CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY?, PART II

MediaMatters did a report on Americans attitudes about a number of issues and found that the majority of Americans take the liberal position on almost all issues. For example, Americans do want the government to do something about income disparity:



On some so-called "moral values" issues, Americans are definitely liberal:



Health Care is another issue where the liberal view is predominant:




This pattern is true of several other issues, something you'd never know from listening to the Talk Radio Republicans.

QUARTERLY IRAQ REPORT

Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq
JUNE 2008

(EXCERPTS)

Strong democratic institutions that impartially serve all Iraqis are critical to Iraq’s success. ... To date, however, progress has been inhibited by the unwillingness of the various factions in the CoR to compromise on key issues.

Elements of the MoD’s Strategic Infrastructure Battalions and the MoO’s Oil Protection Force, tasked with protecting infrastructure, are sometimes suspected of being complicit in interdiction and smuggling. As much as 70% of the fuel processed at Bayji was lost to the black market—possibly as much as US$2 billion a year.

The overall level of violence in Iraq this quarter remained similar to the previous reporting period but shifted location.

Outside Baghdad and Anbar, reductions in Coalition force presence and reliance upon local Iraqi security forces have resulted in a tenuous security situation.

The aggregate level of violence in Iraq remained relatively unchanged during this reporting period. Violence has decreased in the Baghdad security districts and Anbar, but has increased in most provinces, particularly in the outlying areas of Baghdad Province and Diyala and Ninewa Provinces.

A GENERAL GIVES US A TIMEFRAME

Commander, Multinational Division Center and 3rd Infantry Division
Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch
July 06, 2007

(EXCERPTS)

Our operating environment is the southern belt of Baghdad, both the Mahmudiyah and the Madain qadhas, and four of the southern provinces: Babil, Najaf, Karbala and, as of the 20th of June, Wasit province.

I see these aggressive offensive operations that deny the enemy the four sanctuaries we have taking us through July, August and into September. But by then, based on our calculations, we will have denied the enemy those sanctuaries and we can transition into the hold and retain phase in those sanctuaries.



You know, people ask me all the time why I have so much confidence. I've got great confidence because I got great soldiers. And they're here fighting because they want to fight terrorists here so they don't have to fight terrorists back home. That sounds like a bumper sticker, but that's what they believe. They believe that if they don't do what our forefathers did, our children and their children won't enjoy the freedoms that we enjoyed coming up.


[YES, THE SOLDIERS ARE STUPID AND IGNORANT]

BABBLING BROOKS

David Brooks, an Establishment pundit of the NY Times, wrote an atrocious piece ("Ending the Farce") about the scandalous Libby pardon and has been take to task by many, including Larry Johnson and David Corn.

YUP, THE MILITARY IS STILL LYING TO US

(From Attaturk who somehow got the keys to Atrios' place)

I noted below that the Iraq Study Group found a pattern of under-reporting of violence in Iraq and Atta finds that they also over-report successes against Al Qaeda in Iraq:

U.S. eager and it shows in Iraq
Jul 6, 2007 5:03 AM (1 day ago)
by Rowan Scarborough, The Examiner
Phoenix, Arizona

Washington DC (Map, News) - The U.S. command in Baghdad this week ballyhooed the killing of a key al Qaeda leader but later admitted that the military had declared him dead a year ago.

A military spokesman acknowledged the mistake after it was called to his attention by The Examiner. He said public affairs officers will be more careful in announcing significant kills.

Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner began his Monday news conference with a list of top insurgents either killed or captured in recent operations. ...

"In the north, Iraqi army and coalition forces continue successful operations in Mosul," he told reporters. "Kamal Jalil Uthman, also known as Said Hamza, was the al Qaeda in Iraq military emir of Mosul. He planned, coordinated and facilitated suicide bombings, and he facilitated the movement of more than a hundred foreign fighters through safe houses in the area." All told, Bergner devoted 68 words to Uthman's demise.

Uthman was indeed a big kill, and the military featured his death last year in a report titled "Tearing Down al Qaeda."

"The more we can bring down al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, the greater probability of reducing violence," Army Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, the command's chief spokesman said, in 2006.

Uthman was listed in the 2006 news release as "the chief of military operations [in] Mosul."

MORE ON STRAUSS THE FUNDIE

In "Progress or Return," chapter 10 of Pangle's book, Strauss claims (p. 266) that Biblical revelation has not been affected by either science or textual analysis.

The scientific criticisms are inadequate because they presuppose "that everything happens naturally; but this is denied by the Bible. ... All the evidence supplied by geology, paleontology, etc., is valid against the Bible only on the premise that no miracle intervened."

The textual criticisms, such as the one here, reveal only that there "are secrets" in the Bible, not that it is a human creation.

MISSING SOMETHING

War whore Michael Ledeen recounts an atrocity by Al Qaeda in Iraq and then writes:

It just seems to me that anyone involved in such activity isn't really entitled to high-priced legal defense in American courts. Guantanamo is way too good for such animals. Or have I missed something?

Yes, you have missed something, something called Western Civilization. Despite the almost unspeakable horrors of the Nazi regime, the leading members of that evil regime were given a fair trial.

FISA COURT == "SLAM DUNK"

This table from the Electronic Privacy Information Center shows that the FISA Court almost never turned down a request. CNN reported on May 1, 2007 that in 2006,

Of the 2,181 applications submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court last year, 2,176 were approved and five were withdrawn; one of those was resubmitted and one was partially accepted.

Year Number of FISA Applications Presented Number of FISA Applications Approved Number of FISA Applications Rejected 19791 199 207 0 19802 319 322 0 1981 431 433 0 1982 473 475 0 1983 549 549 0 1984 635 635 0 1985 587 587 0 1986 573 573 0 1987 512 512 0 1988 534 534 0 1989 546 546 0 1990 595 595 0 1991 593 593 0 1992 484 484 0

Year Number of FISA Applications Presented Number of FISA Applications Approved Number of FISA Applications Rejected 1993 509 509 0 1994 576 576 0 1995 697 697 0 1996 839 839 0 19973 749 748 0 1998 796 796 0 19994 886 880 0 20005 1005 1012 0 20016 932 934 0 20027 1228 1228 0 20038 1727 1724 4 20049 1758 1754 0 200510 2074 2072 0

Acknowledgment: The Federation of American Scientists compiled the list of FISA annual reports, from which these statistics were extracted.

1. The calendar year of 1980 was the first full year that FISA had been in effect. Hence, 1979 does not reflect a complete calendar year.

