FOX News: Mouthpiece of America's Right-Wing Nuts

I was channel surfing this morning when I stumbled across a segment on "Fox & Friends". The segment consisted of a rather bombastic, chunky white guy, in an expensive suit, ranting about the 9th Circuit Courts decision regarding "...One nation under God..." in the Pledge of Allegiance. Among his assertions was the patently false claim that America was founded on Christian ideals. Had that been the case, the Founding Fathers would have explicitly written such ideology into the Constitution, but they did not. The Constitution is far more closely related to the Magna Carta that to Biblical scripture, particularly with regards to the limits placed on governmental intrusion into the lives of individual citizens.

I wonder...did they devote an entire segment of the show to Jose Padilla when the 4th Circuit Court of appeals ruled that the Bush Administration had the authority to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge, without access to counsel, and incommunicado, in complete contravention of the US Constitution? Where was the outrage then? This ruling allows the Administration to hold any US citizen without charge for any amount of time, with no access to anyone outside their place of imprisonment...A complete dismissal of habeas corpus and the foundations for a police state.

The Republic is dead. And its death went unremarked. This is how the Holocaust began...This is how tyranies arise. Weep America, for the dream of our Founding Fathers has been murdered...In the name of the freedoms they fought and died for.

Dubbyuh plays at being presidential...

After claiming he accepted responsibility, well...sort of, like a nine year old apologizing for some minor transgression, for the failures in the wake Hurricane Katrina earlier this week, his wooden delivery and "deer-in-the-headlights" demeanor fell flat tonight.

His speech was disingenuous, at best. With a state of emergency declared in Louisiana on 8/26, Mississippi and Alabama following suite on 8/27 and 8/28 respectively, Dubbyuh continued his round of photo-ops and set pieces. Condi-mima went to a Broadway play and bought $3,000 shoes at Ferragamo's in NYC. Darth Cheney closed on a $3 million mansion in St. Micaels, Maryland.

Despite his claims of seeking to aid the poor and displaced in the area, I noticed that he utterly failed to change his position on his suspension of the Davis-Bacon Act. For those of you unfamiliar with its provisions, all federal government construction contracts and most contracts for federally assisted construction over $2,000 must include provisions for paying workers on-site no less than the locally prevailing wages and fringe benefits paid on similar projects. The key words here are "prevailing wages", not union scale. And in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, the prevailing wages for construction workers and other trade workers are far below those found in more affluent areas of the country. How can people be expected to get back on their feet If they can't make a living wage? But like father, like son...Poppy suspended the Act in 1992 after Hurricane Andrew devastated large swathes of Florida. And, ever consistent, unbid contracts have been awarded to Haliburton, and other campaign contributors for the clean-up and rebuilding efforts. We can clearly see how well that has worked in Iraq.

We have one sacrificial lamb already throw to the angry mobs in the form of Michael Brown, erstwhile head of FEMA. Castigated for his failure to set the wheels of the relief effort rolling, he tendered his resignation on Monday. Dubbyuh stated that he put no pressure on "Brownie" and thought he was doing just splendidly...wink, wink, nudge, nudge. But apparently, It was Michael Chertoff who had the authority to call out the relief effort. When will he resign, I wonder?

Dubbyuh wants to discuss disaster planning with state and local governments...Golly, hasn't he had four years to do that? In December 2003, Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 was produced. It was meant to address "threatened or actual domestic terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies"...I thnk we all see what happened there...Nothing...Nada...Zip. Following in December 2004, the National Response Plan surfaced. It was "an all-discipline, all-hazards plan that establishes a single, comprehensive framework for the management of domestic incidents,"...Again, we get bupkis.

If I remember correctly, Dubbyuh promised to keep America safe, and ready to respond to any crisis on our shores, as part of his election campaign in '04. But as we can see, as with so amny other things, Dubbyuh is "...all hat and no cattle...". He campaigned as a man of integrity, yet all he and his cronies have given us is smoke and mirrors. He has aided and abetted the looting of America's treasury while spilling its greatest treasure, the blood of our men and women in uniform, in an illegal and unjust war.

If he had any shame at all, he would resign. But he, like the rest of his merry band, is shameless.

