The entire premise of the Bush presidency -- that he is a man of principle, of honor, of candor -- is crumbling. The chaos engulfing Iraq is not just the result of guileless miscalculations. It is the inevitable outcome of a policy built on mendacity.

Check this ABC News Story

It relates to all the contractors in Iraq right now, and how there is no system to really handle problems with them. I would also expect it's quite an insult to the military, there earning chump change to be shot at, when the DoD is happy to bring in hired guns who can be rogues for $1,000-$2,000 a day per contract employee.

Note this:

"If a U.S. military person is suspected of committing a crime, there's an established system to deal with it — court-martial," Singer says. "When a private military person is suspected of committing a crime, there's really not much legal recourse. For example, in Iraq right now, you would have to rely on local law. Well, guess what, there is no local law."

Meter Still Running

From the Houston Chronicle:

Meter still running on Cisneros investigation
Five years after former Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about payments to his mistress, the meter is still running on the independent counsel investigation.

Taxpayers were billed $839,085 for the six months ending Sept. 30, 2003, by attorney David Barrett, the independent counsel named to head the inquiry that began in 1995. Although Cisneros entered his plea in 1999 and agreed to pay a $10,000 fine, Barrett's office is still open and has not set a date for closing.

Barrett is finishing a final report on the case as required by law, an official said.

A recent report by the General Accounting Office found that, so far, Barrett's investigation of the former San Antonio mayor has cost $20,509,928, plus whatever has been spent over the past six months.

An even more expensive investigation -- one headed by Kenneth Starr into allegations against former President Clinton -- officially closed last month.

Attorney Julie Thomas, who replaced Robert Ray who replaced Starr, pulled the plug officially on March 19, ending more than a decade of federal investigation of Clinton.

The cost of that investigation, which led to Clinton's impeachment and eventual acquittal by the Senate, cost $72,768,285 through the end of September, according to the GAO.

Is it Just Me?

Or does The Sopranos suck this season?

I'd like to think I've simply grown up, no longer content with vicious mobster killings, people committed to screwing people over, and unhappy with people who scratch every itch with a 15" dagger. Or maybe watching the Bush Administration is enough organized crime for me.

Seriously, though, I've never found anyone on that show a truly compelling, likeable character. Sure, I was bummed tonight when Steve Buscemi's character got this close to making it only to dump it all away. But that's not all. Carmela is a user extraordinaire. She can pass judgement on Tony (ick) but she sure wants his money, even knowing how it's made. Adriana and Christopher deserve each other; we can only hope they don't have any children. Meadow's gonna grow up to be Victoria Gotti (but with even less talent). Melfi's not worth the bother. But then, none of them are.

Life just seems too short to watch a show where no one seems capable or even motivated to make life not such a sh*thole. The same holds true for our current WH administration. Come on, November 2004!

Homeland Security?

Is this a 3-hour Bush campaign movie in NBC tonight?

I notice they use real footage of Bush, but have a fake Karzai from Afghanistan. This sucks.

Former President George W. Bush

Oops, sorry. I'm just practicing. I like how it sounds. I like even more what it means.

And trust me, the ranch in Crawford will be forgotten by him as soon as he's out of power... or out of Dick Cheney's power, anyway.

The American Hostage

I heard more about the American hostage today, a contractor who is over there because he couldn't find work in America and he needed to pay off the debts from his failed dairy farm. There are a lot of people like that in Iraq: people with no ability to get decent paying wages here and reach a point of desperation so great, they'll consider going into a war zone just to get better than minimum wage.

Speaks volumes about George Bush's America to me.

McCain Says No

CNN is reporting that John McCain says he completely rules out a run for VP on a Kerrey ticket. If he has no real desire there, I'm glad he's announced it now. But I also expect that McCain used the doubt as leverage to get something from his Republican colleagues.

Say what you want about McCain, but one thing you can't say is that he's not a survivor, in every possible meaning of the word.

Hostage Deadlines Begin to Pass

One of the Blogger-eaten posts related to the Iraqi hostages - now a collection from America, Japan, and other countries. Now, the deadline given on the American hostage, a contractor from Mississippi, has passed with no word - and I doubt we got out of Fallujah.

The Japanese public is up in arms, and rightly so, demanding that their leader withdraw troops - and remember, Japan's troops are there in completely non-combat roles only. Many of those taken are humanitarian workers, although it's unclear whether the contractor from the US captured was Army-contract or otherwise.

I hope their lives are spared. But I also hope the lives of the Iraqi people are spared, too, along with our military. Enough death for no purpose.

Is the Public Getting Smarter?

I note that in the CNN poll today asking whether the WH presidential daily briefing memo released yesterday supports the White House's version or Richard Clarke's, more than 62% say it supports Clarke.

All those dead in Iraq from the massive misplanning after a completely unnecessary war might be a clue.

President Actually "Works" This Morning

President Bush, in a rare moment not spent vacationing or coming up with silly nicknames to call people, attended Easter services at Ft. Hood this morning.

Said the president, "My subjects.. er.. people.. you know, those people who don't realize me and Karl and Diebold got the electronic voting all taken care of so they aren't really needed... wanted me to come out on Easter so I did. But Condi promised me I can get right back to the ranch and find me some eggs and chocolate bunnies. See, that's what Easter's all about. Candy."

Blogger Must Be Hungry

Because it ate several posts between last night and now. Let me go find it a white chocolate bunny to satisfy it.

Rice Gets an F

That's what Slate's Fred Kaplan says:

One clear inference can be drawn from Condoleezza Rice's testimony before the 9/11 commission this morning: She has been a bad national security adviser—passive, sluggish, and either unable or unwilling to tie the loose strands of the bureaucracy into a sensible vision or policy. In short, she has not done what national security advisers are supposed to do.

To bin Ladens it May Concern:

Dear Osama,

I know we have a sort of love-hate relationship, you and the United States. Sure, we blame you for everything but you also have to admit that through the Carlisle Group, we help make you and your family as rich as the Bushes, the Cheneys, and the Lays.

Isn't it all quite amazing that we can successfully make the American public believe you're the root of all evil and that's why we need to spend an outrageous amount of the budget on defense. But the result is that our mutual friends in the energies industry, the defense industry, the homeland security biz, and the funders of contract armies are getting very rich, and cutting us both in on the action. So our current relationship cuts well both ways for our mutual benefit.

However, much as I enjoy working with you, my first allegiance always has to be (wiping tear from my eye) My President. I love him and I cannot let him down.

Thus, it would be enormously helpful if, next time you plan to attack us, you could provide the following information well in advance of the attack (and please don't plan it for one of My President's vacations - these become hard to schedule, of course, because there are so many of them. And, as you know, I spend my time away from Washington with him.

