And right on cue, shortly after former Pakistani premier Bhutto's own slaying, two key al-Qaeda news items appear. First, "senior US officials" are checking into an al-Qaeda claim of responsibility for the assassination, and—lo and behold—"Osama" himself will soon release a message regarding Iraq.
Bhutto asserted to David Frost less than two months ago that bin Laden had been murdered by Omar Sheikh, whom the Sunday Times once described as "no ordinary terrorist but a man who has connections that reach high into Pakistan's military and intelligence elite and into the innermost circles" of bin Laden and al-Qaeda. (Watch video starting at 5:33 for mentioned part.)
Republican presidential candidate and libertarian maverick Ron Paul was Tim Russert's guest on last sunday's Meet the Press. I must say that this interview looked like a sad attempt to make Ron Paul look bad. Unfortunately for Russert, this interview only made Tim look bad. Nice try though Timmy. Some of my favorite exchanges in this one were as follows:
MR. RUSSERT: So if Iran invaded Israel, what do we do?
REP. PAUL: Well, they're not going to. That is like saying "Iran is about to invade Mars." I mean, they have nothing. They don't have an army or navy or air force. And Israelis have 300 nuclear weapons. Nobody would touch them.
Oh and then there's this beauty:
MR. RUSSERT: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.
REP. PAUL: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's a--what's the contradiction there?
I just saw this diary on the recommended list on Daily Kos, and after reading it I feel pretty humbled as a would-be blogger / diarist. This is the kind of personal reflection and honest, substantive discussion that is blogging at its best.
Among many highlights is this passage (emphasis mine):
But Hillary is not my first choice. Yes, she is competent and hardworking and tough. What turns me off most about Hillary is that whenever I hear her speak she is almost always speaking about herself, not about her vision for us. I hear her repeat: "I am the most experienced." "I am the most competent." "I have been tested and survived Republican attacks." "I am the one ready to lead from day one." It's a given that all politicians have to have strong egos and are in some fashion ego-driven, but I get the feeling that Hillary's campaign is mostly about her, and not enough about us. That turns me off. I want to know what her vision is for America, other than an America headed by the first woman prsident. What is she passionate about, besides being President? What course will she chart, and how will it be different from what has been done before?
It's looking like McCain't is getting double his pleasure with fucked up endorsements this week, having already been endorsed by Joe "I'm all over the place here" Lieberman. According to the New York Sun,
"Making a rare foray into primary politics, Henry Kissinger, 84, who served as secretary of state under Presidents Ford and Nixon, is saying Senator McCain is the best person to serve as president at a dangerous time for America and the world".
Uh, yeah Henry. We'd like to thank you personally for helping make this world "a dangerous time for America".Why does anyone think that having Henry Kissinger endorse you as a candidate is a good thing? For the love of sanity, this man is a fucking war criminal. Remember Chile? Remember Cambodia? Remember fucking Vietman? I could go on and on.
Well...not yet, but he's laying the groundwork. He was admitted to the hospital last night for flu-like symptoms. Given how well he's been doing in the polls, the questions being raised about his business dealings, security clients, law clients, pedophile friends, indicted buddies, expensing his affair to NY taxpayers, etc. I'm betting that this hospital stay is the first installment of a plan to withdraw from the race for "health reasons." Anyone remember his Senate race with Hillary when he withdrew for health reasons? Or maybe he'd made the calculation that he couldn't win, but he wanted a note from his doctor so he could drop out and save face.
Looks like Ralph Nader thinks John Edwards might be his choice "if he doesn't back off." Chris Matthews has Ralph on his show and it turned out to be a great exchange. Especially interesting are his comments on Obama, saying: "he doesn't have the agenda"
and
"he's a lot smarter than his public statements, which are extremely conciliatory to concentrated power and big business".
Well. Is he the sleeper candidate? Is he? Damn right he is. This is for a few of my fellow Crinchers here who are all up on the J-Eds tip. Well guys, here you go. I'm posting about John Edwards. I must admit though, and I've had this discussion within the circle of Crinch Pin bloggers, that there is something to this John Edwards thing lately. I have been noticing how little attention he has been getting and commenting on how this mudslinging between Obama and Hitlery has really been quietly working to Edwards' advantage. He seems to have taken on a new tone lately: a little more angry, and little more ballsy, and a lot less bullshit. Maybe he has been taken off of the establishment's list of "potential puppets" and is finally fighting back against those on the insider track. We know that at one point John Edwards was a darling for the establishment, being essentially chosen as the VP candidate by the Bilderberg Group at their 2004 meeting. So it's still too early to tell what's really might be going on behind closed doors, but from a glance, it looks like Edwards is NOT being pushed by the machine any longer, and just maybe he's starting to fight back. Hey, he's not known for making great initial decisions (see Iraq War vote) but we can all agree that he has taken a knack for owning up to his mistakes later (see mistaken Iraq War vote admission).
This is great. Presidential Candidate Ron Paul, appearing yesterday on Fox News morning show Fox and Friends, has an interesting take on the recent story revolving around Mike Huckabee's "cross ad". He evens drops one of my favorite quotes by Sinclair Lewis.
"When Fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross".
