Today's knee-slapper: McCain's new 'running against Bush' line

At Wednesday night's debate, John McCain reminded Barack Obama that he is not George Bush.

Since then, the senator's new line of sarcasm, met with laughter and applause at his campaign rallies, has been, "If Barack Obama wanted to run against George Bush, he should have done that four years ago."

A more accurate observation is,

"If John McCain wanted to run against George Bush, he should have done that four years ago."

Not only has McCain supported Bush-Cheney and their most disastrous policies for eight long years -- I seem to recall a whole lotta hugging and kissing going on four years ago.

You can run, John, but you can't hide from your past.

But you're a great standup comedian.

Today is history's future

Happy Constitution Day!

"I have sworn . . . eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." (Thomas Jefferson)

Completed on September 17, 1787, and later ratified by special conventions in each of the original thirteen American states, the Constitution for the United States represents the supreme law of the United States of America and is the oldest comprehensive written national constitution still in force. - History of U.S. Constitution

That constitution is threatened today by a president who regards it on a par with Larry Craig's toilet paper - a useful symbol when it serves a personal need, but trash when it conflicts with his authoritarian agenda:

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!" - The rant: Bush on the Constitution

• Something wicked this way comes
• Conservatives trust Bush, not the Constitution

Alan Greenspan lambasts Bush

The highly respected former chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, launches a harshly critical attack on President George W. Bush’s economic competence in his memoir published tomorrow.

While his declaration that America’s prime motive for the Iraq war was oil will set off one political storm, his onslaught against Republican fiscal mismanagement will cause another, just as the economy becomes a big issue in the primary election campaign.

Greenspan’s 531-page book will do little to restore faith in the Bush administration’s claims of economic proficiency at a time when the markets are deeply unsettled. He has harsh words for Bush, the vice-president, Dick Cheney, and the Republicans over their big spending and lack of financial discipline. They are contrasted with former president Bill Clinton, whom Greenspan clearly admires.

• Sunday Times Online

Putnam clings to failed Iraq policy

Text of the Resolution opposed by Rep. Putnam

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), that ...

(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and

(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Adam Putnam, as Chairman of the House Republican Conference, is third in line in the House Republican leadership. He represents special interests of Florida's 12th Congressional District.

Today Congressman Putnam spoke on the Iraq Resolution. My comments follow excerpts from that speech.

*****

Putnam: "After all the tough talk we heard from the other side, this is a rather toothless 97 words."

Yes, congressman, so toothless it's giving you and your Minority Party conniption fits. Rather than wasting your time criticizing Democrats for their timidity, though, why don't you spend a couple of minutes trying to think of an occasion during the past four years that you dared to raise a serious question on Bush-Cheney's failed policy in Iraq. Talk about a toothless wonder!

Putnam: "Now, the majority has surely studied its constitutional law, and knows that the most direct way it can affect the current strategy is to cut off the funds necessary to win the war. So why are we not having - this week - a real up-or-down vote on troop funding?"

Congressman, why are you, like all the apoplectic Republican leaders on the losing side of the Iraq issue, so desperate to have Democrats cut funding? Whatever the ultimate outcome in Iraq, you will blame them for losing the war anyway. Give it up. The American people have already decided that George Bush - with your unwavering support - lost Iraq a long time ago.

Yet you support the madness still. Perhaps if you had exercised proper oversight of the war when Republicans had an iron grip on Congress, you'd still be in the majority. So sit down and shut up. If in two years Democrats haven't done a better job than you did, I'll join you in protesting their lack of progress.

Putnam: "Actually, the Congress has had one up-or-down vote on the new strategy for victory - well, it more was like up-only, when the Senate unanimously confirmed General David Petraeus as commanding officer in Iraq."

Even a small child would recognize that statement as utter nonsense. In confirming General Petraeus's military appointment, the Senate in no way relinquished Congress's constitutional responsibilities. George Bush was not granted dictatorial powers to use our troops as his personal army, ignoring the will of Congress and the voice of the American people.

