Wednesday, January 25, 2006

The Real State of Our Union

Policy Address by Senate Leader Reid
The Real State of Our Union
In advance of the State of the Union,
Senator Harry Reid


The speech, to be delivered to the Center for American Progress, a liberal thinktank, follows.
#



I went to college in the 1960s and studied government. One of the things I remember discussing was a quote by Lord Acton:
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.”
It’s been many years since I graduated college, but I finally understand what Lord Acton meant.
Republicans today control the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House. They have absolute power, and it has corrupted their Party and led to the culture of corruption that we see now in Washington.
We have the Republican leader of the House of Representatives, admonished three times for ethics violations and under indictment now for money laundering.
We have the White House, where an employee has been indicted for the first time in 135 years.
There’s Karl Rove, who is under investigation… and David Safavian, the man appointed by President Bush to be charge in charge of hundreds of billions of dollars in government contracts who was led away in handcuffs because of his dealings with Jack Abramoff and others.
And then, we have the Republican “K-Street Project, which has invited lobbyists inside our nation’s Capitol….as long as they are willing to pay the right price.
The Republican abuse of power comes at great cost to our country, and we can see it in the present state of our union. Special interests and the well-connected have grown stronger, while our national security… our economy… our health care… and our government have grown weaker.
What is the state of our union in 2006?
We have a national security policy that protects Halliburton’s bottom-line with no-bid contracts but sends our troops to Iraq without body armor.
We have Vice President Cheney’s energy policy that helped Big Oil make a hundred billion dollars in profit in 2005 but this same policy has America paying 70 dollars for a barrel of oil and families paying twice as much for heat and gasoline as did in late 2001.
We have students priced out of college by skyrocketing tuition - and Republicans in Congress who want to cut student loans in order to pay for special interest tax breaks.
We have 46 million Americans without health insurance and poverty numbers on the rise – but a President whose economic policies benefit the wealthy and well-connected.
This is what happens to the state of our union when leaders put special interests ahead of the America’s interest.
These are the costs of Republican corruption.
The question…. is will President Bush acknowledge these costs when he delivers his State of the Union next Tuesday night?
If history is any indicator, the answer is no.
Watching the video earlier, I was reminded of another lesson from college, this one taken from George Orwell and his book, 1984.
In that book, Orwell spoke of “doublespeak” - naming something just the opposite, in order to cover how unpleasant it is in reality.
As we saw in the video, the President has been giving us doublespeak for years. He utters platitudes about helping Americans, when he’s really helping his special interest friends.
When he wanted to let energy companies release more pollution into the air, he called it the “Clear Skies Initiative.”
When he wanted to give tax breaks to his special interest friends – even though it meant adding more than $50 billion to the deficit, he called it the “Deficit Reduction Act.”
His “Leave No Child Behind Act” is leaving children behind every day because he refuses to fund it. And his new Medicare drug benefit hardly resembles a “benefit” for seniors.
Tuesday night, it is time for President Bush to end to this pattern of deceit. In his State of the Union, it is not enough for him to declare that the “state of our union is strong.”
America can do better, and only the pessimistic would suggest anything less.
In his speech, the President needs to tell the American people what he is going to do to end the culture of corruption and lay out solutions that will make America strong.
The President can start with national security.
In his 2005 address, the President said: “In the three and half years since September 11th, 2001, we have taken unprecedented actions to protect Americans.”
It took only seven months and the winds of Katrina to prove he was wrong.
Americans have heard tough talk from President Bush over the last five years, but the reality is, his policies have made America less safe.
The President’s failed record speaks for itself.
Just over four years ago, Osama Bin Laden attacked America and took 3,000 lives. The President said at the time that he wanted Bin Laden “dead or alive.”
But four years later, Bin Laden is still on the loose and continues to threaten America. Meanwhile, the number of terrorist attacks across the world has increased, and we now face the risk that Iraq will become what it was not before the war: a haven and launching pad for international terrorism.
Four years ago, the President declared Iraq, Iran, and North Korea an “axis of evil,” whose nuclear threats we needed to preemptively strike.
But four years… 23 hundred American lives… and more than 250 billion dollars later, we have found that Iraq had no nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the problem of Iran has been outsourced to Europeans, and North Korea’s nuclear weapons program has likely quadrupled.
Four years ago , the President said in his State of the Union: “America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity” which include the “the rule of law.”
But four years later, we’ve heard that the President has ignored the rule of law in order to spy on Americans. We’ve also found that the White House given the green light to torture, even though it violated our laws and made our troops less safe.
After reviewing the Republican record, I know why Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove want to play politics with national security in 2006 instead of having an honest debate about who can keep Americans safe. It’s because this is a debate Republicans cannot win.
Republicans run good campaigns, but when it comes to actually governing and protecting Americans, they have a record of incompetence.
Democrats know that keeping Americans safe means more than talking tough.
It means providing our troops proper planning and equipment, like body armor.
It means securing our ports, nuclear plants and cargo holds.
It means making 2006 a year of significant transition in Iraq.
And– it means doing everything in our power to protect, not trample, the rights set out in this document.
Tuesday night, the President must unite the nation behind our most important goal – keeping our people and way of life safe. We need to hear honesty and humility from the Commander in Chief, not swagger from the Campaigner in Chief.
After national security, the President needs to talk honestly about what he has done to the economy.
In his 2003 State of the Union Address, the President said: “We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents, and to other generations.”
That might not be doublespeak, but it is deeply dishonest.
President Bush is “passing along” problems to other generations. He’s bankrupting our country and placing an enormous tax on our children and grandchildren, simply so he can hand out tax breaks to special interests and the wealthy.
Next month, because of George Bush’s reckless spending, America will hit a debt ceiling of 8.2 trillion dollars
In 2005, we had the third-highest budget deficit ever - 319 billion dollars.
Two years earlier, we had the second-highest budget deficit - $378 billion.
And in 2004 – the year President Bush was re-elected - we had the highest budget deficit ever - - $412 billion.
In baseball, it’s three strikes, you’re out. But under the rules of this White House, that fiscal record is a home run for special interests.
George Bush has no one to blame but himself for today’s fiscal mess. Not 9/11… Not a weak economy… And certainly not the Democrats.
Democrats want to return to the responsible fiscal policies of the 1990s – led by Bill Clinton - that yielded a budget surplus. We believe in restoring “pay as you go” rules. We’ve fought the president’s irresponsible spending, and we’ve promoted a pro-growth agenda with tax fairness for hard-working Americans.
We have a proven record. The Republicans do not.
Tuesday night, the president has the opportunity to show that he understands what is happening to our economy. He needs to acknowledge the anxiety felt by middle-class families, who are seeing their wages go down and their costs go up.
And he needs to speak honestly about how he’s going to put our fiscal house in order, so we do not pass his enormous debt on to our children and grandchildren.
Next, the President needs to talk about how he’s going to fix his bait and switch Medicare drug program.
In his 2003 State of the Union, President Bush called Medicare the “binding commitment of a caring society.” Three years later, we can see it is not seniors the president cares about.
Democrats have always supported adding a drug benefit to Medicare, but nearly all of us voted against the Medicare Bill of 2003 because it was clear that President Bush’s plan would help drug companies more than seniors.
Unfortunately, time has proven us right. The state of our union today is that we have seniors begging in the streets for the medicine they need.
We need to fix Medicare and do it now.
Last week, Senate Democrats introduced a plan to fix the Medicare crisis this White House has created.
Tuesday night, we must hear a similar plan from President Bush.
The President’s fourth obligation is to talk honestly about energy.
In previous State of the Unions, George Bush has offered lofty rhetoric about making America “less dependent on foreign energy.” But for the last five years, America has moved in the opposite direction.
In 2000, 58.2 percent of the oil we consumed was imported. Today, that has increased to nearly 62 percent.
As our dependence on foreign oil has gone up, so have prices. Heating costs have risen by more than $500 per month for some families since George Bush’s first full winter in the White House, and the cost of gasoline has increased by 56 percent – with no end in sight.
Democrats have offered a series of proposals to make America energy independent by 2020, to create new jobs and to strengthen our country.
Tuesday night, it’s time for the President to turn his rhetoric on into action. He needs to level with the American people and admit that making us “less dependent on foreign energy” will take more than giveaways to Big Oil - - giveaways exemplified by the Republicans attempt to break Senate rules in the middle of the night and open the pristine Alaskan wilderness to drilling.
We stopped them, and I’m glad.
Finally, we must hear the President commit to honest leadership.
In his 2000 campaign, George Bush promised to bring “dignity” to the White House… but we’ve since found that he brought Jack Abramoff instead.
President Bush needs to quit stonewalling about his White House’s connection to corruption, and finally tell us how he’s going to reform Washington.
Honest leadership is not a partisan goal. It is the key to a stronger union. When we make leaders accountable to people, not lobbyists, there is no limit to how far America can go.
We can be energy independent… have affordable health care… a strong economy… and real security.
Last Wednesday, Democrats unveiled our Honest Leadership and Open Government act.
I assure you - - that is not Orwellian doublespeak. Our bill does exactly what it says.
Tuesday night, President Bush must show that he is committed to similar reforms.
When the President speaks next week, he faces a choice: offer a fresh start or more of the same.
He can continue to speak in platitudes, like we’ve seen in the last five State of the Unions, or he can choose to come clean. On Iraq… On Corruption… And how the Republican Party’s wrong priorities are holding America back.
2006 can be a year of promise, all it will take is a commitment to honest leadership from President Bush when he speaks in seven days.
He needs to join Democrats in putting progress ahead of politics, so we can have a state of the union as honest and strong as the American people.

