Guest Editorial: Is Gore Our Best Chance?

I was struck by this editorial in the The Guardian. It is the truth. That's why we're in Iraq.

George Bush and al qaeda are matched sets. Al qaeda wants one world domination, Bush and company wants one world domination. So do all the people who use terrorism around the world. The only question for all of them is who will be on top.

We wanted to know why we went to iraq. Gore tells us. I think this is the truth. The republicans have trumpeted their entitlement to be on the top of the heap and all of their policies are driven to preserve the wealth of their constituency. The republicans are entitled to govern; this is what they believe. They want to write the rules that the rest of us will live by. It doesn't trouble them that some republicans get caught with their hands in the trough or that some republicans get caught doing some dirty tricks. This alone should warn you against voting for the people who do not have scruples.

The problem is that the military is probably not the best solution for all of this, and Bush and company totally muffed the occupation of Iraq and are on the way to muffing the occupation of Afghanistan. They were not willing to commit sufficient resources, and they were not willing to commit to policies that would facilitate the occupation.

What do we do now? Our choices are poor.

The Democrats have seized upon the occupation of Iraq and been uncomfortable about how to deal with this president's decisions. It is a mistake to focus on Iraq as the defining issue because Bush's best option is becoming clear - leave Iraq. yes, Bush will cut and run.

Candidates shouldn't run on the Iraq issue because the Iraq issue will be disappearing by the 2008 election. There are other defining issues that will shape the 2008 election. and if the Democrats depend on Iraq as the big issue, the republicans might be able to pull a 2008 victory out of defeat.

The democrats need to quit focusing on Iraq and start focusing on those issues that will be in the forefront in 2008, such as the economy, outsourcing, immigration, world domination, health care, social security, the environment.

I am a dissident republican. but if Gore runs, he can count me in. None of the republican candidates are hitting high notes for me. Gore has not exactly been consistent in the past, but his mistakes are small compared to the mistakes of the Bush administration and compared to the ridiculous position of apologizing for the Bush administration missteps. Gore would never had made the mistakes that the Bush administration has made. And as far as I am concerned, Bush's mistakes have taken us to a position of possibly ending our American experiment.

---

troublemkr, aka Suzanne Hamlet Shatto, describes herself as "a moderate republican" whose been "active in politics" "for many years." You can sometimes find her chatting at The Boston Tea Party.

Back to Top

Project for Excellence in Journalism

Do you get the feeling that the media spends an inordinant amount of time scrutinizing the Democratic presidential wannabes? Perhaps that's because they DO. This is from the blog at the Columbia School of Journalism:

"Coming in under the category of something I knew, but didn't know I knew, is the fact that coverage of the upcoming presidential election has so far been slanted toward the Democratic race, with sixty one percent of the coverage focusing on Democratic candidates, with just twenty four percent dealing with Republican candidates. If you think that proves that the media is liberal, think again: "Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage were the most Democratic focused of all--75% of their time on Democrats and only 13% focused mainly on Republicans.""

Back to Top

Caging?

Goodling revealed the scheme to prevent minorities from voting.

Back to Top

Limbaugh on Drugs

On Limbaugh's May 16 broadcast, he complains that republicans are asked about the lack of women and minorities in the pool of candidates running for president.

'[T]here's a template developing for the Republican debate last night. "How come there are no women and minorities on stage?" . . . I guess the Democrats never get those kinds of questions because it's always assumed that they're fair and just and not discriminatory and all that.'

No, Rush, it's probably because the Democrats DO have a woman and minorities running for president. Try to pay attention.

Stax - Volt

A few years ago, mrs doss and I joined Rufus Thomas and Delmark Golfarb for lunch at the Sun Studio Cafe in Memphis. Delmark pitched the Rose City Blues Festival to Rufus, in hopes of enticing Rufus to join the Memphis contingent (Jessie Mae Hemphill and myself) in making the trip out west. Delmark explained that the festival was sponsored by Miller Breweries and by Seagram Distilleries.

Rufus interrupted. "Wait a minute. Let me see if I've got this straight. You're going to have both whiskey AND beer? Hmmmmmm... you can't go wrong there!"

Several times during our meal, waiters came to our table to inform Rufus that some tourists from Germany, Japan, or other foreign lands wanted a picture. Rufus honored each request warmly, and graciously. A real gentleman.

Rufus, we miss you.

Rufus Thomas - "The Funky Chicken"

Rufus Thomas - "Walking the Dog"

[via FoxyTunes / Rufus Thomas]

Carla Thomas - "Gee Whiz"

[via FoxyTunes / Carla Thomas]

Back to Top

Cant Tell the Players without a Program

Slate has a guide to the many Bush and GOP scandals.

Back to Top

But... But... Who Will Protect Our Children From Gay Teletubbies Now???

