Give me a Harry Truman

"Now everybody likes to have low taxes, but we must reduce the national debt in times of prosperity. And when tax relief can be given, it ought to go to those who need it most, and not those who need it least, as this Republican rich man's tax bill did when they passed it over my veto on the third try.The first one of these was so rotten that they couldn't even stomach it themselves. They finally did send one that was somewhat improved, but it still helps the rich and sticks a knife into the back of the poor. "

- President Truman in his acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention in 1948.

Can you imagine any present day Democrat speaking so clearly on the issue of tax cuts and income redistribution? Kerry? Clinton? Dean?

a few things

My friend on the right, neo-neocon brought to our attention the special Nightline program on the existence of the Saddam Hussein tapes. Turns out, they were not so much a smoking gun as just more proof he was sly little fox. Talking in the 90's about how he is working on some weapons doesn't exactly scream imminent threat does it? When we invaded in 2003 he had no WMD's, hard to swalllow huh?

This hunting story would be dead in the water if Cheney didn't operate (ha, get it!) the way he does in a shroud of secrecy. When Byron York and Peggy Noonan are calling you out, you've really screwed up.

Speaking of Cheney, to the people who are clamoring for a Democratic victory this November in order to get the impeachment train moving, are you nuts? Ladies and Gentleman: President Cheney. Also, is it really so inconceivable that Cheney wouldn't run for the presidency in 08? He is the VP of a two termer and really the only devoted future standard bearer of the Bush doctrine (McCain would fudge to much).

Thanks to Salon online we once again see where our tax dollars went; the torture and humiliation of Arab men in a Muslim country. Blood sprayed walls, naked men, lesions, chemicals, human pyramids and crushed bodies. This is not a few bad apples, this is the stated policy of the United States military under the criminal Don Rumsfeld, whose continued employment will be one pondered over in the history books.

Malkin Watch

Yes, she's back, everyone's favorite internment loving right winger. Her reaction on the release of the new Abu Gharib photos, photos that should shame every american into demanding our exit from Iraq immediately.

Memo to Malkin: graphic photos that depict real events are not the same as cartoons.

at least someone has the guts

Well, it's a principled senator against the Democratic establishment. Democrats, stand behind Senator Feingold and you'll be winners.

Third Party

Over at brendan nyhan's blog there is a politically tantalizing post on the possibility of a third party candidate crashing the hopes of John McCain in 2008. Like the Democratic Party, the GOP soul is looking for a populist to bring them home. Will they choose someone who is going to continue the folly of the Bush doctrine?

that nasty thing in the corner

That is Abu-Gharib. Here's a refresher.

UPDATE: MSNBC has run the Australian story including the new pictures. It is of the utmost importance that the public is reminded of what we, not Saddam Hussein have done in Iraq using their taxpayer dollars.

Apocolypse Now

"But one thing is quite the same, and that is his thought: without victory, there is no survival. I believe that we are actually fighting for the survival of the Western world of the Enlightenment, of the protection of human rights, and of respect for all of humankind. If those ideals are sometimes violated by the West--and there is no doubt whatsoever that they are--these are nothing as to what would occur if jihadist Islamicists were triumphant."

From the blog neo-neocon. This perfectly captures the paranoid worldview of neoconservatism. The Enlightened West is in danger? And then there is always the comparision of Nazism and Hitlter to Al-Qaeda. It is a disgrace and insult (as one of Jewish descent) to compare wayward Saudis hoping to meet Allah with the death march of Nazism. I'm at my wits end with this tired comparison.

Shhh...

This whole Cheney duck hunting story has got major legs for one reason: secrecy. Cheney is a disciple of the "the more the people don't know the better" school of thought, in fact he has based his entire political career on it.

Back when he was picked to be VP in 2000 to today's events, Cheney has displayed an almost cavalier disregard for honesty. He has made this quite clear in the five years he has been Vice President. To Cheney, government only needs to know your business not the other way around. So, we have a president who wants a fiefdom and a VP who operates in the shadows. Boy, am I glad we have a representative government!

Nuff said

The 78-year-old lawyer who was shot by Vice President Dick Cheney in a hunting accident has some birdshot lodged in his heart and he had a "minor heart attack," a hospital official said Tuesday. (AP)

Duck hunt

Apparently James Wolcott agrees with my assessment on the whole Hardball/Chris Matthews/Alan Simpson segment last night (not that I actually spoke to Mr. Wolcott or he even knows I exist).

Bush SOTU failure

Go to mysterypollster today for indepth analysis of Bush's SOTU failure. Failure in that it didn't give him any traction amongst the electorate. It's not hard to figure out why:

1) People know Bush, either you like him or you don't.
2) There was nothing to indicate that he will change, ever.
3) It's still going to be a hard, long slog in Iraq.
4) Energy independence? yeah right.
5) Every word is draped with cliche and derision.

So in the end, despite previous presidents getting some benefit from their respective SOTU's, Bush is once again making presidential history.

Beat those drums

Today we get this from Marshall Whittman (aka Bull Moose):

The story of the day that should have been the talk of the nation, and indeed the world was the one that hardly received a mention - it was buried in the back pages - Iran is one step closer to possessing a nuclear weapon. The Washington Post,"PARIS, Feb. 13 -- Iran reportedly has begun small-scale uranium enrichment, an initial step in the long process toward making civilian fuel or nuclear weapons, according to Western diplomats pushing for international action against Tehran."

The world will soon forget the Cheney hunting accident. Unfortunately, the Iranian Hitler making steady and uninterrupted progress toward the objective of obtaining a nuclear weapon which may long influence world history. However, it is perhaps asking too much of the media to focus on the fact that a terrorist state once again defied civilized nations in its effort to obtain weapons to intimidate the West and perhaps eliminate a nation.The Moose is not a press-basher - they generally do their difficult job well. But lately, they have mostly abdicated their responsibility.

Out of intimidation or political correctness, they have succumbed to the mob and refused to publish the cartoons that are the center of an international controversy. And yesterday, they missed the big story because they were in a narcissistic snit as the result of being stiffed..But, the Iranians hope to stiff the world - and that rogue nation came a step closer to make that a reality but hardly anyone would know.

Whittman is one of a growing number of neocons who have infiltrated the DLC from within. He, like Lieberman, Byah and Clinton (Hillary) believe in spreading democracy first, preparing the homeland against attack second. Iran's president is Hitleresque because he is trying to build nuclear weapons and also we just don't like him that much. Therefore, we must attack, even though our forces are stretched to the limit in another Arab country. Hitler murdered 6 million Jews and sanctioned genocide, let me know if this Iranian nutcase gets to that point.