Putnam: "Today, al-Qaeda operates in over 60 countries with members in the hundreds and supporters in the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions."

Right. But al-Qaeda terrorists were not active in Iraq until George Bush created the perfect environment for them. "Bring'em on," indeed. How many thousands of new terrorists has your colossal blunder and mismanagement of the war created?

Meanwhile, where is Osama bin Laden? Is he in Iraq now and, like Bush and Cheney, searching for WMD's? That would make as much sense as your pretension of "taking the war to Iraq" because terrorists from Afghanistan attacked us on 9/11. You're not only failing Logic 101, you're flunking geography as well.

Putnam: "The consequences of failure in Iraq read like a far-fetched war game, but I assure you they are quite real -- the inevitable incursion of Iranian and Syrian combatants into the country, the threat to peaceful Arab states, and the further emboldening of Hamas and Hezbollah."

You said it. And that end result became possible the day George Bush embarked upon his invasion of a country that did not threaten US security. If I, along with many other observers, could at the time sit in Lakeland, Florida (your congressional district, far removed from the military geniuses in the White House) and predict the consequences of blowing the doors open to hell, where was your head - and where has it been for four long years? Why should I trust your judgment on anything - especially Iraq? Why should Congress give an idiot free rein to further "surge" the catastrophe he created?

And why, congressman, don't you have the guts to put the blame for failure on those who created and implemented the failed policies - not those who were right all along, and those who have inherited the monumental, perhaps impossible, task of stopping the Middle East from spinning further out of control?

Putnam: "So we have arrived at one of those muddy historical crossroads: will we continue to take the fight to the enemy or will we fall back and hope the enemy does not pursue?"

Name one Iraqi involved in 9/11. There are none, so stop the lies. We invaded their country, remember?

Putnam: "Time was, politics stopped at the water's edge - but no longer it seems."

That time was before the Bush gang and their echo-chamber in the Republican Congress cynically and shamefully politicized foreign policy in every way imaginable - even to impugning the patriotism of anyone with the good sense to question Bush's irresponsible policies.

In your arrogance before last November's elections, you foolishly believed that Republican power was not only absolute, but permanent. How sad for this country that, since 9/11, your party has behaved, for crass political advantage, with flagrant disregard for truth and integrity.

And, with your speech today, the game, as you call it yourself, continues - while better men and women than you continue to shed their blood for your mistakes.

Putnam: "This week's discussion should be about the way through, not the way back."

You're 32 years old, congressman. Men older - and younger - than you are dying every day in Iraq.

Make "the way through" more than idle rhetoric: Put your ass where your ideology is.

Bush family members linked to options lawsuits

WASHINGTON - President Bush's uncle William H.T. "Bucky" Bush was among directors of a defense contractor who together reaped $6 million from what federal regulators say was an illegal five-year scheme by two company executives to manipulate the timing of stock option grants, court documents show.

The youngest brother of former President George H.W. Bush, he is the second Bush family member whose name has surfaced in stock options scandals this month. [....]

Last week in an unrelated case, Marvin Bush, the current president's youngest brother, was named as a defendant in a suit charging that officers and directors of HCC Insurance Holdings benefited from backdated options.

Marvin Bush, now an advisory director, was a director when some of the backdated options were issued. According to the complaint, Marvin Bush made $2.2 million on the questioned options. The class action was filed in U.S. District Court in Houston on behalf of HCC stockholders.

• Bush's uncle and brother linked to separate options lawsuits

NOTE: I hesitated in adding this report to the blog. After all, it may be news but it's hardly surprising.

Honesty doesn't top the list of Bush family traits.

Comment of the day

"There is only one fitting place for the George W. Bush memorial library, glorious downtown Baghdad - and that's not Baghdad, Fla."

