Conventional wisdom for the last couple of decades has been that veterans and active duty personal vote Republican. And as a trend that may not necessarily have changed. But, the choice between Bush and Kerry seems to increasingly be challenging the conventional wisdom, at least with respect to this election.

Kerry is a decorated veteran who twice volunteered for the Vietnam War. Meanwhile unanswered questions linger over whether Bush fulfilled his duty to the National Guard during his term of service here in America. Even though records thought to have been destroyed have surfaced, they don't provide answers.

Fresh from receiving the endorsement of 12 retired Generals and Admirals, including two former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Starr and a former Director of the CIA, Kerry is making headway in the battle for the military vote. Many lower ranked officers like our friend Jon Zall Colonel, U.S. Air Force (retired)of Voice of a Veteran (also linked from our blog roll) support Kerry over Bush too. And over 500 of the delegates at the Democratic Convention were veterans.

A CBS News poll released a month before the Democratic Convention showed that Bush was winning the veteran vote by a 52 - 37% margin. A little over a month later a new CBS poll showed that Bush had dropped from 52% to 47% while Kerry had improved from 37% to 41% among veterans - a mere 6 point gap, with Bush dropping several points below 50%.

These seem to be ominous trends for this "War" President. With new websites by veterans supplimenting the many existing veterans sites that oppose President Bush, it increasingly seems that the veteran vote might turn into a liability for Bush come November. Perhaps knowing who served and who didn't is playing a larger and larger role in making up veteran's minds about whom to vote for this November.

The RNC and Bush/Cheney 04 have gone on the attack now that the Democratic convention is over. The charge: Democrats have engineered an "extreme makeover" to hide their ultra-liberal, out-of-the-mainstream views. And the conservative press corps have taken up the banner and are running with it. But do they have the facts on their side? David Brock and Jamison Foser give some answers with their Redefining 'Mainstream'.

A few highlights:

A new CBS News/NYT poll out says that 54% of Americans have a favorable view of the Democratic Party.

"Same-sex marriage? John Kerry opposed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. That position is so out-of-touch, so ultra-liberal that both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney agreed with it in 2000. (They've since changed their mind in a shameless election-year flip-flop designed to appeal to their base.) And according to a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, only 38 percent of Americans support the constitutional amendment, while a majority agrees with Kerry that the issue should be left to the states."

"What about abortion? Kerry favors reproductive rights for women but voted in favor of a measure that would ban late-term abortions except in cases where the life or health of the woman is at risk. A majority of Americans agree that abortion should be legal in most cases."

So who is really outside of the mainstream, Kerry or Bush?

What are your thoughts on the just concluded Democratic Convention? Do you think Kerry made his case to the American people? Who was your favorite speaker? Least favorite speaker?

What movie are you anxious to see or just saw?

I saw I, Robot last week with my daughters and we loved it! Will Smith continues to impress me with his serious acting skills. He's a distinctive looking guy who could have easily been typecast by his earlier SitCom role. But, somehow Smith transcendes his own reputation and makes each new role believable on it's own merits.

There are a lot of things about John Kerry that I don't find particularly appealing or am downright turned off by. But, I have been both intrigued by and attracted to his core character as I see it revealed thru his actions.

Tonight his daughters both spoke briefly in the lead up to his grand entrance. Daughter Alexandra Kerry was especially poignant and moving. She related a story from their childhood. The family was going somewhere and her sister had packed up all of her favorite animals, including a hamster in it's cage. They were on a dock and somehow the hamster's cage got knocked over the edge. They could see it sinking down into the water, trailing a line of bubbles. John immediately jumped in the water, grabbed a nearby oar and fished the hamster cage out of the water. He then proceeded to give the hamster CPR, saving it's life.

As I listened to Alexandra relate the story I was reminded of the event in Vietnam for which Kerry was awarded the Bronze Star. They'd been on a Swift boat mission and one of the other Swift boats had hit a mine, blowing a Special Forces officer into the river. Under intense shore fire the boats hastily retreated down river to put distance between them and the Viet Cong trap they'd found themselves in. Someone notified Kerry that the SF guy was overboard and Kerry sent the whole group charging back up the river to save him. They lowered a net over the side and the SF guy managed to grab ahold of it. But, he was unable to pull himself over the edge and into the boat. Meanwhile they were facing intense shore fire and bullets were whizzing thru the air. The SF guy was not going to live thru the event if he couldn't get out of the line of fire. Kerry left the relative safety of the helm and personally went up and expozed himself to the shore fire by reaching over the side and pulling the SF guy into the boat and safety.

Both of these events reveal to me a glimpse of Kerry's character. Particularly the experience in Vietnam. He didn't have to go back. Nobody would have questioned it if he hadn't. Heck, most of them probably figured this Special Forces guy was dead already. By his own account he was being shot at while in the water even before Kerry brought the Swift boat group back to save him. It was quite simply a selfless act of courage that Kerry demonstrated that day. Later with the hamster he revealed another aspect which I find intriguing - a love for and valuation of life, as well as a willingness to do whatever necessary in a crisis. When minutes or even seconds are critical it comes down to core character traits which separate those who act immediately and those who don't.

Does it matter? Are selfless courage and the ability to act decisively in a crisis character traits that you want in a President? How about valuing life? Do you want a President who values life? Is it enough for you that a candidate talks the talk? Or do you want some sort of evidence of walking the walk too? My answer to each of those is an affirmative.

Recent IRS data shows that American's incomes fell for a second consecutive year. That has never happened under our current tax system which dates back to WWII. The last year in which American's incomes fell at all was 1953.

American's incomes dropped $350 b-i-l-l-i-o-n from where it was last year. Job losses are blamed for much of the loss.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong here... But, didn't President Bush promise that his first tax cut would produce a bunch of new jobs? And didn't President Bush promise that his second tax cut would produce a bunch of jobs? So, where are they? The stock market is doing fairly well. Those who can afford to play the stock market are doing okay. So when is it supposed to trickle down to the rest of us?

Inquiring (and voting) minds want to know...

Vice President Cheney was in Utah today, fund-raising for John Swallow's Congressional race there. As usual Cheney presumed upon the stupidity of the American people by critizing Kerry and Edwards for having voted against the $87 billion appropriations bill for the Iraq War and the War on Terror in Afghanistan. He said that he and Bush have made troop support a national priority.

Okay my fellow idiots... let's see if we can reason our way thru this growing pile of BS. Vote against military spending and you're a bad guy who can't defend this country. We would have to assume from this line of "logic" that speaking against military funding would be equally disqualifying.

Oh... but wait a second. Didn't Congressman Cheney criticize President Reagan's defense spending? Yes he did! And didn't Congressman Cheney call for deep cuts in defense spending? Yes he did! And didn't Secretary of Defense Cheney follow thru on that theme by cutting billions of dollars out of the defense budget? Yes he did!