Our friend, Freedonian, on Falwell.

''In his 1965 sermon called "Ministers and Marches", he admonished Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and James Farmer for supporting communism (Which, in that day as now, was fatass white guy-speak for equal rights) before adding "Preachers are not called to be politicians, but to be soul winners."

Of course, that was a few years before he said "In recent months, God has been calling me to do more than just preach--He has called me to take action. I have a divine mandate to go right into the halls of Congress and fight for laws that will save America."

In other words--- Ministers getting involved in the fight against subjugation of black people = BAD. Ministers helping rightwing politicians get elected = GOOD. Got it.''

Day Before 9/11

This is the headline of a newspaper article time-stamped September 10, 2001 - 9:09PM

Bush twin's alcohol citation dismissed after terms met

Do you wonder what was on Bush's mind on the day prior to the 9/11 attacks? Special thanks to Gemini for this tip.

Back to Top

Tank vs Taxi

A reminder of one of the reasons Iraqis kill US soldiers.

Back to Top

No Shame Whatsoever

We posted this sometime back in our header, and now it's time to move it to the archives, because things have changed. It now looks like Bush has no intention of letting Alberto resign.

The clock is winding down on Alberto Gonzales. There's a sort of "death watch" going on right now as we all ponder when will Alberto bail.

Back to Top

Bush De-emphasized Counterterrorism

When the wingers blame President Clinton for Bush's failure to prevent 9/11, you might refer them to this piece by Robert Parry.

"Bush kept drawing distinctions, too, between his presidency and Bill Clinton’s. Bush and his senior advisers continued their hostility toward what they viewed as the old Clinton phobia about terrorism and this little-known group called al-Qaeda.

Tenet’s late August trip to Crawford seeking to underscore the urgency of the terrorist threat may have been viewed in that light, helping to explain why it devolved into a meaningless discussion of the ranch’s “flora and fauna.”

Despite the Sept. 4, 2001, meeting of senior Bush aides to review the counterterrorism initiatives that had been languishing since March, the administration still didn’t seem moved by the urgency of the moment.On Sept. 6, 2001, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld threatened a presidential veto of a proposal by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, seeking to transfer money from strategic missile defense to counterterrorism."

Back to Top

Cohen on Alberto's Case

You've GOT to see this. Congressmen Steve Cohen reduces Gonzales to rubble. If there was any doubt that Gonzales was lying, that doubt has been removed.

Here's Dana Milbank's take on it in the Washington Post:

"Finally, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) cruelly turned Gonzales's ignorance against him: "You said you didn't know who put [U.S. Attorney David] Iglesias on the list" to be fired?

"That is correct," Gonzales said.

"But you said you knew the president and the vice president didn't," Cohen pointed out. "How do you know they didn't?"

Gonzales paused, trapped. "Well, I just know that they would not do that," he said."

[Part 1]



[Part 2]

Back to Top

Last Throes?

Remember Cheney's famous "last throes" remark in June of 2005? Sheesh.

"The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.''

Now for the reality - CNN - May 14, 2007:

"Baghdad police found 18 unidentified bodies dumped across the capital Monday, an Interior Ministry official said, adding that 293 corpses have been found across the capital so far this month.

Two vehicle bombs in Iraq -- one in a small market, the other outside a mayoral office -- killed at least 65 people Sunday, government sources said."

Back to Top

Keep Our Guys in Iraq?

One of the rationales given for keeping our guys in Iraq is it makes it easier for al Qaeda to kill Americans. No, I'm not kidding you. Here's Dick Morris on the subject.

"I think that withdrawal from Iraq — it obviously gives al Qaeda a huge victory. Huge victory. On the other hand, if we stay in Iraq, it gives them the opportunity to kill more Americans, which they really like.

One of the things, though, that I think the antiwar crowd has not considered is that, if we’re putting the Americans right within their arms’ reach, they don’t have to come to Wall Street to kill Americans. They don’t have to knock down the trade center. They can do it around the corner, and convenience is a big factor when you’re a terrorist."

Back to Top

Trouble in the Dept of Justice

Paul Kiel, of TPM-Muckraker reports on a letter sent to Gonzales from two influential Senators who are not one bit happy with DOJ's explanation for the purge of eight US Attorneys in recent months.

"In a letter sent to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales this morning, Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) charged that the evidence available regarding the administration's purge of eight U.S. Attorneys showed that 'the intent was to replace some of these U.S. Attorneys with others who might be more politically-connected.'"

This is isn't going away soon, folks.

