Friday, November 10, 2006

More GOP Blood?/The Iraq Fight To Come

Today, a prominent Washington reporter said to me, "I have a confession. I'm disappointed. After this election, I wanted to see, on the Republican side, more bloodletting. There's not enough blood on the floor." My answer: give them time. Donald Rumsfeld and Ken Mehlman are out, but the conservatives and Republicans are still processing. The information age has trained us to demand immediate reaction (and gratification). But psychological mechanisms still take place in old-media time. Think of Elisabeth Kubler-Ross's five stages of grief. She listed them this way: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance. This week, GOPers have to work through this process in a different order. There can be no denying the election results. So for them acceptance comes first and quickly yields to depression, with anger to follow.

That anger will be fully manifested shortly. There will be fights for Republican leadership positions in the House. Representative Mike Pence, a fiery rightwinger who leads the House conservative caucus, is challenging Representative John Boehner for the Republican minority leader job, accusing his party's leaders of abandoning conservative principles. Dick Armey, the former Republican House majority leader and a libertarian, economics-first conservative, started feuding with James Dobson, the religious right leader, even before the elections occurred.

Don't worry, I told this reporter, there will be more blood soon. Republicans will be divided on what to do in Iraq and whether to stick with Bush--on the war and in general. (See the article below.) And jockeying for 2008 will lead to more internal and nasty strife, not less, within the Republican Party. There will be far more strife than bargaining.


Speaking of the coming squabble within the GOP on Iraq, Republican/conservative strategist Grover Norquist had an interesting comment in a post-election on-line colloquium conducted by The National Interest, which included me. Here's what Norquist said:

Iraq is a great big government program that has not worked out very well. Its proponents sound like George McGovern: "you just spent more money and redouble your efforts and hope government will work."

Foreign policy is treated differently in the United States than domestic policy, but the president needs to have the American people see that we have a policy to win and leave. He talks too much about winning and not enough about leaving. "Stay the course" when all you have is bad news all day doesn't sound reasonable to people. You need to explain: we're going to do this, this and this. The plan is what? And we're doing what? And we're going to get what out of it? I think the president needs to come up with a Vietnamization plan for Iraq that makes it clear this not some Hundred Years War.

The Republican natives are clearly getting restless about the war. Any who weren't before E-Day ought to be now, unless they're not sentient. And I have a question for Senator John McCain and the McCainiacs: how well do they think his call for sending more troops into Iraq is going to play with the American electorate? Or Republican primary voters? (You can see the entire National Interest roundtable here.)

There will be plenty of Republican recriminations--and much conflict, as GOPers continue to come to terms with what hit them this week and plot to regain power on Capitol Hill and keep control of the White House.

In the meantime, here's a piece from the just-out issue of The Nation, in which I preview Washington's next major tussle: the fight over the war:

And Now, Iraq

[from the November 27, 2006 issue]

The bitterly fought Congressional election was merely the prelude to the real showdown in Washington: the battle over the Iraq War. Now that the campaign is over, and Democrats have at least won the House, George W. Bush will face increasing criticism from newly empowered Democrats and Republicans no longer self-censored by party loyalty. And part of the at-home fight over Iraq could play out like a soap opera.

For months, pressure for change has been building on the White House. But the elections froze much of the debate. Congressional Republicans by and large stuck with Bush. Democrats, sensing the war was winning the elections for them, didn't feel compelled to compose and promote a detailed alternative. This status quo is no longer operative, as demonstrated by the quick departure of Donald Rumsfeld. Come January Democrats will have the power to investigate Administration policies. They'll be able hold hearings on previous mistakes and current White House decisions. But they'll be expected to do more than blame Bush; they'll have to present an alternative, despite being divided on what to do.

As Democrats struggle on this front, the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan commission chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker, a Republican, and former Representative Lee Hamilton, a Democrat, will be crafting a report assessing the situation in Iraq and proposing policy shifts. Weeks ago, Baker told me there are "no easy solutions," that the Administration had to "admit big mistakes were made" and that his commission would produce specific recommendations or a set of unambiguous alternatives. One option reportedly under consideration is a phased withdrawal of US troops. Another calls for stabilizing Baghdad while the US Embassy works for an accommodation with the insurgents.

Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has already dismissed the Baker report, perhaps prematurely because it could provide out-of-Iraq Democrats a degree of cover. The Baker-Hamilton report--should it advocate a version of disengagement--might well draw stark lines in the postelection debate. Days before the election, Dick Cheney vowed that the Administration would proceed "full speed ahead." But Baker has signaled that he believes a new strategic path is required. The question is, How kindly will Bush and Cheney take such advice?

Baker is the consigliere of the Bush the First clan. Before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, he and Brent Scowcroft, the elder Bush's National Security Adviser, publicly cautioned against the war. Their remarks were interpreted as reflecting Bush Senior's concerns. Bush Junior eschewed the advice, and did what his father had not done: invade and occupy Iraq. Now here comes Baker to pull W.'s bacon out of the fire. But does Bush want to be rescued by a surrogate for his daddy? He might well reject Baker's ideas--which would be an act of family rebellion of global consequence. (But by replacing Rumsfeld with Robert Gates, who was CIA director for Bush Senior and who now serves on the Baker-Hamilton commission, Bush indicated he may not be beyond reach.)

Meanwhile, Republicans will have to choose sides in any family feud. "Before the election, we were hearing from Republican senators that after the campaign they wanted to figure out a bipartisan change of course," says a Senate Democratic staffer. These GOPers could rally around the Baker recommendations (with or without Democrats). Other Republicans could find it hard to cut and run from the President. And 2008 considerations will color calculations on both sides of the aisle.

The election is over; the war is not. With their new power, the Democrats will assume a greater responsibility to address the issue of what to do in Iraq. With diminished power, troubled Republicans will be more inclined to press the leader of their party. With the public, Congress and perhaps his father's crowd arrayed against him, Bush will be in one tight corner.

Posted by David Corn at November 10, 2006 11:53 AM


capt said...



Flan said...


I voted, but this doesn't count. It's up to the Dems in power now to make it happen. Let's see if they have the guts to do it. I think there are a few Dems that have some 'splaining to do themselves so I am afraid that they will be too afraid to start the process without making them look bad...

We'll see.


capt said...


Always good to read your posts!

There are surely a few.


capt said...

Exclusive: Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse

A lawsuit in Germany will seek a criminal prosecution of the outgoing Defense Secretary and other U.S. officials for their alleged role in abuses at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo

Just days after his resignation, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is about to face more repercussions for his involvement in the troubled wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New legal documents, to be filed next week with Germany's top prosecutor, will seek a criminal investigation and prosecution of Rumsfeld, along with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet and other senior U.S. civilian and military officers, for their alleged roles in abuses committed at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The plaintiffs in the case include 11 Iraqis who were prisoners at Abu Ghraib, as well as Mohammad al-Qahtani, a Saudi held at Guantanamo, whom the U.S. has identified as the so-called "20th hijacker" and a would-be participant in the 9/11 hijackings. As TIME first reported in June 2005, Qahtani underwent a "special interrogation plan," personally approved by Rumsfeld, which the U.S. says produced valuable intelligence. But to obtain it, according to the log of his interrogation and government reports, Qahtani was subjected to forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, prolonged stress positions, sleep deprivation and other controversial interrogation techniques.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs say that one of the witnesses who will testify on their behalf is former Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the one-time commander of all U.S. military prisons in Iraq. Karpinski — who the lawyers say will be in Germany next week to publicly address her accusations in the case — has issued a written statement to accompany the legal filing, which says, in part: "It was clear the knowledge and responsibility [for what happened at Abu Ghraib] goes all the way to the top of the chain of command to the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ."

A spokesperson for the Pentagon told TIME there would be no comment since the case has not yet been filed.

Along with Rumsfeld, Gonzales and Tenet, the other defendants in the case are Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone; former assistant attorney general Jay Bybee; former deputy assisant attorney general John Yoo; General Counsel for the Department of Defense William James Haynes II; and David S. Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Senior military officers named in the filing are General Ricardo Sanchez, the former top Army official in Iraq; Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the former commander of Guantanamo; senior Iraq commander, Major General Walter Wojdakowski; and Col. Thomas Pappas, the one-time head of military intelligence at Abu Ghraib.

Germany was chosen for the court filing because German law provides "universal jurisdiction" allowing for the prosecution of war crimes and related offenses that take place anywhere in the world. Indeed, a similar, but narrower, legal action was brought in Germany in 2004, which also sought the prosecution of Rumsfeld. The case provoked an angry response from Pentagon, and Rumsfeld himself was reportedly upset. Rumsfeld's spokesman at the time, Lawrence DiRita, called the case a "a big, big problem." U.S. officials made clear the case could adversely impact U.S.-Germany relations, and Rumsfeld indicated he would not attend a major security conference in Munich, where he was scheduled to be the keynote speaker, unless Germany disposed of the case. The day before the conference, a German prosecutor announced he would not pursue the matter, saying there was no indication that U.S. authorities and courts would not deal with allegations in the complaint.

In bringing the new case, however, the plaintiffs argue that circumstances have changed in two important ways. Rumsfeld's resignation, they say, means that the former Defense Secretary will lose the legal immunity usually accorded high government officials. Moreover, the plaintiffs argue that the German prosecutor's reasoning for rejecting the previous case — that U.S. authorities were dealing with the issue — has been proven wrong.


*****end of clip*****

War criminals should be charged and stand to account for their many crimes. I hope the Germans don't forget Bunnypants.


David B. Benson said...

Well, well. Some pundits proposing a carbon tax. GOPher pundits, no less...

On Slate.

circular_illogic said...

The world is without a doubt upside down. (Scientists say the magnetic poles are in the process of flipping as they have several times in the past.) The country once guilty of the worst war crimes, under the Nazis, is now on the high ground prosecuting the country that once stood as a shining symbol of freedom.

capt said...

AND the GOPhers are concerned with being green?


Things are very curious on this side of the looking glass.


circular_illogic said...

A step in the right direction will not get you to your destination if one step is all you take.

Dems pledge to sever ties to lobbyists

The ties can only be considered severed when lobbyist campaign contributions are banned.

circular_illogic said...

Democrats are set to subpoena
The new majority is expected to hold hearings on military spending and the Iraq war -- just for starters.

WASHINGTON — Rep. Ike Skelton knows what he will do in one of his first acts as chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the Democratic-led House: resurrect the subcommittee on oversight and investigations.

The panel was disbanded by the Republicans after they won control of Congress in 1994. Now, Skelton (D-Mo.) intends to use it as a forum to probe Pentagon spending and the Bush administration's conduct of the Iraq war.

capt said...


So right - let us hope and pray the Dem's actually do some good.

I worry about the lobbyist/ing issue. There are still too many and too much influence.


capt said...

Dear IAVA Supporter,

This Veterans Day, Washington looks different. But Baghdad and Kabul don't. As elections come and go, IAVA is still going to be here, advocating for troops and veterans, and educating the public about the situation on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This Saturday is Veterans Day. More than one million people have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now is the time to spread the word about IAVA.

Please continue your commitment to the troops and veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. We're not asking for donations. But please take a moment to spread the word about IAVA to five of your friends. Let them know about our crucial work - on issues from body and Humvee armor to VA funding -- and that, with your support, there is much more to be done

Thank you for all you do to support our work.

Paul Rieckhoff
Executive Director
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America

capt said...

A pop-up from a Bill Moyers teaching tool on lobbying

Carey said...

Mr. Corn,

You want bloodletting? It's becoming more apparent that Cheney's head will soon be on the chopping block. Can you believe that his days might finally be numbered? Here's Wayne Madsen's take:

November 10/11/12, 2006 -- According to Washington insiders, there are moves afoot to dump Vice President Dick Cheney and replace him with either John McCain or Rudolph Giuliani prior to the 2008 presidential election. Whoever succeeds Cheney will be able to campaign for the presidency with the perks that come with being an incumbent Vice President.

Since the increasingly-besieged Cheney has signaled he has no intention of voluntarily stepping down, the strategy by the Bush camp may be to force him out by presenting evidence before Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald that it was Cheney who was responsible for the compromise of CIA non-proliferation covert officer Valerie Plame Wilson and her Brewster Jennings & Associates cover firm.

Observers note the unusual professional relationship between Fitzgerald and Karl Rove's defense attorney Robert Luskin. Insiders believe that Fitzgerald may be proffered a carefully crafted deal by Luskin whereby Rove will testify to Cheney's primary role in the outing of Mrs. Wilson and her firm. The sealed indictment of Rove will then be retired permanently. If such a deal is worked out, Fitzgerald may then offer a deal to Lewis I. "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's former Chief of Staff, to also testify against Cheney. With such double-barreled testimony, President Bush will then be compelled to ask Cheney for his resignation or face a very nasty and public indictment.

Cheney is next on the chopping block.