Jesus...What a creep show...

I was watching CNN this morning, an interview with Mike Allen...Washington Post alumnus and now Time Magazine's White House correspondent. He seemed much less like a journalist and more like a hesitant apologist for the Bush administration. He was spouting the usual watered down talking points when he blurted out something about Dubbyuh insisting on accountability for what happened or, more appropriately, didn't happen in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.

At that point, I felt a terrible anger well up inside me. Since when has George W. Bush, his administration or anyone associated with his administration, been held accountable?...FOR ANYTHING!?! How could Mr. Allen even make that assertion given the track record of Dubbyuh and his gang of thugs?

Accountability is the LAST thing Dubbyuh and his administration want. A full accounting will place responsibilty for the failures after Katrina squarely on the doorstep of the Bush administration and its cronies. But responsibility is something they are very good at dodging.

Hmmmmm...I wonder...

I wonder why whenever anyone criticizes Dubbyuh and his merry band for their belated responses to hurricane Katrina, they're accused of playing "...the blame game..."? But whenever anyone criticizes state and local officials for said belated response, no such complaints arise.

Why is it that the governors of Alabama and Mississippi aren't also being taken to task by the Bush administration for the belated response to the hurricane's aftermath? Could it be because both states have REPUBLICAN governors?

The sad fact of the matter is that the Administration is simply trying to cover its collective political ass by placing the blame elsewhere. Like an alcoholic family, they are trying to place responsibility for the problems and suffering they cause anywhere but where it belongs...at their own doorstep. Never mind that top level management at FEMA is populated by nothing more than a bunch of sniveling, syncophantic political hacks. "We didn't do anything...", they whine. Which is precisely the point...They did nothing, and thousands of Americans died ON AMERICAN SOIL! And they boasted that Dubbyuh and his merry band have made America more secure. Forgive my incredulity.

Here is the timeline for the disaster:

Bush Disaster Timeline

Junior Contemplates His Navel

The idea of Dubbyuh heading an invetigation into "What went right and what went wrong..." in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina is problematic on several levels, not the least of which being that alcoholics are seldom given to introspection.

"Alcoholic...?" you say. "Didn't Dubbyuh swear off booze years ago?" you ask. Yes, DUbbyuh found Jesus and swore off demon rum. However, having done so, he never dealt with the underlying issues that lead him to drink in the first place. Nor has the issue of the permanent cognitive impairments resulting from decades of dedicated substance abuse been addressed. Dubbyuh is an untreated alcoholic...in common parlance, a dry drunk.

We can see the evidence of this in his obsessive physical exercise...his grandiose behavior...his rigid and judgemental worldview...his impatience...his childish and irresponsible behavior...his projection...his irrational rationalizations.

It is also common for alcoholics, both active and 'dry', to seek to place blame anywhere but upon themselves, and this has been a defining characteristic not only of this Bush administration, but also of George W. Bush in general. What passes as introspection and self-examination in this population is nothing more than an ongoing quest to dodge responsibility for the consequences of their actions. It can be safely assumed that any investigation by Dubbyuh and his administration into the failures following hurricane Katrina will yield a similar result. Blame will be laid everywhere but where it belongs...at the doorstep of the White House.

Unintended Consequences

The overturning of "Roe v. Wade" would have many unintended consequences beyond simply making if even more difficult, if not impossible, to obtain a safe, legal abortion in this country. By rejecting the core of "Roe v. Wade", that some issues are too private and personal to be subjected to governmental intrusion, a whole, ghastly can of worms is opened.

...Roe v. Wade is at the core of American jurisprudence, and its multiple strands of reasoning concerning marital privacy, medical privacy, bodily autonomy, psychological liberty and gender equality are all connected to myriad other cases concerning the rights of parents to rear their
children, the right to marry, the right use contraception, the right to have children, and the right torefuse unwanted medical treatment... - United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary: The Consequences of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, June 23, 2005

It was in 1965 that state laws against contraception were struck down by the SCOTUS in "Griswold v. Connecticut" as being unconstitutional invasions of the privacy of married couples. This precedent was extended to unmarried persons only in 1971. The right to privacy established in "Griswold v. Connecticut" served as the basis for "Roe v. Wade".

