JABBS

Fox News Remains Ratings King, But Ratings Slid In 2006

2007-01-04T08:19:00.000-05:00

Fox News Channel's prime-time lineup saw its ratings slide in 2006.

About 20 percent fewer viewers -- and 25 percent in the precious 25-54 age group -- watched Hannity & Colmes, O'Reilly Factor and the rest of Fox News' nightly shows.

Fox News remains the ratings king, with 1.4 million viewers nightly.

MSNBC -- led by buzzworthy Keith Olbermann -- was the only cable news network to see its ratings climb last year. MSNBC, ranked third among the four news channels, was up 6 percent for the year, but up a whopping 22 percent in the fourth quarter, when the network's prime-time line-up was revamped to focus primarily on the midterm elections.

Most of those viewers seem to have come from Fox News. As JABBS noted last month, Fox News' ratings were down 24 percent from October 2005 to October 2006, and were down 19 percent from November 2005 to November 2006 -- the peak of election season.

At the time, Fox News executives spun that their ratings declined because of a slow news year. Others have rightly suggested that the ratings drop mirrors a change among voters, and a rejection of the conservative analysis that makes up Fox News' nightly lineup.

Savage: Man-Made Global Warming Doesn't Explain End Of Ice Age

2007-01-04T07:46:00.000-05:00

On last night's edition of Savage Nation, conservative radio ranter Michael Savage chastised a caller for suggesting that global warming is a man-made phenomenon.

His reason? If man was to blame, then how did the ice ages end, long before man-made emissions?

It's a false premise relying on "truthiness" -- a gut feeling, rather than a concept based on scientific research.

It's like comparing a falling tree punching a hole in your roof and a hole forming in your roof because you used substandard material. Both events caused a hole in your roof, but the first was a natural occurrence, and the second was a man-made occurrence. One has nothing to do with the other.

How cozy it must be inside that bubble -- free of science.

Savage won't tell his listeners that the National Academy of Sciences has unequivocally concluded that "Human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming,” or that a 2001 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- which involves thousands of scientists from over 120 countries -- stated, “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.”

It's cozy in the bubble, where Savage can lash out at "ecofreaks" like Al Gore. Savage would never tell you that Gore's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, got a thumbs-up for conveying the science correctly from 19 climate experts.

Administration Official Tells NBC News That Troop Surge In Iraq Is "Political Decision"

2007-01-04T01:19:00.000-05:00

"(O)ne administration official admitted to us today that this surge option is more of a political decision than a military one because the American people have run out of patience and President Bush is running out of time to achieve some kind of success in Iraq. While this plan will clearly draw some stiff opposition on Capitol Hill, the president is expected to announce it a week from today."

-- NBC News Pentagon Correspondent Jim Miklaszewski, Jan. 3

The above sentiment would be consistent with comments made in November by CentCom commander Gen. John Abizaid told Congress “I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the corps commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American Troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no.”

Abizaid -- perhaps not coincidentally -- submittted plans to retire two weeks ago, and will leave his post in March.

That's what happens when you have a foreign policy that is one part failed neocon theory and one part empty catch phrases and other conservative spin -- like "I will listen to my commanders on the ground."

The truth is, Bush listens to his commanders when they tell him what he wants to hear. Otherwise, such commanders suddenly retire.

***

Liberal journalist Robert Parry wrote yesterday that the political decision of a troop surge should be called: "Operation: Save Bush’s Legacy, with the goal of postponing the inevitable until 2009 when American defeat can be palmed off on a new President."

I hope he's wrong -- I still have hope that some combination of military and diplomatic efforts can get the U.S. out of Iraq with the fragile democracy intact. But I fear Parry's right about Bush's motives.

Forget Conservative Talking Heads And Radio Ranters. Broad Majority Of Americans Support "Liberal Ideas"

2007-01-04T00:44:00.000-05:00

The conservative talking heads and radio ranters would have you believe that "cut and run" liberals, with their "San Francisco values" plan to lead the country astray.

These fringe conservatives represent the know-nothings, creating fictional "liberal" straw men that they can knock down. Listen to Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage or Mark Levin, and you know who to get angry at: "Hillary Rotten Clinton" or "Schmucky Schumer." Laugh with them at Dianne Feinstein or Nancy Pelosi, make fun of Barack Obama's name, misrepresent what they stand for, and hope you share their anger.

But just because these yahoos say they represent "mainstream" values doesn't mean anyone has to believe them. Americans just need to know the facts, and frame the subject accordingly.

A new poll from CNN helps. It gives more strong evidence that the "liberal" ideas mocked by conservatives are, in fact, mainstream views. In issue after issue, Americans are siding with Pelosi, Obama, Feinstein and the rest, and not George W. Bush or his conservative Congressional counterparts.

Consider some poll results:

-- Raising the minimum wage: 85 percent favor, 14 percent oppose.

-- Cutting interest rates on federal loans to college students: 84 percent favor, 15 percent oppose.

-- Creating an independent panel to oversee Congressional ethics: 79 percent favor, 19 percent oppose.

-- Making significant changes in U.S. policy in Iraq: 75 percent favor, 21 percent oppose.

-- Implementing all anti-terrorism recommendations of 9/11 Commission: 64 percent favor, 26 percent oppose.

-- Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research: 62 percent favor, 32 percent oppose.

It should be noted that all of the above are issues the new Democratic majorities in Congress plan to address.

***

It would be easy (and I'm paraphrasing Levin) to just scream at the conservative pundits, "Get off the radio, you big dope!"

But we know that isn't going to happen, and it shouldn't. Free speech -- even ridiculous, mean-spirited, ill-informed speech -- is something that we must all defend.

As Michael Douglas, as President Andrew Shepherd said in the 1995 movie The American President: "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."

They want you to try to stop them, so they can change the subject from what Americans want, to some fake battle over "liberal media bias."

Instead, shut these people up is with facts. Defends "mainstream" values, not as defined by Mark Levin, but as defined by a wide American majority.

Soldier Asks What Will "Next Story" Be To Keep Troops In Iraq

2007-01-03T08:14:00.000-05:00

U.S. troops cheered as news of Saddam's execution appeared on television at the mess hall at Forward Operating Base Loyalty in eastern Baghdad. But some soldiers expressed doubt that Saddam's death would be a significant turning point for Iraq.

"First it was weapons of mass destruction. Then when there were none, it was that we had to find Saddam. We did that, but then it was that we had to put him on trial,'' said Spc. Thomas Sheck, 25, who is on his second tour in Iraq. "So now, what will be the next story they tell us to keep us over here?''

-- Associated Press report, Dec. 30

***

That's a very good question. Does anyone have an answer?

The most recent "next story" given by President Bush for staying in Iraq was "to take the lead, and to deal with these radicals and extremists, and to help support young democracies. It's the calling of our time."

Of course, the "Bush Doctrine" on fledgling Middle East democracies doesn't extend to the Palestinians, Lebanese or Egyptians. That's what happens when you have a foreign policy that is one part failed neocon theory and one part empty catch phrases and other conservative spin.

***

Just 16 percent of Americans think the federal government reflects the "will of the people." Just 11 percent agree with the latest neocon theory -- the "McCain Doctrine" -- which calls for the U.S. to increase troops levels in Iraq. Bush is expected to follow through on this gameplan.

The administration spin -- the "next story" -- is that by increasing troops, the U.S. can gain control over violence in Baghdad, then speed up the handover of territory to Iraqi forces.

It sounds good on paper, but the Bush Administration has been wrong so many times on Iraq, Americans have the right to be skeptical.

Lawrence Korb, assistant defense secretary in the Reagan Administration, offered two reasons to be worried that this "next story" will not be the last: "If you send another 20,000 more troops, casualties are going to go up, you're going to increase the Iraqi's dependence on us."

And of course, there are s problem with stretching the military so thin -- ranging from anxiety, depression and acute stress to suicide. But such concerns rarely get in the way of neocon theory.

Happy New Year, America

2007-01-01T00:29:00.000-05:00

Happy New Year, America.

For my New Year's resolution, I ask that you watch this five-minute video. Send the link to your friends and loved ones. Send it to your Representatives in Congress and your Senators. Send it to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Help its message travel around the world.

Watch this video, and think about the 3,000 troops who have died in Iraq. Think about their friends and loved ones, who no longer have a brother, sister, father, mother or friends to hold.

Watch it, and be thankful that you have someone to hold.

***

Happy New Year to our leaders. May they have the wisdom and strength to do what's right and good -- not with empty slogans but with deeds, not for their egos but for their countrymen and women.

It's a lot to ask. More than we've received in recent years.

Happy New Year to our troops. The war will not end in 2007, but perhaps this will be the year when we can seriously begin planning your return home, so that you may once again hold close your loved ones. Be safe.

***

Too often, asking for peace is chastised as weak or naive, something to stereotype as the fancy of hallucinatory hippies dancing in some San Francisco park. It's easier to laugh at the peace groups, or look the other way. It's harder to consider peace a viable option when war is afoot.

But a large majority of Americans want to see a change, quickly, in the path the U.S. has taken in the Middle East. Overwhelmingly, the American people do not believe their government represents their will.

They want peace. They don't want weakness. They don't want appeasement. They don't want to "cut and run" or embolden the terrorists, or some other empty catch-phrase uttered by conservative radio ranters. They just want a solution in the Middle East that doesn't require another 3,000 dead U.S. soldiers.

Rice Explains Why U.S. Won't "Just Talk To Iran" Or Syria

2006-12-30T01:40:00.000-05:00

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice argued last week that the U.S. can't "just talk to Iran" or Syria.

Why? Because if "the Iranians and the Syrians want to act to stabilize Iraq, they can do that without talking to us," she told Margaret Warner of PBS' NewsHour.

Sort of circular logic, doncha think? We don't need to talk to them because they don't have to talk to us if we or they want a stabilized Iraq?

Rice also fears that any diplomacy would lead to the Iranians and Syrians seeking "some kind of trade." But that merely represents the Bush Administration (read: neocon) belief that diplomacy equals appeasement. Just because the Iranians or Syrians may want something does not mean that we have to appease their wishes.

"(T)he idea that we somehow have to tell them what to do in order to stabilize Iraq when they, in fact, are the ones who are destabilizing Iraq?" Rice said. "They know what they're doing. They can stop it on any day."

That's true. But they have been given no reason to fall into line. While the U.S. has failed to consider diplomacy, even when Syria has asked for it, Iran has tried to flex its muscles as a regional power. The longer Iraq remains a mess, the better the chances that Iran (with Syria in tow) can influence its future.

"They are, by the way, talking to the Iraqis about how to (stabilize Iraq). They are, by the way, members of the International Compact for Iraq," Rice said.

You would think a red flag would be raised, or warning bells would go off. The longer we leave Iran and Syria alone talking with Iraq, the harsher the price will be. If Rice is worried about Iran or Syria seeking "some kind of trade" now, how will she feel if Iraq's government allies itself with those countries -- and turns against the U.S.?

You Can't Make This Stuff Up ...

2006-12-29T00:29:00.000-05:00

When people were asked in an Associated Press-AOL News poll to name the villains and heroes of the year, Bush topped both lists, in a sign of these polarized times.

Bush won the villain sweepstakes by a landslide, with one in four respondents putting him at the top of that bad-guy list. When people were asked to name the candidate for villain that first came to mind, Bush far outdistanced even Osama bin Laden, the terrorist leader in hiding; and former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, who is scheduled for execution.

The president was picked as hero of the year by a much smaller margin. In the poll, 13 percent named him as their favorite while 6 percent cited the troops in Iraq.

***

Perhaps one reason people don't like Bush -- beyond the failures in Iraq, the bungling of Hurricane Katrina, etc. -- is that the man just doesn't seem to work very hard, even in the face of catastrophes.

As the Associated Press noted yesterday: President Bush worked nearly three hours at his Texas ranch on Thursday to design a new U.S. policy in Iraq."

Three hours. Phew. Guess he had to make time for those photo-ops clearing brush.

It reminds me of the image of Bush flying over the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina -- spending far too little time on the problems at hand. This was before he was given a DVD briefing him on the situation, and long before he had his photo-op showing off how much he cared.

Campaign 2008: Four Years Ago, The "Liberal Media" Trashed Kerry Because Of His Wealth. Here We Go Again ...

2006-12-28T23:59:00.000-05:00

Here we go again.

Four years ago, the "liberal media" picked on John Kerry's wealth, trying to suggest that it was a metaphor for someone out of touch with the needs of mainstream America.

Now, if this MSNBC image is any indicator, John Edwards will be the candidate picked on for his wealth.

It won't matter, I guess, what the personal wealth is of Rudy Giuliani or John McCain or whomever else wins the Republican presidential nomination. The "liberal media" loves a storyline when it finds one, and "wealthy Democrat" may once again be too good to pass up.

***

During Campaign 2004, the New York Times published at least three splashy stories detailing John Kerry's wealth, as well as describing mannerisms that would suggest he was wealthy.

The Times prattled on about Kerry's highbrow pronunciations, described a campaign assistant as a "butler," and told us that "some Democrats" were worried that Kerry liked to vacation among the wealthy in Nantucket.

Those same articles offered contrasting images of President Bush as someone who "despite his own family's legacy of wealth and political power, manages to come off as a simple-hearted Texan," failed to discuss the help Bush had gotten along the way in creating his own fortune -- such as how he used borrowed money to make a killing as part owner of baseball's Texas Rangers -- or how his family had long vacationed among the wealthy in Kennebunkport, Maine, long before he was providing the made-for-spin image of clearing brush in Crawford, Texas.

Four years ago, the "liberal media" had a story to tell. Kerry was wealthy, and out of touch with the common man. Bush was wealthy, but in touch with the common man.

To make those stories work, the "liberal media" had to paint a picture. Kerry had a butler and correctly pronounced words. Bush liked to clear brush and eat barbecue.

***

Fast forward to the current election cycle.

Here we go again, America. John Edwards is the new candidate to annoint as "wealthy." Let the stereotyping and storytelling begin.

Campaign 2008: Did You Know That His Full Name Is Barack Hussein Obama?

2006-12-28T00:38:00.000-05:00

His name is Barack Hussein Obama.

Obama, the popular Democratic Senator from Illinois and possible 2008 presidential candidate, doesn't use his middle name as say, John Quincy Adams or William Henry Harrison did. He doesn't even refer to it -- as say, George W. Bush does with his middle initial.

But conservatives want you, the voter, to associate Obama with his middle name, in the hopes of scaring you into thinking anyone named Hussein must have ties to terrorism, or at the very least, brutal Iraqi dictators.

It all began last month, when GOP strategist Ed Rogers ridiculed Obama on MSNBC's Hardball, making sure to note that Obama's middle name is "Hussein." Now, references to "Barack Hussein Obama" are commonplace on conservative websites.

Forget that "Hussein" -- Arabic for "good, small handsome one" -- is a popular name throughout Africa and the Middle East. Forget that in Obama's case, it's a family moniker passed down from his Kenyan father and grandfather.

Conservatives want to scare you. And if that means saying "Hussein" early and often, so be it.

***

If the middle name isn't enough to scare you, then conservatives hope Obama -- which of course, sounds like Osama -- will do the trick.

Right-wing Web site Freerepublic.com has featured a photoshopped image of "Senator Osama Obama," and Rush Limbaugh has for some time called him "Obama Osama."

Other conservatives, like CNBC's Larry Kudlow, have "accidentally" referred to Obama as "Osama."

***

Will all the conservative scare tactics work?

The Chicago Tribune asked that question this week. The answer, apparently, is "not always."

"People have unconscious, emotional reactions to names," Cleveland Kent Evans, a psychologist who studies the practice and effect of naming, told the Tribune. "And there's a lot of psychological research that shows people do a lot of unconsciously prejudiced things. But most people do not think of themselves as biased. And when those things become conscious, when they realize they're in danger of doing something against their values, it may be more likely that they're going to behave the opposite way."

In other words, if the conservative talking heads and radio ranters play the scare card too often, it's bound to backfire.

This may all be moot if Obama decides not to run for president. But clearly, conservatives are scared enough to lay the ugly groundwork in hopes of derailing him.

Syria Ambassador To U.S. Says He Wants Dialogue On Iraq's Future

2006-12-27T23:15:00.000-05:00

Syria’s ambassador to the U.S., Imad Moustapha, told the Wall Street Journal that Syria wants to engage with the U.S. on Iraq’s future.

Moustapha noted that Condoleeza Rice is the first Secretary of State since 1974 "to have no working relationship with Syria whatsoever.”

Three of Rice’s predecessors as secretaries of state — James Baker, Madeleine Albright and Colin Powell — have argued recently in favor of engaging Syria. Another former Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, shuttled between Damascus and Jerusalem to negotiate a truce between Israel and Hezbollah in 1996.

But, Moustapha said, Rice "won’t listen to her former colleagues. ... (S)he has made up her own mind: Engagement with the Syrians does not benefit."

Maybe it's not fair to blame Rice. She is only carrying out the Bush Administration (read: neocon) gameplan, which argues that diplomacy with a country with ties to terrorism is equal to appeasement.

The last we heard from the State Department on Syria was more tough talk -- which has worked so well with the "Axis of Evil" and would-be members like Syria. State Department Deputy Tom Casey said last month that the problem "is not what they say; the problem is what they do."

But only a fool would think that there is no benefit from a face-to-face conversation with the "enemy." Only a fool would think that by sitting down with Syria, we would not be able to talk tough -- that to sit with them would make the U.S. the equivalent of Neville Chamberlain's England.

As JABBS noted in July, the fact that the Bush Administration hasn't talked with Syria has had only negative effects. The U.S. has had no ability to set the terms on issues from "foreign fighters" crossing over the Syrian-Iraqi border to Syria's continued assistance of Hezbollah.

Syria is not to be commended for its ties to terrorism. But to look the other way -- as the Bush team has chosen to do -- is only hurting the long-term stability of the Middle East.

And Now For Something Completely Different ...

2006-12-27T21:54:00.000-05:00

"In any event, we find widespread agreement among Republicans that U.S. troops must be leaving Iraq at the end of 2007 to avoid catastrophe in 2008."

-- Evans-Novak Political Report, Dec. 27

If this prediction came true, that would certainly be "good news" for the country, even if it provided a short-term boost in the polls for the GOP. But it's hard to envision the neocons that have President Bush's ear advocating troop redeployment under Bush's watch.

More likely, Bush will propose redeploying the additional troops brought to Iraq -- the so-called short-term "surge" -- and try to spin this as the first step in the road to victory there, whatever "victory" means.

Bush "Encouraged" By Moderates' Gains In Iran, But Actions Speak Louder Than Words

2006-12-27T17:15:00.000-05:00

President Bush was encouraged by moderates' gains in this month's Iranian elections, according to Jewish leaders who met with him earlier this month.

Bush has been surprisingly mum about the elections, in which allies of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lost ground among the main political groups, which analysts have said was a setback for the fiery leader and a possible sign of growing frustration among Iranians.

Bush did say at a press conference last week that Iranians "can do better than having somebody who's trying to develop a nuclear weapon that the world believes you shouldn't have."

But why hasn't Bush spoken out more about the elections? Or better yet, why hasn't Bush used the election results as an opportunity to try to reign in Iran through diplomacy?

