Joe and Valerie for Hillary

I have a lot of respect for Ambassador Joe Wilson for having blown the whistle on Bush's false pre-war intel. I also hold Valerie Plame Wilson in high esteem for her service as a CIA NOC and having withstood the Bush-Cheney slime machine that outed her as a covert agent. So I took notice when these two national security experts endorsed Hillary Clinton over Obama.

Joe has repeatedly articulated reasons why Hillary would be the best choice as president, which you can read: his column, Smears and Tears: National Security Week Turned Into the Mendacity of Hype, his post, Obama's Shallow Credentials on National Security Are Dangerous for the Country, and an interview and podcast of Joe and Valerie by Taylor Marsh in which Wilson criticized Obama on Iraq and Pakistan. An excerpt from the last link:

I ended by asking Joseph Wilson about Iraq and given that Clinton and Obama have the identical voting records in the Senate, what does he make of the political volleying, with Obama trying to make an issue out of his speech versus Clinton's vote on the Iraq war resolution. After all, Joseph Wilson was in the eye of the storm.

"Well, I think the fact that's dominated the narrative is an indication of how little people really understand the dynamics of the debate as it was going on at the time. And the people making a lot of hay over this weren't there. I was there. I was fighting the fight. I looked to the left of me. I looked to the right of me. I didn't see Barack Obama anywhere. I was out there and there is nobody who can deny that. ... I didn't talk to Edwards about it because he was a co-sponsor of that particular resolution, whereas a lot of us were trying to fight for more restrictive language. Being in the minority, you couldn't get that restrictive language at that time. So what happened the day after the bill was passed? Hillary Clinton and Robert Byrd went down and submitted another bill which further restricted, attempted to restrict the ability for the president to act. But in actual fact, those who were there [at] the debate will remember that the American people and the U.S. Congress were sold on this resolution not because the president wanted to go to war, because he said publicly, I do not want this resolution to go to war. I want this resolution so I can get to the United Nations and get intrusive inspections. That's what Colin Powell said. That's what the president of the United States said and that's what they got. They got a resolution that permitted the president of the United States to go to the U.N. and get intrusive inspections. The great betrayal of the America people is not in that Resolution. It was in the president not allowing the inspections to reach their natural conclusions. [He] short circuited the process. That is the betrayal of the country. That is the betrayal of the Congress. That's the betrayal of the American people. That's the betrayal of the world. People who don't remember that are trying to spin this for their own particular short-term partisan interest and they should not be allowed to get away with it. The most important thing of course now, that aside, ... is what is it going to take to get out of there in a way that, one, protects our national security interests, which has been terribly compromised in the region. ... .." [Italics added.]

Continuing their support, Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson affirm Hillary offers the "strongest plan" to end the war via a new ad running in WV and OR.


Transcript:

JOE: We challenged the Bush Administration when they wouldn't tell the truth about weapons of mass destruction. And they tried to destroy us for speaking out.

VALERIE: Ending the Iraq War means a lot to us and that's why we're supporting Hillary. She has been a leader in pushing the administration for a serious exit strategy.

JOE: And Hillary has the strongest plan for bringing our troops home... starting within 60 days.

VALERIE: If you care about ending the war, we urge you to join us in supporting Hillary Clinton for president.

JOE: She'll get the job done.

UPDATE: Joseph posted comments from Josh Marshall readers that viciously smear Joe and Valerie. Once upon a time, the Left Blogosphere, which has morphed into the Obamasphere, adored them for their stand against the Bush Administration. No more:

Screw him and his wife.

The Wilsons are just disgusting CESSPOOL dwellers

Hillary's second major Republican endorsement after Rush.

At least she doesn't trash Obama or mention that only white people care about ending the war.

I know they're hacks and are loyal to her husband...

they are a test case that suffering is not ennobling--if you love your reflection more than your country. Their behavior since has shown them to be limelight-loving partisan hacks

Joe Wilson was one of the expeditors of Bush I's Iraq turkey shoot and the subsequent "1,000,000 Iraqi dead are worth it" sanctions. And his wife was a friggin' CIA agent, for chrissakes, making the world safe for US vampire capitalism. Of course, they would support Ma Scorpion. That's what the Clintons do -- put a happy face on barbarism.

If these readers represent Barry's new coalition, woe to liberal Democrats.

Friday shortcuts

T.G.I.H.

I've got a health issue I need to deal with this afternoon. I'm uninsured, one of the 47 million, so if you would like to help out, hit the PayPal button and thank you kindly.

A few goodies from the bright side...

VastLeft at Corrente posted a linked article by Prof. Adolph Reed on Obama that's a real eye-opener. Must read.

Anglachel calculated the delegate math and Howard Dean--heck, the party--is in a pickle. But you knew that, right? She articulated some ideas that are new.

Indianapolis Star endorsed Hillary via Taylor Marsh.

Egalia at Tennessee Guerilla Women reported: Black Group Issues Outrageous Ultimatum to Super Delegates.

Oh, dear. Obama's O'Reilly Whines by BTD at TalkLeft. And the Obamasphere got Drudged again. The doctored Kantor video that smeared the Clinton campaign by... oh, go read TalkLeft for the links and a snippet via Atrios. BTD: "Moral of the story? The Left blogs have lost their way." Unsurprise! Can't wait to see what Bob Somerby has to say about it all.

Riverdaughter explained why it's been a very bad week for Obama. M'yeah.

Paul Krugman showed no mercy and tells it like it is: "To be clear, both Democratic candidates have been saying things they shouldn’t; Hillary Clinton shouldn’t have endorsed the bad idea of a gas tax holiday. . .But I think Mr. Obama is doing much more harm to the Democratic cause by echoing Republican attack lines on such issues as insurance mandates and Social Security. And now he’s demonstrating his post-partisanship by giving Republicans credit for good ideas they never had."

Larry Johnson discussed Hillary, Iraq and Iran from last night's O'Reilly interview and gets into the details of why Clinton "understands these realities."

That's all for now, folks! Back later.

Zinger of the day

BBC News, Inheriting President Bush's war (with emphasis):

"We are stuck in a twilight zone in Iraq," said Democratic Senate Majority leader Harry Reid. "When violence is up, the president says we cannot bring our troops home.

"When violence dips, the president says we cannot bring our troops home. With 160,000 courageous American troops serving in Iraq, President Bush has an exit strategy for just one man - himself on 20 January, 2009."

