Well for what it's worth if you're Canadian and feel you just have to do something, no matter how futile or senseless the effort, to get Bush out of office you can go here and sign the petition. Someone who likely reads this blog sent me an invite (how about identifying yourself eh!) but I didn't recognize any of the last 50 people who signed. What the hell - I signed anyway. If there is even an iota, a mere smidgen, perchance an ort of a chance that it will help kick that mangy bastard out of office it's worth the time it took to sign :-)

Let's see, the Dems have a convention and immediately afterwards Kerry spikes above Bush in the polls with people believing he's the better man to combat terrorism and maintain the security of the US (boy, talk about having to choose between two evils) ans lo and behold there is suddenly a massive terror alert for New York. Oy vey, there can't be a coincidence there now can there - nah Doug that's just waaaay too cynical of you. Too bad for Georgie boy that the Pakistani's didn't quite come through the way they were told to and hauol Osama's ass in front of the world during the dems convention although I do believe they caught some minor al-qaeda functionary. Now it's revealed that the info that they were basing this sudden panicky rise to level Orange terror alert on is 4 years old. Whoops, what nasty reporter soon-to-have-his-white-house-press-corps-privledges-revoked-no-doubt let that cat out of the bag - must be an unpatriotic one no doubt - why akin to a terrorist himself I'm sure we will be hearing soon. 4 year old information and it's just so important, such a sense of urgent immeduiacy, that it had to come out the day the polls showed Kerry taking the lead. My the coincidences are piling up aren't they.

Anyone got pictures of those Japanese planes heading toward Hawaii?

Via Haaretz via Heli

Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack.

Micha Macover, CEO of the company, said the two workers received the messages and immediately after the terror attack informed the company's management, which immediately contacted the Israeli security services, which brought in the FBI.

I don't remember seeing any of this mentioned in the 9/11 report do you? I wonder why not. Now if I was the suspicious sort, and regular readers will know I'm any thing but..cough cough, I'd be wondering just what else didn't make it into the whitewash report.

A recent editorial in the Washington Post is yet another example of just how serious the blindness is in America with regards to the effects of their foreign policies.

The article concerns Kerry's statement during his acceptance speech about making America energy independent in general and specifically independent of middle eastern oil.

"We value an America that controls its own destiny because it's finally and forever independent of Mideast oil . . . our energy plan will invest in new technologies and alternative fuels and the cars of the future, so that no young American in uniform will ever be held hostage to our dependence on oil from the Middle East."

While the article in general points to some steps that Kerry could take to improve America's energy footprint it also makes this incredible statement (emphasis mine):

But however appealing it may be to voters, even the candidate is by some accounts well aware that "energy independence" is a fiction. To put it bluntly, the United States consumes far more energy than it produces. For the near future, and certainly well beyond the eight years Mr. Kerry could be president, there is no possibility of genuine energy independence, nor is it clear that that is a worthwhile goal. Oil is an internationally traded commodity; there is no intrinsic value to oil drilled here, as opposed to Qatar or the North Sea; we do not speak of "plastic independence" or "textile independence," so why energy?

Yes the US consumes far more energy than it produces but that statement is based on a petroleum balance sheet and so long as it remains a petroleum economy then energy independence is indeed unattainable, but who says it has to remain a petroleum economy. Even in the short term while we bring on new technologies to move us away from petroleum there are other technologies that could keep us using petroleum longer while reducing a dependency on foreign sources. Lets not forget the recent advances that have been made in thermal de-polymerization that could substantially decrease every country's dependence on external petroleum sources while simultaneously solving their organic waste disposal problems, a trade off in the short term that should have environmentalists eager to pursue this technology but sadly they seem to be ignoring it.

Next the author goes on to question whether reducing America'[s dependency on foreign oil is even a worthwhile goal and to support that bit of nonsense tries to make the point that it's all just a business, a market, let the market decide the pricing and availability of oil. This of course conveniently ignores the fact that the countries that control the majority of the world's oil supplies are also home to increasingly large numbers of islamacists who want to export their fundamentalist misinterpretation of Islam to the rest of the world and will use any tactic to do so. These groups exert a steadily growing influence on general populations and governments throughout the Middle East and in some cases are the governments, whether de facto or de jure. This process can not be halted from without but only from within. Foreign intervention only increases their hold on their various populations.

Failure to achieve independence, by whatever means, from those supplies ultimately puts much of America's foreign energy supplies under the control of people who hate America, not under control of a freely operating pure market. Logic, self preservation and good market sense will play very little importance in their petroleum policies. How to damage or destroy the enemies of their religious fundamentalism will play an ever larger role in the petroleum policies of those countries in direct correlation to the degree their influence in their countries grows.

The author also shows a lack of understanding on how deep into the economy petroleum penetrates when he says "we do not speak of "plastic independence" or "textile independence," so why energy?" For one thing you couldn't have independence of either of those industries without petroleum independence because the majority of plastics and fabrics today are directly derived from petroleum. Petroleum, unlike plastics or textiles, is the economy. Without it the entire economy will suffer a catastrophic failure and a quite rapid one at that.

Whoever wrote that article should sue the schools they attended for failing to do their duty of educating him. He has completely ignored geopolitics in his editorial. Petroleum independence not a worthwhile goal? Hell it's the only rational goal unless of course you intend to invade and "conquer" all those oil producing states (not that you would have a hope in hell of actually accomplishing that). This of course is the real problem and the one Kerry should have addressed in his speech but didn't. What he should have addressed is the utter failure of US foreign relations and how that has produced the hatred of the US (despite what Rove et. al. want you to believe the islamacist terrorists do not envy American democracy and freedoms. Those things are an anathema to their perverted interpretation of Islam) so prevalent in the Middle East.

As Jonathon so nicely pointed out the other day

On January 28, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, testified at a House Armed Services Committee hearing that 322,000 US soldiers are deployed or forward stationed in over 120 countries. As Hartcher notes, the United States:

…accounts for 5 per cent of the world’s population, 20 per cent of the world economy, and fully 50 per cent of global defence spending. It is structured for war.

In the 228 years since it declared independence, the US has made 200 military interventions abroad, says the Congressional Research Service, an average of one every 14 months.

It has much less experience in introducing democracy than it does in waging war, incidentally. It has made 16 attempts, of which four have succeeded, says the Washington-based journal Foreign Policy.

The journal defines success as the survival of a functioning democratic system 10 years after the first US intervention. The success stories? Japan, Germany, Panama and Grenada.

Of the 43 presidents in the history of the US, about a quarter, 11 of them, have been former generals or military leaders. This is not a judgment but an observation: with this structure, this history, and this tradition of leadership, the US is a martial nation. And whoever is elected president on November 2, this is not going to change.

In this light, it’s difficult to take seriously John Kerry’s promise to “bring back this nation’s time-honored tradition: the United States of America never goes to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to.”

In other words, the US has gone to war—not because it wanted to, but because it had to—once every 14 months for the last 228 years.

Indeed. By the way, before I continue this rant you really should go and read Jonathon's wonderful article Patriotism and the Martial State because the next point he makes is critical

That the US has to go to war, not in the sense that Kerry uses—of being forced by external circumstances—but rather because, as one of Maruya’s characters in Grass for My Pillow, suggests: “The state has no other objective other than that of making war.”

America exemplifies that behavior more than any other western nation state in history, except the Roman empire and it is this behavior that is the primary cause of all of America's woes. You can not expect the world to respect you if you go to war every 14 months throughout your history, largely in order to push the economic agendas of your corporations. Fear you yes, respect you no. What Kerry should have said while standing on that stage last week is:

Those are real democratic values. Coming on stage, saluting and stating you're reporting for duty belongs in the camp of those who want to make war not peace. I didn't know Kerry was really a Republican.

From The Guardian

One of the longest-running mysteries of American politics may soon be resolved after it was announced yesterday that the man many suspect of being Deep Throat in the Watergate scandal had died.

Fred LaRue, known as the "bagman" because he delivered payments to ensure the silence of participants in the Watergate break-in, was found dead in a hotel room in Biloxi, Mississippi. He was 75.

The two Washington Post reporters who broke the Watergate story, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, have maintained that they would only reveal the identity of Deep Throat once he was dead.

Democratic National Convention, July27, 2004

WOW what a keynote speech. I've never heard of Barack Obama before but this guy is amazing. He is definitely a rising star in the Democratic party. My take, fwiw, is he will be the first black in the white house, be it as president or vice-president. He has a magnificent presence and talks from the heart. He is a person who unites not divides and I am impressed.

There is an excellent article on Jesse Jackson and his influence on the Democrats over at Alternet

because that other organization – imagined as a left variant on the Christian Coalition – never materialized, the might-have-beens are frozen in the amber of conjecture. Jackson himself says, "I like that idea. It's a good idea. But it would've required infrastructure and resources and discipline. You can't just wish something like that into working." Privately, one of his close campaign associates said, "I think Jackson didn't want to have to referee between different parts of his coalition. By 1988 the tensions were already clear. The activists were getting supplanted by the elected officials; the Congress people were telling the lefty radicals to tone it down. The sectarians in various places were trying to take it over internally, and you know the left has never solved that question. We had the most diverse, most little-d democratic, most American delegation anybody's ever sent to a convention, in '88. But if we had just had grassroots little-d democratic votes everywhere, we'd have had a delegation made up almost entirely of black ministers, because they could outvote certainly the gay and lesbian representative, the white Central America activists.

The line I've highlihgted is very crucial as it illustrates a major difference between the right and the left in America. On the one hand, while it has taken several decades, the Right now acts in a relatively concerted fashion. They have learned to frame their issues and everyone sticke to the frame. The "few bad apples" scenes in The Corporation is a good illustration of this. From on high Rove or Fleischer applied that term to coropiorate executives who were caught misbehaving and from then on all the national media used that term to minimize damage and deflect attention away from systemic failures. On the other hand, the Left simply does not have its act together. There is infighting between blacks and latinos, environmentalists and mainstream Democratic corporatists. For every faction within the left there is another that wants to steal the limelight. The left needs to learn to act in concert. Until they do that they will never learn to frame their values in a manner that will resonate with America. They will always be playing defense against the Right's frames instead of putting the Right on defense.

As reported in The Telegraph

The United States Congress declared yesterday that the killings in Sudan's Darfur region were genocide and urged a reluctant President George W Bush to intervene.

Cm'on George you used the genocide thing as an excuse to invade Iraq. OK OK minor quibble you used WMD to invade until it was proved they didn't exist THEN you switched stories to despots and genocide. But the important thing here George is you did use despotism and genocide as your reason for justifying that war and here you are presented with even greater despotism and genocide - genocide on a much grander scale - and you don't want to do anything significant. Hell you're even talking sanctions

"We made our position very clear to the Sudanese government," he said. "They must stop Janjaweed [militia] violence; they must provide access to humanitarian relief for the people who suffer."

America has circulated a draft resolution to the Security Council that would give Sudan 30 days to curb the Janjaweed and bring their leaders to justice, or face international sanctions. Yesterday there were reports of the Janjaweed carrying out two more attacks on a village and a camp, killing 30 and kidnapping women and children.

But weren't you the one that said sanctions didn't work in Iraq and that's one of the reasons you had to invade? Lets have little consistency here eh George.

Now you gotta ask yourself why King George is just not too enthusiastic to wage war in the Sudan. Well there's the fact that the US military is already spread thin. Then there's the fact that Sudan only has 1% of the oil reserves that Iraq has (600M/ 1.2B barrels to 112B barrels) so why bother. But George you're missing the obvious, another war is just what you need to finally bankrupt the treasury and force the cancellation of all those social programs you hate. Then there's Haliburton. I'm sure Dick could easily fill you in on how many more billions your friends in Haliburton could suck out of the US treasury if you were to go into Sudan. I'm sure you must owe them that.

If you haven't been by TrueMajority.org recently you may not have heard Stephen Smith's recording You Ain't a Cowboy , go now, don't miss it.

This is unbelievable. Here these poor buggers are over in Iraq risking there lives in an illegal war, for an unelected president, and they may not be able to vote in November? Maybe Bush & Co. are afraid that they'd all, unlike last time, vote to kick him out. I would if I werer one of them. It's probably their only hope in getting back home alive and in one piece, and maybe even geting home at all - after all the Bush cabal and their over friendly newsmongers are ramping up the rhetoric on Iran now just as I predicted 13 months ago.

Problems with military absentee ballots that clouded the 2000 election have not been fixed, jeopardizing the ability of more than 160,000 troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to have their votes counted this fall.

Via Shameless Agitator

Well you can add Linda Ronstadt, hired to perform for one night at the Las Vegas Aladdin Hotel, to the list of performers that have been fired because they had the nerve to speak their mind about Bush and company. However in this case I don't blame them.

Singer Linda Ronstadt was fired by a Las Vegas casino for praising filmmaker Michael Moore and his new movie Fahrenheit 9/11 during a performance.

Before singing Desperado for an encore Saturday night, Ronstadt called Moore a "great American patriot" and "someone who is spreading the truth." She also encouraged the audience at the Aladdin hotel-casino to see the documentary about President George W. Bush.

Ronstadt's comments drew loud boos and some of the 4,500 people in attendance stormed out of the theatre. People also tore down concert posters and tossed cocktails into the air.

"It was a very ugly scene," Aladdin president Bill Timmins said.

"She praised him and all of a sudden all bedlam broke loose."

Timmins said he didn't allow Ronstadt back in her luxury suite afterward and she was escorted off the property.

Ronstadt "spoiled a wonderful evening for our guests and we had to do something about it," Timmins said.

I'm sure some people will try and make this out to be a case of free speech, but it is no more a case of that than shouting fire in crowded theatre is. Both cases are property right cases not free speech. In the US the 1st ammendment, and in Canada the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, only covers protection of speech against government regulations. There is zero protection for speach that occurs on private property and that is the way it should be so long as private property exists. The rights of the property owner, as set out by government because all property rights are assigned by government (right of eminent domain), supercede those of anyone else on the property except in certain circumstances represetatives of that government.

It is always wrong to bring up the concept of free speech when that speech occurs on private property unless you are the owner of that property.

If you haven't seen the animation "This Land" yet go have a look. Turn up your speakers.

I was checking out my referrers to see who's dropped by recently and I run across some Canadian right winger's site Brock: on the Attack who linked to me in a piece of drivel he wrote today. Note his URL noncogent.blogspot.com - a most appropriate moniker

and of course the prefix non gives you the opposite of that definition. As I said most fitting for the vacuous thoughts that appear to be his forte. Here's what he thinks is intelligent thought:

Next stop is Doug’s Dynamic Drivel, who could at least do the world the decency of putting up a picture of himself in a more groomed state. But aesthetics aside, we once again find no mention of this critical subject. Surprisingly though, he does make mention of Howard Stern on July 16th. I won’t describe the irony.

His apparent topic of conversation tonight is the CRTC's decision to lift the license of some radio station in Montreal. Seemingly, like most right wingers, he is under the misguided impression that everybody reads the same newspapers as he does, listens to the same news as he does and holds the same issues in importance as he does. He seems to think, and I will use that term very loosely in his case, that if someone doesn't comment on something he finds important that means they are deliberately ignoring the subject. It never seems to occur to him that it either never crossed their radar screen (as in my case in this instance) or is not of sufficient importance to that person in relation to other things they are involved in to warrant comment.

This blindness reminds me of another, though more intelligent, conservative blogger who, when I used to read him, made similar errors of perception on a regular basis. My hunch is this Brock fellow is an typical arroganyt Easterner and thus thinks that the rest of Canada revolves around him and his neighbours, at least the impression of his attitude matches that pattern.

I'm baffled by his mention of Howard Stern though. The only mention I made about Howard was to point to a cartoon a friend of mine drew at the request of one of Stern's cast members. There was no discussion there about censorship or Stern's recent troubles with the FCC, which I assume is what he's referring to (it seems to be what this Montreal radio station's problem is all about, apparently the CRTC revoked their license for continuously breaking CRTC regulations regarding on air speech - that's all I know about the case), otherwise why bring it up. Why would there be, Sterbn's troubles with the FCC had nothing to do with the post. Like I said this Brock guy is a mental midget or deliberately taking things out of context in order to make them appear to be what they are not, another favourite trick of the right, likely both.

To confirm his superficiality he comments on my appearance. I'll refrain from commenting on his.

What he leaves out of his post is even more revealing. You'd think if he was so concerned with free speech and the CRTC's decisions he would have at least noted that I made mention of the Al-Jazeera decision, a decision in favour of free speech by the CRTC if ever there was one (although it is not a case of free speech). But no nary a hint of that. I'll assume he just didn't notice it. What he also overlooks is that free speech on the public airwaves is not a right guaranteed by our constitution. Use of the airwaves by a commercial, or private, entity is a privilege not a right, and as such is governed by a strict set of regulations. Regulations that each license holder is well aware of before they ever get into the game and regulations that spell out, quite well, the circumstances under which you can lose your license. The CRTC does not yank licenses arbitrarily nor do they do it over a single instance. If this station's license was yanked (as I said I have not heard of this until now - too busy working and hiking to pay much attention to anything that isn't in my inbox) then it was done after numerous warnings for breaking regulations. It's the station management's fault not the CRTC's. But I guess rule of law is not important to him if he can ignore it in order to take umbrage over left leaning blogs failing to take notice of what he deems important. What a moron - I've wasted enough bandwidth on him.

It might be a smart thing this election year for the Democrats to really go after Tom DeLay as a means of pointing out how corrupt Bush and his administration are, and they have a lot of ammunition to do it with. Recent revelations show that in 2001 DeLay put he squeeze on Enron for a $100K contribution to his PAC and to be used to pay for the redistricting of Texas that has ensured the Republicans will own that state for a very long time. Additionally Delay illegally used the Federal Aviation Administration to track down the Democratic legislators who had fled from the state to try and block the redistricting effort by eliminating the necessary quorum in the legislature.

DeLay requested that the new donation come from "a combination of corporate and personal money from Enron's executives," with the understanding that it would be partly spent on "the redistricting effort in Texas," said the e-mail to Kenneth L. Lay from lobbyists Rick Shapiro and Linda Robertson.

Big mistake for DeLay - this is strictly against the law in Texas and a Texan prosecutor has spent the last 20 months digging up the evidence. The Dems need to jump all over this but it looks like it is going to essentially get buried in the house ethics committee,

Unfortunately, there's no sunshine law that covers the gatherings of the 10-member ethics committee – the only House committee divided equally among Republicans and Democrats: "Panel meetings are closed to the public and investigations are rarely acknowledged," the AP reported. In addition, all participants, including clerks and secretaries "must swear to reveal nothing confidential."

four Republican members of which received money from DeLay's PAC

From 1997 through May 2004, according to Federal Election Commission records, DeLay's political action committee, Americans for a Republican Majority (ARMPAC) and the Tom DeLay Congressional Committee: $14,777 to Rep. Kenny Hulshof of Missouri - $9,000 in contributions came in 2000; $8,053 to Rep. Steven LaTourette of Ohio; $2,764 to Rep. Judy Biggert of Illinois in 1998; and $1,410 to Rep. Doc Hastings of Washington, also in 1998. Rep. Joel Hefley of Colorado, the ethics committee chairman, received no money from DeLay's political action committee.

The Democrats need to focus on these kind of misdeeds and abuses of power to point out to middle America that the current occupants and friends of the White House do not represent American values but in fact the opposite.

Frank has an open letter to Kofi Annan the UN Secretary that all Americans should read. When you are finished reading it consider sending it to the UN if you are an American. If you, like me, are not an American then consider writing one of your own that outlines how important it is to everyone else on the planet that the US elections be fair elections, elections that truly represent the will of the people and not that of the fear mongers in the White House.

Dear Secretary Annan and President Hunte:

I am a citizen of the United States of America and I grieve for democracy in my country. Since the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the appointment of George W. Bush to the Chief Executive's Office in January, 2001 I have considered requesting United Nations supervision of elections in my country until such time as democracy may be restored. The time has come for me to put thoughts into action and write to you for your guidance and support in helping the people of the United States to extricate themselves from a complex situation involving compromised leadership.

Well it's about time. In an interview today with the Washington Post Kerry says:

"The value of truth is one of the most central values in America, and this administration has violated" "Their values system is distorted and not based on truth."

Well John it is about fucking time you stood up and called Bush a liar, next time try using the word liar and be forecefull about it.

Back in June of 2002 I told you about a John Dean article that discusses how Bush and his thugs could turn the US into a constitutional dictatorship by using terorist attacks and the never ending war on terror to postpone federal elections. If you thought that was an unlikely possibility you were wrong.

Americam democracy is under a threat far worse than al-Qaeda or "gay marriages". Remember in 2001 when the NY elections were postponed because of 9/11? Well the Bush administration is actively seeking a legal basis for postponing the 2004 presidential elections if there is a terrorist attack intended to disrupt the elections.

July 19 issue - American counterterrorism officials, citing what they call "alarming" intelligence about a possible Qaeda strike inside the United States this fall, are reviewing a proposal that could allow for the postponement of the November presidential election in the event of such an attack, NEWSWEEK has learned.

The PATRIOT act has reduced your rights, this is the next step in stripping you of them altogether. DO NOT LET ThIS HAPPEN AMERICA

Thanks to for the link to the Newsweek article.

The NYT today reports the latest twist in the Florida (you know that state where GWBs brother is the governor) felon's list debacle. In 2000 some 60,000 supposed felons were banned from voting in the presidential election due their being on the felons list (many of whom wewre not felons). Now wonder of wonders the vast majority of those people turned out to be black and, now remember this is just coincidence, blacks in Florida vote overwhelmingly Democrat. This year there is a new twist, the list has supposedly been cleaned up but lo and behold the vast majority are still black and there is hardly a hispanic on the list. The fact that the overwhelming majority of hispanics in Florida vote Republican couldn't have anything to do with it I'm sure, just coincidental, that's all. No I guess we are left to assume that by an outstanding margin hispanics are an amazingly law abiding ethnic group in Florida. Yeah that's got to be it.

Greg Palast is on a roll. With the arrest of Ken Lay he has a few words to say about the Bush's and Enron in his latest articleGIVE IT BACK, GEORGE: THE LAY LOOT THAT BOUGHT WHITE HOUSE

BTW - anyone else have the thought that the arrest of Lay before the election is yet another sign that Bush is finished?

While watching the News with Jim Lehrer on PBS tonight I saw a segment on soldiers in the Oregon National Guard being called up for duty in Iraq. In the course of that segment it was made clear the the Governor of Oregon has attended each and every deployment of guardsmen from Oregon and also he has attended each and every funeral of armed forces personnel from Oregon. Proving he is more of a man, more of an American and more importantly more human that the current occupant of the White House who not only has not as yet attended a single American forces personnel funeral but has tried to hide the evidence of those deaths from the American public.

AP reports today that the CIA withheld knowledge that Iraq did not have any WMD from Bush et al.

WASHINGTON -- Some damning evidence has been uncovered by the U.S. government committee looking into Washington's pre-war intelligence on Iraq.

Before the war, the CIA was told by relatives of Iraqi scientists that Baghdad's programs to develop unconventional weapons had been abandoned.

However, the CIA failed to pass on that nugget of information to U.S. President Bush.

Well the CIA was only one source of information Bush used to "make his decision". You know that decision that was made before he even took office. The CIA wuill make a goodwhipping boy though and blaming the Iraq war on them will sway a lot of voters on the edge back to Bush.

In the results of the recent Canadian federal election the Bush factor must be taken into account. By and large Canadians are more to the left of center than the right. Canadians have watched, with a mixture of incredulity and concern, the shift to the right in the US and the absolute incompetence and deceitfulness of the Bush administration.

Stephen Harper and the New Conservative Party are as close to the neocons as you get in Canadian politics. The make the claim that they represent the old Conservative Party of Canada, a party in disgrace after years of taxpayer abuse by Brian Mulroney, as well as the old Reform and Alliance parties. Last year the Alliance party absorbed the old Conservative party in what amounted to, in corporate terms, a hostile take over.

The old Conservative Party of Canada was barely to the right of center and had quite a few "red" Tories in the membership. Conservatives who were fiscally conservative but socially liberal. It was these red Tories who Brian Mulroney pissed off enough to cause them to toss the Conservatives out of office by voting for the Liberals in the 1993 election (Mulroney, knowing his time was up had left the leadership of the party to Kim Campbell who only got to server as PM for a couple of months). The Conservative Party of Canada never recovered from that election, they went from the ruling majority party (more than 155 seats) to obscurity with only 2 seats in 1993 and the most they recovered from that was to go to 20 seats in 1997 and then dropping again to 12 seats in 2000. There were a lot of reasons for this thrashing. Partly it was due to the failed attempts by Mulroney to reform the Canadian constitution and the poor state of the economy. mostly though I think it was because Mulroney's trade and economic policies were seen, and rightfully so, as sell outs of Canadian sovereignty to US interests, particularly corporate interests.

The New Conservative Party is a fraud. It is really no more than the Reform Party, a western separatist party, that has changed its name, and not for the first time. I call them frauds because they seek to deceive the Canadian population by changing names in order to try and make people forget the party's genesis. The original Reform Party was a party largely controlled by fundamentalist Christians, misogynists, homophobics and racists. The latter three were mostly not too overt in public but for anyone who looked closely it was there to see, neatly disguise in Family Values rhetoric and other policies. Because of this the Reform Party was not very popular outside of the two western provinces of Alberta and BC.

In Alberta they were popular because there was a long standing hatred there of Ottawa, due mostly to the efforts of Pierre Trudeau and the Liberals, years earlier, in imposing a national Energy Policy that basically said to Alberta - all that oil and natural gas you have is first and foremost a Canadian resource and the rest of Canada should benefit from it as well as Albertans. Naturally the largely American owned oil and gas companies that had/have the Alberta oil and gas fields sewn up didn't like that. BC backed Reform (although not to the same extent that Alberta did) because BC has always seen itself as being ignored by Ottawa, a fact not helped by Pierre Trudeau literally giving BC the finger in Salmon Arm while traveling through BC in 1982.

So in 1999 the Reform Party renamed itself the Canadian Alliance Party in an attempt to fool the citizens of Eastern Canada that they were no longer a western separatist party, not to mention the other baggage. Then when that didn't really work,(in the 2000 election they only won 2 seats east of Manitoba), they hijacked the old Conservative Party of Canada in 2002. At their core though it is still the same Reform Party strategists and power brokers that run this new party, and that means it is still the party of choice for fundamentalist Christians, racists, misogynists and homophobics. Some might call them chameleons, me, well the politest thing I call them is frauds.

I started this post after reading an article, Fear of Hidden Agenda Swung Canadian Vote, in the Washington Post. Canada is not, in US terms, a "red" state. It never has been and I sincerely hope it never will be. The Canadian public was right to suspect the New Conservatives of a hidden agenda. In Lakoff's terms the New Conservatives, like the Republicans south of the 49th, fall into the "strict Father" category. This is a useful metaphor to use. Think about a fundamentalist Christian family and you have the right idea. Father knows best what's good for you even if you disagree, do not ask questions, obey unquestioningly. This is the very type of mindset that breeds secret agendas. Canadians found that out to their dismay when Brian Mulroney led the old Conservative Party of Canada and was elected with a majority government. He campaigned on a platform of no GST (Goods and Services Tax - a federal tax on almost everything), no FTA (Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the US) and later no NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement). The ink was barely dry on his mandate before he brought those into being. That was one of the Conservatives hidden agendas. It's what they do because they really believe they know what's best for everyone - they believe it, it's their world view and in that worldview ends justify the means because it is for the greater good.

The Canadian public was/is rightfully angry and disappointed with the Liberal government. The sponsorship scandal is just that a scandal, but it occurred on Chretien's watch not Paul Martin's. Martin and his Liberals need to be given the opportunity to prove or disprove themselves and a minority government is the best way for that to happen. The Canadian public chose well and in doing so sent the New Conservatives a message. We don't like hidden agendas and we do not want to be America Lite - we don't like Bush and his ilk north of the 49th . We will never be a Bush league.

Liberals: 135
New Conservatives: 99
Bloc Quebecois: 54
New Democratic Party: 19
Other: 1

Well this is not what i would have preferred to see. The NDP are one seat short of having the power position of combining with the Liberal minority to form a majority coalition. Nearly all of the most important social and environmental legislation by the Canadian federal government has been the result of the NDP and it predecessor the CCF putting pressure on minority governments.

