Exactly one week from today, Americans will hopefully take "their souls to the polls" (to borrow a phrase from Rev. Jesse Jackson).  And hopefully, they will do so in massive numbers.

So what are my main two wishes for next Tuesday?

1. I hope to see people going into the voting booth, determined to vote FOR, not against, their own best interests. I've never understood why someone would vote against their own economic or other interests.  Now, more than ever, it's important that everyone educate themselves on where the candidates stand, and not just pull the lever for someone, simply because of the letter they have next to their name.  If you have a son or daughter in Iraq, why vote for a member of Congress who refuses to provide oversight over an Administration that fixed the facts around the policy, and has failed to provide the proper body arm to your child?

If your family cannot make it above the poverty line, and you're working two or three jobs to stay afloat, why vote for a member of Congress who doesn't believe the minimum wage needs to be raised?

2.  My second wish, is that everyone will educate themselves on their rights at the voting booth.  I have no doubt that there are forces in this country, who don't want to see certain voters showing up next Tuesday to make their voices heard.  I have no doubt that there will be numerous attempts to suppress certain voters.  And the greatest rebuke to that, is to know what your rights are when you enter that voting booth.  For example, if you live in a state like Georgia where a federal judge has struck down a controversial voter ID law, you need to know about that, in case someone attempts to challenge your right to vote, because you don't have certain IDs. 

There have been recent court challenges to new voting ID laws; so know where any court case in your state stands.  Know your rights.

Those are my two wishes for next Tuesday: 1) vote FOR your own best intersts and 2) educate yourself on your rights at the voting booth.

 

I've never put much faith or stock in polls, as they can change in a heartbeat.

But this one is still good to see in print: According to a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, Democrats have a record 15-point advantage (tied for the largest ever in a survey) over Republicans in the upcoming election.

According to the poll, 52% of registered voters say they prefer Democrats controlling Congress, as opposed to the 37% who say they prefer Republicans in control of Congress.

Dems hold record 15-point edge over GOP

NBC/WSJ poll: Worst may be over for Republicans after Foley sex scandal

 

Must-reads for today:

1.  US tactics 'boosting al-Qaeda' in Iraq:

Sunnis radicalised by brutal US tactics and disillusioned mainstream insurgents are swelling the ranks of al-Qaeda, a moderate Sunni politician said.

Saleh Mutlaq, whose Iraqi National Dialogue group supports the US-backed political process, said al-Qaeda's growing control of strongholds at the heart of the country's Sunni insurgency is paving the way for an Islamic fundamentalist state in western and central Iraq and even the capital Baghdad.

-snip-

Mutlaq said heavy-handed US tactics against civilians have propelled many ordinary Sunnis into the arms of al-Qaeda.

"American prisons have become the school for suicide bombers and transformed many prisoners into al-Qaeda elements when they were not before," Mutlaq said.

-snip-

He said al-Qaeda's growth has exposed a flaw in US military strategy which conceived Iraq as a place where Islamists zealots from across the region could be drawn into a battle zone far from the United States and wiped out.

2. DNC: White House Using Taxpayer Dollars to Boost GOP Election Prospects:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 29 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Today's Los Angeles Times reports on Karl Rove's three-pronged plan to win in November, which includes "putting the resources of the federal government to use for political gain." The story cites the struggling campaigns of several Republicans who are suddenly seeing millions of taxpayer dollars coming into their districts weeks before the November election.

"Americans should be outraged that the Bush White House is using their hard earned tax dollars to help elect Republicans so they can stay in power. The Republican Party consistently puts what's good for their Party ahead of what's good for America," said Democratic National Committee (DNC) Press Secretary Stacie Paxton. "Rather than using federal resources for political gain, how about using those resources to help bring middle class tax fairness, or investing in health care, or a real plan for success in Iraq? The American people know that they cannot trust Republican leadership to do what's right for America. They want a new direction."

-- Federal Aid Funneled to Vulnerable Republicans Tainted by Scandal, Including Reynolds, Pryce, Pombo.

Rep. Tom Reynolds, after meeting with Karl Rove, announced four days later that President Bush would authorize millions of dollars in disaster aid in his district. The announcement was conveniently made only hours after Reynolds testified before the House Ethics Committee regarding his involvement in the Mark Foley scandal. Similarly, the federal highway administrator announced transportation grants in Columbus, Ohio, to "boost prospects for Rep. Deborah Pryce of Ohio, the No. 4 Republican in the House, who is trailing her opponent." In addition, the "White House political office arranged for President Bush to.sign legislation protecting wetlands" in Republican Rep. Richard Pombo's district to help the Congressman who suddenly finds himself in a tight race in California.

In Broward County, Florida, some voters are taking advantage of early voting. And some voters are reporting problems with electronic voting; they report that after they have voted for the Democratic candidate, the screen shows that their vote actually registered for the Republican candidate.

From the Miami Herald:

Debra A. Reed voted with her boss on Wednesday at African-American Research Library and Cultural Center near Fort Lauderdale. Her vote went smoothly, but boss Gary Rudolf called her over to look at what was happening on his machine. He touched the screen for gubernatorial candidate Jim Davis, a Democrat, but the review screen repeatedly registered the Republican, Charlie Crist.

