Moritorium

I hereby take back any nice things I ever said about Michiganders Ara Rubyan, Phil Skaggs, and Rosemary Esmay for the duration of the series and promise to treat them with scorn and ridicule until such time as the underdog Cleveland Cavaliers are finished humiliating the Detroit Pistons and I've exhausted myself with silly victory dances (or we lose -- then this post gets flushed down the memory hole, so you better take a screen shot).

Battle of Lake Erie is on! Pistons will face Cavaliers

15 Years! 15 years since Cleveland was in the final four.

Woot!

Holy Crap. LeBron James was in first grade back then -- and only 5' 11".

Not only that, LeBron James has the only chest on the planet that grows titanium steel.

LeBron James means the same thing in every language, which is, "unbeatable."

A man once spent three days climbing a mountain only to discover that it was LeBron James.

The hole in the ozone layer was caused when LeBron James tried on a pair of platform shoes.

Birds and Planes have to alter their course when LeBron James stands on his toes.

The eternal conundrum "what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object" was finally solved when LeBron James blocked his own shot.

Crop circles are LeBron's way of telling the world that sometimes even tall vegetables need to learn they're no match for him.

LeBron James beat a wall at tennis. A fucking WALL.

LeBron James has beaten the entire Harlem Globetrotters team in a game of basketball, and a game of horse.

The fillings in LeBron's teeth are not gold. In fact, it is a rare space metal that was given to him by the Predator who he beat in 1 on 1 basketball.

LeBron James once ended a basketball game with a 3-point slam-dunk.

LeBron James planned out Michael Jordan's entire basketball career on a used napkin from Arby's back in 1989 -- when he was only 5 years old.

Edwards Support in Ohio Humiliates Hizhonor

Survey USA polls Ohio

Clinton 48% - Giuliani 45%
Obama 40% - Giuliani 51%
Edwards 50% - Giuliani 42%

He's the clear national frontrunner head-to-head -- Real Clear
Clinton +14.0% vs Romney
Obama +23.0% vs Romney
Edwards +27.3% vs Romney


Clinton +2.0% vs McCain
Obama +4.9% vs McCain
Edwards +8.8% vs McCain


Clinton +1.0% vs Giuliani
Obama +3.4% vs Giuliani
Edwards +4.0% vs Giuliani

The word you're looking for, and Chris Bowers hates, but acknowledges nonetheless, is "electibility."

It's that certain quality that some people just have, and others wish they did.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Send It Back

For reasons I neither appreciate, approve of, nor care to understand, impeachment is still off the table.

(Okay, it's a numbers thing, and we lose, I know.)

So, what do you do when Bush, Inc. insists on their war in perpetuity, and laughs at the Democrats' pitiful effort to impose benchmarks he can and will ignore, and timetables we know he will never honor.

Atrios says send the little punk in the Oval Office the exact same funding bill he vetoed the last time, again and again. If he want's to defund the troops, so be it.

So does MarKOS.

Joe Biden approved of the idea last week.

How about you? Do you you agree with this statement?

“The American people gave Congress a mission to end the war - not a mission to accept meaningless benchmarks or endless temporary extensions. There is only one way to stop the president - Congress should use its funding authority to end the war. Congress passed a plan to support our troops and bring them home, and they should do it again. And if the president vetoes it - if he vetoes any bill that supports our troops but sets conditions - then he alone is standing in the way of what our troops need.”

-- John Edwards

Glad these guys climbed aboard the "screw him" bandwagon. Edwards read the tea leaves and has been saying this for over a month now.

"I have urged Congress to stand up to the President's veto threat, rather than back down in a false game of chicken. If he does veto funding for our troops, Congress should send the same bill right back to him. And they should do this again and again, until the President finally understands that he cannot reject the will of the overwhelming majority American people.

That was back on April 11th, just two days before he called for Wolfowitz's resignation from the world bank.

His reaction yesterday to the news that Wolfi finally was out?

"It's about time.

Isn't is about time you stopped looking for what's wrong with this candidate or than one, and helped elect the one person who's consistently ahead of the curve?

Another Cool Poll: John Zogby's "Reality Check"

John Zogby: A Reality Check on the 2008 Presidential Race:

First, an important rule for poll watchers: don't pay too much attention to the national polls of Democrats and Republicans just yet. Essentially, they are useful for measuring name recognition and are great for candidate hype and fundraising. Instead, look at the early states -- notably Iowa and New Hampshire -- because that is where the campaigns are most developed, where the candidates have pressed the flesh, and where some have even done some broadcast advertising.

Yeah, yeah, John. But what are the numbers?

My newest round of 500 likely Democratic caucus voters and 500 likely Republican caucus voters in Iowa, along with 500 likely Democratic primary voters and 500 likely Republican primary voters, has some intriguing results:

Alright John, fine. You're trying to put the "science" back into political science. Nice. But what are the numbers??

