The Heart of American democracy today: Democrats AFRAID of the "RUSH (and big biz) will say BAD THINGS ABOUT YOU" smear-machine....

Dave Johnson over at HuffingtonPost hits the HEART OF THE MATTER as to how millions of us Americans have found ourselves stuck in this NIGHTMARE we are in, pouring our blood and treasure into the Iraq war bloodbath, quagmire and corruption nightmare with practically NO consistent and coherent OPPOSITION to Mr. Bush's disastrous leadership, especially in Congress and in the "Major Media" (with the sole exception in the "Major Media" being Mr. Keith Olbermann's "Countdown" news show, and the comedy of Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert's fake-news shows).

Here's what Mr. Johnson says about "The RUSH LIMBAUGH affect," or more simply the DEMAGOGUERY, SMEAR, SLANDER, IGNORANCE, BIGOTRY, and ATTACK-POLITICS RULE AMERICA" effect:

<< In the 90's the Clinton administration offered a comprehensive health care plan that involved private insurers instead of a "Medicare-For-All"-style national health plan, hoping to ward off industry opposition. This was an example of what I call the "Afraid Rush Will Say Something Bad About You" syndrome - the point being that Rush will say something bad about you anyway, no matter what you do. And of course the private insurance companies did oppose the Clinton plan anyway, putting so much money into opposing it that it never even came up for a vote. The effort went beyond just opposing the plan and became personal, with smears and take-no-prisoners tactics directed against anyone involved in trying to bring health care to the public. So much of that money and venom was left over that it helped bring in a Republican congress the following year. >>

IN A NUTSHELL, THIS PARAGRAPH EXPLAINS HOW the Rethuglican Right-Wing has HIJACKED AMERICA, and turned the PEACE, PROSPERITY, PROGRESS, and BOOMING ECONOMY of the Clinton years into the nightmare of RISING POVERTY, RISING CRIME, DECLINING ECONOMIC standards, and the trashing of Civil Rights, privacy, and Constitutional rights marked by the Bush 43 administration.

What is EVEN MORE AMAZING than that Democrats are now effectively "ruled" by the smear-and-slander demagoguery of a blowhard, pill-popping, ignoramus of a Right-Wing radio talk show host, BUT THAT SIX YEARS after George Bush stole the election of 2000, THE DEMOCRATS __STILL__ have NO REAL COUNTER to the news-bias FOR the Rush Limbaugh talking points besides the Air-America and Jones Radio network "liberal" talk show hosts!

Republicans and the Bush administration can STILL count on FOX 'news' network, ABC, CBS, CNN, and ALMOST ALL the network news and cable TV shows to PRESENT THEIR TALKING POINTS, while Democrats do NOT have a SINGLE media outlet dedicated to putting forth a coherent Democratic vision of past triumphs and successes (the New Deal defeating the Depression and President Roosevelt leading America to victory in W.W.II; President Harry Truman laying the foundation of European recovery and the eventual success against the "Cold War"; President John F. Kennedy laying the foundation for winning the space race; President Linden Johnson actually trying to ELIMINATE POVERTY in America, to be sidetracked only by the Vietnam war; and of course President Clinton REVERSING the HUGE REPUBLICAN DEFICITS, brought on by the TRILLION DOLLAR S&L scandal.

Indeed, (partly because so many Democratic leaders were complicit), Democrats can't even spell out to the American people that it was the FAILURE OF PRIVATELY HELD Savings and Loan institutions THAT LED TO THE Bush1 RECESSION of the late 1980s/early 1990s, including the economic despair that in part contributed to Timmy McVeigh's attack on the Oklahoma City federal building in 1995. (McVeigh and millions of other Americans were still unemployed in late 1994 during the tail end of the Bush1 recession.)

NEVER has the saying "THOSE WHO DO NOT REMEMBER THE PAST ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT" been more true. It is NOT enough for Democrats to be on 'the right' side of WINNING economic policies and social programs - THEY MUST HAVE IN PLACE a media communication channel that can COMMUNICATE WITH AMERICAN VOTERS, UNFILTERED by the Rush Limbaugh DEMAGOGUE "spin" imparted by so many of today's networks.

In the 2000 election, Al Gore WON THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS NATIONWIDE by OVER 500,000 votes... yet still the RUSH LIMBAUGH TALKING POINTS determined who would sit in the White House in January.

SIX YEAR LATER, the Democrats STILL have NO ANSWER to the Rush/Fox DEMAGOGUERY, IGNORANCE, SCORN, and DERISION network.

[note: Hillary's bureaucratic boondoggle, known as "Hillary-care" and, according to Dave Johnson's article fashioned in a manner to try to win over the Insurance companies, was a MONSTROSITY that attempted to FORCE SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS to become responsible for their worker's heath insurance policies. While thousands of small businesses DO try to provide health insurance to their workers, Hillary-care would have FORCED tens of thousands more small employers to go into the healthcare/health insurance business. Small businesses, and particularly small employers (up to 10 workers), can barely afford paying into social security, providing unemployment insurance, WORKERS COMPENSATION insurance, and the accounting for all the above and federal taxes. MUCH LESS GOING INTO THE HEALTH INSURANCE business!

"Hillary-care" is, as Dave Johnson points out, a TYPICAL example of Democrats PREFERRING TO DO A POLICY or program HALFWAY, rather than CONFRONTING the Right-Wing media demagoguery, smear, and slander machine.

Compare also Al Gore's timid and tepid "Social Security lock-box" campaign of 2000, to his articulate, impassioned, and FORCEFUL comments when he was on the campaign trail with Clinton in 1992, "What is up should be down, what is down should be up!" criticisms of the Bush1 administration.

IF DEMOCRATS DO NOT CONFRONT the radical, reactionary, destructive, and divisive rhetoric of the Republican Right-Wing media machine, WE DO NOT HAVE GENUINE two-party (much less multiparty) DEMOCRACY.

===================================

News For Democrats: Health Insurance Companies WILL Oppose Your Plan Anyway
by Dave Johnson
12.26.2006
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/news-for-democrats-healt_b_37181.html

With a Democratic Congress coming in January, obviously several health care plans are going to be introduced. Here is some free advice to legislators. Don't even bother including private insurance companies in your plans.

Conventional Wisdom thinking is that you have to include private insurance companies in any plan, or they'll put so much money and effort into opposing your plan - and you - that nothing can pass.


In the 90's the Clinton administration offered a comprehensive health care plan that involved private insurers instead of a "Medicare-For-All"-style national health plan, hoping to ward off industry opposition. This was an example of what I call the "Afraid Rush Will Say Something Bad About You" syndrome - the point being that Rush will say something bad about you anyway, no matter what you do. And of course the private insurance companies did oppose the Clinton plan anyway, putting so much money into opposing it that it never even came up for a vote. The effort went beyond just opposing the plan and became personal, with smears and take-no-prisoners tactics directed against anyone involved in trying to bring health care to the public. So much of that money and venom was left over that it helped bring in a Republican congress the following year.
So here is some news for Democrats who are offering health care plans that offer tribute to private insurance companies: They are going to oppose your plan.

Do you think that it is more efficient to use a private insurance company to provide health insurance? Then take a look at what the big corporations do when offering health insurance to large numbers of employees. The big companies "self-insure." They set up their own little internal national-health-care plans for their employees and administer them themselves rather than use private insurance companies because private insurance companies cost too much. Face it: Medicare-For-All is the only plan that will work. These days the private insurance companies are designed to deliver profits and enormous CEO salaries, while delivering the absolute minimum benefit to the public that they can get away with without personally being put in jail -- fines and civil judgments being already factored in.

Do I have a low opinion of insurance companies? You bet. Am I alone? Discuss.

The Heart of the matter: Democrats AFRAID of the "RUSH will say BAD THINGS ABOUT YOU"

Dave Johnson over at HuffingtonPost hits the HEART OF THE MATTER as to how millions of us Americans have found ourselves stuck in this NIGHTMARE we are in, pouring our blood and treasure into the Iraq war bloodbath and quagmire with practically NO consistent and coherent OPPOSITION to Mr. Bush's disastrous leadership.

Here's what Mr. Johnson says about "The RUSH LIMBAUGH affect", or more simply the DEMAGOUGERY, SMEAR, SLANDER, IGNORANCE, BIGOTRY, and ATTACK-POLITICS RULE AMERICA" affect.

<< In the 90's the Clinton administration offered a comprehensive health care plan that involved private insurers instead of a "Medicare-For-All"-style national health plan, hoping to ward off industry opposition. This was an example of what I call the "Afraid Rush Will Say Something Bad About You" syndrome - the point being that Rush will say something bad about you anyway, no matter what you do. And of course the private insurance companies did oppose the Clinton plan anyway, putting so much money into opposing it that it never even came up for a vote. The effort went beyond just opposing the plan and became personal, with smears and take-no-prisoners tactics directed against anyone involved in trying to bring health care to the public. So much of that money and venom was left over that it helped bring in a Republican congress the following year. >>

IN A NUTSHELL, THIS PARAGRAPH EXPLAINS HOW the Rethuglican Right-Wing has HIJACKED AMERICA, and turned the PEACE, PROSPERITY, PROGRESS, and BOOMING ECONOMY of the Clinton years into the ngihtmare of RISING POVERTY, RISING CRIME, DECLINING ECONOMIC stanndards, and the trashing of Civil Rights, privacy, and Constitutional rights marked by the Bush 43 administration.

What is EVEN MORE AMAZING than that Democrats are now effectively "ruled" by the smear-and-slander demagoguery of a blow-hard, pill-popping, ignoramus of a Right-Wing radio talk show host, BUT THAT SIX YEARS after George Bush stole the election of 2000, THE DEMOCRATS __STILL__ have NO REAL COUNTER to the news-bias FOR the Rush Limbaugh talking points besides the Air-America and Jones Radio network "liberal" talk show hosts!

Republicans and the Bush administration can STILL count on FOX 'news' network, ABC, CBS, CNN, and ALMOST ALL the network news and cable TV shows to PRESENT THEIR TALKING POINTS, while Democrats do NOT have a SINGLE media outlet dedicated to putting forth a coherent Democratic vision of past triumphs and successses (the New Deal defeating the Depression and President Roosevelt leading America to victory in WWII; President Harry Truman laying the foundation of European recovery and the eventual success against the "Cold War"; President John F. Kennedy laying the foundation for winning the space race; President Lyndon Johnson actually trying to ELIMINATE POVERTY in America, to be side-tracked only by the Vietnam war; and of course President Clinton REVERSING the HUGE REPUBLICAN DEFICITS, brought on by the TRILLION DOLLAR S&L scandal.

Indeed, (partly because so many Democratic leaders were complicit), Democrats can't even spell out to the American people that it was the FAILURE OF PRIVATELY HELD Savings and Loan institutions THAT LED TO THE Bush1 RECESSION of the late 1980s/early 1990s, including the economic dispair that in part contributed to Timmy McVeigh's attack on the Oklahoma City federal building in 1995. (McVeigh and millions of other Americans were still unemployed in late 1994 during the tail end of the Bush1 recession.)

