Vilsack for VP

post from Connecting.the.Dots on 23 February 2007 08:17:00 AM. © Connecting.the.Dots

In December I asked: "Can Competence Compete?" Apparently not.

The news that Tom Vilsack is dropping out of the '08 sweepstakes is saddening, but he should be on every other candidate's short list for VP. He was on Kerry's in 2004.

Vilsack's departure leaves my record as a political kingmaker unblemished. I urged Mario Cuomo to run in 1992. I must have an unerring instinct for people who are too decent for today's political process.

Read The Full Article:
http://ajliebling.blogspot.com/2007/02/vilsack-for-vp.html

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Beyond Belief: The U.S. Turns Yet Again To the
Multiply, Universally Discredited Ahmed Chalabi in Iraq

post from Cut to the Chase on 23 February 2007 08:05:00 AM. © Cut to the Chase

I am beyond stunned. Ahmed Chalabi is the man STILL wanted for major financial fraud in Jordan, the man who helped "sell" us into the Iraq war to depose Saddam, the man who the Bushies seemed so eager to put up as interim Iraqi leader even as the Iraqis[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://cut-to-the-chase.blogspot.com/2007/02/beyond-belief-us-turns-yet-again-to.
html

Digg this

We must murder all the pigs for World Peace

post from William K. Wolfrum on 23 February 2007 08:01:15 AM. © William K. Wolfrum

I always try to be the type to have some ideas of my own. Because I understand that sometimes all I do is snipe at the ideas of others, and that's just foul play, man.So, every now and again, I like to toss out an original idea, in hopes of ...

Read The Full Article:
http://www.williamkwolfrum.com/?p=362

Digg this

Dick Cheneys Honor

post from Firedoglake on 23 February 2007 08:00:31 AM. © Firedoglake

No matter how cynical and hardened some of us have become in the last six years, there are still times when the next statement from the Vice President just takes your breath away. On Wednesday, the Vice President of the United States spoke to American[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/23/dick-cheneys-honor/

Digg this

Blue Dogs Sabotage Murtha

post from MyDD on 23 February 2007 07:55:13 AM. © MyDD

Last week, I wrote that a few of the key obstacles to ending the war are Blue Dogs,, Harry Reid and Rahm Emanuel. The Washington Post reports: "If you strictly limit a commander's ability to rotate troops in and out of Iraq, that kind of[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/mydd/~3/94734666/0796

Digg this

British draw-down from Basra a positive
development

post from AMERICAblog: A great nation deserves the truth on 23 February 2007 07:51:00 AM. © AMERICAblog: A great nation deserves the truth

I read Juan Cole regularly, and I infrequently have analytical disagreements with his assessments on Iraq. His blog is an invaluable resource, and his judgment has proven prescient repeatedly over the past few years. With that said, I'm a little miffed by his article at Salon today.

Cole begins by saying, rightly, that Vice President Cheney calling the British decision to redeploy 1,600 troops from southern Iraq by May "an affirmation of the fact that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well" is quite absurd. This administration never tires of twisting premises to fit already-determined conclusions -- such as the dichotomy of rising insurgent attacks being a good sign because "they're desperate" or in "last throes" while reductions in attack levels are also a good sign because "we're winning", for example -- and the Vice President's most recent comments are no different.

The piece then goes on, however, to elaborate upon why things are not "going pretty well" in Basra to the extent that it seems like an argument against the troop withdrawal. Cole explains that supply lines for both Coalition troops and Iraqi oil supplies will be vulnerable, and warns that troops in the rest of Iraq, especially Baghdad, will be increasingly vulnerable to the intra-Shia conflict in the south. The article cites three battles just in February to show that Basra remains unstable, but the first includes an admission from British military sources that they might be doing more harm than good in Basra and the other two explicitly describe the violence as being between British troops and the Mahdi Militia. It's unclear to me that this violence would necessarily continue between Iraqis rather than lessening as British troops depart, taking with them the incentive for anti-occupation attacks.

And really, we're not talking about a huge number of troops. The British have just 7,100 forces in Iraq, and they plan to remove 1,600. Basra, the second-largest city in Iraq, has roughly 2.5 million people. Not exactly numbers that are going to make or break the security situation, and I remain unconvinced that the troops there are having a significant effect upon the levels of violence. In summer 2006, Iraqi officials announced that deaths were occurring in Basra at the rate of one every hour, and it's not like there's been an influx of British troops (or effectiveness) since then.

