History Lessons

I can't begin to imagine what Ann and Bill Byers of Schleswig, Iowa, must be going through right now.

One might think there could be nothing worse than losing a young son -- with an infant daughter of his own he's never held or even seen -- to a war launched under false pretences. But there was: losing another -- the only remaining son and also a soldier -- two days before the first son's funeral. And on top of this "double tragedy," having the second son's death initially ruled as a suicide only to have that decision reversed and then ruled as an accident.

The story of Casey and Justin Byers carries an unspeakable amount of grief. Like many other Iowans, I was both stunned and saddened after learning of Justin's death (and asking all the endless "whys"), but it took Bret Hayworth's beautifully written and moving article in the Sioux City Journal on Casey Byers' funeral that finally unleashed the anger and tears.

The verbal image of Spc. Juan Ramos (Byers' friend and injured comrade) falling to his knees and wailing gripped me by the throat and wouldn't let go. Through his words, Hayworth presented an all too real portrait of the devastating toll this war has taken -- and continues to take -- on family, friends, comrades and entire communities. It's an emotion few reporters are willing to get close enough to touch.

How I wish Mr. Bush would have attended this funeral. Then again, Bush won't attend any of these funerals, nor will he answer to the countless military families demanding answers as to why he knowingly lied - and continues to lie - about t(his) war.

Sadly, I believe the answer lies in the words Justin Byers wrote shortly before his own death, which he'd planned to read at his brother's funeral. In stating why both he and his brother supported the war on terror, Justin wrote:

"If we don't go over there, they will come over here and take our freedoms."

This is what makes this story so terribly heartbreaking. It isn't that these brothers died at such young ages, but died believing they were making sacrifices in the name of freedom.

I couldn't possibly be more proud of Sgt. Casey Byers or his brother, Justin Byers. They were brought up and raised to believe that one could -- should, in fact -- be able to trust their president. Isn't that the way it should be? Isn't that what history teaches us? After all, what kind of shape would a country be in if people couldn't trust their own leader? Wouldn't that make us - God forbid - "unpatriotic?"

Hmm. I'm guessing lots of people from Iraq and Germany knew the answer to this question and knew it well. The only thing is, we can't ask them because they're dead.

Then again, someone knew, and answered it better than anyone:

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt

Before it's all over, each and every American will have to answer to themselves: "At what point do I start trusting my own eyes and heart and soul?"

Iraq

So President Bush is going to address the nation tonight to reassure us that we are winning the war in Iraq. Apparently, he still thinks he has credibility. Come on. Even Americans are finally wising up. This is an administration that lied about how Bush injured himself riding a bike, claiming rain had slickened his path even though it hadn't rained in Texas for two weeks. Do you think they're going to be honest about important stuff?

Not only have these clowns lied, they've punished people who have spoken the truth. The most outrageous example was outing a CIA officer because her husband challenged Bush's bogus claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium ore from Africa. They also fired top White House adviser Larry Lindsey when he told a newspaper that an Iraq war could cost $200 billion. And they fired General Anthony Zinni who warned them about the troubles they would encounter in Iraq and dared to say publicly that ther were far more pressing foreign policies issues before the invasion.

The intelligence agencies aren't run by idiots. They saw what happened when people didn't tell the administration what it wanted to hear. So they told the administration that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Former CIA Director Stansfield Turner told Fox News: "There was evidence that analysts were repeatedly questioned about links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, and Vice President Cheney visited CIA headquarters ten times." I doubt he was delivering gift baskets. And I won't hold my breath for a Congressional investigation into the pressure Cheney applied.

So the administration's high crimes go beyond misleading the public. They conspired to doctor the evidence against Iraq and conspired to keep the truth from the American people. And now we're supposed to be reassured by Bush's rhetoric?

How can we believe anything is going to change with Donald Rumhead still in office? As the New York Times' Thomas Friedman says, Rumsfeld "went to war in Iraq on the cheap." We never had enough troops to succeed. "From the day the looting started, it has been obvious that we did not have enough troops there. We have never fully controlled the terrain. Almost every problem we face in Iraq today – the rise of ethnic militias, the weakness of the economy, the shortages of gas and electricity, the kidnappings, the flight of middle-class professionals – flows from not having gone into Iraq with the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force," Friedman writes. Last night, Jon Stewart showed a video of Rumhead saying in 2003 that after major combat ends the troops might be in Iraq for six days, six weeks or, well he just couldn't believe they would be there six months. What an idiot.

But Friedman's solution for Iraq just won't work. He recommends we double the number of troops and redouble our diplomatic efforts. He dismisses training Iraqi soldiers "Yes, yes, I know we are training Iraqi soldiers by the battalions, but I don't think this is the key. Who is training the insurgent-fascists? Nobody. And yet they are doing daily damage to U.S. and Iraqi forces. Training is overrated, in my book. Where you have motivated officers and soldiers, you have an army punching above its weight. Where you don't have motivated officers and soldiers, you have an army punching a clock," Friedman states.

Ok. Granted, I don't know entirely what that means. But adding more soldiers in Iraq would send exactly the wrong signal and just help recruit more soldiers. How hard is this to grasp? U.S. soldiers incite more violence.