2. No orders were entered which modified or denied the requested authority, except one case in which the Court modified an order and authorized an activity for which court authority had not been requested.

3. In one case, although satisfied as to the probable cause to believe the target to be an agent of a foreign power, the court declined to approve the application as plead for other reasons, and gave the government leave to amend the application. The government has filed a motion to withdraw that case as it has become moot.

4. One application filed in 1999 was pending before the Court until March 29, 2000, when it was approved. Five applications which were filed in late December 1999 were approved when presented to the Court on January 5, 2000.

5. The Court approved 1003 of these applications in 2000. Two of the 1005 applications were filed with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in December 2000 and approved in January 2001. Nine applications were filed with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in calendar year 1999 and approved in calendar year 2000. Thus, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approved 1012 applications in calendar year 2000. Also, one order was modified by the Court. No orders were entered which denied the requested authority.

6. Two of the 934 applications were filed with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in December 2000 and approved in January 2001. Also, two orders and two warrants were modified by the Court. No orders were entered which denied the requested authority.

7. The Court initially approved 1226 applications in 2002. Two applications were "approved as modified," and the United States appealed these applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, as applications having been denied in part. On November 18, 2002, the Court of Review issued a judgment that "ordered and adjudged that the motions for review be granted, the challenged portions of the orders on review be reversed, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court's Rule 11 be vacated, and the cases be remanded with instructions to grant the United States' applications as submitted..."

8. The United States did not appeal any of the Court's four denials. However, the 2003 FISA report provides additional information about two of the four applications denied:

(1) In one case, the Court issued supplemental orders with respect to its denial, and the Government filed with the Court a motion for reconsideration of its rulings. The Court subsequently vacated its earlier orders and granted in part and denied in part the Government's motion for reconsideration. The Government has not appealed that ruling. In 2004, the Court approved a revised application regarding this target that incorporated modifications consistent with the Court's prior order with respect to the motion for reconsideration.

(2) In another case, the Court initially denied the application without prejudice. The Government presented amended orders to the Court later the same day, which the Court approved. Because the Court eventually approved this application, it is included in the 1724 referenced above.

In 2003, the Court made substantive modifications to the United States' proposed orders in 79 applications.

9. The United States withdrew three of its 1,758 applications before the Court ruled on them. The United States then resubmitted one of these applications, which was approved by the Court as a new application. One of the 1,758 applications made to the Court was approved in 2003 and received a docket number in 2004. In 2004, the Court made substantive modifications to the United States' proposed orders in 94 applications.

10. The United States withdrew two of its applications before the Court ruled on them. The United States then resubmitted one of these applications, which was approved by the Court as a new application. In 2005, the Court made substantive modifications to the United States' proposed orders in 61 applications.

THE WASHINGTON TIMES ON LIBBY

This editorial shows that a few conservatives really do have principles.

The Libby affair

President Bush's commutation of the 30-month prison sentence for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, is neither wise nor just. It is clearly within the president's executive powers, but that is beside the point.We also agree that the 30-month sentence ordered by U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton — a Reagan and Bush appointee — is harsh. It exceeds the 15-21 month guidelines for first-time offenders. A first-time offender who is no danger to the community with an admirable record of public service deserves the lower range, and for that reason the unusually long sentence was unjust.

But none of this exonerates the commutation. Perjury is a serious crime. This newspaper argued on behalf of its seriousness in the 1990s, during the Clinton perjury controversy, and today is no different. We'd have hoped that more conservatives would agree. The integrity of the judicial process depends on fact-finding and truth-telling. A jury found Libby guilty of not only perjury but also obstruction justice and lying to a grand jury. It handed down a very supportable verdict. This is true regardless of the trumped-up investigation and political witch hunt. It is true regardless of the unjustifiably harsh sentence.

Had Mr. Bush reduced Libby's sentence to 15 months, we might have been able to support the decision. Alas, he did not.

LEO STRAUSS IS A FUNDIE!

In "Relativism", the first chapter of Pangle's book¹, page 7, Strauss makes a claim worthy of the Intelligent Design idiots of our own time:

Man cannot be understood in his own light but only in the light of either the subhuman or the superhuman. Either man is an accidental product of a blind evolution or else the process leading to man, culminating in man, is directed towards man.

For the rational among us, the answer is clear: Darwin was correct, Behe is WRONG.

¹This originally came from a paper Strauss delivered at a conference and later included in the proceedings: The State of the Social Sciences, Leonard D. White (ed.), Univ. of Chicago Press, 1956, pp. 415-425.

CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY? NOT IN AMERICA...

I read an AP report of a poll on Americans attitudes toward income disparity and I went to the organization that carried out the poll, the Center for Survey Research & Analysis at the University of Connecticut and found the PDF of the poll. The results show that the Talk Radio Republicans are WRONG about America.

Here are some of the results:

Differences in income in America are too large.
(PROBE: STRONGLY/SOMEWHAT AGREE/DISAGREE)

Strongly Agree 50%
Somewhat Agree 22
Somewhat Disagree 13
Strongly Disagree 15
Don't Know 1

Do you feel that the distribution of money and wealth in this country today is fair, or do you feel that the money and wealth in this country should be more evenly distributed among a larger percentage of the people?

Distribution is fair 26%
Should be more evenly distributed 69
Don't Know 5
Refused 0

The government in Washington ought to see to it that everyone who wants to work can find a job.

Agree 67%
Disagree 32
Don't Know 2
Refused 0

People feel differently about how far a government should go. Here is a phrase which some people believe in and some don't. Do you think our government should or should not redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich?

Should 56%
Should not 39
Don't Know 4
Refused 0

Do you favor or oppose having the government set the minimum wage high enough so that no family with a full time worker falls below the official poverty line?

Favor 76%
Oppose 21
Don't Know 3
Refused 0

BONUS TIME

Below I wrote that I read somewhere that military bonuses had reached $1 billion a year and I found the source:

Military re-enlistment bonuses soar in effort to maintain forces
By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press
© April 12, 2007

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon poured more than $1 billion into bonuses last year to keep soldiers and Marines in the military in the face of an unpopular war and battlefield deployments that are getting longer and more frequent. The incentives - including tax-free payments for those who re-enlist while in the war zone - have jumped nearly sixfold since 2003, the year the war in Iraq began.

All told, the Army and Marines spent $1.03 billion for re-enlistment payments last year, compared with $174 million in 2003.

AS FAR AS I KNOW, THIS IS A FIRST

That is, a former general calling for impeachment to stop the immoral Iraq war.

