Anti-gay funeral protesters fined millionsAnti-gay church protested at ceremony for man’s son, a fallen Iraq Marine.
MSNBC News Services
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Biden Nails Rudy
Sen. Joe Biden nails Rudy Giuliani during Tuesday's MSNBC debate: "And the irony is, Rudy Giuliani, probably the most underqualified man since George Bush to seek the presidency, is here talking about any of the people here. Rudy Giuliani... I mean, think about it! Rudy Giuliani. There's only three things he mentions in a sentence -- a noun, a verb, and 9/11. There's nothing else! There's nothing else! And I mean this sincerely. He's genuinely not qualified to be president."
Cashing In on TerrorBy Robert Scheer —
Not to stoke any of the inane conspiracy theories running wild on the Internet, but if Osama bin Laden wasn’t on the payroll of Lockheed-Martin or some other large defense contractor, he deserves to have been. What a boondoggle 9/11 has been for the merchants of war, who this week announced yet another quarter of whopping profits made possible by George Bush’s pretending to fight terrorism by throwing money at outdated Cold War-style weapons systems.
Drumbeat, Shrumbeat: Oil Drums Don’t Beat!
By Christopher Platt
For several months now, I’ve been reading and hearing a constant drumming of ever-more-worrisome news reports and commentary with the term “drumbeat,” as in “The drumbeat for war with Iran grows louder.” This administration has really gone off the deep end, and the poison coming out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue about how we should attack Iran is so inflammatory (and so unnecessary, as I’ll discuss later on), that I’m reminded of the Warner Brothers cartoons of the late 1940s, which often depicted a clownish, raging Hitler frantically chewing on his office rugs and the curtains in his madness. No, I am NOT comparing our president, or our vice-president, to Hitler. I am comparing them to characters in a Diane Arbus photograph. I am comparing them to Looney Tunes. Just not as funny.
Does anyone really think we are doing so well with the war(s) we have that we can possibly believe it’s a good time to start another one? And what, pray tell, would we fight this new one with? We’re plumb out of weaponry – except for bullshit, which this administration has been piling up in abundance. How about delivery systems? I’ll leave that to the Neocons who have been burying us in the stuff for all these years.
Look, it really doesn’t have to go this way. Aren’t you as sick of all the carnage as I am? Can anyone possibly think we should be sending even more of our children to die for so fruitless an endeavor as showing Iran that we have bigger cojones – and even less concern for the lives of our kids than they do?
When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to speak at Columbia University, one of the many things he said which drew little comment was that his country was pursuing nuclear power not for its warmaking potential, but simply as an energy source. Iran, he said, lacks the capacity to refine most of its crude oil. Most of what it extracts, it sells, and then it has to import gasoline and other petroleum products, much the same as we do. That statement piqued my interest. So I looked it up. OPEC says Iran now produces about 3.4 million barrels/day (bpd) of crude. Iran’s own figures, if they’re accurate, show that its few refineries are processing about one-fifth of that amount to produce 40 million liters/day (340,000 bpd) of gasoline. But Iran needs 30 million liters/day more (another 255,000 bpd) to meet its current needs.
So here’s my idea. It’s a typically American solution to a problem. Let’s throw money at it, instead of the bodies of our children. Let’s take Ahmadinejad at his word, and assume he and the ruling mullahs really want to have their own gasoline. Let’s offer to build, at our expense, a world-class, $10-billion oil refinery in Iran – or, even better, TWO such facilities – like ones we have built in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States. A refinery on that scale can process about 500,000 bpd of crude into roughly 250,000 bpd of the good stuff. So, one refinery will make Iran happy. Now, give the no-bid construction contract to KBR, formerly part of Halliburton. That will make Dick Cheney happy. If Cheney’s happy, Pres. Bush is happy, too (means they might be able to go hunting together safely). And you all know what happens when Pres. Bush is happy? (Answer: Maybe Ahmadinejad shuts up for awhile. Maybe Tailgunner Joe Lieberman does, too. Worth it, no?)
Now, if we build two of these big boys, we first cut a deal where we get a guaranteed equivalent amount of crude (Or, what the Hell, let’s just take the gasoline. Our refining capacity isn’t so great, either!), at no cost, once construction has been completed, for just long enough to pay for the two refineries. In case you don’t want to do the math yourself, 500,000 bpd of crude oil, at $90/barrel – last week’s oil future price -- is $45 million/day. The refinery is paid for in 222 days! Two of ‘em are paid for within 14 months. Oh yes, the deal requires Iran to curb its nuclear program, under supervision and with verification of neutral outside observers.
