I love hearing about how we don't hear the "positive" in Iraq, that those rebuilding projects are really working.  Think again...

From the NYTimes (Story Here):

In a troubling sign for the American-financed rebuilding program in Iraq, inspectors for a federal oversight agency have found that in a sampling of eight projects that the United States had declared successes, seven were no longer operating as designed because of plumbing and electrical failures, lack of proper maintenance, apparent looting and expensive equipment that lay idle.

The United States has previously admitted, sometimes under pressure from federal inspectors, that some of its reconstruction projects have been abandoned, delayed or poorly constructed. But this is the first time inspectors have found that projects officially declared a success — in some cases, as little as six months before the latest inspections — were no longer working properly.

It seems very few have little positive to say and now that public opinion is so firmly against Bush and his lackeys, we have coming out of the wood-work, a cast of characters telling us a bit about the inner workings of the Iraq War and the Bush Administration.

The former Director of the CIA, George Tenet, releases his mongo book.  Read About Tenet's Book Here

Congress opens up panel on researchign violations of the Hatch Act in federal agencies, where we see Rove's greasy palms working to advance Republican agendas within federal agencies.  Panel on Political Briefings

Concerning the Iraq War, officers are speaking out.  Vets are speaking out.  The most recent?  Wash Post Article Here:

An active-duty Army officer is publishing a blistering attack on U.S. generals, saying they have botched the war in Iraq and misled Congress about the situation there.

"America's generals have repeated the mistakes of Vietnam in Iraq," charges Lt. Col. Paul Yingling, an Iraq veteran who is deputy commander of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment. "The intellectual and moral failures . . . constitute a crisis in American generals."

Yingling's comments are especially striking because his unit's performance in securing the northwestern Iraqi city of Tall Afar was cited by President Bush in a March 2006 speech and provided the model for the new security plan underway in Baghdad.

He also holds a high profile for a lieutenant colonel: He attended the Army's elite School for Advanced Military Studies and has written for one of the Army's top professional journals, Military Review.

The article, "General Failure," is to be published today in Armed Forces Journal and is posted at http://www.armedforcesjournal.com. Its appearance signals the public emergence of a split inside the military between younger, mid-career officers and the top brass.

Many majors and lieutenant colonels have privately expressed anger and frustration with the performance of Gen. Tommy R. Franks, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno and other top commanders in the war, calling them slow to grasp the realities of the war and overly optimistic in their assessments.

Some younger officers have stated privately that more generals should have been taken to task for their handling of the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, news of which broke in 2004. The young officers also note that the Army's elaborate "lessons learned" process does not criticize generals and that no generals in Iraq have been replaced for poor battlefield performance, a contrast to other U.S. wars.

As if removing habeas corpus and holding prisoners indefinitely was not enough.  Now we apparently need to hide it 'better.'

NY Times (full story here):

Under the proposal, filed this month in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the government would limit lawyers to three visits with an existing client at Guantánamo; there is now no limit. It would permit only a single visit with a detainee to have him authorize a lawyer to handle his case. And it would permit a team of intelligence officers and military lawyers not involved in a detainee’s case to read mail sent to him by his lawyer.

The proposal would also reverse existing rules to permit government officials, on their own, to deny the lawyers access to secret evidence used by military panels to determine that their clients were enemy combatants.

Many of the lawyers say the restrictions would make it impossible to represent their clients, or even to convince wary detainees — in a single visit — that they were really lawyers, rather than interrogators.

Jonathan Hafetz of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, a lawyer who has helped to coordinate strategy for the detainees, said the government was trying to disrupt relationships between the lawyers and their clients and to stop the flow of public information about Guantánamo, which he described as a “legal black hole” before the courts permitted access for the lawyers in 2004.

“These rules,” Mr. Hafetz said, “are an effort to restore Guantánamo to its prior status as a legal black hole.”

The dispute comes in a case in which detainees are challenging decisions by military panels that they were properly held as enemy combatants. The Justice Department’s proposed rules could apply to similar cases that lawyers say are likely to eventually involve as many as 300 of the roughly 385 detainees now held at Guantánamo.

So, apparently 'honesty' is 'defeatism' and 'frank opinion' and challenging a broken status quo is 'unpatriotic' (here we go again with that tired old spin).  Bush and Cheney go into endless spin and attack mode a'la Karl Rove due to the Iraq War Funding just approved by Congress.

