Capitulation

I don't really have anything to say that hasn't already been said, and I am so weighed down by my disappointment with the Democrats in Congress that I don't have the will to say much anyway.

I will, at least, reinforce some points with which I agree:

We voted the Democrats into power in Congress to end the war in Iraq, and their capitulation to Bush and his desire to continue the occupation in Iraq yesterday goes beyond betrayal. What kind of democracy do we have when 70% of the public wants to end our occupation in Iraq and our President and our Congress act in opposition to the will of that 70%?

For all our politicians' claims of supporting "democracy," they sure have a hypocritical way of showing it.

More Proof of Global Warming

How much more proof do we need before deceivers like Glenn Beck stop denying the truth?

Vast Regions Of West Antarctica Melted In Recent Past, NASA Finds

Science Daily — A team of NASA and university scientists has found clear evidence that extensive areas of snow melted in west Antarctica in January 2005 in response to warm temperatures. This was the first widespread Antarctic melting ever detected with NASA's QuikScat satellite and the most significant melt observed using satellites during the past three decades. The affected regions encompass a combined area as big as California.

MoveOn.org Petition For General Batiste

CBS fired General Batiste for making a commercial in which he criticizes George W. Bush's handling of Iraq. If he had made a commercial that supports Bush, the hypocrites at CBS would never have considered firing him. It part of the "IOKIYAR" double standard.

MoveOn.org is fighting back with a petition:

Subject: Help Stop Censorship at CBS

Hi,

Remember when shock-jock Don Imus used racist and misogynistic terms to refer to a women's college basketball team? Well, it took CBS two weeks to fire him for that but it only took them TWO DAYS to fire a respected General from Iraq for speaking out against the president on the war.

CBS shouldn't be censoring or firing people for speaking their mind. I signed a petition urging CBS to re-hire General Batiste -- can you join me at the link below?

http://pol.moveon.org/batiste/?r_by=10331-5988583-D8WKFt&rc=paste

There's more information on the firing on that page, too.

Thanks!

Global Warming Worse Than We Thought

It may seem like every war waged by George W. Bush has been a prolonged disaster, but there is one war he wages that is going extremely well and is ahead of schedule: The War on Ice.

Arctic ice cap melting 30 years ahead of forecast

By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent | May 1, 2007

WASHINGTON --The Arctic ice cap is melting much faster than expected and is now about 30 years ahead of predictions made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.S. ice expert said Tuesday.

This means the ocean at the top of the world could be free or nearly free of summer ice by 2020, three decades sooner than the global panel's gloomiest forecast of 2050.

No ice on the Arctic Ocean during summer would be a major spur to global warming, said Ted Scambos, a glaciologist at the National Snow and Ice Center in Colorado.

"Right now ... the Arctic helps keep the Earth cool," Scambos said in a telephone interview. "Without that Arctic ice, or with much less of it, the Earth will warm much faster."

That is because the ice reflects light and heat; when it is gone, the much darker land or sea will absorb more light and heat, making it more difficult for the planet to cool down, even in winter, he said.

Middle East Update

How are things going in the Middle East?

U.S. April death toll in Iraq passes 100

By Kim Gamel, Associated Press Writer | April 30, 2007

BAGHDAD --Five U.S. military personnel were killed over the weekend in Iraq, including three by a roadside bomb in Baghdad, the military said Monday, pushing the American death toll past 100 in the deadliest month so far this year.

Iraq reconstruction 'not working

Six out of eight Iraqi reconstruction projects hailed as successes by the US government are in fact failures, a US federal investigation has found.

The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (Sigir) examined works including a hospital, a barracks and Baghdad international airport.

Blaming ongoing unrest and spiralling corruption they said most were falling apart within as little as six months.

Faulty plumbing and wiring and looting have reportedly worsened the situation.

Corruption amongst Iraqi officials is cited as one of the main causes for the chaos.

According to the report $5bn is lost annually to the fraud and abuse which "afflicts virtually every Iraqi ministry", particularly the oil, interior and defence ministries.

Anti-US rallies follow deadly raid in Afghanistan

Civilians killed in attack on militants

By Rahim Faiez, Associated Press | April 30, 2007

KABUL, Afghanistan -- A US-led raid yesterday on a suspected militant cell killed as many as six Afghans, including a woman and a teenage girl, and spawned protests by hundreds of angry Afghans chanting "Death to Bush!"

The United States said four militants were among the dead, but it was the civilian deaths that infuriated the protesters, who carried five bodies to a main highway and blocked traffic with felled trees during the demonstration. The bodies of the women were entirely covered by sheets, while the men's faces were revealed.

"Their operation was based on incorrect reports, and they carried out a cruel attack on these houses," resident Akhtar Mohammad said at the protest. "We are not the enemy, we are not Al Qaeda. Why are they attacking us?"

Republican Track Record

I usually write for my blog whenever something inspires me, but sometimes I get inspired to write yet find myself speechless. Fortunately, when that happens, I usually come across another writer's words that say exactly what I would write if I was not stumped.

This time Hunter on DailyKos beautifully articulates my feelings about Rudy Giuliani's recent suggestion that if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, then we will be more susceptible to more attacks like 9/11:

Not Breaking: Rudy Giuliani Is A Fearmongering Jackass

[...]Yes. If a Republican is elected, they can "anticipate" terrorist attacks. You know, perhaps because staff members with their "hair on fire" are warning them of the high risk of terrorist attacks. Perhaps because staff members are trying to educate them in vain about a recent ongoing history of terrorist attacks. Perhaps because somebody practically staples a memo to the Republican President's forehead dramatically entitled, in a large and bolded font, "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S." MAYBE SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

[...]I was pondering over this last night, as a matter of fact, so let's think about this for a minute. Under six years of President Bush, there have been major terrorist attacks on two American cities, public-safety-threatening electricity blackouts artificially created by major energy corporations in an effort to extort the recipients of that electricity, deficits that have reached crisis proportions, criminal indictments of Republican congressmen nationwide and even of Republican White House staffers, one of Americas "crown jewel" cities was in large part destroyed and its population turned into refugees battling a national government response that ranged from incompetent to absent, the defacto suspensions of habeas and other Constitutional rights, the international diplomatic isolation of America, and there have been two major wars, both ongoing.