'Supporting the troops' means withdrawing them
COMMENTARY July 05, 2007
By William E. Odom

Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), is a Senior Fellow with Hudson Institute and a professor at Yale University. He was Director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988. From 1981 to 1985, he served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army's senior intelligence officer. From 1977 to 1981, he was Military Assistant to the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

The president is strongly motivated to string out the war until he leaves office, in order to avoid taking responsibility for the defeat he has caused and persisted in making greater each year for more than three years.

To force him to begin a withdrawal before then, the first step should be to rally the public by providing an honest and candid definition of what "supporting the troops" really means and pointing out who is and who is not supporting our troops at war. The next step should be a flat refusal to appropriate money for to be used in Iraq for anything but withdrawal operations with a clear deadline for completion.

The final step should be to put that president on notice that if ignores this legislative action and tries to extort Congress into providing funds by keeping U.S. forces in peril, impeachment proceeding will proceed in the House of Representatives. Such presidential behavior surely would constitute the "high crime" of squandering the lives of soldiers and Marines for his own personal interest.

HUNT THIS GUY DOWN...

and give him some Thorazine. I've made a few posts on AOL in which I claimed that Ann Coulter represents the core of the GOP and now I get some confirmation from Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) during his appearance on Hardball, 7/2/2007:


REP. DUNCAN HUNTER (R-CA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: ... In this case, Ann Coulter is a very articulate spokeswoman for the conservative view.

HUNTER: But Ann Coulter, I think Ann Coulter is good.

HART-RUDMAN COMMISSION REPORT

Formally called "U.S. Commission on National Security in the 21st Century," it issued a report on January 31, 2001. Here's a key passage from the Executive Summary:

Securing the National Homeland

The combination of unconventional weapons proliferation with the persistence of international terrorism will end the relative invulnerability of the U.S. homeland to
catastrophic attack. A direct attack against American citizens on American soil is likely over the next quarter century. The risk is not only death and destruction but also a demoralization that could undermine U.S. global leadership. In the face of this threat, our nation has no coherent or integrated governmental structures.

[snip]

We therefore recommend the creation of a new independent National Homeland Security Agency (NHSA) with responsibility for planning, coordinating, and integrating various U.S. government activities involved in homeland security.

(You can also get the full report here.)

Now, what did the wingnuts make of this commission?

The Weekly Standard
May 29, 2000

Newt Gingrich’s Last Boondoggle
The Hart-Rudman national security commission
shows every sign of being an expensive flop.

By Tom Donnelly, deputy executive director of the Project for the New
American Century.

During the decade since the Cold War ended, the United States has searched in vain for a new national strategy. ... the most expensive failures of the past decade have been the reports of the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, known as the Hart-Rudman Commission after its principals, former senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman.

...the Hart-Rudman commission has been something of a joke on the taxpayer almost since its inception.

MORE OF STRAUSS' IDIOCY

On page 24 in the Pangle book, Strauss makes another bizarre claim:

Stated generally. by virtue of the distinction between validity and genesis, positivism tries to treat science as autonomous, but it is unable to do so: that distinction merely prevents it from giving due weight to the question of the human context out of which science arises and within which it exists. Positivism treats science in the way in which it would have to be treated if science were "the very highest power of man,” the power by which man transcends the merely human; yet positivism cannot maintain this "Platonic"' understanding of science. The question of the human context of science, which positivism fails and refuses to raise. is taken up by its most powerful present-day opponent in the West, radical historicism, or, to use the better-known name, existentialism.

Strauss wrote this in 1956 so the date is no excuse for ignoring the work of J.S. Mill and Charles Saunders Peirce on the "human context." Sociologists have been investigating science since Robert K. Merton's 1938 classic, Science, Technology and Society in Seventeenth-century England. In the early 60s, Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn did breakthrough work in the social dimensions of science and the area has been growing ever since.

CHRIS MATTHEWS ON THE CIA LEAK

Mr. Matthews (no Tweety, this time) suggests that the CIA leak was all about a fight between the White House and the CIA about Iraq. I left a comment pointing out to him that others, such Paul O'Neill and Lawrence Wilkerson, have suggested that the decision-making process in this Administration is deeply flawed because Cheney and to some extent Rumsfeld have created a system to go around the normal procedures. In essence, they made a new system that almost insures that they will get their way.

CONSERVATIVE ABSURDITIES

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire

Leo Strauss, a guru of the neo-conservatives, made plenty of absurd statements. In a diatribe¹ against liberalism, modern social science and causality, he made this preposterous assertion:

Social science proceeds by inductive reasoning or is concerned with prediction or with the discovery of cases. Yet what is the status of the principle of causality in social science relativism? According to a widely accepted view, the principle of causality is a mere assumption. There is no rational objection to the assumption that the universe may disappear at any time, not only into thin air, but into absolute nothingness, and that this happening may be a vanishing, not only into nothing, but through nothing as well. What is true of the possible end of the end of the world is true also of its beginning. Since the principle of causality is not intrinsically evident, nothing prevents us from assuming that the world has come into being out of nothing and through nothing. Not only has rationality disappeared from the behavior studied by science; the rationality of that study itself has come radically problematic. All coherence has gone. We are then fitted to say that positivistic science in general, and therefore positivistic social science in particular, is characterized by the abandonment of reason or the flight from reason. The flight from scientific reason, which has been noted with regret, is the reasonable reply to the flight of science from reason.

In so far as this makes any sense, Strauss seems to be upset that we have not demonstrated that methodological empiricism is an Absolute, ignoring the fact that an emprirical science is always subject to revision. He also seems to be saying that reasonableness and rationality are inherently at odds. Absurdities like this can lead to astounding inconsistencies and American conservatives do not hesitate to embrace them.

Consider Kate O'Beirne of the National Review and her recent appearance on Hardball with Chris Matthews. Here's the contradiction: O'Beirne supported the impeachment of President Clinton on charges of obstruction of justice and perjury but supports the pardon of Libby for exactly the same charges. Crooks & Liars has the video and here's the relevant part of the transcript:

MATTHEWS: Where you on President Clinton's perjury and obstruction of justice? Did you support impeachment and conviction of him for those crimes?

O'BEIRNE: Yes, his self-confessed perjury.

MATTHEWS: It's a high crime if a Democrat does it, but if a Republican does it, it was what? Prosecutorial over-reach?

O'BEIRNE: Chris, he admitted to committing perjury.

MATTHEWS: Right? I'm just trying to find consistency here from Kate O'Beirne.
Perjury and obstruction of justice should throw a president and of office who has been elected twice, but it should not cause a day of damage to the life of Scooter Libby.

