Saturday, September 29, 2007

Supreme Court "Justice" Clarence Thomas a narcissistic, entitled whiner.....


Supreme Court "Justice" Clarence Thomas a narcissistic whiner.....

This paragraph from a Washington Post review of US Supreme Court "Justice" Clarence Thomas' new biography reveals HOW NARCISSISTIC, SELF-PITYING, DELUDED, and self-centered 'Justice' Thomas is:

<< Racial imagery abounds in "My Grandfather's Son," a continuation of his description of the Senate hearings as a "high-tech lynching."

"As a child in the Deep South, I'd grown up fearing the lynch mobs of the Ku Klux Klan; as an adult, I was starting to wonder if I'd been afraid of the wrong white people all along," he writes. "My worst fears had come to pass not in Georgia, but in Washington, D.C., where I was being pursued not by bigots in white robes but by left-wing zealots draped in flowing sanctimony." >>

NO... Mr. Thomas... THE LYNCH-MOB KLANSMAN of the KKK and racist South WOULD NEVER HAVE LET YOU BE NOMINATED FOR US Supreme Court Justice IN THE FIRST PLACE. The "white liberal lynch mob" you profess to despise is/are the people who COURAGEOUSLY WENT DOWN TO MISSISSIPPI, GEORGIA, ALABAMA, and other states, often RISKING THEIR LIVES to bring an end to SEGREGATION, so you could advance in society to your full potential. THEY DIDN'T WANT TO LYNCH YOU - they merely wanted to keep you pathetic whinning posterior off of the Supreme Court!

HOW could an educated and reasoned man mistake a DENIAL OF CONFIRMATION for one of the highest positions in the land, with the LYNCH MOB RIGHT WING, who would never have allowed you to go to college in the first place, had they had their choosing?

This SAD, PATHETIC NARCISSISM of the "token Black" on the Supreme Court is confirmed by the last paragraph of the Post's review:

<< But by the time he was confirmed, he said, the prize meant little. Instead of watching the Senate roll call, he drew himself a bath. His wife came to tell him he had been confirmed 52 to 48.

"Whoop-dee-damn-doo," Thomas writes. >>

For CLARENCE THOMAS, it is NOT about the prestigious, influential job (of being a USSC Justice) and the potential impact he could have as a role-model for millions of minority students and children... it is about his WOUNDED VANITY.

In the great tradition of Right-Wing self-centered sense of ENTITLEMENT, CLARENCE "whoop-de-do" THOMAS is a text-book portrait of self-pity and scorn for those whose efforts, in the past, helped him achieve his high position.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801634_2.html?nav=rss_politics&sid=ST2007092900506


Friday, September 28, 2007

Cowardly, Treacherous Senate Democrats vote "BACK DOOR AUTHORIZATION" for Bush-Cheney War vs Iran.....


In a moment of AIPAC war-lust-fantasy-insanity, SENATOR JOE LIEBERMAN asks Iraq war commander General David Patraeus, during the general's September 11, 2007 report to Congress on the Iraq war... Senator Lieberman asked General Patraeus if he would order US forces to ATTACK Iranian Kuds forces.... IN IRAN!

A mere TWO WEEKS LATER, on 9-25-2007, the treacherous Senate Democratic "leadership" (Harry Reid, the nominal "LEADER" of the spineless, pretend-ignorance-is-a-virtue Senate Democrats) ALLOWED the Lieberman-Kyle "BACK DOOR WAR AUTHORIZATION for a US attack on IRAN" bill to come to the floor of the senate, where almost two dozen Democratic Senators AUTHORIZED the Bush-Cheney administration to, in essence, BOMB IRAN AT ANY TIME and place of their choosing... for ANY EXCUSE they (the White House) and they alone deem sufficient!
--------------------------------------------

ROLL CALL "YEA" VOTES OF COWARDLY 'Democratic" SENATORS voting FOR the BACK DOOR WAR vs IRAN AUTHORIZATION - the new #1 item on the AIAPC/War Industry/Republican Right-Wing/major media wish list....
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00349#position

Explanation by SacramentoForDemocracy.org on the TRUE EXTENT of the Lieberman-Kyle "HAIR-TRIGGER FOR WAR" bill-
http://sacramentofordemocracy.org/?q=node/view/10331
_____________________________________

YET AGAIN, "DEMOCRATIC" "leaders" take the flimsiest, elitest, PRO-WAR inside-the-beltway 'conventional wisdom' narrative - which is and always has been nothing more than a pseudo-intellectual David Broder/George Will/David Gergen rough polish on the KARL ROVE/RUSH LIMBAUGH/RUPERT MURDOCH/GEORGE BUSH talking points - and KICKED THEIR DEMOCRATIC voters and constituents to the ground.... and then KICKED their voting constituents IN THE RIBS once those constituents (victims) are down and writhing in distress and dismay.

Here is the language from the Lieberman/Kyle amendment:

(3) that it should be the policy of the United States TO COMBAT, contain, and ROLL BACK the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;

(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies.
The policy of the U.S should be to "combat" Iran with "all" "military instruments"?!? You can be absolutely certain that those are the only words Dick Cheney and George Bush will see or care about.

From SoCal Grassroots:
http://www.usalone.com/no_iran_war_declaration.php

Senator Joe Lieberman seemed to be seized by an aberrant moment of lunacy last week when he pressed General Petraeus for an attack on Iran. Unfortunately, that lunacy proved to be more than one aberrant moment. Just before the [9-25-07] weekend he introduced an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act to authorize exactly that.

No, we are not kidding. He has, along with Senators Jon Kyl and Norm Coleman, drafted language that any impartial observer would interpret as a DECLARATION OF WAR against Iran, and he is pressing for a vote as fast as possible.

Thursday, September 27, 2007

The Exception to the Rule: COURAGEOUS Dem. Jane Harman explains, "Bush TERRORIZED Congress with bogus threats to pass spying bill"....


Countdown: Rep. Harman Gives More Details On Bogus Terror Threat On Capitol
By: Logan Murphy on Wednesday, September 26th, 2007

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/26/countdown-rep-harman-gives-more-details-on-bogus-terror-threat-on-capitol/
(NOTE: IF true - if President Bush pushed a false and unsubstantiated terror threat on Congress to stimulate the passage of his unlimited surveillance on American citizens FISA 'reform' bill - that, alone, would constitute grounds for impeachment.)

Cowardly, Treacherous Democrats SET THE TABLE for Cheney's NUCLEAR ATTACK ON IRAN....


Cheney receives rapturous applause at the March, 2007 AIPAC conference (Israel-America Political Action Committee) in Washington, D.C. for his most bombastic
"BOMB IRAN FOR THE GOOD OF AMERICA!" rhetoric

The Cowering, Treacherous Democrats in the US Senate - "led" by Senator Harry Reid, WHO ALLOWED THIS BILL TO MOVE FORWARD (click here for list of those Senate Democrats who COWER before Dick Cheney, George Bush, the AIAPC lobby, and the war indusry) just yesterday approved a new bill, the Lieberman-Kyl amendment to an Iraq war spending bill, that EFFECTIVELY DECLARES IRAN to be an ENEMY of the United States, and DOES NOT STOP SHORT of giving US president George W. Bush THE AUTHORITY to ATTACK IRAN at any moment and for any excuse of his choosing.

THE COWARDLY SENATE DEMOCRATS, following the TREACHEROUS lead of Joe Lieberman (WHO LIED CONTINUALLY during the final weeks of his 2006 election, promising Connecticut voters he would do his utmost to REIGN IN the Iraq war... not EXPAND IT as he has done since winning that election through deceit and treachery) have REPEATED THEIR FOLLY of giving the Bush-Cheney White House AUTHORITY TO START WARS, run death squads, and loot billions of dollars from the US treasury with NO OVERSIGHT or accounting.... WITHOUT EVEN DECLARING WAR.

War with Iran for Fun and Profit
Josh Marshall
09.25.07
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/054151.php
(click link for video comments, Josh Marshall discussing the "Lieberman BOMB IRAN amendment")

Did you hear about the War on Iran Authorization bill the Senate is going to vote on perhaps as early as today? No, that's not how it's getting billed. But that's what the 'Kyl-Lieberman' amendment is. In fact, the supporters of going to war against Iran are using exactly the same strategy with this amendment that they did to lay the groundwork for the Iraq War.

We give you the rundown in today's episode of TPMtv ...

===================================

Lieberman-Kyl Amendment Seeks To Escalate Possibility Of Military Action Against Iran
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/25/kyl-iran-fox/
(click link for video Senator Kyl minimizing, whitewashing the true ramifications of his "BOMB IRAN NOW" bill)


Today, the Senate is expected to vote on an “extremely threatening” amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill introduced by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ). The “sense of the Senate” amendment could “lead to a tit-for-tat escalation resulting in military confrontation between the US and Iran.”

The legislation accuses Iran of fighting “a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq” and threatens to “combat, contain and [stop]” Iran. The right wing has quickly latched onto the amendment, claiming it “unflinchingly…calls on America to win” against Iran.

Appearing on Fox News today, Kyl attempted to downplay the legislation’s implications, claiming “this is not intended to be an authorization of military force against Iran.” Watch it:


In reality, the amendment is a clear call for military action against alleged Iranian agents inside Iraq. From the text of the legislation:

(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and [stop] the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;

(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies.

As Jonathan Schwarz noted, the amendment is a “Sense of the Senate” resolution, “which means it has no legal force, but as the Congressional Research Service will tell you, ‘foreign governments pay close attention to [such resolutions] as evidence of shifts in U.S. foreign policy priorities.’”

Analysts are warning that “the growing US focus on confronting Iran in a proxy war inside Iraq risks triggering a direct conflict in the next few months.” Kyl said his legislation would “pass rather handily.”

UPDATE: TPMtv today looks at how the Lieberman-Kyl amendment is similar to the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, which officially put the U.S. on record as supporting regime change in Iraq.

Saturday, September 22, 2007

US STATE DEPARTMENT in Iraq is SYNONYMOUS with BLACKWATER mercenaries; which is to say, SYNONYMOUS with MASSACRE, murder, and license-to-kill....



pnoto - Patrick Baz / AFP / Getty Images
Then-U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad is shown in 2005 surrounded by Blackwater bodyguards.