Now the liberals are going to have to deal with the separatist Bloc Quebecois and that is never good for Canada. The Bloc's main goals are to get as much goodies for Quebec as possible while at the same time planning for the next referendum on separation. I fear for Canada as a country, I don't think we are going to survive much longer. Support for the Bloc skyrocketed in this election. I hope the increase was largely a protest vote against the Liberals but it could be much more than that, and the fact that the New Conservatives washed out in Quebec indicates it could very well be a resurgence of separatism.

Now it is going to be a game of trying to bring down the government and force a new election without looking like the party responsible for doing it. If Paul Martin has half a brain he will turn the dogs loose on everyone and anyone responsible for the sponsorship scandal. If he can do that effectively he will take away the single biggest complaint the Conservatives or the Bloc had in this recent election.

OK so much for the bad news :-) The good news is the gains the Green Party made in this election. In the 2000 election they only received about 1,100 votes, or about 0.08% of the vote across all of Canada. This year they ran candidates in all 309 ridings and they received 580,690 votes or 4.3% of the vote. Unless my math escapes me that's about a 5000% increase :-). This qualifies the party for $1.75 per vote per year until the next election. With $1,016,207.50 a year in financing the Green Party will be able to afford to hire organizers. I predict that if we have 2 years or more before the next election this money will make enough of a difference that the Greens will elect someone.

Leading in and elected ridings:

Liberal: 135
Conservative: 97
Bloc: 54
NDP: 21
Other: 1 (Not the Greens)

This is not good. A majority of seats is 155 seats. The total of NDP and Liberal seats at present is only 156. If the NDP slip 2 more seats and those seats go to the Conservatives then we will be headed for a very ugly time in Canada.

Liberal: 138
Conservative: 84
Bloc: 52
NDP: 24
Other: 1 (Not the Greens)

This now gives the Liberals enough with the NDP to form a minority government. This would be the best possible outcome. The NDP will make the Liberals stick to a socially progressive agenda.

The CBC has just taken the bold stance to declare the Liberals will form a minority government. The numbers don't look good though because it takes 155 seats to form a majority. At present count the Liberals have 128, the New Conservatives 84, the NDP 18 and the Bloc 53 with 28 seats still to count mostly in the West which is a conservative stronghold. The Bloc won't help any other party stay in power, in fact a quick defeat of a minority government would be just their cake. The Bloc is a separatist party and they would love the government to fail so they could tell Quebecois see - Canada doesn't work let's go our own way. That leaves the NDP and the Conservatives. There are not enough NDP seats at present to push the Liberals over the number needed.

Congratulations need to go out to the NDP by the way - they have recouped their place in parliament and would, if we had a true proportional representation democracy, have a lot more seats. They have truly shone in this election.

Watching the returns on CBC Newsworld and watched the commentator (Peter Mansbridge) choke for a moment when he said the Green Party was leading in one riding in BC - Vanncouver Island North. Well as it turned out there had only been 10 votes counted at that point :-) but you could see he just didn't believe it. Better get used to it dude - the Greens are going to elect someone soon, if not this election then the next one.

Today is a national election here in Canada and there is a very real possibility that our own version of the neocons will form a majority or minority government. I was faced with the decision to vote my conscience or vote strategically. Fortunately the riding (district) I live in is so far to the right that I knew I could safely vote my conscience and it wouldn't make a difference in who wins this riding. For this reason I chose to vote for the Canadian Green party (http://www.greenparty.ca). I realize my candidate will not get elected, not by a long shot, but there are new rules in Canada that grant political parties $4 per vote they receive to go toward the next election. By voting Green I gave them more money to campaign with next time and that struck me as a better use of my vote than voting for he Liberals in the hope of defeating the brownshirt New Conservative candidate in my riding.

The USSC has ruled that Guantánamo prisoners can challenge their imprisonment in US courts. That means they now have the right to legal representation and are covered by all constitutional rights any prisoner in the US would have. This is a major blow to the freedom stealing Bushies. The tide is turning. No surprise as to who the three dissenting judges were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Justice Clarence Thomas.

via The Guardian

Gore has recently been making some damn fine speeches. He seems to have found a place in which he's comfortable and from which he can comment on the problems of the world. He has become much more of a statesman than he was in the past. The Democratic Party should find out what he's eating or what medication he's taking that's caused this change and feed it to Kerry. Gore would be a far better president than Kerry and he proves it every time he speaks.

If he keeps this up then he's going to be stiff competition for Hillary in 2008, if Bush gets re-elected this year, or 2012 if Kerry gets elected this year. I would be very surprised if Gore didn't make another run at the oval office.

When we Americans first began, our biggest danger was clearly in view: we knew from the bitter experience with King George III that the most serious threat to democracy is usually the accumulation of too much power in the hands of an executive, whether he be a king or a president. Our ingrained American distrust of concentrated power has very little to do with the character or persona of the individual who wields that power. It is the power itself that must be constrained, checked, dispersed and carefully balanced, in order to ensure the survival of freedom. In addition, our founders taught us that public fear is the most dangerous enemy of democracy because under the right circumstances it can trigger the temptation of those who govern themselves to surrender that power to someone who promises strength and offers safety, security and freedom from fear.

It is an extraordinary blessing to live in a nation so carefully designed to protect individual liberty and safeguard self-governance and free communication. But if George Washington could see the current state of his generation’s handiwork and assess the quality of our generation’s stewardship at the beginning of this 21st century, what do you suppose he would think about the proposition that our current president claims the unilateral right to arrest and imprison American citizens indefinitely without giving them the right to see a lawyer or inform their families of their whereabouts, and without the necessity of even charging them with any crime. All that is necessary, according to our new president is that he—the president—label any citizen an “unlawful enemy combatant,” and that will be sufficient to justify taking away that citizen’s liberty—even for the rest of his life, if the president so chooses. And there is no appeal.

What would Thomas Jefferson think of the curious and discredited argument from our Justice Department that the president may authorize what plainly amounts to the torture of prisoners—and that any law or treaty that attempts to constrain his treatment of prisoners in time of war is itself a violation of the constitution our founders put together.

What would Benjamin Franklin think of President Bush’s assertion that he has the inherent power—even without a declaration of war by the Congress—to launch an invasion of any nation on Earth, at any time he chooses, for any reason he wishes, even if that nation poses no imminent threat to the United States.

How long would it take James Madison to dispose of our current president’s recent claim, in Department of Justice legal opinions, that he is no longer subject to the rule of law so long as he is acting in his role as Commander in Chief?

I think it is safe to say that our founders would be genuinely concerned about these recent developments in American democracy and that they would feel that we are now facing a clear and present danger that has the potential to threaten the future of the American experiment.

Shouldn’t we be equally concerned? And shouldn’t we ask ourselves how we have come to this point?

Even though we are now attuned to orange alerts and the potential for terrorist attacks, our founders would almost certainly caution us that the biggest threat to the future of the America we love is still the endemic challenge that democracies have always faced whenever they have appeared in history—a challenge rooted in the inherent difficulty of self governance and the vulnerability to fear that is part of human nature. Again, specifically, the biggest threat to America is that we Americans will acquiesce in the slow and steady accumulation of too much power in the hands of one person.

Having painstakingly created the intricate design of America, our founders knew intimately both its strengths and weaknesses, and during their debates they not only identified the accumulation of power in the hands of the executive as the long-term threat which they considered to be the most serious, but they also worried aloud about one specific scenario in which this threat might become particularly potent—that is, when war transformed America’s president into our commander in chief, they worried that his suddenly increased power might somehow spill over its normal constitutional boundaries and upset the delicate checks and balances they deemed so crucial to the maintenance of liberty.

That is precisely why they took extra care to parse the war powers in the constitution, assigning the conduct of war and command of the troops to the president, but retaining for the Congress the crucial power of deciding whether or not, and when, our nation might decide to go war.

Indeed, this limitation on the power of the executive to make war was seen as crucially important. James Madison wrote in a letter to Thomas Jefferson: “The constitution supposes, what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislature.”

In more recent decades, the emergence of new weapons that virtually eliminate the period of time between the decision to go to war and the waging of war have naturally led to a reconsideration of the exact nature of the executive’s war-making power. But the practicalities of modern warfare which necessarily increase the war powers of the president at the expense of Congress do not render moot the concerns our founders had so long ago that the making of war by the president—when added to his other powers—carries with it the potential for unbalancing the careful design of our constitution, and in the process, threatening our liberty.

They were greatly influenced—far more than we can imagine—by a careful reading of the history and human dramas surrounding the democracies of ancient Greece and the Roman republic. They knew, for example, that democracy disappeared in Rome when Caesar crossed the Rubicon in violation of the Senate’s long prohibition against a returning general entering the city while still in command of military forces. Though the Senate lingered in form and was humored for decades, when Caesar impoliticly combined his military commander role with his chief executive role, the Senate—and with it the Republic—withered away. And then, for all intents and purposes, the great dream of democracy disappeared from the face of the Earth for 17 centuries, until its rebirth in our land.

Symbolically, President Bush has been attempting to conflate his commander-in-chief role and his head of government role to maximize the power people are eager to give those who promise to defend them against active threats. But as he does so, we are witnessing some serious erosion of the checks and balances that have always maintained a healthy democracy in America.

In Justice Jackson’s famous concurring opinion in the Youngstown Steel case in the 1950’s—the single most important Supreme Court case on the subject of what powers are inherent to the commander in chief in a time of war—he wrote, “The example of such unlimited executive power that must have most impressed the forefathers was the prerogative exercised by George III, and the description of its evils in the declaration of independence leads me to doubt that they created their new Executive in their image…and if we seek instruction from our own times, we can match it only from the Executive governments we disparagingly describe as totalitarian.”

I am convinced that our founders would counsel us today that the greatest challenge facing our republic is not terrorism but how we react to terrorism, and not war, but how we manage our fears and achieve security without losing our freedom. I am also convinced that they would warn us that democracy itself is in grave danger if we allow any president to use his role as commander in chief to rupture the careful balance between the executive, the legislative and the judicial branches of government. Our current president has gone to war and has come back into “the city” and declared that our nation is now in a permanent state of war, which he says justifies his reinterpretation of the Constitution in ways that increase his personal power at the expense of Congress, the courts and every individual citizen.

We must surrender some of our traditional American freedoms, he tells us, so that he may have sufficient power to protect us against those who would do us harm. Public fear remains at an unusually high level almost three years after we were attacked on September 11, 2001. In response to those devastating attacks, the president properly assumed his role as commander in chief and directed a military invasion of the land in which our attackers built their training camps, were harbored and planned their assault. But just as the tide of battle was shifting decisively in our favor, the commander in chief made a controversial decision to divert a major portion of our army to invade another country that, according to the best evidence compiled in a new, exhaustive, bipartisan study, posed no imminent threat to us and had nothing to do with the attack against us.

As the main body of our troops were redeployed for the new invasion, those who organized the attacks against us escaped and many of them are still at large. Indeed, their overall numbers seem to have grown considerably because our invasion of the country that did not pose any imminent threat to us was perceived in their part of the world as a gross injustice, and the way in which we have conducted that war further fueled a sense of rage against the United States in those lands and, according to several studies, has stimulated a wave of new recruits for the terrorist group that attacked us and still wishes us harm.

A little over a year ago, when we launched the war against this second country, Iraq, President Bush repeatedly gave our people the clear impression that Iraq was an ally and partner to the terrorist group that attacked us, Al Qaeda, and not only provided a geographic base for them but was also close to providing them weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear bombs. But now the extensive independent investigation by the bipartisan commission formed to study the 9/11 attacks has just reported that there was no meaningful relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda of any kind. And, of course, over the course of this past year we had previously found out that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So now, the president and the vice president are arguing with this commission, and they are insisting that the commission is wrong and they are right, and that there actually was a working co-operation between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

The problem for the president is that he doesn’t have any credible evidence to support his claim, and yet, in spite of that, he persists in making that claim vigorously. So I would like to pause for a moment to address the curious question of why President Bush continues to make this claim that most people know is wrong. And I think it’s particularly important because it is closely connected to the questions of constitutional power with which I began this speech, and will profoundly affect how that power is distributed among our three branches of government.

To begin with, our founders wouldn’t be the least bit surprised at what the modern public opinion polls all tell us about why it’s so important particularly for President Bush to keep the American people from discovering that what he told them about the linkage between Iraq and Al Qaeda isn’t true. Among these Americans who still believe there is a linkage, there remains very strong support for the president’s decision to invade Iraq. But among those who accept the commission’s detailed finding that there is no connection, support for the war in Iraq dries up pretty quickly.

And that’s understandable, because if Iraq had nothing to do with the attack or the organization that attacked us, then that means the president took us to war when he didn’t have to. Almost 900 of our soldiers have been killed, and almost 5,000 have been wounded.

Thus, for all these reasons, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have decided to fight to the rhetorical death over whether or not there’s a meaningful connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. They think that if they lose that argument and people see the truth, then they’ll not only lose support for the controversial decision to go to war, but also lose some of the new power they’ve picked up from the Congress and the courts, and face harsh political consequences at the hands of the American people. As a result, President Bush is now intentionally misleading the American people by continuing to aggressively and brazenly assert a linkage between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

If he is not lying, if they genuinely believe that, that makes them unfit in battle with Al Qaeda. If they believe these flimsy scraps, then who would want them in charge? Are they too dishonest or too gullible? Take your pick.

But the truth is gradually emerging in spite of the president’s determined dissembling. Listen, for example, to this editorial from the Financial Times : “There was nothing intrinsically absurd about the WMD fears, or ignoble about the opposition to Saddam’s tyranny—however late Washington developed this. The purported link between Baghdad and Al Qaeda, by contrast, was never believed by anyone who knows Iraq and the region. It was and is nonsense.”

Of course, the first rationale presented for the war was to destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, which turned out not to exist. Then the rationale was to liberate Iraqis and the Middle East from tyranny, but our troops were not greeted with the promised flowers and are now viewed as an occupying force by 92 percent of Iraqis, while only 2 percent see them as liberators.

But right from the start, beginning very soon after the attacks of 9/11, President Bush made a decision to start mentioning Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in the same breath in a cynical mantra designed to fuse them together as one in the public’s mind. He repeatedly used this device in a highly disciplined manner to create a false impression in the minds of the American people that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. Usually he was pretty tricky in his exact wording. Indeed, Bush’s consistent and careful artifice is itself evidence that he knew full well that he was telling an artful and important lie—visibly circumnavigating the truth over and over again as if he had practiced how to avoid encountering the truth. But as I will document in a few moments, he and Vice President Cheney also sometimes departed from their tricky wording and resorted to statements were clearly outright falsehoods. In any case, by the time he was done, public opinion polls showed that fully 70 percent of the American people had gotten the message he wanted them to get, and had been convinced that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

The myth that Iraq and Al Qaeda were working together was no accident—the president and vice president deliberately ignored warnings before the war from international intelligence services, the CIA, and their own Pentagon that the claim was false. Europe’s top terrorism investigator said in 2002, "We have found no evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. If there were such links, we would have found them. But we have found no serious connections whatsoever.” A classified October 2002 CIA report given to the White House directly undercut the Iraq-Al Qaeda claim. Top officials in the Pentagon told reporters in 2002 that the rhetoric being used by President Bush and Vice President Cheney was “an exaggeration.”

And at least some honest voices within the president’s own party admitted as such. Sen. Chuck Hagel, a decorated war hero who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee, said point blank, "Saddam is not in league with Al Qaeda…I have not seen any intelligence that would lead me to connect Saddam Hussein with Al Qaeda."

But those voices did not stop the deliberate campaign to mislead America. Over the course of a year, the president and vice president used carefully crafted language to scare Americans into believing there was an imminent threat from an Iraq-armed Al Qaeda.

In the fall of 2002, the president told the country “You can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam” and that the “true threat facing our country is an Al Qaeda-type network trained and armed by Saddam.” At the same time, Vice President Cheney was repeating his claim that “there is overwhelming evidence there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government.”

By the spring, Secretary of State Powell was in front of the United Nations claiming a “sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network.”

But after the invasion, no ties were found. In June of 2003, the United Nations Security Council’s Al Qaeda monitoring agency told reporters his extensive investigation had found no evidence linking the Iraqi regime to Al Qaeda. By August, three former Bush administration national security and intelligence officials admitted that the evidence used to make the Iraq-Al Qaeda claim was “tenuous, exaggerated and often at odds with the conclusion of key intelligence agencies.” And earlier this year, Knight-Ridder newspapers reported “Senior U.S. officials now say there never was any evidence” of a connection.

So when the bipartisan 9/11 commission issued its report finding “no credible evidence” of an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection, it should not have caught the White House off guard. Yet instead of the candor Americans need and deserve from their leaders, there have been more denials and more insistence without evidence. Vice President Cheney insisted even this week that “there clearly was a relationship” and that there is “overwhelming evidence.” Even more shocking, Cheney offered this disgraceful question: “Was Iraq involved with Al Qaeda in the attack on 9/11? We don’t know.” He then claimed that he “probably” had more information than the commission, but has so far refused to provide anything to the commission other than more insults.

The president was even more brazen. He dismissed all questions about his statements by saying “The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.” He provided no evidence.

Friends of the administration tried mightily to rehabilitate their cherished but shattered linkage. John Lehman, one of the Republicans on the commission, offered what sounded like new evidence that a Saddam henchman had attended an Al Qaeda meeting. But within hours, the commissions files yielded definitive evidence that it was another man with a similar name—ironically capturing the near-miss quality of Bush’s entire symbolic argument.

They have such an overwhelming political interest in sustaining the belief in the minds of the American people that Hussein was in partnership with bin Laden that they dare not admit the truth lest they look like complete fools for launching our country into a reckless, discretionary war against a nation that posed no immediate threat to us whatsoever. But the damage they have done to our country is not limited to misallocation of military economic political resources. Whenever a chief executive spends prodigious amounts of energy convincing people of lies, he damages the fabric of democracy, and the belief in the fundamental integrity of our self-government.

That creates a need for control over the flood of bad news, bad policies and bad decisions also explains their striking attempts to control news coverage.

To take the most recent example, Vice President Cheney was clearly ready to do battle with the news media when he went on CNBC earlier this week to attack news coverage of the 9/11 Commission’s conclusion that Iraq did not work with Al Qaeda. He lashed out at the New York Times for having the nerve to print a headline saying the 9/11 commission “finds no Qaeda-Iraq Tie”—a clear statement of the obvious—and said there is no “fundamental split here now between what the president said and what the commission said.” He tried to deny that he had personally been responsible for helping to create the false impression of linkage between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

Ironically, his interview ended up being fodder for the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Stewart played Cheney’s outright denial that he had ever said that representatives of Al Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence met in Prague. Then Stewart froze Cheney’s image and played the exact video clip in which Cheney had indeed directly claimed linkage between the two, catching him on videotape in a lie. At that point Stewart said, addressing himself to Cheney’s frozen image on the television screen, “It’s my duty to inform you that your pants are on fire.”

Dan Rather says that post-9/11 patriotism has stifled journalists from asking government officials “the toughest of the tough questions.” Rather went so far as to compare administration efforts to intimidate the press to “necklacing” in apartheid South Africa, while acknowledging it as “an obscene comparison.” “The fear is that you will be necklaced here (in the U.S.), you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck,” Rather explained. It was CBS, remember, that withheld the Abu Ghraib photographs from the American people for two weeks at the request of the Bush administration.

Donald Rumsfeld has said that criticism of the administration’s policy “makes it complicated and more difficult” to fight the war. CNN’s Christiane Amanpour said on CNBC last September, “I think the press was muzzled and I think the press self-muzzled. I’m sorry to say but certainly television, and perhaps to a certain extent my station, was intimidated by the administration.”

The administration works closely with a network of “rapid response” digital Brown Shirts who work to pressure reporters and their editors for “undermining support for our troops.” Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist, was one of the first journalists to regularly expose the president’s consistent distortions of the facts. Krugman writes, “Let’s not overlook the role of intimidation. After 9/11, if you were thinking of saying anything negative of the president…you had to expect right-wing pundits and publications to do all they could to ruin your reputation.

Bush and Cheney are spreading purposeful confusion while punishing reporters who stand in the way. It is understandably difficult for reporters and journalistic institutions to resist this pressure, which, in the case of individual journalists, threatens their livelihoods, and in the case of the broadcasters can lead to other forms of economic retribution. But resist they must, because without a press able to report “without fear or favor” our democracy will disappear.

Recently, the media has engaged in some healthy self-criticism of the way it allowed the White House to mislead the public into war under false pretenses. We are dependent on the media, especially the broadcast media, to never let this happen again. We must help them resist this pressure for everyone’s sake, or we risk other wrong-headed decisions based upon false and misleading impressions.

We are left with an unprecedented, high-intensity conflict every single day between the ideological illusions upon which this administration’s policies have been based and the reality of the world in which the American people live their lives.

When you boil it all down to precisely what went wrong with the Bush Iraq policy, it is actually fairly simple: he adopted an ideologically driven view of Iraq that was tragically at odds with reality. Everything that has gone wrong is in one way or another the result of a spectacular and violent clash between the bundle of misconceptions that he gullibly consumed and the all-too-painful reality that our troops and contractors and diplomats and taxpayers have encountered. Of course, there have been several other collisions between President Bush’s ideology and America’s reality. To take the most prominent example, the transformation of a $5 trillion surplus into a $4 trillion deficit is in its own way just as spectacular a miscalculation as the Iraq war.

But there has been no more bizarre or troubling manifestation of how seriously off track this president’s policies have taken America than the two profound shocks to our nation’s conscience during the last month. First came the extremely disturbing pictures that document strange forms of physical and sexual abuse—and even torture and murder—by some of our soldiers against people they captured as prisoners in Iraq. And then, the second shock came just last week, with strange and perverted legal memoranda from inside the administration, which actually sought to justify torture and to somehow provide a legal rationale for bizarre and sadistic activities conducted in the name of the American people, which, according to any reasonable person, would be recognized as war crimes. In making their analysis, the administration lawyers concluded that the president, whenever he is acting in his role as commander in chief, is above and immune from the “rule of law.” At least we don’t have to guess what our founders would have to say about this bizarre and un-American theory.

By the middle of this week, the uproar caused by the disclosure of this legal analysis had forced the administration to claim they were throwing the memo out and it was, “irrelevant and overbroad.” But no one in the administration has said that the reasoning was wrong. And in fact, a DOJ spokesman says they stand by the tortured definition of torture. In addition the broad analysis regarding the commander-in-chief powers has not been disavowed. And the view of the memo—that it was within commander-in-chief power to order any interrogation techniques necessary to extract information—most certainly contributed to the atmosphere that led to the atrocities committed against the Iraqis at Abu Ghraib. We also know that President Bush rewarded the principle author of this legal monstrosity with a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals. President Bush, meanwhile, continues to place the blame for the horrific consequences of his morally obtuse policies on the young privates and corporals and sergeants who may well be culpable as individuals for their actions, but who were certainly not responsible for the policies which set up the Bush Gulag and led to America’s strategic catastrophe in Iraq.

I call on the administration to disclose all its interrogation policies, including those used by the military in Iraq and Afghanistan and those employed by the CIA at its secret detention centers outside the U.S., as well as all the analyses related to the adoption of those policies.

The Bush administration’s objective of establishing U.S. domination over any potential adversary led to the hubristic, tragic miscalculation of the Iraq war, a painful adventure marked by one disaster after another based on one mistaken assumption after another. But the people who paid the price have been the U.S. soldiers trapped over there and the Iraqis in prison. The top-heavy focus on dominance as a goal for the U.S. role in the world is exactly paralleled in their aspiration for the role of the president to be completely dominant in the constitutional system. Our founders understood even better than Lord Acton the inner meaning of his aphorism that power corrupts and absolutely power corrupts absolutely. The goal of dominance necessitates a focus on power. Ironically, all of their didactic messages about how democracies don’t invade other nations fell on their own deaf ears. The pursuit of dominance in foreign and strategic policy led the bush administration to ignore the United nations, do serious damage to our most alliances in the world, violate international law and risk the hatred of the rest of the world. The seductive exercise of unilateral power has led this president to interpret his powers under the constitution in a way that would have been the worst nightmare of our framers.

And the kind of unilateral power he imagines is fools gold in any case. Just as its pursuit in Mesopotamia has led to tragic consequences for our soldiers, the Iraqi people, our alliances, everything we think is important, in the same way the pursuit of a new interpretation of the presidency that weakens the Congress, courts and civil society is not good for either the presidency or the rest of the nation.

If the congress becomes an enfeebled enabler to the executive, and the courts become known for political calculations in their decisions, then the country suffers. The kinds of unnatural, undemocratic activities in which this administration has engaged, in order to aggrandize power, have included censorship of scientific reports, manipulation of budgetary statistics, silencing dissent, and ignoring intelligence. Although there have been other efforts by other presidents to encroach on the legitimate prerogatives of congress and courts, there has never been this kind of systematic abuse of the truth and institutionalization of dishonesty as a routine part of the policy process.

Two hundred and twenty years ago, John Adams wrote, in describing one of America’s most basic founding principles, “The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them…to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.”

The last time we had a president who had the idea that he was above the law was when Richard Nixon told an interviewer, “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal… If the president, for example approves something, approves an action because of national security, or, in this case, because of a threat to internal peace and order, of significant order, then the president’s decision in this instance is one that enables those who carry it out to carry it out without violating the law.”

Fortunately for our country, Nixon was forced to resign as president before he could implement his outlandish interpretation of the Constitution, but not before his defiance of the Congress and the courts created a serious constitutional crisis.

The two top Justice Department officials under President Nixon, Elliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus, turned out to be men of great integrity, and even though they were loyal Republicans, they were more loyal to the constitution and resigned on principle rather than implement what they saw as abuses of power by Nixon. Then Congress, also on a bipartisan basis, bravely resisted Nixon’s abuse of power and launched impeachment proceedings.

In some ways, our current president is actually claiming significantly more extra-constitutional power, vis-à-vis Congress and the courts, than Nixon did. For example, Nixon never claimed that he could imprison American citizens indefinitely without charging them with a crime and without letting the see a lawyer or notify their families. And this time, the attorney general, John Ashcroft, is hardly the kind of man who would resign on principle to impede an abuse of power. In fact, whenever there is an opportunity to abuse power in this administration, Ashcroft seems to be leading the charge. And it is Ashcroft who picked the staff lawyers at Justice responsible for the embarrassing memos justifying and enabling torture.

Moreover, in sharp contrast to the courageous 93rd Congress that saved the country from Richard Nixon’s sinister abuses, the current Congress has virtually abdicated its constitutional role to serve as an independent and coequal branch of government.

Instead, this Republican-led Congress is content, for the most part, to take orders from the president on what they vote for and what they don’t vote for. The Republican leaders of the House and Senate have even started blocking Democrats from attending conference committee meetings, where legislation takes its final form, and instead, they let the president’s staff come to the meetings and write key parts of the laws for them. (Come to think of it, the decline and lack of independence shown by this Congress would shock our founders more than anything else, because they believed that the power of the Congress was the most important check and balance against the unhealthy exercise of too much power by the Executive branch.)

This administration has not been content just to reduce the Congress to subservience. It has also engaged in unprecedented secrecy, denying the American people access to crucial information with which they might hold government officials accountable for their actions, and a systematic effort to manipulate and intimidate the media into presenting a more favorable image of the Administration to the American people.

Listen to what U.S. News and World Report has to say about their secrecy: "The Bush administration has quietly but efficiently dropped a shroud of secrecy across many critical operations of the federal government—cloaking its own affairs from scrutiny and removing from the public domain important information on health, safety, and environmental matters."

Here are just a few examples, and for each one, you have to ask, what are they hiding, and why are they hiding it?

More than 6000 documents have been removed by the Bush administration from governmental Web sites. To cite only one example, a document on the EPA Web site giving citizens crucial information on how to identify chemical hazards to their families. Some have speculated that the principle threat to the Bush administration is a threat by the chemical hazards if the information remains available to American citizens.

To head off complaints from our nation’s governors over how much they receive under federal programs, the Bush administration simply stopped printing the primary state budget report.

To muddy the clear consensus of the scientific community on global warming, the White House directed major changes and deletions to an EPA report that were so egregious that the agency said it was too embarrassed to use the language.

They’ve kept hidden from view Cheney’s ultra-secret energy task force. They have fought a pitched battle in the courts for more than three years to continue denying the American people the ability to know which special interests and lobbyists advised with Vice President Cheney on the design of the new laws.

And when mass layoffs became too embarrassing they simply stopped publishing the regular layoff report that economists and others have been receiving for decades. For this administration, the truth hurts, when the truth is available to the American people. They find bliss in the ignorance of the people. What are they hiding, and why are they hiding it?

