Why They Hate Us

(Via Bartcop)

Oh and before anybody says anything to the effect of why we never see news of schools being painted or somesuch, remember the old saying in the workplace that one oh shit wipes out about ten atta-boys. And I have every reason to believe that little oh shits like this vastly outnumber whatever atta-boys we have going on over there.

We fucked up royally, people, we fucked up way worse than 'Nam, mainly because we obviously didn't learn any lessons from it. It took us fifty years to earn a position of moral authority, it took just six to blow it all to hell, and we may never get it back again. Nice fucking work, assholes.

Spirit of '87

Note:This is an article I'm writing on the Electoral College for a client. I thought you should all see why I haven't been making any recent posts. Enjoy

The Spirit Of '87
Why The Proposed National Popular Vote Initiative Is Good For Democracy, And Good For America

On October 2nd, 2006, California's Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed state bill AB 2948, the National Popular Vote bill, which would have mandated that California allocate all of its electoral votes to the Presidential candidate who won the national popular election, regardless of which candidate won the popular vote in California. The bill, one of many bills pending or to be introduced in state legislatures throughout the country, is part of an Interstate Compact, a legally binding contract between states. Had Gov. Schwarzenegger signed the bill, California would have been the first state to approve such a measure, which would only come into effect when approved by enough states to total 270 electoral votes, the amount needed to elect the President. In Illinois, HB5777 now has 37 Co-Sponsors and has been referred to the Rules Committee.

In a recent editorial, the Chicago Tribune, which otherwise favors elimination of the Electoral College, praised the Governor's actions, and calls the proposed Compact a "short cut", and "a bad gimmick". "The right way to do it" they say, "is by constitutional amendment, not by extra-constitutional schemes". But the nearly insurmountable difficulties in getting a Constitutional amendment passed on this issue make such a "gimmick" necessary. If approved, it would render the Electoral College irrelevant, leaving the smaller states, who are the greatest obstacle to abolishing the College, to either accept the new realities or to open up a serious and long-overdue debate on how we choose a President. Perhaps it would even lead to a Constitutional Amendment.

The Tribune is, of course, free to disagree with the idea behind the compact. But they get their history wrong when they assert that "the presumption behind the Electoral College was that each state would choose electors in a way reflecting the popular will there" and that the compact "plainly violates the spirit of the Constitution". There is nothing in the Constitution to suggest either, nor was the "popular will" of its people a chief concern of every state. Certainly the slave states weren't interested in the rights of their slaves, even as they demanded that they be counted as part of their population so as to increase their representation in the new Government.

The method of choosing a National Executive was one of the most hotly debated issues facing our Founding Fathers, and the compromise that was eventually agreed to (using electors chosen by the state legislatures) was as much a matter of a desire to get everything down on paper and move on than anything else. "The difficulty of finding an unexceptionable process for appointing the Executive Organ of a Government such as that of the U.S.", wrote James Madison, "was deeply felt by the Convention; and as the final arrangement of it took place in the latter stage of the Session, it was not exempt from a degree of the hurrying influence produced by fatigue and impatience. . ."[*] Pennsylvania's James Wilson, speaking to the Pennsylvania legislature as they debated ratifying the Constitution, said that the delegates ". . . were perplexed with no part of this plan so much as with the mode of choosing the President of the United States."

Madison and Wilson, as well as Massachusetts' Rufus King and Pennsylvania's Gouverneur Morris, were the most vocal proponents of a national popular vote. They placed their faith in the citizens of the country to make qualified decisions. "If the people should elect [the President]", said Mr. Morris, "they will never fail to prefer some man of distinguished character, or services; some man, if he might so speak, of continental reputation. If the Legislature elect, it will be the work of intrigue, of cabal, and of faction; it will be like the election of a pope by a conclave of cardinals; real merit will rarely be the title to the appointment." But the difficulties of travel and communication in the late 18th century made the prospect of a national popular vote impracticable.

The idea of using electors to choose a National Executive was first broached by Mr. Wilson. He and supporters of a national popular vote agreed to this format only because they had almost no faith in allowing politicians (through Congress) to make that choice. "There would be a constant intrigue kept up for the appointment." said Eldridge Gerry of Massachusetts. "The Legislature and the candidates would bargain and play into one another's hands, votes would be given by the former under promises or expectations from the latter, of recompensing them by services to members of the Legislature or to their friends."

