NY Post Jokes About Olbermann Death Threat

Crooks and Liars reports on a NY Post article that makes fun of an incident in which Keith Olbermann received a letter filled with powder. Obviously, the intent of the person who mailed the letter was to make the recipient believe the powder could be anthrax. It wasn't anthrax in this case, but it was still a federal crime and a death threat, which the shameless NY Post thinks is hilarious.

Here's an E-mail I sent to the NY Post and the author of the "article":

To Paula Froelich:

Is this what you consider to be journalism?:
Powder Puff Spooks Keith (Page Six)

Honestly, do you consider all federal crimes to be fodder for your disgusting and distasteful sense of humor, or just the ones that don't affect you, your loved ones, or those who agree with Murdoch's politics?

It's good to know how the NY Post treats serious matters regarding threats on someone's life. I wish I could say I was surprised that a "news" medium owned by Murdoch could spread such callous tripe, but I'm not.

-Bryan Arnold

You can write your own letter if you desire, but if you do, please be civil. They obviously need to be shown what civility looks like:
paula.froelich@nypost.com
letters@nypost.com

::Sigh:: More Bad News On The Climate

Earth at warmest point in 12,000 years, say scientists

The globe is at its warmest in the past 12,000 years, triggering environmental changes that could become "dangerous" if it continues, said the new study...

World 'warmest for 12,000 years'

Extraordinary Rise in Warming Is Seen

DEBUNK: Right-Wing Talking Points

I am getting sick and tired of being sick and tired of Right-Wing Talking Points, especially when they are so easily debunked. I mean, if a nobody like me can debunk them, shouldn't our elected Democrats be able to dismantle them like a nut and a screw?

And yet, I keep hearing the same RWTP repeated over and over and over again, but I don't hear enough dismantling. That may speak more to the state of the traditional media, but regardless, the answers seem so easy to me that I fail to see how the Right can keep getting away with saying these things.

Here are my thoughts on the RWTP and how easy it is to render them useless:

DEBUNK: "The detainees at Guantanamo are unlawful enemy combatants, not prisoners of war."

Oh, really. I thought there was a War On Terror. Wouldn't that make them prisoners of a war and, therefore, POWs?

DEBUNK: "But they are terrorists!"

Yes, and the Nazis were Nazis, the most evil enemy this nation has ever known and terrorists in their own way, and yet when it came to Nazi POWs held by the U.S., they were treated better and given more rights than those at Guantanamo.

DEBUNK: "But the terrorists don't belong to any nation. The don't follow the rules of war. They aren't protected by the Geneva Conventions."

Um, we signed the Geneva Conventions, so it is a part of our law. We should follow our laws and the Geneva Conventions regardless of who our enemy is.

DEBUNK: "But the terrorists don't follow the Geneva Conventions."

This is America. We are supposed to be better than our enemies. We are supposed to set a good example by following national and international laws and not taking away the rights of POWs and not torturing them.

DEBUNK: "We do not torture."

Then why is Bush trying to retroactively redefine the Geneva Conventions for the sake of "alternative" interrogation techniques? Why did Bush fight the McCain anti-torture amendment and then issue a signing statement that said he would follow the amendment according to his "interpretation"? Why did we send Maher Arar and who knows how many other people to foreign countries, who are known to use torture, to be tortured? Why is Bush afraid to say what these "alternative" techniques are? Why is he trying to take away the checks and balances of power from the legislative and judicial branches to hide what he is doing? Why doesn't he want the American public to know what he is doing? Is it because he knows we would consider the "alternative" techniques to be torture?

DEBUNK: "If we know, then the enemy would know. Then the enemy could adapt. Loose lips sink ships."

Yes, well tight lips sank the World Trade Center. The Bush administration is to blame for not preventing 9/11 because they failed to warn the American public. If Bush had released the August 6th PDB to the public instead of ignoring it, every man, woman, child, FBI agent, CIA agent, INS agent, police officer, and security guard in our country would have been on guard and on the look out for terrorists in time to stop them.

It is one thing to keep secrets to prevent the enemy from knowing your plans; it is another thing (an evil and irresponsible thing) to keep secrets to prevent your own people from knowing the enemies' plans.

As for our enemies adapting to Bush's "alternative" techniques, what does Bush expect them to do? "Grow gills," as Jon Stewart suggests? If Bush can't tell the American people what these techniques are because he knows they would not approve, then he should not be using those techniques.

DEBUNK: "Our enemies use torture all the time."

Well, most Americans believe in the Golden Rule, even if President Bush does not.

DEBUNK: "President Bush is doing what he has to do to keep us and our families safe."

At what price?! Our humanity? Our good name in the world? Our innocence?

The ends do not justify the means. Doing evil for the sake of good is still evil. Torture for the sake of security is still torture. I would rather die knowing we always tried to do the right thing than live in a country that is known for torture.

Our safety and security should come from intelligence and goodwill, not from torture and war.

DEBUNK: "What if there is an imminent threat?"

Torture causes people to say anything to end the torture. This means lies. This means false intelligence. The result is the same regardless of whether the threat is imminent or not.

False intelligence can be disastrous. It can be even more disastrous when the threat is considered "imminent." Take the war in Iraq, for instance. WMDs, nuclear weapons program, and the connection to al Qaida and 9/11 were all lies about Iraq based on false intelligence which led to the disastrous situation we have in Iraq today.

DEBUNK: "At least we are fighting the terrorists over there, so we don't have to fight them over here."

That is an absurd argument. If our troops weren't being killed in Iraq, then maybe this would be a good point. So far, about as many Americans have died in Iraq as on 9/11, and if you consider that that number of Americans have died in Iraq in 3 years, compared to the 8 years it took bin Laden to orchestrate 9/11, the terrorists are able to kill Americans more efficiently because we went into Iraq.

So, I fail to see how fighting them "over there" is beneficial to us when more Americans are dying because we are "over there."

DEBUNK: "America is safer because we went into Iraq."

Again, more Americans are dying because we are in Iraq, our country has lost respect amongst our allies because we are in Iraq, our enemies' hatred for us has grown because we are in Iraq, and the number of terrorists has grown all because we went into Iraq. More Americans dying, more hatred, more enemies, and less friends does not equal "safer."

DEBUNK: "But America hasn't been attacked since 9/11."

