Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy.
Martin Luther King, Jr, August 28, 1963
45 years later
With profound gratitude and great humility, I accept your nomination for the presidency of the United States.
Barrack Obama, August 28, 2008
I thought that Obama would come with an "I have a dream" speech. He didn't. Instead Obama brought the fight right to McCain, and he did it with strength.
John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell - but he won't even go to the cave where he lives.
Obama linked McCain to Bush over and over with straight shots like:
But the record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush ninety percent of the time.Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than ninety percent of the time?I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to take a ten percent chance ...
The truth is, on issue after issue that would make a difference in your lives - on health care and education and the economy - Senator McCain has been anything but independent.He said that our economy has made "great progress" under this President.He said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong.And when one of his chief advisors - the man who wrote his economic plan - was talking about the anxiety Americans are feeling, he said that we were just suffering from a "mental recession," and that we've become, and I quote, "a nation of whiners."
A nation of whiners?Tell that to the proud auto workers at a Michigan plant who, after they found out it was closing, kept showing up every day and working as hard as ever, because they knew there were people who counted on the brakes that they made.Tell that to the military families who shoulder their burdens silently as they watch their loved ones leave for their third or fourth or fifth tour of duty.These are not whiners.They work hard and give back and keep going without complaint.These are the Americans that I know.
Obama used a continuing theme that, "It's not because John McCain doesn't care.It's because John McCain doesn't get it."
Then Obama went after the Republican philosophy:
For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy - give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else.In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is - you're on your own.Out of work?Tough luck.No health care?The market will fix it.Born into poverty?Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps - even if you don't have boots.You're on your own.
Well it's time for them to own their failure.It's time for us to change America.
He spoke of promise, he spoke of a greater collective us:
It's a promise that says each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will, but that we also have the obligation to treat each other with dignity and respect.
It's a promise that says the market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth, but that businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road.
Ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves - protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and new science and technology.
Our government should work for us, not against us.It should help us, not hurt us.It should ensure opportunity not just for those with the most money and influence, but for every American who's willing to work.
That's the promise of America - the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper.
Obama then went on to spell out the change he was proposing. From tax cuts to 95% of all working families, to a promise to end our addiction on foreign oil in 10 years, read the speech.
Obama also called on Americans to do more too:
And Democrats, we must also admit that fulfilling America's promise will require more than just money.It will require a renewed sense of responsibility from each of us to recover what John F. Kennedy called our "intellectual and moral strength."Yes, government must lead on energy independence, but each of us must do our part to make our homes and businesses more efficient. Yes, we must provide more ladders to success for young men who fall into lives of crime and despair.But we must also admit that programs alone can't replace parents; that government can't turn off the television and make a child do her homework; that fathers must take more responsibility for providing the love and guidance their children need.
Individual responsibility and mutual responsibility - that's the essence of America's promise.
I think it was a brilliant speech, one that hit harder than I'm sure the Republicans thought Obama would, or could. Obama threw it down, let's see if McCain can pick it!
The choice is clear.The Republicans will nominate a good man who served our country heroically and suffered terribly in Vietnam. He loves our country every bit as much as we all do. As a Senator, he has shown his independence on several issues. But on the two great questions of this election, how to rebuild the American Dream and how to restore America's leadership in the world, he still embraces the extreme philosophy which has defined his party for more than 25 years, a philosophy we never had a real chance to see in action until 2001, when the Republicans finally gained control of both the White House and Congress. Then we saw what would happen to America if the policies they had talked about for decades were implemented.
They took us from record surpluses to an exploding national debt; from over 22 million new jobs down to 5 million; from an increase in working family incomes of $7,500 to a decline of more than $2,000; from almost 8 million Americans moving out of poverty to more than 5 and a half million falling into poverty – and millions more losing their health insurance.
Now, in spite of all the evidence, their candidate is promising more of the same: More tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that will swell the deficit, increase inequality, and weaken the economy.More band-aids for health care that will enrich insurance companies, impoverish families and increase the number of uninsured.More going it alone in the world, instead of building the shared responsibilities and shared opportunities necessary to advance our security and restore our influence.