But, maybe Moneymonk should consider voting Republican, since it seems that Huckabee, Giuliani and Romney all hate puppies, the natural enemy of the cuddly kitten.
And, although it's not an endorsement, Paul Krugman's Op-Ed in today's New York Times is about a close to an endorsement of Edwards as you can get without just coming out and saying it.
Of Obama, Krugman notes that "in an important sense, he has in effect become the anti-change candidate."
Krugman's piece, of course, comes in the wake of a number of articles on the shortcomings of Obama's healthcare plan, as well as his use of republican frames like "The Social Security Crisis." But this column seems to me to also be a response to yesterday's column by Frank Rich, who seesm enamored of Obama's Hope Campaign.
For the record, I do like a lot about Obama, but I prefer Edwards's plan for change to Obama's hope for change.
So, throughout the day today I have been checking in on version 2.0 of the Ron Paul "Money Bomb". It was set for today, December 16th, in remembrance of the Boston Tea Party. As of last night, Paul's Q4 total was at about 11.5 million. When I checked it this morning at around 9:30am CST, the number was already up to 13 million. Mind you, the campaign's stated goal was to raise 12 million by December 31. As of right now, 9:30 pm, its 16.95 million. This is nothing short of astounding, Congressman Paul will have broken his record of 4.3 million back on November 5th by, at the very least, a million dollars. Its already amazing to have one successful fund-raising day, but to have two of these is well...something to really pay attention to. I'm guessing the mainstream media is wringing their hands right now knowing that they cannot deny the "emerging contender" status that they will have to adorn him with. I bet they are regretting pushing the "Mike Huckabee is a real dark horse" project. Here's Paul's website donation counter, its pretty fascinating.
You know, back in the 90s when Bill was pulling his "I didn't inhale" bullshit (and c'mon...we all know it's bullshit), I was pissed he didn't just own up to smoking pot. I said at the time and I say it now: If someone who came of age in the 1960s didn't smoke pot, they're probably a republican and I don't trust them.
But what of Hillary's drug use? Has anyone asked her? It seems a legitimate question now that her campaign has opend up the issue. Has she ever tried cocaine? Has she ever smoked pot? I mean, she was hanging out with Bill, so maybe she just "didn't inhale" all that second hand pot smoke?
But seriously, people, Justice Stevens (who is 87) wrote this in one of his recent Supreme Court opinions:
“. . . The current dominant opinion supporting the war on drugs in general, and our anti-marijuana laws in particular, is reminiscent of the opinion that supported the nationwide ban on alcohol consumption when I was a student. While alcoholic beverages are now regarded as ordinary articles of commerce, their use was then condemned with the same moral fervor that now supports the war on drugs. The ensuing change in public opinion occurred much more slowly than the relatively rapid shift in Americans’ views on the Vietnam War, and progressed on a state-by-state basis over a period of many years. But just as prohibition in the 1920’s and early 1930’s was secretly questioned by thousands of otherwise law-abiding patrons of bootleggers and speakeasies, today the actions of literally millions of otherwise law-abiding users of marijuana, and of the majority of voters in each of the several States that tolerate medicinal uses of the product, lead me to wonder whether the fear of disapproval by those in the majority is silencing opponents of the war on drugs. Surely our national experience with alcohol should make us wary of dampening speech suggesting however inarticulately that it would be better to tax and regulate marijuana than to persevere in a futile effort to ban its use entirely."
And what of Cocaine? Well, there was time in Regan's 80s (back when a tipsy Nancy Regan would speak passionately about the war on drugs, with martini in hand) when cocaine was the drug of choice for those same 60s pot smokers (Bill? Hillary? George W?). It. Was. Everywhere.
If you had the money and were young enough in the 80s, you probably did a little blow. Cocaine was EVERYwhere. I'm glad Obama was honest about his drug use, and I hope honesty on the issue is what wins the day, not below-the-belt holier-than-thou attacks from hypocritical candidates, and not the moralizing judgment of Washington pundits.
And for the record, I don't want to hear a peep of judgment or high-minded fretting from "Cokie" Roberts.
Finally, Watch how Clinton's Rove, sleazebag schlub Mark Penn, ever-so-offhandedly introduces 'cocaine' into a discussion about generic 'drug' use, and watch how Joe Trippi calls him on it. Penn acts surprised (and he's a bad actor), but c'mon people. These are political advisors who scrutinize everything and are aware to a sickening degree of the impact of every word they speak. Penn knew exactly what he was doing, and Trippi called bullshit. Good for Trippi.
UPDATE: Todd Beeton now has a post up on MyDD about this. Check it out. The money quote:
Lenny "Nails" Dykstra was fingered as part of the former Senator George Mitchell's report on steroid use in major league baseball. The report, which has been in progress for 21 months, called out 70 players for drug use and will serve as evidence for Commish Bud Selig that random drug testing is needed in the MLB. Detractors in the sports press and the Player's Association assert that Selig knew of the rampant drug use all along, but was pleased with the home runs, pitching duals, and all-around increased popularity of the game after the devastating player's strike of 1995. They claim Selig turned a blind eye to the problem and is as culpable as the players themselves.
NOW talks to Congressman Ron Paul and his supporters across the country about Paul's extraordinary presidential campaign and the political waves it's causing.
