Flip-Flopper Bush

Iraq Meeting May Lead to U.S.-Iran Talks

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice could soon be sitting across a table from her counterparts in Iran and Syria.

Rice told a congressional hearing Tuesday that senior U.S. officials will join a roundtable that will include representatives from Iran and Syria to talk about how to stabilize Iraq.

It seems like an about face from the Bush administration, which has long resisted the idea of engaging the Iranians on the issue.

Bush has said many times this year and last year that we would not be talking to Iran until they suspended their nuclear enrichment program. Well, now it appears we will be talking to Iran even when they have not suspended nuclear enrichment.

Many Bush supporters admire Bush for his unbending convictions. They admire him for this even when he stands by his convictions after they have been proven wrong. What they fail to notice is when Bush stops standing by his convictions long after they have been proven wrong when he thinks no one will notice, and then he claims his changed position was the same position all along.

Bush sure sticks to his guns... until he doesn't. Crooks and Liars points our the obvious hypocrisy:

Meeting With Iran/Syria: Bush Was Against It Before He Was For It

I shouldn't be so flippant about this, because one of the things that aggravates me the most is Bush's pig-headedness and inability to adjust to new information, however, I can't help but get a little flip-flopping dig in there.

Many of you may remember the "flip-flop" charge Republicans attacked Kerry with during the 2004 election when the term more accurately described Bush.

Bush was against taking the threat of terrorism seriously before 9/11, and he was for it after 9/11.

Bush was against the 9/11 commission before he was for it.

Bush was for getting Osama bin Laden before he said that bin Laden doesn't really concern him that much and has pretty much given up looking for him.

Bush was for diplomatic solutions in Iraq before he invaded Iraq.

Bush said he was for invading Iraq only as a "last option" before it became evident that he it was planning to invade Iraq all along.

Bush was against sending more troops to invade Iraq before he was for sending more troops there now that Iraq is a huge mess.

Bush was against fighting global warming before he was for it (but even now he isn't doing that much about it).

Bush was for the Iraq Study Group before he went against all their recommendations (like talking to Iran and Syria).

Bush was against talking to Iran and Syria, and now he is for it.

There are probably many other examples that I am forgetting right now, but my point stands. So who is the real "flip-flopper", Bush who quietly retreats on all these issues or Kerry who only changed his mind on the war in Iraq after he realized that Bush lied to him and everyone about Iraq?

Evil Tactics And Missing People

Rights group seeks fate of terrorism suspects

WASHINGTON -- A human rights group is asking President Bush to disclose the fates of all terror suspects held since 2001, including 16 it believes have been locked up in secret CIA facilities.

Human Rights Watch said it compiled a report about the 16, whose whereabouts are unknown, along with 22 others possibly held by the CIA, based on interviews with former detainees, news reports, and other sources.

You know, for an administration that likes to claim that anyone who opposes the war in Iraq is similar to Nazi appeasers, they sure like to use Nazi-like tactics. This tactic of disappearing people was something Nazis did all the time. The Bush administration is engaging in a disgusting hypocrisy by saying that disagreeing with them is as bad as appeasing the evil Nazis while using the same tactics that made the Nazis evil. They may not be using these tactics to the same extent as the Nazis or even using all of the Nazi tactics, but these tactics, like disappearing people, are inherently wrong and evil regardless of the reasons or the extent.

Chipping away at Constitutional and human rights is another Nazi tactic the Bush administation is using. Getting the legislature to turn over some of its power and usurping other powers from the other branches of government are also tactics the Bush administration shares with the Nazis. Torture was definitely a Nazi tactic that, while he may claim not to use it, Bush considers "torture" to have a flexible definition. Doing these things in the name of "national security" so that anyone who argues against it is a "traitor" is a Nazi tactic that has been used by Bush.

Again, they may not be using these tactics to the same extent, but these tactics are WRONG, and they should not be used on any level.

Last fall, while the Republicans still had control of Congress, the Republicans actually voted to trash the basic human and Constitutional right of habeas corpus. If that does not prove that Republicans do not really care about our freedoms, then I don't know what does. Bush always goes around claiming the terrorists hate us for our freedoms while he signed the legislation that takes our freedoms away. He is doing more to take away our freedoms then the terrorists ever could do.

If the Bush administration truly felt that they were doing the right thing, they would not have to operate detentions and trials in secret like the Nazis. They could conduct trials out in the open the way America and its allies conducted trials for the Nazis after World War II. That is the American way. That is the American ideal. Bush is doing things the Nazi way. Whether he knows it or not, Bush is following a Nazi ideal.

The ends do not justify the means. A part of me wants to believe that, deep down, Bush thinks he is doing the right thing, but regardless of how good one's intentions may be, evil tactics are still evil.

Update: I found another article on the same topic:

U.S. blasted for treatment of detainees

UNITED NATIONS - The U.N. human rights chief expressed concern Wednesday at recent U.S. legislative and judicial actions that she said leave hundreds of detainees without any way to challenge their indefinite imprisonment.

Louise Arbour referred to the Military Commissions Act approved by Congress last year and last month's federal appeals court ruling that Guantanamo Bay detainees cannot use the U.S. court system to challenge their detention. The case is likely to go to the Supreme Court.

[...]The act grants suspects at Guantanamo Bay the right to confront the evidence against them and have a lawyer present at specially created "military commissions." But it does not require that any of them be granted legal counsel and specifically bars detainees from filing habeas corpus petitions challenging their detentions in federal courts.

The Deluding Vice President and The Deluded First Lady

Cheney OK After Afghan Blast; 23 Killed

(AP) A suicide bomber attacked the entrance to the main U.S. military base in Afghanistan on Tuesday during a visit by Vice President Dick Cheney, killing up to 23 people and wounding 20. Cheney was unhurt in the attack, which was claimed by the Taliban and was the closest that militants have come to a top U.S. official visiting Afghanistan. At least one U.S. soldier, an American contractor and a South Korean solder were among the dead, NATO said.

I really hope this experience is a wake-up call for Cheney to take the Taliban and al Qaeda seriously, but I am not going to hold my breath. Apparently, fighting them in Iraq isn't working because THEY ARE NOT IN IRAQ! Or, at least, they are not in Iraq to the extent that Cheney would have us believe, they weren't viable in Iraq before we invaded, they had no ties to Iraq, and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11!

Cheney lied us into Iraq, and despite the fact that all his lies have been proven wrong, he continues to lie. He is easily the most evil and the worst vice president ever. It is unbelievable to me that he is still in office or that anyone still believes him or supports him.

It is good that he was not injured or killed, but it is bad that so many people have been injured or killed because of him.