NEVER has the saying "THOSE WHO DO NOT REMEMBER THE PAST ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT" been more true. It is NOT enough for Democrats to be on 'the right' side of WINNING economic policies and social programs - THEY MUST HAVE IN PLACE a media communication channel that can COMMUNICATE WITH AMERICAN VOTERS, UN-FILTERED by the Rush Limbaugh DEMAGOG "spin" imparted by so many of today's networks.

In the 2000 election, Al Gore WON THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS NATIONWIDE by OVER 500,000 votes... yet still the RUSH LIMBAUGH TALKING POINTS determined who would sit in the White House in January.

SIX YEAR LATER, the Democrats STILL have NO ANSWER to the Rush/Fox DEMAGOGUERY, IGNORANCE, SCORN, and DERISION network.



===================================

News For Democrats: Health Insurance Companies WILL Oppose Your Plan Anyway
by Dave Johnson
12.26.2006
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/news-for-democrats-healt_b_37181.html

With a Democratic Congress coming in January, obviously several health care plans are going to be introduced. Here is some free advice to legislators. Don't even bother including private insurance companies in your plans.

Conventional Wisdom thinking is that you have to include private insurance companies in any plan, or they'll put so much money and effort into opposing your plan - and you - that nothing can pass.


In the 90's the Clinton administration offered a comprehensive health care plan that involved private insurers instead of a "Medicare-For-All"-style national health plan, hoping to ward off industry opposition. This was an example of what I call the "Afraid Rush Will Say Something Bad About You" syndrome - the point being that Rush will say something bad about you anyway, no matter what you do. And of course the private insurance companies did oppose the Clinton plan anyway, putting so much money into opposing it that it never even came up for a vote. The effort went beyond just opposing the plan and became personal, with smears and take-no-prisoners tactics directed against anyone involved in trying to bring health care to the public. So much of that money and venom was left over that it helped bring in a Republican congress the following year.
So here is some news for Democrats who are offering health care plans that offer tribute to private insurance companies: They are going to oppose your plan.

Do you think that it is more efficient to use a private insurance company to provide health insurance? Then take a look at what the big corporations do when offering health insurance to large numbers of employees. The big companies "self-insure." They set up their own little internal national-health-care plans for their employees and administer them themselves rather than use private insurance companies because private insurance companies cost too much. Face it: Medicare-For-All is the only plan that will work. These days the private insurance companies are designed to deliver profits and enormous CEO salaries, while delivering the absolute minimum benefit to the public that they can get away with without personally being put in jail -- fines and civil judgments being already factored in.

Do I have a low opinion of insurance companies? You bet. Am I alone? Discuss.

Bush THE MOST DISASTROUS president in US history, his administration marked by SCORN, IGNORANCE, CONTEMPT, DEMAGOGUERY, CRUELTY, and INCOMPETENCE...

Bush is THE MOST DISASTROUS president in US history, his terms marked by SCORN, CONTEMPT, DERISION, INCOMPETENCE, IGNORANCE, CORRUPTION, LIES. Mr. Bush's signature way of dealing with critical national problems is marked by scorn for those who have spent entire lifetimes in the service of America in their respective professions, whether National Security, law enforcement, and intelligence professionals warning about the strong possibility of an Al Qaida attack against America in the summer of 2001; or Mr. Bush's ABJECT FAILURE to PREPOSITION thousands of disaster recovery personel as Hurricane Katrina swirled in the Gulf of Mexico; or Mr. Bush allowing Osama bin Laden to ESCAPE at Tora Bora; and of course Mr. Bush and his team having SUCH A LOUSY PLAN for the post-invasion phase of the US war in Iraq that US commanders had American troops doing KP duty less than 20 miles from Saddam's huge Al Qaaqa ammunition complex, as looters and insurgents backed trucks up to the abandoned bunkers to remove high explosives and ammunition day after day for almost two full weeks - the whole while, International weapon's inspectors desperately trying, in both Washington and Iraq, to get the US command to secure the facility.

EVERY DAY that Mr. Bush remains in office, and that his policies remain UNCONFRONTED and UNOPPOSED by the American press, media, public, and political leadership (Congress), marks another day of IGNORANCE, STUPIDITY, and COWARDICE on the part of America's leadership, whether in the Democratic Party or Republican Party.

While it is difficult to improve on Mr. Budowsky's article, we will try to do so by inserting [words] or phrases that add some zip to his observations:

------------------------------------------------

American Deaths In Iraq Surpass American Deaths On 9-11 and President Bush Wants To Escalate Again
by Brent Budowsky
Submitted by BuzzFlash
Tue, 12/26/2006
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/659


The decision by President Bush to launch a preemptive invasion of Iraq was the biggest military misjudgment in the history of the American Presidency.

The decision by President Bush to show contempt for his commanders in not using enough troops was the single most catastrophic military decision by any commander in chief in the history of the Republic.

The decision by President Bush to not supply our troops with adequate body armor, protected vehicles, bandages and helmets and other essential equipment led to more preventable casualties among our troops than any other President in the history of the Republic.

The decision by President Bush to justify the use of torture and try to cover it up, was the single most morally mistaken [REPREHENSIBLE] action by any leader of the free world.

The decision by President Bush to put partisan Republican operatives in key positions of the Iraq Reconstruction was the most incompetent [and CORRUPT] action in the history of the American programs.

The decision by President Bush to allow more than $10 billion of Iraq Reconstruction money to be stolen, lost, robbed, and wasted made this financially the single most corrupted program in the history of American Presidents.
[Given that the BOTCHED RECONSTRUCTION of Iraq was THE STRAW that turned the Iraqi people against the US occupation and FUELED THE INSURGENCY, Bush's legacy of CORRUPTION in Iraq contracts DIRECTLY LED TO THE BLOOD SPILLED of American troops in that country.]

The decision by President Bush to surround this war with unprecedented claims of unilateral presidential power to overrule or ignore laws, statutes, provisions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights was the single worst abuse of the idea of faithfully executing the law in the history of the American presidency.
[As a Texas hard-Right neoConfederate, Mr. Bush lusted after the the wartime powers of President Lincoln in the Civil War, without any of Lincoln's appreciation for rights and freedoms.]

The decisions by President Bush from the beginning of this war to this day, have done more preventable damage to the structure, readiness, deterrence and stability of the American military than any previous president in American history.

The decision of President Bush to treat Congress as a virtual vassal and not a co-equal branch of government in the conduct of this war was one of the most constitutionally disastrous decisions in the history of wartime Presidents.

The decision of President Bush to use this war as a partisan political attack strategy did more damage than every other American president combined in corrupting both the integrity of our democratic process, and the national unity, that previous presidents have sought to maintain, and this President deliberately sought to destroy.

He calls himself the Decider, as though he sits on a regal perch, above the rest of our people, our laws, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, our allies, our Congress, our Courts and our commanders who he has disrespected more than any previous President in the history of the presidency.

He organizes his Party TO ATTACK WAR HEROES because they warned against his policies, to demean generals because they warned against his war plan, to attack our NATO allies who were demeaned as Old Europe, even to blame the American people suggesting we are traumatized by the result of his catastrophe.

The President's decision to be the only American President since 1948 not to lead a genuine search for Middle East peace was catastrophic and allowed the Iraq conflagration to spread further and further across the entire region.

Middle East peace is a hard mission, but the decision of President Bush to refuse to even make the effort, has allowed the arc of chaos and death to widen without any American effort to appeal to the aspirations of the generation of young people in the Middle East and around the world.

The contempt for different opinion, the torture policies that led to Abu Ghraib and detention policies that led to Guantanamo, the arrogance of power and ignorance of foreign culture, the corruption of Reconstruction, the defamation of political opponents, the monarchical claim of unilateral power, these wrongs and more have led to the creation of more terrorists, more insurgents, more antagonism towards America than any other President in our history.

And now the President, having looked at the landscape of this disaster, has decided: keep doing the same things, only do more of them, and escalate. In his world our allies are wrong; our people are wrong; our Joints Chiefs of Staff are wrong; our elections were wrong; the Baker Hamilton bipartisan group was wrong; everyone is wrong except those who have been so wrong for four deadly years of this war.

It is imperative for the Democratic Congress to remember that the voters voted for wholesale change in our policy towards Iraq; they did not vote to escalate this war and repeat these mistakes.

It is imperative for Democratic candidates for President and leaders in Congress to emerge who will return American to our traditional role of leadership and renew the hard search for a broader peace in the Middle East. Why not begin today by calling on former Presidents George Herbert Walker Bush and Bill Clinton to spearhead a truly American seach for Middle East peace?

It is imperative to know how deadly things have gone wrong, and how urgently we must change to set things right.

More Americans have now died in Iraq, than on 9-11.

This is not a policy we want to double up.

This is a policy we want to end.

===========================

On top of all the above (!), we do not believe that Mr. Bush won EITHER of his presidential election "wins", either in 2000 or in 2004, where he was able to "win" in Florida and Ohio, respectively, ONLY BY MASSIVE VOTER SUPPRESSION EFFORTS and possibly (probably) RIGGED voting tabulators. Given his suspicious electoral "wins" Mr. Bush was asking millions of American voters who certainly voted for his opponent - Al Gore won the popular vote by over 500,000 votes in 2000, and even by Republican counts John Kerry won almost 48 million votes in 2004 - to TRUST and NOT verify his election "wins" - WHICH IN BOTH ELECTIONS HE PROCEEDED TO TREAT AS LANDSLIDE "MANDATES"!!!!

As if tossing MILLIONS of us Americans who voted against him on the trash heap of "the DISAPPEARED" - their voices DO NOT COUNT!" in Republican policy formulations - Mr. Bush then showed his COMPLETE and ABJECT SCORN for the office he had just stolen, going on a FOUR WEEK VACATION in August of 2001 just some thirty-odd weeks after stealing that election!

As if THAT wasn't bad enough!, Mr. Bush then NEGLECTED HIS DUTIES AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF. Early in January of 2001, shortly after being inauguerated, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney directed a full-house effort to SMEAR the legacy of the Democratic White House staffers of the Clinton-Gore administration (with MADE-UP and FABRICATED charges of "WHITE HOUSE TRASHING!" - WITHOUT ONE PHOTOGRAPH OF PROOF!); and as well Bush instructed his PR staff to detail how he GOT HIS CIA BRIEFINGS IN PERSON, DAILY, while that dastardly President Clinton only got his CIA briefings on paper, every other day.

Yet we now know that when INFORMED BY his CIA briefers that "BIN LADEN WAS DETERMINED TO ATTACK IN AMERICA," most likely by hijacking vulnerable US airliners, Mr. Bush did... EXACTLY NOTHING. Michael Moore is derided for putting too much of himself - his own "spin" - in the documentary movie "Farenheit 9-11," but Moore's scenes of what President Bush did on THE_VERY_DAY that the CIA briefed him on Al Qaida's desire to attack in America have never been refuted: Mr. Bush, INSTEAD OF ALERTING THE PUBLIC and AIRLINES ABOUT THE THREAT OF HIJACKINGS, instead discussed his dog Barney chasing armadillos.

- Not one, but TWO STOLEN ELECTIONS.

- A complete SCORN and CONTEMPT for the office of the presidency, and specifically the office of the commander in chief, after he stole the election in 2000.....