Full Story in Washington Post:

WASHINGTON, April 24 — President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney aggressively challenged the motives of Congressional Democrats on Tuesday, as the House and Senate prepared to consider a war spending bill that would order troops to be withdrawn from Iraq beginning later this year.

In separate appearances that served as a prelude to an inevitable veto showdown, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney accused Democrats of political opportunism in forging ahead with a $124 billion measure that sets a timetable for leaving Iraq.

“Instead of fashioning a bill I could sign, the Democratic leaders chose to further delay funding our troops, and they chose to make a political statement,” Mr. Bush said Tuesday morning before leaving for New York. “That’s their right. But it is wrong for our troops and it’s wrong for our country.”

Mr. Cheney was even tougher as he spoke to reporters after a private weekly lunch for Republican senators. He lashed out at Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, who delivered stinging comments of his own on Monday, portraying Mr. Bush as being in denial about the war and saying Mr. Cheney had tarnished his own office.

“What’s most troubling about Senator Reid’s comments yesterday is his defeatism,” said Mr. Cheney. “And the timetable legislation that he is now pursuing would guarantee defeat. Maybe it is a political calculation.”

Yet at the same time we see Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman's relatives testify that the military machine deliberately lied and misrepresented their stories.  Hiding of friendly fire in Pat Tillman's case and the reality/horror of Lynch's.  Instead of the truth the public was presented with fake stories of "heroism."  I agree with Lynch - the truth is always more heroic.  Likely scary and real, but heroic.  Why lie?  To fuel the endless Bush war machine, to create positive public opinion where it is waning and to hide what really happens.  How soon we forget.  The same spin was put on Vietnam.

CNN Story:

The military instead released a "manufactured narrative" detailing how Pat Tillman died leading a courageous counterattack in an Afghan mountain pass, Kevin Tillman told the committee. (Watch Kevin Tillman accuse the military of lying )

Also Tuesday, former Pfc. Jessica Lynch told the House panel that the military lied about her capture.

Lynch testified that after her vehicle was attacked in Iraq in March 2003, she suffered a mangled spinal column, broken arm, crushed foot, shattered femur and even a sexual assault.

But it only added insult to injury, literally, when she returned to her parents' home in West Virginia, which "was under siege by media all repeating the story of the little girl 'Rambo' from the hills of West Virginia who went down fighting," Lynch said. (Watch Lynch set the record straight )

"It was not true," she said before gently chiding the military. "The truth is always more heroic than the hype."

Waxman, D-California, said the military "invented" tales about Tillman and Lynch. (Watch Lynch describe her bond with the Tillman family )

"The bare minimum we owe our soldiers and their families is the truth," Waxman said. "That didn't happen for two of the most famous soldiers in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars."

I'll do better than spam folks with email the below from ImpeachBush.org.  Here you go.

Statement by Ramsey Clark, Former U.S. Attorney General:
“The winds of impeachment are sweeping the country.”

Help place this ad in New England newspapers for the May 23 Protest Against Bush

Help place newspaper ads in the Hartford Courant and other New England newspapers! Help spread the word and make a donation today.

The following is a press release sent to the national and international media by ImpeachBush.org. The second half of the press release includes a statement from Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General.

A nationwide grassroots movement to impeach George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and other high officials was launched on January 18, 2003. Ramsey Clark called for the impeachment of President that day when he addressed a crowd estimated to be nearly a half million strong on the Mall in Washington D.C., in what the Washington Post described as the largest anti-war protest since the end of the Vietnam War.

As President Bush and Vice President Cheney were actively deceiving the country with false propaganda aimed at justifying an unprovoked war of aggression, Mr. Clark on January 18 announced the formation of the VoteToImpeach.org and ImpeachBush.org web sites He stated that the active preparation for the launch of a war of aggression against Iraq constituted an impeachable offense. He asked people to join an on-line referendum.

As of today, nearly 900,000 people have voted for impeachment with ImpeachBush.org web site.

The impeachment movement that Mr. Clark started has evolved into one of the most dynamic grassroots movements in recent U.S. history.

On April 23, 2007 the Vermont State Senate voted in support of the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. One week earlier, elected officials in Vermont said the impeachment resolution didn’t stand a chance. Then their offices were flooded with emails, faxes, and phone calls, and the tide turned.

