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 guess that makes it clear who writes the rules in Iraq.

When coalition officials learned that Shaw was at the port, they made a frantic effort to locate him, but didn't reach him until after his return to Kuwait.

"I get this call from [the U.S. military command in Iraq] that said: 'We have an undersecretary of Defense roaming the countryside. We need to locate and secure him,' " recalled a former CPA official. "He's in the country illegally, but we can't arrest him, so we let him finish the tour."

How is it that the guy is illegally roaming in places where he's not supposed to and he can't be arrested? Does this mean that other US government officials can engage in illegal activity in Iraq and not be arrested too?

It appears that the Democrats may have finally learned to swing back.

Today Bush was asked by a reporter how Edwards stacks up against Cheney. Bush replied,""How does he stack up against Dick Cheney?" Bush didn't hesitate: "Dick Cheney can be president. Next?"

Hours later at a rally, Kerry hit back,"He was right that Dick Cheney was ready to take over on day one, and he did and he has been ever since, and that's what we got to change."

Also,the GOP attack machine is already gearing up against Edwards' trial attorney background:

Why all this interest in translation mandates by a trial lawyer? Professional translators make mistakes. According to the January 2003 Pediatics study, “Errors in Medical Interpretation,” , 53% of the translations by professional interpreters contain at least one error “with potential clinical consequences.”

Every translation error by a hospital-paid employee can become grounds for a costly lawsuit -- something unlikely to happen if the “translator” is also a friend or family member. Here’s a slogan for their campaign: “If you think medical costs are too low, vote Kerry-Edwards in 2004.”

Apparently the Bush/Cheney team plans to run on accusing Kerry and Edwards of wanting more people injured and hurt in hospitals.

And then there'sthis gem, written as a letter to Jonah Goldberg:

Dear Jonah - When you say "trial lawyers," I think you mean "plaintiffs' attorneys." Or more specifically, "contingent fee plaintiffs' attorneys." I'm a "trial lawyer," but I hardly think you'd object to what I do all day long - defend corporate clients from malicious and baseless lawsuits filed by overzealous plaintiffs' attorneys. So, when you say "trial lawyers," be careful - you may be alienating an innocent sector of your NRO readership.

Bush/Cheney apparently also plan to run on the idea that corporate lawyers who help corporations pollute the enviornment and screw their shareholders are okay...but look out for those plaintiffs attorneys. They're going to bat for the little guy.

Hmmm....what could be the campaign slogans for those topics?

Vote for us...we won't screw you unless you make under $250k

Bush/Cheney2004: Do it for the hurt people in hospitals who shouldn't have those bad translators

Friends don't let friends vote for champions of the underdog

Any other suggestions?



(Thanks to Kevin Drum for the Edwards stuff)

Since I'm quoting PJ O'Rourke I may as well just go for it and do Toby Keith as well. Just so you know, I can't stand Toby Keith. But these lyrics are perfect for this topic.

Having the discussion on political discourse yesterday was a very good exercise for me. It forced me to back up my beliefs. I'm a strong believer in challenging and being challenged. It's the only real way to know what I truely believe.

It seems PJ O'Rourke is having this same dilemma. PJ and I are essentially on opposite sides of the political spectrum. If we were to have a debate on politics we'd most certainly find little if any common ground.

But PJ appears to be having a problem with conservative debate, or lack thereof:

Anyway, I couldn't get NPR on the car radio, so I was listening to Rush Limbaugh shout about Wesley Clark, who had just entered the Democratic presidential-primary race. Was Clark a stalking horse for Hillary Clinton?! Was Clark a DNC-sponsored Howard Dean spoiler?! "He's somebody's sock puppet!" Limbaugh bellowed. I agreed; but a thought began to form. Limbaugh wasn't shouting at Clark, who I doubt tunes in to AM talk radio the way I tune in to NPR. And "Shari Lewis and Lamb Chop!" was not a call calculated to lure Democratic voters to the Bush camp. Rush Limbaugh was shouting at me.

