“Staying the course” by adjusting expectations and rhetoric

As I’m sure you know, Dubby voted to “stay the course” before he voted against using that phrase … and then forgot he ever said it … or didn’t mean what we thought he thought it meant anyhow. Got that, dutiful citizen? A terrific video from the DNC, below, smacks that flip-flop around.

The military wants out of Iraq … the Iraqi’s want us out of Iraq … the American people want out of Iraq. Hell — even Bush boy Richard Armitage wants out of Iraq. And Dubby? Dubby will adjust for benchmarks — which is the new way of saying we’ll stand down when they stand up and meanwhile we’ll continue to build our state-of-the-art new bases. Stuck in the old groove, Rummy and Holy Joe think “staying the course” is still a dandy deal.

Here’s the first blow back on George’s “honesty” in assessing the situation in Iraq, today — his new somber analysis is about three years too late. If there are any people out there who hear anything but “we’re staying the course” in this drivel … they deserve him. I say lets annex Texas and they can all go live there … unless the Texans don’t want to go with Dubby … then maybe all those folks who want to stay his course can go hang with him in his new 99,000 acre Paraguayan compound, huh?? [Has a certain Boys from Brazil feel to it, doesn’t it?]

Meanwhile, it works my nerves that Bush is using his bully pulpit to spread the Pub campaign talking points, security and economy, folding that into his Iraq rhetoric. You’ll find a snip of transcript at the bottom of this post … and open the link to read what he thinks about staying in Iraq … indefinitely.

Jude

Bush Offers Sobering Assessment of Iraq War
DAVID STOUT and CHRISTINE HAUSER
October 25, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/25/world/middleeast/26prexycnd.html

WASHINGTON, Oct. 25 ā€” President Bush offered a sobering assessment of the war in Iraq today, acknowledging his concerns about the campaign but reaffirming his determination that United States forces stay in the country until “the job is done.”

“There is tough fighting ahead,” Mr. Bush said. “The road to victory will not be easy.”

The president said the increase in bloodshed over the past month has been “a serious concern to me,” and he conceded that not everything has gone as anticipated with the new government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. In particular, Mr. Bush said, the United States had “overestimated the capability” of the Baghdad government to establish basic services for its citizens.

Nevertheless, Mr. Bush said, the United States must persist in Iraq, not just out of idealism but because a stable and free democracy in the Middle East is essential to America’s security. He said the campaign in Iraq is part of “the calling of this generation” of Americans to nurture liberty where it has not existed before.

The president chose his words carefully in describing the new Iraqi leadership, at times alluding to it as a sovereign government that the United States is working closely with, at other time declaring that Washington will not put more pressure on Mr. Maliki’s administration than it can handle.

Perhaps complicating the American mission in his country, Mr. Maliki asserted today that he will not be dictated to or adhere to any schedule set by Washington. While not mentioning Mr. Maliki’s remarks, Mr. Bush said Mr. Maliki is “the right man” in Iraq “so long as he continues to make tough decisions.”

For those who have followed Mr. Bush’s statements about Iraq, several things stood out at today’s White House news conference. Gone, perhaps for good, was his oft-repeated pledge that the United States will “stay the course.” Instead, he alluded repeatedly to persevering until “the job is done.”

But Mr. Bush said again that, while America’s goal remains a free and stable Iraq, American tactics are changing constantly to keep up with clever, ruthless terrorists who fear the very idea of freedom. He said, in response to a question, that he still has faith in Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

Moreover, Mr. Bush said, Democrats who expect to ride public unhappiness with the Iraq situation to victory 13 days from now may be in for a bitter disappointment. Mr. Bush said the elections will be decided on the basis of which party has better ideas to protect the American people and which party is a better steward of the economy.

“America’s patience is not unlimited,” he said at one point. But he said he trusts that the American people “will support the war as long as they see a path to victory.”

Public dissatisfaction with the war must not slide into disillusionment, he said. If he did not believe that the Iraq campaign was essential to American security, “I’d bring our troops home tomorrow,” Mr. Bush said.

