Happy Birthday to Me! Presents for everyone!

It's that time again and if you've been counting from my first birthday post on the old Kerry site, you know I'm 48, but Democat tells me I don't look a day over 47 1/2. My present was a new blog. Here's the new blog of the Illinois Iraq Campaign. Thanks guys.

I hear the new Illinois Iraq Campaign blog will keep everyone up to date with information on campaign events and will also post videos, pictures and letters to the editor. If you want the RSS feed for your site, email me and I'll send you the relevant code. Scroll down my right hand column to see the feed here.

My present to you is a new poll. Vote for the greatest disrespector, O'Reilly, Rush or MoveOne. I personally think its O'Reilly because he disrespected an entire race of people and probably doesn't even realize there is something wrong with that. It does show that my earlier comments about republican race baiting and racism are relevant. He was playing to an audience. That is not to say that Rush's comment about anti-war soldiers being phoney soldiers was not dispicable. My friend Mike directed me to this blog post about Rush's comment. Scroll down for pictures of some of those "phoney soldiers" digging graves, avoiding IEDs and such.

It's all part of the old republican MO of smearing anyone trying to speak truth or sense and crying if anyone points out that they are in the wrong. The Kirk people are doing that now, whining about how unfair it is to call Kirk on his unwillingness to work for the override of Bush's veto of SCHIP because the party released him with the knowledge that there are still not enough override votes in the house. I wonder why those republicans now defending poor put upon Mark, who should be able to take care of himself as a 48 year old (yup, we are almost exactly the same age though I'm a bit younger) well paid congressman, don't give a horse's pitutie about the uninsured kids or the young soldiers in Iraq.

Well, I'm expecting a pretty quiet birthday with a family barbeque and hopefully a cake that looks something like the picture above. If you want to get into the spirit with me a contribution to Dan Seals of $48 would be a good idea.

Protect Kids' Future and end Kirk-Bush's War!

President Bush has promised to veto the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), so he can continue to fund endless war in Iraq. Kirk is a supporter of the war and so far seems unwilling to work against his party to override the veto or put action where is mouth is on "winding down the mission".

Several good people of the district are meeting to again ask Mark Kirk to put American kids over war for power and profit.

The day after Bush's veto, join your Tenth District neighbors at a rally outside Congressman Kirk's district office, at 707 Skokie Boulevard in Northbrook, from 6 to 7 PM. Drop me a line if you intend to go.

You might also want drop Mark a line at 847-940-0202 to let him know that you want him to stand up for American kids and not more dollars down the Iraq sinkhole and work to persuade his fellow republicans to vote to override the president's veto and to set deadlines to bring the troops home!

Mark Kirk, Selling War and Buying Iran. Are you ready to buy?

Under the so-called Pottery Barn Rule, we broke Iraq, so now we have to buy it (not that I am advocating foreign policy based on supposed rules of retail stores) and we've been paying for it ever since, and now even more so, $190 billion dollars more. There will be no money to expand the federal health insurance program for children, not on Bush's watch and Kirk's not out there tirelessly fighting with his republican collegues in Congress to get that veto override either. Republicans in favor of SCHIP were told to "take one for the team." They are obviously not on the same team we are on.

Strange teams and sick kids nothwithstanding, they are busily selling the Iran War and we're supposed to buy their argument. Strangely, it's about the same argument that got us into Iraq, WMD and broken UN resolutions.

Iran has always been a concern for its desire for nuclear power, far more than Iraq ever was. However, before Kirk's folks start talking about the IAEA in my blog comments, they need to read the IAEA reports that can be found here. The latest available report on the site is dated August 30, 2007 and can be read here. For all you non-nuclear-scientist types, the Summary is on Page 5. What I got out of the report was that there are problems, but there has been progress. Access to declared nuclear material has been given and its non-diversion verified. Some material related to ongoing advanced centrifuge research and the ultimate scope of Iran's program still needs to be verified. A work plan has been finalized to address disclosure issues such as disclosure of the centrifuge enrichment programme, disclosure of uranium contamination on equipment, disclosure of polonium extraction activities, and disclousure of uranium mining. All in all, the report does not sound like the IAEA was irritated at Iran's "defiance". Here is a September 24, 2007 Reuters story on the IAEA report which seems to go along with my understanding:

Hosseini said Iran had already removed some concerns and "the focus of the talks will be P1 and P2 centrifuges."

Iran is using a 1970s vintage centrifuge prone to breakdown if spun at high speed for long periods but is researching a more advanced, more durable model at sites off limits to inspectors. Centrifuges are machines that enrich uranium. The IAEA says Tehran has resolved the first issue relating to its nuclear work -- small experiments with plutonium, kept secret in violation of Iran's non-proliferation commitments.

While I don't think this means we should be breathing any sighs of relief on Iran, it also does not mean it's time to call for an attack. What it is time for is some good old fashioned diplomacy and a reminder that Ahmadinejad, the Saddam figure Bush and Kirk and their PR agencies want us to focus our hate on, is not at all the decider in Iran.

So, who do I trust when looking for answers on Iran if not Bush, Cheney and Kirk? Joe Cirincione comes to mind (click on link for his credentials). I met him last year when he spoke to a group in Evanston. Cirincione says that Iran is "about five to 10 years away from gaining the ability to make nuclear fuel or nuclear bombs," and that the real issue is the arms race that is going on in the Middle East as a whole to match its capabilities. The real problem is the abandonment of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, of which we have been a major culprit in creating an "us against them" feeling among the developing countries of the world by allowing some of them to have nukes and denying others. Cirincione is saying that some of this is caused by the nuclear power and technology industries interested in profits from developing countries:

Instead of seeing this nuclear surge as a new market, the countries with nuclear technology to sell have a moral and strategic obligation to ensure that their business does not result in the Middle East going from a region with one nuclear weapon state - Israel - to one with three, four, or five nuclear nations.

As for Iran and the IAEA, Cirincione is troubled by all the recent rhetoric attacking its Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei similar to the time just before the invasion of Iraq.:

ElBaradei is doing what any diplomatic leader should do: talking directly to a nation to find a way to resolve difficult issues short of the use of force… He's painfully
aware of the lessons of the pre-Iraq War period. Then, he was convinced that there was no evidence of a nuclear program in Iraq. He told the UN Security Council that in his reports of January and March 2003. But could he have done more to prevent a disastrous and unnecessary war? Weren't others too quiet, too complacent to stay in their assigned roles? He does not want to see this happen again, with even more catastrophic consequences....

Administration officials, including Secretary Rice, attacked the credibility of the director-general [in 2003] too.... The Washington Post also blasted ElBaradei on his Iraq assessment. They were dead wrong. But this hasn't stopped them from attacking with guns blazing again. ElBaradei's record is far better on these issues than either the secretary of state's or the Washington Post's. You would think they would have some humility given the magnitude of their past mistakes. But some people have no shame.