Tax cuts and you

The Onion gets the word on the street.

Best one: Mary Ann Rose - Line Producer, when asked about Bush's tax cuts:

"This could potentially leave a huge deficit for my children and grandchildren, which is perfect revenge for them not visiting me."

Incredible

Andrew Sullivan illustrates the fine art of hypocrisy.

Consistency

I know this goes against my best judgement, but I'm watching Chris Matthews right now and I see him tear out of the gate with this Cheney story furious at Cheney's decision to not inform the world till 24 hours after the incident, he has monkey brow David Gregory on and shows the press conference today with McClellan, yada yada yada.

Then, he switches to fawning mode with former senator Allan Simpson from the great quail hunting state of Wyoming. Matthews needs to find out just how this hunting business works. Simpson proceeds to blame the person who got shot by not letting the second most powerful person in the world he wasn't a quail.

So, we go from well deserved anger to fawning curiosity. This guy has got to be bipolar or something.

History

Jimmy Carter knows FISA.

Thanks NAFTA

The U.S. trade deficit soared to an all-time high of $725.8 billion in 2005, pushed upward by record imports of oil, food, cars and other consumer goods. The deficit with China hit an all-time high as did America’s deficits with Japan, Europe, OPEC, Canada, Mexico and South and Central America.

The Commerce Department reported Friday that the gap between what America sells abroad and what it imports rose to $725.8 billion last year, up by 17.5 percent from the previous record of $617.6 billion set in 2004.

It marked the fourth consecutive year that America’s trade deficit has set a record and was certain to spark increased debate in Congress over President Bush’s trade policies. Since mid-2000 the country has lost nearly 3 million manufacturing jobs and Democrats blame the administration’s policy of emphasizing free trade agreements.

Any one of these countries can demand payment at any time.

The new Dan Quayle

GOP, please run this guy (tip: brendannyhan)

Cartoon Schmartoon

"The right to offend comes with consequent rights and responsibilities: People must also have the right to be offended, and those bold enough to knowingly cause offense should be bold enough to weather the consequences, so long as the aggrieved act within the law." Robert Young in the Nation, more here.

Clinton denial

Robert Samuelson's piece in the Washington Post about Clinton and the economy is thoroughly eviscerated here.

Can we really say we prefer the taxcut and spend policies of Bush? Do we really enjoy exploding deficits of which payment will be placed squarely on the back of future generations?

I know, I know we shouldn't be worried about our massive trade deficit when we have a WOT to win and an Iraqi infrastructure to ruin but just let me vent. More later.

Couric as receptacle

For proof that there is a God.

King funeral

Already the pile on begins in regards to the King funeral yesterday, i'm sure there is a ton more to wade through on the righty blogs.

Didn't watch the whole event. However, I did see Clinton once again prove he is a master at lifting an event and its meaning. The "Rev" could have thrown out the WMD and still his comments would have been just as effective. Then again, when you are the POTUS taking responsibility for your decisions is part of the job and for actually showing up Bush deserves some credit.

the only one

This man is the only one who can reclaim traditional populist values back from the current gilded, confused Democratic party.

Can you imagine him giving this as an acceptance speech?

A dangerous calm

If you missed the spying hearings, here's a nice summary.

Ok, now i'm going to lose it

Bush's budget also assumes $43 billion in various fee increases over five years, including many that Congress has rejected in the past. Among these are higher charges for soldiers, veterans, air travelers and pensions. Higher aviation security fees would raise $9.7 billion over five years, and veterans would face $6.8 billion in new fees on medical care. (quote taken from DailyKos)

Wonder if this is what the neocons envisioned.

thanks for your service, now go to hell

The Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which provides nutritional food packages for less than $20 a month to more than 400,000 low-income elderly people, one-third of whom are over age 75. (courtesy Mother Jones)

One of the programs gutted in the budget. These people most likely served their country at one point in the war to stop the spread of facism, remember that one? WWII?

We're spending billions of dollars a day in Iraq but we are now going to deny grandparents food supplementals. The cable talking heads should be all over this one, where's Bill "the little guy" O'Reilly?

name that senator

"It is scandalous to provide insufficient funding for our nation’s two greatest capital investments, health and education." (Congressional Quarterly)

Kennedy? Kerry? Clinton? Nope, it's Arlen Spector, chameleon.

The president's budget is a punishing display of disregard for the vulnerable. Medicare, education and programs that regular people use are sacrificed at the altar of Iraq. When are budgets going to reflect the priorities of the american people?

the no harm, no foul defense

Chris Matthews just used a rhetorical defense of the NSA program. His view is since no one has come forward to complain about being spied on, then "no harm, no foul."

Matthews is as elastic as a rubber band.

Feingold destroys National Review spin

Congressional oversight at work.

President Feingold

What do you get when you take the only senator to vote against the excessive Patriot Act, throw in a remarkable performance at both the Roberts and Alito nomination hearings and questions that need to be asked of our pro torture Attorney General?

You get the next President of the United States.

what is the point?

The hearings have begun and already they are useless. Gonzales isn't even under oath, so anything he says will be besides the point. For example:

"Yes Senator, the president feels he has the right to smash childrens eyeballs in a time of war and no one can stop him." This fake quote was based on an actual question posed to John Yoo to which Yoo responded in a similar way.

And guess what? party line vote, all the GOPers voted against having him testify under oath.

settled

Remember the whole spin about Plame not being covert at the time she was outed?

The CIA says otherwise.

Bush as orator

In his latest piece for the Atlantic, Jim Fallows seems to lay out the GOP line of attack come this fall in this analysis of the President's SOTU:

My guess is that George Bush's suddenly-revived Wilsonian tone reflects his Administration's long-standing belief that it does best when playing offense. Apologize for the NSA program, or try to explain it away? Hell no! Make the people who question it apologize for their laxness about American security!

My gut instict tells me this will work for the GOP. The public is unhappy but they will cling to the idea that somehow this president is still up to the job of protecting them and that like in 2004 will be the clincher. Which is why, the Dems need to push way out front the likes of John Murtha, someone who can articulate much like Bush does what we truly need to be doing when it comes to Iraq and terrorism. The Kaine approach is not working.