I'm paraphrasing the late Israeli leader Abba Eban, but Bush, it would seem, "never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity" when it comes to diplomatic solutions for the Middle East.

***

It would be easy for Bush, or Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice on his behalf, or some coalition of U.S. leaders -- James Baker and Colin Powell come to mind -- to reach out to Ahmadinejad and quietly say that if he continues to isolate his country on the wrong side of the "Axis of Evil," only bad things can come to him and his country.

Another angle would be to reach out to our "moderate" Middle East friends to bridge the gap with Ahmadinejad.

The key is that diplomacy does not equal appeasement, as the conservative talking heads and radio ranters will tell you. British Prime Minister Tony Blair -- who last month said that Syria and Iran could play a "constructive" role in the Middle East -- understood as much when he said that it is absurd to suggest that talking to the countries amounted to appeasement.

While the U.S. has stayed on the sidelines, Ahmadinejad has tried to flex his country's muscles, reaching out to Iraq and Syria.

And the U.S. reaction has been to continue to polarize Iran. The Bush Administration says Iran is interfering with Iraq, and this week announced it had linked Iranians detained last week in Iraq with shipments of weapons to groups in Iraq.

We should remain tough with Iran, and try to seal off Iranian help to Iraqi insurgents. But being tough and having a dialogue are not mutually exclusive. Again, the Bush Administration has to stop believing neocon advisors who insist that diplomacy equals appeasement.

The election results in Iran have opened a door. Bush can score political points here at home -- given that just about everyone outside the neocon universe thinks the U.S. needs to open diplomatic channels -- and it might actually help contain an increasingly unstable Middle East.

Biden, Agreeing With Overwhelming American Majority, Says He'll Oppose Effort To Increase Troops In Iraq

2006-12-26T23:12:00.000-05:00

Incoming Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph Biden (D-DE) said today he would oppose any effort by President Bush to increase U.S troops in Iraq as part of a new war strategy.

"Absent some profound political announcement . . . I can't imagine there being an overwhelming, even significant support for the president's position," he told reporters during a telephone conference call.

And of course, he's right. Conservative television pundits and radio ranters spin that only "cut and run" liberals with "San Francisco values" oppose Bush's gameplan for Iraq. But the truth is that a poll this month from CNN found just 11 percent of Americans supported the idea of sending more troops to Iraq.

Biden is going against incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who said earlier this month he would be open to a short-term increase in troops.

Why is Reid wrong? As liberal pundit Rachel Maddow noted recently, Reid is incorporating a "triangulation" strategy -- trying to find a middle ground between an option almost no one favors (a surge in troops) and one that a majority supports (beginning redeployment within a year). The result is mush. Maddow correctly said that Reid should stop acting likely a minority party representative, and recognize why the Democrats regained control of both Houses of Congress.

***

Biden warned that congressional Republicans — not Democrats — would suffer in the 2008 elections if they do not join him in speaking out against Bush and opposing troop increases in Iraq.

That remains to be seen. But a number of Senate Republicans up for election in 2008, including Gordon Smith (R-OR) and Norm Coleman (R-MN) clearly oppose the plan to add more troops. It's not beyond reason to think these two have one eye on their re-election campaigns.

Pentagon Considers Fast-Tracking Citizenship For Immigrants Willing to Serve

2006-12-26T00:54:00.000-05:00

The military is considering a proposal to put more immigrants on a faster track to U.S. citizenship ... if they volunteer to join the armed forces.

President Bush asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates last week to come up with a plan to expand the military. But recruiters are finding it increasingly difficult to find recruits.

But does the U.S. really want to grow our military by adding foreigners?

The Pentagon still has to decide on specifics, such as English proficiency, but the wheels are clearly turning. The loophole that would be used is a a recent change in law -- thanks, Republican Congress -- that gives the Pentagon authority to bring immigrants to the U.S. if it determines it is vital to national security.

As the "war on terror" is vital to national security, ipso facto the U.S. must have immigrants in the armed forces.

Already, the Army and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement division of the Department of Homeland Security have "made it easier for green-card holders who do enlist to get their citizenship," Lieutenant Colonel Bryan Hilferty, an Army spokesman, told the Boston Globe.

***

There are critics of the proposal, including some within the Army who told the Globe that a big push to recruit noncitizens would smack of "the decline of the American empire."

The Hispanic rights advocacy group National Council of La Raza has said the plan sends the wrong message that Americans themselves are not willing to sacrifice to defend their country. Officials have also raised concerns that immigrants would be disproportionately sent to the front lines as "cannon fodder" in any conflict.

Here are some questions I'd like answered:

-- If the proposal is accepted, would our borders suddenly become more open to "foreign fighters?"

-- Would the U.S. limit immigration for humanitarian reasons -- refugees, political prisoners, etc. -- to increase the number of immigrants who had a history of weapon use?

-- While changing the mix of immigrants may provide a short-term gain for the military, wouldn't it cause a long-term deficit for the U.S. as a whole?

Pentagon Cited For Weak Oversight Of Contractors In Iraq

2006-12-26T00:01:00.000-05:00

The Pentagon is not providing adequate oversight of private companies that support American military operations in Iraq, according to a report issued last week by the Government Accountability Office.

This shouldn't be a surprise for close watchers of the Bush Administration, which in spite of spin to the contrary has proven to be among the least fiscally sound governments in American history.

Because of a shortage of managers on the front lines to oversee contractor support, there is no accountability or assurance that the military is getting the services it has paid for.

Amazingly, the Pentagon does not know how many contractors currently are working in Iraq and living on the American bases that have sprung up around the country, the GAO noted. The Army admitted in October that it was struggling to complete a census of the contractors used in Iraq, and that its data would ultimately not meet the standards requested by the Office of Management and Budget.

Recruiters Go Far And Wide In Effort To Grow Military

2006-12-24T22:07:00.000-05:00

Even before President Bush asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates last week to come up with a plan to expand the military, recruiters were having a hard time finding people willing and able to join the armed forces during war time.

In October, recruiters in the New York metropolitan area were caught on tape lying about the odds of a recruit winding up in Iraq, or about the ease with which someone can leave the military. It was reminiscent of the happy talk from recruiters canvassing shopping centers in Flint, Mich., in the documentary Farenheit 9/11.

A story in today's New York Times paints another picture, perhaps equally desperate.

One recruiter, Sergeant Roger White, explains how he found a 39-year-old woman in a shelter who once worked as a chemical specialist in the Army. He convinced her to re-enlist.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon is apparently hoping some recruits will ignore their parents' wishes, or avoid telling them they signed up. Luis Vega, for example, told the Times that he had enlisted without telling his parents.

He plans to ship out in April.

Happy Holidays, Sen. Allen

2006-12-24T18:52:00.000-05:00

It's been an awkward few months for soon-to-be-former Sen. George Allen (R-VA), who this fall, at age 54, learned that his maternal grandfather was Jewish.

At the time, he took "great pride" in his newly discovered ancestry, then made a comment that some found insensitive to Jews, and others found simply odd.

"I still had a ham sandwich for lunch. And my mother made great pork chops," he said.

No longer a presidential candidate after his "macaca" moment, Allen told the Associated Press that he plans to explore his newfound Jewish heritage.

But in the next breath, he implied that he hoped to run, and win, another race for office.

"Every time you win," he said, "you're reborn."

It's an interesting choice of words -- "reborn." Is that code for his "good ol' boy" supporters? A nod to evangelical Christians that in spite of his heritage, he's not the least bit Jewish? Something he thought up while dining on a ham sandwich or some other non-kosher meal?

If we learned anything from this fall's election season, it's that quipping is not one of Allen's strong suits. Between thoughtless comments like "macaca" or "Things like that happen," in response to his staffers assaulting a protester, and odd-ball comments like "I still had a ham sandwich for lunch," Allen would do well to learn the power of "no comment."

Sign Of The Times? Fox News Ratings Tumble In October, November

2006-12-23T00:35:00.000-05:00

Fox News is still the cable news king, but its ratings are clearly tumbling.

Fox's ratings were down 24 percent from October 2005 to October 2006, from 1.7 million viewers to 1.3 million.

The news didn't improve for Fox News in November. Heightened viewership because of the mid-term elections, Donald Rumsfeld's resignation from the Pentagon, and increased discussion over Iraq War policy boosted CNN and MSNBC, but did little for Fox.

In prime time for the month, Fox's average total audience fell 19 percent when compared with a year earlier, to 1.35 million total viewers. CNN posted a 15 percent gain to average 826,000, and MSNBC's average audience grew 29 percent to 505,000.

***

Fox executives have spun that its ratings decline is the result of a slow news year. I suppose that's true, if you equate "slow news year" with "lack of happy stories for conservatives."

Think of the stories that grabbed headlines this year that folks like Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Neil Cavuto and John Gibson looked to dismiss quickly or avoid altogether:

-- Declining support for the Bush Administration's handling of the Iraq War.

-- Republican ties to the Jack Abramoff scandal.

-- Sen. George Allen's "Macaca" moment.

-- House Republicans not properly handling Mark Foley's improper interactions with House pages.

-- Americans rejecting Bush Administration policies by sweeping in Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.

And on and on ...

Fox News still has the inside track on covering "culture war" topics like the "War on Christmas," and the "controversy" surrounding the recent children's movie Happy Feet.

But it appears less and less people are interested in such things. Fox News is still on top, but the tide appears to be turning.

You Can't Make This Stuff Up ...

2006-12-22T23:24:00.000-05:00

No doubt the left often disagrees with Tucker Carlson.

But on the Dec. 20 edition of his MSNBC show, Carlson made comments that were just plain goofy.

Follow along as Carlson has this odd back-and-forth with New Republic senior editor Michael Crowley and former Bush media advisor Mark McKinnon:

CROWLEY: But as far as Bush admitting we‘re not winning, he was starting to look like that guy, remember Baghdad Bob, who said, you know, the sands of Iraq are soaked with the blood of Americans. You know, this was as the Marines were rolling into Baghdad. Bush was — Bush could not maintain the state of denial anymore and fiction. It's what everyone knows and at some point the president has to seem like he knows it too.

CARLSON: Well I don‘t know. I disagree. I mean, I hate the war passionately, but I like that about Bush. I like the fact that he was in this kind of Teddy Rooseveltian way. You know what I mean, almost like you don‘t believe what your eyes tell you. I‘m the guy who knows the deep truth and the deep truth is victory. I mean, I think it‘s important — failure is so scary.

MCKINNON: Yes and it‘s not an option. It just can‘t be and so he is committed to finding and securing a way forward that amends the strategy and he is doing that now. But failure is not an option as he said and it shouldn‘t be. And it shouldn‘t be communicated that way from the president of the United States.

CARLSON: I like a tiny bit of B.S. I know nobody agrees with me.

***

A couple of follow-up questions for Carlson:

-- For most of us, when "you don‘t believe what your eyes tell you," you could be described as unrealistic, even delusional. Why is this a good quality in a president? Should the lives of our troops be at the mercy of someone who fits this description?

-- If some B.S. is good, is a lot of B.S. great? Back in March, you agreed that the Bush Administration has a "pattern that the rhetoric does not match the reality on the ground." A pattern of false rhetoric would seem to be more than a "tiny bit of B.S."

Maybe this goofiness from Carlson is why his show has abysmal ratings and was moved from prime-time.

Poll Finds Just 16 Percent Of Americans Believe Republican-Led Federal Government "Reflects Will Of The People"

2006-12-22T22:19:00.000-05:00

A new Rasmussen Reports poll finds that just 16 percent of voters believe that the Republican-led federal government reflects the "will of the American people."

The percentage is about half of the number who believed -- in the pre-Bush era -- that government represented its interests.

It makes you wonder -- who are the 16 percent of Americans happy with their federal government? I'm guessing multi-millionaires, who have benefited from Bush's huge tax cuts. And corporate executives -- specifically defense contractors and those in the energy sector. They have had a good ride, too.

But for most Americans -- regardless of political affiliation -- there is not much positive to say after six years of Republican control of Washington.

Consider some of the issues in which large majorities differ with President Bush:

-- A majority of Americans (86 percent) say it is important to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden. The Bush Administration has repeatedly said that this is not a priority.

-- A majority of Americans (68 percent) are calling the situation in Iraq a "civil war." Bush refuses to do so.

-- A majority of Americans (69 percent) want to see troops withdrawn immediately, or a timetable to be established for such a withdrawal. Bush refuses to consider either option.

-- A majority of Americans (83 percent) support hiking the minimum wage. Bush would only support the measure if tied to a tax break for businesses or a deep cut in the estate tax.

-- A majority of Americans (68 percent) support federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Bush vetoed a bill on the matter in July, in spite of bipartisan support.

***

Truth be told, it's hard to believe most conservatives are happy with the actions of the Bush Administraton.

A variety of scandals -- Jack Abramoff, Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney -- didn't sit well with party regulars. Fiscal conservatives can't be happy with the swollen federal debt. Social conservatives have failed to see any change in abortion rights during the Bush era. The Defense of Marriage Act has gotten nowhere. The Mark Foley scandal was embarrassing, as was the Republican-led House Ethics Committee's decision not to punish anyone, even after finding wrongdoing.

And the Bush Administration didn't win any fans on the religious right by appointing an openly gay man, Mark Dybul, as its Global AIDS Coordinator. Worse for them, First Lady Laura Bush was photographed as "smiling" during the swearing-in ceremony. Even worse, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice referred to the mother of Dybul's partner as Dybul's "mother-in-law."

***

If you've read this blog, or dozens others like it, none of the above should be new. It's been a frustrating six years. We've known for years that President Bush and Congressional Republicans failed to represent our values. Now we know that they have failed their own party, too.

Business Never Better For Contractor That Failed Badly In Iraq

2006-12-22T14:19:00.000-05:00

Parsons Corp. was given roughly $200 million to build 150 primary health clinics in Iraq. Just 20 were finished before Parsons was terminated, and the Army Corps of Engineers says just seven are operational.

A policy academy building Parsons constructed for $75 million was so flawed that human waste rained from the ceilings. Stuart W. Bowen Jr., special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, said 13 out of 14 Parsons projects that his office examined were flawed.

For this, the company has taken bipartisan hits on Capitol Hill, and its contracts are being audited by the Defense Department. "This is the lens through which Iraqis will now see America. Incompetence. Profiteering. Arrogance," said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) at a September hearing.

Chief Executive James F. McNulty told the Washington Post that he has personally been under intense pressure to explain the company's performance to potential clients and to the public.

But he said the firm continues to rack up contracts even as it comes under assault.

"We've lost no business over it. In fact, the very people who are criticizing us are giving us more work," McNulty told the Post.

Here's a question for the incoming Congress: Why?

***

The Defense Department Inspector General is looking at the Parsons contracts under a broader audit related to spending and financial management for activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. The audit is scheduled to be completed in March.

Meanwhile, oversight is expected to increase dramatically next year with Democrats taking control of Congress, and several key lawmakers have announced their intention to ramp up hearings.

The feeling among Democrats: the Republican-led Congress was too soft on companies like Parsons.

Will Burns Use Campaign "Surplus" For Legal Defense Against Ties To Abramoff Scandal?

2006-12-22T00:34:00.000-05:00

The unsuccessful re-election campaign of Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT), ended with a $292,969 surplus, according to Federal Election Commission records.

Rules limit what may be done with the remaining money. In some cases, leftover campaign money may be spent on legal fees. The FEC reviews such expenditures case by case.

TPMMuckraker.com, citing FEC disclosure forms, reported in October that Burns had spent $91,500 of campaign funds on defense attorney Ralph Caccia of Powell Goldstein http://www.pogolaw.com/.

It's not far-fetched to think Burns will use some or all of his surplus on additional legal fees. Burns is not wealthy. The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics put Burns' net worth at no more than $340,000 -- 88th in the most recent Senate.

The U.S. Justice Department is conducting a congressional influence-peddling investigation related to the activities of convicted Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Abramoff, along with his clients and associates, gave $150,000 to Burns' campaign committees. Burns later returned some of the money and gave away the rest.

Burns spent much of the year trying to distance himself from Abramoff, at one point telling a Montana television station that he wished Abramoff had "never been born." But Abramoff, writing in Vanity Fair earlier this year, noted, “Our staffs were as close as they could be. They practically used (Abramoff’s restaurant) Signatures as their cafeteria.”

Once Again, "Loophole" Allows Government To Violate Propaganda Laws

2006-12-22T00:08:00.000-05:00

The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, amended in 1972 and 1998, prohibits the U.S. government from propagandizing the American public with information and psychological operations directed at foreign audiences.

But in two recent examples, the government has found "loopholes" in the law, allowing it to allow propaganda to inadvertently reach U.S. audiences.

TV and Radio Marti are spending $377,500 of taxpayer dollars over the next six months to air propaganda on South Florida broadcast stations, in spite of laws that prohibit the distribution of propaganda within the United States.

The spin -- the "loophole" -- is that the intended audience for Radio Mambí 710 AM and WPMF-TV are residents of Cuba. That the Cubans have a radio station on the same frequency should be overlooked.

The situation is remarkably similar to a loophole that came to light back in January, when a 2003 Pentagon document was released that said that "information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and PSYOP (psychological operations) increasingly is consumed by our domestic audience," most often because of the Internet.

Just consider: today's loophole is tomorrow's precedent. A government that inadvertently propagandizes Americans without being held accountable now may decide to look for more "loopholes" later. And that's dangerous.

***

The connection to these events is the Republican leadership in Washington.

Larry Hart, a spokesman for the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees the TV and Radio Marti, told the Miami Herald, ''We believe we have the authority to do this.'' Wby? Because Hart had met extensively with the Republican-led Congressional committees overseeing TV and Radio Marti.

The Pentagon document was approved by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The Pentagon's response when the document came to light? Larry Di Rita, a senior adviser to Rumsfeld, rejected the "premise" offered by critics that as long as the American public is not "targeted," leakage of propaganda to Americans doesn't count.

But Di Rita told the Associated Press that the Pentagon has no guidelines regarding the loophole. That also means the Pentagon has no real idea how many Americans are receiving their propaganda.

And that, too, is dangerous.

Bush's Reason #53 For Why The U.S. Went To Iraq: "To Help Young Democracies Survive The Threats Of Radicalism And Extremism"

2006-12-21T17:22:00.000-05:00

From yesterday's press conference:

NEW YORK TIMES REPORTER SHERYL GAY STOLBERG: But beyond that, sir, do you question your own decisions?

PRESIDENT BUSH: No, I haven't questioned whether or not it was right to take Saddam Hussein out, nor have I questioned the necessity for the American people -- I mean, I've questioned it; I've come to the conclusion it's the right decision.

To some, that sounds a little silly. Bush essentially says, "I still agree with myself." Not very newsworthy, especially from this president.

But pay attention to what Bush said next:

BUSH: But I also know it's the right decision for America to stay engaged, and to take the lead, and to deal with these radicals and extremists, and to help support young democracies. It's the calling of our time, Sheryl. And I firmly believe it is necessary. And I believe the next President, whoever the person is, will have the same charge, the same obligations to deal with terrorists so they don't hurt us, and to help young democracies survive the threats of radicalism and extremism."

Is this why the U.S. went to Iraq, Mr. President? "To help young democracies survive the threats of radicalism and extremism?"