Again, our troops are attacked almost everyday in Iraq. Aren't our troops a part of America? When they are attacked, America is attacked.

It makes no difference to terrorists whether they attack Americans in Iraq or in America. Why should it make a difference to us?

DEBUNK: "Would you rather have Saddam Hussein back in power with his rape rooms and torture chambers?"

That argument lacks so much rationality that I can't believe it even exists.

No one disagrees with the claim that Saddam Hussein was evil and did evil things (except maybe Saddam). However, we didn't stop any of that evil by removing Hussein from power. Now, instead of Hussein's dictatorial evil, there is this chaotic evil. We didn't stop the torture or sexual abuse (see: Abu Ghraib. It continues today through sectarian strife and civil war.

So, while we may have removed Hussein from power, the evil has not been removed.

DEBUNK: "That's why we need to stay the course."

Staying the course is not working. Staying the course means more troops are killed or wounded. Staying the course means more sectarian strife and civil war. Staying the course means more terrorists. Staying the course means more terrorist attacks. Staying the course means more innocent Iraqi civilians are killed or wounded. Staying the course means more ripping off American tax payers and war-profiteering by American corporations like Halliburton. Staying the course means increasing our national debt. Staying the course means continuing to FAIL.

If we were all on a bus and that bus kept getting driven into a ditch despite all our warnings to the bus driver, shouldn't we fire the bus driver. Whatever we are doing, it is not working. We keep getting driven into a ditch. When that happens, we need to demand change from those in power. So far, our demands are going unanswered, and when our demands go unanswered, we need to fire those in power. That means voting against every politician who supports Bush this November.

I see no reason why around 40% still approves of Bush or why any Republican should survive a race against a Democrat this November except that these RWTP still have some sway over the American public. However, I see no reason why that should continue when these RWTP are so easily DEBUNKED.

All Democratic Campaigns Should Read This

Building a narrative by Kos should be mandatory reading for all Democratic campaigns.

Republicans are masters of building the "narrative". They don't throw these kinds of numbers at voters and expect to move them their direction. They build a narrative based on their (positive) values and their opponent's (negative) ones.

So in 2004, Bush's entire campaign was essentially 1) Bush will defend America, and 2) Kerry is a flip flopper. In 2000, it was 1) Bush is a compassionate bipartisan conservative, and 2) Gore exaggerates.

That's it. Everything else is slotted into that narrative.

At a recent event I ran into a gubernatorial candidate who asked me, exasperated, why his state's press wouldn't cover the GOP nominee's draconian position on abortion -- he opposed it even in cases where the mother's life was in danger. I said, "because it's an issue. And issues don't generally make good stories. Or, at best, they are a one-day story."

The key is to find that negative value, and base the entire campaign to define the opponent around it. Then, every single issue that arises can be neatly slotted into that value, reinforcing it in the media and the voters' minds.

This speaks to my own theory that Republicans are good at running campaigns but bad at running government. Democrats are the opposite, and unfortunately, if you are bad at running campaigns, then it won't matter how good you are at running government because you won't be running it.

I am pretty sure that the gubernatorial candidate Kos references is Ted Strickland who is the Democratic candidate for governor in Ohio. He is running agains the Republican candidate Ken Blackwell who opposes abortion even to save a woman's life.

This extremist position is dangerous for women everywhere, and no Ohioan should vote for Blackwell because of it. Personnally, I think that if Strickland ran against Blackwell on this issue alone, he would win the election easily.

However, this does little towards "building a narrative" as Kos suggests. The Strickland campaign needs to work on that. I would suggest that the narrative against Blackwell is that he is an extremist.

Ken Blackwell is an extremist. On abortion, he is an extremist. On taxes, he is an extremist. His dangerous extremist positions are dangerous for Ohio and Ohioans.

There is your narrative, Strickland.

Now, if we can just get all Democratic candidates to focus on this idea of building narratives, they would be unstoppable.

Gore Unveils Global-Warming Plan

From The Washington Post:

NEW YORK, Sept. 18 -- Former vice president Al Gore laid out his prescription for an ailing and overheated planet Monday, urging a series of steps from freezing carbon dioxide emissions to revamping the auto industry, factories and farms.

Gore proposed a Carbon Neutral Mortgage Association ("Connie Mae," to echo the familiar Fannie Mae) devoted to helping homeowners retrofit and build energy-efficient homes. He urged creation of an "electranet," which would let homeowners and business owners buy and sell surplus electricity.

"This is not a political issue. This is a moral issue -- it affects the survival of human civilization," Gore said in an hour-long speech at the New York University School of Law. "Put simply, it is wrong to destroy the habitability of our planet and ruin the prospects of every generation that follows ours."

The Result Of Pro-Torture Repulicans In Charge

This is what happens when we elect Pro-Torture Republicans:

Maher Arar (entry from Wikipedia)

Arar was imprisoned in Syria for 10 1/2 months, during which time he was tortured and forced to sign a false confession which purported that he had trained in Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. He says that he was kept in a small, dark, underground cell, beaten and threatened with electrocution. He was further traumatized by overhearing other prisoners being tortured. He had some visits from diplomatic officials, but he did not tell them that he was being tortured until their seventh visit, after which conditions improved for him. His explanation for waiting was that his jailers were in the room during the visits and that they had warned him beforehand not to discuss his treatment or he would be punished.

Canadian Falsely Accused Of Terrorism

(AP) A software engineer falsely accused of being a terrorist by Canadian police was shipped to Syria by the United States, where he was imprisoned and tortured ...

Canadian falsely tortured as extremist, inquiry finds
Canada al-Qaeda suspect cleared
Rendition Rendered
MR. PRESIDENT. YOU NEED CLARITY? HERE'S YOUR CLARITY

The Republican Party Is The Pro-Torture Party.

That sentence deserved its own post.

Bush fears war crimes prosecution, impeachment
Powell joins opponents of Bush tribunal plan
Recovering from 9/11: Return to the Rule of Law

Debate Over Torture? What Happended To Our Country?

Bush argues terrorism case after Republican revolt

Bush goes before reporters a day after a Senate Committee rejected the president's pleas that legislation on foreign terrorists allow CIA interrogators to use tough interrogation methods.


Instead, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 15-9 to endorse an alternative bill by Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain that would protect the rights of foreign terrorism suspects.