Back to Top

Broder, Make up Your Mind

Once again, thanks to our friends at Media Matters for this bit on Washington Post's David Broder's apparent hypocrisy regarding Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's comments on Bush's war in Iraq:

"On the April 30 edition of XM Radio's The Bob Edwards Show, Washington Post columnist David Broder asserted that it was "really doubtful" President Bush would be able "to salvage something that would look like a victory in Iraq." Broder made this statement four days after he attacked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) for what he called Reid's "ineptitude," because of, as he wrote in his April 26 Post column, Reid's assertion that the Iraq war "is lost." As Media Matters for America noted, in that column, Broder pointed to Reid's "war is lost" remark to compare him to embattled Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and accuse him of engaging in "inept discussion[s] of the alternatives in Iraq" and of not being "a man who misses many opportunities to put his foot in his mouth."

[...]

[Says Broder] "Well, there are a whole variety of them. The Democrats have -- are being pushed by the anti-war wing of their party, which gets stronger, probably, every day. The president is -- still has the backing of most Republicans, who say that they support his effort to try to salvage something that would look like a victory in Iraq -- whether that's achievable is really doubtful."

Back to Top

Congress Saw the Same Intel?

Who would have thought Bush would lie to us about his sharing with congress the same intelligence he saw?

"President Bush and top administration officials have access to a much broader ranger of intelligence reports than members of Congress do, a nonpartisan congressional research agency said in a report Thursday, raising questions about recent assertions by the president.

Bush has said that Democratic lawmakers who authorized the use of force against Iraq and now criticize the war saw the same pre-invasion intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that he did.

The president made that claim in recent speeches about Iraq. Support for the war has decreased, and critics have said that the administration misled the country when it relied on erroneous intelligence about Iraqi weapons programs that supported its case for war and discarded information that undermined it.

"Some of the most irresponsible comments - about manipulating intelligence - have come from politicians who saw the same intelligence I saw and then voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein," Bush said on Wednesday in his most recent speech. "These charges are pure politics."

The Congressional Research Service, by contrast, said: "The president, and a small number of presidentially designated Cabinet-level officials, including the vice president ... have access to a far greater overall volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information, including information regarding intelligence sources and methods."

Back to Top

Are the Democrats Too Tough on Bush?

Not according to a recent Pew Poll.

"Do you think Democratic leaders in Congress are going too far or not far enough in challenging George W. Bush's policies in Iraq, or are they handling this about right?

Too far 23%
Not far enough 40%
About right 30%
Don't know/Refused 7%"

Looks like 70% believe Democrats are either handling it just right or ought to be even tougher in standing up to Bush on Iraq.

Back to Top

How They Do Debates

Our friends at Media Matters noticed that the MSNBC moderators take on a different style depending on who's debating. When the GOP is debating, the questions are softball. When the Democrats are debating, the questions are hard-hitting, suggestive, loaded, personal.

"When the Democrats debated, Brian Williams asked Barack Obama a loaded question about his ties to a controversial figure. But Rudy Giuliani's relationship with Bernard Kerik -- which could charitably be described as one of the most spectacular examples of poor judgment by a national figure in the past decade -- didn't even come up during the Republican debate. Chris Matthews didn't say a word. Nor did he ask John McCain about his role in the Keating Five scandal.

In fact, none of the Republican candidates got a single question about their business dealings, personal finances, or ties to controversial figures. Only Democrats got such questions."

Back to Top

How Thugs Make Threats

Former US Atty forced to resign, John McKay explains what it's like being threatened by Bushies.

"Honestly, I was thinking about what a thug does when they threaten a witness. And when a thug threatens a witness, they don't say, 'I'm going to kill your family.' They say, 'I know where your family lives.'"

The interviewer asked McKay about Gonzales, "Do you feel that now he's just covering for the president?" McKay replied, "Yes, I do."

Back to Top

Stupid or Dishonest?

I struggle with this question everytime I log into a political chatroom and encounter someone who claims that 911 was Clinton's fault and that it was Gore who tried to steal the election of 2000.

I've encountered people in chat rooms who claim that birds are mammals. (You think I'm kidding; I am not.) Who clam that there are no barns in Texas. (You think I'm kidding; I am not.) Who say that trees produce ozone. (You think I'm kidding; I am not.)

The list goes on and on.

And the question I ponder every time I encounter these folks is, "Are they stupid? Or are they just dishonest?"

I don't know the answer to that.

Do you have any idea?

Back to Top

112th Congress

""

Back to Top

General Blasts Bush's Veto

Retired Major General Paul D. Eaton gave Bush a piece of his mind on Bush's refusal to sign the bi-partisan legislation funding our troops.

"Today, in your veto message regarding the bipartisan legislation just passed on Operation Iraqi Freedom, you asserted that you so decided because you listen to your commanders on the ground.

Respectfully, as your former commander on the ground, your administration did not listen to our best advice. In fact, a number of my fellow Generals were forced out of their jobs, because they did not tell you what you wanted to hear -- most notably General Eric Shinseki, whose foresight regarding troop levels was advice you rejected, at our troops' peril."