I think the only answer is to bring the Sunnis into the new government and then put the trained Iraqi soldiers to work, allowing us to reduce our troops sooner rather than later. Of course, the Sunnis might decide we are about ready to cut and run, which may make reaching a deal impossible.

But I'm sure our president will reassure me about all of this tonight. I'm sure he'll announce a new strategy for success. And I'll believe him right up until the point where his lips move.

The Jackal

Daily Kos: Two Ways to Talk About Ending the War

Daily Kos: Political Analysis and other daily rants on the state of the nation.: " Democrats have been loathe to talk about Iraq, as their palpable fear get in the way of leadership on this increasingly important issue.

So here are two ways to talk about the war that don't betray weakness:

Promoting a withdrawal

We have a lot to be proud of over the past three years. We have freed the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator and given them their first taste of freedom. Iraq held successful presidential elections earlier this year, and the nation is now run by a democratic-elected government.

We have accomplished what we set out to do -- bring freedom to Iraq and rid the region of the specter of Saddam's terror.

But now it is time to let the Iraqis take charge of their own lives. The future belongs to a free democratic Iraq, but it is a future they must fight for themselves.

Afraid to call for withdrawal? Hammer on "accountability".

We are facing a crisis in Iraq, and yet no one is being held accountable. Our troops don't have enough men, equipment, or armor to effectively and safely do their job, yet those responsible for these deadly miscalculations remain at their jobs. They claim, as they always have, that Iraq is about to turn yet another corner, pass yet another milestone on the road to peace and prosperity. But the reality on the ground mocks those assertions.

We must have accountability in order to win this war. Those responsible for so many catastrophic mistakes must replaced by more competent, more effective, people.

The war will be the issue in 2006. I've already talked to several Democratic candidates who think they can get elected talking about social security and health care. Rubbish. That's what Democrats thought in 2002 and 2004, and the war intruded both cycles. Given the way things are going over there, 2006 promises to be no different.

The American public has turned heavily against the war, despite the absence of an anti-war movement, despite the 24/7 cheerleading of the war in the cable news networks, and despite the lack of coherent Democratic opposition to the war. Democrats must ride that wave into 2006, and can do so in ways where they don't sound like hippy retreads.

What is NOT an option is remaining silent on the war, as so many Democrats would obviously prefer. "

Bush Loves/Hates Timetables to End War

Think Progress: "In 1999, George W. Bush criticized President Clinton for not setting a timetable for exiting Kosovo, and yet he refuses to apply the same standard to his war.

George W. Bush, 4/9/99:

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”

And on the specific need for a timetable, here’s what Bush said then and what he says now:

George W. Bush, 6/5/99

“I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”

[ed. note: article originally ran in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on 6/5/99]

VERSUS

George W. Bush, 6/24/05:

“It doesn’t make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you’re — you’re conceding too much to the enemy.”"

It's a Bloody Shame.

Shoot the Messenger, Ignore the Message

Today’s “Our Opinion” column in the Sioux City Journal (A8) was a real doozy! One wonders if, having so successfully shot the messenger (Senator Durbin of Illinois), our right-wing editor has any moral outrage left to expend on the actual message! Some comparisons are meant to be read in context and are nuanced, and Senator Durbin was obviously not seeking to make a one-on-one comparison between the U.S. and the regimes of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot. However, one can imagine his frustration at reading an FBI agent’s report of torture being applied at our prison at Guantanamo (following on the earlier reports by Amnesty International, the Red Cross, etc.). One can also imagine his frustration that Americans have largely treated the repeated instances of torture that have come to light in such a blasé fashion. After all, where’s the “healthy debate” that the Journal so piously lauds in today’s column? Certainly nowhere to be found in the Journal itself. I believe Senator Durbin, in part, sought to shake Americans out of their moral complacency, not realizing that our moral strictures these days too often seem to stop at our own shores. Sadly, the message – of torture, secret prisons, detention without charge or trial – amounts to little more than the proverbial ‘cry in the wilderness.’

Peace!
Historian

There you go again

"Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Karl Rove said Wednesday night. "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

Full Article

The Decline of the American Middle Class is THE Issue

TPMCafe || The Decline of the American Middle Class is THE Issue:

The Decline of the American Middle Class is THE Issue

By Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

The reality today is that for the vast majority of Americans their standard of living is in decline. Real wages for the bottom 80% of wage earners are stagnating or falling. Our disastrous free trade agreements are stripping this nation of the good paying manufacturing jobs, and increasingly white collar hi tech jobs as well, that provided the basis for an increasing standard of living for middle America. The decline of the American middle class is not just one of the issues out there. It is THE issue in the United States today.

What motivates me politically, and what being a progressive means to me is fighting for the economic well-being of middle and low income Americans -- those people whose needs are too often ignored by a Congress dominated by Big Money and a White House bent on further enriching the very wealthy at the expense of everyone else.

In Vermont, we have shown that when middle income and working people know you are on their side economically, they will support you even if they disagree with you on one or another social and cultural issue. It has been true during my time in the Congress and was true during my eight year tenure as mayor of Burlington.


Jun 21, 2005 -- 12:20:33 PM EST

Disconnected From Reality

From the DNC blog Kicking Ass

Vice President Dick Cheney:

"The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."