• Stan Friedmann, Letter to Lakeland Ledger
• Commentary: Dubya's half-billion dollar Tower of Babel

Business, Washington style

WASHINGTON - In June, officials at the General Services Administration were short of people to process cases of incompetence and fraud by federal contractors, and they responded with what has become the government's reflexive answer to almost every problem.

They hired another contractor.

Without a public debate or formal policy decision, contractors have become a virtual fourth branch of government. On the rise for decades, spending on federal contracts has soared during the Bush administration, to about $400 billion last year from $207 billion in 2000, fueled by the war in Iraq, domestic security and Hurricane Katrina, but also by a philosophy that encourages outsourcing almost everything government does.

• Competition, intended to produce savings, appears to have sharply eroded. An analysis by The New York Times shows that fewer than half of all "contract actions" — new contracts and payments against existing contracts — are now subject to full and open competition.


• The top 20 service contractors have spent nearly $300 million since 2000 on lobbying and have donated $23 million to political campaigns.


• The biggest federal contractor, Lockheed Martin, which has spent $53 million on lobbying and $6 million on donations since 2000, gets more federal money each year than the justice or energy departments.


• Contracting almost always leads to less public scrutiny, as government programs are hidden behind closed corporate doors.


• Companies, unlike agencies, are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

A just-completed study by experts appointed by the White House and Congress, the Acquisition Advisory Panel, found that the trend "poses a threat to the government's long-term ability to perform its mission" and could "undermine the integrity of the government's decision making."

• Private contractors outnumber federal employees

Single misstep could trigger war with Iran

Not to worry: 'the great decider' never missteps

BAGHDAD - Citing Iranian involvement with Iraqi militias and Tehran's nuclear ambitions, the Bush administration has shifted to offense in its confrontation with Iran - building up the U.S. military in the Persian Gulf and promising more aggressive moves against Iranian operatives in Iraq and Lebanon.

The behind-the-scenes struggle between the two nations could explode into open warfare over a single misstep, analysts and U.S. military officials warn. [....]

As the rhetoric grows more strident, a U.S. military official in the Gulf likened the U.S.-Iran standoff to the buildup in hostility in Europe before the First World War, when the assassination of the heir to the Austrian throne triggered a war that engulfed a continent.

"A mistake could be made and you could end up in something that neither side ever really wanted, and suddenly it's August 1914 all over again," the U.S. officer said on condition of anonymity. [....]

In Tehran, political analyst Hermidas Bavand said U.S. force increases are leading many Iranians to believe Washington is looking to pick a fight.

"It's an extremely dangerous situation," Bavand said.

"I don't think Tehran wants war under any circumstances. But there might be an accidental event that could escalate into a large confrontation."

• U.S.-Iran tensions could trigger war (Jim Krane, AP)
• Oh yes, I'm the great decider

How business is done in Washington

WASHINGTON — President Bush has signed a directive that gives the White House much greater control over the rules and policy statements that the government develops to protect public health, safety, the environment, civil rights and privacy.

In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the president’s priorities. [....]



Besides placing political appointees in charge of rule making, Mr. Bush said agencies must give the White House an opportunity to review “any significant guidance documents” before they are issued. [....]

Consumer, labor and environmental groups denounced the executive order, saying it gave too much control to the White House and would hinder agencies’ efforts to protect the public. [....]

Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said: “The executive order allows the political staff at the White House to dictate decisions on health and safety issues, even if the government’s own impartial experts disagree. This is a terrible way to govern, but great news for special interests.”

Business groups hailed the initiative.

• Bush directive increases sway on regulation (Robert Pear)

Will the war based on lies never end?

Today, as every day, the news is not encouraging . . .

Do Blair and Bush deserve anyone's trust?

The British Government's case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Prime Minister Tony Blair lied about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

An attack on Blair's justification by Carne Ross, Britain's key negotiator at the United Nations, has been under wraps because he was threatened with being charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act.

