The Back Room

Welcome to The Back Room! Step in, read, write and link with other sites that focus on the Bush Administration, their lies and our demand for the truth. The Back Room was created over many dinners, glasses of wine and "pints" of frustration over where our country is headed. We need more voices, your voices,to help us uncover and reclaim our democracy.

My Photo
Name:
Location: Wisconsin, United States

the best pretty good okay pretty bad the worst

Saturday, October 29, 2005

Mr. Cheney, Please Raise Your Right Hand....


Will he promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Dick Cheney will be the first sitting Vice President to be a witness in a federal trial as Scooter was hit with 5 indictments yesterday. Oh, the shame...

I can only hope they allow cameras in the courtroom on this one:)

The five charges against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Jr. carry a total maximum penalty of 30 years in prison and $1.25 million in fines. A look at the charges as outlined in a 22-page indictment released Friday:

• Count one. Obstruction of justice.

The grand jury charges that Libby did "knowingly and corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice ... by misleading and deceiving the grand jury" about when and how he learned that covert operative Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. He is also accused of misleading the grand jury about how he disclosed that information to the media.

• Count two. False statement.

The grand jury charges that Libby "did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement" in an
FBI investigation. Specifically, the indictment says Libby misled FBI agents in response to questions about a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News in July 2003.

• Count three. False statement.

Libby is charged with misleading FBI agents about his July 2003 conversation with another reporter, Matt Cooper of Time Magazine.

• Count four. Perjury.

After taking an oath to testify truthfully, Libby knowingly made a "false material declaration" about his conversation with Russert, the grand jury alleges.

• Count five. Perjury.

Also under oath, Libby is accused of knowingly making a "false material declaration" about his conversation with Cooper.

Other Links: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/

Friday, October 28, 2005

Prophecy?

" I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we are going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Suddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put in another government in its place. What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or a Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualities should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable? I think it is vitally important for a president to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq."

--- Dick Cheney, the Washington's Institute's Soref Symposium, April 29, 1991

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Fightin' George


George Galloway has come under attack again. Mr. Galloway continues to deny all charges. We're behind you, George!! Fight on!

For more info. on lastest charges, link to: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4374534.stm

Irish Pubs OK With Smoking Ban


Here in Wisconsin, there has been a lot of grumbling and uneasiness with introducing a smoking ban in bars. Establishment owners fear a loss in profits while some smokers dread the thought of having to leave their warm bar stools to light up outside.

In Ireland, the smoking ban was introduced and the Irish seem to be accepting it with ease. Wisconsin and other states need to embrace a ban on smoking to protect employees' heath and also to set the precedent that tobacco products aren't welcome in public areas.~Anna

Read the following article on the Irish (source~BBC):


Smoking has been banned in pubs in Ireland since March. The Irish Republic introduced a smoking ban in pubs, restaurants and other workplaces at the end of March 2004.
Four months on, BBC correspondent Shane Harrison reports on how it's working:

The pub plays an important role in Irish social life. It is where friends meet to share a drink and to chat. You tamper with pub culture here at your peril. But that is exactly what the government did when it introduced its smoking ban aimed at protecting workers' health.
And despite the dire warnings that jobs would be lost and sales would drop dramatically, nothing of the sort has happened.

At least not yet, though vintners groups complain that some publicans have noticed a fall-off in trade.

Indeed, the ban is now so universally accepted that one correspondent wrote to a national newspaper here that she saw a group of men standing outside a pub smoking at 7am when the pub should legally have been closed. The implication was that it was OK to drink in a pub outside of opening hours but don't dare light up inside. A recent report by the state's Office of Tobacco Control found well over 90% compliance with the ban.

Many people have been surprised about how quickly the Irish people have adapted to the change and how easily they were persuaded to say goodbye to the traditionally smoky pub.
If you visit Dublin today you will see a new emerging pub culture - one that combines continental café society with the traditional public house.

That means people drinking outside on the street, sitting at a table, with their pint in one hand and a cigarette in the other as they chat with fellow smokers. Whether this changed behaviour lasts into the cold, wet winter is, of course, another question. Inside you are likely to see more women and more families than you would have in the past. The pubs certainly look cleaner and the air is definitely better.

Mind you, one national radio presenter recently complained that the air was so fresh that these days in pubs you could now smell a lot more of the customers' farts - something that the smoke had previously disguised.

Many people have been surprised about how quickly the Irish people have adapted to the change and how easily they were persuaded to say goodbye to the traditionally smoky pub.
That complaint is frequently heard but most people believe it is a small price to pay, if only because you cannot get cancer from the passive inhaling of farts.

While the Irish have adapted to the change without any major problem, many tourists visiting the city have had to be reminded that they're not allowed to light up any more in pubs and restaurants here.

The overwhelming majority accept the ban with little more hostility than a mere shrug of the shoulders. The Irish government is pleased Norway has now followed its example and introduced a smoking ban. And it is confident that other countries will follow suit in their attempts to curb the side-effects of passive smoking.

Sunday, October 23, 2005

Rabbit Hole

Something's got to give this week. Patrick Fitzgerald will most likely indict Rove and then we'll see how deep the rabbit hole goes...

The more information that comes out, the more it seems like the Bush administration wanted to cover-up their lies leading up to the Iraq invasion rather than punish Wilson and Plame.

Interesting comments on Meet The Press this morning:

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to the situation here in Washington, the CIA leak investigation, very much tied in obviously to the war in Iraq and the way it was presented to the American people. And bringing you all back to September 30, George Bush addressing the American people and he said this.

(Videotape, September 30, 2003):
PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.
(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Now, one week later, Scott McClellan was asked specifically about Karl Rove and Scooter Libby whether they had been involved in disseminating information about Valerie Plame, the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, and this is what Mr. McClellan said.

(Videotape, October 7, 2003):
MR. SCOTT McCLELLAN: They are good individuals. They're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt with that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you. And that's exactly what I did.
(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: "They were not involved." Senator Allen, is that statement still operative?

SEN. ALLEN: I don't know. I wasn't in any of the grand jury investigations, and I think that from what you're saying and most indications is the prosecutor, special prosecutor Fitzgerald, will be coming out with whatever the resolution of those grand jury investigations are. So I don't know what the testimony is, what the evidence is, and I guess we'll find out sometime this week.

MR. RUSSERT: Based what's in the public domain from Judith Miller when she wrote in The New York Times and others have said publicly, do you believe that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby discussed Joseph Wilson's trip and his wife's employment at the CIA?

SEN. ALLEN: I don't know. I know that's rare from a politician. I don't know. I've been more focused on Harriet Miers' qualifications and reducing energy prices and others, and I'll leave this to the prosecution and by the way, again, due process rather than a lot of speculation on what actually is known or not said in testimony in a very closed grand jury proceeding.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Hutchison, you think those comments from the White House are credible?

SEN. HUTCHISON: Tim, you know, I think we have to remember something here. An indictment of any kind is not a guilty verdict, and I do think we have in this country the right to go to court and have due process and be innocent until proven guilty. And secondly, I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars. So they go to something that trips someone up because they said something in the first grand jury and then maybe they found new information or they forgot something and they tried to correct that in a second grand jury.
I think we should be very careful here, especially as we are dealing with something very public and people's lives in the public arena. I do not think we should prejudge. I think it is unfair to drag people through the newspapers week after week after week, and let's just see what the charges are. Let's tone down the rhetoric and let's make sure that if there are indictments that we don't prejudge.

MR. RUSSERT: But the fact is perjury or obstruction of justice is a very serious crime and Republicans certainly thought so when charges were placed against Bill Clinton before the United States Senate. Senator Hutchison.

SEN. HUTCHISON: Well, there were charges against Bill Clinton besides perjury and obstruction of justice. And I'm not saying that those are not crimes. They are. But I also think that we are seeing in the judicial process--and look at Martha Stewart, for instance, where they couldn't find a crime and they indict on something that she said about something that wasn't a crime. I think that it is important, of course, that we have a perjury and an obstruction of justice crime, but I also think we are seeing grand juries and U.S. attorneys and district attorneys that go for technicalities, sort of a gotcha mentality in this country. And I think we have to weigh both sides of this issue very carefully and not just jump to conclusions, because someone is in the public arena, that they are guilty without being able to put their case forward. I really object to that.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Schumer, do you believe that comments from the White House are still credible?

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, Tim, I have a different take on this than Kay Bailey Hutchison. As you know, I was very involved in this. I had called for an investigation, had helped George Tenet talk to the FBI about why he was outraged and asked for a special counsel.

Patrick Fitzgerald is above reproach. He is totally non-political. He is a prosecutor's prosecutor. And nobody has called into question his motives. He's the type of prosecutor who will not indict just because an indictment would make headlines or he's done this for a year and a half. Nor would he shy away from an indictment if it were for real.

