Best of the Blogs

Battle in Spain

From Debka:

" First battle with al Qaeda in European capital leaves at least four dead. Explosion set off by three suspects in March Madrid railway 5. Bombers holed up in apartment building in Leganes suburb of SW Madrid said died in blast bombings during raid kills at least one Spanish police officer, injures 1singing Arabic songs. Area cordoned off as 40 apartments evacuated. Spanish interior minister reported fourth terrorist may have escaped before area sealed off. Fifteen held earlier - 11 members of al Qaeda-linked Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group."

"Spanish army and helicopters guarding railways after finding bomb Friday on high-speed Madrid-Seville railway track."

Scary stuff. Hopefully this wakes up Europeans to the reality of what we're up against. Most have been through it before, with the IRA, Basque separatists, Red Brigades, etc., but this is different. These muslim extremists seem to be growing in number and more willing to give up on the idea of a "spectacular" terror attack, instead going for backpack type bombs. I think the terrorists who blew up the train stations in Madrid didn't even kill themselves, like they normally do. With the 3/11 attack in Spain, the arrests in England, and the recent Government warnings of possible attacks on busses and trains in the U.S., it's shaping up to be a long summer.

posted by FPN 5:09 PM

Vietnamizing the “other war”

Colombia’s neo-fascist narcocrat Alvaro Uribe flew in for a lightly publicized White House visit last week and said he wants more US troops and contract mercenaries for the “war on drugs.” This plays right into the hand of NSC second banana Elliot Abrams and his mestizophobe buddy, Assistant Secretary of State Otto Johan Reich… they want to use Colombia as a platform to further lean on neighboring Venezuela, which sits on more oil than Iraq.

To sweeten the bargain, Colombia would send a contingent of troops to Iraq help offset the 1,300 soldiers Spain plans to withdraw from the “coalition.” US taxpayers provide more aid to Colombia than any other nation except Israel and Egypt and, like Iraq, there is no yardstick to measure the bang for the buck. Old media editors don’t budget much space for “Latin America” news these days. The “war on drugs” has always had more to do with helping insure that the drugs trade is dominated by politically reliable factions than with stopping or reducing the flow of drugs. Like they say in the Army… smoke ‘em if you got ‘em…

posted by Groom 1:12 PM

Offline

I'm away until late Tuesday for my father-in-law's funeral. I'm sure the rest of the BtotheB gang will keep you informed, amused and/or agitated in my absence.

posted by Jerry Bowles 12:55 PM

Rent-a-Soldiers

In interviews on TV, the families of the mercenaries killed in Iraq all stress how much their loved ones "wanted to help people" and believed '"they were doing good in Iraq.' A natural thing to say, of course, but you would think that at least one honest family member would mention that these guys were being paid more than a thousand dollars a day. Beats riding a squad car around Detroit and is probably less dangerous most of the time.

Update: Kathryn Cramer has an excellent post on this topic.

posted by Jerry Bowles 8:24 AM

Friday, April 02, 2004

Think Bush is Toast? Think Again

How might Bush still screw thee? Let me count the ways:

1. Osama surfaces. Some of us tinfoil-hatters think Rumsfeld already has him on ice somewhere, waiting for the optimal moment to bring him out of his spider-hole. Of course, if Osama is really still at large, there's practically zero chance he'll be caught between now and November. I mean, it's not like a 6'7" man hooked up to a dialysis machine whose image has been broadcast worldwide for the past three years would stand out anywhere.

2. Castro dies. This would be a godsend for Bush, because post-Castro Cuba might well become Bay of Pigs II: Vengeance Served Cold. Before the anti-Castro Cubans in Florida make a near-complete exodus back to the homeland, however, they'll probably all vote for Dubya on their way out. (If that happens -- mark my words -- thirty years from now President-for-Life Jenna Bush will be naming Ahmed Chalabi Emperor of the Principality of Gitmo.)