The fact that they left no specific instructions concerning the appointment of the electors in the Constitution shows that there was no clear consensus about what guidelines they should use, so no presumption along those lines can be made with absolute certainty. And the delegates had no way of knowing how much, and how soon, political parties would begin to dominate the electoral process. It is due to their interference that the College has become what it is today.

The popular will of the nation, both nationally and within each state, clearly favors the election of the President via national popular vote. It's a testament to the undemocratic nature of our current electoral system and the power of the two political parties, combined with the disproportionate power of the states, that even with such popular support, a Constitutional amendment is a nearly insurmountable obstacle to overcome. The true spirit of America is represented in this innovative idea, just as the true spirit of the Constitution is represented by the three words that the Founders chose to elevate above all the others: We The People. The House of Representatives represents the will of the people on a regional level, the Senate on a statewide level, and the President represents it on a national level. The Compact represents the best opportunity we've had in decades to achieve that ideal.

[*] Madison, James: Notes On The Constitutional Convention. Unless otherwise specified, all quotes are taken from this source.

Happy Birthday, Cathy

She would have been 47 today, I miss her more than ever. For those of you who believe in that sort of thing, please feel free to give her a little prayer.

By a strange coincidence, it's also my birthday. I'm 45.

Take The Test

I usually don't go for this stuff, but what the hell...

You Passed the US Citizenship Test

Congratulations - you got 10 out of 10 correct!

Could You Pass the US Citizenship Test?

Try it out, see how you do. the questions were pretty easy, I thought...

They Believe In Nothing

Glenn Greenwald hits the nail on the head:

...when Feingold stood up and advocated censure -- based on the truly radical and crazy, far leftist premise that when the President is caught red-handed breaking the law, the Congress should actually do something about that -- the soul-less, oh-so-sophisticated Beltway geniuses could not even contemplate the possibility that he was doing that because he believed what he was saying. Beltway pundits and the leaders of the Beltway political and consulting classes all, in unison, immediately began casting aspersions on Feingold's motives and laughed away -- really never considered -- the idea that he was motivated by actual belief, let alone the merits of his proposal.

That's because they believe in nothing. They have no passion about anything. And they thus assume that everyone else suffers from the same emptiness of character and ossified cynicism that plagues them. And all of their punditry and analysis and political strategizing flows from this corrupt root.

Not only do they believe in nothing, they think that a Belief in Nothing is a mark of sophistication and wisdom. Those who believe in things too much -- who display political passion or who take their convictions and ideals seriously (Feingold, Howard Dean) -- are either naive or, worse, are the crazy, irrational, loudmouth masses and radicals who disrupt the elevated, measured world of the high-level, dispassionate Beltway sophisticates (James Carville, David Broder, Fred Hiatt). They are interested in, even obsessed with, every aspect of the political process except for deeply held political beliefs -- the only part that really matters or that has any real worth.

I think that brilliantly sums up the attitude of the so-called "professionals," immune as they are from what the Bush administration's economic policies are doing to other working people in the USA, and indirectly, around the globe. It also sums up the attitude of some people I've known throughout the years, but that's another story.

Cheer Up!

Just because

It's Only The Beginning

As happy as I am to be wrong about the results of the midterms, I still want to remind people, as I have on the show, that this is merely a beginning, not an end. There were still massive problems with Diebold machines all over the country, and in nearly all cases the errors helped the Republicans. Congress' approval rating is under 20%, and yet only ten percent of the incumbents lost, through a combination of tailor-made (if not gerrymandered) Congressional districts, the power of incumbency, voter suppression, and yes, vote-flipping in those areas where Diebold machines were used. In the weeks before the election, there were news stories about how confident Bush and Cheney seemed to be, despite polls showing that a tidal wave of discontent was coming their way. Perhaps they thought the news of Saddam's verdict would turn the tide, or that each race would be just close enough so that their dirty tricks would make the difference (which is Roves strategy). Regardless, it seemed like they at least believed the fix was in.

What I am most afraid of is that Democrats will see the results, declare victory, and go home. That would be a disaster. This is just one small skirmish in a war that will continue long after we are gone, and if we are to continue our efforts to build a more perfect union, we have to keep fighting. Because the Republican machine might be wounded, but it still lives and is still dangerous. As Avedon Carol says, winning does not settle it. The problems with Diebold machines have not vanished, we just finally got enough votes to overcome the cheating. If the GOP had held on to Congress despite the huge upswell of anger over their piss-poor handling of the government at all levels, then I think we could have almost declared the American Republic to be dead.