I recommend reading the whole post.

I honestly do not understand how the numbers between potential presidential candidates in polls are even close between the opposing political parties. I look at everything... EVERYTHING that has happened during Bush's terms, and I cannot fathom how anyone could even consider voting for another four years of a Republican presidency. (Then again, I cannot fathom how anyone voted for Bush in 2004 after they had four years to experience his incompetence.)

Some moderates may claim, "Oh, all politicians are the same." They are wrong. That might have been true twenty or fifteen years ago, but it just is not true anymore.

I used to be a moderate and an independent before George W Bush became president. From the moment the Supreme Court installed him as president over the will of the majority of the American people, I knew his presidency would be terrible. Even before his inadequacies as a leader became so blatantly obvious, before he even took the oath of office (which he has broken countless times since), I never imagined he could ever be re-elected. Then he not only proved to be the very definition of incompetent but also proved to essentially be an evil dictator.

Because of Bush:

we were attacked on 9/11

we invaded Iraq because of lies.

we did not finish our job in Afghanistan.

we did not capture Osama bin Laden.

we are still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

we have not properly aided the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

we have record deficits and a record national debt.

we have a shrinking middle class.

we have prolonged the fight against global warming.

we have an increase in terrorism worldwide.

we are viewed negatively by the rest of the world.

we are responsible for Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and other examples of torture and abuses of human rights.

we have the Jack Abramoff scandal.

we the fired US Attorneys scandal.

we have the Valerie Plame scandal.

we had the Enron scandal.

we have evil men like Cheney and Rove in positions of power.

we have incompetent men like Gonzales in power.

we have corporation advocates overseeing their own industries.

we have had corporations writing the laws that affect them.

we have our troops held hostage by a President who ignores the public which he is supposed to work for.

we have an White House that ignores reality and the rule of law.

we have seen an increase in poverty.

we have seen an increase in job-killing Free Trade Agreements.

we have seen an increase in CEO pay benefits and an decrease in pay and benefits for everyone else.

we have an extreme right-wing Supreme Court.

we have a Supreme Court who has begun to dismantle Roe v. Wade at the expense of women's health.

we have had illegal wiretapping of Americans.

we have had illegal searches of our phone records.

we have had the Geneva Conventions violated by the White House.

we have had our Constitution violated by the White House.

we have had the right to habeas corpus violated by the White House.

we have had the breakdown of our system of checks and balances.

we have the most criminal and unethical White House in our nation's history.

The list just goes on and on, and after all that has happened in the last several years, how anyone could even think of voting for another Republican president is beyond insanity.

Giuliani and the other Republican presidential candidates cannot offer any positive change or reform because they agree with almost everything the Bush administration has done.

I cannot take another Republican presidency after Bush. Our country cannot take... cannot afford another Republican presidency after Bush.

We need to restore our country to what it once was, and no current Republican candidate is willing to do that.

All politicians are not the same, not anymore. Things are so unbalanced these days that I do not recognize my country anymore.

Could you imagine if a Republican was arguing against habeas corpus and for torture twenty years ago? They would not be in politics anymore if they did that twenty years ago, but today they can be Attorney General or Vice President.

Everything has been so unbalanced these last several years. I would expect the current political climate from an episode of the Twilight Zone or some Orwellian story, but not in reality in America in the 21st century.

I want my country back.

(I guess I was not so speechless afterall.)

Update: Olbermann did one of his impressive Special Comments on this topic and CrooksandLiars.com has the video. Watch it.

President Bush Is Against Democracy

Bush is (once again) a hypocrite (h/t to ThinkProgress.org):

House Approves A Full D.C. Seat

A bill giving the District its first full seat in Congress cleared the House yesterday, marking the city's biggest legislative victory in its quest for voting rights in nearly three decades.

Democrats on the House floor burst into applause, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) grabbed the arms of the District's nonvoting delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton, as the 241 to 177 vote was announced.

"There was nothing but joy in the chamber this afternoon, because we knew we had given this bill the kind of send-off that can get it through the Senate," Norton (D) said later.

But the bill faces considerable obstacles. Democrats don't appear to have enough votes in the Senate to avoid a filibuster, and the White House has threatened a veto. If the measure becomes law, it probably will be challenged in court.

Bush is a liar and a hypocrite when he says he is wants to spread democracy, but he refuses to spread democracy IN HIS OWN COUNTRY!

This bill would give a voting rights to the congressional representative in Washington, D.C. and, to make things "fair", give Utah an additional seat in the House of Representatives. However, I would contend that because it is unfair and unjust that residents of D.C. have no current representation with voting rights then simply giving them a voting representative would make it fair; you should not have to give Utah an additional seat.

I am happy that this effort was made to give D.C. residents a voting representative in Congress, but I am disappointed with its inadequacy. D.C. residents are Americans, and as such, they deserve represenatation in Congress equal to what all other Americans have. That means they need to be represented by one Representative in the House of Representatives and two Senators in the Senate. Period.

Now, I know no Republican in Congress or the White House is going to allow the strongly Democratic constituency of D.C. its own set of Senators and most are hesitant to even allow D.C. a voting Representative, but that is no excuse to punish residents of D.C. by denying them the rights given to all other Americans. It is a blatant form of voter fraud and morally reprehensible to deny D.C. residents Congressional representation because of their party affiliation, and the Republicans should be ashamed of themselves for continuing this unethical practice.

At the same time, I am not satisfied with this current bill, and I think we should do more than what it proposes. My solution would be to allow D.C. residents to be represented by and to vote for the Senators of another state (preferably a bordering state) and another congressional district (preferably a bordering congressional district). Then there would be no need to create any new seats in Congress or to have to spend any more tax dollars on such seats or their staff. It does not matter whether their represenatation comes from more than one state as long as they have the same amount of representation that all Americans are due.