In the end, for this administration, it is all about power. This lie about the invented connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq was and is the key to justifying the current ongoing Constitutional power grab by the president. So long as their big flamboyant lie remains an established fact in the public’s mind, President Bush will be seen as justified in taking for himself the power to make war on his whim. He will be seen as justified in acting to selectively suspend civil liberties—again on his personal discretion—and he will continue to intimidate the press and thereby distort the political reality experienced by the American people during his bid for re-election.

War is lawful violence, but even in its midst we acknowledge the need for rules. We know that in our wars there have been descents from these standards, often the result of spontaneous anger arising out of the passion of battle. But we have never before, to my knowledge, had a situation in which the framework for this kind of violence has been created by the president, nor have we had a situation where these things were mandated by directives signed by the Secretary of Defense, as it is alleged, and supported by the National Security Advisor.

Always before, we could look to the chief executive as the point from which redress would come and law be upheld. That was one of the great prides of our country: humane leadership, faithful to the law. What we have now, however, is the result of decisions taken by a president and an administration for whom the best law is NO law, so long as law threatens to constrain their political will. And where the constraints of law cannot be prevented or eliminated, then they maneuver it to be weakened by evasion, by delay, by hair-splitting, by obstruction and by failure to enforce on the part of those sworn to uphold the law.

In these circumstances, we need investigation of the facts under oath, and in the face of penalties for evasion and perjury. We need investigation by an aroused congress whose bipartisan members know they stand before the judgment of history. We cannot depend up on a debased Department of Justice given over to the hands of zealots. “Congressional oversight” and “special prosecution” are words that should hang in the air. If our honor as a nation is to be restored, it is not by allowing the mighty to shield themselves by bringing the law to bear against their pawns: it is by bringing the law to bear against the mighty themselves. Our dignity and honor as a nation never came from our perfection as a society or as a people: it came from the belief that in the end, this was a country which would pursue justice as the compass pursues the pole: that although we might deviate, we would return and find our path. This is what we must now do.

A speech delivered by Vice President Al Gore on Thursday, June 24, 2004, at the Georgetown University Law Center.

As of June 24, 2004 - 501 of the US' top legal experts are calling for congres to assess the executive branch's accountability, with regards to the human rights abuses in Iraq, and if found culpable to proceed with impeachment.

June 16, 2004To: Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.

As members of university faculties in law, international relations, diplomacy, and public policy, we write to register our objection to the systematic violation of human rights practiced or permitted by authorities of the United States within occupied Iraq during recent months: we request Congressional action to ensure accountability for such violations and to safeguard against such egregious abuses in the future. Current circumstances require that all transcend partisan politics or considerations. Action by Congress is necessary to promote a rule of law produced and enforced through a democratic process and to protect the physical and psychological integrity of all people consistent with the traditions of our nation.

Read the whole letter and see the list of signees at www.iraq-letter.com

I wonder if Bush's handlers are smart enough to seethe opportunity that exists right now. Dump Cheney, make him the Iraq scapegoat. Then choose McCain as his running mate for 2004. He would win the election with that and he would heal some rifts in the Republican party.

From Future Brief

These are two reports released by the staff of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, the US Congressional committee charged with investigating the September 11 disaster and its roots. They are being widely quoted in the press, now you can have your own copies. They are without photos or artwork, thus they are very easy downloads of less than 200K each. They represent thousands of hours of research and testimony, but are brief (12 and 20 pages long) straight-forward, well-written, and without political agenda.

Overview of the Enemy - the history and evolution of al Qaeda

Outline of the 9/11 Plot - the story behind the disaster

Yesterday I wrote about the need to take back your local politics. Today what comes up? Well Granny D - the 94 year old great grandmother who walked 3200 miles across the US in 2000 to promote campaign finance reform and whose push on this topic helped the Mcain-Feingold bill pass is going to be the Democratic candidate for Senate in New Hampshire. Awesome. Go read the full article This is just what I was talking about. If there is any way you can help her get elected please do so.

via All Too Human

Apparently quite!

The US president, George Bush, today insisted that there were links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, a day after an independent commission announced that Iraq was not involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.

"There was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida," Mr Bush said. With his secretary of state, Colin Powell, to one side and his secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, to the other, Mr Bush told reporters: "This administration never said that the 9-11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaida.

Right George - the words "Iraq helped al-Qaeda blow up the WTC" never passed your lips. Instead you and your puppeteers just implied it at every turn. Somehow, maybe it's just foolish optimism on my part,. but I think enough of your lies and misdeeds have been exposed to the American people that come Nov 2 you and yours are going to get your comeuppance.

If you read nothing else this week, this month, this year, go read Bill Moyers' address to the Inequality Matters Forum on June 3, 2004 at New York University. It cuts to the heart of the coming elections, primarily in the US but also here in Canada. There is a class war that has been going on since the early 70's with ever increasing power concentrated in the hands of the few and the abuse of that power to vastly increase their wealth at the expense of the many.

As Bill says "It is important from time to time to remember that some things are worth getting mad about."

Now the Congressional Budget Office forecasts deficits totaling $2.75 trillion over the next ten years.

These deficits have been part of their strategy. Some of you will remember that Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan tried to warn us 20 years ago, when he predicted that President Ronald Reagan's real strategy was to force the government to cut domestic social programs by fostering federal deficits of historic dimensions. Reagan's own budget director, David Stockman, admitted as such. Now the leading rightwing political strategist, Grover Norquist, says the goal is to "starve the beast" -- with trillions of dollars in deficits resulting from trillions of dollars in tax cuts, until the United States Government is so anemic and anorexic it can be drowned in the bathtub.

There's no question about it: The corporate conservatives and their allies in the political and religious right are achieving a vast transformation of American life that only they understand because they are its advocates, its architects, and its beneficiaries. In creating the greatest economic inequality in the advanced world, they have saddled our nation, our states, and our cities and counties with structural deficits that will last until our children's children are ready for retirement, and they are systematically stripping government of all its functions except rewarding the rich and waging war.

It's not just important to get Bush out of office, it is also important to regain control of the house and senate, because without that control a Democratic president is a toothless president. It's even more important to throw out Democrats and Republicans alike who supported the kind of legislation that has brought America to its current state. It's important to foster those individuals who want to see campaign finance reform and curbs on corporate peasanthood. It is important to not accept empty rhetoric from politicians, to let them know and convince others to let them know that campaign ads that dwell on the supposed deficiencies of their opponents rather than real issues of the nation and how they would address them are guaranteeing you WILL NOT vote for them. until you the people stand up and make yourself heard at the very heart of politics, your local democrat and republican committees, take back control of them from the wealthy, the critters you send to DC will continue to strip you of your freedom and your wealth. It is up to you. No one else can do it for you. Go read Bill and then get angry.

If I didn't despise him so much I might almost feel sorry for GWB. I mean every time he turns around someone else is sticking a knife in his back or foiling his evil plans it seems.

Retired Officials Say Bush Must Go

WASHINGTON — A group of 26 former senior diplomats and military officials, several appointed to key positions by Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, plans to issue a joint statement this week arguing that President George W. Bush has damaged America's national security and should be defeated in November.

The group, which calls itself Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, will explicitly condemn Bush's foreign policy, according to several of those who signed the document.

"It is clear that the statement calls for the defeat of the administration," said William C. Harrop, the ambassador to Israel under President Bush's father and one of the group's principal organizers.

and no sooner does that come to the fore then the Red Cross puts their two bits worth in

Red Cross ultimatum to US on Saddam

Saddam Hussein must either be released from custody by June 30 or charged if the US and the new Iraqi government are to conform to international law, the International Committee of the Red Cross said last night.

Nada Doumani, a spokeswoman for the ICRC, told the Guardian: "The United States defines Saddam Hussein as a prisoner of war. At the end of an occupation PoWs have to be released provided they have no penal charges against them."

What's a poor leader bent on world domination supposed to do when all these peons keep being so uppity. Why, don't they know GWB has a direct line to God!

Watching Ashcroft trying to cover up in front of the Senate while being interviewed regarding his department's justification of torture memo made me think of nothing so much as a

(you don't really need me to finish that sentence do you )

Stephen Harper has had a fairly smooth ride so far in this election as leader of the Canadian political party most favoured by racists, misogynists, homophobics, intellectual Neanderthals and wannabe Americans. That smooth ride is over as Barry Yeates, the former director of political operations for the Canadian Alliance ¹, made clear today when he abandoned the party and threw his support behind the Liberals. In an open letter today to news editors across the country Mr. Yeats said:

I find myself increasingly apprehensive of the vacuous platform and social conservative agenda now being purveyed by the newly formed Conservative party.

I think the views expressed by a number of Conservative candidates and party officials, on topics as diverse as abortion, sexual orientation, bilingualism and immigration verge on intolerant. I am therefore deeply concerned about what a Stephen Harper government could mean for Canada.

Well gee Barry, it's good of you to say so, and I'm really glad the scales are finally falling from your eyes but you know, as the former director of political operations for this party you can't honestly claim this is anything new. Nevertheless it's good to have you on the side of light and not the dark for a change.

Meanwhile it appears as if the Liberal party's decline in the polls may have finally bottomed out and started to improve - most likely due to the increased numbers of previously apathetic Liberals who now say nthey are definitely going to vote. Expect that number to climb steadily as long as he Liberal's fortunes look poor.

Thanks go to The Evil Genius for the Ipsos-Reid poll link.

As some of you may know Canada is in the midst of a federal election. We go to the polls on June 28. As it stands right now it looks like he ruling Liberal Party will likely lose or end up in a minority government position with the newly named racist, Reform, Alliance Conservative Party gaining a lot of seats and either the New Democtratic Party or the Bloc Quebecois holding the balance of power with the ability to co-operate with either the Liberals or the Conservatives to form a minority government. The worst thing that could happen to Canada is for the Conservatives to win. Their leader, Stephen Harper, is a thinly disguised misogynist, homophobic, fundamentalist Christian and the party he leads is a favourite of the Neo-Nazi's in Canada because of hte party's stance on immigration. He is the former leader of the National Citizens Coalition, their goals are his goals and if you really want to turn your stomach go read what they have to say, or rather don't say as they are notorious for not exactly telling the truth. Read between the lines - think like a neo-con.

For a good outline of Steven Harper and Canada's neo-cons here's part of an article from nowToronto.com The Devil in Stephen Harper (copied here because it will disappear from their site before the election)

Anti-gay

• Has vigorously and actively opposed gay marriage. And would use the Notwithstanding Clause to override the Supreme Court's definition of marriage.
• Has called "vile" any comparison between civil rights and gay rights, and voted against including sexual orientation in hate propaganda laws.
• Hired a former Winnipeg radio jock fired for saying that "diesel dykes (are) running the school board" to be his media spokesperson in his 2002 Alliance leadership bid.

Anti-immigration

• Conservatives' interim policy document refers darkly to focusing on attracting immigrants who can best integrate into the "Canadian fabric" (read mostly white, mostly Europeans).
• Refused to revoke the nomination of Markham Unionville Conservative candidate Joe Li for referring to immigrants as "garbage."
• In his own words: "West of Winnipeg, the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettos, and who are not integrated into western Canadian society."

Artful flip-flopper

• Originally voted for gun control registry, saying he was for it in principle, but changed his mind and voted against. Now says he will abolish it entirely.
• Originally supported abortion rights for women, but nowadays characterizes himself as "pro-life," but pledged not to change the law.

Health care profiteer

• Supports privatization, but is loath to admit it, even though the Conservative platform talks about offering Canadians only "reasonable access" to health care services.
• Said in a 1997 interview with CBC TV that a parallel private health care system in Canada "would be a good idea."
• The National Citizens Coalition of which Harper was president was originally founded with the aim of killing publicly funded health care altogether.

Shill for big business

• Suggested in a 1994 debate that employment insurance benefits are too generous and should be seriously reduced or eliminated because "this can create serious disincentives to upgrade skills, to work and to move to find work."
• Only party leader to oppose electoral finance reform ban on donations from big business and unions.
• As NCC president, took the government to court over limits on political donations from third party sources – namely, influential right wing organizations like the NCC.

Magnet for racists

• According to the neo-Nazi National Alliance Web site, several of its "activists" attended the Canadian Alliance convention and "found convention attendees open to discussing the issues of race, immigration, Zionism and the control of the media." Harper issued a press release claiming he "would not allow his party to be a haven for any persons who harbour these views."
• Architect of all those anti-immigrant policies that attracted members of the white rights Heritage Front to Reform.

Human rights violator

• Favours abolishing human rights commissions, calling them "an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society.... It is in fact totalitarianism."

Native nightmare

• Made no effort to apologize directly to the Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres when he erroneously sent the group a letter congratulating it on a holiday celebrating India's independence from Britain. Like Columbus, Harper got the wrong Indians – the federation represents native Canadians.

Quebec hater

• Opposes recognizing special status for Quebec.
• Though he's changed his tune recently, also opposes official bilingualism. Told the Calgary Sun in 2001 that "Canada is not a bilingual country. As a religion, bilingualism is the god that failed."

Yankee lover

• Supported U.S. war in Iraq.
• Counts among his youth influences U.S. éminence grise of the right Peter Brimelow, whose books include Alien Nation: Common Sense About America's Immigration Disaster and The Worm In The Apple: How The Teacher Unions Are Destroying American Education.

Western separatist

• Has suggested that Albertans "should build firewalls around Alberta," including replacing RCMP with its own provincial police.
• In his own words: "Alberta has opted for the best of Canada's heritage – a combination of American enterprise and individualism.... Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialist country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status."

Eco terrorist

• Calls Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gas emissions a "boondoggle." He's not convinced that global warming is the consequence of human activity – a little like Stockwell Day believing humans once walked the earth with dinosaurs.

Thanks go to the for the heads up on this article

Via email from a friend

I've mentioned before that you ought to keep an eye on John Dean's FindLaw column. I read it regularly and today's column is a doozy. As former White House legal counsel (to Nixon), a Washington insider and someone who keeps a close eye on those in power Dean is in good position to speak with authority on what's going on in various investigations. This week he talks about the implications of yesterday's revelation that Bush is seeking outside legal counsel with regards to the Valerie Plame scandal.

In essence (at least how I read it) Dean is saying that Bush is in big trouble because there is no need for him to consult outside counsel unless he knows more than he has revealed to the present. If Bush had nothing to hide he could use White House counsel. Now here's the part I love. The GOP in their lust to nail Clinton on Whitewater and Lewinsky appointed Kenn Starr under the Independent Counsel Statute to investigate and in the process of his wasting tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers funds Starr also managed to forever destroy attorney-client privilege between White House counsel and administration members. Thus Bush, if he has something to hide must go to outside counsel not White House counsel and it is to outside counsel that he went. Ergo - the bastard is guilty as hell.

So George Tenet did the so called "honorable" thing a took the fall for Bush by resigning today did he. Well that should eliminate any last vestige of respect anyone should have for him. Instead of falling on his sword for Bush he ought to have taken that sword and planted it firmly in Bush's back by letting the American people know with absolute clarity that Bush was well informed of the dangers of al_qaeda well before 9/11 and chose to not only do nothing about it but to take foolish risks as well (reducing home land security budgets of the FBI, planning an attack on Iraq etc etc etc). Instead of being the fall guy he should be refusing to be one and telling the truth.

Canada has a declining voter participation rate. In the last elections voter turnout has consistently declined, voter participation 1988 (75.3%) 1993 (69.6%) 1997 (67.0%) 2000 (61.2%), and the majority of that decline appears to be in the youth sector. This is sad because it is youth, ages 18 to 30, that have the most to lose by non-participation.

You may think that politics is boring and you would often be right
You may think that politics is corrupt and you would often be right
You may think that politicians are liars and you would be mostly right. So why do you keep electing them through action or inaction?
You may think that politics is nothing but middle aged and older men and you would often be right, but why is that?
You may think that politics is not relevant to your life and you would never be more wrong

Everything you do in your life is controlled in some way or another by the political process. That process is ultimately controlled by the voters. Who gets elected can make a substantial difference in your lives. Don't believe me? Let's look at recent Canadian history and see what it would have been like if a different party were elected to power in Ottawa in 2000.

If the Alliance Party (now called the Conservative Party and formerly called the Reform Party) had been elected in the 2000 federal election what do you think would have happened in April of 2003 when the US illegally declared war on Iraq? Well you can be 100% guaranteed that Canada would have sent troops to Iraq and we would now be burying our dead like the US is. We would also now be a much more attractive target for al-Qaeda attacks, just as Spain recently found out the hard way. September 11 showed that no one is safe from terrorism anymore if their country is a target. Currently the only targets are the US and its allies in Iraq because it is US foreign policy that has created the terrorists in the first place. So you can see your vote could be very important. It might even save your life.

The percentage of women between 18 and 30 who vote is generally believed to be much lower than for men of the same age group and lower than the percentage of women or men over that age group who vote. Actual statistics have not been collected. This is reflected in the low number of women elected to federal office in Canada. Roughly one women serves in parliament for every 8 men elected.

So as a woman do you believe you should have absolute equality with men? If you believe that how do you expect to get it if you don't help elect women to office? Do you think abortion should be solely a women's choice? How do you expect to keep that if you don't elect women to office? How do you expect to keep that if you don't help defeat the election of those men, and yes women, whose religious mania leads them to believe they know better than you what you can or should be allowed to do with your body. If you believe your body is yours and yours alone then you better get out there and defeat the right wing parties because the people at the core of those parties, those that will after election make decisions that will have nothing to do with what they promise during the campaign - do not believe as you do.

As a woman do you think health care for you and your family, or future family, is important? Do you think if you sit back and do nothing that those who cater to corporations and the US will not take universal health care away by slowly eating away at it until it can no longer survive? Are you prepared to bet your family's health and welfare on your current lack of political interest?

As long as you sit back and do nothing, as long as you stay out of the voting booth and out of the political process, you are a co-conspirator in the rape of your rights and freedoms. Strong word that rape, but that's exactly what it is. Those in power will always seek to accrue more power unto themselves. Lord Acton said it perfectly when he said "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." So long as you let those middle aged and older white males (with a smattering of minorities and women) stay in power the more they will coddle to those who actively support them. Their support comes from the corporations that have more rights than you do. Their support comes from fundamentalist Christians who would see women's rights set back many decades. Is this what you want? No? Well then do something about it before it is too late.

You need to get active. You need to become informed. You need to stop watching political ads on TV and actually investigate who these people are, and yes sometimes you need to choose the lesser of two or more evils in order to protect the future. You need to see who has told the most egregious lies past and present, which parties have consistently lied and deceived the electorate, saying one thing then doing the opposite after election. In Canada that's the Conservative party (the Liberals are pretty foul but no where near as deceitful as the Conservatives, not even close). In the US the Republicans are the party that lies the most. They believe that they know better than you. They will lie to you to get elected. They will lie because they see it as for the greater good, for your good, that you are confused and just don't know what's right for you so it's OK for them to lie to you in order to get you back on track by getting themselves elected so they can enact their policies, the ones they hid from you - or like Mulroney and the Conservatives did a few decades ago did - flat out told you they abhorred until it was too late for you to stop them.

Get active. Get involved, Go and vote! If you are a young woman go to http://www.geocities.com/youngwomenvote/ and sign up then get your girlfriends to sign up. Don't let others take control of your future. Take a stand and make it happen.

"There is a smear campaign under way, and it is being perpetrated by the C.I.A. and the D.I.A. and a gaggle of former intelligence officers who have succeeded in planting these stories, which are accepted with hardly any scrutiny"

That's a recent quote from Richard N. Perle regarding the information that has recently arisen regarding Ahmad Chalabi.

Gee now isn't this the very same Richard N. Perle who accepted everything Chalabi and all the other mis-informants presented to the Bush administration, regarding WMD and al-Qaeda connections in Iraq, with no scrutiny? (no scrutiny is self-evident from the fact there are no WMD in Iraq and there never have been any al-Qaeda connections proved either). The very same Perle who very much helped push America into this war. Gee Richard I guess the shoe is on the other foot now eh!

Listening to these assholes it's hard to know whether to laugh at the absurdity and obvious chicanery of it all or to cry for what it has done to the American soul and more importantly to the 800+ dead American military personnel and the 10,000+ dead innocent Iraqi civilians. Ain't nothing funny there.

Ya I know that's an odd statement but it nevertheless is true. He deliberately did so in 2000 and he's doing it again this year. Evidence has recently surfaced, which shows that in 2000 Nader deliberately targeted swing states where he could cost Gore the election and he did so, against the advice and wishes of his staff and supporters, because he wanted to punish the democrats.

Nader is desperately trying to rewrite history to clean up his own role, claiming he did not intend to defeat Gore. The claim ignores the crucial fact that in the three days before the election he concentrated his campaign on Florida, where he knew Gore needed every single liberal vote he could scrape up.... By equating Gore and Bush, he lied to his progressive followers about the stunning shift toward conservative policies that would take place under a Bush presidency. (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/means4.shtml)

Now he wants to do it again:

He [Nader] is not coy about his motives. Just as he ran for president to punish Gore and the Democrats for allegedly betraying their progressive traditions and currying favor with global corporate power, now he wants to knock off congressional Democrats who have committed the same sins. As he put it, "The Democrats are going to have to lose more elections. They didn't get the message last time."

Read the whole essay and see the duplicity of Ralph Nader and the complicity and hypocrisy of Michael Moore (big surprise there not)

I kept being struck by the irony that Moore -- whose trademark is saying things that one is never supposed to say -- ferociously told me: "You can't say that." And my forbidden comment was simply that Nader supporters should be encouraged to vote for Gore in very close states.

and realize that if you vote for Nader you ARE, despite all those people who try to convince you otherwise, voting for Bush because that is exactly what Nader wants, to punish the Democrats by keeping them out of office.

Nader has abandoned his claim to be working for the common public, to being an environmentalist, to being on the side of the powerless. Now all he cares about is petty revenge and he doesn't care one whit if his actions set back the clock decades on health, environmental, safety regulations or that the rest of the world becomes the battleground on which the right wing wackos currently in office play out their testosterone fantasies, to the despair of those whose loved ones die as result of those fantasies. No all he cares about is assuaging his bruised ego and punishing the Democrats by helping to defeat them. A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush and all that Bush represents. Nader really is a traitor to his past and those who supported him based on his past. Now he is only worthy of your contempt.

Thanks goes to email correspondent for the link

You go Al - this is great stuff!

How dare they blame their misdeeds on enlisted personnel from a Reserve unit in upstate New York. President Bush owes more than one apology. On the list of those he let down are the young soldiers who are themselves apparently culpable, but who were clearly put into a moral cesspool. The perpetrators as well as the victims were both placed in their relationship to one another by the policies of George W. Bush.

How dare the incompetent and willful members of this Bush/Cheney Administration humiliate our nation and our people in the eyes of the world and in the conscience of our own people. How dare they subject us to such dishonor and disgrace. How dare they drag the good name of the United States of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prison.

How dare indeed!

It's about bloody time someone in power in Israel stood up and condemned their governments actions. Someone who could remind the Israeli's that in their treatment of the Palestinians they have forgotten the lessons of their own history. A state formed to protect Jews, from around the world, against a future holocaust. A place that by its very existence should have been a beacon of hope for Jews around the world, has so lost its way, has so forgotten its own people's past, that it more resembles its persecutors of the past than it does the victim then or now. What's sad is that it took a survivor of the holocaust to remind them.

Israel's justice minister, Yosef Lapid, touched off a storm at a cabinet meeting yesterday by alluding to the Holocaust in the context of the Israeli army operation in the southern Palestinian town of Rafah.

Mr Lapid a Holocaust survivor, condemned the four-day tank and bulldozer incursion as "inhuman and un-Jewish".

Via Frank the folowing quote which is just too damned right on to not spread about the net.

"Back in 2000, a Republican friend of mine warned me that if I voted for Al Gore and he won, the stock market would tank, we'd lose millions of jobs, and our military would be totally overstretched. You know what? I did vote for Al Gore, he did win, and I'll be damned if all those things didn't come true."

James Carville, Democratic strategist

I'll bet at least one of you thinks that the incidents of torture and humiliation of Iraqi prisoners by US troops is an isolated incident. Well sorry to disappoint you but it is anything but isolated, certainly not new and not restricted to Iraqi prisoners either. Anyone remember the story of the death of Dr. Frank Olson? Well maybe you're too young for that (I remember the controversy surrounding it in the 70's - I was only 4 when he died).

He took a high dive off a tall NYC building in 1953. At the time it was reported as suicide. The family knew better. You see Dr. Olson was working for the government as a civilian biochemist in a number of projects (bio-warfare) and he was having second thoughts. The family has spent the intervening years trying to get to the truth about Olson's death. In 1975 the US government came forward and "confessed" that he had been part of a pilot project using LSD for mind control and that he had just had a bad trip and tried to fly off the building. The family knew better. It seems like they now have proof that Dr. Olson was murdered by his own government in order to prevent him revealing some very nasty information about the governments use of torture and other nasty things and that the ruse of revealing the LSD story was to continue the cover up - a cover up that went right to the white house top levels.

1975, Gerald Ford was president, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney were key WH officials and the ones most adamant about covering up the truth of the Olson murder. Yeah you got it, the same crazy duo who deny any knowledge of what's happening in Iraq's prisons and detention camps today.

So scare yourself silly and go check out the Frank Olson story and when you're done there check out this post that talks about Olson but also the truth behind the Manchurian Candidate. There is nothing new about the sanctioned use of torture, murder and more by the US government, and much of it perpetrated against its own citizens. Unfortunately the great unwashed sheeple will buy GWB's denials and his protestations of righteousness and will likely put him back in office in November. If they don't he'll find a way to rig the election like he did in 2002.

Received this today from Greg Palast's mailing list. Given Palast's remarkable accuracy and prescience in the past this is not a happy thing. Bush proved in 2000 that he needed to cheat to win the election and that he had absolutely no qualms about doing so. Anyone who thinks he would not stoop to the same or lower level in 2004 should report to their nearest shrink for a reality check..

First, the purges. In the months leading up to the November 2000 presidential election, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, in coordination with Governor Jeb Bush, ordered local election supervisors to purge 57,700 voters from the registries, supposedly ex-cons not allowed to vote in Florida. At least 90.2 percent of those on this "scrub" list, targeted to lose their civil rights, are innocent. Notably, more than half--about 54 percent--are black or Hispanic. You can argue all night about the number ultimately purged, but there's no argument that this electoral racial pogrom ordered by Jeb Bush's operatives gave the White House to his older brother. HAVA not only blesses such purges, it requires all fifty states to implement a similar search-and-destroy mission against vulnerable voters. Specifically, every state must, by the 2004 election, imitate Florida's system of computerizing voter files. The law then empowers fifty secretaries of state--fifty Katherine Harrises--to purge these lists of "suspect" voters.

The purge is back, big time. Following the disclosure in December 2000 of the black voter purge in Britain's Observer newspaper, NAACP lawyers sued the state. The civil rights group won a written promise from Governor Jeb and from Harris's successor to return wrongly scrubbed citizens to the voter rolls. According to records given to the courts by ChoicePoint, the company that generated the computerized lists, the number of Floridians who were questionably tagged totals 91,000. Willie Steen is one of them. Recently, I caught up with Steen outside his office at a Tampa hospital. Steen's case was easy. You can't work in a hospital if you have a criminal record. (My copy of Harris's hit list includes an ex-con named O'Steen, close enough to cost Willie Steen his vote.) The NAACP held up Steen's case to the court as a prime example of the voter purge evil.

The state admitted Steen's innocence. But a year after the NAACP won his case, Steen still couldn't register. Why was he still under suspicion? What do we know about this "potential felon," as Jeb called him? Steen, unlike our President, honorably served four years in the US military. There is, admittedly, a suspect mark on his record: Steen remains an African-American.

If you're black, voting in America is a game of chance. First, there's the chance your registration card will simply be thrown out. Millions of minority citizens registered to vote using what are called motor-voter forms. And Republicans know it. You would not be surprised to learn that the Commission on Civil Rights found widespread failures to add these voters to the registers. My sources report piles of dust-covered applications stacked up in election offices.

Second, once registered, there's the chance you'll be named a felon. In Florida, besides those fake felons on Harris's scrub sheets, some 600,000 residents are legally barred from voting because they have a criminal record in the state. That's one state. In the entire nation 1.4 million black men with sentences served can't vote, 13 percent of the nation's black male population.