Brown Was Paid To Aid Investigation Of Katrina Response, Now Refuses To Cooperate

Brown Was Paid To Aid Investigation Of Katrina Response, Now Refuses To Cooperate
For nearly 2 months after Mike Brown was forced to resign from FEMA for his incompetent response to Hurricane Katrina, he continued to collect his full $148,000 salary as a “consultant.” Why was Brown retained? According to a FEMA spokeswoman, it was so he could fully cooperate with the investigations into what went wrong:
FEMA spokeswoman Nicol Andrews confirmed that Brown is still on FEMA’s payroll as a consultant. She said he works from home, where he is “pulling all the documentation together” to aid in the investigations into the government’s response to Katrina.
Now that Brown has cashed his checks, he is refusing to cooperate with the Senate investigation:
While FEMA has been helpful, Mike Brown — the former FEMA director who resigned amid intense criticism of his agency’s response — has refused to answer even the simplest questions, [Sen. Joe] Lieberman added.
Brown continues to talk about the issue, but only for a fee. He recently keynoted a storm response conference and provided “insight and perspective on Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.” Senators investigating the issue could have attended for the low price of $375.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

GOP newspaper says impeachment is a real possibility

GOP newspaper says impeachment is a real possibility
The Washington Times (Insight is their magazine), the Republicans' newspaper , the article is hardly critical of the possible impeachment of George Bush. On the contrary, the article does a pretty good job of laying out the case for his impeachment.

For The Story................

The Money Behind the Marriage Amendments

The Money Behind the Marriage Amendments

The spate of 2004 ballot measures that banned same-sex marriages in fully one-fourth of the states generated more than $13 million in campaign contributions. Slightly more than half of the money came from just three groups of contributors: organizations and individuals supporting gay and lesbian rights; conservative Christian organizations, such as Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council; and organized religion. To Read the full report in pdf click here












Why I'm joining the Confirm Alito Coalition


I've decided to join the Confirm Alito Coalition. He may worship the Whore of Babylon, but dammit, he'll put not-men, not-Christians, not-owners, Congress, people who are too attached to rights, and brown people in their proper places. Just take a look at his record.He believes that Article I of the Constitution is one of those subscription cards you allow to fall out of your magazine while pretending not to notice.He believes that the Fourth Amendment is one of those perfumed magazine thingies that you sneak into your bathroom where you rub it all over yourself while whistling I Feel Pretty from West Side Story. Then you feel guilty so you light it on fire and flush it down the toilet, and if Ofjoshua asks you what you were doing, you scream, "I was doing man things, dammit; why are you always bitching at me?"He believes that ladies have the same rights as Neal Horsley's mule.He treats ladies like they are little girls.He thinks the State has the right to strip search little girls.He supports the right of all Little Green Footballs commenters to purchase machine guns.He's supportive of owners who fire employees for being brown.He doesn't think the Family Leave Act is necessary because ladies should be home anyway.He's a firm believer in the right of corporations to improve the land, air, and water with infusions of mercury, PCBs, and dioxins.He will defend Christmas against attacks from secularists, Jews, and other guest-Americans.He's not one of those fancy men who wear the right kind of glasses.

Monday, January 23, 2006

Open Letter To Chris Matthews

Open Letter To Chris Matthews
has received over 50,000 visitors in 4 days! And thanks to you, MSNBC has been flooded with phone calls, letters, and emails. Feeling the heat, Chris Matthews said we "misunderstood" what he said when he compared the world's most wanted terrorist to an American filmmaker. Matthews then went on to repeat his assertion and gave an open platform to Republican Joe Scarborough to slander Democrats further.Let Matthews and MSNBC know how you feel: hardball@msnbc.com or (202) 824-6707And while you're at it, ask Matthews about the following comments and what they say about his journalistic integrity (several of these quotes are from Media Matters' Misinformer of the year):


MATTHEWS implies Al Qaeda is 'trying to get people to vote Democrat for president.' He asks Democratic Senator Breaux: 'Doesn't it put your party in a terrible position of having al-Qaeda rooting for you?' (Hardball, 7/18/04)
MATTHEWS accuses Democrats of "perhaps exploiting" the death and destruction in Iraq (Hardball, 11/1/05)
MATTHEWS says Bush sometimes "glimmers" with "sunny nobility" (Hardball, 10/24/05)
MATTHEWS suggests Bush may "belong on Mount Rushmore" (Hardball, 12/16/05)
MATTHEWS argues that the U.S. went into Iraq "for altruistic purposes" (Chris Matthews Show, 9/25/05)
MATTHEWS insists "everybody sort of likes the president, except for the real whack-jobs" (Hardball, 11/28/05)
MATTHEWS recites GOP talking points during fight over Bush's judicial nominees, describes Democratic efforts as "just sort of pouting and bitching" (Hardball, 5/18/05)
MATTHEWS levels baseless charge against Democratic efforts to complete intel probe as "disingenuous," "using crocodile tears" (Hardball, 11/1/05)
MATTHEWS describes Supreme Court debate as division between strict constructionism versus the "loosey goosey" liberal approach (MSNBC, 10/3/05)
MATTHEWS praises Bush for a "brilliant" speech, before it was delivered, while attacking Democratic critics as "carpers and complainers" (MSNBC, 11/30/05)
MATTHEWS falsely attacks Democrats for accusing Alito of being "lenient on the mob" (Hardball, 10/31/05)
MATTHEWS praises John Roberts' confirmation as "miraculously successful" (MSNBC, 9/29/05).

