Calling all neo-cons!

Sean Hannity wants you to know that there are some things worth dying for, worth fighting for. And making sure than Nancy Pelosi doesn't become Speaker of the House is one of them!

Hannity's call-to-arms came on his syndicated radio show, when he said "This is the moment to say that there are things in life worth fighting and dying for and one of 'em is making sure Nancy Pelosi doesn't become the speaker."

That's interesting. I guess the so-called "noble cause" that we are waging in Iraq, isn't worth fighting or dying for, since you don't hear Sean Hannity and his ilk encouraging their fellow neo-cons to fight the good fight in Iraq.

But the political viability of the Republican party in this November's elections? Now that's worth dying for!

Hannity: "[M]aking sure Nancy Pelosi doesn't become the [House] speaker" is "worth ... dying for"

So as I continue to reflect on the one-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina and the federal government's failed response, I can't help but wonder: what happened to George Bush's new era of responsibility?

During the 2000 presidential campaign, one of Bush's main talking points was that he wanted to usher in a new era of responsibility. He once said "For too long, our culture has sent the message, if it feels good, do it; if you've got a problem, blame someone else."

George Bush promised to usher in a new "responsibility era," and six years into his presidency, we're still waiting.

On the issue of responsibility, it's clear that George Bush has NOT lead by example.

Five days before Michael Brown was forced from his job as FEMA Chief over the government's failed Katrina response, he received an email from a White House staffer, who said the White House was glad that Brown took the heat instead of Bush.

In part, the email from the White House staffer read "I did hear of one reference to you, at the Cabinet meeting yesterday. I wasn't there, but I heard someone commented that the press was sure beating up on Mike Brown, to which the president replied, 'I'd rather they beat up on him than me or Chertoff.'"

It also said "Congratulations on doing a great job of diverting hostile fire away from the leader."

Brown: E-mail shows Bush glad FEMA took Katrina flak

"I know there's some frustration" with the flow of aid money. We understand people are still anxious to get in their homes. We understand people hear about help and wonder where it is. We know that."

-George W. Bush, speaking about the fustration many survivors of Hurricane Katrina feel over the government's failures.

Well, thank you George.  Now that you finally understand the problem, what are you going to do about it?

Understanding the problem is half the battle, and now that you've got that licked, what are you going to do about it?

New Orleans remembers Katrina with anger and tears

One of the things I believe Hurricane Katrina demonstrated, was how dangerous it can be to have an intellectually incurious President.

George Bush has made no secret of the fact that he's not a big reader, and that he doesn't like extensive written briefings.

But in this case, his lack of curiousity and failure to grasp the facts cost many lives.

Of all of the information that has come forward about the federal government's abissmal response to Hurricane Katrina, two things in particular stood out for me.

1.  On the very last briefing that took place between government officials before Hurricane Katrina made landfall, George W. Bush failed to ask a single question.  As federal disaster officials discussed the impending hurricane and warned Bush of the gravity of the situation, he asked not one question.  He simply stated "We are fully prepared."  Ok, case closed, I guess.

Video shows Bush got explicit Katrina warning

President, Chertoff were clearly told of storm’s dangers numerous times

2.  The other thing that stands out for me, is that in the days immmediately following the Hurricane, while people were dying in their homes and on their rooftops, and in the Superdome, even White House officials realised that Bush did not understand the pure gravity of what was happening on the ground.  So Dan Bartlett made Bush a DVD of newcasts from New Orleans, in order to make him understand just how bad things were on the ground there.

The average American citizen glued to their television sets understood the gravity of what was happening. So why is it that George W. Bush didn't have a clue? Why did he have to be shown a DVD?

How Bush Blew It

Bureaucratic timidity. Bad phone lines. And a failure of imagination. Why the government was so slow to respond to catastrophe.

While George Bush was in New Orleans today, commemorating the one year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina (and his abissmal, inept response to one of the worst natural disasters to hit U.S. soil), he admitted that he had turned his back on the people of New Orleans.