Seems that may be why the U.S. is there now, but it couldn't possibly be the reason the U.S. decided to "take Saddam Hussein out," right? Wasn't the reason ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the "slam dunk" that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, and the need to be pre-emptive, rather than risk Iraq obtaining nuclear weapons and creating a "mushroom cloud"?

***

If the Bush Administration is so concerned that fledgling Middle East democracies "survive the threats of radicalism and extremism," why hasn't the U.S. been a leader in helping administer the "Roadmap" toward lasting Israeli-Palestinian peace, and in the process help the fledgling Palestinian democracy?

While the Bush administration -- as conservative pundit William F. Buckley said -- was "engulfed by Iraq" -- the terrorist group Hamas won 74 of 132 seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council elections.

Would such election results have occurred otherwise? It's hard to say.

What we do know is that spin is not a foreign policy. Words without actions do have ramifications. Just ask those who bought Bush's spin that the "Roadmap" was a step toward the U.S. brokering peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and helping the fledgling Palestinian democracy "survive the threats of radicalism and extremism."

The same can be said for Egypt, where the U.S. allowed Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to stomp on Egypt's fledgling democratic movement?

As the Washington Post wrote recently in an editorial, Mubarak, with "tacit consent of the Bush Administration ... is continuing his campaign against the democratic movement that sprouted in his country last year. His latest target is the fledgling independent press. ... Last week Mr. Mubarak's ruling party reaffirmed a law that makes it a crime, punishable by imprisonment, to 'affront the president of the republic' -- or insult parliament, public agencies, the armed forces, the judiciary or "the general public interest."

What did the U.S. do to help this fledgling democratic movement "survive?" Nothing.

As Nir Boms, vice president of the Center for Freedom in the Middle East, wrote in the Washington Times, "President Bush rejected a bill that sought to tie some of the American assistance to Egypt with democratic reforms. ... (W)hen Mr. Nour was arrested, the U.S. ambassador in Cairo, Francis J. Ricciardone, declined to comment, giving a subtle green light for (Mubarak) to accelerate his crackdown."

Campaign 2008: Edwards Transitions From "Fresh Face To Crusader"

2006-12-21T14:46:00.000-05:00

The Evans-Novak Political Report writes this week that while an inordinate amount of attention is being paid to Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, former Sen. John Edwards "should not be written off."

According to the report, Edwards "is the apparent front-runner in Iowa and is ahead of Clinton and Obama with key labor unions. He is a contender for support from Change to Win unions who left the AFL-CIO (Teamsters, SEIU, Laborers, Hotel and Restaurant Workers)."

Edwards may have a message that will resonate with a broad batch of primary voters -- built on the "Two Americas" theme he unveiled as a candidate in 2004. As the National Journal's "Hotline" wrote: Edwards is going from fresh face to crusader.

Who is Edwards crusading for? The same people he has sought to help since the 2004 election cycle, through his work as director of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity.

"You can also see it in the schedule -- announcing his candidacy in New Orleans' Lower Ninth Ward, the new symbol of the forgotten America," writes blogger Dan Conley. "The subtext of the Edwards campaign will be that it's not enough to represent Americans who have been locked behind walls of power, you need to tear down those walls and deal head-on with issues of poverty, job creation and health care accessibility, the three prime impediments to expanding and strengthening the middle class."

It's a crusade worth fighting, on the heels of a Republican leadership that has so overwhelmingly looked out for the well-to-do, and time and time again left behind lower-income families.

Republicans have for six years spun about being "compassionate conservatives." It's meaningless words, not backed by actions. Edwards has a message that he plans to back up with action, and it could lead him to the White House.

Bush, Republicans Remain Disingenuous On Raising Minimum Wage

2006-12-21T14:09:00.000-05:00

President Bush and Congressional Republicans continue to disingenuously discuss hiking the minimum wage.

The headlines today are misleading. "Bush Supports Democrats' Minimum Wage Hike Plan," reads the Washington Post. But in truth, Bush only will support such a hike -- from $5.15/hour to $7.25/hour -- if it comes with a corresponding tax break for small businesses.

It's not much different that the effort from Congressional conservatives this summer to tie a hike in the minimum wage with deep cuts in the estate tax.

Democrats should reject the conservative spin. Once they control Congress, they should "fast track" a hike in the minimum wage. The legislation should pass quickly. Then let President Bush look like Ebenezer Scrooge as he decides whether to be a "compassionate conservative" just once in his presidency.

***

The conservative spin is that government should help both rich and poor. The truth is that deep tax cuts under the Bush Administration have overwhelmingly benefited the well-to-do.

It's amazing that conservatives spin that they are champions of "family values," when their record over the past six years is so incredibly lopsided. While the Bush tax cuts have provided an average tax cut of nearly $124,000 for families earning over $1 million, and just $647 for "middle-income families."

Meanwhile, the tax cuts haven't helped the poorest among us -- with the exception of those with hefty child-care bills -- because the cuts provide no relief to low-income families who don't owe income taxes, but pay payroll taxes. Furthermore, in 2003 Bush successfully pushed the Republican-controlled Congress to accelerate most income tax cuts enacted in 2001, rather than have them phase in. But that acceleration didn't include the child tax credit provision enacted in 2001 -- which most benefits low-income families.

Conservative television pundits and radio ranters like to spin about the values of "limousine liberals." But what can we say about "corporate jet" conservatives, who only care about helping the very wealthy?

If Bush were truly a "compassionate conservative," he would understand that working full-time at minimum wage means an annual income of $10,712, or $8,000 less than what the government defines as poverty. In other words, a person would have to essentially work two full-time jobs, or for two-adult households, have both work full-time jobs, just to be above the poverty line.

***

The other conservative objection to raising the minimum wage is that it might hurt job growth, or kill jobs altogether. It's a myth.

A March 2006 report by the Fiscal Policy Institute found that increasing the minimum wage actually helps job growth: "[T]his report examined recent state-by-state trends for small businesses employing fewer than 50 workers and found that employment and payrolls in small businesses grew faster in the states with minimum wages above the federal level than in the remaining states where the $5.15 an hour federal minimum wage prevailed. ... This report also found that total job growth was faster in the higher minimum wage states. Faster job growth also occurred in the retail trade sector, the sector of the economy employing the most workers at low wages, in the higher minimum wage states."

Scientists Speak Out Against "Political Interference"

2006-12-20T13:40:00.000-05:00

The Union of Concerned Scientists released the names of more than 10,000 scientists — including 52 Nobel Laureates — who say they are tired of "political interference."

The UCS has also created The A to Z Guide To Political Interference In Science, which offers "dozens of examples of the misuse of science on issues like childhood lead poisoning, toxic mercury contamination, and endangered species."

Needless to say, the vast majority of complaints are being made against the Bush Administration.

Bush Considering Short-Term Increase In Troops In Iraq, Despite Army Reports Showing Stretched Military Is Suffering

2006-12-20T13:07:00.000-05:00

President Bush said yesterday that he is considering a short-term surge in troops in Iraq, an option that top generals have resisted. Among the options under review by the White House is sending 15,000 to 30,000 more troops to Iraq for six to eight months.

Forget the fact that Americans overwhelmingly oppose such a decision. Can our military be stretched any thinner -- even for a period of a few months?

Back in January, a 136-page report contracted by the Pentagon found that the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency. The author of the study, retired Army officer Andrew Krepinevich, said even Army leaders are not sure how much longer they can keep up the unusually high pace of combat tours in Iraq before they trigger an institutional crisis. Some major Army divisions are serving their second yearlong tours in Iraq, and some smaller units have served three times.

The effects of stretching the military thin is harrowing.

Statistics just released by the Army's Mental Health Advisory Team Survey found that 22 soldiers deployed to Iraq or Kuwait committed suicide in 2005. Since the war began, 58 deployed soldiers have taken their lives.

The U.S. Army Surgeon General has created a suicide prevention cell to try to identify new ways to prevent suicide among soldiers.

One place to start may be the increasing number of troops -- many of whom have served multiple tours -- who are complaining of acute combat stress or depression.

A separate survey from the Army's Mental Health Advisory Team found that U.S. soldiers serving repeated Iraq deployments are 50 percent more likely to suffer such problems.

More than 650,000 soldiers have deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan since 2001 -- including more than 170,000 now in the Army who have served multiple tours.

The proportion of soldiers who reported that they suffered a combination of anxiety, depression and acute stress rose to 17 percent, compared with 13 percent in the survey a year earlier. Combat stress is significantly higher among soldiers with at least one previous tour -- 18.4 percent, compared with 12.5 percent of those on their first deployment, the survey found.

Fourteen percent of soldiers surveyed said they have taken medications, such as antidepressants, for mental health problems.

Pentagon Wants To Spend $100 Million For Second Courthouse At Guantanamo

2006-12-20T00:30:00.000-05:00

The U.S. government already has a courthouse at Guantanamo Bay, but the Pentagon plans to spend $100 million of your tax dollars to build a huge new facility just down the hill.

In addition to having a courtroom for the trials of the likes of Khalid Sheik Mohammad, the courthouse would sleep up to 1,200 people, have a dining facility for 800, and a garage for 100 vehicles.

Tom Finnigan of Citizens Against Government Waste told CBS News that his radar antennae went up when the Pentagon recently tried to push the plans through Congress on an emergency basis without any votes.

"They tried to rush the funding through the process. That alone raises a red flag this could be a boondoggle in the works," Finnigan said.

That move, and the price tag, raised enough eyebrows tthat the Pentagon will have to put the project through a more formal route next month, including a Congressional vote.

Regarding U.S. Troop Levels In Iraq, Americans Have Never Been So United

2006-12-20T00:14:00.000-05:00

A new poll from CNN finds just 11 percent of Americans supported the idea of sending more troops to Iraq.

Rarely has the country been so united.

Americans are being very clear. Just 32 percent said they would support keeping U.S. troops in Iraq "as long as necessary" to hand over control to a new Iraqi government. By comparison, 54 percent said they wanted U.S. troop withdrawal within a year.

The conservative television pundits and radio ranters would have you believe that only "Blame America First" liberals want to "cut and run." The truth is, the vast majority of Americans want us to begin redeploying troops soon, and handing over more responsibility to the Iraqis.

I don't expect President Bush to listen. CNN's White House correspondent, Suzanne Malveaux, noted Monday that the American Enterprise Institute, a right-wing think tank, “has the president’s ear and is influencing his thinking” on Iraq, as Bush last week was briefed on an AEI report calling for a troop surge in Iraq that “would probably last for anywhere from 18 to 24 months.”

But Democrats should not be scared of conservative name-calling, and they should not ignore the fact that Bush is not representing the vast majority of Americans.

The people have spoken. It's time the Democrats give these people a voice in Washington.

Snow Suggests Some Iraqi Deaths Are More Worthy Of Counting Than Others

2006-12-19T00:37:00.000-05:00

If we are to believe White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, not all Iraqi deaths should be counted, including ones that have a direct genesis from the U.S.-led Iraq War -- those caused by insurgents, foreign fighters, or sectarian violence.

Here's a snippet from yesterday's press briefing:

Q So what is the latest working number?

SNOW: I don't know. But maybe what you ...

Q Can you find that out for us?

SNOW: Yes, but what -- the purpose is ...

Q Perspective.

SNOW: And how will you put that in perspective?

Q It's perspective.

SNOW: And how will you put that in perspective.

Q We keep track of how many American personnel are killed and wounded ...

SNOW: ... (I)f you're going to assess the situation, find out -- it's also important to try to match up the sources of the violence, the people who are doing the killing, and the commitment of the government for going after them, whether they be militias or insurgent groups.

***

So let me get this straight. Before the Iraq War began:

-- There was no tie between Al Qaeda terrorists and Iraq, and no Al Qaeda-backed terrorism occurring in Iraq.

-- There was no Iraqi insurgency fighting us, and there were no "foreign fighters" helping fuel that insurgency.

-- There was no sectarian violence (read: "civil war") between Shiites and Sunnis.

So why shouldn't an official tally of Iraqis killed since the war began include those who have died at the hands of insurgents, foreign fighters, or sectarian violence? How can those deaths not be considered directly related to the Iraq War?

It's not like someone is trying to suggest that such a tally should include the thousands of Iraqis who are believed to have died from shortages of medicine, vital equipment and qualified doctors, or the children who have died because the child mortality rate has worsened since the war began.

Not counting Iraqi deaths caused by insurgents, foreign fighters, or those engaged in Civil War is a form of denial. It prevents Americans from considering a number that is almost incomprehensible and subsitutes one that can be spun by the White Hosue as more palatable if the U.S. wants to win the "war on terror."

Campaign 2008: Newsweek Wonders If Primary Voters Are Ready For "Someone Truly Different"; Kucinich Gets Poor Reviews In Ohio

2006-12-19T00:04:00.000-05:00

So nice of Newsweek to put Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on its cover this week, with the headline "The Race Is On."

So that's it. John Edwards, John Kerry, Wesley Clark, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, don't bother running. Newsweek doesn't like your chances.

It gets worse.

Jonathan Alter, who could hardly be described as conservative, writes the cover story. Here's the main argument he makes to justify the cover:

ALTER: "For 220 years, Americans have elected only white male Christians with no hint of ethnicity to the White House. Even Irish Catholic John F. Kennedy seemed like a WASP to most people. By the time of Rep. Shirley Chisholm's brief run in 1972, then Jesse Jackson's in 1984 and 1988, the country was comfortable with barrier-breaking on the campaign trail, but not yet serious about electing someone truly different. No one knows yet whether we are serious now, and we won't find out for sure unless it happens. But the record of white males in high places has not exactly been stellar of late, and voters might be in the mood to try something historic and possibly redemptive."

Do people really vote to promote "someone truly different?" Will primary voters want "to try something historic?" (And wouldn't electing Richardson, of Hispanic ethnicity, also count as not a "white male Christian?")

Recent history has said no. Iowans in 2004 voted for the candidate deemed most electable, John Kerry, rather than the upstart, Howard Dean. In 2000, the same thing happened, when Al Gore was selected over underdog Bill Bradley.

The last time primary/caucus voters went off-script was 1992, when the early favorite, Bill Clinton, was derailed by the Gennifer Flowers scandal. Tom Harkin of Iowa won Iowa, and then regional favorite Paul Tsongas carried New Hampshire. Clinton righted the ship several weeks later, with a primary win in Georgia.

So forget gender and forget race. Recent history suggests the question running through Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina voters is: Are Clinton or Obama the most electable candidate?

Clinton has to explain her votes and rhetoric regarding the Iraq War to what will certainly be a anti-war voter pool. And Obama -- assuming the adoration dies down -- must convince voters that someone with limited national experience is ready to be the leader of the free world. If either of those events occur, that would be "truly different."

***

Republicans are quick to point out that John Edwards wouldn't have carried his home state of North Carolina had he been the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, and that Al Gore failed to carry his home state of Tennessee as the Democratic presidential nominee in 2000.

The spin is that this proves a candidate is unworthy for office, because recent history says that other than Gore, the last major party candidate to not carry his home state was Democrat George McGovern, who failed to carry South Dakota in 1972.

Dennis Kucinich is perhaps the longest of long-shots to win the Democratic nomination in 2008. And it doesn't help that he has received less-than-adoring reviews from his home-state newspapers.

"For Kucinich to attract votes beyond his small band of ardent admirers, he would have to show himself capable of delivering on the promise at the heart of his campaign - a promise to lead America in a new direction," writes Elizabeth Auster in the Cleveland Plain Dealer. "That would require some proof of prior leadership. But Kucinich's only stint as a political leader was his tempestuous two-year term as mayor of Cleveland - a fiasco that alienated so many people that he barely survived a recall and was voted out after only one term."

Ugh.

The Toledo Blade also notes Kucinich "first attracted national headlines as Cleveland's disastrous "boy" mayor," and said the "diminutive Cleveland congressman has a giant-sized ego."

Double ugh.

It's easy to see the spin Kucinich's rivals -- Democrat or Republican -- might offer: If those who know Kucinich best don't like him, why should the rest of us?

Hannity Chooses Myths, Not Facts, When Remembering Reaganomics

2006-12-18T08:15:00.000-05:00

Sean Hannity, on his syndicated radio show, suggested that one reason the Republicans did poorly in the midterm elections was that they had collectively lost touch with the "fiscally conservative" principles of Ronald Reagan.

It's mythmaking. Hannity, presumably, knows his audience is either too young to remember Reaganomics first-hand, or is too partisan to be interested in the reality of Reaganomics. Worse, Hannity pretends that President Bush's economic program isn't grounded in the Reagan legacy of tax cuts to benefit the wealthy, and massive deficits.

Jimmy Carter may have presided over the worst economy since Herbert Hoover, but one thing to note was that his annual budgets produced deficits of less than $100 billion.

Reagan needed to jumpstart the economy, which have have argued for a short-term hike in the annual deficit. But none of Reagan's budgets had deficits of less than $100 billion, and three had deficits in excess of $200 billion. Deficits ballooned more under George Bush, the man who called Reaganomics "voodoo economics," before he was tapped as Reagan's vice president.

In other words, Reagan was hardly a fiscal conservative. Reaganomics was the equivalent of maxing out your credit card in order to pretend to be well-off.

***

But what about Reagan and taxation?

It's true that Reagan reduced income tax rates, with the top tax rate dropping from 70% to 50% in his first tax legislation, and to 28% by the end of his presidency.

But it's also true that Reagan raised taxes several times in his presidency.

In 1982 alone, he signed into law two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.

The third tax increase came a year later, in the form of an increased payroll tax to pay for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance.

As liberal columnist Paul Krugman noted in 2004: "For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan's income tax cuts. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent — but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up, not down."

Bruce Bartlett, writing for National Review Online, offers the rest of the Reagan legacy:

-- In 1984, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP.

-- The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again.

-- The Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years.

-- The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.

Some legacy, huh? No wonder Hannity only cites the mythology, and not the facts, for his listeners.

Campaign 2008: Bayh Won't Run ... Warner Reconsidering?

2006-12-18T07:59:00.000-05:00

Just two weeks after he indicated he would make a bid for the presidency, Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana announced Saturday that he had d decided not to run.

Iin a statement issued Saturday, Bayh said it would be hard to compete with Sen. Hillary Clinton's huge fundraising machinery and Barack Obama's star power if both senators decided to run.

Bayh's decision has some pundits wondering if former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner will reconsider his decision not to run. Warner opted against a run back in October.

For what it's worth, some people are still hoping to draft Warner.

"Good Soldier Powell" Apparently Stays True To Bush's "Stay The Course" Philosophy

2006-12-17T22:23:00.000-05:00

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell told Bob Schieffer of CBS' Face The Nation of the Iraq War: "We are losing. We haven't lost."

How are we to feel about Powell? Some in the liberal blogosphere are cheering the above quote. But I remain unimpressed with "Good Soldier Powell."

The former Secretary is still advocating the "Pottery Barn" rule, which refers to a "you break it, you own it" policy of a retail store that holds a customer responsible for damage done to displayed merchandise.

Powell told Shieffer that, as noted in the Iraq Study Group report, "(I)t’s grave and deteriorating, and we’re not winning. We are losing. We haven’t lost. This is the time now to start to put in place the kinds of strategies that will turn this situation around."

At the same time, Powell doesn't believe the U.S. should increase troops -- as some in Bush's inner circle are advocating. But he doesn't believe the U.S. should start redeploying until it has turned things around, conceivably from "grave and deteriorating" to "shiny and happy."