Laura Bush On Iraq

Proving that you don't have to be an official member of the Bush administration to be completely wrong about Iraq, in an appearance on last night's Larry King Live, Laura Bush weighed in with her deep thoughts:

And many parts of Iraq are stable now. But, of course, what we see on television is the one bombing a day that discourages everybody.

Yes, it's that one bombing a day that's getting us all down. But of course, as is often (always) the case with her husband, reality tells another story. And reality says that during this week alone, there has been 34 bombings in Iraq, which works out to nearly 5 a day.

Why would I expect anyone in the Bush administration or family to have any grip on reality?

I guess hope springs eternal.

Olbermann Schools "Doctor" Rice

Special Comment: Secretary Rice, Get Your Facts Straight!

In tonight's Special Comment, Keith took Condi to task for making the following ridiculous and historically inaccurate analogy on FOX News Sunday yesterday:

"…It would be like saying that after Adolf Hitler was overthrown, we needed to change then, the resolution that allowed the United States to do that, so that we could deal with creating a stable environment in Europe after he was overthrown."

Crooks and Liars has the video. I highly recommend that everyone watch it, and I also recommend that everyone watch and support Keith Olbermann. He is fighting for you.

Entropy Of The State

No title can do justice to this

Freeman notes that the problem of dealing with actions of non-national entities is quite ancient, and refers to the burning of Ostia, destruction of a fleet, and kidnapping of two senators and their staffs by a league of Pirates in 68 BCE. He quotes a recent book by Robert Harris, which explores how Pompey took advantage of the understandable horror at what had happened. Here I offer part of the paragraph where he quotes Harris and offers some additional words

Rome panicked. Mr. Harris comments that: "What Rome was facing was a threat very different from that posed by a conventional enemy. These pirates were a new type of ruthless foe, with no government to represent them and no treaties to bind them. Their bases were not confined to a single state. They had no unified system of command. They were a worldwide pestilence, a parasite which needed to be stamped out, otherwise Rome – despite her overwhelming military superiority – would never again know security or peace." In response to these imagined menaces, Pompey (self-styled "the Great") persuaded a compliant Senate to set aside nearly 700 years of Roman constitutional law, abridge the ancient rights and liberties of Roman citizens, and appoint him supreme commander of the armed forces. With due allowance for a bit of pointed reinterpretation, if not revisionism by Mr. Harris, most historians regard this incident and its aftermath as the beginning of the end of the Roman republic.

Any sentient being capable of reading will of course see the immediate parallel with our own time, which is of course why Freeman uses the historical example.

History offers an interesting perspective on modern times. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Much Ado About Texas

At a Glance: The TXU Deal

Dallas-based TXU has agreed to be acquired by an investment group led by private-equity firms Texas Pacific Group and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts.

[...]In order to win regulatory approval, TXU's new ownership has promised to scrap eight of the 11 coal-fired electric power plants that the utility had planned to build. The private-equity firms worked with the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council in order to gain their endorsements.

The cancellation of eight coal-fired power plants will prevent additional annual carbon emissions of 56 million tons, according to TXU's statement.

TXU is also pledging to support a mandatory cap and trade program aimed at regulating carbon emissions.

This is a big win for environmentalists, a big win in the fight against global warming, and a big win for everyone who wants to continue living on earth.

Texas families file lawsuit to block governor's order requiring cervical cancer vaccine

AUSTIN, Texas – A group of families has sued in an attempt to block Gov. Rick Perry's executive order requiring schoolgirls to be vaccinated against the virus that causes cervical cancer.

I've written about this issue before (in October 2006), and I am so IRATE that there are people out there who are so crazy that they still oppose this. Here is some of what I wrote last time:

The Pro-Death Religious Right

Before the FDA approved the Gardasil (another HPV vaccine, Cervarix, is still going through the approval process), some crazy Religious Right conservatives expressed concerns about HPV vaccines. Now what kind of person would be against a vaccine that prevents cancer? A Pro-Death Religious Right conservative.

These Pro-Death Religious Right conservatives initially opposed FDA approval of Gardasil. They would have rather had women die from cervical cancer than be vaccinated against HPV. Why? Because they have this insane idea that if you vaccinate a girl against one of many STDs in the world, she will become sexually promiscuous. They do not seem to realize that there are still plenty of other STDs to worry about or that there are many other emotional and psychological reasons for why people choose not to be promiscuous.

[...]There is a lot of research going into potential HIV vaccines, and we don't know whether this one or any other will be successful in ending HIV and AIDS. However, let me say this to any religious nutcase who might try to oppose a preventative or therapeutic HIV vaccine:

Don't. Don't try to stop medical advances. Don't try to stop vaccines. Don't try to stop stem-cell research. Leave the rest of us alone. If you want to refuse a vaccine or stem-cell treatment for yourself for whatever crazy reason you can think up, fine. However, if you choose to prevent any life-saving medical treatment for your children, then I consider that a form of child abuse or, at least, child negligence.

Don't force your religious beliefs onto me, my health, or the health of my friends and family.

I do not know what more I can add too that. I guess I am not going to convince these crazy people that they are crazy. If they are so out of it that they are willing to endanger the health of their own children for their warped sense of morality, they are, in my opinion, insane, immoral, and incapable of being responsible parents.

We punish parents who endanger their child by not using a carseat, and likewise, we should punish any parent who refuses this vaccine for their child.

My parents were responsible parents. They made sure that I was vaccinated against many diseases like measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus, and if, when I was a child, there was a vaccine that would prevent a specific type of cancer or STD, I am sure that they would have made certain that I had that as well. However, if that was not the case, I would hope that my country would have had the common sense and decency to protect me from such neglect and abuse.

I do not know how anyone could be against that, and it upsets me so much that some people are. It seems so obvious to me that mandatory vaccination is the right answer, but I feel the same way about abolition of slavery, yet slavery still exists in our world. I guess I should not be surprised that people are against things that I consider to be axioms, but it is still so very disappointing.

Another One Bites The Dust

Ex-Ney aide pleads guilty to conspiracy

WASHINGTON (AP) — The top aide to convicted former Rep. Bob Ney pleaded guilty Monday to federal conspiracy charges stemming from a congressional bribery scandal that downed his boss.

Smiling nervously at times, William Heaton, 28, acknowledged accepting a golf trip to Scotland, expensive meals, and tickets to sporting events between 2002 and 2004 as payoffs for helping clients of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

We've still got a long way to go before this Abramoff scandal is over. Cleaning up the corruption in D.C. will continue, but if I could make one complaint, it would be nice if it was a faster process. I guess the HUGE mess of corruption left by 12 years of Republican control of Congress cannot happen overnight.

