"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast"
-Oscar Wilde
Brilliant at Breakfast title banner "The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself."
-- Proverbs 11:25
"...you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard, 1964 - 2007

"For straight up monster-stomping goodness, nothing makes smoke shoot out my ears like Brilliant@Breakfast" -- Tata

"...the best bleacher bum since Pete Axthelm" -- Randy K.

"I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum." -- "Rowdy" Roddy Piper (1954-2015), They Live
Saturday, February 24, 2007

Bush isn't the only one who doesn't spend that much time thinking about Osama Bin Laden
Posted by Jill | 2:50 PM
If you needed further proof that the Bush Administration and Osama Bin Laden are just one big happy family, here you go:

The Army's highest-ranking officer said Friday that he was unsure whether the U.S. military would capture or kill Osama bin Laden, adding, "I don't know that it's all that important, frankly."

"So we get him, and then what?" asked Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the outgoing Army chief of staff, at a Rotary Club of Fort Worth luncheon. "There's a temporary feeling of goodness, but in the long run, we may make him bigger than he is today.

"He's hiding, and he knows we're looking for him. We know he's not particularly effective. I'm not sure there's that great of a return" on capturing or killing bin Laden.


I think the families who lost loved ones in the September 11, 2001 attacks, might think differently.

There's something very, very wrong when the government is fighting terrorists by monitoring the e-mail and phone calls of American citizens, but doesn't think that getting the person who ordered the worst attack on American soil is that important. And it's even more wrong when there are still people who think this somehow makes sense.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

I'll believe Jeb isn't a candidate after the Republicans nominate someone else
Posted by Jill | 9:29 AM
With John McCain more unable by the day to navigate the line between supporting Bush's war and not alienating the very moderate Republicans who used to be his bread and butter, Rudy Giuliani's marital history ready to explode at any opportune moment, and the second tier just too trivial to even note, it's not unreasonable to think that the Republican Party may just have Jeb Bush up its sleeve, ready to bring him out as the Shining Warrior to Save the Party -- a sort of Christofascist Aragorn reluctantly accepting his Divine Destiny.

Eleanor Clift disagrees, but I think the reluctance she talks about it is just for show. My guess is that the plan is already in the works:

There’s one politician the Christian right could get excited about: John Ellis (Jeb) Bush. But he’s not running—surely in part because the Bush brand has been so badly tarnished by the Iraq misadventure. A handoff from brother George would have been easy—if only the president had stayed focused on finding Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan rather than rushing off to invade Iraq. But for his brother’s mess, Jeb would be a formidable candidate.

He’s still a likely contender at some point—maybe even as a vice presidential pick in ’08. He can raise money, he has a Mexican-born wife who could help with California, and he can deliver Florida. The restoration is premised on the Republican nominee needing the credibility with the religious right that Jeb could bring. The Bush family seems to be moving its chips to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Several of Jeb’s gubernatorial staffers have signed on with Romney, and Jeb’s sister, Doro Bush Koch, is cohosting a fund-raiser for him. Mom and Dad are reportedly telling friends he’s a fine man and the class act in the race. With front runner John McCain faltering and Rudy Giuliani an unlikely fit with Republican primary voters, Romney looks like the Bush Dynasty’s best bet.

Jeb’s ambition, his intellect and his tenacity have not dimmed. Combine these personal characteristics with his ability to raise money and you’ve got a potent political force, says S.V. Dáte, the Tallahassee bureau chief for the Palm Beach Post and author of “Jeb: America’s Next Bush.” The book is not particularly flattering. Dáte says Bush governed with the openness and transparency of the Politburo; that his tax cuts went to the top 4.7 percent of Floridians and that he created the lowest number of jobs of any governor since 1970. Despite that record, polls show a consistent high regard for him, especially among social conservatives who remember his tireless efforts to sustain Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged woman whose survival in a vegetative state—in the face of her husband’s efforts to end life supports because of the grim prognosis—became a cause célèbre for the religious right.


A strong Democratic candidate could turn Jeb Bush into Candidate More Of the Same; Candidate If You Liked Four Years Of George Wait Till You See This Guy; or Candidate Butt My Nose Into Your Family's Medical Decisions. But given the kind of mainstream media love-feast that we'd be likely to see during a Jeb Bush Candidacy (*cough* Chris Matthews *cough*), I'm not sure that even pointing out the obvious areas in which Jebbie would be a terrible choice, never mind his spouting of family values when he has not one but THREE children with arrest records, would suffice when put against this peculiar American drive to install a royal family here.

A more likely scenario, should Mitt Romney's sudden and miraculous conversions on all issues of importance to the Christofascist Zombie Brigade falter, would be a deal in which the Bush family supports John McCain, on the condition that he agree to step down after one term and make Jeb his logical successor in 2012. Assuming two Jeb Bush terms running until 2020, that would give the Bush family control of the United States (if you want to argue that George H.W. Bush ran the Administration for much of Reagan's second term) for at least thirty of the last 36 years by the time someone else assumed the office in January 2021. And after 36 years at the forefront of the Executive Branch, the Family would have undoubtedly fixed the system sufficiently that Jeb's son, George P. the Girlfriend Stalker Bush, would be the new Chief Executive as of January 2021.

Is that really what Americans want?

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

Obama continues to show -- and throw -- stones
Posted by Jill | 7:25 AM
I hate to fall in with one of the two "glamor candidates", but for a senator whose first term has been characterized by an excess of caution, Barack Obama is showing some surprising balls of late. First he refused to back down to the Clinton campaign's ridiculous demand that he return David Geffen's campaign contributions, and yesterday in Austin, Texas, not all that far from the Bush/Cheney backyard, he went after the Dark Lord himself:

In his 35-minute speech, Mr. Obama took sharp aim at the Bush administration, at one point ridiculing Vice President Dick Cheney for suggesting the decision by British Prime Minister Tony Blair to withdraw 1,600 troops form Iraq was a positive sign. He noted the U.S. is sending another 22,000 troops in.

"Now, keep in mind, this is the same guy that said we'd be greeted as liberators, the same guy that said that we're in the last throes. I'm sure he forecast sun today," he said amid the Austin rain. "When Dick Cheney says it's a good thing, you know that you've probably got some big problems."

A spokeswoman for Mr. Cheney said Friday that he had no comment.


Damn right Cheney had no comment. Not even a man who believes he can create his own reality can run from his own documented words.

Good for Obama. Every time he does this, he gains more support. Even if it ends up meaning that he and Clinton suck up all the oxygen (and money) and it becomes a 2-person race sooner than we'd like, the more he shows courage like this and it works, and the more Hillary Clinton has a snit fit, the better the prospect is to have a nominee who really does represent a change.

I'm not quite ready to sign on yet, but so far I like what I see.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

"All options" my ass
Posted by Jill | 7:11 AM
When Dick Cheney says that "all options are on the table", it means that he's already decided on war:

Vice President Dick Cheney on Saturday renewed Washington's warning to Iran that ''all options'' are on the table if the country continues to defy U.N.-led efforts to end Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

At a joint news conference with Prime Minister John Howard during a visit to Australia, Cheney also said Washington was ''comfortable'' with Britain's decision to withdraw troops from Iraq and that it was up to Australia to decide if it would do the same.

Cheney said the United States was ''deeply concerned'' about Iran's activities, including the ''aggressive'' sponsoring of terrorist group Hezbollah and inflammatory statements by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

He said top U.S. officials would meet soon with European allies to decide the next step toward planned tough sanctions against Iran if it continues enriching uranium.

''We worked with the European community and the United Nations to put together a set of policies to persuade the Iranians to give up their aspirations and resolve the matter peacefully, and that is still our preference,'' Cheney said.

''But I've also made the point, and the president has made the point, that all options are on the table,'' he said, leaving open the possibility of military action.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

Maybe it's because they've learned from Fox News not to regard Iraqis as human
Posted by Jill | 7:08 AM
Or maybe they're just morons:

Americans are keenly aware of how many U.S. forces have lost their lives in Iraq, according to a new AP-Ipsos poll. But they woefully underestimate the number of Iraqi civilians who have been killed.

When the poll was conducted earlier this month, a little more than 3,100 U.S. troops had been killed. The midpoint estimate among those polled was right on target, at about 3,000.

[snip]

The number of Iraqis killed, however, is much harder to pin down, and that uncertainty is perhaps reflected in Americans’ tendency to lowball the Iraqi death toll by tens of thousands.

Iraqi civilian deaths are estimated at more than 54,000 and could be much higher; some unofficial estimates range into the hundreds of thousands. The U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq reports more than 34,000 deaths in 2006 alone.