Murtha sets the stakes

In the end, there‘s only two solutions. One is, you either stick with the president—which is not a policy, it‘s open-ended—or you take my policy which is redeploy and reduce the expenditures there and start spending on that war against terrorism. (Murtha on Hardball)

That about sums it up. This is what will differentiate both parties going into 2006 and beyond.

how to conduct a war - Bush style

Mr Bush told the Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours". Mr Bush added: "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]". (from the Guardian in UK)

My bolding. Nah, we don't need any investigations into prewar intelligence surrounding the first preemptive war in american history.

the response that wasnt

My kingdom for a president like this man: (tip: Huffpost or Yahoo)

Wednesday February 1, 2006
The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States of America
600 Pennsylvania AvenueWashington DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

This March will mark the beginning of the 4th year of the war in Iraq. In contrast, U.S. involvement in WWI came to an end after 19 months. Victory in Europe was declared in WWII after 3 years 5 months. In the Korean War, a cease-fire was signed after 3 years and 1 month. But after more than three and a half years into the war in Iraq, your administration finally produced what is called a "Plan for Victory" in Iraq.
Iraq is not the center for the global war on terrorism. I believe Iraq has diverted our attention away from the fight against global terrorism and has depleted the required resources needed to wage an effective war. It is estimated that there are only about 750 to 1,000 al-Qaeda in Iraq. I believe the Iraqis will force them out or kill them after U.S. troops are gone. In fact, there is now evidence that Iraqi insurgent groups are increasingly turning against al-Qaeda and other foreign terrorists.
Our country needs a vigorous and comprehensive strategy for victory against global terrorism. The architect of 9/11 is still out there but now has an international microphone. We must get back to the real issue at hand - we have to root out and destroy al-Qaeda's worldwide network.
There are 4 key elements that I recommend to reinvigorate our global anti-terrorism effort: Redeploy, Replace, Reallocate, and Reconstitute.
Redeploy
The war in Iraq is fueling terrorism, not eliminating it. Our continued military presence feeds the strong anti-foreigner fervor that has existed in this part of the world for centuries. A vast majority of the Iraqi people now view American troops as occupiers, not liberators. Over 80% of Iraqis want U.S. forces to leave Iraq and 47% think it is justified to attack Americans. 70% of Iraqis favor a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. forces, with half favoring a withdrawal in the next six months. In fact, 67% of Iraqis expect day-to-day security for Iraqi citizens will improve if U.S. forces withdraw in six months and over 60% believe violent attacks, including those that are ethnically motivated, will decrease. Our military presence is the single most important reason why the Iraqis have tolerated the foreign terrorists, who account for less than 7 percent of the insurgency. 93% of the insurgency is made up of Iraqis. Once our troops are re-deployed, the Iraqis will reject the terrorists and deny them a safe haven in Iraq. The Iraqis are against a foreign presence in Iraq of any kind.
The steadfast and valiant efforts of the United States military and coalition partners have provided the Iraqi people with the framework needed to self govern. The Iraqis held elections that have been touted as highly successful, based primarily on the accounts of Iraqis who went to the polls. But our continued military presence in Iraq, regardless of the motives behind it, is seen by Iraqis as interfering in Iraq's democratic process and undercuts the chances for the newly elected government to be successful. Recently, Iraq's National Security Adviser accused U.S. negotiators of going behind the back of the Iraqi government on talks with insurgents, saying the process could encourage more violence. He said, "Americans are making a huge and fatal mistake in their policy for appeasement and they should not do this. They should leave the Iraqi government to deal with it... The United States should allow the new Iraqi government to decide on how to quell the insurgency."
In December 2005, an ABC News poll in Iraq produced some noteworthy results. 57% of Iraqis identified national security as the country's top priority. When asked to rate the confidence in public institutions, they gave Iraqi police a 68% confidence level, the Iraqi army 67%, religious leaders 67%. But the U.S./U.K. forces scored the lowest, a mere 18%. The longer our military stays in Iraq, the more unwelcome we will be. We will be increasingly entangled in an open-ended nation building mission, one that our military can not accomplish amidst a civil war. Our troops will continue to be the targets of Iraqis who see them as interfering occupiers.
Redeploying our forces from Iraq and stationing a mobile force outside of the country removes a major antagonizing factor. I believe we will see a swift demise of foreign terrorist groups in Iraq if we redeploy outside of the country. Further, our troops will no longer be the targets of bloody attacks.
Replace
The ever-changing justifications of the war in Iraq, combined with tragic missteps, have resulted in a worldwide collapse of support for U.S. policies in Iraq.
The credibility of the United States of America will not be restored if we continue down the path of saying one thing and doing another. We must not lower our standards and tactics to those of the terrorists. In order to keep our homeland secure, we must hold true to the values that molded our American democracy, even in the face of adversity. Former Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, said it best during a speech in March 2004 to the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies: "America knows we cannot seek a double standard. And, America knows we get what we give. And so we must and will always be careful to respect people's privacy, civil liberties and reputations. To suggest that there is a tradeoff between security and individual freedoms -- that we must discard one protection for the other -- is a false choice. You do not defend liberty to forsake it."
Restoring the world's confidence in America as a competent and morally superior world leader is essential to winning the war on global terrorism.
A recent pubic opinion poll, conducted jointly with Zogby International and taken in Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, found that 81% said the war in Iraq had brought less peace to the Middle East. A majority of the respondents said they view the United States as the biggest threat to their nations.
Mr. President, I believe in order to restore our credibility, you must hold accountable those responsible for so many missteps and install a fresh team that demonstrates true diplomatic skill, knowledge of cultural differences and a willingness to earnestly engage other leaders in a respectful and constructive way. This would do much to reinvigorate international participation in a truly effective war on global terrorism.
Reallocate
The Department of Defense has been allocated $238 billion for the war in Iraq, with average monthly costs growing significantly since the beginning of the war. In 2003 the average monthly war cost was $4.4 billion; by 2005 the average monthly cost had reached $6.1 billion.
Despite the urgent homeland security needs of our country, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission issued a dismal report card on the efforts to improve our counter-terrorist defenses. Even the most basic of recommendations, such as the coordination of fire and police communication lines, still have not been accomplished.
In the face of threats from international terrorists, we need to reallocate funds from the war in Iraq to protecting the United States against attack. A safe and swift redeployment from Iraq will allow us to do just that.
Reconstitute
The U.S. army is the smallest it's been since 1941. It is highly capable. But this drawn out conflict has put tremendous stress on our military, particularly on our Army and Marine Corps, whose operations tempo has increased substantially since 9/11.
The Government Accountability Office issued a report in November 2005 addressing the challenges of military personnel recruitment and retention and noted that the Department of Defense had been unable to fill over 112,000 positions in critical occupational specialties. This shortfall includes intelligence analysts, special forces, interpreters, and demolition experts-- those on whom we rely so heavily in today's asymmetric battlefield.
Some of our troops have been deployed four times over the last three years. Enlistment for the regular forces as well as the guard and reserves are well below recruitment goals. In 2005, the Army missed its recruitment goal for the first time since 1999, even after offering enlistment bonuses and incentives, lowering its monthly goals, and lowering its recruitment standards. As Retired Army officer Andrew Krepinevich recently warned in a report to the Pentagon, the Army is "in a race against time" to adjust to the demands of war "or risk 'breaking' the force in the form of a catastrophic decline" in recruitment and re-enlistment.
The harsh environment in which we are operating our equipment in Iraq, combined with the equipment usage rate (ten times greater than peacetime levels) is taking a heavy toll on our ground equipment. It is currently estimated that $50 billion will be required to refurbish this equipment.
Further, in its response to Hurricane Katrina, the National Guard realized that it had over $1.3 billion in equipment shortfalls. This has created a tremendous burden on non-deployed guard units, on whom this country depends so heavily to respond to domestic disasters and possible terrorist attacks. Without relief, Army Guard units will face growing equipment shortages and challenges in regaining operational readiness for future missions at home and overseas.
Since 9/11, Congress has appropriated about $334 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, while the insurgents have spent hundreds of thousands. We have seen reports estimating that the total cost of the wars may reach as high as $1 trillion. These estimates are said to include such costs as providing long-term disability benefits and care for injured service members. It is estimated today that over 16,000 U.S. troops have been wounded in Iraq, 10,481 of whom have been wounded by "weaponry explosive devices."
But while war costs continue to climb, cuts are being made to the defense budget. As soon as the war is over there will be pressure to cut even more. This year, even while we are at war, 8 billion dollars was cut from the base defense spending bill. You ordered another $32 billion in cuts to the defense budget over the next five years, with $11.6 billion coming from the Army. The Pentagon told Congress only last year that it needed 77 combat brigades to fulfill its missions, but now insists it only needs 70. In fact, 6 of the 7 combat brigades will be cut from the National Guard, reducing its combat units from 34 to 28. Even though all of the National Guard combat brigades have been deployed overseas since 9/11, your Administration has determined that, because of funding shortfalls, our combat ground forces can be reduced. Not only will these cuts diminish our combat power, but our ability to respond to natural disasters and terrorist threats to our homeland will be adversely affected. It is obvious that the cost of the war, in conjunction with the Army's inability to meet recruitment goals, has impacted this estimate. My concern is that instead of our force structure being based on the future threat, it is now being based on the number of troops and level of funding available.
I am concerned that costly program cuts will lead to costly mistakes and we will be unable to sustain another deployment even if there is a real threat. The future of our military and the future of our country could very well be at stake. The high dollar forecasts of our future military weapons systems and military health care add pressure to cut costs on the backs of these programs. As our weapons systems age, the concern becomes even greater.
During a time of war, we are cutting our combat force, we have not mobilized industry, and have never fully mobilized our military. On our current path, I believe that we are not only in danger of breaking our military, but that we are increasing the chances of a major miscalculation by our future enemies, who may perceive us as vulnerable.