Republican Senator John McCain:

"What I think we should do," McCain told NBC's "Meet the Press," "is wait until we achieve the successes, then celebrate them, rather than predict them. Because too often that prediction is not proven to be true."

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel:

"The White House is completely disconnected from reality," said Hagel. "It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq," said Hagel, who added that increasingly, fellow Republicans are coming to share his view.

"More and more of my colleagues up here are concerned," he said.

That creaking sound you hear…that's the sound of the Republican Party breaking over the stress of maintaining its failed policies. It's time for the White House to stop living in its fantasy world, recognize its failures, fix its problems, and then move on. They've done enough damage already - we don't need them causing even more harm by being bullheaded and stubborn. Things are never going to get better if they refuse acknowledge there's a problem.

It's like hunting cows with an Uzi...

The posting that follows is from today's "Sioux City Journal" Letters to the Editor section (6/16/05). Pity poor Paul Guggenheimer for having to put up with his conservative counterpart week after week! Anyway, I do sometimes wonder if the Rights' general inarticulateness derives from the essential hallowness of the basic tenets of modern Conservatism, or simply results from a mixture of laziness and sheer hubris. Feel free to weigh in on this issue!

"When the Journal first introduced its “Left vs. Right” column, I was excited. After all, nothing beats spirited debates on important topics. Also, being forced to confront a well-reasoned opposing viewpoint forces one to think about and refine one’s own ideas.

Unfortunately, we got Michael McNeil representing the “Right.” I do not mind so much the utter predictability of his positions. I do wish Mr. McNeil would at least follow the conventional standards of logical argumentation.

This week’s “debate” over Guantanamo was typical. Rather than argue the relative merits of Guantanamo itself, Mr. McNeil avoided the issue almost entirely and instead immediately employed a logical fallacy, diverting the reader’s attention with irrelevant attacks on the alleged motives of Guantanamo’s critics. Moreover, he unfairly used solitary quotes taken out of context (from unbiased sources, really?) to dismiss both Carter and Amnesty International out of hand, without even the courtesy of referencing their actual statements. Finally, he erroneously implied that Amnesty International has critiqued the human rights record of the U.S. but not those of North Korea, China and Cuba, which is patently false should one actually read Amnesty’s readily-available reports on those countries.

Are Mr. McNeil’s argumentative skills so lacking, or does he not trust his readers’ ability to understand and appreciate a well-reasoned, analytical essay? Does he not recognize that name calling and snide remarks are merely entertaining, and not truly informative? Perhaps the Journal should consider finding a more responsible and competent local pundit on the “Right.”"

Peace!
Historian

Right Wing Media Attacks Senator Durbin Because He Says Torture is Bad

From 'Daily Kos":

TalkLeft first alerted us to the latest cause célèbre of the Right Wing Media Borg -- the effort to defend torture at all costs. And caught in the crosshairs is Sen. Durbin, who had the unmitigated gall to call it like it is:

"When you read some of the graphic descriptions of what has occurred here [at Guantanamo Bay]--I almost hesitate to put them in the [Congressional] Record, and yet they have to be added to this debate. Let me read to you what one FBI agent saw. And I quote from his report:

On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold. . . . On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."

To the pea brains on the Right, incapable of reading the English language in its most basic, unuanced form, they claim Durbin is calling our troops Nazis. The Wingnutosphere is making that claim. Rush is making that claim. Hannity is making that claim. Drudge is making that claim. Look to Fox News to jump on the bandwagon tomorrow.

Of course, what Durbin is saying is that such torture -- undisputed, by the way, and read from an FBI report -- is more at home in a place like Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany than in a modern Democracy.

And that's the truth. Plain and simple.

Remember when torture was bad? And getting rid of it was good? President Bush, Oct. 8 2003:
"Iraq is free of rape rooms and torture chambers."
Scott McClellan, Dec. 10, 2003:
"There was an announcement by the Iraqi Governing Council earlier this week about the tribunal that they have set up to hold accountable members of the former regime who were responsible for three decades of brutality and atrocities. ... We know about the mass graves and the rape rooms and the torture chambers of Saddam Hussein's regime. ... We welcome their decision to move forward on a tribunal to hold people accountable for those atrocities."
President Bush, Jan. 12, 2004:
"One thing is for certain: There won't be any more mass graves and torture rooms and rape rooms."
And let's not forget, "torture" was used as a rationale for this war -- as in, we'll invade and end the torture.

Of course, none of that has happened. The torture that was so bad under Saddam, is equally bad under U.S. command. And Dick Durbin had the balls to say it so on the Senate floor.

And these cowards -- these people who will neither serve the cause they claim is so vital, nor urge others to serve it -- now rush to defend behavior that is indefensible?

Steve Gilliard:
I am tired of the phony bravery of these people, their cowardice shines through like a beacon. They condone abusing those in our custody but refuse to serve this country in combat, as they wish others would do.

But the larger point is this: America is supposed to have higher standards than the Nazis or Stalin, not embrace them or use them as a defense. There is no reason that we should have a gulag in the sun or be accused of torture. We should have jailed and tried these people legally. Not acted like the people we're supposed to be fighting.