3. 9-11 II. This one gives me the heebie-jeebies, particularly since media members of the RoveBorg (yes, I'm talkin' 'bout you, David Brooks) seem to be panting in anticipation of such an attack, preferably just before the election.

4. Deus Ex Scalia II. Let's say, in an improbable misalignment of the stars and planets, Bush actually wins the popular vote, but loses the electoral college (sound familiar?). The Supreme Court takes up his case, and, in a breathless fit, Scalia announces for another (the same) bare majority, "Ohmigod! I mean, we rilly rilly need to uphold democracy here, and so, we're declaring the Electoral College unconstitutional, and handing the election to Bush again, this time because he won the popular vote."

posted by Michael 6:04 PM

He Took 13 Items Through the Express Lane, Too

This morning Evelyn Keyes noted that Richard Clarke is holding up well as the slime storm aimed at discrediting his 9/11 revelations continues. And he is--but there are more skeletons in his closet that are only now being revealed. The horror . . . the horror. . . .

posted by jabartlett 5:27 PM

Madame Albright

Last night I was invited to attend a book lecture by Madeleine Albright at a private club in Manhattan. The audience was elite upper East Side, and included two former ambassadors.

It should come as no surprise that Albright considers our current time as one of the most perilous in U.S. history. Having just flown in on a red eye, she presumably experienced the ritual of airport shoe removal that reminds us all of how close we are to being attacked again.

The Q and A brought out one or two interesting bits. On a question about the U.N., Albright of course spoke for the need to re-constitute its power and prestige, but also pointed out that the U.S. cannot rely on U.N. peacekeepers to do its mission around the world. She supports the notion of an interventionist force which could on a moment’s notice address issues like Rawanda in the nineties or the humanitarian disaster of Southern Sudan today. Jerry Bowles has argued several times in this blog for something similar.

When asked if 9/11 had occurred when she was Secretary, what would have happened, her reply was that she had no doubt that “President Gore” would have done exactly the same thing. I am sorry to note that even in this educated crowd there were scattered hand claps.

However, she went on to state that her Administration would not have pursued the same policy in the months that followed. She questioned the wisdom and timing of the Iraq war in the months following, at the same time noting that removing Saddam Hussein was a worthy goal. As she noted, Afghanistan has deteriorated to the point where Kharzai is “Mayor of Kabul.”

The one question I wanted to ask, but didn’t, was “under what circumstances is it the right thing for the Secretary of State to resign?” Does Powell need to be more publicly revealed in his inability to influence policy? His behavior reminds me of conventional marital wisdom along the lines of, “Well, you don’t know that she (the wife) is as powerless as it would seem; you never know what goes on behind closed doors.” But does Powell have to start claiming that the bruises on his face are from walking into the door again? Evelyn Keyes

posted by Jerry Bowles 3:18 PM

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier… Texan

There’s been a "sighting," not at the Jo-burg Airport, but in Dallas. James A. Baker III, Shrubby’s special envoy to Iraq is on the banquet circuit, preaching to the choir (reg. requd.) about the “bad news TV brings into our homes” and why the international community should forgive Iraq’s debt. As a former treasury secretary and sometime plain dealer, maybe Jimmy Threesticks ought to be talking about the across the board risk the “twin towers” of foreign debt and negative trade balance pose to the good old USA. On the other hand, when you hang with Baker Botts and the Carlyle Group you don’t wanna go there, either.

posted by Groom 3:03 PM

More Labor Dept. Lies

As John Kerry and the Dems release an ad that attacks the Bush economy, the Labor Department reports that 308,000 new jobs were created in March. Even conservative newspapers like the Detroit News out the White House for cherry picking economic information. The statistics for March are based on “revised statistics” for January and February. In reality, unemployment edged upward in March. Maybe the Labor Department should stick to something we know they can do, namely, telling employers how to avoid paying their workers overtime pay.