Scores of cities around the country have witnessed impeachment resolutions carry in the City Council.

On April 28, impeachment actions will be taking place from New York City to San Francisco and every place in between.

Polls taken by Zogby have indicated that 52% of the American people support the impeachment of Bush if he lied to Congress about the reasons for going to war in Iraq.

The ImpeachBush.org movement has placed full page newspaper ads in the New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Boston Globe and many other newspapers. When President Bush speaks at the Coast Guard Graduation on May 23 in New London, Ct. there will be a large crowd of protesters calling for his impeachment. When Dick Cheney speaks three days later at the West Point Graduation Ceremony he will be met too by a big crowd calling for his impeachment along with that of President Bush.

Today as the rumblings for impeachment are starting to reverberate inside the House of Representatives, the only place where Articles for Impeachment can set the impeachment process into motion, Ramsey Clark issued the following statement.

Ramsey Clark's statement to the media

“We have seen that Congress can be moved. The Bush Administration is reeling from its own wrongdoing. The horror its war of aggression has wreaked on the people of Iraq and thousands of U.S. service members must trouble the sleep of every sentient American. The Surge is only adding to the death and destruction.

“All over the country supporters of impeachment are intensifying their efforts. Our focus must be on Congress, and the priorities of full troop withdrawal and the impeachment of President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other culpable officials within the Administration.

“In recent weeks, tens of thousands of people have sent letters or called their elected representatives in Congress. On the statewide and local level people have been demanding local officials take a stand. Large scale pro-Impeachment demonstrations took place on March 17 at the Pentagon and in more than 1,000 other protests marking the 4th anniversary of the start of the Iraq war.

“The crimes committed by President Bush and Vice President Cheney are numerous. The Bush Administration’s war of aggression, its assault on human dignity at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, demeaning the Geneva Conventions and Habeas Corpus, invading the privacy of any American it chooses, corrupting the rule of law in the Department of Justice and others.

“President Bush and Vice President Cheney should be held accountable as it is proscribed in the Constitution, Article II, Section 4: The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office or impeachment for and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

“The authors of the Constitution were serious about impeachment and intended that the carefully prescribed procedures and principles of impeachment written into the text be faithfully executed. We, the growing impeachment movement that is sweeping this country from one end to the other, will make the members of the House of Representatives become as serious and courageous about impeachment as the Founding Fathers were.”

President Bush's confidence in his yes-man has only increased, he said recently.

Washington Post (full article here):

President Bush said his confidence in Alberto R. Gonzales has grown as a result of the attorney general's testimony last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee, as the administration moved to end speculation that Gonzales would step down after a performance criticized by senators in both parties.

"The attorney general went up and gave a very candid assessment and answered every question he could possibly answer, in a way that increased my confidence in his ability to do the job," Bush told reporters in the Oval Office yesterday. "Some senators didn't like his explanation, but he answered as honestly as he could."

Soon after Bush spoke, Gonzales said he has no plans to resign. "I will stay as long as I feel I can be effective," the attorney general said at a news conference called to discuss identity theft. "And I believe I can be effective."

Bush believes nothing wrong was done here.  That's par for the course.  If the president thinks it's ok, it must be ok.  At least that's where Georgie comes from.  And he continues to sleep well at night.  The only positive?  This should have a great effect for electing a Democrat in 2008 should Gonzalez remain.

Blogs touching on this:

The Ag - News Summary - News in Brief - TIME
... expressed his confidence in his embattled Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales. He "went up and gave a very candid assessment and answered every question he could possibly answer, in a way that increased my confidence in his ability to do the job," Bush told reporters. Gonzales seemed pretty upbeat as he pledged to continue in his job for "as long as I can continue to serve effectively." Another Bush ally, World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz has signaled his intent to fight for his job by ...

ravings of a semi-sane madwoman
s testimony last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee, as the administration moved to end speculation that Gonzales would step down after a performance criticized by senators in both parties." Bush Asserts Increased Confidence in Gonzales By Michael Abramowitz Washington Post Staff Writer "The attorney general went up and gave a very candid assessment and answered every question he could possibly answer, in a way that increased my confidence in his ability to do the job," Bush told ...

All American Patriots | Strengthening and celebrating American patriotism
... Bush Asserts Increased Confidence in Gonzales FCC Seeks To Rein In Violent TV Shows Bridging a Divide -- and Crossing an Ocean GAO Finds Fraud in Commuter Program Former Hill Staffer to Plead Guilty in Abramoff Probe ...