When he made a stop at a pancake house, waitress Joyce Labruzzo expressed her fustration over the government's response to Hurricane Katrina, and aksed Bush: "Mister President, are you going to turn your back on me?"

So what do you think Bush's response was?

Apparently he thinks it is funny that a hurricane survivor would feel betrayed by their government's failed response, because he had the audacity to LAUGH at her question, and then said "Not again."  So there, you have an admission from the miserable failure that is George W. Bush, that he turned his back on the people of NOLA.

Bush marks Katrina anniversary with prayer, pancakes

"I have to confess ... you want to protect the president when you're a political appointee, so you're torn between telling the absolute truth and relying on those talking points. To this day, that is my biggest regret."

- Former FEMA Director Michael Brown


Well Brownie, if you cannot tell the "absolute truth" to the American people, who Congress trusted you to serve, then maybe you shouldn't be a political appointee.

You serve the President, yes. But above all, you serve the American people. And if there comes a time when you think your loyalty to your boss prevents you from telling the "absolute truth" to the American people, then you need to step down from your position.

Ex-FEMA chief blames administration

Today, August 28, is the 43rd anniversary of the historic March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom (frequently referred to as the "March on Washington").

And of course the highlight of the March on Washington was the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream Speech."

One of the things that I find really interesting is how, in recent years, Republicans have twisted Dr. King's words in his "I Have a Dream" Speech, to say that he would be an opponent of affirmative action.

Speficially, they cite the line "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" and baselessly advance the theory that if he were alive today, Dr. King would not support affirmative action.

What the right-wing won't tell you, though, is that Dr. King believed in corrective programs.  He once said "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro."

And one of my favorite quotes from Dr. King, came from the letter he wrote while in the Birmingham Jail.  He wrote in part "the time is always ripe to do right."   In other words, Dr. King believed in changing course when necessary; he believed in course correction.

I may not have been born when the March on Washington took place, but I sure reaped its benefits.  So on this 43rd anniversary, I'd like to show an attitude of gratitude for all of those who marched on that day.

The Right Has a Dream
Martin Luther King as an Opponent of Affirmative Action

 

So on yesterday, I started reading Kristen Breitweiser's book Wake Up Call: The Political Education of a 9/11 Widow.

And I find that one of the major themes that jumps from the pages of the book (at least for me), is the need to vote for one's own best interests. Too many people in this country vote for someone because they have the letter 'R' or 'D' next to their name.

Or, like Kristen Breitweiser, they followed their spouse's politics.

On Pages 22-23, she writes:

"During the Clinton years, we both thought Bill and Hillary were shameless liberals who were taking the country in the wrong direction. For someone who had always been independent and able to think for herself, I adopted my husband's politics and views as easily as inhaling my next breath."

-snip-

"I saw absolutely no reason to care about politics....In 2000, I knew that Al Gore was running against George Bush but could not have told you three things about Gore....I voted because Ron voted. I remember Sunday mornings when Ron would watch the political talk shows on the television. He loved Dick Cheney. When I would raise concerns about George Bush not receiving good grades in college and not seeming to be very bright, Ron would allay my fears by saying that Cheney was a man who would make sure George Bush didn't screw anything up. How ironic."

She also discusses how she was invited to the White House to witness the signing of the legislation that created the 9/11 Commission.  She turned down the invitation, in light of Bush's strong opposition to the 9/11 Commission, and her not wanting to be used by the Bush White House in some politicallly expedient photo op. And she writes on page 136:

"It was not lost on me that the administration my husband had so passionately and ardently supported had been trying to thwart an independent investigation into the facts of his own death and that of 3,996 others on the morning of September 11."


We need to do a better job of getting people to vote for their own best interests, and thinking about what is at stake before they get into the voting booth.

Republican Representative Chris Shays of Connecticut is calling for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

He says: "My view is that it may be that the only way we are able to encourage some political will on the part of Iraqis is to have a timeline for troop withdrawal."

Perhaps Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and their ilk can tell me this: is Rep. Shays eboldening the terrorists?  Does he hate us for our freedom?  Why, oh why?