Among those polled for the AP survey, however, the median estimate of Iraqi deaths was 9,890. The median is the point at which half the estimates were higher and half lower.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share
Friday, February 23, 2007

Here ya go, trolls....here's some red meat for ya
Posted by Jill | 7:10 PM
Grab your knickers, cuz this is gonna put 'em in a twist:





(courtesy of Nicole at C&L)

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

How to know when you need to get out more
Posted by Jill | 6:41 PM
Bookmark and Share

Not even a Scots accent makes alcoholism funny
Posted by Jill | 8:35 AM
Props to Craig Ferguson, who already showed last Friday on Real Time with Bill Maher that he can be thoughtful and serious, and risked career suicide on Monday by using his monologue and his own history to call into question the whole cottage industry of making fun of troubled celebrities:





I've always liked Ferguson. Part of it is that I have a weakness for Scottish accents dating back to Ewan McGregor in Shallow Grave and Billy Connolly's standup days, talking about the airline pilot who's always named Nigel. There's a reason for Mike Myers' accent as Shrek, and that's because there's something about the speech cadences of Scotland that are just innately funny. Part of it is that he's kind of dashingly, craggily handsome, of course, but it seems I was on to something. Ferguson has taken a lot of crap for his show, for unknown reasons, since he was, after all, replacing the Jackass Known As Craig Kilborn. But this is a truly extraordinary monologue. Note how the audience continues to laugh like Pavlov's dogs at the mere mention of Britney Spears' name, until they realize what Ferguson is doing -- and then he proceeds to leaven the seriousness by poking fun at not Spears', but his own alcoholism.

Ferguson deserves all the applause and all the cards and letters to the CBS brass that we can write. Because this was a brave, fearless, and unforgettable piece of work.

UPDATE: Apparently choosing NOT to make fun of a celebrity is a Very Big Deal.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

What constitutes religious persecution?
Posted by Jill | 7:13 AM
Via BlueGal and The Vanity Press comes this article at Frameshop indicating a growing tendency of Christians to believe that they are victims of discrimination.

The President of the United States professes to be a Christian. So do most of the people around him. Joe Lieberman isn't a Christian, but he's every bit as much a God-thumper as those who are.

78% OF Americans are Christians.

So on what fucking planet are they the victims of discrimination? I haven't heard of anyone being unable to get a job, or an apartment, or a mortgage, or get married, because they are Christian. So where the hell is the discrimination? Or does "discrimination" mean "Unable to shove my beliefs down everyone else's throat"?

And therein lies the fundamental (heh) problem with Christianity, especially, well, the fundamentalist variety: because an integral part of the faith is "spreading the Word" (read: proseletyzing and conversion, by force if necessary), those who believe it is incumbent on them to turn everyone else into Christians are going to feel discriminated against when they, for example, are teachers not allowed to tell their students that they belong in hell if they don't believe in Jesus and that the Bible has disproven science. They're going to feel discriminated against when they aren't allowed to proseletyze their co-workers and friends and the person in front of them in the checkout line at the supermarket.

But does that mean real discrimination?

When we look at groups that HAVE been victims of discrimination -- women who were unable to vote until 1920; black Americans who weren't allowed to vote, weren't allowed to attend white schools, weren't allowed to eat at white-owned restaurants in the south and for much of American history weren't even regarded as fully human; gay Americans who may be denied jobs, housing, and the same rights of connection as other Americans; it's hard to look at Christians not being able to bring back the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Hunts, and other stellar examples of Christian Love throught the history of Western civiliation, and see how the hell they are victims of discrimination.

If they really want to feel victimized and discriminated against, perhaps they ought to convert to Wicca.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

Here we go again
Posted by Jill | 7:08 AM
It takes a breathtaking amount of chutzpah to work from the same playbook as with Iraq in trying to gin up reasons to attack Iran....but that's exactly what the Bush Administration is doing:

Much of the intelligence on Iran's nuclear facilities provided to UN inspectors by US spy agencies has turned out to be unfounded, diplomatic sources in Vienna said today.
The claims, reminiscent of the intelligence fiasco surrounding the Iraq war, coincided with a sharp increase in international tension as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran was defying a UN security council ultimatum to freeze its nuclear programme.

That report, delivered to the security council by the IAEA director general, Mohammed ElBaradei, sets the stage for a fierce international debate on the imposition of stricter sanctions on Iran and raises the possibility that the US could resort to military action against Iranian nuclear sites.

At the heart of the debate are accusations - spearheaded by the US - that Iran is secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons.
However, most of the tip-offs about supposed secret weapons sites provided by the CIA and other US intelligence agencies have led to dead ends when investigated by IAEA inspectors, according to informed sources in Vienna.

"Most of it has turned out to be incorrect," a diplomat at the IAEA with detailed knowledge of the agency's investigations said.

"They gave us a paper with a list of sites. [The inspectors] did some follow-up, they went to some military sites, but there was no sign of [banned nuclear] activities.


But who cares if it's true -- what's important is that George Bush BELIEVES it to be true, and as Ron Suskind told us in 2004, when you're an empire, you create your own reality.

(hat tip: Cernig)

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

I wonder if when Bush said "When the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down", he was referring to penises
Posted by Jill | 6:41 AM
It sure seems that way, now that a second Sunni woman has come forward alleging rape by Iraqi security forces:

An Iraqi police official in the northwestern city of Tall Afar said Thursday that a military officer and three soldiers had admitted to raping a Sunni woman and recording the act with a cellphone camera.

The four soldiers told an investigative committee convened by the Iraqi army that they sexually assaulted the woman nearly two weeks ago, according to Gen. Najem Abdullah, a police spokesman in Tall Afar.

The soldiers' statement follows another Sunni woman's assertion this week that she had been raped in Baghdad by members of Iraq's predominantly Shiite security forces. Iraq's Kurdish president and its Sunni vice president said Thursday that a judge should investigate her case, which the Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has dismissed as groundless.

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said in a statement that the courts were "the only legitimate place to examine such allegations" and that the government should avoid steps that would "inflame sensitivities and create mistrust."

Talabani's stance, echoed by Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, is sharply at odds with Maliki's insistence that the 20-year-old Baghdad woman who contends three Iraqi policemen raped her Sunday is a criminal who fabricated the story to exacerbate sectarian tension and undermine a U.S. and Iraqi security plan to pacify the capital.


Nouri al-Maliki is the guy that the Bush Administration has been holding up as the leader as a new, free Iraq. I guess that freedom only applies to men, because it sure looks like al-Maliki's policy towards women who are raped by the Iraq military is to not just attack their credibility, but call THEM criminals. I wonder how the 3150 young Americans who have died in Iraq and the tens of thousands of others who left limbs or their sanity there would react to the idea that they gave their lives and limbs to make Iraq safe for rapists.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

Astrologically evaluating Al Franken's chances
Posted by Jill | 6:34 AM
Regardless of what you think of astrology in general, Lynn's readings of public figures are generally spot-on. Today she takes on Al Franken and discusses the traits that will make him a viable Senate candidate -- and the ones that could stand in his way.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Friday Cat Blogging
Posted by Jill | 6:22 AM
Because what a man and his cat do in the privacy of their own home is their own business:





Somewhere in Pennsylvania or Virginia, Rick Santorum is breathing heavily.

(hat tip: Paul the Spud)

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

Thomas Friedman is still an idiot
Posted by Jill | 5:57 AM
It galls me that there are hundreds of thousands of bloggers toiling away every day because they NEED to, because without writing they'll go mad -- and Thomas Friedman is paid a six-figure salary to write nonsense like this:

The irony of Iraq is that it’s the one place where Mr. Bush decisively chose regime change, but he then executed it so poorly, with insufficient troops, that Iraq never stood a chance. If Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney had spent as much time plotting the toppling of Saddam Hussein as they did the toppling of Colin Powell, Iraq today would be Switzerland. Today’s Bush troop surge in Iraq is just another mulligan — the president’s trying to do in 2007 what he should have done in 2003. In between, we’ve paid a huge price.


Does he truly believe, when he looks at the sectarian violence going on in Iraq, that more troops would have turned Iraq into Switzerland? Why on earth does anyone still take seriously anything he has to say?

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Thursday, February 22, 2007

To Connecticut Voters (Except AHA and Melina): Are you happy now?
Posted by Jill | 9:06 PM
Joe Lieberman really, really, really wants the war in Iraq to go on forever -- using someone else's children. He's vowing to jump ship if the Democrats vote to stop funding the war:

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut told the Politico on Thursday that he has no immediate plans to switch parties but suggested that Democratic opposition to funding the war in Iraq might change his mind.

Lieberman, a self-styled independent who caucuses with the Democrats, has been among the strongest supporters of the war and President Bush’s plan to send an additional 21,500 combat troops into Iraq to help quell the violence there.

"I have no desire to change parties," Lieberman said in a telephone interview. "If that ever happens, it is because I feel the majority of Democrats have gone in a direction that I don't feel comfortable with."

Asked whether that hasn't already happened with Iraq, Lieberman said: "We will see how that plays out in the coming months," specifically how the party approaches the issue of continued funding for the war.

He suggested, however, that the forthcoming showdown over new funding could be a deciding factor that would lure him to the Republican Party.


Connecticut voters thought they were getting a Democrat, but they weren't. Harry Reid thought he was being collegial with his old Senate DEMOCRATIC buddy. He wasn't, he was being played for a fool -- as was everyone who voted for this nasty, selfish, venal man.

Frankly, the one thing that makes Al Gore still questionable as a potential future presidential candidate is what kind of awful judgment made him pick this guy to be his running mate in 2000.

But it looks like the Democrats are going to risk control of the Senate by calling Lieberman's bluff:

Determined to challenge President Bush, Senate Democrats are drafting legislation to limit the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq, effectively revoking the broad authority Congress granted in 2002, officials said Thursday.