• On the Democratic side, despite all the hype for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, John Edwards continues to hold on to a narrow lead in Iowa -- 26% to 24% for Clinton, and 22% for Obama. Edwards leads in the central part of the state and, most importantly for him, has begun to particularly take of among union voters. This is very much a three-way race and if Edwards should win, it will give him a bounce for New Hampshire. Clinton does well with liberals, with Democrats (as opposed to independents) among older voters and lower income voters. Obama does best among independents and in the eastern part of the state closest to Illinois. Importantly, while Edwards has kept his numbers since January, his two main opponents have grown -- Clinton from 16% to 24% and Obama from 17% to 22%.

Okay, do we care what the republicans are doing. Uhhhh....No. Gimme more numbers John. I don't like what I'm seeing in Iowa. Hillary and Barack are catching up to our lead and we need more numbers in our quest to conquer the world. Got any more numbers John?

Really? Why didn't you say so... Yes, we'd like to know more about New Hampshire. What's your crystal ball telling you about the Granite State?

• On the Democratic side, Clinton now leads by only 2 points over Obama -- 28% to 26% -- with Edwards at 15% and Richardson at 10%. Clinton's numbers have grown from 19% in January to her current levels. Obama has moved up 3 points from January, Edwards has dropped 8 points, but Richardson has moved the moved up from only 1% to his current double digits.

So tell us John, you're the professional. What does this mean for our fair-haired boy (sorry)?

What to make of all of this? It is too early to project anything at all but for now, Clinton has not been the inevitable nominee for months. She has turned around on the war on Iraq but is still not trusted entirely on that issue or on her ability to win. And she has the misfortune of running her history-making campaign against both Jack Kennedy (Obama) and Bobby Kennedy (Edwards). Three in four Democratic voters in these two states (along with previous polling in Nevada and South Carolina) tell us that they are satisfied with the field of candidates.

Okay, that's just a weird analogy, especially since Huffington Post also is featuring an article by one of Lloyd Benson's old aides on impeaching Gonzales...

I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. And Senator Obama, you're no......

Oops, sorry. Wrong election. I got carried away. So what were you saying about those numbers John?

But Richardson's performance in New Hampshire indicates that either he or perhaps Al Gore may have some room.

What?!? Huh? Who is the Gore person you speak of? And why is he busting my karma?

Your Morning Edwards Analysis

John Edwards:Busting Conservative Myths about the Military

John Edwards is getting a track record for blazing the trail on national security. He was the only Democratic contender at the first debate to openly criticize the label "war on terror". His lonely stance was unusual and illustrates how fearful we've become as a nation as well as alienated from the fundamental principles of our own democracy. Military experts--many veterans among them-- have been broadcasting their dissatisfaction about this label since the war began. Terrorism is a tactic, not a long term strategy. And the Bush Administration has been getting a free ride on this moniker since the post 9/11 world began. But then, understanding the integrity and the substance of the military would explode the neo-conservative election strategy that revolves around distorted labels of strength and weakness, patriotism and "America hating." We will endure these talking points until a group of wise Republicans decide to take their party back. In the meantime, we on the left can obstruct this BS by retiring old, tired rhetoric like "Hawks vs. Doves", "guns vs. butter" or "military industrial complex". We've got most of the liberal arts grads. Let's make up some new language. We need to act fast. The military now sucks up over half of the money available in the budget every year. (not counting the wars) Our service members are accumulating more and more responsibilities, from door kicking to election monitoring. We've laid far too many tasks at their feet, all without a thorough deliberation in Congress or elsewhere. Our elected leaders need to draw some clear boundaries before we all get used to the status quo. I'm a traditionalist on this score: I'd like to see the military circumscribed to very specific roles--only where the presence of credible coercion is vital. The division of labor for US national security is a long awaited debate that is the centerpiece of civil-military relations today.

For a broader analysis of the evolution of Edwards progressive record, check out David Mizner's MyDD Diary, JRE's Journey: Edwards Goes Left (Also in Orange).

While critics of Edwards make far too much of his change--he's always had palpable progressive instincts--supporters do him a disservice if they deny that he's moved left. Of course he has, especially on foreign policy. But the change has not been sudden or capricious, as his detractors claim; on the contrary, it has been gradual, sometimes halting, and, given his instincts, natural. Far from mysterious, his growth has its roots in political and personal forces that aren't difficult to discern, if you care to look.

David does an admirable job focusing out attention in the proper direction.
Diarist Be Inspired, (Sirius at MyDD) summarizes the "scathing exposé from Media Matters which explains how the Main Stream Media conistently dumps on progressives in general, and John Edwards in particular:

• Media often give short shrift to the actual substance of progressive proposals, focusing instead on their cost.

• Media portray wealthy candidates who advocate progressive economic proposals as out-of-touch hypocrites. Bizarrely, wealthy candidates who advocate conservative economic policies that would actually enrich themselves often escape similar scrutiny of their personal finances.