So, Iran is refining another 1 million bpd of its crude, and we are splitting the output. After the repayment period is up, we agree to continue buying the same amount of crude, or the gasoline, at current prices – or, better still, we could “lock in” a price in advance like the smarter airlines do. Iran will still be pumping more than 1.5 million bpd of unrefined crude that it can sell to whomever it wants (my bet is on China).
Another way to see the advantages here: The last figures I saw peg our total daily crude oil imports at about 1.4 million bpd. We just cut that by a third, without having any new refineries built here, where they could damage our fragile Arctic wilderness ecosystem, or be swamped by a super-hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico. And the $10 billion? Sounds like a lot, sure, but that’s how much the Pentagon says our current war on Iraq/Afghanistan/Terror costs it every month. You want to scale it up? Sure! Why not build FOUR $10-billion refineries? That’s four months of war. For a long-term deal that accounts for better than half of our current level of imported crude. And doesn’t kill anybody. Take that, OPEC!
Objection! You say Iran is our enemy, it’s a terrorist state, and we shouldn’t be negotiating with a terrorist state. Oh, I can deal with that as easy as 1-2-3: (1) After 9/11, Iran was the FIRST nation to offer its condolences, support and complete cooperation in catching those responsible – including help against the Taliban. We rejected their offer. The November, 2007, issue of Esquire has an authoritative article that describes how, in April 2003, Iran floated a detailed Mideast peace plan that promised it would take “decisive action” against local terrorists, end its support for Hamaz and the Islamic Jihad, mothball its nuclear program AND agree to recognize Israel. But our government decided to ignore this incredible offer. (2) If you define a terrorist state as one that provides money, arms and other support to groups in another country bent on violence and fomenting unrest, just remember that the U.S. has openly provided exactly such succor to the Iraqi Kurds for decades. Now, some of the Kurds are attacking our longtime ally, Turkey. Oops! (3) Actually, NOT negotiating is how armed conflict usually starts, or persists. To say we don’t negotiate with terrorist states is bullshit, too. Our administration has branded North Korea as a terrorist state, yet we’ve been openly negotiating with them at Panmunjom since the 1950s. Any more questions?
Objection overruled. To get back to my plan, far and away the best thing about the idea is that we get plenty of that nice petroleum that our complete catastrophe in Iraq was supposedly all about, AND we’ll be leaving no more of our children’s precious blood spilled needlessly on the sand. Okay, you can put away those drums now.
For several months now, I’ve been reading and hearing a constant drumming of ever-more-worrisome news reports and commentary with the term “drumbeat,” as in “The drumbeat for war with Iran grows louder.” This administration has really gone off the deep end, and the poison coming out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue about how we should attack Iran is so inflammatory (and so unnecessary, as I’ll discuss later on), that I’m reminded of the Warner Brothers cartoons of the late 1940s, which often depicted a clownish, raging Hitler frantically chewing on his office rugs and the curtains in his madness. No, I am NOT comparing our president, or our vice-president, to Hitler. I am comparing them to characters in a Diane Arbus photograph. I am comparing them to Looney Tunes. Just not as funny.
Does anyone really think we are doing so well with the war(s) we have that we can possibly believe it’s a good time to start another one? And what, pray tell, would we fight this new one with? We’re plumb out of weaponry – except for bullshit, which this administration has been piling up in abundance. How about delivery systems? I’ll leave that to the Neocons who have been burying us in the stuff for all these years.
Look, it really doesn’t have to go this way. Aren’t you as sick of all the carnage as I am? Can anyone possibly think we should be sending even more of our children to die for so fruitless an endeavor as showing Iran that we have bigger cojones – and even less concern for the lives of our kids than they do?
When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to speak at Columbia University, one of the many things he said which drew little comment was that his country was pursuing nuclear power not for its warmaking potential, but simply as an energy source. Iran, he said, lacks the capacity to refine most of its crude oil. Most of what it extracts, it sells, and then it has to import gasoline and other petroleum products, much the same as we do. That statement piqued my interest. So I looked it up. OPEC says Iran now produces about 3.4 million barrels/day (bpd) of crude. Iran’s own figures, if they’re accurate, show that its few refineries are processing about one-fifth of that amount to produce 40 million liters/day (340,000 bpd) of gasoline. But Iran needs 30 million liters/day more (another 255,000 bpd) to meet its current needs.