While these officials said the precise wording of the measure remains unsettled, one draft would restrict American troops in Iraq to combating al-Qaida, training Iraqi army and police forces, maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity, and otherwise proceeding with the withdrawal of combat forces.

The officials, Democratic aides and others familiar with private discussions, spoke only on condition of anonymity, saying rank-and-file senators had not yet been briefed on the effort. They added, though, that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is expected to present the proposal to fellow Democrats early next week for their consideration.


Frankly, I think they should go ahead. Doing what's right is more important than even control of the Senate. It is the height of arrogance and hubris for Joe Lieberman to think he can hold the Senate hostage. Let him jump ship. Let Connecticut voters see what they've done (except AHA and Melina, of course, both of whom did work for Ned Lamont). Let the Republicans preside over this disastrous war for another two years. Let them have to live with this decision. It isn't like enough Republicans were going to put country over party and their own selfish interests enough to impeach this bunch of criminals anyway.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

Most. Offensive. Opinion. Column. Ever.
Posted by Jill | 8:31 AM
In case you missed it elsewhere:

Michael Medved, a repulsive, mean little man who prides himself on his piety, but is every bit as much a repulsive piece of feces you'd want to wipe off your shoe as Bill Donohue, James Dobson, and the other Religious Cops of the Right:

There is no rational basis for discomfort at playing with athletes of another race since science and experience show that human racial differences remain insignificant. The much better analogy for discomfort at gay teammates involves the widespread (and generally accepted) idea that women and men shouldn’t share locker rooms. Making gay males unwelcome in the intimate circumstances of an NBA team makes just as much sense as making straight males unwelcome in the showers for a women’s team at the WNBA. Most female athletes would prefer not to shower together with men not because they hate males (though some of them no doubt do), but because they hope to avoid the tension, distraction and complication that prove inevitable when issues of sexual attraction (and even arousal) intrude into the arena of competitive sports.

Tim Hardaway (and most of his former NBA teammates) wouldn’t welcome openly gay players into the locker room any more than they’d welcome profoundly unattractive, morbidly obese women. I specify unattractive females because if a young lady is attractive (or, even better, downright “hot”) most guys, very much including the notorious love machines of the National Basketball Association, would probably welcome her joining their showers. The ill-favored, grossly overweight female is the right counterpart to a gay male because, like the homosexual, she causes discomfort due to the fact that attraction can only operate in one direction. She might well feel drawn to the straight guys with whom she’s grouped, while they feel downright repulsed at the very idea of sex with her.


Nice. It isn't everyone who manages to be both homophobic AND misogynistic in the same column. But this actually tells you far more about Michael Medved than it does about even Tim Hardaway.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share

An investor evaluates the CEO presidency
Posted by Jill | 7:23 AM
Warren Hellman is chairman of Hellman and Friedman, LLC, a private equity investment company. In Salon today, he evaluates this president who said he'd run the country like a business:


When advising a board on how to evaluate a CEO, I tell them to review his or her performance in the following areas: implementing the company's fiscal and monetary policies, developing and successfully executing strategic plans, seeing that well-qualified personnel and managers are appointed, ensuring stability and long-range success, and respecting and protecting the charter and bylaws of the institution. How is President Bush doing on each of those counts?

Fiscal Responsibility
George W. Bush took over as CEO of USA Inc. when the country was running substantial surpluses, rapidly paying off its debt, and moving toward a future with a balanced budget. Forecasts predicted the country would continue to grow and be debt free in the near future. Bush took charge, and the opposite occurred: the country is running record deficits; debt service is skyrocketing. Bush's most recent economic forecast (arguably optimistic) predicts a balanced budget by 2012 (contingent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan not costing the United States a dime after 2009), which is, ironically, when he will no longer be in office. The trade deficit with USA Inc.'s No. 1 competitor, China, is increasing. Interestingly, a characteristic of many failing CEOs when losses are mounting is to hide or obfuscate the real deficits. This president, in addition to incurring massive deficits, has managed to hide the magnitude of the losses by special (otherwise known as "off balance sheet") allocations of billions of dollars that do not appear in the annual budget.

Strategic Decisions
The most important strategic decision made by CEO Bush was to minimize the importance of stabilizing Afghanistan, while at the same time choosing to invade Iraq. Those choices turned out to be a perfect example of the adage "fire, aim, ready!" and have led USA Inc. into unmitigated disaster. Not only were those decisions based on faulty intelligence, but Bush also had no business plan for his new endeavor, failing to take into account what the war would cost in lives and treasure, or what it would cost this country in its diplomatic relationships with the rest of the world. He cherry-picked intelligence, like a CEO cooking the books in order to get board support for his agenda. In other words, he was ready to reject any evidence that did not support the decision to invade.

Execution of Strategic Decisions
How well did our CEO execute his decision to invade Iraq? He didn't send enough troops; he didn't equip them well; he had no plan to win the peace; and he didn't do enough research to understand just how deep the division between the various sectarian groups was. This has resulted in a war that our CEO finally admits is not going well at all. Bush has left USA Inc. with no good options as to how to fix the problem. If USA Inc. were a corporation, an effective board would almost certainly not choose to ask the executive who got the company into such dangerous trouble to be the one extricate it; the board would find a new CEO.

Personnel Choices
Excellent chief executives make excellent personnel choices; they are willing to admit mistakes and replace the occasional bad personnel choice with alacrity. This has not been the case with our chief executive.

[snip]

Bush has relied on an inner circle of like-minded cronies who have persistently belittled and then eliminated critics. For the most part, he has chosen close advisors based on loyalty and similar ideology rather than competence, experience or expertise.

[snip]

Adherence to the Institution's Charter and Bylaws
This CEO has allowed his ideology to subvert the charter and bylaws this country was built on, namely the Constitution. Americans used to believe their personal papers and privacy were protected; now the government can sneak into your home secretly, steal your papers, bug your computer, read your e-mails without ever requiring a warrant or any judicial oversight. Americans used to believe there was separation of church and state; under this administration millions of tax dollars have been diverted to church-related groups; government policies are made based on personal religious beliefs rather than the needs of the people. Stem cell research is a fine example. America is falling behind its competitors: Some of the best stem cell research and other scientific advancements are now happening in Europe and Asia rather than this country.

In addition, one telltale trait of a failing CEO is that he and those who remain loyal try to silence their critics by arguing that criticism only undermines the morale of the people trying to solve the problem -- usually meaning the CEO and his management team -- and potentially emboldens the company's enemies. This sort of complaint has become a hallmark of the Bush administration.

If Bush were the chief executive of a company, he would in all likelihood be given a good pension and quickly replaced. However, this is not the situation with the president. Although Congress does have the power to impeach him for "high crimes and misdemeanors," such a step is enormously time-consuming, requiring many hours of congressional investigations and hearings, and politically divisive. While I personally think it is possible that the president's misdeeds, especially having to do with Iraq, might well rise to the level of wrongdoing that the framers imagined when they provided for impeachment in the Constitution, at this point, leading Democrats like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have rejected the impeachment option.

But Congress doesn't have to sit by and do nothing, short of impeachment. When a company is going in the wrong direction, the board of directors has the responsibility to do everything possible to change course and move forward with better direction. Congress, the closest thing we have to a board of directors, has the constitutional responsibility to be a coequal branch of the government and be a check on both the executive and the judiciary. For the past six years, Congress has abandoned that role. (If it were a corporate board of directors, there might well be shareholder lawsuits over how it has neglected its oversight responsibilities.) But now, with new majorities in both houses, it is time for Congress to return to its rightful role, which is carefully scrutinizing Bush's plans, proposals and policies. Congress has to be willing to stand up to our CEO and to reject his ideas when they believe they are wrong. Congress has to evaluate his personnel choices from a much more objective standpoint. Congress members have to behave like the elected representatives of the American people that they are.




Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Enough with the bimbo dead pools already
Posted by Jill | 5:59 AM
As much as we here at B@B are Keith Olbermann's biggest non-stalkerish fans, I really think it's time to shitcan the "Keeping Tabs" section of Countdown. There may have been a time when celebrity foibles, punctuated by Michael Musto's snark, was a fun break from the horrors of Life in the Bush Years, but that time is now past.

This week Patrick Fitzgerald cast a very strong shadow over a Vice President who wasn't on trial -- yet. That Vice President is going around talking up the war as if it were still 2002. The British are throwing in the towel on Iraq, al-Qaeda is regrouping in Pakistan and Afghanistan, wounded American soldiers are getting shitty care at Walter Reed at the same time as Bush's budget cuts funding for veterans' medical benefits -- and the Bush Administration is pointing the "Not me, him" finger. And then of course there's the Administration's preparations for attacking Iran.

Yet if you watch television news or worse, listen to news radio, there just story getting attention: the public meltdown of Britney Spears. let's not even get into how disgusting it is that with one melted-down bimbo's corpse rotting into putrefaction in a Florida morgue while a showboating judge auditions for his own reality show, the media deathwatch moves on to another one, salivating at the thought that this one too might end up dead. But with a failed presidency, led by two highly delusional and evil men, planning an expanded Middle East war, there is just too much real news; too much Americans have an OBLIGATION to know, to continue feeding this absurd maw of celebrity obsession.