At step three, the real gambling begins. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 guaranteed African-Americans the right to vote--but it did not guarantee the right to have their ballots counted. And in one in seven cases, they aren't.

Take Gadsden County. Of Florida's sixty-seven counties, Gadsden has the highest proportion of black residents: 58 percent. It also has the highest "spoilage" rate, that is, ballots tossed out on technicalities: one in eight votes cast but not counted. Next door to Gadsden is white-majority Leon County, where virtually every vote is counted (a spoilage rate of one in 500).

How do votes spoil? Apparently, any old odd mark on a ballot will do it. In Gadsden, some voters wrote in Al Gore instead of checking his name. Their votes did not count.

Harvard law professor Christopher Edley Jr., a member of the Commission on Civil Rights, didn't like the smell of all those spoiled ballots. He dug into the pile of tossed ballots and, deep in the commission's official findings, reported this: 14.4 percent of black votes--one in seven--were "invalidated," i.e., never counted. By contrast, only 1.6 percent of nonblack voters' ballots were spoiled.

Florida's electorate is 11 percent African-American. Florida refused to count 179,855 spoiled ballots. A little junior high school algebra applied to commission numbers indicates that 54 percent, or 97,000, of the votes "spoiled" were cast by black folk, of whom more than 90 percent chose Gore. The nonblack vote divided about evenly between Gore and Bush. Therefore, had Harris allowed the counting of these ballots, Al Gore would have racked up a plurality of about 87,000 votes in Florida--162 times Bush's official margin of victory.

That's Florida. Now let's talk about America. In the 2000 election, 1.9 million votes cast were never counted. Spoiled for technical reasons, like writing in Gore's name, machine malfunctions and so on. The reasons for ballot rejection vary, but there's a suspicious shading to the ballots tossed into the dumpster. Edley's team of Harvard experts discovered that just as in Florida, the number of ballots spoiled was--county by county, precinct by precinct--in direct proportion to the local black voting population.

Florida's racial profile mirrors the nation's--both in the percentage of voters who are black and the racial profile of the voters whose ballots don't count. "In 2000, a black voter in Florida was ten times as likely to have their vote spoiled--not counted--as a white voter," explains political scientist Philip Klinkner, co-author of Edley's Harvard report. "National figures indicate that Florida is, surprisingly, typical. Given the proportion of nonwhite to white voters in America, then, it appears that about half of all ballots spoiled in the USA, as many as 1 million votes, were cast by nonwhite voters."

So there you have it. In the last presidential election, approximately 1 million black and other minorities voted, and their ballots were thrown away. And they will be tossed again in November 2004, efficiently, by computer--because HAVA and other bogus reform measures, stressing reform through complex computerization, do not address, and in fact worsen, the racial bias of the uncounted vote.

One million votes will disappear in a puff of very black smoke. And when the smoke clears, the Bush clan will be warming their political careers in the light of the ballot bonfire. HAVA nice day.

For the last 4 months there has been a very interesting political experiment going on here in British Columbia. BC has long had a first past the post electoral system and that's a system rife with deficiencies.

In "first past the post" the candidate who gets the most votes in a riding gets to represent that riding. Now, if all you have are two parties running and no independents then one of those candidates will have more than 50% of the vote. Introduce any other variable like a third party or independent candidates (which is always the case in BC) and you have candidates winning the riding (and thus the sole seat for that riding in the legislature) with ridiculous figures like 34% of the vote.

The current provincial government is run by the BC Liberal Party (don't let the name fool you - they are anything but liberal). In 2001 they won 73 of 76 seats in the BC Legislature with only 57.5% of the popular vote. As you can see this method guarantees a large percentage of the population, in this case 42.5%, are really unrepresented as they represent the percentage that does not agree with the right wing policies of the current government. A critical flaw in the process.

So much for background. The one thing that I will give this Liberal government credit for is the process of electoral reform they've started. Granted they came under a lot of public pressure to do so after their win and that of the NDP government that preceded them and which was elected with something like 39% of the popular vote (although not as large a majority of seats). As result the Liberals formed the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform.

Now, that could just be a fancy title for another panel of political hacks, friends of the party etc. No one could be condemned for being that cynical as that would be the normal process. However, in this instance that's not what happened, and here is where it truly gets interesting. The government randomly selected 15,800 names from the BC Voters List. Then those individuals were invited to attend a meeting in their are of the province if they were interested in taking part. At each meeting the nominees selected amongs themselves the people who would serve, ensuring that there was one man and one woman from each riding. For a full history of how the committee was formed go here.

This group represents a very wide spectrum of people in the province (there are about 3 million people in BC).

The group is made up of an equal number of men and women with a wide range of backgrounds – from nurses, teachers and ranchers to a man who walks dogs for a living. There are also students. Each person earns $150 per day they meet – which will generally be on weekends

The assembly spent the first few months learning the pros and cons of different methods of choosing representation. Now they are visiting the 40 largest communities in BC and holding public forums to drill down even further into the public's desires for representation. Later this year the assembly will decide on what the future political system will be in the province and the current government has pledged to abide by the assembly's decision.

At no known time in the history of the world has such an approach to democracy been taken. An approach that truly stands the best chance of delivering a system that represents what the people want and not what various special interest groups want. Very interesting indeed.

Let me see if I have this right. Leaving aside the whole WMD farce we are being told that the "real" reason for invading Iraq was to get rid of an evil dictator and his evil regime. You know that regime that was responsible for the death of tens of thousands of Iraqi's every year (no not the US the other evil regime). Now Saddam himself couldn't kill all those people, in fact I bet he personally didn't kill anyone (although he no doubt ordered the death of many) or at most a handful or two a year. No he had his compatriots in the Ba'ath party do all the dirty work and given the military structure of that party the decisions on who disappeared or died almost certainly flowed down wards. Being a think for yourself "cowboy" was not a smart career move in Saddam's Iraq.

So, OK if we accept that as the real reason for invading Iraq then it stands to follow that anyone who was anywhere near being a ranking Ba'ath party member has a lot of blood on their hands and should not have anything to do with the new power structure in Iraq. Well, that's what we, until today were led to believe is what was happening.

Today the US administration announced

From 'de-Baathification' to 're-Baathification'?

From Wolf Blitzer
CNN
Thursday, April 22, 2004 Posted: 6:02 PM EDT (2202 GMT)

Civilian administrator Paul Bremer now favors allowing Baath party members a role in Iraq's transition.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- "The remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime know they have no future in a free Iraq," U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Thursday, restating the U.S. stance even as coalition officials in Baghdad confirmed that some of Saddam's former Baath Party loyalists may be allowed to take back their old jobs.

It's seen as a potentially significant change in postwar strategy.

Civilian administrator Paul Bremer now wants to allow former Baath Party members to serve in the Iraqi military and government establishment.

"I think Ambassador Bremer has probably heard from thousands of Iraqis since he has been here on the issue of 'de-Baathification'," coalition spokesman Dan Senor said Thursday.

Until now, those Baathists -- most of whom are minority Sunnis -- had been banned as part of a postwar "de-Baathification" policy designed to remove any lingering influence of Saddam Hussein's most loyal supporters.

There also have been complaints that the ban has kept teachers, engineers, well-trained technocrats and experienced military officers out of the difficult postwar transition.

"We are working to try to develop an equitable solution to address the widely divergent activities of former Baathist party members," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Thursday.

In other words, some former Baath Party members may be allowed to teach in the schools, run the country's infrastructure, move along the government's bureaucracy, and serve in the military -- after careful screening.

"Sooner or later, there would come a time when we need senior officers, and there are many senior officers remaining from this country, who can meet all the criteria established in the 'de-Batthification' policy and still have a significant contribution to offer the nation of Iraq in the defense structure," said U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt.

He says a handful of former Saddam generals may even be allowed to resume their military careers. (emphasis mine)

Some analysts tell CNN's national security correspondent David Ensor that easing the ban on the Baathists won't have a great impact. They note that only the top echelons of Saddam's party have been excluded from hiring.

Un-fucking-believable. There goes yet another one of their reasons - better look harder George. BTW. a sign of extreme political naiveté would be if you actually believe that the very top echelon of Saddam's group will be permanently blocked from power - only those ones they try and execute will ultimately be denied power again. No, this is yet another capitulation to the reality that they do not, can not and never will really control Iraq. Five or ten years from now there will be yet another Saddam in charge there and it will very likely be one of those Ba'athist generals that the Americans are now so eager to get back into the command and control structure.

Oh please please please let this be true - Condi calling Bush her husband at a big dinner party for some of the movers and shakers in DC. Oh wouldn'tthat be something - Condi and Bush boinking each other - if only there was some proof :-)

via Heli's Heaven and Hell

One of the problems facing the Democrats in the upcoming election is their unwillingness to tell the truth. What I hear you say it's the current GOP leadership that are the liars. Well yes they are, but that's not what I meant. No, what I'm talking about is the Dem's failure to point out, in plain talk, pulling no punches, the basic dishonesty of the current administration and more importantly those that pull the strings from behind the curtain.

I'm not talking about Iraq, per se, but instead about the way the right wing conservative, so-called fundamentalist "Christian" Republicans have falsely laid claim to "family values" and Christian values, when what they practice delivers anything but. There is an excellent interview with President Jimmy Carter in Alternet where he points out, in his usual kind way, just how un-Christian these people really are. Do go read the entire interview.

Well, what do Christians stand for, based exclusively on the words and actions of Jesus Christ? We worship him as a prince of peace. And I think almost all Christians would conclude that whenever there is an inevitable altercation – say, between a husband and a wife, or a father and a child, or within a given community, or between two nations (including our own) – we should make every effort to resolve those differences which arise in life through peaceful means. Therein, we should not resort to war as a way to exalt the president as the commander in chief. A commitment to peace is certainly a Christian principle that even ultraconservatives would endorse, at least by worshiping the prince of peace.

And Christ reached out almost exclusively to the poor, suffering, abandoned, deprived – the scorned, the condemned people – including Samaritans and those who were diseased. The alleviation of suffering was a philosophy that was enhanced and emphasized by the life of Christ. Today the ultra-right wing, in both religion and politics, has abandoned that principle of Jesus Christ’s ministry.

Those are the two principal things in the practical sense that starkly separate the ultra-right Christian community from the rest of the Christian world: Do we endorse and support peace and support the alleviation of suffering among the poor and the outcast?

Well not George and his crew, nope, they go to war at a drop of a hat and label everyone who disagrees with them as either traitors or terrorists, in other words targets to be gone after.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Jimmy Carter. I don't always agree with him but I respect the fact that he lives his life trying to help those less fortunate than himself. He puts his Christian values into action instead of professing belief and doing the opposite like the current occupants of the White House. I think Carter is one of the most misunderstood of 20^th C. presidents, and that is because of a particularly good smear job the GOP did on him in the 1980 election.

The GOP charged him with being weak and ineffectual in dealing with Iran over the hostage incident and of course the American public bought it. After all the hostages weren't released on Carter's watch, it took Reagan to accomplish that. What the public was never really told, except in passing during the Iran-Contra trial, is that the GOP through its agents such as Ollie North, has made an agreement with the Iranians to not release the hostages until Reagan gained power in return for which the US would sell them arms under the counter. (of course this was at the same time the US was selling arms, including WMD, to Saddam Hussein in Iraq to use against Iran.) Of course those profits were used to support the Contra guerrillas in Nicaragua in order to overthrow the democratically elected (but anti-US imperialist) Sandinista government of Nicaragua. Real Christian, family and democratic values there. How these assholes, including Reagan (if you think for a second he didn't know and approve of what was going on you're an idiot) avoid charges of treason is beyond me.

Nevertheless the point is the Dems don't capitalize on this type of behavior. They aren't going to the public and saying flat out, over and over again, George Bush and all his top advisers, deliberately lied to you in order to go to war. Their lies have cost you the lives of your sons, daughters, friends and lovers, and they have lost nothing. Instead their friends have made hundreds of millions of dollars in profits off the war. How Christian is that? Don't beat around the Bush bush, call a liar a liar and beat the sons of a bitches over the head with it.

G.W.Bush and his cohorts have dome more to destroy peace in the world and the security of the United States than all past presidents in total. They have created more terrorists and terrorist breeding grounds than any past president, including Truman's (correct) support for the establishment of the State of Israel. They need to be held responsible for this and the Dems need to be very frank with the American public. Don't try to sell Bush light Kerry, sell how fucking evil this crowd in the White House, and the GOP leadership since at least Nixon, really is.

Compare that to Carter or Clinton. Clinton came very close to getting a peace agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis, closer than any other president. Carter got an historic peace agreement signed between Israel and Egypt that is still unbroken 25 years later. Bush? Well he's managed to piss off every Arab country in the middle east and created more tension there than has ever existed except perhaps during the Israel-Egypt war. Carter, Clinton, seeking peace and prosperity through negotiation. Bush's record? Unilateral war and imperialism.

The Democrats should be pointing out, at every possible opportunity, how unchristian these Republicans are. They should be speaking, not to other Democrats but, directly to moderate Republicans and challenging them to defend their support of the president and still call themselves Christians. They should be making Americans understand that they should be ashamed, not proud, to support these people, because these people do not represent real Christian values, indeed anything but.

Get out there Democrats and for once stop playing nice and tell the truth!

One of Canada's finest, most dedicated and hard working Members of parliament, Svend Robinson has removed himself from the soon to be federal election and taken a medical leave of absence from his office of MP for Burnaby-Douglas . Svend has served his riding with unbelievable energy and devotion for 25 years. He is Canada's first openly gay Member of Parliament and has been equally dedicated to GLBT rights and other social democratic causes. While his stepping down from politics would be sad at the best of times, the circumstances of this decision make it even sadder.

Most people probably think that a politician's life isn't that strenuous, but if that politician is dedicated to his constituency, like Sven is, he doesn't really have a "life." Adding to the already incredible stress of his job, Sven recently suffered a near fatal car accident. The combination took its toll and he did a foolish thing. Recently he attended an exhibition of jewelry and in full view of the staff, who knew his identity, as well as the security cameras, he pocketed an expensive ring. Coming to his senses shortly thereafter he turned himself into the RCMP and told them what happened.

Today he held a press conference and told the whole story. He did not try and deny his guilt, he did not wait for the owners of that ring to contact the RCMP and press charges, he stood up and said I made a mistake and I'm willing to suffer the consequences of that action. My respect for Sven Robinson, which was always high, has increased enormously.

I hope you pull through this Sven and get the help you need to recover from your stress. I hope you will re-enter politics again when you are better, and I have no doubt the courts will treat you with the leniency that you deserve. A politician that admits to their wrongs before being called on them is a rare bird indeed.

Read Sven's Press Release

When life-long staunch Republicans, such as former Congressman Paul Findley (R-IL), are opposed to his policies George w. Bush is in trouble. Here is a remarkably detailed assault against Bush by Findley, delivered to the Jan. 27 Council for the National Interest Public Hearing on “The Middle East in Election 2004.”

DURING MY LONG life, America has surmounted many severe challenges. As a teenager, I experienced the Great Depression. In World War II, I saw war close-up as a Navy Seabee. As a country newspaper editor, I watched the Korean War from afar. As a Member of Congress, I agonized through the Vietnam War from start to finish. During these challenges I never for a moment worried about America’s ultimate survival with its great principles and ideals still intact.

Today, for the first time, I worry deeply about America’s future. We are in a deep hole. I believe President George W. Bush’s decision to initiate war on Iraq will be the greatest and most costly blunder in American history. He has set America on the wrong course.

I must speak out. As best I can, I must bestir those who will listen to the grave damage already done to our nation, and warn of still greater harm if Bush continues his present course during a second term in the White House.

Click more to continue reading his speech - it's a long one

When terrorists assaulted America on 9/11, killing nearly 3,000 innocent civilians, President Bush responded, not by focusing on bringing to justice the criminals who were responsible, but by initiating a war against impoverished, defenseless Afghanistan, a broad attack that killed at least 3,000 innocent people. Even before the dust settled in Afghanistan, the president initiated another war, this one on Iraq—a war planned long before 9/11.

In the name of national security, the president has brought about fundamental, revolutionary changes that threaten our nation’s moorings.

At home and abroad, he has undercut time-honored principles of the rule of law.

Abroad, he has made war a ready instrument of presidential policy instead of reserving it as a last resort should peril confront our nation.

In public documents, he claims the personal authority to make war any time and any place he alone chooses, and the authority to use force to keep unfriendly nations from increasing their own military strength.

His power is unprecedented. He directs a military budget greater than all other nations’ combined. At his instant, personal command is more military power than any nation in all recorded history ever before possessed.

He proclaims America the global policeman, and for that role he has already expanded a worldwide system of U.S. military bases. Four new ones are in place in Iraq and four others near the Caspian Sea.

He orders the development and production of a new generation of nuclear arms for U.S. use only, meanwhile threatening other nations—Iran and North Korea, for example—against acquiring any of its own.

Unleashing America’s mighty sword, he brings about regime changes in Afghanistan and Iraq, but mires our forces in quagmires from which escape seems unlikely for many years.

He isolates America from common undertakings with time-tested allies. He trivializes the United Nations and violates its charter.

The president offers wars without end, and the Congress shouts its approval. But his use of America’s vast arsenal is so reckless that he is regarded widely as the most dangerous man in the world.

Here at home, in his frantic quest for terrorists, he stoops to bigoted measures based on race and national origin, tramples on civil liberties, and spreads fear and disbelief throughout the land. Those of Middle Eastern ancestry, and many others, buckle under government-inflicted humiliations and abuses with trepidation, sorrow and resentment.

Frustrated by Iraqi dissidents who protest the occupation of their country by killing U.S. troops almost daily, the president reverts to war measures. He orders heavy aerial bombing in wide areas of the countryside.

Even as body bags pile high, the president seems oblivious to war’s horror. The rockets and one-ton bombs may kill a few Iraqi guerrillas and cause others to pull back and pause, but they kill and maim innocent civilians, level homes, turn neighborhoods into rubble, and permanently blight many lives. They create deep-seated outrage, not cooperation.

The Iraqi carnage is piled alongside the simultaneous destruction and blighting of American lives. More than 500 U.S. military personnel have been killed and, according to one estimate, nearly 10,000 have been wounded. Ponder that fact. Ten thousand American families permanently blighted in a war the United States initiated. Mark Twain, writing of war, once asked, “Will we wring the hearts of the unoffending widows with unavailing grief?”

The president overreacts to 9/11 by leading America into a lengthy fiery trial that may last far into the future—years of U.S.-initiated wars designed to punish regimes believed to harbor terrorists.

This is not the America my generation fought to preserve in World War II.

Starting wars will not bring a just peace. The president should ponder deeply why many people in many nations engage in anti-American protests.

The answer: People worldwide, especially in Iraq and Palestine, are livid over grievances against America. Almost all Iraqis are glad Saddam Hussain is out of power, but many of them—the total may be a substantial majority—see America as arrogant, biased, untrustworthy, and bent on world domination.

Here are some of the reasons:

* In the l980s—the height of Saddam’s cruel treatment of Kurds and other Iraqi citizens—the U.S. government served as the dictator’s silent, uncomplaining partner, helping him battle Iran by providing intelligence and critical military supplies, even some components of weapons of mass destruction.

* At the end of the 1991 Gulf war, Iraqis had a bitter experience with the president’s father. President George Bush, Sr. publicly urged the Iraqis to overthrow Saddam. His call prompted a strong uprising, but Bush refused U.S. support in any form. This bleak rejection prompted Saddam to use helicopter gunships to slaughter dissidents by the hundreds. He had retained use of these lethal aircraft in a provision of the U.S.-approved armistice.

• Iraqis also remember bitterly that U.S. fighter planes enforced sanctions on the people of Iraq for a decade after the Gulf war. This embargo was so harsh it led to immense civilian suffering, including the death of at least a half-million Iraqi infants.
• Today, Iraqis are wary of the president’s motives and dependability. Many doubt that his true objectives are, as he now states, establishing freedom and democracy in their country, or, as he earlier stated, destroying Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Aware that he ignored offers of conciliation from Saddam’s emissaries before the invasion, they believe he harbors dreams of an American empire and wanted the war in Iraq, come what may.
• Their greatest and most deep-seated complaint is Bush’s failure to make even the slightest move to halt America’s anti-Arab bias. For example, the president has made no effort to distance America from Israel’s colonialism.

He pays lip-service to statehood as a goal for the Palestinians, but he has done nothing to stop Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s brutality of Palestinians—assassinations, military forays that leave vast death and destruction, high fences that confine Palestinians like cattle, and the steady usurpation of more Palestinian land.

Bush seems unconcerned by the worldwide outrage at America’s massive, unconditional, uncritical support of Israel, without which the Jewish state could never have carried out its humiliation and devastation of Palestinian society.

Bush is overwhelmed by the influence of religious zealots—both Zionist and fundamentalist Christian. He ignores America’s own heavy guilt for the plight of Palestinians. He fails to recognize that more than a billion Muslims worldwide, along with many millions of non-Muslims, are deeply aggrieved at this complicity.

Bush offers an exquisite example of close-in hypocrisy. On one side of a Middle East border, he tries to convince Iraqi Arabs that he offers them democracy and freedom, while at the same time, on the other side of the border, he supports Israel’s violent denial of these identical rights for Palestinian Arabs.

Iraqis worry that U.S. occupation will become a new colonialism—indefinite U.S. control of Iraqi oil reserves, Israeli-style brutality, and a U.S.-forced treaty that will keep Iraq from helping the Palestinians.

President Bush is so befuddled by the awful carnage of 9/11 and rumors of more assaults to come that he does not see what is vivid to most of the world—the real ground zero of terrorism is in Palestine, not Manhattan. He ignores the real ground zero at great peril to America.

This issue surmounts all others in the presidential political campaign. It impels me to speak out against what George W. Bush is doing. I am a Republican, and I will remain in the Party of Lincoln. I feel no joy in making this case against the president. He may be sincere in his stewardship, but he is wrong—dead wrong—in the direction he is taking our country.

What should be done? Must the president proceed with wars without end?

The president’s best war decision is a purely political one, and it is plain, peaceful, generous and just. He must make a clean break from Israel’s scofflaw behavior.

If Bush has the will, he can easily free himself and America. If he acts, he will transform the grim scene in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East into bright promise. Any day he chooses, the president can instantly—without firing a shot—quiet guerrilla warfare in Iraq and anti-American protests throughout the world.

All he needs to do is inform Sharon that all aid will be suspended until Israel vacates the Arab territory Israeli forces seized in June 1967. U.S. aid is literally Israel’s lifeline, so the ultimatum would be electrifying evidence that the United States, at long last, will do what is right for Arabs and Muslims, while still protecting Israel from attack. If Bush acts, the Iraqi people will have reason to believe, for the first time, that the U.S. government truly opposes colonialism.

The ultimatum would prompt rejoicing worldwide, not just among Iraqis and Palestinians. Opinion polls show that a large majority of Israelis, weary of the long, bloody struggle to subjugate the Palestinians, would welcome coexistence with an independent, peaceful Palestine.

An impressive foundation for this presidential ultimatum already exists. All member states of the Arab League, plus Hamas and Hezbollah, unanimously offered peace-for-withdrawal four years ago. A similar plan called the Geneva Accord recently was announced jointly by former officials of Israel and Palestine. Almost simultaneously, four retired heads of Israeli intelligence even urged full, unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza.

By standing resolutely for justice for Palestinians, who are mostly Muslim, Bush would virtually end anti-American protests and strengthen moderate forces worldwide.

Will Bush liberate America from endless wars and chart a constructive, peaceful new future for our nation? If he does so promptly, he will be a shoo-in for re-election. If he does not, I will join other Republicans—there will be many of us—in urging his defeat.

Sadly his comments re: Palestine are moot given what Bush announced today

"In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion," Bush said. "It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities."

With those words Bush gave Sharon carte blanche to continue screwing the Palestinians. He legitimized the theft of Palestinian territory.

As repoted in today's NYT Ahmed Queri responded

Ahmed Qurei, the Palestinian prime minister, issued a powerful denunciation, saying, according to Reuters, "Bush is the first U.S. president to give legitimacy to Jewish settlements on Palestinian land. We reject this."

and as reported on CBC Radio One he also said

"No one can take away our rights"

I can only agree with him.

Link to Congressman Paul Findley speech via Heli's Heaven and Hell

Let's see - if they're young and male they must be rebels and will be picked off. That seems to be the logic behind the US Military in Falluja. The locals however are saying it's children and the elderly that are being killed. Call me silly if you will but I tend to believe the Iraqi doctors on this matter.

The United States last night robustly defended its controversial siege of Falluja which has cost the lives of more than 600 people over the past week, by claiming most of those who died were militants picked off with precision by US marines.

As a tense ceasefire held in the turbulent city west of Baghdad and an international hostage crisis persisted across Iraq, the US marine commander in charge of the siege of Falluja claimed 95% of those killed were legitimate targets.

The death toll in Falluja has sparked widespread international concern and has led to condemnation by the US-appointed Iraqi governing council.

Yesterday, the director of the town's general hospital, Rafie al-Issawi, said the vast majority of the dead were women, children and the elderly.

{snip}

The figure of 600 was gathered from four clinics around the city and from Falluja general hospital, which have all been taking in bodies, said al-Issawi. Bodies were also being buried in two football fields. "We have reports of an unknown number of dead being buried in people's homes without coming to the clinics," Mr Issawi said.

Tell me, doesn't the following sound familiar?

But when asked about the victims numbers, US marine Lieutenant Colonel Brennan Byrne said: "What I think you will find is 95% of those were military age males that were killed in the fighting. The marines are trained to be precise in their firepower ... The fact that there are 600 goes back to the fact that the marines are very good at what they do," he said.

Shades of My Lai, sure sounds like how they described the village razing in Vietnam. Bring on the Phoenix Program. Every day this Iraqi nightmare begins to look more and more like Vietnam starting with the hand picked American puppets running the government down to the massacre of innocent civilians. Yet another black mark on America's soul.

Is anybody, and I do mean anybody surprised?

A senior US military officer in Iraq has said that a battalion of the new Iraqi army refused to support US forces in the town of Falluja.

The 620-man battalion, which graduated from training camp on 6 January, refused to go to Falluja after being shot at in a Shia area of Baghdad.

It was the first time US commanders had sought to involve post-war Iraqi forces in major combat operations.

The troops were quoted as saying they had not signed up to fight Iraqis

and the understatement of the year award goes to.....drumroll please.....

Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, who heads the US-led ground forces, said the incident had uncovered significant challenges within the new force, being trained ahead of the June handover of sovereignty.

No shit Sherlock. You invade their country killing at least 10 thousand civilians then you treat them like shit, fail to understand anything about their culture , saddle them with an interim government made up of self-serving thieves like Chalabi, get set to steal their resources from them, and now you wonder why the troops are going to stand back and watch or join, their fellow Iraqi's, who are kicking your asses, and you couldn't see this coming. Amazing, simply amazing.

OK so let's get this straight. Bush invades Iraq and accomplishes the impossible, uniting Sunni and Sh'ia in a common cause, kicking the US out of Iraq and bolstering their support for Palestine. Not satisfied with alienating the Arab world to that degree he now thinks he can impose a settlement on Palestinians that does not recognize the Green Line.

Bush thinks he and Sharon can come to an agreement on the borders of Israel and that this agreement can then be imposed on the Palestinians, because, surprise surprise, they weren't invited to the negotiations. That's right folks this wacko POTUS that launches a war "in order to bring democracy to Iraq", doesn't believe that the people most affected by this decision should have any say in it.

The United States is to back Israeli demands for parts of the occupied West Bank to be annexed by the Jewish state in any final peace settlement with the Palestinians, according to diplomatic sources in Israel.

A leaked draft of a letter from President George W Bush says the White House will state that a final status deal will recognize "demographic realities" on the ground - code for allowing Israel to keep some Palestinian land settled by Jews in the occupied territories.

In return, Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, will issue a letter agreeing to evacuate all Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip, which was also occupied in the 1967 war, and withdraw Israel military forces from the area, apart from the Philadelphi Road on the Egyptian border.

He will also announce that four Jewish settlements in the northern part of the West Bank will be dismantled. More than 120 other settlements, however, will remain in place under Mr Sharon's "disengagement plan", which has been the subject of intensive negotiations with Washington in recent months.

Oh and just in case you thought, for a brief second, that this might halt the slaughter of Palestinians, think again

Mr Bush's letter will also recognise Israel's "right to self-defence" and endorse anti-terrorist operations in parts of the territories from which Israel has withdrawn.