Moderate Voters.org - An Alternative to the Far Right and Far Left.
s Testimony on Firings Los Angeles Times Bush Meets With Peruvian President Los Angeles Times Campus Safety is Focus of Senate Hearing Los Angeles Times ...

Full article here

Excerpt from the above article:

The VA sought the settlement in the interest of the families involved and to save taxpayers the expense of further litigation, VA spokesman Matt Burns said. The agency also agreed to pay $225,000 in attorneys' fees and costs.

The pentacle has been added to 38 symbols the VA already permits on gravestones. They include commonly recognized symbols for Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and Judaism, as well as those for smaller religions such as Sufism Reoriented, Eckiankar and the Japanese faith Seicho-No-Ie.

"This settlement has forced the Bush Administration into acknowledging that there are no second class religions in America, including among our nation's veterans," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which represented the Wiccans in the lawsuit.

The American Civil Liberties Union said the agreement also settles a similar lawsuit it filed last year against the VA. In that case, the ACLU represented two other Wiccan churches and three individuals.

At least some common sense rules the land.  It really should not matter what religious symbol decorates the graves of veterans of the US.  Just want to get this out there since it doesn't seem to be front-page news.

Albert had his chance to testify yesterday.  As the Republican side of the senate starts to plunge him down the metaphorical toilet drain, I wonder what Bush is thinking.  His good buddy.  Competent.  Fair.  And apolitical.  Since he's the man who wrote the infamous torture memo, I don't have much pity for the grilling he received.  If history really does say something positive about the Bush administration and all his appointees it might be that it was a great demonstration of how surrounding yourself with people who do anything to promote your agenda instead of doing their job, can be disastrous.

Quote From Wash Post Blog and the hearing:

"It was handled incompetently. The communication was atrocious," Coburn told the beleaguered attorney general. "You ought to suffer the consequences that these others have suffered, and I believe that the best way to put this behind us is your resignation."

The hearing was billed as Gonzales's chance to explain the contradictions, omissions and falsehoods in his response to the firings. But instead of contrition, the attorney general treated the committee to a mixture of arrogance, combativeness and amnesia. Even his would-be defenders on the Republican side were appalled.

"Mr. Attorney General, most of this is a stretch," said Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

"Why is your story changing?" demanded Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

"Significantly, if not totally, at variance with the facts," said Arlen Specter (Pa.), the committee's ranking Republican.

"Really deplorable," said John Cornyn (R-Tex.). After this blow, from an administration loyalist and an old Texas friend, Gonzales stuttered in his reply.

Speaking to a friendly crowd of worshippers, Mr. Bush stated the following:

“Let me put it to you this way,” Mr. Bush said. “When it’s all said and done, when Laura and I head back home — which at this moment will be Crawford, Tex. — I will get there and look in the mirror, and I will say, ‘I came with a set of principles and I didn’t try to change my principles to make me popular.’ ”

It must be nice to be so vacuous, so inept and so completely free of a moral compass and concern for ethics that he will go home and sleep well at night.  I'll go on record to say that history will not treat him well.  If history is written accurately it will record the following:

1. A pro-life President who advocated torture, war of choice, secret prisons and suspension of basic civil liberties
2. A president that thoroughly removed separation of church and state, going so far as 'faith-based initiatives,' and regular meetings with such moral superiors as Ted Haggard
3. An administration prone to cronyism, good-old boy and hiring of incompentents
4. A period of time where the world opinion of the USA dropped to its lowest
5. An era where USA policy encouraged terrorism and hatred towards Americans
6. A president and congress oblivious to environmental concerns and so obsessed with getting more oil, they invaded a country to ostensibly promote "democracy" and "freedom" in order to get that oil
7. An administration that promoted a perpetual war on a crime (terrorism) in order to fuel further military conflicts, aforementioned secret prisons and torture and to remove civil liberties

Short Article on Above in the NYT

Go, Bush!  Sleep well wherever you are.

So, reports vary but anywhere from 150 to 185 people killed in one day in Iraq on 4/18/07.  Recent attacks inside the Green Zone itself.  John McCain could not have been more wrong.  The place is a disaster and who's to blame?  The USA.  We created this instability and our continued presence makes it worse.  Where is the plan to deal with a civil war?  Instead we hear talk about troop surges and endless occupation.  Vietnam really taught us a hell of a lot of nothing.