posted by Groom 2:00 PM

Bush Team Jacking McCain-Feingold

While the blame game over 9/11 provides convenient distraction, Turdblossom Rove and his political operators are engaged in legal action to cut off the money supply for "527 organizations", the kind that George Soros operates. Harold Meyerson wrote a great piece about it in the American Prospect last month. The old media don't wanna go there, however.

posted by Groom 1:20 PM

All Richard, All the Time

Not that I’ve seen all his interviews, and only part of the 9/11 testimony, but I must say Richard Clarke is holding up remarkably well. Not a hair from his silver head was set aflame on Chris Matthews the other night, and that was after the slimers had thrown him everything they could, including his supposed sexual proclivities.

Why has Clarke gotten so under the White House skin? After all, as has been noted here by Jerry Bowles and earlier in the week by Eric Alterman, Clarke’s central “revelation” that the Bush Administration was focused elsewhere before 9/11 is hardly news. Bush even admitted the same to Bob Woodward.

Then why the fuss? Because Clarke is linking – every time he gets the chance – the 9/11 failure to the extremely bad judgment of pursuing a war in Iraq. At one level, what is a discussion of the Iraq war doing in an investigation into 9/11?

But does anyone out there doubt that he has every right to do so?

After all, it was not simply a distraction from the war on terror, the Iraq adventure was --and is being -- promoted by the White House as the next step in the War on Terror, hammering at every opportunity and with great success that 9/11 was caused by Saddam. Polls indicated at the time of the war that a majority of Americans believed that the war was necessary because Saddam was in league with Al Qaeda.

So here we have the best laid plans coming unglued. It’s as if Clarke is saying: “You want 9/11 to justify your war? I’ll give you 9/11.” Evelyn Keyes

posted by Jerry Bowles 11:36 AM

It Just Keeps Getting Better:

Prosecutors Are Said to Have Expanded Inquiry Into Leak of C.I.A. Officer's Name

By DAVID JOHNSTON and RICHARD W. STEVENSON, WaPo

Prosecutors investigating whether someone in the Bush administration improperly disclosed the identity of a C.I.A. officer have expanded their inquiry to examine whether White House officials lied to investigators or mishandled classified information related to the case, lawyers involved in the case and government officials say.

I think the Bush administration lying has now reached critical mass. Stand back -- and here, wear these safety goggles.

posted by Michael 12:30 AM

Old Dogs, Old Tricks

The Bushies are up to their old tricks again. Seems they are withholding from the 9/11 Commission most of the documents it requested from the Clinton era. Wouldn't want anyone to think that Clinton was paying more attention to the threat of terrorism than they were, now would we? Is there any level to which these morally bankrupt political hacks will not stoop?

posted by Jerry Bowles 12:14 AM

Thursday, April 01, 2004

Why the dopes still love him

Reading Jim Bartlett's post on Americans who now believe that Bush has lied to them but still think that he has made the country more secure, a couple of thoughts occur to me.

First, I am reminded of abused wives who return to abusive husbands, ignoring the likelihood that what will happen is more abuse. Clinging to what you feel that you know can be less scary that stepping off into the unknown--especially if the unknown is someone who represents attitudes that you have learned to demonize. Or, as the cliché has it, "Better the devil you know...."

Second, there is the underlying belief my right-wing brother articulates, that acting tough makes us more secure. It's a nasty world out there and protecting ourselves means that, "We gotta be the baddest boy on the block." Us folks on the civilized left need to figure out how to combat that view, and not just intellectually.

There is plenty of evidence, from gang wars in the hood to Sharon-style Middle East "peacekeeping" that what being the baddest boy on the block gets you is resentment, hatred and shot in the back. But guys like my brother don't want to see it. The emotional appeal of "We gotta kick butt" is too strong.

The only hope I can see is to counter with Teddy Roosevelt's advice to "speak softly but carry a big stick." Speaking softly alone won't do. Reviving that old-fashioned hero who is quiet, polite, a real buddy to his friends AND can take down the baddy when necessary could be just what we need.

posted by John 9:42 PM

More Ammunition from the Right

The libertarian Cato Institute's Doug Bandow socks it to Bush in this morning's Japan Times.