One day, Americans will be subjected to this and then what will these people say "it's unfair"? Well, we tossed away our conscience and morals to achieve this end, and the result will be grim. But they won't be the ones paying it. They will be hiding behind their keyboards like the cowards they are, whining, lying and rejoicing in the suffering of others and wishing to see evem more brutality, but only from a safe distance.
John Aravosis:
Apparently, the Republicans who dominate the party today, on the radio, online, and in the halls of Congress, think that the only good American is a Stalinist, a Nazi, a fascist, or any other brand of totalitarian thug who beats the crap out of innocents because he can, because we're Amurrikans, God damn it, and if we want to throw you in jail for an eternity, with no lawyer and no charges, and torture you until your head explodes and you go absolutely insane, that's our right because, well, because F**K YOU.

That's the thinking and the mantra of today's brand of Republicans who run the party and run the right-wing noise machine. The law is irrelevant, the norms of humanity are irrelevant. With God on our side - well, the Baptist fundamentalist God on our side, thank you - they can do no wrong.
Steve Soto:
If you consider torture legal and acceptable (even if innocent people are tortured), then Dear Leader's main post-hoc justification of the Iraq invasion it itself illegal, because Saddam Hussein would have been doing something that was legal (in your eyes - for he was only torturing "his enemies"). So, if you have a problem with torture being highlighted and publicized, then maybe it's time for you to become Saddam Hussein's lawyer. That is a more appropriate role for those who seek to condone, ignore, minimize or support torture.
And more people will chime in.

Really, what is the Right trying to accomplish here? Inflict so much pain on Durbin that others will think twice before they levy legitimate criticisms of the war? Are they so hell-bent on their political correctness that any criticisms of the war effort is considered treasonous?

Last time I checked, the American people were giving up on Bush's folly. Last time I checked, most people still think torture is wrong, worthy of condemnation. Last time I checked, the War Pundits, War Politicians, War Preachers, and 101st Fighting Keyboarders still refused to personally sacrifice for the war effort. Last time I checked, that sad lot still refused to call their own supporters to sacrifice for the war effort.

At a time when REAL support for the troops means providing them with the equipment and manpower necessary to fight the war effectively, they agitate for neither.

Instead, they try to shut down a US senator reading from an FBI report. From Bush's FBI. Because the truth hurts. So we must supress it. And we'll do it by shedding crocodile tears for the troops. Because who gives a shit about them, so long as our heroic, do-no-wrong President looks good on the evening news.

Well, I stand with Durbin. Proudly. Because opposing torture is the Right Thing, despite violating the wingnut manual of political correct speech. And the rest of the Senate Democratic caucus better be standing with him as well.

You are either for torture, or against it. Let the chips fall where they may.

Join Rep. John Conyers to Demand Accountability

By now, most of you are aware of the "Downing Street Memo" -- the document that quotes a high-ranking British official as stating that by July of 2002, Bush had made up his mind to take military action against Iraq. The memo flatly states that "the facts and intelligence were being fixed around the policy" in order to justify a decision that already had been made.

In response to these revelations, Representative John Conyers - ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee - is calling on the Administration to level with the American public about the decision to go to war. He has created a petition calling on the Bush Administration to answer five very important questions regarding the timing of its decision. The Bush Administration, however, has not yet replied to Representative Conyers' letter. (Imagine that.)

Click here to read the letter and five questions and add your name as a co-signer. The letter in full is also posted below: (*Note: Rep. Conyers' salutation included the words "The Honorable" before George W. Bush, and I have deleted them here. There is absolutely NOTHING honorable about what this president has done and the lives he has cost as a result.)

Letter to President Bush Concerning the "Downing Street Minutes"
George W. Bush
President of the United States of America
1600 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005

Dear Mr. President:

We the undersigned write because of our concern regarding recent disclosures of a Downing Street Memo in the London Times, comprising the minutes of a meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top advisers. These minutes indicate that the United States and Great Britain agreed, by the summer of 2002, to attack Iraq, well before the invasion and before you even sought Congressional authority to engage in military action, and that U.S. officials were deliberately manipulating intelligence to justify the war.

Among other things, the British government document quotes a high-ranking British official as stating that by July, 2002, Bush had made up his mind to take military action. Yet, a month later, you stated you were still willing to "look at all options" and that there was "no timetable" for war. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, flatly stated that "[t]he president has made no such determination that we should go to war with Iraq."

In addition, the origins of the false contention that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction remain a serious and lingering question about the lead up to the war. There is an ongoing debate about whether this was the result of a "massive intelligence failure," in other words a mistake, or the result of intentional and deliberate manipulation of intelligence to justify the case for war. The memo appears to resolve that debate as well, quoting the head of British intelligence as indicating that in the United States "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

As a result of these concerns, we would ask that you respond to the following questions:
1) Do you or anyone in your administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?
2) Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization to go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain's commitment to invade prior to this time?
3) Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?
4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?
5) Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to "fix" the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states?

These are the same questions 89 Members of Congress, led by Rep. John Conyers, Jr., submitted to you on May 5, 2005. As citizens and taxpayers, we believe it is imperative that our people be able to trust our government and our commander in chief when you make representations and statements regarding our nation engaging in war. As a result, we would ask that you publicly respond to these questions as promptly as possible.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Jody Ewing (proud to be a co-signer)

Bush Lied

Article from Lexington Herald-Leader:

The president of Gold Star Families for Peace, a mother who lost a son in Iraq, criticized the United States' "illegal and unjust war" yesterday during an interfaith rally in Lexington.