Asked if he envisioned sending more American troops to Iraq, Mr. Bush said he would send more only if Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top commander in Iraq, said he needed them.

Democrats were quick to pounce on Mr. Bush’s remarks. The administration’s policy “like Iraq itself, is in complete disarray,” said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader. And Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts said that, despite Mr. Bush’s talk about flexibility, the approach to Iraq remains a failed “stay-the-course strategy.”

Mr. Bush said he was “not satisfied” with the situation in Iraq and that the United States was shifting its tactics by working on a timetable with the Iraqi government that includes political measures to stem some of the violence. But he also emphasized that the plan was different from an “artificial” timetable under which American troops would be withdrawn.

“As the enemy shifts tactics we are shifting our tactics as well,” said Mr. Bush, speaking at a news conference at the White House a day after the American ambassador in Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, laid out a timetable for political measures he said the Iraqi government had agreed to take.

Though acknowledging there were serious problems in Iraq, Mr. Bush ceded no ground on his handling of the war. In this way, he bridged the gaps between potential criticisms and a defense of his administration’s strategy by saying it was flexible and could be adapted.

“I know many Americans are not satisfied with the situation in Iraq; I’m not satisfied either,” Mr. Bush said. “And that is why we’re taking new steps to help secure Baghdad and constantly adjusting our tactics across the country to meet the changing threat.” Mr. Bush also reconciled his previous remarks on troops withdrawals. “You know, last spring, I thought for a period of time we’d be able to reduce our troop presence early next year. That’s what I felt.”

“But because we didn’t have a fixed timetable and because General Casey and General Abizaid and the other generals there understand that the way we’re running this war is to give them flexibility, have the confidence necessary to come and make the recommendations here in Washington, D.C., they decided that that wasn’t going to happen.”

On Tuesday, General Casey said that with effective government action on the political measures, Iraqi troops should be able to take over the main burden of the war in 12 to 18 months, allowing American troops to move to a support role.

Mr. Bush has often sent a message to the American public that the United States must “stay the course” in Iraq, and he said today that there was no inconsistency in his previous remarks that the United States would not “cut and run” from Iraq and his administration’s current strategy of keeping the goal the same but the tactics flexible.

He said that people wanted to see benchmarks in a “plan” for victory, which he said was different from saying they wanted an artificial timetable to withdraw.

“As a matter of fact, the benchmarks will make it more likely we win,” he said. “Withdrawing on an artificial timetable means we lose.”

Asked whether the American people might conclude that the administration’s new plan of benchmarks and timetables was motivated by pre-election posturing, Mr. Bush said: “You’re asking me why I’m giving this speech today? Because I think I owe an explanation to the American people and will continue to make explanations. The people need to know that we have a plan for victory.”

The election ran as an undercurrent throughout the news conference.

“I like campaigning,” Mr. Bush said. “It’s what guys like me do in order to get here.”

He laid out what he said were encouraging developments since April 2003, like the capture of Saddam Hussein and the assassination this year of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq.

“Absolutely, we are winning,” said Mr. Bush during a question session.

But he also mentioned the developments that he described as “not encouraging,” like the bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad and the fact that suspected weapons arsenals were not uncovered, and the loss of American soldiers.

Mr. Bush also defended the recent operations to bring security to Baghdad, and appeared to lay blame on Iraqi forces, saying that after some initial successes they “performed below expectations.”

Mr. Bush noted that so far this month, 93 American soldiers have been killed, the highest number of deaths since the same time last year, He also noted the deaths of more than 300 Iraqi forces and the “unspeakable violence” experienced by Iraqi civilians.

The political and military measures that Mr. Bush said were being put into effect include refinement of training for the Iraqi forces, as well as steps to achieve a political solution to the sectarian violence that has raged in the country.

Referring to Mr. Khalilzad’s announcement of Tuesday, Mr. Bush said that they would be working with political and religious leaders to stop sectarian violence, and reach out to Arab states to support the Iraqi government to persuade Sunni insurgents to lay down their arms.