Ugly reality

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

A more perfect union

Morning has spoken




Obama's speech -- YouTube video link. Transcript PDF. Full text non-PDF (Courtesy Avedon). See also commentary from Watson, my good man, dday at Hullabaloo, and Glenn Greenwald at Salon. (H/t Tom).

Why We're Liberals: A Political Handbook for Post-Bush America by Eric Alterman, a review of his new book at Publishers Weekly. Need to update my reading list.

Anti-war Murtha endorsed Hillary -- Jeralyn at TalkLeft cited WashPo: " 'Her experience and careful consideration of [health care, education, the economy, and the war in Iraq] convinced me that she is best qualified to lead our nation and to bring credibility back to the White House,' Murtha said. He said he 'whole-heartedly' recommends Clinton to all voters in his state." That's some PA mojo.

Fighting for a Michigan revote: "Clinton is adding a quick trip to Detroit to her Wednesday campaign schedule in a high-profile push for a primary contest revote there so Michigan’s delegates are counted in the Democratic nomination fight." (The Caucus) C'mon, Obama. Stop resisting a revote. Go ahead. Just say it: Yes, we can!

Polls! McCain is up and beats both Barack and Hillary in favorability ratings. In PA, Clinton moves up, 53% to Obama's 41% among likely primary voters. TM

Notice to Hillary bloggers! If I'm taking TPM to task, then by jennies, I'm also holding Clinton bloggers accountable. They must end their unseemly affinity with "Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Newsmax, and Fox News as sources to buttress their arguments that Obama is an unelectable dewdrop with a hate diploma from Jeremiah Wright's religious academy." So not credible, so wingnutty. Stop it!

Unsurprisingly, I agree with Wolcott regarding Obama's speech. I also "question that a 'conversation' or dialogue about race is what the country wants or needs right now--it may be a pedagogical aria that appeals to the political media elite and other word-crafters but occupies a plane irrelevant to most people's concerns as the economy implodes." Survival trumps everything.

More Rev. Wright videos -- "The alleged 'racist' nature of the United States government has been a recurring theme in sermon after sermon by Obama's longtime pastor." (ABC News) The Wright stuff isn't going away easily.

Belated St. Patrick's Day note -- Ireland hearts Hillary: Prime Minister Bertie Ahern "called Mrs. Clinton 'hugely helpful' in the process both as first lady and as a U.S. senator, and suggested some of the criticism of her are unfair." What are the criticisms? That she exaggerated her role in the Northern Ireland peace process. Video at the link.

P-FLAG rally scared Sally! Pam reported on a gay and lesbian protest at Oklahoma City over Rep. Sally Kern's homophobic tirade. She fled. "The door to Kern's office was locked and the lights were out following the rally. She did not return telephone calls from The Associated Press to her office and home seeking comment."

Lost environmental documents -- Before you chuck 'em, it's a good idea to scan 'em for the Internet. But the EPA didn't.

Gender-bashing wingnut Laura Ingraham mocked Brett Favre for crying at his retirement presser. "All these years, and I didn't know there was a woman quarterback in the NFL." (Thanks, Amanda.)

Unbelievable headline -- Cheney again links Iraq invasion to 9/11 attacks. Isn't it about time to conduct a psych evaluation of Dick?

Why lies work: "[A] paradox of social psychology, a problem for myth busters everywhere: repeating a claim, even if only to refute it, increases its apparent truthfulness." As Arachnae said, "It all starts to make sense now, everything from the War in Iraq to Rush Limbaugh." So that's why Cheney keeps pushing that Iraq-9/11 link.

Thank you, thank you! Mary at The Left Coaster said it nicely: "Kudos to the Democratic challengers who have come up with a very credible plan for getting out of Iraq. Here's to Darcy Burner, Donna Edwards, Chellie Pingree, Tom Perriello, Sam Bennett and Jared Polis." Check Darcy's website for video and PDF of "A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq."

A dose of reality

Maybe Rembrandt didn't have this in mind

Housekeeping note -- The Night Watch will take the weekend off and become a weekday thang. I've got some sprucing up to do here at The RealSpiel, other topics to research and explore in-depth. So I'll keep tonight's edition brief.

DNC stupid and mean -- Has the DNC devolved into a total cock-up? Howard Dean can really piss people off. A discrimination lawsuit filed by Donald Hitchcock, the party's former LGBT outreach director, alleges retaliation and harassment by Chairman Dean and Chief of Staff Leah Daughtry. That's bad enough. But intimidation of the Washington Blade's editor and publisher for its coverage of the civil action... just... well, read Pam Spaulding. Michigan, Florida, and now this! I'm frothed.

Jamison Foser -- "Media ignore McCain's finances after obsessing over Dems" at Media Matters.

Twisty's back! With a sexploitation rip on Eliot Spitzer and the untold story, the ignored tragedy of the sex trade, the subverted narrative--"in a patriarchy, all women belong to the sex class, and are defined in terms of men. Men, on the other hand, belong to the default human class, and get to define themselves (and everything else)"--and the "jovial nonchalance with which the subject of prostitution is bandied about — and prostitution, I say again, is a human rights violation." Meanwhile, young liberal male dudes don't think twice about a weekend lap dance at a titty bar. Where's my labrys?

Time's up! Hecate is soooo right about Iraq: "I was driving around Bethesda today, running a bunch of errands, and, as I sat in traffic, I couldn't help but notice a number of completely bleached-out 'Support the Troops' ribbon-shaped magnets on the backs of SUVs.... ...If your war lasts longer than the dye on the cheap Chinese pieces of shit that are sold to promote it, you lose. That's it. War over. Bring the troops home." Go read what she has to say about immigration. Goosebump scale: 10. (H/t to Avedon for referring to Hecate.)

For a dose of immigration reality, Dave Neiwert served up a giant spoonful of facts at Orcinus. You hear teevee rants about how "illegal aliens" are taking American jobs and lowering wages, right? Go read Dave. I wish Lou Dobbs would but he's got a schtick and he's sticking to it.

It's 3 a.m. in America's economic meltdown to paraphrase Tom Watson. "In New York, you can feel the nerves - the big Wall Street failures, and the looming threat... ...There's a slow panic out there, and it's going to hurt the little guy in every corner of the country.... ...[T]he red phone is ringing. Who will answer?"

M'yeah, Digby, Cafferty is a big honking idiot. Greedy bastards, a-holes, egobots, tools, and idiots. That's our media reinforced by the raving wingnut brigade.