We need a federally mandated standard for elections in this country, one that establishes three essential points:

• That the secret, paper ballot is the official ballot of record.


• That the ballots should be counted by hand and in full public view at the precincts where they were cast. (that is, no grabbing the ballot box and bringing it somewhere else to be counted).


• That there is a clear chain of custody for these ballots throughout the entire process.

To be clearer: No voting machines of any kind, either to cast ballots or to count them. Period. And the process ought to be the same throughout the country. Amend the Constitution if we have to, and make sure the states get the funds the need to make the changes of course, but let's put together a system whose purpose is to get the most accurate count.

If we had such a system in place, combined with an equally clear and fair way to register voters, I have no doubt that rather than gaining only thirty or so seats, the Dems would have gained fifty or sixty, or more. Despite winning, I don't believe the election accurately reflected the popular will, which is definitely against the Republicans, even if it is not necessarily for the Democrats.

We have a lot of work ahead of us. Let's get to it.

Goal!

A Painful Loss

Last Friday, at about 7 am, Malachi Ritscher, musician and father, set fire to himself along the Kennedy Expressway in Chicago, in protest of the war. I didn't know him, but his loss saddens me. From his Mission Statement:

My position is that I only get one death, I want it to be a good one. Wouldn't it be better to stand for something or make a statement, rather than a fiery collision with some drunk driver? . . . if I am required to pay for your barbaric war, I choose not to live in your world. I refuse to finance the mass murder of innocent civilians, who did nothing to threaten our country. I will not participate in your charade - my conscience will not allow me to be a part of your crusade.

I can only hope that he finds in death the peace of mind he lost in life. There have been many times that I have been driven to great depths of despair, and part of me longs to know if an afterlife exists, and if it does, whether I will see my beloved Cathy again. But I have reisted that urge. Malachi made his choice, I have made mine. I will stay and fight, to the best of my ability, for as long as I can. Rest in peace.

The Meaning Of Victory

Note: I wrote this article way back in May of 2002, and I'm reposting it now for pretty obvious reasons. I resisted the urge to make actual changes in the text, but I will say that if I were to make my list now I would put electoral reform at the very top. Not just getting rid of the machines (a "no-brainer"), but also put in place a districting system so there wouldbe far less gerrymandering. The Democratic victory yesterday was only a small trickle of what might have happened if we had free and fair elections in this country, as it is, 90% or so of the incumbents won anyway. Mostly what we need, however, is a renewal of belief in the idea of self-rule, which has taken a beating over the last thirty years or so as corporations use their financial power to buy political power.

I hate to break the news to you all, but it’s time for a little reality check.

And as bad as that opening might sound, it gets worse: this is a HYPOTHETICAL reality check. A lot is going to depend upon what happens in November; there’s still a lot of in-fighting going on among the members of the left, and I don’t know what kind of October Surprise the enemies of freedom have in store for us, but it’s liable to be pretty big considering what’s at stake.

But for the sake of argument, and this article, I’m going to look on the bright side and assume that we will, for the time being, drive the enemies of freedom from power. But that’s just the beginning. There is so much work to do, so much damage to be undone. The sad truth is that all our initial victory would mean is the freedom to actually get on with the work, as opposed to standing on the sidelines watching the fanatics wreak havoc with the world. But if our history has shown us anything, it’s shown us that we’re not only capable of rebounding, we excel at it: when the need comes upon us we’re capable of extraordinary things.

So bearing that in mind, these are some of the policies I believe we need to force the Dems to put into effect. These suggestions are hardly complete and hardly exclusive, but I think they are a good beginning.

1. First Things First
We have to recognize a simple fact: no changes are going to be able to take place until we restructure both the way political campaigns are financed and how the lobbying system works. Current campaign finance laws are ineffective and barely enforced anyway, we have to change that. We have to force the enemies of freedom to do battle with us on OUR terms, not theirs. We have to cripple them by denying them, as much as possible, the advantage their extraordinary wealth gives them. To that end we need to repeal the ’75 SUN-PAC laws and make corporate lobbying illegal again. Corporations currently form an overwhelming majority of all PACs, and they donate more than three-quarters of all campaign contributions to political parties. Money should be its own reward, political power should be separate from it. I realize that, given human nature, we’ll never completely get rid of the role of money in politics, but we can diminish it greatly, rendering it far less relevant than it is today.