This right to privacy extends to all areas of life, including the right to make medical decision...the right to decide whether or not to have children...the right of a terminally ill patient to refuse medical care...All are rooted in this same concept of privacy. Overturn "Roe v. Wade" and this entire fabric will unravel. A paternalistic and overbearing government steps in and makes these decisions, regardless of the wishes of the individual.

Should "Roe v. Wade" be overturned, women will no longer be the misstresses of their own lives and fates. Unable to make the determination as to whether they wish to get, or be, pregnant, the state will make that decision for them. They will once again be relegated to the status of second class citizens.

Junior's Summer Vacation

At his Texas Versailles, Dubbyuh does little more than spout platitudes to the families of thoise who have lost loved ones in Iraq.

"We will stay the course; we will complete the job in Iraq."

Cold comfort to those whose loved ones died in the service of their country in pursuit of dubious goals. Too little, too late for those whose courage, honor and belief in their country has been made a mockery of by this president.

Cindy Sheehan is one such person. The founder of Gold Star Families for Peace, she stands vigil outside Dubbyuh's Texas hide-away waiting for answers from the president who sent her son to die for a cause now known to be false. WMD's were the casus beli, since shown to be nothing more than the product of cherry-picked, over spun and fabricated intel.

Apparently, Junior has better things to do than to provide an honest answer to Mrs. Sheehan, and the rest of the country. There's alot of brush to be cleared down there on the ranch, they must be flying in C-130's loaded with it, and Junior is simply too busy dealing with that critical issue. Instead, he sends a couple of underlings to speak with Mrs. Sheehan.

The other reason, and a far more likely one in my humble opinion, is that Junior is little more than a spineless worm who is all too willing to sacrifice others (especially if they can't afford the price tag that accompanies his pay to play administration) to achieve his goals. So, neither Mrs. Sheehan nor America can expect any answers from Junior or his playmates any time soon.

'Turd-Blossom' in Deeper Shit

IN the ongoing saga of Karl Rove and the outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent more turds keep rising to the surface of this punch-bowl than you can shake a stick at.

Something many defenders of 'Turd-Blossom' seem to forget in their fervor is that on July 30, 2003, the CIA filed a "crime report" regarding this matter. This, essentially, referrs the matter to the DOJ for criminal prosecution.

They also seem to remain willfully ignorant of the fact that Brewster Jennings & Associates, the CIA front company that Ms. Plame listed as her official employer, was severely comromised and other CIA officers who used the company as a front were also compromised. Whether this has led to the loss of life as these operations were rolled up remains to be seen.

According to Larry Johnson, a former CIA official, Ms. Plame was also operating under NOC or, non-official cover. This meant that Ms. Plame when traveling abroad under a non-diplomatic passport, could have been arrested as a foreign agent and been executed by a regime hostile to US interests.

Contrary to the assertions of some that Ms. Plame was nothing but a "file-clerk, Vincent Cannistraro, former CIA counter-terrorism operations chief, has stated differently. He has stated that Ms. Plame ran NBC non-proliferation operations, recruiting agents to seek out information on NBC proliferation. Information which would be particularly useful to the US here...now.

Many of 'Turd-Blossom's' supporters also cite the narrowly worded "Intelligence Identities Protection Act" which makes it a federal crime to intentionally reveal any information identifying an undercover operative. They claim that he didn't reveal her name, and only referred to her as "Joe Wilson's wife". This is simply the poorest sort of sophisty and hair-splitting. And even if 'Turd-Blossom' did not commit a crime under the letter of this law, he certainly violated its spirit. But there are other laws which may have been broken, not the least of which is " The Espionage Act of 1917". And there is also the little matter of Turd-Blossom's violation of the "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement" he signed as a condition of employment and which he violated by disclosing Ms. Plame's identity.

But this case goes deeper than just the revelation of a CIA operative's name in pursuit of political payback. It goes to the heart of the Administration's justicfications for the war with Iraq and threatens to send that already teetering house of cards crashing to the ground.