Governors Do The President's Job

5 Governors Agree to Work on Climate

Governors from five Western states agreed Monday to work together to reduce greenhouse gases, saying their region has suffered some of the worst of global warming with recent droughts and bad fire seasons.

The governors of Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington state agreed that they would develop a regional target to lower greenhouse gases and create a program aimed at helping businesses reach the still-undecided goals.

It is a sad state of affairs when the President of the United States is too lazy, stupid, or ignorant (or all three) to handle a global crisis like global warming that governors of individual states have to step in to do the President's job.

Regardless, their actions are certainly a step in the right direction, and by taking the lead on this, they will hopefully inspire other leaders in government to do the same.

A Stitch In Healthcare And Terrorism Saves A Lot

Every industrialized nation has universal healthcare coverage except for one:
The United States of America

Because we do not have universal healthcare coverage, Americans pay more for healthcare and get less, our car industry (and other industries that compete globally) are kept at a disadvantage to foreign car companies, and the effects of poverty are more severe on our poor.

And it is only going to get worse until we overcome the conservatives who are the enemies of the good economic policy and moral obligation that is universal healthcare:

U.S. health care spending seen doubling in 10 years

WASHINGTON – U.S. spending on prescription drugs, hospital care and other health services is expected to double to $4.1 trillion over the next decade, up from $2.1 trillion in 2006, a government report released Wednesday found.
Despite relative stability in recent years, nearly 20 cents of every dollar spent in 10 years will go toward health care, National Health Statistics Group economists said in their projections looking at 2006 to 2016.

Last year's health spending should make up about 16 cents for every dollar spent, they wrote in the journal Health Affairs.

I do not know why conservatives want to continue down this path of fiscal irresponsiblity rather than support universal healthcare. They must hate America and our troops.

There is no reason we cannot afford to have it. In fact, I do not think we can afford not to have it.

Here is some interesting information on how the government wastes spends our tax dollars (delivered in a sarcastic essay by DailyKos diarist Zackpunk):

Socialism is Evil

The military budget for 2007 is $462 billion. That does not include an additional $120 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But we cannot use a small percentage of that to provide health care for sick children. Because that would be socialism, and socialism is evil.

The United States spends more money on the military than China, Russia, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, Germany, India, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Italy, Australia, Brazil, and Canada combined.

But we cannot use just a fraction of that money to make sure World War II vets have the medicine they need to stay alive, because that would be socialism, and socialism is evil.

The United States shipped 363 tons of hard cash into Baghad, where it promptly vanished.

But we could not ship one single dollar into the streets of Detroit, where tens of thousands of auto workers just lot their jobs. Because that would be socialism, and socialism is evil.

Over 40% of our income tax goes to military spending.

But allocating just 1% of our income tax to helping the poor would be socialism, and socialism is evil.

We are spending almost half a trillion dollars on defense each year! We outspend China (62.5 billion) and Russia (61.9 billion) each by more than 350 million dollars. We could cut our defense spending in half without any other country coming anywhere near close to what we spend. Additionally, the grand total of what we spend on the war in Iraq could be ONE TRILLION DOLLARS before we leave.

This fiscal waste is sheer madness, and it is immoral considering the tens of millions of Americans who do not have health insurance or are living in or near poverty, the dramatic amount of debt we have accumulated, and the horrible living conditions of those who live in third world countries.

Speaking of poverty in America, that is getting worse also thanks to Bush:

"Severe" Poverty worst since '75: How's that B**h plan workin' out for ya?

This McLatchy Newspapers article appeared in today's Charlotte Observer. For those of us who've been paying attention, there are no surprises here.

But why aren't more people SCREAMING BLOODY MURDER?

The analysis found that the number of severely poor Americans grew by 26 percent between 2000 and 2005. That's 56 percent faster than the overall poverty population grew in the same period. The review also suggested that the rise in severely poor residents isn't confined to urban counties.

Then there is our national debt which has gotten a lot worse under Bush:

United States public debt

As of the end of 2006, the total U.S. public debt was $4.9 trillion. This does not include the money owed by states, corporations, or individuals, nor does it include the money owed to Social Security beneficiaries in the future. If intragovernment debt obligations are included, the debt figure rises to $8.6 trillion.

Living conditions in third world countries hasn't gotten any better, and it has actually gotten worse in some places like Iraq. These bad living conditions is a big part of what fuels terrorism which has increased under Bush (despite what he says):

Iraq War Creating More Terrorism, Report Says

(CNSNews.com) - Far from reducing terrorism and the number of terrorists, the war in Iraq has led to more terror attacks around the world, according to researchers from the Center on Law and Security and the New York University School of Law.

Their report, scheduled for publication in the March/April issues of the left-wing Mother Jones magazine, asserts that Islamic terrorism has increased 607 percent worldwide since the March 2003 invasion of Baghdad, leading to a 237 percent increase in fatalities from terrorist attacks.

Essentially, Bush's War on Terror is increasing terrorism, the opposite effect of what he intended (I assume, but you never know with Bush). So while Dick Cheney makes idiotic statements like this:

With respect to Iraq, I think he's dead wrong. I think, in fact, if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we'll do is validate the al Qaeda strategy. The al Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people -- in fact, knowing they can't win in a stand-up fight, try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit.

Cheney, Bush, the neo-cons, and all those who supported the war in Iraq are the ones who are helping al Qaeda. Hunter at DailyKos has a detailed analysis of this point (click the link to read the whole thing):

How Dick Cheney Helped Al Qaeda

[...]Al Qaeda had several major goals, if you believe most non-neocon experts, in their terrorist attacks on America, and primary among them was to provoke a widespread war with the United States in the Middle East. Such a war could act as a focus for Arab nationalism, a tool of jihad to rally the religious, a recruitment device for building a larger al Qaeda, and in the end a nexus point around which Arabs could build bin Laden's particular religious and nationalistic vision of a dominant Muslim state.

Iraq, of course, was exactly the kind of response they dreamed of provoking. And it worked in spectacular fashion, and through U.S. incompetence worked better than they could have ever hoped. As Dick Cheney has pointed out over and over, bin Laden especially believes that Americans can be defeated as the Russians were, because America is not willing to commit the kind of resources to the Middle East that would outlast nationalistic Arab fighters. Cheney and Rumsfeld proved his point, more than any other Americans. They proved that the U.S. administration did not have the willpower to fight al Qaeda in Afghanistan; did not have the attention for it; would not commit the resources to it; would not take the necessary actions to prevent an al Qaeda and Taliban return. This will be, if we face a new generation of al Qaeda-based terrorism, the primary legacy of the Bush administration.

