The Disrespectors

The Bush administration and republican members in Congress can be summed up with one word, disrespect. They claim to be conservatives or in Mark Kirk's case, moderate conservatives, but what they really are is disrespectful.

Karl Rove is disrespective of the electorate when he plays his dirty tricks.

John Ashcroft was disrespectful of people whose beliefs are different than his when he cloaked the statue of Blind Justice (how symbolic of the Justice Department under Bush).

The military was disrespectful of Jessica Lynch and Lori Piestewa when they tried to change the story of Jessica's rescue and Lori's death to make better PR.

The military was disrespectful of Pat Tillman and his family when they tried to change the story of the circumstances of his death to make it better PR (see a theme forming here?).

The military, the administration and congressional republicans were disrespectful of the troops they claim to support when they under armed, under protected and under trained them for their work in Iraq and again disrespectful when they took away veterans benefits and neglected to provide support for military families, and again disrespectful when they mistreated the injured at Walter Reed Hospital and then Bush was even further disrespectful when he used them this week for a photo op.

Bush and his republican congress, were particularly disrespectful of people with religious different beliefs when they used Terri Schiavo as a political tool to engage the religious extremist right (also disrespectful of Michael Schiavo and Terri's parents whose grief they used)

Bush was disrespectful of people of different religious beliefs when he vetoed the stem cell research bill.

Bush, Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Powell, Scooter et. al. were disrespectful of the American people and people of the world when they lied to make the intelligence fit the policy to justify an invasion Iraq.

Mark Kirk was disrespectful of Congress, the district and the country when he got on the House floor and spread the lies to gain support for the war resolution and further disrespectful of the voters in the district when he said he was in the know on the Iraq intelligence in his debates with Hank Perritt.

republican lobbyists like Jack Abramoff and the congressmen who took from them were disrespectful of Congress and the American people as they turned our government into a marketplace for the wealthy and connected.

The republican and religious right are disrespectful of people of other beliefs and faiths when they smear people who try to bring out the truth, disrespectful of both the truth tellers like Max Cleland, John Murtha, Joe and Valerie Wilson, and the listening audience who they think will buy anything they dish out.

Alberto Gonzales was and continues to be disrespectful of the American people as he lies about his involvement in the firing for political reasons of US Attorneys and expects us to buy his ever changing and intentionally confusing story.

republicans and their corporate campaign contributors who work to stop government regulation of industry are disrespectful of the American people and now even our pets when they foist bad and sometimes even deadly products on us.

The Bush administration is disrespectful of our government, our people, our country, our Constitution and everything we stand for and have ever stood for when they use the entire US goverment as nothing but republican party fundraising and campaign headquarters. This is truly the story of the Bush administraton and the republicans in Congress who knew about it and let it go on because it benefitted them.

Harry And Louise In Our Television Sets

You might have seen the commercials. There's one that runs all the time about how the mean old Illinois Legislature isn't allowing competition in cable. That's the one running for the folks who have the bucks to spend, AT&T. The other runs less frequently and just outright tells AT&T to stop complaining and compete like everyone else. So, what's it all about?

Illinois House Bill 1500, the Cable and Video Competition Law of 2007 backed by AT&T. Don't you just love the names of bills these days. They should be required by law to stick to numbers. Anyway, HB 1500 is about control of the public right of ways within which the easements for the cable lines run and control over the negotiation of the franchising agreements. There is a pretty good explanation in this article in the Riverside/Brookfield Landmark, but basically AT&T does not want to be required to negotiate these rights with every municipality. They want the state to take over all negotiations now handled at the local level so they can obtain rights for the entire state at once.

The concerns are technological, economical, social and political. Once concern is that AT&T will be able to skip serving lower income communities. Another is the loss of revenue to municipalities from these franchise agreements with local cable companies and yet another involves the size and location of the larger sized utility boxes AT&T would use.

The argument in favor of the bill is that it will create more competition by removing exclusive franchises that some companies have with some municipalities.

Mary McKittrick, the Geneva, IL assistant city administrator said this:

But it's not about competition. It's about companies bullying their way into the marketplace. It's about eminent domain; it's about not committing to universal coverage.

Eminent domain is the power of the state to seize a citizen's private property. Ms. McKittrick's comment about eminent domain is that the bill will allow the state to take away from the municipalities their right to grant easements (or not) over their public rights of way to the cable companies.

It's time to let your state rep know your feelings about this bill. I don't claim to be an expert in this area, but it seems to me, the last time I was told I needed to favor giving large telecom companies additional rights and freedoms in order to create competition, my telephone and cable bill went up and the quality of the product went down. This might be another Harry and Louise and this time on our television sets and in our television sets.

Mark Kirk is on the defense

Thanks to Prairie State Blue for this info about Mark Kirk's seat being on the GOP priority defense list.

Two different points of view of the world today

I'm not against folks having a good time, but reading these two stories one after the other gave me the heebie jeebies:

1. The heartbreaking blogs from Iraq that Bush didn't read today.

2. President Bush's Comedy Routine Draws Laughs At 63rd Annual Correspondents' Dinner and Rove raps at correspondents dinner.

Center for American Progress Calls For A New Iran Strategy: Contain and Engage

I think we can all agree that Iran obtaining nuclear capabilities is a problem that must be resolved. It's just the way to resolve the matter that puts us at odds. As I see it, we can continue war games and fake tough guy rhetoric designed to increase tensions, cause Iranian leaders to close ranks around extremists, accelerate their enrichment program and start another war like we did in Iraq (because that went so well), or we can approach Iran in a more intelligent way and maybe have some success in disarming them, and bringing them back into the world community.

Joseph Cirincione and Andrew J. Grotto of the Center for American Progress studied the issue and released this report. They suggest a strategy they call Contain and Engage, a plan of "decisive diplomacy to roll back Iran’s nuclear programs." Here's the nutshell description of the plan:

The contain-and-engage strategy offers the best hope for slowing Iran’s nuclear efforts, testing Iran’s willingness to trade nuclear weapons capabilities in exchange for a fundamentally different relationship with the United States, and hedging against the failure of diplomatic efforts. The chief goal of this policy is to end Iran’s uranium enrichment program.

As part of the Contain and Engage strategy, Cirincione and Grotto suggest we work to delay the Iranian enrichment program to prevent them from gaining the ability to hide their activities and abilities and to create a timeframe for negotiation and appeal to more mainstream forces in Iran.

The key proposals made by Cirincione and Grotto are:

• Isolating Iran as long as it continues with its nuclear enrichment efforts;
• Preserving the unity of the UN Security Council and other nations engaged in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program;
• Maintaining international and national sanctions, however limited, for the pressure they bring on the Iranian economy;
• Restricting Iran’s access to nuclear and missile technologies;
• Breaking the diplomatic stalemate over Iran’s defiance of the Security Council’s demand to suspend enrichment, including direct dialogue with Iran;
• Investing in new diplomatic infrastructure, both security- and nonproliferation- related, across the Middle East in order to engage and contain Iran and to provide assurances to key U.S. allies that the United States remains committed to their security;
• Preparing smart military options to thwart any offensive Iranian military activities;
• Engaging Iran economically, beginning with the gasoline refinery sector;
• Creating a regional nuclear fuel bank consortium under IAEA leadership;
• Laying the diplomatic groundwork for a long-term strategy of containing Iran should negotiations break down.