In 1990, Cheney bragged to Congress that as Defense Secretary he "cut almost $65 billion out of the five-year defense program" and that subsequent proposals would "take another $167 billion out." He highlighted, "we're recommending base closures," "we're talking about force structure cuts" and "we've got a military construction freeze"[Congressional Testimony, 2/1/90]. Dick Cheney, Vice Flip-Flopper In Chief

Ma... hand me them hip waders. It's gettin' awefully deep in here. It smells to high heaven too.

Halliburton subsidiary KBR is accused of losing millions of dollars worth of government property it was supposed to be managing and taking care of in Iraq.

I know that conservatives like to charge liberals with being "communists". But, it seems to me that sweetheart "no-bid" contracts and the resulting mismanagement are the antithesis of capitalism. Isn't the alleged waste, fraud and mismanagement by Halliburton in Iraq the exact kind of thing the Soviet Union was famous for?

Twelve year old Ilana Wexler admonished Vice President Cheney last night at the Democratic Convention for his use of profanity. "When our vice president had a disagreement with a Democratic senator, he used a really bad word," Ilana said. "If I said that word, I would be put in a timeout. I think he should be put in a timeout."

Out of the mouthes of babes...

Ilana founded a grass-roots organization called Kids For Kerry.

You know how some people with a sharp memory are described as having a mind like a steel trap? Well... Carla and I like to joke about my steel sieve because my memory pretty much sucks. The weird thing is that I have an amazing memory for really obscure things. But, I digress...

Carla's 40th birthday was either yesterday or it's tomorrow. For the life of me I can't seem to remember if it's the 26th or the 28th. The only thing I'm reasonably sure of is that it's one of the two. So, I'm going with the happy medium, the 27th, to wish her a happy birthday. This way I'm only one day off... Which way will have to wait until she gets back a week from tomorrow to correct me. LOL

From our friend at Voice of a Veteran.

The conversation went something like this:


Republican National Committee (RNC) rep: I’m calling to see if you are willing to support Republicans with a contribution. We noticed that you haven’t given anything to the party for a long time.

A Vet: Yes you are right. I've been an Independent for years, and I’m now a registered Democrat.

RNC rep: May I ask why you switched parties?

A Vet: How much time do you have?

RNC rep: (pause…) Well, was there a particular reason? And can we get you back?

A Vet: The answer to the second question is “no.” The answer to the first question (abridged version for blog readers) is that I am a veteran, and the Bush administration has ignored or played lip service to veterans and our military including our reserves and national guard. I’m especially concerned with this administration blowing off veterans’ health care, lack of support to disabled and homeless veterans, and the shameful misuse of our military for preemptive warfare without evidence of WMDs or ties of Al Qaeda to Iraq. Somebody in the Republican party is taking veterans’ support for granted, just like they always have, and forgetting that millions of voting veterans are involved in this election – many of whom now feel like I do.

That’s just for starters.

RNC rep: Thank you very much. Good afternoon.

A Vet: Good bye.

The national Democratic platform has been quietly changed in one fundamental area - Capital Punishment. For the first time since 1988 the Democratic nominee will not run on a pro-death penalty platform.

John Kerry cites his personal experience killing people in Vietnam as being key in why he opposes capital punishment in almost all cases. Although he did alter his stance somewhat after 9/11 saying that he would consider capital punishment, in limited cases, for foreign terrorists. In contrast is George W. Bush. A man with no known experience killing anyone and who publically mocked a deathrow inmate who had appealed for clemency.

Noteworthy is the fact that 12 states bar capital punishment. Among them are some key battleground states - Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, Maine and West Virginia.

A few days ago President Bush addressed the Urban Institute. In his speech he asserted that his administration is trying to do everything we can to protect our homeland. But the fact of the matter is that the agency with primary responsibility for seeing to port security, the Coast Guard, requested $1.5 billion specifically for ensuring port security for 2005. The Bush has proposed giving them $46 million for 2005 instead.

Jim Litke, AP sports columnist, pens what is hands-down the best report on Armstrong's record-setting 6th Tour de France win that I've read... and I've read a few.

Some fans will say all he does is ride a bike

Those of you who don't read the New York Times ought to take a gander at today's issue. Robert Pear has a piece on how the Bush Administration has been going to court to block lawsuits by patients injured by prescription drugs and medical devices. The administration contends that consumers can't recover damages for products which have been approved by the FDA. Both the Justice Department and the FDA have taken active roles in trying to block consumers from access to the courts. Interestingly enough... the FDA's Chief Counsel, Daniel E. Troy, counted the pharmaceutical giant, Pfizer, among his clients when he was in private practice.

Noteworthy here is the fact that this new interpretation of the government's role is tacitly anti-state's rights. Forget how it'll play in Peoria... How will it play in Richmond or Atlanta where state's rights is an article of faith?

Those wishing that politics would return to a kinder, gentler time are wishing for something that never was. Above is a campaign flyer from the 1928 Presidential race between the eventual winner Hoover and New York Governer Smith. Students of American presidential politics will remember the absolutely viscious (and largely untrue) attacks between Adams and Jefferson. Or the incredible mud-slinging that Lincoln endured.

Thanks (via Rick Heller at Centerfield) to Josh Claybourn for finding and posting the flyer.

I get semi-regular email newsletters from the Committee for a Unified Independent Party (CUIP). As an Independent I try to keep abreast of what my fellow Independents are thinking and saying. Lately though the CUIP newsletters have basically been little more than unofficial campaign pitches for Nader or on his behalf.

A few days ago I received one which was basically a pitch to read a preview article from the upcoming issue of the Neo-Independent, a subscription magazine produced by the CUIP. There was a URL to the article and a line at the bottom asking for feedback on the article. I should also point out that CUIP likes to point to polling which says that 35% of the voting age electorate are self-identified as independent voters. That'll be relevant to the feedback I gave them on the article.

The article: A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS

My feedback: Response to CUIP

The 9/11 Commission has released it's report in which they urged an intelligence overhaul.

I don't disagree that an intelligence overhaul is needed. But, it begs the question of how much good it'd do if the President and his National Security Advisor can't or won't take the warnings they do get seriously.

At the center of the controversy is the infamous Presdential Daily Brieifing On bin Laden, August 6, 2001

NSA Condi Rice failed (or refused) to connect the dots even many months after the fact: Claim vs. Fact: Rice's Q&A Testimony Before the 9/11 Commission

President Bush was flat out on vacation when the American people needed someone... ANYONE to connect the dots: A Grueling Vacation Schedule

How much good will an intelligence overhaul do if the President and his National Security Advisor can't or won't take the intel seriously?