Shays Urges Iraq Withdrawal

A Former War Backer, GOP Congressman Calls for Timetable

This is an awesome quote from Patti Davis (daughter of Ronald and Nancy Reagan), taken from her op/ed in Newsweek magazine, on why we must NEVER forget the lessons of Hurricane Katrina:

"We need to remember that even though a heartless administration is in power, the hearts of Americans are bigger and more persistent."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14499307/site/newsweek/

"It's a time to remember that people suffered and it's a time to recommit ourselves to helping them. But I also want people to remember that a one-year anniversary is just that, because it's going to require a long time to help these people rebuild."

- George W. Bush, on next week's one year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, one of the worst natural disasters to hit U.S. soil.


Ok...the first thing that stood out at me like a sore thumb: he says "people suffered." People didn't just "suffer." People DIED, for crying out loud. People lost their lives.

Second thing: "a one year anniversary is just that..." I find that utterly dismissive and flippant. Would he say that if he were referring to the anniversary of 9/11?  George W. Bush has said almost ad nauseum that we must never forget 9/11.  And I agree with him wholeheartedly.  And you can be certain that this White House will continue to exploit the nearly 3,000 people who died on 9/11 for their political advantage.

Yet, to him, 1,695 dead people from a hurricane is nothing.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060823/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_katrina

Where's Betsy Ross when you need her?  It's time to re-do the American flag and add another star to it.

So why do we need to re-do the American flag, I hear you asking.  The answer is simple: because George W. Bush wants to make Iraq the 51st state.  During his press conference yesterday, he said in reference to Iraq: "We're not leaving, so long as I'm the president."

So even if the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people ask us to stand down; that they want us out of their country--Bush has no intention of leaving.  He wants the United States in a perpetual state of war.  Because after all, in his mind, war is peace.

Media ignored Bush's vow that "[w]e're not leaving" Iraq "so long as I'm the president"

The Associated Press conducted a 6-month investigation in which they found that more than 100 women who had expressed an interest in joining our nation's military, were sexually preyed upon by recruiters.

They were raped in recruitment offices and assualted in official government vehicles.  More than 80 recruiters were disciplined last year for their inexcusable actions.

I don't envy the person that will succeed George W. Bush in the Oval Office, nor the person that will succeed Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon.  They will have a lot of repair work to do.  The damage that BushCo. has done to this country is amazing.

Read on: Recruiters molest, rape potential enlistees

In just a matter of days, this nation will mark the one year anniversary of perhaps the most devasting natural disaster to hit U.S. soil: Hurricane Katrina.

And according to an Associated Press article, many of the government's promises made in the aftermath of Katrina, have gone unfulfilled.

A few examples from the AP article, of the government's largely unkept promises:

The job of clearing debris left by the storm remains unfinished, and has been plagued by accusations of fraud and price gouging. Tens of thousands of families still live in trailers or mobile homes, with no indication of when or how they will be able to obtain permanent housing. Important decisions about rebuilding and improving flood defenses have been delayed. And little if anything has been done to ensure the welfare of the poor in a rebuilt New Orleans.

-snip-

POVERTY: Bush offered three proposals in Jackson Square to help combat poverty around the Gulf Coast region. Two of them never went anywhere — the creation of "worker recovery accounts" that would help evacuees find work by paying for school, job training or child care while they looked for employment, and an Urban Homesteading Act that would give poor people building sites for new homes that they would either finance themselves or obtain through programs such as Habitat for Humanity.

Gov't fulfills few Katrina promises

Two great human beings, former President Bill Clinton, and Mrs. Tipper Gore, celebrate their birthdays today!

Still young at heart, Bill Clinton hits the big 6-0

 

And a picture of Al and Tipper Gore, celebrating her birthday in 2000.

The New York Times has written a wonderful op/ed on the judge's decision to put a hault to BushCo's warrantless domestic spying program.