“These are difficult tasks for any government,” he said. “And they have to do it in the midst of raging conflict.” ++

David Stout reported from Washington and Christine Hauser from New York. John F. Burns contributed reporting from Baghdad.

Accountability Now
Christy Hardin Smith
http://firedoglake.com/
[open link for video — really good one!]

YouTube video courtesy of the DNC.

According to President George Bush during his hastily thrown together press conference this morning, it all depends on what the meaning of “benchmark” is, and we’re going to keep on “adapting to win,” because “stay the course” is so last week. America deserves better than the same policy in Iraq dressed up in shiny new marketing language, test marketed and rolled out just 13 days prior to a nationwide election.

A vote for Republicans is a vote for more of the same in Iraq and all over the United States, and no accountability whatsoever. Had enough? Vote for Democrats.

UPDATE: Before Chris Matthews and Howard Fineman finish slobbering all over themselves about George Bush’s “honesty” about the situation at this morning’s presser, may I remind everyone that the reason this seems unusual is that we have not seen any honesty ā€” with the public or with themselves ā€” for years from the Bush Administration, that George Bush just said that Rumsfeld is a brilliant and trusted secretary of defense and that there was not one ā€” NOT ONE ā€” proposal for any real, meaningful change other than calling questions of a withdrawal of troops from Iraq a “benchmark” instead of his usual straw man reference to “timetables” that no one has really proposed in the first place. And that yet again there is no real plan for any success in Iraq other than “we’ll stay there until things are better,” because we have no freaking clue what else to do. Permanent bases? Won’t talk about it. Civil war in Iraq? Nope, all that violence is just a “sectarian conflict” (whatever in the hell that means, other than more semantics). Now it’s a ‘unity government in Iraq,” not a democracy. Accountability now. Period. ++

Press Conference
by digby
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/

Did you know that the GWOT is harder and more challenging than any war in human history because the enemy are lethal cold-blooded killers? It is. Nobody has ever faced such a terrifying foe as George W. Bush and we should be grateful that he has courageously faced them down with nothing more than a prayer and a codpiece.

Oh, and people of both parties have to take responsibility for the decisions they make in life. ++

A Real October Surprise
The address President Bush should have delivered at his press conference today.
David Corn
October 25, 2006
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/10/25/a_real_october_surprise.php

My fellow Americans,

As you might have heard, my White House reached an important decision this week. From now on, neither I nor any member of my administration will use the phrase “stay the course” when referring to United States actions in Iraq. Our repeated use of that term had allowed our opponents to charge that this administration is inflexible and stubborn, and not interested in pursuing new options and strategies in Iraq.

At first, administration officials and I were reluctant to renounce our vow to “stay the course.” But then I realized that our hesitancy only proved the point. And as I thought about this change in message, it occurred to me that not only was such a change warranted, it ought to pave the way for other necessary changes. After all, the course we’re on is obviously not working as I had expected and hoped. We invaded Iraq over three-and-a-half years ago, yet the violence thereā€”now spreading through horrific sectarian conflictā€”has intensified. Heck, let’s be honest and call it a burgeoning civil war. American citizens of this nation are right to feel discouraged, disappointed and frustrated. And the people of Iraq are right to be angry.

So I intend to do more than expunge those three words from the lexicon of this administration; I intend to forge a new course.

Before we move ahead, though, we must come to terms with what has brought us to this difficult point.

We Were Wrong
We can only succeed in Iraq and in the greater struggle against al-Qaidaā€”note that I am also no longer using the vague and meaningless phrase “war on terror”ā€”if we have a sound policy based on competence and credibility. Until now, the actions of this administration have caused Americans and people in other nations to doubt the United States on both counts. That must be changed. So let me state clearly: The war in Iraq was a mistake. There were no weapons of mass destruction. The prewar intelligence was not conclusive, and I and other administration officials were wrong to state there was “no doubt” about it. We were wrong to declare that Iraq was a “gathering threat.” In fact, as we now know, there was nothing gathering about it.