-snip-

Joan Marek, 60, a Democrat from Hollywood, was also stunned to see Charlie Crist on her ballot review page after voting on Thursday. ''Am I on the voting screen again?'' she wondered. ``Well, this is too weird.''

Marek corrected her ballot and alerted poll workers at the Hollywood satellite courthouse, who she said told her they'd had previous problems with the same machine.

Poll workers did some work on her machine when she finished voting, Marek said. But no report was made to the Supervisor of Elections office and the machine was not removed, Cooney said.

-snip-

Mauricio Raponi wanted to vote for Democrats across the board at the Lemon City Library in Miami on Thursday. But each time he hit the button next to the candidate, the Republican choice showed up. Raponi, 53, persevered until the machine worked. Then he alerted a poll worker.

Glitches cited in early voting

Early voters are urged to cast their ballots with care following scattered reports of problems with heavily used machines.

It appears as though the IRS, under the leadership of Commissioner Mark W. Everson, just might be going into the business of politics.

Everson has ordered his agency to delay collecting back taxes from survivors of Hurrican Katrina, until after the upcoming November 7 elections and the holiday season.

Everson said he wanted to avoid any negative publicity, and commented "We are very sensitive to political perceptions."

According to the New York Times, four former commissioners of the IRS, who served under Republican and Democratic presidents, stated that they felt it was inappropriate to delay IRS enforcement actions due to political events.

Jerome Kurtz, IRS Commissioner during Jimmy Carter's administration, said "Oh my God, that is unthinkable."  Charles O. Rossotti, who served as commissioner during the Clinton and Bush administrations, sad "That's not appropriate."

It should be noted here that Everson has very close ties to the Bush White House.  He was Deputy Director of the Budget Office at the White House until Bush nominated him to be commissioner of the IRS.  His wife served as chief ethics lawyer in the Bush White House.

I happen to believe the federal government should waive debt collection for survivors of Hurricane Katrina, especially in light of the government's abismal response to the hurricane, and leaving people on house rooftops to die.  But if they are going to collect back taxes from Hurricane Katrina survivors, why the political calculation of waiting until after the November 7 election and upcoming holidays, Mr.Everson? Unless, of course, you want to make sure your friend George has a Republican-controlled Congress to continue to rubber stamp his agenda for the duration of his lame duck presidency.

I.R.S. Going Slow Before Election

The arrogance of Donald Rumsfeld comes shining through again.  I'll give him credit: at least he's consistent.

Apparently our Secretary of Defense doesn't like people criticizing him.  Today, he told critics of the Iraq war to just " just back off" when it comes to setting deadlines in Iraq.

Awww...what's wrong?  Poor baby.  Did someone hurt your feelings, Rummy?  Upset that people are finally calling you out for the miserable failure that you are; for sending our troops into harm's way without a plan to win the peace?

Well, let's make a deal here.  I'll "just back off" if you promise to: 1) resign or 2) urge Bushie to redeploy our troops so they are no longer the target in a civil war.

Rumsfeld tells war critics to 'back off'

It's not like we didn't already know this was their modus operandi, but a White House official has admitted that decisions regarding strategy in Iraq, are tied to the upcoming U.S. midterm elections.

On the CBS Evening News yesterday, White House correspondent Jim Axelrod revealed that when it comes to changing strategy in Iraq, a White House official told him not to expect any significant changes before November 8 (the day after the elections).   The White House offical told Axelrod "You're not going to see anything before November 8th. It would be political suicide, and Karl Rove would never allow it."

In other words, when it comes to the Bush Administration's Iraq policy, the Iraqi people are not at the forefront of their minds.  Our service men and women in Iraq are not at the forefront of the Bush Administration's mind.

Foremost in their mind, is the political viability and survival of the Republican Party.

White House again times Iraq policy to U.S. elections; CBS' Couric and Axelrod show little interest, despite surge of troop deaths

 

During a radio interview yesterday with conservative commentator Scott Hennen, Dick Cheney admitted the United States has engaged in waterboarding, an "interrogation" (read: torture) technique in which the person being subjected to it, is made to feel as though they are drowing.

And Hennen seemed all too happy to do BushCo's bidding.  WE LOVE TORTURE!  WE LOVE TORTURE! He told Cheney that his listeners requested that he let Cheney know "If it takes dunking a terrorist in water, we're all for it, if it saves American lives."  And Hennen went on to tell Cheney he thought the debate over waterboarding was silly "given the threat we face."

Cheney concurred, saying "And I think the terrorist threat, for example, with respect to our ability to interrogate high-value detainees like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, that's been a very important tool that we've had to be able to secure the nation."

In other words, Hennen and Cheney are both suggesting that being subjected to waterboarding makes the terrorists like Mohammed start talking, and thus the United States is able to gain valuable intelligence information (i.e. about the next attack).  What they won't tell you, is that torture is ineffective as an intelligence tool, because many times the person being subjected to it, is just going to say what they think the tormentor wants to hear.

It's interesting that Cheney mentioned Mohammed, the man credited with being the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks.  As I've mentioned here on the blog before, Mohammed was waterboarded after being taken into custody.  And he began to talk and provide information, "though not all of it reliable," a former senior intelligence official said. In other words, Mohammed lied.  Just kind of throws the whole 'waterboarding saves American lives' schtick right out the window, doesn't it?