But this one paragraph in particular speaks to me, because it rings so true.  From the New York Times op/ed:

"But for now, with a careful, thoroughly grounded opinion, one judge in Michigan has done what 535 members of Congress have so abysmally failed to do. She has reasserted the rule of law over a lawless administration and shown why issues of this kind belong within the constitutional process created more than two centuries ago to handle them."

Ruling for the Law

Well color me surprised here!

It seems as though some of the marines involved in the murders of innnocent civilians (including children) in Haditha, Iraq have tampered with the evidence in the case.

According to an article in the New York Times, a military investigation found instances where marines in the Haditha case seem to have destroyed or witheld evidence.

For example, a company logbook relating to the Marine unit involved in the Haditha murders, was tampered with.  And an increminating video was not turned over to investigators, until Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli stepped in.

Read on: Inquiry Suggests Marines Excised Files on Killings

Republicans (and their friends in the media) have been falling all over themselves to equate a victory for Democrats at the polls this November, wtih a victory for terrorists.

Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah is quoted by the Salt Lake Tribune as saying: "Terrorists are waiting for the Democrats here to take control, let things cool off and then strike again."

Hatch has plenty of company.

Dick Cheney suggested that Ned Lamont's victory over Joe Lieberman might encourage the "Al Qaeda types." 

An anchor on CNN's Headlines News asked the question "...might some argue, as some have, that Lamont is the al Qaeda candidate?"

Fox News' Cal Thomas wrote in his colum that Ned Lamont's victory "completes the capture of the Democratic Party by its Taliban wing."

Republicans might think that terrorists are itching for Democrats to take control this November.

But the CIA had another assessment during the 2004 Presidential campaign.

Remember the October surprise of the 2004 Presidential campaign?  It came just four days before Americans went to the polls to vote.  A videotape of Osama bin Laden was released.  In the tape, he criticized George W. Bush.

Many Bush supporters claimed the videotape was proof that Osama wanted John Kerry to win the election. 

But the CIA had another view.

During a 5:00 PM meeting on October 29, 2004 (the day the videotape was released), Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin began by stating "Bin-Laden certainly did a nice favor today for the President."  CIA officers gathered around the tabled nodded in agreement at McLaughlin's assessment that Osama had done Bush a favor.

So just why did Osama want Bush to remain in office a few more years?  Why was he threatened by the prospect of a President John Kerry?

Some CIA analysts felt that in part, Osama realized that Bush's policies, including the Guantanamo prison camp, the death and torture of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib, and the ongoing violence in Iraq, were helping Al Qaeda recruit an entire new generation of jihadists.  In short: George Bush was Osama's most effective recruitment poster. Jami Miscik, CIA Deputy Associate Director for Intelligence, said "Certainly, he would want Bush to keep doing what he’s doing for a few more years."

According to Ron Suskind in his new book The One Percent Doctrine, the CIA analysts fell silent, as the hard truths began to sink in for them. And they wondered, what did it say about U.S. policy that Osama wanted Bush to keep doing his thing for four more years.

What's more, I think it's time we had politicians who wanted to appeal to our best interests and hopes, not play to our worst fears.

And I believe that former President Clinton had it just right when he said during a campaign event for Sen. John Kerry in 2004: "One of Clinton's laws of politics is this: If one candidate's trying to scare you, and the other one's trying to get you to think; if one candidate's appealing to your fears, and the other one's appealing to your hopes; you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope."

Hatch says Demo win could help terrorists

Headline News Anchor: ‘Might Some Argue That Lamont…Is The al Qaeda Candidate?’

Cal Thomas: Lamont's victory "completes the capture of the Democratic Party by its Taliban wing"

George Bush and Osama bin Laden, Sittin' In A Tree....

So of course the breaking news of the day is that a federal judge has ruled the Bush Administration's warrantless domestic spying program unconstitutional, and has ordered an immediate hault to it.

In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor wrote in part:

The Government appears to argue here that, pursuant to the penumbra of Constitutional language in Article II, and particularly because the President is designated Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, he has been granted the inherent power to violate not only the laws of the Congress but the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, itself.