The US STATE DEPARTMENT CAN NOT OPERATE in Iraq WITHOUT BLACKWATER 'SECURITY,' i.e. MERCENARY SOLDIERS.
Blackwater has a LONG REPUTATION FOR MASSACRE, MURDER, and LICENSE-TO-KILL in Iraq, including videos shot by Blackwater operatives themselves of gunmen in high vantage points shooting Iraqi cars and passengers driving on the roads at random, and culminating in this week's fierce massacre in Baghdad, where Blackwater "security guards" and their accompanying helicopter gunships (see photo above) shot and killed over 20 Iraqi civilians. (story below and here)
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2984819.ece

The UNITED STATES STATE DEPARTMENT is now SYNONYMOUS with MERCENARY, license-to-kill gunmen.

Declaration of Independence, the United Sates of America, in Congress, July 4, 1776: Abuses against the people of these states by King George III:

- He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

- He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

- He has kept among us.... standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

- He has affected to render the [foreign] military independent of and superior to civil power.

- For quartering large bodies of armed troops [and mercenaries] among us:

- For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment FOR ANY MURDERS WHICH THEY SHOULD COMMIT on the inhabitants of these states

====================================

Blackwater gets OK to resume Iraq duty

The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad approves the security firm for protecting limited movements by American diplomats.
By Ned Parker, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 22, 2007
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq22sep22,0,5806558.story?coll=la-home-world

BAGHDAD -- -- The security company Blackwater USA was approved Friday to resume escorting American officials in Baghdad, just days after the fatal shooting of 11 Iraqis galvanized the Iraqi government over the company's conduct and the immunity its employees enjoy from Iraqi law.

The decision by the U.S. Embassy came despite Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's insistence that the State Department sack the company and his government's demand that Blackwater and other such security firms be stripped of the immunity granted them in 2004 by L. Paul Bremer III, the administrator of the former U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority.

Related
- Iraq coalition casualty count - icasualties.org
- Latest coverage of the Iraq war

Related Stories
- Iraq war budget jumps for 2008
- Democrats' bill on troops fails in Senate
- U.S. defends its Iraqi refugee policy
- Recent California military deaths

"This morning, we resumed taking requests for movements. The idea was to have limited movements outside the Green Zone. Obviously this was a step taken in consultation with the Iraqi authorities," said embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo.

A senior Iraqi lawmaker, Sami Askari, said officials would be informed of Blackwater's whereabouts, but Nantongo denied that the embassy would be providing them precise details of their missions.

"This time they will be restricted; they will be required to inform the Iraqi government about their movements until the end of the investigation," said Askari, an advisor to Maliki.

The embassy announced Tuesday that it had forbidden U.S. officials to travel outside the Green Zone, the fortress-like enclave harboring the Iraqi government and the diplomatic community, citing the increased threat of attacks after the incident involving Blackwater.

The U.S. and Iraqi governments have been in consultation since Sunday, when a Blackwater security detail killed 11 people in Nisoor Square in west Baghdad's Mansour district.

A preliminary Iraqi government investigation, carried out by the Interior Ministry, found that the armed guards had fired on Iraqi civilians without provocation. In turn, Blackwater and the State Department have said the security detail had been fired upon.

Nonetheless, nearly a week into the dispute, which has seen an unprecedented stand by the Iraqi government over the conduct of private security firms, Iraqi officials have retreated after initially declaring that they would take away security contractors' immunity.

Instead, the prime minister agreed Wednesday that a joint Iraqi-U.S. commission would review the status of security contractors and also receive the results of an Iraqi and U.S. military investigation.

The investigation of the incident Sunday has been complicated by the involvement of the embassy's own diplomatic security agents, who work with and supervise Blackwater. The embassy's security department has been accused by some diplomats of having failed to challenge Blackwater over questionable episodes.

Peter W. Singer, a Brookings Institution expert on security contractors, was skeptical about whether the joint commission would change the rules and hold Blackwater accountable for any misconduct in Iraq.

"Based on the past track record, I don't have a lot of evidence to base that hope on, but maybe this [event] changes the game," Singer said.

Singer criticized the embassy's insistence on conducting its own investigation, parallel to the Iraqi government's inquiry.

"It is utter silliness. All it does is guarantee we will have two versions of the story, and further the disconnect and sense of double standards," he said.



'Complete review'In Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday that she had ordered a "full and complete review" of procedures for providing security to U.S. diplomats. Rice said she issued "directives" to State Department officials to study all facets of security practices.

The review will examine the role and function of private security guards and their "rules of engagement," department spokesman Sean McCormack said later at a briefing.

While announcing the review, Rice also made a point of defending Blackwater personnel.

"We have needed and received the protection of Blackwater for a number of years now, and they have lost their own people in protecting our own people -- and that needs to be said -- in extremely dangerous circumstances," she said.

She also noted that she had called Maliki to express her regret at the loss of life in the Sunday incident.

Friday, September 21, 2007

Keith Olberman blasts Sycophantic Dem Senators who bow to President Bush's Demagoguery....

Keith Olbermann, in a signature Special Comment on his MSNBC "Countdown" news show, blasts the demogogic campaign of President Bush against the political action group MoveOn.org, which in a paid, full-page ad in the New York Times called into question not only the facts delivered by General Patraeus in his Iraq War report to Congress on 9-11-2007, but even the honesty and motivation of the general himself, as well.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2007/09/21/olbermann-attacks-bush-pissy-juvenile-blast-moving-military-junta


Actually, our headline is a tad misleading: Keith Olberman does chastise the Cowardly Democratic Senators who rushed to sign the Bush-Republican censure of MoveOn.org's ad, but not in his special comment, but instead in the half hour of of the show (MSNBC "Countdown")before Mr. Olbermann got to his special comment.

Mr. Olberman chastised the Democratic senators who signed the bill as being like "PAVLOVIAN DOGS" responding to the FEAR campaign from the White House. Every time the White House runs into problems (almost always of their own making from horrific policy blunders), they trot out their SWIFT-BOAT smear team, and make the Democratic "leadership" COWER under the threat that they will be portrayed as "SOFT ON TERROR" or "NOT SUPPORTING THE TROOPS." Mr. Bush and his staff - including his then Political Senior Advisor Karl Rove - used EXACTLY THOSE TACTICS against Seantors TOM DASCHLE and MAX CLELAND in 2002. Not only were both men VIETNAM COMBAT VETERANS, but Max Cleland had lost three limbs fighting against the enemy in Vietnam - and he was SLANDERED by Republican campaign ads showing his photo sandwiched between those of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein!

WHERE are our COWARDLY SENATORS when REPUBLICANS ATTACK GENERALS and combat experienced Democratic veterans?

WHERE are our COWWARDLY DEMOCRATIC LEADERS defending undercover CIA spy VALERIE PLAME WILSON?

Those Democrats who signed this bill are nothing but COWARDLY TOADIES to the Bush administration's dismal record of lies, corruption, and a war in Iraq based on lies and a coordinated media propaganda campaign.

COWARDLY Senate Democrats grovel at Bush's feet, sign CENSURE of MoveOn.org anti-war ad!

COWARDLY Senate Democrats who IGNORED the HUMILIATION of General Shinseki by the Bush White House and Rumsfeld Department of Defense... who IGNORED the "SWIFT BOATING" of Vietnam decorated combat veteran John Kerry in 2004... who IGNORED the TRASHING by Karl Rove Republicans of VIETNAM WAR TRIPLE AMPUTEE Senator Max Cleland in his reelection bid of 2002 (which he probably won if not for corrupted voting machines that defied accurate exit-polls) - but who JOIN ON to President Bush's DEMAGOGIC ATTACKS on one of the few organizations able to break through the "major media" sanitized narrative, MoveOn.org.

"DEMOCRAT" Senators who voted "YEAH" for the President bush inspired DEMOGOGIC CENSURE of MoveOn.org, for questioning General Patraeus' Iraq war report:
Baucus (D-MT), Bayh (D-IN), Cardin (D-MD), Carper (D-DE), Casey (D-PA), Conrad (D-ND), Dorgan (D-ND), Feinstein (D-CA), Johnson (D-SD), Klobuchar (D-MN), Kohl (D-WI), Landrieu (D-LA), Leahy (D-VT), Lieberman (ID-CT), Lincoln (D-AR), McCaskill (D-MO), Mikulski (D-MD), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Pryor (D-AR), Salazar (D-CO), Tester (D-MT), Webb (D-VA)

Thursday, September 20, 2007

"FREEDOM" in America: Cowardly Senator John Kerry stands mute, as CAMPUS POLICE CENSOR a student from asking a question....


Just to the right of this picture, on a stage in front of the students, JOHN KERRY does NOTHING to STOP CAMPUS POLICE from ARRESTING A STUDENT FOR ASKING A QUESTION.

John Kerry is a COWARD and a FRAUD, who TOOK OUR MONEY in 2004, PROMISING TO FIGHT FOR OUR VOTES, then not only did he ROLL OVER to the Bush-Republican election-stealing crimes in Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico, and Florida in 2004, but now Kerry is AN APOLOGIST, a WHITEWASHER, an APPLE-POLISHER for the Bush administration.

The student had every right to be excitable and loud in asking his questions of Senator Kerry. Undoubtedly, the Senator had spent the previous TWO HOURS talking to the students, WITHOUT MENTIONING THE POSSIBILITY that President Bush had "won" that 2004 election ILLEGITIMATELY - by getting Kerry to back down from a free and fair audit of the election.
That is, for two entire hours Mr. Kerry had advanced the "Major Media"/Republican LIE that President Bush had won election 2004 fairly - a sheer MYTH!

FOR SHAME, Mr. Kerry! How the once valiant have been CORRUPTED by those perks of senatorial privilege, and that big Boston fortune you inherited. (Reminds us of the story of HERMAN GOERING, who was a courageous WWI fighter pilot in the German airforce, but who by 1940 was the feared and despised hedonist who lived on drugs amid luxury from the stolen riches of all Europe.) Speaking of, the comparison is more apt than it first appears: Luftwaffe commander Herman Goering WAS ALSO THE LEADER of the feared Nazi SECRET POLICE force, the Gestapo - whose specialty was DRAGGING PEOPLE OFF to prison.

Student at a Kerry event is Tasered
Senator's speech in Fla. becomes YouTube fodder

By Sasha Issenberg, Globe Staff | September 19, 2007
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/09/19/student_at_a_kerry_event_is_tasered/

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Cowardly Senator John Kerry stands by, all dignified and approving, as Campus Police haul student away in middle of questions to the Senator...


Second video angle of Kerry doing NOTHING to STOP POLICE FROM CENSORING and ARRESTING a student asking a question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE

Massachusetts Senator and 2004 Democratic presidential candidate JOHN KERRY stands MUTE, APPROVING, as campus police ARRESTED student yesterday for asking Senator Kerry tough, legitimate, if long-winded questions about the stolen election of 2004 in Ohio and other states, and about Kerry's fraternity ties to his 2004 election opponent, fellow Yale Skull & Bonesman George W. Bush.