You can watch Cirincione and Grotto explain their strategy here.

The Contain and Engage plan makes more sense than the Bush strategy which has only strengthened Iran's resolve to move forward with their nuclear program. One problem that I see with the plan is that isolating Iran even further serves only to isolate its people from the rest of the world and that could create a bunker us against the world atmosphere that could cause more damage and that leads me to remember that we might not even be where we are with Iran had the Bush administration taken its 2003 peace talk and concession offer seriously.

War Games

Mired in multiple scandals at home and bogged down in an unwinnable quagmire of a civil war in Iraq, convinced a neighboring country that could have been an ally to elect a lunatic as its leader with careless rhetoric,the Bush administration has a new idea:

"Let's have war games!"

Don't think they are baiting Iran? Think they are but think that's a good thing? Don't have a problem that AIPAC pressured congress to vote against requiring the President to go to congress for Iran War authority?

The case is already being made. Here's a prediction. Congress is still too weak and scared to take a stand. Bush might see it as an opportunity for ultimate vindication for himself and his administration and it is pretty clear that is more important to him than the security of the US.

Mark Paul talks about McCain's Comment that Americans can walkd freely in Baghdad

I was just listening to the take on this on Anderson Cooper. The take was that McCain is so out of touch they are laughing at him in the military. Sorry I didn't catch the name of the guest (just got home), but it will be on his transcript tomorrow probably. Sometimes people lie so much that they no longer have a concept of truth.

Mark Paul (again) did the honors of writing the post:

McCain tells CNN's Wolf Blitzer that Gen. Petraeus is riding around Baghdad in an unarmored Humvee and that there are neighborhoods where Americans can walk freely.

Blitzer is dubious, so he arranges a videoconference with Michael Ware, a correspondent in CNN's Baghdad bureau, from where he's reported for several years.

Let's listen in on their chat.

Before intellectual acuity, before persuasive skills, a politician must first have the simple ability to observe reality. McCain fails the test. It doesn't matter how great he is to hang out with during those bus trips. He's not capable of leading this government.

Next?

GAO Report Re Munitions Dumps in Iraq

Below is Mark Paul's report on unguarded munitions dumps in Iraq. Makes me wonder why republicans tolerate an administration so weak on defense when they claim it is so important to them. I also wonder if the politics of keeping the consequences of the war limited to a few rural Americans was so important to their political strategy that they'd risk our national security strategy and our country neighbors who are disproportionately serving and dying in Iraq.

GAO Report Re Munitions Dumps in Iraq

by Mark Paul

About half of all U.S. combat fatalities and casualties in Iraq have been caused by IEDs made with looted munitions, according to testimony by Davi M. D'Agostino, Director of Defense Capabilities and Management at GAO before the National Security subcommittee of the House Oversight Committee.

These weren’t hidden caches. The military captured the weapons and ammunition, but failed to properly secure them. At just one site, 380 tons of conventional weapons and explosives simply disappeared. Ever since Baghdad fell, Bush declared “Mission Accomplished,” and the real war began, the Iraqis have been using Saddam’s almost endless supply of artillery shells and other ordnance to blow up just about anything that rolls.

“DOD had insufficient troop levels to secure these sites because of prewar planning priorities and certain assumptions that proved to be invalid,” according to the GAO.

When the GAO inspectors visited Iraq in October, 2006 to collect information for their report, they found some of the storage sites still exist and are still vulnerable.

GAO modestly suggests that “the Secretary of Defense direct the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to (1) conduct a theaterwide survey and risk assessment on unsecured conventional munitions in Iraq, (2) report related risk mitigation strategies and results to Congress, and (3) incorporate conventional munitions storage site security as a strategic planning factor into all levels of planning policy and guidance. DOD partially concurred with our recommendations. Some remote sites have not been revisited to verify if they pose any residual risk nor have they been physically secured.”

In the meantime, our troops are caught in the middle of a civil war in which no faction suffers from a scarcity of arms and ammunition.

The military wrote detailed histories of the German and Japanese occupations, so it understands the obvious: the first step in a military occupation is to disarm the population, not allow thousands of tons of small arms, ammunition and high explosives to disperse into the population. The insight seems to have escaped Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. And perhaps Bremer’s bright young staffers from the Heritage Institute’s intern program thought it was important to introduce the Second Amendment into Iraq’s political culture, along with the flat tax and other right-wing hobby horses.

D’Agostino’s testimony is here: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07639t.pdf

h/t to Kevin Drum at www.washingtonmonthly.com and www.proctoringcongress.blogspot.com
—Mark Paul

Another reason to consider the 100 mile diet

Thought I was nuts for recommending the 100 mile diet, knowing who produces your food and skipping the middleman? Watch this link and thank my mom for the info (but don't watch this while you are eating or you won't want to thank mom).

Spring is a great time to start a 100 mile diet. Click on the 100 mile diet link above to find out how.

President for 51% no 45% no 35% no 30% no 29% of Americans

It is no surprise that the Attorney General fired perfectly good US Attorneys based on loyalty to the Bush administration. From the beginning of his term, George W. Bush made it clear that he was only president for those who unquestioningly supported him. Everyone else was supposed to shut the h*ll up. Ari Fleischer said it right after 9/11 and we've heard it ever since in a variety of arenas from stem cell research, tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, abortion rights, support for the troops, support for Israel, non-regulation of corporations and the products they sell us to automatic weapon ownership. If you disagree with Bush you don't support the troops, are anti-semitic, are a baby killer, are re-interpreting the constitution etc. etc. Bush's opinion is the only opinion.

So, it's also no surprise that Bush only surrounds himself with true believers or those willing to sell themselves out as such. This goes so far as to exclude people who may disagree with him from events such as taxpayer funded townhall meetings. Kirk excludes as many as he can with limited advertisement, carefully chosen venues and lack of free question and answer periods, but Bush has gone so far as to have people with a disagreeing bumper sticker on a car ejected. Such an incident in Denver in 2005 has led to a lawsuit against three White House staffers. The bumber sticker in question said "No More Blood For Oil." The owner of same did nothing else to cause any incident or security problem. The allegations claim violations of the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution as plaintiffs were ejected solely for their viewpoint.

There was another incident in Boston where it is claimed that a republican volunteer impersonated an officer to eject people from the event because of a bumber sticker.

I think Bush is the first president to ever make it crystal clear that he is only the president for his supporters. The rest of us are supposed to fade into the background, work for his corporate buddies and, of course, shop. Problem for Bush is that with his ever dwindling approval rating, pretty soon he'll pretty much be president for himself, Laura, Alberto and a couple of commenters on this blog.