CHEERS to John Edwards. A striking new CNN/Opinion Research poll shows that the populist candidate would pummel the Republicans hardest in 2008. Hey, I've got an idea for the traditional media. I know it's a little crazy, but hear me out. I think you guys should start covering his campaign again! Give it a whirl---it might lead to, like, journalism or something.
[To the tune of Jingle Bells] Tap tap tap Tap tap tap Tap tap tap tap tap Tap tap tap Ta-tap tap tap Ta-ta-tap tap tap tap tap. TAP! Tap tap tap Tap tap tap Tap tap tap tap tap Tap tap tap Ta-tap tap tap Ta-ta-tap tap tap tap tap.
Now, call me crazy, but don't you think it would have been smarter to tell these kids to collect quarters? or even dimes? I'm just saying... the strategy was pretty dumb.
David Mizner (an Edwards booster) has an excellent post on MyDD this morning that eloquently articulates many of my reservations about Obama, as well as many reasons why I find Edwards to be the most credible candidate for change, despite the ironic fact that he's a white male.
In particular, Obama's insistence on compromise and unity has led him to some pretty terrible anti-progressive positions. Let me put it crassly and wildy overstate things for the sake of argument: if Jamie Leigh Jones was being raped 4 times a day, and some folks wanted it to stop, while others didn't have a problem with it, then Obama's compromise position would be to ratchet down the rapes to just 2 times a day. Compromise. Unity. Everybody's happy.
Whatever.
If you compromise with a corrupt and morally bankrupt system, you're not compromising, you're capitulating and abetting. End of story.
Or, to put it more tactfully, as Mizner does:
[Obama's] selling unity and hope, yet what he's proposing to do wouldn't create much of either. It's progressive policies, not good intentions or expressed desires, that create unity and hope. Obama wouldn't even roll back Bush's tax cuts for the rich; he'd keep them in place until they expire in 2011. Very unifying. The unacceptable status quo--in which the powerful are way too powerful--will only be strengthened if it is ratified by a black "liberal" president. That's my fear.
I was prepared to leave it at that — Obama’s plan was weaker than his rivals’ because it wasn’t universal, but I hoped that he would fix that in practice.
But then Obama started attacking his rivals from the right, denouncing their proposals using exactly the same false claims that conservatives will use to try to derail reform in the future.
And now, having been caught out on the facts, the Obama people respond with a personal attack, lifting quotes out of context to pretend that I never had problems with the plan. Something is very wrong here.
But the more substantive piece is the one that resonates with me most. Obama is bashing Krugman. Paul Krugman, one of the only honest and courageous voices in the traditional media.
Let's review: Krugman took Obama to task for his healthcare plan. Obama's Healthcare plan does not provide universal coverage, and is deeply flawed in that it doesn't require enrollment, but neither can it deny anyone enrollment, thereby basically encouraging people to opt out when they're healthy, and then opt in when they're sick thus defeating the entire premise of a plan that bases cost savings on economies of scale. When everyone pays in, it's cheaper for everyone. Under Obama's plan, the chronically sick opt in immediately, and then because the pool is smaller, they pay more. Then a some healthy people get sick and opt in, and because they enlarge the pool, it all gets cheaper. Then, some people get better, and opt out again, without penalty, and the cost goes up again because the pool is smaller. Basically, you'd have the sickest people, those most in need of affordable health care subsidizing the healthy Johnny-Come-Latelys. Like I said. Deeply Flawed.
Well, now it seems that Obama is going after Krugman's credibility. Bad move. Krugman's one of the most credible columnists we've got. It's worth going to the NYT's archive of his columns to check out exactly how prescient he's been. Here's a piece published just 3 months after the Iraq invasion, at a time when most of the rest of the media were celebrating "Mission Accomplished."
So now, because Krugman spoke a little truth about Obama's shortcomings, Obama is attacking Krugman. Mr. Obama, maybe you should hire him as a policy advisor instead.
Armstrong notes what's troubling about Obama's statements and raises some worthy questions:
Is Obama is just plain ignorant of the fight we've faced this decade in going after Krugman? Why is he going after the Clinton and Edwards plans to push forward the idea of universal coverage? Does he really have no clue that using the term 'crisis' to describe Social Security is Rovian?
It's mistakes like these that make me think that if Obama gets the nomination, it's going to be disgusting to watch as he turns against progressives in his bid for the middle, and as he says, that's the way he'd govern too.
Amen to that.
Obama has great potential, but it sure looks like he's mistaking 'compromise' for leadership, and capitulation for 'bipartisanship.'
An ABC news piece that ran yesterday morning attracted attention after four Pakistanis who were being interviewed about the attitudes and life of young people in Pakistan declared Osama Bin Laden to be a creation of western intelligence and stressed that Islamic extremist attitudes towards the west were virtually non existent in their country before 9/11.
ABC have since pulled the video footage from their website, but an industrious prisonplanet forum member grabbed the footage and uploaded it to youtube.
"Who is Osama Bin Laden?" One girl asked Chris Cuomo, "He's just a character created by America" she concluded.
Another of the young people, all in their twenties picked up the conversation stating "I would say that 98% of Pakistanis would follow along the same lines, they believe that Osama is basically a CIA agent who is working under cover to put over a bad image of Islam."