IN ALLOWING the police to HUSTLE THAT STUDENT OUT OF THE AUDITORIUM without comment, Senator Kerry APPROVED of their strong-arm, five-on-one tactics to SUPPRESS that student's speech - so he, Mr. Kerry, could escape the student discussion at the university WITHOUT ANSWERING THE TOUGH QUESTIONS that the Florida "news/media" REFUSE TO ASK of the Democratic candidate who in 2004 pledged "to fight until the last vote is counted" but then gave up immediately, even before the true extent of Republican vote corruption was fully known.

Question THE honesty, integrity, and oh-so-respectable dignity of the multimillionaire Junior Senator from Massachusettes - BE PREPARED FOR THE POLICE TO TASER YOU, HAUL YOU OFF TO JAIL, and toss you in to a Blackwater indefinite detention and unlimited torture gulag.

Mr. Kerry, YOU, SIR, are a COWARD and a FRAUD. You TOOK OUR MONEY in election 2004, WITHOUT EVER ONCE GIVING US AN HONEST FIGHT on the issues - without ever once highlighting the abject criminal conduct and lies of the George W. Bush presidency. Much less did you give us a good fight against the systematic electronic ELECTION THEFT by computerized vote machines manufactured by companies with close ties to the Republican Party - a massive and systematic DISENFRANCHISEMENT scheme which you have since effectively ENDORSED in your actions - or more specifically, by your inaction, your lack of action, outrage, intervention or call for serious investigation. YOU WERE HAPPY TO SEE THE POLICE HAUL THAT STUDENT AWAY, Senator Kerry, BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE ANSWERING ANY of his 3 questions:
#1. "Why did you CONCEDE election 2004 so swiftly.. the morning after the election, despite widely reported cases of DISENFRANCHISEMENT of Black voters, in Ohio and other states, and KNOWING that Republicans were infamous for that in election 2000, if not 2002 as well? (The Mondale and Cleland votes of 2002, in Minnesota and Georgia respectively, were both highly suspect. Senator Paul Wellstone was cruising to an OVERWHELMING re-election victory in Minnesota, before he and his family died in a plane crash, and Minnesota's beloved son, former VICE PRESIDENT WALTER MONDALE, stepped in to complete the race Senator Wellstone would have easily won.)
#2. "Did your being a fraternity brother along with Mr. Bush in the Skull & Bones fraternity at Yale University have anything to do with you possibly 'pulling your punches' in the 2006 election - an attempt not to embarrass a fellow Bonesman, who, like his father, would have been regarded as a one-term loser if your campaign had succeeded?"
#3. "Why don't you support the effort to IMPEACH President Bush for lying America into war, when Republicans voted to IMPEACH President Clinton for lying about an affair?"
(see video for the actual questions)

NOTICE HOW THE POLICE STEP IN THE MOMENT student Meyers mentions "DISENFRANCHISED BLACK VOTERS" - and notice that the reason that the students are not supportive of his aggressive questions is because it is an almost LILY WHITE AUDIENCE... they are by and large children of relative affluence, and they do not want to hear that their president is illegitimate, that he only 'won' the White House through fraudulent vote counts.

JOHN KERRY and his oh-so-dignified senatorial 'Democratic' colleagues: EXHIBIT ONE in the ongoing SUBVERSION of American DEMOCRACY.

Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy (Hardcover)

=====================================

Kerry 'Stunned' Over Taser Incident

By Daniel W. Reilly
Sep 18, 2007
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/18/politics/politico/thecrypt/main3272316.shtml

(The Politico) Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) said he still doesn’t know why police Tasered a University of Florida student during the senator’s speech Monday, saying, "I could have handled the situation without interruption."

Kerry, however, was quick not to undermine the police decision to use force.

“I don’t know what transpired,” Kerry said. “The police must have had a reason to make their decision.”

The senator would not comment as to whether the police used an appropriate level of force, saying, “That is a law enforcement issue.”

Kerry was speaking at the University of Florida, when Andrew Meyer, a student, burst into the room and ran towards a microphone, attempting to ask Kerry a question. According to university officials, Meyer was allowed to ask several questions before his microphone was cut off and university police stepped in.

Meyer screamed: "Don't Tase me, bro!" as officers attempted to drag him outside the auditorium, according to the Florida Alligator newspaper.

Kerry said he never felt threatened by Meyer, saying he tried to quiet the crowd and asked police to allow Meyer to ask his question.
"I have never had a dialog interrupted like that in 37 years, at any event,” Kerry said.
Meyer was charged with disturbing the peace and resisting an officer.
Copyright 2007 POLITICO

Monday, September 17, 2007

Bush DETERMINED to attack Iran before he leaves office. Dem "opposition" Party held captive by AIPAC, corporate media and military-industrial complex

The Democratic Party has COMPLETELY ABDICATED the responsibility to EDUCATE and INFORM American voters... they (the Democrats) are reduced to being a REACTIVE party, a party that can not define and focus THE MESSAGE that the American public hears every night on corporate media newscasts, and instead must react to the message that the Bush administration directs the media to broadcast.
Individual presidential candidates, with budgets in the low millions of dollars, can not singlehandedly confront and dispute the MEDIA MESSAGE broadcast over thousands of stations, and hundreds of newspapers, nationwide that the government/administration can push. So we Americans are reduced to COMPLAINING AFTER THE FACT... because the Democrats have ABANDONED THE HIGH GROUND of LEADING national discourse. NEXT STOP on the Democratic 'leadership's' caught dazed and confused act: the Iran war.



Bush setting America up for war with Iran
By Philip Sherwell in New York and Tim Shipman in Washington
17/09/2007
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/16/wiran116.xml


Senior American intelligence and defence officials believe that President George W Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place America on the path to war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.
Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, amid growing fears among serving officers that diplomatic efforts to slow Iran's nuclear weapons programme are doomed to fail.

Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran.

Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action.

In a chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence officer warned that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq - arming and training militants - would lead to cross border raids on Iranian training camps and bomb factories.
A prime target would be the Fajr base run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds Force in southern Iran, where Western intelligence agencies say armour-piercing projectiles used against British and US troops are manufactured.

Under the theory - which is gaining credence in Washington security circles - US action would provoke a major Iranian response, perhaps in the form of moves to cut off Gulf oil supplies, providing a trigger for air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities and even its armed forces.

Senior officials believe Mr Bush's inner circle has decided he does not want to leave office without first ensuring that Iran is not capable of developing a nuclear weapon.

The intelligence source said: "No one outside that tight circle knows what is going to happen." But he said that within the CIA "many if not most officials believe that diplomacy is failing" and that "top Pentagon brass believes the same".

He said: "A strike will probably follow a gradual escalation. Over the next few weeks and months the US will build tensions and evidence around Iranian activities in Iraq."


Possible flash points: Click to enlarge
Previously, accusations that Mr Bush was set on war with Iran have come almost entirely from his critics.

Many senior operatives within the CIA are highly critical of Mr Bush's handling of the Iraq war, though they themselves are considered ineffective and unreliable by hardliners close to Mr Cheney....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/16/wiran116.xml

Sunday, September 16, 2007

Democrats fall into Rove-Cheney-Bush trap of trying to manage Bush's disastrous war (instead of impeaching first)....

The Democrats under the "leadership" of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid (which is to say, the big donors who really run the Democratic Party) have fallen flat on their face, if not into a quicksand hole of massive proportions. Instead of pushing the honorable alternative: Bringing up ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT and FORCING the Ameican media to cover the gross wrongs, abuses, and CRIMINAL CONDUCT of President Bush, President Cheney, and their lies and gross corruption runing the Iraq war, the Democrats are now trying to make a silk purse of a sow's ear, trying to MANAGE the war that Bush and Cheney have created. And, again, UNTIL THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY _CONFRONTS_ the AIPAC LOBBY, which most strenuously advocates not only continuing the Iraq war, but EXPANDING IT INTO IRAN - until the Democratic Party CONFRONTS the AIPAC lobby, they couldn't possibly do a WORSE job of trying to manage the Iraq war, than Bush and Cheney are already doing. The Democratic Party trying to DRAW DOWN the war, while their MOST ENERGETIC AND ACTIVE lobbyist base tries to EXPAND and CONTINUE the war, is like a fighter getting in to the boxing ring, with one arm tied behind his back.

(The Jewish-owned New York Times, alone, which wrote this article, is one of the most strident "MORE WAR, NOW!" organizations in America. They lead the 8 year media camaign (white-collar lynching) to lynch President Clinton with their entirely atrocious "Whitewater" 'reporting,' then seamlessly shifted to portraying Al Gore as a serial liar, then helped the Republicans SUPPRESS the story of Stolen Election 2000, then helped the Bush Administration whitewash the gross Dereliction of Duty that allowed 9-11 to happen WITHOUT ONE SINGLE MEASURE TAKEN to prevent or deter a hijacking; and then, of course, the NEW YORK TIMES _LED_ the press-media march to war, with Judith Miller's LIES about aluminum tubes, yellowcake uranium, and other BOGUS reports about Iraq's alleged WMD program which effectively instilled FEAR in the American public, and forced Congress to OVERLOOK THE BOTCHED HUNT for Osama bin Laden in favor of BOMBING, INVADING, and OCCUPYING IRAQ.

=========================================


Disappointed Democrats Map Withdrawal Strategy
By CARL HULSE
September 13, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/13/washington/13policy.htm

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 — Senate Democratic leaders on Wednesday called the administration’s plan to keep 130,000 or more troops in Iraq through mid-2008 unacceptable and promised to challenge the approach through legislation next week.

Several proposals were being weighed, including one requiring the American military role to be shifted more to training and counterterrorism, in order to reduce the force by more than President Bush is expected to promise on Thursday. Another would guarantee troops longer respites from the battlefield, effectively cutting the numbers available for combat.

Even if those proposals draw the 60 votes needed to overcome a Senate filibuster — a level that has eluded Democrats this year — any real strictures on the president would face a veto, frustrating war critics and raising the prospect that roughly as many American troops might be in Iraq a year from now as were there a year ago.

Still, the Democrats tried to get ahead of President Bush’s planned speech on Iraq on Thursday night, and to press what they see as a political advantage in opposing the war in the months before the 2008 elections.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, and two party leaders on military issues accused Mr. Bush of embracing “more of the same” and of trying to pass off a routine troop reduction as a significant shift in policy.

“That is unacceptable to me, it is unacceptable to the American people,” said Mr. Reid, who was flanked by Senators Carl Levin of Michigan, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, a West Point graduate.