So please let us know at least 6 months in advance:

The time of the attack

The place of the attack

The method of the attack (please be as specific as possible)

How we should respond

Thank you for your cooperation is this highly important matter. Now I must go - it's time for me to read My President a bedtime story.
Yours in infamy
Condi

Just Historical, Condi?

From an AP report on CNN now:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's August 2001 briefing on terrorism threats, described largely as a historical document, included information from three months earlier that al-Qaeda was trying to send operatives into the United States for an explosives attack, according to several people who have seen the memo.

The so-called presidential daily briefing, or PDB, delivered to Bush on August 6, 2001 -- a month before the September 11 attacks -- said there were various reports that Osama bin Laden had wanted to strike inside the United States as early as 1997 and continuing into the spring of 2001, the sources told The Associated Press.

Kerry-McCain 2004?

This is one getting more and more play in the last couple of weeks - more and more play in my thoughts, too. But there are so many complexities, too many points good and bad... and I'm afraid the end result of such a play would ultimately be less than stellar.

First and foremost, the idea of an atypical alliance such as Kerry and McCain would represent is appealing on a number of different levels.

Of course, I'm not somebody who sees the immediate world around me as "GOP vs. Democrat", although it's seemed more like that for years. All Republican's aren't bad to me, nor are all Democrats good. As humans - like the rest of us - they have miserable failings mixed with a few great goods (at best).

But beyond that take - that you don't have to just see the whole of America in just two flavors - is the appeal of two men who know what war means (as opposed to Bush who once watched it in a movie and thought, "cool!") being in charge. Those who've seen war - and not totally lost their souls - are probably a little less sanguine about sending lives off to combat without distinct planning and consideration.

And McCain to some degree (not entirely) fits the bill of the Republican of maybe 30 years ago, the more sane one who wasn't totally devoted to screwing everyone else so they could have it better themselves. You know, the Republicans who could see that Nixon had made a deal with the devil and lost as opposed to the Republicans who thought that Nixon's only crime was that he got caught.

Also, as liberal and progressive as I tend to me (I believe), I suspect the road to this country's salvation from the misery inflicted upon in from the Bush Administration (and the right wing lynching of Bill Clinton - who had far more serious faults than getting a blowjob, thank you very much - that distracted everyone while the plan for 9/11 was being made) is an approach that's probably far more centrist. Kerry isn't a left winger. Nor was Howard Dean. Of course, in George Bush's Republican Party, John McCain is considered dangerously left wing, while McCain himself runs on the staunchly conservative side of centrist. This is a long winded way of saying that Kerry and McCain aren't an unnaturally bad match.

So yeah, McCain could bring some votes (though probably not as many as some might conjecture), some states, and some real saber rattling and "suddenly extreme orange alerts everywhere" manuevers out of Karl Rove and his puppet, George. Swing voters might go for that ticket because they think that McCain will be a balancing weight for Kerry or vice versa.

However, let me point out that McCain's maverick status runs hot and cold. One minute, he's taking a brave stand out and away from the Frist/DeLay/Hastert/Rove/Chambliss/Pat Roberts bullshit on a point that truly matters. And the next, he seems to be kissing George's well-preserved-from-no-labor-ever cushy little tushie. Then there are times when the stands he takes seem patently like he's taking a stand just to take a stand and get airplay.

If John McCain turned around and bit the Democrats' ass on a valid point, fine. I don't like malfeasance and smarminess any better when a Democrat does it. But what about those times when McCain just bites the GOP ass now for his own grandeur? Think he won't do that with Kerry and Company?

Thus, while I admit I'm still having problems getting warm and toasty about the prospect of President Kerry, my concerns are not aided by the possibility of a VP McCain. I think there are better Democratic or Independent choices. If we can't take Bush out in Election 2004 with all the crap he's committed on the entire world, maybe America deserves what it gets with another 4 years of Bush just like we deserve rotten TV programming like "The Apprentice" and "Survivor."

"He Remains in Touch," said the WH

But from the Washington Post this morning:

This is Bush's 33rd visit to his ranch since becoming president. He has spent all or part of 233 days on his Texas ranch since taking office, according to a tally by CBS News. Adding his 78 visits to Camp David and his five visits to Kennebunkport, Maine, Bush has spent all or part of 500 days in office at one of his three retreats, or more than 40 percent of his presidency.

The anti-Bush group America Coming Together issued a news release yesterday noting that Bush was on his ranch on Aug. 6, 2001, when he received a crucial intelligence briefing that was prominent in Rice's testimony yesterday.

So Much for That

Reports are that we've restarted the offensive in Fallujah. Portland Indy Media has several pictures of dead, mostly quite young children. They don't much appear to be Sadr followers.

And unless he really misspoke or I really misheard, Barry McCaffrey was on Tom Brokaw tonight making it sound like we'd pretty much lost Baghdad, too. Others were saying that they're growing very tired of hearing the Bush Administration make everything sound so hunky-dory.

Considering the Washington Post today says that the president has spent about 40% of his presidency on vacation, you'd think everything would be functioning better than this.

Good Friday?

One has to wonder - although we can always hope - whether this temporary cease in the battering of Fallujah will do anything to calm tempers down. It sounds, however, that the American offense was pretty much outnumbered so perhaps we need the breather even more than the Iraqis.

Like many people, I have a hard time with what I saw happen to those contractors last week and about the Japanese kidnap victims this week.

However, go to Blackwater's site - read about them - and you understand that Blackwater doesn't go in with the purpose of serving nutritious meals for hungry kids. They're private army - and remember, Rumsfeld wants to privatize the military - and reports are that the typical Blackwater folks drive around Iraq everywhere with a gun or guns pointed out the window, ready to shoot. In other words, I'm not sure that Blackwater folks haven't perpetrated some pretty terrible acts, too. Sorry, folks, but not everyone drawing a check either directly or indirectly from the DoD is a nice person and a humanitarian.

As many Americans and other forces have been lost in the past two weeks, the number of dead Iraqis in Fallujah is skyrocketing. Many are, most likely, innocent civilans caught in the crossfire because we stepped up operations at a time when our troops are in graver and graver danger, their morale shrinking, hopes of getting out soon shrinking fast, and with what sounds like pretty rotten support coming in from command (different soldiers have told stories about being surrounded, beaten upon even by old woman and children, and denied evacuation from central command. We sent a missile into a mosque as if to remind the entire Muslim world that we don't give a damn about their religion.

I'm also quite concerned that the number of casualties we're hearing about is just a smidgeon of the real numbers. Bush and Company work very hard to control every detail of information, and in a time of serious heat, they aren't going to think twice about fudging the numbers to make the situation look less horrible than it is.