McCain, Virginia Republican Sen. John Warner and South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham made up the core of the rebellion against Bush and engineered the vote despite a personal visit by the president on Thursday.

Let stop beating around the bush, and start talking about what is really going on here. This is about human rights versus torture.

Since when did the Republican Party become the Pro-Torture Party? Since when did America become the country where we are having debates over whether or not it is okay to violate human rights?

This is why I hate Bush, his administration, his party, and the people that voted for them. I hate them for what they have done to our country, our ideals.

Suddenly, we find our government fighting for the right to torture, violate human rights, and redefine the Geneva Conventions. It is like we are living in the Twilight Zone. How did we get to this point?

Where is the outratge?! How can 40% of the the United States (where we are supposed to be better than our enemies) still support a president who supports TORTURE? 40%! There should be a revolution in this country! There should be storms of massive protests demanding the resignation of any president who argues for the right to torture! But because of stupid, blind party loyalty, people believe this lying sack of crap when he says we don't torture while simultaneously demanding the right to torture.

If you are not planning to torture anyone, then you do not need to be able to legally torture. Bush wants to be able to legally torture because he is torturing people. Why else would he fight so hard for this?

The Bush administration complains that the Geneva Conventions are too vague on this issue. No one else seems to have had this problem with the Geneva Conventions since they were created (unless they wanted to torture people). Obviously, the Bush administration has a problem with the Geneva Conventions. They want to torture, and the Geneva Conventions say they can't. That is why they want to try to redefine or reinterpret them, so that their illegal activities and human rights violations can be legal under their new definitions.

Again, why there is not rioting in the streets over this is beyond me. This is supposed to be America. This is supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, not the land of the torturers and home of the human rights violators.

If the Geneva Conventions is really too "vague" for the Bush team, how about a Golden Rule standard? Is that too vague? Do unto your enemies in your prisons, as you would have them do unto you in their prisons? That's what the Geneva Conventions are based on. Protecting your own.

It could be that I was just naive, and America was never as rosy as I believed it to be when I was a child, but I cannot help how I feel about this.

I want my country back.

Support Air America Radio

Think Progress Exclusive: Air America To Declare Bankruptcy, But Progressive Radio Remains Strong

The right wing is sure to seize on Air America’s financial woes as a sign that progressive talk radio is unpopular. In fact, Air America succeeded at creating something that didn’t exist: the progressive talk radio format. That format is now established and strong and will continue with or without Air America. Indeed, many of the country’s most successful and widely-syndicated progressive talk hosts — Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller, for instance — aren’t even associated with Air America.

I am so grateful to have a company like Air America Radio in existence. It started a movement for progressive and liberal voices to break into a medium dominated by right-wing talk shows. It came into existence during a time when it was needed most, during an election year when our government was under total control by conservative and religious extremists. It did not reverse the power in government that year, but it helped to get the message out that we needed to stop our decent into extremism and chaos. Since then, the movement has grown, but not without its problems.

Air America Radio had a rough start, and now things are apparently still rough. They probably tried to be too big too quickly.

I have tried to promote Air America Radio amongst my friends, but I do not know if I have had much success. So here I am again, doing what little I can to spread the word.

Listen to AAR. Support their sponsors. Keep progressive radio on the air.

One Small Step For A Corrupt Republican...

...One Giant Leap For Ohio Voters

Finally, Tom Noe is going to jail for illegal campaign contributions, and he still faces more charges for his mismanagement of $50 million from the Ohio BWC which he "invested" in rare coins.

Coin dealer gets prison over Bush donations:

TOLEDO, OHIO -- A rare-coin dealer and GOP fundraiser at the center of a scandal that has rocked Ohio's Republican Party was sentenced to more than 2 years in prison Tuesday for illegally funneling about $45,000 to President Bush's re-election campaign.

Ohio Republican fund-raiser sentenced to prison:

COLUMBUS, Ohio (Reuters) - A top Republican fund-raiser who is the leading figure in an Ohio political scandal was sentenced to 2 years and 3 months in prison on Tuesday for funneling money to President George W. Bush's 2004 reelection campaign.

Coin dealer Tom Noe, who pleaded guilty to three counts of violating campaign finance laws in a scheme that netted $45,400 for the Bush campaign, was also ordered to pay $136,200 in fines by U.S. District Judge David Katz in Toledo.

Katz said Noe, 52, can remain free on bond until a state trial due to begin next month on charges related to his alleged mishandling of a $50 million investment in rare coins on behalf of Ohio's worker's compensation bureau.

Noe gets 27 months in prison; ex-coin dealer says he was pressured by Bush campaign

The former coin dealer made two statements during the hearing. He twice read excerpts from a written statement he gave to court officials prior to sentencing in which he acknowledged his illegal role. But he blamed it in part on pressure from unnamed campaign officials to become a Bush “Pioneer,” someone who raises more than $100,000 for the campaign.

He said he had friends who wanted to attend the fund-raiser “and I wanted to help them attend,” he said yesterday.
‘I knew it was wrong’


“I knew it was wrong to do so. I alone accept responsibility for what I have done,” he said. “I’m going to repeat that. I knew it was wrong to do so. I alone accept responsibility for what I have done.”

Ex-aide admits 'conduit' role for state candidates

It has become increasingly clear that Noe's refusal to follow campaign-finance laws wasn't limited to the Bush-Cheney campaign.

Earlier this year, Doug Talbott, a former aide to Gov. Bob Taft, was convicted on a criminal charge for funneling Noe money into the campaigns of three Ohio Supreme Court Justices - Chief Justice Thomas Moyer, and Justices Lanzinger and Terrence O'Donnell.

Prosecutors: GOP Fundraiser Sought Perks

Noe, a rare coin dealer, also is charged in an ill-fated $50 million coin investment that he managed for the state workers' compensation fund. The scandal led to ethics charges against Gov. Bob Taft, who pleaded no contest for failing to report gifts such as golf outings.

This is only one part of the corruption of Republicans in Ohio. We have a big election coming up in Ohio, and we need to put a stop to Republican corruption by voting for Democrats. Here are a few:

Ted Strickland for Governor

Sherrod Brown for Senate

Jennifer Brunner for Secretary of State

Marc Dann for Attorney General

Barbara Sykes for State Auditor

Good News/Bad News: Middle East

First the Bad News:

US NATO envoy calls for more troops in Afghanistan

NATO needs more troops in Afghanistan to defeat the resurgent Taliban.

