Blue Collar Politics

[BREAK] In one of his pieces on Salon (War Room - Salon.com), Glenn Greenwald elaborates on just one of the myriad of reasons that many Liberals, or to be au courant - and use verbal camouflage- Progressives will find it hard to pull a lever.press the screen under/adjacent to a Clinton, Warner or even Obama name in 2008, and may have thoughts of skipping the polling places just a few weeks from now. The beginning of Greenwald's War Room piece:

- - - SNIP The willingness of Senate Democrats to vote for the torture bill appears substantial, at least if one listens to their leader, Sen. Harry Reid. From the New York Times this morning: "Democrats, who have found themselves on the losing end of the national security debate the past two national elections, said the changes to the bill had not yet reached a level that would cause them to try to block it altogether. To underscore the point, Reid said this about the bill: "We want to do this. And we want to do it in compliance with the direction from the Supreme Court. We want to do it in compliance with the Constitution." - - - End of SNIPPET

I realize I'm entering dangerous territory here. Back in 2004, I got a straight out ass chewing by one of the then, and still now, stars in the blogosphere's celestial backdrop. I had the temerity to point out that, when you used super-blogger's own much written criteria for a suitable candidate, Howard Dean, whom he loudly supported, was a bit of a disappointment. Not, mind you, that Governor Dean wasn't a far superior choice to Bush, or even Kerry, General Clark or some others (Joementum???). By simply sing the blogger's own wish list, I showed that Denis Kucinich should have been his pick for the primary. I was eventually hit with the "We must pick the candidate who looks to have the best chance of being elected" bullet. When I wrote that, according to the then polls, he should support GW, he called me an idiot and we ceased our corresponding. So, I know that basing support on a list of criteria one believes essential to keeping America strong, healthy and somewhat recognizable (in ongoing principle) to those brave souls who risked all to give birth to this fragile democracy is NOT an all popular strategy. But (and you knew that "But" would appear right after my throwing of the Founding Father's into the mix), allowing electibility to trump principle places one on a path to electoral Hell. Choosing Republican Lite over true Republican, or over the group of traitorous bastards that hold America hostage in some dark cave where she is forced to condone torture while she witnesses the shredding of human and civil rights both at home and in countries where we hide prisoners around the globe, is NOT a strategy that helps get her back and standing tall. It only allows a creeping crud of fascism to gain ground and/or a dose political amnesia that makes our citizens forget what once was and lose hope for what could have been. The DLC will not go quietly into that dark night of failed domestic/corporate coups. If we, the voters who are sickened by how a Republican party capitulated to the worst of its members and became the Repugnant Party, don't retaliate by choosing a candidate who won't just slow the Ship Of State as she heads for the whirlpool of Corporatism so close by but one who will grab the wheel and arc us back 180 degrees to where Jefferson's dreams became FDR's agenda. They showed integrity! They held tight to certain principles, and helped our country advance! Where a power-hungry, corrupt southern bigot who, when the Presidency was abruptly handed him through a tragedy on the streets of Dallas, became a champion of civil rights, even though Johnson knew it would bring great harm on his party and his democratic peers in the south. He showed integrity! He held tight to certain principles, and helped our country advance! More from Greenwald's War Room piece:

- - - SNIP Sen. Lindsey Graham even claims that an amendment to provide habeas corpus rights to detainees -- a provision that could alleviate some of the bill's most tyrannical aspects -- "will be defeated, I think, in a bipartisan fashion, with a solid vote." Whether or not Graham is right about Democratic opposition even to habeas corpus rights, it appears certain that not only will Senate Democrats fail to impede enactment, but at least some (perhaps even the majority of) Democrats will vote for the bill and enthusiastically praise it. Their Senate leader is already doing so. - - - End of SNIPPET

Greenwald points out that to be a happy Democrat today, one has to smile at the end of habeas corpus, giggle at torture and care little about one's fellow human. While he only names one of the Democratics (Harry Reid) who will be helping turn the screws on innocent, as well as guilty, torture victims, you'll read that the Republicans have Democrats on board for this tragedy. More from Greenwald's War Room piece:

- - - SNIP Yale law professor Jack Balkin, whose rhetoric is typically restrained and mild, put it this way this morning: "The Democrats may think that if they let this pass, they are guaranteed to pick up more seats in the House and Senate. But they will actually win less seats this way. For they will have proved to the American people that they are spineless and opportunistic -- that, when faced with a genuine choice and a genuine challenge, they can keep neither our country nor our values safe." - - - End of SNIPPET

Well, those Dems who support/suborn torture won't get my vote. Not this year, and not in '08. And, if enough of us rally behind that sentiment, and NOT just look on the choice of America's stewardship as if it were only a matter of being a winner, like your vote were just a turn of a card or drop of a roulette ball that, if you wanted, you could choose to be a winner, the DLC and Republican Lite candidates WILL disappear, or change. (See the recent attempt at metamorphosis by Hillary, including chastising Rumsfeld and backing Bill's in-your-face with Chris Wallace.) But, if they see that after all your bitching and griping about Bush, you're still willing to back a candidate who cares little about torture and/or wants more troops in Iraq and/or thinks bankruptcy should only be a trump card for mega-corporations but not help families decimated by a health crisis, then you'll never find a Kucinich or Russ Feingold taken seriously by the party, the media OR certain conflicted super bloggers. [BREAK] More Here Democrats may come to regret not opposing Bush on torture While it is almost certain that Congress will fail to enact a warrantless eavesdropping bill prior to Friday's adjournment, it appears equally certain that both houses of Congress will enact the president's torture and detention bill. On that issue, there seem to be only two unresolved questions at this point: 1) Exactly how draconian will the president's powers be under this bill (more on that later)? 2) How much Democratic support will this bill attract?