Pay Heed, Mr. Ashcroft

From March 18th:

BRASILIA, Brazil - The health threat from legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco is much greater than that from illegal narcotics, the World Health Organization said Thursday.

The first report of its kind by the global body found that dependence on alcohol and cigarettes has a much greater cost for societies than illegal drugs like cocaine and crack.

The Scalia... er.. Scale is Tipping

Anyday now, I expect to hear that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia will totally come unhinged and appear in open court wearing a bustierre, garter, fishnets, and heels while singing Poynter Sisters' hits. I mean, he's just been on this very strange side trip for sometime now, and he keeps steering to the far right out toward Neptune. You figure sometimes, he feels he's Michael Douglas in "The Star Chamber", only he decided the Star Chamber was "his due".

Now - as opposed to all the other times he's been - controversial because he forgot to tell reporters covering some damned speech of his that they couldn't tape him, so he had a federal marshal go to the reporters and demand they destroy their recordings.

I'm sure there's an illness in the DSM-III with his picture on it.

Trudeau Can Be Truly Brilliant

Doonesbury sums it up.

From Josh Marshall

Related to >Condi Rice today:

bear in mind that few people across the ideological spectrum believe that Rice has been an effective National Security Advisor.

People on the (relative) left like Powell's team at State; those on the right prefer Rumsfeld and the neocons at DOD. The Strangelovians go for Cheney at OVP. But across the board people fault her managerial competence.

Every administration has its interagency antagonisms, often between the National Security Advisor and Secretary of State. But this one's in a class by itself on pure disorganization and factionalism.

9/11 Probably Could Have Been Prevented

That's the message I get from the Newsweek article, which Atrios thankfully points us toward.

My Immediate Reaction

Unfortunately, a tense deadline kept me from listening to all of Dr. Rice's testimony, although I saw spots and I'm just sitting down now to read an early transcript.

But everything I saw made me ask just one compound question I've actually never asked myself before:

Has this woman only existed within two presidential administrations for the sole purpose of protecting and defending the Bushes? And if so, why in God's name was she put in charge of something that had such potential for damage when she did it badly?

This is a whole order of magnitude worse than I thought. This is gross incompetence and everything I heard and have now read implies that her only job is to protect Junior - the rest of us bloody be damned.

Preparing for Her Testimony

Since I have to work well into the night and might get up just in time to see Dr. Rice sit down with the 9/11 investigatory panel, I'm trying to decide what I should have handy. Right now, I figure I'll need:

big soft bunny slippers so I won't break the glass when I kick the TV in disgust

easy access to any of Sissela Bok's books on lying

a barf bag courtesy of the last time I flew since we realized Dr. Rice wasn't paying attention to airplanes used as weapons

an Anybody-But-Bush button to prick myself with whenever I'm sure I must be dreaming all of this

a good stiff drink (alas, for me, coffee...)

to put fresh batteries in the smoke detector in case my head spontaneously combusts from all the lies

Does He Need an Entire Week Off to Dye Eggs?

While our soldiers - and coalition soldiers along with innocent Iraqi civilians - are getting hammered in Iraq this week and while Condi Rice prepares to sit down with the 9/11 panel tomorrow and lie through her perfect, oversized teeth, the president has taken the entire week off to spend at his Crawford ranch (you know, the one he bought as a prop just before Election 2000).

I can't remember the statistics, but Bush is either the president who has taken the most vacation time of any president, or any president in recent time. I mean, whenever his father went away during his presidency, you knew we were about to attack someone. His son learned, however, to have constant war so he can have constant vacation time.

And yes, I find it supremely creepy that Condi Rice proudly reports that she spends most of her weekends with the Bushes. Does George have her dress up in a French maid's costume? I mean... it just doesn't sound too normal.

I notice that even pro-war pundits like Barry McCaffrey and others on today seemed to not know quite what to say with Bush insisting we're being attacked just because "some Iraqis hate freedom and WE love freedom so that's why they attack us."

And why do I feel like I'm in that Peter Sellers movie where he plays the gardener who just says these odd, out of place things that everyone cheers as brilliant and well-considered?

Best Line of the Week (So Far)

In response to Ted Kennedy's comment that Iraq was Bush's Vietnam, Jon Stewart just said:

If only President Bush had gotten his Vietnam out of the way during Vietnam.

On a Related Point

I can't help thinking how many servicemen and women, American and other coalition, along with Iraqis civilians, will die because we dropped a bomb on a mosque today.

We're waiting on word about a cousin - an Army Ranger - who got called in. He's a career soldier and I have to respect his decision to take part in this. It's a bit different for those poor 18-21 yr olds who had no idea what they were signing up for, along with all the National Guard and reservists who likely are going to see their tours extended yet again.

Winning the Hearts and Minds of Iraqis...

one missile dropped onto a mosque at a time.

Gee, I'm glad President Bush declared all major combat over 11 months ago or you'd think there was a war going on in Iraq.

This Will Make the Wingnuts Crazy

A new study suggests frequent sex cuts down on cancer risk.

Now, the "Family Values" wingnuts hate the idea of frequent sex, at least with their own spouses. If it's their own wives, for example, sex should only occur when it's absolutely necessary for procreation and then should be enjoyed by neither party. But if it's some young staffer working for them (or in Henry Hyde's and Neil Bush's cases, someone else's wife and mother), frequent sex is a different matter. Right, Newt?

Air America

Because I live hundreds of miles from the closest broadcast point for the new network, I've only been able to catch a bit of it via online stream.

I'm not going to attempt any real critique of it here, because a) so many others are already critiquing and b) because I don't think the test of time is last week or this week, but closer to the election and then beyond. Everyone needs time to settle in and see how the format gets changed as time passes.

Yet, as glad as I am that Air America is here, it also grieves me that you can't trust most media outlets to offer a real balance on their own. I can't turn on AM radio anymore, because it's either all the same music or all the same angry voices. In fact, here in Vermont, I'm down to listening to the occasional NPR program (and then, only in the car where I have no other choice), Congressman Bernie Sanders' program on WDEV (Mondays at 1 PM ET), and a local community radio station, WGDR, that is filled with progressive voices and which broadcasts Democracy Now twice a day. Everything else is just too crappy to bear.

But I'll also freely admit I'm a snob. I don't like 99.8% of the commercial music produced today, while I adore that little stations like WGDR in Plainfield (VT) and WPKN in Bridgeport, CT - both available over the net via stream - not only provide some alternative voices, they also give me a real range of music from all over the world, in all genres. Hail community radio!

Numbed into Silence?