What I ask people in our district to do is before they jump to the conclusion that Iran must be attacked because they heard a snipet on the news that Iraq is being sanctioned via a very politically charged bill, is get some facts. Get your facts from original sources such as those available in the IAEA site and from nuclear experts rather than politicians up for re-election. Also, avoid the tendency to fall for the boogeyman scare tactic which has been a favorite of the Bush administration or the Kirk version which is a very emotionally charged story of his vision for the future with Israel gone while you are brushing your teeth. Finally, look beyond personal attacks on individuals who have facts that disagree with the administration position such as those perpetrated on Joe and Valerie Wilson. Turns out they were correct in their assessment of WMD in Iraq or shall we say the lack thereof.

I'm not pretending I know the answer for Iran, but I believe Cirincione far more than I believe Mark Kirk and Cirincione says:

We should learn from the North Korean and Libyan experience. Both were determined foes of the United States, both had weapons programs the U.S. wanted
to stop, both were subjected to sanctions and U.S. pressure. But it was only when the United States began direct talks with these nations that we were able to develop a diplomatic path to end these programs. The Libya model is the polar opposite of the Iraq model: instead of invading a nation to change a regime, you negotiate with a nation to change the regime's behavior. North Korea is a more difficult case than Libya, but the same approach shows signs of working there as well. Iran is the most difficult case of all, but direct dialogue with the pragmatists could very well produce a compromise that satisfies the security concerns of both Iran and the United States.

Senate Judiciary FISA Hearings: Trust Us, Your Rights Are None of Your Business

On Monday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the effects of recent changes to FISA rules and the claimed need for more changes. The hearing started, not with any discussion about the Constitution, but with a warning to protesters. I'd have preferred a warning to the Bush administration that the Senate will uphold the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Panel ranking Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania said "congressional response to the administration's requests really depends largely on trust," and that relationship has been strained. He told McConnell he does not "want to wait until the last minute to make another hasty decision," as happened in August.

I don't remember anything in the Constitution that says that congress responds to the executive based on trust. I check it again and it's just not in there. What is in there is a system of separation of powers with checks and balances specifically designed for the purpose of handling the distribution of power so we do not have to base our national decisions on trust.

National Intelligence Director Michael McConnell also told us to shut up about concerns about lost civil liberties and privacy. See this earlier exchange in the House:

ESHOO: Do you really believe that because we have a public debate in the Congress of the United States about surveillance, about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, that Americans are going to die?
MCCONNELL: Yes, ma’am, I do.

McConnell confirmed this position today in the Senate on a question by Arlen Specter who promised the Senate would desist and take the meeting private. Matt Stoller reports that the ultimate hearings on FISA changes will be closed door. I guess our rights are no longer our business.

Leahy asked McConnell about his prior use of dishonest examples, particularly one in which McConnell credited the Protect America Act with uncovering the plot to attack U.S. interests in Germany. “Now, I’m just wondering why you’d testify… give a misleading impression of the benefits of the legislation. Did you check with anyone before making those claims?”

The only thing clear to me now is that if we don't make our Constitutional Rights our business and soon, we won't have them any more.

Not a bird, not a plane, but some real talk on Iraq

Here is some real talk on Iraq from Rep John Yarmuth on the House floor today (and he didn't have to define which bird he represents either):

With brave American soldiers dying in record numbers, I have two questions for the President — just whose posteriors are we kicking and how do you know? With Sunnis and Shiites killing themselves and each other, plus an incompetence Maliki government, we don’t know who we’re fighting, much less where we’re kicking them. And while we’re tied up in Iraq, Al Qaeda thrives in Pakistan and Afghanistan. So the President’s turn of phrase will go to the blooper hall of fame with other Bush Golden Oldies like last throes, links to Al Qaeda and Mission Accomplished. There was a time when America’s success meant defeating Nazis, tearing down communism’s Iron Curtain and walking on the moon. Supporting our troops meant honest safeguards, not trash talk. How low have our standards fallen when the President points to the debacle he created and says, this is what I’m proud of. Most Americans believe in a country that’s capable of much higher standards, and if America were really “kicking butt,” the President wouldn’t need to say anything, every one would know it. I yield back."

Does Mark Kirk Think That The Blood Of Our Nation's Young People Is A Small Price To Pay For Iraqi Oil?

Here is the transcript of the now infamous exchange between John Boehner and Wolf Blitzer:

BLITZER: Mr. Leader, here's the question. How much longer will U.S. taxpayers have to shell out $2 billion a week or $3 billion a week as some now are suggesting the cost is going to endure? The loss in blood, the Americans who are killed every month, how much longer do you think this commitment, this military commitment is going to require?

BOEHNER: I think General Petraeus outlined it pretty clearly. We're making success. We need to firm up those successes. We need to continue our effort here because, Wolf, long term, the investment that we're making today will be a small price if we're able to stop al Qaeda here, if we're able to stabilize the Middle East, it's not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids.

This is a very important effort on the part of the United States to secure our national interests and to secure our security interests, especially when it comes to al Qaeda, who has been our number one enemy here in Iraq.

Wolf forgot to point out that there was no al Qaeda in Iraq before the US invasion and many still question whether or not there is even an al Qaeda presence today. He also failed to point out that from what we can see that national interest of which they speak is oil. He completely forgot to react to Boehner's "small price" comment. I don't think Wolf has any kids in Iraq either, do you?

Last week, republicans stood by the proposition that words speak louder than actions in their condemnation of a Moveon.org ad that challenged the questionable testimony of General Petraeus. So, I wonder if they will take these strong feelings about words and denounce the statement of John Boehner that the casualties in Iraq are a small price to pay for our national interest (oil). I wonder if Mark Kirk will denounce Boehner's statement. Kirk's a veteran. One would think Boehner's comment would have disturbed him.

You can take a look at the war dead by state here. On September 16th, Tammy Duckworth spoke to us about undiscovered traumatic brain injuries among soldiers in Iraq because Bush forgot to seek adequate funding for screening. Now, we learn that Tammy was correct in having concern about this Bush administration oversight as scientists are reporting that bomb blast traumatic brain injuries are common and more insidious than they thought, particularly when there is repeat exposure as our soldiers are now seeing in Iraq.

Small price, huh.

Check out this video about someone who paid much more than a small price.

Bush: Fighting Law Abiding Americans Over Here So They Can Kill Iraqi Civilians Over There.

Unless you have unplugged your TV, you must have seen those telephone company commercials advertising cheaper rates for calls to a specified group of friends and family. It turns out that these plans mirror an FBI practice of demanding phone records on you, and your friends and family. So, you'd better take aunt Sally and your hamster's veterinarian out of your calling plan group if they are not "loyal Bushies".