'Turd-blossom'in Deep Shit

In the White House Regular Press Briefing of July 11th, 2005, White House Press Secretary Puffy McMoonface, aka Scott McClellan, aka Chummy McSharkbait, was savaged by a gang of real reporters who were secretly substituted for the White House press corps. The subject of the reporters questioning was Karl Rove and the statements made by Puffy and Dubbyuh regarding an ongoing criminal investigation. This was, of course, before they figured out they'd been caught in a lie and decided not to comment on an ongoing criminal investigation.

It was October 10th, 2003. I another press briefing, Puffy stated that neither Rove nor 'Scooter' Libby were involved. Nor, he added was Elliot Abrams. Sounds like a comment about an ongoing criminal investigation to me.

And wasn't it Dubbyuh who said:

If there's leaks out of my administration, I want to know who it is, and if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of.

However, the pattern of Dubbyuh's Administration is to reward failure. After all, Condi ignored the PDB which stated "Osama bin Laden seeks to attack the US", and lookit where she is now...Secretary of State an' all. And then there was George Tenet who got us into a war based on cooked intel. He got a Presidential Medal of Freedom. And so did J. Paul Bremmer, who managed to lose $9 billion in taxpayer money in Iraq.

For a cock-up of this magnitude, Turd-blossom's reward will have to be pretty spectacular. Could a seat on the SCOTUS be in the offing?

For more on this little [packet of distracting weirdness, I offer the following links:

Puffy gets beaten like a gong The full transcript.

The main-stream media - Developing a backbone...At last

Just how serious is Dubbyuh about the 'War on Terror'?

All indictions to date are that he's not at all serious. After 9/11, Dubbyuh went all cowboy sheriff and made alot of noise about wanting Osama bin Laden "...Dead or Alive...". Just a few months later, in March of 2002, Dubbyuh flip-flopped and said. "I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. - White House Press Conference, 5/13/02

During that March press conference, Dubbyuh was already making noises about the "threat " posed by Saddam Hussein. Also, in July of 2002, Dubbyuh, without notifying Congress as the post-9/11 appropriations bill required him to do , diverted some $700 million dollars from the operational fund for Afghanistan to fund operations against Iraq. This was concurrent with the stepped up bombing of targets in Iraq, again without notifying Congress.

On the homefront, Dubbyuh and his merry band contiue seeking to make the tax-cuts beneffiting the wealthiest 1% of Americans permanent...This in a time of war. Shouldn't we be raising taxes to fund ongoiing military oprerations? But no, he'd rather borrow from foreign lenders to support his foreign military adventurism. Cuts in funding to first -responders, fire, police and EMS personnel, continue unabated. Funding for sea-port security remains far below what is needed. Nuclear power plants and petro-chem facilites remain large, soft targets, particularly since the Chemical Facilities Security Act of 2003 died in committee.

So, just how serious is Dubbyuh about the war on terror...? Not very. It just gets trotted out with "Remember 9/11!" when his poll numbers sag.

"...defeat them abroad before they attack us at home..."

Yesterdays bombings in London gave the lie to that premise. Rather than acting as "flypaper", Iraq has become a training ground for terrorists which is second to none. It exceeds the wildest wet dreams that Osama bin Laden had for training operations in Taliban controlled Afghanistan.

In a report from January 2005, the National Intelligence Council stated, "...a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills...". While no firm numbers on Iraqi insurgents killed are available, it seems likly that the casualties are doing little more than culling the less capable members and giving rise to more highly trained, experienced, motivated and capable terrorist operatives than have been seen in recent memory. These operatives, particularly the foreign nationals fighting alongside Iraqi nationals, are then able to exfiltrate from Iraq and carry the skills they have acquired there around the world.

To think that we will "...defeat them abroad before they attack us at home..." is at best, pollyanish wishful thinking. At worst it is a gross understatement of the threat to both this nation and the world at large. Let us hope our leaders outgrow such foolishness before we pay the price on our shores...again.

Dubbyuh's Special Day

On July 4th, Dubbyuh gave a speech in Morgantown, WV. Of course, this speech was given before a hand-picked audience of approved ticket holders...No subversives or hecklers allowed.

In his speech Dubbyuh reached back in history, a subject he knows little about, and brought forth the memory of the struggles of the Founding Fathers and their strugle for independence. He compared and contrasted this with the current struggle of the Iraqi people. And, I must confess the analogy is interesting.