Ross, 40, makes it clear Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no WMDs. He said that during his posting to the UN, "at no time did HMG [Her Majesty's Government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests".

He also reveals British officials warned US diplomats that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to chaos.

• Excuse for war blown apart
• Saddam 'never a threat to UK', inquiry told

Are the Geneva Conventions "quaint"?

The Pentagon called them "among the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth," sweeping them up after Sept. 11 and hauling them in chains to a U.S. military prison in southeastern Cuba.

Since then, hundreds of the men have been transferred from Guantanamo Bay to other countries, many of them for "continued detention."

And then set free.

Decisions by more than a dozen countries in the Middle East, Europe and South Asia to release the former Guantanamo detainees raise questions about whether they were really as dangerous as the United States claimed, or whether some of America's staunchest allies have set terrorists and militants free.

• Majority of Gitmo Detainees Freed in Other Countries
• Memorandum on the Geneva Conventions
• Outsourcing torture

Will Bush gamble more lives on false hopes?

Military planners and White House budget analysts have been asked to provide President Bush with options for increasing American forces in Iraq by 20,000 or more. The request indicates that the option of a major "surge" in troop strength is gaining ground as part of a White House strategy review, senior administration officials said Friday.

Officials said that the options being considered included the deployment of upwards of 50,000 additional troops, but that the political, training and recruiting obstacles to an increase larger than 20,000 to 30,000 troops would be prohibitive.

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, said during a visit to Baghdad this week that American military commanders were discussing the possibility of adding as many as 10 more combat brigades - a maximum of about 35,000 troops - to establish some of control while Iraq's divided political leaders seek solutions to the mounting violence.

• Options Sought for Surge in US Troops

Can McCain win by playing the blame game?

"Straight talking" John McCain's call for thousands more troops in Iraq is just a pathetic ploy to seem like a patriot for the presidential elections.

McCain wants this stupid, pointless, sucker's war to drag on, maybe even get worse. He needs something to rescue us from. He can't win without it. And hey, what's a few thousand more corpses if it means he gets to be president?

• John McCain's Shameless Call for Escalation in Iraq
• Dear John: Get help

Are "establishment" warnings too little too late?

Former Defense Secretary William Perry, a member of the Iraq Study Group, said Saturday that Iraq could turn into a "quagmire" if the Bush administration fails to change strategy.

• Ex-Defense Chief Warns on Iraq Direction

Will dissenting soldiers be labeled "cut'n run" losers?

For the first time since Vietnam, an organized, robust movement of active-duty US military personnel has publicly surfaced to oppose a war in which they are serving. Those involved plan to petition Congress to withdraw American troops from Iraq.

• About Face: Soldiers Call for Iraq Withdrawal

The party's over

Bush administration relies on fear and lies

STATESBORO, Ga. -- The gay-marriage theme became a staple in Bush's political remarks last Thursday, the day after the New Jersey ruling on a touchstone issue for religious conservatives who are crucial to Republican electoral calculations.

White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said it was added merely to respond to the ruling - not because his other messages were failing to connect. - Bush Hits Hard at Gay Marriage

Which do you fear most?

a) The next-door lesbian couple with the dream of protecting their family with a legal document?

b) George Bush and Dick Cheney with the dream of ruling the world?

c) The Republican Congress with the dream of continuing their loyal support of a failed presidency?

d) A federal judiciary envisioned by James Dobson and Jerry Falwell?

Update, Nov. 7 -- Voters reject Republican fear tactics


Meet Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense and Supreme Minister for War Propaganda

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon is beefing up its public relations staff and starting an operation akin to a political campaign's war room as Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld faces intensifying criticism over the Iraq war and the public is increasingly disenchanted with the conflict.

In a memo obtained by the Associated Press, Dorrance Smith, assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, said new teams of people will "develop messages" for the 24-hour news cycle and "correct the record." - Pentagon to wage public relations war

Republicans have controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for several years. The Bush administration wields power over the FCC, public broadcasting and, through their corporate sponsors, much of the national media.