This is simply insane.

It is no more an example of "hypocrisy" for a rich man to want to help the poor and middle class than it is "ironic" to experience rain on your wedding day. That just isn't what the word means.

An example of hypocrisy would be a politician who claims to care about the poor and middle class while pursuing policies that line the pockets of the wealthy at the expense of the rest of the nation. A "compassionate conservative," for example. That's hypocrisy.

A rich man who says he cares about poverty and pursues policies designed to fight it? That isn't hypocrisy, that's empathy.

One final note. It's official, the Senate is actually going to have a vote on the Feingold-Reid anti-war amendment which cuts of funding for tht ewar by Markch 31, 2008. (HT: TPM Cafe) this should put tremendous pressure on Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton who can no longer try to hold a middle ground between anti-war rhetoric while voting to continue funding the war.

Will Hillary cling to her proposal to "deauthorize" the 2002 vote to allow the President to use military force against Iraq if diplomatic efforts failed, but refuse to back up the legalities with the power of the purse? Does Obama have the stomach for "playing chicken" when the choice is ending the war -- starting right now -- or "staying the course?
"
For the record,

"We support Reid-Feingold, but actually think we should go further. The Edwards plan calls for Congress to use funding power to force an immediate withdrawal of 40-50,000 troops to show we're serious about leaving, followed by an orderly withdrawal our combat troops that would be complete in about a year. Reid-Feingold uses funding to start withdrawing troops in four months and complete it by March 31, 2008 - not immediate. We're for the use of the funding power and support this bill as far as it goes, but we think we should go further and begin withdrawal immediately."

This is the first time the Senate has been asked to vote on this issue in such stark terms. If Senators Clinton or Obama fail to vote yes to Feingold-Reid, Edwards can solidify his position as THE only top-tier candidate who truly opposes the war.

Frankly I'm surprised the leadership decided to allow this to come to the floor since the number 2 Democratic Sentator, Dick Durbin, would be loathe to put his fellow Illinois Senator in an awkward position.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Why Does Coultergeist Loves Her Some Mitt?

In keeping with the editorial changes for blogtopia announced in March of this year, further review of Ann Coulter's strictly hetero fascination with Mitt Romney seems in order at this time.

McJoan thinks we are better knowing this little tidbit:

His promotional flyer says, "In this media-driven age, Romney begins with a decisive advantage. First, he has sensational good looks. People magazine named him one of the 50 most beautiful people in America. Standing 6 feet, 2 inches tall, Romney has jet-black hair, graying naturally at the temples. Women -- who will play a critical role in this coming election -- have a word for him: hot."

Nothing like elevating the debate.

He doesn't allow his $600 barber bill to appear on his financial disclosure forms, but he must be spending twice that much weekly between the tanning booth, botox treatments, hair-die, and huge vats of VO-5 he spreads on with a trowel.

I should give Coultergeist some slack. After all, she has decribed her dream-boat kinda guy and Romney just doesn't fit the bill:

"Cheney is my ideal man. Because he's solid. He's funny. He's very handsome. He was a football player. People don't think about him as the glamour type because he's a serious person, he wears glasses, he's lost his hair. But he's a very handsome man. And you cannot imagine him losing his temper, which I find extremely sexy."

There must be something else she sees in Mitt. It must be his consistently steadfast conformity to conservative principles -- as long as he's talking to a conservative audience.

Technorati Tags: Mitt Romney, Ann Coulter, Coultergeist

Powered by ScribeFire.

This Is Your Brain ... On Digby

The Amazing Digby once again sears wisdom into your brain.

Today, he analyzes the dynamics of a small town, provincial in it's attitudes and protective of thier community; and how these attitudes are reflected in it's hometown newspapers and media outlets.

The "Town" is Washington DC, and the local papers are the Washington Post and New York Times -- their little TV outlets broadcast into the living rooms of every US citizen and beyond -- and they couldn't be more out of touch.

Here you had the most powerful people in the world identifying themselves with Bedford Falls from "It's A Wonderful Life" when the court of Versailles or Augustan Rome would be far more more apt. The lack of self-awareness is breathtaking.

As they say on the InterToobz, go Read It All.

Posada Charges Dropped -- Justice Weeps.

From Democracy Now, Monday:

There are several new developments in Posada's case. Authorities have filed documents showing the FBI believes Posada plotted a series of deadly bombings in Cuba in the 1990s. Meanwhile both Posada and the U.S. government are trying to disqualify potentially damaging evidence from his trial. Defense attorneys have filed a motion to omit Posada's statements from a 2006 interview with immigration officials. For their part, government prosecutors have filed a motion to effectively bar Posada from discussing his ties with the CIA.

Hmmmm? Even more evidence that there's a dangerous terrorist in US custody, confirmation of his heinous crimes still comes in making his confession unnecessary. Do we ship him to Gitmo? NO! Miami.