Yeah more helicopter attacks against Palestinian communities and more innocents being killed as Israeli forces launch rocket attacks against apartment buildings in order to get one person inside.

Try and get this through your thick skull George, Israel has NO RIGHT to any territory outside of the Green Line, none whatsoever. No matter what agreements you come to with Ariel "the butcher" Sharon, the Middle East's biggest terrorist, unless the Palestinian's agree to it, and not under duress, the fighting will continue.

You are a disgrace to the position you hold and deserve to be thrown out of office and forgotten.

addendum: I want to make something clear about my own beliefs in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, lest someone think that I am anti-Jewish. I believe firmly in the right of the State of Israel to exist within the boundaries originally set by the United Nations on the inception of that state of Israel. I do not believe Israel has any right whatsoever to land outside of those original borders. I believe the Palestinians have a right to their own homeland and a right to rule it themselves without interference by outside powers, be they American or Israeli. I believe very firmly that criticizing Israel's foreign policy, it's treatment of Palestinians, or criticism of it's politicians is not anti-semitic. That the attempt by zealot Zionists to brand any critic and criticism of Israel and it's leaders as anti-semitic is a shameless ploy intended to play on the world's guilt/compassion for the past treatment of Jews and is every bit as distasteful as the Bush cabal's attempt to brand its critics as traitors. I do NOT support the Palestinian terrorist bombings in Israel,. I do however understand the reasons why they do so.

I, along with many many others, have been saying from the start of the Iraq fiasco that it really was all about oil and all that goes with the oil industry. Greg Palast, along with a reporter from the WSJ are the only people outside of the White House administration that have seen the document “Moving the Iraqi Economy from Recovery to Sustainable Growth,” and as Palast says

The leaked document, which only Palast and a reporter from The Wall Street Journal have managed to obtain, contains plans of “private sector involvement in strategic sectors, including privatization, assets, sales, concessions, leases and management contracts –– especially in the oil and supporting industries.”

“Said more plainly; it is a plan to sell off the oil fields, the pipelines and the oil infrastructure of Iraq to private business and to turn what is left of Iraq into a freemarket paradise,” Palast says.

“The plan is obviously made to make it easier for the giant operators that could possibly afford to take over Iraq’s oil wealth,” he said.
Palast’s suggestion to what organizations would possibly take over the oil wealth included “two giant American operators, two British and one Russian operation.”

Needless to say, Palast’s theory and the leaked document echoes the European and Middle Eastern claim that the reason to start the war was oil.

The document does not only indicate that US is planning to privatize every economically beneficial asset, but also the very backbone of Iraq, its laws.

“The plan contains details of how to rewrite Iraq’s laws, including the nation’s copyright laws, the nation’s business regulations laws, taking over the banking sector and includes such strange things as writing for Iraq its application to join the World Trade Organization. On top of that, the plan includes a detailed rewriting of Iraq’s tax code,” Palast said.

So there it is folks. Bush is spending $200+Billion of you, the American taxpayer's money and getting hundreds, and soon to be thousands, of your children, brothers, sisters, lovers and friends killed fighting an illegal war in order to make his buddies in the oil business even wealthier. If this isn't treason it is at least a gross dereliction of duty and he should be impeached and thrown in jail for the rest of his life. Better still try him in Texas for first degree murder (all those dead soldiers) and let him face the punishment that he so gleefully visited upon many of his fellow Texans while he was governor. Just make certain that everyone on the jury lost someone close in Iraq or 9/11.

US foreign policy is causing a large percent of the conflicts around the world today. Shortly after WWI Major general Smedley Darlington Butler (a most interesting character) wrote an essay called "War is a Racket". In that essay you will find the following suggestion. He's right. The only way to stop war is to take the profit out of it. Too bad the spineless wimps in Congress are more eager to accept bribes from those who would profit from war rather than expose them for what they really are.

A few profit – and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can't end it by disarmament conferences. You can't eliminate it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war.

The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labor before the nations manhood can be conscripted. One month before the Government can conscript the young men of the nation – it must conscript capital and industry and labor. Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our munitions makers and our shipbuilders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted – to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.

Let the workers in these plants get the same wages – all the workers, all presidents, all executives, all directors, all managers, all bankers –

yes, and all generals and all admirals and all officers and all politicians and all government office holders – everyone in the nation be restricted to a total monthly income not to exceed that paid to the soldier in the trenches!

Let all these kings and tycoons and masters of business and all those workers in industry and all our senators and governors and majors pay half of their monthly $30 wage to their families and pay war risk insurance and buy Liberty Bonds.

Why shouldn't they?

They aren't running any risk of being killed or of having their bodies mangled or their minds shattered. They aren't sleeping in muddy trenches. They aren't hungry. The soldiers are!

Give capital and industry and labor thirty days to think it over and you will find, by that time, there will be no war. That will smash the war racket – that and nothing else.

Maybe I am a little too optimistic. Capital still has some say. So capital won't permit the taking of the profit out of war until the people – those who do the suffering and still pay the price – make up their minds that those they elect to office shall do their bidding, and not that of the profiteers.

If you want to hear live recordings of the 9/11 hearings they are available for download here from Audible.Com

Ya, it really looks like the Bush government really wants to get those responsible for 9/11.

The only man to have been convicted anywhere in the world of involvement in the September 11 attacks was released from prison yesterday to await a retrial.

Mounir El Motassadeq, 30, a student from Morocco, left the court in Hamburg after more than two years in jail.
...

His release followed a decision by an appeals court to throw out his conviction last month on the basis of lack of evidence and the refusal of US authorities to allow the court access to Ramzi Binalshibh, a Yemeni captured in Pakistan in September 2002. He is believed to have been the main link between al-Qa'eda and the cell in Hamburg where much of the plotting is believed to have taken place.

It is thought that he could have given evidence that Motassadeq knew nothing of the September 11 plot

Yup sure looks like they want to get the real ones responsible. If the Dem's are smart they will take every advantage of this to lambast Bush for hindering the prosecution of 9/11 terrorists.

Last November I wrote about how Iraq was looking more and more like America's next Vietnam.

The death rate is going to continue to climb. Will it ever reach the rate "achieved" in Vietnam? I doubt it but it will get a lot higher than it currently is the longer the US continues to illegally occupy Iraq. It would not surprise me in the least to see it reach 5 a day. It's just going to get bloodier and bloodier.

Sad to say that this past weekend they reached that 5 a day (for the weekend), more so if you include coalition forces. The average daily death toll in Vietnam was about 9 per day. The fighting in Iraq has really just begun and the daily death toll is going to start to climb. We're not so far off the rates that we sustained in Vietnam.

In today's Guardian how the war against Iraq could derail Bush's re-election is discussed.

"There are thugs and terrorists in Iraq who are trying to shake our will," the chief White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, told journalists. "And the president is firmly committed to showing resolve and strength ... They cannot shake our will."

No Scott. As I said last November

The longer the US stays "in control" the more the average Iraqi citizen is going to resent their presence and the more that happens the more Iraqi freedom fighters will be created (no person who is fighting for the freedom of their country from the occupation by a foreign country can be rationally called a terrorist)

You use of the word terrorist to describe Iraqi's who fight against your illegal occupation of their country is newspeak at its worst.

The US's failure to understand Iraqi and Arab culture is a mirror of their failure to understand the culture and politics of Vietnam. The result will be the same. Horrendous losses followed by abandonment of the country. Just as in Vietnam they have failed to make the friends they really needed and made friends with smooth talkers who can't help them so too Iraq.

Interesting article in NYT today on Condi

Her background, as she acknowledged, was as "a Europeanist." And when she briefly dropped her self-confident tone, Ms. Rice, then a professor and former provost at Stanford, said in an interview in June 2000 that as a campaign adviser to Mr. Bush, she found herself "pressed to understand parts of the world that have not been part of my scope."

Among those relatively unfamiliar issues was the rise of radical Islamic movements in the Mideast and South Asia. Ms. Rice has said "we did everything we knew how to do" to combat terrorism in the months before the attack.

Ms. Rice openly concedes that her world view, and her priorities, have greatly changed since Sept. 11. The N.S.C. is now larger and more operational than ever, particularly since Ms. Rice, unhappy with the way the Defense and State Departments were running occupied Iraq, pulled the issue back into the White House under a new organization that reports directly to her.

A former senior administration official who has worked closely with Ms. Rice over the years painted this retrospective portrait of her as she took office in 2001: "She's a quick study, she's very smart, she has an orderly mind, and she has great self-confidence. On the other hand, she suffers in that she doesn't have a really broad background, especially in the history of different areas. So she's good on Russia, pretty good on Europe, but it drops off pretty sharply from there."

Well that's pretty interesting. Start a war in a country you know nothing about then take management of the occupation away from those who should be managing it (well they shouldn't be there in the first place but given that they are....). Pretty good recipe for disaster if you ask me.

Does this mean then that we can lay the blame for all the recent US forces deaths squarely on Condi's shoulders - she's the one dictating how Iraq is run after all. If it wasn't for the US closing down Shi'a cleric Moqtada al-Sadr newspaper the recent uprising may very well not have happened. It was a signal to al-Sadr that his days were numbered. At least that's likely how someone who suffered under Saddam would likely see that move.

It illustrates very well the depth of ignorance this administration has for cultural differences. They have no understanding of tribal politics or customs and as a result they do everything in Iraq the wrong way. Even a cursory reading of the history of the region under the Ottoman Empire then the British Empire would have given them a much needed clue. Condi has no excuses for this ignorance. She is supposedly a bright person, she knows how to do research. This is typical right wing consercvative bullshit - we know what's best for the children so we'll do it our way and ignore any critics, the stern father model at its worse. I hope they crucify her on Thursday when she testifies, under oath and in public, in front of the 9/11 commission. She deserves no less.

Via The Guardian

Now what was all that about it not being on their minds right away?

President George Bush first asked Tony Blair to support the removal of Saddam Hussein from power at a private White House dinner nine days after the terror attacks of 11 September, 2001.

According to Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British Ambassador to Washington, who was at the dinner when Blair became the first foreign leader to visit America after 11 September, Blair told Bush he should not get distracted from the war on terror's initial goal - dealing with the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Bush, claims Meyer, replied by saying: 'I agree with you, Tony. We must deal with this first. But when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq.' Regime change was already US policy.

Ah but it gets even better

Details of this extraordinary conversation will be published this week in a 25,000-word article on the path to war with Iraq in the May issue of the American magazine Vanity Fair. It provides new corroboration of the claims made last month in a book by Bush's former counter-terrorism chief, Richard Clarke, that Bush was 'obsessed' with Iraq as his principal target after 9/11.

But the implications for Blair may be still more explosive. The discussion implies that, even before the bombing of Afghanistan, Blair already knew that the US intended to attack Saddam next, although he continued to insist in public that 'no decisions had been taken' until almost the moment that the invasion began in March 2003. His critics are likely to seize on the report of the two leaders' exchange and demand to know when Blair resolved to provide the backing that Bush sought.

Didn't your mommy ever teach you George (and Tony) that lies will always catch up with you in the end? Tsk Tsk Barbara - you should have done a better job. Really, you should have.

This is the cover of the April 3-9, 2004 edition of The Economist

Via Common Dreams

From John Dean's interview on Bill Moyer's NOW tonight

BILL MOYERS: You write that the administration has tried to block, frustrate or control any investigation into 9/11 using, quote, "well-proven tactics not unlike those used by the Nixon White House during Watergate." What tactics?

JOHN DEAN:
Stall. Stall.

We knew that at the Nixon White House. Some of these are time-tested tactics. When the Congress put together a joint inquiry itself was self-defeating because it's much more difficult for a joint inquiry with its size -- the lack of attention its staff can give to a group that large. It gets diffuse. And Cheney--

BILL MOYERS:
So when you testified in Congress -- in the 70's there was a Senate Investigating Committee and a House Judiciary Committee, right?

JOHN DEAN:
Right. Separate committees. Exactly. And they can get much more focused. So it was very effective. And Cheney and Bush were very involved. They didn't want any of the standing committees to do it. They put them together. And that was one of the first signs I saw that they're just playing it by-- I think they found an old playbook down in the basement that belonged to Richard Nixon. And they said, "Well, this stuff looks like it works."

BILL MOYERS:
Be specific with me. What is worse than Watergate?

JOHN DEAN:
If there's anything that really is the bottom line, it's taking the nation to war in a time -- when they might not have had to go to war and people dying. That is worse than Watergate. No one died for Nixon's so-called Watergate abuses.

BILL MOYERS:
Let me go right to page 155 of your book. You write, quote, "The evidence is overwhelming that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have engaged in deceit and deception over going to war in Iraq. This is an impeachable offense."

JOHN DEAN:
Absolutely is. The founders in the debates in the states-- I cite one. I cite one that I found -- I tracked down after reading the Nixon impeachment proceedings when-- Congressman Castenmeyer had gone back to look to see what the founders said about misrepresentations and lying to the Congress. Clearly, it is an impeachable offense. And I think the case is overwhelming that these people presented false information to the Congress and to the American people.

BILL MOYERS:
John, I was, as you know, in the Johnson White House at the time of the Gulf of-- Tonkin when LBJ escalated the war in Vietnam on the basis of misleading information. He said there was an attack in the Gulf of Tonkin. It subsequent turns out there wasn't an attack.

Many people said then and have said that LBJ deceived the country and concealed the escalation of the war. You even say in the book that he hoodwinked Congress. Are you saying that that was not an impeachable offense but what is happening now is?

JOHN DEAN:
No. I'm saying that was an impeachable offense. In fact, it comes up in the Nixon debates over whether the secret bombing would be an impeachable offense. That became a high crime or offense because Nixon had, in fact, told privately some members of the Congress. Johnson didn't tell anybody the game he was playing to my knowledge.

And these are probably the most serious offenses that you can make-- when you take a country to war, blood and treasure, no higher decision can a President of the United States make as the Commander-in-Chief. To do it on bogus information, to use this kind of secrecy to do it is intolerable.

Right on John - I think we all agree - Impeach Bush!

Try and act surprised? Deny everything? Nah, I'll bet you and your's will try and destroy her reputation too.

A former translator for the FBI with top-secret security clearance says she has provided information to the panel investigating the 11 September attacks which proves senior officials knew of al-Qa'ida's plans to attack the US with aircraft months before the strikes happened.

Sibel Edmonds said she spent more than three hours in a closed session with the commission's investigators providing information that was circulating within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting that an attack using aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in place. The Bush administration, meanwhile, has sought to silence her and has obtained a gagging order from a court by citing the rarely used "state secrets privilege".

She told The Independent yesterday: "I gave [the commission] details of specific investigation files, the specific dates, specific target information, specific managers in charge of the investigation. I gave them everything so that they could go back and follow up. This is not hearsay. These are things that are documented. These things can be established very easily."

She added: "There was general information about the time-frame, about methods to be used ­ but not specifically about how they would be used ­ and about people being in place and who was ordering these sorts of terror attacks. There were other cities that were mentioned. Major cities ­ with skyscrapers."

MORE

Via Common Dreams

While I often disagree with him, particularly when he goes on about the Civil War and religion, I have a lot of respect for Charley Reese's clear thinking. Particularly when it comes to the failures of the Bush administration and the fight of the Palestinians for freedom. His latest column sets out what's happening in the middle east perfectly. Here's a bit. Read the whole thing.

The murder of Hamas' spiritual leader, Sheik Yassin, makes perfect sense as long as you understand Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's strategy.

That strategy is to make peace impossible.

For three years, Sharon has done everything to prevent peace. He himself provoked the new uprising, re-invaded the occupied territories, destroyed the Palestinian Authority, forced Yasser Arafat into house arrest and launched an unprecedented, brutal campaign of assassinations, curfews, fences, destruction of property and random killing of Palestinians. The Israelis have killed about 2,700 Palestinians in the past three years. Only about 700 Israelis have been killed.

Two excellent articles on Richard Clarke by people who worked with him and went to school with him:

• Dick Clarke Is Telling the Truth: by Fred Kaplan
• The War on Clarke: by Larry C. Jonson

In addition there is an excellent statement made on the Senate floor today by Senator Daschle on the Abuse of Government Power. His speech condems the Bush government for it's treatment of those who would disagree with them. In doing so points out one of the more cogent aspects of this - that nearly all of the whistle blowers

• Senator McCain
• Senator Cleland
• Secretary O'Neill
• Ambassador Wilson
• General Shinseki
• Richard Foster
• Richard ClarkeLarry Lindsay

One is left to wonder what will happen to Condoleeza Rice should she choose to actually tell the truth when she is under oath and in public in front of the 9/11 commission. Hopefully (yeah I know I'm a dreamer) she will come to her senses and know that it's time to CYA and start looking out for number one, and that ain't Bush et al. If she lies under oath it will be discovered and she will go down for it, not Bush, not Cheney, not Rumsfeld but her. Something tells me she's not the type to fall on her sword.

It's always interesting to step off the continent and see how others perceive events.

The swiftness and ferocity of the Bush White House's attack on Richard Clarke tells you two things: his story may be largely true, and the Bush administration is terrified that the American people will believe it

The above quote is from an article in The Guardian and was written by Philip James is a former senior Democratic party strategist.

Although short, it is a good read. The Bush cabal's vicious and unfounded attacks against Clarke are sermons only for the choir, they aren't converting the unfaithful and many of the faithful are having a serious crises of faith.

Does it get any better than this? I don't think so. Try and act surprised.

The official merchandise Web site for President George W. Bush's re-election campaign has sold clothing made in Burma, whose goods were banned by Bush from the U.S. last year to punish its military dictatorship.

The merchandise sold on www.georgewbushstore.com includes a $49.95 fleece pullover, embroidered with the Bush-Cheney '04 logo and bearing a label stating it was made in Burma, now Myanmar. The jacket was sent to Newsday as part of an order that included a shirt made in Mexico and a hat not bearing a country-of-origin label.

It seems every time you turn around you find another person who should be a staunch supporter of the Bush cabal either expressing reservations or outright abandoning camp. Even tame rats have begun to eye that hawser leading to shore. Remember when you hear such people express reservations, these are the very same people who portrayed anyone objecting to US policy as traitors.

Jay Garner, the US general abruptly dismissed as Iraq's first occupation administrator after a month in the job, says he fell out with the Bush circle because he wanted free elections and rejected an imposed program of privatization.

In an interview to be broadcast on BBC Newsnight tonight, he says: "My preference was to put the Iraqis in charge as soon as we can, and do it with some form of elections ... I just thought it was necessary to rapidly get the Iraqis in charge of their destiny."

Asked by the reporter Greg Palast if he foresaw negative repercussions from the subsequent US imposition of mass privatization, Gen Garner said: "I don't know ... we'll just have to wait and see." It would have been better for the Iraqis to take decisions themselves, even if they made mistakes, he said.

And his fate shows just how poor the Bush cabal is at personnel management

Despite being a protege of Mr Rumsfeld, Gen Garner was the subject of what was alleged to be a White House whispering campaign, describing him as weak.

A year after the invasion, his disclosure of policy differences with the White House highlights the dilemma still faced by the US occupation forces.

That is not a lesson on how to win friends and influence people, it is a lesson in bridge burning - that forge ahead blindly and damn the torpedoes type of attitude that characterizes Rumsfeld.

Recently I commented on some attacks on John Kerry's war record that are obviously intended to call into question his "manhood". I don't doubt that the freepers, Rushies etc are all over these allegations and plan to leverage them in the upcoming election. When you hear them doing so throw Kerry's Silver Heart citation in their faces and make them eat their words. The best their boy could do is stuff a codpiece in his flight suit and land as a passenger on board an aircraft carrier.

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action while serving with Coastal Division ELEVEN engaged in armed conflict with Viet Cong insurgents in An Xuyen Province, Republic of Vietnam on 28 February 1969. Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY was serving as Officer in Charge of Patrol Craft Fast 94 and Officer in Tactical Command of a three-boat mission. As the force approached the target area on the narrow Dong Cung River, all units came under intense automatic weapons and small arms fire from an entrenched enemy force less than fifty-feet away. Unhesitatingly Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY ordered his boat to attack as all units opened fire and beached directly in front of the enemy ambushers. This daring and courageous tactic surprised the enemy and succeeded in routing a score of enemy soldiers. The PCF gunners captured many enemy weapons in the battle that followed. On a request from U.S. Army advisors ashore, Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY ordered PCF's 94 and 23 further up river to suppress enemy sniper fire. After proceeding approximately eight hundred yards, the boats were again take under fire from a heavily foliated area and B-40 rocked exploded close aboard PCF 94; with utter disregard for his own safety and the enemy rockets, he again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his boat only ten feet from the VC rocket position and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy. Upon sweeping the area an immediate search uncovered an enemy rest and supply area which was destroyed. The extraordinary daring and personal courage of Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire were responsible for the highly successful mission. His actions were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.

This citation alone, never mind the reports and fierce loyalty of all but one of his crew, puts the lie to the stories promulgated by that one (loyal Republican) crew member. Don't get me wrong, I don't think for a second that such credentials are a pre-requisite for the presidency. However, when those you oppose are going to project their candidate as heroic and "manly" then it is incumbent upon you to expose their lies and distortions for what they are.

Hey Spain, ignore Bush! You're a good Catholic country so Practise Safe Anti-Terrorism and pull out!

I wouldn't exactly call CBS a liberal news media, yet tonight 60 Minutes made a wonderful attack on the Bush administration over the cost of prescription drugs and the FDA's attack on the importation of prescription drugs from Canada. They took great pains to point out how Americans are getting screwed while the pharmaceutical companies pad the campaign bank accounts of prominent Republicans, including Bush who scored over $500K. A lot of seniors watch 60Minutes. I wonder how they'll feel the next time they see that Medicare ad spouting nonsense about the new Medicare legislation that is really a thinly disguised Bush re-election ad. Especially after they hear that, while the US government absolutely negotiates the prices on all materials contracts but this legislation, bought and paid for by the pharmaceutical companies, takes away the government's right to negotiate drug costs. Just after they showed that they showed a video clip of Bush signing that legislation and he was laughing - fucking brilliant! Way to go CBS - making up for you moveon.org Superbowl game debacle, better late than never.

As was to be expected, from the likes of the Bush camp, as soon as Kerry became the de facto nominee the personal attacks on him began. Oh sure, to divert suspicion away from the RNC they use surrogates but the timing is too coincidental to be anything but a smear campaign.

The latest effort on this front is one of Kerry's former Vietnam shipmates who claims that Kerry ran from engaging the enemy.

John Kerry, the Democratic challenger for the White House, is embroiled in fresh controversy over his much-vaunted Vietnam war record, after one of his crew members accused him of cowardice and making strategic mistakes in battle.

The testimony of Steven Gardner, a gunner's mate on the first patrol boat commanded by Mr Kerry in the Mekong delta, contradicts accounts of the senator's military career that depict him as a brave and aggressive lieutenant who won three Purple Hearts and which are a key element of his campaign against George Bush.

"He absolutely did not want to engage the enemy when I was with him," Mr Gardner said in an interview with the Boston Globe, which contacted him about the presidential candidate. "He wouldn't go in there and search. That is why I have a negative viewpoint of John Kerry.

"His initial patterns of behaviour when I met him and served under him were of somebody who ran from the enemy, rather than engaged it."

Oh really Mr.Gardner. I don't suppose the fact that you are a staunch Republican has anything to do with these remarks. I guess the Pentagon has precogs on staff that knew all the way back in the 60's that Kerry would one day be a serious contender for the office of POTUS so they awarded him 3 purple hearts and a citation for bravery just to curry future favours. I guess the entire remainder of the crew on Kerry's boat must have been suffering from mass hallucinations, since they rebuke all of your claims.

How does it feel Mr. Gardner to be the RNC's patsy? You haven't done your party any good all you've done is destroy whatever credibility and integrity you might have once had.

“I have no ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue" George W. Bush to congessional leaders in 2002 in reference to 9/11

Oh really George? Now about your new campaign ads.... By now he must have the record as the biggest liar to hold the office of POTUS.

Good for them. I don't doubt that Jeb Bush is disgruntled over this - after all he helped fix the 2000 election and this kind of scrutiny could thwart his efforts to do so again in 2004. Go for it Pax Christi USA

Press Release: Pax Christi USA Coordinator Rebuffs Governor Bush’s Criticism on Election Monitors

“Protecting the sanctity of every vote, the dignity of every voter is the motivation behind bringing international election monitors to Florida” says Robinson

Tallahassee, Fla. - Following criticism from Governor Jeb Bush, the national coordinator of Pax Christi USA said that “assuring the integrity of the election process” is the reason that his organization will be inviting international election monitors to Florida to oversee the 2004 presidential election.

“What I hope that Governor Bush understands is that the sanctity of every vote and the dignity of every voter is at the heart of our effort to make sure that the 2004 elections are conducted with the utmost integrity,” said Dave Robinson, national coordinator of Pax Christi USA, a national Catholic peace and justice organization.

After a press conference outside the Florida Supreme Court in which Pax Christi USA announced its plans to bring international election monitors to Florida, Governor Bush told members of the media that Pax Christi USA’s plans are “an organized effort to try to create doubt about our election system.”

“This is all part of some politically motivated thing that tries to scare people to somehow think their vote is not going to count,” said Governor Bush. “That’s hogwash, hogwash.”

“It was our great hope that Governor Bush would welcome the monitoring of the elections,” said Carol Ann Breyer, state coordinator for Pax Christi Florida. “This is an excellent opportunity to show that the mistakes of the past have been corrected and that this great state can conduct a fair and transparent election, an ‘election in the sunshine,’ so to speak.”

On Monday morning, Robinson and Breyer had announced Pax Christi USA’s intention to bring international election monitors to oversee the process in four of the counties which were at the heart of the 2000 presidential election controversy: Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and Duval. Pax Christi USA, which has sent delegations to observe elections in countries like El Salvador and Haiti in the past, also issued an invitation to other religious and civic organizations to join them in monitoring throughout the United States.

“Assuring each citizen’s right to vote is not hogwash,” Robinson said. “Having non-partisan election monitors from the international community is an essential component to assuring the integrity of the election process in Florida.”

For more information or interviews, please contact Johnny Zokovitch at 352-219-8419, johnnypcusa@yahoo.com, or Michael Jones at 814-453-4955, ext. 228, mike@paxchristiusa.org.

original source viaCommon Dreams

Surprise, Surprise. Now that Kerry is the de facto Democratic nominee it didn't take long for loyal Republicans to dig up some "dirt" on him. It appears that in the mid 60's as he graduated Yale he asked the draft board for a one year deferment so that he could continue his studies in Paris.

Senator John Kerry, the presumed Democratic presidential candidate who is trading on his Vietnam war record to campaign against President George W Bush, tried to defer his military service for a year, according to a newly rediscovered article in a Harvard University newspaper.

He wrote to his local recruitment board seeking permission to spend a further 12 months studying in Paris, after completing his degree course at Yale University in the mid-1960s.

The revelation appears to undercut Sen Kerry's carefully-cultivated image as a man who willingly served his country in a dangerous war - in supposed contrast to President Bush, who served in the Texas National Guard and thus avoided being sent to Vietnam.

However there is an important difference between him and Bush. When his deferment was turned down he immediately enlisted in the Navy and served his country well in Vietnam, returning with three purple hearts and a medal for gallantry.

"This means that Kerry didn't jump into all that heroic service until he was pushed, and it is a very nice piece of information," said Lucianne Goldberg, a prominent Republican campaigner.

Yeah, well what you forgot to point out there Lucianne is that Bush didn't jump at all.

I wonder how all the survivors, and the relatives of the victims, of the 9/11 attack feel about Bush abusing using images of 9/11 in his ads. If I were one of them I would be sorely offended. Bush's international policies have done nothing to increase the security of US citizens, but only increased their risk of further devastation. He feeds on the populace's insecurities and enacts policies to increase those very same fears. He should be ashamed but we all know he isn't and that is truly sad.

I'm shocked, shocked to find such language going on here (my apologies to Claude Rains) - Chavez calling Bush an asshole! Well at least you can't accuse him of being blind.

CARACAS, Venezuela - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called President Bush an "asshole" on Sunday for meddling, and vowed never to quit office like his Haitian counterpart as troops battled with opposition protesters demanding a recall referendum against him.

Chavez, who often says the U.S. is backing opposition efforts to topple his leftist government, accused Bush of heeding advice from "imperialist" aides to support a brief 2002 coup against him.

"He was an asshole to believe them," Chavez roared at a huge rally of supporters in Caracas.