The game plan appears to be what DC insider Sally Quinn foresaw in her Washington Post op-ed last month, an article that suggested she has spoken extensively to a Donald Rumsfeld who was aware of his impending firing. The op-ed stated that Rumsfeld would not be the scapegoat for Iraq and planned to resign shortly after the election. Quinn, seemingly channeling Rumsfeld, stated that after Rumsfeld left, there will be only two scapegoats left: Dick Cheney and George W. Bush. The article concluded by asking which person would be served up as the official scapegoat for Iraq.

This editor wrote, "based on the arrival of James Baker and a coterie of George H. W. Bush old hands on the scene to bail out Dubya, it is clear that the Bush family does not intend to allow one of its own to be declared scapegoat."

With word from White House sources that Cheney was opposed to the sacking of his old mentor Rumsfeld and even more resistant to the naming of Bush family loyalist Robert Gates to take his place, it is clear that Cheney doesnot want to be placed in a position of exposure. However, even Cheney neo-con allies like Richard Perle and Ken Adelman, sensing that Cheney is the designated scapegoat, have bellowed about the Iraq war being a mistake and are now distancing themselves from the Cheney group, once the most powerful operating cell within the Bush administration.


Capt, David B., flan & circular,

So the Germans are after Rummie. How delicious could this be? I loved your comment on the magnetic poles switching sides, circular. How apropos.

I worry too, Capt, about the lobbying issues. Things haven't changed all that much. Just because Santorum and GOPers were booted out doesn't mean K Streeters are going away. They'll just switch sides.

David B. Benson said...

And just WHERE is Cheney? Already skidaddled to a no-extradition country?

On the green side of things, Senator Barabara Boxer will replace Inofe, so some action of some kind will occur re: environment. The news sources claim that Bush has agreed to "cooperate" with her...

circular_illogic said...

The special on the Earth's magnetic field was very intruiging. It is theorized that Mars once had a similar atmosphere but when its core cooled beyond a certain point it lost its magnetic field. Solar wind was then able to erode the atmosphere leaving the current wasteland. Earth's magnetic field is weakening because of a quirk in the workings of the molten core. Every aprox. 100,000 years the poles begin mixing weakening the field until they seperate again only switched. This will leave us at increased exposure to solar radiation for a few hundred years. It won't be a disaster but definitally will cause an increase in skin cancer if we take no precautions. What they didn't address was how this time the flip coincides with man induced global warming. The effects of these two phenomena could combine for a worse situation than many expect. Global warmin may not seem as high a priority to some as things like the war but we need leaders who will work for change now because later will be too late.

capt said...

Lawmaker wants to impeach N.J. high court

TRENTON, N.J., Nov. 10 (UPI) -- A New Jersey legislator wants to impeach the entire state Supreme Court for ruling that the state must legalize same-sex unions.

Assemblyman Richard Merkt, R-Morris, told Gannett's statehouse bureau that his targets include former Chief Justice Deborah Poritz, who retired immediately after the court issued its ruling. Merkt, who acknowledges he is unlikely to succeed, described his proposal as a "line in the sand."

The high court ruled in late October that the state constitution requires that same-sex couples have the same rights as privileges as heterosexual ones. The justices ordered the legislature to authorize either civil unions or marriage.

Poritz, a Republican appointee, and two other justices issued a partial dissent that went even farther, finding that gay couples are entitled to marriage.

Merkt, who called the court "a judicial bully," said his resolutions are not about same-sex marriage.

"This is about self-government and who governs the state of New Jersey," said Merkt. "The decision is merely the latest constitutional problem in New Jersey. For decades, the court has escaped all meaningful accountability."


*****end of clip*****

Call me backwards but this is actually a bit refreshing. Because as of the last election there is a strong probability (not possibility but probability) most Americans see the insanity of these homophobic idiots.

Ahhhh, there are times when I have to appreciate the crazy people for just being themselves.


capt said...

First Mehlman, Next Karl Rove?

Somebody measure the drapes in Karl Rove’s office. It didn’t take long for Georgie’s vexation at his party’s sorry showing in the midterm elections to manifest. First Rumsfeld was gone and now Ken Mehlman has gotten the ax. Yes, the Republican National Committee’s chair is outta there at the end of the year.

And while rumors abound about both men — Mehlman being pretty much known to be gay and Rumsfeld’s head supposedly on the chopping block for at least a week before his "resignation" was "accepted" — no one’s pointing a finger at the guy who was really in charge of all the losing strategies. Yes, I’m talking about Turd Blossom himself, Karl Rove.

Karl has shown the pressure lately. After Florida Governor candidate, now Governor-elect, Charlie Crist failed to attend a rally with the President in his honor just before the election, Karl was feeling it. One moment of Rovian pique was even immortalized by Crist’s campaign workers at a victory party.


*****end of clip*****

These guys should be facing an actual chopping block. UGH!


capt said...

Bernalillo County releases another wave of votes

Representative Heather Wilson’s already-slim lead over challenger Patricia Madrid has gotten even slimmer with the latest early voting numbers released Friday afternoon by Bernalillo County.

A couple thousand votes still need to be counted, but this wave of 690 early votes that had to be hand-tallied decreased Wilson’s lead by 126 votes since Thursday night, leaving the margin between her and Madrid at 1,481 votes, just seven-tenths of a percent of the 208,233 votes cast.

To put that in perspective, if all of the votes cast were spread to cover the length of a football field, the margin between the two would be just longer than the length of two footballs.

Wilson, the Republican incumbent, has already declared victory, but Madrid campaign staffers say they’re refusing to give up yet.


*****end of clip*****

Did I mention here in Bernalillo county Heather is not as popular as she thinks?


capt said...

Today's Headlines

You hear that? That's the sound of the GOP collectively crapping their pants: Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO) will resurrect the subcommittee on oversight and investigations, which was disbanded by the Republicans after they won control of Congress in 1994 11-10

Key Republican joins Dems opposing Bolton nomination. This is probably not what President Bush had in mind when he stressed bipartisanship 11-10

Mehlman stepping down as Republican Committee Chair 11-10

I suppose that could have something to do with this. 11-10

1980: Robert Gates Prevented Iran Hostage Release 11-10

New Sec-Def Gates believes that computer viruses are worse than nukes and should be counted as WMDs 11-10

Handover to Iraqi Army set for the end of next year. 11-10

AP: Detainees may lose access to their lawyers 11-10

Harlem's newly powerful Rep. Charles Rangel wants to stick it to his White House nemesis Vice President Cheney - by taking over his spacious House office. 11-10

When asked whether he felt that his loss may have helped the country by switching control of power in Congress, Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) replied: "To be honest, yes." 11-10

Jesus Camp To Close After Pastor's Gay Sex Scandal. 11-10

Somehow nearly 18,000 voters failed to cast a vote for either candidate in a hotly contested Congressional race. Result: Republican candidate wins by 368 votes. Bonus: It's Katherine Harris's old seat 11-10


Thanks POAC Headlines!

capt said...

It is foolish in the extreme not only to resort to force before necessity compels, but especially to madly create the conditions that will lead to this necessity." : Benjamin Tucker, Liberty, May 22, 1886

"The industrial way of life leads to the industrial way of death. From Shiloh to Dachau, from Antietam to Stalingrad, from Hiroshima to Vietnam and Afghanistan, the great specialty of industry and technology has been the mass production of human corpses." -Edward Abbey

"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that numbers of people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of the leaders of their government and have gone to war, and millions have been killed because of this obedience. . . Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty" : Howard Zinn

The feeling of patriotism - It is an immoral feeling because, instead of confessing himself a son of God . . . or even a free man guided by his own reason, each man under the influence of patriotism confesses himself the son of his fatherland and the slave of his government, and commits actions contrary to his reason and conscience." : Leo Tolstoy, Patriotism and Government

Read this newsletter online

Thanks ICH Newsletter!

David B. Benson said...

David Corn --- "strife, not bargaining"...

Does this spell the end of the GOP as we currently know and dispise it? Will it split into separate parts?

capt said...


You mean the sieg to separate from the hiel?


capt said...

Dirty Water Kills 5,000 Children a Day

Sanitation the key to saving millions of lives
UN urges governments to ensure supplies for all

Nearly two million children a year die for want of clean water and proper sanitation while the world's poor often pay more for their water than people in Britain or the US, according to a major new report.

The United Nations Development Programme, in its annual Human Development report, argues that 1.1 billion people do not have safe water and 2.6 billion suffer from inadequate sewerage. This is not because of water scarcity but poverty, inequality and government failure.

The report urges governments to guarantee that each person has at least 20 litres of clean water a day, regardless of wealth, location, gender or ethnicity. If water was free to the poor, it adds, it could trigger the next leap forward in human development.

Many sub-Saharan Africans get less than 20 litres of water a day and two-thirds have no proper toilets. By contrast, the average Briton uses 150 litres a day while Americans are the world's most profligate, using 600 litres a day. Phoenix, Arizona, uses 1,000 litres per person on average - 100 times as much as Mozambique.

"Water, the stuff of life and a basic human right, is at the heart of a daily crisis faced by countless millions of the world's most vulnerable people," says the report's lead author, Kevin Watkins.

Hilary Benn, international development secretary, said: "In many developing countries, water companies supply the rich with subsidised water but often don't reach poor people at all. With around 5,000 children dying every day because they drink dirty water, we must do more."

Many countries spend less than 1% of national income on water. This needs to rise sharply, as does the share of foreign aid spent on water projects, the UNDP says. It shows how spending on clean water and sanitation led to dramatic advances in health and infant mortality in Britain and the United States in the 1800s.

In the world's worst slums, people often pay five to 10 times more than wealthy people in the same cities or in London. This is because they often have to buy water from standpipes and pay a middle man by the bucket. "The poorer you are, the more you pay," says Mr Watkins.

Poor people also waste much time walking miles to collect small amounts of water. The report estimates that 40bn hours are spent collecting water each year in sub-Saharan Africa - an entire working year for all the people in France.

And the water the poor do get is often contaminated, spreading diseases that kill people or leave them unable to work. The UNDP estimates that nearly half of all people in developing countries at any one time are suffering from an illness caused by bad water or sanitation and that 443m school days are missed each year.

There is plenty of water globally but it is not evenly distributed and is difficult to transport. Some countries use more than they have due to irrigation, population growth and so on. But many simply do not handle their water properly.

The Middle East is the world's most "water-stressed" region, with Palestinians, especially in Gaza, suffering the most.

Climate change is likely to hit the developing world hardest, reducing the availability of water, lowering agricultural productivity and leaving millions hungry. Changing weather patterns are already causing drought in countries such as Kenya, Mali and Zimbabwe, but wet areas are likely to become wetter still, causing devastating floods and loss of life.

It says governments need to get more water to people, either through the public sector or a regulated private sector. The end, the UNDP concludes, is more important than the means.


*****end of clip*****

Hard to celebrate the demise of the GOP or even the rise of the DNC when $200,000,000.00 per month is spent wining and dining congress members while 150,000 children die for want of water?

Where are our priorities? Screw the planet, ignore the dying children we have influence to peddle? What the fuck have we become?


O'Reilly said...

Watching Republicans restructure and re-tool is soap opera sideshow.

It will take a while for the shakeout to resolve and, as colorful political pundits describe it, the gop bloodletting to proceed. GOP people are loosing their jobs - they are not dying of IEDs. Can we please reconsider the appropriatness of this colorful metephor out of respect for Americans whose lives are at risk in Iraq?

In the meantime, what can we learn about the direction policies will take? I suppose it takes a while for our government to get organized and who takes which job clearly affects the substantive issues. Regardless, perhaps political pundits can help by reporting the substantive issues and leaving the soap opera stories to entertainment tonight.

capt said...

Some out-of-work GOP staffers may face unemployment

With hundreds of Republican aides set to lose their jobs as Democrats take over Congress, K Street veterans tell Roll Call that some may have to file for unemployment benefits.

"The hundreds of Republican staffers — not to mention more than a few Members — who will lose their jobs in the next few weeks are going to face a hostile marketplace on K Street as unemployed Republicans flood the market," Kate Ackley writes for Roll Call.

"While GOP aides are flooding the town with their résumés, it’s now plugged-in Democratic aides whom companies and firms really have an eye for," the article continues.
The head of a lobbying firm that currently employs only Republicans tells the Capitol Hill newspaper, "It’s going to be more of a buyer’s market for Republican staffers and a seller’s market for the Democratic staffers."

One prominent lobbyist who hires Capitol Hill aides said that, in general, Republicans can expect to slash about $50,000 from what they might have commanded before the election returns came in. Yet, another lobbyist who runs his large firm said there are senior-level Democratic aides for whom he would offer as much as $600,000 in total compensation to lure them to his bipartisan shop because of simple supply and demand.

Veteran lobbyists and headhunters said some of the soon-to-be-unemployed aides and Members will find new jobs in the Bush administration, where a flurry of turnover is expected.

Some aides will look to fill other posts on the Hill, while others will catch on with trade associations, lobbying firms and corporate offices — though perhaps for a smaller salary than other Republicans commanded as little as six months ago.