Let's be straight about this. Posada didn't confess, he bragged about his exploits to immigrations officials. This wasn't some coerced admission in violation of his Miranda rights. They tossed the confession, and a US Justice Department already under fire for playing political favoritism sabotaged it's own case because this guy knows too much.

That was then...

Posada Carriles has been in custody since May 2005 after he entered the U.S. illegally to seek asylum. In January, he was indicted on seven immigration fraud charges accusing of lying to immigration authorities.

His release on bail was granted by U.S. Judge Kathleen Cardone and ended a long fight by the U.S. government to keep him behind bars.

His lawyers had expected him to be taken immediately back into custody on an immigration detention order, but that did not happen.

[snip]

The U.S. has refused to extradite him, which has prompted charges that the Bush administration is ignoring its own "war on terror" due to the political sensitivities of the case and his links to the U.S. intelligence community.

Two years ago, Phil Althouse sent me a story about Anti-Castro Cuban exile Luis Posada Carriles who is wanted in Cuba and Venezuela for the 1976 bombing of a Cuban airliner which killed 73 people, as well as other bombing plots -- one resulting the in the death of an Italian tourist -- and organizing a private hit squad which targeted Castro for murder.

As Phil details below the jump, we were never going to go to the wall against this guy. One, he's one of ours. Two, he knows just who in (and out) of the CIA's old Central and South American network are still playing the same old games.

Phil's contributions to Dispassionate Liberal are far and few in between, but what he does send our way is usually extraordinary -- which is why I gave him complete access to post anything he wants, any time he can. I've ressurected Phil's old article after the jump so you can read the full background on this case -- complete with some commentary by fellow E.Pluribus Unum contributor, Shep, back on the old blog.

Shep's point that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter is as apt today as it was exactly two years ago this week.

Most of Posada's activities occured when George H. W. Bush was head of the CIA, Ollie North was influencing friends and bribing enemies, Elliot Abrams and John Negroponte had yet to get caught, and Porter Goss thought he was James Bond. Posada knows where too many of the bodies are buried.

When Posada was released on bail and placed under house arrest a month ago, the move drew outrage from Cuba and Venesuala where he has already been convicted in abstentia for the bombings as well as a conviction in Panama for attempted assasination of Fidel Castro (for which he was subsequently pardoned by a Panamanian president closely allied with the US.) Now that even the immigration charges against him have been dropped, the cries of hypocrisy and renewed demands for extradition will be even louder.

Now keep in mind, this isn't your run-of-the-mill killer, who could hardly to expect to be granted any bail at all when he was such an obvious flight risk and alledged to be responsible for a mass murder. Even if bail were granted, you could expect the price to be in the Millions of Dollars, but not for Posada. He got out of jail for only $350,000. Of course, we didn't charge him with murder or terrorism, but immigration fraud. Hmmm.

Cuba charges “farce” in US dropping of Posada charges

Havana (eCanadaNow) - Cuba Wednesday condemned a US court’s decision to drop charges against Cuban exile Luis Posada Carriles, who is accused in Venezuela and Cuba of acts of terrorism.

“The decision to free Posada was made a long time ago by the White House,” the Communist Party daily Granma noted. “Prosecutors never charged him for what he is: a terrorist, and legal devices were used to cover up the judicial farce.”

US District Judge Kathleen Cardone dismissed all seven counts of immigration fraud on Tuesday, based on a motion filed by the defence, only three days before Posada Carriles’ trial was due to begin in a Texas court, a spokeswoman for his lawyer confirmed to Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa.

[snip]

Cuban state media on Tuesday criticized the judge’s “cynical” decision and called the trial against Posada Carriles a “farce.”

Posada Carriles’ trial in the US was on charges that he lied to immigration officials and on an application to obtain US citizenship last year, including about how he entered the country in March 2005.

[snip]

US courts have refused extradition requests for the one-time CIA operative, saying that Posada Carriles could face torture in Venezuela or Cuba.

Posada was convicted in Venezuela of being one of the masterminds of the airliner bombing, but he escaped from prison after eight years and joined US-directed covert counterinsurgency operations in Central America.

He was also convicted in 2000 in Panama of attempting to murder Cuban President Fidel Castro, but was pardoned four years later by a Panamanian president closely allied with the US.

The Bush family has a history of treating Posada and his associates as something less than terrorist bombers who murder innocent civilians by blowing up planes and hotels. Now it looks like there is nothing to stop his citizen application from going through.

However, this will only add fuel to the conspiracy theories surrounding the narco-republicans and their old Contra connections.


From the Archives:

Nice Guy Seeks Asylum (From Phil Althouse)

While I'm still on the road, Phil Althouse sent this missive to Lib Central:

Alive and well in Miami and seeking asylum . Per the CBC Washington is considering request while dodging question whether he is in U.S. However, his attorney says that he is in Miami. He has been in contact with his buddy Orlando Bosch who lives in Miami. So, if the U.S. is truly waging a war against terrorism and won't stand for countries harboring terrorists, what the hell is this guy doing in Miami?