Cindy Sheehan of Vacaville, Calif., accused President Bush of lying to the nation about a war which has consumed tens of billions of dollars and claimed more than 1,700 American lives -- including the life of Army Specialist Casey Austin Sheehan.

Sheehan was one of more than a dozen activists who were scheduled to speak at yesterday's anti-war rally at the Red Mile, which was organized by the Clergy and Laity Network and co-sponsored by dozens of liberal religious organizations..

Full Article

Al Franken for Senate? Don't Laugh

Yes, he's thinking about it, and I'd almost move to Minnesota just to vote for him. There's almost nothing better than a politician with a sense of humor (locally, Steve Warnstadt comes to mind) and Franken has both brains and (a ferocious) brawn, says what he thinks and gets his facts straight.

Sen. Paul Wellstone would be proud.

Comedian for Senator? Don't Laugh - New York Times

The Boulder Daily Camera: Editorial

The Daily Camera Editorial

Waking to reality

Bush numbers drop as Americans reject spin

June 13, 2005

The Bush administration knows how to handle bad news: Change the subject.

When the president's military service was called into question in the 2004 campaign, his allies managed to tar the exemplary service record of John Kerry.

When Bush's steely vow to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive" went limp, he simply stopped mentioning the Sept. 11 mastermind.

When Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan rioted over a Newsweek report about "Quran abuse" by U.S. troops, the White House bellowed that the magazine had blood on its hands. Never mind that a U.S. Army report recently confirmed all kinds of Quran abuse, and that U.S. troops have tortured and killed detainees.

And so on, and so on.

The latest bad news for the president is his declining poll numbers. He has received sub-50-percent approval ratings since April. The latest Associated Press poll, mirroring other recent surveys, finds that 55 percent disapprove of his job performance, versus 43 percent approval.

On the issues, the AP poll finds that Americans disapprove of his handling of the economy by 54-43; on health care, education and the environment, 57 percent disapprove, while 40 percent approve; on foreign policy and the "war on terror" he's down by 52-45; on the Iraq war, 56 percent give thumbs down, versus 41 percent who approve; and on Bush's top domestic issue, Social Security, 59 percent disapprove, while just 37 percent approve.

The president's much-vaunted "political capital" from a narrow November victory looks, for now, pretty much spent. Six months into his second term, things aren't going well.

For example, General Motors announced it will lay off 25,000 people, one-sixth of its domestic work force.

The president's "town hall" campaign to pitch partial privatization of Social Security — only those who agree with him may attend — has fared so badly that support for his still-vague "plan" actually has dropped. (Bush apologist Neil Cavuto actually suggested that the reason for American's failure to buy into the scheme — we kid you not — is that "the Michael Jackson trial was being a bit of a distraction for" Bush. Nice try.)

And independent observers undermine the White House's stubborn assertions of progress in Iraq. Rod Norland, Newsweek's Baghdad bureau chief for the past two years ("I went to Iraq as an unabashed believer in toppling Saddam Hussein") has written a sobering assessment of the war that goes far beyond the nearly 1,700 U.S. dead. Here are some quotes from his essay in the June 13 issue:

"The most powerful army in human history can't even protect a two-mile stretch of road."

"The four-square-mile Green Zone ... could be a showcase of American values and abilities. Instead the American enclave is a trash-strewn wasteland of Mad Max-style fortifications."

"Some of the worst ambassadors in U.S. history are the GIs at the Green Zone's checkpoints. They've repeatedly punched Iraqi ministers, accidentally shot at visiting dignitaries and behave (even on good days) with all the courtesy of nightclub bouncers."

"Most of (the $7 billion in taxpayers' money for reconstruction) goes to U.S. contractors who spend much of it on personal security. Basic services like electricity, water and sewers still aren't up to prewar levels."

And: U.S. troops will be in Iraq "probably for years to come."

In other words, the 56 percent of Americans who disapprove of Bush's Iraq war aren't just petty naysayers.

No doubt that the administration has something up its sleeve to counteract the plummeting polls. They're good at this stuff. Let's just hope it's not a military strike on, say, Iran.

But increasingly, Americans are refusing to be distracted when their own good sense tells them things aren't as great as the White House claims.

Copyright 2005, Boulder Publishing LLC

Dick & Mama

Speaking on Fox News yesterday, Dick Cheney said about Governor Dean, "Maybe his mother loved him, but I've never met anybody who does." Leave it to Cheney, who while on a stage called a reporter an "a—hole" and while on the floor of the U.S. Senate told a Senator to "go f—-" himself, to start talking about the Governor's mother.

Besides his trash talking, Cheney also lied about Governor Dean's record during his tirade. The same man who lied about the al Qaeda-Iraq connection being "well established" (and then lied about lying about it) said that Governor Dean "has never won anything".

In fact, leaving aside his unanimous election as DNC Chairman in February, Howard Dean has won more elections than Dick Cheney — including five terms as Governor in a state 20% larger by population than Wyoming, where Cheney was elected to the U.S. House.

And don't look for Cheney to be winning any more elections anytime soon — polls show his lame duck administration to be one of the most unpopular in history, and Democrats to be the party that shares the values (PDF) of more Americans. This administration's time is clearly up — don't expect Cheney at the top of any ticket next time around, because the American people have had enough.