In 1776, a band of American insurgents rose up, and with the support of some foreign governments and a few foreign troops...Fought, bled and died, in order to finally expell and occupying army from American soil. Indeed, circumstances in Iraq are strikingly similar.

In Iraq, an insurgency has arisen in order to expell occupying foreign troops from Iraqi soil. They also have the support of some foreign nations with about 5% of the manpower for the insugency being compromised of foreign troops. But the occupying military is compromised, primarily of US troops.

On the surface, Dubbyuh's analogy seems appropriate, but when looking at the context it is wholly inappropriate. In launching a war of aggression against Iraq based on questionable pretenses and intel fabricated from whole cloth, the Bush administration has betrayed the struggle of Americans in the Revolutionary war. They have betrayed the ideals of the Founding Fathers. They have betrayed the Constitution they swore to uphold and defend.

Illegal...And They Knew it.

We have the Downing Street Minutes and their associated documents.

We have revelations of a bombing campaign called 'Southern Focus' began in June of 2002, which involved over 21,000 sorties against targets in Iraq. Please note this began while the administration was denying the inevitability of war, and some five months before the Administration asked Congress for the authority to begin military operations in Iraq.

And we have this forgotten story...War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

In November of 2003, Richard Perle, one of the architects of Bush Administration policy towards Iraq, stated of the invasion of Iraq:

I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing.

Richard Perle admitted the invasion of Iraq was illegal. At the urging of George W. Bush and members of his cabinet, America embarked on a war of aggression in violation of US and international law. They are thus liable for proscecution under that law. It is time we did so.

A word on Karl Rove...

Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers... - Karl Rove, 6/22/2005

Liberal that I am, I simply cannot understand Mr. Rove's remarks. After 9/11, I knew someone was going to get the sharp end of the stick...I wanted that to happen, and I don't know of anyone who didn't. I challenge Mr. Rove, or anyone else for that matter, to produce JUST ONE person, liberal or conservative, who voiced the point of view he described. In making such remarks, Mr. Rove slandered the memory of those who perished on that day...He slandered everyone who watched in horror as the planes slammed into the Towers and stood overwhelmed by the tragedy as the Towers collapsed...He slandered the families who lost loved ones to this monstrous tragedy

More important though is that the question as to why Mr. Rove chose to raise the spectre of 9/11 has gone begging. The answer is quite simple...The President's poll numbers continue to slide towards the tipping point...Iraq is sliding towards disintigration...The Downing Street Minutes continue to hound the president, and references to 9/11 are attempt to revive the fears 9/11 raised. Well guess what Mr. Rove...We're not afraid anymore! We've accepted the fact that the world is a dangerous place, and that danger can reach our shores.

The Laming of the President...

Here it is, June nearly over...Dubbyuh's poll numbers sinking like a rock...His social security "reform" legislation DOA...Republicans jockeying for position in '08...Bolton's nomination ground to a halt. It sounds as if Dubbyuh has become a the lamest of ducks. Not the legacy he had planned.

Things could have been different if he'd actually used the put the faith America placed in him after 9/11 to good use. Instead he focused on the politics of polarization and divisiveness. He worked to concentrate power in the hands of the Republican majority in Congress rather than working to form a bipartisan coalition that could actually accomplish something.Instead, he and his advisors chose to brand any who opposed them as "unpatriotic" and "traitors".

He squandered the goodwill extened to the US by the rest of the world after 9/11 in a foolish, wrongheaded and illegal invasion of Iraq. A war which few Americans now support and one which is gutting our all voluteer military and enfeebling it to the point that it may not be able to adequately deal with any other threat to national security. In the course of that war, the attrocities committed at Abu Ghraib in Iraq, Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan, GITMO and elswhere shredded the remaining fabric of US credibility abroad. They also served as potent for the recruiting ot the terrorists the Administration claims to be fighting.

This Administration may yet go down as one of the greatest failures of a presidency in American history. We can only hope that the next president, regardless of party or ideology, will be able to pick up the pieces and restore the standing of the office as well as America's standing with the world.