Sincerely,
JOHN P. MURTHAMember of Congress

shocker

"One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally." (tip: Washington Monthly)

Didn't see that one coming did you?

end neoconservatism

"Neoconservatives see the world as they wish it to be, not as it is. Like teenagers, they act on impulse and rail against the counsel of experience. "Often clever, never wise," Russell Kirk said of the breed."

from Buchanan's site americancause.

On a related note, Americanlogic has discovered a lonely neocon clinging to memories of 9/11.

All talk

Think Progress reminds us Bush is full of shit when it comes to the oil addiction talk.

addicted to black gold

Apparently, Sullivan is buying it.

Pre - preview

A peek into Tim Kaine's response tonight after the president.

Per CNN, Bush is actually going to say "America is addicted to oil." Well, no shit and who might have a hand in furthering the addiction? Also, this gem:

"In a complex and challenging time, the road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting - yet it ends in danger and decline. " "The only way to protect our people - the only way to secure the peace - the only way to control our destiny is by our leadership. So, the United States of America will continue to lead."

Translation: I haven't learned a goddamn thing.

A disaster

This is the adjective used by righty Tucker Carlson to describe a possible Democratic takeover of the House this year. Apparently the country wouldn't be able to stand the numerous investigations that would ensue.

Unfortunately, I will miss the SOTU. Evident by the existence of this blog, I am a political crackhead as well as a deep admirer of the presidency itself. Oh well.

AN HOUR AND FIFTEEN MINUTES!

This might as well be the screaming headline on all the cable talking head shows this evening. Let me put it out there for anyone reading:

Expect the same, lofty, tired rheotoric from this president on everything from healthcare to energy dependence. Expect every Repub to stand after every presidential pause and clap until their hands bleed. Expect shots of angry Dems, especially Kennedy, sitting on their hands.

And just to rub some salt in the fresh wound, expect new justice Sam Alito right in the front.

Ramsey Clark

Just saw the former attorney general on a panel discussing the impeachment of the president, I can't get my head around someone who is supposedly for human rights defending someone who gouged children's eyeballs out. Attaching Clark's name instantly deflates any impeachment talk, even when its warranted.

Is it just me?

War?

At least someone is asking this question: (tip, Washington Monthly)

"Iraq is not a war, because, though we have savage assault, we have no enemy. The war on terrorism is not a war because, though we have an enemy, the muscle-bound Pentagon offers no authentic means of assault."

Jim Carroll of the Boston Globe beat me to it. If only I was a well connected, well paid journalist who is stating the obvious.

A master

"Tonight, on the 1,050th day of the Iraq War (the 912th day of the Second World War was D-Day), the nation needs an adult hour, including a measured meditation on overreaching, from the Middle East to Medicare's new prescription drug entitlement. But in State of the Union addresses, rarely is heard a discouraging word."

"The Democrats have already been heard from. In their ``pre-buttal'' to the State of the Union, they promised, among much else, that, according to House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, if they come to power, ``every American will have affordable access to broadband within five years.'' Which tells you something about the state of the union."

-George Will today.

Democratic reponse to SOTU preview

As much as Bush will be predictable tonight ("will he call for unity?" give me a break) the Democratic response will be just as predictable:

We too encourage more tax cuts, but only for the middle class, and at a certain amount we still can't afford.

We too feel we must stay in Iraq until "the job is done."

We too are hesitant to embrace the Constitution in the fight against terrorism.