I'm not sure that the above quite adequately describes my state the last few days regarding the news, but it comes probably about as close as I'll get. Instead of posting, I've been ravenously trying to make sense of what I can glean from news reports both here and abroad about what's currently going on in Iraq. I mean, with what we've seen so far of how honest this administration puts any case forward, I'm not just willing to believe that this cleric Sadr is the "baddest of the bad."

Yet after much reading, I only know that indeed, he sounds like he's very angry with the U.S. but it's too hard to tell how much our actions may have spurred that sentiment. It's too easy to say, "Well, sheesh, the only places we're having trouble are those places where they liked Saddam because they were treated better than most."

Yes, there apparently are spots in Iraq that are relatively more safe than others. But the more I hear Bush and Company say things like, "the people doing this are doing it because they hate freedom," the more tempted I am to vomit. This isn't freedom we've given them. We are an occupying force, and whenever we feel like it, we basically turn cities into prisons from which few can escape.

Some of the hardball tactics aren't going to change the minds of those who would cheer when the contractors were killed and displayed last week. Meanwhile, if you go to the Blackwater site (Blackwater being the "private army" contractor these men worked for), you see people all dressed up like black stormtroopers training massive weapons on you with a cheery logo beneath that reads something like, "Protecting Freedom."

Silly me, but freedom for me isn't discerned at the end - either end - of a massive shotgun.

I'm also terribly worried that when all is said and done, the 12 Americans (and lots more Iraqis) dead today will actually turn out to be significantly more. The chaos right now doesn't make counting bodies all that easy.

I'm also angry. Yes, the polls against Bush are mostly turning bad for him, but so many of the American people seem to give him an enormous benefit of the doubt.

Today, I heard that Condi has a 2/3rds majority approval rating with the American public. What? She's been the enabler of every stinking act that has been perpetrated by this administration. A polygraph machine would go into fibrillation with her attached.

Who besides the "Jersey girls" (some of the widows of 9/11) care that this administration has done absolutely everything in its power to be sure we don't have a solid idea of what allowed 9/11 to happen and play out exactly as it did?

Followup to the Other

I was just listening to journalist Robert Fisk speaking on Democracy Now about the two sets of casualties today I posted about before. The picture he paints is very grim. Bodies purposely hung upside down over bridges, a body dragged through the streets, one body on fire, another being pushed around without its head.

One set of casualties are American military apparently, the other civilian contractors.

This is what Bush is praising himself for?

I know that if I were a family member - and remember, more than just our military is there; many from this country unable to find work to support themselves are taking jobs with subcontractors to Halliburton, et al, and get sent there - of anyone in there, I would be even more rocked by this than I am. And I'm pretty devastated now. Can you even begin to imagine what it's like to live there?

A Body Dragged Through the Streets

Here we go again and frankly, I'm almost surprised CNN is telling us the part about the body dragged through the streets because Bush&Co won't like that:

A roadside bomb killed five American military personnel this morning northwest of Habbaniya in central Iraq, the U.S. military said. In a second strike in nearby Fallujah, at least four civilian contractors died in a grenade attack on two cars, the military said. At least one body was dragged through the streets, witnesses said.

Definitely Worth a Look

Check out the new and marvelous White House Props Department site. Beautifully done, folks.

Daniel Pearl

Remember Danny Pearl, the Wall Street Journalist editor and Bureau Chief who was executed by kidnappers in his efforts to gather information about terrorists and their plans during the late January immediately after 9/11?

His widow applied for 9/11 benefits on the basis of his death being related to the same Islamic terrorist efforts, but has been denied, according to CNN. Watch someone on the (cough) compassionate right mention that she's not only French, but biracial, as if these facts alone somehow justify the right to deny her any benefits.

Attack Rather Than Defend

As I was reading the piece I've quoted below over on the Democratic Talk Radio site tonight, I was thinking about how typical this behavior is for the Bush Administration. They can't defend us, but they can attack anyone who questions them.

The recent controversy swirling around the Bush White House, the 9-11 Commission and the Richard Clarke book, Against All Enemies has been very enlightening. Sensing that Bush has almost nothing else to run on in the 2004 elections, the Bush Republican attack machine and their fellow travelers in the Corporate Media have been vigorously trying to change the subject away from their competency in dealing with terrorism before and after the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

Instead of publicly dealing with the serious issues involved, the Bush Republicans have been attacking the character of anyone who raises any questions about their poor performance on national security issues. This has been the Karl Rove approach to anyone standing in the way of Bush obtaining and retaining political power. This tactic was key in defeating John McCain in the 2000 South Carolina Republican Primary Election. The tactic was used in the 2002 Congressional Elections to give the Republicans control of Congress. The tactic backfired when used illegally by someone highly placed in the Bush Administration to out the CIA agent wife of Ambassador Wilson over the false “African uranium-nuclear weapons” claims that helped Bush sell his invasion and occupation of Iraq. Most recently, the Republican attack machine went after former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil, when the book The Price of Loyalty was published. This book confirmed many of the charge made against the Bush White House in the Clarke book.

"Hardball"

Matthews has Dana Rohrbacher (R-OINK, California) on insisting that Clarke is a bad man, that he's completely responsible for 9/11 and should have apologized, that he never liked or trusted him, and it's not even Condi Rice's and Cheney's fault that they chose Clarke to lead the terrorism effort but Clarke's himself. He also implied that Clarke needs to give the proceeds from his book to the 9/11 victims' fund. Heh... I'd call Rohrbacher a pig (and have), but he really gives decent, clean, well-behaved swine a very bad name.

Is Karen Hughes' book sales going to the victims' fund? Or Bush's? Or Bill Frist's? Or David Frum's or Richard Perle's?

And Mr. Rohrbacher doesn't appear to have given up many fancy, rich meals to contribute himself.

Another Point

Another point I don't like about the agreement reached to get NSA director Condi Rice to testify is that instead of having private sessions each with Bush and Cheney, the commission must speak with them jointly in one session.

This shouldn't be a big point normally, but Bush and Cheney are rarely on the same page. I would think it would be far more illuminating to speak to them each separately. When police need to interview a couple or two siblings, for example, one of the first things they do I imagine - or gleaned from Court TV - is that they separate the two to see the differences in information presented. By the time they're interviewed, I imagine Condi will already have testified in public. This gives them a story line with which to adhere.

High Electric Bill? Watch Out

First, my apologies because I can't find the original source of this story, although it could have been from a link I saw at the San Francisco Chronicle.

However, I was reading this morning about how a Carlsbad, California mom had her home and her son's school visited twice by police who were sure she was running a pot farm because of the family's high electric bills. According to the article, it's standard practice to monitor the size of our electric bills to determine whether we might be growing drugs (or plants used to make them) and to get a court order to perform a search on any home or building just on the basis of the high bill.