[...]Here, then, is the most damning condemnation of administration policy in Iraq, and why Cheney, Rumsfeld, Kristol, Feith and others have no cause for presuming any Americans have been of anywhere near the assistance to al Qaeda that they themselves have been. In Iraq, we have chosen to fight the fight al Qaeda wanted to fight. In Afghanistan, we were fighting al Qaeda on their own doorstep, dismantling their own bases of support and safe haven. Even before the last shots fell to the ground at Tora Bora, though, our own administration lost apparent interest in the outcome.

It is the height -- the height -- of military fiasco to withdraw from a fight at the gates of the enemy's core base and turn your attention to fighting them in a proxied war of attrition far away from their infrastructure and vital networks of support. No military commander worth the polish on his shoes would propose such a thing: anyone who actually executed such a bungling move would be removed from the ranks of leadership forthwith and put back to captaining a laundry ship. And yet America and the neoconservatives have chosen exactly that proxied war, a war destined to do the core of al Qaeda and other extremists little possible harm and have myriad possible benefits for them, and have bungled even that.

You could not have done al Qaeda a better favor if you had actively tried. The neoconservatives have walked, entirely on their own accord, into handing terrorism two separate victories: the victory of making an attack on American soil a survivable achievement, for a terrorist movement, and the victory of subsequently engaging the terrorists in the very action they had been attempting to provoke.

Many Bush supporters might, at this point, respond by saying that we aren't creating terrorists and fueling terrorism by being in Iraq because 9/11 happened before we invaded.

And to that I say:

IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!!! Seriously, how many times do we have to say that before you will stop conflating the two! AAAAAAH!!!

Apart from that, yes, terrorism existed before we invaded Iraq, but our bad foreign policies existed before the invasion as well. They helped create the horrible living conditions in other countries that inspired terrorists and terrorism. To suggest otherwise is naive.

To explain the title of this post, "a stitch in time saves nine" is a phrase we use to emphasize the importance of addressing issues early before they get worse. If we have universal healthcare coverage, we will end up spending far less on healthcare overall by giving everyone access to preventative medicine which prevents more costly medicine and surgery. Likewise, if we use our resources to improve living standards throughout the world, we will prevent the conditions that aid terrorist recruitment which, in turn, will prevent acts of terrorism.

By thinking ahead on these issues and others, we could prevent so much pain and, additionally, save so much money. The total cost of healthcare would be significantly less, and spending money on reducing or eliminating poverty in the world would cost exponentially less than what we are spending on defense and on the War on Terror.

This is what can and must do to improve our lives, our security, and our world.

...oh, and never electing idiotic presidents again would be a HUGE help also!

Restore Habeas Corpus

Yesterday, this happened:

Gitmo detainees denied: Appeals court rules they don't have rights to American courts

WASHINGTON -- In a victory for the White House, a U.S. appeals court ruled Tuesday that the hundreds of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay do not have a right to plead their innocence in an American court.

The decision sets the stage for a Supreme Court showdown over whether the White House and Congress can deny habeas corpus--the right to go before a judge and ask to be released--to some persons who are held for years without charges.

[...]

Late last year, the Republican-controlled Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, which made clear that "enemy combatants" held outside the United States may not file claims in U.S. courts. Tuesday's ruling upheld that law.

Lawyers for the detainees condemned the ruling and said they will take their case to the Supreme Court.

Today, we fight back and defend human rights.

Sen. Chris Dodd has set up a website: Restore-Habeas.Org. Go there and support the Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007.

Help Repeal Bush's Mock Trials Law

Did you know that last year President Bush signed a law that dishonors our obligations under the Geneva Conventions and allows unreliable statements gained by torture or coercion to be used as evidence against defendants. This is just one more nail in America's international reputation, that has already suffered terribly because of the Bush war of choice against Iraq. The international good will toward America that existed after the al Qaeda attacks of September 11, 2001 has been squandered by the Bush Administration.

Chris Dodd is seeking to restore America's moral authority and rebuild international respect for our country. Earlier this month Chris Dodd introduced a bill that would stop President Bush's troop escalation in Iraq, and now he has introduced legislation that overturns the sham trials and admissibility of tainted evidence made possible by the Military Commissions Act. Read the legislation:

http://www.restore-habeas.org

Sen. Dodd is asking for citizen co-sponsors of the bill, so please visit the link below and sign on!

http://www.restore-habeas.org

Thanks!

EU Cutting CO2 Emissions

Well, at least one government is taking global warming seriously:

EU Backs Target to Cut CO2 Emissions

BRUSSELS, Belgium -- European Union governments agreed Tuesday that the 27-nation bloc should cut carbon dioxide emissions 20 percent by 2020.

They also said they would support a steeper 30 percent target from 1990 levels if other industrialized nations would match European efforts to curb global warming.

Frustration

"Move Along, Nothing To See Here"

"Pay no attention to that man behind that curtain."

"Look over there, not over here."

Things are already going so bad in Iraq, Bush is trying to distract us with saber-rattling about Iran. Unfortunately, Bush has only succeeded in distracting himself from Afghanistan, the Taliban, and al Qaeda (remember them?).

Everytime I hear Bush or anyone mention 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentence I get so sick because, even though they say Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, they still conflate the two intentionally to create a false argument for staying in Iraq. Meanwhile, those who were actually resposible for 9/11, bin Laden and al Qaeda, are still free thanks to Mr. "Smoke 'Em Out, Dead Or Alive".

Seriously, how could anyone vote to re-elect Bush in 2004 or support him now while bin Laden is still free? Clinton, Gore, and Kerry all would have gotten bin Laden by now. Reagan would have gotten him by now. George H. W. Bush would have gotten him by now. A monkey would have gotten him by now! But not George "Bring 'Em On" Bush. Oh no, that's way too hard for him. He couldn't find the sun on a sunny day.

Thanks to our misfortune of having Bush as our president, bin Ladin is still at-large and now this:

Al Qaeda rebuilding its network, U.S. says

Washington -- Senior leaders of al Qaeda operating from Pakistan have re-established significant control over their once-battered worldwide terror network and over the past year have set up a band of training camps in the tribal regions near the Afghan border, according to U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism officials.

U.S. officials said there was mounting evidence that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, had been steadily building an operations hub in the mountainous Pakistani tribal area of North Waziristan.

The United States has identified several new al Qaeda compounds in North Waziristan. Officials said that both U.S. and foreign intelligence services had collected evidence leading them to conclude that at least one of the camps in Pakistan might be training operatives capable of striking Western targets.

Outrageous, isn't it?

And yet, where is the outrage? Where is the outrage in the media? Where is the outrage in the public? Where is the incessant vitriol from the Republicans that we all know would be there if it was a Democratic president that had allowed this to happen? And speaking of Democrats, where is their outrage? Independents?