In other words, Powell is on the "stay the course" bandwagon. He's the loyal soldier.

But that's apparently been the case all along. As Bob Woodward explained to Mike Wallace of CBS' 60 Minutes in 2004:

WOODWARD: (President Bush) calls Colin Powell in alone, sitting in those two famous chairs in the Oval Office -- and the president said, "Looks like war." Then Powell directly says, "You know, you're going to be owning this place." And the president says, "I understand that."

The president knows that Powell is the one who doesn't want to go to war. The president knows that Powell is the one who doesn't want to go to war. He says, "Will you be with me?" And Powell, the soldier, 35 years in the Army, president has decided, and he says, "I'll do my best, Mr. President, I'll be with you." And then the president says, "Time to put your war uniform on."

***

Some on the left cheer Powell whenever he says something like "We're not winning." But just about everyone outside of the President and his neocon circle is willing to admit as much.

To me, it's same old, same old.

How Many On Left View Bush's Iraq Plans

2006-12-16T13:01:00.000-05:00

This may be one of the best political cartoons of the year:

Carter's Double Whammy: Wrong On Israel, Wrong For Democrats

2006-12-15T07:54:00.000-05:00

Jimmy Carter screwed up.

His new book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, is wrong-headed in its approach and a failure in hoping for long-term peace between Israelis and Palestinians. The man has a right to his opinion, but this drivel -- which puts all the blame on Israel -- won't help the peace process, and Carter no doubt has lost the respect of a lot of people.

But for Democrats, the book provides a hole that Republicans can drive a truck through from now until the 2008 election cycle. You can almost hear the spin -- that this book is proof that only Republicans are staunch supporters of Israel. You can almost hear the spin that only Republicans can broker peace in that troubled region.

Which is a shame, because the Bush Administration's record in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been weak.

Once upon a time, the administration talked tough and offered its "Roadmap" for long-term peace between Israel and the Palestinians. But there's been little leadership since, because the administration has turned all its attention to Iraq.

As conservative writer William F. Buckley wrote earlier this year, the administration has been so "engulfed by Iraq" that it failed to have proper perspective on "other parts of the Middle East with respect to Iran in particular."

In other words, our administration chose the potential threat of Iraq over the real threat of Iran and Syria, the state sponsors of Israeli's terrorist enemies, Hamas and Hezbollah. When the situation blew up earlier this year between Israel, Hamas and Hezbollah, Rice stayed in Washington for weeks, breaking from past precedent, which saw President Nixon's Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, used “shuttle diplomacy” following the 1973 Yom Kippur War, and President Clinton's Secretary of State, Warren Christopher shuttling between Damascus and Jerusalem to negotiate a “truce between Israel and Hezbollah” in 1996.

The Iraq Study Group recommended that the administration put a greater focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- one of the few recommendations it apparently agrees with. We'll see if the administration can make any headway.

***

In the world of spin, the mediocre performance by the Bush Administration can easily be overshadowed by a book. Watch how the conservative television pundits and the radio ranters forget their recent history in order to blast Carter, and in turn, the Democrats.

The bulk of outrage has centered on Carter's use of the word "apartheid" in the title, wrong-headedly equating the plight of today’s Palestinians to the former victims of government-mandated racial separation in South Africa.

Michael Kinsley lambasted the book in the Washington Post on Tuesday. “It’s not clear what he means by using the loaded word ‘apartheid,’ since the book makes no attempt to explain it."

Abraham H. Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, told the New York Times: “The title is to de-legitimize Israel, because if Israel is like South Africa, it doesn’t really deserve to be a democratic state. He’s provoking, he’s outrageous, and he’s bigoted.”

But as any student of recent history should be able to understand, primarily blaming Israel for the region's troubles is illogical. Show me the olive branches the Palestinians have offered. Show me the real effort by the Palestinian leadership -- past or present -- to control its terrorist factions. Show me any real effort by the Palestinians to bring peace to the region.

Then we can talk about Israel and the mistakes it has made.

Snow Apologizes To NBC's Gregory

2006-12-15T00:30:00.000-05:00

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow apologized today to NBC reporter David Gregory.

Such moments are few from this White House.

Snow, before responding to a question from Gregory today, recanted his accusation that Gregory had framed an earlier question in a "partisan" way.

SNOW: Before I get to that, I want to address something else. Because you and I had a conversation last week that got a whole lot of play in a lot of places, where I used the term "partisan" in describing one of your questions. And I've thought a lot about that, and that I was wrong. So I want to apologize and tell you I'm sorry for it.

GREGORY: Thank you.

***

Perhaps this is part of Snow's campaign to convince Americans that the Bush White House likes the media?

I wish we could get Armstrong Williams' opinion on this. Or Michael McManus'. Or Maggie Gallagher's. Any of those people who took money from the administration to propagandize on its behalf.

Or maybe we could go ask Jeff Gannon, a Republican plant in the press corps, and the ultimate fraudulent "reporter."

Maybe this is still a sore subject. ...

***

For what it's worth, Snow's apology isn't unprecedented. Back in June, President Bush apologizedl to a Los Angeles Times reporter after he poked fun at him for wearing sunglasses to a Rose Garden press conference, without realizing they were needed for vision loss.

The reporter, Peter Wallsten, accepted the apology, but later complained that Bush didn't answer his question that day.

But that's a whole other problem for this administration ...

Gov.-Elect Patrick Pledges To Hire 1,000 Cops In Massachusetts

2006-12-14T21:44:00.000-05:00

Massachusetts Gov.-elect Deval Patrick renewed his campaign pledge today to hire 1,000 new police officers statewide.

The promise of 1,000 new officers was a key part of Patrick's public safety platform as a candidate. Under the plan, the state would initially pay for the officers and gradually turn those costs over to cities and towns. The goal is to help control guns and gang violence.

It's another example of a Democrat taking action that repudiates the conservative spin that Democrats are "soft on crime."

***

One of the most famous examples of conservative spin overwhelming facts came in the 1988 presidential race between then-Vice President George Bush and then-Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis.

Under Dukakis' watch, the violent-crime rate in Massachusetts dropped 13.4 percent, while the national rate in that same period under President Reagan rose 1.8 percent.

But all voters heard about that year with regard to crime was the horrific situation surrounding furloughed prisoner Willie Horton. Two ads followed that fall -- one from the Bush campaign, one independently created -- playing the race card and linking Dukakis with the idea that Democrats were soft on crime. Facts be damned.

***

Today, it's harder to get the label of "soft on crime" to stick.

That's in large part because of President Clinton. Not only was Clinton in favor of the death penalty, but as governor of Arkansas he ordered a convict executed in the year he first ran for president. He then promised to replace 100,000 bureaucrats with 100,000 cops -- a promise he kept.

Conservative pundits and radio ranters still push the idea. In the real world, voters generally don't buy the claim.

Patrick's opponent this year, Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey, was one of the few Republicans this year pushing the "soft on crime" claim on a Democrat. She lost ... badly.

Next Job For Santorum? You Guessed It ... Cable TV Ranter

2006-12-14T07:58:00.000-05:00

Outgoing Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), who was crushed in last month's mid-term elections, may soon have a future as a television pundit.

Santorum has been negotiating a cable deal, which political insiders say most likely is with Fox News Channel -- though MSNBC and CNN have been mentioned as well -- "to be a screamer," as one political operative put it.

"You could see that as a pretty easy transition for that guy. He likes to get up and speak," a Republican State Committee official told the Patriot-News, a Pennsylvania daily.

Santorum is also expected to go on the lecture circuit, where he likely would earn $20,000 to $50,000 a speech, according to several estimates, addressing corporations and interest groups.

What Is Cheney Trying To Hide?

2006-12-14T07:47:00.000-05:00

The Bush administration asked an appeals court Wednesday to overrule a federal judge and allow the White House to keep secret any records of visitors to Vice President Dick Cheney's residence and office.

The government was responding to an October order, by U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina, to release two years of White House visitor logs to the Washington Post, which was researching the access lobbyists and others had on the White House.

What is the Vice President trying to hide?

Here's a clue: A lawsuit over similar records revealed in September that Republican activists Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed — key figures in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal — landed more than 100 meetings inside the Bush White House.

Senate Ethics Committee Rejects Charge Against Reid

2006-12-13T22:17:00.000-05:00

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) did not break Senate rules by accepting seats at boxing matches from the Nevada Athletic Commission, the Senate Ethics Committee has ruled.

No doubt, this news will make some on the right unhappy -- it's another case when their spin about how "corrupt" Reid is hasn't stuck.

Reid attended three Las Vegas fights from 2003 to 2005 without paying. At the time, Reid was supporting legislation to create a federal agency to oversee boxing.

Reid defended attending the matches, saying it helped him better understand boxing regulations. He later acknowledged that he created the impression of wrongdoing, and apologized.

Apparently, the committee agreed. Attendance at the matches "was a matter appropriately left to (Reid's) discretion," wrote the committee's chief counsel and staff director, Robert L. Walker.

***

So that's one ethics case down, one to go.

On the other issue, Reid has not yet filed revised financial disclosure forms with the secretary of the Senate to account more fully for a Las Vegas land deal that allowed him to collect $1.1 million for property he hadn't personally owned in three years.

In mid-October, shortly after the AP reported on the 2001 deal, Reid announced plans to revise his financial disclosure forms.

A Reid spokesman said the revised forms have been submitted to the Ethics Committee, and his staff was waiting for signoff from the committee before filing them.

***

The right-wing constantly spins that Reid is "corrupt." (See here, here, here, here, and here ... and there are plenty more.) Radio ranters give him nicknames, like Mark Levin calling him Harry "The Body" Reid.

There's an easy reason for the spin. Republicans have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar an unprecedented number of times during the Bush era. Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, the Jack Abramoff scandal. And some conservatives desperately want to spread the filth around, to turn a given conversation from "Some Republicans are corrupt" to "Some politicians from both parties are corrupt."

And hey, if the charges against Reid stuck, many Democrats would say, "Throw the bum out." You don't see Democrats -- in Washington or most anywhere else -- defending Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) and his freezer of cash. The fact that his district's voters don't want to get on board is an embarrassment.

Although questions on Reid's ethics have gotten significant coverage in the press, the conservative punditry hasn't been happy.

One talking point: Dennis Hastert's ethics questions have gotten more press than Reid's. Damn that liberal media!!! But the spin isn't true. A Lexis-Nexis search conducted in October found, for example, that CNN had devoted 50 times as much coverage to Reid’s case as to Hastert's. By comparison, Fox News had mentioned the Reid land deal nine times, but had brought up the Hastert deal just three.

Just as those spin points aren't true, it's pretty clear that the right-wing claims about Reid's "corrupt" nature are likely untrue, too.

Rodriguez Upsets Bonilla To Win Runoff Election In Texas, Giving Democrats Whopping 233 Seats

2006-12-13T08:37:00.000-05:00

Former Rep. Ciro Rodriguez upset incumbent Republican Henry Bonilla yesterday in a runoff election to see who would representTexas's 23rd District.

"I thought it would be, in all honesty, would be a lot closer than it was," said Rodriguez, who won with 54 percent of the vote.

Fans of The Daily Show With Jon Stewart may remember Bonilla in 2004 struggling to defend the Republican spin that John Kerry and John Edwards were the first- and fourth-most liberal senators at the time.

That probably had little to do with his loss to Rodriguez. But as one who roots against Republicans who offer nothing more than spin, I'm not upset to see Bonilla go.

***

With the win, Democrats now have 233 seats in the 110th congress. That's more than Republicans have had at any time since 1948.

As MyDD.com noted: "The Republican "revolution" never secured this large a majority in the House. We beat them. We did better than they ever did. So much for the vaunted Republican political machine, which recorded record voter contacts, record fundraising, and record early voting this cycle.

Campaign 2008: Edwards Shows Deference To Kerry, But Doesn't Duck Obvious Question About Obama

2006-12-13T08:26:00.000-05:00

Let the jockeying for position begin.

Former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC), a likely candidate once again for president, speaking on MSNBC's Hardball last night, seemed to go out of his way not to knock his 2004 running mate and possible 2008 rival, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA).

However, Edwards was more straight-forward responding to questions about Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), giving credence to questions raised about Obama's lack of experience.

Could it be that Edwards considers Obama -- and the hype surrounding his possible candidacy -- a greater threat than Kerry to grab the anti-Hillary Clinton vote in the 2008 primaries?

Here's the conversation between Edwards and host Chris Matthews (and briefly, Edwards' wife, Elizabeth). Notice how Edwards takes the high road.

MATTHEWS: Were you well used by John Kerry?

EDWARDS: I‘ll ask — I‘m not — I‘ll let you guys talk about that.

MATTHEWS: I want to fight here. What did you think of hi joke about — if you flunk out of school, you don‘t do too well, you‘re not too smart, you get us stuck in Iraq. And it got turned around. What did you make of that?

EDWARDS: I think he just made a mistake.

MATTHEWS: What was he saying?

EDWARDS: I think he was trying to say, you better stay ...

ELIZABETH EDWARDS: Don‘t go there.

CROWD: (APPLAUSE)

MATTHEWS: No, no. Come on.

***

Now listen to Edwards answer successive questions from audience members, one directly regarding Obama, and one inadvertently regarding Obama:

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi, senator. Two years ago, we heard about your idea of the two Americas and your ambition to bridge the two. Today, Senator Barack Obama has the audacity to hope for a better American dream for its citizens. Frankly, how is your vision of the American dream different from that of Barack Obama‘s? What separates between you two?

EDWARDS: Well, I don‘t know the extent to which our vision is different. I don‘t know enough about what he Senator Obama is saying. I think that when he talks about hope, hope is something that I myself talked about a great deal when I was running for president and for vice president, restoring hope. Hope is on the way with was one of the phrases that I used. So in terms of the substance of what he wants to do, I don‘t know whether he believes as I do that the most important responsibility of the next president is to restore America‘s leadership in the world, to address big moral issues in the world like global poverty, AIDS, genocide. And what we need to do here at home. I just honestly don‘t know enough about where he stands on those things, although I‘m sure if he runs for president, he‘ll tell us.

***

Obama's lack of experience may have been on this next questioner's mind:

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: As a senator for two years, did you have enough experience in the foreign policy realm to kind of comfort the American people at a time where foreign policy is really at the forefront?

EDWARDS: It‘s a really good question, an important question. I think that the answer is, first of all, I was in the Senate six years, not two years. No, it‘s OK.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Communications major, sorry.

EDWARDS: You know, some of the rest of us make mistakes like that, too. I was there for six years and then subsequent to the presidential campaign in 2004, my time has been spent, a big chunk of it, has been doing work overseas. The home audience just saw me traveling through Uganda, I‘ve been doing humanitarian work. I spent time speaking in the Middle East, speaking in the Middle East, in India, in Asia, in Europe, speaking, meeting with leaders. And I think that has been enormously valuable in terms of adding to the depth and maturity of my view about what‘s happening in the world.

And then Edwards gave his Cheshire Cat smile, realizing the mistake in the audience member's question had given him an opportunity to again show off the differences between his experience level and Obama's.

Sour Grapes From Rumsfeld?

2006-12-13T08:04:00.000-05:00

On the Dec. 11 edition of Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes, Donald Rumsfeld told host Sean Hannity that his departure from the Pentagon was directly tied to the Republicans' poor showing in the midterm elections.

RUMSFELD: I think that this time the outcome of the election ... created a situation where I personally believe, and the president agrees, it is better for someone else to be leading this department with that new Congress. And it’s better for the military; it’s better for the department; and it’s better for the administration. And I feel comfortable with that.

That disagrees with what President Bush said last month:

BUSH: And so he and I both agreed in our meeting yesterday that it was appropriate that I accept his resignation. And so the decision was made — actually, I thought we were going to do fine yesterday. Shows what I know. But I thought we were going to be fine in the election. My point to you is, is that, win or lose, Bob Gates was going to become the nominee.

***

I'm inclined to believe that Bush is actually telling the truth, and that Rumsfeld is in "sour grapes" mode.

First, Bush said he had talked with Gates prior to the election, allowing him to be able to immediately nominate Gates. Bush was criticized for taking those steps, even as he was claiming that Rumsfeld was doing a "fantastic" job.

The mid-term election results may have solidified what Bush already knew: that confidence in Rumsfeld and his strategy had crumbled. Rumsfeld had been embarrassed immediately before the election by editorials in Army Times and other military newspapers demanding his resignation. But in the weeks leading up to the election, several Republicans, retired generals, and even soldiers expressed their disapproval with Rumsfeld, and/or said they wanted him to resign.

***

The final word? Rumsfeld told Hannity he has no advice for Gates.

“I wish him well. It’s a tough job,” Rumsfeld said.

Radio Clown Mark Levin Twists Bush's Foreign Policy Failures To Fuel Rant Against "Our Liberal Friends"

2006-12-12T00:43:00.000-05:00

From radio clown Mark Levin's blog on National Review Online:

Silence on Somalia
"Al Qaeda has a strong foot-hold in Somalia now. Our liberal friends have argued that we shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq because that's not where Al Qaeda was operating. Putting aside that argument for the moment, do they now urge military action in Somalia? No. In fact, they are silent."

Let's break down this illogical post:

-- "Our liberal friends have argued that we shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq because that's not where Al Qaeda was operating."

Those that argued this point have since been proven correct. Iraq had no ties to Al Qaeda, and nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks.

Americans of all political stripes have consistently said it is important to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden. While the U.S. is stuck in Iraq, Bin Laden remains free -- and the Bush Administration has repeatedly said capturing or killing Bin Laden is not a priority.

Levin wants to put "aside that argument," because he can't defend U.S. policy, beyond supporting the troops and ranting that those criticizing administration policy hate the troops, hate America, embolden terrorsts, and any other hyperbolic delusion he can pass along to his readers or listeners.

-- "Do they now urge military action in Somalia? No. In fact, they are silent."

The easy answer is, "With what army should we attack Somalia?" The "Coalition of the willing" continues to shrink. Meanwhile, our troops have been "stretched nearly to the breaking point," according to the Iraq Study Group.

But is the claim even accurate? Have Democrats been silent about Somalia?

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) is perhaps the Democrats' most vocal critic of the Bush Administration's "failure to develop a policy on Somalia," including comments last week.

In a June appearance on NBC's Meet The Press, Feingold argued that Al Qaeda is gaining strength as a result of the Iraq war, citing Somalia, where a suspected al Qaeda collaborator became the leader of a militia that had seized control of Somalia’s capital:

"While we were asleep at the switch, while we were bogged down in Iraq, all focused on Iraq as the be all and end all of our American foreign policy, we are losing the battle to al Qaeda. … We’ve spent $2 million in Somalia in the last year while we’re spending $2 billion a week in Iraq. This is insanity if you think about what the priorities are of those who have attacked us and those who are likely to attack us in the future."

***

Here's the point Levin won't tell his listeners or readers: Democrats have not had control of any branch of government since the Iraq War began. Levin wants Democrats to magically over-rule a stubborn president who, time and time again, has not paid enough attention to Al Qaeda since 9/11. And rather than criticize the president for all his foreign policy failures, Levin somehow twists and turns the facts to fuel his rant against "our liberal friends."

Why does anyone listen to this man?