Washington Post (full article here):

The attacks followed brazen bombings that demonstrated the insurgents' ability to circumvent the U.S. and Iraqi security plan for Baghdad, and renewed fears of reprisal killings by Shiites. Last Thursday, a truck bomb collapsed a popular bridge over the Tigris River and a suicide bomber penetrated the fortresslike Green Zone, blowing himself up inside the parliament cafeteria, killing one lawmaker.

"After two months of the security plan in the hot areas of the city, the attacks have moved to the cold, quiet areas to make them hot, while the hot areas burn," said Nasar al-Rubaie, a lawmaker who heads the parliamentary bloc loyal to anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. "These target everything that has life in Iraq: universities, schools, neighborhood centers, markets, gas stations and bus stations. But the occupation forces and the government stand still, doing nothing, and let the terrorists play."

While abortion remains legal overall, the consistent attack by so-called pro-lifers is insane.  This one court decision opens the flood gates for challenging Roe v Wade.  If you really want to decrease and/or stop abortions, why don't you promote valid sex education?  Contraception?  These things are proven to reduce unwanted pregnancies, not abstinence-only education (Abstinence Only Sex Ed Not Effective) which is so often promoted by the same pro-life group.  All I see resulting from this are state, local and federal challenges that ultimately harm women and make sure that the Christian Right gets what it wants - women in the home, breeding.  Next up will be attacking birth control - the one thing that truly would make abortion unnecessary.

From the Wash Post (Full article here):

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg acknowledged as much moments later, when she solemnly read a statement from the bench explaining her dissent.

The majority opinion, she told a stone-silent courtroom, "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court -- and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives."

The federal law bans a procedure used in a limited number of midterm abortions, but the court's decision will probably have an immediate effect on U.S. politics and lawmaking.

It seems everyone in the world has an opinion about the VA tech shootings a couple days ago.  As a gun owner, someone who has been around weapons all my life, I find it inconceivable.  I'm not the NRA, but I do echo the sentiment that people kill people not guns.  However, it can't be denied that guns make it a hell of a lot easier and more efficient.  Should proof of safety classes and stringent education (similar to what the US states already require for driving automobiles) be required?  Would this really stop the most unstable of us from lashing out like this?  After all, from what I understand currently this young man did not have a criminal record.  A safety/education class on handguns would have only made him more proficient.

The article below quotes newspapers and figures from around the world commenting on the violent American culture.  I want to argue with them, but I can't.  Mass murders have happened in other countries but they not only seem less frequent, they seem almost unique in their infrequency.  We seem a repressed society.  Is it that there is no outlet for aggression?  Do we have more psychotic individuals than other locations around the globe?  We definitely have a lack of solid community - does that play into it?  Is it the remnants of the 'wild west' syndrome, every 'man' for himself, but finding that there is nowhere left to explore in the old fashioned way?  Perhaps, and I don't hear this come up often, what people forget is how mish-mashed together the USA is as a country.  Spread out, big, diverse and perpetually conflicted with itself over moral, cultural and political issues.

But truly nothing will explain why he did it.  In the end the only explanation you have is "he was nuts."  And that's not an explanation.  We watch daily has everything from elementary schools to universities to work places become violent.  Banning guns would make the damage less likely or at least harder for one person to enact, but I don't see that happening.  We do like our guns.

Washington Post article discussing other countries' views of American violence (full story here):

"I'm not saying that it could only happen in the U.S.A.; no one could prevent someone from shooting people in the Sorbonne," said Pierre Chiquet, a 77-year-old retired aerospace engineer, referring to a Paris university. "But violence is more imbued in American society than in ours. The most dramatic aspect is that they even transport their violence to the rest of the world."

"Massacre in the Paradise of Weapons," declared the headline in the Buenos Aires daily newspaper Pagina/12. In an accompanying article, Dario Kosovsky of the Argentine Network for Disarmament said he believes students who commit mass murder are following the example of the U.S. government, which advocates "the use of violence to achieve liberty."