Tim Kaine, a man who had to literally show the citizens of Virginia he prays to win election, is the go to guy after the president is done pretending he's righted the ship for the past year. Why another centrist? Why not a Feingold?

Polls

Go here for a thorough analysis of the latest and any poll that comes out in relation to the president and his job approval. To summarize:

"The President will address a nation that rates his performance in office roughly ten points lower than when he won reelection in November 2004."

Americanlogic prediction for Bush poll numbers post SOTU: he'll lose five points after the aura of the SOTU wears off.

Davos

I am not encouraged by Mark Warner at all. If he is the best hope for the party, we've lost another four years. As Steve Clemons of the Washington Note points out the right is still winging the battles.

He has been away for a while, but Baghdad Scott is back in a big way. I caught the press briefing this evening on CSPAN, a boy was he on his game. Apparently, Bush is not responsible for the gutter politics we've been experiencing for the past five years. I missed the across the aisle gesturing the president has been doing right under the nose of the punditry. You'd have to go back to 2001 and the No Child Left Behind bill in which a Dem wasn't portrayed as a traitor and a terrorist loving hippie. And what about the drumbeat of democracy in Palestine?

According to Baghdad Scott, free and democratic elections are only the beginning to harmony and world justice especially in relation to a terrorist organization. This is what Hamas is, they were not elected to hold hands with Olmut chanting "We are the world," but to dominate and threaten Israel into putting up more walls.

My favorite was Scott's insistence that it was Bush's spending restraint that gets us to the cushy economic state we're in now. Forget about the ginormous federal deficit, trade deficit, largely ineffective Medicare prescription drug program and the billions into Iraq.

Can't wait for the speech tomorrow night where we get to hear more fantasy. Tim Kaine will respond, hopefully he will pull no punches.

A Democratic Reagan

This is the what the Dems need, a donkey version of Ronald Reagan. It obviously worked for the Republicans, so why not give it a try?

Someone who is committed to the homeland first. Workers first, corporations second. Someone who will work to fix the broken border situation, adopt a defensive isolationist tone when it comes to world affairs, stop the desire for empire and domination.

Reagan, while stubborn, was committed to rebranding government after Jimmy Carters failed micromanaging. Big, bold ideas are what we may need. The Bush era has given us Woodrow Wilson squared plus Hardingesque domestic policies. Bush has divided the country into two, dismissing urges to find a cause to bring all americans together. C'mon, Bush in the same league as FDR, Lincoln and JFK?

The Dems need to be the perveyours of competent, smart and above all concerned government. They should nominate someone in 08 who has no questions circling about them. We should know where they stand, for better or for worse. This nominee should fight for us, no one else. I'd take the sunny optimism of the Reagan years over the rightly pessimistic times we live in now.

The only people that stand in the way of this grand vision for a renewed, serious Democratic party are Bob Schrum, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy and the rest of the institutionalized Dems who have been comfortable playing the game.

Reagan revisited

During the apex of the Reagan presidency, I was growing up, not even remotely interested in politics. I have never read Richard Reeves previous work on JFK or Richard Nixon, but I intend to pick up his new book on the Gipper because of this quote:

"Like one of his heroes, Frankln D. Roosevelt, he has become larger than life. As Roosevelt became an icon central to American liberalism, Reagan became the nucleus holding together American conservatism. He is the only president whose name became a political creed, a noun not an adjective: "Reaganism."

Um...

"The Senate has a constitutional responsibility to hold an up-or-down vote on Judge Alito's nomination,'' Republican Bush said in his weekly radio address."

Sorry Mr. President, I don't believe that appears in the document you so obviously detest.

Challenger

An interesting take on the events of twenty years ago, not the fluff you will see on the major cable networks. Enjoy.

what took you so long

From John Dickerson in Slate magazine today:

The president did restate the U.S. position that he will not deal with Hamas, which advocates, among other things, the eradication of Israel. But he never tried to reconcile this position with his glowing remarks about liberty spreading across the Middle East. Nor did he explain how he reacts to the fact that his black-and-white world has suddenly gone gray.

Ah, but Mr. Dickerson forgets (for a moment) that this president and reality are mortal enemies.

Lonely voices

For a summary of the destructive economic policies of the tax cut and spend GOP and their budget go here (pdf file)

Then weep if you have young children like me.

the years to come

I want to expand a little on the Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections. They will almost certainly guarantee the election of Ben Netanyahu, the far right leader of the Likud Party, a party in which Ariel Sharon abandoned. Netanyahu, much like Bush, will stroke the fears of Israelis regarding the threats posed by Iran (ten years away from a nuke, maybe) and now Hamas.

This cycle will go on forever. Bush, it seems is waiting to see what happens and will decide whether or not to deal with the Hamas leadership. At this point in history, Americanlogic recommends we disengage from the whole mess. Send subtle signals to each party, while remaining on the sidelines. Deals in the past have been broken and until Israel gives up its nukes (ah, never) Palestinians will feel under the gun for all eternity.

The next president should adopt a bold, daring new approach to Middle East negotiations, withdraw completely unless one side threatens the other with total annihilation. We have supported Israel to long as well as been fooled by the PLO.

the terrorism ticket

"What happened yesterday represents one critical pillar beneath the Bush foreign policy crumbling into dust." - Neocon Andrew Sullivan.

Um, no shit.

Bush on fire

Just listening to the president's news conference on NPR a few moments ago you get the sense that there has been no other president in modern times who has such a contempt for the press. The White House press corps are asking questions that need to be asked and the president answers in the same overdone folksy tone sprinkled with a "how dare you ask me that" attitude. He loathes these events and would never do them unless all of his staff implored him to do so. The reason is simple: he is completely at the mercy of accountability and for this president that is about as uncomfortable as a root canal, hence the grinding of the teeth whenever you see him on television.

Americanlogic 2006 strategy

Achtung Democrats! When the Rovian machine goes into overdrive this November trying to paint you as indifferent to terrorism, please simply reply: "We choose to follow the law of the land."

All the president had to do was go through the FISA court and obtain warrants if needed them. He did not do this, he broke the existing law. There is no grey area in this matter. Democrats should say they follow existing law or will recommend changes to accomodate new situations that may arise in combating terrorism. Following the law includes not torturing prisoners, not holding people indefinitely and not lighting the Constitution aflame.

You are not weak because you choose to follow the law of the land. Oh, and please point to the countless Bush administration failures up to and following the events of 9/11.