BlehPo: I started to skim Saturday WashPo op/eds but why bother? SSDD. One lumped Geraldine Ferraro and Eliot Spitzer together under the headline, "Two Errant New Yorkers," and I thought, besides the Empire State, what do these two have in common? A dumb op/ed. That was enough. I don't have the patience to pick it apart at this late hour. If this is what passes as Serious Punditry at WashPo, then in comparison, Bob Somerby is an off-the-chart editorial genius. Maybe he is. And funny!

With Josh Marshall's latest Clinton blame game, The Stepfordization continues. OFB moolah must be good, no?

I heart Ellen DeGeneres and so does Kevin Naff.

Gays, sexism, bad news, and dumb bloggers

Fact-challenged Allen -- Media Matters eviscerates Charlotte Allen's sexist diatribe point by point with facts. Are facts out of fashion at WashPo's Outlook?

Gay Governor -- Is Florida Gov. Charlie Crist gay? Well, hello! M'yeah. Howie Klein at DownWithTyranny! said he's in the closet but at least he "isn't an anti-gay homophobe like so many Republicans in the closet."

Dumb numbers -- Ed Gilgore points to an estimate by Markos Moulitsas of "of how superdelegates would, roughly, break if they vote according to the primary or caucus winner of the state to which they are assigned." And Ed asks, "But is that the right measurement of the 'popular will'?" First problem: Caucuses don't reflect the will of the people since they disenfranchise those who can't vote by appointment or who are intimidated by group dynamics. Or as Larry Johnson noted, "By its very structure it is an undemocratic process." Second problem: The race is far from over. Third problem: It's Kos. His talk about "civil war" if Hillary convinces superdelegates to break her way is, well. . .look who's divisive now.

Back up! He's gonna blow! John McCain had a meltdown over a report of discussions in 2004 about being John Kerry's veep but St. John losing his temper is SOP. No wonder he finds it "harder and harder trying to do the Lord's work in the city of Satan" when he's prone to one of the seven deadly sins: wrath. See also Jamison Foser's, The media's hero, for the press' love affair with McCain.

Death in Baghdad: "The death toll early Friday morning had mounted to 55, with 131 wounded, but the deaths were expected to mount during the night." More from Juan Cole.

The end of racism, sexism? Really? Check The Black, the Female and the Invisible by Samhita Mukhopadhyay, blogger of Feministing. A nugget: "What is depressing is when women espouse anti-feminist, anti-woman tendencies and confirm the sexism at the root of people's fear in the potential for a woman to become president. There is nothing post-feminist about that, that is old-fashioned sexism." Samhita got an idiotic comment to her thoughtful piece: "...she'll find out that racism and sexism have indeed vanished." Bwahahaha!

Out damn spot! In Justice, a new book by former U.S. attorney David Iglesias could help end Rep. Heather Wilson's political career. We can only hope.

Blog Boyz gone wild! -- A must read via Lambert, eRiposte summarized a development that has caused me to doubt most of what I read in the Blogosphere. Simply put: "There used to be a time when sites like Daily Kos were the ones debunking this kind of garbage against Democrats - so it is nothing short of disappointing to see Markos himself becoming a proponent of unsubstantiated garbage and badly reducing the credibility of Daily Kos to that of sites like Free Republic." Furthermore, "The media that went breathless trying to paint the Clintons as racist earlier in this primary is....um, racist? Well, well. Why read Free Republic and NRO and TNR or watch MSNBC or Fox News...we can get all the 'news' that is 'fit to print blog' in these great 'progressive' blogs (like Daily Kos, AmericaBlog and others) now! On the other hand, it is a sad day when FactCheck.org actually debunks the unsubstantiated crap on allegedly 'progressive" blogs.' " Head over to The Left Coaster for a bookmark-worthy post. Props to eRiposte.

Recession alert: Paul Krugman writes that "payrolls [are] down 22,000 in January, 63,000 in February. Hard to see things improving any time soon, thanks to dramatically worsening conditions in the credit markets." When did the recession begin? December 2007 or January 2008. Heckuva job, Bush.

Read it and weep: Saturday's WashPo on the "frazzled lending markets" and "unexpected job losses" just goes to show that the economy is--glub, glub, glub!--in the drink. And this isn't good: ". . .a particularly worrisome sign, temporary help services cut 27,600 jobs. Often, companies cut temporary workers before shedding permanent jobs, making that category a leading indicator for what is to come." Have a stiff drink before clicking the link. And say a prayer if you're so inclined.

Moyers: Buying the war

Bill Moyers exposed the failure of the American press in Buying the War. As we near the anniversary of the political stagecraft orchestrated on the USS Lincoln and the Commander-in-Codpiece's "Mission Accomplished" moment, don't forget who aided the selling of the war.

Glenn Greenwald sums up:

The fraud that was manufactured by our government officials and endorsed by our media establishment is one of the great political crimes of the last many decades. Yet those who are responsible for it have not been held accountable in the slightest. Quite the contrary, their media prominence -- as Moyers demonstrates -- has only increased, as culpable propagandists and warmongers such as Charles Krauthammer (now of Time and The Washington Post), Bill Kristol (now of Time), Jonah Goldberg (now of The Los Angeles Times, Peter Beinert (now of Time and The Washington Post), and Tom Friedman (revered by media stars everywhere) have all seen their profiles enhanced greatly in our national media.

And while Judy Miller became the scapegoat for the media's failures, most of the media stars responsible for the worst journalistic abuses -- from Michael Gordon to Tim Russert to Fred Hiatt to most of The Washington Post, to say nothing of the Fox stars and cogs of the right-wing noise machine -- continue merrily along as before, with virtually no recognition of fault and no reduction in their platforms.

I certainly don't trust the news media with only a few exceptions, for example, McClatchy. Wise are those who question everything. Triple check reporting before buying what the press says. Always. Look to the blogroll under "Favorites" on the right for more reliable sources than what you will find in the media.

UPDATE: Another example of how the press has transformed into a propaganda outlet. From the Horse's Mouth: Rupert Murdoch's New York Post rewrites an Associated Press story to tilt the story against Democrats. Read and compare.