They actually want us to reward them for the last eight years by giving them four more.Let's send them a message that will echo from the Rockies all across America: Thanks, but no thanks.In this case, the third time is not the charm.
Bill Clinton's speech at the Democratic National Convention
When domestic violence was often a dark secret, Dad wrote the Violence Against Women Act, which gave countless women support, protection and a new chance at life. When crime was spiking in our communities, Dad wrote the crime bill that put 100,000 cops on the streets—and led to an eight-year drop in crime across the country. When Serbian thugs were committing genocide in the Balkans, Dad didn't hesitate to call Slobodan Milosevic a war criminal to his face, and to convince Congress and our allies to act. He's willing to speak truth to power: to the White House and to world leaders.
I've been on the ground in Georgia, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, and I can tell you in no uncertain terms: this Administration's policy has been an abject failure. America cannot afford four more years of this.
Now, despite being complicit in this catastrophic foreign policy, John McCain says Barack Obama isn't ready to protect our national security. Now, let me ask you: whose judgment should we trust? Should we trust John McCain's judgment when he said only three years ago, "Afghanistan—we don't read about it anymore because it's succeeded"? Or should we trust Barack Obama, who more than a year ago called for sending two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan?
The fact is, al-Qaida and the Taliban—the people who actually attacked us on 9/11—have regrouped in those mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan and are plotting new attacks.And the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff echoed Barack's call for more troops.
John McCain was wrong. Barack Obama was right.
Should we trust John McCain's judgment when he rejected talking with Iran and then asked: What is there to talk about? Or Barack Obama, who said we must talk and make it clear to Iran that its conduct must change.
Now, after seven years of denial, even the Bush administration recognizes that we should talk to Iran, because that's the best way to advance our security.
Again, John McCain was wrong. Barack Obama was right.
Should we trust John McCain's judgment when he says there can be no timelines to draw down our troops from Iraq—that we must stay indefinitely? Or should we listen to Barack Obama, who says shift responsibility to the Iraqis and set a time to bring our combat troops home?
Now, after six long years, the Bush administration and the Iraqi government are on the verge of setting a date to bring our troops home.
John McCain was wrong. Barack Obama was right.
Again and again, on the most important national security issues of our time, John McCain was wrong, and Barack Obama was proven right.
Folks, remember when the world used to trust us? When they looked to us for leadership? With Barack Obama as our president, they'll look to us again, they'll trust us again, and we'll be able to lead again.
The Way of the World: Ron Suskind on How the Bush Admin Deliberately Faked an Iraq-al-Qaeda Connection and Undermined Diplomacy, Democracy in Pakistan and Iran
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Judiciary Committee say they will review allegations the White House ordered the CIA to forge and disseminate false intelligence documents linking al-Qaeda and Iraq. The revelation is among several in Pulitzer Prize-winning author Ron Suskind's explosive new book, The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism. Suskind joins us for the hour to talk about the letter controversy and the thin denials that have followed its disclosure. He also reveals details of his lengthy conversations with the late Pakistani politician Benazir Bhutto and her frustrations with the Bush administration in the months before her assassination, and discloses the previously unknown case of an interrogation "cell" beneath the White House.
The full interview can be found here, for the full hour: http://www.democracynow.org/
I am off to NY tonight for my yearly pilgrimage to Yankee Stadium on Saturday, catch you all next week!
When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, we didn't ask if it would work and if he would succeed in putting in a puppet government, as Washington feared he might do. No, we didn't ask that. We took the position that aggression is wrong and that it is worse when it succeeds.
When the Russians invaded Afghanistan, we didn't say, like Obama on Iraq, that this is a "strategic blunder." Or like Hillary Clinton, "they're getting into a civil war they can't win." We said it's aggression, which is a principled position, and we're capable of saying that when an enemy carries out a crime. It's wrong even when it succeeds. The question is, are we capable of applying to ourselves the same criteria we apply to others. You can say that's a moral principle if you like. But it's so elementary that if we can't accept it, we might as well admit we are Nazis.
Noam Chomsky
Georgia, now:
TBILISI, Georgia - Russia opened a second front of fighting in Georgia on Monday, sending armored vehicles beyond two breakaway provinces and seizing a military base and police stations in the country's west, officials said.