He gets it

"Judge Alito's record and his testimony have led me to conclude that his impulse to defer to the executive branch would make him a dangerous addition to the Supreme Court at a time when cases involving executive overreaching in the name of fighting terrorism are likely to be such an important part of the Court's work."

Russ Feingold in a statement after his vote against Sam Alito, courtesy thenation.com, please go there for more.

think before you blog

"The reason we hate Islamic fundamentalists is pretty much the same reason we're fighting to take back this country from the Republicans. They are two peas from the same pod, and diametrically opposed to everything we liberals stand for."

-Daily Kos

Except guys like DeLay and Santorum don't blow themselves up over the issue of prayer in schools.

'reasonably believe'

Apparently this is the new standard in respect to the Fourth Amendment effective 2001 implemented by the Bush administration. For more go here.

Presidents during war

President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and blockaded Southern ports, without congressional authorization. President Wilson locked up Eugene V. Debs in World War I and never let him out. FDR interned 110,000 Japanese and Japanese-Americans in relocation camps, in a wartime act of racial profiling approved by the Supreme Court. Truman dropped atom bombs on defenseless cities, killing 100,000 women and children. Yet all are judged by liberal historians to be great or near-great presidents.

I guess Buchanan's point, not suprisingly, is that presidents should have the leeway to do whatever it takes to defeat an enemy, whether it is symbolically or literally. Surely it can be said that a center left president, JFK prevented nuclear holocaust by suppressing his imperial urges. Or maybe historians of all political persuasions look at these presidents through the prism of domestic policy as well as foreign.

Then the question must be asked, is the WOT (War on Terror) really a war? All of the examples that Buchanan referenced are concrete military conflicts, have we been fighting the WOT since 1979?

This is not about Dick Nixon

From today's Washington Post:

Especially without knowing the parameters of the surveillance, we hesitate to second-guess the president's argument that FISA's limits are unduly constraining. The surveillance may be critical for national security, and a law written in a different technological age may well need to be refurbished. But the proper way to handle that -- which the administration rejected -- would have been to seek changes in the law, not to do a stealthy end run around the legislative process. In such an amorphous, long-running conflict as the war against terrorism, it's critical to ensure that limits are in place to prevent the executive branch from overreaching.

This is the core issue. Does the president have the right to circumvent the law in order to "protect" us from terrorists? Any poll question asked should be phrased exactly like this.

Medicare

"I pretty much completed a master's degree in psychology and I can't understand it," said Raymond Lloyd, a Republican-leaning retiree from Silt, Colo. "For the elderly who don't have their full faculties and the poor people who are not well educated, God help 'em." (courtesy Forbes.com)

A change in Canada?

For fine analysis and opinion of the upcoming Canadian election go here.

My prediction: Canada turns right and goes with Steven Harper. The Bush administration rejoices.

its just a movie

Enough about "Brokeback Mountain."

Trapped in a closet of his own mind

Further proof (tip: Andrew Sullivan) that Tom Cruise has completely lost it. Who's next, R. Kelly?

P.S the episode is a classic.

Kerry slams Mr.Hardball

"You'd think the only focus tonight would be on destroying Osama Bin Laden, not comparing him to an American who opposes the war whether you like him or not. You want a real debate that America needs? Here goes: If the administration had done the job right in Tora Bora we might not be having discussions on Hardball about a new Bin Laden tape. How dare Scott McClellan tell America that this Administration puts terrorists out of business when had they put Osama Bin Laden out of business in Afghanistan when our troops wanted to, we wouldn't have to hear this barbarian's voice on tape. That's what we should be talking about in America." -- John Kerry (courtesy thedaureport.com)

Kerry was saying this throughout the election and in all of the debates with the president. We outsourced the task of killing Bin Laden to warlords, those are the facts.

SOTU response

If I were the Dems, I would pass the torch to Russ Feingold and let him respond to the president's State of the Union speech later in the month. Sans Pelosi, please.

Bin Laden

What is the average american to think of today's developments? The man who orchestrated the murder of over 2,000 people is still apparently alive and kicking and trying to make nice with his enemy?

From what I've read in the conservative blogosphere, this tape represents a victory in the WOT. Yes, not killing Bin Laden five years after the fact sure is cause for celebration. This is another failure of the Bush administration, coupled with the 9/11 commission findings and numerous other findings since 9/11 we simply are not prepared for anything Bin Laden will throw at us. This is cause for concern. How about an intercept of a Bin Laden/Al-Zarqawi chat?

Then I think, this is our enemy? A fragile preacher of radical Islam? How can this man control thousands of jihadists? Why is he allowed to?

The next three years are going to busy ones for the Bushies on the foreign policy front, they have Iraq to clean up, Iran to disarm and Al-Qaeda to hunt. Can they redeem themselves with a major capture or an assassination. Can Rice stablize the Iran situation. Will Cheney win the battle for sanctions.

We'll find out soon enough.

Go now

For Buffalo's version of the Onion, go here.

Americanlogic recommended daily.

Defending Murtha

The loony right is at it again with a smear attempt on John Murtha.

Bush, when presented with facts and reality, sends his Rovian disciples to do the dirty work just like he did with McCain, Kerry and now another decorated war hero.

Go here for what I hope is the first wave in defending this man from further attacks.

Alito and executive power

Go here for discussion of the key question surrounding the nomination and likely confirmation of Samuel Alito.

Headline gone terribly wrong

Al Gore: Bush must be probed

if you wish to read any further after that go here.

Gored

Here at Americanlogic, the subject of Al Gore is one of great debate. The first post on this site was entitled "It's Gore's fault." In fact, I still stand by that statement. How can you not beat a man who was clearly and utterly inept on matters of government as George Bush was? Well, you start by simply being candidate Al Gore. Candidate Al Gore was tepid, childish and unwilling to embrace the successes of the administration in which he served for eight years.

Public citizen Al Gore, on the other hand, is a fiery mix of wonk and preach. He truly breathes fire as he speaks of the man who denied him the presidency and the way in which he has approached presidential power. Gore's main point is correct: this president has abused his power and must be held accountable.

Problem is, Gore is a political has-been, a man who has the dishonor of losing an election to George W. Bush. Gore should not be the standard bearer of the Democratic Party (neither should his former boss), for the Democratic party needs an outsider to break through the ranks. A man who truly believes in liberty and justice (rendition was a practice of Clinton/Gore) and will not let terrorism dictate who we are and how we live.

It's getting harder and harder to wait for such a person.