So here’s my idea. It’s a typically American solution to a problem. Let’s throw money at it, instead of the bodies of our children. Let’s take Ahmadinejad at his word, and assume he and the ruling mullahs really want to have their own gasoline. Let’s offer to build, at our expense, a world-class, $10-billion oil refinery in Iran – or, even better, TWO such facilities – like ones we have built in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States. A refinery on that scale can process about 500,000 bpd of crude into roughly 250,000 bpd of the good stuff. So, one refinery will make Iran happy. Now, give the no-bid construction contract to KBR, formerly part of Halliburton. That will make Dick Cheney happy. If Cheney’s happy, Pres. Bush is happy, too (means they might be able to go hunting together safely). And you all know what happens when Pres. Bush is happy? (Answer: Maybe Ahmadinejad shuts up for awhile. Maybe Tailgunner Joe Lieberman does, too. Worth it, no?)
Now, if we build two of these big boys, we first cut a deal where we get a guaranteed equivalent amount of crude (Or, what the Hell, let’s just take the gasoline. Our refining capacity isn’t so great, either!), at no cost, once construction has been completed, for just long enough to pay for the two refineries. In case you don’t want to do the math yourself, 500,000 bpd of crude oil, at $90/barrel – last week’s oil future price -- is $45 million/day. The refinery is paid for in 222 days! Two of ‘em are paid for within 14 months. Oh yes, the deal requires Iran to curb its nuclear program, under supervision and with verification of neutral outside observers.
So, Iran is refining another 1 million bpd of its crude, and we are splitting the output. After the repayment period is up, we agree to continue buying the same amount of crude, or the gasoline, at current prices – or, better still, we could “lock in” a price in advance like the smarter airlines do. Iran will still be pumping more than 1.5 million bpd of unrefined crude that it can sell to whomever it wants (my bet is on China).
Another way to see the advantages here: The last figures I saw peg our total daily crude oil imports at about 1.4 million bpd. We just cut that by a third, without having any new refineries built here, where they could damage our fragile Arctic wilderness ecosystem, or be swamped by a super-hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico. And the $10 billion? Sounds like a lot, sure, but that’s how much the Pentagon says our current war on Iraq/Afghanistan/Terror costs it every month. You want to scale it up? Sure! Why not build FOUR $10-billion refineries? That’s four months of war. For a long-term deal that accounts for better than half of our current level of imported crude. And doesn’t kill anybody. Take that, OPEC!
Objection! You say Iran is our enemy, it’s a terrorist state, and we shouldn’t be negotiating with a terrorist state. Oh, I can deal with that as easy as 1-2-3: (1) After 9/11, Iran was the FIRST nation to offer its condolences, support and complete cooperation in catching those responsible – including help against the Taliban. We rejected their offer. The November, 2007, issue of Esquire has an authoritative article that describes how, in April 2003, Iran floated a detailed Mideast peace plan that promised it would take “decisive action” against local terrorists, end its support for Hamaz and the Islamic Jihad, mothball its nuclear program AND agree to recognize Israel. But our government decided to ignore this incredible offer. (2) If you define a terrorist state as one that provides money, arms and other support to groups in another country bent on violence and fomenting unrest, just remember that the U.S. has openly provided exactly such succor to the Iraqi Kurds for decades. Now, some of the Kurds are attacking our longtime ally, Turkey. Oops! (3) Actually, NOT negotiating is how armed conflict usually starts, or persists. To say we don’t negotiate with terrorist states is bullshit, too. Our administration has branded North Korea as a terrorist state, yet we’ve been openly negotiating with them at Panmunjom since the 1950s. Any more questions?
Objection overruled. To get back to my plan, far and away the best thing about the idea is that we get plenty of that nice petroleum that our complete catastrophe in Iraq was supposedly all about, AND we’ll be leaving no more of our children’s precious blood spilled needlessly on the sand. Okay, you can put away those drums now.
# # #
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Bush’s Dangerous Liaisons
The New York Times
October 28, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
By FRANÇOIS FURSTENBERG
Montreal
MUCH as George W. Bush’s presidency was ineluctably shaped by Sept. 11, 2001, so the outbreak of the French Revolution was symbolized by the events of one fateful day, July 14, 1789. And though 18th-century France may seem impossibly distant to contemporary Americans, future historians examining Mr. Bush’s presidency within the longer sweep of political and intellectual history may find the French Revolution useful in understanding his curious brand of 21st- century conservatism.