Oversight by the minority

Conservatives such as Senate majority whip Mitch McConnell (R-KY) denounced yesterday's ad hoc congressional hearing held on the Iraq War by Senate Democrats along with a GOP House member, Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) who accepted the invitation extended to all Republicans. McConnell called the hearing a political "stunt." The reflexive Republican criticism is unsurprising:

"Whether you are Democrat or Republican, for or against the war, oversight is an important congressional function ... and we've had virtually none of it,'' Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said at Monday's hearing.

[...]

"I think Republicans should be holding hearings like this on pre-war intelligence,'' Republican Rep. Jones said. "To hold hearings is not to say we'll pull out tomorrow. It's to understand what we should have done as policymakers.''

Bush's rubber-stamp Republicans abdicated their congressional duties to provide oversight of the WH and they don't want the truth of their irresponsibility to come to light.

WaPo's Dana Milbank reported on the hearings (with emphasis):

Maj. Gen. John Batiste, the former commander of the Army's 1st Infantry Division in Iraq, had complained loudly about the handling of the Iraq war since he retired 11 months ago -- but no one invited him to present his views to Congress.

"I find that outrageous," the general said. "I have a sense for what I'm talking about."

Yesterday, Batiste got his moment -- sort of. Shunned by the Senate Armed Services Committee, Batiste and two other retired officers spoke before the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, a rump group with little legislative clout but access to a proper Senate hearing room. And Batiste made up for lost time.

When you're the minority party and the Republicans don't furnish oversight of the Bush Administration, what do you do? Just go along? Ignore the voices of military experts such as Batiste? That's what has gotten us into the mess we currently face in Iraq. Why Bush hasn't fired Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, remains a mystery:

"Donald Rumsfeld is not a competent wartime leader," said Batiste, wearing a pinstripe suit, calling himself a "lifelong Republican" and bearing a slight resemblance to Oliver North. "He surrounds himself with like-minded and compliant subordinates who do not grasp the importance of the principles of war, the complexities of Iraq or the human dimension of warfare. . . . Bottom line: His plan allowed the insurgency to take root and metastasize to where it is today."

Further, Batiste charged, Rumsfeld "reduced force levels to unacceptable levels, micromanaged the war" and created an environment where U.S. troops "are doing unconscionable things."

"Our world is much less safe today than it was on September 11," Batiste said, echoing the administration's newly leaked intelligence estimate.

Batiste, who retired in protest rather than accept a three-star promotion, was a persuasive witness...

How can Batiste not be a credible witness? And why has his voice been muzzled? Other generals also testified and the news they shared as military commanders presented a disheartening outlook:

"We must mobilize our country for a protracted challenge," Batiste warned.

"We better be planning for at least a minimum of a decade or longer," contributed retired Marine Col. Thomas Hammes.

"We are, conservatively, 60,000 soldiers short," added retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who was in charge of building the Iraqi Security Forces.

That last remark caused [Chuck] Schumer to shake his head, indicating he was not so sure. And, indeed, the retired officers' recommendations were off-message for the Democrats. Six of the seven Democrats at the hearing supported legislation calling for the start of a troop withdrawal from Iraq this year. One, Richard Durbin (Ill.), voted for the pullout to be mostly complete by next summer.

I wouldn't expect military generals to offer a complete geo-political solution to the Iraq debacle. Their expertise is war. Unfortunately, John Kerry who campaigned for a higher commitment of troops and and international diplomacy in Iraq during his 2004 presidential run wasn't elected and the opportunity to avert the escalating insurgency now in progress has passed. Instead, we got George and with him, Rummy. US presence in Iraq now counterproductive, requires less might, more Iraqi troop training, and more diplomacy in the region to involve countries that benefit from success in Iraq. With its oil reserves, Iraq is an international concern. Yes, long-term, US forces must remain in the region but a phased redeployment on the fringes as John Murtha recommended makes more sense in tamping down resentment of American occupation: 80% of Iraqis want us out. Iraq reconstruction marred by the Administration's bone-headed incompetence must also be rectified. Democrats can do this. Republicans who have ignited global disdain for American foreign policies can't.

But on balance, the retired officers' strong words about the war's conduct outweighed their calls for a greater commitment to Iraq. "Secretary Rumsfeld built his team by systematically removing dissension," Batiste said. "At one point, he threatened to fire the next person who talked about the need for a postwar plan."

Rumsfeld "has tried and continues to fight this war on the cheap," Eaton added. "The Army is in terrible shape, and the Marines aren't much better."

"It is time for him to provide the nation the last in a long series of services and step down," Hammes said coolly.

[...]

The questioners skillfully directed the witnesses toward past failures rather than their expansive prescriptions for the future. A notable exception was the relatively hawkish Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), who, as the last questioner, invited the officers to comment on the effect of a specific withdrawal date.

"The result will be a civil war of some magnitude that will turn into a regional mess," Batiste said without hesitation.

To avoid that regional mess, we need more than just Bush's failed policies. We must internationalize the nation-building work to deliver political solutions to a region negatively affected by a destabilized Iraq. That's not possible with Rummy running military operations and a do-nothing Republican Congress that permits an incompetent Commander-in-Chief to run amok.

A chorus of military commanders have called for the defense secretary's resignation:

• Army General John Riggs

• Lieutenant-General Greg Newbold, former director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff

• Major-General Paul Eaton, who oversaw the training of Iraqi troops in 2003-04

• Marine General Anthony Zinni

• Major General John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004-05

• Major General Charles H. Swannack, Jr., who led the US Army’s 82nd Airborne Division in Iraq in 2004

• Marine General Paul Van Ripper, who "retired before Rumsfeld took office, but is currently engaged in war games with two branches of the military

ThinkProgress offers more on generals united in criticism of Rumsfeld.

DailyKos links to Batiste's earlier condemnation of US torture policies. A must-see CNN video of his remarks here.

What I want to know is why won't President Bush ask Rumsfeld to resign? Something isn't right and I suspect Bush's pigheaded loyalty to one of the remaining neocon PNACers--the cabal that pressed for the invasion of Iraq--trumps what's best for the nation. But don't expect the Republicans in Congress to get to the bottom of it. They don't do oversight. The revealed truth might end political careers.

Tired of boneheaded Republican leadership...

In reading Bob Geiger's Friday post on the lazy press and the defeat of "a comprehensive security bill by Senate Democrats" (Since when does the con-apparatchiki media value telling the truth?), I come across Sen. Mary Landrieu's spot-on remarks in response to the tired and false Republican meme that Democrats don't know how to fight the war on terror.