[BREAK] The title of this blog means something to me. I wasn't always sitting at a computer while on disability. I'm proud of the work I did, and of the people I had the privilege of working for, with and/or over. When people found that I was a hard hat who was once the Treasurer of NYC Mensa, they often ask "How was it working with the people in the construction trades?" And, while I always found the question offensive, I always answered honestly. "I found more intelligent people in construction than I did at Mensa meetings." That's true! That's why I was horrified as I've watched, in shanties on high rise building construction in Manhattan, on oil refinery platforms in Canada, in nuclear plants in Ohio and New York, in paper mills in Maine and rocket fuel refineries in Baltimore, the morphing of once strongly Democratic blue collar, union workers into Republican cheerleaders. The reasons are, of course, many. Some are reasons for the switch do the Democratic Party proud. (i.e.: Anger at job losses due to desegregation of construction unions lost some Dem workers to the GOP.) But what seems to be a big reason is the "wimp factor." The men and women toil with their muscle, in outdoor conditions that make the complaints of office workers about how cold the walk from the heated parking lot to their heated office seem a bit shrill. There is little time for in depth conversation when welding steel on a parapet 90 feet above a cement floor, or while humping heavy pipe into place within confined spaces. So, these folk speak rather plainly. Nuance is not a constant companion. As the work is often dangerous, a blunt and factual intercourse is most appreciated. Long winded conversations are saved for lunch of after work at a local gin mill. The Republicans, while screwing these folks through the tax codes, loose pension regulation and anti-union legislation, did one smart thing. They stayed on message; they came up with easily understood points and fought for them even when they knew they would lose. Democrats tried to be all things to all people, and wound up being ill defined and seemingly weak. In just a few sentences, a newly minted Republican blue collar worker could give you a synopsis of the Republican Party that, while it might appeal to the lower, more base, prejudices and feelings of his/her audience, they made the listeners think that they'd be a part of a powerful movement. When was the last time a Democrat felt that she/he was part of anything powerful? For me, it goes back to JFK's inaugural speech . . . a time before most Americans were born. And, lately, the feeling of weakness is overwhelming. So, as I mentioned on this blog yesterday, it's time to change. While many of the Liberal mega-blogs, and many of the hosts on Air America, are frantically attempting to hide the fact that the Democratic Party could have stopped this heinous bill from being passed, thankfully, some see through the BS, including The Nation takes a stand and tells it like it is.

Did John McCain and his GOP colleagues cave? Yes. In particular, they betrayed the courageous military officers and Pentagon lawyers who for months fought for the rule of law. But the refusal of many Democrats to confront this constitutional crisis is more scandalous. For weeks Harry Reid and other Democratic leaders enjoyed the luxury of sitting on their hands while McCain and other Republicans publicly bucked the White House. But when vigorous Democratic opposition might have slowed the bill until a saner, less politicized moment after the election-season recess, a tepid Senator Reid refused to stand in its way: "We want to do this. And we want to do it in compliance with the direction from the Supreme Court. We want to do it in compliance with the Constitution." Never mind that the whole bill is out of compliance. As more than 300 law professors wrote in a letter to Congressional leaders, the enemy-combatants debate is "an urgent test of our nation's constitutional and democratic values." Democrats as well as Republicans have failed the test.