Sunday, January 22, 2006

RE: A bold maneuver

Democrats: Get Up and Walk Out By William Rivers Pitt
Sunday 22 January 2005
MEMO To: Congressional Democrats From: William Rivers Pitt
RE: A bold maneuver
- - - -
I have a wild and crazy idea.
George W. Bush's delivery of the State of the Union address will take place on Tuesday, January 31, a little more than a week from now. It is my strong belief that every single Democrat present in the House chamber for the speech should, at a predetermined moment, stand up and walk out. No yelling. No heated words. Every Democrat should simply stand silently and leave.
Crazy, I know. Crazy, and possibly the best idea ever put before a body of Democrats since the New Deal.
Understand this, congressional Democrats, and understand it well: you are not dealing merely with a body of political opponents in the GOP. You are dealing with a group of people that want you exterminated politically. The days of walking the halls of the Rayburn Building, sharing a bourbon with a colleague from the other side of the aisle, and hammering out a compromise are as dead as Julius Caesar. Collegiality is out. Mutual respect is out. They want you gone for good. Erased. Destroyed.
And you have been far too polite about this. The writing has been on the wall for a while now. Back in 1995, Republican Senator Phil Gramm said, "We're going to keep building the party until we're hunting Democrats with dogs." That was eleven years ago. If you listen close, you can hear the beasts baying in the distance, waiting to slip the leash. Your limp tactics in the face of the assault upon you, your vacillation, your strange hope that maybe the GOP will be nicer tomorrow, has left you all smelling like Alpo.
For the love of God, you are being compared to Osama bin Laden all over network television because some within your ranks have had the courage to question the war in Iraq. It hasn't been subtle. Bin Laden, according to the right-wing talking heads, is getting his talking points straight from Howard Dean. These are the out-front spokespeople for the folks running the GOP right now. If you think there is compromise to be had with these people, if you think there is quarter to be given to you, then I have a nice, big red bridge to sell you in San Francisco.
I know you believe the Abramoff scandal is going to be your bread and butter in the upcoming midterm elections. I hate to break it to you, but you have already been outflanked. The television nitwits have flooded the airwaves with the meme that this is a "two-party scandal," despite the fact that Abramoff would have sooner lit himself on fire than give money to a Democrat. As you have been collectively incapable of setting the record straight in public, with the exception of a two-minute crunch between Howard Dean and Wolf Blitzer on CNN that left Blitzer spluttering impotently, understand that "this scandal affects both parties" is now commonly accepted fact all across the land.
Oh, yeah, P.S., the investigation is being run out of the Department Justice. If this scandal does touch some sixty Republican officeholders, as Abramoff's donation history indicates, do you really think this White House is going to let the investigation get far enough to do real damage? If so, I again need to mention that big red bridge I have for sale.
In all likelihood, however, the White House won't even need to derail the Abramoff investigation to save Republicans from their ridiculous greed. Did you see the Washington Post headline from Friday? It read, "Rove: GOP to Use Terror as Campaign Issue." In reality, the headline should have read "GOP to Use Terror as Campaign Tactic." Once again, the Republicans are going to try to win midterm elections by scaring the hell out of the American people. This time, the fear factor will center around Iran and nuclear weapons.
The intelligence specialists in the United States, Germany and Israel all agree that Iran is between three and five years away from being able to manufacture nuclear weapons. This, of course, is based on the premise that such manufacture is Iran's goal. Take it as a given that it is, and we have at least three years to use diplomacy, economic pressures and possibly sanctions to keep them from creating these bombs.
But "three to five years" isn't going to help the GOP win the midterm elections. They need things to be scary, and they need things to be scary now. The same right-wing groups that ginned up the fantasy that Iraq was laden with weapons of mass destruction, and was an imminent threat, are now at work building up a martial froth about Iran. They did this in time for the midterms last time, and are preparing to do it again.
United Press International carried a story last Thursday about a group called the Foundation for Democracy in Iran. This group, according to the UPI story, claims that, "Tehran is planning a nuclear weapons test before the Iranian New Year on March 20, 2006." FDI, according to the story, offered absolutely no proof to back this claim. But that's not three to five years. That's less than ten weeks. Scary stuff, right?
Take a closer look, however, and you can see the fingerprints of the architects of our current Iraq boondoggle all over this. The Foundation for Democracy in Iran is run by a man named Kenneth Timmerman. Timmerman is umbilically connected to the godfather of right-wing think tanks, the American Enterprise Institute. It was the American Enterprise Institute that spawned the Project for the New American Century, the think tank that gave us Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, the original noise about Iraqi WMD, and the idea that a military takeover of the entire Mideast is a bully idea. The same people that terrorized the American people into unnecessary war in Iraq are preparing to do the same with Iran, and all in time for the midterms.
One must also note the irony of the suggested date for this Iranian nuclear test. March 20, 2006, for those not paying attention, is the three-year anniversary of our invasion of Iraq. And round and round we go.
You've been outflanked, Democrats. Abramoff won't help you, and the noise machine is preparing to terrorize the American people into such a distracted state that anything you say in the next ten months will be lost amid the howling. The midterms are pretty much a done deal, and your continued marginalization will proceed at speed.
You can stomp your feet and yell at the wall. You can put your head in your hands and weep. You can sit silently and be simply satisfied that your own job-for-life is secure, thanks to your friendly district back home, and be damned to actually doing anything of substance. In other words, you can continue to do what you've been doing since this outrageous assault on basic American democracy began.
Or you can stand up.
It takes a spine to stand up. Find yours. Get up and walk out of the State of the Union speech. Turn your backs on the blizzard of lies and empty promises that are sure to pour forth from that podium. Give it exactly what it deserves.
Walk outside to the steps of the Capitol Building and hold a Counter-State-of-the-Union. Lay out your plans for a better future. Explain how you will reform the system that spawned Mr. Abramoff. Demand answers and explanations about what is happening in Iraq, what is happening over at the National Security Agency, and why this administration believes itself to be completely above the law.
I can even offer a bit of text for your opening statement. "Three years ago during this very speech," your leading spokesperson can say from those steps, "Mr. Bush told us that Iraq was in possession of 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons - which is one million pounds - of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent, 30,000 missiles to deliver the stuff, mobile biological weapons labs, al Qaeda connections, and uranium from Niger for use in a robust nuclear weapons program. He said all this three years ago, during this all-important annual address, and all of it was a lie. The American people deserve an explanation."
See? It's easy. All it takes is courage.
What I am talking about is political theater on a grand scale. No opposition party in American history has ever turned their backs on a President and walked out of a State of the Union address. No opposition party has faced the degree of potential extermination the Democrats face today. The stakes have never been higher. You are dealing with a President who wants to make his Executive powers absolute, and with a Republican party that has been usurped from soup to nuts by extremists that would be cartoonish if they were not so very real.
Abramoff won't help you. The fear factor will subsume you. You can sit there and take it, clapping politely as the ram rolls towards you, or you can stand up and make yourselves relevant again. To walk out of the speech would be a huge statement, bold and potentially dangerous. But if you don't do something bold, something grand and unprecedented, something to take back the initiative, you will join the Whigs in the dustbin of history.
Stand up. Walk out. You have a week to get this organized.
------------
William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and internationally bestselling author of two books: War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know and The Greatest Sedition Is Silence. He now serves as the Editorial Director for Progressive Democrats of America.

So You Want to Play Hardball Eh?