Bob Herbert agrees:

I imagine that there are a fair number of television viewers and newspaper readers who have trouble distinguishing the relative importance of celebrity stories, like the death of Anna Nicole Smith, from other matters in the news, like the reconstitution of forces responsible for the devastating Sept. 11 attacks.

If air time is any guide, there’s no contest. It’s been obvious for the longest time that the line between news and entertainment has vanished. News is entertainment. And the death of Anna Nicole Smith is more entertaining — for the time being, at least — than the war in Iraq or the plodding machinations of bin Laden and Zawahri.

Paris Hilton and Britney Spears were on the cover of Newsweek last week with the headline “The Girls Gone Wild Effect.” When you turned to the story, there was a full-page picture of the former best friends, with a glassy-eyed Britney looking for all the world like a younger version of Anna Nicole Smith.

The lead-in to the article said in large type: “Paris, Britney, Lindsay and Nicole — They seem to be everywhere and they may not be wearing underwear.”

The nation may be at war, and Al Qaeda may be gearing up for a rematch. But that’s no fun, not when Britney is shaving off her hair and Jennifer Aniston is reported to have a new nose and the thrill-a-minute watch over Anna Nicole’s remains is still the hottest thing on TV.

It was Neil Postman who warned in 1985 that we were amusing ourselves to death. I’m not sure anyone knew how literally to take him.

More than 20 years later, the masses have nearly succeeded in drawing the curtains on anything that’s not entertaining. No one can figure out what do about Iraq or Al Qaeda. A great American cultural center like New Orleans was all but washed away, and no one knows how to put it back together. The ice caps are melting and Al Gore is traveling the land like the town crier, raising the alarm about global warming.

But none of that has really gotten the public’s attention. None of it is amusing enough. As a nation of spectators, we seem content to sit with a pizza and a brew in front of the high-def flat-screen TV, obsessing over Anna Nicole et al., and giving no thought to the possibility that the calamitous events unfolding in the world may someday reach our doorsteps.


The problem is that when it does (probably around the time of the 2008 election), the same people devouring the latest news about Britney, Paris, or Lindsay will be perfectly willing to accept the martial law for which the Bush Administration is preparing already on the grounds that it's necessary "to keep us safe."

And somehow the fact that they were too busy devouring the latest about Anna Nicole's baby or Britney's alcoholism to pay attention to the fact that their leaders are not only not keeping them safe but actively doing what they can to make sure another attack on our shores DOES happen will escape them.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Blunder nothing...they know damn well what they're doing
Posted by Jill | 7:12 AM
Dan Plesch in The New Statesman believes (correctly, I think) that an attack on Iran is not only certain, but also imminent:

American military operations for a major conventional war with Iran could be implemented any day. They extend far beyond targeting suspect WMD facilities and will enable President Bush to destroy Iran's military, political and economic infrastructure overnight using conventional weapons.

British military sources told the New Statesman, on condition of anonymity, that "the US military switched its whole focus to Iran" as soon as Saddam Hussein was kicked out of Baghdad. It continued this strategy, even though it had American infantry bogged down in fighting the insurgency in Iraq.

The US army, navy, air force and marines have all prepared battle plans and spent four years building bases and training for "Operation Iranian Freedom". Admiral Fallon, the new head of US Central Command, has inherited computerised plans under the name TIRANNT (Theatre Iran Near Term).


Now THAT's some stones, isn't it? Giving the Iranian "mission" the same name was the original Iraq mission? Yeesh.

More:

The Bush administration has made much of sending a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf. But it is a tiny part of the preparations. Post 9/11, the US navy can put six carriers into battle at a month's notice. Two carriers in the region, the USS John C Stennis and the USS Dwight D Eisenhower, could quickly be joined by three more now at sea: USS Ronald Reagan, USS Harry S Truman and USS Theodore Roosevelt, as well as by USS Nimitz. Each carrier force includes hundreds of cruise missiles.

Then there are the marines, who are not tied down fighting in Iraq. Several marine forces are assembling, each with its own aircraft carrier. These carrier forces can each conduct a version of the D-Day landings. They come with landing craft, tanks, jump-jets, thousands of troops and, yes, hundreds more cruise missiles. Their task is to destroy Iranian forces able to attack oil tankers and to secure oilfields and installations. They have trained for this mission since the Iranian revolution of 1979.

Today, marines have the USS Boxer and USS Bataan carrier forces in the Gulf and probably also the USS Kearsarge and USS Bonhomme Richard. Three others, the USS Peleliu, USS Wasp and USS Iwo Jima, are ready to join them. Earlier this year, HQ staff to manage these forces were moved from Virginia to Bahrain.

[snip]

Any US general planning to attack Iran can now assume that at least 10,000 targets can be hit in a single raid, with warplanes flying from the US or Diego Garcia. In the past year, unlimited funding for military technology has taken "smart bombs" to a new level.

New "bunker-busting" conventional bombs weigh only 250lb. According to Boeing, the GBU-39 small-diameter bomb "quadruples" the firepower of US warplanes, compared to those in use even as recently as 2003. A single stealth or B-52 bomber can now attack between 150 and 300 individual points to within a metre of accuracy using the global positioning system.

With little military effort, the US air force can hit the last-known position of Iranian military units, political leaders and supposed sites of weapons of mass destruction. One can be sure that, if war comes, George Bush will not want to stand accused of using too little force and allowing Iran to fight back.


But hey, Britney Spears shaved her head and is in rehab! What's the news that the President of the United States is about to be the first to use nuclear weapons since Hiroshima as compared to the news that some pop music skank is having a meltdown? After all, Anna Nicole Smith is dead. So are over 3000 American kids and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, but again -- we Americans know our priorities

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share

While wounded soldiers languish in mouse-infested VA clinics....
Posted by Jill | 5:49 AM
...the Crawford Caligula presents a budget that contains $32.7 BILLION -- that's BILLION, folks -- in tax cuts for the Walton heirs ALONE, in the form of complete elimination of the estate tax.

The link to this article by Matt Taibbi comes to us courtesy of the definitely brilliant Cernig:

On the same day that Britney was shaving her head, a guy I know who works in the office of Senator Bernie Sanders sent me an email. He was trying very hard to get news organizations interested in some research his office had done about George Bush's proposed 2008 budget, which was unveiled two weeks ago and received relatively little press, mainly because of the controversy over the Iraq war resolution. All the same, the Bush budget is an amazing document. It would be hard to imagine a document that more clearly articulates the priorities of our current political elite.

Not only does it make many of Bush's tax cuts permanent, but it envisions a complete repeal of the Estate Tax, which mainly affects only those who are in the top two-tenths of the top one percent of the richest people in this country. The proposed savings from the cuts over the next decade are about $442 billion, or just slightly less than the amount of the annual defense budget (minus Iraq war expenses). But what's interesting about these cuts are how Bush plans to pay for them.

Sanders's office came up with some interesting numbers here. If the Estate Tax were to be repealed completely, the estimated savings to just one family -- the Walton family, the heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune -- would be about $32.7 billion dollars over the next ten years.

The proposed reductions to Medicaid over the same time frame? $28 billion.

Or how about this: if the Estate Tax goes, the heirs to the Mars candy corporation -- some of the world's evilest scumbags, incidentally, routinely ripped by human rights organizations for trafficking in child labor to work cocoa farms in places like Cote D'Ivoire -- if the estate tax goes, those assholes will receive about $11.7 billion in tax breaks. That's more than three times the amount Bush wants to cut from the VA budget ($3.4 billion) over the same time period.

Some other notable estimate estate tax breaks, versus corresponding cuts:

  • Cox family (Cox cable TV) receives $9.7 billion tax break while education would get $1.5 billion in cuts
  • Nordstrom family (Nordstrom dept. stores) receives $826.5 million tax break while Community Service Block Grants would be eliminated, a $630 million cut
  • Ernest Gallo family (shitty wines) receives a $468.4 million cut while LIHEAP (heating oil to poor) would get a $420 million cut

And so on and so on. Sanders additionally pointed out that the family of former Exxon/Mobil CEO Lee Raymond, who received a $400 million retirement package, would receive about $164 million in tax breaks.

Compare that to the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which Bush proposes be completely eliminated, at a savings of $108 million over ten years. The program sent one bag of groceries per month to 480,000 seniors, mothers and newborn children.


Now I know that there are people who have been caught up in a Kafkaesque mess as a result of the estate tax. Our own resident wingnut troll, Barry, has posted at his own blog about someone he knows who ended up with a taxable estate because of the value of a house she inherited that was also unsaleable for various reasons. So the woman was stuck with five figures in estate taxes that she was unable to pay because the inheritance that she needed to pay the taxes was in the form of a house she couldn't sell. But it seems to me that a situation like that one, where there is an illiquid inherited asset that is not easily converted to a liquid one for tax purposes, could be dealt with in estate tax law, rather than eliminating the tax entirely so that Lee Raymond's family pays $164 million less in taxes.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, February 20, 2007

This is what our policy in Iraq hath wrought
Posted by Jill | 7:39 PM
Riverbend:

As I write this, Oprah is on Channel 4 (one of the MBC channels we get on Nilesat), showing Americans how to get out of debt. Her guest speaker is telling a studio full of American women who seem to have over-shopped that they could probably do with fewer designer products. As they talk about increasing incomes and fortunes, Sabrine Al-Janabi, a young Iraqi woman, is on Al Jazeera telling how Iraqi security forces abducted her from her home and raped her. You can only see her eyes, her voice is hoarse and it keeps breaking as she speaks. In the end she tells the reporter that she can’t talk about it anymore and she covers her eyes with shame.