Posada arrested in Venezuela



Posada 1972 School of Americas, Fort Benning, GA

Luis Posada Carriles is an anti-Castro Cuban exile active in campaigns against the Cuban government. Although born in Cuba, Posada once served as the head of the Venezuelan secret police. Along with Orlando Bosch he was convicted of taking part in the bombing of a Cuban airliner over Venezuela in 1976, in which all seventy-three people onboard were killed. Posada subsequently escaped prison and found work supplying arms to the CIA-backed Nicaraguan Contras. Carriles has been an international fugitive since the early 1980s.

It is alleged that Posada Carriles has worked for the Cuban-American National Foundation (CANF), which denies any connection. The Miami Herald has recently run articles querying CANF's ties to terrorism and Operation Condor. In 2000 he was convicted with Gaspar Jiménez, Pedro Remón and Guillermo Novo Sampol of conspiring to assasinate Castro during a regional summit in Panama. The four were subsequently pardoned by Panamanian President Mireya Moscoso in the final days of her administration in 2004. Jiménez, Remón and Novo were admitted into the United States.

On April 13, 2005, Posada requested political asylum in the United States through his attorney. On May 3, the Venezuelan Supreme Court approved an extradition request for him. Speaking the same day in Washington, D.C., State Department Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs Roger Noriega stated that Posada may not be in the United States. Noriega added that charges against him "may be a completely manufactured issue."

A favorite of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), his full name is Luis Clemente Faustino Posada Carriles, although his family and friends call him Bambi.

Posada Carriles joined the counterrevolution shortly after the Cuban government began a process of political and economic reforms in January 1959 to benefit the countrys underprivileged.

Although a member of the 2506 Brigade (organized, trained, financed and armed by the US government to try and topple the Cuban revolution) he did not participate in the Bay of Pigs invasion.

Posada Carriles preparation as a terrorist included training in military tactics, espionage, sabotage, explosives handling, demolition and firearms. He was a member of the counterrevolutionary group called Commandos L and by 1963 was in the US Army and receiving training at Fort Benning, Georgia.

His list of evil deeds includes participation in plans to assassinate Cuban officials in Chile and another to try and kill President Fidel Castro when he visited that South American country in 1971.

The murder of two Cuban officials in Argentina in August 1976 is another line item on his resume.

Considerable documentation exists showing how Posada recruited Venezuelans Hernan Ricardo Lozano and Freddy Lugo to sabotage a Cubana Airlines plane.

These mercenaries placed the bombs that exploded in-flight, a few minutes after takeoff from Barbados International Airport on October 6, 1976 and killing all 73 people on board.

In her book, Pusimos la bomba y que? (We put the bomb and so what) Venezulean journalist Alicia Herrera gives a profile of Posada Carriles recounted by his wife at the end of the 1970s, and which describes her husbands lack of scruples.

When he got involved in the Barbados incident, (referring to the blowing up of the Cubana passenger plane) I knew he would be successful because the poor guy had dedicated so much effort, with so much passion...

Later, with help from the Florida based Cuban American National Foundation, Posada Carriles escaped from a maximum security prison in Venezuela on August 18, 1985,

Since then and until he was jailed in Panama in November 2000, El Salvador became his preferred sanctuary.

At the end of 1996 he put the final touches on a series of terrorist actions to be carried out in Cuba, traveling between El Salvador and Guatemala with a Salvadoran passport under the name Francisco Rodriguez Mena and acquired in 1995.

In March, 1998, Cuban authorities detained the Guatemalans, Maria Elena Gonzalez Meza de Fernandez, Nader Kamal Musalam Barakat, also known as Miguel Abraham Herrera Morales, and Jazid Ivan Fernandez Mendoza, linked to bomb explosions in Havana during 1997.

The three Guatemalans, along with the Salvadorans Ernesto Raul Cruz Leon and Otto Rene Rodriguez Llerna, also detained in Cuba, were part of a network of Central American mercenaries hired by Posada Carriles and financed by the Cuban American National Foundation.

On November 15, 1997, the Miami Herald ran an extensive article resulting from an investigative report about the bombs planted in Cuban hotels and the connection of those events with a band of Salvadoran criminals known for bank robberies, house break-ins and car thefts.

The Herald concluded that Luis Posada Carriles was the brains behind those activities, for which he collected 15,000 dollars in Miami.

In July 1998, Posada Carriles told the New York Times that he received 200,000 from the president of the Cuban American National Foundation, Jorge Mas Canosa, to carry out terrorist actions in Cuba.

His anti-Cuban acts came to a temporary halt when he was jailed in Panama on November 17, 2000 after Cuban President Fidel Castro denounced plans to assassinate him with explosives at Panama University.