So You Want to Play Hardball Eh?
by DarkSyde

as Found On DailyKos

They are vehemently against abortion, they resist progressive woman's rights. They view homosexuality as a crime against nature and God, some advocate the death penalty as an option for it. Separation of Church and State is despised by these folks; they insist the nation is founded on the principles of their religion, and they work hard to bring that de facto theocracy about. They deplore strong language, gay characters, and sexual content on TV and in the media. And they ignore the Geneva Convention when it suits their ideological purposes, including provisions against torture or due process. They're anti-stem cell research, pro-creationism, and generally distrustful of science. These folks are easily whipped into a state of frenzy with ideological manipulation to the point where they will commit violence, or at least tacitly endorse that violence is acceptable, if it advances their Divine agenda. They then take great pains to justify that violence, including unprovoked attack of civilian areas, under certain conditions, with convoluted theological gymnastics. They are almost to the man pro-death penalty ... Am I railing against the religious right again?
Could be, but my target here is actually Al Qaeda and related fundamentalist Wahhabism; the source of terrorism, the scourge of our planet, the Axis of Evil.
::
Strangely, when I visited a blog frequented by GOP apologists this evening, all merrily playing the "Democrats are like bin Laden" sweepstakes, they were shocked, shocked I tell you, when the tables were so easily turned on them. They were outraged :::Gasp:: can you imagine? They were almost speechless when I pointed out the eerie parallels between Osama bin Laden and fundamentalist Islam, and the stated social policy goals of the extremist religious right currently running the so called Republican Party. Nope, they didn't like it one bit.
When the neocons say that Liberals or moderate Republicans are against America and for the terrorists, they could not have it more backwards. The extreme religious rightwing of the GOP is the closest thing to Islamo-fascism we have in our country, and no one is worried that Al Qaeda will be storming ashore on our beaches en masse, invasion style, anytime soon.
I was once a pretty staunch Republican, although I was always a moderate. But I've always thought the system works best when you have at least two parties to keep check on one another. I never wanted one party to extinguish the other from existence, and I'd like to see three or four robust parties. I was also constantly amazed at the shit the democratic campaign and image gurus allowed their extremist GOP counterparts to get away with. It never made a lick of sense to me that they wouldn't address it head on and/or use the same advertising tactics.
Currently I'm now registered as an Independent, and lately I vote democratic on every single issue. I'm under no illusions that Democrats would never try to feather their own nest if they happened to control all three branches of power and could thus rig the game. But the threat is not coming from the democrats, it's coming from the GOP, infested with the radical religious right, who hope to bring freedom and democracy as we know it and enjoy it, to an end.
What makes Democracy work half-ass, most of the time, is that politicians can't get away with too much naughtiness, especially if it hurts the interests of the rank and file voter. Or they'll get voted out of office by a hungry competitor who will expose them to voters who are fed-up.
What the Neocons have done is brilliant in its sick, slimey way. They've managed to convince a large segment of Christians in the US that cutting benefits and protection for the working class and poor, extending benefits to the wealthy at their expense, engaging in warfare based on lies and deception, and torture, are more central values to Christianity than mercy, civil rights, help for the poor and sick, and the shunning of wealth and power. It's a stunning achievement considering how backasswards that is to the Gospels and the entire New Testament.
And whenever the wheels look they might fall off on a specific bit of deception, and their own rank and file will notice the emperor has no clothes, the Neocons engage in calling their opposition, whomever they may be, unpatriotic, fags and lesbos, cowards, and terrorist sympathizers. The Big Smear. It doesn't matter who or what gets in their way, they'll do it to anyone, for the most trivial of reasons. George Washington could rise from the grave with Thomas Jefferson at his side, and if they disagreed with the agenda du jour of the WH or Tom DeLay, they'd be painted as cowards and traitors. The Neocons smeared John McCain, Max Cleland, John Kerry, and now John Murtha, and by proxy, the greatest generation. The religious right dutifully swallowed it all and spread it like a virus.
Enough of that crap.
If the WH and Culture of Corruption is going to fight back with ridiculous claims that anyone who points to the impressive list of failure racked up by George Bush and associated incompetent goons is an Al Qaeda mole, then they've opened a door to the shit house. And I strongly urge the democratic advisors to place a fan at that entrance to let that foul stink circulate for as long as the Rovians are dumb enough to let them.
Be crystal clear with expensive, repeating, ads about which party acts and thinks most like the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11, and which does not. I said last night that newscasters shouldn't be compared to bin Laden. But that doesn't apply to party ideologies, and we didn't start this bullshit.
They did.
So, if the shoe fits ... It's the Neocon, fundie dominated, GOP that is the closest thing to fanatical Wahhabism in our nation today and there's no major political faction anywhere near giving them a run for the money.

Saturday, January 21, 2006

CHRIS MATTHEWS AND OSAMA BIN LADEN -- A "SPECIAL" FRIENDSHIP

MichaelMoore.com

Latest News


EXCLUSIVE: JIHADBALL!
CHRIS MATTHEWS AND OSAMA BIN LADEN -- A "SPECIAL" FRIENDSHIP


Some believe Osama and Chris Matthews tried to sabotage Lance Armstrong's win in France last year.


"I find it the safest course of action to always let Osama have a strike, even when he throws a gutter ball."


Matthews and Osama casing Madison Square garden. "Hey, we were just trying to find a winning team in New York"


After planning terrorist actions all day, Matthews and Osama enjoy a cold one.


A private dinner together after a screening of Brokeback Mountain.


"I like to think of his cave as our summer house."



Democratic Victory Network An Umbrella Group: Of Progressive Groups
 
 
Brought To You By: Philter Media - New Possibilities With Your Web Presence http://PhilterMedia.com

Why the Chris Matthews smear matters

Rove's strategy has repeatedly worked because our national media “stars” -- even the ones like Chris Matthews who are held out as objective journalists -- propagate the repugnant smear that opposition to George Bush’s terrorism and war policies puts one on the side of Al Qaeda. That's why it's so vital to aggressively protest such comments when they come from "journalists" like Chris Matthews...
--posted by Glenn Greenwald On Crooks And Liars

Why the Chris Matthews smear matters
Why the Chris Matthews smear matters The anger over Chris Matthews’ comment that Osama bin Laden in his new video sounds like Michael Moore, and the resulting campaign demanding that Matthews apologize, arises from much more than a single comment, and has little to do with Moore himself. The Matthews smear illustrates the fact that it has become routine in our national political dialogue, and among our nation's journalists, to equate opposition to George Bush with subversiveness, treason, and support for Al Qaeda.The national media has truly adopted this dissent-quashing dichotomy created by the Bush White House: one is either a follower of George Bush who praises his war and terrorism policies, or one is an enemy of the United States who is on the side of Al Qaeda. That is not hyperbole. This is the manipulative and decidedly un-American view that is re-enforced again and again. In the lead-up to the 2004 Presidential elections, it became the conventional wisdom of prominent "journalists" like Matthews that the bin Laden was rooting for Kerry to win. The bin Laden video which emerged in the days before the election was described by these journalists as proof that bin Laden was endorsing, and even campaigning for, John Kerry. Every cable news show, including Matthews', featured commentary equating bin Laden’s video with the Democratic Party’s foreign policy views.This is all part of a broad, ongoing and potent campaign to equate opposition to George Bush with being pro-terrorist, and the origin of this campaign is the Administration itself. Bush himself thus uses the language of treason -- treason -- to instruct us that we are permitted to criticize his policies only on the narrowest grounds and with the utmost respect, otherwise we are guilty of aiding the enemy:
Yet we must remember there is a difference between responsible and irresponsible debate -- and it's even more important to conduct this debate responsibly when American troops are risking their lives overseas. . . . When our soldiers hear politicians in Washington question the mission they are risking their lives to accomplish, it hurts their morale. In a time of war, we have a responsibility to show that whatever our political differences at home, our nation is united and determined to prevail. . . . So I ask all Americans to hold their elected leaders to account, and demand a debate that brings credit to our democracy -- not comfort to our adversaries.From the NSA scandal to the war in Iraq, the President and his followers repeatedly accuse those who oppose the President of aiding the terrorists and being on the side of Al Qaeda. And it is this smear – that anyone who opposes Bush is not just weak on national security but literally a supporter of the terrorists – that is the only “argument” which Bush followers have and it’s the only one they’ve needed. They have won two straight national elections wielding this McCarthyite filth and with the 2006 elections approaching, they are bidding for a trifecta:
Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser, gave nervous Republicans here a preview on Friday of the party's strategy to maintain its dominance in the fall elections . . . And he left little doubt that in 2006 - as in both nationwide elections since the Sept. 11 attacks - he was intent on making national security the pre-eminent issue.Mr. Rove called for civility in politics in his speech to the Republican National Committee, and then for 26 minutes offered a lacerating attack on Democrats . . . "The United States faces a ruthless enemy," Mr. Rove said, "and we need a commander in chief and a Congress who understand the nature of the threat and the gravity of the moment America finds itself in. President Bush and the Republican Party do. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for many Democrats." Rove's strategy has repeatedly worked because our national media “stars” -- even the ones like Chris Matthews who are held out as objective journalists -- propagate the repugnant smear that opposition to George Bush’s terrorism and war policies puts one on the side of Al Qaeda. That's why it's so vital to aggressively protest such comments when they come from "journalists" like Chris Matthews.At its core, this tactic rests on a glaring double standard. As Bush himself decreed, and as the national media have ingested, only the most restrained and respectful criticism of “the Commander-in-Chief” is appropriate. When it comes to the President, any rhetoric beyond the most tepid is considered shrill and unhinged. Whether it be Al Gore, Howard Dean, Moveon.org-- anyone who aggressively criticizes the President is immediately relegated to the far fringe of the political mainstream, where they are decreed to be unfit for good company, "on the other side," and even of questionable mental health, literally. While the media stars vigorously condemn such comparisons when applied to Bush, it is a virtual consensus that to oppose George Bush’s terrorism policies is tantamount to sounding like Osama bin Laden. Indeed, this Matthews episode a few days ago is not the first time Chris Matthews has equated opposition to George Bush with support for Osama bin Laden. When the bin Laden video surfaced days before the 2004 election, here is what he asked Democratic Sen. John Breaux:
"What happens, Senator Breaux, if it looks like Al Qaeda is playing cards here, playing a game of trying to get people to vote Democrat for president to basically make their case worldwide? Doesn't it put your party in a terrible position of having Al Qaeda rooting for you?"The assertion that al Qaeda was rooting for Kerry, and that bin Laden espoused Kerry's views in his pre-election video, was a predominate theme in the days before the election. Dick Morris wrote a column in the New York Post entitled "Terrorists for Kerry" in which he asserted: "It is obvious that Osama and his allies all want Bush out." And here is John at Powerline, reporting on his television appearance on Kudlow & Cramer:
A partial translation of "Osama bin Laden's" video is here. I said on Kudlow and Cramer this afternoon that reports of bin Laden's speech made it sound as if he had absorbed the Democrats' talking points quite well. . . .This is, of course, pure Michael Moore. Obviously bin Laden has seen Fahrenheit 9/11, or at least heard about it from other terrorists who have seen it. Just as obviously, they approve of Moore's movie.Do you suppose there are any Democrats honest enough to be embarrassed that Osama bin Laden has enthusiastically adopted their campaign themes?Well before bin Laden's video emerged, CNN "reporter" Kelli Arena told this to Wolf Blitzer: "[T]here is some speculation that Al Qaeda believes it has a better chance of winning in Iraq if John Kerry is in the White House." And right before the election, Peggy Noonan spewed out this on Fox:
This is a man on the run who got into a studio, got a camera on him and tried to act like he was a big, strong guy. This guy is half finished, and the reason is George Bush. Do you think he wants George Bush to have a nice day on Tuesday? I don't think so.This tactic of equating Democrats with bin Laden is designed to eliminate dissent and to stigmatize Bush’s opponents as traitors. That the GOP has transparently wielded this tactic almost from the moment the airplanes crashed into the World Trade Center is reprehensible enough. But it is simply no longer tolerable for the media – which was intended to serve as a Fourth Estate check against government propaganda of this type – to continue to be the primary instrument for the dissemination of this smear.There are few things more important than combating this notion, so prevalent among the Chris Matthews of the world, that opposing George Bush is tantamount to supporting Al Qaeda, or relatedly, that it's perfectly acceptable to equate Bush opponents with bin Laden but it is terribly crass - even treasonous - to aggressively criticize the President.Those are the smears which Karl Rove is relying on, as he just made clear, to scare Americans once again into supporting Republican control even while the most comprehensive scandals and disastrous polices engulf them. Sitting by and passively allowing these comments to go unchallenged is to allow them, yet again, to settle in as conventional wisdom, and that's exactly what Bush opponents can't afford to do.