We must first note that the Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution. There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all "inherent powers" must derive from that Constitution.

I've been saying all along that Bush believes he is King; that he is a country unto himself.  He believes he is judge and jury.  And the judge's ruling today puts him on notice that he is not.

Federal judge orders end to wiretap program

Read the entire decision by the judge, courtesy of FindLaw:

http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/nsa/aclunsa81706opn.pdf

Repent, all you Jews who did not support Joe Lieberman in his Senate primary race last week!  Rabbi Marc Gellman thinks you should have voted for Lieberman because, well, he's a Jew!

You may recognize Rabbi Gellman from his appearances on Tim Russert's Meet the Press and other shows.  He usually appears to wax poetic about some of the spiritual issues of the day.

Now, he's speaking out about Ned Lamont's victory over Joe Lieberman in last week's Connecticut primary. And it seems as though the Rabbi is a little mystified on why an overwhelming number of Jews did not support Joe Lieberman last week. 

In his latest column for Newsweek magazine, Gellman writes in part:

"Joe Lieberman did not lose the Democratic primary because of his support for the war in Iraq. He lost because of his lack of support from Jews."

-snip-

"He got the support of all the Connecticut papers, and he got the support of most Jews, but not at all an overwhelming number of Jews and that is why he lost. He lost because Barbra Streisand's highly publicized contribution to Lamont and because of the number of Jews who hated Bush and the war more than they loved Joe. That's why he lost, and I don't get it."

-snip-

"I have opinions on way too many things I don't know nearly enough about, but I know about Jews. I am a professional Jew, and yet if you asked me to explain why Jews did not vote for Joe the way blacks voted for Barack Obama or Catholics voted for John F. Kennedy I would not know what to tell you."

NOTE TO RABBI GELLMAN: It is an insult to the African-American community, to suggest that African-Americans voted for Barack Obama because he is also African-American. If that were the case, Lynn Swann in Pennyslvania, and Michael Steele in Maryland, would be in much better poll positions than they currently are.

The African-American community has never been, and probably never will be, monolithic.  And that's a good thing.  The people of Illinois sent Barack Obama to the Senate because they agreed with him on the majority of the issues, NOT because of his skin color, as you would have them to do. 

If you're wondering why Jewish voters weren't more enthusiastic in their support of Lieberman, understand that just because someone looks like you, or shares your religious affiliation, doesn't mean they share your values.

Joe and the Jews

Our columnist is mystified that so many Jewish voters deserted Sen. Joe Lieberman.

 

 

 

The Bush Administration continues to propogandize the American people.

By day, Karen Czarnecki is Deputy Assistant Secretary at the Department of Labor.  By night, she is a "conservative analyst" appearing on Fox News and PBS. 

She filled out leave requests before heading out to television studios, and was cleared by the Labor Department's ethics staff.  However, during her appearances as a "conservative analyst" on Fox News and PBS, Karen Czarnecki never revealed to her hosts or viewers that she is a top government official.

This type of propogandizing (and downright pimping) of the American people, is nothing new for the Bush Administration. 

It was revealed that the Department of Education paid conservative commentator Armstrong Williams to write favorable stories about the No Child Left Behind Act.

And you may also recall that the Bush Administration has come under scrutiny for it's "video news releases" (VNRs).  Or fake news releases, as some like to call them.

Government agencies will create videos to advocate a certain point of view in order to help mold public opinion.  They then send these VNRs to local news outlets.  The problem is that these VNRs are commentary, but they are disguised as actual hard news stories.  And neither the Administration, nor the local news outlet airing the VNR, fail to inform the viewers of the video's origin (the government).

Labor Department Official Poses As ‘Conservative Analyst’ On Fox News, PBS

Bush Shows No Remorse for Fake Newscasts

GAO Says HHS Broke Laws With Medicare Videos

Military recruiters have been under tremendous pressure to meet recruitment goals at a time when the United States is fighting a highly unpopular (and I think also illegal) war in Iraq.