As we learned earlier this year, the FBI routinely, on a rushed and expedited basis, demanded phone companies deliver the phone records of Americans, and often these requests were based on false or undocumented claims of links to FBI counterterrorism or espionage investigations. These rushed demands, called "exigent circumstances letters", were rushed precisely to help the FBI avoid US law and its own rules on access to information on Americans. The practice was condemned by DOJ Inspector General Glenn Fine and is supposed to have been stopped, but with the new Protect America Act that, under the guise of surveillance on foreigners, allows spying on Americans, why should we think the practice has actually ended or ever will?

This gets worse because, recently, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found in the results of its FOIA request that this information was also demanded on subjects' "community of interest". A "community of interest" is defined by the government as a "grouping of users who generate a majority of their traffic in calls to other members of the group." This includes the subject's friends and family and their friends and family. So, basically, as EFF attorney Kurt Opsahl points out, the FBI has been using a twisted form of the 6 degrees of separation game for anti-war protesters, Democrats, Quaker anti-war groups and their moms, dads, sisters, brothers, uncles, cousins, doctors, dentists, veterinarians, and friends and all their moms, dads, sisters, brothers, uncles, cousins, doctors, dentists, veterinarians and friends too and so on. I wonder if they ever actually spy on terrorists. Do they have time after they are done with the rest of us?

The EFF points out that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act prohibits this practice because it prohibits "disclosure of the contents of a communication, and … the release of a “record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer" (Title 18 Section 2702). The FBI Director once appeared to have a limited ability to legally request "the name, address, length of service, and local and long distance toll billing records of a person" upon certification that such records "sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States." All such requests were to be disclosed to congress on a semi-annual basis (Title 18 Section 2709(e)). This was the basis of the concept of the National Security Letter. However, this section was recently struck down as unconstitutional by the district court of the Southern District of New York in an ACLU case against Gonzales, FBI Director Mueller and FBI General Counsel, Valerie Caproni.
In any event, all these rules prohibit the community of interest requests because a separate national security letter and a separate basis would be required for each additional person in the original subject's community of interest.

But wait, this is not settled and over. The new Protect America Act pretty much allows anything with only internal government agency controls and meaningless court review. So, despite all the protections of earlier law and our Constitution, there is no reason to believe that the Bush administration is done spying on you and your grandma. I wonder how they expect to bring democracy to Iraq when they are so busy concentrating on chilling political discourse in this country. They are fighting law abiding Americans over here so they can continue to kill Iraqi civilians over there.

A comparison of the Iraq War to the Sub-Prime Debacle

by Sharon Sanders, guest blogger

UPDATE FROM ELLEN (11:41 am): Sharon's post is very timely. People are losing their homes to the mortgage debacle and many in the IL Tenth feel that they are immune to these problems. They are not. Right this very moment on HGTV a program called Hidden Potetial is playing. The episode is titled House Poor. It's about a young couple with 2 young boys. They have to downsize (remember 2 young boys, not in college, not married and out of the house) because they cannot afford their home. The kicker is that they are in Libertyville. Here is Sharon's post:

The sub-prime debacle was as predictable as the Iraq War. They both underscore the lack of vision and insatiable greed of this administration and its congressmen. Five years ago, I recall sitting around the table with my neo-con buddies as they talked about the incredible victory our invasion of Iraq would result in. I remember looking at them and saying—“And then what?: What happens after we take Hussein out? Their answers ranged from “We’ll be their benevolent victors and set up an idyllic democracy for them and the rest of the Middle East,” to “Does it really matter what happens there? We’re showing al Qaeda not to mess with us.” Now look at the death and destruction we’ve bestowed on Iraq and the vast numbers of terrorists we’ve created as a result of this mess and our push to control oil in the region, not to mention the incredible debt we’re handing to our children and grandchildren.

The same analogy applies to the mortgage mess we find ourselves in: short-term thinking; short-term greed. I again remember saying to friends when the easy mortgages became available, “What happens in five years when they reset at higher interest rates?” “What happens to the collateralized mortgage packages sold all over the world as AAA investments when the ‘junk’ mortgage portions of these investments reset?” What happens to the “no income verifications” loans and jumbo mortgages? It’s not that they didn’t understand; it’s that they didn’t want anyone to force them to think about the unthinkable—in other words, to spoil the party. Few had the foresight to see that home values could go down as well as up. The problem is also that “yes, we all want home ownership,” but the answer is “no, we can’t all afford one—particularly homes far beyond our means that start at low teaser rates and go onward and upward in cost.”

The myopic vision of this administration is that all regulation of corporate America is bad and it’s all about “buyer beware.” When mortgage brokers can flip the loans to the banks and other mortgage companies, they have no concern about the quality of the loans they’re making.. However, when the buyer can no longer afford his house, he can no longer consume to keep the economy humming and we head into a recession—this time with inflation as the byword. Now what?

The same logic applies to Iraq. If we leave companies like Blackwater and Halliburton unregulated, if we add to the corruption in the region by misusing billions of dollars, if we don’t take proper care of our soldiers, if we don’t learn about the cultures of the Iraqi people, if we care only about oil interests, if we watch as millions are forced out of their country, if we don’t talk about the hundreds of thousands of dead or injured Iraqis, we will pay the consequences tomorrow by increasing the danger here at home from those whom will seek revenge. This administration needs to wake up and take off their rose-colored glasses. We need to end this culture of insatiable greed and excessive power in the hands of extremists in our government

Bush and Kirk Fight for the Wrong Things. I Ask You to Fight for Jeremy.

Yesterday, I asked you what you are willing to fight for. Our readers for the mostpart will fight to get us out of Iraq and for causes that help Americans. The few republicans on this site were not courageous enough to be honest about what they fight for. I put choices up for them, but they declined to check the boxes.

Last night I was in a discussion about the war and the subject of Jeremy Murphy came up. Army ranger and reconnaissance team leader, Staff Sgt Jeremy Murphy, was one of the soldiers in Iraq who wrote the op-ed article The War As We Saw It that appeared in the New York Times on August 19. He was shot in the head by a sniper just before the article appeared. Two of his collegues died on September 10.

The article they wrote basically undercut the Petreaus Report just when Bush, Kirk and the American Press were ready to make it the Word and most Americans were ready to not be bothered with it enough to allow it to be so.

I think that the key to the article, and perhaps finding some truth about Iraq, is the comment about the players. There are more players than Bush, Kirk and Petraeus want us to know about. They talk about a group named al Qaeda in Iraq and insinuate that the others are all making friends. The soldiers identified other groups including "Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes." They also reported that Iraqi police and Army officers were seen helping plant bombs and that each side, Sunni and Shia were forming their own militias, and that the loyalty of these "proxies" to the US was very doubtful. This information together with Greg Palast's report that the Sheik Abu Risha was not a sheik and was not working against al Queda, but a con man working for US dollars for himself and killed not by al Queda but by real Sunni leaders.

