Saturday, February 25, 2006

Clinton Ran a More Effective War on Terror

Recently, I listened to one of those people who claim that Clinton did nothing to combat terrorism, while claiming, amazingly, that the Bush-Cheney neocon fiasco is actually a way of keeping us safe from terror. Sadly, this myth will probably persevere, because people are more inclined to remember Clinton's sex scandal than the fact that the Clinton-Gore administration ran a more effective war on terror than the Bush regime. I know all about the bad things that Clinton did. But like him or not, he was not only a far better president than Bush, he did a better job against terrorism, and not only that, but the republicans actively opposed the war on terror, especially when it stood between them and their god, the almighty dollar. Supporters of the neocon republicans should always be reminded that the republican party values the acquisition of wealth and power for a small power elite over the lives and welfare of the citizens of the United States.

Here are a couple of articles that I enjoyed on the subject. I pasted 'em whole because there's too much good content to pick out bits here and there. Enjoy.

Clinton vs. Terror, Republicans vs. Clinton

President Clinton led the fight against terrorism over strong opposition from Republicans in Congress and the pro-Republican Media. Here's a partial - yet incredibly long - list of accomplishments against terrorism for which the Clinton Administration gets almost no credit or even recognition. President Clinton:

-- sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.

-- sent legislation to Congress to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF TERRORIST FUNDING. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.

-- sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF EXPLOSIVES USED BY TERRORISTS. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.

When Republicans couldn't prevent executive action, President Clinton:

-- Developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.

--Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Boston airport.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.

-- Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).

-- Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.

-- Did not blame Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after they had left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.

-- Named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.

-- Tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.

-- Detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries

-- Created a national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.

-- Robert Oakley, Reagan Counterterrorism Czar says of Clinton's efforts "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama"

-- Paul Bremer, Bush's Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley saying he believed the Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden. "

-- Barton Gellman of the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort."

Here, in stark contrast, is part of the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism record before September 11, 2001:

-- Backed off Clinton administration's anti-terrorism efforts.

-- Shelved the Hart-Rudman report.

-- Appointed new anti-terrorism task force under Dick Cheney. Group did not even meet before 9/11.

-- Called for cuts in anti-terrorism efforts by the Department of Defense.

-- Gave no priority to anti-terrorism efforts by Justice Department.

-- Ignored warnings from Sandy Berger, Louis Freeh, George Tennant, Paul Bremer, and Richard Clarke about the urgency of terrorist threats.

-- Halted Predator drone tracking of Osama bin Laden.

-- Did nothing in wake of August 6 C.I.A. report to president saying Al Qaeda attack by hijack of an airliner almost certain.

-- Bush - knowing about the terrorists' plans to attack in America, warned that terrorists were in flight schools in the US - took a four week vacation.

-- By failing to order any coordination of intelligence data, missed opportunity to stop the 9/11 plot as Clinton-Gore had stopped the millennium plots.

-- Blamed President Clinton for 9/11.

Republicans Sabotaged Clinton's Anti-Terror Efforts

President Clinton took the oath of office January 20, 1993. February, 26 - barely a month later - terrorists detonated more than 1,000 pounds of explosives under the World Trade Center, killing six and injuring about a thousand people. Bill Clinton and the Democrats never dreamed of trying to blame the outgoing George Herbert Walker Bush Administration. They just began working to keep us safe from terrorism.

As reported by the "debunking" website, Within a year, law enforcement officials hunted down four of the "blind cleric" Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman's disciples, then prosecuted and convicted them for the bombing and sentenced them to 240 years in prison in March 1994. Officials captured the prime suspect Ramzi Ahmed Yousef in 1995. A court convicted him in November 1997 and sentenced him to 240 years in prison as well. An additional suspect fled.

"In August 1998, President Clinton ordered missile strikes against targets in Afghanistan in an effort to hit Osama bin Laden, who had been linked to the embassy bombings in Africa (and was later connected to the attack on the USS Cole). The missiles reportedly missed bin Laden by a few hours, and Clinton was widely criticized by many who claimed he had ordered the strikes primarily to draw attention away from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. As John F. Harris wrote in The Washington Post:

In August 1998, when [Clinton] ordered missile strikes in an effort to kill Osama bin Laden, there was widespread speculation - from such people as Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) - that he was acting precipitously to draw attention away from the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, then at full boil. Some said he was mistaken for personalizing the terrorism struggle so much around bin Laden. And when he ordered the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House after domestic terrorism in Oklahoma City, some Republicans accused him of hysteria.