Me. I am a little to the right of ... Why is the Attila comparison used? Fifth-century Hunnish depredations on the Roman Empire were the work of an overpowerful executive pursuing a policy of economic redistribution in an atmosphere of permissive social mores. I am a little to the right of Rush Limbaugh. I'm so conservative that I approve of San Francisco City Hall marriages, adoption by same-sex couples, and New Hampshire's recently ordained Episcopal bishop. Gays want to get married, have children, and go to church. Next they'll be advocating school vouchers, boycotting HBO, and voting Republican.

I suppose I should be arguing with my fellow right-wingers about that, and drugs, and many other things. But I won't be. Arguing, in the sense of attempting to convince others, has gone out of fashion with conservatives. The formats of their radio and television programs allow for little measured debate, and to the extent that evidence is marshaled to support conservative ideas, the tone is less trial of Socrates than Johnnie Cochran summation to the O.J. jury. Except the jury—with a clever marketing strategy—has been rigged. I wonder, when was the last time a conservative talk show changed a mind?

A valid question.

Given the meanness and sometimes downright evil of rightwing radio talk shows (and television)...how could it possibly change anyone's mind? It's all about preaching to the choir. Even a dyed-in-the-wool rightwinger like O'Rourke can see it.

While the energizing of the base is key..so is good discourse. Without it we end up with people like George W Bush as President of the United States.

All girl bands rock.

Can you see them
See right through them
They have no shield
No secrets to reveal

The 9/11 Commission is essentially calling that paragon of virtue and integrity, Dick Cheney, a liar.

The Commission reiterated the fact that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks. Further the Committee repeated that while there were numerous contacts between Iraq (note: not Hussein) and Al Qaida, there was no "collaborative relationship".

Last month Cheney accused news outlets, specifically the New York Times, of distorting the findings of the 9/11 Commission. Cheney also asserted that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague, Czech Republic. The Commission said it believed such a meeting never took place.

The Commission has basically told Cheney to put up or shut up.

Cheney is clearly capable of doing neither.

People are talking
Talking 'bout people
I hear them whisper
You won't believe it

Today in the comments section of my post Here comes the sun... my good friend Manny took me to task:

I respect your quest to avoid as much as possible the appearance of favoring one "side" over the other, even when the facts merit such a treatment. However, in many of your comments discussing polarization and incivility, you are going to injure yourself bending over backward to avoid laying the blame rightly where it belongs...on the political right and the radicalization of the Republican party.


I am certainly not above going out of my way to try to be fair to my opposing side. I do think that it's one of the better traits of being a liberal...equity. Conservatives are the fingerpointers and blamers. That's not what I'm about...nor is it what I think liberalism is or ought to be about.
(Yes this in generalizing...but I'm making a point.)

I criticize conservatives on this blog on pretty much a daily basis, and rightfully so. But I criticize them based on the facts as I see it. I don't do it because I need to have a temper tantrum out of frustration that the media isn't fair to liberals (they aren't). I do it because I want the information out there even if it's just from this little blog. What I see from those who write coarse and profane pieces is the literary equivalent of a two year old's tantrum.

If it injures me to deal just in facts and not in rhetoric...then injured I'll be. It would be dishonest of me to be something I'm not. I'm an unabashed liberal. In fact I get my share of static in comments here or in email from those who say they're "moderate" because I make no bones about my liberal leanings. But I'm not a hack I'm an independent thinker. I'm a sideline critic and debator of the facts as I see them.

As I see it, the coarsening of political discourse began with the bloom of talk radio. That medium has up until recently been the providence of the conservative movement. The fact that they've pushed their lies and half truths on the American people unanswered for the last 15 years is a lot for the good guys to overcome. But we're not going to overcome it by stooping to their level. I absolutely refuse to do it.

