Rock bottom

Here is what rock bottom looks like for an elected President. This excerpt came from an article by the Washington Post:

On almost every key measure of presidential character and performance, the survey found that Bush has never been less popular with the American people. Currently 39 percent approve of the job he is doing as president, while 60 percent disapprove of his performance in office -- the highest level of disapproval ever recorded for Bush in Post-ABC polls.

[...]

Overall, the survey underscores how several pillars of Bush's presidency have begun to crumble under the combined weight of events and White House mistakes. Bush's approval ratings have been in decline for months, but on issues of personal trust, honesty and values, Bush has suffered some of his most notable declines. Moreover, Bush has always retained majority support on his handling of the U.S. campaign against terrorism -- until now, when 51 percent have registered disapproval.

Full Details

I still believe that Pomp without dignity is the calling-card of the pathetic. I think it is time the president resign so that America can get back on track.

Who wins if he stays on the job besides Bush dead-enders and anti-intellectuals who think the biggest threat to America in the face of 911 is gay people and evolution?

It is also time, I think, for Democrats to look ahead and define themselves as reformers. Bush may now be dismissed with a wave of the hand and a polite sympathetic look and furthermore he will not be running again. Bush-bashing, in other words, is hardly useful and could start to be interpreted as piling on the helpless.

Like a tree, standing in the water

Perhaps there is no more fitting song to mark the legacy of Rosa Parks than Pops Staples version of "I shall not be moved", which has the chorus:

I shall not.
I shall not be moved.
I shall not.
I shall not be moved.
I'm like a tree,
standing in the water,
And I shall not be moved.

Rev. Al Sharpton might not be able to move voters on his own behalf, but he moved me when he called on us all to make a Rosa Resolution during his eulogy:

James Crowe Junior, Esquire

Al Sharpton could have been speaking coyly about President Bush's avoidance of Cindy Sheehan when he said:


Its easy to remember activists after they're gone.
Its [another thing] to be called on to be active and work and walk with them while they're still here.



I admire Rosa for knowing what to do to change the world for the better and having the fortitude to do it.

I don't know what to do to change the world I see and don't like, and I know fundamental things are wrong. I can see that the people in charge are not going to make a difference and it is such a despairing conclusion.

How can I make a difference the way Rosa Parks did? How can I get my own life to have that kind of impact? How did Rosa know what to do on December 1st, 1955?

Al ended his eulogy for Rosa by saying, "I intend to stand up wherever I see injustice, and if I can't stand up then I'll speak out, and if I can't speak out then I will get a chair like Rosa Parks and just sit in the way".

Am I in anybody's way?

What should my Rosa Resolution be?

I wish I knew. I feel I am being called but it comes without direction and I don't know my response.

Rosa knew and that's what made her a part of history. Her response was so simple yet so powerful that Presidents stood in her wake.

Hard-hitting Harry

If you accept my belief that what Democrats need to stand for in a word is Justice, then you can only applaud Harry Reid for calling on Republicans to investigate the actions of the Bush administration for the good of their nation.

While network viewsmen scramble to portray his recent showdown in the Senate as partisan it is decidedly not. If Republican corruption has made Truth and Justice partisan issues, then I have rarely been prouder to call myself a Democrat.

Here is the statement Harry issued before taking the Senate into a closed session. Rather than provide a link to the statement I feel it is worth reproducing here. As a reward to your effort, I have provided Jon Stewart's take on the battle at the end.


"This past weekend, we witnessed the indictment of I. Lewis Libby, the Vice President's Chief of Staff and a senior Advisor to President Bush. Libby is the first sitting White House staffer to be indicted in 135 years.

"This indictment raises very serious charges. It asserts this Administration engaged in actions that both harmed our national security and are morally repugnant.

"The decision to place U.S. soldiers in harm's way is the most significant responsibility the Constitution invests in the Congress.

"The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really about: how the Administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions.

"As a result of its improper conduct, a cloud now hangs over this Administration. This cloud is further darkened by the Administration's mistakes in prisoner abuse scandal, Hurricane Katrina, and the cronyism and corruption in numerous agencies.