Democratic presidential contenders also assailed the administration’s plan.

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois called for the withdrawal of one or two combat brigades a month, starting immediately.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York said taking credit for the force reductions that Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, was recommending, and that Mr. Bush appeared ready to accept, was “like taking credit for the sun coming up in the morning.”

With Democrats intensifying their attacks on the strategy outlined this week by General Petraeus, the administration is setting in motion its plans with a prime-time speech by the president on Thursday, a subsequent visit to a military base and continued appearances by General Petraeus and Ryan C. Crocker, the American ambassador in Baghdad.

At a news conference on Wednesday, General Petraeus reiterated that he was unwilling to commit to troop cuts beyond a five-brigade reduction by mid-July, a level he described as prudent. There are 20 combat brigades in Iraq.

He also took issue with claims that such a reduction would not be significantly faster than what had already been scheduled. Combat forces in Iraq serve up to 15-month tours. Under that limit, part of the Pentagon’s broad effort to lessen the strains on the military, General Petraeus would not have had to pull out any combat units until April, instead of removing the first brigades in mid-December, he said.

“We are coming out quicker than we had to,” he said.

The White House spokesman, Tony Snow, in his last news briefing before leaving the job, rejected Democrats’ complaints that the administration’s plan was simply a return to the level that existed before more than 30,000 additional troops were sent into Iraq this year, a buildup that the administration pointedly referred to as a surge, suggesting its temporary nature.

“It’s a different country,” said Mr. Snow of Iraq. “You have the ability to reduce the numbers because there have been changes that reduced the necessity of American involvement.”

Senator Reid would not provide details of the legislative proposals that Democrats will pursue. But Mr. Levin and Mr. Reed have been working with some Republicans on a measure that would focus the military mission on counterterrorism, training Iraqis and protecting forces already there — a switch intended to allow large numbers of combat troops to be withdrawn by next spring.

“We have to go ahead and recognize the strain on the military forces and give them the tasks that they can do so well,” said Mr. Reed, a former Army captain, “but within the capability of their resources and the best interests of the United States.”

They have been exploring the idea of making the withdrawal more of an objective than a requirement in order to attract Republican votes, but that approach could cause defections by Democrats.

Democrats have been picking up new Republican support for a measure that requires troops to spend at least the same amount of time at their home bases as they did in Iraq before returning — a requirement that could reduce troop numbers because the Pentagon would not have as many eligible for deployment.

“I think that might be a good way to accelerate a troop reduction,” said Senator Gordon Smith, Republican of Oregon, who noted that it was also popular with strained military families.

That measure attracted 56 votes this summer, and some Republicans who opposed it then, including George V. Voinovich, Republican of Ohio, have expressed new interest. Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said Wednesday that he was considering the proposal, and Democrats were also trying to persuade Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska.

Mr. Reid said Democrats also planned to vote on more aggressive legislative challenges to the war, which could help appease critics who are demanding that Democrats take tougher action.

Democrats say they may also be more willing to try to attach conditions to coming Pentagon spending requests. (Democrats have been reluctant to limit money for the war unilaterally.) “I think the American people are getting tired of sending the money with no end in sight,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York.

The struggle to settle on a party alternative illustrates the problems Democrats are having finding a way to take on the president that unites their party and avoids criticism that they are weak on national security.

As Democrats huddled Wednesday to prepare for the floor debate, a group of leading House Republicans arrived in Iraq to demonstrate their backing for the president. The lawmakers, led by Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, had been in Iraq less than five hours, but in a conference call with reporters they said their initial briefings had already confirmed improvements.

“Clearly what’s happened over the last three months has been real success,” said Mr. Boehner, who previously visited Iraq in July 2006.

In an interview on “The Today Show” on Wednesday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said stabilizing Iraq was part of “a long process of dealing with what the president called a long time ago a generational challenge to our security brought on by extremism, coming principally out of the Middle East.”

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, said Ms. Rice’s comment represented an acknowledgment that the United States would be engaged in Iraq for “years to come.”

“We need a new direction that redeploys our troops from Iraq, rebuilds our military and refocuses on fighting terrorism across the world,” Ms. Pelosi said.

David M. Herszenhorn and David S. Cloud contributed reporting.

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Cincy Sheehan: WAR PIGS: Democratic Blue as well as Repubican Red...

Unfortunately, Cindy Sheehan, in her rage and fury (i.e. "outspoken radicalism") is far closer to the truth than the entire Democratic "leadership," ensconced as they are in their "Belly of the Beast" Washington offices, with all those beastly K-St. lobbyists knocking on the door with flowers, money, and legalized "CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS!" bribes. The Democrat's tendency to accept and become part of institutionalized corruption in Washington is now so great, that allegedly "LIBERAL" Dem. Senator DIANNE FEINSTEIN actually sits on a senate committee - that disburses TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS to defense contractor companies OWNED BY HER HUSBAND!

This is a mega-scandal in and off itself, but just illustrates, in bold lines, the Democrat's tendencies to curry up to Big Business, big finance, the oil lobby, the auto lobby, the military lobby, and heaven forbid, the neo-con Chicken-hawk dominated AIPAC and "eternal war in Mideast!" lobby.


Cindy Sheehan: Pigs of War
Cindy Sheehan
09/10/2007
http://buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/1292


“I believe it is imperative that we never lose our voice of dissent, regardless of political pressure. As Martin Luther King, Jr said: ‘there comes a time when silence is betrayal’… However, it is unforgivable that Congress has been unwilling to examine these matters or take action to prevent these circumstances [executive branch crimes] from occurring again.”

-- Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) Introduction toConstitution in Crisis, 2006

Pigs of War come in both political colors of red and blue. We are all unfortunately very familiar with the red pigs. The pigs of war who manipulated, cherry-picked, stove-piped and manufactured intelligence to suggest to the world that Saddam had mushroom cloud producing WMD and something to do with the tragic events of 9-11 that occurred six years ago now.
Many blue politicians are pigs of war and they willingly went along with the deceptions and even parroted red pig talking points whenever they got a chance but now claim that the “fiendishly clever” George fooled them into believing the nearly unbelievable. I don’t know about you, but I take small comfort in that excuse. When we have a system of government where our supposed public servants can profit off of war along with the corporations that pad their bank accounts both blue and red pigs benefit and young people needlessly lose their lives sometimes killing other humans in the process.
Our troops and the people of Iraq are the ones getting trapped between our pusillanimous politicians. These dear human beings become ciphers in purely political calculations from Congress and only an exercise in abstraction from pundits, poets, publishers and the majority of the average American who has not been personally touched by this excremental occupation. In Iraq, every citizen has been personally touched and the American occupation is a living, fire-breathing, palpable entity that has intruded its imperialistic self into every aspect of their daily lives.
How do I know that Congress is playing politics with human hearts? All one has to do is observe the lack of action on the part of the red and blue pigs to come to this sad but inevitable conclusion. Apparently, MAJORITY Leader, Harry Reid (D-NV) has spent more time over his summer recess trying to convince red pigs to go against George’s war plan than he spent trying to coalesce his blue caucus into something that would not resemble the red pigs so closely that the blur becomes purple. He and Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) have already decided that they do not have enough votes to end the occupation just as they decided that impeachment was “off the table” even before they were elected! So they will happily hand over to George more of your tax money and China’s money to continue the killing fields in Iraq. Why are they so miserly with democracy, but generous with our treasury and with our dear human treasure?

I got two very overt answers to this question one day in Congress this past spring when I was on the Hill. In one of my meetings with Congressman Conyers, he told me that it was more important to put a Democrat back in the White House in ‘08 than it was to “end the war.” After I recovered from my shock, I knew it was confirmed that partisan politics is exactly what is killing our children and the innocent civilians in Iraq. My next stop was in a Congresswoman’s office who has always been 100% correct about the war. She is a lovely woman with a lovely heart and does not in anyway qualify (and there are a few dozen others who do not) as a blue pig. She had tears in her eyes when she told me: “Cindy, when I go to Speaker’s meetings and we talk about the war, all the talk is about politics and not one of them mentions the heartbreak that will occur if we don’t pull our troops out, now.” People are dying for two diverse but equally deadly political agendas. The red pigs want to keep the war going because they feed out of the trough of carnage and the blue pigs want to keep it going for votes! Either way is reprehensible.
There is a lot of chatter about the “Petraeus” (written and produced by the White House) report. Will the general recommend drawing down troops -- even if he does, three-five thousand doesn’t even bring the number down to pre-surge levels -- and the report says, in direct contradiction to the GAO report on the surge, that sectarian violence in Iraq is down 75%, without saying that the red pigs have re-defined the term “sectarian violence.” All I know is that the report will paint a rosier picture than what really exists on the ground in Iraq and like Ron Paul said the other day in the Fox News “Leader of the Red Pigs Wannabe” debate: “How can anyone believe anything they say?”
The blue pigs won’t believe the report, but they will expediently go along with the red pig request to further fund the disaster because they believe that it will mean political victory in ‘08.
It is up to we the people to care more about humanity and democracy than either the reds or the blues and it is mandatory that we mount campaigns to defeat the pigs and their masters: the war machine.
Twenty-one families here in America and dozens more in Iraq have felt the sting of the lethal politics of war just since the beginning of September, and the beat goes on.
What if instead of pigs of war in our government, we had elected officials who put humanity before politics and people before profits? Maybe the horrible twin tragedies of the Bush Regime and 9-11 would have never occurred within our borders and the rest of the world could look up to the USA with respect as a true leader in world peace instead of glaring at our shocking and awful quest for empire off the backs of the many who benefit the pocketbooks of the few? It’s not to late, but we are getting there.
Silence is betrayal and the silence of a host of blue pigs is the biggest betrayal of all.
* * *
Cindy adds: The Out of Iraq Caucus is continuing their work towards ending the war, as this report indicates: Antiwar dems fight for timeline.
Cindy Sheehan is the mother of Spc. Casey Sheehan who was killed in Bush's war of terror on 04/04/04. She is the co-founder and president of Gold Star Families for Peace and The Camp Casey Peace Institute.
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION

Brent Budowsky: 62 DEMOCRAT Senators in 2010?

Brent Budowsky: 62 DEMOCRAT Senators in 2010?
(Only if the creek don't rise, or there is not a 'new 9-11'...)


62 Democratic Senators
by Brent Budowsky
September 13, 2007
http://pundits.thehill.com/2007/09/13/62-democratic-senators/

The resounding Democratic victory in the 2006 Senate campaign creates a historic anomaly in which the Senate Democratic Caucus could increase to more than 60 senators, with historic implications for American politics and all three branches of government.