Fox News' Snow: "Bush Hates ... The Press." Press Secretary Snow: "Bush ... Likes Reporters."

2006-12-12T00:09:00.000-05:00

Consider this tidbit from Howard Kurtz's CNN interview with White House Press Secretary Tony Snow:

KURTZ: Listen to this quote: "President Bush hates responding to the press, hates responding to political enemies. He thinks it's beneath him. He's got a stubborn streak." Who said that?

SNOW: I don't know.

KURTZ: You did, last March on Fox News.

SNOW: Did I? Yes, OK.

KURTZ: Does he hate responding to the press?

SNOW: No, actually. ... (H)e actually doesn't hate the press and he likes reporters. He keeps saying, "No, I like reporters."

***

It begs the question: Was Snow merely an anti-media conservative blowhard suck-up then, or is he merely willing to say anything to defend the president now? Of course, both answers could be correct.

Bush likes reporters? Sure, the ones that his administration pays, like Armstrong Williams. And the ones who are Republican Party plants, like Jeff Gannon.

Snow, Discussing Iraq Study Group Report, Lies To CNN Viewers

2006-12-12T00:04:00.000-05:00

When will this White House stop lying -- er, spinning -- to the American people?

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, speaking to CNN's Howard Kurtz on Dec. 10, lied through his teeth about what the Iraq Study Group report says.

KURTZ: They also said the policy is not working.

SNOW: No, what they said is that you need a new policy.

But in fact the report says, "Current U.S. policy is not working."

Of course, far more Americans will watch CNN -- or see a clip of the interview -- than will read the report. And that's what Snow is counting on, no doubt.

Campaign 2008: NH Voter Offers Sound Opinion About Obama And Hype

2006-12-11T19:35:00.000-05:00

Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) came to New Hampshire for the first time in his life on Sunday. He was met by two sold-out halls, the closest thing to a political rock star.

Officially, the media has dubbed him the Democrats "strongest alternative to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as a presidential contender," even though Obama has said he's not sure he's running.

But should Democrats believe the hype surrounding a potential candidate with a whopping two years of experience as a U.S. senator, and whose biggest claim to fame is a great speech, at the 2004 Democratic National Convention?

“I will say this: I am suspicious of hype," Obama said during a book signing in Portsmouth. "The fact that I’ve become, that my 15 minutes of fame has extended a little longer than 15 minutes, is somewhat surprising to me.”

It's true that George W. Bush had barely more experience on the national stage when he ran for president in 2000. But some would argue that give his dreadful performance, it might be good not to repeat history.

And with the country at war, and in a worldwide fight to stop Al Qaeda, the world is far different than it was pre-9/11.

Democrats would do well to skip the hype, and consider the advice of New Hampshire resident Robert Padian, who told the New York Times: "I’ve looked through his book, and he barely touches issues. I think he’s a serious candidate, but I don’t think he has great potential. No track record, and there are too many guys ahead of him in line.”

When all is said and done, Obama may be the best candidate for the Democratic National Convention. But hype alone is not what the Democrats should rally behind.

Bush Has No Plans To Follow Iraq Study Group Proposals

2006-12-11T08:27:00.000-05:00

Bush Administration officials say a preliminary review of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group’s recommendations has concluded that many of its key proposals are unrealistic. That has led a small group of administration advisors racing to come up with alternatives to the panel’s ideas.

Question: Wasn't it the administration's job to come up with proposals all along as to how to right the ship in Iraq?

***

Bush has empowered the “Crouch Group,” a small group of advisers being coordinated by Jack D. Crouch II, the deputy national security adviser, to assemble alternative proposals from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the State Department, the Treasury Department and staff of the National Security Council.

Why come up with an alternate game plan? Because Bush clearly has no plans to follow the most of the ISG's recommendations. Better to have partisan recommendations from the same in-house team that helped get the U.S. into this mess.

How quickly things change. As the New York Times noted: "Just two months ago, administration officials were saying that they believed the findings by the panel ... would be all but written in stone — and that Mr. Bush would have little choice but to carry out most of them. But in recent weeks, the White House sought to describe the panel’s role as that of one advisory group among many."

What's changed since then? Well, for one, fringe conservatives seemed to agree with the New York Post that the ISG were "Surrender Monkeys."

***

How incompetent are the people "racing to come up with alternatives"?

Dan Senor, a former administration spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, told the Times that former colleagues told him they felt comforted by the recognition that there were no good options, because despite all of the intellect brought to the endeavor, they see the ISG's ideas as little more than theories that can't be implemented.

“It’s easy to suggest these steps in theory, but we haven’t been able to figure out the how,” Senor said. “Now, neither have these 10 wise men and woman.”

In other words, our administration's best and brightest are comforted that they aren't alone in struggling to figure out how to get out of this mess. Bravo!

House Report On Foley Scandal: "Wrongdoing Occurred … But No One Did It"

2006-12-11T00:37:00.000-05:00

The House Ethics Committee said Friday that GOP lawmakers and staff members for years remained "willfully ignorant" that former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) was making sexual advances toward male congressional pages.

Driven by political considerations and fear of exposing Foley's homosexuality, they failed in their duty to protect the teenagers, the committee concluded. Congressional officials ignored evidence of predatory behavior by the Florida Republican that began emerging more than 10 years ago.

But in spite of those conclusions, the House committee said no rules were broken.

Lesson to America: Stupidity, selfishness, fear and put politics above the safety of teenagers are not against the rules in the House of Representatives. (Or at least not when a Republican-led committee is investigating alleged Republican violations surrounding a Republican congressman.)

"It's just unfathomable how you can reach the conclusion that wrongdoing occurred … but no one did it," Fred Wertheimer, president of the independent watchdog group Democracy 21, told the Los Angeles Times. "This is a classic demonstration of one of the fundamental ethics problems [in Congress]. They don't have a real system for enforcement."

Republican Senator Says Iraq War "May Even Be Criminal"

2006-12-10T22:17:00.000-05:00

Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR), who voted to give President Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq and has supported the war since, now says the current war effort is "absurd" and "may even be criminal."

Speaking on the Senate floor Thursday night, Smith called for changes in U.S. policy that could include rapid pullouts of U.S. troops from Iraq.

Looking back on his 2002 vote, Smith said he never would have supported the measure if had known the intelligence that Bush presented was inaccurate.

"I for one am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up by the same bombs day after day," Smith said. "That is absurd. It may even be criminal. I cannot support that anymore. ... So let's cut and run or cut and walk, but let us fight the war on terror more intelligently than we have because we have fought this war in a very lamentable way."

***

According to the Associated Press, Smith's spokesman tried to backtrack from the "criminal" line the next day. But Smith himself did not backtrack from the comment on this morning's edition of ABC's This Week.

Should we believe Smith, or is his better-late-than-never sentiment a recognition that voters ade a clear statement in the mid-term elections about Iraq, and might do so again in 2008? (Smith is up for re-election in 2008.)

Here's a thought: Actions speak louder than words. Smith, if his speech Thursday truly reflect his thoughts on Iraq, should take the next logical step. He should introduce, or be a co-author, of legislation setting forth a clear redeployment plan for our troops.

You Can't Make This Stuff Up ...

2006-12-10T18:41:00.000-05:00

What exactly has William Safire done to earn the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian award?

Hard to say. It was almost as if Bush wanted one true conservative in an otherwise noteworthy group, which includes former Soviet Refusenik Natan Sharansky, Nobel Prize winner Joshua Lederberg, historians David McCullough and Paul Johnson, music legend B.B. King, the late Buck O'Neil, co-founder of the Negro League Baseball Museum, and Norman Mineta, a member of the Bush and Clinton cabinets, and one of the most prominent Asian-American politicians in U.S. history.

But why Safire? The New York Times, Safire's long-time employer, said he is being honored "for polishing the nation’s language and elevating the debates of the day."

Elevating the debates of the day? Like when he was a speechwriter for the Nixon administration, and coined Vice President Spiro Agnew's phrase "nattering nabobs of negativism," to attack the media?

Not to suggest that political concerns are behind who gets the Presidential Medal of Freedom, but you have to figure that somewhere, Sean Hannity is smiling.

It could be worse. Bush could have awarded another conservative writer, Robert Novak ... or Hannity, for that matter.

Poll Suggests Americans Don't Think Bush Will Remove Troops By 2008

2006-12-10T18:07:00.000-05:00

The American people aren't stupid.

A majority -- roughly the same percentage that voted in Democratic majorities in the House and Senate -- does not believe the Bush Administration will redeploy troops from Iraq by 2008, against their wishes.

Power to the people ... sigh.

A majority of those polled by Rasmussen Reports say they believe the Bush Administration will implement a key suggestion made by the Iraq Study Group -- reducing the number of U.S. combat forces in Iraq by 2008.

The poll found that 53 percent think that outcome is not likely, compared with just 38 percent who remain optimistic of such an outcome.

The poll also found, consistent with recent polls, that 64 percent of American voters favor “removing almost all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by early 2008.” Just 22 percent are opposed.

***

REPORTER: You’re still in denial about how bad things are in Iraq. ...

BUSH: It’s bad in Iraq. (extremely long pause) Does that help? (Laughter.)

No sir, it doesn't. Actions speak louder than words, especially half-hearted words. All the words in the world won't matter if your action remains "stay the course" until you leave office.

Happy Feet Gives Conservatives Something To Rant About, But Barnyard Had Drinking, Vandalizing ... And Promotions From "Pro-Family" Firm

2006-12-09T07:01:00.000-05:00

Happy Feet, the new and very popular children's film about a tap-dancing penguin trying to find love and right environmental wrongs, has become the symbol du jour for conservatives to rant about "Hollywood liberals," and how out of touch they are.

Glenn Beck and Neil Cavuto are among the conservatives who have called the film an animated version of the Al Gore documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, even though Happy Feet revolves around an anti-pollution message, not global warming. Other conservatives have noted that the penguin friends of lead character Mumble (voiced by Elijah Wood) appear to be gay.

I saw the movie a couple of weeks ago with my five-year-old son and my father-in-law, and for us, the problem with the film was not the environmental message, but the un-clever way the message it's introduced.

My thumbnail review: the first half of Happy Feet is very entertaining, in a big Broadway musical way -- a children's version of Moulin Rouge. The second half, starting with Mumble's swim across the ocean and stay in a glass-enclosed zoo exhibit, is humorless and off-putting. The only comparison I can make is to A.I., starting with when Haley Joel Osment's character is frozen in the ocean for a millenium, then brought back to life by aliens. And if you're familiar with A.I., you know that part of the movie isn't funny or particularly child-friendly.

Happy Feet then ends with a montage of politicians reacting to what they've learned from Mumble. Again, not funny. Not deft.

***

Conservatives rail against Hollywood because it's an easy target. You don't see conservatives knocking the "Hollywood agenda" when the film is The Passion of the Christ, even though many people found that film's portrayal of Jews objectionable.

Conservatives are also one-sided in their criticisms on the politically motivated in Hollywood. Barbra Streisand as an outspoken liberal. But conservatives champion Patricia Heaton -- Ray Romano's wife on Everybody Loves Raymond and an outspoken conservative. Dennis Miller can make anti-John Kerry jokes -- even insinuate that Kerry and John Edwards were gay -- at a rally for President Bush, and that's ok. Whoopi Goldberg makes sexually explicit jokes about Bush's last name at a Kerry fund-raiser, and that's bad. Arnold Schwarzenegger has every right to hold political office. Al Franken does not.

***

In the world of children's movies, political messages can be found everywhere, going back to a World War II-era Bugs Bunny, featured in several pro-military shorts.

Other recent children's movies have more deftly delivered messages that could be seen as political. Over The Hedge, at its heart, swipes at commercialism. Open Season makes hunters look foolish and at times, mean. Flushed Away makes fun of the French. None of those films led to rants from conservatives.

Sometimes, Hollywood goes out of its way not to offend conservatives. For example, the producers of Everyone's Hero changed several "Oh my God" declarations to "Oh my gosh," to earn endorsements from Christian groups.

Frankly, the most offensive children's movie I've seen this year was Barnyard, which features "party animals" -- not adult animals, mind you -- drinking excessively, vandalizing, and in one case, have pre-marital sex that leads to a pregnant cow. Yet that movie not only flew under the radar of the "pro-family" conservative pundits, it was promoted by faith-based marketing firm Grace Hill Media.

Bush Spins To British Press On How He Has Acknowledged How "Bad" Iraq War Is

2006-12-08T01:00:00.000-05:00

The British press grilled President Bush early and often during Bush's joint press conference yesterday with British Prime Minister Tony Blair -- leaving our president to sound remarkably like a guilty child hoping to escape punishment.

Q: Mr. President, the Iraq Study Group described the situation in Iraq as “grave and deteriorating.” You said that the increase in attacks is “unsettling.” That won’t convince many people that you’re still in denial about how bad things are in Iraq, and question your sincerity about changing course.

BUSH: It’s bad in Iraq. (extremely long pause) Does that help? (Laughter.)

Q: Why did it take others to say it before you’ve been willing to acknowledge for the world ...

BUSH: In all due respect, I’ve been saying it a lot. I understand how tough it is. And I’ve been telling the American people how tough it is.

Let's break down Bush's responses:

BUSH: It’s bad in Iraq. (extremely long pause) Does that help? (Laughter.)

This is the sort of response you'd expect from a nine-year-old who is about to be punished. "Say you're sorry," the parent says. "I'm sorry," the child replies.

"Does that help?" Bush asks, and the nervous laughter follows from the gathering. Like the guilty child hoping for redemption, Bush doesn't understand what he's done wrong, but hopes that the right words can win him favor.

BUSH: In all due respect, I’ve been saying it a lot. I understand how tough it is. And I’ve been telling the American people how tough it is.

Let's start off with the obvious: "tough" is not a synonym for "bad" (although it can be a synonym for "bad luck," as in a "tough break" -- but that's not how Bush is using the word.)

But regardless of that little bait-and-switch, Bush has not been saying "a lot" how tough/bad things are in Iraq. As recently as October, Bush said the U.S. was “absolutely” winning the Iraq war. Right before the election, Bush said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was doing a "fantastic" job of managing the Iraq War.

The closest Bush has come since then to saying how "tough" things are in Iraq was when Bush responded to mass protests of him in Indonesia by saying, "That’s what happens when you make hard decisions.” Bush also used the "hard decisions" line during an October press conference.

So maybe Bush was confused. Or maybe he doesn't understand that the British speak English, read American newspapers and texts of his speeches, and know when they're being lied to.

Or maybe Bush just doesn't know what to say at this point, and like the guilty child hoping for redemption, Bush hopes that the right words can win him favor. Truth be damned.

Campaign 2008: Richardson Says He's Running ... And Kucinich May Run, Too

2006-12-08T00:27:00.000-05:00

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a veteran of the Clinton Administration, told Fox News Channel that he intends to run for president in 2008.

"I've dealt with the issues that are very important today — national security, immigration and energy," Richardson said, who was Energy Secretary and later U.N. Ambassador for Clinton.

Richardson plans to visit New Hampshire next week, and form an exploratory committee next month.

***

While it appears former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) and current Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) -- veterans of the 2004 presidential race -- will be contenders again in 2008, what about Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH).

Kucinich is apparently mulling another run, according to a report in the Cleveland Plain Dealer. "Whether that would mean he'd start an exploratory committee, or simply announce his candidacy, or do nothing, is unclear."

Kucinich was a darling of the far left in 2004, for pushing hard to get the U.S. out of Iraq, an argument that has since become the majority opinion of Americans. At the time, his "U.N. in, U.S. out" mantra seemed politically naive, even if the idea of a short U.S. stay in Iraq had merit.

On the one hand, maybe Kucinich should get more credit for his stance -- rather than Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA), who is often given credit for helping change American opinion on troop redeployment. On the other hand, it's hard to fathom Kucinich improving on his woeful performance in the 2004 primaries.

***

Also on Edwards: The Hotline is reporting that Edwards has asked former Rep. David Bonior (D-MI) to join the One America Committee as a senior advisor for policy and politics. That's led to speculation that Bonior would become Edwards' campaign manager, if/when Edwards declares.

***

Barack Obama's new tome, The Audacity Of Hope, became an instant best-seller, and perhaps helped generate momentum for a possible 2008 run from the freshman senator from Illinois.

But that order of events is the exception. Most times, a candidate writes a book to clarify positions. For example, political readers should expect Gen. Wesley Clark's American Son sometime next fall, reports ABC News. Clark, one can assume, will have declared his intention to run by then (otherwise, this may be the last you hear of American Son.)

But maybe Obama won't be alone in the man-bites-dog phenomenon. Possible 2008 contender Al Gore's next book, The Assault On Reason, is due out in May. It's expected to be a blistering attack on the Bush Administration, and offer alternate ideas for how to right the ship.

If the book is a hit, expect the "Draft Gore" movement to start.

New York Post Fails To Support The Troops With Heinous Cover

2006-12-07T08:01:00.000-05:00

This morning's cover of the New York Post may appease the fringe conservatives who are so filled with fear and paranoia that the only option is to kill every foe -- real or imagined.

But the image -- with the Iraq Study Group's James Baker and Lee Hamilton's faces superimposed on monkeys, over the headline "Surrender Monkeys" -- is a bad joke.

The sub-head, "Iraq panel urges U.S. to give up," is a gross mischaracterization. The Post knows this, but it also knows it wants to sell newspapers.

It doesn't help the troops or their families. It doesn't help the increasingly out-of-control battle to stabilize Iraq. It doesn't help in the greater war on terror.

It is a simpleton view of the world. Can't understand the world's problems or how to solve them? Resort to name calling. Resort to lashing out with ugly images.

It serves the crowd that thinks Mark Levin and Sean Hannity are objective sources of news. It doesn't serve the rest of us.

Feingold: Iraq Study Group Report Fails Because It Views U.S. Foreign Policy Through "Prism Of Iraq"

2006-12-07T01:31:00.000-05:00

Sen. Russ Feingold, on MSNBC's Countdown last night, said that the Iraq Study Group report fails because it views U.S. foreign policy solely through "the prism of Iraq."

"The problem is, the bottomline here is, what are we going to do so we can allocate our resources around the world, to the battle against terrorism? This report keeps us in Iraq. This report keeps our resources there," Feingold told host Keith Olbermann. "And we are losing ground to the Taliban in Afghanistan, which I remember is where the attacks came from on 9/11. So this thing fundamentally continues the ultimate mistake in Washington, of looking at the world through the prism of Iraq, instead of looking at the threat from Al Qaeda as a global problem."

Feingold said part of the problem was the commission's construction. "This commission was composed apparently entirely of people who did not have the judgment to oppose this Iraq war in the first place. And did not have the judgment to realize that it was not a wise move in the fight against terrorism," he said.

Additionally, "I looked at the list of who testified before them. There's virtually no one who opposed the war in the first place, virtually no one who's been really calling for a different strategy that goes for a global approach in the war on terrorism."

As a result, Feingold said, the report "does not do the job of extricating us from Iraq in a way that we can deal with the issues in Southeast Asia, in Afghanistan and in Somalia, which are every bit as important as what is happening in Iraq."

***

It's a viewpoint that didn't get much immediate exposure from the mainstream media.

Hopefully, that will change, because Feingold makes a lot of sense.