What good does it do to get "intelligence" information, if the information is not reliable?

Cheney confirms that detainees were subjected to water-boarding

If the Department of Education has its way, a new era of school segregation may be upon us.

Today, the Department of Education announced new rules that will more easily allow single-sex classrooms or entire schools. Even though single-sex education has shown mixed results, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings says more parents should have the option of letting their son be taught in a classroom of all boys, or their daughter taught in a classroom of all girls.

Even worse, two female senators (Republican Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas, and Democrat Hillary Clinton of New York) supported single-sex education under the No Child Left Behind Act, back in 2001.  Shame on them for supporting school segregation.

Feds ease limits on same-sex schools

Just when I think Rush Limbaugh couldn't stoop any lower; that he's already sunk to the bottom of the barrel.  He manages to surprise me by sinking even lower than I think possible for him.

Yesterday on his radio show, Limbaugh accused famed actor and activist Michael J. Fox of faking the effects of Parkinson's Disease.

Since going public with his Parkinson's disease diagnosis years ago, Fox has been an outspoken advocate of stem cell research.  In that vein, he recently cut a campaign ad for Claire McCaskill, Democratic candidate for the Senate in Missouri, touting her support of stem cell research.  In the ad, Fox can be seen clearly suffering the effects of Parkinson's disease, shaking severely.

But Limbaugh baselessly accused Fox of faking it. He said .."in this commercial, he is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He is moving all around and shaking. And it's purely an act. This is the only time I have ever seen Michael J. Fox portray any of the symptoms of the disease he has."

What is it with Republicans who make fun of Democrats with serious health challenges?  Republican commentator Michael Savage once said that the only reason President Bill Clinton survived quadruple heart bypass was because "hell was full."  And now, Rush Limbaugh makes fun of Michael J. Fox suffering the effects of Parkinson's Disease.

I guess that's what happens when you get desparate because you know you don't have the issues on your side.

Limbaugh on Michael J. Fox ad for MO Dem: "Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting"

 

 

A non-partisan civic organization says that it was able to hack into Chicago's voter database, where information such as voter's social security numbers and dates of birth is stored.

The Illinois Ballot Integrity Project is a non-profit organization that focuses on correcting election system deficiencies. Bob Wilson works for the organization, and he says that their ability to hack into Chicago's voter database revealed a "serious identity theft problem" that has the potential to "create problems with the election."  He noted that an ill-meaning hacker could have accessed the system and changed voters' status from active to inactive, rendering them unable to vote on November 7.

He went on to say "Or we could've changed the information on what precinct you were in or what polling place you were supposed to go to. So there were ways that we could potentially change the entire online data base and disenfranchise voters throughout the entire city of Chicago. If we'd wanted to, we could've wiped the entire database out."

Remind me again how is it that we can send officials from our country to monitor elections in other countries, yet our very own electoral system here in the United States is in peril.

Chicago Voter Database Hacked; Civic Group Claims It Could Have Tampered With Voter Roles

 

So now the Bush Administration wants to provide amnesty to those who have killed our troops, WHILE our troops are still fighting in Iraq.

From the Times Online (UK):

AMERICAN forces are negotiating an amnesty with Sunni insurgents in Iraq to try to defuse the nascent civil war and pave the way for disarmament of Shia militias, The Times has learnt.

The tactic marks a dramatic reversal of policy by the US military, which blocked attempts to pardon insurgents with American blood on their hands after handing over sovereignty to a secular Iraqi Government in June 2004.

The U-turn comes amid the bloodiest fighting for two years and growing domestic opposition to the war as Americans prepare to vote in crucial midterm elections.

Even as President Bush convened emergency talks with his generals and national security advisers to review strategy in Iraq, commanders on the ground were negotiating a peace deal. Observers expect leaders of the Sunni insurgency to join a peace conference early next month.

Entire article located at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2417143,00.html

Until last year, Mr. Wayne White was head of the U.S. State Department's Iraq Intelligence Section.

In a recent interview with the BBC, Mr. White said the U.S. is not winning in Iraq, and cannot "stay a course" there.

He told the BBC:

"The effort can't be sustained over the long haul, and so we can't stay a course, I think, that requires years and years more."   He went on to say "We're not winning. It's apparent. I checked with almost a dozen sources in Baghdad in just the last 24 hours. Every single one of them answered the question as to whether the violence was lessening, or getting worse, with - 'worse'."

A new GOP anti-abortion campaign ad, which they hoped would appeal to the African-American community, refers to Black women as "hos."

The ad features a dialogue between two men:

One of the men in the ad says "If you make a little mistake with one of your ‘hos,' you'll want to dispose of that problem tout suite, no questions asked"

The other man responds "That's too cold. I don't snuff my own seed," to which the first man replies "Maybe you do have a reason to vote Republican."

Republican Group Chides Democrats With Abortion Ads
Aim Is To Win Minority Voters, But Democrats Cry Foul

No kidding, sherlock!  You don't say!  A U.S. diplomat is now speaking out against what he sees as the Bush Administration's "arrogance" and "stupidity" in Iraq.  (He's just now realizing this?  I could have clued him in a long time ago).

Alberto Fernandez is the Director of Public Diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the State Department.  In an interview with Al -Jazeera t.v. on today, he said "We tried to do our best but I think there is much room for criticism because, undoubtedly, there was arrogance and there was stupidity from the United States in Iraq."