We have to convert lobbying from a system of legalized bribery into a what it ought to be: way for a special interest to inform and enlighten the government on a particular issue: sending experts to testify at committees, vigorously representing their client’s point of view. It should be flat out illegal for any elected or appointed official to receive money favors from lobbyists in any form, be it free plane rides and “working vacations,” to donations to campaign coffers. It should also be flat out illegal for an elected or appointed official to earn money giving speeches. There was actually a bill to do this very thing years ago: in return for giving up this money Congressmen were offered a decent raise. The radio talk shows gained an early “victory” by harping on the pay raise part and scaring people into writing their representatives, stopping the bill. Let’s bring that bill back and pass it this time.

2. Free The Airwaves
We need to dismantle the corporate conglomerates that monopolize the media, freeing the airwaves for competitive entertainment or journalism as opposed to bottom-line profiteering and propaganda. We need to break them up, even going so far as to start revoking licenses for people who use the airwaves irresponsibly. Our need for responsible and truthful journalism is more important than Rupert Murdoch’s need to use the airwaves as his own personal propaganda machine. The airwaves are public property, and the broadcast media has a duty to use them responsibly. Make purchasing airtime for political campaigns illegal, and use PBS as the official channel for election campaigns. Let’s increase the amount of funding to PBS a hundred-fold and parcel off campaign time for all political parties which meet specific criteria.

3. Corporate Reform and Taxation
The “Invisible Hand” of Adam Smith quickly becomes an “Invincible Fist” when a small number of businesses monopolizes the marketplace. Make a better mousetrap, the saying goes, and the world will beat a path to your door. But we all know the reality as it now stands: build a better mousetrap and the ACME Mousetrap Company will crush you so hard and so fast you won’t know what hit you. Let’s get rid of loopholes that allow big corporations to use offshore shelters to avoid paying taxes. Let’s force businesses to be more open about their accounting practices, so they’re more responsible to their shareholders. These offshore shelters also are the best way terrorists can funnel money into their organizations, and stopping them is far more important even than preventing the outrageous white-collar crime of avoiding paying billions in taxes.

Let’s also force corporations to end the practice of issuing stock options or other hidden forms of payments. A CEO’s salary, like anyone else, ought to be tied to their performance, and incompetence shouldn’t be rewarded. Let’s also start prosecuting these white collar crimes in criminal court, and make it clear that the penalty for these crimes will be just as harsh as those for other forms of robbery. The Law has to apply to everyone equally or there IS no law.

And while we’re at it, let’s overhaul, and more importantly, simplify the tax system. Most people don’t begrudge the taxes they pay as much as they loathe the process of figuring out how much they owe to begin with. The IRS has already made great strides by allowing many people to file over the computer or via telephone, let’s do what we can to get more people in on that.

4. Election Reform
If we’re going to elect an idiot, we should at least be SURE we’re electing an idiot. We need to create a standardized, simplified method of voting to replace the outdated and often chaotic methods currently being employed. The Feds will foot the bill so that the crybaby states won’t scream about “unfunded mandates” or whatever crapola they come up with whenever we want to get rid of corruption at the local level. Let’s bring the voting system out of the nineteenth century and into the twenty-first.

These are, of course, short term goals. It’s not enough to simply deny our enemies unlimited power, we must look towards the future, not just of the country but of the human race. Terrorism, environmental issues, economics, these are things that all of us, regardless of what nation we live in. It’s time to begin the process of creating a unified global government. Our foreign policy should be geared towards that, slowly, to be sure, but inevitably, because a single global government and economy is inevitably on its way. The question is, will it be a government that has its foundation in the people that govern it, or will it be a tool of the very wealthy to perpetuate a neo-medieval system where the wealthy few enslave everyone else? The former is what we have to fight for, the latter is what we have to fight against.

We have to recognize that the rights we have, the things we believe in, are not reserved for the citizens of the US alone, they should be applied equally to every human being. If we refuse to include one group of people then we will never be free ourselves. And as much as some of us hate to hear it, we must be unafraid to use military might when necessary. We must use our military responsibly, but remember that a nation that is afraid to defend itself cannot survive.