Here is the footage interspersed with other evidence to back up the claims of the four young Pakistanis:
The latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report suggests that Iran has halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 due to international pressure. You can view the pdf of the report here. This is in stark contrast to Bush, Cheney, other administration officials, and most of the GOP presidential candidates, all of which have been banging their fists screaming about stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Raw Story has a great article about Joseph Cirincione, the director of nuclear policy at the Center for American Progress, and his recent appearance on BBC World News. Cirincione basically says that military and intelligence agencies are finally standing up to the president and his propagandizing of the Iranian threat.
"And they of course are now dealing with a lame-duck president...and you're seeing first the military reassert the integrity of its institutions, and now the intelligence agencies," he continued. "So both are now saying 'go slow on Iran, there is no good military option here.' And now, there isn't really an imminent threat. We have time to let diplomacy work."
"It definitely undercuts the case for military action," said Cirincione. "It strengthens the case for direct diplomatic engagement."
I'm loving the Rudy Giuliani "Sex on the City" scandal. It's got all kinds of juicy bits, like the possibility that the reason he wanted his Emergency Command Center within walking distance of the Mayor's office (instead of out in Brooklyn where all the security experts suggested it be placed) was that he wanted to use it as a convenient love nest! Fucking hilarious. The Emergency response on 9-11 was a disaster in and of itself because the Emergency Command Center was useless. How many people died so Rudy could get some tail? What's most hilarious about the deaths of all those fire-fighters and police officers is that after his prostate cancer, I don't even think he can get it up anymore. Hah hah. Rudy's impotent. No SuperTube action for him anymore.
Its a sad day for America today. Evel Knievel, our country's most famous daredevil, has passed away at age 69. Evel, dude, you will be missed. We'll never forget that you gave us this:
Paul Krugman is one of the few level leads in the traditional media. He called bullshit on countless Bush policies from invading Iraq to cutting taxes, all at a time when other 'journalists' were cowering in fear. He called bullshit on the subprime lending practices before the mortgage meltdown. He's been right a huge percentage of the time. Recently he called Bullshit on Obama's right wing talking points about the so-called 'Social Security Crisis.' And now he's calling bullshit on Obama's healthcare plan (and more specifically, Obama's claims that it's superior to Edwards's or Clinton's (whic is based on Edwards's anyway).
Olberman announces his worst person/s in the world and the New York Post is number 1 due to that fact they are now calling people who believe Bush had foreknowledge of 9/11 as "idiots" even though they had a "BUSH KNEW" headline in 02.
Big John McCain, who's campaign is spiraling into the abyss of nothingness, has decided to go ahead and attempt to attack the man who has taken over as the new "maverick", Ron Paul. Unfortunately for McCain, he looked like an idiot in his attempt to challenge Congressman Paul. I believe the initial question asked to McCain was about the IRS or the income tax. However this didn't stop McCain from launching into a diatribe about how Paul's policies are "isolationist" and inferred that "That kind of isolationism caused World War II". I love how McCain used that line about how he had Thanksgiving dinner with the troops and according to him they said that they wanted our leaders to "let them win". Give me a fucking break McCain, how long were you waiting to use your totally canned "thanksgiving with the troops" line. I bet he's confused. It was probably one of his Blackwater guards that told him that. Anyway, one of the best parts of this exchange was the mannerism of Congressman Paul while McCain was experiencing his diarrhea of the mouth. While McCain kept lying and distorting, Paul just looked and him with a smile and shook his head as if to say, "Jesus John, even you don't believe what you're saying". Classic. Gotta love those boos from the insane. Here's the clip:
Henry Hyde, the Illinois Congressman who, as Chair of the House Judiciary Committee during the Clinton Impeachment, sat in Judgment over Clinton's Oval Office BJ, has died.
A spokesman said, "Representative Hyde's death was nothing more than an aged indiscretion and should not be seen as an endorsement of death or dying. As we know from the Hyde Amendment, Rep. Hyde valued life greatly, and were he alive today he would be vigorously opposed to death and would surely work tirelessly to legislate against it."
So Trent Lott retired ostensibly so he could get in to the lucrative lobbying angle of Washington. Or was it to spend more time with his family? You know, family like Richard F. Scruggs, his brother-in-law, who was just indicted for trying to bribe a judge.
Seems Bro-in-law Scruggs has negotiated over $100 Million in Katrina insurance settlements this year, and represented Lott in his suit against State Farm. Do you think any bribes went into Lott's settlement? If THAT shit was about to hit the fan, I'd probably retire, too...and maybe go live in an alternate universe and thank God for President Thurmond.
Trent Lott will resign before the end of the year. Good news? Sure. But what a cynical fuck this guy is. Why is he resigning you ask? Well, it seems that there's a new law set to take effect on January 1, 2008 that would require outgoing senators to wait for two years before entering the lucrative business of lobbying congress. By resigning before the end of the year, Lott will be able to sidestep the law, and jump right into the lobbying game.