Memo to Fernandez: The Bush Administration's entire foreign policy is based on a "with us or against us" arrogance.  Anyone not in lock step with BushCo.'s foreign policy is perceived as being on the side of evil.

Diplomat: U.S. has shown 'arrogance,' 'stupidity' in Iraq

In his current article How Bad Will It Be (published in The Weekly Standard), Republican Fred Barnes seems to lament the fact that there hasn't been a terrorist attack on this nation, in order to help the GOP's chances on November 7.

He writes:

The problem here is that national security isn't the leading campaign issue. And saying it should be won't make it so. What's needed is an event--a big event--to crystallize the issue in a way that highlights Republican strength and Democratic weakness. It was two events--the foiled British terrorist plot and the need to comply with a Supreme Court decision on handling captured terrorists--that led to the Republican mini-rally in September.

Of course there's little time left for a major event to occur. The North Korean bomb test wasn't big enough to change the course of the campaign. So Republicans may have to rely on their two remaining assets: They have more money than the Democrats and a voter turnout operation second to none.

How Bad Will It Be?  The GOP debacle to come

Has Repug commentator Sean Hannity admitted that the GOP intends to steal this year's midterm elections?

That's the first thing that I thought after reading (courtersy of Media Matters) Hannity's comments on the October 18 edition of his syndicated radio show.  He encouraged Democrats to stay home and not bother voting on November 7, in part because "your vote doesn't matter anyway."

Hannity said on his radio show: "I want you to stay home on Election Day because you must accept the fact that your party has abandoned you. You've gotta accept the fact that your vote doesn't matter anyway. So all you Democrats, stay home. So, you know, why don't you stay home on Election Day? This is how the press is going to report this: "Hannity says Democrats should stay home on Election Day."

Now I ask Mr. Hannity: What precludes Democrats' votes from mattering?  If Democrats show up to vote on November 7, why wouldn't their votes count? Perhaps too many Diebold machines and too many Republicans willing to tap into Diebold's software and switch votes around, perhaps?  Voter supression, perhaps?

Hannity to Democrats: "[S]tay home on Election Day ... for the sake of the nation"

George Bush continues to show that he doesn't believe in course correction.

Today, he admitted that "right now it's tough" for our service men and women in Iraq.  (No kidding Sherlock.  What was your first clue?)

But the White House insisted that Bushie wasn't changing his Iraq "strategy."  In other words, they don't believe in course correction, even when all the facts on the ground tell them they are wrong.

Bush: I won't change strategy in Iraq

As Randi Rhodes might say, your "homework" for today:

1.  Judge orders Cheney visitor logs opened:

Score 1 for openess and transparency in goverment (finally!).

From the Associated Press:

A federal judge has ordered the Bush administration to release information about who visited Vice President Dick Cheney's office and personal residence, an order that could spark a late election-season debate over lobbyists' White House access.

While researching the access lobbyists and others had on the White House, The Washington Post asked in June for two years of White House visitor logs. The Secret Service refused to process the request, which government attorneys called "a fishing expedition into the most sensitive details of the vice presidency."

U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina said Wednesday that, by the end of next week, the Secret Service must produce the records or at least identity them and justify why they are being withheld.

2.  Moderates in Kansas Decide They're Not in GOP Anymore

Perhaps people are finally learning the importance of voting for one's own best interests?  One can hope!  From the Washington Post:

Paul Morrison, a career prosecutor who specializes in putting killers behind bars, has the bulletproof résumé and the rugged looks of a law-and-order Republican, which is what he was until last year. That was when he announced he would run for attorney general -- as a Democrat.

He is now running neck-and-neck with Republican Phill Kline, an iconic social conservative who made headlines by seeking the names of abortion-clinic patients and vowing to defend science-teaching standards that challenge Darwinian evolution. What's more, Morrison is raising money faster than Kline and pulling more cash from Republicans than Democrats.

Nor is Morrison alone. In a state that voted nearly 2 to 1 for President Bush in 2004, nine former Republicans will be on the November ballot as Democrats. Among them is Mark Parkinson, a former chairman of the Kansas Republican Party, who changed parties to run for lieutenant governor with the popular Democratic governor, Kathleen Sebelius.

In California, thousands of Hispanics in Orange County received a letter warning them not to vote on November 7.  The letter stated they could go to jail or face deportation if they voted in next month's elections.

The matter has been under investigation, and a spokesman for the Attorney General there said they have identified where they believe the mailing list was obtained.  They believe it originated from a GOP campaign.

And while Nathan Barankin, spokesman for Attorney General Bill Lockyer, refused to say which GOP campaign originated the mailing, the Associated Press states that "The Los Angeles Times and The Orange County Register both reported Thursday that the investigation appeared to be focused on the campaign of Tan D. Nguyen, a Republican challenger to Democratic U.S. Rep. Loretta Sanchez."

Calif. candidate urged to exit race

There are two issues today that show what a study in contradiction George W. Bush is.

On the one hand, you have W warning North Korea, saying the United States would prevent North Korea from transferring arms to Iran.  Although he gave no specifics on how the U.S. might respond in such an event, he said about North Korea "They'd be held to account."