¹
"Relativism," in The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism: An Introduction to the Thought of Leo Strauss, Selected and Introduced by Thomas L. Pangle, University of Chicago Press, 1989, pp. 18-19. This originally came from a paper Strauss published in Relativism and the Study of Man, Helmut Schoeck and J.W. Wiggins, eds., Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1961, pp. 135-57.

RADIO TIDBITS

Slots Bennett seems to have the ear of the military. After having Gen. Petraeus on earlier, today he had Col. Boylan on to talk about the re-enlistments in Iraq. Boylan mentioned that today 588 soldiers had re-upped at a ceremony presided over by Gen. Petraeus. That works out to $8503.40 per soldier. I read that bonuses are skyrocketing and recently hit $1 billion a year.

Huge Ego Hewitt had Prof. Harry Jaffa on to tell lies about the conceptual foundation of America. Jaffa is a leading Straussian and a Distinguished Fellow of the wingnut think tank, the Claremont Institute. He got his bachelor's degree at Yale and his Ph. D. at the New School for Social Research and serves as another rebuttal to the claims by the extreme Right that the universities are inhospitable to conservatives.

AN EARLY DEBATE ABOUT THE POWER TO PARDON

SOURCE:

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution:
By United States Constitutional Convention
Published 1863 Taylor & Maury
Original from Harvard University
Digitized Jul 27, 2006

Pages 497-98

Wednesday, June 18, 1788

MR. MASON: ... Now, I conceive that the President ought not to have the power of pardoning, because he may frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself. It may happen, at some future day, that he will establish a monarchy, and destroy the republic. If he has the power of granting pardons before indictment, or conviction, may he not stop inquiry and prevent detection ? The case of treason ought, at least, to be excepted. This is a weighty objection with me.

Mr. MADISON, adverting to Mr. Mason's objection to the President's power of pardoning, ...There is one security in this case to which gentlemen may not have adverted : if the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty; they can suspend him when suspected, and the power will devolve on the Vice-President. Should he be suspected, also, he may likewise be suspended till he be impeached and removed, and the legislature may make a temporary appointment. This is a great security.

THANK YOU, MR. OLBERMANN

Video here, text below.

Olbermann: Bush, Cheney should resign

‘I didn’t vote for him, but he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.’

SPECIAL COMMENT
By Keith Olbermann
Anchor, 'Countdown'
MSNBC
Updated: 5:13 p.m. MT July 3, 2007

“I didn’t vote for him,” an American once said, “But he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.”

That—on this eve of the 4th of July—is the essence of this democracy, in 17 words. And that is what President Bush threw away yesterday in commuting the sentence of Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

The man who said those 17 words—improbably enough—was the actor John Wayne. And Wayne, an ultra-conservative, said them, when he learned of the hair’s-breadth election of John F. Kennedy instead of his personal favorite, Richard Nixon in 1960.

“I didn’t vote for him but he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.”

The sentiment was doubtlessly expressed earlier, but there is something especially appropriate about hearing it, now, in Wayne’s voice: The crisp matter-of-fact acknowledgement that we have survived, even though for nearly two centuries now, our Commander-in-Chief has also served, simultaneously, as the head of one political party and often the scourge of all others.
We as citizens must, at some point, ignore a president’s partisanship. Not that we may prosper as a nation, not that we may achieve, not that we may lead the world—but merely that we may function.

But just as essential to the seventeen words of John Wayne, is an implicit trust—a sacred trust: That the president for whom so many did not vote, can in turn suspend his political self long enough, and for matters imperative enough, to conduct himself solely for the benefit of the entire Republic.

Our generation’s willingness to state “we didn’t vote for him, but he’s our president, and we hope he does a good job,” was tested in the crucible of history, and earlier than most.
And in circumstances more tragic and threatening. And we did that with which history tasked us.

We enveloped our President in 2001.And those who did not believe he should have been elected—indeed those who did not believe he had been elected—willingly lowered their voices and assented to the sacred oath of non-partisanship.

And George W. Bush took our assent, and re-configured it, and honed it, and shaped it to a razor-sharp point and stabbed this nation in the back with it.

Were there any remaining lingering doubt otherwise, or any remaining lingering hope, it ended yesterday when Mr. Bush commuted the prison sentence of one of his own staffers.

Did so even before the appeals process was complete; did so without as much as a courtesy consultation with the Department of Justice; did so despite what James Madison—at the Constitutional Convention—said about impeaching any president who pardoned or sheltered those who had committed crimes “advised by” that president; did so without the slightest concern that even the most detached of citizens must look at the chain of events and wonder: To what degree was Mr. Libby told: break the law however you wish—the President will keep you out of prison?

In that moment, Mr. Bush, you broke that fundamental compact between yourself and the majority of this nation’s citizens—the ones who did not cast votes for you. In that moment, Mr. Bush, you ceased to be the President of the United States. In that moment, Mr. Bush, you became merely the President of a rabid and irresponsible corner of the Republican Party. And this is too important a time, Sir, to have a commander-in-chief who puts party over nation.

This has been, of course, the gathering legacy of this Administration. Few of its decisions have escaped the stain of politics. The extraordinary Karl Rove has spoken of “a permanent Republican majority,” as if such a thing—or a permanent Democratic majority—is not antithetical to that upon which rests: our country, our history, our revolution, our freedoms.

Yet our Democracy has survived shrewder men than Karl Rove. And it has survived the frequent stain of politics upon the fabric of government. But this administration, with ever-increasing insistence and almost theocratic zealotry, has turned that stain into a massive oil spill.

The protection of the environment is turned over to those of one political party, who will financially benefit from the rape of the environment. The protections of the Constitution are turned over to those of one political party, who believe those protections unnecessary and extravagant and quaint.

The enforcement of the laws is turned over to those of one political party, who will swear beforehand that they will not enforce those laws. The choice between war and peace is turned over to those of one political party, who stand to gain vast wealth by ensuring that there is never peace, but only war.

And now, when just one cooked book gets corrected by an honest auditor, when just one trampling of the inherent and inviolable fairness of government is rejected by an impartial judge, when just one wild-eyed partisan is stopped by the figure of blind justice, this President decides that he, and not the law, must prevail.