Contact information:
Chris MatthewsChris Matthews
MSNBCviewerservices@msnbc.com
MSNBC TV One MSNBC Plaza Secaucus, N.J. 07094
MSNBC contacts

When contacting the media, please be polite and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and be sure to indicate exactly what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

I Will Not Support Hillary Clinton for President

 by the Columbus Free Press (Ohio)
I Will Not Support Hillary Clinton for President
by Molly Ivins
 
I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.

Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation a nd equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges.

The recent death of Gene McCarthy reminded me of a lesson I spent a long, long time unlearning, so now I have to re-learn it. It's about political courage and heroes, and when a country is desperate for leadership. There are times when regular politics will not do, and this is one of those times. There are times a country is so tired of bull that only the truth can provide relief.

If no one in conventional-wisdom politics has the courage to speak up and say what needs to be said, then you go out and find some obscure junior senator from Minnesota with the guts to do it. In 1968, Gene McCarthy was the lit tle boy who said out loud, "Look, the emperor isn't wearing any clothes." Bobby Kennedy -- rough, tough Bobby Kennedy -- didn't do it. Just this quiet man trained by Benedictines who liked to quote poetry.

What kind of courage does it take, for mercy's sake? The majority of the American people (55 percent) think the war in Iraq is a mistake and that we should get out. The majority (65 percent) of the American people want single-payer health care and are willing to pay more taxes to get it. The majority (86 percent) of the American people favor raising the minimum wage. The majority of the American people (60 percent) favor repealing Bush's tax cuts, or at least those that go only to the rich. The majority (66 percent) wants to reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending, but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

The majority (77 percent) thinks we should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment. The majority (87 percent) thinks big oil companies are gouging consumers and would support a windfall profits tax. That is the center, you fools. WHO ARE YOU AFRAID OF?

I listen to people like Rahm Emanuel superciliously explaining elementary politics to us clueless naifs outside the Beltway ("First, you have to win elections"). Can't you even read the damn polls?

Here's a prize example by someone named Barry Casselman, who writes, "There is an invisible civil war in the Democratic Party, and it is between those who are attempting to satisfy the defeatist and pacifist left base of the party and those who are attempting to prepare the party for successful elections in 2006 and 2008."

This supposedly pits Howard Dean, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, emboldened by "a string of bad new from the Middle East ... into calling for premature retreat from Iraq," versus those pragmatic folk like Steny Hoyer, Rahm Emmanuel, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Joe Lieb erman.

Oh come on, people -- get a grip on the concept of leadership. Look at this war -- from the lies that led us into it, to the lies they continue to dump on us daily.

You sit there in Washington so frightened of the big, bad Republican machine you have no idea what people are thinking. I'm telling you right now, Tom DeLay is going to lose in his district. If Democrats in Washington haven't got enough sense to OWN the issue of political reform, I give up on them entirely.

Do it all, go long, go for public campaign financing for Congress. I'm serious as a stroke about this -- that is the only reform that will work, and you know it, as well as everyone else who's ever studied this. Do all the goo-goo stuff everybody has made fun of all these years: embrace redistricting reform, electoral reform, House rules changes, the whole package. Put up, or shut up. Own this issue, or let Jack Abramoff politics continue to run your town.

Bush, Cheney and Co. w ill continue to play the patriotic bully card just as long as you let them. I've said it before: War brings out the patriotic bullies. In World War I, they went around kicking dachshunds on the grounds that dachshunds were "German dogs." They did not, however, go around kicking German shepherds. The MINUTE someone impugns your patriotism for opposing this war, turn on them like a snarling dog and explain what loving your country really means. That, or you could just piss on them elegantly, as Rep. John Murtha did. Or eviscerate them with wit (look up Mark Twain on the war in the Philippines). Or point out the latest in the endless "string of bad news."

Do not sit there cowering and pretending the only way to win is as Republican-lite. If the Washington-based party can't get up and fight, we'll find someone who can.
Molly Ivins is the former editor of the liberal monthly The Texas Observer. She is the bestselling author of several books including Who Let the Dogs In?
© 2006 Columbus Free Press
###
"The Opposite of Courage is not Cowardice - it is Conformity."   -



Democratic Victory Network An Umbrella Group: Of Progressive Groups
 
 
Brought To You By: Philter Media - New Possibilities With Your Web Presence http://PhilterMedia.com

Rove on 06



Rove gave this speech today to the Republican Nation Committee. The speech suggests strategy and talking points that will be used by RNC candidates and operatives in preparation for the 2006 elections.

Rove's tone is more moderated than in the past. We suspect that this is due to a variety of mounting troubles for the GOP along with waning public support. Republicans will want to project positive perception of their candidates while again using 'Swift Boat' tactics for the negative attacks.