I would not ask British troops to get in the middle of Iraq's southern civil conflict any more than I want U.S. troops in the midst of sectarian violence in the rest of the country, and I'm skeptical of the idea that this withdrawal is going to precipitate a precipitous decline for Basra's security. Are the Vice President's statements about the withdrawal demonstrating success completely full of it? Absolutely. Does this involve risks? Yes. But is it the right thing to do for the future security of both Iraq and the U.K. (and perhaps U.S.)? I think it is.

In his closing paragraph, Cole says, "Without a United Nations peacekeeping force or the like to tamp down violence, the British retreat from Basra is unlikely to produce positive results." I respectfully disagree, at least in the mid- and long-term. While worst-case scenarios are possible, I think this will ultimately be a positive development -- not because it reflects positive changes, but because it could portend them. If the security situation in Basra declines precipitously in the late spring and early summer (beyond the usual seasonal cycles of violence), I'll stand corrected, and I would have to reevaluate my support for significant Coalition withdrawal. But it's my hope -- and belief -- that this will begin to demonstrate that troop redeployment may not be quite the apocalypse remaining war supporters claim.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Americablog/~3/94844518/british-draw-down-from-bas
ra-positive.html

Digg this

ACCORDING TO JEWISH LAW, I'M JEWISH BECAUSE MY
MOM WAS-- AND LIKE MOST JEWS I OPPOSE BUSH'S WAR ON IRAQ

post from DownWithTyranny! on 23 February 2007 07:32:00 AM. © DownWithTyranny!

I was mortified when all-- not some, all-- the L.A. area Jewish Democrats voted for Bush's illegal attack on Iraq back in October, 2002. Some, particularly Howard Berman and Adam Schiff, have been consistent supporters of the Bush Regime's hideous policies there. There have been 44 roll call votes regarding Iraq in the House between October, 2002 and May, 2005. Howard Berman, an old line "liberal" hack from the San Fernando Valley who seems to believe he represents Israel's far right Likud Party rather than the thoroughly anti-war Southern California Democrats who he's supposed to be working for, has voted with the Republicans 17 times, one of the most reactionary records of any Democrat. Adam Schiff, a disgraceful Blue Dog who represents the equally safe Democratic seat in Glendale/Pasadena was nearly as bad, voting with the Republicans a dozen times. Most L.A. area Democrats voted with the Democrats and not, like Berman and Schiff, with Republican warmongers Tom DeLay, Roy Blunt, John Boehner and John Doolittle.

I was even sadder when Henry Waxman, purported to be the smartest congressional Democrat from California also tossed his lot in with the reactionaries to support Bush's war in Iraq (albeit less frequently than the 2 above; 8 times.) I thought it was a black mark against American Jews to have these representatives abandon progressives and go over to the Dark Side in the single most important issue in the past decade. It turns out the vast majority of American Jews are not putting Likud interests before America's.

How do I know? Gallup took a poll-- actually 13 polls during 2005-07 measuring religious affiliation and support for Bush's war policies. Jewish Americans came out as the most progressive. Of the course of the 13 surveys, 52% of all Americans concluded invading Iraq was a mistake (and 46% thought it was the correct thing to do). The only religious group supporting Bush's insane and catastrophic policies were, predictably, the Mormons (who are fielding their own insane candidate for president, Mitt Romney who plans to stay the course in Iraq). 72% of the Mormons support the war and only 27% realize it was a tragic mistake. Among Jews 77% realize the war was a mistake and only 21% think it was the right move. Protestants are basically evenly split and 53% of Catholics see the war as a mistake.

Among Jewish Democrats, a full 89% see the invasion as a mistake. (Among non-Jewish Democrats the war is seen as a mistake by 78% and even among Jews who are not Democrats 65% see the war as a mistake. So who exactly do Berman and Schiff think they are representing when they support Bush's policies on Iraq? Eric Cantor, one of the half dozen most reactionary members of Congress across the board on everything, is a Jewish Republican from Virginia who would probably have been not just a kapo under Hitler, but a kapo organizer.

Even many Israeli Jews have long understood that Bush, Cheney, Lieberman and the Neocons were pushing policies that put Israel in mortal danger, policies embraced only by far right, mentally unbalanced religionist cult members who think the world is coming to an end and Jesus is coming to take them away.