Denying Americans their right to full representation in Congress is morally wrong. After over 200 years of this violation of our democracy, it is time we make amends.

It Is Over For McCain (and Gonzales)

I would now like to reiterate my belief that John McCain has lost the election:

Bomb Iran, sings US candidate

REPUBLICAN 2008 presidential candidateJohn McCain crooned the words "Bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys' Barbara Ann in a joking response to a question about any possible US attack over Tehran's suspected nuclear weapons program.

"That old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran ... bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb," the Vietnam War veteran warbled softly to the band's Barbara Ann when he was asked when the United States would send an "airmail message" to Iran.

It's bad enough when some ignorant racist makes this joke, but when a candidate for the President of the United States (the person who can decide to bomb a country) makes this joke (especially when they are campaigning), their candidacy is over.

It might be over for Alberto Gonzales too. I listened to most of his testimony to the Senate yesterday, and it did not sound good. He is a disgrace. He should have resigned as soon as his testimony ended. Of course, someone who promotes torture and thinks the Geneva Conventions are quaint never should have become Attorney General in the first place, but such is life in the Twilight Zone-like world of the Bush administration.

Not even the Republican Senators on the committee could defend Gonzales except for Senator Hatch (R-UT) who is an incredulous hack and Senator Kyl (R-AZ) who cowardly and absurdly changed the topic to "internet gambling." Is Kyl insane? Our country is experiencing some very serious Constitutional and ethical violations from the executive branch, and all he cares about is internet gambling?

Thanks a lot, Arizona. Reelecting Kyl in 2006 was a great idea![/sarcasm]

In The Mix

I saw some interesting posts today that I did want to mention briefly.

From DailyKos:

Here's the Friday News Dump -- Abstinence Only FAILS

by pontificator

Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 01:40:15 PM PDT

So, the Bush administration releases, late on a Friday, a government report showing that abstinence-only education programs have utterly failed to stop teens from having unprotected sex, or indeed from having sex at all

The Mahablog (via CrooksandLiars.com) eviscerates Fred Thompson's use of Pres. Calvin Coolidge's tax cuts to support the baseless, conservative lie that tax cuts grow the economy:

Shameless Hustles and Tax Cuts

One of the triumphs of the Coolidge Administration was the passage of his tax program in 1926; the photograph shows him signing it. The Coolidge program “repealed the gift tax, halved estate taxes, substantially cut surtaxes on great wealth, and reduced income taxes for all,” it says here. The photo is dated February 26, 1926. Assuming that is accurate, We Now Know that the Stock Market Crash of 1929 was only slightly over three years and seven months away. The Great Depression followed soon after.

Paul Wolfowitz Scandal

I would write something about the Paul Wolfowitz scandal, but I could not possibly do a better job than this post on DailyKos:

Sex, Lies, and Wolfowitz

by Devilstower
Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 07:23:39 AM PDT
Even the most hackneyed of Hollywood schlockmeisters wouldn't dare to reuse a plot so often. Iraq. Katrina. The story is always the same. It starts with some vaguely formed plan that, while it may be packed in words we usually think of as good (freedom, democracy, etc.) lacks any real substance or detail. Said plan is then executed with blind arrogance, and a stiff-necked insistence that reality must be ignored until it can be made to conform with the goals. And while the rest of the world is forced to smash its nose against the fantasy, those in charge bumble on with the confidence that their vision is so innately superior that they can act as they will.

No one executes this script like Paul Wolfowitz. As the chief architect of Iraq policy, Wolfowitz was "certain we will be greeted as liberators." His plan called for us to march along flower-strewn streets wearing crowns of laurel leaves, watch as Iraqi's renamed their capital Georgebushdad, and ride the tidal wave of freedom that would sweep the Middle East. Funny thing is, that's still the plan. One of the core concepts of any neocon fantasy is that if at first you fail, just keep putting more people in harm's way until the bad guys tire of killing them. 100,000 U.S. casualties, maybe a million dead Iraqis. Then comes the flowers, just you wait and see.

After failing upward into the leadership of the World Bank, Wolfowitz launched a crusade against corruption.

The rest of the post goes on to dissect the neo-con way of thinking and how Wolfowitz abused his power to benefit his girlfriend.

[...]Having secured for his girlfriend a job at the State Department where the World Bank treated her to a $193,000 tax free salary (which is, by the way, greater than that of Condoleezza Rice), Wolfowitz's credentials as a fighter of corruption are now on par with Kim Jung Il's bona fides for pushing democracy.

He's followed the neocon script to the letter. Launch a quixotic but laudable-sounding quest, disregard how your actions may be harming the people you are supposedly helping, and demonstrate your disdain for the rules as they apply to yourself. Truly, nobody does it better.

I strongly recommend reading the whole post. ThinkProgress.org also has some good stories on Wolfowitz.

And can I just mention how much it sickens me that Wolfowitz got his girlfriend a raise of over $60,000 (from $132,660 to $193,590 tax free). I wish I could make $60,000 a year, but this woman got a raise of $60,000! That's almost a 46% raise! I am not gay nor am I remotely attracted to Wolfowitz, but I can understand why it would be tempting to date him.

Republican Hypocrisy On Stem Cell Research

There is good news and bad news on the issue of stem cell research. The good news is that the Senate voted for funding it. The bad news is that Bush will veto it, and while an override seems close, it ultimately may be out of reach:

Senate OKs stem cell bill; veto likely

WASHINGTON -- The Senate voted Wednesday to ease restrictions on federally funded embryonic stem cell research, ignoring President Bush's threat of a second veto on legislation designed to lead to new medical treatments.

The 63-34 result was four votes shy of the margin needed to enact the measure over presidential opposition.