Gee, what could Bush have done differently to avoid this situation? How about not starting an illegal and unnecessary war in Iraq which pulled vital military resources out of Afghanistan before we acheived stability and captured Osama bin Laden. (Remember that guy, Bush? The one who was the top guy behind 9/11? You know, 9/11? That thing you mention when you want people to listen to your bad ideas? The worst attack on American soil in our history? Remember?)

NATO gets no offers of extra troops

NATO need troops, but it is having a hard time getting them. See previous paragraph for my rant.

Upsurge in bomb and sectarian attacks in Iraq

And yet, the Bush administration still refuses to admit that Iraq is in a civil war.

How long will we have to wait before they admit they are wrong about this?

Until then, they will continue to do nothing to stop the civil war because they cannot stop something they do not believe exists. So while civil war in Iraq rages on, the Bush administration looks the other way because they are too stubborn to admit that they are wrong. They would rather have more of our troops and innocent Iraqis die than admit a mistake.

Their pride and saving face is more important to them than peace and saving lives. For that reason, they are not worthy to govern. (There are many other reasons for why they are not worthy, but this, by itself, is enough to render them unworthy.)

60 torture victims found in Baghdad

Horrible. Just horrible.

Opium trade flowers again


Another effect of our failure to finish the job in Afghanistan.

Bomb attacks kill 22 in Baghdad

This is sad by itself, but it is becoming far too common. People are getting desensitized to the violence, and their outrage is not evenly matching the amount of all the violence.

Now For The Good News:

Sorry. I didn't find any good news about the middle east.

Remember how last spring the Right tried to get us to beleive things were actually going well in Iraq but that the "media" was only reporting the bad news? They aren't saying that anymore. Why? Because it was a lie. You can't balance reality with a lie (but that doesn't stop the Right from trying).

One Of The Hardest Parts Of Bush's Job

Bush (in an interview with Kate Couric last week):

One of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.

This is what is know as a "slip of the tongue." Bush accidently admitted that he is trying to connect Iraq to the war on terror. Now, why would you need to try to connect the two if, as you have claimed on countless occasions, the two are already connected?

Iraq and the War on Terror are not connected, according to Bush's slip of the tongue. He lied to us to get us to go to war. He lied to start an illegal war, and for that and many other crimes, he should be impeached.

Here are some other takes on this quote:

Out of the Mouths of Idiots: "One of the Hardest Parts of My Job" by Todd Gitlin from TPMCafe

AntiWar.com Blog

Diary by mdeatherage on DailyKos

A Penny For Bill Kristol's Thoughts Is A Ripoff

Media Matters for America has an article on Bill Kristol regarding his recent statements about Democrats and 9/11.

Kristol accused Democrats -- not Republicans -- of turning 9-11 anniversary "into a partisan fight"; falsely claimed Bush never attacked Clinton terror policies

On the September 10 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol attacked Democrats for "turn[ing] every event, including now the fifth anniversary of 9-11, into a partisan fight" and claimed that it is "a totally false charge that [President Bush] has played the politics of fear."

For those of you who don't listen to The Al Franken Show, you might not have heard this quote by Bill Kristol when he was speaking to Terry Gross on NPR's Fresh Air, April 1, 2003:

And on this issue of the Shia in Iraq, I think there's been a certain amount of, frankly, Terry, a kind of pop sociology in America that, you know, somehow the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been very secular.

Wow! You couldn't be more wrong about something than that.

How can someone so incredibly wrong about political concerns be paid money for and paid attention to their thoughts and comments about politics?

Anyone who pays Bill Kristol a penny for his thoughts is getting ripped off.

DEBUNK: Cheney on Meet the Press

Mylanta! This was grotesque. Honestly, it has gotten to the point where I just assume that everything Bush, Cheney, and their administration say is a lie. They could tell me that the sky is blue and I would assume it is grey. (Actually, that is a pretty good analogy for their lies about Iraq and reality in Iraq.)

I usually do one debunk per DEBUNK post, but there is too many lies and false logic in this interview to do a post for each one. This will by no means be a complete debunk of everything in the interview. There were a few particular points that I wanted to hit.

"Last Throes"

Cheney was on Meet the Press lying like it was his job. (Oh, wait... apparently, that is his job.)

On the topic of saying that the insurgency is in its last throes in 2005, Cheney said this:

I think there is no question but that we did not anticipate an insurgency that would last this long.

First of all, duh. Second, plenty of people in the military, in the media, in the government predicted a long insurgency. Cheney was just too stupid to believe them and too stubborn to even prepare for the possibility that he was wrong and they were right.

This kind of hubris and stubbornness before and after they are proven wrong is what angers me more than anything else.

Cheney grudingly admitted that he was wrong in this instance, but he has been asked about this before and, until now, has ignorantly stood by his "last throes" statement. This administration is like children with their unwillingness to admit mistakes and say they are sorry. We have to drag it out of them after months of denial, and even then, they qualify their apology with some lame excuse.

Public Opinion

The Washington Post reported on this interview:

Cheney disputed polls suggesting that a majority of people in the United States do not believe the Bush administration's claim that the war in Iraq is the central front in the fight against terrorism.

This is another example of Bush administration denial of reality, as if reality is a part of some left-wing conspriracy. Well, we liberals will be happy to have reality on our side while they claim lies for their team.

The Washington Post:

"We're here on the fifth anniversary (of the Sept. 11 terror attacks). And there has not been another attack on the United States. And that's not an accident," Cheney said in the broadcast interview.

::Sigh:: This is the most ridiculous kind of false logic. Absence of incident is not proof of security. Simply because A helps prevent B and B does not occur, that does not automatically mean A prevented B.

In fact, A (American security and intelligence) had nothing to do with preventing B (terrorists in the U.K. blowing up planes bound for the U.S.). C (U.K. security and intelligence) prevented B, but that does not stop the Bush administration from carefully parsing their words to imply that A prevented B without saying that A prevented B. When they are questioned on this, they claim they cannot talk about A. They just want us to trust them. Well, what are we supposed to base that trust on? They have lied or been wrong about everything else.