Of course Condi Rice had to get in on the act as well, saying the United States would go to the ends of the earth to defend Japan from North Korea.  She commented "..the United States has the will and the capability to meet the full range — and I underscore the full range — of its deterrent and security commitments to Japan."  (Read: we'll nuke the hell out of them Koreans).

Now here's where the contradiction comes in.  While Bush and Wifey # 2 were busy threatening North Korea, basically telling them they have no right to nuclear ambitions, George W. Bush signed a new National Space Policy that some experts say could lead to arms in space.

From the Washington Post:

President Bush has signed a new National Space Policy that rejects future arms-control agreements that might limit U.S. flexibility in space and asserts a right to deny access to space to anyone "hostile to U.S. interests."

The document, the first full revision of overall space policy in 10 years, emphasizes security issues, encourages private enterprise in space, and characterizes the role of U.S. space diplomacy largely in terms of persuading other nations to support U.S. policy.

-snip-

The administration said the policy revisions are not a prelude to introducing weapons systems into Earth orbit. "This policy is not about developing or deploying weapons in space. Period," said a senior administration official who was not authorized to speak on the record.

Nevertheless, Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center, a nonpartisan think tank that follows the space-weaponry issue, said the policy changes will reinforce international suspicions that the United States may seek to develop, test and deploy space weapons. The concerns are amplified, he said, by the administration's refusal to enter negotiations or even less formal discussions on the subject.

-snip-

The National Space Policy follows other administration statements that appeared to advocate greater military use of space.

In 2004, the Air Force published a Counterspace Operations Doctrine that called for a more active military posture in space and said that protecting U.S. satellites and spacecraft may require "deception, disruption, denial, degradation and destruction." Four years earlier, a congressionally chartered panel led by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld recommended developing space weapons to protect military and civilian satellites.

Bush: U.S. will stop N. Korea nuke moves

Rice says U.S. ready to defend Japan

Bush Sets Defense As Space Priority

U.S. Says Shift Is Not A Step Toward Arms; Experts Say It Could Be

I honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry after reading this quote.

Sen. Conrad Burns says he believes that George W. Bush has a plan to win the war in Iraq, but it's a secret!  They aren't going to tell anyone what the plan for success in Iraq is.

During a recent debate with his Democratic challenger, Burns said in reference to Bush's plan to win Iraq "We're not going to tell you what our plan is."

After Burns' opponent questioned whether Bush really has a plan for Iraq, Burns responded: "He said our president (doesn't) have a plan. I think he's got one, but he's not going to tell everybody in the world. If you want to go out and spar for a fight, are you going to tell your enemy what your plan is? I don't think so."

Sen. Burns really can't think the American people are that stupid, can he?  No one is asking for troop movements or battlefield plans.  The American people simply want to know what is the exit strategy; what is the plan to win the peace and get out of Iraq.

Burns: President keeping war plan quiet

 

You don't say.  James Baker has a moment of clarity. 

Baker is a Bush family loyalist to the nth degree (they always seem to call on him in a crisis), and of course he played a role in helping Bush steal the 2000 election. 

But he can have moments of clarity (although all too infrequently).  After visiting Iraq recently, Baker was so shocked by what he saw that he concluded Iraq was a "helluva mess" and said "there simply weren't any easy solutions.

Gee, ya don't say. Tell me, what was your first clue Jimmy?  Perhaps if you had stayed out of Florida in 2000, and actually let the votes be counted (imagine that!) we wouldn't be in this mess now.

Iraq a 'helluva mess': former US secretary of state

Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, has told USA Today that the Iraqi government will wait until later this year or early next year to force militias to unarm.  He said "The initial date we've set for disbanding the militias is the end of this year or the beginning of next year."

All I want to know is: if the Iraqi government is not interested in securing their own country RIGHT NOW, what is the value of having our troops there?  As long as we refuse to stand down, the Iraqi government will refuse to stand up.

Iraq will wait to disarm militias

 

Awesome quotes from President Bill Clinton on yesterday, will speaking in Iowa:

"We've got a big responsibility. Forget about 2008. Forget about the politics. Just go out and find somebody and look them dead in the eye and say 'You know, this is not right'...This is America. We can do better and this year, it's a job that Democrats have to do alone."

President Clinton also said that Republicans "paint themselves as pure and the rest of us who don't agree with them as stained," and went on to say "People know things are out of whack, that fundamentally the order of, the rhythm of public life and our common life as Americans has been severely disturbed."

As usual, President Clinton nails it!

Clinton says Republican extremists divided country

There's a very interesting read in the Washington Post, on how the GOP is feeling about the upcoming mid-term elections next month.

On the one hand, you have many in the Republican Party in panic mode right now; fretting about the potential lost of either one or even both houses of Congress.

Then, there's George W. Bush and his "brain" Karl Rove, who feel very upbeat about the elections.

From the Washington Post:

"The official White House line of supreme self-assurance comes from the top down. Bush has publicly and privately banished any talk of losing the GOP majorities, in part to squelch any loss of nerve among his legions. Come January, he said last week, "We'll have a Republican speaker and a Republican leader of the Senate."

The question is whether this is a case of justified confidence -- based on Bush's and Rove's electoral record and knowledge of the money, technology and other assets at their command -- or of self-delusion. Even many Republicans suspect the latter. Three GOP strategists with close ties to the White House flatly predicted the loss of the House, though they would not do so on the record for fear of offending senior Bush aides."