The Founding Fathers would not believe that, while America rolls back the clock to where a Monarchy again rules this land, and detention, torture and lack of legal redress once again soil America's skirts, Briton Cites 'Divergence' With U.S., with her top legal official taking pains to differentiate her justice with America's willingness "to do things beyond the law." It is a shame that blogs and organizations that gained trust by speaking honestly and directly about problems in America are now so tied into the Democratic Party that they have become a new DLC - The Democratic Liberal Chorus, instead of an independent voice. There is no hiding the fact that Harry Reid cut deals that failed the American people, Liberals and the standing of America in history. It is time for a Move-On, KOS, or Atrios to speak up for what is right, not what is politically convenient. It's time for Air America hosts to stop toeing the DLC line, and quit telling us "Democrats do speak up. Just turn on CSPAN3 and you'll hear them." While there is certainly a right-wing bias in the media, and Dems get much less face time on political talk TV, the Dem leaders DO get some time. And, they use it to again echo the GOP lines, but with a little sad violin accompaniment. Sure, you'll get a Russ Feingold or Carl Levin occasionally. But the vast majority of air time afforded Dems goes to the likes of Harry Reid and (once a firebrand, now a tumbleweed) Nancy Pelosi. And they both use the time poorly. So poorly, that things like Legislating Violations of the Constitutiongo virtually unnoticed by the majority of Americans. Sadly, it seems that the more popular the TV show, the less likely a Democratic leader will say anything that would distinguish her/him from a moderate Republican. (With that in mind, I was shaking my head as Lincoln Chaffee, a Republican, voted AGAINST an awful Republican bill on torture and detainment, but a bill on which the Democrats couldn't even muster a filibuster.) Things have gotten so bad, I wouldn't be surprised if Democrats somehow turned the new Woodward tome into a plus for Bush. By parroting the "We must put winning the 2006 election" above all of our important principles, we only play an electoral version of "Leave No Democratic Politician Behind", which may someday garner a political win, but you'll hardly recognize the candidate/party you've won with. The knee-jerk "Must Win" process allowed Clinton to bend over on flawed and vindictive Welfare Reform, instead of a bill providing training, child care and hope for those trapped in poverty. Of course, as this was pre-Katrina, many Democrats had fallen for the con from Republican (and Democratic Repug-Lite politicians) that there were only a few lazy "Welfare Queens driving their Caddies (Lexus's?) to pick up Welfare Checks" that would be effected by the bill. Clinton also signed the disastrous telecommunications bill, that left us with hate radio on so many stations across America, where now there are more different faces of right-wing talk radio than there are different (local) news broadcasts. Now, an operation like Clear Channel can produce a single radio news spot that will be run in hundreds of cities and towns, providing only that news that a huge media outfit would like their customers to hear. Now let me be clear, Clinton held back the fascist tied for 8 years, and accomplished much when faced with external forces and internal havoc. But he knew how far he could go without having his feet held to the fire by his left-wing. And that IS a problem. Both during and since the Clinton years, we (in the Democratic Party sense) have been gaining momentum in a slide to the bottom. While the worst, and most unappetizing group of fascist/theocratic thugs are riding roughshod over the true Republicans who still remain in that party, we seem to have mastered losing the unloseable elections. While Clinton was peaking in popularity, we lost the House. We needed to turn a Republican Senator, just to bring that body into a tie between Dems and Repugnants. And we then lost the Senate, giving the coming little coward an America who was hogtied and unable to resist the torture the little psychopath was looking to inflict. We ran a sitting vice-President (who had viced under an unbelievably popular, yet fully viced himself, President) against a cowardly pip-squeak who had trouble stringing two syllables together and would need help finding America on a map. We lost. Our candidate, many say, did the gentlemanly thing by not contesting the fraudulent election process, and standing by as a rogue Supreme Court decided that it, and not the voters, should decide Presidential elections. Should Gore have tried a coup? Maybe not. But shooting off a few paragraphs of fact and passion at the eulogy to democratic elections in America might have been appropriate. Gore could have, legally, been that single Senator that members of the Black Caucus so desperately needed in order to force a look into that fatally flawed election. But, we are the well-behaved Democrats in a school full of bullying sociopath Repugnants, and we wouldn't think of raising a fuss. Would we? We ran disabled war veterans (Max Cleland) against ugly, racist thugs, and lost. In 2004, all those mega-blogs told us we could NOT lose! We had a hot-damn honest-to-God war hero we'd run against the Howdy Doody on steroids playing landscaper in an ass-ugly, weed-covered farm in Crawford, Texas. Of course, our hero had to play the same game that Harry Reid and the Accessories played on this torture bill. He'd have to get so close to Republican positions that, were both sides in the foxholes one should expect in a political battle for the life blood of our country, if one sneezed the other would be wiping snot from their face. Kerry took that plan and ran with it. He played Repug-lite on Iraq. More troops? Sure! More money? Of course! Say anything about a totally illegal invasion? Nope! Criticize the tactics of fear? Not so much! Tell the flat out truth to the followers who so wanted a true leader? ARE YOU CRAZY! That's not how you play politics. So, after another miserable day of losing poll numbers, we were left to whine about "Election Fraud!", as if that was a brand new happening in American politics. For Christ's sake, I'll bet there was some finagling back during the early Greek democracy. Instead of whining for the passed 2 years, someone should have taken the entire membership of the Dem party, sat them down and screamed "You don't win elections by showing your people how closely you can follow every asinine thing your opponent does. You win elections by showing folks true leadership qualities. And, for a political party to inspire people, the party must stand for something. And NOT by standing up for something as meek as sitting on its hands when the country is imperiled! Do you really expect busy, overworked, underpaid Americans to look forward to standing in a line at a polling place in order to elect people who will, when America is about to be assaulted, cut deals that prevent the members of that party to try and stop the assault? Sure there's election fraud. But Democrats outnumber Republicans nationwide, and if you would only show that by electing Democrats our country would/could change, there would be such an outpouring of support that it would be near impossible to switch enough votes to turn the election with impunity. Instead, we get told "Forget what you just saw happen." If you'll only hold together and vote Democratic, after winning the election we Dem politicians will run into the nearest phone booth and switch to our Super Hero tights. Well, phone booths are hard to find, and after watching the Democrats, tine after time, capitulate and/or enable atrocity after atrocity to be enacted upon our Constitution and our ideals (from Patriot Act through Bankruptcy Bill, from Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib), many of us don't believe the Dems would know what to do with such powers. They'd likely ask the Repugnants for advice. So, as I said in yesterday's post, I'm switching registration. Green or Independent, I'm not yet sure. That certainly doesn't mean that I'll vote for a candidate from my new party who might have little or no chance of winning. But, if I'm only offered a Repugnant against a Dem-Lite, that yes I'll vote for neither. And the Democratic Party will change, or more and more Democrats will help form a party that actually follows the principles that made the Democratic Party great, and, for too short of a time, helped make America great! For now, I'll vote for anyone, from whatever party, who sincerely wants to get us back on track AND isn't afraid to stand up for what is decent and just . . . without looking to cut deals that lead to naught but Pyrrhic victories and leaving America hoist on a Republican-lite/Democratic petard. =====