If the three Democrats (Dodd (D-CT), Johnson (D-SD), Landrieu (D-LA)) who abstained from voting, were to vote to override Bush's expected veto, that would bring the tally to 66-34, one vote away from an override. And if one of the two Democrats (Casey (D-PA), Nelson (D-NE (I am very disappointed in them)) or any of the Republicans who voted against this bill switch their vote for the override (very unlikely), then Bush's veto would be moot (if the House overides it too). However, that is a lot of "if"s, and I do not think that all that will happen.

Federal funding for stem cell research will probably be delayed until after Bush leaves office. As for the Republicans who voted against this, they are are now in for a tough fight to keep their seats, especially those with elections in 2008. Just so I do not forget who they are, here is the list of Republicans who voted against this bill. I'll put a "*" next to the ones whose seats are up for election in 2008 (at least as far as I can remember right now):

Allard (R-CO)*
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Chambliss (R-GA)*
Coburn (R-OK)
Coleman (R-MN)*
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)*
Craig (R-ID)*
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)*
Domenici (R-NM)*
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)*
Graham (R-SC)*
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagel (R-NE)*
Inhofe (R-OK)*
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Martinez (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)*
Roberts (R-KS)*
Sessions (R-AL)*
Shelby (R-AL)
Sununu (R-NH)*
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)

The senators who voted against federal funding for stem cell research may feel that they have done the right thing, and I can respect that. However, I also strongly believe that their votes are inherently immoral, and, if they claim to be "pro-life", their vote is hypocritical. I, and many others who feel the same, will strongly campaign against them for this.

Stem cell research has the potential to save lives, and the embryos that would be used for stem cell research will instead be incinerated. They will never have a chance to become a human life, so those who are against stem cell research because they claim it destroys human life are either lying or misguided.

Claiming to be "pro-life" and being against stem cell research is hypocrisy, and on top of this hypocritical "pro-life" position on stem cell research, there is this:

"This legislation crosses a moral line that would use taxpayer dollars to destroy human embryos, and that's a moral line the president said he would not cross, and for those reasons he would veto this bill as well," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

I strongly disagree with those who voted against this stem cell research bill and feel their reasons for doing so are greatly flawed, but I can, at least, understand why those reasons exist. What I do not understand and what makes me immensely irate is the hypocrisy of stating that using taxpayer dollars to "destroy human embryos" crosses a moral line while simultaneously USING TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO DESTROY ACTUAL HUMAN LIVES IN IRAQ! Why do "pro-lifers" like Bush think it is acceptable use taxpayer dollars to destroy American and Iraqi lives? "Pro-lifers" tend to equate embryos with human lives, but by their own ridiculous logic, they seem to value embryos more than our troops.

Additionally, the premises of their argument are aggravatingly false. "Pro-lifers" would not save any embryos from destruction by preventing stem cell research, and their hair-splitting differentiation over the "morality" of whether an embryo is destroyed for stem cell research or just plain destroyed is absurd and, given the potential of stem cell research, possibly deadly.

Bush and his followers may be "anti-stem cell research", but their claim of being "pro-life" is a joke, and it is hypocrisy.

The Occupation Of Iraq Getting Worse, Not Better

Every day we get more and more bad news about the situation in Iraq, and everyday we get someone from the White House (or McCain or Lieberman) to say how great things are in Iraq. So who are we going to believe, them or our own eyes?

Well, let's see, in my almost thirty years of life my eyes have never lied to me. Politicians, on the other hand, do not have such a trustworthy reputation.

I think I am going to go with what my own eyes are telling me, and from what the polls are showing, around 70% (give or take) of Americans also are believing their eyes rather than the White House's lies.

As for the other 30%, well, they might be a lost cause, but that does not mean we should give up hope. We must continue to speak out against politicians like Senator John McCain everytime he lies about Iraq like this:

McCain firm on Iraq war

WASHINGTON -- Attempting to restart his flagging presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain delivered a dark and detailed portrait of the situation in Iraq as he assailed Democratic opponents of the war in an address at the Virginia Military Institute on Wednesday.

He maintained that the military has made "measurable progress" in securing Baghdad and fighting insurgents in Anbar province, an assertion that has drawn ridicule from war opponents. At the same time, the Arizona Republican said, "to deny the difficulties and uncertainties ahead is an egregious disservice to the public."

[...]"Will this nation's elected leaders make the politically hard but strategically vital decision to give Gen. Petraeus our full support and do what is necessary to succeed in Iraq?" McCain said. "Or will we decide to take advantage of the public's frustration, accept defeat and hope that, whatever the cost to our security, the politics of defeat will work out better for us than our opponents? For my part, I would rather lose a campaign than a war."

Politics of defeat? How about the politics of delusion, McCain?

Everything McCain and Bush and their ilk are saying about Iraq is based on lies. Every argument for invading Iraq was a lie, and the lies continue. Bush did not begin a "surge" in Iraq; he started an escalation. The situation in Iraq is not getting better; it is getting worse. This is not a "war"; this is an occupation. The war was over when four years ago when Baghdad fell. This is an occupation that Bush has escalated because things were getting worse, and that has not changed despite the escalation:

Red Cross: Iraqi Situation Getting Worse

GENEVA (AP) - Millions of Iraqis are in a ``disastrous'' situation that is getting worse, with mothers appealing for someone to pick up the bodies on the street so their children will be spared the horror of looking at them on their way to school, the international Red Cross said Wednesday.

[...]Medical professionals also have been fleeing the country after cases where their colleagues were killed or abducted, the group said in a 13-page report. ``Hospitals and other key services are desperately short of staff,'' Kraehenbuehl said. ``According to the Iraqi Ministry of Health, more than half the doctors are said to have already left the country.''

The report, ``Civilians without Protection: The Ever-Worsening Humanitarian Crisis in Iraq,'' was produced over the past two to three weeks, a spokesman said - well after the stepped-up American-led military operations in the capital began Feb. 14.

[...]``Once I was called to an explosion site,'' it quoted a young Baghdad humanitarian worker named Saad as saying. ``There I saw a 4-year-old boy sitting beside his mother's body, which had been decapitated by the explosion. He was talking to her, asking her what had happened.''