The Governor, for his part, responded to the comments as such: "My view is Fox News is a propaganda outlet for the Republican Party and I don't comment on Fox News."

Just based on the last week alone, I'd have to say he's right.

DNC Kicking Ass

Party Update: Interesting and Alarming

The Democratic National Committee meeting in D.C. was broadcast live this morning on C-SPAN. There were some interesting and quite frankly, alarming, tidbits.

DNC Chair Howard Dean said the party is raising $1 million a week, far outpacing the weekly fundraising pace of 2003. He said the Democratic Party is committed to a 50-state strategy and has added staff in a number of states the party has let go unchallenged for years (West Virginia, North Dakota, Mississippi and others).

Other news:

Election watchdogs

• The National Lawyers Council created by the Kerry campaign will continue and be present in all 50 states. One hour after Dean asked for volunteers for the project by e-mail he received 1,000 volunteers.
• The lawyers will work on election reform legislation, ballot initiatives if the Legislature fails to act and legal action if necessary.
• “We know these voting machines do have significant problems,” Dean said, referring to the electronic voting machines. He said they extend beyond Florida and Ohio.
• More attorneys are needed in each state. Law school students can volunteer as well.
• After the election – in a lame duck session – the Ohio Legislature gutted election reform legislation, including greatly increasing the contribution limits.

Campaign news

• Chambers of Commerce and the Republican Party are raising $20 million to fund candidates for Attorney General. Sixteen Attorneys General are up for election in the next cycle. They want these seats to attack consumer rights.
• Secretary of State of Ohio is up for election in 2006, which is obviously one of the biggest races in the country.
• The Florida GOP is trying to pass a bill that would take the counting of votes out of local hands and place it in state hands. They also want to reduce early voting.
• The Republican governor of Maryland vetoed legislation on early voting and extended voting and the extension of absentee voting. He also opposes same-day registration and a proposal that would distribute voting machines based on population to cut down on the amount of time voters have to wait to vote. I guess some people waited three and a half hours to vote in November.

Website

The DNC website is being totally overhauled. The new design will be unveiled by the end of the month and will include all of the latest technologies and tactics for Internet fundraising. The DNC also would like more email addresses from party officials and activists.

Grounds for Impeachment

"Isn't this grounds for impeachment?" -- vote rigging, a blind eye to terror and the bin Ladens before 9-11, and so on. Evil, stupidity and self-dealing are shameful but not impeachable. What's needed is a "high crime or misdemeanor."

And if this ain't it, nothing is.

(see link below for full story)

Just a Bump in the Beltway: Smoking Gun

The Downing Street Memo

From Democracy for America:

Since the United States went to war in Iraq, nearly 1,700 of our troops have died there -- most of them long after President Bush put on his flight-suit to boast of an end to "major hostilities."

Despite his declaration, though, the war rages on for our nation's sons and daughters -- with no end in sight. Senior military officers have started to admit off the record that, even if we stay for years, we may ultimately fail. Our country has paid a terrible price in blood, in tax dollars, and in the global reputation that generations of Americans have built.

It gets worse. A secret British document revealed last month -- the Downing Street Memo -- all but confirms a sickening truth. Obsessed with Saddam no matter what the cost, President Bush and his aides dragged the nation to war with fixed evidence and false claims about non-existent Iraqi WMD's.

Despite pressure from ordinary people who have read the few reports of the memo in the American press, the White House has stonewalled on the issue. And the vast majority of our complacent media allows it.

Enough is enough. I'm tired of waiting for President Bush to own up to the facts -- and we apparently can't count on our own media to ask the simple, tough questions.

So, first things first -- read the memo and commit to making sure every other American does, too:

The Downing Street Memo makes clear that Bush wanted intelligence that justified a war, no matter how the facts had to be bent to get it.

The memo consists of the minutes of a meeting where the British intelligence chief, just back from the White House, told Prime Minister Tony Blair that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and [weapons of mass destruction]. But the intelligence and facts," the Downing Street Memo continues, "were being fixed around the policy. The [National Security Council] had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

Today, American soldiers and their families deal with the aftermath of a war hastily planned and poorly executed by an ideologically obsessed White House that finds money for corporate welfare, but not for armor for our troops.

The American people deserve an explanation -- but it's clear that even with Blair in Washington this week, the press won't do the job on its own. So we will have to take the memo directly to the people. Ask your friends, family and co-workers: have they read the memo? Ask them here:

Read the memo for yourself -- the full-text is at the end of this email.

We all have to spread the word about the deceptions it reveals. Together, we can put the truth on our leaders' agenda.

But it's going to take a lot of work. That's why grassroots DFA groups across the country will be setting up tables, handing out copies, and asking Americans: have you read the memo?

When it comes to matters of war and peace, doesn't every American deserve the truth?

Tom Hughes
Executive Director
Democracy for America

P.S. -- At democracyforamerica.com, you can find a print version of the memo to post or hand out in your community, along with a print petition you can use to inform your friends and neighbors. And through our event planning tool, you can set up a Downing Street Memo table right at your own town square, student center or neighborhood corner.