And when the time comes, when humanity is at last unified, even if it doesn’t happen in our lifetimes or in our children’s lifetimes, we need to begin the process of exploring the ultimate frontier, the vastness of outer space. We need to turn our swords not into plowshares, but into rockets.

And even as we work, we have to be aware of the fact that the enemies of freedom will always be there. They will never be wholly defeated, and they will always wield power disproportionate to their numbers, and we must always guard against their inevitable return. The meaning of victory is work and sacrifice, but it is also hope.

Vote Early, Vote Often

Destroying A Great Nation

All the talk about how the neocons, whose predictions about Iraq were all wrong, and how instead of destroying a member of the "Axis of Evil" and bringing about a "Pax Americana", we have done nothing more than create a new terrorist state where one did not exist before, and destroyed not only America's moral authority but also dispelled the myth of American military superiority, are now publicly saying that we should have never invaded, reminded me of this story:

The messengers who had the charge of conveying these treasures to the shrines, received instructions to ask the oracles whether Croesus should go to war with the Persians and if so, whether he should strengthen himself by the forces of an ally. Accordingly, when they had reached their destinations and presented the gifts, they proceeded to consult the oracles in the following terms:- "Croesus, of Lydia and other countries, believing that these are the only real oracles in all the world, has sent you such presents as your discoveries deserved, and now inquires of you whether he shall go to war with the Persians, and if so, whether he shall strengthen himself by the forces of a confederate." Both the oracles agreed in the tenor of their reply, which was in each case a prophecy that if Croesus attacked the Persians, he would destroy a mighty empire, and a recommendation to him to look and see who were the most powerful of the Greeks, and to make alliance with them.

At the receipt of these oracular replies Croesus was overjoyed, and feeling sure now that he would destroy the empire of the Persians, he sent once more to Pytho, and presented to the Delphians, the number of whom he had ascertained, two gold staters apiece. In return for this the Delphians granted to Croesus and the Lydians the privilege of precedency in consulting the oracle, exemption from all charges, the most honourable seat at the festivals, and the perpetual right of becoming at pleasure citizens of their town.

After sending these presents to the Delphians, Croesus a third time consulted the oracle, for having once proved its truthfulness, he wished to make constant use of it. The question whereto he now desired an answer was- "Whether his kingdom would be of long duration?" The following was the reply of the Pythoness:-

Wait till the time shall come when a mule is monarch of Media;
Then, thou delicate Lydian, away to the pebbles of Hermus;
Haste, oh! haste thee away, nor blush to behave like a coward.

Of all the answers that had reached him, this pleased him far the best, for it seemed incredible that a mule should ever come to be king of the Medes, and so he concluded that the sovereignty would never depart from himself or his seed after him....Croesus...led his forces into Cappadocia, fully expecting to defeat Cyrus and destroy the empire of the Persians...

...Having passed the Halys with the forces under his command, Croesus entered the district of Cappadocia which is called Pteria. It lies in the neighbourhood of the city of Sinope upon the Euxine, and is the strongest position in the whole country thereabouts. Here Croesus pitched his camp, and began to ravage the fields of the Syrians. He besieged and took the chief city of the Pterians, and reduced the inhabitants to slavery: he likewise made himself master of the surrounding villages. Thus he brought ruin on the Syrians, who were guilty of no offence towards him.

Meanwhile, Cyrus had levied an army and marched against Croesus, increasing his numbers at every step by the forces of the nations that lay in his way. ..Cyrus...marched against the enemy, and encamped opposite them in the district of Pteria, where the trial of strength took place between the contending powers. The combat was hot and bloody, and upon both sides the number of the slain was great; nor had victory declared in favour of either party, when night came down upon the battle-field. Thus both armies fought valiantly.

Croesus laid the blame of his ill success on the number of his troops, which fell very short of the enemy; and as on the next day Cyrus did not repeat the attack, he set off on his return to Sardis, intending to collect his allies and renew the contest in the spring.... Croesus...despatched heralds to his various allies, with a request that they would join him at Sardis in the course of the fifth month from the time of the departure of his messengers. He then disbanded the army consisting of mercenary troops- which had been engaged with the Persians and had since accompanied him to his capital, and let them depart to their homes, never imagining that Cyrus, after a battle in which victory had been so evenly balanced, would venture to march upon Sardis.