The Dreyfuss Report nails my own take on the reconstituted Committee on the Present Danger, which is nothing more than hysterical McCarthyism retooled for the modern age. Senator Lieberman reveals his true colors by signing onto this transparent extension of NeoCon psycho-babble aimed directly at influencing the upcoming election.

Yet more news that Halliburton has screwed the American taxpayer thru incompetence and deliberate over-charging for goods and services.

Of course there is also the latest questions about the Cheney-run Halliburton illegally doing business with Iran. Mind you this was their Cayman Island subsidiary... set up expressely to avoid having to pay ANY taxes that might benefit America.

White House Helps Block Extension of Tax Cut. Why? Because they know it would have been supported by Democrats. And they'd rather screw the middle-class than do anything that might help Democrats.

Didn't someone run on the "I'm a uniter, not a divider" theme in 2000?

The Guardian has a very interesting piece on British Alarm at US drift over Middle East It's interesting to compare the rhetoric coming from the American Right about how the poor Iraqi people suffered. But, that seems to be the where the empathy ends. I suppose it's not relevant that Iraq possess vast oil fields and the Palestinians possess none.

The latest news from the front is that Rumsfeld is apparently using Vigilantes in Afghanistan. I'm wondering if this is another way of getting around international law visa vis war crimes.

Um... didn't someone promise to restore honor and integrity to the White House?

This is a little old but remains very relavant. Walter Russell Mead spent five weeks earlier this year traveling thru the Middle East learning Why They Hate Us, Really.

Mead argues persuasively that at the root of the hatred isn't any of the usual suspects that we hear about from the demogogues, like Israel or "our freedom". Rather it is the Palestinians and how our government has handled their plight.

"The Palestinian issue is really what discredits the United States throughout the region," a senior Western diplomat with years of experience in the Middle East told me. Or, as one student after another put it after the university lectures I conducted across the region: "Why do Americans have to be so biased?"

I think it's safe to say that much of the widely popular European opposition to Bush's Iraq policy is rooted in those very same issues, or at least their perception of them. Mead continues,

America's Middle East policy is unnecessarily zero-sum. We can be more pro-Palestinian without being less pro-Israeli. Indeed, to the degree that American policies help create support for compromise among Palestinians, pro-Palestinian initiatives can help Israel too.

I'd say Mead is absolutely correct there. But, he doesn't account for xenophobia among Americans who have never stepped foot outside of North America. Nor does he take into consideration the politio-religious dogma of some Protestants that teaches that Israel has to defeat her Arab neighbors in order for end time events to proceed sufficiently for Christ to return. For Americans who believe that doctrine, working towards a peaceful settlement between Israel and the Palestinians would hinder the second coming of Christ. In my experience these folks are almost universally Conservative and very pro-GOP in the religious conservative sense of "GOP". Those same folks happen to be Bush's political base. Connect the dots...

San Francisco blogger Michael Petrelis apparently wasn't satisfied with just being a Nader backer this year. He apparently felt the need to demonstrate his ignorance on a massive scale. So he posted an incredibly deception and very poorly researched rant about how all the media publications that he researched have supposedly given vastly more donations to Democratic candidates than to Republican candidates. Apparently this is supposed to prove the lack of ethics and objectivity in the mainstream media. Petrelis claims that he "pored over recent donations by journalists, reporters, publishers and others who work at print media outlets" by searching Tray.com.

To prove his profound ignorance Petrelis leads off his list with Rupert Murdoch! If his research findings weren't so pathetically off-base it would be a hysterically funny blog post! He goes on to claim, "I limited my searching to the two most recent election cycles, except forTime and Newsweek, and Rupert Murdoch, because of the influence each wields." Clearly he's convinced himself that Rupert Murdoch is the financial Sugar Daddy behind the evil Democratic scheme to defraud Ralph Nader or some such nonsense.

Suspecting that what I was reading from Petrelis wasn't the whole truth I immediately opened opensecrets.org and did a quick search on Rupert Murdoch. Here's what I found: Rupert Murdoch, 2000 thru 2004.

In that time period Murdoch has give a grand total of $6,000 to three Democrats. While he gave $53,044 to 13 Republican candidate or Republican groups.

Clearly Michael Petrelis has a beef with Democrats. I don't begrudge him that in any way. I'm not a big fan of Democrats, myself. But, to try to fabricate a case for the mainstream media giving exclusively to Democrats... which isn't what Petrelis said, but he implies it (IMO)... is just plain silly.

What exactly can we deduce from the Senate Intelligence Committee Report about President Bush's role in pushing faulty Iraq intelligence? Because the Senate isn't taking up the question of how the intelligence was used, many are saying the report neither indicts or exonerates the president. Not exactly, says Prados, an analyst at the NSA. He points to several facts that show the intelligence used to sell the war was an afterthought for the White House. TomPaine.com - The Man Behind The Curtain

That's a teaser for a very good piece by John Prados, a senior analyst with the National Security Archive. Prados gives some background information which helps explain why President Bush was so eager to get into Iraq without finishing up business with Osama bin Laden.

I think it's completely relevant to review Bush's statements about Osama bin Laden:

"The important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our Number One priority and we will not rest until we find him!" George W. Bush, Sept. 13, 2001

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." George W. Bush, March 13, 2002

There is no doubt in my mind that Bush was being 100% honest when he said that he didn't care where bin Laden was. I don't think he's changed his mind since then. And that is at the very top of the list of reasons why I won't... why I can't vote for George W. Bush. I want a President who damn well cares about bringing to justice a madman who callously ordered the murder of thousands of innocent people here in America and elsewhere.

What the rightwing talking heads don't want Americans to understand is that a great many of us have never had a problem with the idea of going in after Saddam. But first things first! First we deal with sworn enemies who are directly responsible for murdering thousands in cold blood. Then when that's dealt with we can turn our attention to non-imminent threats like Saddam was.

The Economic Policy Institute has a really good opinion piece by Amy Chasanov called Minimum Wage Can Stand Some Maximizing. She talks about the need to raise the minimum wage and does a fair job of cutting thru the "he said, she said" charges coming from both sides about whether and why to do that. I particularly like the way she handles this one,

Opponents have recently argued that it's "classist" to believe that entry-level and low-wage workers cannot get a raise without a minimum wage increase.

Unfortunately, recent research shows that for some low-wage workers-particularly women, minorities, and the least-educated-the minimum wage affects not just their current earnings, but also their lifetime earnings potential. A nontrivial fraction of workers spend significant portions of their first 10 post-school, working years in jobs paying at or near minimum wage, so their current and future wages are intricately linked to the minimum wage.