That news is horrible enough, but today, insurgents were able to attack members of the Iraqi parliament within the Green Zone, the most heavily protected area in all of Iraq. This is solid proof that things are getting worse:

Explosion hits Iraqi parliament; 2 dead

BAGHDAD (AP) — A bomb exploded in the Iraqi parliament's cafeteria in a stunning assault in the heart of the heavily fortified, U.S.-protected Green Zone Thursday, killing at least two lawmakers and wounding 10 other people.

The blast in the parliament building came hours after a suicide truck bomb blew up a major bridge in Baghdad, collapsing the steel structure and sending cars tumbling into the Tigris River, police and witnesses said. At least 10 people were killed.

The bomb in parliament went off in a cafeteria while several lawmakers were eating lunch, media reports said. In addition to the two dead, state television said at least 10 people were wounded.

If that does not convince the other 30% of the populace that still believes the Bush administration that they are being lied to, then I do not know what will. Maybe this:

Army Extends Iraq Tours to 15 Months

WASHINGTON (AP) - Stretched thin by four years of war, the Army is adding three months to the standard yearlong tour for all active-duty soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, an extraordinary step aimed at maintaining the troop buildup in Baghdad.

The change, announced Wednesday by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, is the latest blow to an all-volunteer Army that has been given ever-shorter periods of rest and retraining at home between overseas deployments.

Or this:

Report: Claims Reveal Toll of U.S. Wars

NEW YORK (AP) - Iraqi and Afghan civilians have received more than $32 million in compensation from the Army for noncombat-related killings, injuries and property damage, The New York Times reported Thursday.

The details of hundreds of the claims, obtained from the Army by the American Civil Liberties Union through a Freedom of Information Act request, offer a glimpse into the daily violence that has marred the lives of civilians in both war zones.

And these are just the stories from today.

The ratio of these reports on the worsening situation in Iraq per day are horrifying. I am amazed that anyone still supports this war, but 30%?! That is beyond absurd.

Our military occupation of Iraq must end now.

The White House likes to call us defeatists, but they have already been defeated in the public's perception here and abroad. The majorities of both Americans and Iraqis want our troops out of Iraq.

The White House likes to question our patriotism. Well, I question theirs with their insulting and immoral penchant to lie daily to the American people, sacrifice our soldiers for Bush's "glory", waste our hard-earned money, risk our economic stability, exploit Iraq for greed, and destroy the Iraqi people.

This is an escalation of conflict, not a surge. The situation in Iraq is getting worse, not better. This is an occupation, not a war. Occupations cannot be won or lost, but they do end. Occupations end when the occupiers decide to leave or when the occupiers eliminate everyone who wants them to leave.

I would prefer it if we just leave.

Rendering The Electoral College Obsolete

Sometimes, I get the feeling that some people believe that the founding fathers of our country were incapable of making mistakes. (I usually get that feeling whenever I hear or read something Justice Scalia said.) Many times, people use the founding fathers as an excuse or "support" for their beliefs as if the founding fathers were human infallible.

Now, I truly appreciate that the founding fathers have us the incredibly strong foundation upon which a great country was built, but to think of them as infallible is just infantile. Their misguided, racist, misogynistic views on race and gender allowed for deplorable policies like the continuation of slavery, the hypocritical three-fifths compromise, the mistreatment of native americans, the denial of women's suffrage, and the second-class citizenship of anyone who wasn't a white, male landowner.

While there have been many successful attempts to correct the mistakes of our founding fathers throughout our nation's history, there are still problems they created that have not yet been rectified. Two of these problems are blaring failings in our devotion to democracy. These failings are the Electoral College and the denial of representation in the House of Representatives and in the Senate for the citizens of Washington, D.C. (Washington, D.C. does have a Congressperson in the House of Representatives, but that position does not have the ability to vote in Congress.)

Fortunately, there are organizations who are trying to correct these inadequacies in our democracy, and in Maryland, progress was made in rendering the Electoral College obsolete (As for the D.C. issue, visit DCVote.org for more information on their campaign to support voting rights for Americans in D.C.):

Maryland sidesteps Electoral College

ANNAPOLIS, Md. --Maryland officially became the first state on Tuesday to approve a plan to give its electoral votes for president to the winner of the national popular vote instead of the candidate chosen by state voters.

Gov. Martin O'Malley, a Democrat, signed the measure into law, one day after the state's General Assembly adjourned.

The measure would award Maryland's 10 electoral votes to the national popular vote winner. The plan would only take effect if states representing a majority of the nation's 538 electoral votes decided to make the same change.

If our country was a true democracy, the Electoral College would not exist, Gore would have won the 2000 election without any need for a recount, and Bush would not have become president. Unfortuately, even though the Electoral College system is unfair, unpopular, and not democratic, ridding oursleves of it would take a Constitutional amendment which would be very difficult to pass because Republicans think that fair elections will hurt their chances in presidential elections. I do not know why they think fair elections will hurt them, but what does it say about a party if they are against fair elections?

Hopefully, enough states follow Maryland on this issue, and then we can bypass the Electoral College entirely. Then, perhaps, we will prevent another disastrous presidency like that of George W. Bush.

U.S. Known For Torture Because Of Bush

I remember a time, before George W. Bush was President, when my country, the United States of America, was considered a champion for human rights.

Now, thanks to Bush, we are known for torture. We are known for Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib and denying habeas corpus in violation of our own U.S. Constitution.

And those who claim to have been tortured cannot seek justice:

Judge Rejects Padilla Torture Argument

MIAMI (AP) - A federal judge refused to dismiss terrorism charges against Jose Padilla over claims that the alleged al-Qaida operative was tortured in U.S. military custody, removing one of the last major obstacles to the start of his trial next week.

U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke stressed in a 12-page order filed late Monday that she was not passing judgment on the torture allegations. Rather, she said the effort to dismiss the case for ``outrageous government conduct'' was faulty on legal grounds.

Padilla's lawyers claim that during the 3 years Padilla was held as an ``enemy combatant'' at a Navy brig he was routinely subjected to harsh treatment and torture.

