"The President has been looking for Osama bin Laden since September 12th. That effort has never let up."Really? I wonder if that is the same amount of effort he made looking for WMD?
"She also addressed the Democratic Party's fractured state, saying, 'If you are considering not voting or voting for John McCain, I strongly urge you to reconsider.'"I would speak even stronger. Any Democrat who thought Hillary was a good idea, who could then switch and vote for McCain is, well, mentally challenged. I understand being stung by the primary (though much of that was your own candidate's doing), and can certainly respect how painful it is to lose.
"'I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology,' Dobson said."If only Boss Dobson recognized his own distortions, his criticisms of Obama might have credibility. I am reminded of his own hubris here:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Dr. Dobson, ...in the Daily Oklahoman, [you were] quoted saying, "Patrick Leahy is a God's people hater. I don't know if he hates God, but he hates God's people." Now, Dr. Dobson, that doesn't sound like a particularly Christian thing to say. Do you think you owe Senator Leahy an apology?
DR JAMES DOBSON: George, you think you ought to lecture me on what a Christian is all about? You know, I think -I think I'll stand by the things I have said. Patrick Leahy has been in opposition to most of the things that I believe. He is the one that took the reference to God out of the oath.
Ready to Attack Obama, if Some Money Arrives - NYTimes.com: "A Bible verse taped to a whiteboard in Floyd Brown’s office that he uses to track his efforts to attack Senator Barack Obama reads, “That is why for Christ’s sake I delight in weakness, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties.”"This, from a self-proclaimed evangelical Christian who is proud of his "Willie Horton" ads
"who says it is his calling to tread where the campaign is unwilling to tread in finding malicious gossip on a Democratic nominee."And then this:
Mr. Brown, a gregarious evangelical churchgoer, said that he merely enjoyed the interchange of ideas and that there was nothing personal about his attacks.
Jesus...Is only a Spanish Boy's name. How come one man got so much fame
Human rights group says it has proof of detainee abuse - The Boston Globe: "General Taguba's judgment was far more severe. 'There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes,' he wrote."Taguba is hardly some left leaning wackjob, but was the person put in charge of investigating Abu Ghraib--with the caveat of being disallowed from investigating any high ranking officials or civilians.
My only point to you is, is that yes, I mean, we certainly wish Abu Ghraib hadn't happened, but that should not reflect America. This was the actions of some soldiers. That doesn't show the heart and soul of America.Yeah. Turns out that isn't true.
The sources said that memos and other evidence obtained during the inquiry show that officials in the office of then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld started to research the use of waterboarding, stress positions, sensory deprivation and other practices in July 2002, months before memos from commanders at the detention facility in Cuba requested permission to use those measures on suspected terrorists.Get that? These techniques didn't come from some "soldiers" but from the very Pentagon.
But memos and e-mails obtained by investigators reveal that in July 2002, Haynes and other Pentagon officials were soliciting ideas for harsh interrogations from military experts in survival training, according to two congressional officials familiar with the committee's investigation. By late July, a list was compiled that included many of the techniques that would later be formally approved for use at Guantanamo Bay, including stress positions, sleep deprivation and the hooding of detainees during questioning. The techniques were later used at the Abu Ghraib detention facility in Iraq.It is enough to make your heart hurt.
BOULTON: I mean, you've talked a lot about freedom. I've heard you talk about freedom -- I think every time I've seen you.Seems to me that every bit of evidence has shown that Abu Ghraib was not just the actions of "some soldiers" but a cultural breakdown. I am not saying that this President ordered or openly sanctioned it, but his people set this in motion. Little disingenuous to then just blame it on some underlings. And it isn't "slander," Mr. President, especially when it is true.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
BOULTON: And yet there are those who would say, look, let's take Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib and rendition and all those things, and to them that is the, you know, the complete opposite of freedom.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course if you want to slander America, you can look at it one way. But you go down -- what you need to do -- I think I suggested you do this at a press conference -- if you go down to Guantanamo and take a look at how these prisoners are treated -- and they're working it through our court systems. We are a land of law.
BOULTON: But the Supreme Court have just said that -- you know, ruled against what you've been doing down there.
THE PRESIDENT: But the district court didn't. And the appellate court didn't.
BOULTON: The Supreme Court is supreme, isn't it?
THE PRESIDENT: It is, and I accept their verdict. I don't agree with their verdict. And it's not what I was doing down there. This was a law passed by our United States Congress that I worked with the Congress to get passed and sign into law.
BOULTON: But it looked like an attempt to bypass the Constitution, to a certain extent.
THE PRESIDENT: This was a law passed, Adam. We passed a law. Bypassing the Constitution means that we did something outside the bounds of the Constitution. We went to the Congress and got a piece of legislation passed.
BOULTON: Which is now being struck down, I think.
THE PRESIDENT: It is, and I accept what the Supreme Court did, and I necessarily don't have to agree with it.
My only point to you is, is that yes, I mean, we certainly wish Abu Ghraib hadn't happened, but that should not reflect America. This was the actions of some soldiers. That doesn't show the heart and soul of America.