Accessories to Torture These are grim days for the Constitution. The House and the Senate have passed the catastrophic "compromise" negotiated by senators McCain & Co. to the President's "enemy combatants" bill. The only thing compromised is the rule of law; the bill still strips detainees of the right to appeal, broadens the President's unilateral powers to decide who is an enemy and which interrogation methods violate the Geneva Conventions, and fatally undermines the War Crimes Act. The bill was rushed to passage just days after the Canadian government exonerated Maher Arar, "rendered" by the United States to Syria, imprisoned and tortured for nearly a year. Go here for the whole article!

[BREAK] This morning's Washington Post has a must read article by David Brown, that is derived from an AP report on a study conducted by a team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists. The article is titled Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000 .

A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred. The estimate, produced by interviewing residents during a random sampling of households throughout the country, is far higher than ones produced by other groups, including Iraq's government.

While polls seem to indicate that somewhere around 30% to 35% of Americans will read the horrible results of the study and come away smiling and praising the military genius of the Bush crime family (see: White House Briefing -- News on President George W Bush and the Bush Administration - washingtonpost.com), the other two thirds of the saner folk will walk a little more slowly, bow their heads a bit more lowly, this morning. (And, with recent revelations about Republica's running in Congressional and State elections, the "Values Voters" are beginning to wake up. And it's doubtful that "Staff" will be able to deflect heat from the high level Republican cover-up in the Foley affair(s). Surprise, surprise! When you use all the horrendous weapons of conventional war, from pretty colored, toy looking cluster bombs through depleted uranium munitions that throw radioactive dust all over the environment of the country you claim to love so much you'll waste thousands of our own soldier's lives and the taxes of many future generations . . . all sorts of SHIT HAPPENS! And if there's anything Amerika has become expert at in the past 5 years, it's turning shouted good intentions into works resembling the most evil whispers of demons. On the other hand, if you read the unadorned AP report in today's NY Times, the chilling figures of death are given short shrift as early as the second paragraph: NY Times:

The timing of the survey's release, just a few weeks before the U.S. congressional elections, led one expert to call it "politics."

The whole damn Attack, Invasion, Occupation thing is nothing but politics, so how could a body count be not?! Just yesterday McCain blamed North Korea's nuke ambitions on Bill Clinton, 6 years into Bush's grabbing of the wheel of the good ship US. Was McCain's attempt to look good to the Repugnant, anti-Clinton base political. Of course it was. Yet, if a Democrat points out that the Bush administration is In Search of a North Korea Policy - washingtonpost.com, that person would be pilloried with "You're just playing politics!" As the US has a Congressional election every 2 years, and campaigning for the next one often starts before the votes have been counted in a current one, just when the Hell is it convenient to hang out the Repugnant's dirty laundry without being accused of playing politics? With the Repugnants damaging the fabric of America daily, and the corporate media laying back and counting the money left on the dresser (FCC "deregulation" bucks!), getting any facts on what is going on is a blessing. Be it the day before, the day after or the day elections are deemed unpatriotic. And that last wasn't meant as exaggeration to make a point. It was fearful, sorrowful prognostication, if anything. For redacting and shredding the Constitution has become the raison de être of this Administration, and it has had willing accomplices in the Republican AND Democratic parties. As Keith Olbermann pointed out last night, only the 3rd Amendment is still in effect. We don't have the King's soldiers in our living rooms nor his horses/tanks in our stables/carports. All other Amendments are no longer in effect, according to Bills passed by our fearful, spineless AND treasonous officials.