See: "Claim: The Clinton administration failed to track down the perpetrators of several terrorist attacks against Americans. Status: False." See also: Bill Press, "Don't blame it on Bill Clinton,", October 18, 2001:

Also see: Lauria, Joe. "U.S. Embassy Bombers Get Life Sentences." The Ottawa Citizen. 19 October 2001 (p. A5). As well as Randolph, Eleanor. "4 Guilty in Bombing of World Trade Center," The Washington Post: 5 March 1994 (p. A1) and "Trade Center Bombers Given 240 Years Each," The Washington Post: 25 May 1994 (p. A1).

Republicans typically couldn't decide whether President Clinton was too blasé or too "hysterical." In reality, his response was appropriately focused on bin Laden and al Qaeda according to top anti-terror officials of the Reagan and Bush I administrations. What did Bill Clinton do?

Issued January 23, 1995 his Executive Order 12947 "Prohibiting Transactions With Terrorists Who Threaten To Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process," provided for prevention and punishment of efforts to fund terrorism and authorized the FBI and Treasury Department to investigate and prevent financial support of terrorism. It read in part:

"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America ... I, William J. Clinton, President of the United States of America, find that grave acts of violence committed by foreign terrorists that disrupt the Middle East peace process constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat."

This executive order provided for prohibition and punishment of transactions to support terrorism including transfer of "property and interests in property of ... the persons [found] to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of disrupting the Middle East peace process, or ... to assist in, sponsor, or provide financial, material, or technological support for, or services in support of, such acts of violence...."

This order held that "any transaction or dealing by United States persons or within the United States in property or interests in property of the persons designated in or pursuant to this order is prohibited, including the making or receiving of any contribution of funds, goods, or services to or for the benefit of such persons [and] any transaction by any United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, or has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate, any of the prohibitions set forth in this order, is prohibited."

Clinton ordered the prohibition of donations "by United States persons to persons [which] would seriously impair [his] ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, [and determined that any] investigation emanating from a possible violation of this order ... shall first be coordinated with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and any matter involving evidence of a criminal violation shall be referred to the FBI for further investigation...."

See: Executive Order 12947 of January 23, 1995, Federal Register, Vol. 60, No. 16,

Later, President Clinton expanded that Order, explaining to the Speaker of the House: "On January 23, 1995, in light of the threat posed by grave acts of violence committed by foreign terrorists that disrupt the Middle East peace process, using my authority under, inter alia, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act ... I declared a national emergency and issued Executive Order 12947. Because such terrorist activities continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, I have renewed the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12947 annually, most recently on January 21, 1998."

He added, "I hereby report to the Congress that I have exercised my statutory authority to issue an Executive Order that amends Executive Order 12947 in order more effectively to respond to the worldwide threat posed by foreign terrorists [to add] Usama bin Muhammad bin Awad bin Ladin (a.k.a. Usama bin Ladin), Islamic Army, Abu Hafs al-Masri, and Rifa'i Ahmad Taha Musa to the list of terrorists that are subject to the prohibitions contained in the Executive Order." See: "Clinton's Letter to Congress on Freezing of bin Ladin Assets," August 22, 1998

President Clinton also ordered a "terrorism threat assessment of every federal facility in the country," which had "already begun" when, in February 1995, the Clinton Administration introduced a counter-terrorism bill in the Senate (S. 390) and the House of Representatives (H.R. 896). Note: this was before the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building Oklahoma City bombing on April 19 that year.

President Clinton's proposals would have expanded pre-trial detention and allowed more federal wiretaps of terrorism suspects, eased deportation of foreigners convicted of crimes, allowed the detention of aliens convicted or suspected of crimes, let the President criminalize fund-raising for terrorism, and revived visa denial provisions to keep dangerous people out of the US.