- a PREFERENCE for SUMMER VACATIONS over protecting the American public from a KNOWN TERROR THREAT.

- a COMPLETE FAILURE of the US multi-billion dollar law enforcement/national security/military/intelligence agencies to BRING THE ANTHRAX TERRORIST TO JUSTICE. (In the entire world, there are only so many people with the training and expertise to handle weaponized anthrax, and they ALL have long academic and research records behind them)

- the FAILURE to capture Bin Laden in Afghanistan, which was only a symptom of the administration's dismal post-war planning for that country....

- which foreshadowed the DISMAL PLANNING for the occupation of Iraq, including (we couldn't even make this up!) ALLOWING INSURGENTS to cart of TONS and TONS of ammunition from Saddam's massive ammunition bunkers, WHILE AMERICAN SOLDIERS DID KP DUTY, as INTERNATIONAL WEAPONS INSPECTORS in Iraq and in the United States desperately called the Defense Department to try to have the Al Qaaqa ammunition complex secured....

- leading up to the TORTURE prisons and SCAPEGOATING of PRIVATES and FEMALE VOLUNTEERS for FOLLOWING ORDERS, specifically "THE GUANTANAMO METHOD" of dehumanizing prisoners with stressful positions, sexual assaults, sleep deprivations, beatings, threats, and other tortures, the "Guantanamo methods" SPECIFICALLY BROUGHT TO Iraq and Afghanistan by the PROMOTION of General Miller from Guantanamo to oversee those prisons in the Mideast.

- and, finally, the corrupt, botched occupation of Iraq, which gave even families that hoped for a successful American led occupation to turn against the occupiers.

Senator Chriss Dodd (D-CN) stands up for EXTRICATING US troops from the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz nightmare....

Note to Senator Dodd and ALL the other Democrats: NEVER miss an opportunity to present the Iraq quagmire as a NIGHTMARE of the making of the BUSH-CHENEY-RUMSFELD-WOLFOWITZ (Kristol, Krauthammer, Kurtz, Safire, Sulzeberger, et all) nightmare.

We hate to say this, but it is GROSS POLITICAL INCOMPETENCE that THE DEMOCRATS, with all their consultants, fundraisers, "policy experts," strategists, "media experts," (not to mention the Democrat's own political veterans) DO NOT HAVE a GREATEST HITS video of the Bush administration's GREATEST FOLLIES, especially Mr. Bush's BLATANT LIES leading up to the war.

For example, Mr. Bush claiming that "Saddam WOULD NOT LET INSPECTORS in, that is why we had to go to war" when there are literally volumes of video reels and documentation showing that it was THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION that ORDERED the international Weapons Inspectors OUT of Iraq on the eve of the Bush-Cheney-Rusmfeld-Wolfowitz "SHOCK AND AWE" follies.

Or Mr. Cheney's "it is beyond dispute" that Iraq had a WMD program primed to attack America.

Or Mr. Bush declaring "NO ONE COULD ANTICIPATE THE LEVEES BREAKING."

Or National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice similarly proclaiming "NO ONE COULD ANTICIPATE AIRLINERS BEING USED AS FLYING BOMBS", when in fact the ITALIAN POLICE and security forces DID EXACTLY THAT when Bush, Rice, and Rumsfeld attended the G8 economic summit in Genoa, Italy, in July of 2001.


This is a full-scale PROPAGANDA WAR, and UNTIL THE DEMOCRATS DECIDE TO GO ON THE OFFENSIVE against the RANK INCOMPETENCE, CORRUPTION, and LIES of the Bush administration's use of the "War on Terror" as a propaganda bully-stick, the Republicans WILL ALWAYS PORTRAY DEMOCRATS as "CUT AND RUNNERS."

==============================================

Begin withdrawing, redeploying troops now
By CHRISTOPHER DODD
SPECIAL TO THE REGISTER
December 24, 2006
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061224/OPINION01/612240313/1035/archive

The time has come for the United States to begin the process of getting our troops out of Iraq.

In Baghdad last week, I joined in a conversation with a West Point graduate who is serving in Iraq. He said, "Senator, it is nuts over here. Soldiers are being asked to do work we're not trained to do. I'm doing work that State Department people are far more prepared to do in fostering democracy, but they're not allowed to come off the bases because it's too dangerous here. It doesn't make any sense."

After spending six days in the Middle East last week - which included visits with the top leaders in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Israel - it's hard not to come to the same conclusion: Our strategy in Iraq makes no sense. It never really did. It is as bad in person as it appears on television. There are literally dozens of sects, militias, gangs, warlords, foreign terrorists and others killing one another for dozens of reasons in Iraq today, and American troops are caught in the crossfire.

Our brave men and women have done everything asked of them with great courage and honor, but searching for military solutions in Iraq today is a fool's errand. True peace and security in Iraq will not come at the end of an American gun. It will only happen to the degree that Iraq's leaders are willing to take responsibility for governing their own country and securing their own future. America's position should be clear: Iraqis must show they want a country now, or American troops should begin to withdraw.

The good news is that Iraq has leaders who can make a difference. The bad news is that the Iraqi government feels no sense of urgency. I met with the Iraqi president, prime minister and minister of defense last week - my third such visit to Iraq - and once again, I didn't hear Iraq's leaders speak of any timetable for when they will take over. As long as America is there, they can defer responsibility.

The proposal being considered by the administration to add between 15,000 and 30,000 soldiers in a "surge" of American troops will do nothing to address this issue. If anything, "surge" is a tactic in search of a strategy. How does it lead to victory? It won't solve any problems; it won't force the hands of Iraq's leaders; at best, it will simply be one more reason for delay - a delay that will be paid with American blood. That's a price our troops and our nation shouldn't be asked to pay any longer.

Instead, the president should announce in January that we will begin withdrawing and redeploying our troops - to the Syrian border, to stop the flow of terrorists; to the north of Iraq, to better train Iraqi security forces; to Qatar, to form a quick-strike force if necessary to defend our vital interests; to Afghanistan, to resume the hunt for Osama bin Laden; and for those who have already over-extended their tour of duty by one or two years - home. If the Iraqis don't demonstrate the political will to unite, we should begin this process - in consultation with our military leadership - of reducing troop levels within weeks, not months.

We should then undertake a new American policy of intense diplomatic and political engagement with the entire Middle East.

The war in Iraq has lasted longer than our involvement in World War II and left nearly 3,000 Americans dead. If continuing this sacrifice held the promise of achieving American goals, I would support it. But our presence there has become a barrier to our goals. American troops have demonstrated the courage to fight. Now, Iraq's leaders must summon the will to lead. It's the only solution that makes sense.

Sen. CHRISTOPHER J. DODD is a Democrat from Connecticut.

Cowardly Democrats Lieberman, Landrieu, seek to UNDO democratic government in America...

We hate to get personal here at C-dems.blgspt.com.
Heck, we hate publishing this blog, and wish we could publish something like "HeroicDemsSaveTheWorld.com" or some other positive blog.

But this fine op-ed by Bob Geiger (at his own blog) highlights the perils faced by Democratic voters and ALL democratic Americans ("small d" democracy) in these past few years and coming years: namely, the attempt by Right-Wing ideologues to UNDO deliberative, two-party (much less multi-party) democracy and to REASSERT ONE-PARTY RULE in America, as existed throughout the American Deep South ALL THROUGH the Segregation era. (For the 100 years from the end of the Civil War until Strom Thurmond's "Dixiecrat" defection from the Democratic Party in 1948, ALL Southern office holders were Democrats, and the Voting Rights and Civil Rights bills did not pass Congress unitl 1964 and 1965 respectively.)

Of course up until this November's election of 2004, the REPUBLICAN PARTY had MONOPOLY CONTROL of the US Congress (House), Senate, Executive office (presidency), and as well dominant control over the Supreme Court, federal judiciary, many state governments (eg. Florida's), and the "Fourth Estate" major press/media. What we here at c-dems call "the Super-Trifecta" of American politics and power.

Heck, not only was Republican dominance in Congress so complete that Democrats WERE EXCLUDED from even witnessing the drafting of bills (much less contributing to them), BUT SENATOR MARY LANDRIEAU CAN NOT EVEN STAND UP FOR HER OWN CONSTITUENTS, victimized first by Hurrican Katrina and then by the GROSS INCOMPENTENCE, CORRUPTION, and GRAFT of the Bush administration's recovery "leadership" in New Orleans. With the COMPLICITY of the corrupt, corporate media, good old fashioned GRAFT - "we give you big contracts, you KICK BACK some cash to our campaigns" - is now established as THE model for business in the American economy under George Bush and Dick Cheney.

In reality, the RIGHT WING AGENDA is one of unbridled HATE, IGNORANCE, SCORN, BIGOTRY, CONTEMPT, DERISION, DENIGRATION, and more HATE, all thinly disguised under a layer of "Religious Values."

By no means do we intend to imply that all religious "values" are scornful and derisive - just those that the Right-Wing concentrate their political identity on.

It has gotten SO bad, that not only does the "God Hates Fags" precher and his flock disgrace themselves by demeaning the funerals of American soldiers KILLED IN IRAQ!, but SO TO DO THE JERRY FALWELLS and PAT ROBERSTON _state_ (not merely imply) THAT THE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON AMERICA WERE GOD's PLAN!

"LIFTING THE VEIL" is how Pat Roberston phrases it... by "LIFTING THE VEIL of PROTECTION" on America, according to Robertson, God ALLOWED the terrorist attacks to succeed.

VERY GOOD, PAT, you miserable piece of human scum! YOU APPROVE OF TERRORIST ATTACKS ON AMERICA if it furthers your self-righteous political objectives. (Of MORE power, more wealth, more selfish greed, your insecurity and lack of faith masked by aggression and hate.)

You have HIT the ideological NAIL ON THE HEAD!

Extend your logic a little further... the HOLOCAUST, the mass-murder of MILLIONS, occured ONLY BECAUSE God ALLOWED IT.

ALL the wars, rapes, murders, mass-murders, famines, starvations, EVERY plight, blight, scourge, pandemic, tragedy, and genocide that EVER occurred in human history has happened ONLY because GOD ALLOWED THOSE TERRIBLE ATROCITIES to take place, if we extend Pat Robertson's "lifting the veil" approving of terrorist attacks to the full logical extension.

And, by agreeging with Republicans that PARTISAN Democratic politics is someone vile, Senator Landrieu, and Lieberman, are TRYING TO UNDERCUT _ANY_ opposition to the dictatorial, demogogic ONE-PARTY RULE of the Rethuglican bible-thumpers such as Robertson, Fallwell, Cheney, Frist, DeLay, Bush, and Gingrich.

Would that God would perform a little space/time warp, and allow Mr. Lieberman to witness, first hand, some of those "RELIGIOUS one-party MORAL VALUES" in Germany, circa the late 1930s.

note below: The official platform of the Texas Republican Party has long be an underpinning of the DEMAGOGUE identity of America's right-wing politics, a political identity and foundation effectively CENSORED from open discourse in America's "major media" by the corporate news barons.

--------------------------------------
example:
Texas GOP _OFFICIAL_ Republican Party Platform declares "America is a CHRISTIAN nation" and should dispense with separation of Church and State. We hope to see Mr. Lieberman and his trophy second wife IN CHURCH soon, with all his Christian demagogue friends.