"McClatchy interviewed 66 released detainees, more than a dozen local officials — primarily in Afghanistan — and U.S. officials with intimate knowledge of the detention program. The investigation also reviewed thousands of pages of U.S. military tribunal documents and other records.
This unprecedented compilation shows that most of the 66 were low-level Taliban grunts, innocent Afghan villagers or ordinary criminals. At least seven had been working for the U.S.-backed Afghan government and had no ties to militants, according to Afghan local officials. In effect, many of the detainees posed no danger to the United States or its allies.
The investigation also found that despite the uncertainty about whom they were holding, U.S. soldiers beat and abused many prisoners."
"'I think is really important for people to find common ground through religion to deal with the violence that is used by some in the name of religion, to perpetuate an ideology -- and to remind people that peace -- religion is peace.'"
"Johnny Hunt's election confirms that Frank Page's election in 2006 did not signal the emergence of a 'kinder, gentler;' SBC,' said Robert Parham of the Baptist Center for Ethics. 'The founding fathers of SBC fundamentalism have reasserted their political power. Their continued direction is away from the center. That makes hollow the months of chatter in the media about the emerging evangelical center. If there is no trending away from extremism in the SBC, there is no trending away from the Christian Right among conservative evangelicals."
President Bush has admitted to The Times that his gun-slinging rhetoric made the world believe that he was a “guy really anxious for war” in Iraq. He said that his aim now was to leave his successor a legacy of international diplomacy for tackling Iran.
In an exclusive interview, he expressed regret at the bitter divisions over the war and said that he was troubled about how his country had been misunderstood. “I think that in retrospect I could have used a different tone, a different rhetoric.”
Phrases such as “bring them on” or “dead or alive”, he said, “indicated to people that I was, you know, not a man of peace”. He said that he found it very painful “to put youngsters in harm’s way”. He added: “I try to meet with as many of the families as I can. And I have an obligation to comfort and console as best as I possibly can. I also have an obligation to make sure that those lives were not lost in vain.”
"LOUISVILLE -- Southside Presbyterian Church in Tucson, AZ, has erected a new sign in front of its rustic, southwestern-style, adobe building just like the one Nauraushaun Presbyterian Church has placed in front of its modern, red-brick edifice in Pearl River, NY. The new additions are 3-foot by 9-foot black vinyl banners that declare in white letters that 'Torture is wrong.'"
"What Halperin also misses here is that in any contest between Obama and McCain, Obama is the substantive, policy-oriented candidate, while McCain is the one offering mostly pious bromides about victory, service and being American. If style often beats substance, Obama is in trouble because, as his supporters tirelessly remind us, Obama does have a substantive policy agenda (even if he doesn’t spend as much time talking about it and a lot of his boosters don’t care what it is) and McCain’s entire campaign has been even more driven by biography and character than Obama’s."
1. Limited areas available for offshore drilling;
2. Stopped the rise of CAFE standards for automobiles;
3. Restricted nuclear power generation of Electrical;
4. Federal Reserve policies since 2001 led to a very weak US dollar (raising Oil prices);
5. Energy conservation policies? None
6. Iraq and Afghanistan wars contributing to Middle East tensions
7. No major United States funding for R&D on energy;
8. Kept CAFE standards for light trucks/SUVs much lower than autos
A reader writes:
As a specialist on Soviet history and more particularly on the Soviet Gulag, I am just so annoyed by the ignorance of statements like this:
"I have said publicly, and I will again, that unless he proves me wrong, he is a Marxist," - Tom DeLay.
"And did the Obama rally begin with the Soviet National Anthem?" - Hugh Hewitt
Put these guys and their ilk in my class for a semester and let them understand what Marxism and Communism were really about. Progressive taxation, no matter how much one might be opposed to it, is simply qualitatively different than the elimination of private ownership of the means of production. Government regulation, even if it interferes with the economy, is not the equivalent of total nationalization of the economy. These are not minor distinctions, but fundamental to the very definition of what Soviet Communism was, and why it had the outcomes it did. The attempt to tie Democrats and liberals (the latter of which was a term of abuse within the Soviet political structure) is incredibly ignorant of the actual history and structure of Soviet Communism.
"Tom Delay, Indicted Republican: Unless he proves me wrong, [Obama] is a Marxist.
Hunter, Blogger: Unless he proves me wrong, Tom Delay lures children into his van with candy, gasses them to death with bug spray, and uses their powdered bones as an aphrodisiac when making love to all the animals at the San Antonio Sea World.
Prove me wrong, pal, prove me wrong."
Imagine the political landscape as a tug of war played out on a football field. (This is a very limited analogy with numerous holes (first and foremost a tendency toward the two dimensional left v. right, for example) but (in my head at least) offers some possible uses.) In this analogy, the political landscape (tug of war) is a limited set of people or ideological stances. In other words, not everyone on the field gets to grab the rope. The bulk of the participants are within 20 yards of the 50 yard line, with smaller and smaller numbers as you near the goal lines. Obviously, those in the middle of the field represent moderate beliefs on the role of government, taxation, etc. (just one of the reasons this is flawed in that some people could occupy multiple places on the field simultaneously--but bear with me!). Those near the goal posts are the more radical of the left/right spectrum.