The new forays into Georgia — even after Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili signed a cease-fire pledge — appeared to show Russian determination to subdue the small, U.S.-backed country, which has been pressing for NATO membership.
"It's a pity that some of our partners instead of helping are in fact trying to get in the way," Putin said at a Cabinet meeting. "I mean among other things the United States airlifting Georgia's military contingent from Iraq effectively into the conflict zone."
Putin's comments reflected Russia's growing irritation with Western condemnation.
"The scale of their cynicism causes surprise," Putin said. "It's the ability to cast white as black and black as white which is surprising, the ability to cast the aggressor as the victim and blame the victims for the consequences."
Putin remarks also reflected deep anger at Georgia's President Mikhail Saakashvili.
"Of course, Saddam Hussein ought to have been hanged for destroying several Shiite villages," Putin said. "And the incumbent Georgian leaders who razed ten Ossetian villages at once, who ran elderly people and children with tanks, who burned civilian alive in their sheds — these leaders must be taken under protection."
Putin and other Russian officials have accused Georgian forces of committing atrocities against civilians in South Ossetia — claims that could not be independently verified.
Georgia began an offensive to regain control over South Ossetia overnight Friday with heavy rocket and artillery fire and air strikes that ravaged the provincial capital, Tskhinvali.
Russia, which has developed close ties with the region and granted passports to most of its residents, sent in thousands of troops who launched an overwhelming artillery barrage and air attacks against Georgian troops. Heavy Russian shelling drove the Georgian forces out of the South Ossetian provincial capital of Tskhinvali on Sunday.
So, did Georgia begin the offensive into South Ossetia? Did Russia enter the country to protect what they considered to be Russians? Did we give the thumbs up to Georgia to go into South Ossetia to take back control? Should Russia send in 20-30k more troops, to "surge" to victory and quell the violence?
Or, is this about Kosovo?
The United States and the Europeans would support the aspirations of Kosovo for independence, and Russia would retaliate. Georgia would be the immediate target, and the Georgian enclaves of South Ossetia and Abkhazia would be the vehicle. If the Americans could wrest Kosovo from Serbia, so reasoned Putin's advisors, then we can take the Georgian enclaves from Tbilisi. Over the last half year, Moscow has carefully mustered a large military force in the North Caucasus, waiting for the right moment to strike. This week, as the world's attention came to focus on Beijing, and the Government in Tbilisi–in a costly miscalculation–sought to reassert its control over South Ossetia–Putin saw his moment.
Is this another fine mess we are getting ourselves into? Should we have been arming, and training Georgia which sits on Russia's southern border? Should we have been pushing Georgia's acceptance to NATO? Or, is this a land (very strategic) grab by Russia, doing this before Georgia gets into NATO?
Where is the principled analysis?
Peace,
J
Look who's bringing the Georgian troops back from Iraq:
Seems fair as we brought them there in the first place...
"Partisan politics are unlikely to end any time soon -- not as long as the GOP believes that when it comes to politics, idiocy is the best policy." Paul Krugman
So, I was watching The Newshour with Jim Lehrer on PBS last night. David Brooks, a very conservative reporter, was on with Jim. While talking about drilling off shore David Brooks said talking about off shore drilling: "on substance, none of these things will make any difference…"
I didn't need to hear from him that drilling off shore will not make any difference in the price of oil today, or for that matter tomorrow, or ever. It won't, and everyone that is supposed to know, says the same thing. So, why are the bozos (Republicans) in congress grand standing, "Drill Here, Drill Now"? Because they have nothing else to stand on, or for. By the way, in the 12 years that the Republicans held the congress, and the BushCo years as the Republicans held both houses and the presidency no legislation was offered or passed to do anything about the oil crises.
The following is Paul Krugman's article in the New York Times posted August 9th 2008:
So the G.O.P. has found its issue for the 2008 election. For the next three months the party plans to keep chanting: "Drill here! Drill now! Drill here! Drill now! Four legs good, two legs bad!" O.K., I added that last part.