*** FULL TEXT ***

As originally reported in the The Times of London, May 1, 2005

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72-hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)

MATTHEW RYCROFT

[Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide]

[emphasis added]

You can invite your friends to join DFA by clicking here:

Paid for by Democracy for America, www.democracyforamerica.com

Bush Aide Doctors Reports Linking Greenhouse Gas to Global Warming

In this New York Times article - Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming - we see once again how the Bush administration frequently alters facts to better fit their political agenda.

Be sure to check out the Multimedia Graphic, which shows the original two reports by the Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, and how Philip A. Cooney (chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality) "doctored" them up.

Robert Kennedy, Jr., a featured speaker at the upcoming Sierra Summit this September, recently spoke with "Planet" editor Tom Valtin about the current threats to democracy and the environment. You can read the interview here.

One of my favorite quotes from Kennedy: "In essence, 80 percent of Republicans are just Democrats who don’t know what’s going on." The reason? They’re getting their news from Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and the Sinclair network, which are not telling them the truth.

i.e. A recent PIPA (Program on International Policy Attitudes) Report showed that 65 percent of the president's supporters believed that Bush strongly supported the Kyoto Protocol and strong labor and environmental standards in our international treaties. Bet they heard that from their friend Santa Claus.

Jody

Salon.com Comics | This Modern World

If Watergate Happened Now

This is a great Newsweek column, outlining how Watergate would be covered up by right-wing zealots if it happened today.

Full Article

Growing Problem for Military Recruiters: Parents

The New York Times had a great article today: Growing Problem for Military Recruiters: Parents. For those of you with high school kids out there, it's definitely worth a read.

I am not anti-military, nor am I anti-support-our-troops. But to borrow a quote from another parent (listed as "Ms. Rachel Rogers" in the article): "The point is not whether I support the troops. It's about whether a well-organized propaganda machine should be targeted at children and enforced by the schools."

The schools, of course, have no choice: the "No Child Left Behind" act requires schools to turn over students' home phone numbers AND addresses to military recruiters -- unless the parents "opt out." The NCLB also mandates that school districts can receive federal funds only if they grant military recruiters "the same access to secondary school students" as is provided to colleges and employers.

The problem here is that recruiters are contacting the most vulnerable students, recruiting them to go to war by handing out free - and cheap - items (T-shirts, key chains, doughnuts, whatever it takes) and making it sound "fun."

How many of our young boys grew up wanting to "play war?" To play with toy guns? To be taught the very essence of what it means to be "patriotic?" Remember when you were 17? 18? How idealistic were you then? Weren't we all?

As a parent of a son who will be a high school junior this fall (and no end to the war in sight), my idea of him having "fun" is not killing innocent civilians or being killed in an unprovoked war. And to quote another parent (Mr. Terrazas), "It's the policy that I'm against, not the military."

I suspect one day, many of us will return to our former ideology that serving in the military is truly "patriotic" -- when those serving are doing so for the right reasons. Today, however, I do not want my son to become just another meal fed into Bush's propaganda machine.

Harkin Staff to Hold Social Security Public Forum

***MEDIA ADVISORY***

HARKIN STAFF TO HOLD MOBILE OFFICE "FIX IT, DON’T NIX IT" SOCIAL SECURITY TOUR IN LEMARS AND ONAWA

Washington, D.C. -- Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) announced today that a member of his staff will be conducting Social Security forums in LeMars and Onawa on June 8. The public forums will discuss the need to protect and strengthen Social Security without risking its future through privatization.

“I want to work with the president to strengthen Social Security, but I want to do it right,” Harkin said. “There is no excuse to rush into a plan that will cut benefits for America’s seniors, adds trillions to the debt, and does nothing to strengthen the program. That is unacceptable and the American people are rejecting that approach.”

President Bush’s privatization commission has proposed creating private Social Security accounts that would cut benefits by one-third or more, even for those who choose not to invest in privatized accounts. Workers could invest two-thirds of their Social Security contribution in stocks and bonds, but those returns could not make up for the deep benefit cuts and would be subject to the whims of Wall Street.

Even many supporters of the president’s plan acknowledge that private accounts have nothing to do with ensuring the long-term financial health of Social Security. In fact, to fund the private accounts, the government would have to borrow almost $5 trillion dollars over the first 20 years from foreign countries like China and Japan – making Social Security’s financial problems much worse and even further from being solved.

“We must be responsible and take reasonable, moderate steps to strengthen Social Security for future generations,” Harkin said. “Millions of Iowa seniors, Americans with disabilities and others who rely on Social Security are depending on Congress and the president to protect this program. I hope the president will work with Congress to do just that.”

THE DETAILS
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 8, 2005

TIME: 10:00 a.m.
STAFF: MAUREEN WILSON
LOCATION: ONAWA PUBLIC LIBRARY
MEETING ROOM
707 IOWA AVENUE
ONAWA

TIME: 2:00 p.m.
STAFF: MAUREEN WILSON
LOCATION: LEMARS CITY HALL
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
40 CENTRAL AVENUE SE
LEMARS

If you have any questions, please call Senator Harkin’s Des Moines office at 515-284-4574. If you need an accommodation to participate please notify the office at least 48 hours in advance.

We Won the War; The Heck With the Peace!