They also have a history of using taxpayer money to elicit political support from religious groups, to reward dishonest and unethical journalists in the US, and to buy "good news" from fake reporters in Iraq.

Despite their massive public relations machine, they have been unable to fool all the people all the time. Now they are adding one last weapon to their propaganda arsenal -- the complete politicisation of the military.

Bush and Kim: Interchangeable action figures?

Had George W. Bush and Kim Jong Il been switched at birth, would the world be different today?

Would Kim as US president have stampeded his country into a preemptive war? Would Bush as North Korea's leader, fearing a US invasion, have taken a high risk gamble to build nuclear deterrence?

Would Bush and Kim, as leaders of different countries, behave differently? Or would they abuse their powers at home and thumb their noses at the international community?

• North Korean leader hailed by media at home, reviled abroad
  
• What about anti-American views after Bush and Iraq?

Happy Independence Day

Rain Lily

"From the sublime to the ridiculous..."

Tom Toles, Washington Post

Ain't he sweet?

Tony Snow: Apr 21, 2006, "We need a pause button for the insult industry."

Not so long ago, Mr. Snow's i-Pod was booming with FAUXy me-Tunes -- dismissing Democrats as "reduced to a state of unshakable hysteria" and faulting their "righteous ignorance." Democratic leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were the "wheezy prophets of the Defeatocrat Party."

But that was then; this is now. No hard feelings. Look to the future. What's your plan?

So, I ask, kindly of course, and with all due apologies to Milton Ager, Jack Yellen, and The Beatles . . .

Ain't He Sweet?
Oh ain't he sweet
Well Tony's walking down that street
For a Snow job on Pennsylvania Avenue
Ain't he sweet?

Now ain't he nice
Put your criticism on the ice
Tony's full-time job is to save the president's
Ain't he sweet?

Just cast an eye
In his direction
And hit the pause
On his connection.

Oh name that tune
A happy song to fight the gloom
He's a show man changing hats for the president
Ain't he sweet?

Oh ain't he sweet
Well don't you think it's kind of neat
To divert reality checks from Republicans
Ain't he sweet?

Oh ain't he sweet
Can the Snow man take the heat
And if all we want is more hypocrisy
Ain't he sweet?

Oh yes, I'm the Great Decider

"I read that we were running focus groups to determine who the vice president ought to be. Forget it; it's not happening," he said. "I'm a good decider." (George W. Bush, June 17, 2000)

We face "an adversary that poses a threat, [a] serious threat, to the security of the United States of America"-- one that "attempts to impose its demands across time zones, continents, oceans, and beyond. With brutal consistency, it stifles free thought and crushes new ideas. It disrupts the defense of the United States and places the lives of men and women in uniform at risk. It's the Pentagon bureaucracy." (Donald Rumsfeld, Sept. 10, 2001)

"I'm the decider, and I decide what's best." (George W. Bush, April 17, 2006)

The Great Decider
Tune from "The Great Pretender" by the Platters
Lyrics by me

Oh yes, I'm the Great Decider
Pretending that I'm doing well;
In my need to play butch, I decide too much
I'm sending the country to hell.

Oh yes, I'm the Great Decider
Adrift in a world of my own;
I never played the game, and to my dying shame
Sent others to die far from home.

(Booo-hooo)

Too real is this feeling of lordliness;
Too real when I feel what secrets can't conceal.

Oh yes, I'm the Great Decider
Dick Cheney and I share the crown;
When I heard duty call, my conscience went AWOL;
I'm fondling Karl's playbook like a clown
Deciding, keeping Rummy around.

(Oooo-wooo)

Too real is this feeling of make believe;
Too real when I feel what these beady eyes conceal.

Oh-oh ye-esh, I'm the Great Divider (woo-woo)
Still smirking as better men die;
The illness found in me is easy now to see --
Delusions still bringing me down
Pretending I'm wearing a crown
Deciding while I'm still around.