And the debate on energy policy has helped me find the words for something I've been thinking about for a while. Republicans, once hailed as the "party of ideas," have become the party of stupid.
Now, I don't mean that G.O.P. politicians are, on average, any dumber than their Democratic counterparts. And I certainly don't mean to question the often frightening smarts of Republican political operatives.
What I mean, instead, is that know-nothingism -- the insistence that there are simple, brute-force, instant-gratification answers to every problem, and that there's something effeminate and weak about anyone who suggests otherwise -- has become the core of Republican policy and political strategy. The party's de facto slogan has become: "Real men don't think things through."
In the case of oil, this takes the form of pretending that more drilling would produce fast relief at the gas pump. In fact, earlier this week Republicans in Congress actually claimed credit for the recent fall in oil prices: "The market is responding to the fact that we are here talking," said Representative John Shadegg.
What about the experts at the Department of Energy who say that it would take years before offshore drilling would yield any oil at all, and that even then the effect on prices at the pump would be "insignificant"? Presumably they're just a bunch of wimps, probably Democrats. And the Democrats, as Representative Michele Bachmann assures us, "want Americans to move to the urban core, live in tenements, take light rail to their government jobs."
Is this political pitch too dumb to succeed? Don't count on it.
Remember how the Iraq war was sold. The stuff about aluminum tubes and mushroom clouds was just window dressing. The main political argument was, "They attacked us, and we're going to strike back" -- and anyone who tried to point out that Saddam and Osama weren't the same person was an effete snob who hated America, and probably looked French.
Let's also not forget that for years President Bush was the center of a cult of personality that lionized him as a real-world Forrest Gump, a simple man who prevails through his gut instincts and moral superiority. "Mr. Bush is the triumph of the seemingly average American man," declared Peggy Noonan, writing in The Wall Street Journal in 2004. "He's not an intellectual. Intellectuals start all the trouble in the world."
It wasn't until Hurricane Katrina -- when the heckuva job done by the man of whom Ms. Noonan said, "if there's a fire on the block, he'll run out and help" revealed the true costs of obliviousness -- that the cult began to fade.
What's more, the politics of stupidity didn't just appeal to the poorly informed. Bear in mind that members of the political and media elites were more pro-war than the public at large in the fall of 2002, even though the flimsiness of the case for invading Iraq should have been even more obvious to those paying close attention to the issue than it was to the average voter.
Why were the elite so hawkish? Well, I heard a number of people express privately the argument that some influential commentators made publicly -- that the war was a good idea, not because Iraq posed a real threat, but because beating up someone in the Middle East, never mind who, would show Muslims that we mean business. In other words, even alleged wise men bought into the idea of macho posturing as policy.
All this is in the past. But the state of the energy debate shows that Republicans, despite Mr. Bush's plunge into record unpopularity and their defeat in 2006, still think that know-nothing politics works. And they may be right.
Sad to say, the current drill-and-burn campaign is getting some political traction. According to one recent poll, 69 percent of Americans now favor expanded offshore drilling -- and 51 percent of them believe that removing restrictions on drilling would reduce gas prices within a year.
The headway Republicans are making on this issue won't prevent Democrats from expanding their majority in Congress, but it might limit their gains -- and could conceivably swing the presidential election, where the polls show a much closer race.
In any case, remember this the next time someone calls for an end to partisanship, for working together to solve the country's problems. It's not going to happen -- not as long as one of America's two great parties believes that when it comes to politics, stupidity is the best policy.
The Smoking Gun, UPDATE with Manchurian McCain
Category: News and Politics
"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
George W. Bush
Monday, October 7, 2002
CINCINNATI, OHIO
Unfortunately for the Bush Administration the smoking gun has come, but not in the form of a "mushroom cloud", rather in the form of a forged letter. Directed by the White House, forged by the CIA, distributed throughout the interim Iraqi Government post invasion, and now documented by Ron Suskind in his just released book, "The Way Of The World."
The letter, in the handwriting of Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, dated July, 2001 says that Iraqis hosted Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, who, "displayed extraordinary effort and showed a firm commitment to lead the team which will be responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy."