"And, unfortunately, it must be said that a cloud also hangs over this Republican-controlled Congress for its unwillingness to hold this Republican Administration accountable for its misdeeds on all of these issues.

"Let's take a look back at how we got here with respect to Iraq Mr. President. The record will show that within hours of the terrorist attacks on 9/11, senior officials in this Administration recognized these attacks could be used as a pretext to invade Iraq.

"The record will also show that in the months and years after 9/11, the Administration engaged in a pattern of manipulation of the facts and retribution against anyone who got in its way as it made the case for attacking Iraq.

"There are numerous examples of how the Administration misstated and manipulated the facts as it made the case for war. Administration statements on Saddam's alleged nuclear weapons capabilities and ties with Al Qaeda represent the best examples of how it consistently and repeatedly manipulated the facts.

"The American people were warned time and again by the President, the Vice President, and the current Secretary of State about Saddam's nuclear weapons capabilities. The Vice President said Iraq "has reconstituted its nuclear weapons." Playing upon the fears of Americans after September 11, these officials and others raised the specter that, left unchecked, Saddam could soon attack America with nuclear weapons.

"Obviously we know now their nuclear claims were wholly inaccurate. But more troubling is the fact that a lot of intelligence experts were telling the Administration then that its claims about Saddam's nuclear capabilities were false.

"The situation was very similar with respect to Saddam's links to Al Qaeda. The Vice President told the American people, "We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know he has a longstanding relationship with various terrorist groups including the Al Qaeda organization."

"The Administration's assertions on this score have been totally discredited. But again, the Administration went ahead with these assertions in spite of the fact that the government's top experts did not agree with these claims.

"What has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress to the Administration's manipulation of intelligence that led to this protracted war in Iraq? Basically nothing. Did the Republican-controlled Congress carry out its constitutional obligations to conduct oversight? No. Did it support our troops and their families by providing them the answers to many important questions? No. Did it even attempt to force this Administration to answer the most basic questions about its behavior? No.

"Unfortunately the unwillingness of the Republican-controlled Congress to exercise its oversight responsibilities is not limited to just Iraq. We see it with respect to the prisoner abuse scandal. We see it with respect to Katrina. And we see it with respect to the cronyism and corruption that permeates this Administration.

"Time and time again, this Republican-controlled Congress has consistently chosen to put its political interests ahead of our national security. They have repeatedly chosen to protect the Republican Administration rather than get to the bottom of what happened and why.

"There is also another disturbing pattern here, namely about how the Administration responded to those who challenged its assertions. Time and again this Administration has actively sought to attack and undercut those who dared to raise questions about its preferred course.

"For example, when General Shinseki indicated several hundred thousand troops would be needed in Iraq, his military career came to an end. When then OMB Director Larry Lindsay suggested the cost of this war would approach $200 billion, his career in the Administration came to an end. When U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix challenged conclusions about Saddam's WMD capabilities, the Administration pulled out his inspectors. When Nobel Prize winner and IAEA head Mohammed el-Baridei raised questions about the Administration's claims of Saddam's nuclear capabilities, the Administration attempted to remove him from his post. When Joe Wilson stated that there was no attempt by Saddam to acquire uranium from Niger, the Administration launched a vicious and coordinated campaign to demean and discredit him, going so far as to expose the fact that his wife worked as a CIA agent.

"Given this Administration's pattern of squashing those who challenge its misstatements, what has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress? Again, absolutely nothing. And with their inactions, they provide political cover for this Administration at the same time they keep the truth from our troops who continue to make large sacrifices in Iraq.

"This behavior is unacceptable. The toll in Iraq is as staggering as it is solemn. More than 2,000 Americans have lost their lives. Over 90 Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice this month alone - the fourth deadliest month since the war began. More than 15,000 have been wounded. More than 150,000 remain in harm's way. Enormous sacrifices have been and continue to be made.

"The troops and the American people have a right to expect answers and accountability worthy of that sacrifice. For example, 40 Senate Democrats wrote a substantive and detailed letter to the President asking four basic questions about the Administration's Iraq policy and received a four sentence answer in response. These Senators and the American people deserve better.