By the way, there were no attacks by foreign terrorists in our country between the WTC bombing in 1993 and 9/11, but I do not hear Cheney giving credit to Clinton for preventing terrorist attacks during that time. Also, Clinton brought those responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing to justice. When is Bush planning on bringing Osama bin Laden to justice.

On Saddam Having Ties To 9/11

I was going to do a debunk of this topic myself, but I found one on another site does a better job than what I would have done. Check out this article from Newsbusters.org.

I will say here that this administration has done everything BUT say that Saddam ordered the 9/11 attacks. Bush stated that his administration has never said that. He choose his words carefully. Yes, they never said that specifically because they knew they would be caught in a lie. They will lie, but not when they know they will easily be caught. They parse their words all the time, so while they never "said" Iraq had ties to 9/11 they implied it constantly. They never said Iraq had ties to 9/11, but they lie about, imply that, or say they cannot say whether or not Iraq had ties to al-Qaida.

They keep doing this despite the fact that the Senate Intelligence Committee's report that says that there was no link between Saddam and al-Qaida. They keep lying despite all the evidence that disproves them because 40% of the public continues to believe and support them. Who are these people and what is wrong with them?!

Saddam Would Be "Sitting On Top Of A Big Pile Of Cash"

Cheney (From the Albany Times Union):

"Think where we'd be if he (Sad dam) was still there. He'd be sitting on top of a big pile of cash, because he'd have $65 and $70 oil. He would by now have taken down the sanctions im posed by the United Nations. He would be a major state sponsor of terror. We also would have a situation where he would have resumed his WMD programs."

This is another example of flawed logic that makes me really angry.

The war in Iraq is the reason we have "$65 and $70 oil," you moron!

I really hate to call people names, but, seriously, this is so unbelievably stupid. This administration does this all the time. They claim we have to be in Iraq because of X, but X exists because we are in Iraq! This is true where X equals:

terrorists in Iraq.

our troops who have died for this cause.

weapon inspectors who could not do their job.

sectarian strife.

the need to keep Iraq from dissolving into civil war.

Iran's rising influence in Iraq.

our need to fight them over there.

the Bush administration's claim that Iraq is the central front on the War on Terror.

al-Qaida being in Iraq.

bin Laden's desire for us to lose in Iraq.

It is immoral for them to say we need to keep fighting to fix the mistakes that they created by fighting in the first place.

...And Many More

Cheney said many more dishonest and upsetting things during this interview, but this is all I can stomach for now. Many of these things have been said many times before by many others in the Bush administration, so don't worry. I will be touching upon them individually in the future.

Keith Olbermann: This Hole In The Ground

On Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Olbermann delivered a great editorial regarding 9/11, the failures of Bush's presidency to repair the damage done, and their immoral twisting of 9/11 into a partisan political weapon. He says a lot of things that I agree with, and he does it more eloquently than I might.

If you cannot see the video from the Countdown website, Crooks and Liars has the video as well. In fact, Crooks and Liars is where I first heard of and saw the editorial. They are amazing. You should visit them daily.

September 11, 2001

It has been five years!

1,826 days!

Where is Osama bin Laden?!

Where is the outrage over the fact that, five years after the most devastating day in this country's history, we still have not caught the man who was behind it?!

Shame on all you people who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004. Shame on you. Shame on you for voting for the man who allowed 9/11 to occur because of his stupidity and his administration's ignorance. How do you people sleep at night?

If you don't agree with me that Bush allowed 9/11 to occur, take a look at the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing (or, at least, the portion of that has been released). Do you know what kind of world-class idiot it takes to be the president who gets this P.D.B. and not do everything in the president's power to stop 9/11 from happening?!

Perhaps you are more forgiving than I am. You think 9/11 could not have been prevented even with such warnings. Regardless of that, how do you explain that it has been five years since 9/11 and we still have not captured Osama bin Laden? Here is how I explain it:

From the March 13, 2002 Presidential press conference:

Q: But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.

There you have it. Our president does not "know where he is" and is "not that concerned about him." He said this only six months after 9/11. He later lied by denying that he said this during the 2004 presidential debates when Kerry brought this up.

I remember, back in 2001, when Bush promised that we would catch Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." Well, when do we count that promise as broken? How long are we going to let Bush off on letting bin Laden off?!

Well, we certainly should not have let him have a second term after he failed to get bin Laden after three years after 9/11, but 51% of the country still believed in the lies and the broken promises of this national disgrace we call "President."

It has been five years.

1,826 days.

2,973 dead and 24 still listed as missing.

How long will we have to wait for justice?

On Rice, Iraq, and the U.S. Civil War

Rice Likens Iraq and Civil War Critics

Rice then offered a parallel between critics of the administration's Iraq policies and "people who thought it was a mistake to fight the Civil War (in this country) to its end and to insist that the emancipation of slaves would hold."

"I'm sure that there were people who said, "why don't we get out of this now, take a peace with the South, but leave the South with slaves."

This is disgusting and just plain stupid. Rice must be the worst S.o.S. this country has seen for quite some time. This is the same person who claimed the smoking gun for Iraq would be a "mushroom cloud" and the same person who told us the name of the August 6th, 2001 P.D.B. was "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US," and then acted shocked when people were outraged by this. Honestly, how did this women get a doctorate? She is probably the most popular figure in the Bush administration despite the fact that she dishes out just as much propaganda and as many lies as Cheney or Rove. This makes her probably more dangerous than other Bush administration officials.

For her to make this comparison between the U.S. Civil War and the war in Iraq is intellectually dishonest. It is a really bad analogy. In order for the analogy to come close to being appropriate, a foreign power would have invaded our country in 1861, removed Lincoln from power, disbanded our armies, and killed about 40,000 innocent civilians... oh, and there couldn't have been slavery.

Currently, the war in Iraq is not about an indisputable good cause like ending slavery. It is about three groups of people (Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds) vying for control of one country and killing each other in the process, and our troops are getting killed by being in the way.

Pulling our troops out of Iraq is not abandoning some "good cause" as Rice would have us believe because there is no good cause in the Iraqi civil. Instead, I would argue that saving our troops lives is a good cause. The only way anything good can come from the Iraq civil war is if the war ends. Bush's "stay the course" plan is not helping to end the civil war so we may as well bring our troops home.