Turn Up The Heat - Fahrenheit 911Unfortunately, Republicans sabotaged Clinton's efforts to keep us safe. If in force before April 19, 1995 federal officials might have detected and prevented the Murrah Building plot. 9/11/01. If the Republicans had passed Clinton's proposals before September 11, 2001 we might have blocked the al Qaeda terrorist plot that killed 3000 Americans. We all know what happened eight months into the illegitimate Bush/Cheney reign of error.

Republican Congressional leaders shot down Clinton's proposals, tried to impeach him on trumped up grounds, and dragged their feet when it came to national security. They did this even after the Murrah Building bombing. Clinton's "Omnibus Counter Terrorism Act of 1995" would have:

"[P]rovided clear Federal criminal jurisdiction for any international terrorist attack that might occur in the United States [including] Federal criminal jurisdiction over terrorists who use the United States as the place from which to plan terrorist attacks overseas." Allowed deportation of "alien terrorists without risking the disclosure of national security information or techniques."

It would have "prevent[ed] fundraising in the United States that supports international terrorist activities overseas," implemented "an international treaty requiring the insertion of a chemical agent into plastic explosives when manufactured to make them detectable," and granted "more tools to federal law enforcement agencies fighting terrorism."

These proposed "tools" would have included: Providing for "disclosures by consumer reporting agencies to the FBI for counterintelligence and counterterrorism purposes." Also "relaxed standard[s] for obtaining 'pen registers' and 'trap and trace' device orders which already exists in routine criminal cases, to national security cases."

Note: a "'pen register' is a device which records the number dialed on a telephone" and a "'trap and trace' device is similar to 'Caller ID,' providing law enforcement with the telephone number from which a call originates. [This] would not permit law enforcement to monitor actual conversations being conducted."

Clinton's proposals "would require hotel/motel and common carriers such as airlines and bus companies to provide records to the FBI pursuant to authorized national security requests just as they must do now for virtually all state and local law enforcement. [This because] FBI has found that, while some of these entities voluntarily provide such information, an increasing number refuse, absent a court order, a subpoena, or other legal protection.

Clinton also sought to "fund costs associated cases which arise in connection with terrorism crises, including logistics and other support" and he wanted to "Create an interagency Domestic Counterterrorism Center headed by the FBI" to "establish a partnership effort between the Justice Department, including the FBI, and other federal and state law enforcement authorities to coordinate [ant-terror] efforts within the United States."

President Clinton "directed the Attorney General to conduct this assessment and report her recommendations in 60 days. The assessment has already begun" and directed "the FBI Director, the Attorney General, and the National Security Adviser to prepare a presidential decision directive authorizing any and all further steps necessary to combat foreign and domestic terrorism.

The Clinton Administration also submitted "New Legislative Proposals" which called for investigations and hiring "approximately 1000 new agents, prosecutors, and other federal law enforcement and support personnel to investigate, deter, and prosecute terrorist activity," and would have made it more difficult for terrorists to commit - and easier for law enforcement officers to detect, prevent and investigate - terrorist acts.

It would have required "the inclusion of microscopic particles in certain raw materials, thereby permitting law enforcement to trace the source of the explosive even after a device has been detonated" and "permitted military participation in crime-fighting involving weapons of mass destruction ... to permit military participation in criminal cases involving chemical, biological, and other weapons of mass destruction; areas in which the military has specialized expertise."

Today, some Republicans claim President Clinton "did nothing" to combat terrorism. Back then - when they might have prevented the 9/11 attacks - Republicans blocked or stalled all of the anti-terrorism proposals above. First, they stone-walled for months despite Clinton Administration warnings. Then, the GOP watered-down key provisions.

Finally the Republican Congress passed S.735 "A bill to prevent and punish acts of terrorism, and for other purposes." It became Public Law No: 104-132 when President Clinton signed it, despite his and others' concerns that the Republicans watered down the bill too much.

As CNN reported: "Congress on Thursday passed a compromise bill ... a watered-down version of the White House's proposal. The Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak. The original House bill, passed last month, had deleted many of the Senate's anti-terrorism provisions...." See: "Congress passes anti-terrorism bill," CNN April 18, 1996:

Republicans weakened and blocked anti-terror legislation several times, sabotaging Clinton Administration efforts to keep us safe. President Clinton and his administration never stopped working to combat terrorism and kept pushing the Republicans for adequate anti-terror laws.