But some probably will go on unemployment and some will end up leaving town altogether, K Street veterans said.


*****end of clip*****

I am waiting to hear how the mindless Reich-wingnuts are going to blame Bubba for their troubles.

I was listening to Lionel on AAR a little bit ago and some true believer had called in and was all but apoplectic that Lionel said no WMD's were found in Iraq (just a month or two ago - it was reported all over the place).

It reminded me what we are up against. A radical minority of "FOX News" (mis)informed radicals. The scary thought crossed my mind that the neocons might have just been keeping their powder dry for the 2008 election. (perish the thought)


capt said...

Democrats give credit to an unlikely angel

Rush Limbaugh’s remarks on Fox ad led to interest and money for McCaskill, they say.

Missouri Democrats aren’t often in a position to thank Rush Limbaugh for much of anything.

But Wednesday, Democrats were showering the conservative radio commentator with gratitude for his hand in Claire McCaskill’s narrow win over Jim Talent in Missouri’s U.S. Senate race.

"I’d call it an unexpected gift," said longtime Democratic activist Woody Overton.

"We have Rush Limbaugh to thank for a lot of things," McCaskill campaign manager Richard Martin said.

Limbaugh acknowledged his role on his program Wednesday in response to a call from "Connie from Blue Springs." She said she was devastated by McCaskill’s win.

He responded that he appreciated McCaskill giving him partial credit for her victory and said she should say that as often as possible.

Limbaugh had injected himself in the campaign at a pivotal moment in late October when most polls showed Talent with a slight lead, although statistically within the margin of error. On Oct. 23 on his nationally syndicated program, Limbaugh chastised actor Michael J. Fox, who has Parkinson’s disease.

Limbaugh accused Fox of "exaggerating the effects of the disease" in a 30-second TV ad he cut for McCaskill. In the spot, Fox urged voters to back McCaskill because of her support of early stem-cell research.

In the emotionally powerful spot, Fox waves back and forth across the screen as the result of his condition.

Limbaugh called Fox "shameless" and said: "Either he didn’t take his medication or he’s acting, one of the two."

He later said, "I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong." But Limbaugh’s remarks and his mocking waving on camera sparked a national firestorm that resulted in the ad getting massive play on news programs as well as the Internet video site

"All it did was to remind people — moderates — how ridiculous Rush Limbaugh is and how far to the right he is and how far out of the mainstream he is," Martin said.

Within a couple of days, McCaskill was touting an unexpected cash infusion into her campaign of more than $100,000, a total that may have grown to as much as $500,000, aides said. That money came at a time when the campaign was cash-starved. McCaskill had to lend her cause nearly $500,000 to buy TV ads in the race’s closing days.


*****end of clip*****

Rush is no angel no matter how much he accidentally helped. Maybe the patron saint of douche-bag back-side bloviation.


capt said...

Antiwar Voters May Get Less Than They Bargained For

Democratic majorities in both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, and the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary, will not necessarily mean major changes for the war in Iraq, analysts say.

That's primarily because it is the president, and not Congress, that supervises the armed forces and prosecutes war.

"The main control Congress has is financial," said Pratap Chatterjee, who directs the non-profit group Corpwatch. "Congress can refuse to pay for the war, which is what they did in Vietnam, but they can't really dictate how it's waged."

At this point, defunding the war does not seem likely. The presumed next speaker of the house, Democrat Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, told reporters after the election Tuesday that she wants to "work together in a bipartisan way to send a clear message to the Iraqi government and people that they must disarm the militias, they must amend their constitution, [and] they must engage in regional diplomacy to bring real stability and reconstruction to Iraq."

Democrat Harry Reid of Nevada, the likely majority leader of the new Senate to be seated in January, echoed Pelosi when he told reporters he wants to hold a "bipartisan summit on Iraq" rather than bring the war to a quick end.

Even Democrats swept into Congress on a tide of antiwar sentiment talk gingerly around the idea of defunding the war.

"It's very important to give our troops the things they need for their own security," Congressman-elect Jerry McNearny of California told IPS. "I don't know if defunding the war is the best way to go. I want to find a way to end that war that makes everyone more secure."


*****end of clip*****

Do these Democratic idiots expect us to believe they do not know the difference between equipping our military and funding a lost occupation?

The scorecard on what the new super-dem's are promising NOT to do is exactly opposite of what the liars ran on:

Promise NOT to impeach Bush
Promise NOT to de-fund the Iraq occupation

Just two "winning" issues and the neocon's must LOVE the new Democratic leadership. The Dem's will do nothing and act confused when they are called to account for their inaction.

Skip a real investigation into evote stealing (must not be any since they D's won) and forget about Phase 2 and exposing the lies of George W. Bush (a familiar ring to that one). Give everything touchy a pass and call it bi-partisan. Throw in a little payola through crooked lobbyists and a little intimidation from the slime machine on high and you have no meaningful change from the current situation.

I hope the Dem's concentrate on something like condoms and fighting AID's in Africa because I don't think they are any more opposition than they have been since 2000.

If the Dem's refuse to be an opposition party what good are they?


Saladin said...

Wow Capt, such a raging white water river of negativity!! What would all the bubble dwellers think? ;-)

rs said...

Hi Capt., and all...

Well, Pelosi says that impeachment is off the table, I can only hope that means it is in the oven warming up; it depends how you define these silly metaphors, these little major media memephonics, meant to fit on bumper sticker and be as fungible Rumsfeld to the end. In historical perspective it must be remembered that in the Nixon investigations, it was the GOPhers who carried the grim news to him that he had lost his own parties support. As Elizabeth Holtzman and Amy Goodman discussed the other day:

AMY GOODMAN: What’s your response to the Speaker in waiting, Nancy Pelosi, saying it’s off the table?

ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN: Well, it’s very understandable. It was off the table to the Democrats in 1973, when the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate, and you had Richard Nixon as president.

AMY GOODMAN: He had won by a landslide victory in 1972.

ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN: Correct. He had won by a landslide, and impeachment was off the table then. Nobody -- no Democrat was pushing for it. And, in fact, as the revelations came out, it still wasn't on the table. It took the American people, after the Saturday Night Massacre, sending a clear message to the Congress --

AMY GOODMAN: The Saturday Night Massacre being?

ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN: The firing by Richard Nixon of the special prosecutor who was investigating him. It took that clear signal from the American people, who said, “Enough is enough. We are not a banana republic. A president cannot be above the law. He cannot stop an investigation into possible criminal behavior by him or his top aides. And we want Congress to hold him accountable.” So it came from the American people. It didn't come from the Congress.

It’s understandable that congressional leaders, members of Congress, will be very reluctant to take this enormous step to protect our Constitution and our democracy. But the American people still -- we have a democracy. You saw what happened at the polls. Members of Congress will get it, if the American people want it.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Of course, in the Clinton scandal, it wasn’t a demand that came from the American people for impeachment, it was one that came directly from the Congress itself.


JUAN GONZALEZ: And, of course, that was the level of alleged crimes there was certainly not at the level that we're talking about here.

ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN: Well, remember, under the Constitution, first of all, you don't need a crime to commit an impeachable offense. It doesn't have to be a crime. A high crime and misdemeanor is really an archaic British term that means an abuse of power. It’s a political offense, not a criminal offense.

President Clinton did very bad things, but they were not abuses of power. They did not threaten our democracy, and the American people got it. They understand what impeachment’s about, and that's why they in the end supported the impeachment of Richard Nixon, because what he was doing was an abuse -- involved an abuse of power. What he was saying was that he was above the law, and the American people said, “No, we don't want that kind of abuse of our democracy.”

And I think the same thing can happen again. Of course, you can't have a top-down impeachment. You can't have a partisan impeachment. If an impeachment happens, it has to be done, I think, the way we did it in Watergate, which was bipartisan, to include the American people, to have a process that was extremely fair, nobody could question the fairness of it.

AMY GOODMAN: Explain... ,More.

Also, from Democracy Now!

Would Rumsfeld stepping down leave him open to prosecution? In 2004, the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a criminal complaint in Germany on behalf of several Iraqi citizens who alleged that a group of U.S. officials committed war crimes in Iraq. Rumsfeld was among the officials named in the complaint. The Iraqis claimed they were victims of electric shock, severe beatings, sleep and food deprivation and sexual abuse.
Germany's laws on torture and war crimes permits the prosecution of suspected war criminals wherever they may be found. Now, the president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Michael Ratner, is returning to Germany to file a new complaint. Michael Ratner joins us in our firehouse studio. also from democracy now!

Thanks to All Americans who participated in the practice of democracy.

erling krange said...

Hopes rise for more US cooperation
Norwegian politicians continued to digest the results of the US election this week, and said they hope the Democratic victory will revive a relationship that's been strained by the Bush Administration. Never has there been more interest in mid-term US elections in Norway, and rarely has there been a more collective sigh of relief after Democratic candidates roundly trounced Republicans loyal to US President George W Bush. Some top politicians called it a "political earthquake." The president of Norway's Parliament echoed many by calling the election results "a clear signal" to Bush that a majority of Americans now opposed the war in Iraq and want a change in policy. Most Norwegians firmly opposed Bush's US-led invasion of Iraq, as did a majority of Europeans. More than 60,000 Norwegians took to the streets back in 2003 to demonstrate their opposition, and even Norway's center-right government coalition at the time refused to support the invasion despite pressure from the US. The opposition was largely ignored or rejected in Washington, even though it came from allies.
"We can only hope that after this (the election results) the US president will listen more to the European voices," said Thorbjørn Jagland, a former Norwegian foreign minister and prime minister who's now president of the parliament. Jagland added that an increased willingness to listen is "necessary for building a broader coalition" of allies. "And that would be unconditionally positive for Norway and for Europe," Jagland said. Jagland said Norway's relationship with the US has continued to be "good," but added that "it's clear that it's been difficult to live with the war in Iraq, and the rhetoric that's gone along with it." Jan Petersen of the Conservatives, also a former foreign minister, agreed that American voters now have delivered a protest to Bush of their own. Even the foreign policy spokesman for Norway's most conservative and US-friendly party, the Progress Party, called the election a "warning to the sitting president." Morten Høglund of the Progress Party said he hopes Bush manages to cooperate with the Democrats on "an organized retreat from Iraq," so that the American troops don't have to leave "with their tails between their legs."
Aftenposten English Web Desk


We hope that January first will be a turning point.


Carey said...

I am more than a little upset with the public flogging of Micki. It was uncalled for. This incident severly disappoints me. Frankly, I think an apology is in order.

It would appear this blog has become authoritarian.

I would hope differing views be allowed. Micki calls them as she sees it. I do not see clearly how Micki insulted Capt, but all things are relative. Still, I don't like this singling out of a loyal regular.

Perhaps there is something else afloat here?

capt said...

Democrats now look to sustain majority

What if the war in Iraq is over by 2008? Or what if it is still being waged despite Democratic pledges to change the course? What if voter antipathy toward President Bush is irrelevant in two years? After all, he will be on his way out.

"Who knows whether these things are long-term trends or not," Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., said last week.

Voters gave Democrats control of Congress but did not undergo an ideological conversion. The Democrats' success had more to do with anger toward President Bush, weariness over the war and contempt for the corruption and scandal in Congress -- a confluence of negatives that became a political force.

As some Democrats begin looking to 2008 and beyond, the challenge is how to turn antipathy toward Republicans into affection for Democrats.

"You can't count on that kind of a wave in every election by any means," Democratic pollster Mark Mellman said.


*****end of clip*****

So they can't count on a wave of antipathy so to sustain power they have to become MORE like the GOPhers?

Sure, that is what all those progressive voters want, GOP-lite.


capt said...


I will not go over it again, Micki called me a liar, a prevaricator that I post crapola and am full of bullshit.

That is a personal attack and there will be none here.

Nothing else a floating at all. I work hard to provide an open forum. This is still an open forum it just requires a "goggle/blogger" account.


capt said...

Impeachment 'Off the Table,' Conyers Says

WASHINGTON -- Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., presumed to become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in January, said Thursday that impeachment of President Bush "is off the table."

"In this campaign, there was an orchestrated right-wing effort to distort my position on impeachment," Conyers said in a statement released by his Judiciary Committee spokesman. "The incoming speaker (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.) has said that impeachment is off the table. I am in total agreement with her on this issue: Impeachment is off the table."


*****end of clip*****

Et tu John?

No impeachment means no consequences for Bunnypants OR any future king that makes up lies to take us to war. "Good for the American People"? The neocons have to be eating this stuff up. Bush lied to get us into a war of HIS choosing and the Dem's will give him a pass.


capt said...

"Don't flatter yourself that friendship authorizes you to say disagreeable things to your intimates. The nearer you come into relation with a person, the more necessary do tact and courtesy become. Except in cases of necessity, which are rare, leave your friend to learn unpleasant things from his enemies; they are ready enough to tell them."
~ Oliver Wendell Holmes (1809 - 1894), The Autocrat of the Breakfast-Table, 1858

Saladin said...