"They also deserve a searching and comprehensive investigation about how the Bush Administration brought this country to war. Key questions that need to be answered include:

How did the Bush Administration assemble its case for war against Iraq?
Who did Bush Administration officials listen to and who did they ignore?
How did senior Administration officials manipulate or manufacture intelligence presented to the Congress and the American people?
What was the role of the White House Iraq Group or WHIG, a group of senior White House officials tasked with marketing the war and taking down its critics?
How did the Administration coordinate its efforts to attack individuals who dared to challenge the Administration's assertions?
Why has the Administration failed to provide Congress with the documents that will shed light on their misconduct and misstatements?

"Unfortunately the Senate committee that should be taking the lead in providing these answers is not. Despite the fact that the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee publicly committed to examine many of these questions more than 1 and ½ years ago, he has chosen not to keep this commitment. Despite the fact that he restated that commitment earlier this year on national television, he has still done nothing.

"At this point, we can only conclude he will continue to put politics ahead of our national security. If he does anything at this point, I suspect he will play political games by producing an analysis that fails to answer any of these important questions. Instead, if history is any guide, this analysis will attempt to disperse and deflect blame away from the Administration.

"We demand that the Intelligence Committee and other committees in this body with jurisdiction over these matters carry out a full and complete investigation immediately as called for by Democrats in the committee's annual intelligence authorization report. Our troops and the American people have sacrificed too much. It is time this Republican-controlled Congress put the interests of the American people ahead of their own political interests."

Your reward

Senator Patrick Leahy

Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont was one of the few elected Democrats smart enough to oppose the Iraq war from the beginning. On Tuesday, October 25th he delivered a blistering critique of the Iraq occupation and it's cheerleaders:

Bring them home

Why don't more Democrats speak out against this obvious catastrophe, this ill-gotten FUBAR effort?

There is more to leadership than posturing. One expects, at minimum, good hindsight.

A question for top Democrats

Clinton was a master at answering the question:

What difference does it make if I win?

Today's Democrat party-leaders seem adept instead at its' avoidance. Consider for instance the issues ranging from Iraq, to clean energy, to biotechnology, to foreign policy.

Where's the burning bush?

Deadly October

The President spends most of his time either turning corners or regrouping while the violence in Iraq continues apace oblivious to his rhetoric. In fact it looks like October has been the second-most violent month in Iraq (since January) this year.


Bombs and chaos


I think the recent election was officially "turning a corner", and that after the Libby indictment the President was said to be "regrouping", so perhaps we are turning another corner now in Iraq?

I'm dizzy.

Libby's loose lips

It is too easy to get caught up in the showmanship of a good trial, when perhaps the reason for a trial is more important.

60 minutes took a look at the damage done by the leaking of Valerie Plame's name. The line that sticks with me was spoken by a former spy,

"We're not being undermined by the North Koreans, we're not being undermined by the Russians. We're being undermined by officials in our own government, and I find that galling"

60 Minutes on Plame

Would you, if you worked for the C.I.A., take a N.O.C. assignment knowing that Rove or Libby "had your back"?

Mirror, mirror on the wall

Here is what it means to be a Bush-backing Republican:

1. You condone deficit spending.
2. You condone pre-emptive war that engages US troops in nation-building.
3. You tolerate a majority leader that was thrice warned of ethical violations, then stand behind him when he dismantles the ethics committee and is finally indicted.
4. You condone the exposure of CIA agents for short-term political advantage.
5. You condone a Roe-v.-Wade litmus test for Supreme Court nominations.
6. You condone a culture of cronyism at the highest levels of government, including positions involving national security.
7. You condone an isolationistic world-view with nominations like John Bolton's.
8. You condone the denigration of military service for short-term political advantage. Exhibits here include John McCain, John Kerry, Max Cleland, and those cute little purple-heart bandaids at the RNC convention (I challenge you to wear them at Walter Reed).
9. You advance the ambitions of a National Security advisor that failed to act in the face of a PDB that warned "Bin Laden determined to strike inside U.S".
10. You support marginalizing the voices of Colin Powell, Brent Scowcroft, Norman Schwartzkopf, Paul O'Neil, Richard Clarke, John McCain, and Democrats universally.
11. You support the alientation of our traditional allies in the face of global intelligence warfare.
12. You condone obstructing investigations into 911, Tom DeLay's ethical abuses, the Downing Street memo, electoral abuses in Florida, electoral abuses in Ohio, Harriet Miers record, and John Roberts record.
13. You condone dividing America along partisan lines at every turn, even in the face of 911, and in the face of Katrina.
14. You condone falsifying intelligence data to conform to political whim.
15. You condone proven ineffective techniques like abstinence in the face of an AIDS epidemic.
16. You condone massive borrowing from Communist China.
17. You fail to act against North Korean nuclear weapons, Iranian nuclear weapons, and Pakistani nuclear weapons while spending tens of billions to save us from Iraq's unmanned fleet of aerial vehicles and gigantic stockpiles of WMD.
18. You support deploying the numerical equivalent of Manhattan's police force to smoke out Osama bin Laden.
19. You condone torture to the point of sending Dick Cheney to lobby the Senate on it's behalf.
20. You condone "extraordinary rendition" (outsourcing torture).
21. You condone handing grandma's rent-money to wallstreet investors.
22. You condone lying to Congress about the costs of a prescription drug bill.