What she doesn't point out there is that it is absolutely fundamental to any capitalist free market economy that an employer will pay an employee the least amount of money that it takes to get the employee to do the job productively. In entry level low skill jobs there is zero incentive for employers to pay any more than they absolutely have to. That's an inherant attribute of a capitalist economy! So, right there the "classist" argument is revealed for the psycho-babble that it is. Which once again reminds me of Ed Schultz's third rule about righties - "they think you're stupid."

I'm on vacation and without access to the blog until August 3.

Kevin and (hopefully) some guests will be blogging for the next two weeks without me.

I'll see you when I get back.

I'm one of those people who constantly does self reflection when it comes to my spiritual beliefs. Perhaps it was my early exposure to fundamentalist Christian notions and the rigid responses I would receive as a child when questioning those trying to teach me their theologies. As a child it was not for us to question our minister or Sunday School teacher. It was our job to listen and believe. Period.

Our Pastor was very big on Jerry Falwell. He preached about Falwell and his mission from the pulpit. When the Reverend Jimmy Swaggart had his "sin" with a prostitute and Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker had a run in with their accounting books...our Pastor preached about how squeaky clean Jerry Falwell was.

Falwell is to me now the essence of what is wrong with the Christian movement today. Rigid, extreme, fundamentalist, mean and prideful encompass much of what I see in Falwell's words and demeanor. Falwell is what he claims to hate: a pharisee.

Nowhere have I seen this more highlighted than this piece by Jim Wallis.

PK's inside the beltway source tells us another race in Texas that's got good vibes for the Dems is Charlie Stenholm. Stenholm is running in Texas-19 against Randy Neugebauer. We recommend keeping an eye on polling in this race.

Our source also tells us that "Washington is buzzing" about the very real possibility that the GOP could lose one of their crown jewels in the House: Washington-5. As you may recall, this seat was the emerald of the Republican Revolution in 1994 with Republican George Nethercutt defeating then Speaker of the House Tom Foley. There are three Republican candidates for this seat. None has been able to raise even $150,000 in the last 3 months. Our source refers to them as "the gang that can't shoot straight, or more accurately, at all". These three candidates must square off in the very late September 14 Washington Primary. The candidate that emerges victorious will then face DemocratDon Barbieri. Barbieri is the former CEO of West Coast Hotels. Barbieri's campaign chest is more than the three GOP candidates combined. In the end, a very broke GOP candidate will be running against a very well funded centrist (not conservative) Democrat.

On the flip side, a red flag race for the Dems is the Washington Senate seat of Patty Murray. There's concern that Murray's campaign appears very disorganized this election season. Some in Washington believe Murray isn't paying close enough attention to her campaign. The ironic "cherry on the cake" for this race is Murray's opponent: George Nethercutt. Noone is going so far yet as to say Ms Murray will lose the seat..but there's definitely some worry. The blogosphere might need to start pressing Ms. Murray to get her act together....

Kenny Loggins

Andrew Sullivan says there is no "Edwards Bounce" for Kerry.

Tully at Centerfield says there is an "Edwards Bounce" for Kerry.

Who's correct?

Looks to me like Tully is.

The Minnesota State Republican Party has developed a website that allows it's activists to tap into voters who's info they want to know about.

They're specifically interested in the activists in neighborhoods.

WebVoter gives GOP activists 25 names of people who are mostly within a few blocks of them. The idea is to find out what the hot button issues are for their neighbors. Names are given out with and without permission.

Individuals who appear persuadable will be given Bush Campaign literature.

Next up: Karl Rove implants microchips into the butts of all voters in Texas.

Temptations

According to PK's Washington DC source, you can look for "big numbers" in the polls early this week in the Minnesota 6th Congressionial District for Democrat Patty Wetterling.

Wettlering is running against Republican incumbent Mark Kennedy. Numbers on this race should be released Monday or Tuesday.

Our source also gives us good vibes in Texas for:

Chet Edwards

and

Martin Frost

Yesterday's post on Republican complaints about Dems politicizing the war on terror noted how despite GOP complaints...their side is pretty blatant about merchandising the situation to garner money and votes.

And some of them are even proud of it.

En Vogue

Lance Armstrong is a complete stud.

What an inspiration that guy is. I'm turning 40 on July 28. Maybe it's time to get back to the gym.....

According to the right leaning Washington Times, more than half of the House GOP is wondering why prolife speakers don't have primetime spots at the GOP Convention.

127 of the 227 House Republicans are asking Bush to give Henry Hyde (R-Ill) a longtime prolifer a prominent prime time slot at the Republican National Convention. According to the Times, most of the prime time slots for the GOP are going to prochoicers.

There's been a lot of commentary around the blogosphere about the lack of right leaning speakers in prime time for the GOP Convention. Given that these speakers (except for perhaps Arnold...he may be pushing his luck...see Kevin Drum) have little say in GOP policy and governance...it's a pretty nice dog and pony show.

Looks like the rest of the rats on the ship want some cake.

David Sirota has written a pretty interesting piece on how liberals and conservatives are coming together to fight a common foe: neocons.

The Republicans would never, EVER politicize terrorism, right?

It's Democrats who do stuff like that...just ask the Republicans...

"Remember when Sen. John Kerry and his Democratic colleagues hammered President Bush for allegedly politicizing the War on Terror? Those charges were entirely bogus – it is the Democrats who have been doing the politicizing."--David Limbaugh

"I am disappointed that the discussion in the presidential primary has totally ignored or forgotten the old adage that 'politics stops at the water's edge' -- we should not be getting into political battles when we have troops in harm's way,"Sen. Kit Bond R-Mo

“It used to be that when our nation was engaged in a war, politics stopped at the water’s edge. But it seems that Democratic leaders now want to play politics with our intelligence agencies, as those agencies help fight the war on terror.--Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House

So this is how the liberals are going to campaign this year: By taking the most important issue since the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, igniting World War II, and using it oust Bush and put an anti-American liberal in the White House. It’s Bill Clinton all over again. And eight years of the Clintons set the stage for 9/11. --Gordon Bishop, American Daily.com

Those mean and nasty Democrats. How dare they. Republicans would never do such a thing.

The Washington Post reports today that pro-Democratic organizations are seriously outpacing their pro-GOP brothers in fundraising and voter mobilization efforts.

One of the most heavily publicized pro-GOP groups, Progress for America, raised $2.3 million in the second quarter of this year, most of it from three of Bush's major fundraisers, according to new filings with the Internal Revenue Service. Another, the Leadership Forum, backed by some of Washington's most prominent Republican lobbyists and the GOP congressional leadership, raised $15,719.
The two top pro-Democratic groups, the Media Fund and America Coming Together, raised nearly nine times as much in the past quarter, or a combined $20 million, according to IRS filings.
 
I've long maintained that despite the close polls for Kerry and Bush...the Republicans are vastly underestimating how pissed off the left is at Bush.  For the first time, the left is willing to really work hard to get their guy in.  The Republicans are also underestimating their own side's apprehensions about Bush.
 