Other Clinton Administration anti-terrorism legislative proposals include: The Comprehensive Antiterrorism Act of 1995, The Counter Terrorism Technology Research Act of 1995, The Antiterrorism Amendments Act of 1995, The Effective Death Penalty and Antiterrorism Act of 1995, and the Senate and House versions of The Omnibus Counter Terrorism Act of 1995.

According to CNN, Republicans refused to cooperate with President Clinton's efforts to protect us from terrorist attacks: "July 30, 1996 President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess. But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.

"Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough. One key GOP senator was more critical, calling a proposed study of chemical markers in explosives 'a phony issue.'" See: "President wants Senate to hurry with new anti-terrorism laws," CNN July 30, 1996:

Despite President Clinton's extensive efforts to combat terrorism - and their own refusal to help, even eagerness to hinder those efforts - Republicans shamelessly blame Bill Clinton. The Washington Post reported: "The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks had been over for a few hours when Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) announced his conclusion about the root of the problem. 'We had Bill Clinton backing off, letting the Taliban go, over and over again,' the conservative from Orange County declared at a news conference."

"On the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal [October 5, 2001] Rush Limbaugh penned a column on how 'Mr. Clinton can be held culpable for not doing enough when he was commander in chief to combat the terrorists who wound up attacking the World Trade Center and Pentagon.'" See: Harris, John F. "Conservatives Sound Refrain: It's Clinton's Fault." The Washington Post: 7 October 2001 (p. A15).¬Found=true

What does all this prove? That besides lacking any sense of honor, honesty or decency, top Republicans don't know the first thing about national security. They didn't care enough about the Atlanta Olympics bombing, the first WTC bombing, or even the Murrah Building bombing to do anything to prevent the next terrorist attack. Republicans remained soft on terror when they might have made it harder for terrorists to kill Americans. Again, we all know what happened eight months into the illegitimate Bush/Cheney reign of error.

Even though President Clinton knew about the al Qaeda threat and took action to kill bin Laden, and to punish and thwart terrorists and their plots. The Clinton Administration warned the Republicans about terrorism more than six and a half years before 9/11/01 and then again as the illegitimate Bush Occupation stole into office. Still, the GOP did nothing or actually blocked most efforts to keep us alive!

Here's more from President Clinton's Letter to Congress on Freezing of bin Ladin Assets, "Usama bin Ladin and his organizations and associates have repeatedly called upon their supporters to perform acts of violence. Bin Ladin has declared that killing Americans and their allies 'is an individual duty for every Muslim ... in order to liberate the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Holy Mosque.' These threats are clearly intended to violently disrupt the Middle East peace process."

He stressed, "I have authorized these actions in view of the danger posed to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States by the activities of Usama bin Muhammad bin Awad bin Ladin (a.k.a. Usama bin Ladin), Islamic Army, Abu Hafs al-Masri, and Rifa'i Ahmad Taha Musa that disrupt the Middle East peace process. I am enclosing a copy of the Executive Order that I have issued exercising my emergency authorities."

The Republicans ignored these warnings "from President Clinton to the leaders of Congress explaining why he ordered the freezing of all assets controlled by or affiliated with terrorist chieftain Usama bin Ladin." See: Clinton's Letter to Congress on Freezing of bin Ladin Assets, August 22, 1998:

Love America Defeat BushUnder Bush and Cheney, the anti-terror task force never met until it was too late. Their top defense officials, Rumsfeld and Rice, tried to slash anti-terror funding and claimed terrorism wasn't their responsibility respectively. It took the horrible attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon before the Republicans woke up and recognized the serious terrorist threat.

The next time a Republican tries to blame President Clinton for their refusal to cooperate with his efforts to keep us safe, don't get angry. When Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice or any right winger claims only Republicans can protect us from terrorism - despite their failure to do anything in response to the specific warnings about the looming al Qaeda threat - don't just decry their hypocrisy and lies... vote against any and every Republican running for any office. Your life and your family's lives depend on it. Never forget, Republicans are soft on terror and soft in reason. All they can do is blame others for their mistakes. They can't keep us safe.