I'd say that Snow White isn't the only one your ugly reflection has to worry about.

Is it serious?

If President Bush is serious when he says that prosecutor Fitzgerald's investigation is serious, then perhaps he ought to speak with Libby and ask him to testify again, but this time truthfully.

Afterall if this is a serious matter and the President is concerned he must want to get to the bottom of it? Doesn't that further imply that the President ought to try to use Presidential persuasion on Libby to get the truth out?

Instead he went to Camp David didn't he?

This is fun

What would history look like if Fox News had been there through the ages?

Negros attack police

I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

Prowhat now?

I have been hearing the word "Progressive" a lot on the left and nobody really ever explains it. I wonder sometimes if I am progressive, liberal, both, neither or what.

I have some sort of vague sense of what some of the different distinctions are, but must confess no real book-smarts on the subject.

In an effort to educate myself I turned to the Progressive Caucus website. There they had a PDF file explaining their values. Based on them I guess I'd say I am a progressive. They remind me of Democrats.

Miers Withdraws Supreme Court Nomination

Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination to be a Supreme Court justice today:

Story here...

I would have thought the President would have stayed the course with Harriet, consequences be damned, but apparently he was too weak to stand up to the lunatics in the Republican Party that want an ulema council to decide US law.

Fitzgerald fingers Lynndie England!

In a move that is sure to stun the nation federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald announced no indictments for Karl Rove or "Scooter" Libby would be handed down. Instead he appears to have uncovered a coup led by Ms. Lynndie England designed to "disrupt American government."

Paul O'Reilly over at Fox News was heard to exclaim, "Yes! Yes!", shortly before he busted a valve in his brain and collapsed with a crooked grin cemented on his face. He is recovering at a nearby Shriners Hospital where it was thought grown men dressed as clowns would lend a certain dignity to his condition.


Full details here...



In your dreams Republicans!

Damocrats taking it on the chin

Rather than translate the largest foreign policy disaster in decades into gains, top Democrats continue to go along with the Iraq war and congratulate themselves for their poor judgment.

NPR, in this hard-hitting piece, approached Democrats and tried to get them to define their positions on the Iraq war. Hillary Clinton, after hearing herself in this piece, ought to consider buying new golf clubs. I don't believe that voters will look here in 2008 for leadership.

Courting Disaster

John Kerry is a little more forceful in his objections to the war today, now belatedly saying he wouldn't vote for the Iraq war if he knew there were no WMDs in Iraq. Answering the obvious question with the obvious answer during the campaign would have been better, but it's a start.

John Kerry's position

How many corners must some men turn before they can see the spin?

The answer my friend is blowin' in the wind.
The answer is blowin' in the wind.

Marking 2000

Want to mark the passing of the 2000th US soldier by attending a candlelight vigil?

I have been to MoveOn-hosted vigils before and they have always been sincere and respectful. People stand with candles and flags to remind others of our soldiers' sacrifices.

Thanking the Troops

I should add that you ought to plan on being harassed by those misguided Republicans who think everything is partisan. However, each time I have attended a vigil there have been Republicans among us, and they are usually more upset than anyone at the disrespect. There have also been veterans ashamed at their neighbors conduct.