I say it's a cynical move, but perhaps he's got legitimate reasons. After all, he might need the extra money to rebuild his palatial resort home. You might recall that the damage was so bad and the insurance settlement so unfair that Lott decided to sue State Farm Insurance over the matter. The same Trent Lott who said these things:
In other news, anyone who still thinks that Rudy Giuliani is anything more than a pandering, dancing elf trying to lick the gaping asshole of Republican primary voters needs to see this.
Only Obama will escape the armies of photoshoppers who will insert hot, steamy, veiny, glistening rock hard cocks in the mouths of Giuliani and Clinton.
My friend Will just sent me this video he made. Looks like it's his very first YouTube post. This crazy internet thing gets people involved in all kinds of ways.
The dollar could collapse if Opec officially admits considering changing the pricing of oil into alternative currencies such as the euro, the Saudi Arabian foreign minister has warned.
Prince Saud Al-Faisal was overheard ruling out a proposal from Iran and Venezuela to discuss pricing crude in a private meeting at the oil cartel's conference.
In an embarrassing blunder at the meeting in Riyadh, ministers' microphones were not cut off during a key closed meeting, and Prince Al-Faisal was heard saying: "My feeling is that the mere mention that the Opec countries are studying the issue of the dollar is itself going to have an impact that endangers the interests of the countries.
"There will be journalists who will seize on this point and we don't want the dollar to collapse instead of doing something good for Opec."
After around 40 minutes press officials cut off the feed, which had been accidentally broadcast to the press room.
Prince Al-Faisal added: "This is not new. We have done this in the past: decide to study something without putting down on paper that we are going to study it so that we avoid any implication that will bring adverse effects on our countries' finances."
Iran and Venezuela have argued that the meeting's final communique should voice concern about the level of the dollar, which has recently fallen to new record lows against the euro. They are pushing for oil to be denominated against a basket of currencies.
The greenback also weakened slightly against the pound, although sterling's own recent weakness has pushed it down from $2.10 to $2.0457 during the week.
Nigerian finance minister Shamsuddeen Usman said that Opec could declare in the communique that: "While underlining our concern for the continued depreciation of the dollar and its adverse impact on our revenues, we instruct our finance ministers to study the issue exhaustively and advise us on ways to safeguard the purchasing power of our revenues, of our members' revenues."
Chancellor Alistair Darling will today urge his fellow finance ministers at a major G20 summit to increase investment in oil production and refinement.
Lawrence Lessig, whom I posted about here, has just endorsed Obama for President. The endorsement is as noteable for endorseing Obama as it is for criticizing Hillary. It's noteable that Lessig spends the first half of his endorsement railing against Hillary before he gets to Obama's strengths.
After the debacle that is the last 7 years, the duty is upon the Democrats to be something different. I've been wildly critical of their sameness (remember "Dems to the Net: Go to hell" which earned me lots of friends in the Democratic party). I would give my left arm to be able to celebrate their difference. This man, Mr. Obama, would be that difference. He has as much support as I can give.
A House Homeland Security Subcommittee hearing on "Terrorism and the Internet" held last week, and broadcast on C-Span, featured a panel of "experts", including representatives formerly of the RAND Corporation and the Simon Wiesenthal Centerwho presented 9/11 truth websites sites alongside sites that celebrate the attacks and offer training in terrorist tactics.
The hearing was chaired by Democratic Rep. Jane Harman, and ranking Republican, Rep. Dave Reichert. It was supposed to focus on the use of the internet by "home grown terrorist recruiters" yet in a shocking move it blatantly related the 9/11 truth movement with so called radical "jihadists".
In a very poorly prepared and delivered PowerPoint splurge, Mark Weitzman (pictured far right) stated:
"Some of these are conspiracy theories that present a closed view of the world, such as blaming 9/11 as an "outside job"(?) or blaming outside groups such as the U.S. government, or er the Jews etc, some of these are pro-Iraqi insurgency videos, some of them are media portals that people can enter into, ones that you saw earlier with the flags, the U.S. flags show that thy were based on U.S. servers..."
A) The Iraq War will cost "something under $50 Billion", but WAIT!
B) "How much of that would be the U.S. burden and how much would be other countries is an open question." Sure $50 Billion sounds like a lot of money, but we're not even going to have to pay it all!
and finally
C)"I think the way to put it into perspective is that the estimates as to what September 11 cost the United States of America ranges high up into the hundreds of billions of dollars." You see? As long as the cost of the war does not exceed the cost of "hundreds of billions" to the country caused by the attacks of 9/11, we're cool.
By my count Rumsfeld got it spectacularly wrong on A, B, and C. And there were some (Wolfowitz) who argued the war would pay for itself with Iraqi oil revenues funding the war.
You know what else BushCo told us would pay for itself? Tax Cuts!
AS Gen. Pervez Musharraf arrested judges, lawyers and human-rights activists in Pakistan last week, our Senate was busy demonstrating its own civic mettle. Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein, liberal Democrats from America’s two most highly populated blue states, gave the thumbs up to Michael B. Mukasey, ensuring his confirmation as attorney general.
How long until Bush rounds up and disappears the likes of Frank Rich?
America is a hurricane, and the only people who do not hear the sound are those fortunate if incredibly stupid and smug White Protestants who live in the center, in the serene eye of the big wind.