Congressional Investigators Say Bush Administration Sought To Cut Payments To Nuclear Weapons Workers Sickened By Radiation, Toxic Material

2006-12-07T01:09:00.000-05:00

The Bush administration sought to limit payouts to nuclear weapons workers sickened by radiation and toxic material, according to a memo written by congressional investigators and obtained by USA Today.

The investigation focuses on a federal program created in 2000 to compensate people with cancers and other illnesses tied to their work at government and contractor-owned facilities involved in Cold War nuclear weapons production.

About 98,000 cases have been filed. The Labor Department has approved compensation in about 24,000 of those cases, but program records show that not all approved claims have been paid.

The memo, written by staff for the House Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, border security and claims for its outgoing chairman, Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN), concludes that since 2002, "there is a continuous stream of (administration) communications … strategizing on minimizing payouts."

The Bush Administration has spun that the memos reflect internal brainstorming on how to avoid compensating ineligible workers. The Labor Department said the ideas are not being pursued.

"What we've been doing all along is trying to ensure that the program is implemented in a way that is fair and consistent and in accord with the law," said Shelby Hallmark, the Labor Department's director of workers' compensation programs.

But Hostettler said at a hearing last month that records reviewed in the investigation do not support the administration's stance.

"This program was supposed to assure workers … (that) their government was finally going to do right by them," he said. "Those tasked with implementing (it) have failed that purpose miserably and they need to be exposed."

Hostettler is pressing the issue despite losing re-election last month, vowing to release key documents and urging Democrats to continue the probe when they take over in January.

Bolton's Departure Leaves Ranks Thin At State Department

2006-12-07T00:43:00.000-05:00

The resignation of U.N. Ambassador John ("Say It Loud, Say It Proud") Bolton is only the latest in a string of high-ranking departures from the State Department.

With some positions open now for nearly six months, the question is: Does anyone want to be a diplomat in the Bush Administration, which has shunned diplomacy in favor of tough talk?

After all, this is an administration that has dismissed the idea of talking with Iran and Syria -- and rest assured, the Iraq Study Group's recommendation of such talks will not likely budge Bush. And it has refused to have bilateral talks with North Korea.

For all of the Bush team's bluster and tough talk, efforts to contain the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea have thus far failed. Maybe that's why there are so many vacancies on the State Department's diplomatic team.

***

Things must be getting lonely for Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. The buzz is that she has been unable to find anyone who wants to replace Deputy Secretary of State Bob Zoellick, who returned to the private sector in June. Zoellick was Rice's #2.

Last month, State Department Counselor Philip Zelikow resigned, to return to his job as a history professor at the University of Virginia. Zelikow, a long-time Rice ally and her most senior adviser on Iraq, was nonetheless a critic of the Bush Administration's efforts in Iraq.

According to the Bob Woodward book State of Denial, Zelikow wrote a secret memo characterizing Iraq as "a failed state" two years after the U.S.-led invasion. In September 2005, he wrote a memo estimating a 70 percent chance of success in achieving a stable, democratic Iraq, and what he called a "significant risk" of "catastrophic failure," the book said.

And things may get worse for Rice.

R. Nicholas Burns, the undersecretary of state for political affairs and Rice's #3, has expressed interest in replacing Bolton. But the New York Times reports that because Burns is Rice's most-trusted deputy, "she may be unwilling to relinquish him."

***

This isn't a great time for such a thin diplomatic team. Bush, when reluctantly accepting Bolton's resignation, said that it's a "sensitive and important time" for U.S. diplomacy.

And that's true ... sort of.

Conservative Radio Host Agrees With Inhofe, Says "Hollywood Elite Liberals" Who Believe In Global Warming "Hate America"

2006-12-06T08:07:00.000-05:00

There are two sides to the global warming "debate": those who agree with the vast majority of independent scientists, and those who agree with the vast majority of energy-industry supported scientists.

This morning on WABC radio, conservative host John Gambling told Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) that he was tired of "Hollywood elite liberals" who along with the mainstream media show how they "hate America" and "hate capitalism" by repeating claims by the vast majority of independent scientists regarding global warming.

Gambling's claim is ridiculous. It hopes to spur the "debate" by suggesting that people like former Vice President Al Gore are fringe liberals who are in cahoots with the media in order to scare people about global warming for personal gain. In fact, Gambling and Inhofe agreed that Gore's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, was only created to get Gore into the White House.

What Gambling won't tell you, though, is that 19 climate experts gave An Inconvenient Truth a thumbs-up for conveying the broadly accepted science correctly.

Gambling and Inhofe also spout out inaccurate statements to back up their end of the "debate." For example, Inhofe said that the last 10 years have not been warmer than the 1930s. But NASA Director James Hansen said in January that “the five warmest years over the last century occurred in the last eight years.”

***

Inhofe, the outgoing chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, was on the show to tout a hearing, scheduled for today, that was designed to criticize media coverage of global warming. Inhofe has in the past called climate change the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."

Inhofe believes that whatever warming is occurring is coming from natural changes, rather than man-made emissions. He told Fox News Channel two weeks that the proof of this is, among other things, that "God's still up there" and warming is "due to the sun."

He told Gambling that scientists who believe in global warming are only in it for the money -- that they would not get grants by declaring that the warming is a natural occurrence and nothing to worry about.

It's an amazing claim. Essentially, in Inhofe's mind, every scientist is corrupt and lying, only interested in playing to the fears of a fringe liberal media and their Hollywood friends. To be blunt, it's delusional.

***

Regarding the claim that global warming is a natural occurence, with no ties to man-made emissions, the National Academy of Sciences has unequivocally concluded the opposite. "Human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming,” its report states.

That followed a 2001 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body which involves thousands of scientists from over 120 countries who develop detailed reports on climate change. Its report stated, “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.”

We should all be thankful that Inhofe will soon lose his chairmanship, and non-partisan science can again be given its due.

You Can't Make This Stuff Up ...

2006-12-06T07:56:00.000-05:00

Why isn't the media reporting more good news from Iraq?

That was the question an Iraq War veteran from Alabama posed this morning to U.S. News & World Report reporter Kevin Whitelaw, who appeared this morning on C-Span's Washington Journal.

Whitelaw said that the U.S. government has in the past tried to push some "good news" stories on U.S. reporters based in Baghdad, recognizing that the reporters were often unable to travel outside the city because of safety concerns. Reporters were interested -- looking for something to write about besides bloodshed -- and began covering events like the re-opening of schools or the rehabilitation of a piece of Iraqi infrastructure.

But, Whitelaw said, Iraqi insurgents recognized what was being highlighted as a U.S. accomplishment, and would "blow it up within a couple of weeks." Soon, the U.S. decided it was not in anyone's best interest to promote such "good news" stories.

The moral of the story is clear: the U.S. is currently unable to stop the insurgency.

While Discussing Bush's Admission Of Mistakes In Iraq, Hadley Offers Bait-And-Switch To Russert

2006-12-04T00:42:00.000-05:00

National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley played bait-and-switch with host Tim Russert on Sunday's edition of NBC's Meet The Press.

The subject: Whether President Bush has admitted the U.S. was wrong about the number of troops needed to successfully fight the Iraq War.

RUSSERT: (C)ould the president step forward and say, “I acknowledge we were wrong about WMD, we were wrong about troop levels, we were wrong about the length of the war, we were wrong about the cost of the war, we were wrong about the financing of the war, we were wrong about the level of sectarian violence, we were wrong about being greeted as liberators. We made some fundamental misjudgments, and they were wrong, but now we’re all in this together”? Could he do that?

HADLEY: He’s done a lot of that. He’s acknowledged that ...

RUSSERT: All those mistakes?

HADLEY: He has acknowledged that — for example, that there were not stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

RUSSERT: How about troop levels?

HADLEY: He’s, he’s acknowledged that, that in terms of troops we need to be building Iraqi forces to provide greater security. You know, Tim, people forget that, that we had hoped to have 150,000 to 200,000 Iraqi army forces to help in the security proposition, and those forces melted away at the close of the war. ....

***

Russert was clearly referring to the claim Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff at the time, made to Congress, saying the U.S. would need several hundred thousand troops in Iraq. Shinseki's suggestion was refuted by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Undersecretary Paul Wolfowitz, among others.

Last month, the top military commander in the Middle East, Gen. John Abizaid, admitted Shinseki was right.

So it's a nice bit of bait-and-switch by Hadley. Bush has admitted to the mistake of not having the right number of troops ... oops, he didn't.

Unfortunately, as is too often the case, Russert failed to notice.

***

Hadley was also spinning when he said that Iraqi "forces melted away at the close of the war."

As JABBS noted last year: "The first head of what would eventually be known as the Coalition Provisional Authority, Army Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, championed using the Iraqi military to reconstruct Iraq -- akin to a 'Works Project Administration,' as he told UPI. Instead, the U.S. retired Garner, and replaced him with L. Paul Bremer, who dissolved Iraq's 400,000-strong army soon after American forces overthrew Saddam's regime in April 2003."

To Hadley, the troops "melted away" like magic. No need to claim a mistake was made by our guy on the ground.

Kind of brings new meaning to "stay the course," huh?

Poll: Edwards, Obama Have Best Combination Of Name Recognition, Net Favorability Among Prospective 2008 Democratic Presidential Candidates

2006-12-04T00:25:00.000-05:00

A collection of poll data from Rasmussen Reports suggests that among prospective Democratic candidates for the 2008 presidential nomination, the party's rising star, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, have the best combination of name recognition and net favorability rating.

Rasmussen asked prospective Democratic primary voters whether they were familiar with nine would-be 2008 presidential candidates, and whether they had a favorable or unfavorable impression of that candidate.

Only three of the nine -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Obama and Edwards -- had "net favorablity" ratings, meaning that their the percentage of those surveyed with a favorable opinion of them was greater than the percentage that had an unfavorable opinion of them. (A similar review of prospective GOP candidates found only three of seven with net favorability ratings.)

Obama had a net favorability rating of +17, best among any prospective candidate. Among those surveyed, 75 percent had an opinion of Obama (46 percent favorable, 29 percent unfavorable). Should Obama run -- he hasn't yet decided -- the trick will be continuing to have a large net favorability rating, even as more voters become familiar with his policies.

Edwards has a +10 net favorability rating. Among those surveyed, 86 percent had an opinion of Edwards (48 percent favorable, 38 percent unfavorable). In other words, Edwards has excellent name recognition, and room to improve his favorable ratings.

Clinton had a net favorability of +5 percent. But because of her outstanding 99 percent name recognition (52 percent favorable, 47 percent unfavorable), she may be hard-pressed to change people's opinions of her -- including her very high unfavorable rating.

Similarly, 95 percent of those surveyed recognized the name of former Vice President Al Gore (47 percent favorable, 48 percent unfavorable). He, too, suffers from the combination of high name recognition and high unfavorable rating.

Other prospective candidates -- Sens. Evan Bayh of Indiana and Joe Biden of Delaware, Govs. Tom Vilsack of Iowa and Bill Richardson of New Mexico, and Gen. Wesley Clark -- each had net unfavorability ratings. With the exception of Clark, each had less name recognition than Obama. That would suggest each faces an uphill climb to win the nomination.

Campaign 2008: Bayh Will Consider Presidential Run; Daschle Won't

2006-12-03T20:25:00.000-05:00

Can someone explain to me why Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) is considering a presidential run?

The only logical reason was the one offered by the South Bend Tribune: Bayh is a "Democrat with a record of political success in a Republican-leaning state."

But honestly, Bayh's name recognition on the national stage is only modestly better than Richard Burr or Tom Casper (go ahead, name the states and parties without checking.)

Yes, sometimes candidates come out of nowhere. In 1991, few people would have given Gov. Bill Clinton much of a chance. Gov. Jimmy Carter was a blip on the national political scene when he started his run for the White House in 1975.

Bayh will test the waters, the Tribune reports, creating an exploratory committee, and visiting Iowa and New Hampshire. But I'll go on the record now as saying the odds of a President Bayh come 2008 are perhaps as bad as a President Dodd, although he's testing the waters, too.

***

One piece of good news for the Democrats: Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) will not run for president in 2008.

Daschle couldn't handle the debating skills of Rep. John Thune in 2004. And his reason for not running this time was apparently fear of the steamroller that is Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack.

If he didn't want to spar with Vilsack, how would he ever have defended himself against all the Karl Rove/Ken Mehlman wannabes?

Federal Report Condemns Paperless Electronic Voting Machines

2006-12-02T15:51:00.000-05:00

Paperless electronic voting machines used in much of the country "cannot be made secure," according to draft recommendations issued this week by a federal agency that advises the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

The assessment by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, one of the government's premier research centers, is the most sweeping condemnation of such voting systems by a federal agency.

In a report hailed by critics of electronic voting, NIST said that voting systems should allow election officials to recount ballots independently from a voting machine's software. The recommendations endorse "optical-scan" systems in which voters mark paper ballots that are read by a computer and electronic systems that print a paper summary of each ballot, which voters review and elections officials save for recounts.

As JABBS noted earlier this week, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who is expected to become chairwoman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, plans to re-inroduce legislation requiring all voting systems to have verifiable paper trails.

With Democrats now in control of the Senate, there's a good chance the legislation should pass.

***

NIST's recommendations are to be debated next week before the Technical Guidelines Development Committee, charged by Congress to develop standards for voting systems. To become effective, NIST's recommendations must then be adopted by the Election Assistance Commission, which was created by Congress to promote changes in election systems after the 2000 debacle in Florida.

Cleland Won't Seek Rematch Against Chambliss

2006-12-02T15:17:00.000-05:00

Former Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA) has decided against seeking a rematch against freshman Sen. Saxby Chambliss.

On the one hand, that's unfortunate. Cleland was considered the top potential challenger for Chambliss, in what would be a tough seat for the Democrats to gain, given the state's conservative tilt.

A rematch would have given Cleland a chance, at a time of war and terrorism, to defend his patriotism and promote his knowledge of foreign affairs and homeland security issues against Chambliss. Chambliss, you'll recall, ran an advertisement in 2002 that juxtaposed Cleland's image with those of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, and distorted Cleland's record by suggesting he was against homeland security. (The images of Bin Laden and Hussein were subsequently removed.) The ad angered some Vietnam veterans, including Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and John McCain (R-AZ).

On the other hand, I'm glad Cleland isn't committing himself for 2008. I'm hoping he's tabbed as the party's 2008 vice presidential candidate, perhaps paired up with another Southerner, former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC).

The regional strategy worked in 1992, and it could work again.

(Editor's Note: This item has been updated, correcting a wrong description of the Chambliss advertisement.)

Fox News Channel Won't Call Shiite-Sunni Fighting "Civil War," To Protect Conservative Interests

2006-12-02T13:57:00.000-05:00

Fox News Channel’s Senior Vice President John Moody — whose infamous politically-slanted internal memos have gained notoriety — will not allow his network to use the term "civil war" to describe the fighting between Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis.

Moody said said in a statement that “some are using the term civil war to indicate failure, not inside Iraq, but on U.S. policy in Iraq. We’re unwilling to fall into that tender trap. We’re not using the term because there are non-Iraqis in the fray and that makes it something different.”

Let's break down this non-sensical statement:

-- "Some are using the term civil war to indicate failure, not inside Iraq, but on U.S. policy in Iraq." Not true. Some pundits and politicians -- Democrats and some Republicans, like Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and former Secretary of State Colin Powell -- have used the term "civil war" to describe the fighting between rival groups of Iraqis.

Coinciding with recognizing the obvious, critics of the management of the Iraq War have suggested that if the Bush Administation had listened to various people along the way -- starting with Gen. Eric Shinseki's correct claim that the U.S. needed several hundred thousand troops to control the situation -- then maybe Iraq would not have devolved into a civil war.

But the claim that people are using the term "civil war" solely to criticize the U.S. is just empty conservative spin.

-- "We’re not using the term because there are non-Iraqis in the fray and that makes it something different." That's flawed logic. By most accounts, the number of "foreign fighters" in Iraq is small --likely less than 10 percent of those who are fighting.

Furthermore, most of those foreigners have chosen to fight alongside their Shiite brethren. And even if all those foreigners were staying outside the Shiite-Sunni conflict, that wouldn't change the fact that there is a Shiite-Sunni conflict raging throughout Iraq.

Moody can come up with whatever spin he wants to avoid the truth. The reality is, Fox News Channel is a conservative-friendly network, Moody knows the Bush Administration refuses to call the Iraq situation a civil war, and thus he is following suit.

Fisaco In Sarasota County, Fla., Could Result In Legislation Requiring Verifiable Paper Trails For All Voting Systems

2006-12-01T00:50:00.000-05:00

The fiasco in Sarasota County, Fla. -- where 18,000 voters mysteriously failed to cast a vote for the U.S. House of Representatives -- may be the smoking gun election reform advocates need to pass federal legislation requiring all voting systems to have verifiable paper trails.

As JABBS noted last month, a whopping 13 percent of voters in the county failed to vote in the tight race between Republican Vern Buchanan and Democrat Christine Jennings. (A higher percentage of people s in the county voted for obscure races, such as hospital board -- something that political scientists said is incredibly unlikely.) In neighboring counties in the district, between 2 and 5 percent of voters did not cast a vote for the House seat.

It was a discrepancy that county elections superviosr Kathy Dent couldn't explain. But because there was no paper trail, voters had no way to prove that they had voted for Buchanan, Jennings, another candidate, or no candidate.

Buchanan wound up winning by 369 votes, out of nearly 240,000 cast. The local paper, the Herald-Tribune, determined that if Jennings had received the same percentage of the 18,000 missing votes as she did among counted votes in Sarasota County, she would have won by 600 votes.

But again, no paper trail, no recount, no way to know who the real winner was.

***

Beyond the question of who won Florida's 13th Congressional District -- ironically, the seat vacated by Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL) -- the buzz on Capitol Hill is that the missing votes give new meaning to what had been a theoretical debate about the reliability of touchscreen voting machines.

"What happened in Sarasota really does highlight the issue," Howard Gantman, communications director for U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), told the Herald-Tribune.

You can expect hearings, and Sarasota officials are expected to be called in to testify.

Feinstein, who is expected to become chairwoman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, plans to re-inroduce legislation requiring all voting systems to have verifiable paper trails.

With Democrats now in control of the Senate, there's a good chance the legislation should pass.

Campaign 2008: Let The Games Begin

2006-12-01T00:05:00.000-05:00

(Editor's Note: Today, JABBS introduces "Campaign 2008: Let The Games Begin," a review of news items related to the 2008 presidential campaign. For a review of all JABBS special features, click here)

Is it too early to begin thinking about the 2008 race for president? Truth is, there are a bevy of candidates and wannabes, from both sides of the political aisle.

So let's cut through the spin and highlight what's happening:

-- Iowa Democratic Chairman Rob Tully told Fox News Channel on Wednesday that Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has not taken the early steps in the first caucus state that one would expect from a would-be presidential candidate.

The conservative spin is that maybe Clinton isn't running, but some Democratic state party leaders are quietly saying that Clinton may choose to skip Iowa, rather than face Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who would have a clear home field advantage, as well as the candidate du jour, Sen. Barack Obama, from neighboring Illinois.

-- Meanwhile, Obama "has discussed a potential campaign with leading Democratic activists in Iowa, which holds the influential caucus that kicks off the presidential primary campaign in early 2008," the Chicago Tribune reports.