In a piece titled "Bush bears the burden of proof," Bandow concludes as follows,

At no point have the president or his advisers accepted responsibility. At worst, they appear to be conscious liars. At best they seem deceitful and manipulative. That doesn't mean that Clarke is right and the administration is wrong. But it does mean people are understandably suspicious of administration excuses.

Indeed, it's why Bush's trustworthiness ratings have fallen. The president and administration officials have no one to blame but themselves. Instead of attempting to trash Clarke's reputation, the president should work to rehabilitate his own. A verbal acknowledgment of responsibility for past misstatements would be nice. Firing someone would be even better.

Trust, once squandered, is hard to regain. Which is why the administration risks losing its high-stakes showdown with Clarke -- and the election in November.

Let's hear it for truth tellers, both right and left.

posted by John 9:28 PM

What do Britney Spears and Bill O'Reilly have in common?

I was flying the other day and, as I do when the plane is full, tried to make the best of it by striking up a conversation with someone.

The man two seats over was a Bill O'Reilly supporter--a real fan--and wanted to know if I'm a fan too. Decidedly not, I said. O'Reilly is a braggart who can't seem to tell the difference between fact and opinion, and the callers on his radio show are stupid. He has an obnoxious personality, and if somebody with his personality was sitting on this plane, I wouldn't talk to him because I don't like that kind of personality.

But this guy thought O'Reilly was wonderful. And this guy gave me the impression that he would think exactly the way O'Reilly wanted him to think, just as teenage girls think exactly the way their heroes of the moment think. Remember when Britney Spears was the rage for teenage girls? Well, to this guy, Bill O'Reilly is Britney Spears--but O'Reilly never grows up, never changes, and never goes out of style. He loves Bill O'Reilly.

I think lots of men are just like teenage girls in that regard. They have their heroes, and they identify with them so strongly that, if their heroes are for Bush, they're for Bush too. There must be many so-called Bush supporters out there who aren't exactly Bush supporters but are rather Rush supporters or O'Reilly supporters or [name your right-wing hero] supporters. And if their hero supports Bush, they'll support Bush, too. In that sense, support for Bush among these people is somewhat soft. But it hardly matters, because the Bush surrogate (Rush or O'Reilly or whoever) has a lock on their thinking.

posted by Vicki 5:14 PM

We Think You're a Dope But We Still Love You

From the L.A. Times this morning comes a poll that says more than half of Americans think Bush didn't take terrorism seriously enough before 9/11. By 57 to 37, Americans think Bush focused more on Iraq than on dealing with terrorism. But at the same time, 59 percent think Bush has made the country more secure. To read Ron Brownstein's entire article on the poll is to get a look at just how incoherent public attitudes are right now. People think Bush botched the war on terror, but they still see him as a strong leader. They think the country is on the wrong track, but they approve of the job he's doing.

I don't claim to know much about philosophy, but I remember a shorthand explanation of what the Scottish skeptic David Hume was about--he argued that just because you see a consistent pattern of cause and effect, you can't necessarily assume that the same effects will forever follow the same causes. And it occurs to me that we're living in a time that's starting to prove he's right. Where official mendacity and catastrophic failure always used to get leaders in trouble, now it doesn't. Professor Hume, call your office.

posted by jabartlett 1:07 PM

It's Not Just Body Armor

John Kerry picked a bad day to be MIA. The horrific violence in Falluja yesterday produced not just a defining moment in which all of the Bush administration's near criminal mismanagement of the Iraq occupation came into sharp focus but also the kind of defining images that re-shape public opinion. In 1972, a single photograph of a naked little Vietnamese girl screaming in terror as she ran away from a napalmed village turned the tide of public support for the war in Viet Nam. Whether the Falluja photographs have a similar effect depends on whether the media--especially TV--has the courage to show them.