Carey, as you have never been on the receiving end of micki's tirades I can understand the confusion. Calling things as you see them and debating topics are one thing, but she tends to get very pissed when others "call it as they see it" and starts the insults flying. I agree with Capt. it's totally uncalled for!

David B. Benson said...

Yup. Like Nixon got a pass until he did something openly wrong. Then the PEOPLE required Congress to begin impeachment proceedings...

Presumably now, finally, there will be investigations. If the investigations uncover actual crimes, then matters will surely change.

uncledad said...

Maybe thier is God after all!. Thanks for the link Capt. I know it's not right but I really took great pleasure in seeing that hypocrite go down. And the fact that it may have had a negative affect on the "republicans" only makes it sweeter.

capt said...

The whole
Jesus Camp thing gives me the creeps.

The fact that Haggard was involved is only a little surprising.

Down with hypocrites and dispensationalism.


capt said...

The 2006 Election… A Comedic Roundup

Keith Olbermann and the Countdown team put together a hilarious comedic roundup from the late night comedy scene. From Letterman & Leno to Stewart & Colbert, there was much to joke (and rejoice) about.

Video WMP

Video MOV

Video YouTube


*****end of clip*****

I am thinking maybe Pande should SUE! (HA!)


uncledad said...


Too funny. While at utube I stumbled along this cranky old guy! The "sludge report". He reads an excellent Maureen Dowd (NYT's) article.

Carey said...

As I sit here and try to figure out what the hell this blog is for it occurs to me that it's for Kirk. What's the point in a "blog" under the guise of the intermingling of thoughts and discussion?

Capt, you know how I think of you, as a very thoughtful, intelligent, kind and dutiful person. But this completely sucks, I'm sorry.

What's the point? Discussion as only you will have it? Personal insults, my bottom. So what? You sound like a Napoleon. Do you hear or read yourself? So you got an insult. WOW! You give the impression of an intolerant tyrant.

If the point of your blog was to open discussion when David Corn closed his comments section, you have failed. I don't believe in this kind of censorship. What you're really saying to people is, if I don't like it, fuck you, you're out. So much for getting our feelings out.

I don't want to see any of this fall apart, but this sure looks like an attempt.

Cliques, cadres, unacceptable. I am terribly disappointed.

And please, don't tell me anymore crap about how people must be registered. This is a ploy to oust Micki. Okay, it's your blog Capt. Please spare me your arbitrary rules.

Personal vs nonpersonal criticism? A very thin line. So Micki got excitied at one moment.

This is a temper tantrum.


This is ganging up. No way is this mature. So what with the "personal" insults. If we don't have criticism, we'll never be any good. I don't care if Micki disagrees with you. Again, so what? If you want to talk tirades....

Why does any blame need be applied? I'm afraid this is just too much for me.

It's like when Cheney didn't like Wilson for outing his ineptitude and sheer overule, "begone you bad person,". No, this isn't good.

capt said...


I disagree.

Anybody that wants to post here can post here. You are completely wrong. The fact that David has not re-opened his comments section is because of the same types of abuse that were being exercised by a handful of anonymous posters. I should put up with people posting anonymously as me, insulting me or making personal attacks against me or others anonymously?

I would not put up with that shit in my front room, not from a friend and not from my blood relatives. Who are you to try to tell me I should put up with that from bloogers?

"This blog does not allow anonymous comments."

You think that makes it all about me?

Then it is all about me then (in your eyes).

Nobody makes anybody read the posts here and nobody makes anybody post anything here.

If you want an open blog that allows for anonymous personal attacks and insults open one. Then I can say it is all about you. HA!


capt said...


I think you are under the mistaken impression that anybody or somebody has been excluded.

Anybody can post here - they just cannot do so anonymously - they have to make a Google/Blogger account.

They do not have to reveal any personal information if they choose to NOT share their "profile".

"This blog does not allow anonymous comments."

It DOES allow all comments otherwise.

I will say it again - if the personal attacks and insults start up here I will close this blog down and try one by invitation only.


capt said...

That you may retain your self-respect, it is better to displease the people by doing what you know is right, than to temporarily please them by doing what you know is wrong.
William J. H. Boetcker

Don't reserve your best behavior for special occasions. You can't have two sets of manners, two social codes - one for those you admire and want to impress, another for those whom you consider unimportant. You must be the same to all people.
Lillian Eichler Watson

Politeness and consideration for others is like investing pennies and getting dollars back.
Thomas Sowell (1930 - ), Creators Syndicate

The hardest job kids face today is learning good manners without seeing any.
Fred Astaire

Verily, a man teaching his child manners is better than giving one bushel of grain in alms.
Prophet Muhammad, Muslim

Discourtesy does not spring merely from one bad quality, but from several--from foolish vanity, from ignorance of what is due to others, from indolence, from stupidity, from distraction of thought, from contempt of others, from jealousy.
Jean de la Bruyere (1645 - 1696)

I am not afraid of the pen, or the scaffold, or the sword. I will tell the truth wherever I please.
Mother Jones

Carey said...

What was all the crap about Micki then? It went hand in hand. It was a public flogging. There's no way around that. It must have hurt her terribly.

It was a personal criticism. That's all. You said a whole lot about Micki in particular when you introduced this new blog. It seems your answers are not tracking together. I like and respect you but I thought the whole thing completely unnecessary.

capt said...


Your exception has been noted. What do you hope to achieve?


uncledad said...

"What you're really saying to people is, if I don't like it, fuck you, you're out. So much for getting our feelings out."

If that was the case How could I read your words? I for one am a little puzzled by the closing of the old 2nd site. But in the end who cares? We look at this site because we like to read things that people write here! I for one am getting sick and tired of people like me asking the captian why he shut the old site down. Get over it.

capt said...

Here is the actual post that broke this camels back.

Micki said...

capt, I recall you saying once that you don't post quotes in reaction to any post or some such crapola.

It sure is interesting that you "just happen" to have certain quotes at the tip of your fingertips.

Just an observation. I should look up quotes about lying. Or prevaricating. Or spinning. Or bullshit.

12:24 AM, November 08, 2006

Now, anybody that can connect that to anything except a personal attack on me is welcome to connect it.

I do not see it, update me.

I did not bring the subject up but here is one chance. My mind is truly open, convince me.


capt said...

So now I am the bad guy because people cannot post anonymously? (wowser)

You guys are confused about why or what?

The time I spend here copying and posting Corns posts and servicing the shadow blog is such bad thing for me to do.

Which one of you wants to take over?

The more I see the more I understand why David is in no hurry to restore his comments section.

No anonymous posters is reasonable when the anonymous posters abuse their anonymity. That is my call - it was made days ago.

I am not the least bit sorry if anybody does not like it, it is my call and I made it.


capt said...

A family is a place where minds come in contact with one another. If these minds love one another the home will be as beautiful as a flower garden. But if these minds get out of harmony with one another it is like a storm that plays havoc with the garden.

~ Buddha (563 BC - 483 BC)

uncledad said...


Thanks for the explanation, I'm just happy uncledad was not involved. Now check this tune out for a limited time only. limited!

capt said...

Democratic base dials up pressure

Liberal groups that helped secure the new House and Senate majorities intend to get their reward.

WASHINGTON -- After toppling the long-dominant Republicans in a hard-fought election, the Democratic Party's incoming congressional leaders have immediately found themselves in another difficult struggle — with their own supporters.

Some of the very activists who helped restore the Democrats to a majority in the House and Senate last week are claiming credit for the victories and demanding their due: a set of ambitious — and politically provocative — actions on gun control, abortion, national security and other issues that party leaders fear could alienate moderate voters and leave Democrats vulnerable to GOP attacks as big spenders or soft on terrorism.

The conflict underscores the challenge facing presumed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the next Senate majority leader, who have both pledged in recent days to "govern from the center," after a campaign in which anger over the Iraq war and GOP scandals helped Democrats attract some unusually conservative candidates and a large share of independent voters.

Turning off those new voters could undermine Democrats' hopes of solidifying their new majorities and retaking the White House in 2008. But to the leaders of interest groups who are core supporters of the Democratic Party, and who have been barred under Republican rule from the inner sanctums of power, the new Congress means a time for action, not compromise.

Lobbyists for the American Civil Liberties Union, for example, are all but counting on Democrats to repeal the most controversial provisions of the Patriot Act, the anti-terrorist law pushed by the White House that critics charge is unconstitutional. They also want to end President Bush's domestic wiretapping program.


*****end of clip*****

Just like the Democratic leadership[sic] takes impeachment off the table even though 87% of the people want it? Who are they worried about turning away? Hmmmm - could it be the big lobby dollars from big corporate sponsors?


capt said...


I had a 66 Chevelle.

Cool song.


º¿carol said...

Capt, you are a piece of work. Here are a couple quotations for you.

Censorship, like charity, should begin at home, but unlike charity, it should end there.
Clare Boothe Luce

In our daily life, we encounter people who are angry, deceitful, intent only on satisfying their own needs. There is so much anger, distrust, greed, and pettiness that we are losing our capacity to work well together.
Margaret J. Wheatley

"Those who occupy their minds with small matters, generally become incapable of greatness."
Francois de La Rochefoucauld

"We lose many irreplaceable hours brooding over grievances that, in a year's time, will be forgotten by us and by everybody. No, let us devote our life to worthwhile actions and feelings, to great thoughts, real affections and enduring undertakings."
Andre Maurois

“Anger is never without a reason, but seldom a good one.”
Benjamin Franklin

Carry on and enjoy your new blog. ~Carol~

uncledad said...

Cary says: If the point of your blog was to open discussion when David Corn closed his comments section, you have failed. I don't believe in this kind of censorship. What you're really saying to people is, if I don't like it, fuck you, you're out. So much for getting our feelings out.

Complete bullshit! If there was censorship, we would not read what you have to say. Capt did what Corn should have done months ago. But Corn could have done it with style. I don't mean to diminish CApt, but once Corn's site got attacked (actually it happened over several months) he should have made his posters register. I'm sure he rejected this out of some well meant admiration for the freedom of speech. But the hateful and spamful neoconsuperfratboys made sure that corns site would have to be shut down. After all David Corn is a professional, well respected journalist. The site "bushlies" was shut down because of a corporate attack. And I think since Corn is trying to sell his book (I certainly don't blame him) it is easy to just let the site die on the vine.

O.K. I’m not sure any of that made any sense? But the thing that puzzles me, is that the trolls seemed to just be waiting for Corn to "out" Capt's site. Think about it. They must have gone to Corn's site everyday and read what they don't believe, (for months) and finally they were linked to us "CornNuts". And once they got here all hell broke loose. What does that say about them? What does that say about us? I think they want to hear what WE have to say. Too bad they have such bad manners. Fuck’em

capt said...

You would think I started moderating comments. Seems most everybody can come and post anything they like. That is just so messed up.

And I am surely a piece of work!



uncledad said...


Did she have a 396? Steve Earl, my hero, hell of a songwriter, and I'll be dammed if he ain't a liberal! Put on a nice radio show.

capt said...

The US's new Democratic way

NEW YORK - Despite the results of this week's election, US President George W Bush, and of course Vice President Dick Cheney, will still largely have their own way, albeit with some frustrations. Between them Bush and Cheney have raised executive power, already fearsome, to impressive heights, aided by a Congress that has failed to oversee the White House - and media that have largely failed to oversee Congress.

Chastened by the results in which both the House of Representatives and the Senate went to the Democrats, the president may, for a short time at least, try to work in a consensual way with the changed Congress, whose composition is clearly a reflection of the popular verdict on his administration. One suspects that he will only be kidding, however. The real aim will be to split centrist Democrats from their colleagues as Bush seeks to divide and rule.

Previously, that would have been easier, but by a demographic accident, the Democrats with the seniority to move into the crucial committee chairs are mostly old-school liberals, rather than some of the new input who fought their elections by being more conservative than their Republican opponents.

Many of the Democratic incumbents excluded and marginalized by the rampant Republicans over the past decade may not be very merciful in return. At national and at state level, where they also won some significant victories, such as the Massachusetts and New York governors' races, there will be pressure to reverse Republican measures designed to gerrymander seats and suppress votes.

In the Senate, the Democrats, with their paper-thin majority of one, will face problems, as a party generally needs a 10-seat majority for effective control, and US senators are notoriously independent. Just as sufficient Republicans defied their party to prevent the confirmation of John Bolton as United Nations ambassador (Bolton was appointed ambassador in August 2005 during a congressional recess), it only takes the defection of a few quasi-Democrats such as Joseph Lieberman to break the party's strength on key security issues.

On the other hand, Lieberman's centrism is countered by the remarkable but little remarked-on election to the Senate of a self-confessed socialist, Bernie Sanders from Vermont, who will certainly caucus with the Democrats, but could counter any tantrums from Lieberman with his own threat to break ranks.