I, for one, am prepared to say here this morning that I will abide by Patrick Fitzgerald's decision. I think we all should. I think that Kay and George should do the same. Because Patrick Fitzgerald is a prosecutor's prosecutor, and we should abide by that. I would say one other thing about this. I think the president should make clear--he's been all over the lot on what he would do if there were indictments in the White House. And I think the president should make clear what his standard will be before prosecutor Fitzgerald makes his decision, so no one thinks that what the president does is aimed at a particular person, whether it be a secretary or the top people in the White House.



http://www.nytimes.com/ref/politics/2005_LEAKTIMELINE_GRAPHIC.html

Thursday, October 20, 2005

British Journalist Robert Fisk


Interesting comments from Robert Fisk on the war in Iraq:

"Three days after the Americans came to Baghdad, I said the real story is about to begin and that is the story of war against American occupation. A lot of my colleagues thought that was very, very funny -- they hooted at me with laughter. But they're not anymore.

Look, apart from the Kurdistan area, Iraq is in a state of total anarchy and chaos. No roads are safe outside Baghdad. Much of Baghdad is in insurgents hands. Only the little green zones, the armored hotel areas where the westerners live and swim, and some cases don't even leave their rooms, and that applies to many journalists, only here are people allowed to have the illusion that things are getting better, things are improving. Outside in the streets where some journalists still go, including, for example, my colleague Patrick Cockburn of the Independent and myself and the Guardian Newspaper, not most Americans though one or two.

Out in the streets where few of us go is hell on Earth. I managed to get, a couple of weeks ago, to the mortuary in the city of Baghdad. As I often go in the past, counting the bodies of midday and midsummer out in the heat. There were 26 by midday. Nine had arrived by nine in the morning. I managed to get the official figures for July for the total number of violent deaths in Baghdad alone. The figure was 1,100 violent deaths, men, women and children. Shot, butchered, knifed, executed, death squad killings. A figure which, of course is not given out by the Iraqi Health Ministry and certainly not by the occupational authorities.

We now have a situation in Iraq where there is a full scale insurgency by both the Shiites and the Sunnis against western forces. Once an insurgency of that kind starts in a Muslim country, it is impossible to quench it. Sorry, you guys can we put the book back? Let's start again, we got it wrong at one point. You can’t do that. You can't do that. I was discussing with an Iraqi friend three weeks ago in Baghdad what he thought the answer was. He said, “There is no answer. You've got to go. You've got to go.” I wrote at the time that I thought it was a terrible equation in Iraq. It goes like this. The Americans must leave. And the Americans will leave but the Americans can't leave. And that's the equation that turns sand into blood.

Once you become an occupying power you take upon the responsibilities for the civilians which we have not done but you also have a responsibility to yourself. You have to keep justifying over and over and over again to your own populations. You were right to do it: ok, there were no weapons of mass destruction but we got rid of Saddam; ok, we haven't gotten the electricity yet but there will be a constitution. Well, we hope. And we did have elections. Remember them in January? And all the time people die in ever greater numbers. Remember that figure for July that’s just Baghdad. What does that mean for the whole country? 5,000 dead? In July? What does that mean in the whole of Iraq in a year? You see the problem? We're talking a 50,000, 60,000 dead a year now. The worst figure we've heard is 100,000 since 2003 yet still we don't get statistics. When individual journalists have to go to hospital mortuaries and count the bloated corpses on the floor, you have know you've got problems.

The last time I was in Baghdad I began to ask myself whether the dangers -- and I've never done this on any other war except for the Algerian war which was very similar in many ways, questioning whether the dangers of covering Iraq are any longer worth the story. I suppose I think they are. But I guess having looked at my face in the mirror occasionally and seeing the gray hairs, I wonder if I should keep going. I probably will, but I'm not sure.

The total figure of journalists who have died during and after the 2003 invasion up to date is now 68. The most recent being an Iraqi stringer again from The New York Times in Basra who was found dumped in a waste heap, executed with three bullets through the back of his head. I suspect the “Iraqi police” killed him like I suspect the Iraqi police killed the American journalist in Basra. Look, there's no doubt it's becoming the most dangerous story for journalists anywhere ever.

If you want to look at the worst period it would be in Bosnia in 1992 when a lot of journalists who had never been in wars before were sent in to Bosnia and were dying at the rate of dozens a month. That was primarily, I think, because they were sending in very young men whose experience of war was Hollywood where the hero, of course, always survives. And what is shocking about this is that almost all the journalists are being killed, almost without exception in Iraq, are experienced in many cases, middle-aged guys who have been under fire many times before, who know about the lethality of weapons and whose jobs and lives are simply no longer respected. I've never been in a war like Iraq war in which our lives are so endangered, so targeted by all sides it sometimes seems. And I'm not sure what we can do about it.

The American correspondents, some of them are guarded by armed Iraqis. The New York Times has a compound with four watch towers and armed Iraqis with “NYT” New York Times on their black t-shirts. NBC lives in a hotel in the Karada District with iron grills. The A.P. lives in the Palestine Hotel with two armored walls. Very rarely do they ever venture out and never do the American staffers go in the streets. As I say, we still go out with Iraqi friends. We actually go out to lunch in restaurants in Iraq. But I think that's probably because as long as we're with Iraqis and we look at our watch and say, 20 minutes, finish the meal, half an hour, got to be out. You're ok but it's a calculated risk.

As I said, I'm not sure the risks are worth it anymore. Our lives are worth nothing to the insurgents. Our lives appear to be worth virtually nothing to the Americans or the British. I think that when you reach a stage where our lives and our jobs are simply no longer respected, you do have to ask the question, is it worth it anymore. I think it is because I think Iraq is an appalling tragedy. Primarily for Iraqis, of course, who we don't put at the top of our list. We say 1,900 Americans, 93 Brits or whatever it may be. It's the Iraqis doing the suffering and the dying in fast numbers. Many of them because they trusted us and took our schilling and wanted to work for the police or wanted to work for construction companies building landing strips for the Americans or fortresses for the Americans.

But I think the whole Iraqi story for us as journalists is becoming almost impossible to cover. Certainly if you have a journalist who lives behind two armored walls of the hotel who just used a mobile phone to call British or American diplomats behind another concrete wall, you might as well live in County Mayo, Ireland or Santa Fe, New Mexico. There's no point in being there.
And for example, the last trip I made outside Baghdad it took me two weeks to arrange it to go down to Najaf. It was the most fearful trip. I drove the road with three Iraqi friends. One of them a Shiite proleter, a clergyman, a religious man. All the checkpoints of the Iraqi army had been abandoned. This just after George Bush says the Iraqi army is in the field. There were up-turned Iraqi police cars, burned-out American vehicles. I didn't see a member of the Security Forces until I reached the outskirts of Najaf about 80 miles from Iraq.
The whole of the countryside outside Baghdad is under the control, is now the property of the armed insurgents both Sunni and Shia. This, we are not being told. This, president Bush will not acknowledge. This, our own dear Mr. Blair will not acknowledge. And that is part of the tragedy. And it seems now to be part of our life that New Orleans flooding is not real until it's real, that the collapse of Iraq is not real until it's real.

With such poor television coverage, although we did get good pictures I noticed, of the British soldiers on fire, for heavens sakes in their armored vehicles. I don't know if it's possible to explain what is happening in Iraq anymore. Most journalists, western journalists are relying upon Iraqi stringers, Iraqi correspondents to risk their necks on the streets. And they are risking their necks and they are dying for it to bring in the news. But there are no by and large -- by and large there are no westernized, independently journalists on the streets unarmed. My newspaper does not have protection. We do not carry weapons.

But my goodness, as I say, I don't know how long we can continue doing this. Each time Patrick and I go to Iraq it's a little bit worse. And when we look back at what it was like a year ago, which was considered appalling, we're amazed at how free we were, how easily we went grocery shopping. I still go grocery shopping-- for six minutes only. Grab the bread, push my way to the front of the cue, pay, out. You learn a lot.

I went out to my favorite restaurant, the Ramaya, the other day to find it was no longer the Ramaya. It was now given an Islamic name and had a green neon sign. When I went inside, the menu was no longer in English, French, and Arabic. It was only Arabic. No more bottles of Lebanese red wine. It been totally Islamicized. You need to see this and understand it. But the problem is most of our colleagues are not permitted even by their head offices to do that.

~Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk of Britain's Independent newspaper, speaking on Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman.

Check It Out


Please link to www.radicalradio.org
George Galloway to be on this week!