Among those he has spoken with are the former Iowa campaign managers for 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry and 2000 Democratic nominee Al Gore.

The conservative spinmeisters must fear Obama, even though he is so new to national politics that most Democrats don't know his stance on most issues. GOP strategist Ed Rogers ridiculed Obama on MSNBC's Hardball Tuesday, making sure to note that Obama's middle name is "Hussein."

Ah yes, the race card. It worked so well in Tennessee, where the "Harold, Call Me" television advertisement from the Republican National Committee clearly had racial undertones.

Should Obama actually run for president or vice president, I have no doubt that the RNC will make sure every American knows, and fears, Obama's middle name.

-- Finally, will Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) run? The New York Observer thinks so. They quote Dodd: "I sort of have a unique position because I have experience, but I’m sort of a fresh face. I know that’s kind of silly. I’ve been in the Senate 25 years."

Earlier this year, Dodd told the Associated Press "it's an itch. Could grow, could disappear." He briefly considered a run in 2004.

A long-time liberal senator from New England? Ugh. Didn't Democrats learn anything from 2004?

Close House Races in 2006 Could Mean 85 GOP Seats Are At Risk For 2008

2006-11-30T22:52:00.001-05:00

Rep. Brian Higgins (D-NY) won two years ago with 51 percent. This year he was barely challenged and piled up 79 percent. Rep. Stephanie Herseth (D-SD) had an even harder time in 2004, winning both a special election in a squeaker and a general election by a slightly larger margin. Herseth was on many lists this year of endangered Democrats. In the end, she cruised to an easy win with 69 percent of the vote.

In an election where Democrats did wvery well, Herseth and Higgins typified many of the trends. No Democratic seats were lost, and a majority of elected Democrats (117 out of 232) were either unopposed or received 70 percent or more of the vote. In fact, in the Northeast, 45 of 68 Democratic winners (and nearly all the incumbents) pulled in 70 percent or more.

In the closest elections, where winners drew 52 percent or less, Republicans won by a 26 to 19 margin. If you wonder why Democrats did not win 40 or more seats, there's the answer. Unlike in 1994, the Republicans managed to win a lot of close elections.

The Republican edge grew as the margins moved up a bit. For seats won with a 53 to 55 percent margin of victory, GOPers posted 16 wins to 15 for Democrats. But from a 56 percent to 59 percent margin of victory, the Republican edge was a stunning 43 victories to eight. If you want to find 85 Republican-held seats to challenge hard in 2008, they are clearly available within this group.

-- From analysis by David Kowalski, in MyDD.com, Nov. 30

Bush May Be President, But For Growing Majority, He's No Longer Our "Leader"

2006-11-30T08:27:00.000-05:00

Although the words are often used interchangeably, "president" and "leader" have much different meanings.

And currently, our President is not our leader -- at least not for the majority of Americans.

President is a job title. By definition, a president is not necessarily a leader, but rather the highest-ranking official. "Appointed or elected to preside over an organized body." Bush certainly qualifies to be called president.

But to lead, by definition one has to take a lead position, and "guide" or "influence" others. And for a majority of Americans, this is no longer the case. Over the past year in particular, President Bush hasn't been out in front of the issues -- he's been behind the curve -- and the midterm elections, and poll after poll suggest that Americans' opinions on a wide range of issues are not guided or influenced by Bush.

Consider:

-- A majority of Americans (86 percent) say it is important to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden. The Bush Administration has repeatedly said that this is not a priority.

-- A majority of Americans (68 percent) are calling the situation in Iraq a "civil war." Bush refuses to do so.

-- A majority of Americans (69 percent) want to see troops withdrawn immediately, or a timetable to be established for such a withdrawal. Bush refuses to consider either option.

-- A majority of Americans (83 percent) support hiking the minimum wage. The Bush Administration backed a Congressional Republican to increase the minimum wage only if it could be tied to a repeal of the estate tax. The measure was defeated. (Note: One poll found that only 29 percent of Americans support repealing the estate tax.)

-- A majority of Americans (68 percent) support federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Bush vetoed a bill on the matter in July, in spite of bipartisan support.

-- A majority of Americans (60 percent) disapprove of Bush's proposal to privatize Social Security. Bush said in June: "If we can't get it done this year, I'm going to try next year. And if we can't get it done next year, I'm going to try the year after that."

Of course, that was before Democrats regained control of both houses of Congress.

***

The Democrats would do well to start framing these key issues as "mainstream" -- or put another way, they should not allow conservatives to mischaracterize these issues as "liberal." This is the time for Democrats to be "leaders," not be on the defensive, worried about Karl Rove's latest catch-phrase.

With majorities in both houses of Congress, the Democrats can quickly pass a minimum wage hike, federal funding for stem cell research, a timetable for phased redeployment of troops from Iraq, etc. How amazing would it be to have a "do something" Congress?

Dare Bush to veto bills that have bipartisan support in Congress, and the broad support of the American people. He'll either show how out of step he is with the American people -- certifying how he is not a "leader" -- or he'll buckle.

It's a win-win, for the Democratic Party, and for the American people.

Majority Of Americans Believe Iraq In Civil War

2006-11-30T07:02:00.000-05:00

A majority of Americans think Iraq is in the midst of a civil war, regardless of how strongly the Bush Administration rejects the description.

A new Harris Interactive poll finds 68 percent of U.S. adults believe there is a civil war in Iraq, compared with 14 percent who disagree and 18 percent who aren't sure.

More than 2,400 people were polled from Nov. 14 to Nov. 20. The margin of error is stated as 2 percentage points.

Just as a majority of Americans this year stopped buying into the administration's spin on Iraq -- that the insurgency was in the "last throes," how the Iraq government was doing "remarkably well," and other nonsense that didn't mesh with what we could plainly see on our televisions -- perhaps a majority of Americans have decided it doesn't matter whether the administration admits Iraq is in civil war.

There are too many other people -- frankly with more credibility on Iraq than Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld -- using the term, apparently now including former Secretary of State Colin Powell.

***

The mainstream media has been mixed on the subject -- MSNBC/NBC, the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times have used the term, for example, while Fox News Channel and USA Today and the Washington Post have not.

Some may be waiting for the Bush Administration to use the term first, but that would be giving the administration credibility on Iraq that it has not shown it deserves.

Big Oil Launching PR Campaign To Try To Influence New Congress

2006-11-29T00:25:00.000-05:00

The American Petroleum Institute is planning to launch a major "educational advocacy" program in January 2007 to broaden efforts directed at public policy experts, regulatory officials, and other influential individuals starting in January 2007.

The goal, according to PR Week, is to frame issues (read: present its spin) for the new Congress.

If the institute, which represents 400 major oil and gas producers, can successfully foist its side of the story, maybe Congress won't investigate Big Oil's record earnings, Vice President Dick Cheney's secretive energy task force, or the peculiar way that gasoline prices tumbled in the weeks before the election, but mysteriously began rising immediately therafter.

Institute president and chief executive officer Red Cavaney told PR Week that, with assistance from the public relations firm Edelman, the institute had recently worked to "put earnings in perspective, to explain how we reinvest them."

The campaign will also feature television and magazine advertisements, and tours of oil and gas operations. So the average American will get to hear Big Oil's spin, too.

Texas Ethics? Uh, No. Commission Allows State Disclosure Laws That "Condone Bribery"

2006-11-28T22:04:00.000-05:00

A Texas official who receives any sum of cash as a gift can satisfy state disclosure laws by reporting the money simply as "currency," without specifying the amount, the Texas Ethics Commission reiterated Monday.

The 5-3 decision outraged watchdog groups and some Democratic officials who unabashedly accused the commission of failing to enforce state campaign finance laws.

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, a Democrat, told the Houston Chronicle the "currency" interpretation would render it "perfectly legal to report the gift of 'a wheelbarrow' without reporting that the wheelbarrow was filled with cash."

Cash gifts to state officials became an issue when Houston homebuilder Bob Perry, who finances Republican campaigns and causes, gave Bill Ceverha a check to help pay legal bills accumulated when he was a GOP operative. Ceverha, by then a member of the state Employee Retirement System board, reported that he was given a check, but not the amount.

It was later learned that Ceverha received two checks totaling $100,000. But the commission says state officials only have to report that they received a gift of more than $250 -- not the exact amount.

As the Austin American-Statesman noted in an editorial yesterday: "That, in essence, misleads the public and condones bribery."

***

State Rep. Lon Burnam, a Democrat from Fort Worth, sued the ethics commission in April asking that "meaningful" descriptions of gifts be required.

After the ethics commission ruled on Monday, Burnam said he was eager to move forward with the lawsuit.

The opinion "clearly, obviously violates the intent of the law," he told the Associated Press. "They deliberately I think misconstrued it and they are showing how utterly spineless and useless they are as an ethics commission."

You Can't Make This Stuff Up ...

2006-11-28T00:41:00.001-05:00

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will stay aboard until after Dec. 29, so that he can best Robert McNamara's record of longest-serving Defense Secretary, Newsweek reports, citing an anonymous White House source.

In other words, Rumsfeld's ego may be more important than turning around the mess in Iraq.

Officially, the White House spin is that Robert Gates will be sworn in as Rumsfeld's replacement -- two weeks after his confirmation -- once Gates winds up affairs as president of Texas A&M University.

But as Newsweek reports: "(T)hat's news in College Station, Texas, where Gates has been handing everything over to the man he calls "my strong right arm," the executive vice president and provost, David Pratt."

Gates on Nov. 8 announced he would quit A&M on "completion of the confirmation process and a Senate vote."

Britain To Reduce Troop Levels In Iraq, As The "Coalition Of The Willing" Shrinks Some More

2006-11-28T00:38:00.000-05:00

The Bush Administration doesn't use the term "coalition of the willing" much anymore to describe the multi-national effort in Iraq and Afghanistan -- in part because the coalition is falling apart.

Great Britain isn't planning to leave just yet, but it does have one foot out the door. Defense Secretary Des Browne told BBC News yesterday that his nation's 7,000 troops would be significantly reduced by the end of 2007.

While not planning a full withdrawal, Browne said, "I can tell you that by the end of next year I expect numbers of British forces in Iraq to be significantly lower by a matter of thousands."

***

"Coalition of the willing" always seemed to be an odd term, especially for the spin-happy Bush Administration, home to so many "Luntzian" phrases. (It was apparently pilfered from President Clinton, who used it to describe a United Nations mandate.)

It makes you wonder why a country would be unwilling to fight in Iraq (such as: Iraq had nothing to do with the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.)

From the start, the state department admitted that only a few of these countries are providing any major military presence in the Gulf, notably Britain and Australia.

But look at the nations that have exited the coalition: Singapore (in 2004), Nicaragua (2004); Spain (2004); Dominican Republic (2004); Honduras (2004); Norway (2004), Philippines (2004); Thailand (2004); New Zealand (2004); Tonga (December 2004) Hungary (2004); Portugal (2005); Moldova (2005); Netherlands (2005), Ukraine (2005), Bulgaria (2006), Japan (Joly 2006), Norway (2006), Italy (2006) and Poland (planned for December 2006).

Additionally, Australia, South Korea, Georgia and Denmark have each reduced their troop levels. And Britain will be next.

Here's a question: Does the Bush Administration, or its neocon friends, ever wonder why so many countries have become "unwilling?"

Will Cheney Follow Rumsfeld Out Of The Bush Administration?

2006-11-27T22:25:00.000-05:00

Does Dick Cheney feel like a lame duck?

That was the thought posed by Congressional Quarterly political analyst Craig Crawford. Speaking on MSNBC's Hardball today, Crawford told host Chris Matthews that he wonders if Cheney "stays in this administration for the full term here. I really wonder if Rumsfeld’s leaving is just the beginning."

Crawford's reasoning is that Cheney's "authority is waning, if not gone." With a Democratic-controlled Congress come January, and President Bush appearing to listen to friends of his father -- James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, Robert Gates -- instead of Cheney's neocon friends, the veep has never been more "isolated."

Here's part of the transcript:

MATTHEWS: Why would he leave?

...

CRAWFORD: My point is I don’t know why he’d want to stick around.

MATTHEWS: He has assumed an awful lot of authority under this President.

CRAWFORD: I know, and that authority is waning, if not gone. And my point is why would he want to stick around in this environment? He might just choose to leave.

MATTHEWS: Let me check this. I rarely do this on the show. Are you teasing? Are you — do you actually think there’s a reasonable plausible case for this Vice President to give up all the power he enjoys as the President’s first counsel?

CRAWFORD: Not if he doesn’t enjoy it anymore. I mean all I’m seeing is the man getting isolated more and more. This seems to be his most vulnerable position in the entire Bush administration.

Mission Accomplished? Iraq Won't Turn Around Unless The Bush Administration Stops The Spin, And Starts Recognizing The Reality On The Ground

2006-11-27T08:39:00.000-05:00

The spin from the Bush Administration about Iraq is that Americans shouldn't pay attention to the violence they see on their televisions (read: blame the "liberal" media), because the fledgling Iraqi democracy was about to turn the corner.

"The situation in Iraq is still tense, and we're still seeing acts of sectarian violence and reprisal," Bush said in a March speech. "Yet out of this crisis, we've also seen signs of a hopeful future."

Even as the Iraq Study Group report makes recommendations on what to do next in Iraq, the U.S. needs the Bush Administraton to take an important first step.

Stop trying to spin us. It isn't working. And continuing to not accept the situation on the ground can only make matters worse.

As Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) said recently: "Hope is not a strategy."

This has nothing to do with exit strateiges. It's catch-phrase partisan politics to turn every conversation into whether the Democrats want to "cut and run," or whether the Republicans have a better understanding of whether U.S. troops begin redeploying now, a year from now, or three years from now. The American people made it clear at the polls this month: they aren't buying the spin anymore.

What's most important is the administration recognizing, understanding, and admitting that there is a steady and possibly unending drumbeat of death and destruction in Iraq, and that Iraq's Shiites and Sunnis are engaged in Civil War. It has to do with the realization and admission that without rapid change, the vacuum of leadership that is being created by the U.S.-led coalition will push the Iraqis to turn to the all too willing arms of Iran.

Still believe the spin that there's a "hopeful future" in Iraq if we "stay the course"? Here are some recent items from the news.

-- Thousands of Iraqis are believed to have died from shortages of medicine, vital equipment and qualified doctors, despite an infusion of nearly half a billion dollars from U.S. coffers into this country's healthcare system, Iraqi officials and American observers say.

-- Exacerbating the crisis, hundreds of doctors have been killed, and thousands have fled Iraq. The child mortality rate, a key indicator of a nation's health, has worsened since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, according to Iraqi government figures.

-- More than 250 academics have been killed since 2003, targeted by so many warring factions that it seems to be the only issue they can agree on. To date, not one person has been arrested for these murders. Fanatics targeting Iraqi academics are wreaking havoc on the educational system by threatening, kidnapping and killing innocent professors.

-- The Iraqi insurgency is now self-sustaining financially, profiting from oil smuggling, kidnapping, counterfeiting, corrupt charities and other crimes that neither the Iraqi government nor the U.S. have been unable to prevent.

***

How about the spin of the successful Iraqi reconstruction?

As the Washington Post notes: The U.S. has committed $38 billion to reconstruction, and most of the money has been spent. "Yet tallying finished projects can be a misleading way of measuring success."

For example:

-- The United States has finished repairs on 86 of 98 railway stations. But few trains run because of security concerns.

-- In the oil sector, while production capacity has nearly returned to prewar levels, the country had a severe fuel shortage this summer because of high demand and sabotage.

-- More than 100 health-care facilities that were scheduled to be finished by now instead are empty because the contractors assigned to build them did not get their jobs done.

-- The U.S. claims it has restored access to water, and return electricity to pre-war levels. But Iraqis interviewed by the Post say that Iraqis are drinking untreated water, and that electricity only works two hours each day.

***

We need U.S. leadership willing to accept the reality on the ground, and speak to the American people like adults.

Until the Bush Administration stops spinning how it's "full speed ahead" in Iraq -- as Vice President Cheney said this month -- the situation in Iraq can only get worse.

Is Putin Really A Friend In The "War On Terror?"

2006-11-26T00:47:00.000-05:00

Is Russian President Vladimir Putin really a friend in the "war on terror?"

President Bush has called Russia "a strong ally in ... fighting the war on terror," and "a strong and viable partner with the United States."

It's great spin, especially when accompanied by warm handshakes like the one in the photo at right. But there's no reason to believe the relationship between Bush and Putin has translated into any kind of partnership on Iraq or Iran.

Earlier this year, a Pentagon report revealed that the Russian government provided Saddam Hussein with intelligence on U.S. military movements and plans during the opening days of the war in 2003. Russia called the allegations "ridiculous," but the Pentagon hasn't backed away from the claims.

In July, Bush stood side by side with Putin at the G8 Summit in Russia. Bush told Putin that Americans want Russia to develop a free press and free religion “like Iraq.” To laughter and applause, Putin responded: “We certainly would not want to have same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq, quite honestly.”

Remember, Putin is our "strong ally in ... fighting the war on terror."

Now comes word that Russia has begun delivery of Tor-M1 air defense missile systems to Iran, in spite of U.S. criticism.

In August, Russia rejected talk of sanctions against Iran.

"I believe that the question is not so serious ... to consider any introduction of sanctions. Russia stands for further political and diplomatic efforts to settle the issue," Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov told reporters at the time. Russia also failed to warm up to the idea of sanctions after a trip last month to Moscow by Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.

So Russia isn't listening to us. It might have helped Iraq. And its leader, Putin, makes jokes about it.

How again is Russia our "strong ally in ... fighting the war on terror?"

Iraqi Insurgency Is Self-Sustaining (Which Is More Than The U.S. Can Say)

2006-11-25T22:57:00.000-05:00

The insurgency in Iraq is now self-sustaining financially, profiting from oil smuggling, kidnapping, counterfeiting, corrupt charities and other crimes that neither the Iraqi government nor the U.S. have been unable to prevent, a classified United States government report has concluded.

The report, completed in June and obtained by the New York Times, estimates that groups responsible for many insurgent and terrorist attacks are raising as much as $200 million a year from illegal activities. It says $25 million to $100 million of that comes from oil smuggling and other criminal activity involving the state-owned oil industry, aided by “corrupt and complicit” Iraqi officials.

“If accurate,” the report says, its estimates indicate that these “sources of terrorist and insurgent finance within Iraq — independent of foreign sources — are currently sufficient to sustain the groups’ existence and operation.” And then comes the truly scary observation: “In fact, if recent revenue and expense estimates are correct, terrorist and insurgent groups in Iraq may have surplus funds with which to support other terrorist organizations outside of Iraq.” However, experts don't believe this is happening ... yet.

(For comparison: the insurgents spend an estimated $200 million a year; the U.S. spends roughly $265 million a day in Iraq.)

***

While the report suggests the insurgency is self-sustaining, the same cannot be said for the U.S.-led war effort.

Back in 2002, White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey estimated the cost of the Iraq War to be no more than $200 billion. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the cost would be "something under $50 billion." He and other officials expressed optimism that Iraq itself would help shoulder the cost once the world market was reopened to its rich supply of oil.

Alas, that hasn't happened. Not even close. Some now estimate the cost to be as much as $2 trillion, while other estimates place the cost -- assuming the U.S. begins deploying troops within three years -- at closer to $700 billion.