These numbers from proDem organizations reaffirm that position for me.
 
 

Chubby Checker

Remember that old adage, "keep your friends close and your enemies closer"? In an effort to honor that sage advice, I've kept myself on an email loop consisting mostly of conservatives. These aren't just any conservatives, either. The vast majority of these people are dyed in the wool Bush supporters. Short of Bush being videotaped naked in the street firing off rounds at the Capitol in broad daylight in front of 100 witnesses, these guys will vote for Bush no matter what.

With the Senate report essentially calling Joe Wilson a liar now in their sights, the proBush email group is all a twitter.

In my response to this I noted to the group, "Even if Wilson is a liar, what difference does it make? Two senior Bush Administration officials outed a covert CIA operative's name to multiple reporters. That's not Wilson's fault. So what's the dif?"

And so they linked me to this blog.

One Hand Clapping proffers the claim that it doesn't matter that Valerie Plame was outed to reporters because by golly....her status didn't meet the legal definition. Also it can't be illegal unless those who outed her knew she was covert.

So with this twisted yet effortless "logic", the Justice Department has undertaken a very expensive, long investigation in which the President of the United States, the Vice President, their most senior aides/advisors and various other folks are interviewed...and there's practically no way that there's criminal wrongdoing. Brilliant, eh?

And how do we reach this incredible conclusion? The Senate report which attempted to completely absolve the President of wrongdoing on WMD says that contrary to what Wilson said..his wife got him the Niger gig.

What the folks at What Hand Clapping appear to be overlooking is that if their conclusions are correct...this makes Justice look completely inept. They take a case in which there's no possible outcome of wrongdoing... and spend millions of dollars and hundreds (or thousands) of man hours investigating it..?

LOL it's gotta be tough to be a Bush supporter nowadays.

Ian Spiers is taking a photography class at Shoreline Community College, which is just North of Seattle. While attempting to complete a class assignment he ran afowl of Big Brother.

The Artist's Statement - Text Only

The Artist's Statement - Graphic Version

Brown Equals Terrorist - Ian Spiers blog which gives more details as they happen.

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. - Benjamin Franklin

The Washington Post reports today that Riggs Bank helped former Chilean Dictator Agusto Pinochet hide millions of dollars in assets from international prosecutors while he was under house arrest in Britain, according to a report by Senate investigators.

The report, drafted by minority Democrats also says the top federal bank examiner,R. Ashley Lee, in charge of supervising the District's largest bank kept details about Riggs's relationship with Pinochet out of the Riggs case file. This took place a few months before Lee retired from government and went to work for Riggs.

Last May, Riggs Bank agreed to pay $25 million to federal regulators for failing to report suspicious activity, the largest penalty ever assessed against a domestic bank in connection with money laundering. The fines were in conjunction with Riggs' dealings with the embassies of Saudi Arabia and Equatorial Guinea.

The FBI also probed Riggs Bank in connection with the bank account of bank account of Saudi Princess Haifa. Money from this Riggs account went toward subsidizing the families of two Saudi students..who then funneled it to two of the 9/11 hijackers.

Yup...there's our old friends the Saudis again.

And there's yet another twist to this story. It seems that the brother of former President Bush and the uncle of the current President Bush is a big shot with Riggs. Jonathan Bush is CEO and President of Riggs Investment Management Company.

A quick search at OpenSecrets.org of Riggs' officers campaign donations shows a heavy but not extraordinary giving to Republicans. Kev and I thought it was curious that this report was done by the Democrats and apparently not bipartisan.

For those of you who missed Sunday's Doonesbury...it's a classic.

Lately there's been kvetching at the federal level about postponing elections if terrorists launch another attack against the US. Some cite concerns about terrorists attempting to meddle with the outcome of our elections.

But what about other outside interests trying to meddle in US elections...such as The Vatican?

Top Vatican Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger says that the decision by some US bishops to deny communion to certain individuals who agree with some Catholic doctrine is "very much in harmony" with the advice sent down from the Vatican. Ratzinger heads Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith an organization that is described by AP as the "orthodoxy watchdog" of the Vatican. This organization watches over the bishops to offer advice on how they should be handling issues. However they appear so far to only be singling out liberals in their quest for religious purity. Abortion and euthanasia and gay marriage are the areas this organization finds problematic. The Death penalty and social justice appear to be much more flexible when it comes to laying the hammer on receiving communion.

What this comes down to is the Vatican putting pressure on US bishops to deny a rite of the Catholic church based on whether or not they're political liberals...whether actual or perceived. Is this only going to apply to politicians or does the Vatican plan on checking each voter's ballot to see if they've voted correctly?

And for the Republicans...


Chinese financiers trying to meddle in US elections=bad

Terrorists trying to meddle in US elections=very bad

The Vatican trying to meddle in US elections=excellent

Stephen F. Hayes piece, Knight Ridder Gets It Wrong, quite correctly points out several instances of very shoddy journalism by Knight Ridder in a recent piece on Bush and Saddam/al Queda. But if Weekly Standard readers are expecting to get the whole truth from Hayes they'd be mistaken.

In quibbling over whether Saddam and Osama had an "established formal relationship" or not, Hayes rhetorically asks, "does the lack of an 'established formal relationship' preclude cooperation? Not according to bin Laden. The same internal Iraqi Intelligence document reports that bin Laden 'requested joint operations against foreign forces' based in Saudi Arabia." (emphasis added) The reader is obviously supposed to connect the proffered dots and arrive at the conclusion that Saddam and Osama were actively cooperating with each other.

First of all, given what we know about the nature of how Saddam ran his regime it seems overly generous to attribute such veracity to any document crafted by members of his government without something more substantive to corroborate them with. After all, weren't the documents purporting to fully account for Iraqi WMD submitted by Saddam's government to the UN soundly rejected as woefully lacking in substance by this very same Bush administration? Secondly, Hayes encourages his readers to arrive at a logically fallacious conclusion. Using his logic one would be forced to conclude that all Fidel Castro would have to do would be to "request" joint operations with the RNC against Cuban anti-communist dissidents and John Q "Dupe" Public could reasonably conclude that the Republicans are guilty of an "established formal relationship" with Castro and his communist regime. Forget whether or not the RNC might reject such a request out of hand, which they undoubtedly would do. According to Hayes the mere act of requesting something can be used to establish a formal relationship, repleat with the implied consentual nature of said relationship.