Saturday, October 15, 2005

Administration Gives New Reason (AGAIN) For War

A letter between "terrorists" has given the White House another reason to justify the war in Iraq. As things continue to crumble, the deeper they dig. Bush refuses to acknowlege that many Arabs and most of the world believe that the "war on civilization" began with Shock and Awe. Like a dog chasing his tail, our government continues to spin out of control. Bush's following comments show how desperate they are to make a case for our continued invasion in Iraq:

"This weekend's election is a critical step forward in Iraq's march toward democracy, and with each step the Iraqi people take, al Qaeda's vision for the region becomes more remote. As Iraqis prepared for this election, the world learned of a letter written by a leading terrorist explaining why Iraq is the central front in their war on civilization. Al Qaeda's number two leader, a man named Zawahiri, wrote to his chief deputy in Iraq, the terrorist Zarqawi. We intercepted this letter, and we have released it to the public. In it, Zawahiri lays out why al Qaeda views Iraq as "the place for the greatest battle" of our day.

He says that establishing al Qaeda's dominion over Iraq is the first step towards their larger goal of imposing Islamic radicalism across the broader Middle East. Zawahiri writes: "The jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals. The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq. The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq."

This letter shows that al Qaeda intends to make Iraq a terrorist haven and a staging ground for attacks against other nations, including the United States. The letter makes equally clear that the terrorists have a problem: Their campaign of murder and mayhem is turning the people against them. The letter warns Zarqawi that, "many of your Muslim admirers amongst the common folk are wondering about your attacks on the Shia." Even al Qaeda recognizes that with every random bombing and every funeral of a child, the Muslim world sees the terrorists for what they really are: murderers at war with the Iraqi people. " ~Bush, Radio Address, October 15, 2005

Sunnis Turn Out To Vote "No"


While U.S. government sources praised voter turnout in Iraq today, the picture might not be as rosey after the ballots are counted. Sunnis turned out in much higher numbers than the first referendum, assumingly to turn down the constitution, which they feel heavily favors the Kurds and Shiites. As pretty of a snapshot today was for the Bush administration, Iraq is still deeply divided.

For more, link to:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051015/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_the_sunnis

Friday, October 14, 2005

Absolutes


''So long as I'm the president, we're never going to back down, we're never going to give in, we'll never accept anything less than total victory.'' ~Bush

Iraq: Civil War or Democracy?

Is tomorrow the beginning of a civil war or a constitution?

For more views, link to:
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~hc3z/05-10-13-iraq-rush-to-war.html

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-10-15T022934Z_01_MCC339397_RTRUKOC_0_UK-IRAQ.xml

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/14/international/middleeast/14cnd-iraq.html

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Oh, Wouldn't It Be Lovely:)

1954


Yesterday, a suicide bomber drove his car toward a U.S-Iraqi checkpoint at an entrance to the Green Zone — the most fortified sector of Baghdad, where government offices and the U.S. Embassy are located behind a maze of blast walls and checkpoints.

Iraqi police opened fire on the car as it approached. The car, packed with 11 mortar rounds and 60 pounds of explosives, then detonated, Sgt. 1st Class David Abrams said.

A U.S. soldier, three Iraqi policemen and three Iraqi civilians were killed in the blast, Capt. Qassim Hussein said.

The American death brought to 1,954 the number of U.S. service members who have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

Other coalition deaths:

The British military has reported 96 deaths; Italy, 26; Ukraine, 18; Poland, 17; Bulgaria, 13; Spain, 11; Slovakia, three; Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Thailand and the Netherlands, two each; and Hungary, Kazakhstan and Latvia one death each.

Iraqi civilian deaths:

Unofficial estimates range from at least 10,000 to about 100,000. Why such a wide range? This could have to do with the U.S. military attitude:

"We don't do body counts" ~U.S. General Tommy Franks

A British website does. Please link to http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Tuesday death report:

Insurgent attacks Tuesday killed at least 54 people, the highest death toll since Sept. 29, when three car bombs exploded simultaneously in the mainly Shiite town of Balad, north of Baghdad, killing at least 102 people.

Monday, October 10, 2005

Monopoly~Rove Style


Click on the link below to buy and sell on newsfutures.com. "Rovedown" is currently selling at $12 a contract, with a total of 77, 358 contracts being traded. Republican flogging and cash~what more could you ask for????

http://news.us.newsfutures.com/market/market.html?symbol=ROVEDOWN

Sunday, October 09, 2005

Civil War In Iraq

The reality in Iraq is reaching a boiling point of civil war as the Bush Administration continues to paint a rosy picture of our "progress" there. There is such a disconnect between Bush's statements (see Speech of Desperation) and the undeniable violence that escalates daily.

Please read and link below:

"The situation is so tense a civil war could erupt at any moment, although some people would say it is already there,"~ Amr Moussa, the Secretary-General of the Arab League

Link to:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4324420.stm

More on Moussa: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/country_profiles/1550797.stm

Speech of Desperation


On October 6, 2005, President Bush spoke to supporters of the National Endowment for Democracy. He failed to keep his head above water in our view. Here are just a few of the quotes that needed a response from The Babes:


#1:
"Any government that chooses to be an ally of terror has also chosen to be an enemy of civilization. And the civilized world must hold those regimes to account."~Bush


"WHAT ABOUT SAUDI ARABIA, MR. PRESIDENT?"~Anna and Charee

#2:
"In contrast, the elected leaders of Iraq are proving to be strong and steadfast. By any standard or precedent of history, Iraq has made incredible political progress -- from tyranny, to liberation, to national elections, to the writing of a constitution, in the space of two-and-a-half years. With our help, the Iraqi military is gaining new capabilities and new confidence with every passing month. At the time of our Fallujah operations 11 months ago, there were only a few Iraqi army battalions in combat. Today there are more than 80 Iraqi army battalions fighting the insurgency alongside our forces. Progress isn't easy, but it is steady. And no fair-minded person should ignore, deny, or dismiss the achievements of the Iraqi people."~Bush


"The Sunni's are ready to rip the country apart. But just keep ignoring that. Yeah, that's a good plan..."~Anna and Charee

#3:
"The hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue, and it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse. The government of Russia did not support Operation Iraqi Freedom, and yet the militants killed more than 180 Russian schoolchildren in Beslan."~Bush


"Quit trying to punish the world for not supporting your war of lies. Russia has a long history of Muslim struggles and ugly terrorist acts on both sides of the fight. Trying to align your colonization in Iraq with other wars does not give legitimacy to it"~Anna and Charee

For more on Bush's speech, link to:http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051006-3.html

Karen Hughes~America's School Yard Bully

Please link to a great article on Karen Hughes' recent trip to the Middle East. It is by Sanford J. Ungar, president of Goucher College, who is a veteran journalist and was director of the Voice of America from 1999 to 2001:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.image09oct09,1,596966.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true


Related Quote:

Abdel-Rahman Rashid, a prominent writer and head of al-Arabiya satellite television, wrote in the London-based newspaper Asharq al-Awsat that, in the Arab world, the United States "resembles a woman of ill repute whom everyone wants to court, but only in secret." He said Hughes "will face an important decision: repair the U.S.'s reputation, which is nearly impossible, or modify the country's policies, also almost unfeasible."

Thursday, October 06, 2005

Thought of The Day:

It is no accident that freedom of speech is protected in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

McCain, Powell Jump Ship: GOP Sticks It To Bush?


John McCain, R-Ariz., has yanked back the reins on Bush as a GOP-controlled Senate voted 90-9 on Wednesday to support an amendment that would prohibit the use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" against anyone in U.S. government custody, regardless of where they are held.

McCain sponsored the the proposal which also would require all service members to follow procedures in the Army Field Manual when they detain and interrogate terrorism suspects.

" We demanded intelligence without ever clearly telling our troops what was permitted and what was forbidden. And when things went wrong, we blamed them and we punished them," said McCain, a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

From the floor of the Senate, McCain also read a letter of support from former Secretary of State Colin Powell who once served as the chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff at the
Pentagon. "I fully support this amendment," McCain said, reading from Powell's letter, dated October 5.

"The world will note that America is making a clear statement with respect to the expected future behavior of our soldiers," the former secretary of state wrote, possibly trying to dig out from the political grave he has been in since serving in the Bush Administration.

"Such a reaction will help deal with the terrible public diplomacy crisis created by Abu Ghraib," said Powell.

Bush has vowed to veto the bill.

And so, the cracks in the armor began to show...


For more on this, link to:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4947431

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

Death With Dignity: Oregon Goes Up Against Bush

Choosing how and when we want to die seems like a basic human right but the Bush Administration is fighting Oregon's Death with Dignity law. Please read article below:


Julie McMurchie holds a photo of her mother, Peggy Sutherland, at her home in a Saturday, Aug. 27, 2005 photo, in Portland, Ore. Sutherland took her own life under Oregon's Death With Dignity law, one-of-a-kind legislation enacted in 1997 that allows terminally ill patients to obtain lethal doses of medication from their doctors. The Bush administration is challenging the measure, arguing that hastening someone's death is an improper use of medication and thus violates federal drug laws. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer, File)



Death With Dignity Law Headed to Supreme Court
By BRAD CAIN Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press

PORTLAND, Ore. Sep 28, 2005 — The Bush administration is challenging Oregon's assisted suicide law, arguing that hastening someone's death is an improper use of medication and thus violates federal drug laws.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case on Oct. 5. Supporters of the assisted suicide law say a favorable high court ruling could lead other states to follow Oregon's lead.