Are left-leaning bloggers the only ones who care about this?

Or this:

Afghan Forces Retake Western Town

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - Afghan security forces supported by NATO troops on Tuesday retook a town in western Afghanistan that briefly had fallen to Taliban militants, an official said.

About 200 Afghan police and soldiers moved into the remote town of Bakwa in Farah province at 5 a.m. and faced no resistance, said Gov. Muhajuddin Baluch. He said some NATO troops joined the operation.

The Afghan forces were searching the vicinity for the militants, who moved into Bakwa on Monday and briefly held it and then left, taking three seized vehicles with them, he said.

It was the second time this month that the government has lost control of a district in the region.

Why is there any Taliban left to take any city even briefly?!

Look, as my Republican father can attest, I was against the war in Iraq from the beginning, and even though those of us who were against it in 2003 were considered crazy or even treasonous back then, we have since then been vindicated for the most part (Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity are still holding out). However, our vindication has changed nothing. We are still in Iraq, and Bush and his followers still won't admit it was a mistake. All the pundits and columnists who were wrong about Iraq and continue to be wrong still have their jobs, and their opinions are still taken seriously. Conversely, writers and bloggers like me who were right then and right now get passed over for paid positions, and our opinions are ignored.

I think people fail to realize that we were against the war in Iraq because it was inherently wrong, not because we were against war in general. I was strongly for the war in Afghanistan. I was for war in Afghanistan before 9/11. I knew about the Taliban in the late 1990s before most Americans had even heard of them. After 9/11, I was worried that we were not going into Afghanistan fast enough. And now, al Qaeda and the Taliban are growing stronger in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

It is just one more thing that we were right about before the war in Iraq, that if we went into Iraq, we wouldn't finish the job in Afghanistan.

Don't get me wrong; it feels good to have been proven right about everything, but it doesn't make up for all the incredible frustration over being ignored all these years and the horrific, maddening exasperation from the fact the we are still being ignored.

If I could just make people understand that frustration and the outrage, then maybe we could end this cycle of mistakes. That is why I bother to write these rants that are probably rarely read, why I write a political blog with little hope of getting anything in return. Maybe if enough people like me try to make our voices heard, then we won't have any more North Koreas, or Vietnams, or Afghanistans, or Iraqs.

How many times do we have to learn the same lesson before we stop repeating these mistakes? Bob Dylan said,"The answer is blowing in the wind." Well, apparently that's not enough. For those of you who don't speak wind-ese, the answer is here. It is on Daily Kos, MyDD, Think Progress, Crooks And Liars, Talking Points Memo, Firedoglake, and many, many other blogs that have been giving the right answers all along.

How many times do we have to be proven right before the public, the government, and the mainstream media listen to us?

After all, what is important to us is not being right; it is making sure we do the right thing.

Actions Speak Louder Than Magnetic Yellow Ribbons

Throughout most of the six years of Republican's total control of our government, there were three words that the Republicans used more than any other three words, "Support the troops."

I would like to delve more deeply into the incredible Republican hypocrisy of constantly saying "support the troops" while sending the troops into harm's way for a pack of lies, but right now, I specifically want to point out the Republican hypocrisy of saying "support the troops" while allowing neglect like this to happen:

Soldiers Face Neglect, Frustration At Army's Top Medical Facility

Behind the door of Army Spec. Jeremy Duncan's room, part of the wall is torn and hangs in the air, weighted down with black mold. When the wounded combat engineer stands in his shower and looks up, he can see the bathtub on the floor above through a rotted hole. The entire building, constructed between the world wars, often smells like greasy carry-out. Signs of neglect are everywhere: mouse droppings, belly-up cockroaches, stained carpets, cheap mattresses.

[...]

On the worst days, soldiers say they feel like they are living a chapter of "Catch-22." The wounded manage other wounded. Soldiers dealing with psychological disorders of their own have been put in charge of others at risk of suicide.

Disengaged clerks, unqualified platoon sergeants and overworked case managers fumble with simple needs: feeding soldiers' families who are close to poverty, replacing a uniform ripped off by medics in the desert sand or helping a brain-damaged soldier remember his next appointment.

(Read the rest of the article for more information.)

Is that what "support the troops" means to Republicans? Sending them to fight without proper body armor, having some of them die for lies, having more of them die to save face because Bush doesn't want to admit his mistakes and confess his lies, and neglecting to take proper care of those who come back injured?!

Now that the Democrats are working to end the war, or at least trying to prevent escalation, they are criticized for not "supporting" the troops.

Honestly, how is trying to bring our troops home not supporting the troops? How is ending the war, pulling our troops out of a failed and illegal war, reuniting the troops with their families, fulfilling the troops' desires to come home, preventing more troop casualties, focusing on our needs at home, strengthening our defense at home, ending wasteful spending on no-bid contracts to war profiteers, and stopping the continued mistake of sacrificing American troops' lives for LIES not supporting the troops?

George W. Bush, his supporters, the war profiteers, John McCain, and Joseph Lieberman are the ones who are not supporting the troops with their war based on lies, their escalation of war based on lies, and their lack of care for the injured. How dare they claim otherwise?

Support The Troops = Bring Them Home + Care For The Injured

Science vs. Belief

I was inspired write this post after reading a letter that was on Indystar.com. Here's the link if you are interested: Evolution contradicts Bible and good science

And here is my response to the letter and my general response to the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate that will not die:

Round Earth (Science) vs. Flat Earth (Belief)
Result: The Earth is round. Science wins.

Infection (Science) vs. Curse (Belief)
Result: Disease is caused by infection. Science wins.

Cigarettes cause cancer (Science) vs Cigaretts don't cause cancer (Belief)
Result: Cigarettes cause cancer. Science wins.

Global Warming (Science) vs. No Global Warming (Belief)
Result: Global Warming is occurring and is caused by man. Science wins.

(Anyone starting to see a pattern here?)

Evolution (Science) vs. Creationism (Belief)
Result: The theory of Evolution has been proven. Science wins.

What is important to remember is that Science is our way of understanding and knowing that which we can prove. Beliefs are just assumptions that cannot be proved. Science, rather than Belief, is a better way of understanding that which God has created (if you believe in God).

It was not so long ago, when people believed that God had made the Earth flat, but Science proved that the Earth was round. Did this disprove the existence of God? No. People just changed their Belief to reflect the evidence of Science. They still think that God made the Earth, but now they think that God had made it round.

Why should the theory of Evolution be treated any differently? Science has proved Evolution, so why fight it? Why continue to believe that the "Earth is flat"?