Earlier this week we heard about an incident with Blackwater, one of the contractors making billions in Iraq, where Iraqi officials and civilians are claiming it's employees shot and killed civilians and want them out, but no, the power of the US was brought to bear, not so much on the side of finding the truth and punishing those who acted wrongly, but on the side of getting Blackwater back on the job. The Iraqis can legislate all they want to try to stop these incidents and punish the guilty, Bush's Coalition Provisional Authority Order 17 grants US mercenaries immunity.

I don't know how much evidence the American Congress and People need to focus on the problems Bush and Kirk have caused our nation with their Iraq War. Do they need an Iran war to stun them out of their Moveon censuring and shopping stupors?

Well, if you must shop, send a card, letter or care package to Jeremy Murphy. He's in the hospital with "a long road of treatment ahead of him" having paid a price for being a courageous US soldier and truth teller. Email me for his address and I'll send it to those of you I know. I don't want to post it and risk his safety any further.

After you send wishes to Jeremy, join the Iraq Campaign and tell Bush and Mark Kirk that you will not allow them to hold us in their web of lies any more.

I Told You So. Bad Leadership Bringing Divisiveness That Hurts the Community.

OK, I'm ashamed to admit it, but I watched Kid Nation Wednesday night. That's the show that got the 40 or so kids ages 8-15 together to build a society in an old ghost town, or more likely, a set that looks like an old ghost town.

Yeah yeah. I know, but Olbermann is still recovering from his emergency appendectomy and Countdown is just not the same without him, so I was flipping around channels and ran across this. I had heard it was controversial. I'm going to leave the controversy about child labor and the sheer insanity of sending one's child off to do something like this to others whose children are less furry (see Democat), but I did notice something I do want to talk about. The show was a sad microcosm of what Bush and Kirk are doing in this country, divide and destroy.

The show starts out about what one would expect. The kids are disorganized and ruin their first meal by having too many cooks and not thinking ahead. The four leaders selected by the producers of the show (ages 8 to 14) are having trouble keeping control and the kids are all tired and hungry so they just go to sleep before chores are done that night. However, after that things start looking up. The older kids are comforting the little kids who are homesick and showing some leadership without bossing the chosen leaders out of their positions. The next morning, one 14 year old girl takes over the kitchen and does a pretty good job using a cookbook left for them. One 15 year old boy quiets down the chaos of a meeting for the leaders by making a not too shabby unity speech. I was impressed.

Then, the adults got involved and looked a lot like our current national leaders. The kid leaders are told that the founders of the original town left them a book to help them more successfully run the town from what they learned when their town went bust. Of course, it's fake, but this gets worse. The book advises the leaders to split the town into 4 color-assigned sectors. Then, the kids are told by the host that the town will be split up into 4 casts or classes, the upper class earning $1, the merchants earning $.50, the cooks earning $.25 and the laborers earning $.10. There is a contest to determine the classes among the four color-coded groups.

They pulled a Mark Kirk on these kids, racially and economically dividing them up. Not 24 hours after the split into sectors, the older boys in one group (including the one who made the unity speech only hours before) started defacing the town with graffiti of their color label, a sort of low key, mini hate crime in the works. The girl who wanted to be the cook was pushed out of the kitchen into the scullery and became disappointed and bossy because the assigned cooks were not following the book and did not help wash the dishes (however, they did notice her hard work and gave her the weekly prize of $20K which perked her up, but scenes from the next episode show that her revolt is not placated by the prize and grows stronger). One of the 8 year olds decided to go home. I didn't blame him one bit.

They say the divisions were done to add drama. I have my own theory. I don't think CBS or the CBS sponsors wanted the country to watch these kids create a little cooperative, much less a little successful cooperative, because it sure looked like they were headed in that direction. The producers had to create a divisive force based on color and cast to make sure that didn't happen and the American people would not watch a bunch of kids create a caring town like we should be creating in our communities.

No, the kids did not create Lord of the Flies, but the adults might just yet.

Mark Kirk will fight for anti-immigrant hatred. A neighbor will fight for his SUV. What would you fight for?

Reflecting on the republican filibuster of restoring habeas corpus and the student tasering incident, I had a discussion about leadership and our national problems tonight with another attoney. He said a few things with which I was hard pressed to disagree:

"I truly believe that WE are the heart of Walmart. All stems from what we demand and require." (We weren't talking about Walmart, but that's how he phrased his view of the larger issue. I think he was saying that we are accepting cheap junk in more than just products.)

I once heard a neighbor say in response to gas prices that he'd fight for his SUV. I've also seen huge campaigns from folks trying to save a cancelled television show, so I expressed concern that the hardest fights sometimes seem to be from folks willing to fight for their SUVs and their favorite TV shows, comfort and entertainment. My collegue replied:

"Exactly - Americans fight for nothing but comfort and entertainment, and that’s what they will get. Exactly what they want. And a bad version of it, at that."

Do you think Americans have given up on the Constitution, Bill of Rights, the hard fought for and ancient right of habeas corpus, their birthright to freedom? Will today's Americans fight harder for hate and divisiveness than unity and freedom? Mark Kirk seems to think that people in this district will fight for immigrant hatred, so much so, he's more willing to run on that than on any position on Iraq. Do you agree with him?

What would you fight for? See the poll in the righthand column. If you don't see your answer, add it to the comments.

Mark Kirk Attracting Friends

Kirk got the nod from Chicagoland Friends of American Renaissance on Monday. It's a group that meets to enjoy and discuss American Renaissance Magazine. Take a look at the Southern Poverty Law Center's profile of that group here. Here's a bit for those who don't like to click through:

Jared Taylor, the man who heads the New Century Foundation and edits its American Renaissance magazine, presents himself as a cosmopolitan, open-minded thinker not afraid to take on the taboos of his time without stooping to racial epithets and the like. But, in fact, he is a man who promotes the "clear conception of the United States as a nation ruled by and for whites," regardless of the calm tone of his journal, which has an academic look and feel. In 2002, for instance, Taylor published an article by race scientist Richard Lynn (see Pioneer Fund, below) under the title "Race and the Psychopathic Personality" that argued that blacks "are more psychopathic than whites" and suffer from a "personality disorder" characterized by a poverty of feeling, lack of shame, pathological lying and so on.