Dubbyuh is fast heading towards irrelevancy as congressional Republicans look beyond 2008 and to their own political fortunes and the risks that will come from riding Dubbyuh's tattered coat-tails. It can't come soon enough.

A "Generational committment..." ?

That's what Condi Rice said of the US commitment in Iraq. This stands in stark contrast to Dick Cheney's assessment in March of 2003 that:

...we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months.

Or Rummy's statement in February of 2003 that:

It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.

And, let's not forget OMB Director Mitch Daniels' rosy outlook, also in March of 2003:

The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid.

We all now know that these optimistic or, more appropriately - unrealistic, estimates were nothing more than whistling past the graveyard. Yet the administration, refusing to accept the estimates of its commanders on the ground continues to cheerily assert that the insurgency in Iraq is in its "last throes". According to General William Webster, the US commander for Baghdad,

Certainly saying anything about 'breaking the back' or 'about to reach the end of the line' or those kinds of things do not apply to the insurgency at this point.

This administration has been so wrong on so many things about Iraq, not the least of which includes the lack of post-war planning cited in the Downing Street Minutes and other documents. Can we really trust their myopic, rose-colored assessment of conditions there now?

A New Look at an Old Letter

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

This is the text of the letter sent by Dubbyuh to Congress on the eve of the invasion of Iraq. It is important to review this in light of the new informatuion which has surfaced in the form of the Downing Street Minutes and other documents.

With regards to paragraph 1, the Downing Street Minutes clearly state that:

Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

Saddam was, in essence, no threat to his neighbors, let alone the US or the UK. Furthermore, Peter Rricketts stated that the pace of Saddam's weapons programs was not changed nor, according to the 2002 IAEA Fact Sheet on Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

There were no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of amounts of weapons-usable nuclear material of any practical significance.

In other words, there would have been no smoking gun in the form of a "mushroom cloud" as Condi Rice was so fond of stating. And, as we now know, there were no weapons of mass destruction to be found in Iraq.

As for Paragraph 2, using Public Law 107-243 to justify military action against Iraq is probelmatic in and of itself. Especialy since several of the premises it is based on are unfounded. First and foremost being that Saddam's regime was a supporter of Al Qaeda, and thus partly responsible for the attacks on 9/11. No credible evidence of any such connection has been produced. Other terrorist organizations, which may have had dealings with Saddam, seems to be greatly exaggerated. Saddam did support Abu Nidal in the early eighties. The last act of anti-American terroism that can be linked to Saddam was in 1993. After that there was no act of international terrorism that could be directly linked to Iraq. While there are those who contend that Iraq provided substantial support to Hamas and other Palestinian terrorists, far greater support came from Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations supported by the US government.

There is little to directly support the contentions in this letter that support military action against Iraq. The Bush administration was intent on the removal of Saddam Hussein from the beginings of the first Bush administration. 9/11 was merely the lever the Administration used to move Congress to give the president the authority to invade Iraq, and the ceding of that Congressional authority to the President is problematic in and of itself.

And as for the UN resolutions regarding Iraq, it is clear from the Downing Street Minutes that the Bush administration had already decided the UN was to be circumvented. The goal was to try to use the UN a tool to justify war with Iraq rather than an instrument of peace.

The NSC had no patience with the UN route...

LIES...! DAMNED LIES!

George W. Bush and his gang of neocon warmongers have destroyed America’s reputation. It is likely to stay destroyed, because at this point the only way to restore America’s reputation would be to impeach and convict President Bush for intentionally deceiving Congress and the American people in order to start a war of aggression against a country that posed no threat to the United States.

While I'd like to take credit for writing this, I can't. Props to Paul Craig Roberts A Reagan Republican with a long and distinguished career. Mr. Roberts has taken a stand in opposition to the war in Iraq from its inception and finds the blindness towards the egregious lies and abuses perpetrated by the Bush administration to be intolerable.

How much longer will we tolerate these lies and abuses? How long before the young men and women who have died for the lies of the Bush administration are vindicated by the impeachment ot this presindent and those who aided him in the formation and implementation of thes ruinous policies? Who much longer wil the blindly devoted supporters of the Bush administration remain blinded? How many more must die for a lie?

Dubbyuh's BIG Lie...