The media are simply focusing on the 22 Senate Republican seats at stake in 2008. But the Republican senators considering whether to retire, and the smart K Street money, are homed in on the 2010 elections as well, where another 19 Republican Senate seats are at stake.

Do the math. Locked into the fate of one of America’s most unpopular presidents in history, with the national mood favoring a tidal wave of change, with Republicans plagued by endless scandals, and with a president pushing a disastrous war onto the desk of his successor, 41 Senate Republican seats are in jeopardy in 2008 and 2010.

Of course, many of the most distinguished Republican senators choose to retire, fearing they will spend in the rest of their careers in a shrinking Republican minority.

Of course, the smart-money contributors on K Street increasingly tilt toward Senate Democrats, a trend that will accelerate going into November 2008 and skyrocket off the charts by 2010.

In Washington politics, if you want a friend, buy a dog, and if you want influence, don’t bet on the loser. With 41 Republican seats in jeopardy in the next two elections under extremely unfavorable circumstances, with business money wanting friends in the right places, and with a tidal wave of grassroots money from the often-maligned Democratic base, the money advantage to Democrats becomes exponential.

The actions of Senate Republicans on Iraq are inexplicable. Most of them believe the policy is a disaster and know that the overwhelming majority of military leaders (including the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. William Fallon and Gen. James Jones) privately disagree with the proposals of Gen. David Petraeus, and even Petraeus tells Congress that he does not know whether his proposals make America safer.

Nevertheless, close to 100 percent of the Senate Republicans have voted for the Bush blunders close to 100 percent of the time for 100 percent of the duration of the war. When the president puts the day of military reckoning on the desk of his successor in January 2009, he puts the day of political reckoning on the backs of Republicans in November 2008.

From the summer before the 2006 elections through Election Day in 2008 the Republicans endure a news-flow nightmare. From sex scandals to war scandals, from corruption in Iraq reconstruction to corruption on Capitol Hill, the nightmare escalates as the Bush years come to a close with score-settling daggers and scandal-revealing leaks that will reach a crescendo in November 2008.

The demeaning attacks on Democrats by Republican propagandists only backfire, with 70 percent of the nation disapproving their policies, and 60 percent of the nation distrusting their integrity. Giant swaths of American society, from homeowners to Hispanics to military moms, feel threatened by Republican rule.

Republicans think they demean Democrats; 70 percent of Americans think they are demeaning them. Republicans think they outmaneuver Democrats on the Senate floor with endless obstructionist filibusters, while in fact, they fall into the political trap set by Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and look to Americans like the party of incumbency blockading the nation’s hunger for change.

The president continues to try to exploit the Sept. 11 terror attacks while every American sees Osama bin Laden on television, intelligence reports detail al Qaeda’s resurgence on the Bush watch, analysts detail weaknesses in the Department of Homeland Security, and Petraeus struggles with the question of whether his plan makes America more safe.
The stage is set for a Senate tsunami.

If Republicans are smart, they will listen to Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), meet with Reid, respect the true opinion of the majority of military leaders, fight to change the policy in Iraq, and recognize that the carnage in Iraq is not only bad for the nation but a cause of the carnage that is headed for the Senate Republican Conference like a freight train coming around the bend.

Note: The preceding post originally appeared in The Hill’s print edition on Thursday, Sept. 13, 2007. — Ed.

Archived under: Campaign

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) CONFLICT OF INTEREST, BILLION DOLLAR DEFENSE CONTRACTS....

Senator Dianne Feinstein's billion-dollar conflicts of interest: she and her husband PROFIT from military contracts awarded by HER COMMITTEE, the Senate Military Appropriations Subcommittee.
http://www.metroactive.com/feinstein/

Pat Buchanan: Under Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, RETREAT is the signature of the Democrat "majority"

Nancy Pelosi's reign as first female Speaker of the House of Representatives (leader of Congress), and as the Democratic Party's de facto leader, is marked by FAILURE. Speaker Pelosi had one option open to her to restrain the power of the Bush White House without making the Democrats look like "cut and runners" fleeing from the Iraq war: she could COORDINATE and FOCUS the many congressional INVESTIGATIONS into CRIMINAL CONDUCT by the Bush administration, FORCING the press and media to cover those hearings and report on White House transgressions, leading to an IMPEACHMENT of the president for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Ms. Pelosi not only took "impeachment off the table" (breaking the cardinal Washington political rule of "Power: USE it or LOOSE it"), but went OUT OF HER WAY to UNDERCUT coordination and prosecution of those investigations. Even when embattled Federal Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald took on the role of David vs. the Philistine White House (that is, Fitzgerald taking on the ENTIRE powers of the federal government at the disposal of President Bush or Vice President Cheney) and came back with a magnificent legal victory: PROVING that there was PERJURY and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE at the very top tiers of the White House (what is seldom remarked on is that Lewis "Scooter" Libby was one of the President's SENIOR ADVISORS at the same time he was the Vice President's most senior advisor, or Chief of Staff) , Speaker Pelosi PRETENDED NOT TO NOTICE! and effectively ALLOWED President Bush to write a conditional pardon (a "commutation of sentence" which preserved Mr. Libby's 5th Amendment rights, which a pardon would not have done) WITH NO POLITICAL COST.

Likewise, Speaker Pelosi has ALLOWED the PERJURY, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, CIA agent 'outing' scandal; Iraq war contracts; distortions-to-war; Torture, and other Congressional investigations to be relegated to BACK PAGE NEWS, as the media can now focus on its favorite subjects, America's imperial military might (huge contracts for American defense corporations which filter down to America's media conglomerates, i.e., Boeing and Lockheed-Martin 'soft advertisements' on local TV) and the 2008 election HORSE RACE. The media loves to cover a "he said, she said" horse race, because it is easy: merely invite a candidate or analyst in to the production studios, and ask them questions on their policy positions and agenda. THAT'S IT! That's the media's total cost for covering a horse-race election, apart from hiring a few "experts" and talking heads to spin the race in the network's favor, and airing some video footage of local campaign events. Far, far easier than sending reporters and production teams to distant, dangerous locations. Also, we humans are biologically predisposed to look at faces. There is compelling drama in a human face that even explosions and war footage cannot supplant. As every movie director knows, the close-up and cut-in are the keys to a good movie - and the networks well understand that putting faces on the small screen is all it takes to draw viewer attention.

For these reasons, Nancy Pelosi has completely fallen into the "best possible outcome" scenario of the Bush-Cheney-Rove White House. Impeachment is forever off the table as America races towards election 2008; the conduct if not crimes that warranted impeachment are "back page news" if not already forgotten; the president has wielded his PARDON pen unmolested, and will do so again; Congressional investigators (Waxman, Conyers, etc.) now look like clowns in a three-ring circus, from the sheer overwhelming number of investigations they are running, if not because their conclusions will be toothless (no impeachment); the Republican VOTE STEALING machines and methods are still in place, and American public can no longer tolerate the arcane and disjointed investigations into those many methods and tactics (again, without the coordination and direction of small investigations into a larger whole, the public can not pay attention indefinitely); and even President Bush's party hack replacements for PURGED prosecutors remain in place, with the sole exception of Tim Griffin, who resigned in disgrace as US Attorney for Arkansas when it was disclosed that not only was he Karl Rove's assistant, but that his entire legal career had included not one single prosecution.

Today, not only has Speaker Pelosi FAILED to enact JUSTICE against the many wrongdoings of the Bush-Cheney White House, but she has thus prepared the ground for future Republicans to LAY THE BLAME FOR THE IRAQ DEBACLE - on DEMOCRATS.
==================================
Pelosi: General Patraeus' plan effectively means TEN MORE YEARS OF WAR. (She is CORRECT about that.)
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jLlOEu91_VfGVnA_RLQLmGfxsVxQ

General Patraeus MISLEADS in his Congressional testimony: The Iraq army and police are some of the WORST ELEMENTS of the Iraq problem:
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Iraqi_Reporter_Situation_100_times_worse_0910.html

America as "the new Rome" - << These days, in the imperial America of George W Bush, all you have to do is stave off total disaster and make the case that the troops should stay in a faraway country even longer. >>
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/international/article2953590.ece

Like the Clintons in the 1996 reelection campaign, Representative Pelosi has become MESMERIZED by the Democrat's ability to RAISE MONEY, in this case because of an unpopular war and administration. But the Clinton's wallowing in fundraising and cash in the mid-90's left them open to the most sensational Right-Wing accusations - that they had "sold out to China" ("TREASON!") for Chinese money
Even those Americans who didn't believe the "Treason!" accusations looked with scorn on the Clinton's fundraising neediness. (Yesterday, Hillary Cliton was forced to return $850,000 to donors "bundled" by a tainted campaign fundraiser, giving more ammunition for the Hillary-haters out there.)

Speaker Pelosi and other Democrats need to realize that there is more to leadership than fundraisers, looking pretty, and winning popularity contests. Sometimes you must FORCE the media to look in dark corners, and GO OUT ON A LIMB to PROSECUTE government misconduct, as Patrick Fitzgerald did. Speaker Pelosi took the most powerful arrow in the congressional quiver (impeachment) broke it, and threw it on the ground before she was even inaugurated, and then NEGLECTED to coordinate and FOCUS the many investigations into impeachable offenses, thereby making those investigations look useless, petty, mean, partisan, vindictive, and wasteful.

Indeed, Speaker Pelosi has almost completely duplicated the great failure of the incoming 1993 Clinton administration, as detailed in Chapter 1. of Robert Parry's book, "Secrecy and Privilege." Parry notes that in 1993 there were a HOST of high-level CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS into the previous Republican administrations (Bush Sr. and Reagan), but that starting in 1993 President Clinton effectively pulled the rug out from under those investigations: THEREBY EMPOWERING Republican critics to throw accusations and investigations against his own administration!

The history of the Democratic Party, post Watergate, may well be that it has utterly failed to reign in the worst impulses of an imperial, unaccountable government, because every time the Democrats were in a position to push a successful criminal prosecution to its full political outcome, they refused to do so, by undercutting the prosecution.

And now, as the America media and political parties race to election 2008, it will be up to individual candidates to make up the slack - in impossibility, given the media's tendency to hyper-examine if not distort Democratic candidates' positions and comments - and the Bush administration remains in full control over the ENTIRE federal government and bureaucracy, including UNCONTESTED CONTROL of the US military and nuclear arsenal.

Having undercut the prosecutions of criminal misconduct by the Bush administration, will Speaker Pelosi's 110th Congress now go down in history as the Congress that DID NOTHING to stop the US-Iran war?