Theoretically, our military could work to end the war by dividing Iraq into three separate countries, one each for the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites, but Bush is so ridiculously stubborn and in such an extreme state of denial, even in the face of so much death and failure, he will not consider any other options. So rather than listen to reason or logic, he and his adminstration put out unreasonable and illogical arguments like "people who oppose the war in Iraq are like people who opposed the Civil War or like people who appeased Hitler."

Disgusting, stupid and intellectually dishonest.

More Inconvenient Truth

Deep ice tells long climate story

Carbon dioxide levels are substantially higher now than at anytime in the last 800,000 years...

Gov Schwarzenegger Hates Poor Uninsured People

Schwarzenegger Announces He Will Veto Healthcare Bill

This is disgusting.

I really think that this country needs a national healthcare system like... oh, I don't know... EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED NATION. I believe that healthcare should be a right for all citizens, not just the ones who work for a company that is principled enough to pay for. (I'll write more about this sometime.)

Finally, the California legislature takes a bold step of voting to create a universal healthcare sytem for all its residents, and Schwarzenegger, who obviously has never known how scary it is to live without health insurance, announced that he plans to veto it. Another progressive reform in one of the most progressive states shot down by your anti-progress governor. Well, this is what you get for voting for an Republican movie star: lack of progress.

I am ashamed that my birth state voted for this guy over Davis (who California blamed for all its problems when they should have blamed Enron). Let's hope that California has the good sense to vote for Phil Angelides to be their next governor this November.

DEBUNK: Right-wing Myth: If the liberals were in charge...

A few weeks ago, I was listening to The Stephanie Miller Show, when a caller on the show stated that if the liberals were in charge during World War II, we would all be speaking German today. I believe it was Jim Ward (the show's extremely talented impressionist) who responded by pointing out that the liberals were in charge during World War II.

FDR and a Democratic-controlled congress were in charge during the second world war, and not only did they do an amazing job of ensuring we would not be "speaking German" (nor Japanese, for that matter), but they fought war-profiteering (which wastes tax-payers' money) and prevented any insurgencies by treating the enemies after the war like human beings and not as resources for corporate exploitation.

Neo-conservative foreign policy, macho posturing, and "cowboy" diplomacy may work well in movies or television, but they fail to accomplish their goals in the real world no matter what the good intentions (which have really paved a road to hell in Iraq) may be.

I listen to The Al Franken Show everday while I am at work, and one of my favorite points that Franken promotes on his show is that Republicans campaign with the tactic of saying that "government does not work" and then work to prove that it does not work when they are elected. This is evidenced by the inability to capture Osama bin Laden, the war in Iraq, the federal response to Hurricane Katrina (remember how Bush strummed while New Orleans drowned like Nero fiddled while Rome burned), the record deficits, and much more. Now that Bush and a Republican-controlled congresss are in office and working to show that government does not work (and doing an excellent job at that) they refuse to do oversight or investigate how why it is that government does not work. This is because they can continue to win elections as long as they can campaign by saying that government does not work but preventing any official documentation that says that they are responsible for it not working.

This supports my own idea that Republicans are great at campaigning but terrible at governing, as opposed to Democrats who are great at governing but terrible, by comparison, at campaigning.

My point (yes, there is a point to this rant) is that there is this myth that is pervasive throughout mainstream media, talk show monologues, punditry, and, therefore, many Americans that Democrats are weak on national security and weak against terrorism. However, history and recent events do not support this myth because it is just a myth (i.e. false). The pervasiveness of the myth is proof of how good the GOP is at campaigning, but how this myth still exists after all the recent evidence of GOP failure in governing is beyond my comprehension.

We cannot allow the myths to continue, and they reality is not enough to disprove them apparently. Democrats need to do a better job of campaigning, and with reality on their side, that should be easy. Unfortunately, we only have about two months before the mid-term elections to overturn the myth that the Right has been pushing for decades. I think we can, and we must do it. Haven't we had enough?

Propaganda Panda

Propaganda Panda says, "Beware the fake-u-mentary."

Here are some links to other blogs' posts on Path to 9/11, the Right-wing propanganda movie that will air on ABC Sept. 10th and 11th:

ABC's work of fiction by Kos

ABC’s Clinton-bashing Fake-u-mentary from Crooks And Liars

Republicans White-Wash History — Again from FDL

What Fox News Would Have Been Like In 1776

This parody of Fox News by the new CRACKED Magazine is great.

(h/t to Cheers And Jeers by Bill in Portland Maine on DailyKos.)

Lieline

I don't remember where how I found this amazing timeline (from Mother Jones) that chronicles the lies that lead up to the war in Iraq, but it is seems really thorough. It starts all the way back in 1991. This is definitely worth checking out if you get a chance.

Is Bush an idiot?

Yes.

DEBUNK: Santorum Lie: Plan B is an abortifacient.

Note:This DEBUNK article will hopefully be the first of many articles with the "DEBUNK" heading. The intention is to debunk the lies, the talking points, the myths, and the misleading slogans we hear daily from the so-called "Right." This has been done in many other places, but the Right continues to put out all this misinformation. Debunking it again here won't hurt and hopefully will help.

I just watched a clip (thanks to Crooks & Liars) of Sen. Rick Santorum on Meet The Press saying that the contraceptive Plan B (a.k.a. the morning after pill) is an abortifacient. Anyone who says that is either a liar or an ignoramus, and I am not sure which one Santorum is in this case.

Merriam-Webster defines abortion as "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus." To reiterate, abortion is the termination of pregnancy, of which Plan B is not capable.

Plan B works to 1) prevent ovulation, 2) prevent fertilization, and 3) prevent implantation. In this order, it prevents unwanted pregnancy which in turn prevents abortions (which Santorum is suppossedly against). Rick Santorum is a hypocrite if he is against abortions and against something that prevents abortions.

To take this further, Santorum is against the third effect of Plan B, the prevention of implantation, in the unlikely event that the first and second effect fail. This is something which could happen even on the regular birth control pill (Plan B is merely an emergency, higher dosage of the birth control pill), but I don't hear Rick Santorum or his cohorts calling for a ban on the birth control pill (yet).

According to the definition of "abortion," Plan B is not an abortifacient (something that causes abortion) because it does not and cannot terminate a pregancy. Pregnancy occurs when a fertilized egg is implanted in the uterus. Pregnancy does not occur when an egg is fertilized.