Oregonians approved the law in two separate votes, and many have come to see it as part of their state's identity something that sets them apart from the rest of the nation.

Still, only a tiny portion of terminally ill Oregonians have used the law to take their lives 208 people, representing about one in 1,000 deaths.

Take the case of Julie McMurchie's family. She and her four siblings watched as their 68-year-old mother, Peggy Sutherland, lifted a lethal dose of barbiturates to her lips.

It was difficult for them to accept that their mother was about to die, McMurchie said. But Sutherland was in a long and painful struggle with lung cancer, and her children supported her decision to end her life, McMurchie said.

"We were all hugging and kissing her and telling her it was OK to let go," McMurchie said. "Mom held up the glass of medication and said, `I don't think anyone understands how much pain I've been in.' Then she drank it herself. She was asleep in five minutes and she died within 20 minutes."

Sutherland took her own life under Oregon's Death With Dignity law, legislation that took effect in 1997 that allows terminally ill patients to obtain lethal doses of medication from their doctors. No other state has such a law.

The reasons for the law's solid public support are connected with Oregon's famous independent streak, said Jim Moore, who teaches political science at Pacific University in Forest Grove.

"This is about access to assisted suicide, not necessarily being personally in favor of assisted suicide," Moore said.

George Eighmey, executive director of Compassion in Dying of Oregon, a group that advises assisted suicide patients in Oregon, said the law offers terminally ill patients a humane way to end their suffering.

Monday, October 03, 2005

Bush's Unqualified Cronies


It just keeps getting better every time. Today Mr. Bush has nominated Harriet E. Miers, at one time his personal lawyer and now current White House counsel to replace Sandra Day O'Connor as Supreme Court Justice. What makes this especially nice is that she has never sat on the bench in the entirety of her career which makes it hard to determine if she follows any type of ideology. All I know is that the Democrats had better perform or we are going to end up in a heaping mess once again. ~Charee

NYT
By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS
Published: October 3, 2005

President Bush nominated Harriet E. Miers, the White House counsel, as his choice to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor this morning, his second nominee for the Supreme Court.

Ms. Miers, 60, a longtime confidant of the president's, has never been a judge, and therefore lacks a long history of judicial rulings that could reveal ideological tendencies. Her positions on such ideologically charged issues as abortion and affirmative action are not clear.

Many of President Bush's allies had lobbied the president to choose a conservative justice to replace Justice O'Connor, a key swing vote on the court, in order to affix a conservative stamp on the court for years to come. The president has vowed to turn the court rightward. Democrats in the Senate however, have warned that a conservative pick to replace a moderate justice would lead to a drawn-out partisan battle.

Ms. Miers has spent her life serving others, Mr. Bush said in making the announcement at the White House. "And she will bring that same passion," for helping others to the Supreme Court, he said.. Mr. Bush said Ms. Miers had devoted her life to the rule of law and added, "She will not legislate from the bench."

If Ms. Miers is ratified by the Senate, she would be the third woman to serve on the nation's highest court - after Justice O'Connor and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who currently sits on the court. She was a leading candidate in the search for Justice O'Connor's successor, and was also part of the White House team that led Mr. Bush to Judge John G. Roberts Jr., who was confirmed by the Senate as chief justice last week and begins work today on the Supreme Court's new term.

The president had signaled his desire to name a woman or a member of a minority group to the Supreme Court last week when in response to a question about how close he was to choosing a successor, he said "diversity is one of the strengths of the country."

Ms. Miers was the first woman to become a partner at a major Texas law firm and the first woman to be president of the State Bar of Texas. At one point, Ms. Miers was Mr. Bush's personal lawyer.

In 1995, Mr. Bush, then governor of Texas, named her chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission and gave her the task of cleaning up that scandal-plagued agency.

The White House said last week that officials had consulted about 70 senators to seek names in the selection process. But Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat who is on the judiciary panel, said that it was "consultation in name only" and that Ms. Miers called him to ask for suggestions in a conversation that lasted less than five minutes.

"There is no back and forth," he said. "It's just, 'Give us some names.' I said to her, 'Look, I'd like to know who the president is considering.' And she didn't say anything."

Among others who were reportedly considered by the White House were Judge Edith Brown Clement of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales; Larry D. Thompson, a former deputy attorney general and now general counsel of Pepsico in Purchase, N.Y.; and Judge Karen J. Williams of Orangeburg, S.C., who sits on the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Saudi's Warn U.S., U.K.


Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor
Saturday September 24, 2005
The Guardian

The Saudi government yesterday warned that Iraq is hurtling towards disintegration and that an election planned for December is unlikely to make any difference. The government said it was delivering this bleak assessment to both the US and British administrations as a matter of urgency.

Saudi fears of a break-up were voiced by Prince Saud al-Faisal, the foreign minister, in an interview with Associated Press published yesterday, and at a meeting on Thursday night with the US media, including the New York Times and the Washington Post. He said: "The impression is gradually going toward disintegration. There seems to be no dynamic now that is pulling the country together. All the dynamics there are pushing the people away from each other."

His comments are the most pessimistic about Iraq to be made in public by a Middle East leader in recent months.

Prince Saud, who is meeting Bush administration officials in Washington, said his government warned the US before the war of the consequences of the invasion but was ignored. "It is frustrating to see something that is clearly going to happen, and you are not listened to by a friend, and soon harm comes out of it. It hurts."

Saudi Arabia sits on a council with other Iraqi neighbours - Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Syria and Turkey - and Prince Saud said the main worry is that the break-up of Iraq "will draw the countries of the region into conflict". Turkey is worried about an independent Kurdish state in the north of Iraq and Saudi Arabia, which is primarily made up of Sunni Muslims, is concerned about the growing influence of Iran in southern Iraq through its co-religionists, the Shias. The Saudi fear is not only that Iran would be greatly strengthened but that it would be tempted to extend its influence further by creating unrest among the small communities of Shia in the north of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states.

He expressed scepticism about US predictions that security in Iraq will improve after the election. A referendum on Iraq's new constitution is planned for October 15 and a general election in December. The US and Britain hope that the election will be a watershed. "Perhaps what they are saying is going to happen," Prince Saud said. "I wish it would happen, but I don't think that a constitution by itself will resolve the issues." The US response to his warnings was to predict an improvement after the referendum and the election. Prince Saud said: "But what I am trying to do is say that unless something is done to bring Iraqis together, elections alone won't do it."

The US has been pressing Saudi Arabia, along with other Arab states, to help Iraq by sending diplomatic representation to the country. But Saudi Arabia has been reluctant to comply following the kidnapping and murder this summer of Ihab al-Sharif, the Egyptian ambassador to Iraq, and Ali Belaroussi, the head of the Algerian mission, and his colleague Izzedine Belkadi, a diplomatic attache.

Prince Saud said a Saudi ambassador in Baghdad would become an immediate target for assassination. "I doubt that he'd last a day." The prince blamed the unrest partly on a series of US decisions since the invasion. He claimed the US was guilty of alienating the Sunni population by designating "every Sunni as a Ba'athist criminal".

Blowin' In The Wind


Once again, our friend Maureen. ~Charee

Stormy Spins In a Vortex
By MAUREEN DOWD (NYT)
Published: September 24, 2005

Stormy was testy.

He had put aside the guitar and packed his slicker.

The First Weatherman was working hard, man, harder than he had in years, even spending nights away from home -- and Barney -- in strange places. And still the pesky press was painting him as a storm groupie, racing Rita to Texas just to score a windswept backdrop to recapture his image as protector.

Stormy preened for the cameras at FEEBLE FEMA headquarters in Washington yesterday. On CNN, a bilious image of a hurricane spun next to his head. You could imagine the little hurricane trailing him through the rest of his presidency, like the storm cloud with a lightning bolt that always trailed Joe Btfsplk in ''Li'l Abner.''

He said he was jetting to San Antonio to check out ''the prepositioned assets'' and then riding out the storm watching ''the interface'' between the military and state and local authorities at Northcom in Colorado. But David Gregory at NBC quizzed W. on what good he could really do in Texas: ''Might you get in the way, Mr. President?''

Stormy didn't like that. ''One thing I won't do is get in the way,'' he snipped.

Mr. Gregory, part of a newly amped-up press corps, followed up: ''Isn't there a risk of you and your entourage getting in the way?''

Now Stormy let off a little high pressure. ''There will be no risk of me getting in the way, I promise you,'' he said dismissively.

The smart aleck reporters didn't understand how crucial it was for the president to intertwine, inter alia, with the interfacers. So W. explained it again: ''See, Northcom is the main entity that interfaces -- that uses federal assets, federal troops, to interface with local and state government. I want to watch that relationship.''