I suggest ignoring them and maintaining a respectful vigil.

Ideology's problem

Philosophers like Kant believed that one should always tell the truth and argued for doing so even when it might jeopardize someone's life. A practitioner of Kant's view betrayed Anne Frank to the Nazis. This person is perhaps considered "good" in Kant's eyes, but generally thought of as scum by more prudent users of Truth.

I feel that the worst politicians of all, and perhaps the worst human beings of all, are those so sure of their ideology that they are oblivious to the suffering caused by their actions.

That is why President Bush is such a terrible President. He has convinced himself that his Iraq polices are a smashing success and no amount of contrary evidence will shake his opinion, will alter his actions, or will change his course. The upshot is that people die without just cause while he congratulates himself for his vision thing.

Here are the consequences of the President's ideologies in Iraq:

Troy Tuschel

U.S. soldiers clean their boots

I think there is something defective about Love and it is this. Love requires familiarity. You love your own children, but not the child starving in the forgotten world (the third world) with equal affection. You love your wife, but not equally the woman suffering from abuse in an open secret.

It is a tragic flaw because Justice would either exist on earth, or be fought for mightily, if people were capable of loving outside their own insular bubbles.

If people could love the detainees at Guantanamo then there would be outrage that even medical doctors join in the torture with the fly Lords. If people could love their own US soldiers, then there would be outrage that US women soldiers are expected to degrade themselves sexually for the purposes of advancing phsychological torture.

More abuse details

If People could Love more expansively and more expensively, and Hate more exclusively and more elusively what a World it'd be.

But instead we have this defective kind of Love, this bubble-Love, this little-Love, this black-sheep cousin of Hatred to rule a mad, mad World.

Sometimes I feel like a carrion bird for loving in a world that loves to hate.

Caw!
Caw!

U.S. military death toll reaches 2,000

Another macabre milestone has been reached in the Iraq war. The United States has just lost it's 2000th soldier to the noble cause of saving the President and US Congress from admitting their mistakes.


2,000 dead

Will we go to 3000?

We will if Democrats don't forcefully lend their voices to the calls for withdrawal.

How about it Hillary?
How about it Obama?
John Kerry?

Anyone?

Will you lead when it matters?

One act play

I like to compare our Iraq policy to a man beating a hornets nest with a stick. In this one-act play a wise pundit discovers a stung man beating an angry hornet's nest with a stick...

Wise Pundit: "You've already been stung and cutting and running now would be a dishonor to your suffering."

Stick Wielder: "Don't worry, I'll stay the course! Whack! Ouch! Whack! Ouch!"

Wise Pundit: "Perhaps what you need are more sticks."

Stick Wielder: "Thanks! They're not working. Ouch! Whack! Ouch!"

Wise Pundit: "You've already been stung and cutting and running now would be a dishonor to your further suffering..."

Stick Wielder: "Don't worry, I'll stay the course! Whack! Ouch! Whack! Ouch! Hang on. Let me try a new stick..."


At least two Conservatives seem to be making their own comparison, but to Vietnam rather than stubborn hornet-nest whackers.


One. Ron Paul, Republican from Texas

Two. Mr. Scowcroft

I prefer my comparison because it illustrates the futility of staying the course, as well as the absurdity of the venture to begin with. I do tip my hat to Mr. Scowcroft and Mr. Paul, though, since Vietnam did disprove the "domino theory" Bologna, which is now being bandied about in fresh dogma-doo-doo (i.e. The entire middle east will fall to terrorist forces if we minimize our losses and get out).

Is our VP a sick man?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I think that Dick Cheney suffers from dementia. My theory seems supported by this statement from a friend of his:

"The real anomaly in the Administration is Cheney. I consider Cheney a good friend. I've known him for thirty years. But Dick Cheney I don't know anymore."

- Brent Scowcroft -

Full details here

Maybe the reason we never see Dick Cheney in public is because he is being kept somewhere safe so that he doesn't wander down Pennsylvania avenue muttering to himself about a mining shaft gap?

If my suspicion is true it would mean that the man everyone in the Bush administration relies upon for gravitas is without his wits. That would sure explain a lot.