I accuse you, Mr. Bush, of lying this country into war.
I accuse you of fabricating in the minds of your own people, a false implied link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.
I accuse you of firing the generals who told you that the plans for Iraq were disastrously insufficient.
I accuse you of causing in Iraq the needless deaths of 3,586 of our brothers and sons, and sisters and daughters, and friends and neighbors.
I accuse you of subverting the Constitution, not in some misguided but sincerely-motivated struggle to combat terrorists, but to stifle dissent.
I accuse you of fomenting fear among your own people, of creating the very terror you claim to have fought.
I accuse you of exploiting that unreasoning fear, the natural fear of your own people who just want to live their lives in peace, as a political tool to slander your critics and libel your opponents.
I accuse you of handing part of this Republic over to a Vice President who is without conscience, and letting him run roughshod over it.

And I accuse you now, Mr. Bush, of giving, through that Vice President, carte blanche to Mr. Libby, to help defame Ambassador Joseph Wilson by any means necessary, to lie to Grand Juries and Special Counsel and before a court, in order to protect the mechanisms and particulars of that defamation, with your guarantee that Libby would never see prison, and, in so doing, as Ambassador Wilson himself phrased it here last night, of becoming an accessory to the obstruction of justice.

When President Nixon ordered the firing of the Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox during the infamous “Saturday Night Massacre” on October 20th, 1973, Cox initially responded tersely, and ominously.

“Whether ours shall be a government of laws and not of men, is now for Congress, and ultimately, the American people.”

President Nixon did not understand how he had crystallized the issue of Watergate for the American people.

It had been about the obscure meaning behind an attempt to break in to a rival party’s headquarters; and the labyrinthine effort to cover-up that break-in and the related crimes.
And in one night, Nixon transformed it.

Watergate—instantaneously—became a simpler issue: a President overruling the inexorable march of the law of insisting—in a way that resonated viscerally with millions who had not previously understood - that he was the law.

Not the Constitution. Not the Congress. Not the Courts. Just him.

Just - Mr. Bush - as you did, yesterday.

The twists and turns of Plame-Gate, of your precise and intricate lies that sent us into this bottomless pit of Iraq; your lies upon the lies to discredit Joe Wilson; your lies upon the lies upon the lies to throw the sand at the “referee” of Prosecutor Fitzgerald’s analogy. These are complex and often painful to follow, and too much, perhaps, for the average citizen.

But when other citizens render a verdict against your man, Mr. Bush—and then you spit in the faces of those jurors and that judge and the judges who were yet to hear the appeal—the average citizen understands that, Sir.

It’s the fixed ballgame and the rigged casino and the pre-arranged lottery all rolled into one—and it stinks. And they know it.

Nixon’s mistake, the last and most fatal of them, the firing of Archibald Cox, was enough to cost him the presidency. And in the end, even Richard Nixon could say he could not put this nation through an impeachment.

It was far too late for it to matter then, but as the decades unfold, that single final gesture of non-partisanship, of acknowledged responsibility not to self, not to party, not to “base,” but to country, echoes loudly into history. Even Richard Nixon knew it was time to resign.

Would that you could say that, Mr. Bush. And that you could say it for Mr. Cheney. You both crossed the Rubicon yesterday. Which one of you chose the route, no longer matters. Which is the ventriloquist, and which the dummy, is irrelevant.

But that you have twisted the machinery of government into nothing more than a tawdry machine of politics, is the only fact that remains relevant.

It is nearly July 4th, Mr. Bush, the commemoration of the moment we Americans decided that rather than live under a King who made up the laws, or erased them, or ignored them—or commuted the sentences of those rightly convicted under them—we would force our independence, and regain our sacred freedoms.

We of this time—and our leaders in Congress, of both parties—must now live up to those standards which echo through our history: Pressure, negotiate, impeach—get you, Mr. Bush, and Mr. Cheney, two men who are now perilous to our Democracy, away from its helm.

For you, Mr. Bush, and for Mr. Cheney, there is a lesser task. You need merely achieve a very low threshold indeed. Display just that iota of patriotism which Richard Nixon showed, on August 9th, 1974.

Resign.

And give us someone—anyone—about whom all of us might yet be able to quote John Wayne, and say, “I didn’t vote for him, but he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.”

© 2007 MSNBC Interactive

AN EXAMPLE OF SOLID REPORTING

Marcy Wheeler, aka emptywheel of The Next Hurrah, found that President Bush WAS interested in the criticisms of his 2003 SOTU claims about Saddam. As Marcy points out, he was specifically interested in this piece by Nicholas Kristof:

Why truth matters
By Nicholas D. Kristof Op-Ed Columnist, New York Times
Tuesday, May 6, 2003 Posted: 1023 GMT

In the article, Kristof relays information told to him by Joe Wilson:

Consider the now-disproved claims by President Bush and Colin Powell that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger so it could build nuclear weapons. As Seymour Hersh noted in The New Yorker, the claims were based on documents that had been forged so amateurishly that they should never have been taken seriously.

I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.

The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade. In addition, the Niger mining program was structured so that the uranium diversion had been impossible. The envoy's debunking of the forgery was passed around the administration and seemed to be accepted — except that President Bush and the State Department kept citing it anyway.

"It's disingenuous for the State Department people to say they were bamboozled because they knew about this for a year," one insider said.

Marcy's evidence for Bush's interest comes from Libby's own notes and here's the key piece of evidence:

DERSHOWITZ == HANNITY???

For some time ago, Hannity has been defending Libby by claiming that the whole case was a matter of criminalizing politics. Now, an eminent law professor seems to have become "Hannitized":

Playing Politics with Libby
Posted July 3, 2007 10:09 AM (EST)
Alan Dershowitz

President Bush acted hours after the U.S. Court of Appeals denied Libby bail pending appeal. That judicial decision was entirely political.

The trial judge too acted politically, when he imposed the harshly excessive sentence on Libby, virtually provoking the president into commuting it.

This was entirely a political case from beginning to end. Libby's actions were political. The decision to appoint a special prosecutor was political. The trial judges' rulings were political. The appellate court judges' decision to deny bail was political. And the president's decision to commute the sentence was political. But only the president acted within his authority by acting politically in commuting the politically motivated sentence.

WHAT FREDO SAID IN 2003 ABOUT THE PLAME CASE

President Discusses Job Creation With Business Leaders University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois
September 30, 2003

(EXCERPTS)

There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.

I have told our administration, people in my administration to be fully cooperative.

I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business.

If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action.

And if people have got solid information, please come forward with it. And that would be people inside the information who are the so-called anonymous sources, or people outside the information -- outside the administration.

Libby lied, so that prevented Fitzpatrick from getting "to know the truth." Libby lied, so he disobeyed Fredo's order to "be fully cooperative." Libby lied, so "the appropriate action" is a commutation.