Now, the line from the article that jumped out at me was this: "The question is whether this is a case of justified confidence -- based on Bush's and Rove's electoral record and knowledge of the money, technology and other assets at their command -- or of self-delusion."

It begs the question: What "technology and other assets" are at Bush and Rove's disposal?  Might that be a reference to Diebold voting machines?  And perhaps a few partisan Secretaries of State (who are responsible for overseeing their state's elections, by the way) willing to do whatever it takes to swing the election their way?

Perhaps Bush and Rove's confidence is not because they feel they have the will of the voters on their side.  Maybe they know they only need the will of Diebold and more people like Ken Blackwell and Katherine Harris.

White House Upbeat About GOP Prospects

Self-Assurance of Bush, Rove and Others Is Not Shared by Many in the Party

You just gotta love Republican values at work.

It was only a few weeks ago that we learned some Republican leaders helped coddle a pedophile.

Now, we learn what Republican Representative Chris Shays thinks of the atrocities that occured at Abu Ghraib prison.

During a televised debate with his opponent, Rep. Shays said that what happened at Abu Ghraib was not torture.  Rather, he believes it was just a "sex ring" involving National Guard troops from Maryland.  He stated: "Now I've seen what happened in Abu Ghraib, and Abu Ghraib was not torture. It was outrageous, outrageous involvement of National Guard troops from [Maryland] who were involved in a sex ring and they took pictures of soldiers who were naked."

Perhaps Rep. Shays needs a reminder of what really happened at Abu Ghraib.  I suggest he go here: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/02/17/national/w105118S32.DTL.  Or perhaps he really gets off on seeing a dead corpse of someone who was killed at Abu Ghraib, after being suspended by their wrists, hands cuffed behind their backs.  Really kinky stuff, right Shays?

Shays: Abu Ghraib abuses were sex ring

GOP congressman: Abu Ghraib was just a "sex ring"

 

You might recall that in March of this year, during a press conference, veteran journalist Helen Thomas asked a brilliant question of George W. Bush: what was his REAL reason for invading Iraq? 

She asked him "I'd like to ask you, Mr. President -- your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime.  Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is: Why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, your Cabinet officers, former Cabinet officers, intelligence people and so forth -- but what's your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil, the quest for oil. It hasn't been Israel or anything else. What was it?" Read my coverage of that press conference at: http://progressiveminds.bloghi.com/2006/03/21/no-president-wants-war.html.

Months after being asked that question by Ms. Thomas, George Bush is still changing the rationale for why he went to war in Iraq.  As an Associated Press article today notes, Bush keeps revising his justification for invading Iraq.

From the Associated Press:

President Bush keeps revising his explanation for why the U.S. is in Iraq, moving from narrow military objectives at first to history-of-civilization stakes now.

Initially, the rationale was specific: to stop Saddam Hussein from using what Bush claimed were the Iraqi leader's weapons of mass destruction or from selling them to al-Qaida or other terrorist groups.

But 3 1/2 years later, with no weapons found, still no end in sight and the war a liability for nearly all Republicans on the ballot Nov. 7, the justification has become far broader and now includes the expansive "struggle between good and evil."

-snip-

Bush's changing rhetoric reflects increasing administration efforts to tie the war, increasingly unpopular at home, with the global fight against terrorism, still the president's strongest suit politically.

"We can't tolerate a new terrorist state in the heart of the Middle East, with large oil reserves that could be used to fund its radical ambitions, or used to inflict economic damage on the West," Bush said in a news conference last week in the Rose Garden.

When no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, Bush shifted his war justification to one of liberating Iraqis from a brutal ruler.

After Saddam's capture in December 2003, the rationale became helping to spread democracy through the Middle East. Then it was confronting terrorists in Iraq "so we do not have to face them here at home," and "making America safer," themes Bush pounds today.

"We're in the ideological struggle of the 21st century," he told a California audience this month. "It's a struggle between good and evil."

Bush keeps revising war justification

According to an article in the New York Times, the American Civil Liberties Union has been able to obtain, under the Freedom of Information Act, documents which detail the extent to which the Defense Department collected information on demonstrators, included Quakers, students, and others opposed to the war in Iraq.

From the Times:

The documents, obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, show, for instance, that military officials labeled as “potential terrorist activity” events like a “Stop the War Now” rally in Akron, Ohio, in March 2005.

The Defense Department acknowledged last year that its analysts had maintained records on war protests in an internal database past the 90 days its guidelines allowed, and even after it was determined there was no threat.

A department spokesman said Thursday that the “questionable data collection” had led to a tightening of military procedures to ensure that only information relevant to terrorism and other threats was collected. The spokesman, Maj. Patrick Ryder, said in response to the release of the documents that the department “views with great concern any potential violation” of the policy.

“There is nothing more important or integral to the effectiveness of the U.S. military than the trust and good will of the American people,” Major Ryder said.

A document first disclosed last December by NBC News showed that the military had maintained a database, known as Talon, containing information about more than 1,500 “suspicious incidents” around the country in 2004 and 2005. Dozens of alerts on antiwar meetings and peaceful protests appear to have remained in the database even after analysts had decided that they posed no threat to military bases or personnel.