Even so, among the things that are certainly not going to happen immediately despite the dreams of the fervent grassroots Democrats are an immediate impeachment of Bush and a hasty withdrawal from Iraq. After all, most of these legislators voted for the invasion, and in their often-temporizing way complain about the conduct of the war rather than the invasion itself. Many of the Democratic leadership are considering presidential bids next year and so will impale themselves on their own statesmanship to avoid offending key voting blocs.


*****end of clip*****

Offending what key voting blocs"? 87% of over 300,000 is a very strong number. What are the new Democratic liars talking about? What do these Dems and DINO think they were elected to do a preemptive surrender?


O'Reilly said...

Everyone can post here but you have to post with a name. They are free and easy to setup.

Anonymous has always been a pain in the ass. It's good riddance to the provocation and abuse incited therefrom.

I would be happy to see micki and capt patch up their differences. Capt took exception to a post that implied dishonorable things about his character. If that wasn't the intent, a simple apology will right the course.

capt said...

Naw, Mine was a straight six - a base model with rubber mats (no carpet) and an ash-tray (no radio). Two speed automatic powerglide.

My friends grandfathers car. Good car. That drab olive green Chevy color.


capt said...

No apologies are necessary.

Just no more of the BS. We should all attack the issues not each other.

We can disagreee without being disagreeable.

If we are a community and a family we have a responsibility to serve as the best example we can be, not the worst or lowest.

There is a social contract here as much as anywhere.

There is nothing stopping anybody from posting here except their choice not to post here.

I fully respect a persons right to opt out if that is their choice, I do encourage as many people to jump into the fray but on the issues not the people commenting on issues.

The soap opera stuff is just not interesting to me.


Saladin said...

"If we don't have criticism, we'll never be any good. I don't care if Micki disagrees with you."

Excuse me Carey? micki doesn't just disagree, she does it with contempt. As I have said, you haven't been around to get the full effect. I couldn't care less about criticism, I dish it out, but make a mighty effort to do it as politely as possible. I don't consider it censorship, as I've already said, if I want rude insults I can get that anywhere on the web. I am looking for mature, intelligent debate, name calling I can do without. If I want that I will go to the bushco blogs. I have higher expectations from the "thinking" class. Sorry if that pisses you off. I'm sick and tired of neanderthal tactics. You worry about micki's feelings being hurt? Have you considered how many times others have been hurt by things she has said? Go back a few months on the Corn blog, if the comments are still available, look at what she and several others have said. Censorship? WHAAAAA! Censorship is all about being unable to express opinions. Name calling and insults as topics are what exactly? What is resorted to when you are pissed and have no civilized argument to present? Sounds like the DOT to me. If she has something to say, let her come back. If her pride is hurt, who's fault is that? She can always start her own insult blog. It would be one of many thousands.

uncledad said...

"Naw, Mine was a straight six - a base model with rubber mats (no carpet) and an ash-tray (no radio). Two speed automatic powerglide"

Can still find a few of those around cheap. But the radio delete is worth more now? I just let a "61" bubbletop impala go for $8,100.00, had the 250 cu. in. six. If she had a 283, she would have gone for double, triple. But once you start dealing with real car people they know the difference. But those "61" impalas are hard to find.

capt said...

MuckWatch: We Pick Our Favorite Dems

The Democrats swept into the majority in Congress vowing to fight the culture of corruption. Bad news for the muckraking biz, right? Thankfully, less-than-squeaky pasts don't appear to be a factor in the Dems' reasoning as they divvy up leadership posts and committee chairs. Here are our favorite Democrats poised to take key positions:

Rep. Alan Mollohan (WV): He's set to take the chair of the very appropriations panel in whose purse strings he has already entangled himself. (He has helped steer nearly $500 million in taxpayer money to his rural district, half of which has gone to five organizations Mollohan created with friends.) As a result, he's under FBI investigation. Enough said.

Rep. John Murtha (PA): Likely to chair the Defense Appropriations subcommittee. Murtha's been tagged as a shameless earmarker, spending tens of millions on projects nobody wants to benefit his friends and his district. He's already been caught on tape by the FBI explaining how he works scams, so at least if the Feds pick up his trail again, they'll know what to look for. With massive classified budgets and a long history of wasteful spending, this post is ripe for abuse. The FBI probe into its former chairman, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), attests to that. Murtha's also making a play for Majority Leader.

Rep. Alcee Hastings (FL): Tapped to chair the House Permanent Standing Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI). Without a serious intel/national security background, Hastings is said to have gotten up to speed on the material since joining the committee. Still, there's a congressional impeachment in his background, and charges of a $150,000 bribe from his days as a judge. In the wake of major corruption scandals in the intel world, is it so hard to find a little less complicated candidate to oversee them?

Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD): Hoyer, an appropriator, hopes to be House Majority Leader. Unfortunately, he has an addiction to special interest money, and eagerly courts K Street donors. Does that matter? He broke ranks with his party last year to vote in favor of a draconian bankruptcy bill that would bar many Americans from getting out from under debt, regardless of the circumstances which landed them there. Hoyer has taken around $120,000 from lending institutions this cycle. It's okay to slow-dance with 'em, Steny; but don't let them take you home.


*****end of clip*****

The problem with politics is the politicians.


Saladin said...

Conyers Toes Party Line: No Impeachment
Something Is Extremely 'Rotten In The State Of Denmark'

Steve Watson
Friday, November 10, 2006

The latest Democrat "saviour" to flip flop 180 degrees in light of their victory is Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich. Presumed to become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in January, Conyers today said that impeachment of President Bush "is off the table."

"In this campaign, there was an orchestrated right-wing effort to distort my position on impeachment," Conyers said in a statement released by his Judiciary Committee spokesman. "The incoming speaker (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.) has said that impeachment is off the table. I am in total agreement with her on this issue: Impeachment is off the table."

Conyers seems to have forgotten that last December he laid out the grounds for impeachment in a 350 page long report called "The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution and Cover-ups in the Iraq War" and later updated to add "illegal domestic surveillance."

For a while Conyers was the darling of left leaning bloggers and readers everywhere:

At this site, we are especially proud of the new Conyers Report, "The Constitution in Crisis." By purchasing this book, you have the opportunity to own a part of history and help the Congressman hold the Bush Administration accountable. Your assistance in helping Congressman Conyers become the next Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee will bring us one step closer to getting the American people the answers from this Administration that they deserve.

Conyers is so admirable. One of the very few in Congress who still has integrity and principles. It is too bad that he does not get more MSM coverage but why would they do that? He might upset the Republican and Corporate plans for total control and could expose their nefarious doings.
He is risking much by not following the official DNC program too, in addition to challenging the Bushies.
- Huffington Post

In december 2005, upon release of the report, Conyers stated:

The Report concludes that a number of these actions amount to prima facie evidence (evidence sufficiently strong to presume the allegations are true) that federal criminal laws have been violated. Legal violations span from false statements to Congress to whistleblower laws... The Report also concludes that these charges clearly rise to the level of impeachable conduct... In response to the Report, I have already taken a number of actions. First, I have introduced a resolution (H. Res. 635) creating a Select Committee with subpoena authority to investigate the misconduct of the Bush Administration with regard to the Iraq war and report on possible impeachable offenses.

So Conyers was already underway with setting up investigations into impeachable offences, but now he says that impeachment is off the table? Clearly he has been given orders to toe the party line or face the consequences.

Despite the fact that 86% want to see the President impeached, leading Democrats have already ruled this out. The same leading Democrats that voted for the war in Afghanistan, for the Patriot Act, for Homeland Security and against a bill that simply condemned torture of prisoners in Iraq.

After Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean, Conyers is the latest Democrat to show us their true colours once in power.

Conyers and the other Democrats highlight precisely why we need to regroup, consolidate and redouble our efforts in light of the theatrical shift of power in Washington to the left. Because as soon as this happened, overnight, the truth movement lost a great deal of support from those that believe the job is now done.

Taking note of many reader comments over the past few days I have noticed a startling uprise in the amount of negative and dismissive feedback from some readers. Evidently those who expected us to be out dancing in the streets at the news of a Democrat landslide in Washington have been bitterly disappointed.

We have never once suggested that the solution to a corrupt and fascist Neocon leadership is a passive and capitulating Democrat sideshow leadership, so why is it any surprise that we are continuing on the same course as before?

Comments such as the following emphasize my point:

"You can only have it one way. What the hell is up with you people. The whole time the Bush regime was in power you begged for change. Now you have it, but your still complaining."

Yes we are seeking change, but not a simple change of personnel as we have witnessed this week. As we reported yesterday "There's no doubt about it, to see frothing Neo-Cons who have been strutting around like John Wayne for the past five years finally eat humble pie is a breath of fresh air, but let's not be so deluded as to think that the Neo-Con agenda, which took decades to craft, was simply brushed aside by the victory of a party that has supported Bush every step of the way on major issues."

Seeing Bush on TV admitting he'd took a hell of a beating was great, for about five minutes, then he started laughing and joking about it and talking about pushing forward to work closely with a new crowd.

Is rolling over and going back to sleep going to get Bush impeached? Should we shut down the websites now and go save the whales or something else we'd all love to be doing if we didn't have to relentlessly keep fighting to stop our leaders killing our freedoms?

Within hours the Democratic elite have shown us that they don't give a damn about holding the Bush administration up to scrutiny. With no effective opposition in the form of a political party it is up to the people to continue to demand justice and to continue to attempt to reign in those who have heinously abused their power.

Thomas Jefferson described Congress as "a body to which the people send one hundred and fifty lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything and yield nothing."

In light of this how can any representative say something like impeachment is 'off the table?'
I have said all along, they knew 9/11 was a lie and they knew the reasons for attacking Iraq were lies, they all knew. We are fucking screwed. Take it to the bank. It's revolution or destruction, wait and see. This country is going down, that was the plan all along, they knew that too. The people just aren't savvy yet, but I think it will become crystal clear very soon.

uncledad said...


I agree we censor ourselves. And if you don't feel free here then leave. Don't censor yourselves! Capt has taken the time to allow your registration. If you don't want to register than goodbye.

I will say this. Once Corn outed Capt’s site, my site was attacked as well. It was attacked by bullshit viagra, dietpills, walmart ads, etc., these neoconsuperfratboys are afraid of us. And any of you that don’t believe it, well you’re under informed, go buy a website, put your opinions out, and then you will understand. They will attack you. Guaranteed. They are stupid and afraid.

My site was attacked several times last year when Corns site was still up. I had the nerve to express my opinion with a link to The site got so much spam that Comcast blacklisted me. This was all from the shallow minded fucks, that wait to hear something they know is right, but they believe is wrong. Like I said earlier, these “people” read Corns post for over 2 months with no comments. It only took them 6 days to prove once again to all of us how incredibly fuckin stupid they really are.


capt said...



"I suggested that we were losing the war," Adelman said. "What was astonishing to me was the number of Iraqi professional people who were leaving the country. People were voting with their feet, and I said that it looked like we needed a Plan B. I said, ‘What’s the alternative? Because what we’re doing now is just losing.’ "

Adelman said that Rumsfeld didn’t take to the message well. "He was in deep denial—deep, deep denial. And then he did a strange thing. He did fifteen or twenty minutes of posing questions to himself, and then answering them. He made the statement that we can only lose the war in America, that we can’t lose it in Iraq. And I tried to interrupt this interrogatory soliloquy to say, ‘Yes, we are actually losing the war in Iraq.’ He got upset and cut me off. He said, ‘Excuse me,’ and went right on with it."

The meeting ended disagreeably. In any case, the two men had stopped socializing some time ago. Adelman’s wife, Carol, hoped to maintain the friendship, but he had become unsure. "On Christmas in 2005," Adelman said, "Don invited us over for a small gathering, but by that time I couldn’t go. Carol went. I was feeling too much pain by then."

When Adelman went to see Rumsfeld in his office, he knew that Rumsfeld wanted him out. "He said, ‘Ken, you’ve been my friend for most of my adult life,’ and he said that I was going to be his friend for the rest of his life," Adelman recalled. "Then he said, ‘It might be best if you got off the Defense Policy Board.’ I said, ‘It won’t be best for me. If you want me off, it’s not a problem, but if it’s up to me I’ll stay on.’ He wanted me to resign. He didn’t want to do it himself. And so we did that little dance."


*****end of clip*****

One of the better pieces I have read. It really took me back to a time when I too was GOP. I do not remember Rummy or Cheney specifically but I saw a picture of the two from the '80's and this piece brought that picture to mind. The younger neocon's. It is sad the perversion they have all become.


Pandemoniac said...

October 26, 2006
Road Kill

I have no idea if the Rovians will somehow manage to slash and bite their way to "victory" (i.e. continued GOP control of Congress) next month, but the sheer lunacy of some of their ads -- like this one insisting that an Ohio Democrat wants to zap little pig-tailed school girls with a taser -- has a distinct aura of death about it.