If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort that it values more, it will lose that too. -- W. Somerset Maugham

Invading non-aggressor nations, abrogating treaties and other agreements made under the bond of "America's bond", dissing all of our allies while enraging and empowering our enemies and, last but far from least, treating our troops as if they were literal cannon fodder, to be sent into battle for longer than they were prepared to fight, with insufficient munitions and supplies (including rationing their food and water, while Halliburton ran up huge and uncontested contract overages), then cast aside as an insignificant waste necessary in the pursuit of empire. That's ALL POLITICS . . . and shining a light on any of it, INCLUDING THE PRICE PAID IN BLOOD BY THE VERY PEOPLE WE CLAIM WE CAME TO HELP! Let's remember a very relevant and timely quote:

Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering, before committing suicide at the Nuremberg Trials, appeared to be advising the future neo-cons: Goering: "Why, of course, the people don't want war. why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in American, nor for that matter in Germany. that is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship." (interviewer) Gilbert: "There is one difference. in a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars." Goering: "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." —Nazi leader Hermann Goering, interviewed by Gustave Gilbert during the Easter recess of the Nuremberg trials, 1946 April 18, quoted in Gilbert's book, Nuremberg Diary

Controlling the media, especially by using the old dodge "We're at war, and even if the printed facts are true they hurt our country now.", or the present one which combines our War-time need for self censorship with the plea that bad news could influence an upcoming election, makes Goering's message all the more chilling. One must realize that the Bushies, lacking much intellectual initiative for innovation, has been clinging to playbooks from the past. They know how the country rallied behind Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor and gave him powers that allowed him to take on a war against 2 major powers. And how, after WW II, Roosevelt used that good will to push through policies not thought possible. From Social Security through a Marshall Plan that set up working social democracies in Europe and proved to the world that by taking care of the poor and cultivating a secure middle-class you can have a healthy economic engine the likes of which was thought impractical by most Republicans and fiscal insanity by many. So the Bush regime, fully aware of the philosophy expressed by Goerring, saw the opportunity handed them by 19 young fanatics who really did little more than hijack 4 American domestic airplanes (hardly as mighty an attack as Pearl Harbor). The Bushies stoked and stirred the cauldron of fear until it was boiling over. Once the people were so blinded by irrational fear, which was "politically" fueled by the ingenious misuse of color coded charts inspiring timely fear, they forgot the original American heroes who took on the mightiest army on Earth (the Brits) in 1776 to garner certain inalienable rights and desired freedoms for future generations, the Bushies began stripping those rights and freedoms with more skill than any of America's past enemies had ever dared believed possible. Some have taken notice:

"I think this is the worst government the US has ever had in its more than 200 years of history. It has engaged in extraordinarily irresponsible policies not only in foreign policy and economics but also in social and environmental policy." "This is not normal government policy. now is the time for (American) people to engage in civil disobedience. I think it's time to protest - as much as possible." American 2001 Nobel Prize Laureate for Economics George A. Akerlof, who teaches economics at the University of California in Berkeley. The 61-year-old scholar's areas of expertise include macro-economics, monetary policy and poverty.

Of course, had Hitler stated, out loud, that, with the consent of a majority of both his people and the government officials of both his and the opposition's officials, he would destroy our Constitution, that he'd lock up Americans on a whim, with no regard for evidence (Habeas Corpus), that he'd torture those he arbitrarily chose . . . Japan might not have earned the dubious distinction of being the first nation to see only a mushroom cloud where a city once stood. Yet, here in Amerika, we allowed an elected leadership to turn America into something resembling the pre-Revolution colony of Royal subjects whose abuse in the name of the unjust regent was stirring the seeds of a glorious revolt. We, the silent citizenry who are turning our backs on the Washington's, Jefferson's and Lincoln's had both an Authorization For Force and a Patriot Act passed near unanimously, turning America into war-mongering freedom hating land. A further step back was the recent bill on Military Commissions that allows Bush to lock up Laura, if he likes, and she'd have absolutely no rights other than those King George would allow. (Thanks for your courage in opposition, Russ Feingold. May my nightmare of Hillary using you as her running mate to deflect the criticism of her jingoistic cheerleading for the illegal Iraq occupation, be something that scares me alone, and is never visited on the rest of our nation.) How then can we be told that any report that shows us exactly what we have become should be dismissed as "political?" Just because inconvenient truths are popping up all over now does NOT mean those truths were rushed, nor that they were held, just to harm the Republicans or help Democrats. Hell, I'd argue that most Democrats should carry those deaths over their heads as well. The harm those truths bring should have been front page news since prior to March of 2003, but should certainly be brought to light at whatever time the mainstream media finds itself with surplus testosterone . . . which, be it immediately prior to an election, may seem to be Divine justice for those who aided in the deaths so reported here. Remember:

"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." -- International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, 1946

Should a country not hold those who began an illegal war responsible for that action? Or is it deemed only a fair election if the electorate goes into the booth wholly ignorant of the abominations performed by their elected officials in their names? ===== [/BREAK]

Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000 - washingtonpost.com A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred. The estimate, produced by interviewing residents during a random sampling of households throughout the country, is far higher than ones produced by other groups, including Iraq's government. It is more than 20 times the estimate of 30,000 civilian deaths that President Bush gave in a speech in December. It is more than 10 times the estimate of roughly 50,000 civilian deaths made by the British-based Iraq Body Count research group. The surveyors said they found a steady increase in mortality since the invasion, with a steeper rise in the last year that appears to reflect a worsening of violence as reported by the U.S. military, the news media and civilian groups. In the year ending in June, the team calculated Iraq's mortality rate to be roughly four times what it was the year before the war.