<< The party platform, adopted Saturday, declares "America is a Christian nation" and affirms that "God is undeniable in our history and is vital to our freedom."
"We pledge to exert our influence toward a return to the original intent of the First Amendment and dispel the myth of the separation of church and state," it says. >>
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/religion/stories/DN-gopreligion_04tex.ART.State.Edition1.903cb29.html

====================================================

On Snowe-Landrieu Bipartisan Initiative: Kiss My Democratic Ass
Bob Geiger
Friday, December 22, 2006
http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2006/12/on-snowe-landrieu-bipartisan-initiative.html

Nausea alert: Do not read this on a full stomach if you're a Progressive, who has had it up to your eyeballs with some elected Democrats regularly accepting prison shower-room, Ned-Beatty-in-'Deliverance' treatment from Republicans and then meekly saying "Thank you, sir, may I have some more?"

Because what you're about to read is the Washington, D.C. version of just that.

Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA) issued a joint press release yesterday announcing that they want to convene a group of Republicans and Democrats in the new Senate to "build on the success of 'Gang of 14'" and "forge bipartisan consensus on key issues in the 110th Congress."

“I couldn’t be more pleased to join with Senator Mary Landrieu to build upon the success of the bipartisan Gang of 14 with a group committed to bringing comity, consensus and legislative achievements back to the halls of the Senate,” said Snowe. “The American people are tired of partisan attacks and intransigence from the Congress; they are rightly demanding results. And Senator Landrieu and I believe this group will serve as a productive catalyst to bring the Senate together across party lines.”

Not to be outdone, Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) also heralded the arrival of a similar entity yesterday, also issuing a joint statement saying they are forming a "Bipartisan Members Group to create an opportunity for Senators to know one another better across party lines."

Landrieu and Lieberman have sidled right up alongside Alexander and Snowe, making grand statements about how it's time to come together and guessing -- incorrectly -- what message the American people delivered in a loud, clear voice on election day. And, like the weak-kneed centrists they are, their capitulation is very much akin to the wife who reunites with her abusive husband because he mumbles "I'm sorry, baby" after breaking her nose for the third time.

Isn't it convenient for Snowe, Alexander and other Republicans to initiate this transparent maneuver and now extend a hand across the aisle for something other than slapping Democrats? Isn't it just freakin' amazing that this change of heart comes right when they are voted out of the majority on a clear mandate of the people and now have to themselves face the legislative life Democrats have lived for years?

And true to their ongoing status as political followers and not leaders, Landrieu and Lieberman -- putting aside the fact that Holy Joe can no longer even be considered a Democrat -- lap it right up and forget who it is that over the last few years would not have pissed across the aisle if a Democrat was on fire.

These two want to snuggle up to the same people who forced the formation of the "Gang of 14" by threatening to remove the filibuster as the minority party's only vestige of procedural control -- and thus create a Senate where Republican dominance would be so non-negotiable that Democrats might as well stay home every day and watch "Judge Judy."

The best former Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) could ever do for the Democrats was to threaten the legislative equivalent of cutting their last life-line and making the confirmation of some onerous right-wing judges the only option to drowning.

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) said earlier this month of the Republicans' filibuster extortion that "it was so anti-Senate and it was so anti-American" and vowed he would never do something that despicable in his new role leading the Senate.

Republicans who suddenly want to make nice are the party of incoming Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-MS) who sneered "I thought we were having global warming" right into the Congressional Record as Democrats fought earlier this year to fund the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) for the elderly and disabled.

And this same Republican party behaved in an ongoing partisan fashion so extreme that they simply abandoned their Constitutional responsibility to perform oversight on the executive branch of government, in favor of rigid, party-line tribute to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and zero loyalty to the American people.

Pat Roberts (R-KS), the GOP's empty suit who warmed the lead chair in the Senate Intelligence Committee for the last two years, would not have investigated this White House if the FBI showed him video of Bush and Cheney delivering a dozen roses and a Whitman Sampler to Osama bin Laden's cave. This highly-partisan malfeasance eventually forced Reid to invoke Senate Rule 21 in November 2005 and shut down the Senate entirely, in a desperate attempt to get Republicans to act responsibly and at least begin investigating Bush's shady use of pre-war intelligence to start the Iraq war.

The Republican party's newfound bipartisan spirit didn’t seem to exist when they shoved through ultra-conservative Supreme Court nominees in lieu of forcing Bush to nominate moderates that both parties could rally around. Their consensus-filled hearts weren't apparent when they swift-boated Max Cleland and John Kerry and, most recently, did the racist "Harold, call me" number on Harold Ford Jr. in this year's Tennessee Senate contest.

Is there a thinking Democrat in the country who believes we can expect even the slightest derivation from that slimy game plan in 2008?

In addition to shooting down almost 75 percent of the few Democratic-sponsored bills that even made it to the Senate floor, the Republicans have previously duped Democrats into supporting the bogus No Child Left Behind scheme -- only to refuse full funding for the program -- questioned their patriotism when some refused to support the Patriot Act and the stupid flag-burning amendment and, of course, lied to get authorization for the Iraq war.

Famed Republican guru Grover Norquist once said that "bipartisanship is another name for date rape" and, far from being extreme invective, this is exactly the creed that the Republican party has lived at least since the old-school King of Slime, Lee Atwater, race-baited the 1988 presidential race by springing Mr. Willie Horton on Michael Dukakis. People like Lieberman and Landrieu will never understand that Republicans see true bipartisanship not as a strength, but as a weakness to be despised and exploited.

In a joint letter to their Senate colleagues, Snowe and Landrieu tried to speak for the country and said that Americans "… are tired of the extremes on both sides pulling us apart, paralyzing effective action. That was a clear message of the 2006 elections."

Nonsense.

By voting for such a colossal shift in the House of Representatives and giving Democrats control of the Senate in a massive and rare six-seat pickup, Americans said one thing and one thing only to Republicans: "We want Democratic leadership and we don't want you in charge any longer." Period.

They didn’t say we like some of what you've done the last few years -- they said we like none of what you've done. So why in the world would any Democrat interpret that landslide endorsement for complete change as such a watered-down, half-and-half order?

Harry Reid did a superb job keeping Democrats together as Minority Leader and one of his biggest challenges in the next two years will be to honor the voters' mandate and move real Democratic change through the Senate without any traces of the Republican hangover that Americans have so strongly rejected.

If Reid remembers the lessons of the last few years -- on where the GOP truly stands on bipartisanship -- and shows leadership on the ideals he fought for in vain in the last Congress, look for a lot of howling and hypocritical whining from the Republican side of the aisle.

And they can all just flat-out go to hell.

Republicans made this bile-filled, partisan stew long ago -- now they can damn well eat it.

Dems flim-flammed AGAIN by Bush: Robt. Gates is a STAY-the-course warhawk, given a big KISS of APPROVAL by the Hillary/Biden/Kerry/Lieberman/Reid Dems

Unfortunately, the name of this blog (cowardly democrats) STILL holds true, even despite the somewhat miraculous Dem. "election win" this November, BECAUSE NOT ONE OF THE LEADERSHIP DEMOCRATS is willing to CALL GEORGE BUSH A LIAR, and DEMAND that he be HELD ACCOUNTABLE for WRECKING the US military, leading an ILLEGAL, POORLY PLANNED, and CORRUPT invasion and occupation of Iraq, and leaving the city of New Orleans IN TATTERS as a "smart" way of ETHNICALLY CLEANSING New Orleans of its black voting majority.

For FAILING to STAND UP TO the george bush White House, we MUST maintain the title of this blog as "Cowardly Democrats".



Robert Gates Lines Up with Bush

By Robert Parry
December 19, 2006
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/121806.html


In early December, when Senate Democrats politely questioned Robert M. Gates and then voted unanimously to confirm him as Defense Secretary, they bought into the conventional wisdom that Gates was a closet dove who would help guide the United States out of George W. Bush's mess in Iraq.

The thinking was that Gates, a former member of the Iraq Study Group, would represent the views of James Baker and other "realists" from George H.W. Bush's administration. Hillary Clinton and other Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee praised Gates for his "candor" when he acknowledged the obvious, that the war in Iraq wasn't being won.

Since the Gates confirmation vote on Dec. 6, however, Bush and Gates have signaled that they have no intention of extricating the U.S. military from the Iraq quagmire. They still insist on nothing short of "victory" or "success," no matter how unlikely those ends and no matter how much blood must be spilled over the next two years to avert defeat.

At his swearing-in ceremony on Dec. 18, Gates endorsed Bush's contention that a U.S. military withdrawal without victory in Iraq and Afghanistan is unacceptable.

"All of us want to find a way to bring America's sons and daughters home again," Gates said. "But, as the President has made clear, we simply cannot afford to fail in the Middle East. Failure in Iraq at this juncture would be a calamity that would haunt our nation, impair our credibility, and endanger Americans for decades to come."

Gates also made clear that U.S. forces would remain indefinitely in Afghanistan despite the eroding military position of the U.S.-backed government there.

"The progress made by the Afghan people over the past five years is at risk," Gates said. "The United States and its NATO allies have made a commitment to the Afghan people, and we intend to keep it. Afghanistan cannot be allowed to become a sanctuary for extremists again."

Gates rejected the notion that the U.S. military intervention in either country would wind down as long as Bush is President.

"How we face these and other challenges in the region over the next two years will determine whether Iraq, Afghanistan and other nations at a crossroads will pursue paths of gradual progress towards sustainable governments, which are allies in the global war on terrorism, or whether the forces of extremism and chaos will become ascendant," Gates said.

Closet Hawk

In his brief speech, Gates also went out of his way to echo Bush's call for a more aggressive U.S. military that can intervene quickly around the world.

"I was impressed by how deployable our military has become since I last served in government" as CIA director in 1991-93, Gates said. "The President said that one of his top priorities was to help our military become more agile, more lethal and more expeditionary. Much has been accomplished in this; much remains to be done. This remains a necessity and a priority."

So, Gates is onboard with Bush's "stay-until-victory" plan for Iraq and is enthusiastic about having a "more lethal and more expeditionary" U.S. military.
Though soft-spoken and mild-mannered – especially when compared to his predecessor Donald Rumsfeld – Gates sounds in substance more like a closet hawk than a closet dove.

But the Democrats failed to probe any of Gates's inclinations at his Dec. 5 confirmation hearing. They failed to nail down his precise thinking on any aspect of the war strategy or even secure a guarantee that the Pentagon would turn over documents for oversight hearings.

Among many gaps in the questioning, the Democrats didn’t press Gates on whether he shared the neoconservative vision of violently remaking the Middle East, whether he endorsed the Military Commissions Act’s elimination of habeas corpus rights to fair trials, whether he supports warrantless wiretaps by the Pentagon’s National Security Agency, whether he agrees with Bush’s claim of “plenary” – or unlimited – powers as a Commander in Chief who can override laws and the U.S. Constitution.

When Gates did stake out substantive positions at the hearing, he almost invariably lined up with Bush. Though insisting that “all the options are on the table,” Gates rejected any timetable for military withdrawal as some Democrats have recommended.