Amnesty International is taking a lot of unfair heat these days for a report comparing the worldwide network of U.S.-established detention facilities set up in the aftermath of 9/11 with the Gulag system of Soviet-era Russia. Unfortunately, the resultant paroxysms of conservative rage have helped obscure an equally damning Amnesty International report issued days earlier, one dealing with the plight of women in Afghanistan today.

AI admits that, compared to the previous decades of Mujahedin and then Taliban rule, women’s rights have improved markedly at the state level … at least on paper. Afghanistan’s new Constitution of January 2004, for instance, explicitly declares that both men and women in Afghanistan have equal rights under the law. The new constitution also guarantees women a share of political power, reserving for them 27 percent of seats in the lower house of parliament. The number of girls in school continues to increase, as does the percentage of women who are registered to vote (currently topping 40%). Officially, women can seek employment outside the home, although it is expected they will first gain their families’ permission.

Nevertheless, AI is adamant in declaring that too little has changed in the overall life circumstances of the majority of Afghani women. “Women in Afghanistan,” AI asserts, “live daily with the threat of sexual violence, abduction, forced marriage and murder.” Much of the violence against women in Afghanistan traces back to the home, and is exacerbated by custom, religion and the generally unsettled nature of much of the country still today. Domestic violence is so prevalent, and the recourses for women so few, that post-Taliban Afghanistan has witnessed a veritable plague of self-immolations by women, wherein they attempt suicide by dousing themselves with gasoline and setting themselves on fire. AI found that the vast majority of such cases were attributable to family violence.

“In spite of the general improvement,” AI noted, “Amnesty International was informed by women and girls in focus groups and interviews that they felt their situation had remained largely unchanged.” AI went on to complain that the government hasn’t done nearly enough to insure that the rights of women are being protected; AI further complained that government officials have been too reticent to forcibly condemn traditional patriarchal practices hostile to women’s advancement.

Now, I can’t really blame the Bush Administration for letting this story pass largely without comment. However, it does once again point to the Bush Administration's profound reluctance to grapple with the myriad and nuanced consequences of its actions. Yes, U.S. troops helped overthrow the Taliban and set up a democratic government elected by the people. But then what? Didn’t we once again forget about their history and culture?

It seems to me our basic problem as Americans (exemplified especially well by the members of the Bush Administration), is that we imagine the rest of the world is basically Just Like Us. All we have to do is get rid of whatever arbitrary seeming impediment exists, such as the Taliban or Saddam Hussein, and, by golly, the true ‘american’ in everyone will suddenly blossom forth. Give them elections, and equality and social harmony (and maybe even a couple of McDonald’s restaurants) will soon follow.

Moreover, we Americans forget that our own democratic society matured into its present form in fits and starts, and often at the cost of much suffering and sometimes even bloodshed. And not so long ago we were still working out the glaring “bugs” in our system, witness the Civil Rights Movements of the 1960s (or even today’s ongoing struggle for recognition and equality by homosexuals).

Time and much effort will be needed to encourage the sort of changes in Afghanistan’s (and Iraq’s) civic culture necessary to truly guarantee the freedom and equality of all its citizens. Lots of international aid money and international pressure on Afghanistan’s government to uphold women’s rights would also help. Hopefully, the U.S. will not repeat its earlier mistakes vis-à-vis Afghanistan. Following the successful late-1980s overthrow of a Soviet-backed puppet regime by the Mujahedin, the U.S. effectively forgot about Afghanistan and left its people to their own devices in a war-ravaged, chaotic, violent and disunited country. A direct result of U.S. neglect was the eventual rise of the Taliban, and of their ally and sometime financier, Osama bin Laden.

Peace!
Historian
(PS- Visit the Amnesty International website at www.amnestyusa.org)

Wal-Mart World

Someone beat me to this! It's a documentary about Wal-Mart. How it doesn't buy hardly anything in America anymore. How its employees need welfare to survive. The website has a trailer, links to a New York Times article and ways you can help including hosting a screening this fall.

Website

The Jackal

Steve King Loves His "Sugar Daddy DeLay"

It's been said that to his colleagues in Congress, Tom DeLay is the true sugar daddy, that everybody (according to the New York Times) "owes Mr. Delay for something - a job, a piece of legislation, or a large campaign contribution."

Steve King is not only no exception, he ranks right up there at the very top in "The DeLay Rankings" - the Public Campaign Action Fund's list of representatives closest to the scandal-plagued Tom DeLay. DeLay Rankings, State view

The list ranks representatives based on how often they vote the way DeLay does (King: 97.5% of the time), how much DeLay's PAC has contributed to them (King has received $15,000), how much they've contributed to DeLay's legal defense fund (at $1,000, King is the ONLY Iowa representative who's contributed to this fund), and their overall DeLay ranking.

Of the current 434 congressional members, King ranks #30. He nearly made the top 5% of those most closely aligned with "The Hammer" himself. Even Tom Latham couldn't beat King, although Latham received $26,085 from DeLay's ARMPAC. Then again, Latham voted with DeLay only 94.08% of the time, and (heck - talk about no reciprocation!) - didn't donate a dime to DeLay's defense fund.

Interesting list, and it's sortable by dollars received/donated, voting percentage and the like.

And one other site you'll want to bookmark: The Daily DeLay, where you can dish the DeLay dirt about your rep!