===========================================

Retreat of the (Antiwar) Democrats

by Patrick Buchanan
Tue Sep 11, 2001
http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20070911/cm_uc_crpbux/op_333787

In November 2006, Republicans were voted out of power in the Congress and Democrats installed to bring an end to U.S. involvement in the war in Iraq.

ADVERTISEMENT

The war had been going on as long as America's war on Nazi Germany. No end was in sight. U.S. casualties and costs were rising. Bush's approval rating had sunk to record lows.

The day after the GOP rout, Bush cashiered his war minister, Donald Rumsfeld. In December, the Iraq Study Group, chaired by Bush I Secretary of State James Baker, released its report.

"The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. ... A slide toward chaos could trigger the collapse of Iraq's government and a humanitarian disaster. ... The situation in Baghdad and several provinces is dire. ... Pessimism is pervasive. ... Violence is increasing in scope, complexity and lethality."

His policy collapsing, Bush made a last throw of the dice. Gen. David Petraeus was named to command U.S. forces, and his request for a "surge" of 21,500 additional U.S. troops accepted. Petraeus also demanded and got 10,000 more support troops.

Still, by April, as the "surge" brigades began to arrive, Harry Reid, Senate majority leader, was declaring, "This war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything." Democrats, the party base goading them on, tried to impose upon Bush, as a condition of further funding for the war, deadlines for the withdrawal of U.S. forces.

Bush vetoed the bill. He was sustained. Then, he rubbed the Democrats' noses in their defeat by demanding and getting $100 billion more to finance the surge and the war. There are today 30,000 more troops in Iraq than when the Democratic Congress was elected.

As Petraeus testifies, the antiwar movement appears broken. Reid has said his party will not try to de-fund the war or impose new deadlines. It will follow GOP Sen. John Warner, who has suggested it might be helpful if the president withdrew a brigade by Christmas, to signal the Iraqi government to get its house in order. Petraeus has agreed to that.

Next April is the date when the Iraq Study Group said all U.S. combat brigades should be out of Iraq. By then, Bush and Petraeus will have tens of thousands more troops in Iraq than when the Democrats were elected and the ISG reported. The lame duck is not all that lame.

What happened to the party of Speaker Pelosi and Reid, which was going to end U.S. involvement in the war and not permit Bush to pursue victory the way Richard Nixon pursued it in Vietnam for four years?

Answer: Terrified of the possible consequences of the policies they recommend, Democrats lack the courage to impose those policies.

When it comes to issues of war, Democrats are an intimidated lot. Sens. Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Dodd and Reid were all stampeded by Bush into voting him a blank check for war in October 2002. Why? Because they feared Bush would declare them weak or unpatriotic if they denied him the authority to go to war, at a time of his choosing, until he had made a more compelling case for war.

Now they regret what they did. But, in a showdown, they will do it again. For Democrats have been psychologically damaged by 60 years of GOP attacks on them as the party of retreat and surrender.

Their hero, FDR, was posthumously ripped apart for Yalta, the appeasement of "Uncle Joe," and the abandonment to communism of Poland and Eastern Europe. Truman fired Gen. MacArthur, fought a no-win war in Korea and was savaged, along with Gen. Marshall and Dean Acheson, by Joe McCarthy. By 1952, Truman was at 23 percent and finished. In January 1954, the Tailgunner was riding high at 50 percent.

Came then Vietnam and the credible charge that the Liberal Establishment, The Best and the Brightest, had marched us in, then cut and run, abandoning our Vietnamese and Cambodian allies to a holocaust, and bringing on the worst strategic defeat in U.S. history.

When Ronald Reagan, in the closing days of the 1980 campaign, declared Vietnam a "noble cause," the liberal media leapt on it as a gaffe. It wasn't. Reagan was wired in to Middle America.

John Kerry understood this. Thus, he ran in 2004 as a decorated Vietnam vet, not the onetime icon of the antiwar movement.

Bush is winning today because he has jettisoned the jabber about global democracy and argues that a U.S. withdrawal risks a strategic disaster, national humiliation, massacre of our friends and triumph for al-Qaida. Democrats, fearing he may be right, are in paralysis.

Scourged for 20 years over "Who Lost China?" they don't want to spend the next 20 years answering "Who Lost the Middle East?"

Thus the rout of the peace Democrats. But the movement will be back. For, Petraeus' good news notwithstanding, there is no light yet visible at the end of this tunnel.

To find out more about Patrick Buchanan, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

General Patraeus Lied in Testimony to Congress: Iraq Army is PART OF THE PROBLEM of insurgency and death squads....

After supporing Saddam's Baathist, Sunni-dominated secular regime in Iraq for over two decades - including through Saddam's brutal suppression of Shiite rebellions, and his genocidal ANFAL campaign that used poison gas on Kurdish towns and refugees (insert photo "Don Rumsfeld, personal emmissary from President Reagan, shakes Saddam's hands" here), the United States under George W. Bush invaded Iraq and REVERSED that policy, eliminating even street-level Baathists from the Iraqi army and police, and inserting SHIITE men and officials in to those positions. The Shiites well remembered not only Saddam's repression, but American tolerance of those mass executions; and (spurred to some extent by Sunni fundamentalists, eg Al Qaida in Iraq and other Sunni attacks), many Shiites formed death squads to ethnically cleanse Baghdad or other towns and cities, just as Arab Sunnis (and Shiite conscripts) had ethnically cleansed Kurds from towns and villages in Northern Iraq during the genocidal "Anfal" camapaign. (Halabja the most well known example of Saddam's poison-gas attacks on Kurdish towns.)

This basic, simple debacle - a massive purge of even street level Sunni officials from government by the American occupation - was greatly encouraged by the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz led early occuption, which featured:
#1. GROSS CORRUPTION in handing out reconstruction contracts, most of which went to politically connected American companies - the 20th Century equivalent of the Oklahoma land rush, where White settlers were given permission by the federal government to homestead territories recently cleansed of native American Indians. Perhaps a more fitting comparison would be to "bleeding Kansas," where the governments of both Slave and Free states encouraged their own citizens to settle in Kansas and Nebraska, leaving the question of legalized slavery to the voters of those states. The violence created by this contest for supremacy on both sides was at times genocidal (massacres and 'ethnic cleansing'), as Southern states were determined to expand slavery, and northern states were determined to prevent that expansion. In Iraq, the Bush administration saw an opportunity to reward supporters with billions of dollars of federal (tax dollar) contracts, in a barely hidden effort to turn Iraq into an American colony.

#2. The Gross INCOMPETENCE of the occupation. Even today, it is scarcely believable that DON RUMSFELD allowed Iraqi insurgents and common looters to cart off tons and tons and tons of explosives, artillery shells, and other munitions from Saddam's ammunition bunker complexes; not only under the gaze of US spy satellites, but even as IAEA weapons inspectors, in both Iraq and in Washington, DC, were BEGGING the US military to SECURE THOSE BUNKERS! Rumsfeld, Wolfotitz, Perle, Feith, and other Penatgon leaders were so enamored of their "crony corruption for administraton supporters" and "Iraq as clean slate to demonstrate Privatization economics" agenda, that they actually allowed massive looting of not only government offices in cities, but ammunition bunkers in the countryside that could be easily guarded! This was but the tip of the iceberg of gross US leadership incompetence in the early Iraq occupation, which incompetence included spending millions of dollars for US contractors to not do work that local, Iraqi contractors would have done for one-tenth the money; failing to get the water, sanitation, and electrical systems up and running in towns and cities; encouraging looting as reprisals against Baathists and Sunnis; and NINE BILLION DOLLARS of Iraqi assetts (cash from US) distributed throughout Baghdad and other cities - with NO ACCOUNTING, oversight, or even receipts! American soldiers and families are today daily paying the bill for the GROSS INCOMPETENCE and CORRUPTION of that early occupation - with Dick Cheney and George Bush touting Iraq as their "leadership success."

<< When asked about General Petraeus' suggestion last week that "Iraqi soldiers and police are very much in the fight," Nuri replied, "I think that's not true at all. ... I have to be honest with you and with everyone else in the world. When I was traveling around Iraq, in Baghdad or anywhere else, I was afraid of the Iraqi army and the Iraqi police more than I was afraid of a militia or unknown men." >>

=============================

Iraqi reporter: Baghdad '100 times worse' than a year ago

David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Published: Monday September 10, 2007
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Iraqi_Reporter_Situation_100_times_worse_0910.html

Ayub Nuri, an Iraqi journalist residing in the United States, told CNN on Monday that even when he was last in Baghdad in 2006, "the situation was very, very dangerous," but that things are much worse now.

"When I speak to my friends and family these days on the phone, they tell me that it is 100 times worse than when I was there," Nuri stated. "Even the regular people cannot leave their own neighborhoods. ... If you go to another neighborhood, that's completely unknown to you, and you might not be able to come home alive."

When asked about General Petraeus' suggestion last week that "Iraqi soldiers and police are very much in the fight," Nuri replied, "I think that's not true at all. ... I have to be honest with you and with everyone else in the world. When I was traveling around Iraq, in Baghdad or anywhere else, I was afraid of the Iraqi army and the Iraqi police more than I was afraid of a militia or unknown men."

Nuri explained that after the Coalition Provisional Authority disbanded Saddam's army, "They were desperate to recreate another Iraqi army, and in case of desperation, of course, you accept anyone to join your army, and many of them were criminals, many of them were drug dealers, and many of them had ... affiliation only to their own areas." He said that as a result, many Iraqis these days would prefer to have their neighborhood patrolled by a US unit rather than an Iraqi unit.

"I personally do not have any faith or any hope in the Maliki government," Nuri stated, though he emphasized that the problem wasn't just with Maliki. "The Iraqi government is neither willing nor they are able to do anything," he concluded.

The following video is from CNN's Newsroom, broadcast on September 10.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Iraqi_Reporter_Situation_100_times_worse_0910.html

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

REPUBLICANS Sharply Question Gen. Patraeus, Amb. Crocker re open-ended Iraq occupation..

Illustrating the growing strain the Iraq war and occupation has on American households, REPUBLICAN Senators Chuck Hagel,Richard Lugar, Norm Coleman, and John Sunnunu, all on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, grilled the Administration's spokesmen, General David Patraeus and US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, about the long term plans for the US military in Iraq, where General Patraeus is the US commander who has been reporting directly to the White House in past weeks.