Republicans have been overcome by a midterm election fever that causes them to expel excrement in mass quantities, pat it up into caca-pies, and toss their elephant dungballs at Democrats. Boehner howled as he threw his poo:

I listen to the questions today and I listen to my Democrat friends, and I wonder if they are more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people.

Curious morality these Republicans entertain by smearing and bearing false witness against their Democratic opposition. So not Christ-like. How do sincere Christians who vote Republican sanction such hypocrisy?

Evan Derkacz from AlterNet wrote a few days ago:

Mere days after Majority Leader Bill Frist and Republican leadership ironically vowed to "rise above politics," Republican Senators Jim DeMint (S.C.) and John Ensign (NV) this morning echoed yesterday's scurrilous attack on Democrats from House Majority Leader John Boehner.

Replying to the GOP senators, DeMint and Ensign, U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) deflected the crapola with a truth bomb:

In light of the rantings that went on for 30 minutes by two colleagues from the other side, I'd like to state for the record that America is not tired of fighting terrorism; America is tired of the wrongheaded and boneheaded leadership of the Republican party that has sent six and a half billion a month to Iraq while the front line was Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. That led this country to attack Saddam Hussein, when we were attacked by Osama bin Laden. Who captured a man who did not attack the country and let loose a man that did. Americans are tired of boneheaded Republican leadership that alienates our allies when we need them the most. Americans are most certainly tired of leadership that despite documenting mistake after mistake after mistake, even of their own party admitting mistakes, never admit they do anything wrong. That's the kind of leadership Americans are tired of.... I'm not going to sit here as a Democrat and let the Republican leadership come to the floor and talk about Democrats not making us safe. They're the ones in charge and Osama bin Laden is still at loose.

Are Americans tired of boneheaded Republican leadership incapable of 'fessin' up to mistakes? I hope so especially after Iraq, Katrina, the Abramoff lobbying scandal, the Duke Cunningham bribery scam, and so many more GOP debacles. I didn't think Republicans could get worse than Tricky Dick's regime but rarely does the modern GOP disappoint when it comes to misleadership, corruption, and incompetence. They need to go.

Richest nation on earth and the most Christian but...

Adapted from Christ and the Rich Young Ruler by Heinrich Hofmann

Could have supporting the Iraq War offered a method of penance for American Christians to ameliorate their guilt for being so well off when so many of their brothers and sisters in the world languish in poverty? Liberate the downtrodden brown-skinned people living in poverty under the boot heel of a heathen dictator and you, too, can be redeemed.

Maybe that's how Bush's war happened besides the blessing of the mainstream press. Maybe Americans aren't as much stupid as they are terrified of a wrathful judgment for failing to act as charitable Christians. OTOH, fear does make people do and say dumb things.

Norman Mailer explained during a Mar. 2, 2006, event at the New York Society for Ethical Culture on What it Means to Live in America Today. He addressed the issue of 9/11 and the reaction of Americans to terror (with emphasis):

. . .in the name of that terror... there is a great American expression that was never used in relation to 9/11. And that expression is, "Hey, baby. Suck it up." Because, in the name of that terror, Bush has gotten away with crimes...crimes against the integrity and the reputation of the state. I'm not going to get into the old Bush speech. Everybody here knows it. But what I'm going to say is look at what he got away with by keeping everyone afraid.

Noam Chomsky put it very well at one point... ...What he said in effect is that there's more fear in America than one can easily explain. Well, I can, I think... I will dare to assume why this terror is there.

It's because this is a Christian country as you know very, very well, from your roots, your childhood roots. And there's a feeling in this country especially from the Fundamentalists that we're richer than we ought to be, and that was not Christ's intention, and they're very uneasy about that. There they are in church devoting themselves on Sunday to Christ, and the rest of the week, they're going gung-ho for money because they find all the envies of their neighbors making money and they want too. And Bush feeds that. He feeds that like the kind of guys who feed fish to seals. And it's just disgusting....

. . .this is a Christian country and it's also the wealthiest country in the world. And the two are not wholly compatible. And Americans are a divided species. All humans are tremendously divided between the best and the worst in themselves and the purest and the most impure motives they have. But in America it's aggravated... because, on the one hand, this country believes in the pity and the love and the compassion of Christ, and on the other hand, it believes beat the hell out of your opponents because if you don't get the money, they will.

And this creates a terror in people. Americans are more afraid of meeting their judge, their judgment, than perhaps any other country on earth. That's my secret belief. They're terrified of the retribution of God, which is why they're all so bloody religious....

. . .Why are people Fundamentalists? I'd say they're Fundamentalist because they live in terror of their sins. I've known so many really good people, decent people, God-fearing decent people who spent their lives being good to others, who die in terror that they're going to receive evil judgments, because they had evil thoughts. Well, multiply that by the country as a whole with this idea that we're doing two things in opposite directions. We're going to be compassionate and we're going to be wealthy beyond measure and that creates true inner disturbance.

Don't kill the messenger, but I think Mailer is on to something. Similar to survivor's guilt, perhaps the inner disturbance has surfaced as a thriver's guilt, a kind of unwelcome neurotic anxiety that can knot the throat if one believes in Jesus the forgiving savior, the "Lamb of God," yet ignoring the state of poverty both at home and aboard, one would face a God of judgment and hellfire. Not all Americans buy the religion trip, but let's say for those who do, they may experience an inner disturbance as Mailer described.

When Bush rattled the chains of people imprisoned by such a belief system, promoting his incendiary mushroom cloud, WMDs are gonna git you rhetoric, oh, the terror that must have aroused. Then, when Bush offered absolution in the guise of liberating Iraqis from the evil, terrorist-supporting Saddam, did the guilty jump on the revival bandwagon? Did the church-goers praise the Republican Jesus and buy the spiel to kick some terrorists' butts and free those poor starving Iraqis? It's a right-wing cliché to shame antiwar protest with the wacky-doodle strawman of being pro-Saddam, unpatriotic, hurting our troops, and aiding the terrorists. How dare the sane and guilt-free keep them from the promise of a gung-ho Rapture. With the Holyland in Iraq's neighborhood, the invasion offered a two-fer and an incentive to cue up a chorus of Onward Christian Soldiers.