It used to be you could laugh at Pat Robertson and his ilk.  He's frequently nutty.  Given out more than his fair share of "prophecies" over the years that are never fulfilled.  And has been very public about the 'liberal conspiracies' working to undermine "christian america."  This changed years ago, but I agree with Defcon.org and others that this is rarely reported.  George W. Bush has one ear to the Pat Robertson's of the world.  These people believe that "separation of church and state" is a myth (you can pull up the Constitution and see that it is not:  US Constitution).  They work to place religious zealots and corrode separation of church and state from within state and federal government.

We see this in links to the current attorney scandal - Monica Goodling.  Pleading the 5th in the attorney scandal.  While certainly her right, what is she hiding or afraid of.  If I recall correctly..."You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor." (Exodus 20:16, 10 commandments).  IT would seem the whole truth and nothing but the truth would serve the Lord better.  Lots of sneaky things going on, stacking the deck in one's favor.  Do not steal.  Do not hold other idols before me.  Other commandments in danger of being broken here.  Is it really more important to impose a mix of right-wing Christianity and politics, thereby increasing that group's power and wealth, than to hold true to the valid moral teachings of one's religion?

DefCon.org Blog - interesting conversation here

From the Huffington Post (Full Blog Here):

The usually sagacious John Green, a University of Akron professor who has emerged as the go-to guy for virtually any reporter covering the Christian right, swooped in to join the parrot jungle chirping about Robertson's death knell. In an interview with the National Review's Byron York (who recently blew his wad trying to discredit the jury that convicted Scooter Libby), Green concluded that while Robertson is "certainly a consequential figure," he is "more in tune with what was happening with evangelicals 20 or 30 years ago" than his contemporaries.

But in the wake of Goodling's hotly publicized resignation, the mainstream press suddenly -- and correctly -- decided to judge Robertson by the fruits he has borne. In the Washington Post-owned Slate Magazine, Dahlia Lithwick published a penetrating look at "How Pat Robertson's law school is changing America." Lithwick notes that as early as 1997, when Goodling was enrolled at Regent and working as a spokesperson for the school's Office of Government, she was ducking pointed questions from reporters.

The Boston Globe also ran a insightful look at Regent Law's impact on public policy. The Globe cited (as I did days earlier right here) Kay Coles James as the key link between Regent and the Bush White House. The Globe's Charlie Savage wrote, "In 2001, the Bush administration picked the dean of Regent's government school, Kay Coles James, to be the director of the Office of Personnel Management -- essentially the head of human resources for the executive branch. The doors of opportunity for government jobs were thrown open to Regent alumni."

The sudden interest in Robertson's political network spread to the L.A. Times on April 6 when it profiled Christian Broadcasting Network's star political reporter and blogger, David Brody. The Times correctly notes that despite his affiliation with the supposedly discredited reverend, Brody has "developed a real web base among followers of the presidential races." Indeed, Brody's blog has become a critical window into evangelical opinion on candidates from both parties. In the process, Brody has lent newfound credibility to Robertson's flagship news network.

The Christian right is far more than a pantheon of charismatic backlashers with automatonic followers of "old men and women." It is also a sophicated political operation with a coherent long-term strategy. Goodling may be out of a job, but thousands of capable Christian right cadres remain, waging the culture war from inside the White House, federal agencies and Republican congressional offices. Together they will continue to inflame conflicts that were previously unimaginable.

If you're hiding something you're obviously lying.  If you refuse to say something under oath, what are you afraid of?  That your lies might be discovered and the truth that you did something illegal come out.  Problem with email is that it leaves traces everywhere it hits.  I hope Rove fries in the political skillet - nobody deserves it more.  The antichrist pulling the strings behind the 'new world order...'

Wash Post article:  Rove Hiding Emails?

So, attacks that kill Iraqi legislators within the "green zone" is progress?  Can you say "spin, baby, spin!"  If you say it enough it must be true and you can convince at least a few Americans I suppose - that is the Bush administration's motto after all.

Wash Post:  Attack in Green Zone

Well, I guess it's seven letters.  But four if you count as well as the Bush Administration.  Strange, I was called a 'liberal' at work and the tone of the word was as if it were filthy, existing in the deepest gutter of the American imagination.

I'm not entirely certain that the words 'liberal' and 'conservative' have much solid meaning.  There are issues, particular to the USA, that seem to classify individuals as either one or the other depending on what take you have, but they are, again, unique to the USA and they are discreet issues that, taken by themselves, are likely more interesting than the labels.

Other things around this conversation that I noted.