***

Why can't we stop money from reaching the Iraqi insurgents?

The report says American efforts have been hamstrung by a weak Iraqi government and its nascent intelligence agencies, a lack of communication, and the fact that the insurgency is sustained by couriers carrying cash rather than more easily traceable means involving banks and the hawala money transfer networks traditional in the Middle East.

Another factor for the United States, the report says, was its inability to persuade foreign governments -- most recently France and Italy -- to “stop paying ransoms.”

Ah, but that would require diplomacy from the U.S. Is that possible from the Bush Administration?

Hastert, "Dejected" And "Embarrassed," Says He Will Retain Seat For Now

2006-11-25T00:21:00.000-05:00

Defying expectations that he would immediately retire if the Republicans lost their majority, outgoing House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) is preparing to join the rank-and-file, at least for the short-term.

Hastert will be the first House Speaker to leave the House leadership but remain in Congress since Joseph Martin Jr. (R-MA), who was House Speaker in 1953 and 1954.

Friends say that Hastert is "dejected" and "embarrassed" by the Republicans' loss of House control. That loss is connected in part to the scandal surrounding former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), a scandal that led various House leaders -- including John Boehner, Thomas Reynolds and Roy Blunt -- to publicly chastise Hastert.

***

Hastert would like to hand-pick his replacement. At the same time, he is hoping for a favorable response from the House Ethics Committee, which is investigating whether he or his staff acted properly in dealing with warnings about improper conduct toward Congressional pages by Foley.

It is possible that Hastert will lose both battles.

Drug Industry Mourns Santorum's Pending Departure

2006-11-24T18:49:00.000-05:00

"We're going to have tough days ahead of us," Ken Johnson, spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, told the Washington Post.

A post-election e-mail to executives at the drug company GlaxoSmithKline details just how tough. "We now have fewer allies in the Senate," says the internal memo, obtained by the Post. The company's primary concerns are bills that would allow more imported drugs and would force price competition for drugs bought under Medicare.

The defeat of Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) "creates a big hole we will need to fill," the e-mail says. Sen.-elect Jon Tester (D-MT) "is expected to be a problem," it says, and the elevation to the Senate of Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) "will strengthen his ability to challenge us."

The Post reports that drug companies are hiring Democratic lobbyists, but they're holding on to their Republican lobbyists.

Their gameplan is clear: fight legislation as necessary, knowing that the Democrats don't have veto-proof (or even filibuster-proof) majorities. The underlying reason? If the Democratic-controlled Congress struggles, Republicans could regain control in 2008.

And by that point, the drug industry can find another Republican to carry its water, much like their buddy, "Gunga Din" Santorum.

Limbaugh Explains "The Real Story Of Thanksgiving"

2006-11-23T16:45:00.000-05:00

On the Nov. 21 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh presented "The Real Story Of Thanksgiving," which somehow had little to do with giving thanks, and more to do with praising the merits of capitalism.

LIMBAUGH: "Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. And what happened? It didn't work! Surprise, surprise, huh? ... (W)hile most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years – trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it – the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently. What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild's history lesson."

***

For conservatives, perhaps Limbaugh tells a heartwarming story.

Keeping in the spirit of his re-interpretaton of Thanksgiving, listeners may want to mark their calendars now, in case Limbaugh spews these other re-interpretations of upcoming holidays:

-- "The Real Story Of Hanukkah" (Dec. 16). "What the left won't tell you is that Hanukkah shows how desperate people can become if they don't have a sensible, pro-growth energy policy. Had these Jews committed to exploratory drilling, they may have had oil not just for eight days, but hundreds."

-- "The Real Story Of Christmas" (Dec. 25). "Santa Claus is representative of the success of American capitalism. Here we have a sole proprietor who succeeds because he doesn't have to worry about elfen labor laws. If the liberals had their way, Santa's workshop would have been closed years ago."

-- "The Real Story Of Martin Luther King Day" (Jan. 15). "The liberals don't want you to know that King was a Republican, and would not have supported the creation of this holiday. I believe there are quotes from King saying other Americans are more deserving. The fact that those Americans are white males is irrelevant."

Check your local listings ...

Poll Suggests Romney, A Mormon, Has Uphill Climb To Secure GOP Nomination

2006-11-23T00:44:00.000-05:00

A new Rasmussen Reports poll suggests that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a main 2008 GOP presidential contender, has an uphill climb to secure his party's nomination.

The reason? Romney is a Mormon, and the idea of a Mormon president doesn't sit well with a good chunk of would-be voters:

-- 43 percent of voters say they would never even consider voting for a Mormon Presidential candidate. 38 percent say they would consider casting such a vote while 19% are not sure.

-- 53 percent of Evangelical Christians say that they would not consider voting for a Mormon candidate. That's a key, because the Christian Right is a key player in Republican primary season.

As pollster Scott Rasmussen notes: "It is possible, of course, that these perceptions might change as Romney becomes better known and his faith is considered in the context of his campaign. Currently, just 19% of Likely Voters are able to identify Romney as the Mormon candidate from a list of six potential Presidential candidates."

***

As JABBS noted last year, the Southern Baptist Convention website has characterized the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a "cult." The influential Christian right group Focus on the Family declares that "God cannot be identified . . . with the Mormon religion's notion of god."

Romney, in an interview last year with the conservative magazine Weekly Standard, understood that his religion could pose a problem:

ROMNEY: "I think if you said, 'Look, we have a candidate for you, and you can know nothing about this person, except [his] religion, that's the only thing that you can know, this person is a Mormon, but that's all you can know. Do you want [him] as president?' ... I think a lot of people would say, 'Gosh, I am not sure that that makes me feel real comfortable.'"

That lack of comfort may be playing itself out.

How Safe Is Iraq These Days? Bush Schedules Meeting With Iraqi Leader ... In Jordan

2006-11-23T00:05:00.000-05:00

President Bush plans to fly to Jordan next week to meet with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, as the two leaders try to revitalize the war effort, the White House announced.

The trip -- called a "surprise" although it is being announced a week in advance -- is part of an effort to review the gameplan after spiraling violence in Iraq and voter rejection at home.

But why is the meeting in Jordan?

Should Americans take the meeting site as a sign that even the heavily guarded "green zone" in Baghdad -- where a car bomb Wednesday was set off intending to kill Iraq's speaker of parliament -- isn't safe enough for a presidential arrival?

Don't forget that when Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice traveled to Iraq last month, she had to wear a bullet-proof vest -- at an airport that the U.S. supposedly secured two years ago.

This may be one factoid the mainstream media will overlook -- as the Washington Post did in its coverage this week -- but would be hard to spin if someone in the White House press corps dared ask.

Why Does Diplomacy Matter? While The U.S. Talks Tough, Iran Hopes To Increase Influence Via Summit With Iraq And Syria

2006-11-21T08:10:00.000-05:00

Iran has invited the Iraqi and Syrian presidents to Tehran for a weekend summit with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to hash out ways to cooperate in curbing the runaway violence that has taken Iraq to the verge of civil war and threatens to spread through the region.

Instead of the U.S. taking a lead diplomatic role in bringing peace to the region -- a move supported just a few days ago by British Prime Minister Tony Blair -- it is instead allowing Iran to flex its muscles as a influential power broker in the region.

The initial U.S. reaction can't help matter. It's a variation of staying the course -- we don't talk to "Axis of Evil" members and their friends. The Los Angeles Times called the U.S. attitude "skeptical nonchalance."

Instead of diplomacy, the U.S. once again talked tough -- a strategy that hasn't worked well since the Bush Administration came to power.

State Department Deputy Tom Casey said, "while there have been positive statements from the Iranian government about wishing to play a positive role in Iraq, those statements haven't been backed up by actions." He offered a similar assessment of Syria, saying the problem "is not what they say; the problem is what they do. ... What we would like to see the Syrians do is take actions to, among other things, prevent foreign fighters from coming across the border into Iraq."

In addition to being undiplomatic, is Casey correct on the issue of "foreign fighters?" A report last year from the Washington-based Center for Strategic International Studies found that of the estimated 30,000 insurgents, only 4%-10% were foreign fighters. That finding was confirmed, at least anecdotally, by U.S. Army commanders in Iraq, in interviews last year with the Telegraph of London. And if the U.S. is going to blast countries for not preventing foreign fighters from going to Iraq, where's the condemnation of Saudi Arabia?

As the Times editorial noted: "President Bush need not wait for the release of (the James Baker-led) commission report to convene a conference and invite all of the key players in Iraq's future: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, as well as representatives of the Gulf Coordination Council, the European Union and the U.N. Agreeing on a mutual duty to respect and uphold Iraq's territorial integrity would be the first goal. If the United States fails to act, diplomacy delayed may become diplomacy derailed."

Pentagon (Again) Extends Timeline To Destroy Aging Chemical Weapons

2006-11-21T08:03:00.000-05:00

The Pentagon has once again extended its timeline to destroy its aging chemical weapons arsenal until 2023, despite concerns by Congress and watchdog groups that the stockpiles raise the risk of an accident or theft by terrorists.

The new schedule, outlined in Pentagon documents, means the military won't eliminate its stocks of deadly nerve gases and skin-blistering agents until 2023, instead of 2012. Earlier, the Pentagon received a five-year extension, from the original deadline of 2007.

Pentagon spokesman Chris Isleib said the military remains committed to the job and that the war in Iraq has not drained money from the effort. “Destroying these weapons safely is not a fast or simple process,” Isleib said.

But critics say the plan will ultimately raise costs and create needless risks of an accidental chemical release or terrorist attack.

“To intentionally put tens of thousands of Americans at an unnecessary risk by continuing to store these weapons is reprehensible,” said Craig Williams of the Chemical Weapons Working Group, a Kentucky-based coalition of citizen groups from stockpile sites. “Not only are they ignoring our international treaty obligations, they are undermining the military's … obligation to protect U.S. citizens.”

Bush Touts His "Hard Decisions" On Iraq

2006-11-20T08:28:00.000-05:00

President Bush, speaking in Indonesia, said he welcomed the fact that thousands of people had been demonstrating for days across the sprawling archipelago against his visit and policies in Iraq and the Middle East.

“I applaud a society where people are free to come out and express their opinion,” he told a press conference with his host, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. “It’s not the first time people have shown up to express their views on my policies. That’s what happens when you make hard decisions.”

This is a classic example of Bush spin. Bush's decision to ignore intelligence saying there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda? "Hard." Bush's decision not to reign in people in his administration from continuing to make that connection? "Hard." Bush's decision not to listen to generals who said we needed more troops in Iraq from the get-go? "Hard." Bush's decision to not have any communication with potential terror threats Iran and Syria? "Hard." Bush's decision to demonize Americans who oppose his decisions? "Hard."

It's a tomato-tomato thing. Bush says "hard," and most Americans say "bad."

Republican Congressman Single-Handedly Blocking Popular Legislation Banning Animal Fighting

2006-11-19T13:54:00.000-05:00

The Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act has widespread support.

The bill, from Rep. Mark Green (R-WI) had 324 co-sponsors in the House. It unanimously passed the Senate. It has support from the National Sheriffs' Association, the National Chicken Council, American Veterinary Medical Association and the Humane Society of the United States.

The bill would make it a federal felony to transport cocks and dogs across state lines for the purpose of setting up fights, and possibly slow a sport that has an estimated 100,000 animals fighting each year. Even in these days of partisan bickering, this is one bill that should easily become law.

But it won't, because Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) says no.

Sensenbrenner, who for the next few weeks is the House Judiciary Committee Chairman, won't move the bill to the House floor for a vote. He said stopping cockfights and dogfights should be handled by local law enforcement.

Even FBI officials disagree with him. Often, FBI officials say, raids to stop animal fighting also lead to crackdowns on organized crime, illegal gambling, and animal cruelty.

But why let facts get in the way? Democrats remember Sensenbrenner well from the 2000 election cycle, when he distorted an actual statement by Al Gore, creating the conservative myth that Gore said he "invented the Internet." Sadly, this may be Sensenbrenner's biggest accomplishment as a Republican.

***

Green's bill -- and Sensenbrenner's protest -- will die when the current Congress ends. When the new Democratic-controlled Congress takes over, the bill may be re-introduced, and if so, quickly passed.

US Concerned With Chinese Military Buildup

2006-11-19T13:41:00.000-05:00

The United States has concerns about a military expansion in China that may be excessive, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday.

China's reported military budget rose more than 14 percent this year to $35.3 billion, but outside estimates of China’s true spending are up to three times that level.

“There are concerns about China’s military buildup,” Rice told a television interviewer. “It’s sometimes seemed outsized for China’s regional role.”

So should we add China to the list of countries that are doing something militarily that we don't approve of, but apparently can do little to stop?

Santorum Breaks Conservative Hearts, Says He Will "Absolutely Not" Run For President In 2008

2006-11-19T00:29:00.000-05:00

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), fresh from being walloped by Democrat Bob Casey Jr. this month, may have a better sense of reality.

He's not popular. At least not anymore, with the exception of the conservative radio ranters, conservative pundita the fringe right audience/bloggers who hang on their every word.

So it shouldn't be much of a surprise -- except to the aforementioned conservatives -- that Santorum has no plans to run for president in 2008.

"Absolutely, positively not. Absolutely not," Santorum said Thursday on The Michael Smerconish Show on Philadelphia's WPHT-AM. "My wife would throw me out of the house if I do anything in '08."

You Can't Make This Stuff Up ...

2006-11-18T21:44:00.001-05:00

Mort Kondracke, on Fox News Channel's Special Report With Brit Hume, said Thursday that incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) should be nicknamed the “Wicked Witch of the West.”

Remember, Knodracke is supposed to provide "balance" for Hume's so-called "All Stars." Kondracke is supposed to express opinions to the left of the likes of Fred Barnes and Bill Kristol.

Here's the transcript (the link also has video):

KONDRACKE: So the history on House leadership is, we had “The Hammer, Tom DeLay, and now we have the “Wicked Witch of the West,” you know, Nancy Pelosi, who is twisting arms and making — you know, having her aides making threats, and stuff like that.

HUME: But was that really happening?

KONDRACKE: Supposedly. That’s, that’s — it got heavily reported, and I have heard no contradictions of that.

That's how things work on Fox News. Name-calling, backed by hearsay. No wonder Fox News is losing viewers.

Blair Suggests Syria, Iran Could Play "Constructive" Role In Middle East Peace Process

2006-11-18T20:55:00.000-05:00

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said in a television interview that Syria and Iran could play a "constructive" role in the Middle East.

Blair said it was absurd to suggest that talking to the countries amounted to "appeasement."

The interview was conducted by Sir David Frost for the new al-Jazeera English-language television channel.

It's quite a different philosophy from the Bush Administration, which has long favored tough talk to diplomacy with countries it considers evil. It hasn't worked, but that hasn't stopped our leadership from, er, staying the course.

As John McLaughlin, CIA deputy director from 2000 to 2004, noted in July: "(E)ven superpowers have to talk to bad guys. The absence of a diplomatic relationship with Iran and the deterioration of the one with Syria ... leave the United States with fewer options and levers than might otherwise have been the case."

Will the Bush Administration listen to Blair, one of its staunchest allies in the "war on terror?" My guess is no.

Democrats To Push Legislation To Make Fraudulent Election "Robo-Calls" A Crime

2006-11-17T15:21:00.000-05:00

Democratic leaders want to craft legislation that would make it a crime for political campaigns to flood voters with "robo-calls" peddling decpetive information about rival candidates -- a tactic allegedly undertaken by several Republican candidates during this month's election.

"These robo-calls, somehow, constitutionally, we are going to have to find some way to stop this," said incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)..

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said he and Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) are looking at a host of deceptive practices.

Among those that were practiced in the 2006 election cycle were robo-calls in New Jersey and elsewhere that were designed to sound as if they came from the Democratic candidate. If a voter hung up the phone, the robo-call would redial again and again. If the caller stayed on the line, the message went from positive sounding for the Democrat to negative.

In other examples, the calls peddled disinformation -- such as the location of a polling place. Criticizing the robo-call dirty tricks, Schumer was blunt. "It's despicable" and the perpetrators "should go to jail for 10 years."

Schumer said he and Emanuel are looking at legislation applying criminal penalties to certain kinds of campaigning and creation of a separate unit at the Justice Department to prosecute.

Leahy Asks Whether Ingraham Should Be Investigated

2006-11-17T14:57:00.000-05:00

On election day, right-wing radio host Laura Ingraham urged listeners to obstruct efforts to protect voting rights by jamming a free voter-protection hotline.

In a Senate Judiciary Commmittee hearing yesterday, Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) asked Wan Kim, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, whether his department would be investigating Ingraham’s phone jamming. Kim said Ingraham’s actions sounded like a “voter fraud scheme.”

I don't listen to Ingraham, but I wonder if she either apologized for her deplorable action, brushed it off as right-wing humor (as is the modus operandi of her friend, Ann Coulter), or do nothing.

Kim, who said the criminal division of the Justice Department would handle such matters, seemed to take the matter seriously:

LEAHY: According to press accounts, right-wing radio host Laura Ingraham, urged listeners of her radio show to jam a phone line set up by Democrats to investigate alleged voter irregularities. She told her listeners, everybody call that voting line all at the same time and basically mark it inoperative. ...

KIM: I share your concern about any sort of dirty trick or scheme to tell people not to vote or have people not vote because I agree with you that voting is the essence of our society and our democratic society and everyone who should vote should get out there and vote on Election Day.

Military Recruiters Caught On Tape Lying To Potential Enlistees

2006-11-16T08:35:00.000-05:00

How hard is it for the military to recruit during wartime?

Apparently, hard enough that recruiters have to lie about the odds of a recruit winding up in Iraq, or about the ease with which someone can leave the military.

An undercover investigation by ABC News revealed some Army recruiters in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut told students that if they enlisted, their chances of going to Iraq would be small.

In an exchange videotaped by a hidden camera, a student asked a recruiter, "Nobody is going over to Iraq anymore?" The reply: "No, we're bringing people back."

One recruiter told a student that just quitting the Army was an option if military service didn't suit the new recruit."It's called a `Failure to Adapt' discharge," the recruiter said. "It'll just be like it never happened."

Col. Robert Manning, in charge of Army recruiting for the Northeast, said both statements were lies.

"We are a nation and Army at war still," Manning said after seeing the ABC News tapes. "It's hard to believe some of the things [recruiters] are telling prospective applicants."

Manning said he hopes the actions caught on tape are the exception, not the norm.

Abizaid Admits Shinseki Was Right About Troop Levels In Iraq

2006-11-16T08:26:00.000-05:00

The top American military commander for the Middle East, General John Abizaid, publicly admitted yesterday that the American position in Iraq had been undermined by the Bush administration’s decision not to deploy a larger force to stabilize the country in 2003.

That decision came after Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, the Army chief of staff at the time, told Congress that several hundred thousand troops would be needed. His testimony was derided by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and contradicted by then-undersecretary Paul Wolfowitz, and the general was ostracized at the Pentagon before his retirement a few months later.

“General Shinseki was right that a greater international force contribution, U.S. force contribution and Iraqi force contribution should have been available immediately after major combat operations,” Abizaid said. “I think you can look back and say that more American troops would have been advisable in the early stages of May, June, July.”

***

Someone owes Shinseki an apology, big-time.