Evolution doesn't disprove the existence of God. It perhaps shows us how God changed life on this planet. Just change your thinking to reflect the evidence; God used evolution to create many diverse species.

Science and Belief may sometimes be in conflict, but Science and Faith are not in conflict. I think God would want us to use Science to make our world a better place.

I think God would want us to use Science to cure disease and care for the sick.

I think God would want us to use Science to end poverty and hunger.

I think God would want us to use Science to work for peace and to end war.

Our understanding of Evolution has helped us to move forward in good causes like curing disease and fighting hunger, so why would God be against it? Why would God be against Science that improves our ability to do good? I do not think that he would be against it.

On the other hand, I do think God would be disappointed, if not outright against it, if we did not use Science for the benefit of humanity.

So for those of you who use your Belief to fight Science, just stop. It is silly. It is holding the rest of us back from making the world a better place which is what God wants, and if you are working against what God wants by fighting Science, then you are insulting God, who you hypocritically claim to support, and all of mankind.

Science is our way of seeking the Truth. God wants us to work with the Truth, not lies. Everyone is entitled to their own Belief, but no one should use their Belief to fight Science or Truth.

If you are fighting Science and Truth, then you are fighting for lies, and what is more hypocritical than fighting for lies in God's name?

This is, in essense, what Gordon B. Rose is doing. He is fighting for lies in God's name. He does not seek Truth. He seeks to disprove Truth and Science because they do not fit his Belief. He is using his Belief to fight and distort Science and Truth. He is using his Belief to deceive others.

Rose claims that the theory of Evolution contradicts good science because science "totally rejects the spontaneous generation of life". In this, he is either lying or misinformed because the theory of Evolution does not address how life was created. Evolution only addresses how life evolved. Therefore, Rose's claim that the theory of Evolution contradicts good science is a false conclusion based on faulty logic and an inaccurate premise.

Regardless of whether Rose is intentionally lying or ignorantly misleading, the result is the same, and this behavior of fighting Science and Truth is detrimental to all mankind.

Rose may have the Belief that he is defending God, but I have the Belief that he is offending God. Neither of us can prove that our Belief is the correct one. He could claim the Bible as the basis for his Belief, but so could I. He may believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis's story of creation, but I believe it should not be taken literally. (No one takes the last book of the Bible, Revelation, literally, so why do they take the first book literally?)

My point is that Belief cannot be proven. Science can be. Sometimes, we can use Science to prove or disprove Belief. If Science shows that a Belief is wrong, like "the earth is flat", then we need to adjust our Belief.

That does not mean we have to change our Faith. Instead, we can and should use Science to adjust our Belief and strengthen our Faith. However, if you are the feel that an increase in Science equals a decrease in your Faith, then perhaps your Faith is not sincere.

True Faith is magnified by Science and withstands false Belief. When you understand that, you will understand that Science is not a threat, but ignorance is.

In The News

Here are the news stories that caught my attention today:

Former CIA official, contractor indicted

SAN DIEGO — The CIA's former No. 3 official was charged Tuesday with accepting lavish vacations, private jet flights and a job offer from his best friend, a defense contractor who in return is suspected of getting inside information that helped him win agency contracts.

A federal grand jury returned 11 counts of fraud, conspiracy and money laundering against Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, executive director of the CIA until he resigned in May, and San Diego defense contractor Brent Wilkes.

Foggo is the highest-ranking CIA officer to be charged with crimes allegedly committed while working for the agency. The charges grew from the bribery scandal that landed former U.S. Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham in prison.

These are some pretty serious charges, and their implications are heavy. This scandal represents some serious problems we have with our government which we Americans should take notice of and demand change, but most of the public will not pay attention unless sex is involved. So for those of you who do not pay attention to sexless scandals, there is this:

In addition, Wilkes spent more than $1,600 on prostitutes for himself and Cunningham at a Hawaiian resort in August 2003, the indictment alleges.

Needless to say this scandal reflects poorly on the CIA, but the Agency was already on my bad side with their extraordinary renditions that led to our country being responsible for torture:

EU Report Says Some Colluded With CIA

STRASBOURG, France (AP) - The European Parliament on Wednesday approved a report accusing Britain, Germany, Italy and other EU nations of turning a blind eye to CIA flights transporting terror suspects to secret prisons overseas in an apparent breach of EU human rights standards.

The report, concluding a yearlong high-profile investigation into CIA activities in Europe, gives no direct proof that the U.S. intelligence agency ran secret prisons in Europe, but accuses some governments of complicity with the U.S. secret renditions program.

Apparently, the CIA was helped by European countries in sending innocent people in Europe to other countries to be tortured. I guess I will be reconsidering any vacation plans that involve Europe because I haven't committed any terrorist acts and I don't like being electrocuted.

Speaking of terrorist acts, remember Osama bin Laden? Well, Bush still hasn't made any effort to catch the man behind 9/11, and now, during the House debate on the Iraq war, the Republican Minority Leader John Boehner finds himself agreeing with the terrorist who Bush has failed to bring to justice for the past five and a half years:

Wisdom of the ages invoked in Iraq debate

Boehner also quoted Osama bin Laden, the still-at-large al-Qaida terrorist leader behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"He said, and I'll quote, 'I would like to tell you that that the war is for you or for us to win. If we win, it means your defeat and disgrace forever.'"

This is the same rhetoric we have heard for years from Republicans. Now most Americans would be ashamed to agree with bin Laden, but not Republicans. No, sir. They go to bin Laden for a lot of their quotes. Most people would not believe in the words of this most infamous terrorist, but Republicans seem to trust him. They listen to that liar and base their foreign policies on whatever he says.

Shame on them. Shame on them for agreeing with and following the words of bin Laden, and shame on them for their lack of shame in doing so.

Osama bin Laden is a terrorist, probably the worst thing a person can be. When are these Republicans going to learn that we should fight him and capture him, not quote him, be deceived by him, and use his words against some Americans while decieving other Americans?

John Boehner, instead of using bin Laden to support your idiotic ideas on how to deal with Iraq, perhaps you should be demanding that Bush fight the real war on terrorism and capture bin Laden. Then he won't be around for you to make the stupid mistake of quoting him.

To continue the topic of Republicans being wrong, Bush keeps talking about how well the American economy is doing despite the evidence:

U.S. Trade Deficit Sets Another Record

(AP) The U.S. trade deficit set a record for the fifth straight year in 2006, reflecting a huge jump in America's foreign oil bill and a record imbalance with China. The year ended with the December deficit increasing more than had been expected.

The Commerce Department reported Tuesday that the gap between what America sells abroad and what it imports rose to a record $763.6 billion last year, a 6.5 percent increase from the previous record of $716.7 billion set in 2005. For December, the deficit rose a bigger-than-expected 5.3 percent to $61.2 billion.