The collective sound of all those attack ads is starting to remind me of the one of my uglier childhood memories. I must have been about 10 or 11, and I was walking across a highway overpass not far from my house when I saw a dog on the road down below. It was a big yellow dog, some kind of shepherd mix, and it must have just been hit by a car, because its hindquarters were all smashed up and it was writhing around on the pavement in torment. The traffic wasn't that heavy, and cars were swerving around it, but it was obviously only a matter of seconds before another car or truck came along and mashed it to a pulp. The dog might even have been able to see the vehicle bearing down on it -- that is, if it wasn't already out of its mind with pain.

I knew I didn't want to see what was going to happen next, so I turned and ran. But as I did, over a lull in the traffic noise I could hear the dog howling -- an indescribable sound, like no sound I've ever heard an animal make, before or since. One final, despairing, agonizing, awful appeal to the canine gods. It made me want to jab out my eardrums with a sharp stick, it was so bad.

And then, abruptly, the howling stopped, and I knew what had happened. But I kept on running -- for blocks it seemed like. And then I stopped and threw up into the bushes.

I think I hear that same sound coming from the Rovian machine right now -- a doomed, crazed animal in its final death throes.

Pandemoniac said...

Proctological Exam

It looks like the folks at Halliburton better get ready to bend over and drop them:"
Rep. Ike Skelton knows what he will do in one of his first acts as chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the Democratic-led House: resurrect the subcommittee on oversight and investigations.

The panel was disbanded by the Republicans after they won control of Congress in 1994. Now, Skelton (D-Mo.) intends to use it as a forum to probe Pentagon spending and the Bush administration's conduct of the Iraq war."

Skelton: (pulls on rubber glove) This is going to hurt -- a lot.

Of course, as far as I'm concerned, the Dems could shove it in so deep they're tickling the Cheney Administration's adnoids. But politically, they'd probably be better off directing their initial attentions at the Rovian machine's enablers -- the corporations and their K Street errand boys.

This would have two useful purposes: It would force the Republicans to defend a bunch of corporate crooks and sleazy lobbyists, instead of the dignity and majesty of the imperial presidency, and it would also put some muscle behind the Dems' efforts to break up what's left of DeLay's K Street Project and replace it with their own political extortion racket.

After all, K Street is never going to play ball because it likes the Democrats, the way it got all dreamy and creamy about the Republican revolution. So the Dems are going to have to rely on a healthy dose of the stick to go with the carrots. And the last six years of Republican sleaze have certainly left plenty of sticks lying around.

Time to shove a few of them up some well-paid assholes.

Update 5:10 PM ET: Praise God and pass the rectoscope:

"What the Republicans and various members of the Republican constituency really fear is that a Democratic Congress will use its investigative machinery to look into the dealings between Republican politicians and faith-based groups,” said Johns Hopkins University political scientist Benjamin Ginsberg.

Millions of taxpayer dollars have gone to religious groups through faith-based programs established by executive order, not legislation. Ginsberg said those grants include many instances of fraud and “money laundering. A few hours of digging will uncover a lot of dirt.”

uncledad said...

May I comment:

Micki said...

Capt, I recall you saying once that you don't post quotes in reaction to any post or some such crapola.

OK. #1 using the word crapola is enough to send you packing. It is one thing to insult a person, but when you end the insulting sentence with "crapola" who are you really trying to insult, yourself?

Micki said...

It sure is interesting that you "just happen" to have certain quotes at the tip of your fingertips.

You would have the same quotes if you actually tried to read. Hosting a blog does not necessarily mean that you have superpowers and are able to make others look dumb? Quotes are easily referenced by using the function cntrl-C, followed by cntl-V, then some quotation marks? Then followed up by some relevant commentary.

Micki said...

Just an observation. I should look up quotes about lying. Or prevaricating. Or spinning. Or bullshit.

Yes you should, I believe if you did you would find a very clear meaning of bullshit. Or prevaricating? Not sure what that word means? Help me out Capt.

You seem to be attacking Capt, based on ?

Pandemoniac said...

You don't need to impeach Mr. Bush to destroy the GOP.

Lift the rock on the dirty deals that have been perpetrated in the last 6 years and let the American Public vomit their guts out at the spectacle of larceny, hate, idiocy, and incompetence. The '06 elections were an intervention (as Andrew Sullivan likes to say). It's time that Red States came to grips with the lying, incompetent, moronic Conservatives that were brought to power by their votes and paid for by K Street.

Dems don't need a "message" or an "agenda" to win elections for the next four years. They won't really be able to right the ship of state till 2010.

The Conservative movement has shit their political bed and no amount of bleach will remove the stain. They were a flash in the pan that Kevin Federline can scoff at and look down upon as amateurs and idiots. They were a worthless movement under the banner of the movie star Reagan and they have become the succubus that drains the life blood of the working class.

The best thing that Democrats can do is let the rotting corpse of the Bush Administration hang about the necks of every Republican for the next two years. As poll after poll has proven, Mr. Bush anihilated the chances of every GOP candidate that he stumped for this year. As Begala said last month, there are about 3 venerial diseases that are more popular than Mr. Bush, right now.

Rove is a moron. The GOP is dead. There will be a Democrat stinking up the White House in two and a half years.

Pandemoniac has spoken. Selah.

Pandemoniac said...

V-E-N-E-R-E-A-L. Where's the spellchecker on this goddam elegant machine?

uncledad said...

Hey Pandemoniac:

Didn't I get the snarforific sarcasm award once? What ever happened to my trophy?

uncledad said...

Can't we all just try to get along? I have noticed since the election (aka ass kicking/texas thumping) that the conservatives and liberals have started to eat their own? Why do we do this? Give democracy a chance. It worked before, it should work again. Just because the C-student in Chief tried to kill our democracy, does not mean it can’t be revived. We have been lost in the Bushes before, but we always find a way out.

erling krange said...

By Donald Macintyre in Gaza
Published: 12 November 2006

US vetoes 'biased' UN resolution attacking Israel's Gaza bloodbath
Britain abstained, France and Russia voted in favour, but America refused to allow the United Nations to condemn the Israelis after Wednesday's mistaken rocket strike on Beit Hanoun, which killed 19 civilians
The United States last night vetoed a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel in the wake of the artillery attack which killed 18 Palestinian civilians last week in the northern Gaza town of Beit Hanoun.
The veto on the resolution on which Britain abstained came despite efforts to redraft the original text to make it more acceptable to its opponents.
The US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, said the resolution, proposed by Qatar and also calling on Israel to withdraw its forces from the area "does not display an even-handed characterisation of the recent events in Gaza, nor does it advance the cause of Israeli-Palestinian peace".

erling krange said...

Scale of violence in Iraq shows no sign of abating, British security firm warns
By Kim Sengupta
Published: 12 November 2006

The scale of violence in Iraq shows no sign of abating and the country may slide into all-out civil war, a leading security firm has warned in a special report.
The company, Pilgrims, employs a large number of former British military personnel. Part of the problem, says Pilgrims, is that the US-British coalition forces had, in the past, "systematically understated the extent of the resistance they were facing".
"Washington has chosen to emphasise the role played by foreign elements in the insurgency," the report says. "This has allowed them to portray the insurgency as a magnet for al-Qa'ida supporters rather than an Iraqi-led phenomenon which might undermine US claims of local approval for the reconstruction project." Pilgrims envisages a "steady unravelling" of the situation. "In the absence of any credible leadership . . . the various centrifugal elements will continue to pursue their own agenda . . . rendering unlikely the possibility of finding a single, national approach to the Iraq problem," the dossier says.
While stressing that Iraq has not yet slipped into civil war, the report says it is being kept at bay only through the efforts of religious leaders. Mark Whyte, Pilgrims' director, added: "Going by the number of attacks being carried out, there is no evidence that the security situation is getting better."

erling krange said...

What if...? Rumsfeld will be found guilty by the German court. Will he ever be able to travel freely again, without the risk of being arrested? Will Interpol act on a warrant for his arrest? Or will it all boil down to a worthless pice of paper, with no power for the court to act?


erling krange said...

Despite Billions Spent, Rebuilding Incomplete
Bad Security, Poor Planning Plague Effort
By Griff Witte
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 12, 2006; Page A01

For a little more than $38 billion, the United States and its contractors in Iraq have provided 4.6 million people with access to water. They have distributed seeds to Iraqi farmers, improving wheat harvests. With electricity-generating capacity now above prewar levels, they have given many Iraqis more daily hours of power. They have repaired more than 5,000 schools and vaccinated 4.6 million children against polio.
The list goes on. But as the U.S.-led, U.S.-funded portion of Iraq's reconstruction nears its end, American officials and contractors alike are grappling with a cold reality: Thousands of successes in Iraq may add up to a single failure. "We accomplished a significant amount of work. But it was just overwhelmed by the overlay of violence," said Clifford G. Mumm, who has spent much of the past three years in Iraq managing projects for Bechtel Corp. "It's hard to be very optimistic." U.S.-funded projects have long been a target for sabotage. Many of those that were spared remain unused by a population paralyzed by violence.


capt said...

Feeling Blue?

After the Democratic sweep of Congress, President Bush's approval reaches a new low. But voters want Democrats to chart a moderate course.

Nov. 11, 2006 - President George W. Bush’s response was swift and decisive—if a little late. After voters gave Republicans "a thumpin’" at the polls, handing Democrats control of both houses of Congress, Bush banished his contentious defense secretary; invited the presumptive leaders of the new House and Senate to lunch (would-be House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had pasta; the president ate crow, a Bush aide joked); and suffered through two pained photo-ops with Pelosi and Harry Reid, the Nevada Senator expected to become Majority Leader. And what did the president get for listening to the voice of the American people? The worst approval rating of his presidency.

President Bush’s job approval rating has fallen to just 31 percent, according to the new NEWSWEEK Poll. Bill Clinton’s lowest rating during his presidency was 36 percent; Bush’s father’s was 29 percent, and Ronald Reagan’s was 35 percent. Jimmy Carter’s and Richard Nixon’s lows were 28 and 23 percent, respectively. (Just 24 approve of outgoing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s job performance; and 31 percent approve of Vice President Dick Cheney’s.)

Worst of all, most Americans are writing off the rest of Bush’s presidency; two-thirds (66 percent) believe he will be unable to get much done, up from 56 percent in a mid-October poll; only 32 percent believe he can be effective. That’s unfortunate since 63 percent of Americans say they’re dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country; just 29 percent are satisfied, reports the poll of 1,006 adults conducted Thursday and Friday nights.


capt said...

What Republican Revolution?


Those who voted for a third party candidate for Congress in the recent election are not the ones who wasted their vote. Republicans who voted for Republican candidates hoping that "this time" perhaps the performance of the Republicans might improve are the ones who wasted their vote. Conservatives who, against their better judgment, voted Republican because they feared what would happen if the "liberals" were in control, wasted their vote on a party that deserved to lose. Evangelical Christians who held their nose and voted Republican because they thought they were choosing the lesser of two evils not only wasted their vote, but are sadly mistaken.

Do I celebrate the Democratic victory in the midterm elections for Congress? Hardly. The socialist and statist policies of the Democratic Party are well known, but at least Democrats are usually honest about being advocates of bigger government and increased government intervention instead of masquerading as advocates of smaller and less intrusive government like the hypocritical Republicans do.

It is too bad that the Republicans did not at least win control of the Senate (the Senate is now 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 2 liberal Independents). It is great to have gridlock between a Democratic Congress and a Republican president, but it is better to have gridlock between the House and Senate as well. We can only hope and pray that this government comes to a grinding halt – for the sake of the liberties of the American people.


capt said...

The Conservative Era Ends

Earlier this year, Democrats were derided in some quarters for not having a plan comparable to the "Contract With America" that—legend has it—Republicans used to sweep Democrats out of power in 1994. It turns out, of course, that Democrats didn’t need one—and therein lies an opportunity for progressives.

Polling released Thursday by Democracy Corps and the Campaign For America’s Future shows that Democrats won Tuesday because even though the party has an unfavorable image among voters (43 percent "cool" or negative, 39 percent "warm" or positive), they were less unfavorable than the Republicans (48 percent cool, 38 percent warm). But there is actually some good news in that assessment: Having turned out Republicans out of anger over the war in Iraq, corruption and cronyism, progressives have an opportunity to help shape a Democratic Party that is ill-defined in the minds of voters into a force for 21st-century economic populism.

Interviews of 2,000 voters, half of them in 50 swing districts, on Tuesday and Wednesday revealed that many voters pulled the Democratic lever because, as pollster Stan Greenberg put it, "the conservative political world crystallized by Bush has crashed in this election." That means Democrats can step into the breach by listening to the message voters were sending on November 7 loud and clear: Work to get U.S. troops out of Iraq and make government and the economy work for working people.

The polling analysis was unveiled at a briefing at the National Press Club in Washington. (You can view the video of the briefing.)

The public is still not clear on what Democrats stand for with regards to the Iraq War, said Campaign for America’s Future co-director Robert L. Borosage, but what became evident as Democratic campaigns unfolded is that on the Iraq war "Democratic candidates started out sounding like Hillary Clinton on Iraq" — cautious and middle-of-the-road-straddling—"and ended up sounding like Ned Lamont." That runs counter to the conventional wisdom that was predominant among pundits even before a single ballot was cast: that any Democratic gains in Congress would be attributed to a Democratic swing to the right.