Spring Cleaning

Democat and I are spring cleaning today. (Actually, I'm spring cleaning and she's running away from the vacuum cleaner.) For all those who were concerned about her during the great catfood poisoning scare, she's ok and doesn't eat that type of food, but we are wondering why a brand of catfood advertised to be healthier is made out of the same stuff the cheap catfood is made of. It's probably just another example of unregulated corporate republican America.

Anyway, I don't have to say anything today, Bill Maher said all that needs to be said.

Hey Congress, it's time to do a little spring cleaning of the executive office...it's called impeachment.

Kirk Stands With Bush and Not the Troops (again)

Here's the roll call.

What happend to Kirk's comment “now I think we should look to winding up the mission.”

Oh Goody Goody Goody

Well, Bush, Kirk and lots of their followers who comment on this blog might get their way with this story, conveniently in Bush's favorite season for war (you just don't release a new product in August, do you?) and conveniently involving a UK and not a US ship. Apparently, some British marines were seized as they boarded a ship in the Gulf of...Tonkin... er... Persian Gulf.

The Axis of Evil strategy works. Rile up other nations with hard line rhetoric including them in a group designated as fair game, back it up with an unjustified invasion of another country in the designated group, make it easy for people who probably otherwise would not vote for their own hard line leaders with bad judgment, continue to bait them here and there and boost your presence in the area, and pretty soon, you get yourselves a war.

There's the added bonus of taking the country's attention away from criminal activity in the administration.

Bush and Rove must be jumping up and down with glee.

Rolling Stone Reports: Beyond Quagmire

Thanks to Mark Paul for putting this summary together from the Rolling Stone Article:

Rolling Stone, of all publications, assembled a panel of serious military, intelligence and diplomatic experts – including several who served at high levels under Bush I during the Gulf War – to discuss the prospects for Iraq and Iran over the next few years.

The panel included:

Zbigniew Brzezinski
National security adviser to President Carter

Richard Clarke
Counterterrorism czar from 1992 to 2003

Nir Rosen
Author of In the Belly of the Green Bird, about Iraq's spiral into civil war, speaking from Cairo, where he has been interviewing Iraqi refugees

Gen. Tony McPeak (retired)
Member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War

Bob Graham
Former chair, Senate Intelligence Committee

Chas Freeman
Ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War; president of the Middle East Policy Council

Paul Pillar
Former lead counterterrorism analyst for the CIA

Michael Scheuer
Former chief of the CIA?s Osama bin Laden unit; author of Imperial Hubris

Juan Cole
Professor of modern Middle East history at the University of Michigan

I doubt any of them wears a peace symbol medallion.

A few samples:

So what kind of government is Iraq most likely to be left with when all is said and done?
McPeak: A Shia dictatorship headed by some lieutenant colonel who we don't even know yet. It's a restoration of Saddam Hussein, except now he's Shia, and maybe he's in religious robes rather than a uniform.

So forget about democracy?
Pillar: Stability and lowering the bloodshed is the range of outcomes and expectations we ought to be talking about now, not looking for Switzerland on the Tigris or anything remotely resembling a liberal democracy. A Shia Saddam -- without nearly as much brutality, but still a strongman -- is actually one of the best hopes.
Chas Freeman: The most efficient way to avoid mass killings is to help the Shiites win fast, consolidate their damn dictatorship and get the hell out. The level of anarchy and hatred and emotional disturbance is such that it's very hard to imagine anything except a Saddam-style reign of terror succeeding in pacifying the place.

Where does that leave us with regard to Iran?
McPeak: Iran's influence will have been increased geometrically. We're already the losers in this, and now we become the big-time losers.

And for those who still think, against all evidence, that Bush and Kirk are good for Israel:
Where does that leave Israel?
Scheuer: The neoconservatives and their war in Iraq have made Israeli security worse than at any time since 1967. You'll see more and more people trying to launch attacks in Israel who are not Palestinian or Lebanese. None of it bodes well for a Middle East peace settlement.

The general wraps it up:
McPeak: This is a dark chapter in our history. Whatever else happens, our country's international standing has been frittered away by people who don't have the foggiest understanding of how the hell the world works. America has been conducting an experiment for the past six years, trying to validate the proposition that it really doesn't make any difference who you elect president. Now we know the result of that experiment [laughs]. If a guy is stupid, it makes a big difference.

The vast majority of Jews oppose the Iraq War and it's not just me saying it

Those charged with or self appointed to monitor this blog for any disagreement with pro-war positions of of AIPAC will jump down my throat for this one, but here's the article announcing "Jews Against the War” (JAW). It's yet another example that AIPAC, in its current state of supporting the Iraq and pending Iran wars, does not represent the majority of Jews.

They started out by taking a poll and found that 77% of American Jews oppose the Iraq war, even more opposition than in the general public. Here's a quote from the article:

"I know that many pulpit rabbis, myself included, have shied away from speaking out publicly against the war, in my case because it is safer to not talk about it, for fear of being divisive within the congregation," said Rabbi Joshua Levine Grater. "But, like the prophets of Israel, I can no longer take the 'safe' road. This war is wrong and it needs to end. Our country's moral voice in the world has vanished under the weight of torture, secret tribunals and occupation; our beloved Israel is in greater danger now, with Iran emboldened; and our nation's budget has been sacked, in large part to fund this war. As a student of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, I can no longer be silent on the war in Iraq."

This is interesting too:

As the war passed its fourth year Monday, grassroots pressure was mounting against a conflict that is profoundly unpopular - especially among Jews

The results of that pressure are evident in the Reform and Reconstructionist movements. Last week, the Union of Reform Judaism's executive committee demanded a timetable for a troop withdrawal from Iraq and opposed the "surge," the administration's deployment of an additional 30,000 troops.

The same week, the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association called for a "rapid and responsible" troop withdrawal.

Nothing else, no matter how much blogged by an anonymous commenter, ever made much sense to me based on what Grandma taught me about being Jewish when I was a young girl, and every Jew knows how important it is to listen to his or her Grandma.

Why do I keep writing about this? Because I believe that having Jewish voices heard in the world is important and we need to keep the world aware of the real issues of anti-semitism and keep working to end it. To do that, we have to make sure those claiming to speak for us are careful in their alliances, speak truth and sense, and really do speak for us.

Lying as policy

UPDATE:

The House Committee investigating the the Justice Department/US Attorney firing scandal authorized the issuing of subpoenas of top aides, but did not actually issue them. I'd act quick on that one as it would stop the distruction of evidence that could be going on right now.

*********************

Bush is arguing that Rove and Miers cannot be subpoenaed in the Justice Department scandals because having his advisors testify to Congress under oath would damage their ability to give him candid advice.

So, basically his administration cannot govern without lies.

I think Bush might have finally said something true.

With the subpoenas on the way, it looks like this is going to end up in the courts, but different from when Nixon was having his woes, republicans systematically moved true believers into our court system willing to reinterpret the Constitution to protect their leaders. There is no constitutional impediment to their testifying under oath about the internal workings of the Justice Department and plenty of precident allowing it. However, we will soon see what years of inattention by the American people has done to our government and legal system.