She might just be the bravest Iraqi woman ever. Everyone knows American forces and Iraqi security forces are raping women (and men), but this is possibly the first woman who publicly comes out and tells about it using her actual name. Hearing her tell her story physically makes my heart ache. Some people will call her a liar. Others (including pro-war Iraqis) will call her a prostitute- shame on you in advance.

I wonder what excuse they used when they took her. It’s most likely she’s one of the thousands of people they round up under the general headline of ‘terrorist suspect’. She might have been one of those subtitles you read on CNN or BBC or Arabiya, “13 insurgents captured by Iraqi security forces.” The men who raped her are those same security forces Bush and Condi are so proud of- you know- the ones the Americans trained. It’s a chapter right out of the book that documents American occupation in Iraq: the chapter that will tell the story of 14-year-old Abeer who was raped, killed and burned with her little sister and parents.

They abducted her from her house in an area in southern Baghdad called Hai Al Amil. No- it wasn’t a gang. It was Iraqi peace keeping or security forces- the ones trained by Americans? You know them. She was brutally gang-raped and is now telling the story. Half her face is covered for security reasons or reasons of privacy. I translated what she said below.


You'll have to read the rest of it here, because I want you to see the images from Iraqi television.

But it gets worse. George W. Bush's OTHER BFF, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is now claiming that Sabrine Al Janabi is lying. How does he know? Because he asked the officers and they said no.

Almost immediately, Shiite leaders lined up to condemn the woman and her charges as propaganda aimed at undermining the new security campaign. Sunni politicians offered the woman their support. Whatever the truth of the accusation, though, it played to sectarian fears on both sides.

For many Shiites, the charges appeared to be an attempt to smear them and attack the Shiite-led government; for Sunnis, the woman’s account only highlighted what they already believe to be true — that the Iraqi government cares little for justice and promotes a Shiite agenda.

Bitter exchanges between politicians of different sects were relayed to millions on television, interspersed with clips of the woman telling her story, her face veiled, just the tears in her eyes visible.

The Americans, who have advisers that work with the Iraqi National Police, found themselves caught in the middle and with no answers. The woman claimed that the Americans rescued her from the officers and gave her medical treatment. The American-backed, Shiite-led government said the Americans would show the woman’s claims to be false.

The American military said only that they were investigating the charges.

That was also the first response of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, who issued a statement soon after the woman appeared on television on Monday, promising a full investigation and the most severe punishment for anyone involved.

Only hours later, however, Mr. Maliki reversed himself. His office released a second statement after midnight local time on Tuesday, this one calling the woman a liar and a wanted criminal and going on to praise the officers involved.

“It has been shown after medical examinations that the woman had not been subjected to any sexual attack whatsoever, and that there are three outstanding arrest warrants against her issued by security agencies,” the second statement said. “After the allegations have been proven to be false, the prime minister has ordered that the officers accused be rewarded.”


And THIS is the government we're supposed to support? Remember all the rhetoric about Saddam Hussein's rape rooms? And this is different -- how?

Riverbend again:

I hate the media and I hate the Iraqi government for turning this atrocity into another Sunni-Shia debacle- like it matters whether Sabrine is Sunni or Shia or Arab or Kurd (the Al Janabi tribe is composed of both Sunnis and Shia). Maliki did not only turn the woman into a liar, he is rewarding the officers she accused. It's outrageous and maddening.

No Iraqi woman under the circumstances- under any circumstances- would publicly, falsely claim she was raped. There are just too many risks. There is the risk of being shunned socially. There is the risk of beginning an endless chain of retaliations and revenge killings between tribes. There is the shame of coming out publicly and talking about a subject so taboo, she and her husband are not only risking their reputations by telling this story, they are risking their lives.

No one would lie about something like this simply to undermine the Baghdad security operation. That can be done simply by calculating the dozens of dead this last week. Or by writing about the mass detentions of innocents, or how people are once again burying their valuables so that Iraqi and American troops don't steal them.

It was less than 14 hours between Sabrine's claims and Maliki's rewarding the people she accused. In 14 hours, Maliki not only established their innocence, but turned them into his own personal heroes. I wonder if Maliki would entrust the safety his own wife and daughter to these men.

This is meant to discourage other prisoners, especially women, from coming forward and making claims against Iraqi and American forces. Maliki is the stupidest man alive (well, after Bush of course…) if he believes his arrogance and callous handling of the situation will work to dismiss it from the minds of Iraqis. By doing what he is doing, he's making it more clear than ever that under his rule, under his government, vigilante justice is the only way to go. Why leave it to the security forces and police? Simply hire a militia or gang to get revenge. If he doesn't get some justice for her, her tribe will be forced to... And the Janabat (the Al Janabis) are a force to be reckoned with.

Maliki could at least pretend the rape of a young Iraqi woman is still an outrage in todays Iraq...


This so-called Iraqi government is every bit as distasteful as the one we have here. And why shouldn't it be? It is an evil administration, installed by an evil American administration. George W. Bush has created an Iraqi government in his own image. And this is why 3000-plus American kids have died? So that Sabrine Al Janabi could be gang-raped and then be called a liar by the Prime Minister of her own country?

There was a time when

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

Tony Blair gives up on his BFF
Posted by Jill | 7:35 PM
Britain has had quite enough of Iraq, thank you very much:

Prime Minister Tony Blair will announce on Wednesday a new timetable for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, with 1,500 to return home in several weeks, the BBC reported.

Blair will also tell the House of Commons during his regular weekly appearance that a total of about 3,000 British soldiers will have left southern Iraq by the end of 2007, if the security there is sufficient, the British Broadcasting Corp. said, quoting government officials who weren't further identified.

The announcement comes even as President Bush implements an increase of 21,000 more troops for Iraq.

But Blair said Sunday that Washington had not put pressure on London to maintain its troop numbers. The BBC said Blair was not expected to say when the rest of Britain's forces would leave Iraq. Britain currently has about 7,100 soldiers there.

Blair's Downing Street office refused to comment on the BBC report.

Blair and Bush talked by secure video link Tuesday morning, and Bush said Britain's troop cutbacks were "a sign of success" in Iraq.


Uh....then why are we sending more?

Again, I ask you: Moron, delusional, or both?

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

"the people who will plan the next attack inside the United States are those who are in Afghanistan and Pakistan"
Posted by Jill | 7:27 AM
Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit, on Countdown last night:

We've always overestimated the damage we did to the Taliban in Afghanistan. We didn't close the borders there, we won the cities, but the Taliban and al-Qaeda escaped basically intact, and they've been rebuilding and re-equipping over the last five years...

This is a very strange administration, sir. But we really don't take the transnational threat seriously, the terrorist threat. We're pretty good at nation-states, but on al-Qaeda, we still have a government that as a whole, both parties, doesn't take this threat very seriously. The idea that we're going to try to do with 40,000 troops in Afghanistan what the Soviets couldn't do with 150,000 troops is a bit of madness...

The central place in terms of an attack inside the United States is Afghanistan and Pakistan. When the next attack occurs in America, it will be planned and orchestrated out of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Al-Qaeda values Iraq primarily for the entre it gives them into Jordan, into Syria, into the Arab Peninsula and into Turkey. For example, we've really signed Jordan's death warrant through the war in Iraq. But actually, the people who will plan the next attack inside the United States are those who are in Afghanistan and Pakistan...

This administration, sir, seems to be afraid of almost anything that moves. And certain Iraq was a containable country. The Iranians are no threat to the United States unless we provoke them. They may be a threat to the Israelis, they're not a threat to the United States. The threat to the US inside the US comes from al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan and Pakistan, if you want to address the threat to America, that's where it is....

...we don't treat this Islamist enemy as seriously as we should. We think somehow we're going to arrest them one man at a time. These people are going to detonate a nuclear device inside the United States and we're going to have absolutely nothing to respond against. It's going to be a unique situation for a great power, and we're going to have no one to blame but ourselves.


So when the next attack in the U.S. occurs (and somehow I think it's going to happen right before the 2008 election, to either give the Bush Junta an opportunity to declare martial law and refuse to leave, or else give Benito Giuliani a chance to be elected, because we KNOW that HE's perfectly willing to cancel elections), I hope Americans will think back on how George W. Bush almost completely abandoned the effort to fight al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, because instead of going to counseling for his father issues like normal people, he had to invade a country that was no threat to us, had nothing to do with September 11, and certainly had nothing to do with al-Qaeda.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

Only Christians need apply for God's Anointed Army
Posted by Jill | 7:00 AM
On the other hand, if there's ever a draft, we can probably expect to see a mass conversion to Wicca on the part of young men of draft age after what's happened to Don Larsen (no, not the perfect game pitcher):

A year ago, he was a Pentecostal Christian minister at Camp Anaconda, the largest U.S. support base in Iraq. He sent home reports on the number of "decisions" -- soldiers committing their lives to Christ -- that he inspired in the base's Freedom Chapel.