What police found, however, was a household where kids routinely left lights and appliances on and where the mother does an unusually large amount of laundry each day.

That one unsettled my stomach for a bit. I mean, my bills are - I suspect - higher than most homes in my neighborhood, but because I run power in three different buildings (each the size of a large full house) to operate two businesses. While not all of our computers are on all the time, there are at least four running - with a host of peripherals - at any given time. Electricity provides some of my heat. Several of our appliances are older, too, and probably not as energy efficient as I'd like.

The way power was set up here, there are no separate power accounts for each business as opposed to the household, so it's all lumped together into one bill. After reading that story, however, I'm inclined to rethink this. I mean, it just seems silly to get embarrassed and inconvenienced just because you have a high power bill.

But I'd also like the police and government to rethink a system where we're constantly presumed guilty of something before any evidence is offered. The police, in this case, apologized to the Carlsbad mom, but she wants a public, written apology, and the police don't feel that's warranted. They had a right to suspect her, they said.

Hey... remember to turn the lights off when you leave the office after reading this. Smirk.

Robbing Peter to Quiet Paul?

First, I'm very glad to see that the President and Vice President will now appear before all members of the 9/11 panel and not just the chair and vice-chair. Hopefully, they'll sit for more than 60 minutes each, as well.

However, one thing not being noticed in all the fury to discuss the fact that Dr. Rice will now testify in public and under oath is that the White House put some strict conditions, including that the 9/11 panel will not request any other White House official to publicly testify. That part bothers me quite a bit. Rice's words the last several weeks have contradicted both earlier words from herself as well as several members of the Bush Administration. It's within the realm of distinct possibility that her testimony could lead to additional questions that can and should be answered by the White House.

Has the panel agreed to this condition? We're supposed to hear them speak on the record shortly. I hope they don't accept Rice with this condition placed. Rice should testify, but it shouldn't be given with total immunity for everyone at 1600 Pennsylvania.

Tom Daschle

My gosh, Tom has actually been standing up and saying more than, "Yes, Mr. President," over the last few weeks. Pelosi is usually a bit more willing to be blunt than Tom but here he is today:

Mr. President, last week I spoke about the White House's reaction to Richard Clarke's testimony before the 9-11 Commission. I am compelled to rise again today, because the people around the President are systematically abusing the powers and prerogatives of government...
Richard Clarke did something extraordinary when he testified before the 9-11 Commission last week. He didn't try to escape blame, as so many routinely do. Instead, he accepted his share of responsibility and offered his perceptions about what happened in the months and years leading up to September 11...
The retaliation from those around the President has been fierce. Mr. Clarke's personal motives have been questioned and his honesty challenged. He has even been accused, right here on the Senate floor, of perjury. Not one shred of proof was given, but that wasn't the point. The point was to have the perjury accusation on television and in the newspapers. The point was to damage Mr. Clarke in any way possible.
This is wrong–and it's not the first time it's happened...
Senator McCain, Senator Cleland, Secretary O'Neill, Ambassador Wilson, General Shinseki, Richard Foster, Richard Clarke, Larry Lindsay ... when will the character assassination, retribution, and intimidation end?
When will we say enough is enough?
The September 11 families – and our entire country – deserve better. Our democracy depends on it. And our nation's future security depends on it.

Pull Out the Kid Gloves

From MSNBC Breaking News:

NBC News: Condoleeza Rice to testify publicly before 9/11 panel -
NBC News has learned that Bush national security adviser Condoleeza Rice has now agreed to testify under oath in public before the commission investigating the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Josh Marshall, Too

Is there anyway to nominate Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo as a national resource? Some of his information and insight is invaluable, like this last night regarding the Administration's decision to cherry pick through transcripts to find only issues that place Richard Clarke in a bad light, while leaving their own Teflon coating unscratched:

Declassifying the transcripts is not compatible with national security. But taking the transcripts, cutting the individual words into scraps and pasting them back together into incriminating sentences might be okay.

Essential Paul Krugman

Who writes in The Times in his column today:

Last week an opinion piece in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz about the killing of Sheik Ahmed Yassin said, "This isn't America; the government did not invent intelligence material nor exaggerate the description of the threat to justify their attack."
So even in Israel, George Bush's America has become a byword for deception and abuse of power. And the administration's reaction to Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies" provides more evidence of something rotten in the state of our government.

He also mentions a quote from Dean's (John's, not Howard's) new book, titled or subtitled "Worse Than Watergate" that makes me want to pick it up along with Clarke's. Of course, Mr. Ashcroft won't like this when he reads our book buying or reading habits. Tsk tsk.

Sending Out the Smite Squad

Read Joe Klein's Time piece:

The President fulfilled his biblical responsibility: he ignored both prophets, who then amped their rants and wrote books (these days, prophets are not averse to profits). And as with Clinton, the subsequent brouhahas have revealed the most distinctly unpleasant—and not very righteous—side of the President. Unable to defend his policies in a coherent way and unwilling to acknowledge his mistakes, Bush responds to criticism with ugliness.

Teflon

It's amazing in light of what's come out recently, yet CNN is falling all over itself today reporting that Mr. Bush is climbing in the polls, which they interpret as a major sign that everyone loves Mr. Bush, regardless of what bad news comes out.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I suspect the people who agree to take polls - particularly those over the telephone - may not always be the most reliable sources of information. I mean, who picks up their phone anymore? Or maybe I'm the only one who still gets telemarketing calls.

It's amazing in light of what's come out recently, yet CNN is falling all over itself today reporting that Mr. Bush is climbing in the polls, which they interpret as a major sign that everyone loves Mr. Bush, regardless of what bad news comes out.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I suspect the people who agree to take polls - particularly those over the telephone - may not always be the most reliable sources of information. I mean, who picks up their phone anymore? Or maybe I'm the only one who still gets telemarketing calls.

Charges of Clarke Profiting

A couple of dissenting voices among the 9/11 families have done the rounds on TV, mostly on NBC properties that I've seen today, to say how terrible it is that Richard Clarke has a book and criticism now about 9/11. Of course, this was spurred by Sen. Bill ("No, this is NOT my real hair") Frist's comments on Friday.

But Clarke's book was held up in publication by the White House or it wouldn't be hitting the book stores at the time he testified.

And what of the other people who profited from 9/11?

Frist was one of the first people off the press with a book about terrorism. He promoted it heavily.

David Frum and Richard Perle coauthored a book that touched on the subject and David Frum wrote a book before all about how his killer "axis of evil" term helped Bush win the war on terror (ha!).