Compare and Contrast

Three centuries haven't done much to improve our leadership. In fact, it's gone backwards.

A friend sent me this though for the day from James Madison, April 20, 1795:

Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. And armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.

In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended. Its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force of the people.

The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war… and in the degeneracy of manners and morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

Contrast Madison's insights with the recent comments of Mark Kirk, stumbling over his words in an attempt to separate himself from the war he lied in Congress to support claiming in his 2002 election debates that he had special knowledge as a Naval Intelligence officer:

Asked if he now regrets ever supporting the war, Kirk said he thinks “a lot of policy makers would have made different choices.” The troops ended Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship and protected Iraq through three elections, Kirk pointed out, but he adds that “now I think we should look to winding up the mission.”

Basically, Kirk says don't blame him for Iraq; he was only following the crowd and now that the crowd has moved in a different direction, he'll follow. He's fortunate that the press has been so bought off by his party that the Daily Herald would never point out his lack of independence on the war or challenge him on anything he says now with what he's said in the past. I wonder if he has any more of that special Naval Intelligence knowledge that he wants to share with us.

Kirk mentioned on Kos

Here is the link. It's an article about republican member of Congress who vote for war, but do not vote for providing adequate equipment for our troops. Kirk is named as a member of the House Appropriations Committee who recently voted against requiring training and armor for troops before they are sent to Iraq. There was an exception for when Bush would certify the necessity of sending troops without the training or equipment, so he cannot argue in good conscience it had to do with emergency situations.

Why is Mark Kirk weak on national security by not adequately equipping our troops before sendng them out there to fight? Where are all the pro-war commenters on this one?

This Is Your republican Life

I was in an innocent conversation with a collegue yesterday afternoon. She mentioned some childrens' program she grew up with wherein they spoofed the old TV show, This is Your Life. We were joking around that you probably couldn't do a show like that today because no one would agree to be the subject. Instead of producing a sweet little old lady that was the subject's 5th grade math teacher or a best friend from high school, the producers would probably bring in people who were part of embarrassing moments and scandals in the subject's life. Then, unexpectedly, the woman I was talking with started going on about what a proposed This is Your Life Bill Clinton would look like.

I stopped laughing

and where I usually say nothing and let it go, I just had to say something.

I let her have it

telling her that, even stipulating to any accusation she'd like to make about Bill Clinton, the time has come to focus on reality circa 2007 and stop ignoring the very real lies and crimes that are part of the Bush administration and republicans in Congress and their serious national and international consequences.

To refocus her mind on what is really important, I gave her the list of moments of our government since 2000 and the guests for the Ellen's Blog version of This Is Your republican Life:

• lying about WMD leading to a war with no plan to win or exit the guest list could be endless--lets try all of Bush's press secretaries and, of course, Mark Kirk
• lying about terrorist plots they've stopped--there are 23 potential guests here
• lying about scientific evidence of global warming leading to an economy still focused on fossil fuels--guest here could be any one of the Union of Concerned Scientists or Mark Kirk could tell us about his days as a global warming contrarian
• avoiding separation of powers and already enacted laws through the extraordinary use of executive orders--guests could be AFL-CIO workers, interrogated prisioners, or anyone who is injured or killed through lack of regulatory enforcement
• illegally collecting information on Americans--EFF and ACLU on behalf of journalists, not-for-profit groups, Quakers
• approving torture of prisoners and then blaming low level military personnel for it--try getting Lynndie England out of prison as the guest for this one
• lying about supporting Israel and then doing nothing to diffuse tensions in the area, rather increasing such tensions--the guests probably won't want to come for fear of political attack by anonymous commenters on this blog
• manipulating prosecutions through the threat of firing of US attorneys--the fired US Attorneys would appear here
• misusing and actually losing taxpayer dollars in Iraq--Paul Bremer
• outsourcing the Iraq war to contractors motivated only by profit--the interviewees of Iraq for Sale
• outsourcing the care of wounded soldiers and allowing their care and accomodations to deterioriate--soldiers at Walter Reed Hospital
• baiting a wacko dictator in Iran hoping for a new war--Democrats unwilling to speak out about the effect of the Plame outing and unwilling to require Bush to seek congressional authority to start a war with Iran
• supporting and pandering to racists and anti-semites--the list is simply too long to complete here
• weakening our military by failing to provide resources, including body armor for our soldiers in harms way--take a look at this
• failing to deal with a real nuclear menace, North Korea--pick your guest from this story
• making it clear that they represent only one world view and one religion--guests? the rest of us. Here's an interesting take on the secular power sought by the theocrats.
• continuing to lie in connecting Iraq and 9/11 no matter how many times the connection is disproved--Keith Olbermann can best chronicle this one
• using unsupported and unproven threats of terrorism to manipulate Americans with fear--Ridge admitted this one as he was leaving
• failing to provide for veterans--there's a homeless veteran at the exit to the Madison St. Metra Station every morning. He'd probably appear on the show for food.
• running regulatory agencies with agency directors coming straight out of industry lobbys with the goal of avoiding new and failing to enforce regulations already in place--the parents of the kid who was sickened by spinach and the owners of all the pets that died last week could appear on this one
• failing to investigate any of the above for 6 years--Arlen Specter would be my choice so we can ask him what he was doing when he was chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee; and
• failing to govern in any way whatsoever substituting political manipulation for government--John Dean calls it Worse than Watergate.

And her response to my list?

She was surprised, but wasn't mad at me at all. She simply responded that she couldn't think about the above because it was all too terrible. My suggestion to her was to start thinking about all of it because we have to in order to save our country.

A sick laugh for a Monday morning

The iRack.

Plame's testimony

Below is guest blogger, Mark Paul's take on Plames testimony last week:

Plames Testimony

by Mark Paul

While watching some of the TV coverage of Valerie Plame's testimony before Henry Waxman's House committee, I noticed that, once again, something important was neglected in this sordid tale: There may not have been anyone in the U.S. better qualified than Joe Wilson to make that trip to Africa.

Wilson had been the charge d'affaires in the Baghdad embassy. He outranked everyone but the ambassador. When the ambassador to Iraq was recalled to Washington, Wilson was in charge during the run-up to the war to kick out Iraq from Kuwait. President GHW Bush gave him the State Department's highest decoration for heroism.

Then Wilson served as ambassador to a central African country that borders Niger.

I'm just guessing, but I doubt there were many other people who knew as many players in both the Iraqi government and the central African uranium trade. Even if Plame and Wilson had never met, Wilson would have been on any short list for the trip to Niger.

Sure, Plame will have to find some other kind of work to do. Or just devote her energy to raising two-year-old twins. But it's a mistake to focus on her personal loss, when the real and incalculable loss is to the national security.

This is what the Bush administration sacrificed in an attempt to punish Wilson for objecting when his report was distorted:

Plame was a highly trained operative, whose job was to track transfers of technology useful in constructing nuclear weapons. An elaborate cover had been created to disguise her, including establishing a front company as her employer. She built a network of informants who at least risked their jobs if they were exposed. Possibly their lives.