The Bush administration attributed the string of deficits to the United States outpacing other countries in terms of economic growth. Officials said that President Bush would continue to pursue a strategy of opening foreign markets to U.S. goods rather than erecting protectionist barriers to keep out imports.

Bush fails to see the forest for the trees. He is not dealing with the full picture. He keeps talking about how well the economy is doing, but he is only looking at one aspect of the economy to say that the economy is strong and ignoring the rest of the economy which is weak. While the rich get richer, the American poor are getting poorer, the middle class is becoming poor, and the nation is going further in debt than ever before. It is the same deceptive practice that burned Enron, and it will burn us too if we do not do something about it. Getting rid of Bush and his deceitful economic policies would be a good start.

Here is more Bush deception regarding the economy (and veterans):

Veterans Face Consecutive Budget Cuts

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration's budget assumes cuts to funding for veterans' health care two years from now - even as badly wounded troops returning from Iraq could overwhelm the system.

Bush is using the cuts, critics say, to help fulfill his pledge to balance the budget by 2012. But even administration allies say the numbers are not real and are being used to make the overall budget picture look better.

After an increase sought for next year, the Bush budget would turn current trends on their head. Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing rapidly - by more than 10 percent in many years - White House budget documents assume consecutive cutbacks in 2009 and 2010 and a freeze thereafter.

The proposed cuts are unrealistic in light of recent VA budget trends - its medical care budget has risen every year for two decades and 83 percent in the six years since Bush took office - sowing suspicion that the White House is simply making them up to make its long-term deficit figures look better.

Either Bush is being deceitful about the cuts veterens healthcare to make his budget look good or he does not support the troops or both. In any case, it all furthers the notion that Bush is the worst president ever.

For the last news item and because it is Valentine's Day, I have an interesting story about this holiday:

Hindu, Muslim Groups Hold Protests In India On Valentine's Day

Hindu right wing activists and a radical Muslim women's group held protests in different parts of India Wednesday to protest Valentine's Day, news reports said.

About 150 members of the Hindu hardline Shiv Sena held at protest march at the main university campus in Delhi demanding a complete ban on such celebrations saying they had a "corrupting influence" on Indian youth, PTI news agency reported.

[...]

In Jaipur, capital of neighbouring Rajasthan state, members of several Hindu right wing groups kept a vigil on young couples romancing in parks and set fire to stacks of Valentine's Day cards and gifts while the police kept watch.

In Jammu and Kashmir state capital Srinagar, a radical Muslim women's group, the Dukhara-e-Millat, along with some other organizations raided gift shops and burnt cards and gifts, PTI reported.

"There is no place for Valentine's Day celebrations in Islamic society or Kashmiri culture as such events lead to immorality in society," Dukhtaran chief Aasiya Indrabi was quoted as saying.

[...]

"The day is a ploy on part of multinational companies to encourage consumerism and such celebrations are taking the country's youth away from their own traditions and culture," Delhi's Shiv Sena unit president Vijay Goel was quoted as saying.

So, just to be clear, Valentine's Day leads to "immorality in society", but raiding shops and burning the merchandise is okay?!

They might want to reconsider the idea that replacing such violent "traditions and culture" with a day that celebrates love is somehow a bad idea. Perhaps if they had a little celebration of love, they wouldn't feel the need for violence (if you know what I mean).

Another Reason To Leave Iraq

There is no excuse for this (like there was no excuse for going to war in Iraq in the first place):

Investigations into Michigan contractor killed by U.S. troops

DETROIT (AP) - Several investigations have been lauched into why a civilian contractor in Iraq was shot and killed by American troops as he drove toward a U.S. military checkpoint last week.

Truck driver Donald Tolfree, 52, of St. Charles, drove through a U.S. military checkpoint Feb. 5 before realizing he was in the wrong convoy, attorney Patrick Greenfelder, who represents Tolfree's daughter, told The Associated Press on Sunday.

Tolfree turned around and was driving back toward the checkpoint when he was shot in the head and killed, Greenfelder said.

More Torture

More torture has been done in our name thanks to George "we don't torture" Bush. Why aren't more Americans aren't outraged by this? Bush should be gone for many reasons, but torture is probably the most disgusting reason.

Egypt frees cleric in CIA case, lawyer says

CAIRO -- Egyptian authorities have released a Muslim cleric kidnapped in a suspected CIA operation in Italy and handed to Egypt, the cleric's lawyer said yesterday.

Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, also known as Abu Omar, was grabbed off a Milan street in 2003 and flown to Egypt. He said he had been tortured there by Egyptian agents using electric shocks, beatings, rape threats, and genital abuse.

These examples of torture make me so sick because they go against what I was brought up to believe about the ideal of America, land of the free, home of the brave.

This is why I cannot stand George W. Bush. He has violated my country. I am not upset at all when people burn an American flag because it is just a piece of cloth, not my country. However, George W. Bush is burning my country with his torture, his wars, his idiocy, his lack of respect for my country, his willingness to destroy freedom to "protect" freedom, his inability to do anything right. We do not need a Flag Burning Amendment because flag burning does not harm anyone, but we do need a George W. Bush Amendment because he is harming us all.

Help BlogPAC Fight Back

Despite the fact that last year's elections are over and the 2008 elections are relatively far away, the right-wing noise machine is not resting, and we cannot rest either. Already their smear tactics have begun all three Democratic presidential front-runners (Clinton, Obama, and Edwards). It will be easier if we fight back now before their current trivial and little-known attacks grow into future candidate-crushing narratives known by the entire public. That is what happened with the swiftboat attacks on Kerry, and we cannot let that happen again.

This time the attack is on Edwards, and regardless of who you support in the primary, we need to defend all our primary candidates against smear campaigns and lies. (It will be good practice for the general election.) BlogPAC is organizing the defense on this one:

Fight back against media hypocrisy - Defend our fellow bloggers!

Over the past week, right-wing media sources have made two progressive bloggers who were recently hired by the John Edwards campaign, Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon and Melissa McEwan of Shakespeare’s Sister, targets for character assassination. Establishment media outlets, including ABC News, CNN, the Associated Press, and the New York Times, have uncritically "reported" these attacks.

The media coverage of this story been riddled with blatant double standards that favors conservatives over progressives. It is bitterly ironic that established news outlets are failing to provide context, do proper research, and uphold basic standards of journalism on a story about bloggers.

Tell these outlets that they need to stop being little more than stenographers for right-wing swiftboat attacks.