UPDATE: TPM has the video

THE PARIS HILTON MEME

The easy to grasp critique of Fredo's pardon of Liar Libby - "Paris Hilton did more time" - may be catching on. I see that Josh Marshall uses it and so does TIME correspondent Matt Cooper. Christy at FireDogLake and Marcy Wheeler of The Next Hurrah are pushing the "obstruction of justice" meme and although I agree with their point, I think that phrase is a bit too long to really catch on with the talk radio public.

GREAT LIBBY RESOURCE

Marcy Wheeler (Empty Wheel) and others at The Next Hurrah have done terrific work about the Libby case, including providing PDFs of the notes of Libby and Cheney.

TWEETY SURPRISES ME AGAIN

(Via commenter pbbbbthht! at Atrios' place)

Tweety doesn't like the Libby commutation:

“The irony in this case is that the president said he would 'deal with anyone who leaked,' and now his way of dealing with Scooter Libby is to pardon him.”

“For him to say that the penalty is 'excessive' may well be true, but it was the same crime that President Bill Clinton was impeached for by a Republican House of Representatives and in which 50 U.S. senators, Republicans, voted to remove him from office. So Republicans as a party thought perjury and obstruction of justice were sufficient to remove a twice-elected president from office. And now the president is saying that 30 months in prison is an excessive penalty for the same exact crime. It’s inconsistent.”

A FEW OF THE LYING WHORES DEFENDING LIBBY

This is from Libby Legal Defense Fund:

Honorable William J. Bennett William J. Bennett is one of America's most important, influential and respected voices on cultural, political, and education issues.


Professor Bernard Lewis Professor Lewis is the Cleveland E. Dodge Professor of Near Eastern Studies Emeritus at Princeton University and the author of The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2,000 Years, a National Book Critics Circle Award finalist; The Emergence of Modern Turkey; The Arabs in History; and What Went Wrong?: Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response, among other books.

Mr. Marty Peretz Marty Peretz is the Editor-in-Chief of The New Republic. Peretz taught for 39 years at Harvard University. He is also a cofounder and member of the Board of Directors of TheStreet.com.

Ms. Nina Rosenwald Rosenwald is Chairman of the Board of the Middle East Media and Research Institute and Vice President of the Jewish Insitute for Near East Policy.

The Honorable Fred Thompson A former United States Senator from Tennessee (1994-2002), former prosecutor and accomplished film and television actor, Thompson currently appears in the Emmy Award-winning drama series “Law & Order” as the District Attorney.

The Honorable R. James Woolsey Former CIA Director, R. James Woolsey joined booz Allen Hamilton in July 2002, as a Vice President and officer in the firm's Global Assurance practice located in McLean, Virginia.

A LITTLE IRONY

The wingnuts are all aglee about the Libby commutation and someone at Atrios' place brought up Nixon and how many in the GOP back then realized that he broke the law. It seems that as the religious fanatics gained power in the GOP, the collective sense of justice declined despite all their braying about the Rule of Law and Moral Absolutes.

THE HEADLINE SAYS IT ALL

From AOL's news site:

CNN News

Scooter skates

There is much glee in Wingnut World.

UPDATE: Mike Malloy just pointed out that Paris Hilton has served more time than Libby ever will.

UPDATE UPDATE: Get your bumper sticker - "Even Paris Went to Jail" - here

FREDO OF THE END TIMES

The WaPo has a lengthy article about Fredo and there are many telling points but I think the most important is this fact: Just like religious or political fanatics, Bush avoids the present realities by clinging to an illusion about the future. According to Rep. Peter King (R-NY and a Hannity favorite), Bush has virtually given up on the present:

Bush has virtually given up on winning converts while in office and instead is counting on vindication after he is dead. "He almost has . . . a sense of fatalism," said Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), who recently spent a day traveling with Bush. "All he can do is do his best, and 100 years from now people will decide if he was right or wrong.

If you see things in the stark terms of Absolute Good or Evil, as many in the conservative base do, then one won't be bothered by little secular setbacks because the Eternal Truths will win in the End. A wingnut who has participated in conversations with Fredo puts it this way:

Much of the discussion focused on the nature of good and evil, a perennial theme for Bush, who casts the struggle against Islamic extremists in black-and-white terms. Michael Novak, a theologian who participated, said it was clear that Bush weathers his difficulties because he sees himself as doing the Lord's work.

"His faith is very strong," said Novak, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "Faith is not enough by itself because there are a lot of people who have faith but weak hearts. But his faith is very strong. He seeks guidance, like every other president does, in prayer. And that means trying to be sure he's doing the right thing. And if you've got that set, all the criticism, it doesn't faze you very much. You're answering to God."

In addition to the religious opiate, Fredo also indulges in a historical fantasy: He's like Churchill fighting Hitler! - "Bush idolizes Churchill and keeps a bust of him in the Oval Office." The Straussians also LOVE Churchill so Fredo the mediocre history student has something in common with these highly-educated fanatics, several of whom assumed prominent roles in Fredo's Administration.

Curiously, Fredo read the best available history of the Algerian War, "A Savage War of Peace" by Alistair Horne. Did the part about torture in the end not working sink in?

RADIO TIDBITS

I've read a few posts that claim Politico is just another online group that serves the conservative agenda but I didn't pay much attention. Last night, Politico's Mike Allen was on the Drudge Report and that pretty much convinced me that he and his colleagues at Politico aren't serious journalists. Oliver Willis has much more on whore Mike Allen.

Gen. Petraeus made a brief appearance on Slots Bennett's show and I think that shows the strength of the gasbag media. Petraeus was very clear about not expecting the success in Anbar Provice to be duplicated in the rest of Iraq, just as Brig. Gen. Allen said on NPR. Slots tried to get a partisan statement out of him but Petraeus wasn't going there.

LEGAL RELATIVISM

With the pardon of traitor Libby, The Editors catch Pres. Fredo betraying his own "principles":


Bush, on overturning on the deeply-held philosophy with which he presided over 152 executions in Texas:

I don’t believe my role [as governor] is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own, unless there are new facts or evidence of which a jury was unaware, or evidence that the trial was somehow unfair.

THE EDITORS SHOOT AND SCORE!

This is FUNNY!

Out Of Iraq Bloggers Caucus

The site and the individual blogs are worth a visit!