Plame's training and experience isn't easy to replace and it isn't replaced immediately. The CIA has had to start all over. Train someone else. Build a new cover identity. Recruit new informants. Who knows what happened while the CIA was temporarily blinded, if in fact Plame's replacement is fully functioning.

The Pakistani nuclear entrepreneur A.Q. Khan and the North Korean and Iranian regimes were all quite happy to see Plame exposed. So were any freelancers who might be able to acquire nuclear material and only need precision tools and special metals to build a bomb. Funny, but all the people who scream the loudest about Iran building a bomb are strangely silent on this subject.

War and War and No Independent Research

Tom Delay is on Meet the Press right now passing along the same old tired lies connecting 9/11 and the Iraq war. The coalition of the willing to defend administration policy must really be dwindling if all they can come up with is this known liar and criminal as a spokesperson.

Not finding much to watch on TV, I opened up the paper. I see, I'm not the only one who thinks we need to start a real dialogue on how to get to peace in the Middle East instead of the accusations of anti-semitism against anyone who even mentions the possibility that peace is what they need over there. Nicholas D. Kristof's NYT column today calls for a real discussion. You have to be a select subscriber of NYT to read the entire column, but you can get a general idea here. Kristrof also agress that there is no serious debate between republicans and Democrats on the issue. I agree with that rather than the proposition posed previously on this blog by an anonymous AIPAC member that the positions are the same. They are not the same. They just aren't discussing it out of political fear. I also agree with Kristoff when he says the "silence harms America, Middle East peace prospects and Israel itself."

Last week I went to a meeting where they were discussing an event to review a book by Rabbi Michael Lerner, The Left Hand of God. I mentioned the controversey on this blog to the group and the people in the discussion had no idea. One of the parties said that he was a member of AIPAC and is not aware of any controversey with Lerner's positions or accusations of anti-semitism it makes. He had no idea that John Hagee spoke before AIPAC or who John Hagee is or of the love fest they had with Dick Cheney. If you belong to an organization, I would think you'd know something about what it is doing, but not everybody does and that's how they get to claim they represent so many people. They represent the small group of true believers and get to claim they represent the much larger group of those who sign up after hearing a 2 second rumour that the group is "good for Israel" and never bother to follow up with their own research or make their own determination of what really is good for Israel.

Topsy-Turvy World of Babel

I heard this read on AAR this afternoon:

I start from the supposition that the world is topsy-turvy, that things are all wrong, that the wrong people are in jail and the wrong people are out of jail, that the wrong people are in power and the wrong people are out of power, that the wealth is distributed in this country and the world in such a way as not simply to require small reform but to require a drastic reallocation of wealth. I start from the supposition that we don't have to say too much about this because all we have to do is think about the state of the world today and realize that things are all upside down. Daniel Berrigan is in jail-A Catholic priest, a poet who opposes the war-and J. Edgar Hoover is free, you see. David Dellinger, who has opposed war ever since he was this high and who has used all of his energy and passion against it, is in danger of going to jail. The men who are responsible for the My Lai massacre are not on trial; they are in Washington serving various functions, primary and subordinate, that have to do with the unleashing of massacres, which surprise them when they occur. At Kent State University four students were killed by the National Guard and students were indicted. In every city in this country, when demonstrations take place, the protesters, whether they have demonstrated or not, whatever they have done, are assaulted and clubbed by police, and then they are arrested for assaulting a police officer.

It's a passage from an essay written by historian Howard Zinn back in 1970. I was listening to the radio while driving to movie night. The movie was Babel, which won a bunch a Golden Globes, but none of the high profile Oscars. It think it won something for music. Some of the following is spoiler:

Babel is four stories that intertwine. The troubled daughter of a Japanese businessman tries to deal with her mother's death and isolation caused by her disability. Her father goes hunting in Africa and gives his rifle as a gift to his guide. The rifle is sold to a Moroccan man who wants it to kill the jackals that are killing his goats. He teaches his two sons how to use it and the younger son, who looks about 10, is a better shot than the older son. When they find its sort of hard to hit a jackal, they decide to practice on things like rocks and passing vehicles. An American couple trying to get over the sudden death of their infant is traveling through Morocco and she is mysteriously shot while on the tour bus. The couples' two children are left with the Mexican nanny who has to leave to attend her son's wedding in Mexico, a short trip over the border that should be no problem.

It is immediately assumed that the shooter is a terrorist and the Moroccan police comb the desert for him while leaving the young mother bleeding in a hut in a small village whose doctor has one needle and a small strand of dirty thread. The fellow tourists clamor to take off in the tour bus to get away from the terrorists and the desert heat. The police hunt down the father and his two sons who run from fear because they heard the American is dead. With all the vehicles running around, no one can seem to get the injured woman to a hospital and the state department is concerned about political problems and making the political most of a terrorist attack. Only the Moroccan tour guide and an old woman in the village do anything to help the injured woman. Problem is that they have limited power and resources.

In another desert halfway across the world, a nephew drives his aunt and her two charges home from the wedding late at night and gets in trouble with the border police when they notice he might be driving under the influence. He becomes indignant at their treatment of him and runs the gates leading to a chase. He decides to leave his aunt and her two small charges alone, off-road and in the dark. As bad as that seems, it gets worse at sun-up as the heat sets in and the aunt wanders around half crazed through worry and dehydration to find help. The border police she flags down are more concerned with catching Mexicans than finding the stranded kids. No one is too concerned about the troubled Japanese daughter and since she cannot communicate well, she cries out for help through attempted promiscuity. She gets lucky because no one takes her up on it, but she doesn't yet realize that is lucky.

The point is that people make assumptions based on limited facts and unsupported assumptions and create worse situations out of bad ones while further isolating themselves. Those with the resources squander them more often then use them for the good. The world is topsy-turvy.

Babel is a good, but sad movie, probably too realistic for comfort. The performances of Rinko Kikuchi as the Japanese daughter and Adriana Barraza as the Mexican housekeeper, two woman who sink deeper into trouble and cannot find help, are emotional and outstanding. The Moroccan guide is played by Mohamed Akhzam and a Japanese policeman played by Satoshi Nikaido are both good in their parallel roles as the only two people who really try to help anyone.

Babel gets 2 cat treats, losing one for just being too darn depressing a reflection of our real world.

Loyal Bushies or Loyal Americans

Here's the email that got Alberto Gonzales in trouble. The only criterion for working in the Bush Administration is unquestioning loyalty, but we already knew that. It's just one more example of the abuse of power.

Lot's of people are calling for Gonzales to resign, but all he did was what his bosses expected of him. Putting up with this manipulation of federal prosecutions, plus spying on Americans, plus outing CIA agents for political revenge, plus the war based on lies and the consequent 3210 dead American soldiers is ridiculous. It's time for Congress to step up to the plate in a bi-partisan way and do their jobs by impeaching Bush and Cheney. republicans should be Americans before they are republicans.

Why does Mark Kirk hate spinach and love war?