Go Figure

I must apologize for not posting in such a long time, with no explanation. All I can offer as an excuse is: Old. Tired. Work. Aching bones. Tooth pain. Back pain. Piss-poor excuses, all. Sometimes I am just braindead for, apparently, weeks at a time. Except, obviously, for a heated exchange, as may be witnessed in my previous post. But aside from that, I've been remiss in posting. So, back in the saddle I go with a subject I care about a lot.

In an article it is reported: Watchdog Group Questions 2004 Fla. Vote. Before any wingnuts howl about a "Gore won" post, note the article does not claim a win for any candidate. It only says there is a liklihood that the results of the election were not accurate, and there is no way to know who actually won. Maybe Bush. Maybe Gore. But one thing is certain: when the voting system is as unreliable as this, the voters abolutely lose.

Friday, February 24, 2006

Freedom is on the march, right off the cliff's edge

Iraqi Government warns of 'endless civil war'
"Iraq's Defence Minister warned yesterday of a "civil war" that "will never end" and said he was ready to put tanks on the streets..."
That is what Bush & Cheney & their PNAC neocon vampires mean when they say "spreading democracy". They spread their "democracy" like rats spread the plague.
The gravest crisis since the US invasion in 2003 threatens Washington's hopes of withdrawing its 136,000 troops from Iraq.
That's the progress that Bush says we are making.
"If there is a civil war in this country it will never end," Defence Minister Saadoun al-Dulaimi, a minority Sunni Muslim in the Shiite-led interim government, told a news conference. "We are ready to fill the streets with armoured vehicles."
That's the gift of peace he as bestowed up on Iraq.

Don't you think they'll love us for it? Don't you think they'll say, "This is wonderful, what America has done for us"? They certainly won't hold any grudges, or harbor any feelings that we have done them wrong, or become so bitter that they want to lash out at the country that has turned their country into an arena of carnage. Who cares as long as the oil ministry is secure, right?

In an interview, Bush said, "History will judge me." In truth, history will curse him.

Monday, February 20, 2006

Oh, The Irony

Oh, the irony.

"How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is to have a thankless child!" - (King Lear, Act I, Scene IV)

Saturday, February 18, 2006

Republican Party Purchases State of California

From the Sac Bee:
Diebold voting machines OK'd, Secretary of state certifies firm after delays and glitches.

Great. That means every vote in California will be counted as a repubican vote, regardless who the vote was actually for. All of us in California just had our votes stolen.

Thursday, February 16, 2006

Bush’s Hell-th Care Scheme...

Bush’s Health Care Scheme Would Create 600,000 More Uninsured Americans. I feel better already. Who needs doctors, anyway? We have Bush & Cheney's campaign contributors to make our medical decisions for us.

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Conservative "liberty"

Feds Want A Wiretap Backdoor In All Net Hardware and Software
Think the federal government is too intrusive? You ain't seen nothing yet. An FCC mandate will require that all hardware and software have a wiretap backdoor that allows the government to tap into all your communications.
Yes, leave it to our republican corporatocracy to look out for our interests. And if that is not enough:
The final problem is that if all hardware and software has a backdoor, it's an open invitation to hackers. So we may be faced with a double-whammy: The feds and hackers working their way into our systems.
A note to the republican-controlled government and those who support them: Gee, thanks for all your "less government" bullshit, you fucking conservative hypocrites.

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

What the !@#$ is wrong with the democratic party!?

In this news story, Paul Hackett announces that the democratic party has betrayed him.

For those who don't know who Paul Hackett is:
Mr. Hackett staged a surprisingly strong Congressional run last year in an overwhelmingly Republican district and gained national prominence for his scathing criticism of the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq War.
He was cheered by many as just the sort of person the democratic party, and the country, needs. So what did the democratic party leadership do?
...for the last two weeks, he said, state and national Democratic Party leaders have urged him to drop his Senate campaign and again run for Congress. "This is an extremely disappointing decision that I feel has been forced on me," said Mr. Hackett, whose announcement comes two days before the state's filing deadline for candidates. He said he was outraged to learn that party leaders were calling his donors and asking them to stop giving and said he would not enter the Second District Congressional race.