Certainly, Saddam Hussein, a murderous tyrant, presented a problem. But he was not the “immediate” and “direct” danger my administration said he was. Officials of this administrationā€”myself includedā€”repeatedly suggested that his brutal regime was in league with the mass-murdering evildoers of 9/11. That, too, was not the case.

By making these assertions and then repeatedly stating in the post-invasion period that progress was under way (an unduly optimistic assessment), this administration undercut its own credibility. But even if we started this war in error and committed subsequent missteps, none of that can be undone. We are where we are today. And if we are to lead the rest of the world in seeking solutions to the problems in Iraq and elsewhere, we must regain our credibility. That can only come with a frank admission that what we previously said and did was false and misguided.

Then there is the matter of competence. The United States is fortunateā€”blessedā€”to be the most powerful and influential nation in the world. This creates obligationsā€”which we, as Americans, acceptā€”and expectations as well. Millions of Iraqis are entitled to expect that the United States, after vanquishing the armies of Saddam Hussein, would be prepared to confront the ensuing and obvious challenges of securing, rebuilding and revitalizing Iraq, as Iraq attempts to transform itself into a functioning and stable democracy.

Sadly, the United States was not ready to take on these tasks and, worse, we made fundamental miscalculationsā€”dissolving the Iraqi army, mounting a de-Baathification program that went too far and deploying an insufficient number of American troops following the initial military actionā€”that shaped the landscape to our disadvantage, and, I am sad to say, to the disadvantage of the Iraqi people, who have suffered more than was necessary.

To move ahead, we must show the worldā€”particularly our friends and allies in Iraqā€”that we believe in accountability and responsibility and, more important, that we can learn from our mistakes. So today I am announcing that I have requested and received the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Of course, he alone is not to blame for our problems in Iraq. As commander in chief, I do assume full responsibility. But America is not a parliamentarian-style democracy. When policies fail, governments do not fall. Still, clearly a new team is needed.

I will be announcing Secretary Rumsfeld’s replacement shortly, as well as other dramatic changes in the composition of my administration. And, while Dick Cheney will remain as vice president, I do expect his office to have less influence in the crafting of foreign policy. I’ve instructed my aides to revive the traditional working relationships between the State Department, the Defense Department and the National Security Council. My goals are two-fold: to ensure we have a strong, competent and well-coordinated national security team and to enhance global confidence in the United States’ ability to handle the challenges in Iraq and other parts of the world.

Bipartisan Consultations
With bolstered credibility and competent leadership, this administration can start to take the steps necessary for resolving the mess in Iraq. We are now in the middle of an election season and both parties are fighting vigorously for control of Congress. I will not wait for election results to begin a bipartisan process of evaluating policy alternatives. Nor will I wait for the recommendations of the Iraq study group headed by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Representative Lee Hamilton. With U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians tragically dying at accelerating rates, every single day counts. Every hour counts. Starting tomorrow, I will be calling groups of Democrats and Republicans to the White House for extensive and meaningful consultations. I want to see what ideas others have. I want everyone to be part of this process: Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Jack Murtha, Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, Dennis Kucinich.

It was my administration that took us into Iraq, but what we face now is a problem for all Americans. To deal with it, I will also ask Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, and Al Gore to join us. And let me take a moment to note that I do realize that had it not been for those mis-designed butterfly ballots in Palm Beach County, Al Gore would likely be president today and we would not be stuck in Iraq.

I will extend the discussionā€”and the search for alternativesā€”beyond Washington. If we are to reach any resolution in Iraq, we need to better involve our allies, other powers and Iraq’s neighbors. And this does mean talking to all of its neighbors, including Iran and Syria, despite our well-founded differences. I have asked my father for advice on this, and he has volunteered to serve as my emissary to the nations of the region. He knows the Middle East and its leaders well. When I asked him to take on this assignment, he said, “Son, better late than never.” I could not agree more. And I can now say without equivocation, “Dad, you were right not to take the war to Baghdad in 1991.”