The problem with this letter, Habbush, Saddam's intelligence chief was in CIA protective custody after the 2003 invasion, when the letter was actually written, and backdated, and Habbush was paid $5 million for this handy work.
This claim was made not by an unnamed source, but on the record (taped interviews) by two CIA officials.
Suskind writes: "The idea was to take the letter to Habbush and have him transcribe it in his own neat handwriting on a piece of Iraqi government stationery to make it look legitimate. CIA would then take the finished product to Baghdad and have someone release it to the media."
In typical Rovian fashion the White House, has attacked the author's credibility, because when you can't argue the facts, attack their credibility.
A spokesman for the White House called the notion that anyone inside the White House directed the forgery "absurd," and attacked the author's credibility, CBS Bill Plante reports.
"Ron Suskind makes a living from gutter journalism. He is about selling books and making wild allegations that no one can verify, including the numerous bipartisan commissions that have reported on pre-war intelligence," the spokesman told Plante.
A special video on McCain. This was passed to me by Mary Crone. I have not fact checked it, but hey, I'm not a journalist. I'm sure this will be checked by many, but it sure is weird:
Don’t drill me dude, UPDATE Obama Energy Video
Category: News and Politics
"What you saw in the Congress this week was the war dance of the hand maidens of the oil companies," Pelosi said. "That's what you saw on the Republican side of the aisle."
Beginning Friday, after the House ended it's session and headed home, Republicans took to the floor, in the dark, no C-SPAN cameras, no microphones all in an effort to force a vote to open off shore drilling, and drilling in ANWR.
One Republican Representative, dressed in shorts and a tee shirt said, "I was on my way out of town, heading home, and came back because I didn't have enough money to fill my gas tank."
The same issue came into play the day before as Democrats attempted to pass a bill first passed in the Senate to stop speculation on oil. The bill was threatened to be laden with opening offshore drilling the bill eventually lost due to the treat.
How did we get here? How did this become the debate? As oil companies, again, post record profits, gas prices crested at $4.59 for regular unleaded here in California, the debate became, we need to give more land leases to big oil, in areas that are unsafe to drill in, so that they will stop screwing us at the pump.
How did this become the debate?
Fear, fiscal rape, and the bully pulpit.
Fear comes from the uncertainty that sky rocketing gas prices plays on those that are less fortunate. If you are just making ends meet, and the price of gasoline goes from $1.50 a gallon in January 2003, to just over $4.00 a gallon last month, you are afraid you will not be able to fill your gas tank, you won't be able to get to work, you won't be able to buy groceries, you will have to make hard decisions between work, food, and housing.
Fiscal rape comes from Big Oil profits that seem to hit records every quarter. The price of gas affects everything. From the actual cost at the pump, to the cost of shipping food and goods, everything goes up when gas goes up. Have you bought a gallon of milk lately?
The bully pulpit, well, when the president speaks, the world listens. Bush framed the argument when he called on the congress to open areas off shore and in ANWR to drilling. It is as if over night everyone forgot about the gross profits being reported as gasoline prices skyrocketed. The argument was framed, "enter the hand maidens of the oil companies."
When they say DRILL, you should hear LEASE!
There are thought to be 34 billion barrels of undiscovered oil under lands currently open to drilling, multiple times the amount that might be under the OCS or ANWR. It's not about DRILLING, it's about the LEASES!!! And it's about getting those LEASES before their buddies Cheney and Bush leave office. After all, why hasn't this been an issue the last several years as gas prices skyrocketed?
Big oil wants to lock down access to more LEASES. Moving forward, as Russia and South American countries nationalize their resources, big oil will find it harder to get access to cheap (FREE) leases to land that they can suck oil out of with out having to pay royalties for.
I noticed that none of the Republicans that took part in the "war dance of the hand maidens" represented a coastal area. Not one! Frankly if my representative said he couldn't afford to fill his gas tank, knowing full well that many of his constituents actually can't afford to fill their gas tanks, well, let's say I wouldn't be to happy with his stunt, using my misfortune to fill his well oiled wallet from my despair. This is not a time for stunts, it's a time to hold feet to the fire, and actually it is long past time for that.
So, where will they drill?