But soon the San Antonio leg of the trip was scotched amid fears that Stormy would really be interfering more than interfacing. And besides, the weather was too sunny there for poses in foul-weather gear.

Stormy is like his dad, Desert Stormy. They both love wardrobe calls: cool costumes, sports outfits, presidential windbreakers, ''Top Gun'' get-ups, weather gear.

But leadership is not a series of costume changes. The former Andover cheerleader has been too reliant on photo-ops, drop-bys and ''Mission Accomplished'' strut-bys, rather than a font of personal knowledge.

What Katrina exposed was a president who -- remarkable as this may sound -- seemed bored after his re-election, just as Bill Clinton had drifted after his re-election. Before the Monica scandal broke, Mr. Clinton's aides had to beg him to call lawmakers on the Hill to support his own legislative agenda.

Before the Katrina scandal, W. had lethargically wandered the country, lifelessly promoting his Social Security plan and an energy bill that did nothing to solve the energy crisis, and endlessly vacationing in Crawford.

He campaigned as a strong daddy who would keep us safe, but then seemed lost when his daddy figure, Dick Cheney, kept vacationing as Katrina exposed a grotesque rescue apartheid in New Orleans.

The more tuned-in W. is now, the more obvious it is that he tuned out as New Orleans drowned. There is a high cost for presidential learning curves.

Hundreds of thousands of people died in Bosnia before Bill Clinton got it right in Kosovo. A lot of elderly hospital and nursing home patients died in New Orleans before W. could pay attention to Houston and Galveston.

On Wednesday, Stormy tried to make one of his strained linkages, this time with Katrina and terror. The terrorists, he said, were ''the kind of people who look at Katrina and wish they had caused it,'' while he is the kind of person who looks at Katrina and tries to energize himself to deal with natural disasters by thinking, What if this had been done by terrorists?

On Thursday, he tried to move past the image he had projected of a lost boy wandering alone in the storm, and stood at the Pentagon flanked by his war council, talking about how he was moving to ''develop a secure, safe democracy in Iraq.'' Unfortunately, the Saudi foreign minister was in town dropping a bomblet by saying that Iraq was going down the tubes, a judgment other Sunni Arab leaders had been conveying privately.

After his Pentagon remarks, W. looked at his vice president for approval and received a proud, avuncular smile that said, ''You're the Man.'' But before he chases any more wind tunnels, Stormy should heed the Bob Dylan line: ''You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.''

Bye-bye, Dick

President Bush has had a changing of the guard as a farewell ceremony for GENERAL RICHARD B. MYERS, USAF CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF took place on Sept. 30. General Peter Pace will replace Myers.

General Richard B. Myers became the fifteenth Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Oct. 1, 2001. He served as the principal military advisor to the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Council. Prior to becoming Chairman, he served as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for 19 months.

Myers has compared the war in Iraq to that of WW11 and has often been critical of media's coverage of the war.

"What does the enemy do on a daily basis? And what does the press report about the enemy?" Myers asked. "On a daily basis in Iraq, what the enemy does is kill innocent men, women and children."

When abuse of prisoners was reported, Myers was quick to deflect the negative attention back to the terrorist, stating that Jordanian-born violent extremist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi said that he would kill innocents to try to spark a civil war between Sunnis and Shiias. Extremists under his direction have launched some of the bloodiest attacks in Iraq. Zarqawi and his henchmen have chopped off their victims' heads and put the murders on the Internet for the world to see.

"That's abhorrent behavior," he said. "That's what the press ought to be focused on not a couple of incidents where an overzealous guard or interrogator abused a Koran."

Under General Myers, rules of The Geneva Conventions were not seen as relevant and "softening up" of prisoners was viewed as necessary.

His replacement is General Peter Pace, sworn in as sixteenth Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on September 30, 2005. In this capacity, he serves as the principal military advisor to the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Council.

Link to:
http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/myers_bio.html
http://www.jcs.mil/bios/bio_pace2.html

Sunday, October 02, 2005

Our Man Jon


Ever since Jon Stewart took over as host of The Daily Show in '99, I have been a faithful fan. Especially at times when everything is going to Hell in a handbasket. Now it seems that the Brits are taking notice of him too. Read on and enjoy. ~Charee

Such a tease
Jon Stewart is very funny and on his cult US television show he's a rare scourge of the rich and powerful, especially Bush and his court. Gary Younge puts it to him, is he really angry with America, or is he a man on a mission for the next joke?
Saturday October 1, 2005 The Guardian

Back in early 2003, as Democrats discussed setting up a liberal talk radio station to counter the right's supremacy in the culture wars, there was concern that progressive values were inherently unsuited to a popular format. "Progressives have this problem: they sound too erudite, it's like eggheads talking at you," Thomas Athans, co-founder of Democracy Radio, Inc, told the New York Times. "Most liberal talkshows are so, you know, milquetoast, who would want to listen to them?" said Harry Thomason, a Hollywood producer close to Bill Clinton. "Conservatives are all fire and brimstone."

Meanwhile, over on the cable TV channel Comedy Central, Jon Stewart appears to have cracked it, albeit in another medium. His nightly formula of spoof news, sarcastic asides, satirical swipes and teasing interviews on The Daily Show has since 1999 been hammering away at political elites in general and, since his election, the Bush administration in particular. In that time it has gained cult status and audience figures climbing to around 1.5 million. Last month The Daily Show - a British equivalent would be somewhere between Have I Got News For You and The Fast Show - won Emmy Awards for best comedy and best writing. Stewart's book, America, a jokey guide to democracy, was the year's nonfiction bestseller. (Sample discussion question: "Which of the following is the best combination of reasons to vote for a candidate? a) Issues and eyes; b) Party affiliation and hair; c) Background and teeth; d) Religious zealotry and tits." Sample classroom activity: "Hold a mock election. If you can't do this, mock a real election.") Less blunt than Michael Moore, but more politically engaged than late-night hosts Jay Leno or David Letterman, Stewart, 42, combines the irreverence of Chris Evans with the wit of Armando Iannucci. His show is anything but milquetoast.

While Stewart and his team will often lampoon Democrats and liberals, the show's staple diet is the gaffes, contradictions, hypocrisy and hubris of the Bushites, and the pomposity of the mainstream media. He makes no secret of his liberal leanings, but his duty as a comedian, he insists, is first and foremost to be funny. "People's sense of humour typically goes as far as their ideology," he says, "but I don't particularly think of ourselves as ideological here. I don't mean in the sense that we're equal opportunity offenders - we're not. I think we consider those with power and influence targets and those without it, not. But we're not a liberal organisation, we are still clearly selfish observers. We do not have a dog in the race. And that is to our discredit, but to do what we're doing, it's also natural and necessary."

Stewart did not come from a particularly politicised family. "When I was younger, I considered myself more of a socialist. But I came from a very suburban family of middle-class Jews who joined the great migration from the city to the suburbs during the early 60s. There's nothing in there that's particularly activist. We didn't sit around the table and debate, we much more followed the I'm OK, You're OK paradigm." His mother was a teacher, his father a physicist. Born Jonathan Stewart Leibowitz, he started using his middle name as his surname in 1987. "I'm not a self-hating Jew," he once said. "Actually, to borrow a line from Lenny Bruce, I just thought Leibowitz was too Hollywood." He started his career doing stand-up (his first big gig was as the opening act for Sheena Easton in Las Vegas) and still goes on the road from time to time. But the tone of The Daily Show is less a gagfest than a repertoire of shrugs, smirks, rolling eyes, raised eyebrows and damning asides, expressing frustration and despair at the powers that be. Relating Bush's decision to have a day of prayer following Hurricane Katrina, Stewart frowned. "OK," he said, followed by a long pause and plenty of laughs, "but - and I don't want to be crass here - isn't a hurricane an act of God? Shouldn't we have a day of shunning?"

When Condoleezza Rice admitted to the Senate that she had seen a presidential daily briefing in August 2001 ... "I believe the title was 'Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside The United States' "... Stewart just stared at the camera for 20 seconds. Then he covered his face in his hands, lifted his head up and moaned. "You're fucking kidding me, right? Please say, please say, you're fucking kidding me."

Stewart began on The Daily Show just before the 2000 election. The debacle of the Florida recount and the supreme court intervention provided ideal material. The country was shifting. With the brief respite of national unity following the September 11 terrorist attack, political discourse plunged to its most rancorous for more than a generation. Into this culture war came Stewart - a nightly reminder, principally for the urban and urbane American liberal, that their leaders, not they, were insane. In an era in which, having lost the presidential election and both houses of Congress, liberals have little to laugh about, he offers release. Asked to compare his work with Michael Moore's, Stewart says: "He's an activist. We travel in the same sorts of manipulations to some extent, but we are more passive editorialists. He's an active editorialist. I would go so far as to say that I don't necessarily agree with a lot of the stuff that he says. But I admire the fact that he puts himself out there and tries to change things."