Then Hayes takes Knight Ridder to task for questioning Bush's assertions about Abu Musab al Zarqawi's alleged relationship with Saddam's regime. He criticizes Knight Ridder for relying on anonymous US intelligence sources rather than a Senate Intelligence Committee report and a CIA report which both infer at least some sort of relationship between Zarqawi and Saddam. Hayes, citing the 2003 CIA report, quotes it thusly: "A variety of reporting indicates that senior al Qaeda terrorist planner al Zarqawi was in Baghdad [redacted]. A foreign government service asserted that the IIS [Iraqi Intelligence Service] knew where al Zarqawi was located despite Baghdad's claims that it could not find him." (emphasis added) Ummm... didn't a foreign government service (England) asserted that Saddam was trying to buy uranium from Niger... a charge cited by Bush and later debunked by former Ambassador Joe Wilson? But, that's not even the most appalling part of Hayes argument. He glibly glosses over the well established fact that Zarqawi's base was in Kurdish controlled territory to bend over backwards in trying to make a connection between Zarqawi and Saddam.

Stephen F. Hayes has a new book out, The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America (HarperCollins). I wonder when we can expect Hayes to write the sequel, The Connection: How Our Kurdish Allies Collaboration With al Zarqawi Has Endangered America.

MJ

Apparently the Bush Campaign no longer considers Oregon a swing state. This week the administration has brought down a full frontal assault on the Beaver State.

First is the continued "dog with a bone" antics of Bush's Justice Department on Oregon's Death with Dignity Act. In May the Ninth Circuit Court ruled 2-1 that the Justice Department couldn't prosecute physicians who write lethal prescription's under Oregon's law. Aschroft has asked the Ninth to reconsider the decision with all eleven justices in attendance. In today's New York Times, Nicolas Kristof (an Oregonian himself)notes:

Mr. Ashcroft and other critics have so far lost in their efforts, in the courts and in Congress, to block the Oregon law. But instead of moving on and letting Oregon proceed with its pathbreaking experiment, the Justice Department asked a federal appeals court on Monday for a new hearing.

The Oregon law deserves to be upheld. It forces us to examine the question of what is special about human life. The answer, I think, is the autonomy and dignity inherent in our individuality — in making hard decisions for ourselves and determining our own destinies. Oregon honors that vision of what is sacred about life.

Also this week, the Bush Administration lifted Clinton administration restrictions on building roads and logging in roadless areas. This effects about 58 million acres of land in the US, approximately 2 million of which are in Oregon. The Bush plan requires governors of the individual states to petition the federal government to have these lands protected. It essentially eviscerates a bipartisan plan put together by the Western governors to have a comprehensive western forest management plan.

Oregon Governor Ted Kulingoski blasted the plan on national television yesterday:

"There is nothing in this proposal that is being put forward that will make this certain or stable for any state," Kulongoski said.

Federal agencies already must consult state leaders on land management issues, he said, but "it doesn't get us anyplace." The Bush plan to have states petition on behalf of roadless lands is hardly better, he said, because states have no real authority over those lands.

"I would urge that if in fact the administration is truly interested in providing more jobs for the people of our states which have large holdings of federal lands, that they would do it in a way that would engage us in a partnership, that would allow us to actually have some of the responsibility," .

Oregon is a state that's been at the forefront of many progressive issues...we're mavericks. Oregon was one of the first states to enact comprehensive statewide forest management practices. Oregon was the first state to have a "bottle bill" to encourage recycling. Oregon is also the first state to have a Death With Dignity law. Oregonians don't like the federal government trying to manhandle them, either. If Bush really wanted the votes of the citizens of Oregon, he'd know this.

Money is the inspiration

For those of you that scoff at the idea of "war profiteering"...here's a bit of grist for the mill.

Lobbyists, public relations people, confidential advisors to senior officials...are cashing their fat checks thanks to the war in Iraq.

Examples:

A former Senate aide who helped get U.S. funds for anti-Hussein exiles who are now active in Iraqi affairs has a $175,000 deal to advise Romania on winning business in Iraq and other matters.

Former CIA Director James Woolsey is a vice president of Booz Allen Hamilton, a consulting firm. He was a featured speaker in May 2003 at a conference co-sponsored by the company at which about 80 corporate executives and others paid up to $1,100 to hear about the economic outlook and business opportunities in Iraq.

Neil Livingstone, a former Senate aide who has served as a Pentagon and State Department advisor and issued repeated public calls for Hussein's overthrow. He heads a Washington-based firm, GlobalOptions, that provides contacts and consulting services to companies doing business in Iraq.

Randy Scheunemann, a former Rumsfeld advisor who helped draft the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 authorizing $98 million in U.S. aid to Iraqi exile groups. He was the founding president of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Now he's helping former Soviet Bloc states win business there.

Margaret Bartel, who managed federal money channeled to Chalabi's exile group, the Iraqi National Congress, including funds for its prewar intelligence program on Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction. She now heads a Washington-area consulting firm helping would-be investors find Iraqi partners.

K. Riva Levinson, a Washington lobbyist and public relations specialist who received federal funds to drum up prewar support for the Iraqi National Congress. She has close ties to Bartel and now helps companies open doors in Iraq, in part through her contacts with the Iraqi National Congress.


So much for Michael Moore being a liar on the war profiteering angle of F9/11.

Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef has decided to 'fess up that Saudi militants have gone into Iraq to fight the US.

Despite having hotly denied that their citizens were in Iraq fighting the US, Nayef finally told reports yesterday that Saudis were in fact there. Iraqi officials have been claiming for months that some of the insurgents were Saudis.

Nayef says that there's been no official word to the Saudi government tht their citizens are fighting in Iraq...but the newspapers in Saudi Arabia just happened to have carried obituaries for Saudis who've died fighting the US in Iraq.

But aren't the Saudis are friends? Weren't we flying their people out of the US on September 13, 2001 to protect them from the frothing mobs of Americans out to retaliate against them? Aren't they helping to manipulate gas prices so W can get reelected? They're the good guys! W has told us so!

The Bush family and Administration is very close to the Saudi royal family...as has been well documented. These are the people who's citizens flew airplanes into our buildings to murder 3000 of our citizens. These are the people who spawned Al Qaida. And now they're killing our soldiers in Iraq.

And we still have diplomatic relations with them because...?

Oh yeah....black gold...Texas "T"....

A little KISS

The Kerry Campaign sent a Anniversary card to the Bush Campaign.

From Kerry's Campaign Manager, Mary Beth Cahill...some highlights:

July 13, 2004
Ken Mehlman
Campaign Manager
BUSH-CHENEY '04, Inc.




Dear Ken:


Over the past several months, allies of the President have questioned John Kerry’s patriotism while your staff has criticized his service in Vietnam. Republicans and their allies have gone so far as to launch attacks against his wife and your campaign has run $80 million in negative ads that have been called baseless, misleading and unfair by several independent observers.

And just to put the cherry on the cake....

We also wanted to wish you a happy anniversary. As we are sure you and the attorneys representing the President, Vice-President and other White House officials are aware, today marks one year since Administration sources leaked the identity of a covert CIA agent to Bob Novak in an effort to retaliate against a critic of the Administration.