But inwardly, he says, he was torn between Christianity's exclusive claims about salvation and a "universalist streak" in his thinking. The Feb. 22, 2006, bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, which collapsed the dome of a 1,200-year-old holy site and triggered a widening spiral of revenge attacks between Shiite and Sunni militants, prompted a decision of his own.

"I realized so many innocent people are dying again in the name of God," Larsen says. "When you think back over the Catholic-Protestant conflict, how the Jews have suffered, how some Christians justified slavery, the Crusades, and now the fighting between Shiite and Sunni Muslims, I just decided I'm done. . . . I will not be part of any church that unleashes its clergy to preach that particular individuals or faith groups are damned."

Larsen's private crisis of faith might have remained just that, but for one other fateful choice. He decided the religion that best matched his universalist vision was Wicca, a blend of witchcraft, feminism and nature worship that has ancient pagan roots.

On July 6, he applied to become the first Wiccan chaplain in the U.S. armed forces, setting off an extraordinary chain of events. By year's end, his superiors not only denied his request but also withdrew him from Iraq and removed him from the chaplain corps, despite an unblemished service record.

Adherents of Wicca, one of the nation's fastest-growing religions, contend that Larsen is a victim of unconstitutional discrimination. They say that Wicca, though recognized as a religion by federal courts and the Internal Revenue Service, is often falsely equated with devil worship.

"Institutionalized bigotry and discriminatory actions . . . have crossed the line this time," says David L. Oringderff, a retired Army intelligence officer who is an elder in the Sacred Well Congregation, the Texas-based Wiccan group that Larsen joined.

Larsen, 44, blames only himself. He said he was naive to think he could switch from Pentecostalism to Wicca in the same way that chaplains routinely change from one Christian denomination to another.

Chaplain Kevin L. McGhee, Larsen's superior at Camp Anaconda, believes a "grave injustice" was done. McGhee, a Methodist, supervised 26 chaplains on the giant base near Balad, 50 miles north of Baghdad. He says Larsen was the best.

"I could go on and on about how well he preached, the care he gave," McGhee says. "What happened to Chaplain Larsen -- to be honest, I think it's political. A lot of people think Wiccans are un-American, because they are ignorant about what Wiccans do."

[snip]

He says he understands why strangers might think "a mortar round must have landed too close to this guy." He recalls, with a chuckle, that a friend once gave him a diagnosis of "multiple religions disorder."

But the struggle between his ardent Christianity and his willingness to see equal value in other faiths was no joke -- it was a painful, internal conflict that came to a head after he arrived in Iraq in early 2006.

"In Iraq, I saw what was happening in the name of Allah and I thought, 'This has got to stop.' . . . The common core of all religions, we're saying the same stuff," he says. "I just decided that the rest of my life I will encourage people to seek out the light however they see fit, through the Bhagavad-Gita, the Torah, the writings of prophets and sages -- whatever path propels them to be good and honorable and upright."

Larsen now draws freely from all those traditions. He meditates daily, concentrating on the seven chakras that Hindus believe are the body's centers of energy.

At times, he tries to free his mind from his physical being, a New Age practice he calls "astral travel." With his 19-year-old daughter and 14-year-old son, he reads the Hebrew scriptures and the New Testament. Following the Wiccan calendar, he observes eight major holidays tied to the seasons and the right times to plant, harvest and tend a flock. Imbolc, for example, is when gestating ewes begin producing milk, signaling that winter is almost over.


So Larsen finds meaning in various spiritual traditions and chooses the aspects that speak to him. Why is this a problem? I do much the same thing, with much the same traditions, except that I don't participate in any rituals.

Wiccans have been trying mightily to educate people that their religion has nothing to do with Satanism. I'll let Cernig weigh in on this front because he IS a practitioner. But I fail to understand why the notion of "Do what thou wilt, harm none" is so scary to Christians. I suspect that the people thumping the Bible the most loudly are the ones who DO need the structure of an authoritarian father figure-based religion to keep them from being in touch with what must be an extremely foul true nature. The ones who don't see how someone can live a virtuous life without what they call "faith" (faith being synonymous with patriarchal religion) fear that without the retribution that Christianity offers, they would run completely amok.

When you have 53% of the population saying they wouldn't vote for an atheist for the presidency -- a higher percentage than people who wouldn't vote for someone who is gay, one has to wonder just where a practicing Wiccan would show up on that scale. My guess is that the numbers would be much higher, largely out of ignorance. Yet It seems odd that the notion that a belief in the Great White Alpha Male in the Sky seems to still be such a qualifying factor now that we've seen the havoc that a president who professes to believe in such a being can wreak in the name of piety.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

Surge report for Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Posted by Jill | 6:48 AM
More of the same:

In a rare coordinated assault on an American combat outpost north of Baghdad, suicide bombers drove one or more cars laden with explosives into the compound on Monday, while other insurgents opened fire in the ensuing chaos, according to witnesses and the American military. Two American soldiers were killed and at least 17 were wounded.

The brazen attack, which was followed by gun battles and an evacuation of the wounded by American helicopters, was almost surely the work of Sunni militants, most likely Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, according to American and Iraqi officials.

It appeared to be part of a renewed drive by insurgents in recent weeks as more American and Iraqi troops flood the streets of Baghdad and thousands of marines head to western Anbar Province to try to stem the violence. Hundreds of Iraqis have died in a recent wave of car bombings in Baghdad and elsewhere.


Another two grieving families, another 17 soldiers to be cast into a VA medical system enduring budget cuts -- all for this game of whack-a-mole designed to get the Crawford Caligula through his last 700+ days in office.

Of course, that our soldiers are being targeted by Sunni insurgents is why Bush is about to attack Shiite Iran. Perhaps he might instead get on the phone with his friends in the House of Saud.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Well, this would shut Ed Schultz up, now, wouldn't it
Posted by Jill | 5:55 AM
Soon you'll be able to hear Ed Schultz AND Sam Seder without having to subscribe to two satellite radio services:

The nation’s two satellite radio services, Sirius and XM, announced plans yesterday to merge, a move that would end their costly competition for radio personalities and subscribers but that is also sure to raise antitrust issues.

The two companies, which report close to 14 million subscribers, hoped to revolutionize the radio industry with a bevy of niche channels offering everything from fishing tips to salsa music, and media personalities like Howard Stern and Oprah Winfrey, with few commercials. But neither has yet turned an annual profit and both have had billions in losses.

While there had been speculation of a merger, neither side had engaged in serious negotiations until December, when both companies determined it was in their best interests to complete a deal while the Bush administration was in power, people in the negotiations said.

The companies said yesterday that their $13 billion merger — code-named Project Big Sky by XM — would give consumers a broader range of programming, while eliminating overlapping stations that focus on genres of music. At the same time, they said, they could cut duplicated costs in sales and marketing.

A merger would require antitrust approval from the Justice Department and would have to be considered in the public interest by the Federal Communications Commission.

Under their operating licenses, XM and Sirius were prohibited from ever owning each other’s license. The commission could waive that rule. But critics pointed to its rejection of the merger of the satellite television broadcasters EchoStar and DirecTV four years ago.

Questioned last month about a possible Sirius-XM merger, the F.C.C. chairman, Kevin J. Martin, initially appeared to be skeptical, but later said that if such a deal were proposed, the agency would consider it.

In a statement yesterday, Mr. Martin acknowledged that the F.C.C. rule could complicate a merger but said the commission would evaluate the proposal. “The hurdle here, however, would be high,” he said.


For all that not having to decide between Sirius Left and Air America on XM is compelling, the idea that there would be only ONE carrier for satellite radio is NOT good for consumers over the long run. For once you get people accustomed to static-free reception and a wide array of programming, you may then raise prices as much as you want, whenever you want, with no fear of being undercut by competitors.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share
Monday, February 19, 2007

Will no one stop this madman?
Posted by Jill | 10:27 PM
Do Republicans and Joe Lieberman in Congress really want this:

US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.
It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres.

The US insists it is not planning to attack, and is trying to persuade Tehran to stop uranium enrichment.

The UN has urged Iran to stop the programme or face economic sanctions.

But diplomatic sources have told the BBC that as a fallback plan, senior officials at Central Command in Florida have already selected their target sets inside Iran.

That list includes Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. Facilities at Isfahan, Arak and Bushehr are also on the target list, the sources say.

Two triggers

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon - which it denies.

Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran.

Long range B2 stealth bombers would drop so-called "bunker-busting" bombs in an effort to penetrate the Natanz site, which is buried some 25m (27 yards) underground.

The BBC's Tehran correspondent France Harrison says the news that there are now two possible triggers for an attack is a concern to Iranians.


Triggers? Bush don't need no es-teenking triggers. This guy has such a hard-on for war with Iran it's palpable. Maybe that explains this imagery:

Legendary Israeli reporter Uri Dan’s posthumous biography of Ariel Sharon, “Ariel Sharon: An Intimate Portrait,” also contains a revealing portrait of The Decider. According to Ha’aretz, Dan reports:


Speaking of George Bush, with whom Sharon developed a very close relationship, Uri Dan recalls that Sharon’s delicacy made him reluctant to repeat what the president had told him when they discussed Osama bin Laden. Finally he relented. And here is what the leader of the Western world, valiant warrior in the battle of cultures, promised to do to bin Laden if he caught him: “I will screw him in the ass!”