You can follow that up with a visit to the ADL site's description of the group. Here's a bit of what they have to say:

The type of genteel racism that American Renaissance promotes seems on he surface almost reasonable; its errors and duplicity may become clear only with closer reading. Unfortunately, many people do not take the time to do so or are content to let scientific-sounding language and misrepresentation reinforce their own distorted world views. Both for believers and for those open to persuasion, AR provides a veneer of respectability sorely lacking in most precincts of white supremacy.

Scroll up from that quote to the bit of holocaust denial published by American Ranaissance Magazine.

Kirk needs to ask himself what he's doing to attract this group's favor. Maybe it's the hate baiting I've been talking about.

I'll stick to Moveon.org thank you very much.

Dan Seals sets out the Bush/Kirk Wait Until List

I agree with Dan, they are just buying time as they have done all along to keep their Iraq War going. Here's the list of their excuses Dan compiled:

-wait until we find Weapons of Mass Destruction.

-wait until they write their constitution.

-wait until Bush's "new plan for victory" works.

-wait until the Iraq Study Group recommendation comes out.

-wait until the "surge" has a chance to work (I'll add: and when it doesn't, wait again until it does. No hurry. It's not our kids dying over there.)

And who knows what excuse they will come up with next?

Here's what I think. It's still about staying the course. We are fighting for an oil agreement and the Bush administration cannot even get that right. They are counting on us... not to care and let them stay the course because because because and more because. There will always be a reason that about 25% of Americans will buy and about 25% of Americans won't care about at all and maybe won't even know about at all because, after all, OJ is in trouble again.

Uh, Just a Few Questions Here

On Blackwater's potential license suspension from Iraq, I've heard the Bush Administration already told Iraq to forget it and Iraq may not have legal ability to carry out their suspension because its not clear a license is needed, but I picked out this line from the Time story:

If the suspension is made permanent, it could significantly impair security for key U.S. personnel in the country, a U.S. official in Baghdad told TIME. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, whose State Department depends on Blackwater to protect its Iraq-based staffers, called Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki to say that the U.S. has launched its own investigation into the matter.

Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that the security of the U.S. Government in Iraq is subject to the status and actions of a private, for profit company and not the U.S. Military? What is national security focused about that? What is conservative about that?

Can Mark Kirk explain to the Illinois Tenth why we are at the mercy of a private company?

Want to find more questions that need asking. Take a look at Greg Palast's post for today. It's all about Sheik Abu Risha, the Sunni Sheik whose death brought Bush to fake tears because he helped the US turn things around in Anbar, the reason why the "surge" "worked". Well, as it turns out:

1. Sheik Abu Risha wasn’t a sheik.
2. He wasn’t killed by Al Qaeda.
3. The new alliance with former insurgents in Anbar is as fake as the sheik - and a murderous deceit.

Read more about what film producer Rick Rowley found out about Abu Risha here. Just in time for the September Petraeus report, hope from Anbar. What were the chances that was true. More lies from Bush. Go figure.

Lake County Democratic Women Hear From Tammy Duckworth

Tammy Duckworth was the guest speaker at this year's Lake County Democratic Women Luncheon. If you have not kept up with Tammy since the 2006 election, she is now Director of the Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs. Her message today was that the American people do not know the real cost of the wars we are now fighting and asks us to not forget the veterans.

The first impression I got from Tammy was how very young she looks and that is a good reminder that our soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are very young. She told a couple of stories from the war, one about a navy medic who's convoy was caught in an ambush. He ran toward the firefight with his medical bag and about halfway up, he was hit with an RPG that did not go off, but knocked off his right leg. He put a tourniquet and crawled into the kill zone to help the group of marines to which he was assigned. Only after helping as many as he could and directing others to help did he give himself a shot of morphine and passed out. He was 20 years old when he did that.

Tammy started our her speech by asking all veterans to stand and then asking all those who have family members now serving to stand. It proves, she said, that they are wrong when they say that Democrats do not love and fight for their country. She went on to tell us about the care that the soldiers need now and will need in the future. The Department of Defense figures we see do not include the cost of veterans care. That cost includes not only medical care for war injured and also long term health care and vocational training. She reminded us that there are still WWII veterans seeking care from the VA and now the Vietnam Veterans are hitting 65 year and are having medical issues that can be traced back to the use of Agent Orange. The cost of these wars can go on for 30-40 years after they are over and that is absent from our national debate on the war. Duckworth, for herself, is past the issue of whether Iraq was a mistake or not. She wants to do what is best for our troops and what is missing is the healthy debate. "Unless we have a healthy debate, we don't have democracy."

The dead cannot speak for themselves and those in the military give up their freedom of speech, so it is us to us to carry out the necessary debate and to question the authority of those who make decisions in our names. That is why Tammy said she ran for Congress in 2006. She was sick of the people making decision in her name not speaking the truth to the American people. She was also inspired by Dick Durbin's invitation to a state of the union address (Durbin was the only member of Congress to give his tickets to soldiers.) and felt she still needed to continue her service to our nation particularly when thinking about those who saved her life after her helicopter was hit by a rocket propelled grenade. They thought she was dead, but carried her out anyway because they did not want her parents to see her body dragged through the streets on CNN.

Are there Democrats in the military? She says she was a closet Dem. She refused to allow Rumsfeld to greet her in hospital room after her injury. She asked her superior officer if it was an order, did she have to meet with him. She was told no, it was not a requirement, so she declined. They sent the chief psychiatrist to her the next day. She thought she was the sanest person in the place. Now, she hears more and more frustration from colleagues.

Of the issues she is now working on are grants for groups that work with veterans (with assistance from the IL Lt. Gov.). One mentioned is a $2 scratch off lottery ticket from which all the proceeds go to veterans legal and other assistance in Illinois. Illinois is now doing things for veterans that other states are not including mandatory screening for traumatic brain injury. If a soldier is driving a truck (one of the most dangerous jobs now in Iraq) and is hit multiple times but walks away each time, he or she will not be screened for traumatic brain injury. Only those with an apparent injury at the time are screened by the military. However, under this Illinois program all of its returning soldiers will get that screening. Another Illinois project, is a 24 hour hotline for recently returned veterans and their families to help them deal with post traumatic stress.

Tammy Duckworth talked about how the cost of war has shifted to the states and the states and the states and community groups with state grants have to deal with it or nothing will happen. So, what do I think that mean for us? First and foremost, we have to be concerned with the soldiers returning with apparent or not all that apparent injuries and give them and their families what they need. We also have to consider what that will take and how it will affect education, health care, transportation and all of our other needs here at home. We are already seeing these effects on our state trying to come up with a budge that works. You can come up with all the comments you want on our Illinois budget, but the fact of the matter is that the states are being pulled into paying for the real cost of this war and it will affect all of us. The Bush administration and Mark Kirk don't want us to focus on this real cost and want us to look at their wars as being consequences-less to most. Go shopping Bush said. Well, that is one thing with which I actually agree. Let's go shopping for better representation in the US Congress in 2008.