Read The Full Article:
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2007/02/according-to-jewish-law-im-jewish.htm
l

Digg this

Dick Cheney - The "Blunder Down Under" Tour

post from NewsHog on 23 February 2007 07:27:00 AM. © NewsHog

What is it with Australia and Bush administration officials? No sooner is Gen. Peter Pace back from the "Denials" tour of the antipodes when Dick "draftdodger" Cheney launches his own tour to undermine the White House line.

Unheedful of his own administrations insistence that the US wants a peaceful resolution to its dispute with Iran over that nation's nuclear power program, Cheney insists that "all options are on the table" and, incidentally, comes out at odds with Bush's wish for the White House to appear neutral in the Republican presidential nominee race by endorsing John McCain and his view of foreign policy as war forevaaaah! (Maybe Cheney is why senior UK defense officials worry the rhetoric of a peaceful solution is just a cover for the coming attack.)

Unmindful of Bush's push of the recent North Korean nuke deal as a glorious victory for his administration, Cheney insists that he doesn't trust the North Koreans to keep their end of the deal. If the administration really thought that, then the whole deal would be a sham, a fake, a subterfuge to look like they were doing somehting, right? Way to undermine your (at least theoretical) boss, Dick!

Oh, and at the same time, Cheney picks on a recent Chinese anti-satellite test as a sure sign of Chinese belligerence.

Uncaring that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs recently described that very test thusly: "I would not directly tie that to a threat - it's a capability."

Then finally, just to close the show, Dick gives ABC the exclusive benefit of his wisdom on Global Warming:

I think there's an emerging consensus that we do have global warming. You can look at the data on that, and I think clearly we're in a period of warming. Where there does not appear to be a consensus, where it begins to break down, is the extent to which that's part of a normal cycle versus the extent to which it's caused by man, greenhouse gases, et cetera.

Uh, Dick? There's a hell of a lot more international consensus on global warming than there is on your narrative for war with Iran - and a hell of a lot more real evidence to boot!

Scientists need to reframe their White House briefings on warming. If they called it the WAR on Global Warming, Cheney would be right there.

Read The Full Article:
http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/2007/02/dick-cheney-blunder-down-under-tour.ht
ml

Digg this

If FoxNews Ran Presidential Politics

In an attempt to distract voters from the dismal failures and incompetencies of Republicans either serving in office or running for President, FoxNews has commissioned a poll to determine who we really want as President. So, who did they ask opinions about?Obama, McCain, Hillary Clinton?No, the poll asked about Clint Eastwood, Oprah Winfrey, Mel [...]

Read The Full Article:
http://allspinzone.com/wp/2007/02/23/if-foxnews-ran-presidential-politics/

Digg this

Create Your Own Reality

Because reality has that nasty progressive bias, conservatives have again created their own, more comforting version, led by none other than Andrew, House of Schlafly. In response to that bastion of overly tolerant, anti-Americanism called the Wikipedia, we present the Conservapedia, dedicated to insuring that wingnuts young and old maintain their grip on ignorance. Let's look at a few of the evolving definitions, how about, say, global warming?

The theory is widely accepted within the scientific community despite a lack of any conclusive evidence. ...It should be noted that these scientists are largely motivated by a need for grant money in their fields. Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased. Also, these scientists are mostly liberal athiests, untroubled by the hubris that man can destroy the Earth which God gave him.

A wiki is a sort of encyclopedia/dictionary which can be edited by users at will. This makes for some rather dizzying changes and deletions on the conservative incarnation. Here for example was the reported entire entry on Stalin, at least until it was removed out of either shame or embarrassment:

Josef Stalin was an atheist communist Russian dictator during World War II. He was defeated by Adolph Hitler, despite Hitler also being an atheist

Hitler, the ever-clever Nazi atheist, not only fooled everyone by couching his perverse ideology in the context of religion again and again, he defeated Stalin in World War II by ingeniously committing suicide while Soviet troops mopped up the last crumbling remnants of the Third Reich in 1945 Berlin.

It's a laugh a minute on the Conservapedia as the base of the GOP discovers how ungainly a resource can be, when the goal is to mislead readers with lies and deception on a venue which can be updated with actual facts and references by anyone who reads it. So go on over, check it out, help make it a success, and enjoy. This is an open thread.