Now if only CNN would read this on the air...

Has the October Surprise has been revealed?

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has quietly ordered elements of the long range missile defense system to begin operations on October 1.

This date is about four weeks before the 2004 elections.

So this hardly tested, extremely expensive, unworking "defense shield" is going operational. Nevermind that the single greatest act of terrorism against the continental US would never have been stopped by such a device. Nevermind that the single greatest threat to the United States as outlined by this Administration is terrorism (so much so that some want to have a plan to postpone the election).

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Simon and Garfunkel are amazing.

Latest polling from the Washington Post:

Bush job approval:
approve 48
dissaprove 50

Election (registered voters)
Kerry/Edwards 46
Bush/Cheney 46
Nader/Camejo 4

Election (general population)
Kerry/Edwards 46
Bush/Cheney 45
Nader/Camejo 5

What's really fascinating are the "who do you trust to do a better job..?" questions:

a. The economy: Bush 43 Kerry 51
b. The situation in Iraq: Bush 47 Kerry 47
c. The US campaign against terrorism: Bush 51 Kerry 42
d. Immigration issues with Latin America: Bush 38 Kerry 42
e. Education: Bush 40 Kerry 50

Kerry has made major inroads on the numbers in terms of dealing with the situation in Iraq when compared with Bush. He's still down overall on the "terrorism campaign"...but in my opinion that's more of an issue framing problem than anything else. Kerry has to frame that issue in such a way as to show the American people that this isn't and can't be a "war on terrorism".

It's groups of extremists that need to be dealt with as the criminals they are. And it's also a matter of working with the cultural and social issues in the various regions that are the root causes of developing these young Arab men to terrorists. In addition the major policy changes in the US away from the Bush Doctrine to the traditional method of dealing with foriegn nations of inclusion and working together is also important for Kerry to continue to stress.

Apparently once is not enough.

Bush wants the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider their ruling backing Oregon's Doctor Assisted Suicide Law.

For those that don't know, the citizens of Oregon have twiced passed a measure allowing terminally ill individuals to receive a prescription that would end their lives. Oregon's law was approved for the second time in 1994 by 60% of the state's electorate.

The Ninth split on a 2-1 decision last May. The Justice Department wants all eleven judges to hear the case in an effort to set aside the May ruling.

The priorities of this administration are completely screwed up. Tomorrow we hold a vote on an anti-gay marriage amendment to the US Constitution (that is doomed) but we can't vote on funding for homeland security. We have the President of the United States, the Vice President and the House Majority Leader all having to get attorneys for possible illegal doings and we have Ridge coming out warning about more terrorist attacks to come...but the priority of Justice is to make sure that dying people in pain have to stay alive against their will.

This is nuts.

...I know right now you can't tell
but stay awhile and then you'll see, a different side of me

Weird stuff from around the globe:

Man Dodges Suicide Pact with Bride

Its'y Bitsy spider catches a snake ewwwww

Police resuscitate rabbit

Castration jibe cut from 'Shrek 2'

BNL

Mrs Heinz Kerry is taking no crap from the GOP who are whining about her wealth:

"Those very same people never criticized my late husband for his money or his wealth - in fact, they used it," said Mrs. Heinz Kerry, who inherited an estate estimated at $500 million to $1 billion from her first husband, Senator H. John Heinz III, a Pennsylvania Republican who was killed in a plane crash. "His money was just dandy."

Yup.

The GOP is having a tough time lately with attacks on Kerry and Edwards. First the attack on Edwards not having enough experience...turns out Edwards has more experience that W when he took office. Then there's the "Edwards is an ambulance chasing lawyer" line which was tossed back in their faces by the fact that between Bush, Cheney and DeLay they're eating up more billable hours than you can shake a stick at. And now there's the "well they're just a bunch of wealthy people who can't represent the little guy." Hmmm...this comes from Bush the millionaire and Cheney the millionaire....and as Mrs Kerry so succinctly points out...the money never bothered them when it was in the GOP camp.

Game, set, match.

The RNC is planning to pay folks who raise money for them on their websites.

Okay..I was kidding about the switching....

This is a good idea on it's face but it essentially undercuts these internet movements from being grassroots.

Inspiration by Frank.

A lot has been said in the news about the problems the Democratic Party (and specifically the Kerry campaign) have had with the mayor of Boston in the lead up to the Democratic National Convention.

Apparently it's not going so smoothly for the GOP either.

Michael Bloomberg (Mayor of New York) and the GOP are at odds with some of the nuts and bolts of the convention. Bloomberg is angry with the Republicans in Washington for not doing enough to fund New York City's homeland security issues. Bloomberg has apparently "played ball" with the folks at the national level..only to feel stabbed in the back in return.

Bloomberg is a former Democrat who switched party affiliations a few months before he ran for Mayor of New York.

Given the horror that the city of New York endured on 9/11, one would think the GOP would be smart enough to make sure that they had what they need. Apparently not. Given that the GOP is going to be holding their convention in this very Democratic city already, the GOP are digging themselves in an even larger hole with Bloomberg.

Ron Reagan, Jr is going to be addressing the Democratic Convention in prime time.

The topic? Stem-cell research, of course.

How will the GOP go after their favorite man's son on this?

Very smart play on the part of the Dems. Nice touch.

Beelzebub has a devil put aside for me

Tom DeLay's corporate fundraising is under investigation. In 2001 DeLay alledgedley pressured Enron's people to give his political action committee $100,000 (on top of the $250K that Enron had already pledged to the GOP. This information was discovered in an email uncovered during the Enron investigation. The Washington Post reports that they've now come into over a dozen documents that show DeLay and his associates directing money from corporations and lobbyists to various "Republican campaign coffers in Texas in 2001 and 2002 as part of a plan to redraw the state's congressional districts.".

So far, DeLay is not the target of any official investigation.

If the Federal Election Commission doesn't start up an official investigation of DeLay on this matter then they're shirking their responsibility. This guy appears to have completely flouted both federal and Texas state finance laws.

But the real responsibility rest with the 22nd Congressional District. Those people keep sending this charlatan to the House. It's their responsibility to get rid of him. And it's disgusting that the rest of us in the country have to deal with the repercussions of his shenanigans.

Today is day two of the flu from hell.

I don't have any idea where I acquired this nasty virus..but it's kicking my butt. I have been out of bed a total of five minutes to write this post then it's back off to bed.

What a lousy way to go on a crash diet. Ugh.

Hope the rest of you are having a good weekend. I shall live vicariously through you while I lay on my bed moaning watching reruns of old movies on Direct TV.