Soon after the storming of the Bastille, pro-Revolutionary elements came together to form an association that would become known as the Jacobin Club, an umbrella group of politicians, journalists and citizens dedicated to advancing the principles of the Revolution.
The Jacobins shared a defining ideological feature. They divided the world between pro- and anti-Revolutionaries — the defenders of liberty versus its enemies. The French Revolution, as they understood it, was the great event that would determine whether liberty was to prevail on the planet or whether the world would fall back into tyranny and despotism.
The stakes could not be higher, and on these matters there could be no nuance or hesitation. One was either for the Revolution or for tyranny.
By 1792, France was confronting the hostility of neighboring countries, debating how to react. The Jacobins were divided. On one side stood the journalist and political leader Jacques-Pierre Brissot de Warville, who argued for war.
Brissot understood the war as preventive — “une guerre offensive,” he called it — to defeat the despotic powers of Europe before they could organize their counter-Revolutionary strike. It would not be a war of conquest, as Brissot saw it, but a war “between liberty and tyranny.”
Pro-war Jacobins believed theirs was a mission not for a single nation or even for a single continent. It was, in Brissot’s words, “a crusade for universal liberty.”
Brissot’s opponents were skeptical. “No one likes armed missionaries,” declared Robespierre, with words as apt then as they remain today. Not long after the invasion of Austria, the military tide turned quickly against France.
The United States, France’s “sister republic,” refused to enter the war on France’s side. It was an infuriating show of ingratitude, as the French saw it, coming from a fledgling nation they had magnanimously saved from foreign occupation in a previous war.
Confronted by a monarchical Europe united in opposition to revolutionary France — old Europe, they might have called it — the Jacobins rooted out domestic political dissent. It was the beginning of the period that would become infamous as the Terror.
Among the Jacobins’ greatest triumphs was their ability to appropriate the rhetoric of patriotism — Le Patriote Français was the title of Brissot’s newspaper — and to promote their political program through a tightly coordinated network of newspapers, political hacks, pamphleteers and political clubs.
Even the Jacobins’ dress distinguished “true patriots”: those who wore badges of patriotism like the liberty cap on their heads, or the cocarde tricolore (a red, white and blue rosette) on their hats or even on their lapels.
Insisting that their partisan views were identical to the national will, believing that only they could save France from apocalyptic destruction, Jacobins could not conceive of legitimate dissent. Political opponents were treasonous, stabbing France and the Revolution in the back.
To defend the nation from its enemies, Jacobins expanded the government’s police powers at the expense of civil liberties, endowing the state with the power to detain, interrogate and imprison suspects without due process. Policies like the mass warrantless searches undertaken in 1792 — “domicilary visits,” they were called — were justified, according to Georges Danton, the Jacobin leader, “when the homeland is in danger.”
Robespierre — now firmly committed to the most militant brand of Jacobinism — condemned the “treacherous insinuations” cast by those who questioned “the excessive severity of measures prescribed by the public interest.” He warned his political opponents, “This severity is alarming only for the conspirators, only for the enemies of liberty.” Such measures, then as now, were undertaken to protect the nation — indeed, to protect liberty itself.
If the French Terror had a slogan, it was that attributed to the great orator Louis de Saint-Just: “No liberty for the enemies of liberty.” Saint-Just’s pithy phrase (like President Bush’s variant, “We must not let foreign enemies use the forums of liberty to destroy liberty itself”) could serve as the very antithesis of the Western liberal tradition.
On this principle, the Terror demonized its political opponents, imprisoned suspected enemies without trial and eventually sent thousands to the guillotine. All of these actions emerged from the Jacobin worldview that the enemies of liberty deserved no rights.
Though it has been a topic of much attention in recent years, the origin of the term “terrorist” has gone largely unnoticed by politicians and pundits alike. The word was an invention of the French Revolution, and it referred not to those who hate freedom, nor to non-state actors, nor of course to “Islamofascism.”
A terroriste was, in its original meaning, a Jacobin leader who ruled France during la Terreur.
François Furstenberg, a professor of history at the University of Montreal, is the author of "In the Name of the Father: Washington’s Legacy, Slavery and the Making of a Nation."