Democratic Victory Network An Umbrella Group: Of Progressive Groups
 
 
Brought To You By: Philter Media - New Possibilities With Your Web Presence http://PhilterMedia.com

"Worst Person in the World"

From MediaMatters

Acknowledging Olbermann's "Worst Person in the World" designation, Beck said Sheehan is "pimping out the tragedy of her own son's death"
Summary: Reacting to the recent designation of 'Worst Person in the World' by MSNBC host Keith Olbermann for saying that anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan is "pimping out the tragedy of her own son's death for her own agenda," Glenn Beck expounded further: "It's almost so horrible, it seems true."
In a discussion on the reaction from several media outlets and organizations to his recent hiring by CNN Headline News, nationally syndicated radio host Glenn Beck attributed his notoriety to "socialist organs that are just whipped up into a frenzy." Beck said, "I mean, nobody cared about who I was for so long. ... [N]ow, all of a sudden, I'm the Antichrist."
Beck -- who, as documented by Media Matters for America, has said that "it took me about a year to start hating the 9-11 victims' families" and referred to Hurricane Katrina survivors as "scumbags" -- discussed the criticism received by CNN for hiring him during a conversation with executive producer Steve "Stu" Burguiere on the January 20 broadcast of his show. During the broadcast, Beck noted a weblog headline that read "MoveOn.org's Panicked Attempt to Keep Glenn Beck Off of CNN" -- a possible reference to a post on the Media Research Center-operated NewsBusters blog describing what it called "MoveOn's Panic-Stricken E-Mail Campaign: 'Stop CNN From Becoming Fox News' " -- and stated, "[T]hey hate me, they really hate me."
Beck and Burguiere also discussed Beck having been dubbed "Worst Person in the World" on the January 19 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann for comments he made about anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan. Olbermann bestowed the "award" upon Beck for the latter's description, documented by Media Matters, in his January 10 radio broadcast of the anti-war protester as "a pretty big prostitute"; Beck later amended his statement, saying that "tragedy pimp" would be "the most accurate description." In commenting on his "Worst Person" designation from Olbermann, Beck expanded on his previous statements, saying that Sheehan is "pimping out the tragedy of her own son's death for her own agenda." He added: "It's almost so horrible, it seems true."
From the January 20 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:
BECK: Boy, the reviews are just pouring in on the television program, which is interesting because no television program has been seen by anyone. But, boy, some people are very, very excited -- heh, some people are very, very excited about me coming to Headline News, which -- you know, Stu, you know, I think we're on the right track, because have you noticed that there are a lot of, you know, just big, huge -- not even liberal organs, but those, those socialist organs that are just whipped up into a frenzy? I mean, nobody cared about who I was for so long, and I really liked it that way. Nobody cared who I was for so long; now, all of a sudden, I'm the Antichrist. Have you noticed that, Stu?
BURGUIERE: Well, I think you've always been the Antichrist; they're just discovering it now.
BECK: You know what it is? You know what it is? You're trying to get them on your side.
BURGUIERE: I am?
BECK: Well --
BURGUIERE: I was very happy, by the way, Glenn. My debut yesterday in the we-hate-Glenn-Beck, you know, liberal blog --
BECK: Blogosphere --
BURGUIERE: I was finally, finally -- thank you, would you please include me more often? -- I was finally included in one of the releases.
BECK: I read a headline someplace, didn't even read the story, you know -- downloading them on my Treo yesterday. One of the headlines was "MoveOn.org's Panicked Attempt to Keep Glenn Beck Off of CNN," and I thought, I can't believe that. MoveOn.org -- ah, they hate me, they really hate me -- it's kind of, you know, it's kind of a nice thing, you know? You know what I'm saying? Does that bring a smile to your face at all, Stu?
BURGUIERE: Oh absolutely, absolutely. And we were again the "Worst Person in the World" on Keith Olbermann's TelePrompTer show, which airs on MSNBC.
BECK: Again?
BURGUIERE: Yes, again. Unfortunately -- it's hilarious, Glenn; I mean, no, we never find out about these things. We're mentioned on local newscasts, and we'll get 20 emails from people saying, hey, by the way, you know, this guy in Akron said this about you. We -- Keith Olbermann -- I don't think he does anything else on his show other than talk about us, and no one ever alerts us to it. The only time I ever find out about it is if it's on some Google news alert. Nobody --
BECK: Why am I the "Worst Person in the World" again? With Keith Olbermann --
BURGUIERE: Because you called Cindy Sheehan a tragedy pimp or whatever.
BECK: Oh yeah, yeah. That was harsh of me, wasn't it? To say, to say that she was a tragedy pimp -- pimping out the tragedy of her own son's death for her own agenda? It's almost so horrible, it seems true.
BURGUIERE: But you can read about it in her new book.
BECK: [laughter]

Contact information:
Glenn Beck
Premiere Radio NetworksPremiere Radio Networks Premiere Radio Networks, Inc.
15260 Ventura Blvd. 5th Floor Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Main: (818)377-5300 Fax: (818)377-5333 Toll Free: (800)533-8686
Glenn Beck Program Glenn Beck Program
***********************************************************************************
When contacting the media, please be polite and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and be sure to indicate exactly what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

Democrats Scold White House Over Spying

Democrats Scold White House Over Spying
By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
Democratic senators took the Bush administration to task Friday for four years of domestic spying, while the president fought back with a planned embrace of the intelligence agency that is carrying out the effort.
In preparation for Senate hearings, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts noted that President Bush asserted in 2004 that "when we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."
That Bush statement came at the same time the National Security Agency was engaging — at the president's direction — in warrantless eavesdropping on Americans.
"If President Bush can make his own rules for domestic surveillance, Big Brother has run amok," Kennedy said in a statement.
Introducing a proposed Senate resolution, Kennedy and Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) of Vermont rejected White House assertions that congressional action after Sept. 11 authorized warrantless eavesdropping inside the United States.
A joint resolution of Congress authorized the use of force against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks, but it "says nothing about domestic electronic surveillance," Kennedy declared.
Pushing back, Bush plans a Wednesday visit to the NSA, where he will reassert his claim that he has the constitutional authority to let intelligence officials listen in on international phone calls of Americans with suspected ties to terrorists.
"We are stepping up our efforts to educate the American people," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said of the trip to the NSA, based at Fort Meade in Maryland. McClellan called the program "a critical tool that helps us save lives and prevent attacks. It is limited and targeted to al-Qaida communications, with the focus being on detection and prevention."
Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, said the new audio tape of Osama bin Laden threatening attacks on American soil "is a vivid reminder why we must continue to intercept communications between al-Qaida overseas and potential operatives in the United States."
On Monday, deputy national intelligence director Mike Hayden, who led the National Security Agency when the program began in October 2001, will speak on the issue at the National Press Club.
On Tuesday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is delivering a speech on the program in Washington.
Gonzales also plans to testify Feb. 6 about the secret program before the Senate Judiciary Committee where Kennedy and Leahy are members.
House Democrats said Bush has committed a crime in authorizing the spying and that House Republicans have abdicated their responsibilities by refusing to hold hearings.
Rep. John Conyers (news, bio, voting record), the House Judiciary Committee's top Democrat, and other Democrats met in a basement room of a House office building Friday to hear a panel of lawyers and activists discuss whether Bush had committed an impeachable offense.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department on Wednesday issued a 42-page legal justification for the eavesdropping program, an expanded version of a document the agency sent Congress last month.
"Making their argument longer didn't make it any better," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (news, bio, voting record), D-Md., a Judiciary Committee member. He said Bush's secret approval of warrantless eavesdropping had made congressional debate on the Patriot Act meaningless.
The NSA's warrantless eavesdropping program is "an intelligence operation in search of a legal rationale," said George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley.
"What the president ordered in this case was a crime," added Turley, who said House Republicans are establishing a terrible precedent by not holding oversight hearings.
To fend off criticism, Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove and White House spokesman Scott McClellan referred to statements by John Schmidt, a Clinton administration associate attorney general who defended the program.
Schmidt wrote last month in the Chicago Tribune that Bush's authorization of the NSA surveillance is consistent with court decisions and Justice Department positions under prior presidents.
___
AP White House reporter Deb Riechmann contributed to this story.