Back to Top

Bush Turns His Back on Troops

Democrats offered our troops $100 billion in funding to get them the body armor, ammunition, jet fuel and spare parts they need.

Bush said, "No."

He's turned his back on our troops.

Back to Top

Iraq Generals to President: You've Failed Us

Bush gets failing marks from two distinguished generals.

"Today, two retired Generals who led troops in Iraq expressed outrage at the President's veto of the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act.

The President vetoed our troops and the American people. His stubborn commitment to a failed strategy in Iraq is incomprehensible. He committed our great military to a failed strategy in violation of basic principles of war. His failure to mobilize the nation to defeat world wide Islamic extremism is tragic. We deserve more from our commander-in-chief and his administration. --Maj. Gen. John Batiste, USA, Ret.

This administration and the previously Republican controlled legislature have been the most caustic agents against America's Armed Forces in memory. Less than a year ago, the Republicans imposed great hardship on the Army and Marine Corps by their failure to pass a necessary funding language. This time, the President of the United States is holding our Soldiers hostage to his ego. More than ever apparent, only the Army and the Marine Corps are at war - alone, without their President's support. --Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, USA, Ret."

Back to Top

O'Reilly Propaganda

Here is an interesting paper entitled "VILLAINS, VICTIMS AND THE VIRTUOUS IN
BILL O’REILLY’S ‘‘NO-SPIN ZONE’’ - Revisiting world war propaganda techniques". You owe it to yourself to check it out:

"This study updates methods of communication analysis popular in the period between the world wars in an effort to analyze news commentator Bill O’Reilly’s ‘‘Talking Points Memo’’ editorials. The results show that O’Reilly is a heavier and less nuanced user of the seven devices developed by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis in the late 1930s than the notorious radio commentator of that time, Father Charles Coughlin. O’Reilly also employs other propaganda techniques, identified by Lasswell, Berelson and Janowitz. This includes ample use of fear appeals and the construction of the battle between good and evil. The most evil villains in O’Reilly’s world are illegal aliens, terrorists, and foreigners because they are apparently a physical and moral threat to the United States. Slightly less evil*but unambiguously bad*are groups (media, organizations, politicians)who share a political leaning to the left. On the other side, the virtuous flank emerged as an all-American crew made up of the military, criminal justice system, Bush administration, and ordinary US citizens."

Here is an Indiana University press release about that same study.

"BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- Bill O'Reilly may proclaim at the beginning of his program that viewers are entering the "No Spin Zone," but a new study by Indiana University media researchers found that the Fox News personality consistently paints certain people and groups as villains and others as victims to present the world, as he sees it, through political rhetoric.



The IU researchers found that O'Reilly called a person or a group a derogatory name once every 6.8 seconds, on average, or nearly nine times every minute during the editorials that open his program each night.



"It's obvious he's very big into calling people names, and he's very big into glittering generalities," said Mike Conway, assistant professor in the IU School of Journalism. "He's not very subtle. He's going to call people names, or he's going to paint something in a positive way, often without any real evidence to support that viewpoint."



Maria Elizabeth Grabe, associate professor of telecommunications, added, "If one digs further into O'Reilly's rhetoric, it becomes clear that he sets up a pretty simplistic battle between good and evil. Our analysis points to very specific groups and people presented as good and evil."



For their article in the spring issue of Journalism Studies, Conway, Grabe and Kevin Grieves, a doctoral student in journalism, studied six months worth, or 115 episodes, of O'Reilly's "Talking Points Memo" editorials using propaganda analysis techniques made popular after World War I."

Looks like O'Reilly is trying to appeal to Bush's base, for they too don't go for nuance:

"A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in ''fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity''. “The authors also peer into the psyche of President George Bush, who turns out to be a textbook case. The telltale signs are his preference for moral certainty and frequently expressed dislike of nuance. ''This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes,'' the authors argue in the Psychological Bulletin. One of the psychologists behind the study, Jack Glaser, said the aversion to shades of grey and the need for ''closure'' could explain the fact that the Bush administration ignored intelligence that contradicted its beliefs about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.”

Back to Top

Clinton's Vote

As Media Matters has noted, Senator Clinton did not vote to go to war. She joined a majority of her colleagues in voting to support "efforts by the President to

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Back to Top

Marshall Nails It

Truer words have never been spoken. Josh Marshall is a "must read."

"Reid is in trouble with these guys for saying what most people consider the unvarnished truth. And to these guys that's unforgiveable.

Back to Top

He Favored It before He Opposed It

The Democrats gave Bush a bill to fund our troops.

He says he opposes it.

He favored funding our troops before he opposed it.

There is no denying it.

It's driving the wingers completely nuts that we're using the "he-favored-funding-them-before-he-opposed-funding-them" ploy on Bush.

Payback is hell, eh?

Back to Top