Senator Hagel has announced his frustration with the US political process, and is not running for an almost assured re-election campaign. Norm Coleman, whose victory over former Vice President Walter Mondale had suspicious election returns (in an election shortly after the untimely death of incumbent Senator Paul Wellstone in a fatal campaign flying crash), is now facing a well funded and articulate Democratic oppenent in liberal Minnesota. While John Sunnunu represents the fickle, independent voters of New Hampshire, Richard Lugar represents the rock-red state of Indiana.



Republicans sharply question Iraq policy
By Ann Flaherty, Associated Press Writer
9-11-2007
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070911/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

WASHINGTON - Senate Republicans sharply challenged President Bush's top military general and ambassador in Iraq on Tuesday in a sign that some within the GOP retain serious misgivings about the protracted war.

"Are we going to continue to invest blood and treasure at the same rate we're doing now? For what?" asked Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., who supports legislation setting a deadline to bring troops home.

The deep-seated doubt expressed at the hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reflected just how far Congress had come since the war began over four years ago. And Republican senators raised tough questions that rivaled those asked by Democratic presidential hopefuls on the panel.

The exchanges came just a day after the top U.S. war commander, Gen. David Petraeus, recommended keeping the bulk of U.S. forces in Iraq — some 130,000 troops — deployed there through next summer.

Whereas Republicans were once deferential to the thinking of officials running the war, particularly uniformed officers, Hagel and other GOP senators on the panel said they doubted that simply giving war commanders more time would necessarily yield results.
"In my judgment, some type of success in Iraq is possible, but as policymakers, we should acknowledge that we are facing extraordinarily narrow margins for achieving our goals," said Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the top Republican on the committee.
Sen. Norm Coleman said he appreciates plans to return troop levels to 130,000 — down from the 168,000 currently in Iraq — but that he wants a longer-term vision other than suggestions that Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker will return to Capitol Hill in mid-March to give another assessment.

"Americans want to see light at the end of the tunnel," said Coleman, R-Minn.
Echoing testimony given to the House on Monday, Petraeus and Crocker acknowledged that Iraq remains largely dysfunctional but said violence in recent months had decreased since the influx of the added 30,000 troops deployed earlier this year.

Crocker said he believed Iraq had "almost completely unraveled" in late 2006 and early 2007. The increased security, if given more time, could pave the way for political reconciliation, he said.

The ambassador said he fears that announcing troop withdrawals, as Democrats want, would focus Iraqi attention on "building the walls, stocking ammunition and getting ready for a big nasty street fight" rather than working toward reconciliation.

"I do believe that Iraq's leaders have the will to tackle the country's pressing problems, although it will take longer than we initially anticipated because of the environment and the gravity of the issue," Crocker said.

The stakes are high, he added.

"An Iraq that falls into chaos or civil war will mean massive human suffering — well beyond what has already occurred within Iraq's borders," Crocker said.

Hagel asked Petraeus why his view of conditions on the ground in Iraq was more positive than independent assessments on the war, as well as assessments of some outspoken noncommissioned officers.

"We've got too many disconnects here, general," Hagel said.

At one point in the hearing, Petraeus said "there are 165,000 different views on the ground" and it can change daily.

When asked by Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., what factors would influence further drawdowns of troops, Petraeus said the strain on ground forces would be a factor as it was with his latest recommendations. Iraq's ability to make political progress also will be considered, he said.

The hearing fell on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

"The fact of the matter is that American lives remain in jeopardy and, as I said, if every single jihadi in the world was killed tomorrow, we'd still have a major, major war on our hands," said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Republican support for the Iraq war remains on shaky ground in Congress, epitomized by Lugar's opening statement Tuesday and Hagel's heated questioning of the general's recommendations. But that support wasn't lost.

Many rank-and-file Republicans — like Lugar — said they still were uneasy about the lack of political progress in Iraq. But they also remained reluctant to embrace legislation ordering troops home by next spring, increasing the likelihood that Democrats will have to soften their approach if they want to pass an anti-war proposal.

Democrats had anticipated that a larger number of Republicans by now would have turned against Bush on the war because of grim poll numbers and the upcoming 2008 elections.

Without GOP support, Democrats repeatedly have fallen short of enough votes to pass legislation ordering troop withdrawals to begin this fall and be completed by spring.

In Baghdad, the Iraqi government on Tuesday welcomed Petraeus' testimony and said the need for U.S. military support would decrease over time.

National Security Adviser Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, reading from a government statement, said the Iraqis believed that "in the near future" the need for U.S. and other coalition forces "will decrease."

Moderate lawmakers say there is plenty of room for compromise in the deeply divided Congress. Aides say bipartisan proposals are in the works and that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has reached out to several GOP senators to discuss potential common ground. However, a major hurdle remaining are politically influential organizations like MoveOn.org who say Democrats shouldn't water down the debate with more moderate legislation.

Alternative legislative proposals on Iraq include:

_Ordering troop withdrawals to begin this fall, but set the spring date of completion as a nonbinding goal.

_Limit the mission of U.S. troops to training the Iraqi security forces, fighting terrorists and protecting U.S. assets, but leave it up to military commanders to determine force levels.

_Demanding Bush submit a new war strategy to Congress by fall that would limit the mission of U.S. forces and begin drawing down force levels in coming months.

Sunday, September 9, 2007

Cowardly Senate Democrats prepare to GROVEL before Bush's AG replacement nomination...

The clueless, spineless, craven Democrats of the US Sente prepare, yet again, to REPLAY the appaling winter of 2001, when they APPROVED OF EVERY BUSH Righ-Wing nominee, the Democrats then REFUSING TO GET VIDEOS of then Texas Governor George W. Bush pledging "A NEW, MORE BIPARTISAN TONE IN WASHINGTON"

BETRAYING rank and file Democratic voters is what THE CRAVEN DEMOCRAT SENATE DOES BEST.

And that, unfortunately, includes ALL FOUR of the SENATE Democratic PRESIDENTIAL CONTENDERS, who between them couldn't sponsor and uphold a filibuster to prevent Dick Cheney from skinning, gutting, and roasting Lassie on the White House lawn (much less lead one from the shadows using other senators to press such a filibuster.)

==================================================

Wingnut, Nuttier and Nuttiest
Susan Madrak Sat Sep 8, 2:13 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20070908/cm_huffpost/063575

Now, you know our hero well enough by now that you already knew he wouldn't nominate a moderate for Attorney General. But it's hard to imagine three worse nominees than this gang:


President Bush is expected to choose a replacement for Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales by the middle of next week, and former solicitor general Theodore B. Olson has emerged as one of the leading contenders for the job, according to sources inside and outside the government who are familiar with White House deliberations. Other candidates still in the running include former deputy attorney general George J. Terwilliger III and D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Laurence H. Silberman, according to the sources, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the discussions.

The Washington Post ever so eagerly finds a Clintonite to say good things about Olsen:

But Olson, who represented Bush in the legal battle over the 2000 presidential election, also is widely admired by members of both parties for his legal skills and sharp intellect. Lanny Davis, former special counsel to President Clinton, endorsed Olson for the attorney general's job in a recent opinion article, calling him "a principled and independent thinker who will focus on the word 'Justice' in the Department's name."

Ding ding ding! Did your alarm go off, too? "Widely admired by members of both parties." Hmm. Isn't that exactly how they described stealth wingnut John Roberts before they threw the roses in his path for the Supreme Court?

How else would you describe a judicial nominee with a long history of lying in the service of his king? Why, as "widely admired," of course.

But Olson's troubles with Congress shouldn't surprise anyone who has followed his career, because they bear remarkable similarity to the behavior that got him into hot water more than a decade ago, and almost led to perjury charges. A careful examination of that episode raises serious questions about not merely his integrity but the legendary legal prowess to which even his critics defer. Indeed, the last time Olson served as a top presidential legal counselor, he left behind a political disaster area strewn with bad legal advice, wrecked careers and lingering scandals.

As assistant attorney general to President Reagan from 1981 to 1983, Olson advised the president to claim executive privilege to block an investigation by congressional Democrats into the scandal-plagued Superfund program, based on assertions that later proved fatally false -- largely because Olson, apparently eager to force a political fight with Congress, failed to double-check key information.

And of course, both Olson and Silberman were closely involved in the Arkansas Project, the proverbial right-wing conspiracy to take down Bill Clinton.

Larry Silberman? Overturned Oliver North's conviction on what is seen as very shaky legal grounds, part of the illegal arms-for-hostages deal that helped Reagan win the 1980 election, and coordinated the attacks on Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. (I'd love to see Media Matter's David Brock testify against his character if nominated.)

Terwilliger isn't as famous a wingnut, which makes him the most likely nominee. They do like their unknowns, don't they? And after facing the twin specters of Olson and Silberman, the oh-so-predictable Democratic Congress will heave a sigh of relief and roll over on this nomination.

That would be a big mistake. He's also highly partisan (as in Federalist Society partisan) and loyal (as in, Bush Family Criminal Enterprise-loyal). He was the attorney leading the Florida recount effort for Bush. Let's put it this way: despite his backing by some prominent conservatives, John Ashcroft opposed him as FBI Director.

That's why I think he'll be the nominee, and that's why I'm sure the Democrats will support him if nominated. After all, if he's not wearing a black hat, it will be too difficult to explain why we're not confirming him and then people would be mad at us!

As opposed to that "protecting the Constitution" thing? No contest. PR always comes first.

US now BRIBING Insurgent Sunnis to attack Al Qaida in Iraq.....

US bribe insurgents to fight Al-Qaeda
by Marie Colvin and Sarah Baxter
UK Times on-line
September 9, 2000
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2413200.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=2015164
AMERICAN forces are paying Sunni insurgents hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash to switch sides and help them to defeat Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Friday, September 7, 2007

America INCAPABLE of rational analysis re the Bush-Cheney disastrous, criminal administration.....


America INCAPABLE of rational analysis re the debacle wrought by the Bush-Cheney administration's disastrous war in Iraq....
by Robert Parry
http://consortiumnews.com/2007/090107.html

<< But the United States, circa 2007, doesn’t appear capable of acting expeditiously on behalf of its citizens or its national interests.

The importance of timely action in terminating the Bush-Cheney administration is brushed aside as unworthy of discussion, impossible, crazy. It is far simpler to condemn Larry Craig for his stall-to-stall footsie with a plainclothes cop than to hold Bush and Cheney accountable for an illegal war and a variety of other high crimes and misdemeanors.

So the drift toward the precipice continues with almost no one taking note of the chasm below. >>

<< In a nation that cared more about its soldiers and its long-term interests, the news shows and the political class would be exploring how these present-and-future disasters might be averted or reversed, how Bush and Cheney could be presented with “an offer they can’t refuse,” either resign or face the humiliation of bipartisan impeachment.