Bush and Kirk One and the Same on Iraq, Long on PR, Short on Plans for Political Success

For those of you who doubted me when I said Bush and Kirk were really saying the same thing about Iraq, here's one more piece of evidence:

Kirk calls his little bit of fake planning the "path forward" in Iraq.

Last night, Bush called his bit of fake planning the "way forward".

It's the PR machine at its most obvious. You'd think they'd hire an ad agency with more than one copywriter.

Another piece of evidence that Bush and Kirk are on the same war footing is their attention to Iran. Bush mentioned Iran 5 times in his speech. Kirk's introduced 3 measures highlighting Iran this Congress (H.R. 2880, H.Res. 267 and H. Con. Res.203) .

Yup, same page.

As for Iraq, for all that forward planning Bush and Kirk speak of, one would think they'd have an actual plan, a plan to get to the political place they need to be at to stabilize the place and bring our soldiers home. I've seen very little of that sort of planning. Bush said that "we are surging diplomatic and civilian resources to ensure that military progress is quickly followed up with real improvements in daily life," but where is it? Why didn't Bush's speech talk about the Secretary of State setting up shop and doing some real diplomacy? Condi Rice is notably absent from this discussion on the way or path or whatever forward in Iraq, all I have been able to find on Condi and Iraq were her few comments on the Sunday talk show circuit last week, more in support of Petraeus and Bush than in support of diplomatic progress in Iraq. She was quick to bring Iran into the picture reminicient of both Bush and Mark Kirk's not too subtle mentions of Iran's badness whenever possible.

Instead of describing the diplomatic surge (sure sounded good in rehearsal, I'd bet) in his speech last night, Bush described the "success" in Anbar Province. He forgot to mention that the success came by arming the other side, the former supporters of Saddam. He also failed to caution Americans on the limits of that success and it's likelihood of sticking. The only impression Bush left me with was that they break up problem groups, leave a power vacuum and come back to break up the new problem groups that arise and leave another power vacuum.

Where do the American people fall in all of this? Well, first the press declared this week a a Bush victory, but forgot to mention that most Americans oppose the war and do not trust Bush to find any resolution for Iraq. Ultimately, the American people are footing the bill in dollars and blood for a PR campaign in the US on Iraq and not much of a campaign on the field and in the seat of power in the actual Iraq (not to mention the Iraqi blood that the American press carefully hides).

So, we are left to wonder why all it might take for Bush and Kirk to keep their Iraq war and get their Iran War is a slipshod one-liner PR campaign unworthy of a top notch Madison Avenue ad agency. I wonder if that injured soldier or his parents who allowed themselves to be used by the high ticket PR campaign of the connected and over the top rich Freedoms Watch felt at all bad when the minority leader in the house said the price they paid for Bush's game in Iraq was small. I also wonder if the American people will ultimately feel that the price they've paid in a shredded Constitution was small.

Mark Kirk supports more delays on Iraq Redeployment. He should listen to Barack.

Here's Barack on Iraq:

Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year — now.

We're being humored and handled by our republican leaders with all the media talk and oversimplified newspaper headlines about an troop decrease by next year that makes it sound as if it is a redeployment when it isn't much of anything at all. Neither Petraeus nor Bush offer any sort of strategy or plan to improve the political situation in Iraq that would lead to the war's end. They have no intent to end the war as it's such a power and cash cow for them.

All they've done is bought themselves another whole year, far longer than the few months they had bought with the big wait for the "Petraeus Report" was turned out to be a big nothing, not a report at all and not by Petraeus. At the end of the year, circumstances will be coordinated to keep us in Iraq or we'll be out of Iraq and into Iran.

There's something wrong when the government spends more time and energy working on handling us as a PR issue than handling the real issues of security, spending, diplomacy and the protection of our constitutional rights as Americans.

Talk to Kirk

It might be your only chance unless you are one of his largest contributors:

Mark Kirk will be discussing his views on Iraq Wednesday at 1:00 p.m. on WJJG 1530 AM Radio. The call-in number is 708-493-1530.

UPDATE On Kirk's Fake Iraq Wind Down Bill. Shameless Liar Part III

Last week, Kirk said never fear, he has a plan for a reasonable solution to the Iraq War. I was taking the wait and see approach watching for bills coming out of GPO, and really did not think he was brazen enough not to produce a real, new bill. However, even I failed to underestimate him enough as, Monday, Kirk finally came clean (sort of) with far less fanfare than his original announcement. It's not a new bill at all. It's only a rehash of his support for the Udall bill. Prairie State Blue has a good description of what this really is, and isn't and one thing it is not is truly bi-partisan.

Kirk went for the headlines, again hoping his district is ill-informed and not too bright. Here's another take on this bill from Firedog Lake and click through the links to find out that the bill sets insurmountable conditions before a withdrawal is even considered.

It's really nothing more than a stay in Iraq indefinitely bill which is what Bush wants, so once again Kirk proves that he's nothing but a Bush rubber stamp and that he's willing to lie to have us think otherwise--which also begs the question: If you know it's wrong enough to lie to us about it, Mark, why do you continue to support it?

It also begs a question to our major daily newspaper. Why do you report on a rehash of a dead bill as if it is some sort of new plan from Illinois representatives?

Sun Tzu Meets Madison Avenue Advertising

The Petraeus so-called Report is hardly worth talking about, being more Sun Tzu's Art of War meets Madison Avenue advertising. There are some pretty well researched and written debunks linked over at Think Progress and I'll leave that work to their worthy hands.

Sun Tzu talked about defeating an enemy, but Bush and his spokesmodels have defined their enemy and it's not terrorists or the Iraqi insurgents. The message and strategy of the day was clearly not for their benefit. It was for us and the strategy was to placate us. The "enemy" they dealt with on Monday was we, the American people.

I don't know why Petraeus would want to become Colin Powell. It didn't really work out all that well for him.

What is the most disturbing to me is what they have really accomplished and at whose expense. Having accomplished no lasting political solution in Iraq to bring an eventual and ultimate peace and security to the region, the only real accomplishment of the Bush administration in Iraq has not been in Iraq at all, but here. They used the Iraq War to tear apart our system of government based on separation of powers and checks and balances as set forth in the U.S. Constitution. They replaced it with nothing in writing that we can read and understand, vote for or against, but some vague form of oligarchy lead by a fully unaccountable executive who issues signing statements in a vacuum and at will, ignores congress and controls the judiciary. That was the mission and mission accomplished.

When 9/11 happened, we needed a real leader, a seeker of wisdom and truth, but we got Bush who saw it not as the tragedy it was and wake up call to use our position in the world for the better, but as an opportunity to take control. We also got Kirk who follows Bush without question. Their supporters think this is just great because they think it gave them control. What it really did was take control away from the branch closest to the people and gave to to an unaccountable and undefined dominator and decider. What will the Bush/Kirk supporters think when this newly concentrated power is used against them and they realize they threw away the power of the people?