Some 8.3 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico were opened up to drilling by a bill signed into law two years ago, so Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi don't matter much in this debate.
What's at stake is an estimated 18 billion barrels of oil off the coasts of other states.
Some 10 billion of that is in Californian waters, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) wants it left alone. He has aggressively challenged his partymates on the issue, saying anyone who suggests that offshore drilling would lower gas prices is "blowing smoke." Chances are slim that Arnie and other state lawmakers would permit drilling near their shores anytime soon (even though a slim majority of Californians now support it).
Other West Coast governors are of the same mind. On July 29, Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire (D) and Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski (D) joined Schwarzenegger in a vow to fight the push for more offshore drilling.
In June, New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine (D) and North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley (D) spoke out against offshore drilling, citing the damage it could do to their states' tourism, real estate, and natural resources. "Our economy is driven by tourism and use of the shore," said Corzine. "I think we would have a hard time getting public support for this concept." Likewise, Easley said he didn't believe the North Carolina legislature would approve offshore drilling.
In the Northeast, Maine Gov. John Baldacci (D) and other political leaders say "no way," fearing for their state's fishing industry and environment. Massachusetts tried offshore drilling up until 1982, and found there wasn't much oil there -- plus opposition to drilling from Bay Staters is "fierce," writes Boston Globe reporter Beth Daley. Maryland's governor is opposed. Neither Delaware nor Rhode Island has much shoreline to tap. And if Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell (R) is in favor of offshore drilling, she hasn't said so yet (she didn't bring it up in a recent speech on energy issues).
It's proved politically unpopular in Virginia as well, where the state legislature killed two bills that endorsed the notion of offshore drilling in June (though Democratic Gov. Timothy Kaine says he's open to exploration).
Florida's leaders long maintained a bipartisan opposition to drilling -- until a few weeks ago. After McCain flipped on the issue in June, Gov. Charlie Crist (R), who is interested in being McCain's vice president, followed suit -- albeit unenthusiastically. Other Florida Republicans have also backed McCain's drilling call, and a number of Florida voters are shifting in the same direction -- a recent Quinnipiac poll found that public support for drilling has jumped from 50 to 60 percent in the state. But even Republican U.S. Sen. Mel Martinez has fought to keep rigs at least 125 miles off the state's GulfCoast, where tourists like to hang out. And most Democratic leaders in the state remain bitterly opposed.
Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue (R) wants to lift the moratorium, but oil companies gave up on finding oil off the state's coast in 1980, after spending millions on test wells that yielded very little.
South Carolina legislators have also indicated that they're game for offshore drilling, but Gov. Mark Sanford (R) says he opposes it. "We would certainly have some hesitation just based upon tourism and the natural beauty along the coast," said a spokesperson for the guv. "We certainly wouldn't want to do anything that would kill the goose that laid the golden egg." The good news for Sanford: Geologists say there's almost no oil off the state's coast.
"There's no question about it," Bush said. "Wall Street got drunk, that's one of the reasons I asked you to turn off the TV cameras. It got drunk and now it's got a hangover. The question is how long will it sober up and not try to do all these fancy financial instruments."
Here are a few other examples of why other things in the last 8 years went awry:
"Condi got drunk. When she got that memo, 'Bin Laden determined to attack in the US', she must have been drunk"
"Rumsfeld got drunk. When we had Bin Laden pinned down in Tora Bora, and the CIA called for military troops, well, Rumsfeld must have been drunk"
"Brownie got drunk…"
"Iraq got drunk…"
"Cheney got drunk…"
In all honesty Cheney was drunk when he shot his friend in the face, but the rest of his callous behavior had nothing to do with being drunk, he's just an evil prick.
After taking a well needed hiatus from blogging, is this what has driven me back? Nope! What brings me back is a desire to spread the truth.
In 8 years the price of gas has gone up 3 fold.
In 8 years the value of the dollar has collapsed.
In 8 years the US has added trillions of dollars of national debt.
In 8 years the US has virtually destroyed the greatest military ever created. It's own!
The list goes on, and on, and on, and on.
So, if you want to believe the crazy crap that is being spread around the blog world, that we would be in worse shape if Obama is elected president. Do tell. What will he do that this administration hasn't already done?