And it becomes harder to deny stories like this (whether they have merit or not):

Iranian Diplomat Alleges CIA Torture

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - An Iranian diplomat freed two months after being abducted in Iraq accused the CIA of torturing him during his detention, state television reported Saturday. The United States immediately denied any involvement in the Iranian's disappearance or release.

Jalal Sharafi, who was freed on Tuesday, said the CIA questioned him about Iran's relations with Iraq and assistance to various Iraqi groups, according to state television.

``Once they heard my response that Iran merely has official relations with the Iraqi government and officials, they intensified tortures and tortured me through different methods days and nights,'' he said.

Sharafi's comments came a day after 15 British sailors released by Iran said they had been subject to psychological pressure and coercion in captivity. The sailors were captured in the Persian Gulf on March 23 for allegedly entering Iranian waters and released Wednesday.

What does it say about our country and our world when Iran has a better reputation in the world for how it treats its prisoners? I am not saying that those reputations are correct or fair, but this is America and there should be NO reason to doubt that we do not torture.

However, thanks to the Torturer-in-Chief, Bush, and his sidekick, Alberto "The Geneva Conventions Are Quaint" Gonzales, there is a devastatingly large amount of doubt.

Bush stole my country, and I want it back.

Another FOX Debate Bites The Dust

Edwards, Obama, and Clinton are out of the Fox News Propaganda Channel debate:

Obama, Clinton to Skip Fox-Backed Debate

WASHINGTON (AP) - Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will not participate in a Democratic debate co-hosted by Fox News Channel this fall, campaign aides indicated Monday.

The decision by the two Democratic presidential candidates follows an announcement last week by John Edwards, another White House contender, that he would forgo the Fox event.

The Sept. 23 debate, set for Detroit, is co-sponsored by the cable news network and by the Congressional Black Caucus Political Education and Leadership Institute.

Without Obama, Clinton and Edwards, however, Fox and the CBC institute would be missing three of the marquee contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination.

F"N"C has been legitimized for far too long by the Democratic targets of the F"N"C attacks, and killing a second F"N"C debate is a good start to rectifying that mistake.

Naturally, I think that Democrats should take this further and freeze out F"N"C entirely. I cannot imagine Dick Cheney agreeing to a one-on-one interview with Air America Radio, so why do Democrats think that it is okay to go on Fox?

Bush Defines Hypocrisy

This just makes me sick:

Bush Prays for Peace at Easter Service

FORT HOOD, Texas (AP) - President Bush prayed for peace Sunday at an Easter service during a visit to an Army post that has sent thousands of soldiers to war in Iraq.

"I had a chance to reflect on the great sacrifice that our military and their families are making,'' Bush said outside the chapel after the service. ``I prayed for their safety and I prayed for their strength and comfort, and I prayed for peace."

Bush's warmongering has led to the deaths of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and he has the audacity to pray for peace!

He dares to pray for peace when he is the reason we went to war in Iraq! He is the reason there is civil war in Iraq now! He is the reason we are still in Iraq today!

As the President of the United States, it's not like prayer is his only option for making peace.

Actions speak louder than words, and his prayer for peace seems unapologetically hollow to me. It is the very definition of hypocrisy.

Can such a man possibly have a soul?

Everyone Wants Us Out Of Iraq Except Bush And The Bushies

Americans want to get out of Iraq. Iraqis want us out of Iraq. The rest of the world wants us out of Iraq. Only Bush and his like-minded band of reality-deniers want us to stay.

The sky is blue, but Bush says it is orange, and his followers must agree that the sky is orange or else every argument they have ever made crumbles like the sand upon which they are built. It does not matter how wrong the argument is. The Bush chain is only as strong as its weakest link, so every delusional statement Bush makes must be held as absolute truth or else the chain breaks.

The situation Iraq is getting worse, but Bush says things are getting better in Iraq, so Bushies must believe that. Otherwise, they would have to accept that:

Iraqis want us out of Iraq, but Bush says Iraqis want us to stay, so Bushies have to accept that Iraqis want us to stay. Otherwise, they would have to accept that:

Our presence in Iraq is an occupation, not a war, but Bush says our presence in Iraq is part of the Global War on Terror, so Bushies have to believe that. Otherwise, they would have to accept that:

Iraq is in a civil war, but Bush says it is not in a civil war, so Bushies must believe that Iraq is not in a civil war. Otherwise, they would have to accept that:

Bush has ruined Iraq for oil and greed, but Bush says we are there for freedom and protection, so Bushies must believe that. Otherwise, they would have to accept that:

Our troops are dying for Bush's lies and so that he can save face, but Bush illogically says we are fighting terrorists who would "follow us home" if we left Iraq, so Bushies must believe that. Otherwise, they would have to accept that:

The best thing for us to do is leave Iraq, but Bush says we must stay, so Bushies must believe that we must stay. Otherwise, they would have to accept that:

We should not have invaded in Iraq in the first place, but Bush says we were right to invade Iraq, so Bushies must believe that. Otherwise, they would have to accept that:

Hussein was not an immediate threat to us, didn't have WMDs, wasn't building nuclear weapons, and wasn't connected to 9/11, but Bushies have a hard time accepting all of that because then they would have to accept that:

Bush had no reason for failing to get Osama bin Laden, but Bushies cannot believe that because then they would have to accept that:

Bush is doing a poor job at fighting terrorism, but Bushies cannot believe that because then they would have to accept that:

Bush is violating human rights and torturing detainess, but Bushies cannot believe that because then they would have to accept that:

Bush is breaking the law and lying about it, but Bushies cannot believe that because then they would have to accept that:

Bush is lying about Global Warming, outing a CIA agent, warrantless wiretapping, firing US attorneys, Jack Abramoff, abstinence-only education, voter fraud, Iran, engergy independence, Halliburton, propaganda leaks, manipulation of pre-Iraq War intelligence, tax cuts for the rich, the national debt, the economy, privatization, healthcare, Medicare Part-D, immigration, free trade agreements, trading deficits, the cost of the war, no-bid contracts, the federal response to Hurricane Katrina, corporate welfare, tax cuts for rich oil companies with record-breaking profits, Walter Reed, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and pretty much everything the Bush administration has ever been involved in, but Bushies cannot believe that because then they would have to accept that:

Bush should not be president and should be impeached and removed from office.