And it seems as though that pressure may have caused some military recruiters to overstep their bounds in the recruitment process.

A new report by the General Accounting Office (GAO) has found that allegations of misconduct by military recruiters rose by 50% from 2004 to 2005.  What's more, sexual misconduct and falsifyng documents more than doubled.

The GAO report finds that allegations of recruiter misconduct rose to 6,600 cases in fiscal year 2005, in contrast to the 4,400 cases from the previous fiscal year. It also takes the Department of Defense to task for not establishing an "oversight framework" that would require reports on recruiter violations.

What's interesting in all of this, is that I seem to recall that during the 2000 Presidential campaign, Bush and Cheney frequently chastized President Bill Clinton for a supposedly demoralized, weakened military, though they cited no evidence to support their claims.

However, there is evidence that Bush is leaving the military worse than he found it.  Take for example, the fact that the military has had so much trouble meeting its recruitment goals, that they have kn owingly allowed people affiliated with hate groups to join the military.

Military recruiting violations rise: GAO

Unpopular Iraq War Causing Hate Groups To Infiltrate Military

There are a boatload of articles about how the GOP especially, is politicizing the alledged London plot for political gain.

For starters, there's an article about a very interesting GOP fundraising letter that former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani sent out to the conservative base.  In the letter, he invokes the London plot.  The basic undertone of Guiliani's letter: if you, dear American citizen, don't want to get attacked, then you better send the Republican Party $25, $50, or whatever you can afford.  That'll keep you safe!

Democrats Assail GOP Fundraising Effort; Democrats Cry Foul Over New Republican Fundraising Effort Mentioning War on Terrorism

There's more:

An article about Dick Cheney connecting Joe Lieberman's loss to Ned Lamont, to the so-called war on terror, and Cheney's suggestion that Lamont's victory of Lieberman might encourage "the al-Qaida types."

Cheney accused of politicizing terrorism

And a great op/ed from the New York Times on the politization of the London plot: The London Plot

Yet another article, this one courtesy of MSNBC:

GOP ups ante with London, Lamont

Republicans using week's events to charge Democrats' defense weakness

Karl Rove admits that he called Sen. Joseph Lieberman on Tuesday, to wish him well in the race against Ned Lamont.  Rove said today "I called him. He's a personal friend" went on to say that he had "wished him well on his election that night."

This begs the question: what else did Rove say to Lieberman?

Although Karl Rove denies it, there have been some reports that Rove also told Joe Lieberman "The boss wants to help. Whatever we can do, we will do."

Karl Rove's outreach to Joe Lieberman, is also interesting in light of today's announcement that Britain helped foil a supposed terrorist plot to blow up multiple jets (mid-air) that were coming into the United States from Britain.

On Harball with Chris Matthews this evening, Howard Fineman pontificated on whether Rove said something to Lieberman along the lines of "Don't worry..the national climate will be changing soon" (meaning the alledged terror plot we found out about today).

And I'm thinking that's a very real possibility, especially considering the way Lieberman pounced on Lamont today for supposedly not understanding the threat we currently face. It definitely has a Karl Rove feel to it.

Rove called Lieberman on voting day

Rove, Bush offer to help Lieberman?

Just when you thought the Bush Administration couldn't stoop any lower in its standards....well, they manage to do exactly that!

The Bush Administration is in the process of making changes to a war crimes law.  Their changes would shield political appointees (read: Donald Rumsfeld), CIA officers, and former military personnel, from prosecution for degrading or humilitating treatment of detainees. 

In short, they are trying to change a U.S. law that was passed in the 1990's, that criminalized violations of the Geneva Conventions.  (Of course, why on earth would we want to follow the Geneva Conventions, I hear Alberto Gonzalez asking.  It's so "quaint" and obsolote.")

War Crimes Act Changes Would Reduce Threat Of Prosecution

Retroactive war crime protection proposed

Today, I've been thinking that Joe Lieberman is an example of how dangerous entrenched power can be.

I've never been a big fan of term limits. I always figured elections were term limits. If you didn't like someone, just vote them out. But Joe Lieberman has me re-thinking that position.