_____
Update, April 25: In surfing the web today, I discovered at least three versions of "The Decider." Can't say whether it's a case of "great minds running together," but when I revised the lyrics to "The Great Pretender," I had no knowledge of the others.

At least one of the versions is dated before mine, and I have no way of knowing whether it was backdated (both were cached by Google two days after my blog entry). Versions of other songs have also appeared in recent days -- the subject matter obviously lends himself to parody. C'est la vie.

Corporate media quick to excuse 'leaker-in-chief'

This week we learned that "Scooter" Libby's leaks were approved by none other than the president himself. Has anyone noticed how quickly the press brushed off any suggestion of George Bush's legal culpability?

We expect hard-core Republicans and self-appointed religious leaders (and John McCain) to rush to the president's defense -- but we can hope for a higher standard from the professional, unbiased press corps, right?

Maybe not.

After all, corporate bosses pay the salaries of our blow-dried practitioners of a "free press" -- those lusty voices who cheered the loudest for war in 2002 and 2003; who tussled for resume-enhancing positions of imbededness with the invading American troops; who peed their pants in hilarity at the wit and wisdom of Rummy's every rumination; and who gushed at every "shock and awe" explosion over Iraq -- all while thousands of innocents died at the hands of George Bush.

Now, no big surprise, we see the so-called liberal press proclaim, ad nauseum, that Bush has broken no laws, and that "no one is even accusing him" of ignoring the law. They describe the president's involvement in the CIA-gate scandal as nothing more than a really, really, big ol' political misstep that makes the president look oh-so bad because of his "perceived hypocrisy" (but mainly because the Iraq war is so going poorly, they deduce in their collective wisdom).

The public is expected to believe that Mr. Bush, out of necessity, leaked only to inform us of everything we ever needed to know to support his grand adventure. Anyone who questions his motives was, and is, according to mouthpiece Scottie, "playing crass politics."

To Bush supporters (and much of the press, evidently) it's not illegal -- it's not even "crass politics" -- that the president cherrypicked the intelligence he used to mislead the country into war, then secretly dispensed even more "selected" intelligence in a plot calculated to discredit and destroy anyone who questioned his previous misuse of intelligence.

Excuse me. What could possibly be more crass -- even illegal -- than that?

To say the leaked material was no longer classified at the time of its leaking -- because the president had given his boys permission to do, in secret, whatever was necessary to discredit his critics -- is a distinction without a difference. By that logic, leaking classified information is, in itself, the act of declassification. The public release, several days later, of a token amount of previously classified material ("laundered" for political effect, as usual) was nothing more than a smokescreen to provide legal cover, retroactively, to the leaker-in-chief and his team of tricksters.

Let's face it: Mr. Libby was not flying solo when he dribbled the president's leakage all over Washington. An expert on intelligence matters and government secrecy, Mr. Libby would not have taken lightly the prospect of losing his reputation and being dragged off to prison. He would not have committed perjury simply to cover up the leaking of insignificant amounts of supposedly harmless data that the president had already declassified.

Libby's behavior, and that of his bosses in feigning outrage at their own leaks, in allowing a reporter to spend months in jail, and in leaving Libby exposed to criminal charges, suggests that our current knowledge of improper conduct and its coverup hardly scratches the surface of embarrassing, unethical, and illegal activities of the president and his inner circle.

If this scandal was an isolated event for the Bush administration, perhaps people could be fooled one more time. It is not.

Three questions:

1. Where are the heads of the 35% of Americans still giving George Bush high marks for job performance?
2. Does that blind support include the heads of corporate media?
3. Does anyone need help answering questions 1 and 2?

W. hits the gyroscope; Libby eats the yellow cake

"In shocking news today, the New York Sun reports that Scooter Libby was authorized by none other than President Bush to leak critical Iraq intelligence to The New York Times. The latest dope in the Plame Affair, according to Libby's grand jury testimony, was from a highly classified 'National Intelligence Estimate' and was given to a Times reporter in 2003."