No wonder Democrats felt emboldened to adopt themes from the party's progressive wing: According to the poll, 54 percent of those interviewed favored setting a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, as opposed to 39 percent who do not, and 58 percent want increased congressional oversight of the administration’s war effort.

On economic issues, successful candidates pounded the Bush administration on such issues as tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations, while Republican counterattacks alleging that Democrats would raise taxes on average families fell flat, Borosage said. "The populist temper of this campaign can’t be emphasized enough," he said.

"Changing our economic policies so middle-class families can prosper again" was ranked as one of the top three reasons for voting for a Democratic candidate for Congress by 75 percent of those who indicated they did or would do so. That same percentage ranked in one of their top three reasons "getting us out of the mess in Iraq."

More evidence of the progressive victory on Tuesday comes from the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which reported Thursday that it has grown to at least 71 members. That includes seven new members elected Tuesday, which would make the progressive wing of the House Democrats significantly larger than the "Blue Dog" or "New Democratic Coalition" blocs.

"Some inside-the-Beltway commentators, columnists, and conservatives want the American people to believe that last Tuesday’s election results have especially empowered moderate-to-conservative elements within the House Democratic Caucus in the 110th Congress, but that is an incomplete picture of the new political landscape on Capitol Hill," Congresswoman Barbara Lee, D-Calif., a co-chairwoman of the caucus, said.

Progressive Caucus members have been in the forefront of agitating for withdrawal from Iraq and have already set the stage for the populist economic battles that a former Progressive Caucus member, House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is expected to lead in the new Congress.

Greenberg said he would not call what happened Tuesday a "realignment," but he did say "it is a very different world" from the one that existed as late as two years ago, when Republicans confidently spoke of semi-permanent Republican dominance of American politics. "This is a moment of opportunity," Greenberg said. "The story is still to be written of how Democrats can take advantage of this opportunity."

The election was more than a rejection of one-party Republican rule, Borosage said. It is also "the end of a conservative era that began in 1980, and the question now is what comes after that era."

capt said...



Thanks to the Federal Reserve, at the end of the day, any day, every day, there is much more debt in the economy and more money in the economy, but much less than is actually owed, ultimately, to the banks.

Like I said, insane! But that is the abysmal, idiotic depths to which the laughable neo-Keynesian/econometric theory that prevails in America (and, I am sorry to say, the world) has sunk.

And if you don't think that prices are rising, then let's stroll on over to the latest Economist magazine and take look for ourselves. Hmmm! The Dollar Index for All Items is up 37.5% from a year ago. Sounds like higher prices to me! Food is up 20.1% from a year ago, and that sounds like higher prices to me, too! All Industrials is up 56%, which I am SURE is higher prices, and Metals is up 80.4%, which I am absolutely positive is higher prices!

The only thing that is NOT up in this table is Non-food Agriculturals which is still up 2.8% from a year ago, a level of inflation that used to be thought of as alarmingly high, back before Americans lost their minds 50 years or so ago.

Desperate to distract myself and prevent another hysterical Mogambo Fit Of Outrage (MFOO), we look to foreign holdings of government and agency debt at the Fed, and it rose a cool $8.3 billion last week. Again, just like old times. Almost soothing, in a weird sort of "been there, done that" kind way.

But apparently everyone missed the lead story from the always-dependable Mogambo Muckraker News Service (MMNS) since it was quashed by government censors. The bombshell was that "The big, ugly news (BUN) is that the Treasury increased the national debt by $90 billion in October! In one month! Ninety billion dollars in one month! That's $300 more debt for every man woman and child in the country! In one month! One!"

Always eager to show off my ciphering skills to my Uncle Jed, I multiply $90 billion times 12 months to show that federal debt is soaring at a $1.8 trillion per year pace!

If you were not busily dialing 911 because of the crushing chest pains at that news and had waited around for the bombastic Mogambo Editorial at the end of the broadcast, you would have learned that this is NOT just like "old times"! This is "new and horrifically bad!"


*****end of clip*****

" This is "new and horrifically bad!"

I would sure like to know what the Dem's are considering doing about the runaway deficit? The pay-go might be an important tool to revive.


capt said...

Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? * 374817 responses

Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.

No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors."

No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.

I don't know.


Almost 400k responses? That is a very meaningful sample and is likely more accurate than a scientific poll that weighs a small sample.

If the USA cannot impose the rule of law on its chief executive by impeaching him for his war crimes and crimes against humanity and direct violations of the constitution he swore to uphold and protect we only invite more of the same - next time from a worse tyrant.


Pandemoniac said...

Uncledad, here ya' go.

Don't worry about the circus going on in U.S. politics. Things may look ugly; but there's a lot more than character assassination going on in Baghdad, these days.

By comparison, our political process is like a day of shopping at Macy's (running up the credit card).

capt said...

Will the Demcrats Become Part of the Problem?


If the Democrats are to make a real difference, their first task is to repeal the Orwellian-named "Patriot Acts," the torture legislation, the detention without court evidence legislation, and the right-to-spy and invade privacy without court warrant legislation. The White House tyrant needs to be quickly told that one more "signing statement" and he will be impeached, convicted, and turned over to the War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague.

The notion that Americans can be protected from "terror" by giving up the Bill of Rights is absurd. Democrats are complicit in this absurd notion. Many were intimidated into voting for police state legislation, because they lacked the intestinal fortitude to call police state legislation by its own name. The legislation that has been passed during the Bush regime is far more dangerous to Americans than Muslim terrorists.

Indeed, the prime cause of Muslim terrorism is the US interference in the internal affairs of Muslim countries and America's one-sided stance in favor of Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. When Jimmy Carter was president, his even-handed approach made the US respected throughout the Muslim world. 9/11, if it was actually an act of Muslim terrorism, was the direct consequence of US one-sided meddling in Middle Eastern affairs.

When, and only when, the Democrats have erased the Bush administration's police state legislation from the books, thus restoring the Constitution, they should clear the air on two other issues of major importance. The Democrats must convene a commission of independent experts to investigate 9/11. The 9/11 Commission Report has too many problems and shortcomings to be believable.

Recent polls show that 36 percent of the American people do not believe the report. Such a deficient report is unacceptable. 9/11 became the excuse for the neoconservative Bush regime to launch illegal wars of aggression in the Middle East. The 9/11 Commission Report is nothing but a public relations justification for the "war on terror," which in truth is a war on American liberty. As long as politicians with a police state mentality can cling to the cover of the 9/11 Commission Report, the Bill of Rights will remain endangered.

The other issue is the blatant corruption in the Bush regime's contract practices. So many contracts are tainted with their connections to Republican power brokers, including Vice President Richard Cheney, that the taxpayers are being fleeced on the level of the Grant administration. Indictments and long prison sentences are in order.


*****end of clip*****

PCR, he speaks to the importance of a few issues.


capt said...

Elliot Cohen: Would A Dictator Graciously Relinquish Power?

There is an aura of optimism in the air. Americans are looking forward to change in the aftermath of the November 7, 2006 elections; and, realistically, there is good reason for hope as we await the arrival of the new Democratically-controlled Congress in January. However, it would be a logistical error for Americans to let their guard down, especially in this interim period.

Not all possibilities are equal; some outcomes are more probable than others; and probabilities are functions of evidence. However, given the voracious appetite and tenacity the Bush administration has displayed for power, and given its blatant disregard for constitutional limits of executive authority and the extremes to which it has already gone to acquire power, there is reason for concern about just how cooperative the Bush administration will be in allowing a smooth transition in January.

The image of the Bush administration declaring Martial Law is not one any of us would care to entertain, but it could serve as a convenient way to disrupt the changing of the guard. The legal machinery has already been established. For example, the Military Commissions Act (PDF) permits the president to declare American citizens unlawful enemy combatants and to detain them indefinitely in detention camps without habeas corpus should he deem them "hostile" to the security of the United States. Given the vacuous nature of the term "hostile" this could include anyone who questions the authority of the president, especially under conditions of Martial Law. (See Bush's Chilling New Definition of "Unlawful Enemy Combatant.")

The president has already succeeded in conducting warrantless, unlawful surveillance of American citizens' e-mail and phone messages, and now he has indicated a desire to legalize this in the form of the Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 before the old congressional guard leaves. While this Act would limit warrantless eavesdropping to 45 days, it would also criminalize disclosure of any information relating to the Terrorist Surveillance Program:


*****end of clip*****

I think we have many good reasons to be concerned about the 2008 election.


Saladin said...

Capt, the deficit is not something that can be fixed now, not without major pain and anquish, the dems were ALWAYS part of the problem, other side of the same coin. The mogambo always lays it on the line, slamming both sides because they both so richly deserve it. There is no way on earth this economic clusterfuck is the result of incompetence, those traitors at the Federal Reserve know exactly what they are doing, and they know what happens with fiat currencies, the same thing that ALWAYS happens! DOOM! They've almost got us where they want us.
BTW, how do you insert those little pictures into the comment?

kathleen said...

If Corn is right (others did predict this a while back) Rove and Libby get off, Cheney gets pardoned! Now that's some American Justice for you!

Some interesting conversations on Sunday morning news programs.

Dan Rather called this next two years a "double lame duck" session

Someone called Democrat gone Independent brought in by the Republican's Joe Liebermann the "new Zell Miller" in the Senate

It was also mentioned that it is unlikely that Jane Harman will get the Intelligence seat. It was not brought up that she is being investigated by the F.B.I. for some "alleged" wrong doing in regard to Aipac!

Chris Matthews ended his program by encouraging Hillary Clinton to take the job as Senate Majority Leader, and then go for the Presidency. He really fluffed her up by saying that she works well across the table, is a great negotiator etc. etc. I wonder if she would even consider this advice from Matthews? get the

kathleen said...

"More GOP Blood"? Sure not enough to come close to Iraqi blood!

While I am pleased that the Democrats won, let's see what they can do, besides vote for illegal wars. They have two years.

Maybe Gore will run as an Independent! Now that would be interesting!

Every fucking Senator or Congressperson who voted to give the Bush administration the power to pre-emptively invade Iraq has lots of blood on their hands.

capt said...

"Every fucking Senator or Congressperson who voted to give the Bush administration the power to pre-emptively invade Iraq has lots of blood on their hands."

That is what I am talking about. The idea that D incumbency is a good thing fails to account for what the incumbents have been voting for.


capt said...


The picture is done in "edit profile" picture URL. There is some software ad things attached. I would not bother with that, if you have a picture and cannot make it work I can help. Send it to me I will make sure it is uploaded where can find it.

(that is if I can find time from all the censoring I am doing, eh?)


kathleen said...

Thanks Capt for your time setting up a means for us to share and vent! We all need to keep pushing, although I am tired of all of this hogwash.

Folks should be sure to write Pelosi soon. Tell her NO ON HARMAN, pick someone not under the control and influence of Aipac.

David B. Benson said...

Well, at least the Demos are planning to remove the Big Oil tax breaks. If successful, will that balance the budget? ;-)

Saladin said...

Kathleen, don't hold your breath on pelosi, she is an Israeli whore to the max, she does what she's told. Her loyalty is not to the U.S., for that reason alone she should get the boot.
David B, do you think anything so insignificant could balance the budget? (I know you must be joking!) Do you know the last time our budget was balanced? It is not possible with a fiat currency distributed by the Federal Reserve bandits. What is it about counterfeit money that the people don't get? It's like playing Monopoly, it isn't real, it's an illusion. SHEESH!
Capt, thanks, I will be in touch.

David B. Benson said...

Saladin, that is what the smiley face is supposed to tell us. As for balanced, during some of the Clinton years the federal debt was being paid off so fast that some financiers were complaining they couldn't find federal bonds to buy...

capt said...

"...if by a liberal they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, their civil liberties.. if that is what they mean by a "liberal" then I am proud to be a liberal. ": John F. Kennedy

"It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificually induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear." -General Douglas MacArthur, Speech, May 15, 1951

"The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same.": -- Stendhal [Marie-Henri Beyle] (1783-1842)French writer


Political language. . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind: George Orwell

Read this newsletter online

Thanks ICH Newsletter!

Carey said...


I think it's pretty clear what I "hope to achieve*. What you don't get is you don't get to rule. Where did you ever think you could? And why would you care? EGO.

Fairness. The very queston is loaded. What was the point of the question except for showing off? There is definite ego here.

I don't care to continue. Why would I be so upset? Go back and look through the writing. Once more, this is unacceptable to me, I play fair. I don't see this in any other way except in your ball court. I'm outta here. There's no point in dealing with people who think they own the ballcourt.

This whole crap is....

kathleen said...

I appreciate that Capt has set up this way for us to continue to share and vent! Has David Corn ever explained why he has not set his comments section back up?

Was he feeling pressure? Or just too busy to hear from the common folk?

Saladin said...