Pentagon man jailed over spying

Pentagon man jailed over spying A former US defence department analyst has been sentenced to 12 years and seven months in jail for disclosing classified information.
Lawrence Franklin passed information to an Israeli diplomat and two pro-Israeli lobbyists about a Middle East country.
No details were given, but that country is believed to be Iran.
Franklin has agreed to co-operate with the prosecution in a separate case against the two lobbyists, and could have his sentence reduced as a result.
'Seeking to help not harm'
The sentence Franklin received was already at the low end of the sentencing parameters for his offences.
As he handed down the sentence, US District Judge TS Ellis III said he was satisfied that Franklin had been driven by a desire to help, not damage the US.
The danger of such unauthorised disclosure, when you disclose national defence information... is that the United States government loses control of such information Federal prosecutor Kevin DiGregory
Judge Ellis said Franklin had believed that the US National Security Council was not sufficiently worried by the threat posed by an unspecified Middle Eastern nation.
He thought that leaking information might catalyse the council into taking the threat more seriously.
Federal prosecutor Kevin DiGregory had called for a much stiffer sentence to illustrate the severity of Franklin's actions.
"The danger of such unauthorised disclosure, when you disclose national defence information ... is that the United States government loses control of such information," he said.
Freed on bail
Franklin, a policy analyst whose field of expertise included Iraq and Iran, was also fined $10,000 (£5,600).
He was accused of passing information to Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) from 2002 to 2004.
Israel is not spying in or against the United States Yuval Steinitz, chairman of the Israeli parliament's Defence and Foreign Affairs Committee
The 58-year-old said he had hoped the lobbyists would use their contacts to get policies he was unhappy with changed.
The two Aipac officials have pleaded not guilty to conspiring to communicate the information given to them by Franklin and are due to go on trial in April.
Franklin has been freed on bail until their prosecution case is concluded.
Lawyers acting for the pair argue they were carrying out routine lobbying work and that conversations they had with Franklin are protected under the First Amendment's free speech guarantees.
Aipac has fired the two men and denied any wrongdoing.
Israeli denial
Franklin also said he had met the political officer from the Israeli embassy at least nine times during the same period.
But he said he believed the Israeli government was already in possession of the information he disclosed and that he always received more information from the diplomat than he passed on.
A senior Israeli official denied that Israel had operated Franklin as a spy.
"Israel is not spying in or against the United States," said Yuval Steinitz, chairman of the Israeli parliament's Defence and Foreign Affairs Committee.
"The conviction doesn't accuse Israel of activating Franklin or tempting him," said Mr Steinitz.
BBC Pentagon correspondent Adam Brookes says the case has sent a chill through Washington.
It has made American officials more sensitive than ever about what they say on the subject of foreign policy and to whom they say it, and it has raised the question of just how much Israel conducts espionage against its greatest ally, the US, our correspondent adds.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/americas/4633120.stm

Friday, January 20, 2006

Wayward Christian Soldiers

Wayward Christian Soldiers
By CHARLES MARSH
Charlottesville, Va.
From The NY Times

IN the past several years, American evangelicals, and I am one of them, have amassed greater political power than at any time in our history. But at what cost to our witness and the integrity of our message?
Recently, I took a few days to reread the war sermons delivered by influential evangelical ministers during the lead up to the Iraq war. That period, from the fall of 2002 through the spring of 2003, is not one I will remember fondly. Many of the most respected voices in American evangelical circles blessed the president's war plans, even when doing so required them to recast Christian doctrine.

Charles Stanley, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Atlanta, whose weekly sermons are seen by millions of television viewers, led the charge with particular fervor. "We should offer to serve the war effort in any way possible," said Mr. Stanley, a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention. "God battles with people who oppose him, who fight against him and his followers." In an article carried by the convention's Baptist Press news service, a missionary wrote that "American foreign policy and military might have opened an opportunity for the Gospel in the land of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."
As if working from a slate of evangelical talking points, both Franklin Graham, the evangelist and son of Billy Graham, and Marvin Olasky, the editor of the conservative World magazine and a former advisor to President Bush on faith-based policy, echoed these sentiments, claiming that the American invasion of Iraq would create exciting new prospects for proselytizing Muslims. Tim LaHaye, the co-author of the hugely popular "Left Behind" series, spoke of Iraq as "a focal point of end-time events," whose special role in the earth's final days will become clear after invasion, conquest and reconstruction. For his part, Jerry Falwell boasted that "God is pro-war" in the title of an essay he wrote in 2004.
The war sermons rallied the evangelical congregations behind the invasion of Iraq. An astonishing 87 percent of all white evangelical Christians in the United States supported the president's decision in April 2003. Recent polls indicate that 68 percent of white evangelicals continue to support the war. But what surprised me, looking at these sermons nearly three years later, was how little attention they paid to actual Christian moral doctrine. Some tried to square the American invasion with Christian "just war" theory, but such efforts could never quite reckon with the criterion that force must only be used as a last resort. As a result, many ministers dismissed the theory as no longer relevant.
Some preachers tried to link Saddam Hussein with wicked King Nebuchadnezzar of Biblical fame, but these arguments depended on esoteric interpretations of the Old Testament book of II Kings and could not easily be reduced to the kinds of catchy phrases that are projected onto video screens in vast evangelical churches. The single common theme among the war sermons appeared to be this: our president is a real brother in Christ, and because he has discerned that God's will is for our nation to be at war against Iraq, we shall gloriously comply.
Such sentiments are a far cry from those expressed in the Lausanne Covenant of 1974. More than 2,300 evangelical leaders from 150 countries signed that statement, the most significant milestone in the movement's history. Convened by Billy Graham and led by John Stott, the revered Anglican evangelical priest and writer, the signatories affirmed the global character of the church of Jesus Christ and the belief that "the church is the community of God's people rather than an institution, and must not be identified with any particular culture, social or political system, or human ideology."
On this page, David Brooks correctly noted that if evangelicals elected a pope, it would most likely be Mr. Stott, who is the author of more than 40 books on evangelical theology and Christian devotion. Unlike the Pope John Paul II, who said that invading Iraq would violate Catholic moral teaching and threaten "the fate of humanity," or even Pope Benedict XVI, who has said there were "not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq," Mr. Stott did not speak publicly on the war. But in a recent interview, he shared with me his abiding concerns.
"Privately, in the days preceding the invasion, I had hoped that no action would be taken without United Nations authorization," he told me. "I believed then and now that the American and British governments erred in proceeding without United Nations approval." Reverend Stott referred me to "War and Rumors of War, " a chapter from his 1999 book, "New Issues Facing Christians Today," as the best account of his position. In that essay he wrote that the Christian community's primary mission must be "to hunger for righteousness, to pursue peace, to forbear revenge, to love enemies, in other words, to be marked by the cross."
What will it take for evangelicals in the United States to recognize our mistaken loyalty? We have increasingly isolated ourselves from the shared faith of the global Church, and there is no denying that our Faustian bargain for access and power has undermined the credibility of our moral and evangelistic witness in the world. The Hebrew prophets might call us to repentance, but repentance is a tough demand for a people utterly convinced of their righteousness.
Charles Marsh, a professor of religion at the University of Virginia, is the author of "The Beloved Community: How Faith Shapes Social Justice, from the Civil Rights Movement to Today."

The Right Going to Far

 
Every time Gibson decries the "far lefties" as agents of terrorism, a suicide bomber thinks he won't die in vain.
 