Karen (the canine bitch with the jaws of a pit bull) Hughes has just launched a 6 week book tour for a new book in which she waxes ecstatic about her boss, Bushie, related to his conduct on 9/11.

Rudy Giuliani has scored a fortune off 9/11 which is good because his third wife (Republican family values, you know) looks like she's expensive to keep.

Woolsey and a number of others have made oodles off 9/11, too.

So what's the difference between Clarke and all the others? Oh wait. I know. They're Republicans and Clarke was largely non-partisan.

Vision? What Vision?

I missed this rather blunt editorial in yesterday's Times, but Buzzflash kindly pointed me to it:

George Bush's vision of the nation's future will undoubtedly be one focus of the presidential campaign. We suggest the debate start with the question of whether Mr. Bush actually has one. The White House has been driving Congress — and the nation — in wildly contradictory ways that suggest a deeply muddled, or perhaps nonexistent, set of domestic goals.

Last year, for instance, the Republican House leaders desperately pummeled their more fiscally conservative members to get the Medicare drug program passed at the behest of the White House. Meanwhile, when the chief Medicare actuary tallied up the program's real cost, the administration did everything to keep him quiet but bury the man alive.

Uh... Dr. Rice?

You might want to check out this article from the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON - There is no ironclad legal doctrine buttressing National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites)'s refusal to testify publicly before the panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, law experts said Monday.

On a Strange Note

Can we please STOP seeing and, more importantly, hearing William Hung, the early reject from American Idol? He's not the worst voice I've ever heard but ... some of us avoid reality TV shows for a reason, so we hate having them spill over into our world.

America Getting Condied... er... Conned

And yet Dr. Rice continues to appear in front of every television camera she can find, insisting that nothing would please her more than to appear before the 9/11 commission again, if only she could. Poor, poor Condi.

Today, too, the less than subtle charges keep spilling forward that terrorism czar Richard Clarke just has an issue with Dr. Rice because she's African-American, and not because she's a deceitful, nasty (look at the faces she makes), Bush brown-noser who would sell out America before she would speak ill of either herself or her president.

Poor, Poor Condi

I'm listening today - now on Wolf Blitzer's CNN program on Sunday but also throughout the last few days - that Clarke's criticism is just oh, so terribly unfair to Condi Rice and that she deserves a chance to rebut him.

Unfair to Condi? Or was Condi's behavior directly responsible for events that helped conspire to allow the level of damage that occurred on 9/11 to be carried out?

The people in the White House and beyond are supposed to serve us. They did a damned poor job of it on 9/11. Condi would never consider apologizing for what she allowed to happen. Fine. Insincere apologies matter little in any situation, and certainly wouldn't help this one. But to treat this like poor Condi is the only one injured.. or is injured at all compared to what happened to this country... is egregious.

The only thing Dr. Rice deserves is to lose her job, be publicly branded as the partisan shill that she is, and maybe lose her rights to go shopping (as she constantly does) at all of DC's upscale stores. Of course, public flogging would be nice, too. Cough.

Clarke on "Meet the Press"

Despite Tim Russert's best efforts to the contrary, Richard Clarke is coming off as incredibly earnest, believable, and knowledgeable this morning. After more than a week of taking an outrageous pounding by everyone Bush, he's more articulate and more composed than he was as this began.

Clarke showing that letter from Bush in response to Tim's grilling about "what Clarke said back then" was beautiful, as is his note that the taxpayers are being forced to fund the attacks being conducted upon him. Too bad the Bush crew didn't defend this country on 9/11 with such vigor. And that's the point. They'll go to any length to protect Bush, and the rest of us can curl up and die.

Another Guantanamo Person Charged

This one is forbidden from speaking Arabic to his parents and fiancee, who speak no English.

After the case against James Yee fell completely all to hell, it's hard to look at this fellow the same way. Maybe the case against him is as fabricated and baseless as Yee's.

Which is it?

Can we safely assume that al Zawahiri is not cornered by Pakistani and American forces if he's free to make tapes? Sometimes, you're just left feeling that Osama and al Zawahiri are just laughing at us every bungled step of the way. Bush and Company keep feeding directly into their hands.

I mean, what better way to get more Muslims to turn against America than invading a Muslim country like Iraq (secular under Saddam but fairly Muslim regardless)?

Bush and the 9/11 Charges

Do you think Karl Rove is staying awake this Saturday night sweating the results so far of a poll by Newsweek that shows that following Clarke's testimony, lots seem to be placing the blame for the 9/11 attacks and the post-Iraq mess squarely on our beloved leader's shoulders?

The Web results (through MSNBC.com) differ significantly in most cases from those actually garnered through Newsweek.

Take the poll yourself (found courtesy of Atrios).

Economy Trumps Security

With a whopping 160,000 people already voting, CNN reports that 65% of Americans feel that the economy is a bigger issue than national security.

Sounds valid to me. Our "safety" as it relates to national security is a rather nebulous thing. Even those who don't pay attention have to realize that it's probably more a matter of luck and low determination on the part of terrorists that we haven't had a bloody if lesser repeat of 9/11 because our Homeland Security Department can't even get the color scheme right in their alert chart, let alone protect all points of entry into the US. As my friend's ultra-Republican and conservative mother in Jersey likes to say, "Mr. Ridge just doesn't seem terribly bright to me."

Also, did you realize that Homeland Security is undergoing a hiring freeze? Heh! Remember that next time we go on super-duper red alert or we get a terrorist attack. They're good at spending money on crony programs and DHS, but that's about it.

Another Let 'em Eat Cake-ism

Bush also proposes that all households have broadband Internet service by 2007. It's another nice idea.

Of course, it's missing any real details on how that will be accomplished. But Bush isn't a real detail man, is he?

While we're talking about broadband, there are some significant issues here: many broadband companies have gone belly up, many rural areas may be without broadband for many years yet to come and... a point the president would never understand (since he says he "doesn't understand poor people" and thinks them lazy)... many people still do not have computers.

Sure, here in cyberspace, people already here assume everyone is here. But as someone who's made most of her living the past decade-and-a-half out of understanding online processes and practices, let me assure you that there are LOTS of people who cannot yet afford the beasts. Or the ones they have are woefully outdated - patched together 486s and even earlier.

But, like I said, don't look to Bush to sweat the details or worry about how all those lazy poor can afford both a decent computer and broadband access.

Whodunit?

That's a very good question in the case of files - related to the FBI surveillance of John Kerry's post-Vietnam War service "peace" activities - stolen from an author's home in California.