October 28, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
By FRANÇOIS FURSTENBERG
Montreal
MUCH as George W. Bush’s presidency was ineluctably shaped by Sept. 11, 2001, so the outbreak of the French Revolution was symbolized by the events of one fateful day, July 14, 1789. And though 18th-century France may seem impossibly distant to contemporary Americans, future historians examining Mr. Bush’s presidency within the longer sweep of political and intellectual history may find the French Revolution useful in understanding his curious brand of 21st- century conservatism.
Soon after the storming of the Bastille, pro-Revolutionary elements came together to form an association that would become known as the Jacobin Club, an umbrella group of politicians, journalists and citizens dedicated to advancing the principles of the Revolution.
The Jacobins shared a defining ideological feature. They divided the world between pro- and anti-Revolutionaries — the defenders of liberty versus its enemies. The French Revolution, as they understood it, was the great event that would determine whether liberty was to prevail on the planet or whether the world would fall back into tyranny and despotism.
The stakes could not be higher, and on these matters there could be no nuance or hesitation. One was either for the Revolution or for tyranny.
By 1792, France was confronting the hostility of neighboring countries, debating how to react. The Jacobins were divided. On one side stood the journalist and political leader Jacques-Pierre Brissot de Warville, who argued for war.
Brissot understood the war as preventive — “une guerre offensive,” he called it — to defeat the despotic powers of Europe before they could organize their counter-Revolutionary strike. It would not be a war of conquest, as Brissot saw it, but a war “between liberty and tyranny.”
Pro-war Jacobins believed theirs was a mission not for a single nation or even for a single continent. It was, in Brissot’s words, “a crusade for universal liberty.”
Brissot’s opponents were skeptical. “No one likes armed missionaries,” declared Robespierre, with words as apt then as they remain today. Not long after the invasion of Austria, the military tide turned quickly against France.
The United States, France’s “sister republic,” refused to enter the war on France’s side. It was an infuriating show of ingratitude, as the French saw it, coming from a fledgling nation they had magnanimously saved from foreign occupation in a previous war.
Confronted by a monarchical Europe united in opposition to revolutionary France — old Europe, they might have called it — the Jacobins rooted out domestic political dissent. It was the beginning of the period that would become infamous as the Terror.
Among the Jacobins’ greatest triumphs was their ability to appropriate the rhetoric of patriotism — Le Patriote Français was the title of Brissot’s newspaper — and to promote their political program through a tightly coordinated network of newspapers, political hacks, pamphleteers and political clubs.
Even the Jacobins’ dress distinguished “true patriots”: those who wore badges of patriotism like the liberty cap on their heads, or the cocarde tricolore (a red, white and blue rosette) on their hats or even on their lapels.
Insisting that their partisan views were identical to the national will, believing that only they could save France from apocalyptic destruction, Jacobins could not conceive of legitimate dissent. Political opponents were treasonous, stabbing France and the Revolution in the back.
To defend the nation from its enemies, Jacobins expanded the government’s police powers at the expense of civil liberties, endowing the state with the power to detain, interrogate and imprison suspects without due process. Policies like the mass warrantless searches undertaken in 1792 — “domicilary visits,” they were called — were justified, according to Georges Danton, the Jacobin leader, “when the homeland is in danger.”
Robespierre — now firmly committed to the most militant brand of Jacobinism — condemned the “treacherous insinuations” cast by those who questioned “the excessive severity of measures prescribed by the public interest.” He warned his political opponents, “This severity is alarming only for the conspirators, only for the enemies of liberty.” Such measures, then as now, were undertaken to protect the nation — indeed, to protect liberty itself.
If the French Terror had a slogan, it was that attributed to the great orator Louis de Saint-Just: “No liberty for the enemies of liberty.” Saint-Just’s pithy phrase (like President Bush’s variant, “We must not let foreign enemies use the forums of liberty to destroy liberty itself”) could serve as the very antithesis of the Western liberal tradition.
On this principle, the Terror demonized its political opponents, imprisoned suspected enemies without trial and eventually sent thousands to the guillotine. All of these actions emerged from the Jacobin worldview that the enemies of liberty deserved no rights.
Though it has been a topic of much attention in recent years, the origin of the term “terrorist” has gone largely unnoticed by politicians and pundits alike. The word was an invention of the French Revolution, and it referred not to those who hate freedom, nor to non-state actors, nor of course to “Islamofascism.”
A terroriste was, in its original meaning, a Jacobin leader who ruled France during la Terreur.
François Furstenberg, a professor of history at the University of Montreal, is the author of "In the Name of the Father: Washington’s Legacy, Slavery and the Making of a Nation."
