Friday, July 01, 2005

Taking action, suggestions from Daily Kos

I pass this along.

Supreme Court: What You Can Do RIGHT NOW
Whatever happens with the Supreme Court nomination battle that is about to ensue, it's going to happen fast. Here are some things you can do right now:

If you have a cell phone, sign up for People at the American Way's Mass Immediate Response site. This way, you'll be able to receive text message action items instantly as events break. (If you signed up during the nuclear option fight, you'll need to re-sign up.)

Also sign up with the Save the Court, another PFAW website devoted specifically to this issue.

Recruit friends and family members to the cause.

Write to the President, telling him he should choose a consensus candidate to replace O'Connor.

Contact your Senators to tell them the same thing.

Also I would add that its usual to contact the senator from your state that is already on the side of the progressive POV. Consider contacting contrary senators on the radical right, like Frist; let them know that there are americans that have deep convictions and those convictions should be weighed in whatever decisions that are made. Attack them at their strengths, don't let them continue to believe they live in ivory towers of ideology.

And finally my deepest regards to O'Connor , she lived up to, on balance the greatness of the court. One can only hope her successor does too.

Thursday, June 30, 2005

Bush's brain Karl Rove should read this blog

Kind of a wake up call. Karl is doing a great job. A great job of uniting Democrats of all stripes to get rid of this cabal of modern Gilded Age carpetbaggers. Taking the Fight to Karl

Some excerpts:

I am genuinely pissed off. I am a liberal democrat who was shaken to the core by 9/11. I was ready to back the administration in pursuit of those responsible. With 96 combat missions, 2 space flights, and retired CEO of a Defense Department think tank, I know the ropes and the risks.

I am completely appalled by Karl Rove's comments. He opposes freedom of speech.

My family has fought in every war this country has ever had and I am a proud liberal.

I'm a Democrat but not a pacifist. I supported pursuing Bin Laden in Afganistan after 9/11; but, I did not see the alleged links to terrorism Bush used to conger up a need to support his vision of preemptive war in Iraq. Consequently, I opposed the Iraqi invasion from the start.

I guess from Karl and Company's ivory and gold tower he's lost touch with people and families that have suffered the actual sweat, tears, and blood that keeps america free.

Rememebr Katherine Harris of the lets not do any recounts because Gore might win fame, she doesn't care where her campaign cash comes from until somebody finds out

Appeasement is Bush's middle name

Will the Weakly Standard or other Bush apologists please rush to rationalize your way outa this one.

Iraq Realities Force Bush to Respond
Once again, the Sunday Times scooped the U.S. press on a big Iraq war story. "US 'in talks with Iraq rebels,'" the London newspaper reported this weekend.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld quickly confirmed the story and downplayed it, suggesting it should not be surprising that U.S. officials were secretly negotiating with battlefield enemies. Rumsfeld and U.S. commander in Iraq Gen. George W. Casey Jr. made an important distinction: The U.S. was talking to Sunnis violently opposed to the occupation, not foreign fighters linked to Abu Musab Zarqawi.

But the Arab News in Saudi Arabia, among others, was surprised and didn't make the distinction. "US Officials Held Talks With Terrorists" was their headline.

As with the Downing Street Memo, the Times was quicker than any American news organization to document the gap between rhetoric and reality of U.S. policy in Iraq.

The DLC and the lack of insight by Bush

Lack of insight and a clear case of boneheadedness. Bush thinks the challenges ahead in Iraq are ones that can be solved by force, yet refuses yet again to admit that the troop strength is lacking; even if that was truly at the whole problem. Troop strength is only part of the problem and the Bushies refuse to acknowlegde the rest. There is the possibility that someone in this ideologically pure ( antispetic really ) administration knows there's more to it, but is afraid to speak up least they join Colin Powell on the lecture circiut.

Bush on Iraq: A Missed Opportunity
Bush's speech showed little understanding that the political challenge facing Iraqis is not simply a matter of fighting and defeating the insurgency. Iraq's warring communal groups have yet to fundamentally commit themselves to the kind of political settlement that can reconcile majority rule, minority rights, and a stable, unified nation. Until they do, it will be immensely difficult to crush the insurgency, and moreover, even if it is crushed, Iraq could still become a failed state and a source of internal and external trouble for many years to come.

The president's apparent lack of understanding of this distinctive political challenge also affects his view of the role of the international community in Iraq, which he essentially limits to helping the U.S. share the burden of the fight against the insurgency and the effort to train the Iraqi military. The single most important reason for drawing the international community, including the United Nations, into the economic and political reconstruction of Iraq is to provide a clear transition from U.S. occupation to Iraqi sovereignty, while providing the Iraqi government with the domestic credibility it needs to govern. It's not clear the administration understands that at all.