A True Fable: Ownership Society Failure Hits Home, Park and Street

Once upon a recent time, a builder purchased some farmland in the Illinois Tenth District and built single family homes on it. The builder made a deal with the municipality that the common areas of the development would be owned and maintained, not by the municipality, but an association of homeowners. It seemed like a good and fair deal. Each homeowner would pay assessments equal to his or her percentage interest in the development based on the value of his or her lot and improvements.

The builder smiled because this agreement helped pave (pun intended) the way for municipal approval of his project.

Municipal leaders smiled because they would not have to worry about maintaining parks and streets in the development and while the homeowners would still owe taxes to the municipality, they might be able to keep taxes down because some maintenance was not their responsibility.

Lenders smiled because their liens were going to be first and prior to the liens of the association for any unpaid maintenance fees, but the land would retain its value because it would be maintained.

Owners smiled because they would be in control of the maintenance and the nasty old government could not use the maintenance as an excuse for raising taxes.

For a time, everything seemed fine. The homes were beautiful, affordable (if you had your own huge downpayment or got an 80/20 adjustable rate mortgage and did not lose your job) and sold quickly. Most owners paid their assessments and their mortgages and the parks and streets were new, so they did not need much in the way of maintenance. The association was not rich, but it basically had enough money to get through each year.

Then, the Bush administration told everyone that patriotism meant, not adherence to the Constitution, but shopping. People started to get a little over their heads buying cars, iPhones, and Jimmy Choo's on credit, and in more ownership society moves during the Bush Administration, jobs were lost, medical benefits lost or downgraded, and those pesky ARMs started to adjust (isn't that what "adjustable" always meant anyway?)

Well, as so many of these true fables go, things started to get a bit dicey in the subdivision. The smiling builder was long gone with his money, but the lenders, municipal leaders and owners stopped smiling. Apart from many of the owners losing their homes to short sale or foreclosure and the lenders losing a lot of the money on the same short sales and foreclosures, the parks and streets started to need maintenance. Even the solvent homeowners who could afford their homes and regularly paid their mortgages and their homeowners association assessments were feeling the pinch because so many of their neighbors could not pay their assessments and the associations coffers were running low. Winter is approaching and plowing and potholes are going to become an issue.

Moral of the story: The ownership society is a crock even in relatively affluent areas. We have to stop looking at our communities as us vs. them proposition and understand that taxation is not a bad thing, but an investment in our communities. Taxes are spread throughout the entire community, not just one subdivision, so there is more of a cushion to lighten our fall during harder times. Taxes are also first and prior to the liens over even a purchase money mortagage and collectable through a solid tried and true state supported system. Homeowners association dues are subject to taxes and first mortgages and are more difficult to collect because the already strapped association has to hire an attorney to enforce them and sue each delinquent homeowner only to, most of the time, get a junior judgment.

Moral of the moral: Even if you are wealthy, the ownership society will ultimately not work for you either, so stop griping about taxes and start recognizing that taxes help you too.

And Who Said Truth Cannot Come With Cat Videos?

Democat's friend Pinky explores the issue: Is the Iraq War Legal?

What a gas! Perpetuating the lie!

"People want to be told what to do so badly that they'll listen to anyone." That was the comment of Don Draper, the fictitious circa 1960 advertising creative director on AMC's Man Men in response to criticism of the advertising industry. It stuck in my mind as I watched an episode on the On Demand on a recent terribly rainy night and came back to me as I woke up to the Tribune article on Mark Kirk's latest advertising stunt to keep all factions of his increasingly impatient district in line.

We've known about the Bush administration lies to get us into Iraq for years now and most recently learned that the Petraeus Report, for which they've been told to wait patiently these past several months now, will be little more than a Bush administration factless Iraq War cheerleading session. Americans grow more frustrated with the war and their government, but seem to mostly feel powerless to do anything about it and can be persuaded to sit tight longer with a little persuasion. Enter Madison Avenue style advertising. The notion that you don't really have to have a good product or service so long as you can control perception about it. Don't fret America. You don't have to do anything. It's being taken care of. They have the money to say it often enough to a large enough audience and Americans really want to hear it and believe it, true or not.

I guess the good news about Kirk's attempt at taking a stand on Iraq is that between the 700+ strongly attended August 28th Northbrook Townhall Meeting, the Iraq Campaign (FKA Iraq Summer), Tenth Dems and Tenth Dems University, the Footlik and Seals' campaigns, and blogs like Archpundit, Prairie State Blue, this one and others, Kirk's campaign office is feeling the pressure. The reality is most likely that, while Kirk feels some pressure to come up with something rational sounding to say, its not the same thing as pressure to come up with something rational to do and Kirk's proposal will fall short on the do side.

One possiblity for Kirk would have been to hide behind the Freedoms Watch ads, but Kirk is bright enough to know that his district would probably not react all that well to such an offensive use of Washington, DC big money and dead or injured soldiers to pander to pro-war sympathy. So, he decided to go for the safer lull us into a false sense of positive action route.

So we never forget the sales job that got us into Iraq and why, more from Mad Men:

"What a gas! Perpetuating the lie! How do you sleep at night?"

"On a bed made of money," Draper coolly replies.

On the show, Don Draper is working for Nixon. Nothing new from the republican party for almost 50 years now.

Mark Kirk Hates Labor and Loves War

Again, Mark Kirk uses a sympathetic person for political capital. This time it's Mahmoud Salehi, founder of the Saghez Bakery Workers Association. Mr. Salehi was trying to organize labor in Iran and was arrested and imprisoned for it. Sound familiar? It should because that still happens in the USA. See here too. See here too and scroll down for a labor organizing arrest as late as 2005.

There is every reason to take Mr. Salehi's plight very seriously, but I'm not so sure Mark Kirk does and I'm not so sure Mr. Salehi would be too excited about Kirk's support because Mark Kirk's voting record is very anti-labor. According to the AFL-CIO scorecard, in 2006, Kirk voted with labor only 36% of the time. Kirk's lifetime AFL-CIO labor score is 22%. Here is a little summary of Kirk's anti-labor votes (this is just an overview because I don't have enough time or energy to write about all of Kirk's anti-labor votes):

2002 was a busy anti-labor year for the congressman. Kirk voted for H.R. 3762 which addressed pensions on the heals of the Enron scandal. The bill provided investment advisors for employees, but in doing so just provided customers for investment houses with no fiduciary duty to the employees served. The bill also allowed executives greater allocation of available pension money. Kirk voted against amendments which would have given employees rights to sue boards that misused their pension money, required employee representatives on pension boards and made executive pay subject to bankruptcy proceedings. He also reacted to Enron by voting against stricter auditing of corporate financial statements (H.R. 3763). In more 2002 votes against workers, Kirk voted to take away the labor rights of various federal employees (H.R. 3231, H.R. 5005, H.R. 5710) and against a bill that would have eliminated tax subsidies eliminating US jobs in favor of foreign jobs (H.R. 2871) and voted to outsource more federal government jobs (H.R. 5120). Kirk voted in favor of "fast-track" or "trade promotion authority" powers for the President that disallowed Congress to make amendments to trade agreements that might have helped protect labor or the environment (H.R. 3009).