• Apparently some people believe there is a "liberal media" distorting facts for a "liberal agenda."  Strange.  I don't see it.  CNN came up.  I accuse CNN of many of the same things as other mainstream media - it is very careful about what it reports.  I think most news organizations are afraid to report truth of any kind or to be very critical of government at all. They are afraid to lose advertisers, afraid of under-handed punishment by government officials, etc.  There is no "liberal media."  What Liberal Media
• There are many, many more shock-jock radio and tv personalities that fall in the "conservative" category than the "liberal."  Air America Radio went bankrupt, so apparently liberal talk shows don't sell well.  All the major news channels have a sensationalist talk-shows personality that works to inflame people and distort facts.  I suppose it appeals to some "gladiator" arena desire in us all.
• A perception that the "liberal media" is trying to push secular ideas on the god-loving, moral majority in American.  AGain, this seems distorted.  The Bush administration has mixed radical religion and government more thoroughly than any administration in the last 50 years.  Everyone is hypersensitive about offending the Christian Right, including so-called "liberal media."  Politicians when running for office have to at least pretend that they are Christian for fear of losing votes.  It seems that Christian America is more powerful than ever.  There are entire books written on this subject, btw:  The Jesus Machine book.
• Liberal is used in the same breath as un-patriotic and, my old favorite, cut-and-run.  Listen, I've said it before and will continue to say it:  because someone disagrees with you does not indicate their level of patriotism.  Because someone thinks government policy is crooked or simply wrong does not mean they want troops harmed or do not care about the troops - likely they think what they think because they do care.
• Because someone is an idealist and hopes beyond hope that an element of life can be better, because they do love their country and community, they are somehow a "liberal."  To not be an idealist, to not attempt change, is-to-do-NOTHING.  You hope for the impossible, works towards the best and ultimately win something better.  I'd rather that than sitting in my armchair eating potato chips all day thinking that my government only intends the best for me.  They do not.

That's my rant.  I'm sure we could come up with a similar list of issues and generalizations slapped onto the word "conservative."  Honestly though, the dominant grain of thought and political ideology that has gone through America in the last 12 years has been directed at degrading those things considered "liberal."  I suppose a "culture war" needs an enemy.

Is there nothing else that interests the Christian right?  Does not the global economy and its corresponding global inequalities, torture by the US government, massive pollution, genocide in Africa, healthcare (or lack thereof) in the US concern them as well?  If so, I don't hear about it.

Embryonic stem cell research is hardly the 'murder' that those few who hold a religious stranglehold on Christianity seem to think it is.  It does not degrade women, create 'breeding grounds' to harvest embryos (or any other pseudo-scifi weirdness) or end human life.  It does have the potential (and I say Potential purposefully, as it requires the ability to research it) to help already existing, developed human beings overcome severe diseases.  As someone that has been coping with such a thing in our family, the potential needs to be looked at and not ignored. 

If a religion dictates that this is wrong - and, I've looked and do not see scripture evidence for this in the Christian Bible, only potential for those to use scripture out of context - then the individual adherents of that religion should be free to not partake in research or medicine associated with it.  But the rest of us want it.  An overwhelming majority of Americans support federal funding.  And the USA is becoming a laughing stock in the rest of the scientific world for not funding it.  We tend to be obsessed many times by our religion.  It would be nice to not have it infiltrate the highest level of government.

From the Washington Post (full story here):

The intensity of that debate, however, paled in comparison with that surrounding the Research Enhancement Act. Throughout, senators on both sides of the issue quoted Scripture while hewing less than fastidiously to the scientific and legislative facts.

Opponents, for example, said that if the bill passed, women would be harmed by exploitative scientists seeking to harvest their eggs; embryos would be destroyed at taxpayers' expense; and human clones would be produced. None of those things are sanctioned by the measure.

......

Some said with more certainty than scientists say is justified that adult stem cells will never have the same biological potential as embryonic stem cells. Others seeded fears that the United States is becoming a nation of second-class science -- "Our country is in grave danger of falling behind in one of the most promising fields of biomedical research," said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) -- even though by virtually every measure the United States remains a leader in the field.

Still others said that because the few stem cell colonies they are allowed to work on under the Bush policy have been growing in dishes alongside mouse cells, those stem cells are too contaminated to be of medical value. In fact, it is precisely one of those colonies that has made its way through several layers of FDA review and may well be the first embryonic stem cell therapy tested in humans -- part of a treatment for spinal cord injuries that Geron, of Menlo Park, Calif., hopes to begin by the end of this year.