The vast majority of Americans didn't and don't have to do the fighting in Iraq, but it was the thought that counted, right? We all are paying dearly and so will our children and grandchildren. How much more penance is required? Voting for Bush, defending the POTUS against criticism, glorifying war, embracing the Republican national security illusion, and forgetting about those missing WMDs in Iraq, yeah, that'll purify the Christian evangelicals and Bush apologists of their sins. What happened to Blessed are the peacemakers? Perhaps that beatitude was traded in for a brand new gas-guzzling SUV with a bumper sticker, Jesus loves you but I'm his favorite.

The problem with adopting an externally-based remedy (get Saddam and the terrorists) instead of directly addressing the source of the inward guilt (not loving one another and retribution) is that an alleviating substitute doesn't last long especially when reality vividly demonstrates that Iraq has morphed into a quagmire and terrorism has increased. The Iraq War has become hugely unpopular as has Bush's mismanagement of the war. Relief from thriver's guilt has fizzled although faithful diehards hold on manipulated by hope in defense of their need to be vindicated.

Some 7,000 American households exceed $100 million in wealth and about 500,000 have $10 million or more, according to Paul Schervish, director of the Center on Wealth and Philanthropy at Boston College. And these are the folks Dear Leader rewarded with tax cuts. Imagine the terror.

Someone needs to tip off the anti-wealth redistribution Christians that Jesus was wrong and maybe a Marxist for telling the young rich ruler to sell all his worldly possessions and give the money to the poor. What did Christ know, anyway. Heh?

UPDATE: (12:43 AM) The taboo about money. Maybe something to that inner disturbance. Did you know that one-sixth of Jesus' words in the Gospels is about money?

Bush's secret plan to cut and run

Digby and Josh Marshall both criticized Democrats for their response to this Republican trash talk, the erroneous "cut and run" refrain that media have hyped on behalf of the Bush Administration. Yes, to reiterate Digby's insight, Democrats do need to get more aggressive on Bush's non-plan for Iraq by "telling the American people there is no end in sight and there is nothing they can do about it." In an earlier post, Digby quoted a Gene Lyons column on how this cut-and-run business hasn't historically been a Democratic affair (Dick Cheney agrees).

But...

What can Democrats do about the Republican microphone super-glued to the snouts of media lapdogs? Murtha's stay and pay has a nice counterattack ring for Democrats, however, would such a response break through the froth of Pravda-esque swill? I think not. Not while Big Brother Bush, Inc., lurks. Jamison Foser provides this week's wrap-up on how the con-apparatchiki united in their high-pitched whinnies. Also, The Horse's Mouth records daily the loud neighing from the corral.

I see the recent media fanfare on Bush's alleged bounce as the harbinger of a secret withdrawal plan that will officially surface around a holiday–July 4th or Labor Day–with Bush claiming victory in announcing a phased pull-out of Iraq. Democrats need to recognize what's afoot. And move fast.

In the Republican tradition of cut and run–which is steal the other team's plan while smearing their foresight, assisted by compliant news networks–Bush will withdraw approximately 30,000 troops or more this year in time to impact the midterm elections as I speculated previously. Iraq's national security advisor, Mowaffak Al-Rubaie, said so:

We envisage the U.S. troop presence by year's end to be under 100,000, with most of the remaining troops to return home by the end of 2007.

Don't miss this overlooked tidbit buried in an AP story about the Iraqi security crackdown backed by U.S. troops from yesterday. Via the San Francisco Chronicle (with emphasis):

On the political front, a key politician said the Iraqi government will present a 28-point national reconciliation plan to parliament Sunday that would grant some insurgents amnesty and ask for approval of a series of steps for Iraqis to take over security from U.S. troops.

Kurdish politician Mahmoud Othman said the plan to be presented on Sunday also would include a timeline for preparing Iraqi forces to take over the security from U.S. forces in the country.

That would fit with the overall U.S.-led coalition strategy to hand over security in certain regions while withdrawing to larger regional bases to stand ready to in case of emergency. [Sounds like Murtha's plan for redeployment to me!] A final stage would involve the drawdown of U.S. troops from those bases. No specific timeline would be involved in that plan.

Ah, to keep their berths on the U.S. taxpayer gravy train, the new Iraqi government will let the U.S. preznit proclaim the specific timeline, which won't be spun as a timetable for fear of appearing to flip-flop. To paraphrase the Talking Codpiece, the Iraqis will begin standing up so U.S. troops can step down...in time to convince midterm swing voters of the innate Republican national security talent. Bwah-ha!

"There is no finite and UN-approved timeline for the withdrawal of foreign troops, but there is a timeline to accomplish the readiness of Iraqi security forces to take over security in the country," Othman said.

So let me lay out the Bush-a-palooza hidden in the message: There is a timeline for Iraqi troops to take over but none on U.S. troop redeployment. And I bet Bush's super-duper secret visit to Iraq has nothing to do with these stunning developments. Yeah, sure. Wink, wink. It's a secret.

POST MORTEM UPDATE: Dumbest post I've ever written rivaled by this howler. Sheeeeesh. When I swing and miss, I do it with gusto. But alas, enthusiasm doesn't affect batting average.

Bush to cut and run with a little help from his friends

Prediction time!

John Murtha was right:

I expect a significant troop withdrawal. [The Bush WH is] trying to find a way to do this.

Just one caveat. The Bush Administration has already found a way to withdraw troops by the midterm elections to boost the GOP's precious voter turnout. The trick for the GOP was to absolve itself of the criticism currently aimed at Democrats as "cut and run" cowards for having suggested redeployment. Dem-bashing instigated from the RNC machine and comrades in the con-apparatchiki has shifted into full throttle. 'Tis the political season.

Such a maneuver called for the cunning and calculation of a 21st century Machiavellian prince, no problem in the Rove camp. It's simple. Just out-source the task. I wondered when Bush made his surprise visit to Iraq if troop withdrawals by November 2006 was the reason for his trip. His corn pone smile and reports of a renewed strut in his step told me, yes.

On cue today, Iraq's national security advisor, Mowaffak Al-Rubaie, writes in WaPo, The Way Out of Iraq: A Road Map. With emphasis:

With the governors of each province meeting these strict objectives, Iraq's ambition is to have full control of the country by the end of 2008. In practice this will mean a significant foreign troop reduction. We envisage the U.S. troop presence by year's end to be under 100,000, with most of the remaining troops to return home by the end of 2007.

Got that? By the end of 2006, and you can bet it will come miraculously in October, 30,000 or more of the 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq will come home.