Cyrus, however, when Croesus broke up so suddenly from his quarters after the battle at Pteria, conceiving that he had marched away with the intention of disbanding his army, considered a little, and soon saw that it was advisable for him to advance upon Sardis with all haste, before the Lydians could get their forces together a second time. Having thus determined, he lost no time in carrying out his plan...

...The two armies met in the plain before Sardis... Cyrus...collected together all the camels that had come in the train of his army to carry the provisions and the baggage, and taking off their loads, he mounted riders upon them accoutred as horsemen. These he commanded to advance in front of his other troops against the Lydian horse; behind them were to follow the foot soldiers, and last of all the cavalry. When his arrangements were complete, he gave his troops orders to slay all the other Lydians who came in their way without mercy, but to spare Croesus and not kill him, even if he should be seized and offer resistance. The reason why Cyrus opposed his camels to the enemy's horse was because the horse has a natural dread of the camel, and cannot abide either the sight or the smell of that animal. By this stratagem he hoped to make Croesus's horse useless to him, the horse being what he chiefly depended on for victory. The two armies then joined battle, and immediately the Lydian war-horses, seeing and smelling the camels, turned round and galloped off; and so it came to pass that all Croesus's hopes withered away... The combat was long; but at last, after a great slaughter on both sides, the Lydians turned and fled. They were driven within their walls and the Persians laid siege to Sardis.

On the fourteenth day of the siege Cyrus bade some horsemen ride about his lines, and make proclamation to the whole army that he would give a reward to the man who should first mount the wall. After this he made an assault, but without success. His troops retired, but a certain Mardian, Hyroeades by name, resolved to approach the citadel and attempt it at a place where no guards were ever set. On this side the rock was so precipitous, and the citadel (as it seemed) so impregnable, that no fear was entertained of its being carried in this place.

Hyroeades, however, having the day before observed a Lydian soldier descend the rock after a helmet that had rolled down from
the top, and having seen him pick it up and carry it back, thought over what he had witnessed, and formed his plan. He climbed the rock himself, and other Persians followed in his track, until a large number had mounted to the top. Thus was Sardis taken, and given up entirely to pillage...

Thus was Sardis taken by the Persians, and Croesus himself fell into their hands, after having reigned fourteen years, and been besieged in his capital fourteen days; thus too did Croesus fulfill the oracle, which said that he should destroy a mighty empire by destroying his own.

Wounded Animals

It's been obvious to me for quite some time that the vast majority of the American public really don't like Republicans, or at the very least they don't like the way they govern. While it's true that people aren't particularly fond of Democrats, either, in this case it's better the devil you don't know than the devil you do.

Since the only way the GOP could sell their defective product was through manipulation, deception and good old-fashioned lies, and since even their propaganda would have trouble selling war with Iran or wherever on the 9/11 credit card, you knew the dam was going to burst sooner or later. Too Far is the only place to go for people who only want to get power and money for the sake of getting more power and money. But what worries me is that too many of us might think that the Dems re-taking Congress is the end-game rather than just the beginning of an even larger tide that will not just wreck the GOP for decades (as in 1932), but that would stick a knife in the heart of conservatism itself, the root cause of nearly every problem this country has ever had.As Billmon says:

If the Dems are going to win this year it's better, I suppose, that they win big -- big enough to discourage the reptiles from playing any post-election games, big enough to be billed as a mandate for change, big enough to wipe the smirk of Karl Rove's face forever. But it should be understood that even a crushing loss next week will only wound the GOP machine, not kill it, and a wounded, cornered animal can be very dangerous.

Though I stand by my prediction that little will change in the House or Senate (if only for the sake of principle, and even though even I am surprised at how large the anti-Republican fervor is), my other question is whether the Democratic leadership has the balls to do what needs to be done and bring all the poisonous, anti-American, downright evil shit the GOP has been pulling right to the forefront and start some serious, non rubber-stamp investigations that lead to criminal charges and impeachments.

But if I'm right, and they're good enough at cheating to wring a victory out of what would be a huge defeat for them if there were free and fair elections, my question is, what are we gonna do about it? That's what I want to know.

Just A Reminder

The same so-called "professionals" in the media who are distorting what John Kerry said (he was talking about Bush, not soldiers!) are the same group who abetted the administration's efforts to get us into this illegal war to begin with, and who later laughed along with George W. Bush when he joked about finding WMD's in the Oval Office.

I'm Curious

If puppet Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki stops acting like a puppet, what's the Bush administration gonna do? Invade Iraq?