Kerry needs to release a statement today that says something like:

"Like all Americans, I am appalled and horrified by the killing and mutilation of four civilian contractors in Falluja yesterday. These tragic events tell us clearly that the administration's plan to turn Iraq over to an Iraqi governing body on June 30 and begin reducing the number of coalition troops--before the most basic level security is established--is both premature and dangerous.

"Without debating again the merits of invading Iraq in the first place, the reality is that we are there and we have an obligation to make certain that the 600 young Americans who have been killed there, so far, did not die in vain. The greatest tribute to their memory would be a free, democratic Iraq that could serve as a model for reshaping the Middle East and reducing the threat of terrorism.

"Iraq deperately needs more coalition troops--not fewer. Americans are not safe anywhere in Iraq. Our troops are overworked and undermanned. The process of self-government and re-building cannot possibly succeed until basic law and order is established and there are not enough troops on the ground to do that.

"Unfortunately, as it did in Afghanistan, the Bush administration has failed to commit the resources to get the job done alone or displayed the level of cooperation that would allow allies with large armed forces--like Germany, France and Russia--to assist us.

"We cannot allow election year politics to undermine the ultimate success of our mission, which is to leave Iraq a far better and safer place than it was when we arrived. If I am elected president, I pledge to build an international consensus that will provide us with the troops, and resources, to get the job done right. To demonstrate that America is unified in its commitment, I ask that President Bush join me and pledge to do the same."

posted by Jerry Bowles 11:38 AM

Dumbo Drop

Okay, Condi is lying. But questioning Shrubby and puppetmeister Lord Cheney in the same room at the same time violates the number one rule of investigation, namely, keep your suspects separate in order to vet out inconsistencies. The battle over executive privilege and getting to the truth of the matter should be focused on Bush and Cheney, not on Rice-a-roni. Now the Kean Commission must play a mother may I game. It’s time for Kerry and the Dem leadership to ask why our president can’t answer questions alone. Does the Dickster need to be there to change his diapers?

posted by Groom 11:26 AM

Finally!

We've heard Hans Blix, David Kay and many others come out and say that there are no WMD's in Iraq. Well it has finally happened. Our Great Leader has now come out, on the record, and admitted the truth. "There are no WMD's in Iraq". Story here.

posted by FPN 11:02 AM

Space Case

Condi is a li-ar, Condi is a li-ar.

posted by Jerry Bowles 9:10 AM

The Fog of War

Those of you who saw Errol Morris’ brilliant documentary/interview with Robert McNamara called The Fog of War may remember that the only time the old warrior choked up was when he recalled his role in planning the firebombing of 67 cities in Japan during World War II—a campaign that killed hundreds of thousands of people, including more than 100,000 during a single raid on Tokyo. Many more people died in firebombing during the war than died in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Using a strategy developed by RAF Air Marshal Sir Arthur Travers Harris, aka “Butcher” Harris, the Allies deliberately set out to “break the will” of the Germans and Japanese by carpetbombing major cities and killing as many civilians as possible. It sounds horrible, and it is, but there are those who can argue, convincingly, that it hastened the end of the war and ultimately saved lives on both sides. As McNamara observes at one point: “Sometimes in order to do good, it is necessary to do evil.”

Still, the enormity of the deaths caused by those bombings continue to haunt the brilliant, supremely self-confident old man. In one of the film's most powerful moments, a tearful McNamara tells Morris that had the U.S. lost the war, he and his boss, the hardnosed General Curtis LeMay, almost certainly would have been tried as war criminals. “What makes something moral if you win and immoral if you lose?” he asks.