More Here

[BREAK] Great news for America! Even better news for our military!! Devastating news for the already faltering world domination plans of the current Evil Empire administration!!! Britain's top military man, General Sir Richard Dannatt, delivered a broadside against the handling of the Iraq occupation, and pulled no punches as to the devastating effect it is having on the British military AND on Christian values in his homeland.

- - - SNIP His comments come after an exclusive interview with the Daily Mail, where Sir Richard warned that the continuing presence of British troops "exacerbates the security problems" in Iraq and added that a "moral and spiritual vacuum" has opened up in British society, which is allowing Muslim extremists to undermine "our accepted way of life." The Chief of the General Staff believes that Christian values are under threat in Britain and that continuing to fight in Iraq will only make the situation worse. - - - End of SNIPPET.

Here's the DC take on this:

UK Troops Worsen Problems in Iraq: Army Chief - washingtonpost.com By Deborah Haynes and Peter Graff Reuters Friday, October 13, 2006; 5:42 AM LONDON - Britain's top army commander said the presence of British troops in Iraq was exacerbating security problems on the ground and they should be withdrawn soon. In an interview with the Daily Mail newspaper, General Richard Dannatt criticized post-war planning for the 2003 U.S.-led invasion and said the British presence in Iraq also hurt British security interests abroad, which British Prime Minister Tony Blair has repeatedly denied. More Here

Here's the Brits take, from the Daily Mail:

Army could be broken by Iraq, warns chief officer | the Daily Mail The Army could 'break' if it is kept too long in Iraq and British troops should be withdrawn 'soon', the head of the Army has said today. In a devastating broadside at Tony Blair's foreign policy, General Sir Richard Dannatt said: "I want an Army in five years time and 10 years time. Don't let's break it on this one. Let's keep an eye on time."

And, from this same Daily Mail article, we discover that the Gods of politics seem to love some irony. Check out the name of the British "Liberal Democrat Foreign Affairs spokesman"!

- - - SNIP Liberal Democrat Foreign Affairs spokesman Michael Moore said: "This is the frankest assessment we have had about Iraq. It illustrates that the government has no clear strategy." - - - End of SNIPPET More Here

As Repugnants keep using the long ago pictures of the "purple fingers" of Iraqi voters as their proof that attacking, invading and occupying Iraq was a good thing, they always fail to mention that the government the Iraqis voted for was overturned by American puppets, and that more changes to the UNELECTED Iraqi government continue. More Here [/BREAK]

[BREAK] We finally know where River has been. Now, the more important questions are "Where are you? What are you doing?" I run a dinky little mailing list/service that pushes out news stories, articles and links to blog posts daily, for a bunch of activists, reporters, friends and relatives. (Okay, my wife gets hit with the full 50 to 75+ news articles I forward a day, while my daughter, whose boss believes she should read at home, can only suffer through a minimal list of about a dozen or so of the most important pieces.) I'd venture that everyone on the list is a Liberal, although some might seek the camouflage of the "Progressive" labeling. They all view the Bush admin as an enemy of all that was once good about America, and see through the Bushie use of fear as a political power enhancer.
They were well read, including reports in the international media.
Therefore, they were all against our attacking, invading and occupying Iraq. They are all good people, who work hard to leave the planet/country in as good a shape, if not better, than when they began helping to steer the ship of state. So, being that they are good people, I will unfairly use them as a sample for all the good people who complain about Bush, who think the Iraq war is farce - bloody, death dealing farce, but farce all the same - and who worry that future generations - including their own kids - will be deprived of the experience of knowing one lives in one of the most wonderful countries on the planet. While I fear this may look as a way of saying "I'm better than you", I mean nothing of the sort. For I believe that until I find a way to be part of something that stops our collective fall into a well of self-defeating insanity, I'm as much, if not more, guilty as anyone. If you've fought in an illegal war, as I have, you have a greater duty to prevent future illegal wars by your country. If you have children, your duty geometrically increases. If you possess any informational tools, such as my single typing finger or you have access to the much more powerful bullhorn of the Town Crier, mainstream media, and you waste such power in other, less worthy pursuits, guilt has to be your burden. (Not meaning to single out NOW, but this arrived in my mailbox, just as I finished reading the new Baghdad Burning entry. If, when studying the rise of . . . here it comes! . . . Hitler, we discovered that a major organization of opposition to Hitler's policies was sending out drivel like this instead of spending EVERY moment battling for the rights it stands for, we would be shaking our heads and wondering where the sanity of that group had gone. Come on, admit it! "LOVE YOUR BODY DAY!" It sounds like something from a Foley email that Hastert thought was just cute and friendly.) Here are some conclusions, based on my small sampling of good, compassionate people: Many "good people" avoid demonstrations/protests. for what I'm sure they view as legitimate reasons. Some have shared their reasons with me. Kids; fear of being seen by someone from work and, the number 1 reason, the organizers support other causes with which I disagree. The most recent protest I attended, a couple of weeks ago, was called for by The World Can't Wait. I was the ONLY member from my mailing list to attend.