Documents Reveal Scope of U.S. Database on Antiwar Protests

The next President of the United States will essentially be George W. Bush's pooper-scooper.

He'll be leaving the mess he's made in Iraq, for his successor to clean up.  The U.S. Army announced this week that they are planning to maintain current troop levels in Iraq until at least 2010.  Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker told reporters "We don't know what's going to happen but I'm telling you we're looking at our force and how we would continue this level two (troop) rotations beyond (now), so that's beyond 2010."

U.S. Army plans for current Iraq troop level to 2010

There are some very interesting articles published this week, discussing attempts by some states, to restrict who can register and vote.  Although some of these laws have been blocked by the courts from being enforced, USA Today and the New York Times notes that the damage has been done.

From USA Today:

Across the country, new laws restricting who can register and vote have reduced the number of people who are eligible. Some of those laws have been blocked in court. Even so, critics say, the damage has been done:

•In Arizona, about 21,000 voter registration applications were rejected because of inadequate proof of citizenship, required under a 2004 law. Most who were affected lacked up-to-date driver's licenses, birth certificates or passports.

A federal appellate court blocked enforcement of the law — which also requires voters to show ID at the polls — last week, four days before the registration deadline. "We're looking at an enormous disparate impact on people of color," says Linda Brown, executive director of the Arizona Advocacy Network.

•In Florida, a law setting up new requirements for independent groups that register voters prompted the League of Women Voters to suspend registration drives for five months until a court intervened. In that period, the league could have registered thousands of people, The registration deadline is Tuesday. "You've just got to assume it's going to have an impact," says Dianne Wheatley-Giliotti, the league's state president.

•In Ohio, a law that made paid workers liable for the validity of the registrations they collect caused several groups to stop signing up voters for two months this summer. By the time courts intervened, the opportunity had been lost for thousands of registrations.

And from the New York Times:

Some states have enacted laws that make it harder to vote instead of correcting ballot problems that have plagued various parts of the country since the 2000 election, according to a study released Thursday.

Describing their findings as ''troubling,'' voting reform advocates sampled 10 states with past election difficulties. Especially worrisome, the report said, were laws passed by a handful of states, including Arizona and Georgia, that require a government-issued photo identification card and proof of citizenship before being allowed to vote.

Though both state laws were later blocked by judges, ''the damage has already been done,'' confusing would-be voters and severely hampering voter registration drives, said Tova Wang of The Century Foundation think tank, which conducted the survey with Common Cause and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

The really interesting point here, is that many states are attempting to enact these new laws, in the name of voter fraud.

But as another article in USA Today points out,  "a preliminary report to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission has found little evidence of the type of polling-place fraud" that these new voting measures are supposed to stop.  In other words, voter fraud is not a problem. 

The preliminary report concludes that "There is widespread but not unanimous agreement that there is little polling-place fraud, or at least much less than is claimed, including voter impersonation, 'dead' voters, non-citizen voting and felon voters."

Report refutes fraud at poll sites

New voter registration laws leave thousands off the rolls

Some States Making It Harder to Vote

Tavis Smiley's new book What I Know For Sure: My Story of Growing up in America (in stores now!)

http://www.amazon.com/What-Know-Sure-Growing-America/dp/0385505167/sr=1-2/qid=1160513293/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-1576319-8460858?ie=UTF8&s=books

In the face of continuously rising casualties in an unpopular war, the United States Army has lowered the bar in order to help it meet its recruitment goals.

From an Associated Press article:

"The U.S. Army recruited more than 2,600 soldiers under new lower aptitude standards this year, helping the service beat its goal of 80,000 recruits in the throes of an unpopular war and mounting casualties.

The recruiting mark comes a year after the Army missed its recruitment target by the widest margin since 1979, which had triggered a boost in the number of recruiters, increased bonuses, and changes in standards.

The Army recruited 80,635 soldiers, roughly 7,000 more than last year. Of those, about 70,000 were first-time recruits who had never served before.

According to statistics obtained by The Associated Press, 3.8 percent of the first-time recruits scored below certain aptitude levels. In previous years, the Army had allowed only 2 percent of its recruits to have low aptitude scores. That limit was increased last year to 4 percent, the maximum allowed by the Defense Department."

Hmmm....George Bush might call this the "soft bigotry of low expectations."

Lower standards help Army recruit more

According to a new CBS New/New York Times poll, an overwhelming majority of Americans (79%) think congressional Republican leaders put political expediency above the safety of pages.  Even 61% of Republicans surveyed believe that members of their party were more concerned about their political viability, than the well being of the pages.

And 62% of those surveyed believe the Republican leadership knew about the sexually charged emails then Rep. Mark Foley sent to minors, before the public learned about them.

Poll: GOP Put Politics Over Safety

Most Respondents Think GOP Leaders Knew About Foley's Sexually Explicit E-Mails To Teens

 

 

King George is at it again.  He has issued another signing statement declaring himself above the law.

As a response (although belately) to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) botched response to Hurricane Katrina, the United States Congress passed legislation (which George W. Bush signed into law) that requires minimum qualifications for all future heads of FEMA.

Under the new law, the President of the United States must nominate a candidate to head FEMA, who has "a demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management" and "not less than five years of executive leadership." 