Power corrupts a lot of people.

And I think that the longer a politician has held a particular office, they begin to feel a sense of entitlement. 

Moreover, I believe that is Lieberman's problem. He seems to think that Senate seat is his for the taking. It is not. That seat belongs to the people of Connecticut, and it is for them to decide who they wish to occupy it. And we have a process for determining that.

But by forcing his way onto the November ballot as an "Independent Democrat," in spite of the Democratic voters rejecting him yesterday, Joe Lieberman has shown that he feels a sense of entitlement to the Senate seat.

So I have a message to Joe Lieberman and every other politican.  You are NOT career civil servants.  You have no permanent position.  You are politicians elected to office, or removed from office, at the will of the people.  And when the people say it is time for you to go, you need to have the grace and humility to thank them for the opportunity to serve, and then leave.

If you are truly committed to public service, you can find other ways to serve, as a non-elected official.

 

Tonight, there's a message in Ned Lamont's victory. The message is not only for Joe Lieberman, but for every politician in this country, and I think, especially the Democrats who have fallen to political cowardice and been complicit in George Bush's failed agenda.

As I think about Lamont's victory, I can't help but be reminded of a simple but very powerful line from the movie The American President.

In the movie, presidential aide Lewis Rothschild (played by Michael J. Fox), says to the 'President':

"People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand."

In the absence of Joe Lieberman's leadership on the important issues of the day, Ned Lamont stepped up to the microphone, and Connecticut voters listened.

That should be a lesson for every politician in this country.

On tomorrow, Connecticut Democrats will head to the polls to determine whether incumbent Senator Joe Lieberman, or challenger Ned Lamont, will move on to the general election as the Democratic nominee.

And as we all know, Lieberman said that if he loses tomorrow, he will force his way onto the November ballot as an Independent candidate.

Lieberman confronts critics in tight race

New poll shows Connecticut senator closing gap lead of Tuesday primary

Lieberman gains ground against Lamont

New poll shows statistical tie heading into Tuesday's Democratic primary

So speak out!  What are your thoughts on the Lieberman/Lamont matchup? 

Lave your comments, and then please take the following polls:

 

 

 

Despite the evidence to the contrary, a new poll finds that half of Americans still believe that Sadaam Hussein had WMDs.

In response to the poll, opinion analyst Steven Kull says that people have a tendency to become "independent of reality" in cases like this. 

What's more, some experts believe that the reason some people continue to believe Sadaam had WMDs, can very well be attributed to "a drumbeat of voices from talk radio to die-hard bloggers to the Oval Office, a surprise headline here or there, a rallying around a partisan flag, and a growing need for people, in their own minds, to justify the war in Iraq."

Well, it's no wonder people are so out of touch with reality.  We have an incumbent Administration that brags about creating their own reality. Author Ron Suskind wrote an article for the New York Times entitled Without a Doubt.  In it, he said that a White House aide once told him that guys like him (Suskind) were in what the Bushies described as "the reality-based community."  The aide described people in the reality-based community as those who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' And he went on to tell Suskind ''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.''

Half of U.S. still believes Iraq had WMD

Without a Doubt

And if you continue to wonder why so many Americans falsely believe Sadaam had WMDs, wonder no more:

Defense Department Disavows Santorum’s WMD Claims

 

So previously here on the blog this week, I talked about the fact that one of the members of the 9/11 Commission had stepped forward to say that they so distrusted the testimony from Pentagon officials, that they referred the matter to the Pentagon's inspector general.

Now, there are even more revelations.

Members of the Commission have a book coming out entitled Without Precedent, in which they detail their effort to find out what really happened on September 11, 2001.

In the book they say they were fustrated by the false testimony of people from both the Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and that they considered launching an investigation into possible deception.

What's more, they say that they regret their softball questioning of former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani.  Looking back on it, members of the Commission believe their investigation suffered because of their failure to ask the necessary questions of Guiliani.