Monday, October 29, 2007
None of the mainstream press coverage of record-high crude oil prices that I saw last week turned $92.22-a-barrel into a teachable moment. Instead of exhuming archival footage of gas station lines from the '70s, producers might have re-aired the more recent tape of former Harken Energy director George W. Bush strolling hand-in-hand through the Crawford bluebonnets with Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah.
The Mega-Bunker of BaghdadThe new American Embassy in Baghdad will be the largest, least welcoming, and most lavish embassy in the world: a $600 million massively fortified compound with 619 blast-resistant apartments and a food court fit for a shopping mall. Unfortunately, like other similarly constructed U.S. Embassies, it may already be obsolete.
by William Langewiesche
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Bush's Appalachian War: Bombing Ancient Mountainsby Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse
Bush cites his "global war on terror" and the need for energy independence as reasons to legalize the killing of mountains from a range that has lived for millions of years. There is no way to bring back the over 450 mountaintops that have been razed solely to permit profitable coal mining for his buddies. Instead of pursuing a clean energy policy, Bush has declared war on Appalachia.
Many Americans are not aware that our self-proclaimed patriotic warrior who loves to preach adherence to religious doctrine is killing our "purple mountain majesties" that God has "shed His grace on" for the benefit of all. This is a war, complete with Bush authorizing mining companies to occupy Appalachia, literally bomb away the mountain summits and kill not just mountains and streams, but people, culture, environmental habitat and species.
During 1985-2001, "approximately 800 square miles of mountains were leveled."
Don’t Confirm MukaseyBy Matthew Rothschild
His callous attitude about brutality, and this Cheney-esque attitude about the powers of the Presidency disqualify Mukasey for the post of leading law enforcement officer in the USA.
****************************************
Don’t Give Mukasey a Pass
By Marie Cocco
The nominee for attorney general doesn’t know “what is involved” in waterboarding, and he appears to back Bush’s usurpation of power. Isn’t it time for the Democrats to grow some spine?
Friday, October 26, 2007
Edwards Gets Tough on BusinessSusan Davis reports on the presidential race.
John Edwards is targeting Corporate America and what he argues are its corrupt and greedy practices. In a speech today in Des Moines, Iowa, he is outlining his plan to renew the “social contract” between business and government if elected president. “In corporate America, where a broader sense of social responsibility once held sway, a culture of greed has taken over.
Instead of treating their employees fairly, being accountable to their shareholders and contributing to America’s prosperity, CEOs act like their corporations exist just to build their own massive fortunes,” says Edwards, according to speech excerpts provided to Washington Wire by his campaign.
Edwards is proposing, among other things, universal retirement accounts that employers would be required to provide if they don’t offer pension programs. Workers’ contributions would be matched dollar-for-dollar on the first $500 through a proposed “Get Ahead” tax credit. The plan would also allow workers to put their savings into government-sponsored annuities that would be run through the existing federal retirement savings plan or the Social Security Administration.
Edwards is also proposing stronger protections for workers seeking to unionize and increased shareholder rights. And he’s proposing to cap tax-deferred compensation funds for top executives at $1 million annually, and pushing for more disclosure of corporate governance structures, the pay and demographics of top corporate officers, as well as political contributions, government contracts, and taxes paid.
To protect consumers, Edwards wants a new regulator, the Family Savings and Credit Commission, which would oversee credit card and financial services plans marketed to the public. He also proposes tougher Food and Drug Administration inspection standards and safety regulations on products, like kids’ toys, made abroad.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
The Lies Of John McCain And Mike Huckabeeby Bob Cesca
America was founded by men of the Enlightenment: a movement which emphasized reason, rationality, liberalism, anti-authoritarianism and political equality. The founders were revolutionary liberals who believed strongly in secular government. This is nowhere near "right of center" or indicative of a Judeo-Christian Nation.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
By Robert Scheer —
Hey, a billion here, a billion there, who’s counting? Not the State Department, which admitted this week that it can’t say “specifically what it received” for the $1.2 billion it paid DynCorp, ostensibly to train the Iraqi police—other than that somebody got an Olympic-size swimming pool out of the deal.
On the eve of destruction By Scott Ritter —
The former intelligence officer and weapons inspector argues that the president’s recent World War III comment offers some rare insight into the highly secretive world of George W. Bush’s White House, where the leader of the free world gets advice from reckless neoconservatives, “war criminal” Dick Cheney and “God.”