Despite bleeped-out expletives and single entendres about blow jobs and soft drugs ("Dude, I totally want to smoke a bong with you," Stewart told a Christian fundamentalist who had been explaining the theory of intelligent design), Stewart secures high-level interviews. Over the past few years his guests have included former Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry, Bill Clinton, former Republican presidential challenger Bob Dole, counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke and Bush adviser Karen Hughes - vice-presidential hopeful John Edwards announced his candidacy on the show. Stewart has become a player, appearing on the covers of Newsweek, Rolling Stone and, most recently, Wired.

It's just gone three o'clock and on the street outside The Daily Show's offices on the west side of Manhattan, the day's audience has started a two-hour queue to see the show. They are young, mostly white and an even mix of men and women. One man wears a T-shirt stating: "I bet God's cock is huge."

"It's a short cut to the real news," says another audience member, Shaun Field, 27, explaining why he likes Stewart. This is Stewart's base. Two-thirds of The Daily Show's audience is aged 18-49. Fox News host Bill O'Reilly has described them as stoned "slackers", but on election night the show attracted almost as many viewers in the 18-34 category as Fox. Stewart knows his fans are out there, but... "One of the things we try not to do is to fall in love with the audience." He understands, to an extent, why he is popular - "If you feel like your philosophy is not being served by either the government or the media, then you will find comfort in a point of view that sounds or feels familiar" - but to pander to it would be counterproductive, he says. The criteria are: "Is that funny? Is that smart? Is that good? Not will those people be mad at us, will they like it." In short, Stewart is self-conscious about being unselfconscious. "The only skill I have is writing jokes," he says. "Like anything if you have an ability, ultimately you want to apply it to something you care about. Otherwise, you're just jerking off in your cage ... which also has its advantages."

The show is produced by a team whose influences are The Simpsons, Late Night With David Letterman and The Onion (a spoof magazine that blends the best of Viz and Private Eye), which is where both Ben Karlin and head writer David Javerbaum worked. The show begins with Stewart summing up the top story of the day. Then comes a spoof news segment in which a "reporter" stands against a fake, newsworthy landscape - a rubble-strewn street in Iraq, say - and pretends to be sending in a dispatch, usually as much a joke on journalists as it is on politicians. Occasionally, they really do take to the road, carrying out Ali G-style interviews in which the reporter asks outrageous questions of people so bound up in their own agendas they are apparently unaware they are the object of ridicule.

From the vantage point of New York, it can look as if the "reporters" have gone in search of a backward foreign country to patronise and have pitched up in Middle America. "You could run a Daily Show from Dayton, Tennessee," says Stewart. "People from Dayton could come to New York and cover the gay pride parade and they'd also be covering a foreign country. So much of what we do is deconstructionist and reductionist." Off-screen he sounds more like a funny academic than a brainy comedian.

After the "reports" there are more skits on regular themes such as "MessO'Potamia", the slugline for anything to do with Iraq, or "Evolution, schmevolution", a recent week-long series on the debate over creationism. Finally, Stewart has an interview with an author, politician, journalist or actor. Regardless of whether it's a rightwing ideologue just days after the election or Kurt Vonnegut offering a stream of consciousness, Stewart's tone is the same - polite and mildly mocking rather than abrasive. He says he's not comfortable being more than two minutes away from a joke.

That was the image most people had of him until October 15 last year, just a couple of weeks before the election, when Stewart appeared on CNN's Crossfire. This is a show that pits a Democrat commentator (Paul Begala) against a Republican (Tucker Carlson); they raise topical issues in rapid succession and bellow over each other in an attempt to score cheap points and earn applause from the studio audience. Stewart was clearly invited on for some light relief, but instead started to berate the two hosts for their "partisan hackery", substituting bluster for political discourse.

"Wait. I thought you were going to be funny," said Carlson. "Come on. Be funny."

"No. No," said Stewart. "I'm not going to be your monkey."

Carlson went on to chide Stewart for putting lame questions to Kerry when he appeared on The Daily Show, insisting Crossfire would have given the Democrat a grilling.

Stewart responded: "If you want to compare your show to a comedy show, you're more than welcome to ... You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls."

Carlson concluded: "I do think you're more fun on your show."

Stewart shot back: "You know what's interesting, though? You're as big a dick on your show as you are on any show."

In a highly scripted election, during which mainstream news rarely departed from the storyline set by the two main parties, the clash between Stewart and Carlson was electric. Supposedly the election was a battle royal between Republicans and Democrats, and Crossfire was a symbol of it. Stewart's intervention - and the wide support he received - suggested there was an even deeper divide between political posturers and the public at large. A few months later, CNN decided to take Crossfire off the air.

"Ultimately, people would respond a lot better to being treated like adults ... if politics wasn't treated like marketing," Stewart says. This sounds like a great American fantasy. Every few years Hollywood produces a film, whether it is Warren Beatty's Bulworth or Chris Rock's Head Of State, in which a presidential candidate goes off-message, tells it like it is, and the voters respond warmly. The last time we saw anyone try this was Howard Dean and he was dismissed for his lack of polish. "But who said that?" asks Stewart. "The polishers. So much of what these guys do is an attempt to consolidate power because they feel it slipping away. They think Dean's out there. But George Galloway came here and completely blew away our congressmen. We're just not used to unvarnished rhetoric." If the parties and the media serve the country so badly, why do Americans put up with it? "Because for the majority of Americans life is pretty tolerable," says Stewart. "It's very hard to organise reasonable people with moderate views. Reasonable people with moderate views don't usually light their torches and head out to town with pitchforks shouting, Be reasonable. Shit has to get really bad before people stand up and take notice."

And Stewart clearly regards himself as one of those reasonable moderates. Indeed, for a man hailed as a liberal standard-bearer, he can sound rather complacent. "In general, the more egregious flaws of our country have, over time, become less egregious," he says. "That's not to say that we don't have enormous problems of poverty and race, but they are no longer so clearcut as during the times of slavery, segregation or when women couldn't vote. In our big ticket items we're down to gay people getting married. That's a lot of progress over the past few hundred years, considering where we came from." Two close elections may have given the impression of a divided America - a nation riven between blue and red states, the secular and religious, town and country - but Stewart believes the divisions have been exaggerated. "For the amount of ultimate difference in the country, it is remarkably stable. Only one civil war in 200 years? Boy, that's something to be proud of."

The big picture from outside America looks somewhat different, and Stewart recognises that. "The thing that probably upsets the world more than anything is the sense of American exceptionalism," he says. "But it is important to keep perspective. Whatever response to 9/11 that was ham-handed or arrogant or larger than may have been required by our government, it was in many respects, regarding our history, pretty restrained. In the second world war, we interned our Japanese citizens on the west coast. Right after the revolution they had the alien and sedition acts. We dropped an atomic bomb on a country. As much talk as there is about over-reaction in our history, this has been a mild form of that. Iraq probably being an exception."

The thing that surprises him about the election last year is not that the Democrats lost, but that they came so close to winning. "Americans are loth to abandon the captain in a time of war. It's almost remarkable that Bush had to fight so hard to get re-elected, given the fact that the worse attack on American soil happened three years earlier; 100,000 votes in Ohio and the Democrats would have won it. They absolutely could have won it. It is shocking."

Stewart voted for Kerry, although he hardly seems enamoured of the Democratic party. "I don't really know what they want. The Democratic party appears to be the party of reaction. The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is the difference between driving towards a brick wall and trying to avoid hitting a deer. The Democrats appear to try to avoid hitting things that might dart out in front of them. Whereas the Republicans clearly have plotted a road and if there's something in their way, they're just going to blow it up. Sometimes literally."

The key dividing line in America, he says, referring to the New Orleans flood, is poverty. "I have to say poor is poor. And in this country that's where people really get screwed. If that had been in Appalachia [a poor white area of West Virginia], it would still have been a real fuck-up because they're the people that people think about last."

So, as the host of The Daily Show, does he think about those people first? "Us, no," he says without skipping a beat. "We're thinking about jokes."