Desperate to present themselves as "bipartisan," the newly victorious Democrats also avoided any impolite questions about Gates's history of deceptiveness or his role in politicizing the CIA's analytical division in the service of right-wing ideologues in the 1980s. [See Consortiumnews.com's "The Secret World of Robert Gates," "Why Trust Robert Gates on Iraq," and "Robert Gates: Realist of Neo-con?"]

'Wobbly' Rumsfeld

The Democrats may have given Gates a free pass, in part, because they had been so adamant about removing Rumsfeld. Ironically, however, Bush dismissed his long-time Defense Secretary on Nov. 8, two days after Rumsfeld sent Bush a memo calling for a “major adjustment” in Iraq War strategy.

In that Nov. 6 memo, Rumsfeld proposed a troop pullback plan similar to one recommended by Democratic Rep. John Murtha to “withdraw U.S. forces from vulnerable positions” to safe areas of Iraq or to Kuwait. Rumsfeld also suggested “an accelerated drawdown of U.S. bases from 55 now to 10 to 15 by April 2007 and to five by July 2007.”

Though the conventional wisdom has been that Bush ousted Rumsfeld on Nov. 8 as a recognition of the Democratic congressional victory on Nov. 7, it's also possible that Bush realized that Rumsfeld was “going wobbly” on the Iraq War, no longer willing to tolerate the escalating U.S. death toll with American troops caught in the middle of a sectarian civil war.

In other words, the Democrats might have cheered the removal of a Defense Secretary who was repositioning himself closer to their phased-withdrawal strategy on Iraq – and hailed his replacement, someone more in line with Bush's "stay-until-victory" thinking.

So, instead of getting the pro-withdrawal ally that they had hoped for, the Democrats may have ended up with a fresh Bush operative ready to carry out Bush's Iraq War policies though to the end of his term, without Rumsfeld's doubts and regrets.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

Bush has created a "COMPREHENSIVE CATASTROPHE" in the Middle East

Bush has created a COMPREHENSIVE CATASTROPHE across the Middle East. We wish Senator Tim Johnson the very best and hopefully he will make a full recovery from his surgery, but the sudden, unexpected illness of Senator Johnson highlights just how TEPID and ANEMIC has been the Democratic OPPOSITION to the Bush juggernaut of lies-to-war, use of National Security as a political weapon or club, and demagogue control over the press & media these past two or three years.

Senator Johnson's illness also illustrates how very fragile, despite the Democrat's 35-to-0 gains in the Congress, would be the Democrat's ability to ADVISE, CONSENT (or oppose), and OVERSEE the administration's policies and agenda should even one senate seat be turned over to the Republicans, thereby giving Dick Cheney the majority vote in the US Senate.

NOTE: ALREADY the Republican (soon to be) _MINORITY_ in the US Senate is talking about an ENERGETIC USE OF THE FILIBUSTER to derail, sidetrack, and OBSTRUCT some possible future Democratic legislation and bills.

After SIX YEARS of playing DEFENSE, the damn Democrats have AN OBLIGATION, a NATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, to exercise ENERGETIC OPPOSITION to the disastrous, chaotic, CATASTROPHIC policies of George W. Bush, the president who lost the majority of popular votes by over 500,000 in the 2000 presidential election, and whose 2004 election "win" is suspect as well.

===============================

Bush has created a comprehensive catastrophe across the Middle East

In every vital area, from Afghanistan to Egypt, his policies have made the situation worse than it was before

Timothy Garton Ash
Thursday December 14, 2006
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1971749,00.html

What an amazing bloody catastrophe. The Bush administration's policy towards the Middle East over the five years since 9/11 is culminating in a multiple train crash. Never in the field of human conflict was so little achieved by so great a country at such vast expense. In every vital area of the wider Middle East, American policy over the last five years has taken a bad situation and made it worse.

If the consequences were not so serious, one would have to laugh at a failure of such heroic proportions - rather in the spirit of Zorba the Greek who, contemplating the splintered ruins of his great project, memorably exclaimed: "Did you ever see a more splendiferous crash?" But the reckless incompetence of Zorba the Bush has resulted in the death, maiming, uprooting or impoverishment of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children - mainly Muslim Arabs but also Christian Lebanese, Israelis and American and British soldiers. By contributing to a broader alienation of Muslims it has also helped to make a world in which, as we walk the streets of London, Madrid, Jerusalem, New York or Sydney, we are all, each and every one of us, less safe. Laugh if you dare.

In the beginning, there were the 9/11 attacks. It's important to stress that no one can fairly blame George Bush for them. The invasion of Afghanistan was a justified response to those attacks, which were initiated by al-Qaida from its bases in a rogue state under the tyranny of the Taliban. But if Afghanistan had to be done, it had to be done properly. It wasn't. Creating a half-way civilised order in one of the most rugged, inhospitable and tribally recalcitrant places on the planet was always going to be a huge challenge. If the available resources of the world's democracies, including those of a new, enlarged Nato, had been dedicated to that task over the last five years, we might at least have one partial success to report today.

Instead Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld drove us on to Iraq, aided and abetted by Tony Blair, leaving the job in Afghanistan less than half-done. Today Osama bin Laden and his henchmen are probably still holed up in the mountains of Waziristan, just across the Afghan frontier in northern Pakistan, while the Taliban is back in force and the whole country is a bloody mess. Instead of one partial success, following a legitimate intervention, we have two burgeoning disasters, in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

The United States and Britain invaded Iraq under false pretences, without proper legal authority or international legitimacy. If Saddam Hussein, a dangerous tyrant and certified international aggressor, had in fact possessed secret stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, the intervention might have been justified; as he didn't, it wasn't. Then, through the breathtaking incompetence of the civilian armchair warriors in the Pentagon and the White House, we transformed a totalitarian state into a state of anarchy. Claiming to move Iraq forward towards Lockean liberty, we hurled it back to a Hobbesian state of nature. Iraqis - those who have not been killed - increasingly say things are worse than they were before. Who are we to tell them they are wrong?

Now we are preparing to get out. After working through Basra in Operation Sinbad, a reduced number of British troops will draw back to their base at Basra airfield. We will sit in a desert and call it peace. If the White House follows the Baker-Hamilton commission's advice, US troops will do something similar, leaving embedded advisers with Iraqi forces. Three decades ago, American retreat was cloaked by "Vietnamisation"; now it will be cloaked by Iraqisation. Meanwhile, Iraqis can go on killing each other all around, until perhaps, in the end, they cut some rough-and-ready political deals between themselves - or not, as the case may be.

The theocratic dictatorship of Iran is the great winner. Five years ago, the Islamic republic had a reformist president, a substantial democratic opposition, and straitened finances because of low oil prices. The mullahs were running scared. Now the prospects of democratisation are dwindling, the regime is riding high on oil at more than $60 a barrel, and it has huge influence through its Shia brethren in Iraq and Lebanon. The likelihood of it developing nuclear weapons is correspondingly greater. We toppled the Iraqi dictator, who did not have weapons of mass destruction, and thereby increased the chances of Iran's dictators acquiring weapons of mass destruction. And this week Iran's President Ahmadinejad once again called for the destruction of the state of Israel. Those American neocons who set out to make the Middle East safe for Israel have ended up making it more dangerous for Israel.

We did not need an Iraq Study Group to tell us that resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict through a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine is crucial. In its last months the Clinton administration came close to clinching the deal. Under Bush, things have gone backwards. Even the Bush-backed Ariel Sharon scenario of separation through faits accomplis has receded, with the summer war in Lebanon, Hamas ascendancy in Palestine (itself partly a by-product of the Bush-led rush to elections), and a growing disillusionment of the Israeli public.

Having scored an apparent success with the "cedar revolution" in Lebanon and the withdrawal of Syrian troops, the Bush administration, by its tacit support of sustained yet ineffective Israeli military action this summer, undermined the very Lebanese government it was claiming to support. Now Hizbullah is challenging the country's western-backed velvet revolutionaries at their own game: after the cedar revolution, welcome to the cedar counter-revolution. In Egypt, supposedly a showcase for the United States' support for peaceful democratisation in the Bush second term, electoral success for Islamists (as in Palestine and Lebanon) seems to have frightened Washington away from its fresh-minted policy before the ink was even dry. On the credit side, all we have to show is Libya's renunciation of weapons of mass destruction, and a few tentative reforms in some smaller Arab states.

So here's the scoresheet for Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon and Egypt: worse, worse, worse, worse, worse, worse and worse. With James Baker, the United States may revert from the sins of the son to the sins of the father. After all, it was Baker and George Bush Sr who left those they had encouraged to rise up against Saddam to be killed in Iraq at the end of the first Gulf war - not to mention enthusiastically continuing Washington's long-running Faustian pact with petro-autocracies such as Saudi Arabia. I'm told that Condoleezza Rice, no less, has wryly observed that the word democracy hardly features in the Baker-Hamilton report.

Many a time, in these pages and elsewhere, I have warned against reflex Bush-bashing and kneejerk anti-Americanism. The United States is by no means the only culprit. Changing the Middle East for the better is one of the most difficult challenges in world politics. The people of the region bear much responsibility for their own plight. So do we Europeans, for past sins of commission and current sins of omission. But Bush must take the lion's share of the blame. There are few examples in recent history of such a comprehensive failure. Congratulations, Mr President; you have made one hell of a disaster.

timothygartonash.com

Ignorance and Incompetence in the Dem. Party, especially re National Security....

We here at c-dems respect and admire Mr. Lawrence O'Donnell, and have said so on this blog, which makes this a difficult post to write. But this post addresses a huge, serious problem in the Democratic Party, and helps to illustrate why "CowardlyDemocrats" has been the title of the blog up to now.

In his latest post at HuffingtonPost.com, Mr. O'Donnell writes:
<< The war in Iraq is a mistake, entered into for mistaken reasons involving suspected but nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. (I WAS NOT AN EARLY CRITIC OF THE WAR. I did not support it OR OPPOSE it during the ramp up to war. I ACCEPTED the evidence Colin Powell presented to the United Nations, but I was not convinced war was necessary. I was very slow to conclude the war was a mistake even after finding no weapons of mass destruction. For a long time, I thought comparisons to Vietnam were hasty and oversimplified, especially since the first person I heard compare Iraq to Vietnam was the Vegas comedian-magician, Penn Jillette. How could a guy who juggles and cracks jokes for a living be smarter than the Secretary of State?) How should we expect wars that are mistakes to end? Our Vietnam experience tells us that they end very badly. >>

O'Donnell did not "support OR OPPOSE [the war] DURING THE RAMP UP TO WAR."