Is the Bush/Rove strategy of polarizing the country working? If you're one of the Bush sheeple looking through your blood tinted glasses, all is well. If you're just a regular American that reads between the lines, as many common sense Americans are apt to do, then Rove and company might be as usual creating their own reality. By way of NewDonkey
Among Republicans (36% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 84% approve of the way Bush is handling his job and 12% disapprove. Among Democrats (38% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 18% approve and 77% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job. Among Independents (26% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 17% approve and 75% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job as president.

Keep it up Unka Karl, lose those independents just in time for the next election cycle.

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Iraq is not 9-11. The war in Iraq will not end Islamic terrorism.

This is such an obvious fact and yet no amount of evidence will convince the radical right otherwise. Its their fairie tale, their LSD trip and anyone that challenges their visions is just ruining their trip dude.

Jesse Taylor at Pandagon gets it.
The issue is, we're fighting the first postmodern war (and I mean postmodern in the intellectually lazy way that conservatives perceive it). Why are we fighting? Well, everyone has their reasons. Mine are just as valid as yours, unless yours aren't, in which case I'm even more right. When Bush says 9/11 followed by Iraq, he's not referring to what he's obviously referring to - he's referring to an entirely different set of specious assumptions backed up by my ability to choke them out without being struck down by lightning.

This, I think, is the disconnect between reality and much of the pro-war right. When the New York Times or Washington Post criticizes the war, they're criticizing the war that's happening.

To recap. There are terrorists, like those responsible for 9-11 and then there is Iraq. Unless you have some severe coqnitive problems, there's an obvious difference. Iraq did not attack the USA. Saddam was probably a little crazy, but not that crazy. State sponorsed terrorism would be easy to combat; go to that nation, get the terrorists, end of story. We could occupy Iraq for the next 12 years and it will not end Al Quida. As a matter of fact, Iraq is there knew open campus.
Now, CIA Report Says Iraq Becoming Prime Location For Training of Al Qaeda Militants; Better Than Afghanistan. “A new classified assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency says Iraq may prove to be an even more effective training ground for Islamic extremists than Afghanistan was in Al Qaeda’s early days, because it is serving as a real-world laboratory for urban combat.”

Bush and his supporters have it all wrong, will keep getting it wrong, Al Quida will flourish, and your children will be paying for it, possibily with their lives. Why does Bush and his supporters love terrorists?


In his own words, Bush warned us of the mistake he has made and should be held accountable for. Worse war president ever.
Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground, so that a Saddam Hussein could use his shadowy group of people to attack his enemy and leave no fingerprint behind. [Bush, 11/4/02]
Iraq before Bush? No terrorists. Iraq after Bush makes it the focus of our military might? More terrorists. Sorry the "flypaper" theory will not fly. There is not a finite number of potential terrorists.

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

The new Bush Doctrine Divide and Polarize

Sunday, June 26, 2005

The new memo

Most of us have heard of the Downing Street memo or minutes at this point,
The contents of the memos are shocking. The July 23, 2002 minutes detail how our government did not believe Iraq was a greater threat than other nations; how intelligence was packaged to sell the case for war to both Congress and the American public; and how the Bush Administration’s public assurances of "war as a last resort" were at odds with their privately stated intentions.

but as Wampum points out we should also be demanding some answers about the "Simpsonwood" memos
KENNEDY: Because the same regulatory bureaucrats that green-lighted Thimerosal originally are now trying to cover their tracks.

SCARBOROUGH: It's a CYA operation.

KENNEDY: Right. Are they are working with the pharmaceutical industry. And we now have the transcripts of the secret meeting that they did in Simpsonwood, Georgia, in the year 2000. And it's the most horrifying thing that you can read, Joe. There are scientists there from the government who are saying — who are reading the reports and saying, this is undeniable. There's no way we can ever deny this. I am not going to give this to my children, but now let's hide this from the American people. And it's that clear.

I agree with Williams:
It's time for more Democrats to follow Bobby Kennedy, Jr. and start demanding an investigation into these issues. We need to focus as much attention on the leaked "Simpsonwood" memos, documenting a conspiracy between government agencies and BigPharma to cover-up the poisoning of 30 million US children, as we do on the Downing Street memos.

If the current social climate in America is the "culture of life" then it must be the culture squeezed in between the lies that lead us into an unnecessary war and poisoning 30 million children. The Bushies and their corporate co-conspirators, if nothing else have corrupted the american language. I know what "values" are and values are not about going to war for dubious reasons or shoring up corporate profits at the expense of people's lives.

David Michaels writes today in the LA Times about "manufacturing uncertainty." As he says, the Bush administration's war against science isn't so much an effort to argue that scientific research is wrong, so much as it's an effort to toss up enough mud that no one is sure what's really going on

Isn't the current conservative philosophy in fact based on the idea that everything is relative, except what the right-wing noise machine says we should believe in today or tomorrow or the next day.