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Rudy pulls a Richardsonby kos
Do politicians really think panders like this one help them out?
Sounds like a baseball flip-flop. Rudy Giuliani, a lifelong New York Yankees fan, said Tuesday he's pulling for their most hated rivals, the Boston Red Sox, to win the World Series over the Colorado Rockies.
"I'm rooting for the Red Sox," the Republican presidential contender said in response to a question, sparking applause at the Boston restaurant where he was picking up a local endorsement.
New Hampshire is Red Sox territory
Money for nothing? Condi, you're doing a heck of a job.by Tim Grieve
When George W. Bush said during his 2005 State of the Union address that "taxpayer dollars must be spent wisely, or not at all," we vowed to pack those words away and pull them out again whenever the occasion warranted.
The occasion warrants.
As the Washington Post reports this morning, the State Department cannot say "specifically what it received" for the $1.2 billion it has given to a company that was supposed to be building training facilities and deploying trainers for Iraqi police.
The problem is in the records -- they're in "disarray," the Post says -- and in the lack of oversight from State. The audit finds that State had all of two employees overseeing the $1.2 billion and 700 contractors in Iraq -- a level of supervision Iraq Reconstruction Inspector General Stuart W. Bowen Jr. calls "pretty weak."
How poor was State's oversight? This poor: As the Post explains, State initially told auditors that, as part of its Iraq contract, DynCorp had billed the government $1.8 million for an X-ray scanner it never used and spent nearly $400,000 to put company executives in hotels rather than in existing living facilities. That's bad, but it gets worse: It turns out the expenditures weren't even made in Iraq; they were made in Afghanistan, which is, like, a totally different country.
But no worries now, because the State Department is totally on top of the problem -- and sometime within "three to five years," it says it will be able to square the payments it has made to DynCorp with whatever services it may have received from the company.
All of which reminds us of something else the president once said: Condi, you're doing a heck of a job.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Friday, October 19, 2007
Thursday, October 18, 2007
House sustains SCHIP veto
Rough debate, expected vote
by Tim Grieve
Oct. 18, 2007 Democrats in the House often complain that the Senate is where good bills go to die. Today, the shoe is on the other foot. While there appear to be enough votes in the Senate to overturn the president's veto of legislation expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program, supporters in the House have just fallen short.
The vote -- 273-156, 13 shy of the two-thirds majority needed to overcome a veto -- came after a nasty TV-and-blog fight and then a contentious debate on the House floor. At one point, Democratic Rep. Pete Stark said that the president's claim to care about healthcare for children shouldn't be taken any more seriously than his "lies" about Iraq, and that under the "Republican plan" for the war, we "will have killed" 20,000 soldiers by 2013, when SCHIP funding would have dropped under the bill Bush vetoed. Republican Rep. Joe Barton moved to have Stark's words stricken from the record.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she's going to keep fighting for the expansion. But with today's vote, Bush's veto stands, and she doesn't have much in the way of leverage left. Yes, polls show that the public is with the Democrats on this one. But the polls have also shown that a majority of Americans prefer Democratic positions on the war in Iraq, too. Look what that has gotten them.
Just before today's vote, White House press secretary Dana Perino -- told, falsely, by a reporter that the vote had already happened -- said that the president would seek a compromise with SCHIP supporters and might be amenable to putting more money into the program if "the evidence" shows that it's needed. Democrats say they've already compromised enough. Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois told CNN Wednesday night: "There will be no compromise on 10 million children's healthcare. We won't go above it, but we ain't going below it."
We'll see.
*************************************************************************************
SCHIP Veto by the Numbers
Congress Steps Up EffortsEveryone but the Bush administration knows that efficient, effective, and fiscally responsible SCHIP just makes sense.
Rough debate, expected vote
by Tim Grieve
Oct. 18, 2007 Democrats in the House often complain that the Senate is where good bills go to die. Today, the shoe is on the other foot. While there appear to be enough votes in the Senate to overturn the president's veto of legislation expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program, supporters in the House have just fallen short.