AND WHY THE HELL NOT? As we have written here before, go to NewAmericanCentury.org, click on "Letters/Statements" and read the list of those who signed the PNAC Statement of Principles (June 1997) and letter to President Clinton about Iraq (Jan. 1998). The latter states that "even with inspectors... it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production.... Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a SERIOUSLY DESTABILIZING EFFECT on the entire Middle East." The letter concludes << Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a WILLINGNESS TO UNDERTAKE MILITARY ACTION as DIPLOMACY_IS_CLEARLY_FAILING. In the long term, IT MEANS REMOVING SADDAM HUSSEIN AND HIS REGIME FROM POWER. That now needs to become THE AIM of American foreign policy. >>

Although the above is, in retrospect, a TEXT-BOOK EXAMPLE OF FAULTY LOGIC, it did indeed become "THE AIM OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY" _IMMEDIATELY_ upon the Supreme Court awarding George W. Bush the Presidency in December of 2000. (See Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's comments that priority One of the incoming Bush administration in January of 2001, of which he was a big part, was prepping for a future war with Iraq.) The "Iraq letter to Clinton" was signed by Paul Wolfowitz and a whole raft of incoming neo-con War Hawks including Perle, Abrams, Armitage, Bolton, and Rumsfeld. The "Statement of Principles" which preceded by only a few weeks the "Iraq letter to Clinton (which was merely a thematic preamble to the "let's USE our more muscular foreign policy options" of the latter letter) was signed by DICK CHENEY and JEB BUSH in addition to Rumsfeld and the other above signers (and more).

This ignorance of the intentions and policy plans of the PNAC neo-cons is not the only Democratic IGNORANCE following the 9-11 attacks.
#1. The ANTHRAX ATTACKS were suspect, anyone who thinks that A-rab terrorists would send deadly letters to Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy, well, we have some prime oceanfront property they will want to look at in Tennessee. Most of the other LIES-TO-WAR were debunked as well, including
#2. the "Niger Yellowcake Uranium Ore for Iraq" fib debunked (at great personal cost) by Ambassador Joe Wilson (an Iraq war hero of the Bush1 administration);
#3. including the "aluminum tubes for uranium centrifuges" story deunked by all experts in the centrifuge business (the tubes were annodized, making them useless for centrifuges);
#4. and the "Iraq Mobile Bio-Weapons Lab" story was equally farcical, using as "proof" - nothing more than ARTIST ILLUSTRATIONS of an alleged mobile bio-lab! (Which echoed the January 2001 Bush White House buildup of "Democratic Clinton-Gore staffers TRASHED THE WHITE HOUSE!" "scandal" WITHOUT ONE PHOTOGRAPH OF EVIDENCE.)

And finally, despite his heroic status at the apex of the US military after Gulf War1, Colin Powell had a longstanding reputation as being a military company-man, Powell having been in on the Mai Lai coverup that saw only a small handful of convictions for the Army's pre-meditated ethnic-cleansing/mass executions in the Mai Lai region (and later, after Nixon became President, the extra-legal invasion of Cambodia).

Mr. O'Donnell, if Democratic leaders and strategists can't sort the wheat from the chaff in "intel" and national security issues, and can't even protect their own fellow Democratic staffers from unfounded Republican attack-and-smear campaigns... HOW THE HELL can they be trusted with the nation's defense and security???

Even compared to the rank incompetence and corruption of the Bush-Cheney White House (much less the more subtle and sophisticated illegalities of the Bush Sr. White House), it is easy to see how so many voters might have so little faith in the Democratic leadership on national security and counter-terror issues.

On top of all that is the critical problem of MEDIA SPIN - if Republicans can continually foul-up international issues, but get the media to blame Democrats, then again the Democrats become part of the problem and not the solution.

http://newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
http://newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
(Treasury Sec. Paul O'Neill comments that war against Iraq was a top priority of incoming Bush-Cheney administration, long before 9-11) http://thepriceofloyalty.ronsuskind.com/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-odonnell/rush-is-right_b_36325.html
<< The war in Iraq is a mistake, entered into for mistaken reasons involving suspected but nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. (I was not an early critic of the war. I did not support it or oppose it during the ramp up to war. I accepted the evidence Colin Powell presented to the United Nations, but I was not convinced war was necessary. I was very slow to conclude the war was a mistake even after finding no weapons of mass destruction. For a long time, I thought comparisons to Vietnam were hasty and oversimplified, especially since the first person I heard compare Iraq to Vietnam was the Vegas comedian-magician, Penn Jillette. How could a guy who juggles and cracks jokes for a living be smarter than the Secretary of State?) How should we expect wars that are mistakes to end? Our Vietnam experience tells us that they end very badly. >>

Fla. senator defies Bush, visits Syria. George Bush and crew are INCOMPETENT administrators of America's government, and he should be impeached...

George Bush and crew are INCOMPETENT administrators of America's government, and he should be impeached and removed from power. George W. Bush is everything that Al Gore said about Bush's father during the Clinton-Gore campaign of 1992. In one of the last scenes of the docu-movie "The War Room," Al Gore gives an impassioned stump speech in the final days of campaign 1992: "Everything that SHOULD BE DOWN IS UP, everything that SHOULD BE UP IS DOWN!" and Gore drove his points home to enthusiastic voters with passion and gusto. But at least the Senior Bush was strategically competent (if you overlook his allowing Yugoslavia to descend into chaos, and his Ambassador, April Gilespi, giving Saddam Hussein a 'green light' to invade Kuwait with her infamous "we have no position in intra-Arab fueding."

George W. Bush can not point to ONE THING that has improved in America, unless one looks at the inflated portfolios of America's wealthiest top 2%, as for example the $16 billion profits posted by Goldman Sachs and other investment bankers this year. But G-S's profits are not entirely "free market" and not entirely "profit" - they come at the expense of the TRILLION dollar DEFICITS racked up by the Bush (W) administration, and at the expense of America's working families who can no longer afford health care. Indeed, the Goldman-Sachs profits are only the most visible proof of how profitable it is to OUTSOURCE AMERICAN JOBS.

Economic policy, domestic policy, foreign policy, and especially national security policy: in ALL respects except the rising wealth of America's top 2%, George W. Bush has been a disaster for America, and if the other Democrats in the House and Senate do not follow Senator Nelson's lead to provide SOME ALTERNATIVES to the Bush-Cheney march to disaster, then the Bush legacy of wreckage will only get worse for America.


Fla. senator defies Bush, visits Syria
By Anne Plummer Flaherty, Associated Press Writer
13 Dec. 2006
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061213/ap_on_go_co/us_syria

WASHINGTON - In a direct affront to the Bush administration, a Democratic senator spent an hour Wednesday with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus, emerging from the meeting to say Assad was willing to help control the Iraq-Syrian border.

Sen. Bill Nelson (news, bio, voting record) of Florida, a member of the Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, met with Assad after the State Department said that it disapproved of his trip. The United States has limited diplomatic ties with Syria because of its support of Hezbollah and Hamas, which the U.S. deems terrorist organizations, and President Bush has expressed reluctance to seek help from Damascus on Iraq until the Syrians curb that support and reduce their influence in Lebanon.

"Assad clearly indicated the willingness to cooperate with the Americans and or the Iraqi army to be part of a solution" in Iraq, Nelson told reporters in a conference call following the meeting. The U.S. says foreign fighters often enter Iraq across that boundary.

Syrian officials have indicated a willingness before to engage the U.S. in discussions about Iraq, which the Bush administration has treated with skepticism. Nelson said he viewed Assad's remarks as "a crack in the door for discussions to continue. I approach this with realism not optimism."

Nelson said he reported the information to embassy officials and will brief his congressional committees on the trip. Also expected to visit Syria is Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa..

"We don't think that members of Congress ought to be going there," White House press secretary Tony Snow said, adding that the United States continues to denounce Syria's meddling in Lebanon and its ties to terrorist groups.

Snow noted the existing diplomatic ties between U.S. and Syria. "I think it's a real stretch to think the Syrians don't know where we stand or what we think," he said.

The diplomatic push from Congress comes on the heels of a recommendation by a bipartisan panel that the U.S. engage Iran and Syria on the war in Iraq. Bush has remained cool to the proposal by the Iraq Study Group, which was led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind.

Nelson said he ultimately received logistical support from the State Department in what he called a "fact-finding trip" across the Middle East, being transported by embassy officials from Jordan's capital city of Amman to Damascus. Prior to heading to Damascus, Nelson met with top Israeli and Palestinian officials; in coming days, he plans to visit Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iraq.

Nelson said he was not interested visiting Iran "at this time" and did not say why.

However, the senator did say that he raised the issue of a nuclear-armed Iran to Assad, saying "he ought to understand that that's not only a threat to him, Syria, but to the entire world. . . . He took note," Nelson said.

The senator said he also expressed to the Syrian leader the problems caused by Hezbollah and Hamas and urged Assad to support the release of captured Israeli soldiers. Nelson said the Syrian president responded by saying Israel had 20 Syrians in captivity, one of whom died recently from leukemia.

The senator shrugged off suggestions he was challenging Bush's authority by sidestepping administration policy that the U.S. have no contact with Syrian officials.

"I have a constitutional role as a member of Congress," Nelson said.

Meanwhile, Bush criticized Damascus anew and called on it to free all political prisoners.

In a statement, the president expressed support for the Syrian people, and said they "deserve a government whose legitimacy is grounded in the consent of the people, not brute force."

The U.S.-backed government in Lebanon led by Prime Minister Fuad Saniora is being challenged by the Hezbollah-led, pro-Syrian opposition. Bush said Syria should disclose the fate of the many missing Lebanese citizens who disappeared following their arrest in Lebanon during decades of Syrian military occupation.

"The Syrian regime should immediately free all political prisoners, including Aref Dalila, Michel Kilo, Anwar al-Bunni, Mahmoud Issa, and Kamal Labwani," Bush said. "I am deeply troubled by reports that some ailing political prisoners are denied health care while others are held in cells with violent criminals."

Hillary SAT ON her millions $$ in last days of Election 2006... the SAME sin that Carville foamed-at-mouth at DNC Chair Howard Dean for!!

If James Carville directed one-tenth the outrage at his wife for espousing "THEY'RE WRONG" Republican atrocious policies that he directs at DNC Chairman Howard Dean for running WINNING Democratic grass-roots campaigns, he would be booted out of his own home in a New York minute!



In an earlier post, "JAMES CARVILLE, WTF?!' we wrote
http://cowardlydemocrats.blogspot.com/search?q=James+Carville%2C+WTF%3F
that James Carville was a blooming, craven IDIOT for shouting (in that Carville ragin' cajun style of his) that DNC Chair Howard Dean should be FIRED for (according to Carville) not digging deep enough into the DNC's credit line to pump additional funds to a few critically close races in the last days of Election 2006.

Well, now it turns out that not only is Carville a CRAVEN, BLOOMING IDIOT for his comments back then, BUT he is a HYPOCRITE and liar as well!

For, you see, Hillary Clinton in the final days of Election '06 (days leading up to November 7th) wasn't just sitting on a huge, commanding, insurmountable lead in the polls, but she was also SITTING ON TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of cash-in-hand campaign funds!

HOW can Carville explain his ferocious, outspoken condemnation of Howard Dean for not using IMAGINARY (credit-line) funds, while PRETENDING IGNORANCE of HILLARY'S UNSPENT cash-in-hand war chest??!!

Our thanks to Paul Rogat Loeb and Buzzflash.com for pointing all this out.

Of course, ANYONE who has been paying ANY attention to the Right-Wing since they lost their Cold-War "evil empire" as adversaries and enemies (when the USSR and 'Iron Curtain' collapsed in late 1990s) understands that the HARDER THE RIGHTIES SHOUT about some alleged sin, crime, and scandal by the Democrats and "left," THE MORE THEY ARE DESCRIBING their OWN dark hearts and conduct.