Santorum believes that life begins at conception, which is his right to hold as his own personal religious belief according to the Constitution. However, likewise according to the Constitution, he does not have the right to force his religious beliefs onto other people. Just because he thinks life begins at conception, that does not give him the right to legislate that no one should take Plan B because it might rarely prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman's uterus. Other people have different religious beliefs regarding this issue, and Santorum's beliefs are no more important than anyone else's.

In addition, to not having the right to force his religious beliefs upon others, Santorum does not have the right to say that Plan B is an abortifacient. If he thinks that life begins a conception, that is fine, but preventing a fertilized egg from being implanted is not abortion. Fertilized eggs are lost all the time because of circumstance, contraceptives, fertiliztion clinics, medical conditions, and any number of other environmental factors that prevent implantation, but without implantation there is NO abortion. Call it something else if you want, Rick Santorum, but calling it abortion is intellectually dishonest.

But such constant and abusive intellectual dishonesty is no surprise when it comes from the guy who still claims we found WMDs in Iraq. Don't get me started on that one.

P.s. I still can't believe Pennsylvania voters voted for this dishonest and immoral man to represent them in the Senate twice. Even more disturbing, around 40% are still going to vote for him this November. Fortunately, it seems more people in the commonwealth are going to vote for Bob Casey, the Democratic candidate. Please, Pennsylvania, have some self-respect, fire Santorum, and hire Bob Casey. Whether or not you live in Pennsylvania, you can still donate to Bob Casey's campaign.

An Inconvenient Fruit Fly

If you need more proof of global warming here are some articles on how fruit flies are evolving (or intelligently re-designing if you prefer) to adapt to climate change:




Global Warming Shows Up In Fly Genes

The result suggests that flies, with their short generation time, can cope genetically with climate change, he notes, whereas longer-lived organisms, such as large trees, are unlikely to be as flexible.

Fruit flies 'adapting to climate change'

As the climate has changed over the past few decades, so too has the genetic make-up of fruit flies, a new study has found.

An Inconvenient Truth

To everyone who reads this:

Go see Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth.

Please note, I am not asking you to see this movie. I am telling you to see this movie. This matter is not up for discussion or debate. You will see this movie, you will tell your friends and family to see this movie, you will take this issue seriously, and you will vote AGAINST any politician who does NOT take issue seriously this November.

I don't want to hear any excuses for why you can't or won't see this movie. We don't have time for excuses.

I don't want to hear that you don't believe in global warming or that there are still doubts and questions about global warming. You wouldn't believe a "scientist" who works for the tobacco companies who tells you there are still doubts as to whether cigarettes cause cancer or are addictive, and likewise, you shouldn't believe a "scientist" who works for the oil companies who tells you there are still doubts as to whether global warming exists or is caused by humans.

I have always believed that global warming is probably real, but after seeing An Inconvenient Truth, my belief has become cemented. We need to take this issue seriously, and we need to to do so now, not tomorrow, now.

p.s. If you've already seen this movie, that is great. If you already believe in global warming, you can still learn more from this movie. If you don't believe in global warming and don't want to see this movie, start smoking cigarettes. Because if you think global warming isn't harmful to your health than neither are cigarettes, and the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, and maggots come from spontaneous generation.

Impeach Bush

Note: The following post is something I wrote in January 2006. It was written when I became so disgusted by the the Bush administration that I could no longer keep silent. I am proud of what I wrote, and I cannot think of a better way to start my blog.

Before Bush was placed into office by a biased Supreme Court, I was politically an independent. While the country seemed to move right, behind Bush, I swung a hard left. Whereas before, I thought neither Republicans nor Democrats were deserving of my devotion because of their similar and different flaws. However, seeing Bush put into power and seeing the damage he has wrought since then has made me realize how important it is to support the Democrats now. I may not agree with everything they say and do, but until we change the way our government works they are our only hope of fighting back against the Bush administration. 2006 is a very important election year because it will essentially be our last chance to vote for and achieve a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate while Bush is still in office. Which means it will be our last chance to impeach Bush. You may say impeaching Bush is crazy, but he has done a lot of things that I consider to be a lot worse than what they impeached Clinton for. Here's an abbreviated list:

-Bush ignored Richard Clarke's warnings about Al Qaeda at the beginning of his presidency.

-Bush pushed the disastrous No Child Left Behind program, but did not push for it to be properly funded. Schools and students all over America suffer because of it.

-Bush ignored the Aug 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing that warned of a terrorist attack from Osama Bin Laden

-Terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 occurred on Bush's watch.

-Bush promised to go after and capture Osama Bin Laden, then dropped the ball when Bin Laden was cornered in Afghanistan so that he could start a war in Iraq. He BROKE his promise.

-Bush started an unnecessary and ILLEGAL war with Iraq.

-Bush LIED about Iraq by saying they had Weapons of Mass Destruction, that they had a connection to Al Qaeda, that they sought uranium from Africa. He lied so that the American public would support his illegal because he knew the public would not support the war otherwise.

-By going to war in Iraq, Bush turned the compassion the world had for us after 9-11 into hatred. Only a complete idiot could have done that.

-The Bush Administration neglected to adequately provide armor for troops and their vehicles.

-Bush refused to send in enough troops into Iraq, which went against the advice of top military officials. He also disbanded the Iraqi military, which also went against the advice of top military officials. (He basically told all the Iraqi troops that they were fired and that they should take their weapons with them. That essentially created a huge population of angry, unemployed, and ARMED Iraqis. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid!)

-Bush and his administration LIED about the cost of the war and reconstruction in Iraq. One official said that taxpayers would only have to pay ONE BILLION DOLLARS towards the reconstruction effort and Iraqi oil would pay for the rest. Currently, there is an oil shortage in Iraq. Taxpayers have spent about TWO HUNDRED AND NINETY BILLION DOLLARS in Iraq with no end in sight.

-Bush and his administration LIED when they said we would be greeted as liberators. Instead, almost three years after the start of the war, the Iraqi insurgency continues to kill American troops and other Iraqis. Iraq has since become a magnet, a breeding ground, and the top training ground for terrorists.

-Bush and the Republican-led Congress passed tax cuts (which mostly went to the richest of the rich Americans) during a TIME OF WAR and a time when the economy had taken a dive.