The vote -- 273-156, 13 shy of the two-thirds majority needed to overcome a veto -- came after a nasty TV-and-blog fight and then a contentious debate on the House floor. At one point, Democratic Rep. Pete Stark said that the president's claim to care about healthcare for children shouldn't be taken any more seriously than his "lies" about Iraq, and that under the "Republican plan" for the war, we "will have killed" 20,000 soldiers by 2013, when SCHIP funding would have dropped under the bill Bush vetoed. Republican Rep. Joe Barton moved to have Stark's words stricken from the record.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she's going to keep fighting for the expansion. But with today's vote, Bush's veto stands, and she doesn't have much in the way of leverage left. Yes, polls show that the public is with the Democrats on this one. But the polls have also shown that a majority of Americans prefer Democratic positions on the war in Iraq, too. Look what that has gotten them.
Just before today's vote, White House press secretary Dana Perino -- told, falsely, by a reporter that the vote had already happened -- said that the president would seek a compromise with SCHIP supporters and might be amenable to putting more money into the program if "the evidence" shows that it's needed. Democrats say they've already compromised enough. Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois told CNN Wednesday night: "There will be no compromise on 10 million children's healthcare. We won't go above it, but we ain't going below it."
We'll see.
*************************************************************************************
SCHIP Veto by the Numbers
Congress Steps Up EffortsEveryone but the Bush administration knows that efficient, effective, and fiscally responsible SCHIP just makes sense.
Bush, Putin and World War IIIParsing the president's reckless remarks about Russia, Israel and Iran. Plus: End the Larry Craig pity party!
by Joan Walsh
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Monday, October 15, 2007
OP-ED COLUMNIST; The ‘Good Germans’ Among UsBy FRANK RICH
Our humanity has been compromised by those who use Gestapo tactics in the Iraq war. The longer we stand idly by, the more we resemble the “good Germans.”
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Friday, October 12, 2007
Al Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize
The chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Committee, Ole Danbolt Mjoes, holds a picture of Al Gore, during the announcement Friday in Oslo.
The chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Committee, Ole Danbolt Mjoes, holds a picture of Al Gore, during the announcement Friday in Oslo.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
The Republican Debate: Who needs the Constitution?By Ruth Conniff
The debate's weirdest moment: When Mitt Romney said he'd have to ask his lawyer whether the President needs to ask Congress to authorize an attack on Iran. That's why we have Ron Paul. "This idea of going and talking to attorneys totally baffles me!" he declared hotly. "Why don't we just open up the Constitution and read it!"
John Ridley: Che it Ain't So
A prime exemplar of the "create a legend/resurrection" method of eternal iconography would be Ernesto (Che) Guevara, the Argentine-born revolutionary who was executed forty years ago today in Bolivia. Death transmogrified him into a symbol of revolution itself. Romanticized and corporate pimped, for most who even know who Guevara was they have no idea what he stood for.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Dumb but friendly: Good for a dog, not so much for a president Richard Nixon on Fred Thompsonby Tim Grieve
Just in time for Fred Thompson's GOP debate debut, ABC News has unearthed some vintage Richard Nixon commentary that fits in just a little too comfortably with the fast-emerging conventional wisdom on the man.
Thompson served as minority counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee, and it's in that context that Nixon says -- on tape, of course -- that he thought the young lawyer wasn't smart enough to go up against his Democratic counterpart, Sam Dash. "Dash is too smart for that kid," Nixon tells John Dean on one tape. On another, Nixon tells Alexander Haig that Thompson is "dumb as hell."
In June 1973, White House counsel Fred Buzhardt tells Nixon that the White House has developed "a pretty good rapport" with Thompson, who "came through fine for us this morning."
Nixon: "He isn't very smart, is he?"
Buzhardt: "Not extremely so, but --"
Nixon: "But he's friendly."
Buzhardt: "But he's, he's friendly."
Nixon: "Good."
Monday, October 08, 2007
Defusing the "Ticking Time Bomb" Excuseby Karen J. Greenberg
Life does not imitate 24, and the Democratic candidates, led by Hillary Clinton, are finally learning to address the unrealistic scenarios that Republicans often use to justify torture.
It's time to start crafting interrogation and detention policies that will really keep us safe from another terrorist attack.
Brodner's Person of the Day: Blackwater
Illustration and Text By Steve Brodner
Blackwater Inaccuracy of the Day
In discussing their role as private security forces in Iraq, Blackwater executives have mentioned that they differ from the U.S. Army in that they don't need to get "hearts and minds." Seems to me they sell themselves short.
Illustration and Text By Steve Brodner
Blackwater Inaccuracy of the Day
In discussing their role as private security forces in Iraq, Blackwater executives have mentioned that they differ from the U.S. Army in that they don't need to get "hearts and minds." Seems to me they sell themselves short.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)