But the United States, circa 2007, doesn’t appear capable of acting expeditiously on behalf of its citizens or its national interests. >>

Thursday, September 6, 2007

High Crimes & Misdemeanors! Bush KNEW that Saddam HAD NO WMDs! But pushed for the illegal invasion/occuption of Iraq regardless....

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction
Salon exclusive: Two former CIA officers say the president squelched top-secret intelligence, and a briefing by George Tenet, months before invading Iraq.
By Sidney Blumenthal
Sept. 5, 2007
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/

Wednesday, September 5, 2007

97 to 0: Senate supports Bush-Cheney war vs Iran....

Americans want mideast oil. We will kill thousands of civilians to get it. And the United Nations, which was set up specifically to prevent stronger aggressor nations from bombing and invading weaker nations, will once again be no more than a captive prostitute to American ambitions.

Nothing better illustrates the "belly of the beast" tendencies of Democratic "leaders" - to sign on to the goals and actions of the imperium Americana - better than this stark, glaring, 97-0 vote in the US senate to give George W. Bush the authority (as he sees it, which is all that counts) to bomb Iran, and thus ratchet up a nuclear war in the mideast with an unprovoked first strike on Iranian infrastructure, an infrastructure attack as the United States did to Serbia 5 year before it bombed Iraq.

This excellent article by David Bromwich, one of many now cropping up on the subject, also details the "VERBOTTEN!" subject of America's foreign policy alignment with that of Israel and the American-Israel (Jewish) lobby. This is a story that American corporate "MAJOR MEDIA" relentlessly SUPPRESSES.

=======================================
Iraq, Israel, Iran

by David Bromwich
September 4, 2007
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/iraq-israel-iran_b_62995.html

When John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's article on the Israel Lobby appeared in the London Review of Books, after having been commissioned and killed by the Atlantic Monthly, neoconservative publicists launched an all-out campaign to slander the authors as anti-Semites. Now that their book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy has appeared--a work of considerable scope, carefully documented, and not just an expanded version of the article--the imputation of anti-Semitism will doubtless be repeated more sparingly for readers lower down the educational ladder. Meanwhile, the literate establishment press will (a) ignore it, (b) pretend that it says nothing new or surprising, and (c) rule out the probable inferences from the data, on the ground that the very meaning of the word "lobby" is elusive.

The truth is that many new facts are in this book, and many surprising facts. By reconstructing a trail of meetings and public statements in 2001-2002, for example, the authors show that much of the leadership of Israel was puzzled at first by the boyish enthusiasm for a war on Iraq among their neoconservative allies. Why Iraq? they asked. Why now? They would appear to have obtained assurances, however, that once the "regime change" in Iraq was accomplished, the next war would be against Iran.

A notable pilgrimage followed. One by one they lined up, Netanyahu, Sharon, Peres, and Barak, writing op-eds and issuing flaming warnings to convince Americans that Saddam Hussein was a menace of world-historical magnitude. Suddenly the message was that any delay of the president's plan to bomb, invade, and occupy Iraq would be seized on by "the terrorists" as a sign of weakness. Regarding the correct treatment of terrorists, as also regarding the avoidance of weakness, Americans look to Israelis as mentors in a class by themselves.

So a war projected years before by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz--a war secured at last by the fixing of the facts around the policy at the Office of the Vice President--was allowed to borrow some prestige at an intermediate stage by the consent of a few well-regarded Israeli politicians. Yet their target of choice had been Iran. They accepted the change of sequence without outward signs of doubt, possibly owing to their acquaintance with the Middle East doctrine espoused by the Weekly Standard and the American Enterprise Institute--a doctrine which held that to create a viable order after the fall of Iraq, regime change in Iran and Syria would have to follow expeditiously.

To sum up this part: the evidence of Mearsheimer and Walt suggests that Israel was never the prime mover of the Iraq war. Rather, once the Cheney-Wolfowitz design was in place, the Israeli ministers who trooped through American opinion pages and news-talk shows did what they could to heat up the war fever. This war was on the cards before they threw in their lot with Cheney and Bush; by their efforts they merely helped to confer on the plan an aura of legitimacy and worldly wisdom.

But now the American war with Iran they originally wanted is coming closer. Last Tuesday, when the mass media were crammed to distraction with the behavior of a senator in an airport washroom, few could be troubled to notice an important speech by President Bush. If Iran is allowed to persist in its present state, the president told the American Legion convention in Reno, it threatens "to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust." He said he had no intention of allowing that; and so he has "authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities." Those words come close to saying not that a war is coming but that it is already here. No lawmaker who reads them can affect the slightest shock at any action the president takes against Iran.

Admittedly, it was a showdown speech, reckless and belligerent, to a soldier audience; but then, this has been just the sort of crowd and message that Cheney and Bush favor when they are about to open a new round of killings. And in a sense, the Senate had given the president his cue when it approved, by a vote of 97-0, the July 11 Lieberman Amendment to Confront Iran. It is hardly an accident that the president and his favorite tame senator concurred in their choice of the word "confront." The pretext for the Lieberman amendment, as for the president's order, was the discovery of caches of weapons alleged to belong to Iran, the capture of Iranian advisers said to be operating against American troops, and the assertion that the most deadly IEDs used against Americans are often traceable to Iranian sources--claims that have been widely treated in the press as possible, but suspect and unverified. Still, the vote was 97-0. If few Americans took notice, the government of Iran surely did.

That unanimous vote was the latest in a series of capitulations that has included the apparent end of resistance by Nancy Pelosi to the next war. After the election of 2006, the speaker of the house declared her intention to enact into law a requirement that this president seek separate authorization for a war against Iran. On the point of doing so, she addressed the AIPAC convention, and was booed for criticizing the escalation of the Iraq war. Pelosi took the hint, shelved her authorization plan, and went with AIPAC against the anti-war base of the Democratic party.

This much, one might know without the help of Mearsheimer and Walt. But without their record, how many would trace the connection between the removal of Philip Zelikow as policy counselor of the state department, at the end of 2006, and a speech Zelikow had given in September 2006 urging serious negotiation and a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine? The ousting of Zelikow was a blessing to the war party, since it freed them from a skeptical confidant of Secretary of State Rice--perhaps the only person of stature anywhere near the administration whom she treated as an ally and friend. And the meaning of the change was clear when Zelikow's replacement turned out to be Eliot Cohen: a neoconservative war scholar and enthusiast, an early booster of the "surge" on the pundit shows, and incidentally a shameless slanderer of Mearsheimer-Walt ("Yes, It's Anti-Semitic," Washington Post, April 5, 2006).

From Zelikow to Cohen was only a step on the long path of humiliation that now stretched before Condoleeza Rice. When, in March 2007, amid suggestions of a renewal of diplomacy, she intimated that talks might be helpful in dealing with the Hamas-Fatah unity government (whose formation the Arab world had greeted as offering a promise of peace), she was demolished by an AIPAC-backed advisory letter bearing the signatures of 79 senators, which directed her not to speak with a government that had not yet recognized Israel. From that moment Rice was effectively neutralized.

The hottest cries for another war have been coming this summer from Joe Lieberman. He has called for attacks on Iran, and for attacks on Syria. It is as if Lieberman, with his appetite for multiple theaters of conflict, spoke from the congealed memory of all the wars he never fought. But Joe Lieberman is a stalking-horse. He would not say these things without getting permission from Vice President Cheney, a close and admired friend. Nor would Cheney permit a high-profile lawmaker whom he partly controls to set the United States and Israel on so perilous a course unless he had ascertained its acceptability to Ehud Olmert.

Yet the chief orchestrater of the second neoconservative war of aggression is Elliott Abrams. Convicted for deceptions around Iran-Contra, as Lewis Libby was convicted for deceptions stemming from Iraq--and pardoned by the elder Bush just as Libby had his sentence commuted by the younger--Abrams now presides over the Middle East desk at the National Security Council. All of the wildness of this astonishing functionary and all his reckless love of subversion will be required to pump up the "imminent danger" of Iran. For here, as with Iraq, the danger can only be made to look imminent by manipulation and forgery. On all sober estimates, Iran is several months from mastering the nuclear cycle, and several years from producing a weapon. Whereas Israel for decades has been in possession of a substantial nuclear arsenal.

How mad is Elliott Abrams? If one passage cited by Mearsheimer-Walt is quoted accurately, it would seem to be the duty of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to subject Abrams to as exacting a challenge as the Senate Judiciary Committee brought to Alberto Gonzales. The man at the Middle East desk of the National Security Council wrote in 1997 in his book Faith or Fear: "there can be no doubt that Jews, faithful to the covenant between God and Abraham, are to stand apart from the nation in which they live. It is the very nature of being Jewish to be apart--except in Israel--from the rest of the population." When he wrote those words, Abrams probably did not expect to serve in another American administration. He certainly did not expect to occupy a position that would require him to weigh the national interest of Israel, the country with which he confessed himself uniquely at one, alongside the national interest of a country in which he felt himself to stand "apart...from the rest of the population." Now that he is calling the shots against Hamas and Hezbollah, Damascus and Tehran, his words of 1997 ought to alarm us into reflection.

Among many possible lines of inquiry, the senators might begin by recognizing that the United States has other allies in Asia besides Israel. One of those allies is India; and there is a further point of resemblance. In a distinct exception to our anti-proliferation policy, we have allowed India to develop nuclear weapons; just as, in an earlier such exception, we allowed Israel to do the same. But suppose we read tomorrow a statement by the director of the South Asia desk of the National Security Council which declared: "There can be no doubt that Hindus are to stand apart from any nation in which they live. It is the very nature of being Hindu to be apart--except in India--from the rest of the population." Suppose, further, we knew this man still held these beliefs at a time of maximum tension between India and Pakistan; and that he had recently channeled 86 million dollars to regional gangs and militias bent on increasing the tension. Would we not conclude that something in our counsels of state had gone seriously out of joint?

The Mearsheimer-Walt study of American policy deserves to be widely read and discussed. It could not be more timely. If the speeches and saber-rattling by the president, the ambassador to Iraq, and several army officers mean anything, they mean that Cheney and Abrams are preparing to do to Iran what Cheney and Wolfowitz did to Iraq. They are gunning for an incident. They are working against some resistance from the armed forces but none from the opposition party at home. The president has ordered American troops to confront Iran. Sarkozy has fallen into line, Brown and Merkel are silent, and outside the United States only Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency stands between the war party and a prefabricated justification for a war that would extend across a vast subcontinent. Unless some opposition can rouse itself, we are poised to descend with non-partisan compliance into a moral and political disaster that will dwarf anything America has seen.