Seems that:

• 1) it was held during working hours (though it continued until well after business hours.)
• 2) The organizers had some connection to either socialist or communist organizations.

# 2 was, by far, the most common excuse for avoiding the protest. Ironically, many of these folk would cheer those who battled against McCarthy, and would likely idolize those who provided help to the unfortunate souls who were blacklisted during the 50's. But to march in protest with folks who might have been on that list, or whose parents were on it, well, that would be just too much. On April 29, 2006 of this year there was a larger demonstration. Again, I was alone of my sample. (I should mention that my wife, on my right and holding the Military Families banner) also marches. I somehow think of her as someone more than a member of my sample.) Again, I found none of my associates there.

By August 16, 2005, attendance at protests were at a low. But a few of my list members did attend the candlelight marches in their neighborhoods.
Earlier on, there was more of a showing at marches. At the Republican Convention in NYC, the crowd was huge. And more than few of my mailing list members were there on August 29, 2001.

Barb and I at the Repugnant National Convention demonstration.
Of course, what should have been the most important demonstration of American sentiment of all, the February 15, 2003 (photo below) pre-attack march, was attended by the largest number of my sample. And, of course, it was when many of us discovered that the media had gone from biased propagandists to full out sycophantic whores for the Bush administration. Suddenly, a demonstration that could paralyze NYC on a weekend day was only attended by "thousands" of protesters, according to the NY Times. We, who were there, knew that the Times must have only counted people on one of the alternate/overflow avenues . . . and they must have only counted the "thousands" of crowd control cops there. But, the Times either wouldn't report, or couldn't conceive, that even after all of its front page lies about Iraq, and the barge loads of BS Judy Miller was transcribing Karl Rove's take on Ahmad Chalabi's fantasies, people, MILES AND MILES OF INTELLIGENT PEOPLE, still believed we had no business attacking Iraq.

February 15, 2003. A month prior to our illegal attack on Iraq. Why do I bore/chastise you with all of this? Quite simply, I'm looking for a way to do more to stop our country's decline into history's Hell. More Here [/BREAK]

[BREAK] This is a Goddamn sin!!!

EDUARDO CONTRERAS / Union Tribune Volunteer Marisela Helgeson (left) and Military Outreach Ministry associate director Patty Dutra prepared to distribute food to Marine families at Camp Pendleton. Behind them, some family members waited to pick up the donated items.

When I came back from Vietnam, Barb and I, along with other returning soldiers, had to spend a couple of weeks in a roach/spider/lizard infested motel near Ft. Huachuca, Arizona, until some base housing opened up. And I thought that was a poor way to treat guys returning from one of America's wars. Boy, was I spoiled! Today's soldier fights in a 360 degree war, with innocent civilians and deadly enemies just about everywhere. She/he is aware that our government has a plethora of plans for victory and/or defeat and/or withdrawal and/or permanent basing. He/she is sick of hearing of the latest Major Change Expected In Strategy for Iraq War, as he/she knows that the same folks promising change are those who had a "Mission Accomplished" banner hung way back in 2003. Just today, they'll read how a Shiite Militia Seizes Control of Iraq City, and that the militia controlling Amarah is run by anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. On top of that, they'll find that a two star General says mission In Baghdad falls short, which doesn't sit well while your playing miss that mine in a Humvee. If he reads much of the US mainstream media, he'll discover that much space is given to Republican claims that, in essence, say the coming Democratic majority will be giving terrorists maps to our best targets for dirty bombs, visas to get them in-country and police escorts after their bombs go off. And troop morale can't help but be lowered when, during the worst days of US casualties for the US military in Iraq since the siege of Falujah, she sees that the debate on who is or isn't gay in Congress is the main topic on Capital Hill. But to read this about his family back at home has got to be the hardest hit of all!

The women and children who formed a line at Camp Pendleton last week could have been waiting for a child-care center to open or Disney on Ice tickets to go on sale. Instead, they were waiting for day-old bread and frozen dinners packaged in slightly damaged boxes. these families are among a growing number of military households in San Diego County that regularly rely on donated food. - - - SNIP Too often, the supplies run out before the lines do, said Regina Hunter, who coordinates food distribution at one Camp Pendleton site. "Here they are defending the country. . . . It is heartbreaking to see," said Hunter, manager of the on-base Abby Reinke Community Center. "If we could find more sources of food, we would open the program up to more people. We believe anyone who stands in a line for food needs it and deserves it." - - - End of SNIPPET

The well-meaning, but none the less offensive "Ways To Help" box (text below) is a farce. The ONLY realistic way to truly help these families is to throw the damn Repugnicans out of office, impeach Bush and put him and the rest of the Bush Crime Family on trial! To do anything less would be unpatriotic, as this administration has bungled a war (Bush's Baghdad Blunder), mistreated our troops while enriching everyone else connected to Iraq, mishandled our domestic economy and shredded our Constitution. Here's the Repugnant way to help, if you believe our military families deserve to beg for milk and cheese!