• Bush: Hands possibly as dirty as Scooter Libby's
• Bush authorized leak to Times, Libby told Grand Jury

Shocking news? Hardly. We need not have been prophetical to have foreseen the downfall of the Bush administration. All it took was an elementary understanding of their motivation and their willingness -- their eagerness -- to grab power through lies, dirty tricks and a complete lack of integrity.

Here's what I wrote August 27, 2005:

Independent Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's upcoming report on the Plame affair may pin the bush administration's neck to the mat for the count -- and all within a court of law.

Are we watching an administration in its "last throes?" No one knows for certain where Fitzgerald's investigation has led him, or what the Grand Jury findings will reveal to the world, but after watching Judith Miller being carted off to jail, a handful of co-conspirators in the White House may soon be croaking like a bullfrog at a Skull and Bones initiation.

I can't imagine a scenario in which the president and vice-president themselves are not culpable, either by commission of a crime or dereliction of duty. The simple fact remains: even if they knew nothing of the illegal leaking of a CIA operative's identity before the fact, they most certainly would have been informed after the leaks were publicized -- had they wanted to know -- faster than the yellow cake could hit the gyroscope.

And, on October 11, 2005, I added:

Heading the list, Bush and Rove have a long history of dirty tricks. They, along with their partners in crime Cheney, Libby, Rice and Bolton, always play to win, however high the gamble or illegal the means. By lying about the reasons to take the country to war, for instance, they thumbed their noses, "big time," at the rule of law. Domestic politics (Bush as war leader), oil (Iraq had it), and the neocons' global strategy (PNAC advocacy explains it), hitched and drove the White House wagon. Ambassador Wilson's report destroyed part of their rationale for rushing to war, so as usual when challenged, they called upon their most trusted allies in the press to discredit the challenger.

Bob Novak, always the toady to a good Republican smear, outed Plame, and other reporters gave cover to traitors within the administration who were illegally peddling classified information. Judith "CIA" Miller, from her perch at the NY Times, had already, in an effort to advance the administration's case for war, relied on unsubstantiated claims of stockpiled WMD's. Her "reliable" sources? Chalabi and others working for the Bush administration. No wonder her intelligence remained secret. Miller was willing to spend time in prison to protect herself and her sources from wide-ranging testimony before a grand jury. Whose interest was she putting first -- the country's or the criminals'?

Jeff Gannon, not a real journalist but a male prostitute playing reporter online (and playing who-knows-what in the White House) claimed, then changed his story, that he had seen classified CIA documents identifying Valerie Plame. Ari Fleischer, Bush's press secretary at the time and a Bush insider, announced his retirement in May 2003 but denied having seen the secret documents. Harriet Miers was another FOG. What did she see and when did she see it? The reward for her loyalty? Uhh... don't ask.

In the end, all the reporters sang: call it the Plame Cantata. Several members of the band -- Rove, Cheney, Libby, Bolton, and possibly others -- may, and I believe will, be indicted by month's end.

Time will tell whether they are able to protect the president himself. Either way, "Bring'em on" Bush will be the biggest loser since Nixon. And rightfully so. The cure for "criminalization of politics" is to take the criminals out of politics -- in leg irons if necessary.

George W. Bush -- wrong then, wrong now

Three years after he invaded Iraq, the 'great war leader' is still wrong.


This month the Bush administration and its supporters celebrate the third anniversary of their war on Iraq.

Their clumsy attempts to revise history prompted me to review my own words from pre-war 2003.

In the months leading up to the war, I posted several rebuttals in response to pro-Bush, pro-war rhetoric coming from members of a family website I had belonged to at the time.