I would suggest that, within this limited analogy, the political landscape has migrated from the left to the right in an almost rugby "scrum" style (or little kid soccer where the mob follows the ball around the field). During the 20s, the center of that rope was probably right of center, but during the New Deal, moved back over the line to the left. I would further suggest that the center of that rope remained left of center (perhaps just barely) through the end of the 60s, and even during the Nixon administration had moved only slightly to the right of the center line. Carter may have tried to move the scrum back to the New Deal, but by this time, the majority of the participants pulling on the rope were right of center. That rope continued to move to the right through Reagan, GHWB, and only slightly moved back toward the center under Clinton, and never crossed the mid point during his administration. In many ways, Clinton's economic and foreign policy are very similar to GHWB in most ways.
But under Bush, the entire scrum moved far right, to the point that those radicals on the far right--hard core libertarians, neo-cons, and anti-government types actually got to grab the rope. They had always been there, writing their screeds and ranting their rants. But under the previous administrations, they didn't actually get to touch the rope. Sure, a finger or two under Reagan and HWB, but the bulk of those on the rope were of the moderate or pragmatic wing of the party. But under Bush, for the first time in American history (or at least the modern Presidency) the people with the best grasp on the rope on the right side of the tug-of-war, were those people on the 10 or 15 yard line to the right. Grover Norquist, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Ashcroft, etc., all represent the more conservative and radical elements of conservatism.
By comparison, I don't see the truly radical left ever getting really much more than a finger on that rope, and none of them since the 1960s. Even those who got to play then were not advocating government run industries, or even a radical challenge to market capitalism. I would include in that, by the way, the Roosevelt administration who I believe saved capitalism from those fringe elements who had their best chance during the depression years. But FDR and the bulk of his advisors believed in market capitalism.
So, again, in this limited little analogy, I think you can see how I approach this current situation. When Republicans gave part of the rope pulling to those on the far right, they have skewed the game. The task, I think, for the Democrats is to get that scrum moved off the right wing goal line and closer to the middle.
But the report says the Bush administration veered away from its own intelligence community's conclusions in two key areas: Iraq's relationship with Al Qaeda and the difficulty of pacifying Iraq after a U.S. invasion.
Statements in dozens of prewar speeches and interviews created the impression that Baghdad and Al Qaeda had forged a partnership. But the report concludes that such assertions "were not substantiated by the intelligence" being shown to senior officials at the time.
Claims that Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta had met with an Iraqi agent in Prague, for example, were dubious from the beginning and subsequently discounted. The idea that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had provided chemical and biological weapons training to Al Qaeda hinged on intelligence from a source who soon was discredited.
Bush officials strayed even further from the evidence in suggesting that Hussein was prepared to provide weapons of mass destruction to Al Qaeda terrorist groups -- a linchpin in the case for war.
In October 2002, for example, Bush warned in a key speech in Cincinnati that "secretly, and without fingerprints, [Hussein] could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own." The threat was repeated frequently in the run-up to war but was "contradicted by available intelligence information," the committee says.
On post-war prospects, the report contrasts the rosy scenarios conjured by Cheney and others with more sober intelligence warnings that were being presented to senior officials.
Cheney's prediction that U.S. forces would "be greeted as liberators" was at odds with reports from the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, which warned nearly a year earlier that invading U.S. forces would face serious resistance from "the Baathists, the jihadists and Arab nationalists who oppose any U.S. occupation of Iraq."
"Before the delegates from South Dakota and Montana have been allocated, Sen. Barack Obama needs just 10 to clinch.
So tonight, he will clinch."
"I support Barack Obama because he showed better judgment on the Iraq War, because he has remained more forcefully against it. I support him because of his stand on ethics reform, and commitment to engaging our enemies. I support him because he speaks truth to power. He spoke in front of a largely Cuban-American organization in Miami. Everyone has told this organization the same thing for 40 years. 'We're going to continue the embargo against Cuba, no monetary remittances there, no anything.' Whether or not it works, that's all any politician dares to say. Obama suggested to them we engage with Raul Castro, and take steps towards ending the embargo. Obama told a crowd in Detroit that we should increase fuel efficiency standards, and he told members of Martin Luther King's church in Atlanta that we all share some of the blame for some of the race problems in America today."As good of a defense of Obama as I have read anywhere, and hopeful that most in the crowd appeared to be annoyed with the primary, but not so much that they were going to vote McCain.
In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, I watched helplessly as the Bush administration led America into a strategic blunder of historic proportions. It became painfully obvious that the executive branch of our government did not trust its military. It relied instead on a neoconservative ideology developed by men and women with little, if any, military experience. Some senior military leaders did not challenge civilian decision makers at the appropriate times, and the courageous few who did take a stand were subsequently forced out of the service.
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."I know a lot of conservatives and know they don't see it this way, but it sure looks like self-serving policy to me.
"There is no shame in recognizing your failings or getting help if you need it. The tragedy comes when we fail to take responsibility for our weaknesses and surrender to them.'"Turns out he was talking about his own battle with alcoholism. Turns out for him, whatever humility and introspection he ever had, he used up when he stopped drinking.