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

The accidental link
Posted by Jill | 7:17 PM
Heh. I have a link at Atrios. It's embedded in a quote from ShakesSis (Thanks for the link, Shakes!), but it's there.

It must have killed him to post it.

Anyone else notice how Dr. Black is all of a sudden doing real posts?

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

More on how the Bush Administration and their Republican lackeys "support the troops"
Posted by Jill | 9:54 AM
If Anne Hull and Dana Priest don't win a Pulitzer for this, there truly is no justice in the world:

The conflict in Iraq has hatched a virtual town of desperation and dysfunction, clinging to the pilings of Walter Reed. The wounded are socked away for months and years in random buildings and barracks in and around this military post.

[snip]

Mologne House is afloat on a river of painkillers and antipsychotic drugs. One night, a strapping young infantryman loses it with a woman who is high on her son's painkillers. "Quit taking all the soldier medicine!" he screams.

Pill bottles clutter the nightstands: pills for depression or insomnia, to stop nightmares and pain, to calm the nerves.

[snip]

Bomb blasts are the most common cause of injury in Iraq, and nearly 60 percent of the blast victims also suffer from traumatic brain injury, according to Walter Reed's studies, which explains why some at Mologne House wander the hallways trying to remember their room numbers.

Some soldiers and Marines have been here for 18 months or longer. Doctor's appointments and evaluations are routinely dragged out and difficult to get. A board of physicians must review hundreds of pages of medical records to determine whether a soldier is fit to return to duty. If not, the Physical Evaluation Board must decide whether to assign a rating for disability compensation. For many, this is the start of a new and bitter battle.

Months roll by and life becomes a blue-and-gold hotel room where the bathroom mirror shows the naked disfigurement of war's ravages. There are toys in the lobby of Mologne House because children live here. Domestic disputes occur because wives or girlfriends have moved here. Financial tensions are palpable. After her husband's traumatic injury insurance policy came in, one wife cleared out with the money. Older National Guard members worry about the jobs they can no longer perform back home.

While Mologne House has a full bar, there is not one counselor or psychologist assigned there to assist soldiers and families in crisis -- an idea proposed by Walter Reed social workers but rejected by the military command that runs the post.

[snip]

Dell and Annette's weekdays are spent making the rounds of medical appointments, physical therapy sessions and evaluations for Dell's discharge from the Army. After 19 years, he is no longer fit for service. He uses a cane to walk. He is unable to count out change in the hospital cafeteria. He takes four Percocets a day for pain and has gained 40 pounds from medication and inactivity. Lumbering and blue-eyed, Dell is a big ox baby.
Annette puts on makeup every morning and does her hair, some semblance of normalcy, but her new job in life is watching Dell.

"I'm worried about how he's gonna fit into society," she says one night, as Dell wanders down the hall to the laundry room.

The more immediate worry concerns his disability rating. Army doctors are disputing that Dell's head injury was the cause of his mental impairment. One report says that he was slow in high school and that his cognitive problems could be linked to his native intelligence rather than to his injury.


Anything to avoid paying a disability claim.

I can't even begin to describe how angry this makes me. Every day I am at the computer at 6 AM, documenting the horrors of the day as perpetrated by the evil men who run this country. Every day there's something else to make your brain scream, "No more!" But few things I've read of late make me this angry.

It's isn't that these are Americans and so are somehow more important than the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties that our leaders have created as they crow about the sanctity of fetal life here at home. It's because for five years we have been bludgeoned with messages of "supporting the troops", both by Republican leaders and the assholes with their ribbon magnets we encounter on a daily basis. You know, the ones who would key your car and slash your tires if you dared put a bumper sticker that said "Support the troops -- bring them home" on your own car. It's this notion that in order to make sure that over 3000 Americans like the ones portrayed in this WaPo series didn't die in vain, we have to send another few thousand to die in vain.

And what's worse is that the ones who die are the lucky ones, because they are at least out of their pain and not having to face a government that writes them off the minute they are no longer acceptable cannon fodder while using them as a political sledgehammer. Republicans seek to make tax cuts for the wealthy permanent while their leader's budget cuts veterans' health care funding as a way of cooking the books enough to tout a balanced budget by 2012. The VA has a backlog of 600,000 disability claims. In Bush's home state of Texas, the VA office in El Paso says that more than 21% of the claims are over six months old. And a veterans clinic in Texarkana is forced to cancel appointments because they don't have adequate staffing.

When I posted on the first article in this series, I said that everyone -- EVERYONE -- who still supports this war, who supports this "surge"; every Senator who voted for this war and refuses to admit that it was wrong, everyone still driving around with those fucking yellow ribbon magnets -- they are ALL worthy of nothing but disgust and contempt. There was a time when we could say that there's no crime in wanting to believe that the government is truly acting for what it believes is the good of the country. But when you have the kind of proof that we have seen, over and over and over again, that this government is out for its own enrichment, for its own power, for its own greed, and that our leaders don't give a shit about ANY Americans, particularly those who are supposed to be serving this country and are entitled to thanks, there is no longer an excuse for that continued delusion.

It's time for the 28-odd percent of morons who still cling to their delusions about this president to wake the fuck up. Meanwhile, the rest of us have to start fighting for those stuck in the hell that is the VA medical system. Becuase damn it, someone has to, and the greedy Republicans in Congress won't, and the cowardly Democrats who are STILL afraid of being branded "soft on terror" sure as hell won't.

UPDATE: The intrepid Pam wades into the mile-high pile of human waste that is the collective posters at Frei Republik, so you don't have to. Go see what the wingnuts are saying...if you want to be positively ill. And Roxanne reprints a comment she received from an actual soldier -- as opposed to the armchair warriors who think we should just keep sending more kids over to die.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

From the "Now he tells us" file
Posted by Jill | 9:46 AM
Nothing quite like the disaster that is George W. Bush to make the CEO and his Renfield of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, Richard Mellon Scaife and Chris Ruddy, have a change of heart:

Mr. Scaife, reclusive heir to the Mellon banking fortune, spent more than $2 million investigating and publicizing accusations about the supposed involvement of Mrs. Clinton and former President Bill Clinton in corrupt land deals, sexual affairs, drug running and murder.

But now, as Mrs. Clinton is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, Mr. Scaife’s checkbook is staying in his pocket.

Christopher Ruddy, who once worked full-time for Mr. Scaife investigating the Clintons and now runs a conservative online publication he co-owns with Mr. Scaife, said, “Both of us have had a rethinking.”

“Clinton wasn’t such a bad president,” Mr. Ruddy said. “In fact, he was a pretty good president in a lot of ways, and Dick feels that way today.”

As for the conservative response to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, Mr. Ruddy said, “The level of intensity and anger toward Hillary is not getting to the level that it was toward Bill Clinton when he was president.” He added, “She has moderated and developed a separate image.”


Maybe that's why she's sticking with her war vote. Or maybe it really was all about how Bill Clinton was getting laid and these guys weren't.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

Lead: Some call it toxic. The Bush Administration calls it life
Posted by Jill | 7:59 AM
After all, what's the risk of a little lead poisoning in a few hundred thousand kids when weighed against corporate profits?

In 2005, when government scientists tested 60 soft, vinyl lunch boxes, they found that one in five contained amounts of lead that medical experts consider unsafe -- and several had more than 10 times hazardous levels.

But that's not what they told the public.

Instead, the Consumer Product Safety Commission released a statement that they found ''no instances of hazardous levels.'' And they refused to release their actual test results, citing regulations that protect manufacturers from having their information released to the public.

That data was not made public until The Associated Press received a box of about 1,500 pages of lab reports, in-house e-mails and other records in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed a year ago.

The documents describe two types of tests. One involves cutting a chunk of vinyl off the bag, dissolving it and then analyzing how much lead is in the solution; the second test involves swiping the surface of a bag and then determining how much lead has rubbed off.

The results of the first type of test, looking for the actual lead content of the vinyl, showed that 20 percent of the bags had more than 600 parts per million of lead -- the federal safe level for paint and other products. The highest level was 9,600 ppm, more than 16 times the federal standard.

But the CPSC did not use those results.

''When it comes to a lunch box, it's carried. The food that you put in the lunch box may have an outer wrapping, a baggie, so there isn't direct exposure. The direct exposure would be if kids were putting their lunch boxes in their mouth, which isn't a common way for children to interact with their lunch box,'' said CPSC spokeswoman Julie Vallese.

Thus the CPSC focused exclusively on how much lead came off the surface of a lunch box when lab workers swiped them.

For the swipe tests, the results were lower, especially after the researchers changed their testing protocol. After a handful of tests, they increased the number of times they swiped each bag, again and again on the same spot, resulting in lower average results.

An in-house e-mail from the director of the CPSC's chemistry division explained that they had been retesting with the new protocol ''which gave a lower average result than the prior report ... ,'' he wrote. ''This shows ... that the overall risk is lower than our original testing would have showed, as the amount of lead dislodgeable is mostly taken out with the first wipe and goes down with subsequent wipes.''