This is one of my longer comments, not appreciated by everyone at the time:

Posted: Friday, February 21, 2003
Subject: Bush foreign policy

George Bush is managing foreign affairs like an elephant in a china shop. Even our strongest ally, the British, are convinced that he is a bigger threat to world peace than either Iraq or North Korea. I think the Bush Team should stop trying to manipulate the world to their own political ends. Bush should fire his war hawk advisers, most of whom managed to avoid battle themselves -- and fire his shoot-from-the-hip War Secretary Rumsfeld -- then replace them with people with some ability to lead the world in keeping Saddam in the cage we've created for him.

Few people in the world believe that Saddam could invade a 7-11 outside the borders of Iraq without being blown to smithereens. For Bush to pretend otherwise, and to spend the past 18 months trying to tie Saddam to 9/11, is part of the reason that so many in the world are afraid of the unbridled power of the United States and Bush's proclaimed new doctrine of "preemption." (The Democrats who rolled over and gave W. practically everything he wanted don't deserve a pass, either.)

I agree that Saddam Hussein would be a threat to his neighbors if he remained unchecked, just as he was in the 1980's when we were assisting him in his war against Iran. But I also believe that he can be contained, and that the real threat to our safety and welfare is El Qaeda and other well-organized terrorist groups that are being ignored in other countries. We must concentrate on our real enemy, terrorism, and we can only accomplish that with the world's support. Saddam is not Hitler, and his tanks are not rolling across Europe. He's not even Kim Jong Il, who has a nuclear program and missiles to deliver the goods (just one more example of what the bumbling name-calling and refusal to use diplomacy got for us).

One has to marvel that in the 18 months following 9/11, we went from a country with the good will of the entire world to the country whose leader is considered the greatest threat to world peace. We need friends in our fight against terrorism, not more distrust of our leaders and their motives.

The way I see it, Osama bin "dead-or-alive" Laden (oddly, never mentioned any more by our president), is a step ahead of us. Surely bin Laden must favor our impending invasion of Iraq. We will be taking out a secular Arab leader that he despises, creating more hatred for America within the Arab world, and destabilizing the Middle East further, including his home, Saudi Arabia -- his plan to perfection. What happens when war begins? Let's say Israel is provoked to join the fight; or maybe Pakistan or India, with their nuclear weapons, will follow our example of preemption in their own dispute; perhaps one or two Arab governments are weakened and religious fanatics gain power.

After we take Baghdad in about 10 minutes, how long will our soldiers remain there, open to attack from terrorists, while our "friends" are perfectly content to allow us to bear the burden? All Osama has to do is sit back for a while, check the landscape, and grow stronger -- with our assistance. He knows that if his plan of terrorism is to succeed, he has to weaken our economy further and keep Americans living in fear.

Of course we all hope for the promised "best case" scenario when we invade -- cheering in the streets and democracy all over the Middle East -- but shouldn't we allow the time to build consensus before opening Pandora's box on our own? War should be the last resort, and much can be done before we are forced into using that option. Because of the offensive boastfulness of Bush, Cheny, Rumsfeld, et al, we need to take the time to undo the damage to our image abroad before we can bring the world around.

As for me, I'll believe that Saddam poses a grave and imminent threat to the United States when I see the Bush children dressed in battle fatigues. If the threat from Iraq is as great as we are told, surely George and Jeb can convince their own children to assume their patriotic duty.

That being said, I am not a peacenik, an appeaser, or any of the other derogatory terms that have been resurrected from the Cold War to describe anyone who disagrees with war now. I support war when our country is at risk -- and I support our military people at all times -- and unlike George Bush, I actually completed my military obligation.

That is exactly why I support an all-out response to terrorism. War with Iraq, under the present conditions, makes us less safe in the years to come. Just my opinion.

Bush's approval rating hits new low

WASHINGTON (AP) -- More and more people, particularly Republicans, disapprove of President Bush's performance, question his character and no longer consider him a strong leader against terrorism, according to an AP-Ipsos poll documenting one of the bleakest points of his presidency.

What took'em so long, and where are the heads of the other third?