If you believe I'm wrong, lay it out there and tell me why. Prove it to me. I'm more than happy to have a debate on the merits.


If you come here to engage in debate or to read/post something for the good guys or even just to read...awesome. If you come here expecting me to be a hack for liberals...you're going to continue to be dissapointed. I'm an independent woman and an independent thinker. Nobody tells me what to do or how to think. I take the facts as they are, digest them..and post my beliefs based on those facts.

That's really the best I can promise.

Here comes the sun, here comes the sun
and I say it's all right...

Kerry/Edwards 2004.

Interesting reactions to the choice...from relief to enthusiasm to grasping at straws for something negative. It also yielded a monumental screw up by the New York Post

The Bush/Cheney reelection team trotted out an ad about Kerry courting McCain for the Veep job. However the DNC has countered with an ad showing McCain having plenty of vitriol for Bush. Of course the ad from the Bush camp is the one getting the most play in the media right now. But hopefully the DNC will get their ad on TV in the swing state markets. It's a very good ad.

Kev and I generally feel positive about the choice of Edwards for this ticket. Edwards' talk about The Two Americas resonates with us and we think with swing voters as well as the Democratic base. Edwards brings a huge ration of positive to the Kerry campaign...as well as a charisma and vibrancy. It also puts North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia into play in a way that they weren't before.

This also says a lot about Kerry. He was willing to go with a guy who will inevitably take the spotlight away from him sometimes. It shows he's not afraid to make a top tier choice.

Kerry/Edwards 2004. Say goodbye, W.

...I'm asking you sugar would I lie to you?

With the success of Fahrenheit 9/11 there's been a lot of speculation in the media about the role of Michael Moore and this film. Having the number 2 film at the box office behind Spiderman 2 is a pretty big deal..especially when most documentaries aren't seen by mass audiences whatsoever...let alone get the kind of numbers F9/11 is drawing.

What I've heard most from detractors is that the film has factual errors or things that are misleading for the audience. Basically that Moore wasn't honest throughout the entire film.

It's a fair debate to engage in.

So why not hold those in media who's ideology is opposed to Moore by that same standard?

David Brock is definitely working on it. The list he's compiling over at Media Matters for America is breathtaking:

Boortz revives false rumor about Kerry

Ann Coulter: Democrats want Saddam back and other "Coulterisms

Rush Limbaugh:"Democrats have found their keynote [convention] speaker ... Saddam Hussein"

Limbaugh and Buckley attacked Langston Hughes; ignored Bushes' praise of poet Limbaugh called a "communist"

Brainwashed author Ben Shapiro ignored stats in labeling U.S. Supreme Court "largely liberal"

Limbaugh wrong on fed education spending

O'Reilly says no Afghanis held at Guantanamo, Pentagon says otherwise

This barely scratches the surface of what Brock has compiled.

It seems rather odd for folks to be spending so much time on whether or not Moore is truthful when relative to the 24/7 barrage that comes out of the folks on Brock's list it's a blip on the radar.

Homage to the movie, "Clueless".

Young people might finally be ready to rock the vote:

Recent surveys of youth — most often college students — have provided conflicting data about the level of interest in the upcoming presidential election.

Still, several experts who track youth movements believe change is afoot, particularly among "millennials," young adults born after 1981 who are coming of age in the new millennium. Now no older than 22, they represent millions of potential new voters.

Michael Wood, vice president of Teenage Research Unlimited, says the election has been coming up frequently — and spontaneously — during his talks with young people who serve as advisers for the Illinois-based market research company.

"I haven't seen this much interest since 1992," Wood says, referring to the first presidential election Bill Clinton (news - web sites) won. It was the only presidential race since 1972, when the voting age was dropped to 18, in which turnout among the youngest voters topped 50 percent.

This is not a constituency Bush is likely to dominate....but Kerry absolutely can. Further I think this shows what I believe is an overarching anger with much of the electorate at what's going on with our nation right now...with the direction we're heading.