The Log Cabin Republicans - a large political organization representing GLBT Republicans has spoken out about the Bush cabal's project to amend the constitution.

(Washington)—“Writing discrimination into the Constitution is wrong. It is not conservative, it is not Republican, and it will not strengthen America,” said Log Cabin Executive Director Patrick Guerriero, in response to the President’s possible support of an anti-family Constitutional amendment.

“As conservative Republicans, we are outraged that any Republican—particularly the leader of our party and this nation—would support any effort to use our sacred United States Constitution as a way of scoring political points in an election year,” Guerriero said.

* Candidate Bush promised in 2000 to be a “uniter, not a divider.” The effort to write discrimination into our Constitution with an anti-family amendment would divide America.
* Candidate Bush ran as a compassionate conservative. There is nothing compassionate about discriminating against part of the American family. And there is nothing conservative about tinkering with our Constitution.
* Candidate Bush ran as a governor who supported Federalism and states’ rights. This anti-family amendment runs counter to both those principles. And it runs counter to what Vice-President Cheney said during the 2000 campaign. Instead of allowing each state to decide this issue on its own, the President is pushing a purely political proposal to appease the radical right.

The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is the law of the land. DOMA means no state shall have to recognize marriages or civil unions from another state. There is no case before any court in America challenging the Defense of Marriage Act.

History will not look back kindly on this assault of our Constitution. This amendment is the product of the radical right. They have mastered the art of gay-bashing after decades of practice. The anti-family federal marriage amendment would turn back the clock on our basic rights by denying not only civil marriage, but also civil unions and possibly even domestic partnerships. That is why Log Cabin considers support for this amendment a declaration of war on gay and lesbian families and an attack on our sacred Constitution.

I wonder how effective they will be in organizing resistance from within the party. This may be what Bush and Ashcroft want but it's Rove that pulls Bush's strings at least as far as the election goes and if he sees a lot of Republican votes going away due to this you can bet he'll be leaning hard on Bush to delay it until after Nov 4 and to stop talking about it.

According to CNN Dennis Kucinch came in second in the Hawaii primary today taking 30% of the vote.

It was Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio who came in second in Hawaii's caucuses, with 30 percent of the vote, with nearly all precincts reporting. Kerry secured 46 percent, Edwards came in third with 13 percent, while 9 percent went to former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who suspended his campaign last week.

Typical for CNN though they barely mentioned this amazingly strong finish for Kucinich. Never the less this will give him some bargaining power at the convention. I wonder if the Hawaiians who voted for him were thinking about Pearl Harbour and Iraq and thinking better go with someone who cares about America's reputation and specifically its war mongering reputation.

You could see it coming a mile away. The interim government in Iraq (oh gee and they thought they could trust Chalabi) has said that any agreements on the American military maintaining troops in Iraq will have to wait until after the the next sovereign Iraqi government is elected. Fat chance that the shi'ite clergy are going to let the Americans stay in Iraq after they get in power. Poor George, Rummy and all the neocons - their plans are crumbling around them. Bye Bye.

Paul Loeb has a good article on Nader, The Lone Ranger of Righteousness, on Alternet today that I fully agree with. Nader is being very irresponsible and in Loeb's, and my view, he has abandoned his previous stance of doing what it takes to change society for the better.

So much of Nader's career has been built on reminding us of our common ties. It's wrong, he's argued, for companies to make unsafe cars, pollute our air or pillage shared resources. Actions have consequences, he's pointed out with persistence and eloquence.

Now, he's taking the opposite tack, fixating on his own absolute right to do whatever he chooses, while branding those who've argued against his running as contemptuous censors, who "want to block the American people from having more choices and voices." This argument would seem familiar coming from an Exxon executive. Coming from Ralph Nader, it marks a fundamental shift from an ethic of responsibility to one of damn the consequences, no matter how much populist precedent he tries to dress it up with.

He has no chance of being elected. All he can do is siphon off votes that otherwise would go to defeating Bush. Moderate Republicans who are dissatisfied with Bush are not going to vote for Nader because Nader is seen as the enemy of corporations, those entities held so dear by Republicans. Those people will either not vote or switch sides with a protest vote this time around. His agenda will not appeal to them. So the votes he gets will be from Democrats, Greens and left Libertarians who do agree with his positions. All people who would otherwise vote for Democrats even if they had to hold their noses while doing so because they know the necessity of defeating Bush.

If you have to get publicly involved in this election Ralph do it by stumping for the Democrats. Use your presence to influence who ever wins the nomination.

And while you're at it go read Shelley's excellent post on Nader

Bush's core group of voters are the christian right wing. This encompasses some 25% or more of his voting bloc. They will vote for him no matter what he does unless he turns around and stops backing Israel, which of course he's not going to do. However, there ae a lot of swing votes in the other 75%. His numbers are dropping in the polls. In a recent poll among decided voters both Kerry and Edwards came out in front of Bush. Granted he hasn't started his enormous $200 Million advertising campaign yet but never the less there is a great deal of dissatisfaction among the rank and file Republicans

While sharing a sandwich at the stylish Beachwood Mall in this Cleveland suburb, one older couple — a judge and a teacher — reluctantly divulged their secret: though they are stalwarts in the local Republican Party, they are planning to vote Democratic this year.

"I feel like a complete traitor, and if you'd asked me four months ago, the answer would have been different," said the judge, after assurances of anonymity. "But we are really disgusted. It's the lies, the war, the economy. We have very good friends who are staunch Republicans, who don't even want to hear the name George Bush anymore."

[snip]

John Scarnado, a sales manager from Austin, Tex., who voted for Mr. Bush in 2000, said he would vote for Mr. Kerry if the senator won the Democratic nomination.

"I'm upset about Iraq and the vice president and his affiliation with Halliburton," said Mr. Scarnado, a registered Republican who said that he had not always voted along party lines. "I think the Bush administration is coming out to look like old boy politics, and I don't have a good feel about that."

Many of those wavering in their loyalty to Mr. Bush were middle-class voters who said that his tax relief programs had disproportionately helped the wealthy.

"I voted for him, but it seems like he's just taking care of his rich buddies now," said Mike Cross, a farmer from Londonderry, N.H., adding, "I'm not a great fan of John Kerry, but I've had enough of President Bush."

It's an interesting article in todays NYT, go read it before it goes into the paid archives.

It would seem that Ralph Nader is doing his best to ensure that Bush gets re-elected in November. Tomorrow he willbe announcing his independent candidacy for President, once more siphoning off votes from the Democrats just when they need them the most. Nader has no appeal to those on the right, only those on the left side of the politcal spectrum and that's where he will draw his votes from. I hope no one will be foolish enough to vote for him, bush must go and the best thing Nader could do is stay out of the race, but his ego won't let him. Fuck off Ralph you've had your Warhol minute.

There is a major effort being ramped up right now to capture Osama bin Laden. Pakistani troops are heavily involved. Why do I smell a new version of Iran Contra here?

What bribes has Bush & CO. offered Musharaff in order to get bin Laden. It's no secret that Osama has been hiding in the hill tribe regions of Pakistan where the Taliban are making a recovery. Musharaff could have, and should have, made this attempt anytime in the past two years. Why Not, why now? Can anyone doubt that it is being timed for the US election.

Is it so inconceivable to think that Musharaff and the White House have known for some time where Osama is and have sat on it? Dirty Tricks are a way of life for Republicans, one only has to think of Nixon/Watergate and Reagan/Contra (and anyone who thinks Raagan was ignorant of that affair go make an appointment with your shrink) to name but a few. Watch for Osama to be captured after a lot of deadly battles that cost the lives of even more American military personnel (what the hell all the losses in Iraq don't bother him) say around mid September, early October just in time to boost Bush's ratings, monopolize the airwaves and blank out the Democrat's message. Excuse me if I'm just a little cynical here.

Update:

I realised a while later that I hadn't read Charley Reese, a man of uncommon commom sense, in quite some time so i dropped 'round his site tonihgt and found this little, appropos, gem.

The best thing that could happen for the president would be the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden. The worst thing would be another terrorist attack inside the United States.

I never cease to be amazed at how low the White House surrogates (Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter et. al.) can go. I was watching a program last night on the problems with the caste system in India. At one point they focused on an untouchable who works as a honey-dipper. In my books he is to the surrogates as a Brahman is to an untouchable. We all saw the photo of Kerry at an anti-war rally with "Hanoi" Jane, and boy did the Dittoheads ever eat it up as the gospel truth along with Drudge's sad attempt to smear Kerry with a "Clintonesque" scandal. Gee, surprise surprise surprise Andy guess what - it was all a fake!

A new dirty tricks campaign to embarrass the Democratic frontrunner, John Kerry, backfired ignominiously yesterday when it emerged that a widely circulated photograph of a protest against the Vietnam war was a crude forgery.

The photograph, falsely credited to Associated Press, combined two separate images to make it appear as if Mr Kerry shared a stage at an anti-war rally in the early 1970s with the actress, Jane Fonda.

Ms Fonda is reviled by many Vietnam vets for her wartime visit to Hanoi, and the image was widely aired over the internet by a fringe group of Vietnam veterans who have pursued a vendetta against Mr Kerry for years.

In less than a week, the forgery travelled from a message board on a rightwing website to a Vietnam veterans' mailing list to mainstream organisations. Two British national newspapers - the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday - used the photograph in editions on Friday last week and at the weekend.

The revelation that the photograph was a fake follows the rumour that Mr Kerry had had an affair with a young trainee reporter.

That claim, which started on the rightwing Drudge report website, was largely ignored by American papers when it first surfaced, but was leapt on by some British newspapers.

On Monday the woman at the centre of the furore, Alexandra Polier, issued a statement in which she denied ever having had a relationship with Mr Kerry.

I'm sure the GOP supporters will find something or someone to blame their embarrassment on (Hey why not Clinton - worked before eh!) - I know they can blame it on Photoshop. After all those images were just laying around begging to be faked and if those bad boys (obviously Democrats) at Adobe hadn't made such a fine product then the Dittoheads wouldn't have used it to fake the pictures. Right that's it.

I think it's time that the left stops harping on whether Bush met his commitments to the National Guard. It's not productive and it is very likely to backfire on the Democrats. The evidence is mounting that he did actually meet the minimum requirements. If people keep insisting he was AWOL in the face of this evidence then the Republicans will be only too happy to call them liars, and the burden of proof will have shifted away from Bush and on to his accusers.

One of the prominent themes of this election will be that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et. al. lied to the American public and the world about the need to go to war against Iraq. To maintain that high moral ground the left can not be tossing out accusations against Bush that are impossible to prove and appear now to be wrong.

This does not mean that they should not discuss his time in the Guard. No, but if they do then they should concentrate on how he got selected over many more qualified (but not as politically connected) candidates, how he only did the absolute minimum, and how if he was so gung ho to fight why didn't he opt to join the Air Force or volunteer for a unit that was being sent to 'nam. Instead he hid behind his fathers pants and took the easy way out. Just don't accuse him of being AWOL because the evidence now is not on your side.

As it becomes more and more certain that Howard Dean hasn'tthe proverbial snowball's chance in Hades of winning the nomination the interesting question becomes what will he do with his delegates? I don'tthink there is any possibility whatsoever that Kerry will choose him as his running mate. I'm pretty certain it will be Kerry and Edwards (although Kerry could surprise everyone and choose someone who is not one of the other candidates). So what will become of all those Deaniacs ©? Will Howard ask them to support Kerry in the hope that he can accrue some political capital out of it? Or will he get bold and send them to Kucinich in order to give Kucinich a little pull in getting his agenda put forth. I hope the latter because let's face it, with Kucinich only getting 1 to 3 % of the vote in any given primary he has zero pull at the moment. He simply doesn't have enough delegates to get any part of his agenda on the platform. If, when Dean (it's definitely not an if) drops out of the race , he were to send his delegates to Kucinich the convention would certainly get interesting. Not much chance of this happening I know but hey - it WOULD be interesting :-)

If you ever needed proof that the US will never get the government in Iraq that it wants this article in today's NYT is all you really need to read. Of course the Times puts the wrong spin on it but, well, what can you expect from a paper that has largely backed Bush (despite what the neocons say to the contrary).

A couple of weeks ago, Dr. Mayah, a 53-year-old political scientist and human rights advocate known in his neighborhood here as "the professor," was driving to work when eight masked gunmen jumped in front of his car. They yanked him into the street, the police said, and shot him nine times in front of his bodyguard and another university lecturer.

In an instant, he became one of hundreds of intellectuals and midlevel administrators who Iraqi officials say have been assassinated since May in a widening campaign against Iraq's professional class.

"They are going after our brains," said Lt. Col. Jabbar Abu Natiha, head of the organized crime unit of the Baghdad police. "It is a big operation. Maybe even a movement."

The religious fundamentalists in Iraq do not want independent intellectuals who can point out their lies and fundamentalists far outnumber the educated liberals in the country. Iraq WILL become another Iran as the Shi'ite majority takes over. Radical Muslim fundamentalism relies solely on a lack of education in the masses with no counter balancing opinions from intellectuals who know that fundamentalists lie to their followers about what the Koran teaches. This is why the Taliban were so effective in Afghanistan and the mountain tribal regions of Eastern Pakistan, The illiteracy rate there approaches 90% or higher. They can not read and interpret the Koran for themselves and must rely on someone who can for "authority". The single greatest danger to fundamentalism, be it Muslim, Christian or any other religious or political persuasion (remember the Cultural Revolution in China) , is education.

That's why the intellectuals are being targeted for assassination and why in the end the fundamentalists there will probably win out. Uneducated masses can be manipulated to carry outany political agenda, educated masses are far harder to control so overtly. The only real hope for Iraq is that so far as Arab countries are concerned it had one of the highest literacy rates. They will have to kill off or intimidate a lot of people who know better.

After his passionate commitment to the certainty of his convictions, based on the flimsiest of evidence, Colin Powell now says he might not have supported the War against Iraq had he know there were no WMD.

Doubts over the Iraq war emerged at the heart of the Bush administration yesterday when Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, suggested that he might not have supported the conflict had he known Saddam Hussein lacked stockpiles of deadly weapons.

Though hedged with careful expressions of support for President George W Bush, Mr Powell's comments were aimed at the hawks who pressed for war over his calls for diplomacy to be given more time.

Well excuse me Colin, you based your entire support for this war on the existence of WMD. You made that abundantly clear in your speech to the UN Security Council. So why are you hedging your speech now. Now you know there were no WMD, why don't you just state you would not have supported it just as passionately as you prevoiusly stated your support for it.

Bush is in trouble. The boys at the CIA are not going to sit back and fall on their swords for Bush. You can bet that they are already planning multiple scenarios for sticking that proverbial sword in George's back at timed appropriately to do him the most political damage before November if he tries to lay the blame entirely on them. It's not honesty or moral clarity that is leading to any of this. No, its that basest of motives, political survival. The outer ring around Bush is starting to see that it may be career suicide to stick to close to him and they are starting to distance themselves while still appearing to support him. "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold".

Things are looking up :-)

I've talked before about Bush's real agenda being the bankrupting of the US Treasury in order to force Congress into eliminating social and environmental programs, worker protection etc., basically all the progress made since FDR. Today George Lakoff puts it in his Strict Father terms and makes it clearer than I ever could.

Now consider social programs. In the strict father framework, they are immoral; they give people things they don't earn and lead them to become undisciplined, dependent, and incapable of moral behavior. Cutting taxes to produce a huge deficit rewards good – successful – people, and in addition takes away money from immoral social programs, which are referred to as "wasteful spending."

From the Bush perspective, it is thus a moral obligation to eliminate social programs that lead to dependence. He calls it "reform" – Social Security reform, Medicare reform, education reform, and so on. If the reform is moral, those who oppose it are immoral and opponents of progress: "The status quo always has defenders."

The Bush strategy in these cases is the slippery slope – take the first step or two and you can't get back. The prescription drug benefit for Medicare was such a first step. You are lured down the slope by the drug benefit. Since the government is not allowed to compete for lower prices, people will leave Medicare for private insurance that provides temporary savings. After two years, they can't get back into Medicare. The slippery slope draws more and more people out – forever – and the system collapses. The president calls these proposals "strengthening Medicare."

Go read the whole article then get out and organize for the Democrats because no other party can get elected and a vote for anyone else is a vote for Bush in this instance. Make people understand exactly what is at stake here.

Printed on Thursday, January 22, 2004 @ 00:05:58 CST
http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1748

By John Chuckman
YellowTimes.org Columnist (Canada)

(YellowTimes.org) – Presidential elections in America are long, with formal campaigns lasting about a year and positioning leading to the campaigns lasting nearly three years. A President's four-year term of office leaves just enough time to dish out contracts and jobs.

There is nothing out of the ordinary in America about the length of presidential campaigns. Elections for other offices consume time pretty much in proportion to their power and importance. Senators, for example, spend about two-thirds of their six-year term just raising money for the next election.

American elections consume not just time but money, a great deal of money. Bush is expected to have a quarter-billion dollars in donations ready to fight for re-election. The nation's air waves will be jammed for months with mind-numbing images easily confused with personal hygiene or toothpaste commercials.

In America's early years, only a few men of considerable substance could vote. Any concept of wider democracy disturbed America's founding fathers as risking their wealth to the votes and whims of men without any. With the gradual, unavoidable extension of the American franchise over two hundred years of wars and social movements, a political system gradually emerged preserving the founders' concerns. Americans, in theory, can vote for anyone, but the candidates they see and hear and whose names appear on all the ballots in so vast a land will only be people effectively pre-selected by those of great substance. It is an inherently conservative system.

I don't want to put too much weight on the result of the Iowa caucus; it is hardly a future-shaping event, but the winner, John Kerry, brings pretty modest potential for change in America.

Kerry is an uninspiring figure, a man who has never stood out on matters of life and death or great injustice. He declared his candidacy in front of an aircraft carrier. Yes, he can shout his lines with the best of them when seeking the power and privilege of high office, but Kerry's voice is not one known for defending great principles. He opposed the war in Vietnam toward the latter part of that holocaust against Asians but, by that time, being anti-war had become almost stylish and Kerry's opposition came only after a ferociously ambitious effort at a successful career in the war, a career that included shooting a man running away as well as a man under his command killing a child.

The War on Terror, while remaining an undefined slogan, is supported by Americans. Despite the odds of death by terror being not much greater than death by lightning, an attack by nineteen men, all of whom died in the effort, has caused America to kill thousands of innocent civilians abroad, destroy the economy of Iraq, keep thousands of shackled prisoners in offshore kennels, deport people against whom it has no evidence so they can be tortured in other lands, and to pass fearful new laws.

Sentimental liberals continue to write about a glorious national past blotted out by Bush, ignoring America's tradition of near-rabid responses to real or imagined danger. This tradition began before the Revolution with periodic waves of fear and violence in the South over imagined slave revolts, and it continued with crazed slaughters of aboriginal people, the police-state Alien and Sedition Acts under President Adams, Jefferson's police-state enforcement of a boycott on British trade, beatings and killings of blacks in the North thought responsible for conscription during the Civil War, Lincoln's police-state suspension of basic rights in what was a totally avoidable war, periodic mass slaughters of blacks during the twentieth century, the internment of Japanese- Americans in concentration camps during World War II, the wanton incineration of Japanese cities, the McCarthy-era lunacy, a holocaust in Vietnam second in size only to the Nazi's grim work, and countless, ugly, l!
ittle colonial wars and overthrows
of elected governments.

It is notable that much of this kind of liberal writing ignores the international dimension of what Bush has done, the truly new and highly dangerous part of his handiwork. The authors focus on nasty domestic laws and bringing the troops home. Most liberals, like most conservatives in America, have a remarkable indifference about what happens to the world, so long as it doesn't affect their enjoyment of life. It is a disturbing orientation for people who, secretly or overtly, regard themselves as divinely-anointed, planetary overseers. So many times during the Vietnam War, I was astounded that people went right on happily sucking beer and dancing while American pilots napalmed villages in Asia. It was only when American coffins started arriving by the hundreds that much popular music turned harsh and full of protest and many proms lost their cozy glow.

There will be no return to what, before Bush, passed as normal in America until the nation has shaken its latest violent seizure. Even then, actions have been taken that will continue to sour the future. Does anyone believe that all the new, oppressive legislation in the United States will be rescinded? That the bloated, dangerous increases in military spending will be undone? That America's damage to international institutions will be corrected? That America's contempt for its more thoughtful allies will disappear? That the immense welling-up of prejudice against Arabic people will simply disappear?

The truth is that even if a moderately liberal person were elected President, he or she would face exactly what the Clintons faced for eight years, a hideous and relentless assault with opportunity for few meaningful accomplishments. The American Congress is so conservative, and has demonstrated itself so lacking in courage or imagination or largeness of view, that only the most modest changes can be expected under any president.

Failing new developments, the one big issue promises to be whether the costly, pointless invasion of Iraq was a legitimate part of the War on Terror. I believe the answer will hinge on how many Americans continue to die rather than any rational discussion. The most troubling aspect of this is the way many Bush opponents seem only to care about getting American troops out of there. Where's the sense of responsibility for the mess America created? Iraq will take many years to return to any kind of meaningful society.

Well, by all means, it would be nice to see Bush back with the rattlesnakes in Texas and once again to have a President capable of addressing civilly the rest of the world -- nice things but not a lot to get excited about. No likely Democratic candidate is going to produce a greatly more rational and decent United States. One or two Democrats, Lieberman or Clark, almost certainly would be as narrow and harsh as Bush, offering nothing beyond a day's satisfaction in seeing Bush sent packing.

[John Chuckman is former chief economist for a large Canadian oil company. He has many interests and is a lifelong student of history. He writes with a passionate desire for honesty, the rule of reason, and concern for human decency. He is a member of no political party and takes exception to what has been called America's "culture of complaint" with its habit of reducing every important issue to an unproductive argument between two simplistically defined groups. John left the United States as a poor young man from the South Side of Chicago when the government embarked on the murder of millions of Vietnamese in their own land because they happened to embrace the wrong economic loyalties. He lives in Canada, which he is fond of calling "the peaceable kingdom."]

I hope y'all realize that the reason Bush wants to essentially abandon the International Space Station and head back to the moon is because the Chinese have their eye on it and Bush wants to get there first and claim it as US territory (what's International Law or treaty agreements to him - nothing of course) - it's all about the high ground.

For 100 years Teck Cominco has mined the mountains in South Western BC, starting here in my home town of Rossland with Red Mountain, one of the richest gold strikes in the 19th Century and the primary reason for the founding of the Toronto Stock Exchange. Cominco is located just 6 miles down the mountain from here in Trail on the banks of the Columbia River. Trail, and the refinery are a mere 10 miles from the US border.

Throughout its long history (until the BC government said no more) Cominco dumped its refinery slag into the Columbia River, convenient, cheap disposal. In Cominco's defense, they have always been reasonably good corporate citizens, obeying Canadian environmental laws and contributing much back to the community. Teck Cominco is a Canadian company yet the EPA, a wholly US government organization thinks it can extend US law into Canada and force a Canadian company to do its bidding.

What is at contention here is the possible/potential pollution of the Columbia River and Lake Roosevelt (Lake Roosevelt was created on the Columbia River when the US government built the Grand Coulée damn in Washington State back in the 1930's.) The EPA is demanding that Cominco pay for tests on the riverbed and lake bed and then for any cleanup determined to be necessary under the US Superfund regulations. The catch here is that hte EPA says they will conduct the tests and determine the penalty. Cominco has offered to conduct similar tests themselves at their expense but with no implied sole liability for cleanup (many other non-Cominco mines operated in the area in the last 100 years and also used the Columbia River as a dumping spot on both sides of the border.)

On January 8 the Canadian government issued a diplomatic note to the US government saying EPA should rescind its order to Teck Cominco and work with the company on a "mutually acceptable" cleanup plan and further that "Canada does not believe that (Superfund) applies to Teck Cominco Metals". The note also stated that such an act "may set an unfortunate precedent by causing transboundary environmental liability cases to be initiated in both Canada and the United States." This is the right approach by Canada. All of this is not to excuse what Cominco has done over the years. That is another matter all together. However, while environmentalists cheer over the EPA's decision perhaps they should also reconsider the broader meanings of that decision cast in the context of recent history.

America is the 800 pound gorilla on the block, and it acts as such throwing its weight around and demanding that everything be done its way. That's all well and good so long as the American government is moderate and reasonable. However what we have today is a government that is anything but moderate and reasonable. A government that apparantly believes in a 21^st C. global version of Manifest Destiny. What we have is a country that believes International laws apply to every one but them. A country whose courts have authorised agents of that government to assassinate people, in other countries, whom they have deemed to be terrorists without asking that sovereign country's permission. A country that has invaded another country on false pretenses and in violation of international law.

It is imperative that other countries stand up for their sovereign rights against the force of the US. It is imperative that Canada make clear to the US that American laws lose all authority at the Canadian border except those exceptions agreed to by treaty. Whether or not Cominco is guilty of polluting the Columbia River and Lake Roosevelt is irelevant to this question. Perhaps those environmentalists, many of whom would no doubt also identify themselves with peace movements, should reconsider their position on this ruling.

The New Republic magazine just announced on CNN that they are backing Joeb Lieberman for the Democratic nomination. OK I understand that TNR represents sort of the middle of the road Democrats but this is ridiculous. Why support a Republican in disguise. TNR has just shown how irrelevant they are becoming.

I was listening to the CBC 1pm news and therer was an audio clip of Rumsfeld talking about the US increasing its use of force in Iraq against the - getthis terrorists who are attacking those forces. So it's started. I wondered how long it would be before they started branding Iraqi guerillas, in public, as terrorists. This is all part of their 2004 election campaign - time to ramp up "The War on Terrorism" once more make the ballless wonder in the White House look good again. Perhaps someone should remind Rummy that people who are defending their country against a foreign invader CAN NOT under international law be classified as a terrorist, and just in case he hadn't noticed it is the US forces that are the foreign invaders.

There is a report in this morning's Ottawa Citizen that many Americans are upset because Canadians travel around theworld with, get this...................................Canadian flag patches on their luggage and clothing. Yes folks you heard that right. Apparantly Canadians are not supposed to be proud of their country, nor, heaven forbid, should we do anything to try and differentiate our peaceful selves from our war mongering neighbours to the South. No, instead I'm sure they probably think we should go around, like them, sticking the Star and Stripes on everything, including countries that aren't theirs, just to show we support their War on Terrorism (which in mant ways we don't - i.e. Iraq) It hurts their poor widdle sensibilities.

"Some participants expressed a certain amount of annoyance at what is perceived as a systematic attempt by Canadians to make the statement that they are not Americans by sporting the maple leaf," said the recently released report. "This underscores the American sensitivity at feeling rejected by the rest of the world ...."

Gee who'd a thunk it - Wearen't Americans you idiot.

The report says even Americans who blame the Bush administration to some extent for the country's poor relations with the world, do not seem to understand why friendly countries and neighbours such as Canada would want to distance themselves from Americans.

For instance, an American from San Diego is quoted saying: "What bugs me about Canadians, if I may, is that they wear that damn patch on their bags, the Canadian flag patch. That way, they differentiate themselves from us."

un-fucking-believable, that's all I can say.

Taking the ball right into Bush's court Hillary Clinton launched a scathing attack on the the Bush administration and presidency yesterday in an exclusive interview with the Houston Chronicle.

Clinton, in an interview with two reporters, said she had become convinced the Republican administration wants "to undo the New Deal," the Roosevelt-era policies that ushered in Social Security and a host of other governmental assistance programs.

Of course they are, and they are doing it in the most underhanded and harmful way possible. Bush's goal this term is not to just get re-elected but to set in motion those wheels that will bankrupt the US Treasury. That's a deliberate move and goes a long way towards explaining the war on Iraq.

Yes fighting a war is about oil, but it's also about setting up a feeding trough for the Halliburton's of American corporate society. More so however it is about spending the treasury dry. Now I know that sounds like a strange thing for a supposedly fiscal conservative such as Bush to do but that's only if you look at it from a short term perspective and not from a cold hearted ruthless immoral perspective.