Since the files largely exonerate Kerry as being not at all radical while making it sound horrible that the GOP was desperate to watch vets who returned opposed to a questionable war, it really makes you wonder who took them. Like perhaps someone who didn't want some fact in them revealed... something that might embarrass the current administration perhaps when they make some nasty charge again Kerry that now couldn't be disproven as easily.

Home Ownership

Hey, one of the few things I agree with the president on is the fact that more people (from a total of about 68% now) deserve to own their own homes.

My problem with Bush's approach is that at the same time he spews this stuff, he knows that foreclosures and defaults on home mortgages are at an all time high under his presidency and "economic vision" (which seems to be limited to making the rich far richer). So while it's great to buy a home, it's sure swell, too, if you can hold onto it. Just spurring the incentive on one (buying) doesn't fix the other issue (an economy sucking so badly it deprives people of the needed funds to pay for that house).

Getting Clarke'd

Part of the reason I've been reticent to post is pure, unadulterated anger... mostly at the reaction of the White House and people like Bill Frist (someone suggested he return to murdering shelter kitties again this week) to Richard Clarke's testimony.

Frist, in particular, annoyed me to death when he says in the well of the Senate floor that Clarke did gave two different versions and only later to reporters, not reported as widely, that he has no idea whether Clarke told two versions. Meanwhile, Condi Rice has practically broken her lying little neck running around to TV stations to tell her side while not under oath and not within public scrutiny while she's questioned. Worse still is that some wingers are now insinuating that Clarke has a problem with Condi because she's African-American.

You know, probably the thing I notice least about Condi is the color of her skin. But liars and crooks come in all colors.

Just Seems a Tad Obscene

Watching coverage of Bush at the Correspondents' dinner tonight, with all the jokes and such seem obscene in the face of what we've heard before the 9/11 panel this week. I know that's the nature of the dinner but... Condi who could not appear in public before the 9/11 panel could appear in a guest spot at the dinner tonight.

Priorities, I suppose.

After 2 1/2 Years and Countless Lives Lost

Someone finally said it. That someone was Richard Clarke today before the 9/11 panel. It's something our president has refused to say, Condi Rice couldn't conceive to say, and no one else has said.

Clarke said:

Your government failed you. Your president failed you. And I, ladies and gentlemen, failed you.

Mr. Clarke, you don't know how much this means to me to finally have someone with the guts come forward and speak those words. It's probably one of the greatest truths told since 9/11.

If Mr. Bush had only said them... at any point in the almost 1000 days which have passed since that beautiful, terrible Tuesday morning in September...

Another Opinion

From American Family Voices:

This is certainly a time of testing for the Bush administration. An era fraught with political peril, marked by threats from all sides. So where's the strong leadership in these times of change? Former anti-terror chief Richard Clarke has launched scathing charges that the Bush White House has not done nearly enough to protect the American people. What's the first clue that he's right? Right now, the Bushies can't even protect themselves.

As expected, the administration organized a rapid-fire assault on Clarke's character and credibility. But the Bush team has gone to the well one too many times with this type of ad hominem attack. The American public has watched it happen to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson when he spoke out against the yellowcake claim, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill when he charged that the administration was putting too much focus on Iraq, and now Clarke. The pattern is clear: slime the opponent and wrap yourself in the American flag. At this point it is disturbingly obvious that the administration's quiver is out of arrows – Bush officials are reduced to making the talk show rounds armed only with the grownup equivalent of schoolyard taunts like, "I know you are, but what am I?"

Clarke's assertions have ripped gaping holes in the administration's defense, and even an all-out media assault by the White House did nothing to repair the damages.

These 9/11 Panel Hearings

are indeed enlightening... often for what is not said or - as in the case of Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld especially - what can't be remembered as said.

I'm fuming as a citizen. I can't imagine what it must be like for some of the 9/11 families as well as the GIs and support staff (a lot of the civilians who've gone in have died, too). Iraqis and Afghans would be interested, too, but we seem to be keeping them too busy with not being bombed into oblivion to pay attention to such things.

Any Shred of Doubt

As Richard Cohen wrote in the Washington Post:

The White House has opened its guns on Clarke. He is being contradicted and soon, as with poor O'Neill, his sanity and probity will be questioned. It's getting to be downright amazing how former White House aides tell the same tale -- a case, the White House wants us to believe, of hysteria or unaccountable betrayal. I'd like to believe my president, but as Clarke quotes him in a different context, "I'm looking for any shred."

As with Saddam Hussein, it doesn't exist.

Sheehy on the Families of 9/11

Once again, Gail Sheehy through The (NY) Observer sheds the spotlight in the people seemingly often forgotten in the matters of 9/11 - the families and specifically, the widows who have pushed and pushed to get an idea of how 9/11 was allowed to occur. Read it. Here's a passage:

"Why did it take Condi Rice nine months to develop a counterterrorism policy for Al Qaeda, while it took only two weeks to develop a policy for regime change in Iraq?" Ms. Kleinberg asked rhetorically.

Dr. Rice has given one closed-door interview and has been asked to return for another, but the commissioners have declined to use their subpoena power to compel her public testimony. And now, they say, it is probably too late.

Reuters Says Same Thing

Read this Reuters piece from 24 hours ago:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Criticism of President Bush's motives and decision-making in attacking Iraq last year may be acquiring critical mass with voters following criticism by former top counterterrorism official Richard Clarke.

Political consultants and analysts said Clarke's allegation that Bush ignored the al Qaeda threat before the Sept. 11 attacks and was obsessed by a desire to invade Iraq were especially damaging because they confirmed other previous revelations from policy insiders.

White House Tailspin

Read the American Progress take on the post Richard Clarke fallout, including:

One day after counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke's well-documented criticism of the Bush Administration's lackadaisical attitude towards terrorism, the White House is deploying top officials in a vicious barrage of personal attacks on a man with 30 years of public service under four Presidents.

More Blasts in Baghdad

The Sheraton Hotel downtown has been the recipient of some rocket propelled grenades and such just now, according to Keith Ohberman.

Anyone Care to Estimate

exactly how bad the Middle East is about to get now that Palestinians are promising to make Israel feel like it's being struck by an earthquake while Israel is saying it may take out all of Hamas and that it isn't necessarily inclined to keep Yassir Arafat's name off the list?

Just in a very practical sense, let me point out that the Hamas spiritual leader just assassinated and Arafat are both men of advanced age. They've already outlived what unfortunately tends to an early death statistical age for Muslim males. Neither was/is likely to last all that much longer on the planet.

But the intentional murder of these men (one already carried out) is going to incite far more outrage and violence than simply allowing them to die from old age. Arafat has been so drastically minimized that the only way to bring him out of exile would be to make a serious attempt on his life. Whether he survived the attempt or not, he gains a much greater status of martyr than he has now.