Congress has now authorized the use of force. I have not ordered the use of force. I hope the use of force will not become necessary. - George W. Bush, 9/16/02

These were Dubbyuh's words. Yet with the release of the "Downing Street" memo, it has become apparent that the Bush administration had already committed America to the pursuit of war.

On July 8, 2002, a meeting took place in London. Present were Tony Blair, Geoffrey Hoon, British secretary of defense; Jack Straw, British secretary of state; Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general; John Scarlett, head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, which advises Blair; Sir Richard Dearlove, also known as "C," the head of MI6 ; David Manning, Britain's national security adviser; Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, the chief of the Defense Staff ; Jonathan Powell, Blair's chief of staff; Alastair Campbell, director of strategy; and Sally Morgan, director of government relations.

At that meeting was discussed Dearlove's recent trip to Washington and the discussions which were held there. Nearly thre month's before Dubbyuh's October 16th satement, Dearlove had this to say:

C(Dearlove) reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

Contrary to his later statements, Dubbyuh had decided to go to war to remove Hussein from power. This action was to be justified by linking the concepts of WMD's with terrorism. But this would be a simple task in the US as a majority of Americans mistakenly believed that Hussein was responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center. The intell was being spun and wrung until it fitted the policy the administration chose to pursue. There was no patience amongst the neo-con chicken-hawks in the administration for allowing the UN to finish inspections and make its final report. And as for what happend after the invasion...well they apparently didn't find that to be an issue worthy of their deliberation.

Looking at events as they are now unfolding in Iraq, we now know that there were no WMD's...Hussein had no part of 9/11...There was no credible evidence of any ties between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda...And we are reaping the bitter harvest of the Administration's lack of planning for a post-war Iraq. We see an intractable insurgency, which General Richard Meyer's says is undiminished from a year ago.

Since The Big Lie, more than 1600 US military men and women have gone to their deaths, not to mention the civilian contractors that have died. Nearly 15,000 soldiers and marines have been wounded...maimed...crippled for life. And then there are the Iraqi civilian casualties. Conservative estimates place the total at around 10,000 while others place them at over 20,000.

How many more must die for a lie?

Nuclear option defused...for now.

Last night, common sense prevailed, and Senate moderates including Senators Byrd, DeWine, Nelson, Lincoln, Landrieu, Lieberman, Salazar, Inouye, Warner, McCain, Snowe, Collins, Graham and Chafee, reached a compromise ont the issue of judiciak filibusters. Like all compromises, it is not perfect, and fails to satisfy the extreme elements on both sides of the argument. But the power to filibuster judicial nominees remains.

Unfortunately, as part of this compromise, Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor some of the most extreme right-wing of Dubbyuh's picks will be voted on.

James Dobson, of Focus On the Family, immediately put in his two-cents worth, claiming that,

This Senate agreement represents a complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats. Only three of President Bush’s nominees will be given the courtesy of an up-or-down vote, and it's business as usual for all the rest. The rules that blocked conservative nominees remain in effect, and nothing of significance has changed.

A "...complete bailout and betrayal..." by moderate Republicans. He further goes on to decry the judicial filibuster as "unconstitutional". How can anyone take seriously the man who 'outed' Sponge Bob Squarepants?

While not mentioned specifically in the Constitution, the filibuster has been used since 1841, with the only significant change to Senate rules on the matter coming in 1917, when the cloture rule was put into place. Since then, it has remained a powerful tool by minorities, on both sides of the Senate aisle, to further debate on a given issue or nomination, protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

More significantly though, is that moderate Republicans were willing to sidestep the Republican leadership in Congress that was pushing for the "nuclear option", especially Bill Frist. It was Frist, after all, who went contrary to the Administrations's desire to have John Bolton's nominaation brought to the floor before the judicial nominations. In doing so, he hoped to cement the support of religious far right-wing for a run for the White House in 2008. Now, however, he's been rolled and how much politcal capital he he has left with that raucus and fickle minority remains to be seen.

This can be seen as the first step in a return to common-sense and sanity in the Senate. Or, as I fear it will be, it can be seen as the first volley in a battle leading to further extremeism and polarization in the halls of Congress.