That is why Bush and the Bushies refuse to back down on Iraq. Their house of cards would come crashing down.

Well, it is long past time for the cards to fall because the sky is blue, not orange, and the situation in Iraq is getting worse:

Baghdad a ‘deadlier battleground.’

For American troops, Baghdad has become a “deadlier battleground” since President Bush implemented his escalation plan. “The rate of American deaths in the city over the first seven weeks of the security plan has nearly doubled from the previous period.” According to the Iraq Coaltion Casualty Monitor, U.S. casualties since the beginning of the escalation have been “running at 3.14/day, which is the highest of any period since the end of major combat.”

And Iraqis want us out of Iraq:

Iraqis protest to mark Baghdad's fall

BAGHDAD --Tens of thousands draped themselves in Iraqi flags and marched peacefully through the streets of two Shiite holy cities Monday to mark the fourth anniversary of Baghdad's fall. Demonstrators were flanked by two cordons of police as they called for U.S. forces to leave, shouting "Get out, get out occupier!"

Security was tight across Iraq, with a 24-hour ban on all vehicles in Baghdad starting from 5 a.m. Monday. The government quickly reinstated the day as a holiday, rescinding its weekend order that had decreed that April 9 no longer would be a day off.

The Najaf rally was ordered by Muqtada al-Sadr, the powerful Shiite cleric who a day earlier issued a statement ordering his militiamen to redouble their battle to oust American forces, and argued that Iraq's army and police should join him in defeating "your archenemy."

There go the first two of Bush's arguments that I listed. The rest are being disproven on a daily basis in old media (newspapers, networks) and new media (political websites, blogs). The Bushies are losing the foundation for their ignorance and stubborness. Soon, they will have to accept that the sky is blue.

Bush's Press Conference Beatdown

I heard Bush's press conference on NPR yesterday. He really sounded like he was on the ropes and he only had weak lies to fight back with.

For the most part, Bush sounded like he was answering different questions then the ones the reporters asked. It was typical, but still disappointing.

Bush conflated lack of support for his war with lack of support for the troops. It is such a blatant misrepresentation of the debate that I don't understand why the press doesn't burst out into laughter when we does this. Which of these options shows support for the troops: continuing to send troops to die for a pack of lies, or bringing our troops home to their families? Democrats, liberals, and progressives support the troops, but that doesn't mean we have to support Bush or his war based on lies.

Bush kept telling us to give the surge escalation a chance to work. Meanwhile, things have gotten only gotten worse since the escalation began. How bad are things going to be when the escalation reaches its pinacle?

David Gregory asked a good question about Congress doing what the voters voted them into power to do, get out of Iraq. Bush claimed that the American people don't want to pull out of Iraq, and only some Americans are against the war. Could he be any more in denial? The polls have been showing for some time that the majority of Americans don't want Bush's surge escalation and they don't want the war occupation to continue. Bush is lying about this, ignorant of this, or both. In any case, it is just one more thing to add to the already astoundingly huge list of things that Bush is wrong about.

Bush said Congress should not tell generals how to conduct the war. Please! The only reasons we have the generals we have now is because Bush fired the ones who disagreed with him. How is firing generals until you get only generals who agree with you different from "telling" generals how to conduct the war? Bush's logic is also flawed in that our Constitution was set up so that the government is in charge of the military, not the other way around. And thrice Bush's logic is flawed in that Congress is not telling generals how to conduct the war, they are trying to end the war PERIOD. Ending the war does not tell the generals how to conduct it. If Congress ends the war, there is no war for the generals to conduct.

Bush brought up the tired and stupid talking point that if we leave Iraq, the terrorists will attack us at home. There are so many things wrong with that talking point that it basically amounts to a lie. Terrorists have already tried to attack us at home, so Bush's argument that fighting them "over there" means that we don't have to fight them "over here" is inherently and ridiculously false. Additionally, American troops are being killed by insurgents in Iraq who just want us out. I don't agree with the insurgents' methods, but if we leave Iraq, we remove their reason for killing American troops. There is no reason that the insurgents would attack us at home. The terrorists will try to attack us whether we are "over there" or at home. If we end their ability to attack us "over there", we will save American lives, and we can protect ourselves better at home.

He also stated that terrorists already attacked us on 9/11 so that he could deviously conflate Iraq with 9/11. First of all, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush has admitted that, but he still lies via conflation by always using 9/11 to defend his decision to invade Iraq and stay in Iraq. Second, the terrorists were able to attack us successfully on 9/11 because of Bush's incompetence and inaction. The August 6, 2001 PDB proves this. Bush should have been "fighting the terrorists over here" all along to prevent 9/11. Bush failed to fight the terrorists "over here" in 2001 because he wasn't focused on that, and now, he still isn't focused on that. He is focused on Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no ability to attack us at home. Bin Laden and al-Qaeda on the other hand had both, and they are still running free.

Bush warns about what would happen if we left Iraq, but there is no reason to believe his warnings now when all his past warnings about Iraq proved to be lies. He warns that Iraq would fall into chaos. Iraq is already in chaos, but he is too deceitful to admit it or too stupid to realize it. He warns that Iraq would become a haven for terrorists. It already is, but it was not a haven for terrorists before we invaded. It was Bush who made Iraq a haven for terrorists through his incompetence. If he had let Iraqis rebuild Iraq instead of Halliburton, we would not have so many unemployed, disgruntled, and angry Iraqis to become insurgents and terrorists. Bush also warned that terrorists would follow us home, but, as I mentioned earlier in this post, the insurgents just want us out and the terrorists are already trying to attack us at home. Bush also warned that setting a date for withdrawal, we would embolden the terrorists. They are already emboldened. They attempt to attack us at home and abroad. If they are not emboldended now, then what are they? If anything our invasion of Iraq has emboldened and encouraged more people to become terrorists. Cheney claims that ending the war in Iraq would validate the terrorist stategy, but he has been wholly deceived. The terrorist strategy is to increase their numbers and power by igniting a war that would cause more people in the Middle East to sympathize with the terrorists and become terrorists themselves, and Cheney and Bush have done nothing put play into the terrorists' hands by giving them exactly what they want. The Bush administration are the ones who have been validating the terrorist strategy.