Staying the course is now history. I will not merely tweak the rhetoric; I will rethink our policies and chart a new path ahead. And we must face facts: Total victory may not be possible. We might have to settle for lessā€”despite the loss of nearly 3,000 brave U.S. soldiers and tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) Iraqi civilians.

After being in charge of this war for more than three years, I’ve learned Iraq is not black and white. There are no easy solutions. Indeed, there may be no good solutions at all. We might have to settle for a muddle. But with the two years I have left as your president, I will do all I can to make sure it is the best muddle possible. As I do so, I ask Americans for their forgiveness, forbearance and support. God bless America and God help us. ++

From NYT’s transcript of todays news conference:

QUESTION: Why shouldn’t Americans give Democrats a chance to work with you on those issues, especially when divided governments seemed to work in the late 1990s on the budget?

BUSH: That’s a tricky little question there.

(LAUGHTER)

I — first, I haven’t given up on any of those issues. I’ve got two years left to achieve them. And I firmly believe it is more likely to achieve those three objectives with a Republican-controlled Congress and a Republican-controlled Senate. And I believe I’ll be working with a Republican-controlled Congress and a Republican- controlled Senate.

I understand, here in Washington, people have already determined the outcome of the election like it’s over, even before the people actually start heading — you know, voting.

But that’s not what I see when I’m on the campaign trail. You know, we’ve got some people dancing in the end zone here in Washington, D.C., measuring their drapes.

They’re going over to the Capitol and saying, My new office looks beautiful. I think I’m going to have this size drape there, or this color.

But the American people are going to decide, and they’re going to decide this race based upon who best to protect the American people and who best to keep the taxes low.

Secondly, I’ll tell you what I see. You didn’t ask, but I’m going to tell you anyway. I see a lot of enthusiasm amongst the grassroots activists. Our people are going out there to man the phones and to put up the yard signs. You know, they’re showing up when it comes time for these absentee votes.

We’re organized. We’ve got a fantastic grassroots organization to turn out the vote.

This campaign has obviously got national implications to it, no question about it: the Iraq war, the security of the country, economic vitality and growth.

But each of these elections turn out to be local in their scope and in their character.

And we got good candidates, running hard. And we’re going to win.

Now, I know that defies conventional wisdom here. I’m not suggesting anybody in this august crowd has determined the outcome of the election already.

But they’re running profiles on who — this person’s going to be running this office or this one. These magazines have got all kinds of new stars emerging, when they hadn’t even won the votes yet.

And anyway, thanks for asking about the campaign. I’m enjoying it out there. I like campaigning. It’s what guys like me do in order to get here. We campaign. We shake the hands, you know, and give the speeches.

And Laura’s campaigning, too. And from my perspective, our people are ready to go out there and vote our candidates back into power. ++

What’s right and good doesn’t come naturally. You have to stand up and fight for it - as if the cause depends on you, because it does. Allow yourself that conceit - to believe that the flame of Democracy will never go out as long as there’s one candle in your hand.
~ Bill Moyers

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Add comment October 25th, 2006

The Snake Oil Salesmen

James Dobson, he of theocratic intention, Big Daddy of Focus on the Family and personal spiritual guru to our own Leader Dearest, is flooding my states radio airwaves with ads warning about human cloning — the ads are paid for by a Baptist organization. Stem cell is a big issue on November’s ballot here, and this is the state running the ads by Mike Fox that a bloviating Rush has questioned in the vilest terms, turning even the hardest heart a little squishy.

Dobson, of course, is the man who has declared biblical war on just about everything most of us believe and who advocates not only child-beating and keeping women in their “place,” but is sure he can change gays into straights with a rigorous course of enlightenment and discipline. [Sounds a little “closeted,” doesn’t it?]

The warnings were all in place that this campaign season would be “dirty” — I’d say it has been LOW. They’ve appealed to our lowest common denominator … fear, racism, sexism, religious bias and skewed patriotism. All the things wrong with us … all the things we need to overcome and move past … all the things that are buried in our psyche and need to be exorcised.