Rumsfeld's Appearance

I'll give Mr. Rumsfeld credit for at least appearing in public before the 9/11 panel today. That's more than can be said for Bush or Condi.

But when he said today that killing Osama bin Laden before 9/11 certainly would not have prevented 9/11, I found myself both in agreement as well as asking this question: So why the hell was it so important to spend about a billion dollars a day bombing the hell out of Afghanistan immediately after 9/11?

I mean, the Taliban is back. Al Qaeda's still around. So's Osama and al Zawahiri. More than 200 people are dead in Spain in just the past two weeks.

It's legitimate at this point to ask: what exactly is the War on Terror doing besides making Halliburton, Bechtel, and many other friends of the Bush-Cheney team very, very, very rich and even more powerful?

Bush and Culpability

Since I'm writing a lot about the White House and 9/11, it only seems fair that I spell out my specific take on the above-referenced topic.

I still don't side with the conspiracy theorists who actually believe Bush or people close to him actually helped orchestrate 9/11 as part of the way to redefine our country in the neocon image. The very first time I heard this theory put forth, I was completely incredulous. No one could possibly do this, I thought except that, of course, as time wore on (and the shock began to wear off), it was clear someone did but exactly whom and exactly under what circumstances and motivation we can still only guess).

However, while I'm far more willing to believe that these people are willing to do great evil than I was three years ago (when I didn't like them and thought they would be bad for the country but... what the heck.. I figured we could survive four years somehow), I'm not ready to believe Bush or his people seriously and directly orchestrated the horror even as I've seen them inflict horror and grievous harm throughout our country and our world since then.

But something went wrong on 9/11. Not just what happened but that not just one mistake in the system that allowed more than one plane to be hijacked and crashed into significant landmarks. A whole long series of errors had to occur to allow the massive damage that occurred. The damage should have STOPPED at least by the time the second plane struck.

Think about it. These are just a scant few of the facts we know for certain:

Bush continued to sit in that classroom in a school in Florida for a long time after he was informed that planes had struck.

The World Trade Center may have been designated just because of the frailty of its design.

Why was Rumsfeld just sitting at his desk as normal when the plane struck there well after the two struck in NY?

How can Condi Rice even claim she hadn't heard of Al Qaeda when the rest of the world had? This would seem like gross imcompetence. If a then apolitical tech writer way up in the boonies knew the name and rep of this organization pretty well for at least two years before 9/11, why didn't the head of the National Security (ahem) Agency?

Why was no protection afforded the Pentagon once they knew planes hit in NY?

Many different former employees substantiate the claim that Iraq was sought as a target immediately, well before 9/11 and certainly immediately thereafter.

We are still not sure of the actual identities of the hijackers on those planes on 9/11. I know names get used, but several of the names issued have been discounted.

This White House has done everything possible to block a full and complete investigation into 9/11. Why?

Those Unwashed Daily (White House) Briefs

Wouldn't you dearly like to know what Mr. Bush was being told - in that it reflects what was known or suspected by the people "in the know" - in the days before 9/11? Why, after all, was Ashcroft (and other cabinet members, I believe) told to fly privately rather than through commercial airliners during the summer before?

More importantly that each of us knowing, wouldn't you dearly like for the 9/11 commission to see them? They won't. But they should.

Skippy Caught One

The venerable Skippy notes that WH spokesweasel Scott McClellan (I'm not sure I agree with Jonathan Chait's assessment that McClellan is a basically honest man and that's why he prevaricates so badly) is now telling us that our beloved leader was nowhere near the crisis strategy room on 9/12/01 as you almost think the leader of the free world should be. This is in reference to charges security honcho Richard Clarke made about Bush pulling him aside and making it clear he wanted to find a link between Saddam and 9/11.

Show Us the Jobs Bus Tour

Hail to a great idea - a busload of people going to key political battleground states asking where all those jobs are that the Bush Administration keeps telling us are out there.

Clarke or Clarke Kent?

Billmon has a very interesting take on former top security watchdog Richard Clarke.

Jimmy Carter Speaks

And he isn't happy either. This from The Independent (Britain):

Jimmy Carter, the former US president, has strongly criticised George Bush and Tony Blair for waging an unnecessary war to oust Saddam Hussein based on "lies or misinterpretations". The 2002 Nobel peace prize winner said Mr Blair had allowed his better judgement to be swayed by Mr Bush's desire to finish a war that his father had started.

Distinctly Not Good

Carbon dioxide levels are rising dramatically. Read this.

Notably, during Bush's stint as governor of Texas, air quality decreased dramatically, too. Bushies are NOT good for life on earth.

Canada Progressive and Compassionate

Canada is in the process of organizing a pilot program, modeled somewhat on a year-old plan in place in the Netherlands, to sell medical marijuana in pharmacies. From CNN:

TORONTO, Canada (AP) -- Canada plans to make government-certified marijuana available in local pharmacies, a move that would make it only the second country in the world to allow the direct sale of medical marijuana.

I'm a strong proponent of compassionate use of marijuana for those who are ill. I've seen it allow patients who are so nauseated by treatments and disease that they are almost dead from not eating regain some stability in their lives.

By placing this in pharmacies, it's a step closer to making marijuana available to those who need and choose to use it. Kids aren't likely to get marijuana from the local drugstore either.

Thus, Canada proves once again that it's a more compassionate and progressive country than ours is allowed to be.

Miller on Clarke

Like Josh Marshall over at Talking Points Memo, I was very concerned to see that the New York Times piece on former US anti-terrorist lead Richard Clarke was written by none other than Judith ("I see WMDs everywhere!" Miller. Like Josh, I'll note that she spends little time reporting on Clarke and much of her space devoted to debunking him.

Miller has extremely unclean hands. She was the main jumper of all the WMD stories, and used Ahmed Chalabi like he was a gospel on the Iraq war. Later, we heard stories about how she interfered with the WMD hunt and got way too cozy with her "embedded" team, to the point where she tried to issue orders. I note that while Miller was a frequent guest as an expert on shows like Lehrer NewsHour in the past, she's been far less visible since the flap hit - and we're talking a lot of coverage in no less an august publication as Editor and Publisher.

Hamas

I don't think I'm alone in being gravely concerned about how the death of Hamas' founder and spiritual leader will affect events in the Middle East. I was up listening to some overnight news, and it sounded like a powder keg in search of a match.

Gee...

I can't imagine why millions of Spaniards are upset at Wolfowitz's comment:

"The Spaniards are courageous people. I mean, we know it from their whole culture of bullfighting," Wolfowitz said.

And yes, I'm being sarcastic.