AS we write this, MSNBC is playing the media "GOTCHA!" story, incoming Democrat House Intel. Committee Chairmen Reyes apparently is not fully conversant in Al Qaida facts, stats, and briefing info.

BUT, the SAME MSNBC news whores (including former Congressman Joe Scarborough) GIVE A FREE PASS, not only to two outgoing (SITTING) Republican members of the House Intel Committee who failed the SAME question, but of course they CONTINUE to give George W. Bush a FREE PASS for IGNORING pre-9-11 "Al Qaida wants to hijack airliners in America" warnings from the CIA, FBI, Mossad, Egyptian security forces, and even the ITALIAN POLICE, who stationed surface-to-air missiles around Genoa Italy in July of 2001 specifically to deter the threat of a hijacked airliner. That is, the American whore media (in this case MSNBC) gives the US president a FREE PASS for being MORE IGNORANT and INCOMPETENT than the Italian police and security forces! And then tries to make incoming Dem Intel. Committee Chair Reyes look ignorant and incompetent for not having his own pat answers to a media pop-quiz.

James Carville is completely in the same boat as MSNBC and the WHORE media: he is trying to make Howard Dean's WINNING leadership of the DNC in election 2006 into a SCANDAL, while SITTING on the info. that shows that Hillary Clinton is guilty, in spades, of EXACTLY what Carville accuses Dean of doing (or not doing)!!

WHY is Carville such a hollow, shrill, has-been?

In a word, he has become exactly the DC insider he DESPISED when he came up with the Clinton-Gore unofficial campaign motto in 1992, "It's the economy, STUPID!" Carville is now married to Mary Matlin, who has not only been a longtime PR campaign aide to the Bush Sr. White House, but she is now THE head spin-meister for Dick Cheney, the Vice-President (and some say acting co-president) of the United States. It simply doesn't get any more "Washington DC INSIDER" than being the spinmeister/PR advisor for the sitting Vice President/godfather of so many appalling administration policies and directions.

In 1992 Carville channeled his RAGE and OUTRAGE against the economic policies of the Bush Sr. administration into winning tactical and strategic (media) plans for the 1992 dark horse (outsider) Democratic candidate.

Since then, Carville has written the book, "WE're right, THEY're Wrong." But apparently his REPUBLICAN INSIDER wife didn't get the message... she continues to champion the OUTRAGEOUS Republican policies such as torture, unlimited spying, and TAX CUTS FOR BILLIONAIRES while sticking the rest of us Americans with the not only the costs of Bush's disastrous wars, job outsourcing, soaring healthcare and drug prices, and DEFICITS..... _AND_ INTEREST ON those deficits - but the portion of the federal taxes that billionaires no longer pay!!!

James Carville is, clearly, STILL a man of OUTRAGE.

Except, INSTEAD of CHANNELING THAT OUTRAGE at the appalling policies HIS WIFE ESPOUSES... he HYPOCRITICALLY channels them at Howard Dean, a small-state governor who, until his 2004 presidential campaign, was the quintessential DC outsider.

THANKS, Paul Loeb, for the TEXT BOOK example of DC Democrat INSIDER HYPOCRISY by James Carville and the Hillary camp, and their Republican-esque "POT CALLING KETTLE BLACK" "projection."

<< I just got my Visa bill for my final election donations-all those click-and-donate appeals in my email box and on the Web. I gave more than I thought I had, more than I'd intended to spend, and more than I'd ever given before. You make enough $25 to $50 contributions, and soon you're talking REAL MONEY, a tenth of my annual income.
But I feel just fine about my giving. I'm proud to have helped support Dean's 50-state strategy by donating to the Democratic National Committee early enough to help build key infrastructure, and then again and again as new opportunities emerged. I felt great about giving to Jon Tester six times, including for his final election week push. Between my donations and my volunteering with MoveOn's CallforChange program, I felt like I'd personally helped elect Tester, Jim Webb, Claire McCaskill, Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders, Sheldon Whitehouse, and half the Congressional candidates from the NetRoots Act Blue page. I'd have felt proud to do my part even if the close races had gone the other way.

What DOESN'T please me, in fact DISTURBS ME IMMENSELY, is discovering that Hillary Clinton raised $52 million dollars for her Senate campaign and allied leadership PAC, HILLPAC. She spent $36 million of it on a race that she could have won staying home in her pajamas, not spending a dime. Now she's SITTING ON a $13.5-million-dollar war chest, which she'll roll over to her presidential campaign. I know political money is hard to raise, particularly with the new contribution limits, and that some of Hillary's spending went to build a grassroots donors' list that she'll tap in the future. But according to the wonderful site of the Center for Responsive Politics, the entire Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee raised only $107 million, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign $103 million. Hillary spent a third as much as either of these, more than any candidate in America, for a race that was never in doubt. She did distribute $2.5 million to various Democratic institutions and candidates, but imagine if she'd transferred $20 million into the dozen Congressional campaigns that Democrats lost by margins as close as a few hundred votes. Or into Harold Ford's Senatorial campaign, to close the gap between the $10 million spent by Ford and the $15 million that Republican Bob Corker spent. Hindsight's always easy, but by late summer it was clear that the Democrats had a huge opportunity and were scrambling for the funds to respond to it. A few more ads would almost certainly have tipped the balance for some of the under-funded candidates who came heartbreakingly close. That's why so many of us were digging deep to contribute, and then digging deeper, EVEN WHEN IT HURT. Evidently Hillary had other priorities.

But she had a chance to make a major difference in this critical election -- and she blew it. >>
==============================

Hillary Clinton and My Visa Bill

by Paul Rogat Loeb, author of "The Impossible Will Take a Little While"
Tue, 12/12/2006
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/625

I just got my Visa bill for my final election donations-all those click-and-donate appeals in my email box and on the Web. I gave more than I thought I had, more than I'd intended to spend, and more than I'd ever given before. You make enough $25 to $50 contributions, and soon you're talking real money, a tenth of my annual income.

But I feel just fine about my giving. I'm proud to have helped support Dean's 50-state strategy by donating to the Democratic National Committee early enough to help build key infrastructure, and then again and again as new opportunities emerged. I felt great about giving to Jon Tester six times, including for his final election week push. Between my donations and my volunteering with MoveOn's CallforChange program, I felt like I'd personally helped elect Tester, Jim Webb, Claire McCaskill, Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders, Sheldon Whitehouse, and half the Congressional candidates from the NetRoots Act Blue page. I'd have felt proud to do my part even if the close races had gone the other way.

What doesn't please me, in fact disturbs me immensely, is discovering that Hillary Clinton raised $52 million dollars for her Senate campaign and allied leadership PAC, HILLPAC. She spent $36 million of it on a race that she could have won staying home in her pajamas, not spending a dime. Now she's sitting on a $13.5-million-dollar war chest, which she'll roll over to her presidential campaign. I know political money is hard to raise, particularly with the new contribution limits, and that some of Hillary's spending went to build a grassroots donors' list that she'll tap in the future. But according to the wonderful site of the Center for Responsive Politics, the entire Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee raised only $107 million, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign $103 million. Hillary spent a third as much as either of these, more than any candidate in America, for a race that was never in doubt. She did distribute $2.5 million to various Democratic institutions and candidates, but imagine if she'd transferred $20 million into the dozen Congressional campaigns that Democrats lost by margins as close as a few hundred votes. Or into Harold Ford's Senatorial campaign, to close the gap between the $10 million spent by Ford and the $15 million that Republican Bob Corker spent. Hindsight's always easy, but by late summer it was clear that the Democrats had a huge opportunity and were scrambling for the funds to respond to it. A few more ads would almost certainly have tipped the balance for some of the under-funded candidates who came heartbreakingly close. That's why so many of us were digging deep to contribute, and then digging deeper, even when it hurt. Evidently Hillary had other priorities.

When Bill Clinton first surfaced as a leading Presidential contender, I asked a mutual friend what he thought. "He's smart," said my friend. "He reads good books. He wants to do the right thing." Then he paused and said, "But he won't go to the mat for anything except his own political future." To me, that was Bill's core flaw (even more than his pursuit of Monica Lewinsky). Hillary seems to share Bill's hunger for power. You can always rationalize dubious choices by the good you'll do when you gain just a little more clout, and I'm sure she truly believes her candidacy will benefit the United States. But she had a chance to make a major difference in this critical election -- and she blew it.

Hillary is far from the only Democrat vulnerable to the charge of hoarding scarce resources: As of mid-October, John Kerry with $13.8 million in his campaign account, and Evan Bayh had $10.6 million. But Kerry transferred over $3.5 million to Democratic candidates and used his networks to raise almost $10 million more. Between his inept 2004 campaign and the damage done by his foot-in-the-mouth military joke-telling, I don't want him as a Presidential candidate; but compared to what Hillary transferred from five times the resources, Kerry at least dug deeper to help. I have even more respect for potential contenders like John Edwards and Wesley Clark, who campaigned throughout the country to support Democratic candidates, but did relatively little fundraising for their own campaign committees and PACs, mostly to maintain basic infrastructure. Their top priority was to help other Democrats to win this 2006 election

I'm sure Hillary would say she did all she could, and then some, and she definitely lent major star power to the campaigns and fundraising efforts of many worthy candidates. But I think about all the ordinary citizens who gave more time and money than anyone would have expected and as a result made a critical difference. In comparison, Hillary falls short. The money she spent may have gained her a few extra points of electoral margin in a race she won by 36 points, and buttressed her already massive frontrunner status. But it did nothing to increase the Democratic victory. Those of us at the grassroots aren't going to stop volunteering and donating merely because some of our most prominent political leaders fall short. But it's a measure of their character that I hope we'll remember when the Presidential primaries begin.

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION

Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, named the #3 political book of 2004 by the History Channel and the American Book Association. His previous books include Soul of a Citizen: Living With Conviction in a Cynical Time. See www.paulloeb.org To receive his monthly articles email sympa@lists.onenw.org with the subject line: subscribe paulloeb-articles

Neo-cons retreat from Bush's war at 100mph. Vanity Fair's David Ross taking names...

Neo Culpa
Please don't call them "architects of the war": Richard (Prince of Darkness) Perle, David (Axis of Evil) Frum, Kenneth (Cakewalk) Adelman, and other elite neoconservatives who pushed for the invasion of Iraq are beside themselves at the result.
by David Rose January 2007
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/01/neocons200701?printable=true¤tPage=all
(click our headline link)

Bush approval plummets further, to below 30%. Dem "leaders" in Senate STILL bow to MSM "conventional wisdom"....

Even as Bush's approval rating for handeling the Iraq war plummets to below 30%, Senate Democrats (the Biden/Bayh/Lieberman/Clinton, Kerry clique, et al) continue to SOFT-PEDAL the need to confront the White House with responsibility the mess that they have created.