"For me, this is a second betrayal," Mr. Hackett said. "First, my government misused and mismanaged the military in Iraq, and now my own party is afraid to support candidates like me."

Mr. Hackett was the first Iraq war veteran to seek national office, and the decision to steer him away from the Senate race has surprised those who see him as a symbol for Democrats who oppose the war but want to appear strong on national security.

The republican party is nothing more than a crime syndicate, and now, the democratic party has become some sort of bizarro-world exercise in discovering how many possible ways there are to lose political races. No wonder I am an independent.

The democrats have had such an amazing, phenomenal opportunity handed to them on a silver platter: their sole opposition is the republican party, who have not only become the most staggeringly corrupt organization in American political history, but who do not even have popular support anymore except among homophobes, xenophobes, religious wackos, plutocrats, theocrats, and white-collar criminals anticipating their pardons. How hard could it possibly be for a political party to demonstrate that it stands in opposition to the vile sewage that comprises the republican ideology? How hard could it be to emerge victorious, even if only philosophically, against such an opponent?

Apparently, too hard for the democratic party. Real progressives might as well abandon the rat-infested vessel which the democrats are steering up the welcoming ass of the republican party.

Now, if that's not enough, dig this: Some Democrats Are Sensing Missed Opportunities:
...Democrats described a growing sense that they had failed to take full advantage of the troubles that have plagued Mr. Bush and his party... "We seem to be losing our voice when it comes to the basic things people worry about."

Democrats said they had not yet figured out how to counter the White House's long assault on their national security credentials. And they said their opportunities to break through to voters with a coherent message on domestic and foreign policy — should they settle on one — were restricted by the lack of an established, nationally known leader to carry their message this fall.
Like, say, oh, I dunno... Paul Hackett!?
As a result, some Democrats said, their party could lose its chance to do to Republicans this year what the Republicans did to them in 1994: make the midterm election, normally dominated by regional and local concerns, a national referendum on the party in power.

Democratic Party's problems seem particularly tangled today, a source of frustration to Democratic leaders as they have watched opinion polls indicating that the public is souring on the Republican Party and receptive to Democratic leadership... There is a surfeit of issues for Democrats to use against Republicans — including corruption, the war in Iraq, energy prices and health care... Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, said: "We have a strategy. First is to convince the American people that what's happening in Washington is not working. We have achieved that. Now we have to, at this stage, convince people that we are the ones to bring positive change."
Convince away, but do it quick. We grow impatient with this crap.

Monday, February 13, 2006

Two Thumbs Up!

From Leftist Grandpa, where you can always find a good read, comes this bit of cinematic brilliance.

What can I say? Perfect casting, excellent cinematography... I just hope there is never a need for a sequel!

Friday, February 3, 2006

Republicans are just like Osama bin Laden

Republicans are just like Osama bin Laden
Yup. I'm just sayin'.

Palace Intrigue

Palace Revolt
"They were loyal conservatives, and Bush appointees. They fought a quiet battle to rein in the president's power in the war on terror. And they paid a price for it."

17 US Reps Want Bush Impeachment Probe
"20 Now Want Impeachment, Resignation, or Probe"

Iraq war vets enter US political fray
"At least 10 veterans of the Iraq war are running for Congress, all but one as Democrats."

Homegrown Irony

"...we rely on an illegal work force..."
Lots of people advocate closing our borders. Do they have a plan to address these issues? Will they take on the work?

Wednesday, February 1, 2006

Only 12 More Days!

Hey, everybody, it's that time of year again: Darwin Day is coming! It's February 12th. How are you planning to celebrate?
Darwin's 200th Birthday will occur on February 12, 2009; it will also be the 150th Anniversary of the publication of his famous book On The Origin of Species. So, together we have time to evolve a truly International Celebration to show our appreciation for the enormous benefits that scientific knowledge, acquired through human curiosity and ingenuity, has contributed to the advancement of humanity.
Start shopping early! Start planning your Darwin Day parties!

Hey, I wonder of Bill O'Reilly is going to talk about how they're trying to take Darwin out of Darwin Day?


The president of the United States says: "Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research [including] creating human-animal hybrids"

Ooo-kay then.