Out Of Iraq Bloggers Caucus Members
After Downing Street
American Leftist
And, yes, I DO take it personally
http://www.talkleft.com/user/Big%20Tent%20Democrat/stories
Blazing Indiscretions
Blue Girl, Red State
Democratic Left Infoasis
Dr. X's Free Associations
Drawing The Line
Edgeing
GDAEman
Hill Country Gal
Iraq Moratorium
Iraq Today
Jelly Pizza
Kmareka
Left End of the Dial
Let's Try Democracy David Swanson
Lost Chord
Lotus - Surviving a Dark Time
My Thinking Spot
NION: Never In Our Names
Peace, Love and Erica Campbell
Real’s World
Revolt Today
skippy the bush kangaroo
SocraticGadfly
The Barefoot Bum
The Mandarin
The Osterley Times
The Paragraph
VidiotSpeak
Watching Those We Chose
Welcome to Pottersville
Welcome to the Revolution
Willie Nelson Peace Research Institute

MORE ON ILLEGAL NSA SPYING

David Swanson of After Downing Street breaks a BIG story about Cheney's illegal spying:

New NSA Whistleblower Speaks
Submitted by dswanson on Sun, 2007-07-01 05:48.

Kinne says that post-9-11 she and others routinely collected information on people even after identifying them as aid workers for non-governmental organizations. A common rationale was that the phones of such organizations could conceivably be seized by terrorists.

Shortly after this incident, however, in mid-2002, they were given a waiver to spy on Americans. This waiver was communicated to Kinne and her colleagues orally, and she assumed that it had come from the President or someone very high up. The waiver, she says, also permitted spying on Canadian, French, German, Australian, and British citizens without probable cause.

We need to know WHO gave the authorization and WHY they decided to do so.

ANGLICAN BISHOPS: FLOODS CAUSED BY GAYS

Not quite but some Anglican bishops sound just like the late and unlamented Jerry Foulwell.

Floods are judgment on society, say bishops
By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 2:01am BST 02/07/2007

(excerpts)

The Rt Rev Graham Dow, Bishop of Carlisle, argued that the floods are not just a result of a lack of respect for the planet, but also a judgment on society's moral decadence.

"In the Bible, institutional power is referred to as 'the beast', which sets itself up to control people and their morals. Our government has been playing the role of God in saying that people are free to act as they want," he said, adding that the introduction of recent pro-gay laws highlighted its determination to undermine marriage.

"The sexual orientation regulations [which give greater rights to gays] are part of a general scene of permissiveness. We are in a situation where we are liable for God's judgment, which is intended to call us to repentance."

THE CRAZIES

I've been making comments on this thread at BlackFive and I am again astonished at how ignorant and hateful many conservatives are. For example, we have this widget buying into D'Souzas claim that the Left is responsible for the hatred Islamic terrorists feel toward us:

The Left in America caused 911. No this isn't a conspiracy theory, and of course I am not saying they are directly responsible. But check this video out as it explains how liberals are responsible for 911.
The Left in America is to be blamed for 9-11.
Posted by: Jeff Jul 1, 2007 10:17:21 PM

This fellow exemplifies what Orcinus was talking about:

The truth is that liberals are not merely wrong - they are evil. They hate America with a passion and always will. I just wish they wouldn't be so hypocritical and actually leave this country for there are so many people out there who would take their place as citizens of this great country if they could.

Posted by: Kirk Jul 1, 2007 11:14:49 AM


Now there is around 30 percent or less who were never supportive of America in Iraq. But they are just the Enemy Within and they have been with us a long time now. Long before the Iraq War, long before 9-11, long before I was even born. And ultimately they are the ones we must deal with in one way or another as they are the ones who pose the greatest threat to the long term health and safety of this country.

Posted by: Kirk Jul 1, 2007 1:45:59 PM

A CASE OF ACADEMIC DISHONESTY

Dr. James Hansen of NASA reports a clear case of dishonesty on the part of a global warming "skeptic."

The Global Warming Debate
By James Hansen — January 1999

(excerpts)

I have argued in a recent book review that some "greenhouse skeptics" subvert the scientific process, ceasing to act as objective scientists, rather presenting only one side, as if they were lawyers hired to defend a particular viewpoint.


In late 1998, I was asked to debate the well-known greenhouse skeptic Dr. Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia. I summarize here some key points in the debate, "A Public Debate on the Science of Global Warming", held at the New York Hilton, Nov. 20, 1998, and organized by the American Association for the Rhetoric of Science and Technology. A copy of my entire contribution may be downloaded as a PDF document.


I agreed to participate in this debate with Dr. Michaels after learning that he had used (or misused) a figure of mine in testimony to the United States Congress.



But when Pat Michaels testified to congress in 1998 and showed our 1988 predictions (Fig. 1) he erased the curves for scenarios B and C, and showed the result only for scenario A. He then argued that, since the real world temperature had not increased as fast as this model calculation, the climate model was faulty and there was no basis for concern about climate change, specifically concluding that the Kyoto Protocol was "a useless appendage to an irrelevant treaty".

GLOBAL WARMING LYING WHORES

Matt Drudge broached the subject of global warming and a couple of morons called and made the stupid and ignorant claim that there either was no global warming and one took the fatalistic view that nothing could be done.

One of the callers mentioned Michael Crichton's 2004 novel, State of Fear. I've heard callers to other wingnut shows refer to this book as a good source for those wishing to debunk global warming but I haven't read it and I don't recall any of the specifics that the callers may have mentioned.

Fortunately, the Environmental Defense Fund took the time to examine the claims made in the novel and provides us with several rebuttals. Here's one example:

State of Fear: If carbon dioxide (CO2) is supposed to be causing a global warming, why was there a global cooling between 1940 and 1970 when CO2 concentrations were increasing?

The facts: It is true that temperatures have not strictly followed the trend in atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs). Over the past century, temperatures first rose, then fell slightly, then rose again, while GHGs rose steadily the entire time. But there's a simple explanation: there are many factors in addition to GHGs that affect climate. These include natural forces, such as changes in sunlight intensity and volcanic eruptions, and other human-produced effects such as those caused by sulfate aerosols from sulfur oxide emissions. Sunlight variations can either warm or cool the planet depending upon the direction of the change. Volcanic eruptions and sulfate aerosols, on the other hand, have a cooling effect. The actual variation in temperature reflects the net effect of all of these influences.

Since the non-GHG effects change over time, the pattern of observed temperature changes should not be expected to directly follow the trend in GHGs. The slight global cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s appears to be the result of a decrease in solar intensity and a rapid rise in global sulfur oxide emissions. (During this period, both the United States and Europe relied heavily on coal with little or no controls on pollutant emissions, and as a result, global sulfur oxide emissions are estimated to have increased by a factor of about three.) Together, these effects acted to offset the warming effect of increasing GHGs.