Assisting Posada Carriles with the foiled plot that could have killed several hundred people were Guillermo Novo Sampol, Pedro Remon and Gaspar Jimenez Escobedo. Now the notorious quartet was just given pardons by Panamanian President Mireya Moscoso, who in doing so, became herself an accomplice of these dangerous terrorists.

Posted at 5/12/2005 6:54:13 am by The Lib

---

ORIGINAL COMMENTS

	Posted by shep @ 05/12/2005 01:26 PM PDT
	Would this be an example of the oft-denied, highly nuanced idea that one man's "terrorist" is another's "freedom fighter". I used to think that the best reason not to believe anything a Republican politician says was their calculated lying. Now I'm thinking it's really their pathological hypocrisy.

	Posted by Mark Adams @ 05/12/2005 10:31 PM PDT
	How about their Nixonian framing of issues?

	Posted by shep @ 05/13/2005 01:29 PM PDT
	Orwell is spinning.

No Democrat Started The War

Let me be clear on one thing. Every single Democratic presidential candidate condemns the Bush Administration for its disastrous fiscal, domestic and foreign policies. Every single one knows Bush is a joke when he pretends to be the least bit competent on anything whatsoever. They understand that "compassionate conservativism" is a fraud. They all realize that the next president, who will undoubtedly be a Democratic president, faces a monumental task rehabilitating our nation's reputation in the world and economic and social rifts at home.

Nobody gets a cookie for being the "most" unlike Bush. Everybody will do their best to correct the disastrous course of our ship of state.

All of them.

Now in Blue, too.

Each and every candidate knows that we must leave Iraq swiftly, but cannot simply abandon the Iraqi people to the scourge of genocidal civil war, nor allow it to become a bastion of al Qeada operations or similar terrorist organization controlling a strategic piece of real estate with more resources than Taliban run Afghanistan. They don't want to see a region-wide conflict turn into Armageddon. They will do what is necessary to stop Iran from getting the bomb without going off half-cocked like the current cowboy diplomats.

But we must leave Iraq. America's patience has run out. Our occupation, with no meaningful internal nor multi-national attempt at negotiated settlement between the warring factions, has long been a counter-productive means of securing Iraq and fostering a stable regime there. We will always be considered the outsider, the infidel.

It's unfortunate that the purple finger of fate has chosen to put people in charge of that country who are content with institutionalizing Shi'ite fundamentalism and are sympathetic to the Iranian Mullahs. However, working with the Iraqi government, or their shadow-government sympathizers only serves to alienate those who have been shut out of the decision-making process.

Anyone at this stage in the process who wants to beat a rival candidate's head in using the club of their stance on the initiation of the Iraqi invasion, is playing a one-upsmanship parlor game and is not serious about foreign policy or the selection of our national leaders. This is Bush's war.

Likewise, Katrina should be Bush's mess to clean up. The selling of our nation's integrity to the lobbyists and their corrupt and connected clientele is the unspoken official policy of the Republican Party. Handing out our national treasure to cronies on a no-bid/cost-plus basis is a feature, not a bug, of conservative ideology as practiced by the "Bushies."

Absolutely no Democrat should be blamed for the criminality of this Administration -- not one.

I believe that all our candidates are Democrats, and a Democrat will win the White House. A Democratic president will reintroduce Democratic principles to Washington and the experiment in liberal democracy that founded this nation will again be given its head.

I think that Hillary Clinton will have a harder time being an effective force for change simply because of the bile that will be flung on her by the right, who are so very well schooled in the demonization of all things Clinton. It has nothing to do with her stance on this or her vote on that -- not even the flag burning nonesense which truly pissed me off. It's about ending the war here so we can end the war over there. Clinton's move to join Byrd in a bid to "sunset" the AUMF is a major step in the right direction that should be applauded.

I like Edwards due to his masterful grasp of detailed policy which he fits into an overall theme -- and I agree with his theme -- of at least trying to end poverty. His leadership also impresses, willingness to stake out a position before he detects which way the wind blows. He calls on all of us to act now, not wait until the end of Bush's madness. He inspires me with his energy, rejection of consultant and lobbyist driven beltway dogma, and refusal to follow the same old script.

It's the bold plans, the policies and populism for me. Your milage may vary.

Although "Barockstar" is already established as a great national figure, I don't think he's hit his stride and has much more potential to live up to. I'm leery of Obama's vagueness because we've elected great orators in the past who were not all that effective at governing -- painting with a broad brush and leaving the details to underlings. Reagan comes to mind, but there were others as well. There just seems to be something deceptively familiar about his his "new" kind of politics.

I heard recently some republicans encouraging Fred Thompson to run, lauding this Reganesque trait (a laughable comparison) -- talking well but not really interested in the day-to-day details of making government initiatives work. The GOP is hoping Thompson can be their next empty suit, the White House caretaker who will close his eyes while the neo-conservative commercial empire continues to malignantly spread it's tentacles, and always at the ready to assist their global expansion with military force. This nation cannot afford any more empty suits.