Ways to help People interested in donating food, furniture or money to help military families in San Diego County can call: Military Outreach Ministry at Camp Pendleton: (760) 908-7043 Military Outreach Ministries at Miramar Marine Corps Air Station: (619) 843-8964

[/BREAK]

[BREAK] In past columns, E.J. Dionne has used the pathos of the herd when pointing to Progressive/Liberal politics and those who believe in such. You know, the way the mainstream media kept harping on how the Democrats only did well in the '06 elections because they "ran to the center". Of course, you can only reach such a conclusion if you totally ignore the fact that in most of the "surprise" democratic wins, the winner was from the left of center! Then you had the continual "advise" of Dionne-like pundits who counseled that the Dems had better not feel free buck Bush on Iraq, as it would show the country they were "weak on National Defense!" (As if attacking, invading and occupying Iraq was EVER linked to our nation's security.) This barrage of negativism had the desired effect. In Speaker Pelosi's listing of priorities that the Dems would work on during the first 100 hours, Iraq wasn't even mentioned! But then a funny thing happened on the way to the State of the Union speech! Democrats had been inundated by phone calls, letters, faxes and email, all demanding that they take a stand on the disastrous policies the US was following. And Republicans began grumbling, first at a low growl but building to where Chuck Hagle basically questioned the competence and the intelligence of his party's leaders. And the Presidents already miserable poll numbers of December began to look like the good old days at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Things have gone so awry with Bush's Baghdad Blunder that we now have competing Republican and Democratic proposals on how to change course in Iraq being pushed out so quickly that the ink hasn't time to dry! Obviously, the rantings of the Dionne-like mob of political prognosticators were wrong; bucking Bush on Iraq was exactly what the country was clamoring for when they entered the polls just a couple of months ago. Yet, when it comes to eating a bit of crow, our mainstream media mavens like to dress the blackbird up as a Turkey. Then they swear they're just celebrating Thanksgiving, not choking down the feathers of the much tougher bird of humility and repentance. Hence, when James Webb is chosen to give voice to the long time belittled (by the press) and/or much ignored clamor that began on the left, and Senator Webb chastises the President for the folly that has bled the life out of so many thousands of our troops and innocent Iraqis, Dionne can't just write about it without finding some way to make Webb seem at least to be right of center in the Democratic Party. Hell, Dionne strains to shape Webb into more of a Republican than Bush! First you have the chosen heading of the column: Reagan Democrat Next you have the literary furnishings Dionne uses to present the ambiance:

Like him or not, Ronald ("Tear Down This Wall") Reagan spoke in a clean, clear prose that almost always left listeners with a sense that he stood for something. It may thus be no accident that Jim Webb, Virginia's new Democratic senator, was once a Reaganite.

There's more, much more. Almost enough to cause someone who doesn't know better to believe that Webb might just be a Republican who strayed across the line by mistake. And there's the hilarious way that, by many of the newly awed pundits, the words that have been mocked after coming from the mouths of Dennis Kucinich, Maxine Waters, Charlie Rangel and Russ Feingold are now deemed "courageous" and as presenting "no mush". After years of Dems being castigated in the media for pointing to the unfair Bush tax cuts, the awful scandal of a never rising minimum wage, the desperate need for health care for those without means and the decline of America's middle-class, Dionne slyly tells us:

Many Democrats tremble that they will be accused by some right-wing Web site or presidential spokesman of waging class warfare. Webb made clear that there is a class war going on and that the wrong side is winning it.

I can think of no progressive who has shied from pointing to the unfairness of Bush's policies, and I certainly can't even imagine one who worries about being accused of anything by a right-wing website. Hell, most wear the slings and arrows of Drudge, Murdoch and the freepers as badges of accomplishment. What was really holding Democratic tongues were the slings and arrows of the supposed "independent" columnist, writers and editorialists who have been acting as if they were in the pay of the White House. (Of course, some, like Armstrong Williams and others, were exactly that!) So, I guess James Webb will now be used to provide cover for the infiltration by the Dionne's of mediadom back into America's mainstream. If so, we owe Webb even more than I thought after hearing him speak. For only by insuring we again have a strong fourth estate, one willing to bite the ass of ANY politician, whether Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative, who screws up in her/his job as an employee of the citizens, will we begin to crawl out of the hole we've been in for 6 long years. In the hope that the way out is through the aid of the media, I'll forgive Dionne for his lack of self awareness in this column. I'll hope he soon realizes that a Democrat surely doesn't need to have come from the Reagan administration in order to have courage. =====

E. J. Dionne Jr. - Reagan Democrat - washingtonpost.com Reagan Democrat By E. J. Dionne Jr. Thursday, January 25, 2007; Page A25 Like him or not, Ronald ("Tear Down This Wall") Reagan spoke in a clean, clear prose that almost always left listeners with a sense that he stood for something. It may thus be no accident that Jim Webb, Virginia's new Democratic senator, was once a Reaganite.

More here