Of course, we Americans are much too civilized for the firebombing approach in these days of “smart” bombs. Despite the early promise of “shock and awe,” (which provoked immediate outrage) the bombing of Iraq, we now know, was deliberately planned to “decapitate the leadership” and avoid “collateral damage” to civilians and oil ministries. The focus was on what the Pentagon believed were military targets—Saddam’s “palaces” and sites where Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld knew for certain that nasty WMDs were being concealed and the dumb UN inspectors couldn’t find them. Although much more firepower was unleashed on Baghdad a year ago than on Tokyo the night 100,000 people died, the number of civilian casualties (which the Pentagon claims not to track) was relatively low.

But, as the continuing insurgency--highlighted by yesterday’s horrific attacks in Falluja--shows, there is a downside to the modern “Mr. Nice Guy” approach to war. Because some very naïve old men in Washington made the wrong assumptions, most Iraqis were not touched by the war and so they are not behaving like a beaten people. While a single country preacher dictates terms of withdrawal with the American puppet governing council, crowds of people celebrate over the charred and mutilated bodies of Americans. Clearly, they neither fear nor respect the beauty and destructiveness of our weapons. And, thanks to Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Cheney and other pollyannas, there are not nearly enough troops on the ground to provide even minimum basic security—even for themselves--much less instill a decent fear of the Christian god.

The Fog of War is subtitled "11 Lessons From the Life of Robert McNamara." From the firebombing of Tokyo and other Japanese cities, McNamara extracts Lesson No. 5: "Proportionality should be a guideline in war." In other words, kill enough of the enemy to make it clear that you get to dictate the terms of surrender but try to not to kill a single life more.

It’s too late for this approach with Iraq—we can’t just go killing people to make a point (although the Army has tried this with limited success in the Sunni Triangle)—but it is equally clear that the occupation has been a total disaster that can only get worse under the Bush plan to bail and run on June 30--leaving behind a large, undermanned and demoralized contingent of Americans to be picked off three or four at a time.

If I were John Kerry, I would blast the administration not only for leading us into an unnecessary war but also for not being tough enough to actually win it and impose the brand of democracy that will reshape the Middle East. To do that, he should propose that we increase the number of troops on the ground to at least 350,000 by making France, Germany, Russia and others true partners in the re-building of a Democratic Iraq.

The other possible exit strategy, of course, is to push Ahmad Chalbi out of a moving Humvee in the middle of Falluja and then announce that every American soldier is coming home by next Thursday. For those who say we may have gone in for the wrong motives but now that we’re there, we can’t bail out, I say—okay, you have a point. But only more troops, supplied by true, committed partners with a stake in the outcome, can stabilize and rebuild Iraq, restore order, and enforce the kind of democracy that can prevent the country from devolving into another Iran.

Yes, it was a stupid war, but frankly folks, unless we are willing to commit to a more forceful and true, long-term nation-building effort in Iraq, we’re just roaring down Quagmire Highway looking for a light at the end of the tunnel.

posted by Jerry Bowles 12:27 AM

Wednesday, March 31, 2004

The Altos

Let's say that the Feds nab Tony and Christopher and they agree to talk but only if they can be questioned together in the same room at the same time. Do you think that means Tony doesn't trust Chrisie to keep his story straight?

posted by Jerry Bowles 4:42 PM

White House vs. Letterman

Check out Over/Spun's blog for the latest on David Letterman's "outing" the Bush White House (and their unthinking court-stenographer lickspittle lackeys over at CNN) for the flaming, screaming liars that they are.

I'm beginning to think lying is like a reflex response to them: Lie first, lie last, lie always, and don't ever back down unless confronted with unquestionable proof of your lies eight ways from Sunday, in documentary triplicate.

Then, wait a few days, and start spreading the same lie AGAIN.

posted by Michael 3:16 PM

Economic front… what happened to the “Kerry plan”?

Using Iraq and “the war on terrorism” and “homeland security” as a cover, and faith based issues as diversionary tactics the Bush administration is presiding over America’s biggest loot-a-thon and economic crapout since the Great Depression and John Kerry and the Democractic Party leadership are doing little save to remind us that what F. Scott Fitzgerald said about the rich being different in 1924 is still valid today. And that was the era of Harding, Fall, Daugherty, Sinclair and Teapot Dome. Big oil then... big oil now.