Each day a few more lies eat into the seed with which we are born, little institutional lies from the print of newspapers, the shock waves of television, and the sentimental cheats of the movie screen.
In America all too few blows are struck into flesh. We kill the spirit here, we are experts at that. We use psychic bullets and kill each other cell by cell.
The final purpose of art is to intensify, even, if necessary, to exacerbate, the moral consciousness of people.
Ultimately a hero is a man who would argue with the gods, and so awakens devils to contest his vision. The more a man can achieve, the more he may be certain that the devil will inhabit a part of his creation.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke appeared before the Congressional Joint Economic Committee on November 8, but had to face criticism from Republican presidential candidate and Texas congressman Ron Paul.
Paul made accusations the Federal Reserve was stealing people’s money.
“There is a dollar crisis out there and people’s money is being stolen,” Paul said. “People who have saved, they’re being robbed. I mean, if you have a devaluation of the dollar at 10 percent, people have been robbed of 10 percent.”
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke attempted to dispel the notion people were being “robbed” of their money by explaining the relativity of the dollar in a local economy.
“If somebody has their wealth in dollars and they’re going to buy consumer goods in dollars, then as a typical American … then the decline in the dollar – the only effect it has on their buying power is that it makes imported goods more expensive,” Bernanke replied.
Ok. If you can stand to watch this 27 minute long video (which you should), you won't be disappointed. Dennis Kucinich throws down in Congress by introducing a motion to impeach Vice President Richard Cheney.
It takes 27 minutes....but...if you listen closely you can hear the sound of a politician's balls slowing growing with each bulletpoint. I have to hand it to Kucinich for this one. He is the ONLY member of Congress who is able to call this administration out when it comes to the actual consequences of their Constitutional violations.
Anyone voting in the democratic primary that truly wants accountability from this vile administration and an end to the war should vote for this man. If you like another candidate then force them to get on board in some way or another with Congressman Kucinich and hold them to that. You are the ones that are supposed to have the fucking power, so use it. Way to go Dennis. You'd better ice those things down for awhile.
Remember Bernard "Bernie" Kerick, the man George W. Bush nominated to succeed Tom Ridge as Secretary of Homeland Security? Rudy worked tirelessly to help arrange that nomination. Rudy vouched for him. Michael Powell laid out the long and sordid history, which got buried in the Saturday edition of the NYT.
Well, Bernie's back in the news, just in time to take a little shine off of that endorsement Rudy got from Pat Robertson (you remember Pat, don't you? He's the guy who "totally concurred" with Jerry Falwell's assessment that 9/11 was God's punishment for all the "pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle..."). Rudy might be spared having answer questions about Robertson's 9/11 theories for a while in order to start answering questions about Bernie Kerik's forthcoming indictment.
Can we review for a minute? Being President of the United States should mean exercising sound judgment. Rudy's litany of poor decisions includes multiple wives and multiple divorces, and 'notorious adultery', continued support of Kerik, the endorsement of a hate-monger, the continued support and employment of an accused child molester, a coke-head campaign chair (I've got no problem with the coke...it's the hypocrisy), and he's so out of touch that he probably doesn't even realize that if it wasn't for the government provided healthcare to which he's entitled as a former NY Mayor, he would not be covered under the healthcare plan he's proposed for the country, because under his plan he'd be left uninsured because of his prexisting condition of prostate cancer.
Let's just sweep these bodies under this rug here and then not let anyone look at them. Erik Prince's private army, ready for a new Crusade, mistreats or kills innocent Iraqi Muslims on a frequent basis. Not surprisingly, other Iraqis retaliate, but it's U.S. soldiers, who likely suffer for it. Yet another top notch plan brought to you by the Bush Administration. They don't care though because they are right there with Prince's insane world view.
Heard this story on NPR this morning and was really struck by what it said about Clinton and Obama’s candidacies. Clinton did the tried and true diner visit, where she took no questions, but did manage to swipe a waitresses’ story of hardship to use in her Iowa stump speech from then on. She took her photos and left., without leaving a fucking tip! What? The woman says that Clinton does not understand her situation and has had her life change for the worse due to the chance encounter, yet she says she still might vote for Clinton. Another... what? To summarize. Clinton got her photos and smiles and stump speech item and left no tip and likely learned nothing. Get used to that if she becomes president. Although, we should be used to it already, as Lord Bush is great at it.
Obama on the other hand, held a “town hall” meeting where people were actually allowed to ask questions or tell their story, which one lady heartbreakingly did. Obama comes off as a caring human, which from what I have seen, he really is. Now, I am not sure if this story entered Obama’s stump speech and it very well may have and he didn’t write the note he alluded to, but this woman understood Obama because he makes it easy too.
Just wish everyone who is going to vote in 2008 could hear this story. While not down and dirty policy stuff, it truly is a look into how these two candidates may carry themselves as president.
On my drive home from work yesterday I heard this interview on NPR with Ahmed Raza Kasuri, an advisor to Pervez Musharraf. They were talking about Musharraf suspending the Constitution and postponing elections. There's no transcript up yet, so I've transcribed as best I could the portion that was, for me, the "Amen" moment--the moment that makes so painfully clear how deeply corrupt and dishonest the Bush Administration is when they talk about the importance of and their commitment to "Democracy." And how if American's are aghast at what's going on in Pakistan, they shouldn't be, because they're in much the same position right here in the good old U.S. of A.