Over at the NYT editorial page, Krugman gamely continues to be one of two of the Times' in-house editorial writers (along with Frank Rich) not taken in by the Times' "of the establishment, by the establishment, for the establishement" editorial and reporting screed. (Over on the Times' news page, this story by the Times staff BURIES the "American corporations CONTROL Iraqi oil" comment in the last paragraphs of a long article.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/09/world/middleeast/09oil.html

Paul Krugman: They Told You So.
(BURIED by the Lyin' Times must-pay firewall)
<< Shortly after U.S. forces marched into Baghdad in 2003, The Weekly Standard published a jeering article titled, “The Cassandra Chronicles: The stupidity of the antiwar doomsayers.” Among those the article mocked was a “war novelist” named James Webb, who is now the senator-elect from Virginia.
[IRONICALLY] The article’s title was more revealing than its authors knew. People forget the nature of Cassandra’s curse: although nobody would believe her, all her prophecies came true. >>

=====================================

Released: December 08, 2006
Bush Job Approval: 30%
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1217

President slips to all-time low in the Zogby Poll as key demographic groups jump ship

The national job approval rating of President Bush has plummeted to 30%, an all–time low in the latest Zogby International telephone poll, sinking below the 31% approval rating he dropped to in early June.

The President’s positive job rating is down from 36% in late October, in the weeks heading into the congressional midterm elections. Since then, the Democrats swept to control of both houses of Congress, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld resigned and was replaced by Robert Gates, who said the U.S. is not winning the war in Iraq. Release of the Iraq Study Group’s report calling for significant change in the way the U.S. is conducting the Iraq war came as this latest Zogby poll was in the field.

Sixty–eight percent said they believe Bush is doing only a fair or poor job leading the nation.

Support for the President waned in key demographic groups, the Zogby poll shows. Among all Republicans, just 60% gave him a positive job rating, while 39% gave him negative marks. Just 9% of Democrats and 22% of political independents gave him good marks for his work. Among married respondents – typically a group who favors Republicans – just 35% said Bush was doing a positive job. Among men, another favorable GOP demographic, just 31% gave him positive marks, while 69% gave him a negative rating. Even among stalwart Born Again respondents, just 43% had positive ratings for the President on his overall job performance.

The survey of 982 likely voters nationwide was conducted Dec. 5–8, 2006, and carries a margin of error of +/– 3.2 percentage points.

The poll showed that Bush’s troubles clearly stem from trouble with the war in Iraq. Just 24% give him positive marks for his handling of the war, down from 39% who gave him a positive rating six months ago for his handling the way. Even among Republicans, a minority – 47% – think he has handled the war well (52% of Republicans gave him negative marks for his leadership on the war in Iraq). Not a single demographic group in the Zogby poll gave the president a majority positive rating for his handling of the war.

Asked whether the Iraq war has been worth the loss of American lives, just 34% responded positively, equally the lowest percentage recorded in a long series of Zogby polls on the question. The poll comes on the heels of the announcement that more than 2,900 Americans had been killed in the war.

Bush’s management of the overall war on terror received somewhat better marks – 40% said he is doing a positive job handling the worldwide conflict, which is almost identical to the 41% positive marks he won in a survey six months ago.

Asked whether the nation was headed in the right direction or was off on the wrong track, just one in three (32%) said things are going in the right direction, while 57% said things were amiss in the nation. Another 11% said they were unsure.

Congress Job Rating Also Hits New Low

The latest Zogby poll shows the nation is apparently ready for some new leadership on Capitol Hill. Just 16% gave the Congress positive marks for its work, while 80% gave it negative ratings. This marks an all–time low rating for Congress, as the Republicans prepare to hand the control of both houses of Congress over to the Democrats for the first time in 12 years.

Among men, just 14% gave positive marks to Capitol Hill, while women were a tiny bit more generous – 20% said Congress had done a “good” or “excellent” job. Even Republicans had trouble mustering support for the GOP–led national legislature, as just 25% affixed positive ratings to Congress.

But, the survey shows, Americans hold the Capitol Hill partisans in equal disdain – both Republicans and Democrats received positive marks from just 21% of respondents, while 74% gave both Democrats and Republicans negative job performance ratings. Among Republican respondents, 38% gave the Republicans in Congress positive marks, while just 24% of Democrats gave Democrats in Congress positive marks.

For a detailed methodological statement, please visit:
http://www.zogby.com/methodology/readmeth.dbm?ID=1156

Democrats FINALLY respond to America's broken, corrupt, "privatized" voting system.... (bravo..)

Changes Are Expected in Voting by 2008 Election
By IAN URBINA and CHRISTOPHER DREW
Published: December 8, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/08/washington/08voting.html

By the 2008 presidential election, voters around the country are likely to see sweeping changes in how they cast their ballots and how those ballots are counted, including an end to the use of most electronic voting machines without a paper trail, federal voting officials and legislators say.

New federal guidelines, along with legislation given a strong chance to pass in Congress next year, will probably combine to make the paperless voting machines obsolete, the officials say. States and counties that bought the machines will have to modify them to hook up printers, at federal expense, while others are planning to scrap the machines and buy new ones.

Motivated in part by voting problems during the midterm elections last month, the changes are a result of a growing skepticism among local and state election officials, federal legislators and the scientific community about the reliability and security of the paperless touch-screen machines used by about 30 percent of American voters.

The changes also mean that the various forms of vote-counting software used around the country — most of which are protected by their manufacturers for reasons of trade secrecy — will for the first time be inspected by federal authorities, and the code could be made public. There will also be greater federal oversight on how new machines are tested before they arrive at polling stations.

“In the next two years I think we’ll see the kinds of sweeping changes that people expected to see right after the 2000 election,” said Doug Chapin, director of electionline.org, a nonpartisan election group. “The difference now is that we have moved from politics down to policies.”

Many of the paperless machines were bought in a rush to overhaul the voting system after the disputed presidential election in 2000, which was marred by hanging chads. But concerns have been growing that in a close election those machines give election workers no legitimate way to conduct a recount or to check for malfunctions or fraud.

Several counties around the country are already considering scrapping their voting systems after problems this year, and last week federal technology experts concluded for the first time that paperless touch-screen machines could not be secured from tampering.

Having stalled for over two years, federal legislation requiring a shift to paper trails and other safeguards, proposed by Representative Rush D. Holt, Democrat of New Jersey, has a better chance of passing next session, several members of Congress and election officials say.

They say that fixing the voting system is viewed as a core issue by the new Democratic leaders, and the bill already has the bipartisan support of more than a majority of the current House. Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, who will be the new chairwoman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, said she planned to introduce a similar bill in January.

But it is also clear that the changes will not come without a struggle. State and local election officials are still reeling from the last major overhaul of the country’s voting system, initiated by the Help America Vote Act in 2002, and some say that the $150 million in federal aid proposed by Mr. Holt would not be enough to pay for the changes.

Advocates for the disabled say they will resist his bill, because the touch-screen machines are the easiest for blind people to use. And the voting machine companies say they will argue against making the software code completely public, partly out of concern about making the system more vulnerable to hackers.

Paul S. DeGregorio, the chairman of the federal Election Assistance Commission, which was created by Congress in 2002 to set voting standards, also cautioned against rushing to make changes, especially since some counties also ran into problems with printers in this year’s elections. “All of the implications have to be looked at carefully,” Mr. DeGregorio said in an interview.

Still, the changes are rapidly gaining momentum, partly because the Help America Vote Act did not go far enough in establishing clear guidelines for the type of machines that should be used, many critics have said. It took so long for the federal guidelines to be established that many local voting officials bought new equipment without the full benefit of federal research and standards.

“Everyone was getting intense pressure to comply by January 2006, and so they went ahead and bought,” said Alysoun McLaughlin, who was a lobbyist for the National Association of Counties at the time.

Now some local and state officials are paying the price as they shelve machines that have problems or that could soon be out of compliance.

In Maryland, legislators say they plan to replace the more than $70 million worth of touch-screen machines the state began buying in 2002 with paper optical scanners, which officials estimate could cost $20 million.

Voters in Sarasota, Fla., where the results of a Congressional race recorded on touch-screen machines are being contested in court, passed a ballot initiative last month to make the same change, at an estimated cost of $3 million. Last year, New Mexico spent $14 million to replace its touch screens. Other states are spending millions more to retrofit the machines to add paper trails.

New York has been slow to replace its old lever voting machines, and the state has required counties to buy screens with printers or optical scanners. New Jersey has passed a law requiring its counties to switch to machines with paper trails by 2008, and Connecticut is buying machines that can scan paper ballots.

This week, the Technical Guidelines Development Committee, a federal panel of technical experts that helps set voting standards, adopted a resolution that recommends requiring any new electronic voting systems to have an independent means of verification, a move that could eventually prevent paperless touch-screen machines from being federally certified.

Touch-screen machines with paper trails give voters a chance to check their choices on a small piece of paper before casting their ballots, while large rolls of paper keep a running tally and can be used to check the vote count made by the machine’s software. Localities can also use optical-scan systems, in which paper ballots marked by voters are counted by scanning machines and remain available for recounts.

Over the last two years, 27 states have passed laws requiring a shift to machines with paper trails, and 8 others do not have such laws but use the machines statewide. Some counties have attached rolls of paper to touch-screen machines, at a cost of $1,000 to $2,000 for each device, while others have bought optical-scanning devices.

Five states — Maryland, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina and Delaware — still use only the paperless machines, and 10 states have counties that use them and have not made plans to change.

State and local election officials say they have been overwhelmed by the changes since 2002, and they are worried about how much they may have to pay to meet new requirements. Many have already spent millions in state and local money to buy and operate new machines, and Mr. Holt’s changes would require retraining poll workers as well as add the recurring costs of buying paper ballots and conducting election audits.

Because some printers malfunctioned last month, election commissioners in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, which includes Cleveland, said last week that they were considering scrapping their new $17 million system of touch-screen machines and starting over with optical scanning devices.

In Harris County, Tex., which includes Houston, electronic machines can print a paper tally, but do not give voters a paper record, meaning they would not comply with Mr. Holt’s bill. Beverly Kaufman, the county clerk, said she and other election officials elsewhere disliked the paper requirement.

“Every time you introduce something perishable like paper, you inject some uncertainty into the system,” Ms. Kaufman said. She said she was skeptical that Congress would come up with enough money for replacements by 2008. “You show me where you can pry the cold, bony fingers off the money in Washington, D.C., that fast,” she said.

Another significant change that will affect how votes are counted involves the recording and tallying software embedded in each electronic machine. Under changes approved by the Election Assistance Commission yesterday, voting machine manufacturers would have to make their crucial software code available to federal inspectors. The code is now checked mainly by private testing laboratories paid by the manufacturers. Mr. Holt would go even further, requiring the commission to make the code publicly available.

Computer experts and voting rights groups have long advocated such openness, arguing that the code is too important to be kept secret and would allow programmers to check for bugs and the potential for hacking. But manufacturers are resistant. Michelle Shafer, a vice president at Sequoia Voting Systems, said that while the industry was willing to give the source code to state and federal officials, “we feel that just putting it out there would give it to people with an intent to do something malicious or harmful.”

Because election technology is changing so quickly, it is not clear that the new requirements, particularly the demand for a paper trail, will stand the test of time, and advocates for change are already worried about a jury-rigged solution for 2008.

“We’re confident that the accuracy and integrity of voting is going to take some big steps forward with the legislation in Congress right now,” said Warren Stewart, policy director of VoteTrustUSA, an advocacy group that prefers optical scanners to touch screens. “But our big concern is to avoid replacing old problems with new ones.”