2003 failed to see a change in Mark Kirk's anti-labor positions. He voted to revoke Social Security benefits for certain retired public employees (H.R. 743) and again voted to allow 401K managers to profit from the Enron scandal at the expense of workers (H.R. 1000). He also voted to politicize the Pentagon at the expense of it's workers in the Fiscal 2004 Defense Budget (H.R. 1588). Kirk was a no-show on a close vote allowing Bush to privatize air traffic controllers, computer system and maintenance workers, and flight service station employees (H.R. 2115). Kirk voted to allow associations of small businesses to provide insurance plans to employees that violated state laws requiring specific types of coverages including coverages for breast cancer, autism, and mental illness (H.R. 660). He voted to further harm workers under those "fast-track" trade arrangements by waiving health care requirements (H.R. 1528).

I'm getting tired and we're only in 2003.

In June 2003, Kirk had the opportunity to provide employees of small businesses with the similar health insurance as that for federal employees (himself), but no. Then, Congresswoman McCarthy of New York tried to get some quality of coverage for these small business employees by requiring at least state mandated coverages. Kirk couldn't do that either. (H.R. 660). Any help for miners in July 2003? Nope. (H.R. 349). Overtime pay for low level white collar workers (not managers)? Nope (H.R. 2660) Protect farmers and workers from adverse affects of trade agreements? Nope (H.R. 2799, H.R. 2738, H.R. 2739) What about following federal anti-discrimination in hiring rules when federal money is used. Nope (H.R. 2210). Kirk then voted in favor of encouraging companies to shift from traditional defined-benefit retirement plans to more risky and age-discriminatory cash balance pension plans (H.R. 2989). More privatization of federal jobs were A-OK with Kirk in his votes on H.R. 2989.

In October 2003, there were several procedural votes surrounding the Fiscal 2004 Omnibus Appropriations Bill that were taken to eliminate review and debate and allowing votes to be illegally held open culminating in the vote for an appropriations bill that allowed expiration of to unemployment benefits to the millions of out-of-work Americans, denied overtime pay to low level white-collar workers, increased media concentration, and privatize more government jobs (H.R. 2673).

I'll continue this later, but the point is clear. Mark Kirk has no love for labor. What he does have is love for supporting George W. Bush Wars and his little stunt with poor Mr. Salehi is more likely Kirk doing his part to move us toward an Iran war in the same way he helped Bush sell his Iraq war to the American public.

Mark Kirk, an Understaffed FBI and Chemical Barbie

How do you conduct a press conference when you support the unsupportable? You deflect! Kirk appears to have mastered looking like he's handling an issue when he's ignoring it.

Wednesday, Mark Kirk spoke to reporters at O'Hare Airport after arriving back from telling the Chinese that we love their business and hope they stop sending us toxic products. His concern is security at the 2008 Olympics. He wants to send the FBI, Secret Service and NSA to China for the Olympics. I 've be left with the impression that our local FBI office is understaffed. Here is some support for that notion from the Seattle FBI office. Here is a 2004 article describing the FBI and CIA as understaffed. So I'd suggest redeploying the soldiers in Iraq to China.

While security at an Olympics anywhere is a concern, Kirk's special concern completely ignores the fact that one need not travel to the Beijing Olympics to be at risk and the vast majority of Americans are at risk without leaving their local grocery and toy stores. The 2008 Olympics security issue will certainly statistically take a far second place to the risk we take from a Barbie Doll.

I'm wondering why the reporters who met Kirk at the airport failed to ask him why he does not support better oversight of imports from China when he specifically said all he got from them was hope for future improvement.

Kirk's trip to China was sponsored by The National Committee on United States-China Relations. Here is some info on that group's chair, Carla Hills. While I am happy to see that Ms. Hills at least addresses human rights issues in China. (Kirk does not.) I fundamentally disagree with her outlook. She seems to think we do business with China first and hope they improve by example and through the institutions created through our business. I am not optimistic that is all it takes to get China to change and I think circumstances are proving me out.

Mark Kirk: Shameless Liar on his Environmental Record

Mark Kirk lied about the call from AAEI about their town hall meeting on Iraq last week. Kirk also lied in his 2002 debate with Hank Perritt claiming that he was in a special position to know and that he knew there were WMD in Iraq. Bob Emerson recently told us about Kirk lying again about Iraq intelligence, in church no less.

A reader recently wrote to me about another lie he caught Kirk in. At an appearance at the Wheeling Senior Center on July 27, 2007, Mark Kirk was asked about his support for Bush budgets that cut funding for environmental programs. Kirk began his response by citing his ratings with the League of Conservation Voters and said that his rating was equal to that of Senator Hillary Clinton. My reader went home and looked it up. This is what he found:

107th Congress--Clinton 88% Kirk 59%
108th Congress--Clinton 92% Kirk 71%
109th Congress 1st Session--Clinton 95% Kirk 39%
109th Congress 2d Session--Clinton 71% Kirk 75%

You can take a peak for yourself here for Kirk and here for Clinton. According to LCV's 2006 National Environmental Scorecard Kirk's lifetime score is 61% while Senator Clinton's is 90%.

Apparently Kirk has no more problem lying to senior citizens in Wheeling than he does in church or on the House Floor while impersonating an owl.

Oy, We're Back in the Bathroom

Larry Craig was resigning so he wouldn't be a distraction. Now, apparently, someone has told him a distraction is just what the republican party needs and wants because he's baaaaaack and the newsmedia has us back in the bathroom. Three points on this one:

1. Now, I'm more convinced than ever that they are up to something. It's either Iran or the distraction to ensure forever war in Iraq. Keith Olbermann's figured out what I've been saying for a good while now: The Mission in Iraq is to Stay in Iraq. If you missed it, Olbermann's special comment, was....well....special.

2. Hey Larry, wonder what it's like to be a victim of one's own hate baiting?

3. Listening to Craig's supporters say he was the victim of a lynching is absolutely disgusting. If you want to learn about the real victim of a lynching, read about Emmett Till, a young man violently murdered for nothing but the same sort of hate baiting Craig and other republicans