-Bush allowed companies like Halliburton to profit off the reconstruction effort in Iraq instead of allowing Iraqi companies employ unemployed Iraqis to reconstruct their own country. The unemployment rate in Iraq is about 50%. (Gee, I wonder why the insurgents have so much free time to blow up our troops.)

-Bush has mismanaged practically every aspect of the war and reconstruction in Iraq, and our troops are DYING because off his mistakes and the war profiteering of his rich, corporate friends. How long will it be before Bush is responsible for the deaths of more Americans than Osama Bin Laden?

-The Bush administration outed Valerie Wilson a CIA operative for political retribution against her husband Joe Wilson because he disagreed with the administration's LIE about Iraq seeking uranium in Africa. They outdo a CIA agent to cover their LIE. They committed a TREASONOUS act to cover up that LIE. Then they LIED about committing the TREASONOUS act that covered up their LIE. They CONTINUE to LIE about the TREASONOUS act that covered up their LIE.

-Bush and his administration probably hoped that a free Iraq would lead to cheaper oil and major profits for their oil company friends. Well, they only got that half-right. Instead, oil prices skyrocketed. Oil companies still reaped major profits, but their profits came from the high prices American citizens had to pay at the pump.

-Bush and the Republican-led Congress passed a confusing drug prescription benefit program for Medicare and LIED about how much it would cost. They disallowed Medicare to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices.

-Bush came into power with a budget surplus and managed to turn it into the biggest budget deficit this country has ever seen. Again, only a complete idiot...

-During Bush's presidency so far, the U.S. has borrowed more money than during all the other presidencies COMBINED, and there is still three years left in his second term. He claims to be a fiscal conservative, but I have yet to see any proof that he is.

-During his first term, Bush was the first president to have NOT created one NET job since Herbert Hoover. There was actually a job deficit over his first four years.

-Bush and the Republican-led Congress, refuse to have an oversight committee to protect taxpayers from war profiteering by companies like Halliburton.

-Bush and the Republican-led Congress, continue to push tax cuts for the rich while cutting programs for the poor like Medicare, Medicaid, Student Aid, and Food Stamps. Bush is the opposite of Robin Hood; he robs the poor to give to the rich. He still claims to be a Christian despite this.

-Bush refused to testify under oath to the 9-11 commission. Why? He probably wanted to avoid a perjury charge after he saw the trouble that Clinton got for a similar charge.

-Bush has chipped away at environmental regulations for the benefit of his corporate friends.

-Bush refuses to acknowledge the threat of Global Warming despite the fact that glaciers all over the world are melting. (He is probably hoping his ranch in Texas will become beachfront property.)

-Bush has taken more vacation days than any other president (since they started keeping track), and he did that in his first FIVE years.

-While Bush was on one of his many vacations, Hurricane Katrina devastates New Orleans. Federal response was inadequate and slow to say the least. Bush didn't think that one of the worst disasters in American history was important enough to end his vacation immediately. He left the emergency management in the hands of one of his unqualified, appointed cronies, Michael Brown.

-Just about everything Bush has done seems to be based on greed, laziness or both with little or no regard for the poor or even the middle class. He is a spoiled, rich kid who never had to work for a living, so why should he care about the rest of us?

Bush claims to be a Christian, but I don't see anything Christian about the things I just listed. He claims to be a conservative, but our country has gone further and faster into debt than ever before. Bush is the most evil and corrupt president this country has ever seen (including Nixon). Despite this, at least 40% of the country still support him because either they still view him as a Christian (despite all evidence to the contrary) or because they are making money off of the debt our country is incurring.

This latest scandal (eavesdropping, spying on Americans, violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, violation of the 4th Amendment, call it what you will) is the last straw for me and probably the last straw for enough people to support an impeachment.

For those of you who do not yet support impeaching Bush, let me be absolutely clear about why he should be impeached. GEORGE W. BUSH BROKE THE LAW AND VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES BY ORDERING THE NSA TO SPY ON AMERICANS WITHOUT A WARRANT. There are no ifs, ands, or buts. He broke the law and admitted to it on national television. He and his administration will make legal arguments to defend this action, but it is all garbage. The fact that Bush broke the law is as clear as black and white no matter what they say on the Fox News Channel (which has no right to use the word "news" in their name), and he should be impeached.

Unfortunately, impeachment will not happen while we have a House and Senate controlled and led by Republicans who are just as corrupt as Bush. Republicans in Washington D.C. have taken corruption to a new level. Here are a few examples:

-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is under indictment for money laundering and under investigation for connections to lobbyist Jack Abramoff, taking bribes, accepting trips, and stopping legislation that would prevent forced labor, forced prostitution, and forced abortion in the U.S. protectorate island Saipan.

-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is under investigation for illegal stock trading.
-I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the Vice President’s chief of staff, is under indictment for obstruction of justice and making false statements.

-Karl Rove, the President’s deputy chief of staff and friend, is under investigation.

-Sen. Conrad Burns is under investigation for taking bribes from Abramoff.

-Rep. Bob Ney is under investigation for taking bribes from Abramoff.

-Former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham plead guilty to taking bribes from a defense contractor.

-David Safavian, the top official of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, resigned just before he was arrested and indicted for obstruction of justice and making false statements.

-Lobbyist Jack Abramoff plead guilty to charges of bribery and conspiracy in a deal in which he will be working for the prosecution in their investigation of all the people in Congress he bribed.

-Michael Scanlon, former aide to DeLay and colleague of Abramoff, plead guilty to charges of bribery and conspiracy.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and it has definitely corrupted the Republicans over the last ten years. Republicans of today differ from the Republicans during the days of a Democratic-led Congress. Then, they were not in control of Congress, and they were able to point to the corruption of the Democrats in power and say that they would fix it. However, instead of getting rid of corruption in Congress, they not only became corrupt themselves, but they became far more corrupt than the Democrats.

That is why it is important for us to support the Democrats this year, and vote as many of them as we can into office. We need to do so overwhelmingly. We do not want questionable election results, election fraud theories, or recounts. We need indisputable vote tallies that put Democrats into as many congressional seats as possible. Remember: A vote for a Republican this November (any Republican, even the "RINO"s) is another vote for the Iraq War, pollution, global warming, corporate welfare, tax cuts for the rich, cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, cuts to student aid, cuts to programs for the poor, and (worst of all) George W Bush.

In 2006, vote for Democrats and for impeachment.