Honestly, how can Bush be so wrong about everything? How can he be so wrong about everything and still be president? I already think he should be impeached for actual crimes he has committed, but shouldn't we be able to impeach him for his uninterrupted WRONGNESS!

If Clinton had committed half the crimes and been wrong about half the things Bush has, I would have supported impeaching him. In fact, the Republicans impeached Clinton (who was acquitted) for way less than what Bush has done. Why aren't the same Republicans willing to impeach Bush? Why the hypocrisy? If anything, their unwillingness to impeach Bush is proof that the impeachment of Clinton was nothing more than an insidious, dishonest, politically-motivated partisan attack.

Bush has forgotten that he is not the "decider." The American people are the "decider." The Constitution starts off with "We the people" not "I Bush." The people are in charge of this government. We are in charge. We are the boss. Bush has chosen to ignore the people. Bush has chosen to ignore reality. It is long past time for "We the people" to exercise our control over our government and remove Bush from power.

Boycott Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck is an evil, homophobic racist, and I as a Mormon, I am ashamed that he considers himself to be Mormon despite the fact that his intolerance and his hateful views violate many Mormon and Christian standards.

It is because of Glenn Beck that I refuse to watch CNN or CNN Headline News, but apparently this personal boycott of mine is not moving CNN towards firing him, even though Media Matters for America has cited many of Beck's statements which would have gotten almost anyone else fired.

There is just something about right-wing extremists (like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Michael "Savage" Weiner, and Glenn Beck) that the traditional media just can't get enough of even though the same extremists despise or even threaten the traditional media. Limbaugh proves himself to be a racist again and again, but he still makes disgusting amounts of money. Hannity is just an outright liar (he still claims Iraq had WMDs when we invaded in 2003), and he is still working. Coulter finally got some much deserved flack for calling John Edwards a "faggot," but there are still many papers that carry her column. Weiner should be committed or even jailed for his hate speech and death threats, but he still enjoys having his own radio show. Then there is Beck with his hate-filled radio show and his CNN show of intolerance.

If any politician had said the things these people have said, they would probably no longer be an employed politician, so why are right-wing extremist commentators still employed?

I know the answer is money (the question is rhetorical). Listeners = ratings = advertising dollars. What I don't understand is why people listen in the first place. Do so many people really hate the truth so much that they would rather be lied to by Limbaugh than know the truth? Are so many people really so racist or homophobic that they enjoy listening to Beck? If that is the case, then I am extremely disheartened. Those people have entered an endless loop where their own lies and intolerance are reinforced by the lies and intolerance of the media they adhere to. Reaching those people may never happen.

However, we can reach the advertisers. Perhaps the listeners do not mind being associated with racism, sexism, or homophobia, but advertisers usually have a problem with such associations. Many advertisers pulled out from Ann Coulter's website after many people complained to them about supporting someone who used a homophobic slur.

I now realize that not watching CNN is not enough to get them to fire Beck. (Apparently, low ratings aren't enough either.) I need to boycott those who advertise on Beck's show. I realized this after ThinkProgress.org pointed out this blog, My Two Sense, and its Glenn Beck Boycott. If you are interested in supporting the boycott, click the link.

Whether the boycott is successful or not, it feels good to at least try. We may not be able to get bigots like Beck off the air, but at least we can choose not to help pay for them to stay on.

Tillman Death And The Web Of Lies

Oh, what a tangled web Bush weaves.

Honestly, this may have no direct connection to Bush, but Bush has created and supported a system of deceit and lies. This merely follows along with the narrative of mendacity for the most dishonest White House since Nixon:

Officer probe demanded in Tillman case

Anger in Congress over possibility of cover-up in death

(03-28) 04:00 PDT Washington -- Members of Congress from both parties, angered by findings of an Army investigation into the 2004 friendly fire death of football star and Army ranger Pat Tillman, called on Tuesday for hearings to explore if top officers covered up the circumstances of his death.

The quick congressional reaction followed the release Monday of a Pentagon probe into Tillman's death and its aftermath that showed repeated bungling during initial military investigations and a pattern of keeping his family in the dark about how the 27-year-old Bay Area native died April 22, 2004, in Afghanistan at the hands of fellow American soldiers.

"I am disgusted, and that's the word I would use, that officers would try to cover up the truth,'' said Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., a House Armed Services Committee member. "Anyone in a leadership position in the military who would cover up the truth should resign. I cannot imagine how the family would feel.''

Tillman was a true patriot, and he did not deserve this deceitful treatment by false patriots.

I do not care whether the Bush administration was directly involved in this or not because ultimately it was the Bush administration's policies of pathological lying, systematic propaganda, and covering-up the truth that set the stage for this and countless other scandals and disgraceful acts from the outing of a CIA operative to Abu Ghraib to Mark Foley to the political firings of US Attorneys.

I and many others have pointed out the many lies of the Bush administration many times, so I am not going to write another list right now. I think it is sufficient to mention that I would have a hard time coming up with a list of things that they have been right about or told the truth about.

Remember in 2000 when Bush said he was going to "clean up the White House". Well, when does he plan on starting that "clean up"? Because after spending all his time in office on making a mess out of... well, everything and bringing unprecedented digrace upon the White House (yes, even more disgrace than Monicagate), I imagine his "clean up" pledge is going to take a lot more time than he has left in his term. Or did he not mean for us to take "clean up the White House" figuratively?