Bush beleives very strongly in a small, strong, paternal government where private industry is prime and government gets out of its way. The only way to do that is to dismantle all the social, economic and environlental safeguards that have arisen since the "New Deal". Bush knows he can not make a frontal assault on those entitlements via legislation - hell many if not most of his own party wouldn't support it. So he's taking a course of action that guarantees his desired result no matter who sits in the oval office. By bankrupting the treasury he guarantees that future governments will HAVE to eliminate every non-essential service just to keep essential services, the armed forces, security and the courts, functioning. This means everything else is gone - healthcare (can't afford private insurance too bad you're scum that don't count), social security (couldn't make enough to invest in stocks or wern't smart enough to know Bush's friends were going to rip you off too bad you're pathetic scum that don't count), welfare (put God back into your life and go seek charity from a church you heathen) - well you get the idea. It is a strategy that is pretty much guaranteed to work as future governments will not have the room to move, will simply not be able to maintain those programs no matter how much they want to. To this end the constant devaluation of the US dollar also is working in Bush's favour. When you look at Bush's record of slashing government revenue (tax cuts for the wealthy) while at the same time drastically increasing expenditures (the never ending war on terrorsm) the proverbial light bulb, lights up.

"This administration is in danger of being the first in American history to leave our nation worse off than when they found it."

Regardless of her own plans, Clinton said she hoped the United States was ready to elect a qualified woman as president.

"You've got women serving in many positions at all levels of government and in other walks of life. I was briefed by women generals, as well as men, when I was in Afghanistan and Iraq," she said.

"So from my perspective, it depends on the person."

Could this be the opening shot in a run for the 2004 presidency? I almost hope so as it would certainly breathe some life into the Democrats. Hillary has more "balls" than most of those candidates and lately it seems she has no compunction whatsover about calling a spade a spade when it comes to Bush. I don't know her stand on the war against Iraq and I'm not supporting her for POTUS but I still hope she runs because I think her candidacy she will focus the race on the evil that resides in the White House today.

During the recent television debates Al Sharpton, John Kerry and John Edwards proved, by their cheap exploitation and deliberate misconstruing of Howard Dean's remark, regarding Democrats needing to reach out to disaffected Southerners who sport confederate flags on their vehicles, that they do not deserve the support of Democrats or the American public in their quest for the presidency.

Now, more than at any other time in America's history, there is an absolute need for leaders who have moral integrity. Leaders who have a vision of justice, of what is right for their country, and who elucidate that vision for the electorate by standing up for what they believe. Leaders who are not sidetracked into a game of mudslinging but leaders who by their sincere faith in their convictions become a beacon for others. What they do not need is people who believe they can get to power by tearing others down, particularly by misrepresenting the actions of others. I hope the American people can find such a politician.

Donna Ladd has the I've seen yet on why Dean's remarks were right and just how important itis forDemocrat's to embrace the concept of best editorialreaching out to those Southern Democrats. And no, I'm not a Dean supporter - I just felt he was right to say what he did.

Damn I'm going to miss the opinionated, arrogant jerk :-) I like this story of his regarding Clinton:

The prime minister took great pleasure in recounting his trip to a Group of Seven meeting in Birmingham, England, where he and then U.S. president Bill Clinton slipped out a back door for a private walk without security. When they returned by the front door, Secret Service agents were ashen.

Chretien had suggested they hop a wall and "the big guy had to get a boost," the prime minister guffawed. He boasted he was in pretty good shape for a guy more than 10 years Clinton's senior, and added he has played just about every sport imaginable - other than polo and cricket.

I mean - how Prime Ministerial is it fr someone to go sit around the pool with a bunch of reporters, drink beer with them and shoot the shit? :-)

Who needs run of the mill Imperialism anyway when you can just deny the sovereignty of every other country in the world when it suits you to do so. The following is so scary for world peace. If it was any other administration than this one I would say it was unbelievable.

The Supreme Court said today it would consider whether the government has authority to go into another country to make an arrest without the permission of that country's government.

The justices acted at the request of the Justice Department, which argued that denial of that authority would have "profound consequences" on efforts to combat terrorism and illegal drug traffic.

The Justice Department asked the court to overturn an appeals court holding that such seizures exceed the government's legal authority and violate international law.

In theory, the lower court holding could conceivably interfere with the prosecution of al Qaeda suspects -- such as Osama bin Laden -- should they be captured overseas by U.S. agents or at the behest of U.S. agents without the cooperation of the nation harboring them.

You can read the full article here. Ignore the "al-queda/terrrist" argument because it is irrelevant. The only point that matters here is why the US even begins to think that its agents have legal authority in other countries.

Here's a piece of advice for any country that catches these American terrorists on their soil in the act of kidnapping someone without your permission. Prosecute them to the fullest extent of your law as the common criminals they are.

Idiot Son of an Asshole

750K Flash animation
Animation by Eric Blumrich
Music: NOFX

Great Stuff!

Check out his other animations while you're there - they're all very good.

The spirit of J. Edgar Hoover lives on in today's F.B.I. This morning I awoke to read in the headlines of the NYT "F.B.I. Scrutinizes Antiwar Rallies". The first thought that crossed my mind when I saw that headline was J. Edgar Hoover lives on. It wasn't necessary to read any further to know where it was going burt read on I did.

It seems that they are up to their old tricks of treating anyone who dares to publicly protest against the government as an enemy of the state. Once again they have enlisted the local police forces in their bid to supress freedom of speech and freedom of assembly under the guise of fighting terrorism.

The memorandum, which the bureau sent to local law enforcement agencies last month in advance of antiwar demonstrations in Washington and San Francisco, detailed how protesters have sometimes used "training camps" to rehearse for demonstrations, the Internet to raise money and gas masks to defend against tear gas. The memorandum analyzed lawful activities like recruiting demonstrators, as well as illegal activities like using fake documentation to get into a secured site.

I have no problem with the bureau analyzing illegal activity. That's their legitimate mission. However their mission does not include investigating legal activities such as how protestors are prganized, how they are recruited and how they train. That the government organizes its activities in such a way as to discourage protest (use of tear gas, water cannons, rubber bullets, batons, tasers etc when protests get too large, too angry or too much publicity) leaves protesters no choice but to seek ways to protect themselves (gas masks). It is not illegal to own or use a gas mask therefore it is non of the F.B.I.'s business if you do.

All of this of course is with the blessings of Herr oberführer Ashcroft . His PATRIOT act has considerably loosened the restraints put on the F.B.I. since the excesses of the Hoover days. As Herman Schwartz, a constitutional law professor at American University said:

"As a matter of principle, it has a very serious chilling effect on peaceful demonstration. If you go around telling people, `We're going to ferret out information on demonstrations,' that deters people. People don't want their names and pictures in F.B.I. files."

How long before they start using the really dirty tricks they used during Hoover's era - planting false evidence, spreading false rumours to destroy the credibility of protest organizers? Already some protestors have found their names on the no fly lists meaning they can't board an airplane anywhere in the US or be a passenger on an airplane landing in the US. How didnthey getthere if they have done nothing illegal and have only expressed their rights to free speech and assembly?

My friends, south of the 49th parallel, you have a great deal to be concerned about. You have an election, one year from now, which is the most important one that has ever taken place in your lifetime. If you value your freedom, your constitutional rights, the safety and security, the economic future and the environemtal safety of your nation you will do everything in your power to get George Bush and his cronies out of office. The only way you can do that is to pick the candidate that has the best possible chance to beat him. This is not the time to vote your conscience but instead a time to vote to save your nation.

The thing I like most about Dennis Kucinich is his hatred of NAFTA and his desire to see it gone. For the most part free trade agreements benefit no one but the multinational corporations that want to run roughshod over sovereign countries environmental and worker protection regulations. Free trade agreements are for the Walmarts of this world not their employees (but they create a LOT of Walmart employees). TomPaine.com has a good series going on Free Trade and its effects on he US economy:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3 tomorrow.

So the raree continues. America citizens, naive, desperate, or foolish enough to put their faith in their Commander in Chief are dying every day in Iraq.

Now despite all the claims earlier that the US would have to be in Iraq for 2 years at a minimum and that it would be that long before the Iraqi's could govern themselves all of a sudden Bush wants to hand the country back over to them in June. My goodness, I wonder why that could be? Could it be because he's plumetting in the polls? How about there's an election 12 months from now? No, it couldn't be that. To think that would be too cynical.

One thing it most certainly isn't, is a real concern for the cost in American lives. Oh he's concerned about that alright, but only to the degree that the continuing losses affect his re-election chances. 422 Americans have died in Iraq since the start of the war (a casualty rate that exceeds that of Vietnam War btw.) and George Bush has yet to attend a single funeral of one of those dead citizens, and that tells you all you need to know about how much he cares about American lives when they aren't in the same social class as himself.

Jean Chretien is stepping down as Prime Minister of Canada and trning the country over to Paul Martin his former Minister of Finance and now the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. The New York Times has, for a US newspaper, a really good "interview" with Chretien in today's paper. It really highlights the differences between Chretien and Bush.

Someone is blogging the freeway go have a look. I love guerrilla theatre and it can be very effective.

Preach on Brother

The truth is, the politicians in Washington — Democrat and Republican — are unworthy of the sacrifices these young men and women are making in Iraq. We should let them all "run" home in time to vote against Bush's re-election - which, you can be sure, a sizable number of them and their families will.

Charley Reese once again proves why I find him so interesting.

I hope the American people will realize eventually that people who lie to them and keep secrets from them are people who consider them to be enemies. Any politician who fears or dislikes the American people should be routed out of office immediately.

The Bush administration, for its own private reasons, wanted to go to war against a country that had not attacked us, had not threatened to attack us and did not have the capability of attacking us. Therefore it concocted a lie about non-existent weapons and nonexistent relationships with al-Qaida. Now, to protect its lies, the administration wants to classify practically everything that has to do with the Iraq War and occupation.

I'm sure the president's friends in Texas miss him, and next year, hopefully, the American people will return him to their bosom. He is, for all his faults, a decent and affable man who probably knows less of what's going on in his own administration than we do. At least some of us are interested; he doesn't seem to be.

If you only follow one link off this site all year go read this.

One of the joys of living in Canada is the media is not ruled by the White House. This is particularly true of the CBC. For several decades now the CBC has produced a marvelous documentary series called The Fith Estate. It is all that 60 Minutes, PrimeTime and other such programs can only hope to be.

In Consipiracy Theories: Uncovering the facts behind the myths of September 11, 2001 the show takes apart the Bush relationship with Saudi Arabia and in particular the Bin Laden's. There is a tremendous amount of damned fine investigative journalism in this report and everything that was in the on air program plus a lot more is on this website. If this show could be aired on network TV in the US a couple of times over the next year I guarantee the Republicans would not see the inside of the White House for the next century (ok ok a little hyperbole already). It is an absolute must read!

There's a great interview with Joe Wilson the former ambassador who blew the whistle on the Bush Iraq/Niger uranium lies over at AlterNet. The interview proves how much more decent a human being he is than anyone in the Bush administration is. His ambassadorial qualities show very well in the interview. Well worh a read.

I got a note from a supporter of Dennis Kucinich, expressing shock and disbelief that the Congressman who would be the next US President had dared to turn down a second interview with Chris Matthews, loudmouth talk host at MSNBC. What--the Dean of Hardball dissed by that pipsqueak from Cleveland? Okay, so it's a little more complicated than that, and it goes without saying that the campaign needs to take full advantage of every opportunity.

But it did raise, for me, some larger questions about a grassroots campaign and its response to Big Media. This is especially poignant in light of Kucinich's demand that stations stop airing a Dean ad, citing false statements about opponents. It also occurred to me that I do some of my best thinking when I am responding directly to a friend: it gives the reader a sense of urgency and intimacy other forums do not. Of course, it's also like peeking into someone else's convo, and who can resist that? So here, without adornment, is my attempt to cheer up this friend:

I don't think this will cheer you up, but I don't think it's an incompetent decision. It takes guts not to play this game, and I disagree with the article's lead that Kucinich has "forfeited the chance to reach millions." If Dennis can win--and we all agree this is still a big if--it will be from the ground up, not by fighting the gateway gladiators who annoint and condemn candidates.

The announcement tour strategy was, in a word, brilliant. The national media have ignored the campaign. Not so with local media, who really have nothing better to do when a candidate comes to town; coverage poured in from all sources in states where Dennis has been: from Hawaii to Austin to Manchester to Cleveland, local and state coverage has been excellent, and, I think, the correct antidote to the mocking behemoths who, lacking any seriousness themselves, would rather go off the air than take Dennis' campaign seriously.

Sure, it means more flying time and more travelling--but Kucinich's people don't stay in hotels. Sure we work harder for every victory--but we are all used to that. I know that it takes time, and it's a double-edged sword. The national media won't take us seriously until the first surprising votes roll in. And without exposure, we worry that the momentum will ever reach critical mass. But make no mistake: the permanent branding of Dennis the Also Ran, with Kucinich himself laying his own head on the block, has equal power to shape this exposure in a way that will permanently set him in the back of the pack. Unless he has an affair with Gennifer Flowers and the media are all over him all of a sudden, I don't think there is much good that can come from submitting to Matthews' crap.

Just last night my wife read the Rolling Stone interview, and woke me up in the middle of the night to share just "one more reason to love Dennis." Yes, it's a big leap from cult hero to serious candidate, but a recent Nation article put it best: "The press refuses to take Kucinich seriously precisely because he is serious." I'm really not big on the whole Zen trip, to tell you the truth, but there is something to the simple confidence that the truth is the truth, and everything else is just, well, crap. The Guy Who Shunned the Media might be a better story than Man Bites Dog.

As far as reaching millions, we still have our work to do. We are the ones who will be reaching millions. I know it's hard work, but Kucinich is right when he says a grassroots campaign is worth millions. Just last weekend, we passed out over 1000 flyers at a fair in little downtown Salem; sure many people said "who is Dennis Kucinich," but there were no other campaigns even in sight. A more important indication than number--especially at this point--may be the passion of Kucinich supporters. In this context, trends among the micromedia of friends talking to each other may yet trump the national media octopus.

Anyone who has email can't have missed the growing phenomenon of little inspirational signatures that grace almost every note. Those of 'Kucitizens' begin to take on the timbre of a rising chorus of distinct but united voices: from Chavez' Si se puede! to the Man of La Mancha: "To be willing to march into hell for a heavenly cause." King, Gandhi, Franklin, Lincoln: it's an inspiring experience just to read a whole email these days. Even if we must "read his righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps," we know all too well what we are in this for. Hope is dangerous: truth does not always triumph. But King's optimism still informs as well as inspires:

"We shall overcome because the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice. We shall overcome because Carlisle is right: No lie can live forever. We shall overcome because William Cullen Bryant is right: Truth crushed to earth will rise again. We shall overcome because James Russell Lowell is right: Truth forever on the scaffold/ wrong forever on the throne/ yet that scaffold sways the future/ and behind the dim unknown/ standeth God within the shadows/ keeping watch above his own."

And one of my favorites, inspired by the Matrix, "It's hard work taking the red pill." Keep on keepin' on, folks--We are the ones we've been waiting for.

© 2003 Daniel Patrick Welch. Reprint permission granted with credit and link to danielpwelch.com Welch lives and writes in Salem, Massachusetts, USA, with his wife, Julia Nambalirwa-Lugudde. Together they run The Greenhouse School. A writer, singer, linguist and activist, he has appeared on radio [interview available here] and can be available for further interviews. Past articles, translations are available at danielpwelch.com. Links to the website appreciated.

So Clark and Lieberman both think they can bow out of Iowa and not pay a price? I don't think so. No one who has done that in the past has ever received the nomination and that trend will be repeated again. As the NYT points out today (I don't liink top them anymore as links are dead after 7 days) if Lieberman or Clark were to win the nomination after skipping Iowa then they would be handing the Republicans a good issue in that state - and it is an important state come election day. They might as well bow out of the race now and give their votes to Dean. I don't like either of them and I don't support either of them for 2004 - although I think that of all the candidates running Clark, if handled right, has the best chance of beating Bush.

For me, and I'm sure many would disagree, it is more important to get Bush and the neocons thrown out of office in 2004 than who the Democrat's candidate is and to that end, and only that end, I don't care who their candidate is as long as he has the best chance of beating Bush.

Ever wonder what kind of propaganda is shown on North Korean TV? Here's one type.

As Rob Pongi says:

This is a very shocking anti-American propoganda video made by North Koreans and previously broadcast on South Korean and Japanese Television. English translation titles by Rob Pongi.

Awhile back I made a comment on how I didn't think the Reform Alliance Party and the Progressive Conservatives would ever find enough common ground to enable them to unite into one party. It looks like I may have been wrong. They announced today that they have reached agreement in principal and that all that remains if for each party's membership to approve the merger. It remains to be seen whether rank and file PC's particularly the more centrist "Red Tories"can stomach the thuoght of voting lockstep with the various thinly veiled racists, homophobes and misogynists in the Alliance.

I suppose it did have to happen. After all the Alliance has never made any progress, significant or otherwise, east of Flin Flon and the PC's have had all but 3 seats of their former western Canada conservative base eroded by the Alliance, such that neither party had any hope of ever forming a goverment.

Still, the Liberals retain a comfortable lead. The current standings in the House of Parliament are:

• Liberals: 170
• Alliance: 63
• BQ (a quebec seperatist party): 34
• PC: 15
• NDP: 14
• IND: 4
• Vacancies: 1
• Total 301 seats

One of the sticking points in their negotiations was what to call the new party - no surprise here, it is going to be called The Conservative Party.

In a September 14th article Walter Cronkite (and thank you Jim for pointing me to his articles I thought he was long retired) writing about Bush's appeal to the UN for help in Iraq says (emphasis mine):

No matter what they do with our new request, those nations are going to wear a wry, "I told you so" smile as they listen to our appeal. This might be about as embarrassing a position as this nation has ever suffered in international affairs.

And he is right. After running down the UN and calling it irrelevent Bush is forced to go to them cap in hand and beg for help. What a legacy for Bush.

My initial reaction when hearing about Bush begging asking the UN for help was a sincere hope they would tell him to go shove his plea where the sun don't shine. That however is not the right reaction.

The worst thing that can happen to Iraq right now is for the US to stay there alone. I think that would be worse than the US pulling out right now. The UN has to get involved, just as it has gotten involved in Afghanistan. However the UN has to take the lead. The US can not be left in command in either country. Peace will never be achieved with the US at the helm.

The role of UN forces in Afghanistan should be expanded. More troops should be assigned and they need to move outside of Kabhul. It's time to take on the warlords, remove them and their subordinate leaders permanently (kill them or they will be back). It will be hard and bloody but if it is combined with immediate relief supplies and rebuilding wherever action takes place then it will win the people over which is what is possible in Afghanistan. Iraq is another matter.

While Iraq has suffered devestation in GWI and GWII, it is nowhere near to the extent that Afghanistan has through the Soviet campasign in the 80's and 90's and the 2001 US bombing. This will make it harder to win people over through foreign aid. Yes infrastructure needs to be restored but the level of "pain" amongst the Iraqi's is not near that of the Afghani people.

Most, except for diehard Ba'athists will be grateful for the end of Saddam's regime. But the US is hated in Iraq and has been for decades. As long as they are in charge there will be guerilla activity from a wide range of interested parties, not the least of which are the remaining Ba'athists who no doubt see the very real possibility that if they can make staying in Iraq too bloody and too painful for the American populace that Bush et al will be forced to pull out in order to win the 2004 election and pave the way for Saddam's return and the return of the Ba'athists to power.

If the UN were to go into Iraq and take over with a truly multinational force, combine that with redevelopment work hiring Iraqi companies in preference to any other nationality and putting the Iraqi people to work rebuilding their country then those forces that are trying to tear Iraq apart today, for their own benefit or who are trying to impose their will on a diverse Iraqi pople, will stand a much poorer chance of succeeding. If the American stay, if the Americans put in a puppet government, if the Americans hand the rebuilding contracts to American companies then Allah preserve the Iraqi people because sure as hell the Americans won't. It is a recipe for civil war, for never ending guerilla war, in short a repeat of Afghanistan during the soviet occupation. The only hope for Iraq, just as in Afghanistan, is a determined and extended military occupation by the United Nations with as little participation by the Americans as possible.

So eat crow America and gorge well for the sake of the rest of the world.

It's not a new documentary but it is well worth rewatching. John Pilger's "Breaking the Silence"

A hard hitting special report into the "war on terror"
Award winning journalist John Pilger

Too bad they won't play this on CNN, CBS, FOx et al. Bush would never get re-elected

Brought to my attention by Strabismus

So Arnie says

"For every dollar we pay in tax we get only 77 cents back. So there's a lot of money we can get from the federal government.

"He [Mr Bush] promised me he will do everything possible to help California, so I am looking forward to working with him and asking him for a lot - a lot - of favours."

He's going to see how he can divvy that tax pie up. Well I'm sure Bush will be only too glad to slip a few billion his way to clean up the Enron mess. After all Ken Lay is a long time close friend of the Bush's and one of George's biggest campaign contribuors. Apparantly Ken has been repaid enough yet (he hasn't been charged with any crimes) so Arnie's no doubt going to accept the pitiful 2 cents on the dollar offer from ther Utility companies against the $9B lawsuit launched by Cruz Bustamante. But wait - that means California's already $8 billion budget deficit (due to Enron utility shenaningans and the Bush admin offloading federal duties onto the states) will be further exasperated. Enter Bush and the magic federal chequebook to help the world's 5th largest economy with some economic "disaster relief". Cute eh..... Lay helps get Bush elected, Lay helps determine, through Cheney, the future energy policy of the US, Lay conspires with Arnie and a known stock swindler in a meeting in LA back in 2001 to start a recall campaign against Gray Davis , get Arnie elected then kill the lawsuit that was started 3 months eqarlier by Davis's second in command. Then the feds step in and pay off the balance of the lawsuit so that Arnie won't take a publicity hit and they can make Bush look like a winner for the leadup to 2004 in the most democratic of all the states and one he really wants to carry next time round. Someone ship a year's worth of K-Y jelly production to California because they're going to get screwed really badly.

Senators Tom Daschle, Joseph R. Biden, Carl Levin and Charles E. Schumer sent the following letter to Bush today. Of particular note is the following sentence

"We are at risk of seeing this investigation so compromised that those responsible for this national security breach will never be identified and prosecuted"

in the final paragraph, for of course, that is the exact reason for all the delays and other screwups they bring forth in this letter. Go get 'em boys.

October 9, 2003
The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We write to express our continuing concerns regarding the manner in which your Administration is conducting the investigation into the apparently criminal leaking of a covert CIA operative's identity. You have personally pledged the White House's full cooperation in this investigation and you have stated your desire to see any culprits identified and prosecuted, but the Administration's actions are inconsistent with your words.

Already, just 14 days into this investigation, there have been at least five serious missteps.

First, although the Department of Justice commenced its investigation on Friday, September 26, the Justice Department did not ask the White House to order employees to preserve all relevant evidence until Monday, September 29. Every former prosecutor with whom we have spoken has said that the first step in such an investigation would be to ensure all potentially relevant evidence is preserved, yet the Justice Department waited four days before making a formal request for such documents.

Second, when the Justice Department finally asked the White House to order employees to preserve documents, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales asked for permission to delay transmitting the order to preserve evidence until morning. That request for delay was granted. Again, every former prosecutor with whom we have spoken has said that such a delay is a significant departure from standard practice.

Third, instead of immediately seeking the preservation of evidence at the two other Executive Branch departments from which the leak might have originated, i.e., State and Defense, such a request was not made until Thursday, October 1. Perhaps even more troubling, the request to State and Defense Department employees to preserve evidence was telegraphed in advance not only by the request to White House employees earlier in the week, but also by the October 1st Wall Street Journal report that such a request was "forthcoming" from the Justice Department. It is, of course, extremely unusual to tip off potential witnesses in this manner that a preservation request is forthcoming.

Fourth, on October 7, White House spokesperson Scott McClellan stated that he had personally determined three White House officials, Karl Rove, Lewis Libby and Elliot Abrams, had not disclosed classified information. According to press reports, Mr. McClellan said, "I've spoken with each of them individually. They were not involved in leaking classified information, nor did they condone it." Clearly, a media spokesperson does not have the legal expertise to be questioning possible suspects or evaluating or reaching conclusions about the legality of their conduct. In addition, by making this statement, the White House has now put the Justice Department in the position of having to determine not only what happened, but also whether to contradict the publicly stated position of the White House.

Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, the investigation continues to be directly overseen by Attorney General Ashcroft who has well-documented conflicts of interest in any investigation of the White House. Mr. Ashcroft's personal relationship and political alliance with you, his close professional relationships with Karl Rove and Mr. Gonzales, and his seat on the National Security Council all tie him so tightly to this White House that the results may not be trusted by the American people. Even if the case is being handled in the first instance by professional career prosecutors, the integrity of the inquiry may be called into question if individuals with a vested interest in protecting the White House are still involved in any matter related to the investigation.

We are at risk of seeing this investigation so compromised that those responsible for this national security breach will never be identified and prosecuted. Public confidence in the integrity of this investigation would be substantially bolstered by the appointment of a special counsel. The criteria in the Justice Department regulations that created the authority to appoint a Special Counsel have been met in the current case. Namely, there is a criminal investigation that presents a conflict of interest for the Justice Department, and it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside special counsel to assume responsibility for the matter. In the meantime, we urge you to ask Attorney General Ashcroft to recuse himself from this investigation and do everything within your power to ensure the remainder of this investigation is conducted in a way that engenders public confidence.

Sincerely,

Tom Daschle

Joseph R. Biden

Carl Levin

Charles E. Schumer

People who have followed the Bush regime and its relationship with the media can't have helped but notice the complete lack of journalistic neutrality on the part of Faux Fox Network. George and his cabal have had no better backers and co-liars than Fox Networks. Until now though the effects of this whole hearted abandonment of integrity, not to mention journalistic ethics, on the American public could only be guessed at not quantified.

PIPA, The Program on International Policy Attitudes, a joint program of the Center on Policy Attitudes (COPA) and the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM), School of Public Affairs, University of Maryland, has just completed a survey of American's and their misconceptions regarding the war on Iraq. Unlike other such polls they also asked the respondents where they got the majority of their news information from. Responders were asked about the following misconceptions:

• U.S. forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
• There's clear evidence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein worked closely with the Sept. 11 terrorists.
• People in foreign countries generally either backed the U.S.-led war or were evenly split between supporting and opposing it.

It came as no surprise to this writer that Fox topped the list of sources for this misinformation:

It is very clear from the above table¹ that Fox is anything but "Fair and Balanced". If you are a regular viewer of PBS/NPR you are to be congratulated. If you get your information from Fox you need to seriously rethink things.

There are a lot more interesting statistics in the full report

Found via All Too Human

Be still my beating heart it looks like the Bush cabal is in deep doo doo and they've obviously been taking ex-lax instead of kaopectate

Way back on August 24 I brought to your attention a nasty bit of business by the Bushies. Someone high in the White House comitted a serious felony and breached the official secrets act by revealing that the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, the same ambassador that exposed the forgery of the supposed uranium sale by Niger to Iraq, and thereby embarassing the Bush administration, was a secret CIA operative. This petty act of politicaol vengeance act compromised a career but more importantly it compromised a number of investgations into Weapons of Mass Destruction.

While it took the mainstream press a long time to warm up to this atrocity it seems that now the Democrats finally have something they can hang on the current administration that will be difficult for them to wiggle out of. Better yet it could spell the end of Karl Rove, the most likely source of that leak. Even better it will prove impossible for Ashcroft to protect Rove and almost as hard for him to avoid appointing a special independent counsel to investigate the leak. You remember the Office of theSpcial Independent Counsel don't you, or has Ken Starr been forgotten so soon? We all know how hypocritical the Republicans are but it will be very front and center at a critical time leading up to next years election if they try and weasel out. Bush backed them into a corner the other day by promising that full co-operation would be given in finding the source of the leak.

The problem is that Karl Rove, again the most likely source of the leak, is intimately associated with not just Bush but also Ashcroft. Rove was a hired gun for Ashcroft in three of Ashcroft's election campaigns. Ashcroft will have to recuse himself from the investigation and you can bet that the Democrats will be looking for their own Deep Throat who will let them know if ashcroft tries to meddle (oh go ahead John you can get away with it - I'm sure your God will protect you) with the investigation.

Rove will be called on to fall on his sword. Why? Because this leak did not, would not, could not, happen in isolation. It is too serious a leak. This was decided in consultation in a meeting of senior Bush advisors. Was Bush there - almost certainly but perhaps not so he can claim plausible ignorance deniability of the fact, something Tricky Dicky tried but was in the end unable to foist off on the public. But at least Nixon was surrounded by a cohort of extremely loyal acolytes who would have sacrificed their lives and careers to protect the office of the presidency - and many did. Somehow I don't think Bush has engendered the same degree of loyalty. Here's hoping Rove comes to his senses and says if I'm going down the lot of you are going with me. (I know I'm dreaming but damn! that's a good dream).