Bill Clinton could do both, manage details and inspire with his rhetoric. Hillary has similar skills, but comes off more of the technocrat panderer than inspirational leader. That's not who she wants to be, nor who she really is. Yet, unfortunately perception IS reality in politics.

Everyone faced a judgment call on the Iraq AUMF. 60% of the public supported the administration on going to war in Iraq. At least the AUMF bill Edwards sponsored and Hillary voted for won out over a much more broad competing authorization which was not simply limited to Iraq -- "based on the original White House proposal."

Just look at this language in the original Daschle-Lott bill that was replaced by the one Edwards sponsored:

The President is authorized to use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force, in order to enforce the United Nations Security Council Resolutions referenced above, defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region.

That's it. A one-sentence authorization to impose Bush's brand of peace and security throughout the entire Middle East. "Have at 'em Mr. President. Enjoy your crusade."

Contrast that with Lieberaman's version of the AUMF which actually passed, was co-sponsored by Edwards and voted for by Hillary:

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but not later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

We all know that Edwards was the first to come out and campaign against Lieberaman in the subsequent primaries, but in this, Joe was a useful idiot -- because one way or the other the Administration was going to get it's war authority. Edwards helped build a consensus to limit the war in significant ways.

Do you honestly think that any of our Democratic Presidential contenders would have taken such a document as the Carte Banche needed to start a bombing campaign? Would a born diplomat like Bill Richardson thought it best to ignore the UN at that point -- or would he have used that authorization the way it was intended, as a powerful card to play at the negotiating table? Do you think any of the other candidates would have done less -- or would they have proceeded as recklessly as Bush and Cheney?

The AUMF, as written, dared Saddam to call our bluff or back down? It was intended to be used, not abused -- or Congress could have simply passed the one-sentence Daschle-Lott bill and fired the cruise missiles the next morning.

Anyone who voted for the Iraq AUMF was supporting the president's efforts to "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council." They were also insisting that he must first determine that "diplomatic or other peaceful means alone" would no longer work.

Bush didn't even try. The "Decider" just decided. How could anyone anticipate such arrogance? How could they have known that the entire administration was staffed with sociopaths?

Even Obama wasn't all that sure about resisting the war. In Audacity of Hope (which I'm still reading right now) he says:

"Not only was the idea of an invasion increasingly popular, but on the merits I didn't consider the case against war to be cut-and-dried." [pg.294]

He wasn't sure, and as of the time Shrub landed on the deck of the Lincoln, he thought he'd made a terrible mistake in coming out against the war.

Fortune favored Obama's stance. But one thing no first term red state Senator like Edwards should have been expected to appreciate was the fact that -- as the modern incarnation of "pilate's hand towel", George Tenent confirms in his new book -- the decision to go to war had already been made and the AUMF was just so much window dressing.

Joe Biden defended the AUMF very well on Meet The Press. Going to war was the LAST thing the President was supposed to do. He was not authorized by that document to simply put it in his desk, make an end run around the UN, warn the inspectors to vacate and start issuing ultimatums for Saddam to leave or else.

SEN. BIDEN: It allowed the president to go to war. It did not authorize him to go to it. You make it sound like it said, "Mr. President, go to war." It said, "Mr. President, don't go to war." It said "go to the United Nations. Mr. President, don't go to war, try to get a deal here. Mr. President, get the inspectors back in. Mr. President, tell us that that's what you're about to do. And, Mr. President, if all else fails, you have authority to use force." That's what it said.

Instead of going back to the UN -- as every country that also believed Iraq had WMD's expected (except UK), Bush refused to deal honestly with the UN (because his neo-con cabal doesn't "believe" in the UN) and undermined it's authority like no nation ever has.

Nobody should be held to account because President Bush behaved like an international criminal. No One. No one except George W. Bush and his mafia-like enablers he appointed for their personal loyalty and lack of integrity.

Obama, good on him for taking a principled stance against the war early, but if he had been persuaded that Iraq was indeed a a smart war, not a rash war, a war based on reason not on passion, on principle not on politics, he would have (presumably) voted for it, voted to allow the president to use force as a last resort.

Note that the adminsitration was not breathing down the throats of Illinois State Senators, but certainly were doing their best to convince Red state junior US Senators that they were acting reasonably. Obama smelled something funny and took a stance -- went out on a limb if you will, and because of Bush and Rumsfeld's complete detachment from reality, he now looks like a prophet.

Much harder call for a Senator from the South or one who represented Ground Zero.

Isn't it time Democrats stopped blaming other democrats for Bush's war? Didn't we learn anything from how they beat up on Kerry for the war votes -- and Edwards, unlike Kerry or Hillary or Biden, did NOT vote for that damn $87 billion.

Congress's real power has always been in the purse. In this approach to curbing the White House's excesses, Edwards remains consistent.