Vallese explained it this way: ''The more you wipe, the less lead you actually find. With fewer wipes we got a higher detection of lead presence. We thought more wipes was closer to reflecting how you would interact with your lunch box. It was more realistic.''

The test results also show that many lunch boxes were tested only on the outside, which is unlikely to be in contact with food. Vallese said this was because children handle their lunch boxes from the outside.

[snip]

Although these test results are only now being aired publicly, the CPSC did provide them to the Food and Drug Administration last summer. The FDA's reaction was completely different from the CPSC's. In July, 2006, after receiving the test results, the FDA sent a letter to lunch box manufacturers warning them that their lead levels might be dangerously high and advising them that the FDA might take action against them because the lead would be considered a food additive if it rubbed off onto kids' lunches.

''The lunch boxes containing the lead compounds may be subject to enforcement action,'' said the letter.

In response to the FDA warning, Wal-Mart stopped selling soft lunchboxes with vinyl liners, and offered refunds to customers who wanted to return the ones they already had.


And why on earth do you need lead in lunchboxes anyway?

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

But al-Qaeda gets to regroup without being hassled
Posted by Jill | 7:20 AM
I don't know how I missed this story last week:

A House Republican is pushing a measure that echoes a long-sought Bush administration goal: to require all Internet service providers to keep records on their subscribers.

The measure, introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) last week as part of the larger SAFETY Act, would give the attorney general broad discretion to write the rules on what information companies have to retain and for how long.

It is aimed at protecting children from predators, but privacy advocates say its privacy and civil-liberties implications are huge, and industry is concerned about the costs of compliance. News of the measure has spread around the blogosphere, as critics seek to mobilize opposition to the SAFETY Act.

The provision would require Internet service companies to provide at a minimum the Internet subscriber's name and address, which can be linked to an Internet protocol address -- an identification number associated with a particular computer at a given time. Law enforcement officials would have to obtain a subpoena to have access to the records and could not use the tool to track law-abiding citizens on the Internet, Smith said.


Riiiiight. And I am Marie of Rumania. It's amazing just how much Republicans focus on child porn, isn't it? For that matter, it's amazing how much they focus on everything having to do with sex. Let's not forget that in the summer of 2001, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft was focused like a laser beam on cracking down on a New Orleans brothel while the 9/11 attacks were being plotted.

I'm not trying to belittle the problem of child pornography. But passing legislation demanding that ISPs conduct dragnets of all internet users is once again -- and I keep coming back to this, don't I -- conducting government like the old Franken and Davis sketch in which Tom Davis' character promises to "kill 'em BEFORE they can commit a crime."

The Bush Administration is all about "guilty until proven innocent." Every policy it has instituted or advocated in the name of national security is less about stopping terrorists, or chid pornographers, or drug dealers, than it is about monitoring the activities of ordinary Americans who might have the capability of waking up a sleeping population to the danger presented by its own government.

(hat tip: Lynn)

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

And while George W. Bush was trying to prove his manhood in Iraq
Posted by Jill | 6:58 AM
...al-Qaeda was rebuilding in Pakistan:

Senior leaders of Al Qaeda operating from Pakistan have re-established significant control over their once-battered worldwide terror network and over the past year have set up a band of training camps in the tribal regions near the Afghan border, according to American intelligence and counterterrorism officials.

American officials said there was mounting evidence that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, had been steadily building an operations hub in the mountainous Pakistani tribal area of North Waziristan. Until recently, the Bush administration had described Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahri as detached from their followers and cut off from operational control of Al Qaeda.

The United States has also identified several new Qaeda compounds in North Waziristan, including one that officials said might be training operatives for strikes against targets beyond Afghanistan.

American analysts said recent intelligence showed that the compounds functioned under a loose command structure and were operated by groups of Arab, Pakistani and Afghan militants allied with Al Qaeda. They receive guidance from their commanders and Mr. Zawahri, the analysts said. Mr. bin Laden, who has long played less of an operational role, appears to have little direct involvement.

Officials said the training camps had yet to reach the size and level of sophistication of the Qaeda camps established in Afghanistan under Taliban rule. But groups of 10 to 20 men are being trained at the camps, the officials said, and the Qaeda infrastructure in the region is gradually becoming more mature.

The new warnings are different from those made in recent months by intelligence officials and terrorism experts, who have spoken about the growing abilities of Taliban forces and Pakistani militants to launch attacks into Afghanistan. American officials say that the new intelligence is focused on Al Qaeda and points to the prospect that the terrorist network is gaining in strength despite more than five years of a sustained American-led campaign to weaken it.


Well, I wouldn't call the Bush Administration's efforts "a sustained campaign to weaken it." In fact, I would say that by becoming bogged down in Iraq, the Bush Administration abandoned efforts to weaken al-Qaeda in favor of the shiny new bauble of Iraq. And now, of course, the new playtoy of Iran has been dangled in front of George W. Bush's nose, and so he's preparing for an expanded war against that country.

And all the while, all during the past 5-1/2 years of rhetoric, through 5-1/2 years of dissenters being called traitors, of government amassing of information about every move that every American makes, of gutting the Constitution and bankrupting the country's future, those who were allegedly behind the 9/11 plot have been left alone to regroup and regain strength.

Every day, the notion that this Administration allowed the 9/11 attacks to play out because it would help them justify their agenda becomes less crazy.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Sunday, February 18, 2007

Because after all, what are the lives of a few evil unchaste sluts compared to John McCain's political ambitions?
Posted by Jill | 9:18 PM
John McCain, 1999:

I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary," McCain told the Chronicle in an article published Friday. "But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."


John McCain, today, in South Carolina:

"I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned,"


John McCain: A vote whore who will say anything in his pitiful, pathetic final quest for the presidency:



Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

Ladies and Gentlemen, meet next year's Oscar® winner for Best Score
Posted by Jill | 5:00 PM
Philip Glass, watch your back:





That's it. Time to teach Maggie to play the electric bass.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Hey, Condi...How's that surge working for ya?
Posted by Jill | 12:17 PM
The idiotic Condoleeza Rice, yesterday:

Now, I want to say a couple things about this mission. First of all, this is an essential mission for the security and well-being of the United States of America. I know we talk a great deal about helping the Iraqi people to find their way out of violence, out of tyranny, to democracy and to living together in peace and prosperity. And that's a noble cause, and America has always been at its best when it uses its power for noble causes. But this mission, bringing a stable and secure Iraq, is also essential for the security of the United States of America. Because on September 11th when those 19 men drove our own airplanes into the Pentagon and into the World Trade Center and would have driven it into the Capitol in Washington, we realized that we were no longer isolated from danger and terror, that the great oceans that had protected us for almost 200 years were no barrier to fear and destruction on our own territory, and we recognized at that point that we were going to have to come to the source of the problem, that we were going to have to go on the offense, that no matter how well we tried to defend America with port security and airport security, we couldn't play defense because the terrorists only have to be right once and we have to be right 100 percent of the time.


Note the linkage of Iraq and the September 11 attacks again. Run it up the flagpole again and see if anyone salutes. Not to mention that her logic that we have to play offense by bombing any country that dares to look at us crosswise, she resembles nothing so much as Tom Davis in the old SNL sketch in which Davis and Al Franken are two politicians making ever-escalating and ever-more scurrilous claims about the other. Franken's tag line was "Vote for me. Pete....Tagliani", and Davis' was "We'll kill 'em BEFORE they can commit a crime."

Then there's this head-combusting statement:

I spent some time a couple of summers ago reading the biographies of the Founding Fathers. And I'm going to tell you something. By all rights, the United States of America should never have come into being. If you looked at fighting the greatest military power of the time, Great Britain; if you looked at trying to conquer this new land; if you looked at the squabbling between the Founding Fathers, they were wonderful, but boy, did they fight.


Hrm....I must have missed the part in the history books when Thomas Jefferson set off carriage bombs in front of the local apothecary. Because Condi the Moron is saying that the passionate arguments of the Founding Fathers are no different from this:

Two car bombs exploded in an outdoor market in Baghdad on Sunday, killing at least 56 people and injuring scores in the deadliest attack since U.S. and Iraqi forces began a major security push around the capital last week.

The twin blasts — which tore through the open-air market in the mostly Shiite district of New Baghdad — marked the first major response by militants to the sweep launched last week and a sobering reminder of the huge challenges facing any efforts against the well-armed factions.

The death toll was reported by police and ambulance service officials on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to media. At least 127 people were injured, they reported.

The explosions toppled wooden vendors' stalls and utility poles, and blood pooled in the debris. Victims were carried into hospitals on makeshift stretchers or in the arms of rescuers.

A separate car bomb in the mostly Shiite area of Sadr City killed at least one person and injured 10, police said.


Now here's what's interesting...these bombings took place in Shiite neighborhoods. Does Condi think that this is Shia-on-Shia violence? Or is it just perhaps possible that this is Sunni insurgents -- you know, the guys financed by the Bush family's best friends the Saudis -- instead of the Iran-backed militias that the Bush Administration wants so desperately to blame?

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share