Bully

According to the latest Zogby poll, which has the president at 39% approval, the GOP is whipping the Dems on the question of who would handle terrorism better:

47% - elephant
26% - donkey

There is only one solution, remove Howard Dean and replace him with John Murtha. I know it's fantasy. I'm convinced, aside from his fundraising prowess, that Dean is useless on the national stage. Murtha should be the face of today's Democratic party. He is a hawk when it matters, a military man and a true patriot who can use common sense when it comes to matters of foreign policy. In fact, a Murtha/Feingold ticket would be a dream for 2008.

There also could be a huge "bully pulpit" advantage the president has in regards to the terrorism issue. Dems will have to wait till they actually GASP! win elections in order to show the public they have sound policies when it comes to defeating terrorism.

Populist wanted

I just read the story of the 7 year old girl beaten and starved to death in NY this week. It was difficult to read without either cringing or crying. You know this kind of stuff happens every day, without anyone noticing before its too late.

Is it too much to ask that we live in a country that refuses to take advantage of children and animals in the most obscene manner. Why are stories of torture going hand in hand with stories of children and animals?

America is diseased. We may be on life support soon. This country needs the care and attention now being afforded to the country of Iraq. We have forgotten Katrina and images of floating bodies. Legislation is being passed in the halls of government bent on turning this proud country into a wasteland of depression and quiet despair.

Americanlogic calls out for a populist. Anyone who will radically shift focus from global concerns to our concerns. Our borders, our hospitals, our children. Someone who will talk passionately of freedom and opportunity for our citizens, shining it like a beacon against terrorism. Speaking of common sense and reason, reminding to tend to our own.

Let's hope

Go here if you are sick to death of the abortion "debate."

Liberals have ridden this horse too long. Time to focus on issues that matter to all Americans, say like civil liberties and a focus back on the priorities of the country as a whole.

I'm talking to you Kennedy and Schumer.

Clinton weighs in

"Asked if the president should have the authority to order wiretaps without warrants, Clinton said, ''I think that's a decision the Supreme Court would have to resolve.'' (via Bloomberg, tip: thinkprogress.org)

How does one resolve this? By placing two justices who bend to the will of the executive that's how. Enter stage left: Soon to be Justice Sam Alito.

Sam's pat on the head

Americanlogic wonders, is Alito going through a confirmation hearing or his first immunization?

Specter says they'll go into executive session. The purpose of the session is to discuss in private any questions that arise about Alito. It's just a routine practice, doesn't suggest anything of substance. Specter tells Alito not to worry, this is all perfectly routine. Specter's not even sure why they do it, but they'll do it anyway. (per scotusblog.com)

Yikes

"In the course of one lecture [Abu Hamza] accused the Jews of being blasphemous, traitors and dirty. This, because of the treachery, because of their blasphemy and filth, was why Hitler was sent into the world." (courtesy here)

I'm going to have to agree with many supporters of this war, the Sullivan's, the Hitchen's and the like. These guys are crazy, delusional islamo-fascists and they must be defeated. How we go about doing it is another matter.

Are we wise to give credence to their cause by invading an Arab country without provocation and while we are there causing Abu-Gharib to rear its ugly head, while debating torture back in the homeland? Are we to trust Al-Qaeda's destruction to George W. Bush, a man so clueless as to the origin and aims of terrorism that he willingly creates more terrorism?

The Sullivan's and the Hitchen's of the world do ultimately trust this president to win this battle against terrorism which is why some of their complaints about torture and guarding oil fields ring hallow. This is a war that was decided to be waged by the Bush administration. With all the crew in tow, Rumsfeld, Bremer, Wolfowitz he launched an invasion of Iraq and didn't know what to do once he ousted Hussein. The pro Iraq war people, from the Senators that voted for the authorization to the punditry are stuck with Bush and his doctrine until 2008.

Wiretapping and You

"You know how sometimes during war time, civil liberties can take a back seat to national security? Well, I got good news and bad news. The good news is this: no Japanese people are being sent to any camps. The bad news is: that time you got hammered and drunk-dialed your ex-girlfriend who's studying abroad and sang her that WHAM! song that was 'your song?' The government's got that on tape."---Jon Stewart (courtesy: dailykos)

Brilliant and probably true.

Russell Tice, patriot

For more on this man who could bring down the White House, go here.

why

And another thing, why in the year 2006 are people still burning popcorn in microwaves? Most microwaves have a "popcorn" setting. This is inexcusable.

Sorry, had to let that one out.

Today recap

Sam Alito is dead in the water. Reading the live blogging over at scotusblog, I was struck as to how composed Alito sounded, especially during the drubbing given to him by Ted Kennedy (time for a new face for progressives, um Feingold?). That is until I heard some of the footage on NPR on the way home from work. In particular, the questions posed to Alito by Pat Leahy, including why on earth would he be part of a group that has a problem with minorities and women attending Princeton and his escapism on the torture/commander in chief issues. Let's be clear: we cannot have a Supreme Court justice on the bench who is extra deferential to the executive branch, especially during war. Alito does not seem like a man who gives pause to such questions. Expect a filibuster, and rightly so.

lowercase "no" to Alito

Is Alito fudging furiously? Probably. But it still doesn't give liberals much of a purchase to lead a battle against his nomination. Subtle arguments about the nature of stare decisis and the precise extent of the president's Article II powers just aren't going to get very many people ready to take to the streets with pitchforks. So what's the battle cry? (courtesy Kevin Drum, Washington Monthly)

No, stare decisis just isn't that catchy.

Operation capture and hood

So, this (tip: washingtonmonthly.com) is what we are doing in Iraq. Nice.

Graham revisted

From the WSJ Washington Wire (tip: thinkprogress.org):

"On Thursday, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of the "gang of 14" who sits on Judiciary, joined a so-called moot court session at the White House."

The article goes on to say this is a conflict of interest since Graham is now judging Alito and his qualifications to be a SCOTUS. Isn't this great?

No wonder why he was so sure of the ease to which Alito will coast through the hearings. Time to put this out in the open Senator Graham.

a tale of two statements

From what I've watched of the hearings this afternoon, two angles are developing. Those can be best summed up by the statements of Senators Russ Feingold and Lindsey Graham.

Feingold, who I think should run for the presidency, laid out the facts based upon the climate we are now immersed in. Mr. Alito, please answer the questions, you have a long record and we need to know how you feel today about Roe, executive power, civil rights etc. Your legal credentials are stellar, however will you be a pawn of the administration. Feingold conducts himself with such candor and humility he is bound for nominee land if this party is smart.