Mark Kirk spoke out against spinach at a House Appropriations Committee hearing on Thursday proposing an anti-spinach amendment to the war spending bill. All kidding aside, Kirk proposed an amendment to strike an appropriation for spinach farmers injured in the great spinach recall of last fall that was contained in the war funding bill. He said:

A $25 million bailout for spinach owners demeans the bill... It holds Congress up to ridicule.

Have a seat because I actually agree with his comment and don't like the idea of rewarding an industry that needs to clean its own house. Thing is, Kirk again misses the point by not pushing for strong FDA regulation of food processors to end practices in farming and processing that have recently led to illness and death. The FDA is once again doing the republican thing by hiding behind voluntary guidelines that many will ignore with no consequences and apparently that is just fine with our Congressman. I know people who are still looking cross-eyed at spinach. They are also going to rely solely on information from the industry on genetically engineered food and do no independent testing, so expect that data to resemble the reasons for going to war in Iraq and the investigation into the neglect of New Orleans right after Katrina. How long are Americans going to stand for being treated like petri dishes by this crony-run executive branch?

Then, of course there is the war, the main point of the bill before the Appropriations Committee and Kirk misses the point there too. The bill provides a timeline to remove our troops from Iraq. That will come up for a vote of the entire House next week no thanks to Kirk who once again tries to avoid the big issue by hiding behind this persona he is trying to create for himself as the defender of the taxpayer and small government. It's a crock of bad spinach because, to Kirk and his party, it's only about small government when it comes to taking away programs and regulations that actually help and protect people and the taxpayers he saves are only the wealthiest who should pay their fair share anyway. He's still for huge government when its about taking away our civil liberties, getting us into stupid wars based on lies and moving wealth up to the top layers of society and leaving the rest of us without adequate access to healthcare, affordable housing, insecure and ever lower paying jobs.

A Worry for the District--Housing

Bush bragged that under his administration, there are more new homeowners in the US then ever before. Soon, and in some places already, he'll be able to brag that there are more foreclosed out homeless people as underqualified borrowers and the lenders who have lent money to them have finally figured out that if you cannot afford a house, you cannot afford a house.

Here's the Washington Post story by Steven Pearlstein about all those great sounding no money down loans. I'm just speculating now, but the teaser loan scenerio he describes could be a big problem in the Tenth with the high cost of housing in our area and consequent difficulty in staying in the area as folks so like to do.

Make sure you get to the second page of the article, where Pearlstein points out who benefitted and who got hurt.

I know a lot of folks in the district aren't big on affordable housing, but think about it, with all the job insecurity even at the highest levels, one day it could be you, and one day in the not too distant future, it could, and probably will be, your children who won't be able to afford anything nearby.

Read this!

From Max Blumenthal on Huggington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/aipac-cheers-an-antisemi_b_43377.html

From the file

I'm starting an everything we told you would happen happened file...

because for the most part it has.

When many of you read the posts in which I beseeched my readers to care about the Patriot Act and our loss of privacy and civil liberties and you might have thought to yourselves "oh, pshaw, Ellen must be overreacting and besides don't we have to give up a little bit of freedom and privacy for our safety?" Well, stop pshawing. Everything we civil libertarians said would happen has happened. The FBI has been caught overstepping their bounds spying on Americans' telephone, Internet, and other personal records using National Security Letters, not as they were intended to find evidence where there is probable cause, but to dig it up on...not suspected terrorists... but you. Then, they made it worse by lying to Congress about the number of NSLs used, ignoring the advice of FBI lawyers. Read the Justice Department Report here. Note that a little noticed provision of the Patriot Act was used as a reason in the forced resignations of US Attorneys for which Gonzales is now under fire. Here is why forcing US Attorneys to resign for political reasons is a big deal. The Patriot Act needs to go and Alberto Gonzales needs to be relieved of duty.

Then, order the pizzas and find your back support belt because our friends at Halliburton are moving. They are moving out of the country to avoid paying taxes. Back when Kerry was running against Bush, Kerry made an issue out of the American corporations taking all sorts of subsidies and government contracts, but then picking up and leaving the country to avoid paying workers and taxes. Kerry recommended changing the tax code to make that less attractive. Oh, by the way, this red, white and not so blue company is moving to the United Arab Emirates. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey is also concerned the move is being made at least in part to avoid US restrictions against doing business with Iran. So, all the commenters who wondered why American Jews weren't too keen on Bush, Cheney and their buddies, you can place the linked article in that file.

Mark Paul Responds to comments

Here is Mark Paul's response to the comments in his article contained in the March 10, 2007 post, unedited, in its entirety:

Arguing with American right-wingers is exhausting. I always have to correct the right's mis-statements of my position before dealing with their always entertaining views. It's like entering an alternative reality.

Not once in the post did I refer to the "religious right." My post was only about Hagee, not fundamentalism, and certainly not about Christianity in general.

I'm Jewish, but I've been interested in The Rapture since a college course in eschatology. A Dürer woodcut depicting the Apocalypse hangs in my living room. I performed in a bluegrass band that included in its repertoire a gospel song about the Rapture. "I'll Fly Away." Great song.
I wouldn't see a problem if Hagee was just passively waiting for the Rapture, as Revelations is usually interpreted, even by literalists. But he's taking a political stance to hurry along the process, advocating a nuclear conflagration that starts with a war between Israel and Iran. Even then, I wouldn't be terribly disturbed if Hagee were simply preaching in his church or expressing his crackpot political views in some inter-faith meeting. I object only when he's invited to speak at a national foreign policy conference organized by a Jewish group that likes to think of itself as hard-headed realists.

Hagee welcomes a religious war that will destroy Israel. Of course, his Christian notion of religious war doesn't precisely correspond to Muslim jihad. This is called a figure of speech.
Here's something Hagee said during an NPR interview last September on Terry Gross's "Fresh Air":

"Russia with Arab allies will plot and plan Israel's destruction. That's happening right now. It has been happening for 10 years. Iran's nuclear weapons have been produced with Russian scientists. The Islamic Arabs are using the Roadmap to Peace to get all of the land of Israel they can get. And when Israel finally says, `Enough!' you're going to see the beginning of the implementation of Ezekial's war in 38:39. The critical point is the church is raptured before this war begins. I am telling you that makes this message one of the most thrilling prophetic messages you've ever heard in your life. You could get raptured out of this building before I get through finished preaching. We are that close to the coming of the Son of Man."

In Hagee's theology, the Rapture is also known as "The Second Holocaust" or "The Final Holocaust." Not. Good. For. The Jews. And it can't come too soon for Hagee. If AIPAC wants to bring it sooner, he's glad to help.

Or let's put it another way. I agree with Hagee on this: the policy AIPAC supports will lead to continuing deterioration of the security of Israel, if not its outright destruction. Hagee and I part ways on whether this is a good thing. He does and I don't. AIPAC's with him.

And for a cherry on top, the man is not only an anti-Semite, he's happy to provide a theological justification.

That AIPAC doesn't recognize that Hagee's position is intended to destroy Israel in the very near term is alarming. That they would invite an anti-Semite to speak at their conference is unconscionable.