Some stuff of note:

Kos has a check of the latest polling data. To end the suspense...Kerry leads close or comfortably in all of them...including Zogby and Rasmussen who've been the closest.

Iraqi hospitals are begging the US for more money. Of course I couldn't find this story in the US news. I had to head to the BBC for it.

The always excellent Kevin Drum talks today about the Senate Intelligence report on 9/11. The report is highly critical of the CIA..tries to absolve Bush and has a lot of big, black marker on it if you read the press copy. Drum points out:

Remember, this is what Paul Wolfowitz said in an interview last year about the reasons for going to war with Iraq:

....there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people....The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it.

So #1 turned out to be wrong, #2 turned out to be wrong, and #3 wasn't a good enough reason by itself. Even by their own standards, there just wasn't a good reason to fight this war, and this is something that shouldn't get lost amid the ongoing and self-serving effort to pretend that it was really George Tenet who led us to war. Even a child can see that for the hokum that it is.

UPDATE: And add one more headline to the list: Saddam Hussein's military posed no threat to either regional stability or American interests.

Really, Democrats should stop whining about Jay Rockefeller signing off on this report and get to work publicizing what it actually says. Taken as a whole, it's fatally damning toward practically everything Bush said about Iraq before the war. It's Republicans who should be upset about this report, not Dems.

I don't have the energy to look up and write my own stuff today. I think I may have the flu.

Carry on.

...this love has taken it's toll...

This coming Monday, four former Fox News employees will go on the record to expose Fox's Republican bias.

The press conference is a promotion for a new documentary on Fox News Channel by Robert Greenwald.

Am I the only one thinking that this is a wee bit redundant? After all, it's been common knowledge that Fox has a hardcore Republican bias since they went on the air.

Payroll records of large numbers of service members, including Bush, were ruined in 1996 and 1997 in a project to save large, brittle rolls of microfilm, according to Defense Finance and Accounting Service spokesman Bryan Hubbard.

In 1997 Joe Allbaugh -- who was Governor Bush's chief of staff at the time -- allegedly asked Guard commander Maj. Gen. Daniel James to gather Bush's files and "make sure there wasn't anything there that would embarrass the governor."

Hmmm...

Bon Jovi almost has hair as good as Edwards/Kerry.

The Emerging Democratic Majority courtesy of Ruy Tiexiera has a roundup of polls indicating a very healthy Edwards bounce.

People are conservative until something happens to them to make them a liberal.

My own Senator, Gordon Smith has found his liberal heart.

Senator Smith lost his son last September to suicide. It was an awful and tragic loss. When it was on the news here I cried for the Senator and his family...I even sat down and wrote them a condolence note. The pain of losing a child has got to be next to unbearable. I can't imagine it.

Senator Smith's son Garrett was reported to be an extremely bright and articulate boy with a terrible disease: bipolar disorder. Smith says he took his life as a "release" from the pain he felt. Garrett saw only despair in his future.

Yesterday on the Senate floor, Senator Smith tearfully pleaded for the Senate to pass a bill requiring health insurance companies to treat mental illness the same way they treat physical illness. The bill would also help states develop prevention strategies and fund more mental health services on college campuses.

Some Republicans have apparently anonymously used a procedural move to block the bill. Several other Republican Senators whose lives have been touched by suicide from mentally ill family members vowed to support the bill. These included Pete Domenici from New Mexico and Don Nickles of Oklahoma.

It's easy to be a conservative...until something happens to you that the government could (and should) have done. Then you quickly become a liberal.

Maroon 5

It appears the Iraq insurgency is bigger than we thought.

We used to believe that there were roughly 5000 guerillas in core of the group. Now we think it could be as high as 20,000. And rather than this being a loose band of unorganized outsiders we now believe that they are well organized and specialized in their attacks.

Imagine that. We invade a soveriegn nation that didn't threaten us or pose any imminent threat to our nation. We depose their dictatorship and occupy their country. We dismantle their military and civilian forces. We allow the border to become completely porous. We fail to capture the leader of the terrorist organization that murdered our citizens and we don't go after one of their main guys in Iraq. We don't provide adequate security in the streets (except for the Ministry of Oil...they're all set) and we allow all manner of lawbreaking to ensue.

And now our Department of Defense is all stunned, shocked and dismayed that there's four times the number of guys fighting us than we originally thought.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

Ken Lay finally does the perp walk after three years.

What took so long?

The goddessAretha

We ask that question first of Israel....who has decided that Iran will go after them first in a nuclear first strike. Why Iran would do such a thing has not yet been publicly explained to Israel or to US citizens. But our government has decided saber rattling about Iran is the best way intimidate Iran about nukes. Given that Iran has told the US in return that they're not going to scrap their nuclear program even with our previous threats this hardly seems like it will work either. But as we all know, Bush is a master foreign policy expert and diplomat so everything will work out just fine. Right?

Next we pose "Who's zoomin' who?" to our President and his merry band of Stetson adorned evil fighters. This cabal seems intent on implementing a nontested, nonworking missile defense system. piece by retired general Robert G Guard asks why we're dumping all this money into implementation when we've essentially skipped the real testing process. I frankly don't understand why we're focusing on this system at all. The real threats against the US aren't from ballistic missiles launched from another country. It's from individuals who sneak into the US and do attacks from within.

Is this just another effort at an homage to Reagan? Are the wheel greasers of the Bush Campaign so important as to keep the Department of Defense focused on an untested and unworkable system because they are bathed in cash so deep that it keeps the Executive from focusing on the real dangers?

The House of Representatives finally managed to find their spine when it comes to standing up to Bush.

The House voted today 221-194 to lift shipping restrictions created by the Bush Administration on gift parcels to Cuba.

The restrictions include things such as not allowing items to be shipped to people that are not immediate relatives (parents, kids, grandparents, etc). Nonfood gifts can't be shipped more than monthly to each household of family members. It used to be once per month per relative.

Apparently these restrictions are supposed to topple Fidel...and heaven forbid that Bush not pander to the Florida Cuban voting contingent.

Today's LA Times has a piece about John A. "Jack" Shaw, who apparently conducted unauthorized investigations of Iraq reconstruction efforts and used their results to push for lucrative contracts for friends and their business clients.

The truely interesting part about this story was pointed out to me by Kevin:

In December, Shaw flew to Kuwait to inspect the port. The military refused to allow him into the facility, however, because of the danger involved, Pentagon sources said.

Shaw and several staffers then went to the port dressed like employees of KBR, the Halliburton subsidiary that has a contract to supply the military with food and other items.

In a KBR hat, Shaw and his staff spent less than an hour at the port, taking pictures and talking with soldiers, current and former Pentagon sources said. The group documented well-known problems there, including the presence of unexploded mines.

So the Undersecretary for Defense for the US government can't get access to a port but an employee of Kellogg, Brown and Root can? I