By contrast, over the past 25 years, direct satellite measurements of solar intensity exhibit little or no trend and global sulfur oxide emission increases have been modest, while CO2 and other GHG concentrations have continued to increase. The result has been the rapid rise in global average temperatures experienced in recent decades. It is not possible to explain this rapid warming without invoking a dominant role for human-produced CO2 and other GHGs.

ATRIOS CATCHES WAR WHORE LIEBERMAN

How many times can Holy Joe applaud failure?

The original report -

Lieberman optimistic U.S. can finish mission in Iraq, draw back
MICHAEL P. MAYKO
Article Last Updated: 07/25/2006 06:39:58 PM EDT

BRIDGEPORT — U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman believes the U.S. will withdraw a "solid' contingent of its military forces in Iraq by the end of the year because of gains made by the Iraqi armed forces.
"There really has been progress made by the Iraqi military," Lieberman said Tuesday during a meeting with the Connecticut Post's editorial board. "Two-thirds of it could stand on its own or lead the fight with our logistical support."
The three-term U.S. senator said he believes a complete withdrawal is possible by late 2007 or early 2008.

PALAST ON PRES. FREDO

A friend sent me a link to this video of Greg Palast reporting on many things Fredo. It runs a tad under 58 minutes and is worth a view. I hesitate to write this, but Palast resembles Matt Drudge, even down to the hat! :-)

A MYTH PERSISTS

The WaPo reported on an in-depth study of independent voters and found "They rated the Republicans higher only on the campaign against terrorism." Here's the question from the study:

16. Overall, which party, the (Democratic) or the (Republican), does a better job representing your views on (INSERT ITEM)?

d. The US campaign against terrorism

30 Democrat
39 Republican
5 Both (vol)
16 Neither (vol)
10 Don’t know
* Refused

Given the enormous blunders of the Bush Administration, the Democrats should also be ahead in this category.

MORE ON JANET FOLGER

First of all, she's another fundie liar. She claims that "The majority in America is pro-life. Even the pro-abortion studies reveal it. And when people vote on the abortion issue, they are twice as likely to vote pro-life. " but the polls show otherwise:

CBS/NYT May 18-23, 2007. N=1,125 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Which of these comes closest to your view? Abortion should be generally available to those who want it. OR, Abortion should be available, but under stricter limits than it is now. OR, Abortion should not be permitted."

Generally available 39% Stricter limits 27% Not permitted 21% Unsure 3%

Gallup Poll. May 10-13, 2007. N=1,003 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?"

Always legal 26% Sometimes legal 55% Always illegal 18% Unsure 1%

Quinnipiac University Poll. April 25-May 1, 2007. N=1,166 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 2.9 (for all registered voters).

"Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases or illegal in all cases?"

Always legal 17% Usually legal 37% Usually illegal 26% Always illegal 13% Unsure 7%

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Neil Newhouse (R). April 20-23, 2007. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1 (for all adults).

"Which of the following best represents your views about abortion? The choice on abortion should be left up to the woman and her doctor. Abortion should be legal only in cases in which pregnancy results from rape or incest or when the life of the woman is at risk. OR, Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances." N=1,004 adults, MoE ± 3.1


Woman and Doctor 55% Rape, Incest, Life of Woman 30% Always Illegal 13% Unsure 2%

H.R. 676 - "MEDICARE FOR ALL" BILL

The real title is "United States National Health Insurance Act." I learned about this bill last night when I went to the "Sicko" meeting at the UA Med Center and I was naturally curious about where the money would come from. In an attempt to pre-empt wingnut lies, here's what the bill itself says:

SEC. 211. OVERVIEW: FUNDING THE USNHI PROGRAM.

(a) In General- The USNHI Program is to be funded as provided in subsections (b)
and (c).
(b) Annual Appropriation for Funding of USNHI Program- There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act such sums as may be necessary.
(c) Intent- Sums appropriated pursuant to subsection (b) shall be paid for--

(1) by vastly reducing paperwork;
(2) by requiring a rational bulk
procurement of medications;
(3) from existing sources of Federal government
revenues for health care;
(4) by increasing personal income taxes on the top
5 percent income earners;
(5) by instituting a modest payroll tax; and
(6) by instituting a small tax on stock and bond transactions.

The taxes seem small enough for the benefit - universal health coverage - but I would like to see some serious (non-Heritage Foundation) analysis of the economics.

GEN. ROSE SPEAKS OUT AGAIN ON IRAQ

Rose has been a voice of reason in the past and continues to be one to this day.

'We can't win, so pull troops out of Iraq' says general
The Scotsman
Sat 2 Jun 2007

A FORMER British Army commander said yesterday there was "no way" the war in Iraq could be won and that allied forces should withdraw.

General Sir Michael Rose, a former commander of the UN peace force in Bosnia during the 1990s, said the American and British forces in Iraq were in an impossible situation.

"There is no way we are going to win the war and [we should] withdraw and accept defeat because we are going to lose on a more important level if we don't," he said.

While accepting the allied forces couldn't just "cut and run", Sir Michael said announcing a date for withdrawal would quell widespread fighting between the Sunnis, Shias and Kurds.

Sir Michael made the comments at the Hay Literary festival in Wales while speaking about his book, Washington's War.

The former SAS commander also said he rang and congratulated Sir Richard Dannatt, the Chief of General Staff, for saying in October of last year that UK troops in Iraq were "exacerbating the security problems" facing Britain around the world, and must leave "soon".

TRACKING AGIT-PROP

UPDATE: INSTAHACK linked to this.

Wingnuts are again passng around the BS that modern liberals are mimicking some propaganda used by the Japanese in World War II. Here's the 3 Japanese points (from wingnut site Strategy Page):

1 Your President (Franklin D Roosevelt) is lying to you.
2 This war is illegal.
3 You cannot win the war.

According to Strategy Page, our troops in Iraq are now passing this around - "But recently, the troops have been passing around an interesting discovery. Namely, that the Japanese psychological warfare ..."

Uncle Jimbo, a moron at BlackFive, linked to this and added to the insanity: "Both the media and the Democratic leadership have been relentlessly hammering this message for years and their efforts have borne the current 67% disapproval of the war. "

I recall coming across this on AOL some time ago and thanks to Google, I found a column on WorldNut from May 3, 2007 by Janet Folger. Folger claimed that these 3 items "are the Democrat talking points. "

There was an earlier post on MyCateHatesYou on March 19, 2007, but no link is given in the post.