Well well. In a CNN/USA Today/Gallop poll taken Monday Bush's approval rating was ony 50% - the lowest of his presidency. The public is waking up! Even more interesting was Gen. Wesley Clark's rating.

Of the 877 registered voters included in the poll, 49 percent said they would vote for Clark, compared with 46 percent for Bush. Each of the four other major Democratic candidates came within three points of Clark's showing in a hypothetical head-to-head race with the president, the poll found.

This race is only going to get more interesting. Buckle your seatbelts and raise your trays ladies and gentlemen this is going to be a bumby ride

Paul Martin, the heir apparant to the office of Canada's Prime Minister has started his own blog. That's it folks - blogging is passe it is dead - gone - the politicians have co-opted it and dirtied the waters. Time to move on

Gen. Wesley Clark announced his Democratic candidacy for POTUS in the 2004 election today. This is great news. While I would like to see Kucinich get in, he doesn't stand a hope in hell of winning the nomination nevermind the election. General Clark on the other hand is a very big threat to Bush. He has real military experience and has shown himself to be very knowlegeable of world affairs and diplomacy. Hell he got tens of hours of free exposure to a very wide public at the start of the war against Iraq courtesy of CNN as he was their primary military analyst. I remember watching him then and being impressed with his analysis. Unlike Bush who's military service consists almost entirely of (when not being AWOL) of donning a flight suit and being flown in as a passenger to a carrier, Clark has real military command experience and he is not a hawk.

Clark, 58, becomes the 10th Democrat seeking the party's presidential nomination. He is a West Point graduate and Rhodes scholar who, as NATO commander, led U.S. and allied forces in NATO's 1999 air war in Kosovo.

Clark, who built a reputation as a brilliant but difficult commander, has never before sought elective office. He is an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq, calling it unnecessary and saying the Bush administration led the country into war under false pretenses.

And Clark -- a former military analyst for CNN -- blamed Bush's handling of the economy for what he called the first net loss of jobs under any president since Herbert Hoover ^...more

I full agree with what this article on Tom Paine says - Clark is Bush's worst nightmare come the election.

General Wesley Clark has finally announced his candidacy. Democratic rank-and-file know very little about Clark's positions, and today's press conference in Little Rock shed no new light on his policy stances. But most Democrats will, no doubt, quickly realize that he has one thing going for him that none of the other candidates have -- he's George Bush's worst nightmare.

I can almost hear the Dean supporters expressing Dean-like righteous anger. Their guy, they'll claim, is the most electable Democrat. I've been amused by this argument since they started making it (though it's no more of a stretch than the argument that Dean most embodies true Democratic principles). Let's face facts -- Bush will skewer a candidate who has built an entire campaign around opposition to war, or who has at least allowed himself to be portrayed as such.

Sadly, elections aren't about who has the better argument -- they're about images created by the campaigns in a dynamic process of emphasizing issues and personality traits. In this process, perceptions of the parties are important lenses through which the typical voter views the candidates. Democrats are generally seen as better at handling education, the environment and health care; Republicans are thought to be better on taxes, crime and upholding traditional values. Each party packs a punch that, if landed right, can deliver a knockout blow. For Democrats it's jobs, for Republicans it's national security. ^...more

Like I said - I would be happy to see Kucinich elected, especially if he were to keep his promises to kill free trade agreements, but he is not electable as president, not now and likely never will be. He simply does not present himself well on television and his views are too radical for most people. Now under general circumstances I would agree with voting for Kucinich in order to make a point - to back those ideals that most correspond with ones own. Even when a radical candidate doesn't win, if there are enough votes for him/her that message will be heard loud and clear by those who do get elected which, in turn, gives that constituency a degree of influence. However, the world can not afford another 4 years of the Bush cabal and I believe every anti-Bush supporter should focus on getting Bush out of office and not voting necessarily for the candidate that best expresses their views. If Clark is that candidate, and I believe him to be the best shot the dems have of beating Bush, then I think support should be thrown behind him and quickly. Keep the Bush camp on the defensive, make him fear a Clark nomination.

The Tom Paine article sums it up well:

Still, it might be possible for an enormous groundswell of support to push Clark ahead of the pack. If Democrats were wise, they'd coalesce around the candidate who not only neutralizes the security issue but may very well capture it -- and the White House -- for the party.

We Can Win the War in Vietnam
And other chestnuts from a not-so-bygone era
Daniel Patrick Welch
http://danielpwelch.com/0309wcw.htm

I love the smell of quagmire in the morning. My, but it takes you back, doesn't it? The only thing left to say is that there is "light at the end of the tunnel." But everything else has already begun to play itself out. We have even seen the resurrection of that Orwellian mantra "winning the peace." If I had been just a few years older in the Vietnam era, the deja-vu might kill me.

As it is, I have to rely on crazy resources, like history, to feel the eerie similarities coming into focus. No real sense carpet-bombing the desert, so that's out-no trees to hide in. Napalm made a surprising rebound, though. They lied about it for months (gasp!) of course, but its comeback was all but assured given the recycled cast of characters. I'm beginning to think the only reason we haven't heard more about "Iraqization (Iraqicization… Iraqation…?) is that it's so much harder to spell than Vietnamization. The hubris of the Best and the Brightest is back with a vengeance, though-recast as The Most Dangerous Men on Earth.

Of course we can win the war in [enter name of hopeless imperial adventure in which the U.S. is currently involved here]. These colors don't run! I wonder if remorse is a quality even remotely familiar to these Men of War. Having whipped up a war fever among the gullible with a pack of lies wrapped in jingoistic slogans, they are sending other people's children to die in yet another far-off place. Do they care? Has the ice in their veins warmed at all since the days of Civil War impressments, the hireling campaigns of the British Empire, the thousands of boys sacrificed at Gallipoli on the altar of nation building? Ahhh, that's how you work your way up from the stockroom…if your boys get wiped out in a war, now that's how you become a country!

Obviously, the relation of rulers to fighters is one thing that hasn't changed since Vietnam, nor for ages before. One of the most troubling aspects of the draft, after deferments and exemptions and the like, was the age. A huge outcry arose over the unseemly fact that young adults qualified to fight and die for the goals of their government were not, alas, eligible to vote to shape those goals. Today still, the number of offspring of members of Congress in the military barely registers. Yet almost 40,000 of America's frontline soldiers are not citizens (and thus ineligible for voting)-what British MP George Galloway has called America's "Green Card Army." [US attacked over green card soldiers].

Back then, this outrage sparked a constitutional amendment to ensure that never again would America's youth be sent off to die without having a say in the matter. But of course, the ruling elites have ways of dealing with such insolence, and devised an even more ingenious end run: pick from those who can't vote in any event. Great show, guv'nors! The thing about The People having a say was even easier to dispense with. A spineless Congress having been hoodwinked and bullied into ceding its constitutional power, the people were easy dominoes. Actually, the people put up more of a fight than the "opposition," but in the end the Big Lie held sway enough to drown out the voices of reason.

The neocons and their Fellow Travelers will screech about how this or that is completely different. Well, duh! The only true analogies are in math: 2 is to 4 as 3 is to 6, and so on. Every historical period has its social and cultural characteristics. Nobody expects today's Antichrist to be a short, goofy looking character who is adopted by big business because they think they can play him for the buffoon he is…oh, wait a minute. The one thing that is different is the speed and intensity with which the ill-fated project in question seems to be imploding. Unless we start with Reagan's Morning in America, this sunset appears to have come awful quick compared to Vietnam.

True to form, then as now, the Cold War [or enter current global nemesis-of-the-month here] knows no party loyalty. But this, sadly, is indeed a bit different. When things started going this badly in Vietnam, there was a sizeable antiwar bloc within the party claiming to be the Tribune of the People. Now, of course, as we know all too well, the "opposition" which cut its teeth on caving with the 2000 election apparently liked the flavor. Having voted for the war (or having even if was a bad idea, or that it was insufficiently macho, or that the planets weren't aligned quite right, or whatever), it has decided that the real problem is one of management. A well-managed occupation might succeed just fine: more troops, more electricity…better slogans? Most Democrats, all too like their truly frightening counterparts, are all for continuing the occupation, bless their incorrigible little imperialist hearts.

You see, the right wing has always blamed Democrats for being spineless. Their version of the Vietnam syndrome was akin to a geopolitical Rorschach test: no matter what the little blob looked like, Democrats always saw Vietnam. In their smug, arrogant way, the right has lobbied for another Vietnam since April 1975, and tried to bully the opposition with silly analogies like this one. Little did they know that they simply chose the wrong psychiatrist.

The real bogeyman here is the fictional Dr. Zilkov, the Russian scientist who programmed the killing machine in the classic Manchurian Candidate. Angela Landsbury, in one of her greatest roles, acts as the Russian agent who controls Laurence Harvey's character. Coaxed to "pass the time by playing a little solitaire," the brainwashed Sgt. Raymond Shaw dutifully turns cards until the Queen of Hearts turns up. Once this trigger is revealed, he is doomed to follow the murderous plan of his trainers, in a trance, through to its bloody end.

The Democrats don't seem to realize that the Queen of Hearts has already been turned, and by staying in Iraq we only prolong the time until we are driven out, the treasury looted in the process. The only "obligation" the US can be serious about is to undo the war crimes committed in the name of our people by the Dark Knights in Washington. Arresting them and turning them over to the International Criminal Court would be a start-except that we don't belong to it. The right wing is obviously off its rocker-no sense wasting ink there. The rest of us should be careful not to be deceived into thinking that the Iraqis need us, except to pay damages for ruining their country. Think about it, does the oldest city on earth really need Paul Bremer's "expertise" to get back on its feet? The UN, having allowed itself to be used as an arm of US policy, is unfortunately equally tarnished. Iraqis hate the UN as much as they do the US, in part for their failure to stop the invasion, in part for their obsequious role in the murderous decade-long sanctions regime that throttled the country.

The Republicans, having destroyed an entire country-not including the US (and cutting them some slack here if we concede that Afghanistan was already mostly rubble), are lost. Ironically, they not only seem doomed to see the US commit the same mistakes as in Vietnam, but to play out the rest of the deck by blaming the same people. They have even begun griping about the press-the press (!) who so dutifully jumpstarted their little exercise in imperial lunacy to begin with, is now somehow hindering the flowering of their neocon fantasies. Denial, it seems, another stubborn hallmark of the Vietnam quagmire, has also come back for a second run.

© 2003 Daniel Patrick Welch. Reprint permission granted with credit and link to danielpwelch.com Welch lives and writes in Salem, Massachusetts, USA, with his wife, Julia Nambalirwa-Lugudde. Together they run The Greenhouse School. A writer, singer, linguist and activist, he has appeared on radio [interview available here] and can be available for further interviews. Past articles, translations are available at danielpwelch.com. Links to the website appreciated.

This sounds like a very interesting book - I will want to buy this when it is published in English this November.

Au Revoir to American Empire

By Vladislav L. Inozemtsev and Ekaterina Kuznetsova

Après l’Empire: Essai sur la décomposition du système américain (After the Empire: An Essay on the Breakdown of the American System)
By Emmanuel Todd
240 pages, Paris: Éditions Gallimard, 2002 (in French)

The preeminence of the United States seems even more uncontestable today than it was 50, 20, or even 5 years ago. Yet the foundations of this preeminence have changed. In previous decades, it was the country's economic might that insured political domination. Today, a globally accepted belief in U.S. military hegemony secures the United States' domestic economy. But the nation's military and economic might are more myth than reality. In fact, the United States' weaknesses in these areas will cause the country's downfall. So argues Emmanuel Todd, a French historian and sociologist in Après l'Empire: Essai sur la décomposition du système américain (After the Empire: An Essay on the Breakdown of the American System), which for 27 weeks was among the bestsellers compiled by the French newspaper l'Express and in November is due to be released in English.

This attack would be easy to dismiss as anti-American or typically French were it not coming from Todd, a respected researcher at the French National Institute for Demographic Studies with a track record of uncannily accurate European political predictions. In 1976, while still in his 20s, Todd predicted nearly to the year the fall of the Soviet empire in a book called The Final Fall: An Essay on the Decomposition of the Soviet Sphere.

Now Todd has set his sights on those who see the United States as the world's stabilizing force. For the past 50 years, periods of stability were rare. Destabilizing forces were needless to invent: communism in the 1950s and 1960s, Third World liberation movements in the 1960s and 1970s, and antiwar protesters in the 1970s. But these forces faded into history after 1989. As Todd puts it, after the fall of communism and the end of the Cold War, no conflict loomed large enough to justify U.S. interference on a global scale.

I was flipping channels when I ran across a David Suzuki special tonight and in the few minutes I saw he had a couple of interesting things to say. He was talking about a meeting he had with Al Gore and said shivers ran down his back because he had never met a politician before that so clearly understood environmental issues and what to do about them He says he tried to convince Gore to move to Canada - said he would do whatever he could to get him elected PM - Hey I'd go along with that :-) But I think the most interesting of things that Gore told him was politicians are followers not leaders, don't look to politicians to lead the way on environmental reform - get the public onside and the pols will trip over themselves to represent that view. He's right, very vew politicians have the strength of character and the honesty to be real leaders. For the most part they are slavering slaves to the will of those who speak loudest (and money shouts). The question now though is how do you get the public onside when they are lied to so professionally?

According to a NYT article today Howard Dean is making a big move towards obtaining the 2004 nomination. While I would rather see these results for Kucinich if he isn't going to get the nomination (a very long shot but read this) then I suppose Howard Dean is an acceptable distant second choice.

In that article there were a couple of things that really stood out for me

Holding oceans of blue Dean placards at every stop were nearly all white hands, a homogeneity the campaign tried to counter with a rainbow of supporters on stage, which only drew more attention to the lack of diversity in the audience

If he can only attract whites then he has no chance whatsoever of beating Bush. Whoever wins the nomination not only has top attract the black vote but also all those disaffected liberals and middle-of-the-roaders that have stopped voting because they couldn't see any real significant difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. Failure to do this will result in an overwhelming majority for the Republicans - even without their gerrymandering in Texas.

The other thing that caught my attention was this comment

For each of the 800 people who skipped the Green Bay Packers game on Saturday night to chant "We want Dean" in a Milwaukee airplane hangar, there must be many like the young woman in the pink taffeta strapless bridesmaid's dress who went to the hotel bar where reporters and supporters were mingling over martinis and wondered, "What's going on here?"

Told it was the Dean campaign, she looked blank. Howard Dean, someone said. Running for president.

"President?" she asked. "President of what?"

and that is one of the saddest things I've read in a long time.

The need for political awareness in the US has never been greater. America is at a turning point in its history. The current administration is carrying out a concerted onslaught designed to reduce constitutional rights and freedoms, remove labour safety regulations, destroy environmental controls and impoverish everyone from the middle class down for the foreseeable future. It is obviuos to anyone without political blinders on that the agenda is to return the US corporate scene to that of pre FDR, and his progressive "New Deal", when the robber barons could do what they pleased.

There are far too many citizens in America today who show the kind oif political ignorance as evinced by the young woman in the quote above. Indeed it is that very ignorance that allows Bush & Co. to get away with what they are doing.

Some bloggers are convinced that this media is the be all end all for solving the populations ignorance problem. I beg to differ. Of the 50% of the American population that is online, roughly 140 million, only a miniscule amount have actually heard of blogs never mind actually visited one, If they have visited one the chances are that it isn't a progressive political blog, but rather it's a personal blog belonging to a friend or family member. One of those ones along the lines of what I ate today and who dissed me at school. The vast majority of Americans have never been to a weblog, are not accomplished web surfers, they simply use the web, if they use it at all, for some shopping, email, gambling and porn. Bloggers are NOT going to turn the political tide and if they count on doing so they will be helping to elect Bush not defeat him.

To defeat Bush people like the woman quoted above need to be educated and the only way you are going to do that for large numbvers is via traditional media - specifically TV, radio and newspapers in that order. Politics on the net is not on their radar. Yes there is a lot of politics happening on the net, a lot of activity and people being orgamized. hell Dean and Kucinich etc have raised a lot of money over the net. But, that is deceptive. On the net they are preaching to the choir and that just doesn't cut it come election time.

If you want to make a difference you have to tackle the traditional media. Call into conservative talk shows and point out how Bush et al are really not conservatives, write letters to the editor, write the sponsors of right wing shows and tell them you are not going to buy their products any more and yuo are organizing a consumer boycott. I'm sure there are lots of ways to get the message out. It's up to you.

It's instructive to review how the Bush administration rewards those who serve the nation's interest. Note I said the nation's interest not Bush's interests as it has become painfully obvious those are divergent paths.

If you are an armed forces veteran then you will find your benefits cut. It doesn't matter that you put your life on the line for your country, indeed that elicits, in private, nothing but contempt for you from those in charge of this administration. Sure in public they praise you for your sacrifices, they even pretend to be like you , though few if any of then have actually served as you did and now they conduct a foreign policy designed to waste the lives and health of america's youth while creating many more veterans. Why should they care about you, after all you are not of their social class. If you were you would have never enlisted, or, if you are of an age to have been drafted, you would have found a way out of the draft, like daddy getting you into the Air National Guard ahead of more qualified people, or by moving to Canada.

Bush and Co. however, reserve their greteast rewards for those who are in their social class and who choose to serve their country rather than Bush et al. As John Dean puts it:

On July 14, in his syndicated column, Chicago Sun-Times journalist Robert Novak reported that Valerie Plame Wilson - the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, and mother of three-year-old twins - was a covert CIA agent. (She had been known to her friends as an "energy analyst at a private firm.")

Why was Novak able to learn this highly secret information? It turns out that he didn't have to dig for it. Rather, he has said, the "two senior Administration officials" he had cited as sources sought him out, eager to let him know. And in journalism, that phrase is a term of art reserved for a vice president, cabinet officers, and top White House officials.

On July 17, Time magazine published the same story, attributing it to "government officials." And on July 22, Newsday's Washington Bureau confirmed "that Valerie Plame ... works at the agency [CIA] on weapons of mass destruction issues in an undercover capacity." More specifically, according to a "senior intelligence official," Newsday reported, she worked in the "Directorate of Operations [as an] undercover officer."

In other words, Wilson is/was a spy involved in the clandestine collection of foreign intelligence, covert operations and espionage. She is/was part of a elite corps, the best and brightest, and among those willing to take great risk for their country. Now she has herself been placed at great - and needless - risk.

Why is the Administration so avidly leaking this information? The answer is clear. Former ambassador Wilson is famous, lately, for telling the truth about the Bush Administration's bogus claim that Niger uranium had gone to Saddam Hussein. And the Bush Administration is punishing Wilson by targeting his wife. It is also sending a message to others who might dare to defy it, and reveal the truth.

Now if only the order to do so could be traced back to Bush. You see it is a felony, punishable under the Espionage Act, to reveal classified material, and the identities of working CIA field agents is definitely classified material. Whoever did this could, and should, be thrown in the slammer for 10 years or more.

Like the intimidation of the american people as a whole by making them afraid and suspicious of everyone they likewise introduce a fear for their very lives in those who serve their country. A warning to them to side with der Führer or die.

Read John Dean's whole column on this subject. It's a good one.

By Rep. Dennis Kucinich, AlterNet
August 19, 2003

Editor's Note: The following was written by Dennis Kucinich from the campaign trail in Iowa.

With an estimated 50 million Americans and Canadians left without power and in some cases water, common sense requires us to reflect on the absurdity of deregulation of public utilities. The right of utility franchise is vested in the people. We give utilities permission to operate, and enable them to set up a profit making business in exchange for the promise of affordable and reliable service.

In 1992, investor-owned utilities pushed the Democratic House to pass HR776, which granted electric utilities broad powers. The bill was supposed to restructure the electric utility industry to spur competition.

Instead, utilities used deregulation to effect a series of mergers limiting competition. In order to accelerate profits, cost cutting ensued, involving the layoff of thousands of utility company employees, including some who where responsible for maintenance of generation, transmission and distribution systems. A number of investor-owned utilities stopped investing in the maintenance and repair of their own equipment, choosing to cut costs to enhance the value of their stock rather than spending money to enhance the value of their service. ...... MORE

Folowing a link in David Isenberg's latest newsletterI found an interesting website Politics & Science that was instigated at the request of Representative Henry Waxman. The site's function is to track and record the inteference, by the Bush administration, in scientific research and who profits by that interference. It's a long list. Here's the intro from their site:

The American people depend upon federal agencies to develop science-based policies that protect the nation’s health and welfare. Recently, however, leading scientific journals have begun to question whether scientific integrity at federal agencies has been sacrificed to further a political and ideological agenda.

At the request of Rep. Henry A. Waxman, the minority staff of the Government Reform Committee assessed the treatment of science and scientists by the Bush Administration.

The report Politics and Science in the Bush Administration (.pdf) finds numerous instances where the Administration has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings. Beneficiaries include important supporters of the President, including social conservatives and powerful industry groups.

This website is an ongoing record of interference with science by the Bush Administration.

As you all know, this election may be the most critical election in the US' history. I, for one, do not want to see the Supreme Court again decide who my American friends' next President will be. That's why I am urging my American readers who are not yet registered voters to take part in an online voter registration project that AlterNet.org, one of my online news sources, is embarking on in conjunction with Working Assets.

You can fill out a voter registration form in seconds at the URL below, and ask your like-minded friends to do the same. All you have to do is print it out, stamp it and put it in the mail! This election is too important to sit out -- let's stand up and make this democracy work!

To fill out a voter registration form, go to:
http://workingforchange.com/vote/?ms=ALT001

Awhile back I blogged an entry on the tussle between O'Reilly and Franken at the National Booksellers Convention. It has become the most heated set of comments ever on this blog, which I have no objection to (the volume of comments that is, I do object to the content). However it isn't regular readers that are commenting there, it is mostly right wing whackos who, well there's no other way to say it clearly, are basically foaming at the mouth. They have nothing intelligent to say and in that respect they sound just like their hero Bill O'Reilly. That is, all they can do is SHOUT and curse and be as abusive as their limited grasp of language and paucity of functioning grey cells allows. Anything , I guess, to drown out the truth.

I guessed, and my site stats confirm , that what's happening is there appears to be a concerted effort by these poor examples of humanity to search out any mention of Franken and O'Reilly together and to go there and be as abusive as possible. What sad lives these people must have, what sad sad lives.

For the first time in a very long time I was driven to delete a comment today it began (and mothers cover your childrem's eyes):

All of you are a bunch of liberal assfucked bastards

and devolved from there. Real intelligent you know. Well I would keep comments open on that post if it were my own regular readers debating, but it for the most part isn't and I don't want this kind of poison on my blog so I've turned comments off on it and this post. THe morons can go play somewhere else. What struck me was that without exception they were all anonymous posters, I gues they don't have the courage of their own convictions - cowards one and all, whereas the lefties identified themselves for the most part or at least gave a realistic name :-). Interesting to note that the more abusive they were the more likely their IP address was an AOL one. I guess they need to have someone hold their hand (while excessively charging them for doing so) to get on the net just like they need the O'Reilly's of this workd to do their "thinking" for them. It's all so very sad.

How strange that the US administration is so anti-gay. Strange because it seems the conservatives favourite game is to see just how badly they can screw veterans. Recruiting seargents should be upfront with potential recruits. They should tell them that if they serve their country honourably the Republicans (and all the brain deads who worship at the feet of O]Reilly, Rush et. al.) are going to do their level best to fuck them over. They will not be treated with honour unless it can win Bush and his cronies a vote. Otherwise theu will have their benefits cut and their health ruined.

Scott has a horror story over on The Gamers Nook that every fucking conservative who supports Bush should be forced to read and explain. Then again maybe some public school teachers will pick this up in the fall and use it to teach civics - a greeat example of how to destroy your country from within.

You just gotta love the chutzpah of the right wing when they go about claiming things like al-Qaeda and the Taliban are finished. Osama is still on the loose, al-Qaeda is blowing stuff up in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Middle East and yesterday theTaliban blew up a bus in Afghanistan and enganged in two running gun battles with western forces for a death toll of 58. As one news story (on canada.com today - link dies in 7 days so I'm no longer linking to them or NYT articles) put it

The deaths were part of a trend of stepped-up attacks and killings that are increasing the pressure on the fragile Afghan government and creating an atmosphere of constant fear in the country...

Afghan officials have said Taliban rebels are using bases inside Pakistan to launch cross-border attacks. Suspected Taliban fighters have been stepping up attacks over the last several months in southern and eastern Afghanistan.

al-Qaeda and the Taliban are far from dismantled or history. They are every bit as dangerous today as they have always been. Taliban supporters have been steadily gaining strength, both in numbers and politically, in Pakistan in the provinces along the Afghanistan border.

It is a pathetic attempt, along the same lines of tossing a flight suit onto Bush and flying him in as a PASSENGER to the flight deck of a carrier, to try and make their agenda out to be successful and their leader courageous. Bush has never showed so much as a scintilla of courage (or for that matter intelligence either) and the real enemies of the US, the Taliban and al-Qaeda are laughing at him and his efforts to get rid of them.

Hetty has a good take on Arnie's qualifications for Governorship.

I heard Schwarzenegger on tv complain about the huge Californian budget deficit. Has he ever noticed the gigantic budget deficit of the Republican administration now in power in the US? As I said, no brains.

If you live in California show your support for reform by supporting Arianna Huffington in her run to replace Gray Davis. She has proved her dedication to progressive causes through her newspaper columns for years, unlike those that find the light only as election time nears.

Big-money interests have much too much influence in Sacramento. Politicians have turned the state house into a huge vending machine, where lobbyists put in their money, and get out the policies for which they pay.

It's the reason we're so deeply in debt. The reason corporate fat cats get away with not paying their fair share of taxes. The reason we have crumbling schools and gleaming jails. The reason our natural resources are for sale to the highest bidder.

I'm running because the time has come to take back our government, and ensure that it works for all Californians -- not just those who can afford to buy their own personal politician. This is not a question of right or left; it's a question of right or wrong.

If you are interested in George Lakoff and politics and the failings of the Democratib Party and what can we all do about it, I suggest you hie yourself over to The Right Christian (yeah I know, what the hell is a pagan doing sebding you to a Christian site) amd get involved in the Rev, Allen Brill's Theory of Everything

Nothing could be more obvious than that American progressives need a clearer view of the "big picture" of our political landscape. We're accused by the Right of wishing for Bush's foreign and domestic policies to fail because that's our only hope for victory, and when we look at much of what progressives have to say, it must be admitted that the focus is on what's wrong with Bush rather than what's right about Democrats. Even some of our best pollsters appear to have been caught off guard by what took place in the 2002 mid-term elections--a sure sign that we're operating without a good theoretical model of the electorate. I think it's one reason our leaders often look indecisive and weak (Clinton's uncanny instinctive feel for the electorate may have spared him from this perception.) One of our best writers, Frank Rich of the New York Times, is left to glumly hope for a change in the political cycle. Tucker Carlson gloats to Rich that:

"'They [the conservatives] believe in nine things. They all know the catechism.' In Mr. Carlson's view, Democrats are all over the ideological map in the post-Clinton era, and there can be no effective media without a coherent message."

I have been among those who have been writing about George Lakoff and his book Moral Politics. Lakoff, a linguist, cognitive scientist and liberal, attempted something of a TOE following the Democrats' disastrous performance in the 1994 mid-terms. He concluded that the Right was far more effective at appealing to the deep metaphors of those who hold a Strict Father morality in our country than Democrats were at communicating their message to those with the Nurturant Parent worldview who were their natural constituency. I could not be more disconnected from the gurus of the progressive movement and the Democratic party, but I must say that I can detect little impact of Lakoff's thinking upon our efforts in the seven years since his book was published. What were the differences in the Democratic message between the mid-term efforts in 1994 and 2002? Most importantly, is it possible to detect a improvement in the coherence of our message or lack thereof that Carlson taunts us about? I'm afraid not.

An excellent article. Found via Mousemusings

If you aren't yet aware of Greg Palast you should be. He is an excellent reporter. His book The Best Democracy Money Can Buy is a thorough investigation of the theft of the 2000 election. Much of what he has uncovered, indeed most of it, has resolutely been ignored by american media (so much for the "liberal bias" charge with regard to hte media). WorkingforChange.com is serializing exerpts from Palast's book and the series is well wortb the time spent reading it. Go check it out, then don't let it happen again in 2004.

Apparantly Bush would rather lie than tell the truth. It seems that tendency to lie rather than be straig