Howard Zinn: Excerpts

Excerpts from the book
Terrorism And War
by Howard Zinn
Seven Stories Press, 2002

p9 The continued expenditure of more than $300 billion for the military every year has absolutely no effect on the danger of terrorism. If we want real security, we will have to change our posture in the world - to stop being an intervening military power and to stop dominating the economies of other countries. According to a 1997 Defense Science Board report, "Historical data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States.

p14 I don't think it's hard to figure out why the United States is so concerned with the Middle East. You can answer that question with one word: oil. At the time of World War II, the U.S. government made the decision that it was going to be the major power controlling the oil resources of the Middle East.

p15 New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman (before the Gulf War). The United States has not sent troops to the Saudi desert to preserve democratic principles. The Saudi monarchy is a feudal regime that does not even allow women to drive cars. Surely it is not American policy to make the world safe for feudalism. This is about money, about protecting governments loyal to America and punishing those that are not and about who will set the price of oil.... Oil is the single most important commodity in the industrial world, and its assured supply at reasonable prices is considered essential for economic growth-not just in the United States but also in Western Europe, Japan and the world at large.

p16 To try to explain and understand terrorism is not to justify terrorism. But if you don't try to explain anything, you will never learn anything.

p24 War is inherently unjust, and the great challenge of our time is to how to deal with evil, tyranny, and oppression without killing huge numbers of people.

p28 There is a precise division between who we bomb and who we don't bomb. The division has nothing to do with which countries may be harboring terrorists. The division has only to do with which countries we don't control yet. The countries that we control, like Turkey and Saudi Arabia, can harbor as many terrorists as they want. We will look elsewhere.The advantage of [the] strategy of expanding the war and winning the "war on terrorism" is that it gives the government a perpetual war and a perpetual atmosphere of repression. And it generates perpetual profits for corporations. But it's going to make the world a far more unstable and dangerous place.

p37 The Bush administration is using the war as a cover for worsening the income gap in this country, while paying no attention to the problems of most of the American people, while enriching corporations. I think concentrating on the class issue, concentrating on the benefits being given to corporations, is critical.

p38 The left is in a position of continually opposing war after war after war, without getting at the root of the problem-which is the economic system under which we live, which needs war and makes war inevitable.

p39 Pastor Niemoller's famous statement about the Nazis because it's so applicable to the present situation: First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist-so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat-so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew-so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left who could stand up for me.

p44 From a long term point of view the security of the people of the United States depends on the health and well-being of the rest of the world.

p48 Terrorism has replaced Communism as the rationale for the militarization of the country, for military adventures abroad, and for the suppression of civil liberties at home. It serves the same purpose, serving to create hysteria.

p53 If you forget history you will believe anything.

p57 Phrases such as the one Bush used after September 11 - "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists"- are rather terrifying. It means that if you're not supporting the government, you're an enemy of the government. All of this produces a kind of hysteria, which leads to what I think can only be described as a lynch spirit...This idea that "you mustn't criticize your government and you must fall in line behind the president" is really a great danger to the very democracy that Bush claims we are defending by going to war.

p59 Democracy isn't [about] falling in line behind the president. Democracy is for people to think independently, be skeptical of government, look around and try to find out what's going on. And if they find out that government is deceiving them, to speak out as loudly as they can. That's democracy.

p65 We have a long tradition in this country of stifling dissent exactly at those moments when dissent is badly needed. Exactly when you need free speech-when the lives of the young people in the armed forces, the lives of people overseas who may be the victims of our armed actions, are at stake-that's when they say you should shut up. Exactly when you need debate and free expression most. So you have free speech for trivial issues, and not for life-and-death issues, and that's called democracy. No, we can't accept that.

p62 The one thing that enables the authorities to deceive the public is to keep the public in a state of amnesia, to keep the public from thinking back to the history of war, the history of violence, the history of government deception, the history of media complicity and deception.

p82 The claim that smart bombs and technology now enable pinpoint bombing is very much a fraud. They discovered after the Gulf War that 93 percent of the bombs turned out not to be so-called smart bombs and the "smart" bombs often missed their targets. Overall, 70 percent of our bombs missed their targets.

p96 Missile defense is fundamentally a program to make profits for the corporations that are going to get the billions of dollars in contracts to build the system. This is an enormous theft from the American people. Remember the quote from Eisenhower. He said, "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."

p97 Corporations that produce weapons make huge profits from these weapons of war and therefore are happy both to prepare for war and to engage in war. You prepare for war, you have all these government contracts, and make all this money, and then you engage in war and you use up all these products and you have to replace them.

p101 Mark Twain wrote an essay called "The War Prayer":"O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst."

Hillary and Bobby

In today's issue of The Times Magazine, there is a lengthy article about Hillary Clinton. According to the current rumors, she will be seeking the Democratic nomination for president. At one time, she had my unswerving support, but now I have to say I am a little apprehensive about her stance on certian issues, like Iraq for instance. However, only time will tell if I will even have to make a decisive choice about her. ~Charee

Mrs. Triangulation
NYTimes
By MATT BAI Published: October 2, 2005

If Hillary Clinton is re-elected to the Senate next fall and runs for president in 2008, she will be the first New York Democrat to make a serious bid for the White House since Robert F. Kennedy, who used the same Senate seat as his springboard 40 years earlier. The parallels and contrasts between the two candidates are considerable. Like Clinton, Kennedy was accused of trading on his famous name when he moved to New York and ran for the Senate, his first elective office, in 1964. And like Clinton, Kennedy enjoyed rock-star status in his brief Senate career, which from its first day was shadowed by speculation that he would seek the White House. Kennedy, too, was perceived, by critics, as strident and sanctimonious, inspiring frenzied vitriol from his detractors and unswerving loyalty from his followers. And Kennedy's moment, like Clinton's, was dominated by a war that was becoming increasingly unpopular - a war he had more than tacitly supported as his brother's confidant during those first years of American involvement in Vietnam.

HILLARY REFRACTED

The senator's ideology is perhaps best understood through the prism of her upbringing as a Republican and a Methodist. The similarities end there, and somewhat abruptly. Kennedy, pushed to abandon his ambivalent stance toward Vietnam by the party's younger, antiwar leaders, underwent in the Senate a very public evolution in his convictions about the war abroad and poverty at home. His rise as a national figure coincided with, and to some extent made possible, the rise of social liberalism as the dominant force in Democratic politics. Ultimately, Kennedy's campaign to cleanse the Democratic soul, and his own, took on almost religious overtones, even before his assassination at the Ambassador Hotel.

Clinton, on the other hand, wants nothing to do with ideological crusades, and she has thus far resisted the pull of rising antiestablishment forces - bloggers, donors and activists - who are fast becoming today's equivalent of the 60's left. Instead, Hillary (as she is universally known) has navigated with extreme caution through the party's fast-changing landscape, and if she has evolved as a public figure, it is in a way that has distanced her from the party's more liberal base. She has never renounced her initial support for the invasion of Iraq, and has in fact lobbied for recruiting an additional 80,000 Army troops. She has recently taken the opportunity, in much publicized speeches, to denounce unwanted pregnancies and violent video games. And at a time when the new activists brand any bipartisan cooperation as treachery, Clinton seems to pop up every week next to some conservative who has joined her on an issue like health-care modernization or soldiers' benefits.

In fact, among pundits and strategists of both parties as well as the reporters who cover them, a story line about Clinton has now taken hold, and it goes like this: While she is at heart a more stridently liberal and polarizing figure than her husband, Hillary Clinton is now consciously reinventing herself publicly as a middle-of-the-road pragmatist. According to this theory, she has resolved, along with her cadre of canny advisers, to brazenly "reposition" herself as the kind of soothing centrist that middle-class white voters might actually accept as the first female president. "A couple of weeks ago, certainly a couple months ago, Hillary was off there on the left," Chris Matthews, a reliable gauge of predictable Washington wisdom, told his viewers on MSNBC in May. "We thought of her with Barbra Streisand, Barbara Boxer, Rob Reiner, Chuck Schumer even. Now I see her as sort of part of this drift toward the center."

The problem with this idea, which goes virtually unchallenged in Washington, is that it simply trades one caricature for another. Hillary the war-protesting, Joni Mitchell-loving feminist has now been transformed into Hillary the calculating Lady Macbeth who will deliver any speech handed to her if it helps reclaim her husband's throne. Neither stereotype, in fact, is especially credible, and neither helps to resolve the puzzle of where Hillary Clinton actually wants to take her party - beyond, perhaps, returning it to the White House.

To read more of this article, please go to http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/02/magazine/02hillary.html?pagewanted=1&8hpib

Saturday, October 01, 2005

Alexander Cockburn: Where Are The Democrats?