 
 Chris Matthews who stated bin Laden "sounds like an over the top Michael Moore here, if not a Michael Moore." And Joe Scarborough had an orgasmic experience with Tucker Carlson yesterday: they gushed over clips juxtapos ing statements of John Kerry, Howard Dean, John Murtha, and Ted Kennedy with bin Laden's words. The GOP talking point saturated the air waves: bin Laden and liberals are on the same side, ergo, liberals are aiding the terrorists.
Silly, silly newsreaders. This is exactly the dialogue bin Laden wants. Every time Gibson decries the "far lefties" as agents of terrorism, a suicide bomber thinks he won't die in vain. Because you see, their purpose is to destroy our nation by turning it against itself. What joy they take when propagandists like Gibson and Tweety marginalize half the American people.  How delighted bin Laden must be, chuckling away in his cave as he hears Limbaugh on his satellite radio  claiming the left is sabotaging the War on Terror and bringing on the destruction of America.
Why does such spin and lies please our enemies so? Because every time Bush's minions lie in this manner, it takes away attention from the real problems with the War on Terror and the war in Iraq. Focusing on the lie that the left is somehow conspiring with Al Qaeda deflects attention away from the true shortfalls in our national security.
Bin Laden's tape triggered, on cue, a flurry of anti-liberal sentiment, instead of a critical analysis of our nation's security. He made a threat against our homeland, but the always useless "color coded threat level" didn't budge. Yet instead of asking why the defunct system is still in place, Gibson & Co. are laughing at how Bin Laden quoted withdrawal polls.
Bin Laden made a threat against our homeland. Instead of reporting that five years after 9/11, our government still receives a failing grade in terms of securing our soil, Rush & Co. blame liberals for failures in the War on Terror.
Employing the language of treason is to be expected, I suppose, with a media more concerned with promoting an agenda rather than reporting fact. But one fact does remain: when another terrorist occurs on American soil, they cannot blame us liberals who tried to save this nation. They can only blame the terrorists--and themselves. For time and time again, they've failed to hold our government accountable when it comes to securing our homeland
 


Democratic Victory Network An Umbrella Group: Of Progressive Groups
 
 
Brought To You By: Philter Media - New Possibilities With Your Web Presence http://PhilterMedia.com

Chris Matthews compares Michael Moore to Osama Bin Laden


Chris Matthews compares Michael Moore to Osama Bin Laden
On Hardball today, Chris Matthews compared Michael Moore to Osama Bin Laden while discussing the newly released tape with Joe Biden.
Video-WMP Video-QT





DEMAND AN APOLOGY: "Bin Laden sounds like Clint Eastwood" -- "Bin Laden sounds like Ron Silver" -- "Bin Laden sounds like Rush Limbaugh" -- "Bin Laden sounds like Bill O'Reilly"-- "Bin Laden sounds like Mel Gibson" -- "Bin Laden sounds like Bruce Willis" -- "Bin Laden sounds like Michelle Malkin"... Imagine the outrage on the right and in the press (but I repeat myself) if a major media figure spat out those words. Well, on Hardball, Chris Matthews just blurted out that Bin Laden sounds like Michael Moore. Simple: Matthews should apologize. On the air. This has NOTHING to do with Michael Moore and everything to do with how far media figures can go slandering the left. And last I checked, Michael Moore didn't massacre thousands of innocent Americans. (The indispensable Crooks and Liars has the clip) And here's John Kerry's strong statement on the Hardball scandal and Bin Laden's reappearance...
"You'd think the only focus tonight would be on destroying Osama Bin Laden, not comparing him to an American who opposes the war whether you like him or not. You want a real debate that America needs? Here goes: If the administration had done the job right in Tora Bora we might not be having discussions on Hardball about a new Bin Laden tape. How dare Scott McClellan te l l America that this Administration puts terrorists out of business when had they put Osama Bin Laden out of business in Afghanistan when our troops wanted to, we wouldn't have to hear this barbarian's voice on tape. That's what we should be talking about in America." -- John Kerry


Contact information:
Chris MatthewsChris Matthews
Fax: 404-827-1906
MSNBCviewerservices@msnbc.com MSNBC TV One MSNBC Plaza Secaucus, N.J. 07094 MSNBC contacts
Hardballhardball@msnbc.com
.........................................................................................................................................
When contacting the media, please be polite and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and be sure to indicate exactly what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future




Democratic Victory Network An Umbrella Group: Of Progressive Groups
http://democraticvictory.net/


Brought To You By: Philter Media - New Possibilities With Your Web Presence http://philtermedia.com/

Thursday, January 19, 2006

Republican Dennis Hastert is proved to be a liar

Republican Dennis Hastert is proved to be a liar

Dennis Hastert, Republican House Speaker is proved to be a liar. On January 5, 2006, the Chicago Tribune reported on a letter -- dated June 10, 2003 -- Hastert sent to Bush's "Interior Secretary Gale Norton to block an Indian casino opposed by rival tribes represented by Abramoff." According to the Tribune, Hastert's letter was sent one week after Abramoff hosted a fundraiser for the House Speaker's political action committee.On Tuesday, January 17, 2006, Hastert, when confronted by the facts, which clearly indicate he had avoided lobbying reform until his Party was in political trouble -- until Republican dirty dealings with Abramoff were exposed to light of day -- responded by saying, "A year ago most people around Congress couldn't tell you who Jack Abramoff was." Hastert's 2003, letter to Norton, proves he lied when he said "most people" -- most Republicans -- didn't, one year ago, know who Abramoff was. Let's do the figurin' - 2006, less 2003, that equals 3 years. Three years is more than "one year ago."What's more, in the 80s, Abramoff was a big College Republican supporter and even attended Ronald Reagan's 72nd-birthday party at the White House. That fact also disputes Republican Hastert's claims. Are the American people to believe that a guy, Abramoff, who has been part of the Republican Party establishment since the 80s, wasn't known by the Republican members of Congress? Still, no need to be hasty - maybe when 1980 is subtracted from 2006, it totals less than a year? No, even when using Republican math, 20-plus-years is greater than "one year ago."Still, there is more and if the above doesn't prove Hastert a liar, this certainly does: According to the Washington Post, DeLay and Abramoff met at a fundraiser in 1995. At the meeting DeLay's Chief of Staff, Edwin Buckham, told DeLay, "We really need to work with Abramoff; he is going to be an important lobbyist and fundraiser." If the math serves - that is more than 10 years ago, which is more than "a year ago." This, of course, says nothing of Abramoff's 1999, Republican Senatorial Committee's "Tartan Invitational." A half-dozen Republicans, along with Abramoff and other lobbyists went golfing in Scotland. Again, '99 to '06 - longer than "a year ago."In 1995, Abramoff, at a meeting, described himself as being "close to Newt." That "Newt," of course, being Newt Gingrich of Republican Party fame.Hey, again, '95 to '06, more than "a year ago."So, Dennis Hastert, Republican House Speaker wishes for the American people to believe, "A year ago most people around Congress couldn't tell you who Jack Abramoff was." Dennis Hastert obviously wishes for the American people to believe his lie. Dennis Hastert, Tom DeLay, and the entire Republican Congress knew, and had for year's known, who Jack Abramoff was. Even Newt Gingrich knew, in 1995, who Abramoff was. Dennis Hastert is proved to be a liar!

Fallen Through The Cracks?



Democratic Victory Network An Umbrella Group: Of Progressive Groups
 
 
Brought To You By: Philter Media - New Possibilities With Your Web Presence http://PhilterMedia.com

VIDEO NEWS WIRE

Politico 44 President's Calendar

AlterNet.org: Video




Days Since Michael Steele Said He Won't Resign

23 Days, 23 Hours, 32 Minutes, 38 Seconds.

"The Playa" said he wouldn't resign as head of the RNC ("Not me Baby! Nuh-uh. Not happening. No way, no how.")

Followers

ShareThis

http://feeds.salon.com/salon/greenwald_podcast_rss

The Real News Network

  

Learn more about the Neighborhood Volunteer Program

John McCain

The 50 State Strategy

Buy a Democracy Bond

My site was nominated for Best Pop Culture Blog!

Politics on HuffingtonPost.com

MSNBC.com: Countdown With Olbermann

RawStory.com Headlines

The Nation: Top Stories

Evri Skyscraper Widget

YouTube :: Videos by politicstv

Contributors