Asked how he would fight a Bush ban, Specter called upon the public to demand change. "With enough public pressure," he said, "we could override a veto this year."

John McCain cracks me up - or he would if he wasn't so dangerous.  Honestly I used to admire him.  I saw him 6 years ago as a Republican that went against the grain, that had a complex story and who stood up for what was right.  Now?  Now, he seems...milk toast.  He flaps his gums but nothing meaningful comes out.  I suppose he must want the presidency so bad that he'll do and say anything (he's not the only one guilty of that for sure).  He bows down to the extreme right of the Christian evangelical movement (he used to criticize them).  He's seen the horrors of war and imprisonment first-hand, but now he says he supports an unjust war and is all for the Military Commissions Act, suspension of habeas corpus and, by extension, secret prisons and interminable imprisonment.

Come on John!  You used to be someone a libertarian/reformed Democrat like me would vote for!  Calling the war in Iraq "necessary" is simply untruth.  Nothing could be more unnecessary.  We are there now, but the original reasons for going were fraught with deception, lies and bad information.  Iraq posed no threat, had no connections to al-Qaeda and has proven to be a massive distraction, waste of money and, more importantly, a severe mental and physical hazard for our troops who are placed in harm's way over something that was/is, again, unnecessary.  Speak from the heart, John, and you might win those votes.

From the Washington Post (Full Story here):

Dismissing public opinion polls as offering nothing but "temporary favor" to the war's opponents, McCain directly confronted the biggest obstacle to his White House ambitions: his unyielding support of a war that more than two-thirds of the country has turned against.

Republican Senator from Arizona and presidential hopeful John McCain speaks on the war in Iraq at the Jackson Memorial Hall of the Virginia Military Institute April 11, 2007 in Lexington, Virginia. Despite polls showing that more than two-thirds of the country has turned agains the war, McCain has maintained his steadfast support for sending more troops to Iraq. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

TRANSCRIPT: McCain's Speech

• Remarks on Iraq

"I understand the frustration caused by our mistakes in this war. I sympathize with the fatigue of the American people," he told cadets at the Virginia Military Institute. "But I also know the toll a lost war takes on an army and a country. It is the right road. It is necessary and just."

McCain cited "the first glimmers" of progress from the president's "surge" of troops into Baghdad but avoided the rosy depictions of safe Iraqi streets that earned him scorn during a visit to the country last week. The former Vietnam prisoner of war warned against "false optimism" and urged Americans to have patience with the military's commanders as they pursue a new strategy in the Middle East "that deals with how things are . . . and not how we wish them to be."

"The Right" readies attacks against Clinton

Ah, when they have nothing of validity to say, they turn to the old standby:  dirt on the Clintons.  The Rush Limbaughs of the world love to talk about Bill, impeachment and sleeping with interns.  I guess I would much rather have a president sleep (legally) with an intern than a president who illegally conducts and starts wars, authorizes illegal surveillance of American citizens, lies about al-Qaeda ties in Iraq, remove habeas corpus, implicitly allows secret torture prisons around the world and, in general, could not provide enough meaningful, intelligible phrases to blow up a child's balloon.

Here we see that Cheney (on Rush's show no less - very respectable) again defends going to Iraq based on ties to al-Qaeda.  And we also see that yet more proof surfaces that there were no ties. 

Full Wash Post Article Here - No ties to al-Qaeda in Iraq

Yet the Republican spin machine continues to roll.  Talking to someone at work yesterday I was stunned to find that they still believed WMDs were in Iraq.  I suppose some of us want to badly to believe.

Interesting take in Time Magazine.  I don't know that the author is seeing the entire picture or the severity of what can happen, particularly in rural communities or very Christian communities.  I am all for religion classes, whether studying Christianity, Hinduism or all of the above.  The danger is that this becomes a tool within a public school to propound what the teacher thinks is the appropriate idea, discouraging criticism of the Bible or other religious texts.  I like the idea that both negative and positive influences of the Bible could be taught - I just see that as a difficult stretch in the USA.  Fundamentalist Christians like to talk about the "liberal media" or "secular society," but really it is Christian religion that has called the shots over the last 10 years.  Balance?

Time Magazine Bible Article