I recognize Anonymous #1 by name from another venue, but I'll respect his privacy. He makes the point that "the AIPAC community does not support the anti-Semitic views of the Christian right." I would never characterize the Christian right as anti-Semitic, only some elements of it, including Hagee. And AIPAC wouldn't feel the need to associate with crackpots like Hagee if it hadn't crawled so deeply into the Neocon black hole, from which no light of reason escapes.

There's absolutely nothing in my post excusing leftist anti-Semitism. Paulie is deluded. This kind of carelessness about facts in search of an attack point is dangerous and a right-wing signature. It leads to things like powerful countries invading and occupying a country for non-existent WMDs.

Anti-Semitism is a bi-partisan affliction. Every one of the Democratic public officials Paulie mentions was roundly denounced when they made anti-Semitic comments. Cindy Sheehan simply disappeared after she revealed herself.

This is another example of the growing sloppiness among right-wing Jews about anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is a very bad thing but the charge should be leveled only against anti-Semites, and not used as a substitute for disputes over Israel.

In a much discussed essay published by the American Jewish Committee, an Indiana U. professor tried to make a link between the Progressive movement and anti-Semitism. He had so much trouble finding examples that he didn't even begin to discuss American Progressives until he was two-thirds through the essay. And even then, one of my favorite examples cited by the poor professor was a young couple who renounced their son's right of return at his briss. What kind of an anti-Semite celebrates a briss? These are characters from a comic novel to be written by Philip Roth's spiritual grandson. And they're probably in a for a hard time about 18 years from now.

I'll break my rule and give some consideration to Paulie's crackpot bluster on geo-strategic affairs: Every time someone wants to go to war, they invoke Chamberlain. It's time for right-wingers to expand their tool chest, because if all you have is a hammer, then eveything looks like a nail. Just for starters, there's no personality cult built around Ahmadinejad. His hold on power is actually quite weak.

But if you want World War, then you better be prepared to pay the price. The Iranians won't roll up into a ball if we or the Israelis attack. The U.S. army is worn out and out of personnel and equipment. So let's see someone advocate a draft of several million young men and women so we can defeat and effectively occupy Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon for several decades. And raise the taxes to equip an army that big for that long. And figure out how to replace the 40% of the world's oil supply that moves through the Gulf and the 20-mile wide Hormuz strait.
When World War isn't feasible to deal with characters like Ahmadinejad, who can still be discouraged from continuing his nuclear program, I subscribe to the containment policy of Truman, Marshall, and Kennan, and extended by Eisenhower (a man who truly understood what it means to wage World War) through the collapse of the Berlin Wall under GHW Bush. The Soviets weren't exactly yippie little dogs under Stalin and Krushchev. They had nukes, the means to deliver them on U.S. cities, and repeatedly threatened to use them. I remember during the pre-ICBM era there were anti-aircraft missiles in the Skokie Lagoons.

Ask Yourself Who Benefits From The Attacks?

The politics of smear, attack and evasion of the facts continues even in these lame duck post- Scooter-conviction times. Yesterday's post was about attacks of claimed anti-semitism against anyone who disagrees that pro-war positions in Iraq, Iran and the Middle East are good for Israel and apparent acceptance of real anti-semitism by the very same people. Sure enough, attacks against me came in the comments like clockwork (few even noticed I was not the author of the main post although it was clearly marked) and, in this crowd of claimed fighters of anti-semitism, no one seemed a bit bothered by Hagee's disturbingly over the top anti-semitic comments. It all proved the point that the fight against anti-semitism has been co-opted to the benefit of the pro-war, right-wing fundamentalists and to the detriment of the people it's supposed to defend.

Barack Obama is constantly under seige. First, he's attacked for being black. Then, cappuccino?? (I don't get that whole association of human beings with food thing.) Then, he's not black enough and slave owning, let's forget the part of that being well before he was born. Muslim? Well no, that story was easy to prove incorrect. He's a Christian, but not Christian enough. Then he's associated with terrorists for no other reason than a coincidence in middle name and it's convenient for republicans with no real facts.

John Edwards recently got in trouble with Ann Coulter for seeming gay to her, but that's good new for him because it proves he's still in the running.

Hillary is too direct, but not direct enough on war. Some people hate her for no reason at all. Bill? He's considered an asset to himself, but a detriment to Hillary for no apparent reason.

Even McCain, trying to prevent a rerun of the 2000 election smear by twisting himself into the right-wing fundamentalist Christian mold, is finding himself victim once again, this time by other Vietnam Vets. Guy can't catch a break, but maybe it's because he's too desperate to win at any cost.

We no longer have honest debate or discussion on the issues. Just smear and attack. Long ago the powerful figured out smear is easy and works. Back in the early part of the 20th Century, W.E.B. DuBois recognized that employers were race baiting black and white workers against each other. There were few reasons for the white and black workers to fight among themselves as their interests were similar and not at all aligned with the employers. However, the racial hatred kept the white unions from allowing black in as members and kept the black unions isolated. See here too. Who benefitted? You can bet not the workers of any race.

Before you respond by attack because you've been told your are supposed to by media pundits or self-proclaimed leaders and next time you believe an attack you've heard, maybe you should ask yourself who is benefitting from it and ask yourself if it benefits or hurts you.

Is the enemy of your enemy your friend?

I once asked a fellow Jew why some Jewish people have joined with extremist right-wing, often anti-semitic, fundamentalist Christians in support of the Bush administration pre-emptive war policies. The person I asked responded that they probably felt it was a necessary evil to protect Israel. I never thought this alliance would ultimately protect the people of Israel, their risks being quite a bit greater than the arm chair holy warriors cheering from their safe, comfortable Illinois Tenth District homes. I think it will also prove to have been a bad move for American Jews as real anti-semitism within our own country is not being fought with the same strength as it had in the past. The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.

Below guest Blogger Mark Paul discusses an upcoming AIPAC conference that illustrates this point and makes me wonder if AIPAC, which proves again and again that it does not represent the opinions of most Jews, will ultimately lose strength and influence due to this ill-conceived alliance that causes them to participate in the demonization of the very people they claim to represent. Here is Mark Paul's article:

AIPAC's Policy Conference

By Mark Paul

AIPAC will hold a three-day policy conference in Washington, opening Sunday. Among the speakers at the Sunday night plenary session will be Pastor John Hagee. He's an interesting guy to invite to speak before a group of Jews who claim to be dedicated to Israel's well-being. Here's a bit of what he thinks about Jews and Israel:

The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for both Israel and the West... a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation [...] and [the] Second Coming of Christ.

It was the disobedience and rebellion of the Jews, God's chosen people, to their covenantal responsibility to serve only the one true God, Jehovah, that gave rise to the opposition and persecution that they experienced beginning in Canaan and continuing to this very day.... How utterly repulsive, insulting, and heartbreaking to God for His chosen people to credit idols with bringing blessings He had showered upon the chosen people. Their own rebellion had birthed the seed of anti-Semitism that would arise and bring destruction to them for centuries to come.... it rises from the judgment of God uppon his rebellious chosen people.