Trying to keep the discourse civil is censorship? Whatever. I guess some people are great at dishing it out, but not so good on the receiving end. micki made the choice not to come back, it was her decision, not Capt's.

kathleen said...

Write Pelosi tell her no on Harman!'

Why is Pelosi so tough on Harman?' asked Chris Matthews

Ron Brynaert
Monday November 13, 2006

On Sunday, MSNBC host Chris Matthews asked why the first woman slated to become Speaker was "so tough" on the House intelligence committee's ranking Democrat, who would normally be in line for a leadership position.

Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has already endorsed Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), which places the Speaker-to-be in the middle of "a contentious intraparty fight between Murtha and her current deputy, Maryland's Steny H. Hoyer," the Washington Post reports.

"Pelosi has also all but decided she will not name the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) to chair that panel next year, a decision pregnant with personal animus," Jonathan Weisman writes for the Post.

at Raw story

capt said...

This is the last time:

No anonymous posters is not censorship.

Anybody can post here they just have to make a google/blogger account.

No comment moderating or poster moderating has ever been initiated or practiced.

Anybody that thinks THAT is censorship is not thinking clearly.


capt said...

Truth and Reconciliation--US-style

In an interview with last week, Congressman Dennis Kucinich--in line to be Chair of the Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations--used an unusual phrase to describe the importance of holding hearings into how and why America invaded Iraq.

"America needs a new approach of truth and reconciliation," Kucinich told interviewer Joshua Scheer, He added, "we'll never be able to bring closure to this Iraq matter unless we tell the truth about what happened." Truth and reconciliation isn't a phrase--or process--usually applied to American political life. But I think Kucinich is right. There is a need for truth and reconciliation--US-style. Some may prefer to call it an accountability moment--one that has eluded this country, with damaging consequences, for several years.

"This is a matter that relates to the conscience of this country," Kucinich explains. "This is a matter of the heart--the heart of democracy itself. This is a matter of whether we're going to have a sober reflection about the events that have transpired since 9/11, with respect to Iraq. And until we do this, we will be trapped not only physically in Iraq, we'll be trapped emotionally and spiritually in Iraq. We may never get out of Iraq if we don't tell the truth."


*****end of clip*****

"we'll never be able to bring closure to this Iraq matter unless we tell the truth about what happened."

More true words have never come from the lips of a politician. I regret not listening more closely to Dennis before.

The truth? What a concept, eh? (something new and different)


capt said...

Evangelical Haggard Claims He Was Molested By Republican Congressman

COLORADO SPRINGS, CO—Evangelical leader Ted Haggard, who stepped down last week after confessing that he purchased methamphetamines and various services from a male prostitute, revealed Wednesday that he was repeatedly molested by an unnamed Republican congressman in the late 1990s. "We would communicate on the Internet and then meet in his Washington office to, I thought, discuss faith-based initiatives," said Haggard in a tearful admission in which he asked for the forgiveness of God and his congregation. "Before long, he had progressed from praying alongside me to having me sit on his lap at his desk, and then to touching me in my bathing-suit area. I trusted the congressman, and he violated that trust." Authorities have not acted on Haggard's allegations, saying that Republicans are often accused of wrongdoings simply because so many of them lead secret gay or criminal lifestyles.


*****end of clip*****

I KNEW it had to be something other than the speed and male hookers.


capt said...

We The People: An Open Letter to Congress

Dear Members of the 110th Congress:


This America is NOT the America of Americans

We have elected you to end the illegal war in Iraq, to end the occupation of Afghanistan. You will bring home the troops. You will honor our commitment to their rehabilitation and medical treatment. That is what it means when we commit to supporting the troops. Staying the course with endless Catch 22 style redeployment of combat weary troops on an impossible, endless mission that is guaranteed not only to fail but also to cause more harm than good – that is not supporting the troops. It must cease, at once.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove, Bolton and a whole slew of shady, corrupt characters must be held accountable, impeached and imprisoned. They must be removed from office. Now.

America must face facts. Neither is America capable of ruling, nor is it morally entitled to be ruling the world. We The People want you the Congress to end Bush’s neoconservative military adventure aimed at forcing the world to do his bidding.

We The People are fed up and mad as hell at a government that condones torture, domestic spying and illegal war as its God given right. We The People are mad as hell at a government that has divided its own citizens into a "with us or against us" society of fear and hatred. This has to stop now!

We have elected you take the abominations of the Patriot Act and the Military Commission Act and Bush’s 800… and counting… signing statements off the statute books.

Make no mistake. You, the members of the 110th Congress are charged with the task of reversing the six-year Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld nightmare of shame.

We The People have elected you to perform this large task.

We The People are mad as hell at being hated for being Americans because of the folly of the Bush/Cheney government.

Do NOT disappoint us.


*****end of clip*****

A good letter that will never be read nor followed by more than a few politicians.


capt said...

A testing time for Democrats

Despite some degree of posturing by both the triumphant Democrats and defeated Republicans, we do not expect any major changes in US economic policies after the November 7 mid-term elections.

Instead, we anticipate a change in emphasis. Along these lines, economic policy will remain broadly supportive of growth and employment, though the Democratic-led House of Representatives and Senate are likely to push for tighter regulation of the food industry, lean on the pharmaceutical industry to reduce costs, reassess spending on defense companies, and more aggressively promote alternative energy at the cost of the large oil companies that have been close to the administration of President George W Bush.

With an eye to the next election in 2008, the Democrats need to present themselves as thoughtful moderates, seeking to clean up the former Republican den of corruption and privilege. For the Republicans, the White House needs to provide the image of compromise and statesmanship and a willingness to move ahead from the defeat.

This provides for a confluence of interests, which bodes well for markets - at least in the short term. Both political parties are aware of the cooling economic environment, and moderate policies are more likely to help buffer any downturn in the months ahead as opposed to any radical departures. All the same, the political class is going to see its ability to maneuver shrink as the housing market continues to cool and the long buildup of household and consumer debt increasingly limits policy directions.

This could translate into a bumpier-than-expected economic ride in 2007, just as Nancy Pelosi becomes the first female Speaker of the House.

The Democratic leadership under Pelosi has a big task ahead. Her party gained 28 House seats and six in the Senate, giving the Democrats control over both houses of Congress for the first time since 1994. Long in the political wilderness, the party brings with it a lot of expectations.

Yet facing the Democrats is a cooling economy (we expect 2.4% real growth in gross domestic product in 2007), a seemingly endless conflict in Iraq, and a Republican president who still carries veto power through 2008. The danger is that the legislative process gridlocks, the economy slides into a recession, Iraq unravels into warring zones, another terrorist attack occurs on US soil, and the Democrats get blamed for everything by a fickle electorate.

*****end of clip*****

I think the GOPhers have put the Dem's in a no-win situation. Everything will be the Dem's fault come January, the war, the deficit, the corruption, the crimes all because the Dem's are in charge! (those rascally Dem's).


capt said...

Are Democrats Turning a Blind Eye to Civil Liberty?


Judging by Democrats’ statements in the flush of their electoral victory, Democrats have little, if any, awareness of this critical fact. Democrats are anxious to get on with their agendas and have shown no recognition that the first order of business is to repeal the legislation that permits torture, warrantless detention and domestic spying.

If Bush threatens to veto the resurrection of US civil liberty, the Democrats can impeach Bush as a tyrant as well as for pushing America into an illegal and catastrophic war on the basis of lies and deception.

Bush is the most impeachable president in American history. However, the incoming Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has declared impeachment to be "off the table." Obviously, this means that Bush will not be held accountable and that the Bill of Rights is a casualty of the vague, undefined, and propagandistic "war on terror."

Do Pelosi and the incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have the intellect and character to deliver the leadership required for Americans to remain a free people? Instead of bemoaning the damage Bush has done to civil liberty, Democrats are up in arms over one child in five being raised in poverty. The more important question is whether children are being raised as a free people protected by civil liberties from arbitrary government power.

Do Democrats share the delusion of Bush supporters that it is only Middle Eastern terrorists who are deprived of the protection of the US Constitution? One can understand the reluctance of Americans to extend constitutional protection to terrorists who are trying to kill Americans. However, without these protections, there is no way of ascertaining who is a terrorist.

Currently, a "terrorist" is anyone given that designation by any of a large number of unaccountable government officials and military officers. No evidence has to be provided in order to detain a designated suspect. Moreover, designated suspects can be convicted in military tribunals on the basis of secret evidence not made available to them or to any legal representation that they might be able to secure. In other words, you are guilty if charged.


*****end of clip*****

Dr. Roberts, always an interesting read.


capt said...

Madrid-Wilson count resumes Monday morning

Counting of ballots resumed at 9:00 Monday morning in the hard fought race for the 1st Congressional District seat sought by incumbent Republican Heather Wilson and Democrat Attorney General Patricia Madrid.

At last check, Wilson lead Madrid by 1,487 votes, but election workers still have roughly 3,700 ballots outstanding, including 2,700 provisional ballots.

No new votes were counted on Sunday. Instead, election workers attended a meeting to learn the ground rules of how they will proceed with the provisional ballot count.

The Albuquerque Journal reports that Democrats and Republicans have agreed on ground rules for qualifying the outstanding ballots. The county clerk’s office will first use a computer to check the statewide registration database to determine if the voter was eligible to vote.

The elections workers will then compare the name of the voter with lists of people who have moved and are eligible to vote elsewhere, people who have removed themselves from the voter rolls, and lists of convicted felons and dead people.

When all of the checks have been completed, people from both parties will have an opportunity to challenge the ballot.


*****end of clip*****

No reason to count Madrid out. Wilson and her GOPher cronies have tried everything in their post election pre-count play book to make Madrid bow out including but not limited to declaring victory (before thousands of votes have even been counted).

Keep your collective fingers crossed for our first district.


capt said...

Iran and Syria urged to help Iraq

The ongoing unrest in Iraq has prompted international calls for Syria and Iran to work with Western powers in seeking an end to sectarian violence there.

The White House has indicated it will consider talking to both countries.

President George W Bush on Monday met members of an expert panel known as the Iraq Study Group, which has been re-evaluating US strategy in Iraq.

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair is also expected to call for Syria and Iran to co-operate in a speech later on Monday.

The UK Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, has already said the two countries should be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.


*****end of clip*****

The headline cracked me up!

So the US and UK now want Hezzbolah in Iraq? I mean that is what we said Syria was doing in Lebanon or am I missing something?


erling krange said...

Bush Vows Not to Prejudge Iraq Report
Monday November 13, 2006 6:31 PM

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush on Monday praised a bipartisan commission on Iraq for asking him good questions but said ``I'm not going to prejudge'' the report the panel soon will issue. He pledged to search with victorious Democrats in Congress for a consensus on how best to proceed.
Bush said the goal in Iraq remains ``a government that can sustain, govern and defend itself and serve as an ally in this war on terror.'' He also said that ``I'm not sure what the report is going to say'' but said he looked forward to seeing it. Bush said the goal in Iraq still is ``a government that can sustain, govern and defend itself and serve as an ally in this war on terror'' and that ``the best military options depend on conditions on the ground.'' White House press secretary Tony Snow earlier described the meeting as a discussion of the current situation there. Bush talked in the Oval Office with members of the Iraq Study Group, headed by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Democratic congressman Lee Hamilton. ``I was impressed by the questions they asked. They want us to succeed in Iraq, just like I want us to succeed. So we had a really good discussion,'' Bush told reporters as he posed for pictures with visiting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in the Oval Office.


capt said...

Mexico City Assembly Votes to Allow Same-Sex Civil Unions

The Mexico City legislative assembly voted on Thursday to legalize civil unions for same-sex partnerships, giving lesbians and gays, along with individuals in platonic, same-sex relationships, the ability to make medical decisions for each other as well as list their partners as beneficiaries of pensions and inheritances. The civil union measure, which passed 47-17, will apply to the city’s 8.7 million residents. Five percent of Mexicans identify themselves as homosexual, according to the Houston Chronicle.

Mexico is a notoriously conservative country strongly dominated by Roman Catholicism. Several conservative groups have already said they will challenge this legislation in court, though the mayor of Mexico City, Alejandro Encinas, is expected to sign the legislation into law. Mexico City is the second city in Latin America to legalize civil unions, after Buenos Aires, Argentina did in 2002, reported the Houston Chronicle. Similar gay-rights legislation has already been introduced in Mexico's Coahuila state, which borders Texas.

Said Enoe Uranga, a lesbian activist who in 2001 proposed the first civil union bill: "It was a long, intense battle, but today we finally won. Now we have to fight to apply the law, to show the citizenry that this is a noble law…. This is a historic day."


*****end of clip*****

This reminds me of east Germany (before reunification) they legalized marijuana and small amounts of other drugs. These so-called conservative governments are more reasonable on these issues than America? (un-check the "land of the free" box)


O'Reilly said...

What can't everybody just get along?

O'Reilly said...

^ not a complaimt, just a rhetorical question. smiley face.

O'Reilly said...

i NEVER complaimt...

capt said...

New thread/post!

Come and get it!