The third world-style exportation of capital from the US has been going on for some time with little media coverage and a shrug from politicians. Even Ross Perot, the man who got 20 million votes for president in 1992, is headquartered in Bermuda. Now el lider Shrubby and his economic adviser Mao-Tse Mankiw are warning America not to fall victim to “economic isolationism.” What that decodes as is that it’s okay to bend over and let us schtupp you because “outsourcing” created 90,000 new “net jobs” last year and is forecast to create 317,000 more (mostly McYobs) by 08. Since the economy has already lost over 2 million jobs on Shrubby’s watch, they are going to need a lot more Astra-Glide to help that outsourcing bar graph hit the mark.

So where’s John Kerry on this? Crise d'identite... well, there was his “90 day notice” advocating that companies tell employees their jobs are going overseas in advance. Lead shoes on that one. Average Americans and low income folks don’t seem to come across the Kerry radar. It’s that shrinking middle class that Kerry seeks to preserve. His economic advisers and power brokers are divided on what to do. Roger “Heads Up” Altman, a Clinton administration retainer, wants to run an economy that differs very little from what the Shrub Club is presiding over. Ted Kennedy, who has a big stake in the Kerry candidacy, wants more government spending to help drive the economy, and to balance it off by doing away with the Bush tax cuts.

Kerry doesn’t come across as an economics guy. But neither does Shrubby. But when Shrubby tells workers that more jobs will be created if the Teflon pans are made in China, then shipped to the Midwest, where unskilled US workers will put handles and “made in USA” labels on them, more “believe in Bush” is imbedded in their poorly-educated minds. Kerry needs to present an economic team, an economic front and to jab away at the level of trust “registered voters” who respond to polls ascribe to Bush.

Fatcat Democrats love outsourcing just as much as their GOP counterparts and therein lies the problem. It’s the money, not the people that counts. But Uncle Dem doesn’t want to go there. In today’s economy Billy Joe, who just went $300 over the limit on his Mastercard by taking his 2 young sons (the oldest stayed home to run the reloading machine in the basement) to the Firecracker 500, is no different than Sanjay in Mumbai, Juan Pablo in Monterrey or Nilson in Sao Paulo. And our social net and benefits, our quality of life and the tenor of our “democracy” are being jacked and restructured- under the umbrella of the Patriot Act- accordingly. John Kerry’s identity crisis is a mirror image of Americas’… the one that Rove and the rest of the Bush puppetmeisters want to deny and hide.

posted by Groom 2:45 PM

Rockefeller on Clarke

I just had the opportunity to hear Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Jay Rockefeller (D-VV V) speak at a fundraiser, where he decided against discussing the supposed topic, Health Care, because he'd rather discuss how incredibly stupid Senator Frist and the other GOP attack dogs are to go after Richard Clarke.

After hearing Senator Frist's Senate Floor speech stating that Clarke may have perjured himself, Rockefeller went back and read the entire 5 hour testimony that Clarke had previously given. Not once did Clarke contradict himself, according to Rockefeller. He went on to say that Clarke is one of the most prepared people that he's ever met and is not into politics. Tim Russert backed up that claim this morning on Imus, by saying Clarke is the most prepared person he's ever interviewed. It seems that Richard Clarke has worked in Washington long enough to know that he's got to get everything in writing. President Bush and his allies may have picked the wrong person to mess with.

posted by FPN 2:43 PM

Mogadishu Redux

Don't look if you are faint of heart or have a weak stomach. My blood is boiling. If these are the people whose liberty we are fighting for, we shouldn't be.

posted by Jerry Bowles 12:23 PM

2 good to B true

One of Lord Rummy's aides left his battle notes (the Clarke battle, that is) on a table at Starbucks. The person who found them handed them over to The Center for American Progress.

posted by Evelyn 11:02 AM