Mowaffak Al-Rubaie goes on to articulate some of the same reasons Democrats have given for redeployment: to deflate the insurgency, validate the Iraqi government's authority, involve Muslim neighbors in rebuilding Iraq, and remove U.S. soldiers as a negative symbol and target for the insurgents:

The eventual removal of coalition troops from Iraqi streets will help the Iraqis, who now see foreign troops as occupiers rather than the liberators they were meant to be. It will remove psychological barriers and the reason that many Iraqis joined the so-called resistance in the first place. The removal of troops will also allow the Iraqi government to engage with some of our neighbors that have to date been at the very least sympathetic to the resistance because of what they call the "coalition occupation." If the sectarian issue continues to cause conflict with Iraq's neighbors, this matter needs to be addressed urgently and openly -- not in the guise of aversion to the presence of foreign troops.

Moreover, the removal of foreign troops will legitimize Iraq's government in the eyes of its people. It has taken what some feel is an eternity to form a government of national unity. This has not been an easy or enviable task, but it represents a significant achievement, considering that many new ministers are working in partisan situations, often with people with whom they share a history of enmity and distrust. By its nature, the government of national unity, because it is working through consensus, could be perceived to be weak. But, again, the drawdown of foreign troops will strengthen our fledgling government to last the full four years it is supposed to.

While Iraq is trying to gain its independence from the United States and the coalition, in terms of taking greater responsibility for its actions, particularly in terms of security, there are still some influential foreign figures trying to spoon-feed our government and take a very proactive role in many key decisions. Though this may provide some benefits in the short term, in the long run it will only serve to make the Iraqi government a weaker one and eventually lead to a culture of dependency. Iraq has to grow out of the shadow of the United States and the coalition, take responsibility for its own decisions, learn from its own mistakes, and find Iraqi solutions to Iraqi problems, with the knowledge that our friends and allies are standing by with support and help should we need it.

Bush couldn't have found a better Iraqi political operative for the job that Mowaffak Al-Rubaie. Newsweek detailed his expertise (with emphasis):

He's a critical link to key members of Iraq's powerful Shiite clergy: Grand Ayatollah Hussein al-Sadr in Baghdad and Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani in Najaf, the holiest city in Iraq. Without the tacit support of the Shiites, who make up a 60 percent majority of the population and look to these ayatollahs for guidance, the American occupation of Iraq would be unsustainable.

Soft-spoken, bearded, bespectacled and courtly, al-Rubaie, 55, was the international spokesman for one of the most feared terrorist organizations in the Middle East during the 1980s, the Iraqi Dawa Party. But he's also a prosperous British-educated physician. He practiced medicine in London for the better part of three decades. (His British patients, for the most part, knew him by his Anglicized name, Mow Baker.) While pious, he is also perfectly comfortable in secular Western society. "Shall we dine and not wine?" he used to joke with guests when inviting them to dinner at his house. And while Western policies toward Iraq went through many changes, al-Rubaie's goal was always consistent: the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

American officials in Iraq are well aware of al-Rubaie's ability to navigate in both worlds; when President Bush landed in Baghdad for Thanksgiving dinner, clearly he'd been briefed. As al-Rubaie remembers their encounter, the president pointed at him and said, "Dr. al-Rubaie, I want you to convey this message to Mr. Sistani. Tell him that I pray to the same god he prays to... Tell Sistani I have nothing but praise for your religion. I have many millions of Muslims in my country back home."

Ayatollah Sistani in Najaf, it should be noted, tolerates the American presence in Iraq, but does not talk to Americans directly. Ayatollah Hussein al-Sadr does talk to the Americans, but as one political operative at the Coalition Provisional Authority explained, the ayatollah in Baghdad "let it be known that Mowaffak is the dearest of all to his heart."

"Access is power," says the same official, "and if you have access at the Oval Office and in Najaf, that's not bad."

When al-Rubaie met the captured Saddam this month, his first question was why the dictator murdered two revered ayatollahs from the al-Sadr family. Saddam responded with a coarse joke. Al-Rubaie has since led the call to put Saddam on trial in a matter of weeks. While it's unlikely the Americans will bend to that particular demand, many others will surely follow, probably growing more contentious as occupied Iraq tries to become, truly, liberated Iraq. And al-Rubaie is likely to be at the forefront of political developments.

But what kind of Iraq does he envision? Would it be a sort of postmodern version of Khomeini's Iran? He insists not.

Al-Rubaie says the Islamist movement has come full circle. In Algeria and Sudan, for example, "we saw a tyranny in the name of Islam," he says. "This is very dangerous—politicizing religion or religicizing politics." In purely practical terms, al-Rubaie explains, Iraq is "like a bunch of flowers. There are Sunnis here, Christians, Muslims, Turkomans and Orthodox, Kurds, Assyrian. So what religion do you impose? The diversity of Iraqi society should dictate democracy and decentralization. That's the alternative vision to Saddam's tyranny of fear."

In the meantime, like most Iraqis, he wants to see his countrymen taking a greater role in bringing order to their homeland, while the Coalition forces step to the rear, ready to back up the regime, [sounds like redeployment, no?] but interacting as little as possible with the people. "The Americans don't understand the culture, the different religions, the psychology," al-Rubaie says as he sits in his sparsely furnished office in the building that houses the Iraqi Governing Council.

A few days before, he says, he was given a full body search by American soldiers as he tried to enter the building—searched right down to the soles of his shoes. "This is humiliation in the eyes of our people," he says in frustration. Yet even while lobbying for greater Iraqi involvement in security matters, he warns that Washington shouldn't rush Iraqis into accepting full sovereignty: "People are not ready. People have not voted here for more than 50 years." Al-Rubaie speaks of the "Baathist virus" implanted by Saddam Hussein "in the software upstairs." "We need to rewrite the software," he says. "We need to rehabilitate the Iraqi people. This will take a long time."

And meanwhile al-Rubaie continues building his own personal constituency. Last summer the holy city of Karbala was draped with banners extolling his virtues. His clan, the al-Rubaie, is large and powerful, and he's worked hard to make sure he keeps its support. But politics remains a high-risk occupation. At least one other member of the Council has been shot dead; the driver of another member was killed when American soldiers opened fire on his car. And then there was the October attack on the Baghdad Hotel, when al-Rubaie himself was injured. Does he feel endangered? "I'm not afraid to die," he says, smiling. "Thank goodness I believe in the hereafter. So I am ready to go." If he survives—and that's a big if for any Iraqi politician—he could also be ready to rule.