MICHELLE NORRIS: Now, there's Rule of Law, but there's also Respect, which authority really relies on holding onto the respect of the people, and are you concerned that this will undermine his authority in the long run?
KASURI: You know he is very, very, very, very strong; he has been elected for a second term. Elections will take place, he has got a very powerful party. Kindly see, you have in your country a very powerful history of a democratic tradition of values, after 9/11 what have you done? You see, you have also introduced [unintelligible] so you can pick up anybody--detentions, where the court's part is totally stripped off--well, these are the some of the measures that you have to adopt in order to maintain stability of the country, the prime consideration is integrity and the stability of the country. I mean, there are a lot of fingers raised on you when you talk of 'Rule of Law' and what you call it 'Due Process of Law.' There are so many fingers on you that you are running a [unintelligible] where the Supreme Court of the United States does not have access, you see. If we have become unpopular, we have become unpopular following your agenda against terrorism.
It was, of course, only after no WMDs were found in Iraq that this whole "Adventure in Democracy" was promoted as the rationale for war. But anyone who's awake in this country knows that this administration had planned to invade Iraq from day one, long before 9/11. And when it comes to respect for the Rule of Law and the Constitution, we know from example after example after example after example after example just how much this Administration thinks of those cornerstones of American Democracy.
But of course, every violation of law, every instance of disregard for the constitution and the ideals on which this country was based are done in the name of protecting the very ideals and freedoms they betray. And as we've learned, painfully, they have no shame. There is no hypocrisy of which they are not capable. And yesterday gave us yet another of the glaring disconnect between what George W. Bush says, and what he does.
Q: Mr. President, you came down so hard on Burma and other nations for their crackdowns on pro-democracy demonstrators. Yet you seem to be giving Musharraf a pass. So the question is why are you going so soft on Musharraf? Is there a double standard?
PRESIDENT BUSH: I spoke to President Musharraf right before I came over here to visit with President Sarkozy. And my message was that we believe strongly in elections, and that you ought to have elections soon, and you need to take off your uniform. You can't be the President and the head of the military at the same time. So I had a very frank discussion with him.
The "bottom-up" victory scenario concocted by the Bush Administration and the Iraqi Prime minister is beginning to take hold in the Conservative blogosphere. Hew Hewitt today wondered if the "Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media" would actually start reporting the "reality" in Iraq even though it went counter to their anti-war rhetoric. Not only does this illustrate Greenwald's assertion that Republican lapdog bloggers like Hewitt shill for the administration and their revisionist history, but also that Republican leadership is looking for a way out, a way to save face, and a way to dump withdrawal and the imminent blood bath that will follow on the doorstep of a new Democratic White House and Congressional majority.
Like The Weekly Standard, Hewitt is a stenographer for the Bush Administration and bolsters the newest set of goals the administration has dreamed up as "victory" in Iraq. No longer are political progress, benchmarks, and national reconciliation goals of the surge. Now, as long as Iraqis are able to "drink tea with their brothers", success has been achieved. Contrary to what the The Standard and Hewitt suggest, I don't believe that Iraqis need to be hand-in-hand singing kumbaya for the mission to be a success. However, this lowering of the bar in the U.S. stated goals in Iraq is a blatant disregard for what Bush Co. deemed success even as early as two months ago in September while pumping the Holy Grail of Iraq progress reports ala The Petraeus Report.
To be continued...
***** Update Update: Lieberman is now toeing the line *****
Let me make one thing clear: Anti-war folks want victory in Iraq as much as any hawkish loyal Bushie. We are not "searching for negatives" as many would suggest. The fact is that we are forced to read between the lines because the administration is not straight with us about the reality. This is another one of those instances where the administration, it's media arms, and it's puppet regime in Iraq are declaring a "tide turning", when there is little real evidence to prove this fact. War boosters continue to jump the gun portraying Bagdhad as a "summer market in Indiana," an insurgency in it's "death throes", mission accomplished, tides turning, victory, etc. based on scant evidence and minimal trends. Yes, this has been a good month for U.S. and Iraqi soldiers and civilians, as the numbers of killed dropped dramatically in October. Despite a good month, 2007 is still on track to be the deadliest year in Iraq, Parliament is still gridlocked with the PM Makilki declaring no need to create a national political reconciliation, infrastructure is devastated in spite of the HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars we have poured into energy, roads, schools, sanitation, and health care, and warring factions become further fueled by outside forces the more tenuous the U.S. military's grip becomes.
So here we go: once Bush Co. inseminates the press, the blogosphere, and his shills in gov't with "The Story", they fluff it, sugar it, smear the detractors, and prepare the public for the man himself to announce Victory, again. It would be great if Victory actually meant the same thing every time... that is "staying the course." However, we are expected to "stay" whatever the current definition of "course" happens to make the administration look best at that particular moment.