In other words, instead of choosing someone who worked for the International Arabian Horses Association, the President must nominate someone with experience in emergency management, to head the Federal Emergency Management Agency (imagine that)!

However, just HOURS after signing that legislation into law, Bush issued a signing statement in which he said he was not obligated to abide by the new law!  His excuse for declaring himself above that law?  He claims the law "purports to limit the qualifications of the pool of persons from whom the president may select the appointee in a manner that rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office."

In other words, he wants to be able to choose from his vast list of cronies and reward those who've helped put money in his pockets.  He doesn't care if they have experience in emergency management or not.  The only experience required is being faithful and loyal to him.

Bush cites authority to bypass FEMA law

 

 

Absolute required reading for today:

Soldiers question when Iraqis will take the lead

Invisible enemy, untrustworthy allies have troops questioning their purpose

The U.S. Cavalry's Crazy Horse, 3rd Platoon ventures out into Southern Baghdad, where the enemy is invisible, Iraqi allies untrustworthy, and where American troops increasingly ask themselves if this is their fight anymore. And who is the enemy?

-snip-

The troops say it's frustrating not to trust their Iraqi counterparts. Do soldiers here ever ask themselves, "Why are we here? Is this our war anymore?"

"Oh yes, all the time. I ask myself that a lot, too," says Spc. Vernon Roberson of 1-14 Cavalry. "We've been here for so long and we've done so much, but it's just so far we can go."

Just call him King George.  And while we're at it, let's just disband the Congress and the Supreme Court.  Why do we need three separate but coequal branches of government, when we've got King George?

A new report by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service concludes that the Bush regime's frequent use of signing statements (in which Bushie declares that he is not bound to abide by what he just signed into law) is "an integral part" of a "comprehensive strategy to strengthen and expand executive power." 

The report notes that Bush's use of signing statements is an attempt to get Congress to go along with Bush's broad interpretation of executive power, including the right to ignore newly signed laws. 

In other words, Bush is in effect saying 'screw you' to the legislative branch.

Bush signings called effort to expand power

Report sees broad strategy

And more evidence of Bushie's view that he is king; that he should have all the power he wants:

President asserts power to edit privacy reports

Bush defies Congress, says he has right to change Homeland Security bills

The Washington Post has a very interesting article on the history of waterboarding, a controversial interrogation technique in which the person being subjected to it, feels as though they are drowning.

It notes that in 1947, the United States declared that waterboarding was a war crime.  The U.S. government "charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk." 

Mr. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.

For me, the most interesting part of the WaPo article, and the part that our conservative friends need to take heed of, is the part that discusses Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks. 

Mohammed was subjected to waterboarding. And according to the WaPo, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) says that it was the waterboarding that finally got Mohammed to talk and provide information.

BUT (and you knew there was a but coming here): not all of the information that Mohammed provided was reliable.

Why not?  Because as Sen. John McCain has stated, torture (which waterboarding is) is NOT an effective intelligence gathering tool. Most likely, the person being subjected to it is just going to say what they think their tormentor wants to hear.

Waterboarding Historically Controversial

In 1947, the U.S. Called It a War Crime; in 1968, It Reportedly Caused an Investigation

 

 

Did Fox News and Bill O'Reilly do this on purpose?

Multiple times, while discussing the Foley scandal on The O'Reilly Factor with Bill O'Reilly, there was a graphic which labeled Mark Foley a Democrat.  As we all know, he is a Republican.

See the graphic of Fox News labeling Foley a Democrat, courtesy of Crooks and Liars:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/04/bill-oreilly-labels-rep-foley-a-democrat/

A lawyer for disgraced former Representative Mark Foley stepped forward to say that as a child, Mr. Foley had been molested by a priest.

In other words, Mr. Foley having been molested as a child, excuses his behavior as an adult pedophile.

Call me crazy here, but the very fact that Mr. Foley was molested as a child, is all the more reason why he should have been determined not to bring harm to anyone else's children.

Instead, in 2003, shortly before going to the floor of the House for a vote, he was engaging in cyber sex with an minor child.

Lawyer: Clergyman abused Foley as a teen

According to Bob Woodward's new book on George W. Bush, State of Denial, Bush pledged in 2005 to keep troops in Iraq even "if Laura and Barney (his dog) are the only ones who support me"

In other words, Bush is not consulting the generals on the ground about his Iraq policy.  Instead, he consults a former librarian and a dog!

FACTBOX-Key points in Bob Woodward's book

 

As I reflect on the interview I just watched of Bob Woodward on 60 Minutes, it has occurred to me that what Woodward has to say about Bush lying to the American public regarding Iraq, and ignoring the reality of what is happening on the ground there, is a confirmation of something that journalist Ron Suskind wrote several years ago.

Back in 2004, Suskind wrote an article for the New York Times entitled "Without a Doubt."

In that article, he recounts a conversation he had with a senior adviser to George W. Bush. The White House had wanted to express their displeasure over an article Sunkind wrote about Karen Hughes.

During the conversation, the senior adviser chastised Suskind for being "in what we call the reality-based community." The adviser described people in this "reality-based community" as those who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality" and went on to say "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

I've said this before, but I think it bears repeating: George W. Bush is so wedded to his own ideas, even when the facts tell him he's wrong. He doesn't believe in course correction, because he thinks he's always right.