Mr Cockburn's article highlights what many of us doubting Lefties have been wondering for along while now: What has happened to the Democratic Party? The one time party of opposition has now become a group of toadies for the self-serving Right. With the mid-term elections not too far away, those in the Democratic Party should be fearful that it is not to late to re-evaluate their positions and take a stance in favor of those most likely to vote for them. ~Charee

From Lynndie England to Shaquille O'Neal
Alexander Cockburn
posted September 29, 2005 (October 17, 2005 issue)
THE NATION (http://thenation.com)

Away to prison for three years goes Lynndie England, her pleas for mercy ignored by the military panel in Fort Hood, Texas. So what's the tally so far to indicate America's revulsion over the systematic use of torture by its own forces? It tots up to a handful of rednecks. Scot-free go those who inherited a secret system of torture that goes back decades and who insured that its relentless and widening application would soon bring the practice to light. The framers of the policy go free. The lawyers who gave torture its new garb of legality plump themselves down in richly endowed chairs at our most esteemed law schools or are rewarded with seats on the Supreme Court. The senior military officers who ordered the use of dogs, isolation cells smeared with filth, water boards and other techniques designed to drive their captives mad have escaped all sanction, except for the eloquent reproofs of Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba. Lumpen intellectuals, like Jonathan Alter and Alan Dershowitz, who clamored for torture need fear no indictment or downtime on the cable shows.
If there was a real party of opposition, maybe those who mandated the new torture system would face some sanction. If Democratic Party leaders had made an issue of it, some fiber would have been given to the calls for punitive sanction of the engineers of the torture systems. But top Democrats were silent. Torture was not an issue in the Kerry campaign. And the grunts were abandoned as surely as Kerry abandoned the rednecks of Appalachia and the working poor across America.
Thus it is, with each month that passes, the Democratic Party seems to have touched bottom. Then it promptly sinks even deeper into the ooze of cowardice and irrelevance. While Interstate 45 from Galveston to Houston was clogged with evacuees fleeing the wrath of Hurricane Rita, there was a similar jam on the Beltway round Washington, as Democrats fled the city on the eve of the September 24 antiwar rally, panic-stricken lest their presence in Washington be construed as endorsement of the rally's antiwar message.

Here's a war the voting population of the United States views with a hostility that's soaring by the day. The latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, released September 19, shows 67 percent disapproving of Bush's Iraq strategy--a jump of 9 percent since their last poll less than a month before; 63 percent want to see a pullout, partial or full; and half of the latest New York Times/CBS poll's sample declare that Iraq will never become a democracy. It looks very much as though attitudes toward the war no longer break along traditional party lines: 40 percent of Republicans oppose their own President on the war.
At the rally only Ralph Nader pointed out that Republicans may be the antiwar movement's prime emerging market. The Homeward Bound resolution, which calls for the withdrawal of American troops beginning in October 2006, is co-sponsored by two Republicans, Walter Jones of North Carolina and Ron Paul of Texas.
You'd think that on the most elementary precepts of political self-advancement Congressional Democrats would have been besieging the rally's organizers for a speaker's slot. But the Democrats have not only forgotten how to fix elections, they've lost the simplest political instincts of all, opportunism and grandstanding. Not ten, not five, but precisely one Congressional Democrat, Cynthia McKinney--a woman the Democrats tried their best to destroy three years ago--addressed the 150,000 people on the Ellipse protesting the war in Iraq.
For those interested in some of the reasons for this incredible abdication, we can cite former NSA staffer and muckraker Wayne Madsen, who reported the day of the rally that "according to Democratic insiders on Capitol Hill AIPAC put out the word that any member of Congress who appeared at the protest, where some speakers were to represent pro-Palestinian views, would face their political wrath." Madsen wrote that three members of Congress had been scheduled to speak at the rally--McKinney, Lynn Woolsey and John Conyers.
Insofar as there is an official position on the war from Democrats, it's presumably the US Army Relief Act put forth by Senators Joseph Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, Bill Nelson, Jack Reed and Representatives Ellen Tauscher and Mark Udall. Reed, Tauscher and Udall are among the most liberal Democrats on the Hill. The act calls for an increase in troop strength by 80,000 over the next four years. This is not a position that is finding much favor among American voters. The recent CNN poll registered just 8 percent of respondents, both Democrats and Republicans, as supporting an increase in US troop strength in Iraq.
There's scant doubt that 2008 will see an antiwar Democrat running in the presidential primaries. It might well be Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, although it seems Feingold's wife cited his presidential ambitions as one of the reasons she was divorcing him, a plan she disclosed to the senator earlier this year. But Feingold fled the September 24 rally just like the others. Perhaps he feared jeers from the demonstrators for his bizarre performance in another arena, the hearings on John Roberts for Chief Justice. After flaying Roberts with his questions, Feingold meekly voted to approve the nomination of this profound anti-civil libertarian who might well be leading the Supreme Court through the first half of the twenty-first century.
The prime loyal Democratic voting bloc left consists of black Americans. If one facet of Roberts's career is indisputable, it's his lifelong hostility toward, and efforts to undermine, civil rights laws and federal court rulings on desegregation. This carries scant weight among Democrats on the Hill. You want further evidence of Democratic collapse? How many of them went to New Orleans to protest the most glaring exhibition of racism in America since Bull Connor wielded his cattle prod? Shaquille O'Neal, who had tons of aid trucked to the Crescent City, couldn't even assemble a full basketball team out of the paltry number of big-time Democrats who came to New Orleans in its hours of crisis.

Alexander Cockburn has been The Nation's "Beat the Devil" columnist since 1984. One of America's best-known radical journalists, he currently contributes a nationally syndicated column to the Los Angeles Times and co-edits the newsletter CounterPunch. His latest book, written with Jeffrey St. Clair, is Al Gore: A User's Manual (Verso, 2000).

Thomas L. Friedman: A Call For Independence

Not always am I in agreement with Mr. Friedman, but when I do, I find myself pleasantly suprised.We now have a time of great oppurtunity in the wake of hurricane Katrina and it would be a terrible shame to waste it. ~Charee

Bush's Waterlogged Halo
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN (NYT)
Published: September 21, 2005

Following President Bush's speech in New Orleans, many U.S. papers carried the same basic headline: ''Bush Rules Out Raising Taxes for Gulf Relief.'' The president is planning to rely on ''spending cuts'' instead to pay for rebuilding New Orleans. Yeah, right -- and if you believe that, I have some beachfront property in Biloxi I'd like to sell you. The underlying message of all these stories is that the Bush team sees no reason to change course in response to Katrina.

I beg to differ. Katrina deprived the Bush team of the energy source that propelled it forward for the last four years: 9/11 and the halo over the presidency that came with it. The events of 9/11 created a deference in the U.S. public, and media, for the administration, which exploited it to the hilt to push an uncompassionate
conservative agenda on tax cuts and runaway spending, on which it never could have gotten elected. That deference is over.

If Mr. Bush wants to make anything of his second term, he'll have to do his own Nixon-to-China turnaround, reframe the debate and recast the priorities of his presidency. He seems to think that by offering to spend billions of dollars to rebuild one city, New Orleans, he'll get his leadership halo back. Wrong. Just throwing more borrowed money at New Orleans is not leadership. Mr. Bush needs to frame a new agenda for rebuilding all our cities and strengthening the nation as a whole. And what should be the centerpiece of a policy of American renewal is blindingly obvious: making a quest for energy independence the moon shot of our generation.

The president should have done that on the morning of Sept. 12, 2001. The country was ready. But the president whiffed. Katrina -- nature's 9/11 -- has given him a rare do-over. Imagine -- I know it is a stretch -- that the president announced tomorrow that he wanted an immediate 50-cents-a-gallon gasoline tax -- the ''American Renewal Tax,'' to be used to rebuild New Orleans, pay down the deficit, fund tax breaks for Americans to convert their cars to hybrid technology or biofuels, fund a Manhattan Project to develop alternatives for energy independence, and subsidize mass transit systems for our major cities.

And imagine if he tied this to an appeal to young people to go into science, math and engineering for the great national purpose of making us the greenest nation on the planet, to help liberate us from dependence on the worst regimes in the world for our oil and to help ease the global warming that is heating up the oceans, making our hurricanes more intense and our lowlands more vulnerable. America's kids are hungry to be challenged for some larger purpose, which has been utterly absent in this presidency.

Americans will change their long-term energy habits, and companies will develop green products, only if they are certain the price of gasoline will not go back down. A gasoline tax (Americans have already shown they'll tolerate higher prices) and stronger regulation would force U.S. companies to innovate in what is going to be one of the most important global industries in the 21st century: green technologies. By coddling our auto and industrial companies when it comes to mileage standards and the environment, all the Bush team is doing is ensuring that they will be dinosaurs and that Chinese, Japanese and Indian companies will take the lead in green technologies -- because they have to and ours don't.

Look what Jeff Immelt, the C.E.O. of G.E., said: ''America should strive to make energy and environmental practices a national core competency and by doing so, create exports in jobs. America is the leading consumer of energy. However, we are not the technical leader. Europe today is the major force for environmental innovation. European governments have encouraged their companies to invest [in] and produce clean power technologies. The same is true for nuclear power. And government policy that encourages this with subsidies and other incentives is giving European companies a leg up. While Europe has been a driver for innovation, China promises to be its market.''

Setting the goal of energy independence, along with a gasoline tax, could help to solve so many of our problems today -- from the deficit to climate change and national security. And Americans would pay it if they thought the extra money was going to renew America, not Iran, and not just New Orleans. And if the Texas-oilman president became the energy-independence president -- now, that would snap heads and make this a truly relevant presidency.

No way, you say. Probably right. But either Mr. Bush does a Nixon-to-China or his next three years are going to be a Bush-to-Nowhere.