If Hagee were Muslim, he would be considered a Jihadist, dedicated to the destruction of Israel on religious grounds. Only he prefers slightly indirect means, with a bit of divine cooperation after the bombs start flying. And according to him, anti-Semitism is the fault of the Jews. If we cleaned up our act, so would the anti-Semites who are, after all, only acting according to God's judgment.

Remember this during the election campaign next year. No doubt, AIPAC thugs such as former Kirk and AIPAC staffer and would-be extortionist Caryn Garber will come after our candidate. Anyone who dares to disagree with them can expect to be accused of anti-Semitism.

Culture of Conscience

Tenth District resident and member of the Illinois Tenth Congressional District Democrats, George Rosenblit, sent me this article that he wrote about the history of caring, contribution and volunteerism in the Democratic Party. While I wasn't around for Movietone News, I have seen the newsreels on TCM and the History Channel. I think it's time we got back to the values that brough us the new deal because the world needs that sort of thinking and not the unbridled selfishness and materialism that seems to be consuming us, hurting American families and families around the world, and ruining our reputation in the world. Do we really need to turn a blind eye to slave labor in China and Indochina to get cheap goods? Do we really need to create fake pre-emptive wars based on lies to keep the country in fear so people vote against their own interest? Do we really need to elevate the already wealthy even more at the expense of the workers who put them in their positions of comfort? We have to think about this particularly in the IL Tenth because we have been electing and re-electing a representative who stands for outsourcing American jobs to countries that do not protect their workers, ignoring labor abuses in China, tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans and lying for war.

Here's George's article:

Culture of Conscience

by George Rosenblit

Lou Dobbs of CNN recently made a remark containing the term “Culture of Conscience” in reference to future activity of the Democratic Party; this, Dobbs said, in contrast to the recent “Culture of Corruption”.

The Democratic Party has always had a conscience as far back as I can remember. I was eight years old when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected in 1932, and I was exposed to the depression years of the ‘30s. I remember the banners with “NRA” (National Recovery Act) on them in Movietone News which played in local theaters, and which we also saw in local parades. Even though he was personally financially secure, Roosevelt empathized with the people of our nation who were jobless, downtrodden, dirt poor. And he didn’t just think about it and talk about it. He did something about it. His programs to provide job opportunities and Social Security are legendary.

I recently visited his Little White House in Warm Springs, Georgia, which is now designated a Historic Site as part of a Georgia State Park. This year, 2007, is the 75th birthday of this Little White House. Roosevelt’s achievements are on display with audio and visual aids. The thing that was most interesting to me was that he chatted with his neighbors in Warm Springs and the surrounding area to learn and understand their problems during the Great Depression. He included that information in formulating solutions to the problems of our nation at this quiet retreat in Georgia, away from the time consuming distractions at the oval office in Washington.

Roosevelt set a standard for the Democratic Party for all time in many ways, and subsequent Democratic presidents have contributed. We, as citizens and voters, must take up the baton and run with it. We must have empathy for the needs of all Americans, especially the less fortunate ones. We must reach out and improve communication between legislators and constituents. We must initiate action on the real needs of real people in our country. Legislators must listen to what is being said at the grass roots level and serve our needs and desires.

We have a great window of opportunity between now and the 2008 elections to carry that baton by strengthening our own grassroots organization, the 10th Dems. This is an exciting time when you can learn how to make your voice heard. Believe it or not, you have the power to influence the political landscape, locally and nationally, and it all starts at home at the District level. The key to success is in numbers and knowledge. Join with like minded people and find out how to get the the job done. Tenth Dems will provide the training. To join in this great adventure, call us at (847) 266-VOTE, or E-mail tenthdems@aol.com today

Sentence Scooter

By now you must know that Scooter was convicted on 4 counts, "one count of obstruction, two counts of perjury and one count of lying to the FBI about how he learned Plame's identity and whom he told." The jury just didn't believe Scooter couldn't remember something he was told 9 times. If so, how'd he pass the bar exam?

I am not yet convinced, however, that he'll do any time. Mystery jury issues right at the end seem to be a speciaty of the republican party to keep their people out of prison. However, there is a contest going on to pick Scooters sentence. Unofficial, of course. Right-wingers are pushing for a pardon because they say Scooters lies did not do all that much to impede the investigation. Fitzgerald disagrees. Remember his press conference in October 2005 in which he described the crime:

When you decide whether or not to charge someone with a crime, you want to know as many facts as possible. You want to know what their motive is, you want to know their state of knowledge, you want to know their intent, you want to know the facts.

Let's not presume that Mr. Libby is guilty. But let's assume, for the moment, that the allegations in the indictment are true. If that is true, you cannot figure out the right judgment to make, whether or not you should charge someone with a serious national security crime or walk away from it or recommend any other course of action, if you don't know the truth.

So I understand your question which is: Well, what if he had told the truth, what would you have done? If he had told the truth, we would have made the judgment based upon those facts. We would have assessed what the accurate information and made a decision.

We have not charged him with a crime. I'm not making an allegation that he violated that statute. What I'm simply saying is one of the harms in obstruction is that you don't have a clear view of what should be done. And that's why people ought to walk in, got into the grand jury, you're going to take an oath, tell us the who, what, when, where and why -- straight.

He still believes there was a serious crime in Libby's actions.

Perjury. Important for more than affairs with interns. Another crime is the war Scooter's actions were intended to help justify and that rolls on because of the lack of courage in Congress, yet another crime. Scooter's convicted, but I'm still dismayed because it seems nothing will change. Fitzgerald is stopping with Scooter willing to take the scapegoat over the person who planned Plame's outing for revenge:

I do not expect to file any further charges. Basically the investigation was inactive prior to the trial. I would not expect to see any further charges filed," Fitzgerald said.

It's going to be up to the legislative branch to fix this mess and so far we haven't seen much will to do the job. The idea of pre-emptive war must be discredited once and for all and the idea that telling lies to lead the nation into war is not a crime must come to an end. Bush and Cheney should be impeached.

Watch our rhetoric?

I opened my Tenth Dems newsletter yesterday morning with glee as I enjoy the articles and now the new crossword puzzle. In the latest issue, however, there is an article by Steve Sheffey with which I totally disagree. In the article, Sheffey warns Democrats to "watch our rhetoric." First, I find it outlandish that Sheffey admonishes those who want to discuss serious issues on which Bush's and Kirk's actions are hurting this country. We're not making this stuff up just to be obstinate.

The soldiers at Walter Reed Hospital suffered because no one in the know wanted to discuss the problems there for fear of political implications. Iraq was invaded based on lies because of a republican party that sticks together even when many of them know they are wrong and because many Democrats in Congress were afraid of being attacked as weak on national security. Now, everyone knows the invasion was a mistake and our soldiers continue to be maimed and killed because Congress still fails to take a strong position and stick to it. New Orleans is still in ruins because politician's believe there's no political gain to be had by talking about it anymore. We continue to ruin our environment because politically connected corporations make more money when the problem of global warming is ignored and have a greater ability to flood the