Was just introduced to AbuArdvark via Foreign Policy Watch:
Abu Aardvark started in 2002 as a pseudonymous blog about Middle East politics, especially Iraq and the Arab media. In 2005, it was revealed to be the work of Marc Lynch, now a professor of political science at George Washington University and author of Voices of the New Arab Public (Columbia University Press). Now everybody who matters reads it. - AbuArdvark - About
Lynch's entry from 11.4 entitled Maliki: enough about reconciliation is a truly frightening look at the Iraqi PM's new "bottom-up" approach to stability in Iraq, and guess what? Mission accomplished, folks! Now the PM's believes ultimate stability in Iraq has already come and will continue to come at the community level, in neighborhoods where Sunnis and Shiites live side by side. Malaki's lowering of the bar, by changing the definition of the mission is the keystone of the Bush administration that, lo and behold, supports the administration's self-delusional goals for the surge in Iraq:
As the violence recedes, leaders in all the contending Iraqi communities will naturally seek to address their internal differences. Our interest in the outcome is limited: As long as the Iraqis are committed to the principle of resolving their differences through a political process rather than violence, and as long as any settlement they reach is sufficiently fair so as not to reignite the violence, then our interests will have been secured. - The Weekly Standard
This reshaping of the administration's and the Iraqi's ultimate goals paints the national political deadlock in Iraq as a circumnavigable obstacle in a long-term "bottom-up" strategy. This despite the pre-surge ideas that "local security progress would create a political space allowing the national politicians to make a deal" (Lynch) and "that the Sunnis have decided to switch from a logic of armed resistance to a logic of political participation" (Lynch) have failed to materialize nationally.
Read the article and visit AbuArdvark via Crinchy Internets or the feed in the right frame.
***** Note: This will be the first in a (hopefully) weekly series I'm entitling "From the Belly of the Beast" and will discuss specific articles and ideas from the conservative side of the blogosphere. *****
Conservative blogger Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters describes the Democrat's ineptitude with playing politics to their advantage. I admit he has a point. Yet, it seems to me that his point resonates deeper when one considers that GOP idealism rarely gets in the way of their political goals the way a fight for the ethical treatment of prisoners has for the Dems in this case. Even now that they are in the minority in both houses, Republicans are still able to bully and steer the Congress at their will.
The crux is that Democrats have yet to create a united front against the President and his shills in Congress, let alone peel off enough Republicans who will stand up against the status-quo. This seems obvious if not for the fact that even an embattled minority like the GOP is still able to amass enough noise and intimidation to keep something as "given" as S-CHIP from a two-thirds veto-proof majority. What are the Dems missing? Why do their ventures into idealist territory fall flat, or worse, explode in their face?
I never thought I'd say this, but the Dems need a Tom Delay. They need a no-bones meat grinder of a legislator who will pound the round pegs into the square holes in the left and create a united Democratic Party behind a (soon-to-be) Democratic President. Delay isn't the best example, considering his pilfering, fraud, and general disregard for ethical behavior, and I am no fan of the man. Having said that, he was an astonishingly successful legislator who intimidated both sides of the aisle and whose most important contribution might be creating a GOP culture united against the world. Even when the world had tipped in favor of the GOP, they refused to remove the rage from their legislation, or their rhetoric. Granted, constantly throwing haymakers in the House and Senate did not do much for intra-aisle relationships, but that's of little consequence. THIS is what the Dems need to succeed: a strong leader, a united front, and some sheer RAGE.
Last time I called for Harry Reid's head, a fellow Crinch Pinner enlightened me to the Nevada Senator's subtle power play with war funding and the Holy Petreaus Report. Well, we're still going nowhere fast with no end in sight. If I lick my thumb and test the air, I can tell that soon this war will be not only the problem of a Democratic Congress with a slim majority, but the problem of a Democratic administration and a Democratic Congress with a vast majority. We need a plan for withdrawal, we need a strong leader, we need a united front against the president and the Republican MINORITY, and we need some motherfucking RAGE.
A member of the executive council of South Carolina’s Democratic party told CNN that he felt pressure to oppose comedian Stephen Colbert’s bid to join the Democratic primary in his home state by prominent supporters of Barack Obama’s campaign. It has been acknowledged by at least two prominent supporters of the Senator’s bid that they made calls to the State Party pleading with them to exclude Colbert’s name from the ballot.
Jonathan Stein reporting in Mother Jones on John Edwards campaigning in Iowa. Think what you will of Edwards, to my ear, he's the only Democrat in the field telling it like it is: "The Government is Corrupt." The traditional media dismiss such anti-establishment statements from candidates like Paul as mere 'fringe' politics, but when it's coming from a candidate who was the Democratic nominee for VP in 2004, and who is now considered a 'top-tier' candidate, the traditional media can't dismiss it, so they ignore it and focus on the less substantive, but more easily palatable criticisms of whether or not Hillary tries to have it both ways, and whether she played the gender card. Choice quote from the Stein piece:
In his second appearance of the day at the town civic center in Waverly (pop. 8,968; flag count: one giant and two large American flags), Edwards offered this, "The presidential candidate who has raised the most money from Washington lobbyists is not a Republican. It's a Democrat. The candidate who has raised the most money from the health industry—insurance companies and drug companies—is not a Republican. It is a Democrat…. And the candidate who has raised the most money from the defense industry, is not a Republican. It is a Democrat. And all those descriptions fit the same candidate. They're all Senator Clinton."