My Outrage Leaves Me Speechless

Here is why I am outraged (not surprised, but still outraged):

Report Says Pentagon Manipulated Intel

WASHINGTON (AP) - A ``very damning'' report by the Defense Department's inspector general depicts a Pentagon that purposely manipulated intelligence in an effort to link Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida in the runup to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, says the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

``That was the argument that was used to make the sale to the American people about the need to go to war,'' said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. He said the Pentagon's work, ``which was wrong, which was distorted, which was inappropriate ... is something which is highly disturbing.''

Update: NPR, who is reporting on this story, has posted the IG's report on their website (in pdf format):

Review of Pre-Iraqi War Activities of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative assessments on the Iraq and al-Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers. While such actions were not illegal or unauthorized, the actions were, in our opinion, inappropriate given that the intelligence assessments were inelligence products and did not clearly show the variance with the consensus of the Intelligence Community.

News Bites

Here are some news stories that I started to write about but never finished. Maybe I will get to them another time.

Minimum wage bill heads to negotiations

New war intelligence: How bad it is

Wal-Mart Rips Off Taxpayers by Paying Rent to Itself

Bush budget hikes war funding

The Global Warming Report

The groundhog predicts an early spring this year? Either the groundhog did not see its shadow today or it saw the UN's Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) report on global warming that came out today:

Mankind to blame for global warming say scientists

PARIS (Reuters) - The world's top climate scientists said on Friday global warming was man-made, spurring calls for urgent government action to prevent severe and irreversible damage from rising temperatures.

The United Nations panel, which groups 2,500 scientists from more than 130 nations, predicted more droughts, heatwaves, rains and a slow gain in sea levels that could last for more than 1,000 years.

[...]

A 21-page summary of IPCC findings for policy makers outlines wrenching change such as a possible melting of Arctic sea ice in summers by 2100 and says it is "more likely than not" that greenhouse gases have made tropical cyclones more intense.

The report predicts a "best estimate" that temperatures would rise by between 1.8 and 4.0 Celsius (3.2 and 7.8 Fahrenheit) in the 21st century, within a likely range from 1.1 to 6.4 Celsius.

Temperatures rose 0.7 degrees in the 20th century and the 10 hottest years since records began in the 1850s have been since 1994.

Well, maybe now the Bush administration will take global warming seriously.

The head of the U.S. delegation defended Bush's policies that brake the rise of emissions rather than cap them.

Or maybe not.

Bush pulled out of Kyoto, saying caps would harm the economy and that Kyoto should include developing nations.

Harm the economy? Harm the economy?! Didn't Hurricane Katrina harm the economy?!

Tell me, Mr. Bush, what will hurt the economy more, capping CO2 emissions and swithching to green energy or the New York Stock Exchange becoming an aquarium?

The report projects a rise in sea levels of between 18 and 59 centimetres (7 and 23 inches) in the 21st century -- and said bigger gains could not be ruled out if ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland thaw.

These projections are far enough in the future that perhaps Bush feels he won't be around to suffer the consequences of his own inaction, but then he still goes crazy over the Social Security issue which will similarly have no effect on him thanks to the silver spoon he has had in his mouth since day one.

(As an aside to the Social Security issue, the reason S.S. and many other government programs have financial issues is largely because of Bush's dual and dueling money pits called "tax cuts for the rich" and "war in Iraq". It is typical for Bush to be the reason why our government has a problem, blame the problem on government, and say that we need to trust him to fix the government that was under his control when the problem was created. That is the logic of a lunatic.)

Speaking of lunatic logic, here is an article about the American Enterprise Institute's response to the UN report:

US thinktank offering cash to dispute UN climate panel: report

A right-wing American thinktank is offering 10,000 dollars (7,700 euros) to scientists and economists to dispute a climate change report set to be released by the UN's top scientific panel, media reported.

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI), which receives funding from oil giant ExxonMobil according to the Guardian, sent letters to scientists in the United States, Britain and elsewhere offering the payments in exchange for articles emphasising the shortcoming of the UN's report.

[...]

Kenneth Green, the AEI visiting scholar who sent the letters, confirmed to The Guardian that the thinktank had approached scientists and analysts to pen essays that would be compiled into an independent review of the IPCC's report.

Independent? Ha ha ha! This guy is hilarious!

The IPCC's report is already independent, AEI and ExxonMobil are anything but independent, and Green's suggestion otherwise is nothing but laughable.

Green's stand-up routine continues:

"Right now, the whole debate is polarized," Green was quoted as saying by the newspaper.

"One group says that anyone with any doubts whatsoever are deniers and the other group is saying that anyone who wants to take action is alarmist. We don't think that approach has a lot of utility for intelligent policy."

Ha ha ha! Man, this guy could be the next Seinfeld. NBC should look into whether this guy already has a development deal with another network.

First off, this guy claims there's some "group" out there calling those who want to take action "alarmist" as if AEI, the "think"tank he works for, isn't that "group".

Second, he does not think the approach of these groups (AEI being one of them) has "a lot of utility for intelligent policy," but he apparently does think AEI's approach of PAYING PEOPLE TO LIE has a lot of utility for intelligent policy. Ridiculous.

Let's talk about intelligent policy. Intelligent policy is seeking evidence and responding to the facts. It is absurd that we still have to put up with deniers who want us to do otherwise and hold us back with their unintelligent policies.

We already have people who deny the Holocaust and people who deny that we landed on the Moon despite all supporting evidence based on fact. Now we have people who want to deny global warming despite supporting evidence based on fact.

They are such a small minority, but they are a powerful minority. They are powerful enough to sow doubt about global warming in the public and reap the inaction that will lead to disaster. They do the same with pollution, extinction, poverty, and health care. For example, here is a disturbing story of how doubts about pollution lead to inaction and, subsequently, disaster:

Oily, smelly snow falls over Siberian region

MOSCOW — Russian emergency workers have flown to a Siberian region where smelly and multicoloured snow fell earlier this week covering about 100 square kilometres, officials said Friday.

The snow, which fell Wednesday afternoon, was yellow, green and orange and had an oily texture and unpleasant smell, the Emergency Situations Ministry said.

Officials in the Omsk region, about 2,250 kilometres east of Moscow, had warned local residents not to use the snow for drinking or other purposes, and to keep domestic animals from it, the ministry said.

Right now, there are no explanations for the snow nor indications of what harm it might do to the environment. The point I want to make is that the evidence for pollution and global warming is all around us. Pollution is a real problem. Global warming is a real problem. We must change our ways and take care of our planet. The debate on environmentalism is over. The environmentalists have won despite what the polluters, ExxonMobil, or their paid thinkers think, and regardless, we are out of time for debate.

The time for action is now. The time for action was ten years ago. The longer we wait, the more desperate our situation becomes.

We must act now before we are unable to act.