Graham on the other hand. I respect Lindsey Graham, he has been the face against torture and warrantless spying on the GOP side. This afternoon he reverted back to the old "the president won so he can put whomever he wants on the court" line of reasoning. He brought up the hearings for Ginsberg and said someday there will be a democratic president and they will have the right to nominate anyone they wish. He warned against a fillibuster. Mr Graham, the decisions that Mr. Alito will face if he is confirmed will affect millions of people, so we cannot just chalk his nomination up to political capital and say hands off.

Worth noting: Pat Buchanan on MSNBC thinks the Dems are united and may fillibuster Alito if he is not forthcoming in his answers. The paleorighty thinks this nomination will be an indictment of the Bush era, especially on the matter of executive powers during war.

I defer

Since Americanlogic is no pro on the Supreme Court and confirmation hearings, go here for the best live blogging on the Alito nomination.

www.scotusblog.com

And so it begins

The Alito hearings have begun.

Jesus and Sharon

Pat Robertson and his followers are not a minority, per andrew sullivan's site:

"It's also absurd to describe Robertson's views as somehow out of the mainstream of contemporary Christian fundamentalism, or Republicanism. His 700 Club reaches more people than most CNN shows and has more viewers."

The Mohammad of bloggers continues:

"Robertson is not alone in his beliefs about the looming end-times - indeed, the most vivid depiction of what current evangelicals believe, the "Left Behind" series, is the bestselling adult series of books in the whole country. In a recent installment, Jesus is an unrelenting future mass murderer of those who do not accept him."

Americanlogic wasn't shocked when he heard the comments of the holy roller Robertson. There is a sharp divide in this country. There is no middle any more. Only those who fear God and those who don't. How can we fight the Celiphate dreams of Al-Qaeda when we give credence to Robertson and Fallwell, fundamentalists here in America.

I'm trying to come to grips with Jesus, whom I don't believe was the son of God, as a mass murderer, exacting revenge on non believers. Quite possibly it was the nature at which he was killed, nailed to a wooden cross. I don't know, you'll have to ask Robertson and his crew.

Questions?

Observe the following cable divahead exchange:

"Democrats are going to have alot of tough questions for Sam Alito."

"They sure are aren't they?"

"Yes, cable divahead, those Democrats have such questions."

"I'm sure its just those Democrats who have questions on the only issue on the table, abortion."

enough

Americanlogic has a request. Please, all major newspaper websites must stop doing the "will Bush suddenly reverse course in 06" story. It is a cliched, overdone topic. Plus, they should know better.

Bush ran as a new breed of "compassionate conservative (aka centrist)" in 2000 against the center leftism of Gore. The media legitimized this phony label. They refused to take on the distortions of Bush's tax policy and general aptitude for the presidency. Of course, as we all know, once Bush became president all bets were off. First order of the day: massive tax cuts and social conservative engineering.

Bush ran in 2004 as the war candidate. Most americans cannot bring themself to vote against a president who is in the midst of running a war (even a premptive one) so the result was clear from the get go. Throw in a flawed but intelligent opponent who refused to fight back and presto, another term.

Americanlogic will become blue in the face if he has to continue to say this: Bush will not change, he will only make you believe he has. Any slight shift in his defiant tone will seem like a departure from his tired schtick. He will not start suddenly working with Democrats, he will not suddenly pull massive troops out of Iraq and disengage them from the growing civil war, he will not demand accountability from his cabinet and he will not suddenly realize he has limited powers under the Constitution.

Matthews, keep dreaming.

Alito: act one

Today begins the nomination hearings of Sam Alito, arch conservative. After the Miers debacle, Bush should be happy we have gotten this far with a nominee. Everything I have read on this man indicates him to be farther right than John Roberts, whom I supported (along with Russ Feingold) as chief justice. Without having heard him actually speak I have no idea if Alito will have the same knowledge of judicial law as Roberts. We shall see. Expect the Dems to come out swinging. And they should.

Executive power. This should be the most vital issue in american minds. Alito, believer in the "unitary" approach, which holds that the president holds some powers that are unchecked by the courts or congress, needs to quickly become humble when it comes to presidential power. Not convinced? This will help, from the WSJ:

"Although the Supreme Court has not always agreed, he said in his speech, 'I thought then, and I still think, that this theory best captures the meaning of the Constitution's text and structure."

Your welcome.

the lies keep coming

Americanlogic would suggest readers go here for a serious smackdown of my favorite right winger Michelle Malkin:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/06/bogus-legal-theory/

Once again, the right picks and chooses what parts of the law they like and find appropriate in regards to the kingdom of George W. Bush.

Prioritize this.

Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard budget expert Linda Bilmes plan to present this week a paper estimating the cost of the Iraq War at between $1-2 trillion. This is far higher than earlier estimates of $100-200 billion. (tip: http://www.thinkprogress.org/)

My bolding. For more of this depressing information go here:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/5/11510/30624

America has its priorities extremely out of whack. Let's hope the "mainstream media" is all over this story this coming week.

Vice President of Fear

Did you expect anything different? The gist of Cheney's comments to the Heritage Foundation yesterday:

If only we could have broke the law on September 10, 2001.

Yeah, right. 9/11 happened because this administration didn't connect the dots. It wasn't, as Richard Clarke pointed out last year, focused on terrorism. It had its eye on Iraq. It desired a neoconservative policy of intervention and democracy spreading.

Cheney is the most dangerous man in Washington right now. He envisions an executive unchecked, its powers limitless. He is a carryover from the paranoid Nixon years, lacking in the reasoned judgement needed in our political leaders. He supports torture for God's sake!

9/11 has moved from an event that inspires fear and dread into an event that is taking its place in history as a failure of government on all levels. When the text delves into this disaster, the ones in charge will be held responsible.

2006 - more of the same

Despite what you will read on other blogs, this coming year will not provide any comfort to Repubs or Dems. There will not be massive gains by the Dems and the GOP will not continue to flounder. Yes, Americanlogic readers (hello?) 2006 will resemble its previous year.

We will see the final nail in Rove's coffin as Chief of Staff as he will be indicted early in the year of being the nastiest and repulsive political operative in recent memory, however not for outing a CIA agent. Bush as usual, will not fire him, but wish him luck as a member of the DHS.

Baghdad Scott McClellan will remain as press sec. He will continue to sweat profusely and become red when asked a handful of probing questions about Iraq, spying and the overal state of the kingdom.

And the president, well Bush will continue to coast towards the end of his term. His numbers barely cracking 45% (his base), his "opposition" party will continue to chase their tails unable to get behind principled men like Murtha and Feingold, you know those "radicals."

Iraq? What about it.