Will an Obama administration politicize the justice department? Steal a few elections by purging legitimate voters names from voting roles? Start an illegitimate war? Drive the price of gas up 3 fold? Destroy the dollar, add trillions to our national debt, load up agencies with unqualified political hacks, turn off the regulators, and play the fiddle while Rome burns?
It's not just Bush, it's not McCain, it is what is behind them all. Call them neocons, call them free traders, call them whatever you want, they were dead wrong about Iraq, They were dead wrong about privatizing our army, they were dead wrong about unregulated commerce, you know where "profits are privatized but losses are socialized" Paul Krugman
Don't play stupid. Remember!
"McCain's best hope is that neither the media nor the American people possess much memory. (It's a chicken-and-egg question as to which of the two is more responsible for this.) Once news breaks, it disappears, to be replaced by the next day's news. Reality has no tail; events have no context. Powerful forces push us toward living in a continuous now, like someone suffering from brain damage, or from a culture so rudimentary its language lacks words for the past.
On Monday, it's revealed that the Bush administration lied us into war. On Tuesday, we learn that most of Iraq's doctors have fled or been killed. On Wednesday, we learn that the U.S. government secretly approved torture. On Thursday, we learn that the war has emboldened jihadists and led to a dramatic rise in terror attacks worldwide. On Friday, we learn that the war is costing us $300 million a day. But on the next Monday, when we learn that violence has declined to merely horrific levels in Iraq, all that earlier information has disappeared, and so McCain can begin attacking Obama for being an appeaser all over again.
Yes, it worked for Bush. But times have changed. Our national memory may be spotty, but it's not gone. Some things stick."
They were wrong about many things, and now we, the people of the United States must do what is required of citizens of democracies around the world, we must vote them out of office. Not the administration that is not running for election, but all that supported them. Though McCain was a critic of theirs over most of the last 8 years, this last year, since winning the nomination of his party, McCain has become a fan of all things BushCo. Stop him before he destroys what is left of our great nation.
"What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception"
Scott McClellan, former white house Press Secretary.
Scott McClellan's new book, released early in a Washington book store, contains shocking revelations about the Bush Whitehouse.
1. McClellan charges that Bush relied on "propaganda" to sell the war.
2. He says the White House press corps was too easy on the administration during the run-up to the war.
3. He admits that some of his own assertions from the briefing room podium turned out to be "badly misguided."
4. The longtime Bush loyalist also suggests that two top aides held a secret West Wing meeting to get their story straight about the CIA leak case at a time when federal prosecutors were after them — and McClellan was continuing to defend them despite mounting evidence they had not given him all the facts.
5. McClellan asserts that the aides — Karl Rove, the president's senior adviser, and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the vice president's chief of staff — "had at best misled" him about their role in the disclosure of former CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.
To me the first three 3 are rather obvious. The last two is more confirmation of what most people thought. For McClellan to state them openly begs the question, why was Rove charged as well, and how are meetings like that not proof of the conspiracy?
"Neither, I believe, did President Bush. He, too, had been deceived and therefore became unwittingly involved in deceiving me. But the top White House officials who knew the truth — including Rove, Libby and possibly Vice President Cheney — allowed me, even encouraged me, to repeat a lie."
I find it interesting that he would be that candid in his book, but I can't help but wonder, will anyone ever be held accountable?
"The collapse of the administration's rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise. … In this case, the 'liberal media' didn't live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served."
As I always say, we could always use more "liberal media"…
Bush was "clearly irritated, … steamed," when McClellan informed him that chief economic adviser Larry Lindsey had told The Wall Street Journal that a possible war in Iraq could cost from $100 billion to $200 billion: "'It's unacceptable,' Bush continued, his voice rising. 'He shouldn't be talking about that.'"
No George, he shouldn't be talking about that. Heaven forbid anyone should know the truth, even if it would be only a fraction of the actual cost.
"History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided: that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder. No one, including me, can know with absolute certainty how the war will be viewed decades from now when we can more fully understand its impact. What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary."
And he was as ardent a Bush supporter as they come. This should be an excellent book, which will be available next week.