Ah, Iraq's Mr. Cellophane to the rescue. Christopher Dickey at Newsweek offers more insight into Mowaffak al-Rubaie's clout, the kind of power an ol' political operative such as Bush would appreciate.

So while the right-wing pummels Murtha-Feingold-Kerry Democrats for advocating redeployment under the attack banner of cut and run, the Decider has already made the arrangements to withdraw a large portion of U.S. troops just in time for the midterm elections.

You heard it here first.

POST MORTEM UPDATE: When you're wrong, you're wrong. I was wrong. But the good news is, the electorate punished Republicans during the midterm elections for many reasons. But a big one was the war.

War on terror index v. the gospel of disinformation

The air thins at the summit of Mt. Wingnuttia, which might explain the light on substance, kick 'em in the nuts glandular reaction at the GOP. Dumb and deceptive, the pitiful Republican response to the appearance of John Murtha on NBC's Meet The Press and his redeployment plan (as opposed to the non-plan of "stay the course") included propaganda one would expect from a College Republican frat boy:

Today, Congressman John Murtha continued to demonstrate an inability to comprehend that surrendering the central front in the war on terror is not a strategy to defeat the terrorists.

My dear ill-advised RNC. Terrorism has boomed under the faulty national security policies of Bush-Cheney. No wonder Iraq is such a mess under your party's leadership if you can't follow the facts. First, the central front in the War of Terror isn't in Iraq but in... wait for it... America, our homeland, where terrorists actually attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001. How soon they forget! And how could they? After exploiting 9/11 ad nauseum at every given chance? FYI, the terrorist hijackers hit us in NYC and Washington, D.C., not Iraq. Failing to recognize the central front prompted an unnecessary invasion that has stifled progress in the War on Terror. I guess such details prove elusive when one composes political rhetoric meant to smear Democrats and mislead the electorate, words that were never intended to educate or inform. The truth is too scary.

Perhaps such GOP misdirection and Bushian incompetence explains its poor ratings from the Terrorism Index, a bipartisan evaluation compiled by the Center for American Progress and Foreign Policy Magazine. More than 100 of America's "most esteemed terrorism and national security experts" delivered an assessment that ought to make Republicans blush for their erroneous hatchet job on Murtha. Ah, but the Republicans' strength isn't factual. Theirs is the gospel of disinformation, as Murtha described, "a failed policy wrapped in illusion."

Eighty-seven percent of the Terrorism Index' bipartisan experts said the Iraq War has hurt our national security (with emphasis):

A vast majority think that the world today is more dangerous for the American people. Fewer than two in 10 believe the United States is winning the war on terror. [A bipartisan majority (84%) say we're losing.] More than eight in 10 believe we are likely to face a terrorist attack on the scale of September 11 within the next 10 years.

Over half list Islamic animosity and the Iraq war as the main reasons why the world is becoming more dangerous. The experts put nuclear weapons and materials as the top threat, followed closely by weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as a whole and then terrorism. Only four percent rank Iran as the greatest threat.

The experts also have serious concerns about the effectiveness of the U.S. national security apparatus and sharply criticize the U.S. government's efforts in numerous areas of national security, including public diplomacy, intelligence, and homeland security. They give the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) a score of 2.9 out of 10 in its functions related to national security, and more than 80 percent of the surveyed experts characterize efforts at intelligence reform to date as "fair" or "poor."

Coming from reliable sources...

Nearly 80 percent of the index participants have worked in the U.S. government--of these more than half were in the executive branch, one third in the military, and 17 percent in the intelligence community.

Other highlights from the full text of the Terrorism Index:

• Eighty-one percent believe the detention of suspected terrorists at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, negatively affects the war on terror

• "Foreign-policy experts have never been in so much agreement about an administration's performance abroad," says Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and an index participant. "The reason is that it's clear to nearly all that Bush and his team have had a totally unrealistic view of what they can accomplish with military force and threats of force."

• More than half of the index's experts said that creating the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has had no positive impact in the war against terror

• Asked to name the country that has produced the largest number of global terrorists, the index's foreign-policy experts pointed to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan--three of America's marquee allies in the Muslim world.

• After September 11, however, Saudi Arabia has emerged as the leading theater of jihadist-Salafist thought and action."

• Eighty-four percent of the experts said they believe a terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001, is likely or certain to happen in the next five years.

• More than a quarter said a 9/11-scale attack is certain to occur in America within the next decade.

• Asked about the likelihood of a smaller strike akin to the July 2005 London bombings, 91 percent agreed that such an attack is likely or certain by 2016; more than half said that such an attack could happen this year.

• Roughly two thirds of the experts said that some part of America's infrastructure--a port, train station, or major landmark--will be targeted.

Perhaps the GOP might want to retract its words against "Murtha Democrats" for advocating a redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq:

Americans have never feared a suicide bombing the way the people of Amman or Jerusalem have. But there may be reason to think that will soon change. A recent study by Rand found that 81 percent of all suicide attacks in the past 30 or so years have occurred since Sept. 11, 2001, and the primary motivation for each of these attacks was a military intervention or occupation such as the ongoing operations in Iraq. The odds that America can continue to elude the world's most popular form of terrorism may be fading fast.

No wonder the Republican Party offered such a boisterous whinny-boo-blah at John Murtha. Can't have people especially moderate swing voters waking up to the harsh realities of Bush's errant foreign policy or the sensible solutions proposed by Democrats. Might make Bush and the GOP look more incompetent and lethally negligent than they already do. If that's possible.

How many terrorism experts do you think work within the political apparatus of the GOP? For that matter, how many terrorism experts work in the Bush Administration? Ha! The Administration has a reputation for hemorrhaging very good analysts with "no dramatic improvement in how spies collect intelligence about terrorist targets." Stateside, the executive branch and its bureaucrats couldn't muster an effective response to America's worst disaster, Hurricane Katrina, and on whose watch did 9/11 happen? Anyone remember the lightning-quick, take-action stance of Bush when the WTC towers were hit? Yeah, a president mesmerized by My Pet Goat is just what America needs during a national security crisis. Just because the preznit talks tough doesn't mean he can get the job done. Apparently, according to terrorism experts, he's failing.

As Karl Rove cranks up his election machine to attack Democratic policies on Iraq and national security, remember that Bush and the Republicans have had five years to fight the War on Terror. Then ask yourself, why is the world more dangerous for Americans now than it was five years ago?