Book: Sept. 11 panel considered Pentagon probe

Authors, panel’s chairmen, offer behind-the-scenes look at terror response

And in related 9/11 Commission news, RawStory.com is carrying a story in which is says the group of widows responsible for the 9/11 Commission, are now questioning the veracity of the Commission's entire report.

Because of recent reports that the 9/11 Commission KNEW that it was being provided with deceptive testimony by NORAD officials, some of the 9/11 widows are wondering whether they can trust the 9/11 Commission's final report.

Group of 9/11 widows 'question the veracity of the entire Commission’s report'

Score: Hillary Clinton- 1; Donald Rumsfeld- 0

No wonder Rummy was shaking in his boots about testifying in public before the Senate Armed Services Committee today.  Some people just have an adversion to anything resembling the truth, which is what Rummy was confronted with today by Sen. Hillary Clinton, who serves on the Committee.

She told Rumsfeld "Under your leadership, there have been numerous errors in judgment that have led us to where we are. We have a full-fledged insurgency and full-blown sectarian conflict in Iraq."  She left old Rummy so speechless he could only muster "my goodness" in response.  And then he proceeded to ask himself questions, and then answer them!

After confronting the Defense Secretary with a scary thing for him (that being the truth), Sen. Clinton on Rumsfeld to resign.  She said "I just don't understand why we can't get new leadership that would give us a fighting chance to turn the situation around before it's too late.  "I think the president should choose to accept Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation."

"The secretary has lost credibility with the Congress and with the people. It's time for him to step down and be replaced by someone who can develop an effective strategy and communicate it effectively to the American people and to the world."

Sen. Clinton says Rumsfeld should resign

AP Interview: Sen. Clinton rips Rumsfeld; calls for his resignation

It seems as though Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was against testifying about the Iraq war before the Senate Armed Services Committe, before he was for it!

In all of his arrogance, Rummy sent word that he had no intention of testifying during a public forum on the Iraq war, before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Several of the Committee's Democrats, however, urged him to reverse course, and now Rummy has sent word that he will appear before the committee.

What's really interesting, though, is that Rumsfeld used the all-too-convenient "straw man" argument, to suggest that the criticism of his initial reluctance to appear, might be politically motivated.  Without mentioning any specific names to back up his argument, he said "Let's be honest: Politics enters into these things, and maybe the person raising the question is interested in that."

I've said it before on this blog and it bears repeating.  This is an administration that has no respect for the oversight responsibility of the U.S. Congress. 

Rumsfeld decides to testify on Iraq war

A Pentagon official announced today that the evidence collected in the Haditha case proves that U.S. marines deliberately shot 24 civilians in Haditha, Iraq last year, including unarmed women and children.

Haditha report could implicate Marines

Pentagon: Probe Backs Haditha Charges

A member of the 9/11 Commission stepped forward today to say that the Commission so distrusted the testimony from Pentagon officials, that they referred the matter to the Pentagon's inspector general.  As well, they considered referring it to the Department of Justice for a potential criminal probe.

9/11 Commission member Tim Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting. We were not sure of the intent, whether it was to deceive the commission or merely part of the fumbling bureaucracy."

Not surprisingly (IMO), the inspector general from the Pentagon found no evidence that Pentagon officials knowingly lied to the 9/11 Commission.

9/11 panel distrusted Pentagon testimony

Feel free to comment in this entry, and the please vote in the following poll:

Prayers and condolenses to Sen. Max Baucus and his family.

Sen. Baucus' newphew, Cpl. Phillip E. Baucus, was killed in Iraq over the weekend.

Senator Baucus' nephew killed in Iraq

Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum, the top National Guard general, revealed today that approximately two-thirds of the Army National Guard units are not ready for war, primarily because of equipment shortages that will cost nearly $21 million dollars to correct.

Remind me again how this is supporting the troops, when the government doesn't give them the tools and equipment necessary for combat?

Perhaps our Republican-controlled Congress and White House can focus on making supporting the troops a reality- not just a politically expedient bumper sticker or slogan.

Army Guard units said not combat ready