John Edwards Is Helping Your Neighbors

Cross-posted and KOS-Posted

Well, maybe not in my neighborhood, but certainly my fellow Kossack Konspirator, Ara's neighbors should be taking notice of this:

As part of his ongoing efforts to fight poverty in America, Senator John Edwards will travel to New Orleans on Friday, May 4th, 2007, to draw attention to the struggles of the community and to help with recovery efforts. Edwards announced his candidacy for president in New Orleans and last spring traveled to Louisiana with 700 college students to help with rebuilding efforts.

Later in the day, Edwards will travel to Baton Rouge to speak at the National Conference of Black Mayors' 33rd Annual Convention.

Josh has all the details if you happen to be in the area.


Coming off back-to-back, coast-to-coast appearances at the South Carolina Democratic convention, where the home town boy enjoyed the rock-star treatment usually reserved for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (neither of whom attended), and the California Democratic Convention where John Edwards gained the most converts with what the California Progress Report termed a "passionate and substantive" speech widely praised for its tough anti-war message and deep understanding of the issues and how to transform the nation with a progressive agenda; Edwards heads next to the Gulf Coast to honor his promise not to abandon the area still feeling the ravages of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

In a stark contrast to the Bush administration which rejected outside offers of assistance for the region, John Edwards is returning again to to New Orleans to personally help what is still by some accounts a dire situation. The good news is that the Bush Administration official in charge of foreign aid resigned earlier this week. The bad news is he resigned because he was in the alleged D.C. Madam's little black book, not because he did such a heckuvajob.

Reacting to the news that the Bush Administration rejected hundreds of millions of dollars in promised aid from foreign countries, Edwards said:

"This is just new evidence about how badly the Administration mishandled the response to Katrina - not only did they fail to respond rapidly and effectively, they actually turned away others who were prepared to help. And their incompetence continues to impede recovery efforts today."

This situation has been exasperated by the inexcusable arrogance and utter failure of the President and his administration to lead the recovery efforts and properly direct aid where needed, allowing bureaucratic inertia and red tape to work its compassionate conservative magic.

The Washington Post reports that the government has spent more than $125 Billion on Gulf Coast recovery, was offered $854 Million in cash and in oil that was to be sold for cash from our allies, but collected only about $40 Million of what was pledged. Much of the relief offered has been redirected to charitable organizations.

Now $125 Billion is a whole heckuvalot more than $854 Million, however it simply doesn't make sense that no one in our government knows how to accept, graciously mind you, emergency aid. Lord knows the IRS is pretty handy at collecting cash.

They sure know how to spend our money -- badly -- so ineptitude at collecting donations seems par for the course. They figured out how to channel almost $125 Million to Halliburton as part of the Katrina effort with no problem, plus $236 Million to Carnival Cruises in a no-bid deal to house New Orleans refugees at $1,275 a week per person. Another $40 million no-bid contract for temporary mobile classrooms was handed out to a subsidiary of an Alaskan company — Akima Site Operations — that had never done this kind of work before. (Thank you Senator Toobz.)

These guys certainly know how to write checks to their cronies. You'd think they could manage to learn how to fill out a deposit slip.

Bechtel got a no-bidder to do laundry at a Hundred Bucks a load, just one of 15 contracts over $100 million, and five of those were over $500 million.

The word, "disgraceful," hardly seems adequate.

Barack Obama has directly addressed this almost criminal malfeasance in his co-sponsorship of a bill last year to end these notorious no-bid contracts. The House passed a version of this bill in March.

Hillary Clinton was the first to condemn Halliburton's move to Dubai and has called for a Congressional investigation into the company's dealings. She notably opined that the neglect of New Orleans by the Bush Administration was part of a deliberate policy of neglect designed to purge the area of low-income and poverty stricken Democrats.

John Edwards has dedicated his campaign to fighting poverty in Louisiana and throughout the nation -- indeed throughout the world -- framing poverty as a national security priority. The malaise of poverty cripples our society here, and breeds discontent and even terrorism abroad.

To this end, between his travels Edwards announced that he released a new book called "Ending Poverty In America: How to Restore the American Dream," a collection of essays discussing new, innovative ideas about how to fight poverty.

Edwards also released a multi-media promotion of the first televised campaign ad this cycle which you can see here, there, and just about everywhere. It wasn't about what we should expect 21 months from now when he becomes president, but what Congress should do Right Now about Bush's veto of the war spending bill -- send it right back again, and again, as many times as it takes for the president to finally, for once, face reality.

Senator Edwards also tells us how we can help make this happen by donating, making your own ads, and sending a customized postcard to your representatives.

Frankly, I'm exhausted just trying to keep track of the guy. How does someone in their mid-fifties do so much, go so many places, inspire and motivate so many people -- and still look so damn good?

What? No he's not running for President of the Hair Club for men. Give it a rest already ...