Historians say that there have been attacks such as this since the first elections in this country. I say that’s no excuse — after 230 years, we should have learned a LITTLE something; mankind should have gained SOME emotional ground.

Evidently not.

What they’re saying and doing, below — and another dynamite Olbermann; as his ratings are up, they’re letting him say what he wants. Such is the power of Capitalism. Find a need and fill it … if you’re offering what the public wants, they’ll come to you.

Wish the Democrats would figure that out … and offer us what we want. With the exception of Dobson and his sheep, we’d all come running. Instead of harping about what the Dubby’s DONE, let’s talk about what he WILL do:

Want Social Security gutted next year? Vote Republican.

Want endless treasure poured into Iraq and more troops killed and maimed? Vote Republican.

Want Halliburton to walk off with billions more, unchecked? Vote Republican.

Want science and global warming ignored for two more years? Vote Republican.

Want the attack on the middle class to continue and the rich made richer? Vote Republican.

See? That’s not so hard … it’s what the Pub’s do, and are doing as we speak … and that’s the [very] short list. We all know what they’ve done … it’s what they WILL do, so EASILY predictable given their record, that should turn the votes Blue. And with each projection of what the Pubs have in mind, the Dems could tell us how they’ll fix that. Pelosi is taking a shot at that with her “First Hundred Hours” gambit … but it has that Senatorial ring to it, kind of Kerry-esqe, that’s putting the public to sleep [except for the horrified Pubs who are talking it up.]

Do see the last piece for a very clever way we can all help, copped from the Pub’s playbook. Something to do if you’re bored … or peck away at if you’re busy. [And note the play on Dubby’s use of the Internets … and his visits to The Google.]

Jude

Advertising Terrorism
The key to terrorism is not the act - but the fear of the act.
Keith Olbermann, MSNBC Countdown
Monday 23 October 2006
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/102406J.shtml
[open for video]

Tonight, a special comment on the advertising of terrorism - the commercial you have already seen.

It is a distillation of everything this administration and the party in power have tried to do these last five years and six weeks.

It is from the Republican National Committee;

It shows images of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri;

It offers quotes from them - all as a clock ticks ominously in the background.

It concludes with what Zawahiri may or may not have said to a Pakistani journalist as long ago as 2001: His dubious claim that he had purchased “suitcase bombs.”

The quotation is followed (by sheer coincidence no doubt) by an image of a massive explosion.

“These are the stakes,” appears on the screen, quoting exactly from Lyndon Johnson’s infamous nuclear scare commercial from 1964.

“Vote - November 7th.”

There is a cheap “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” quality to the whole thing, and it also serves to immediately call to mind the occasions when President Bush dismissed Osama bin Laden as somebody he didn’t think about - except, obviously, when elections were near.

Frankly, a lot of people seeing that commercial for the first time, have laughed out loud.

But - not everyone.

And therein lies the true threat to this country.

The dictionary definition of the word “terrorize” is simple and not open to misinterpretation:

“To fill or overpower with terror; terrify. To coerce by intimidation or fear.”

Note please, that the words “violence” and “death” are missing from that definition.

The key to terror, the key to terrorism, is not the act - but the fear of the act.

That is why bin Laden and his deputies and his imitators are forever putting together videotaped statements and releasing virtual infomercials with dire threats and heart-stopping warnings.

But why is the Republican Party imitating them?

Bin Laden puts out what amounts to a commercial of fear; The Republicans put out what is unmistakable as a commercial of fear.

The Republicans are paying to have the messages of bin Laden and the others broadcast into your home.

Only the Republicans have a bigger bank roll.

When, last week, the CNN network ran video of an insurgent in Iraq, evidently stalking and killing an American soldier, the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. Hunter, Republican of California, branded that channel, quote, “the publicist for an enemy propaganda film” and that CNN used it “to sell commercials.”

Another California Republican, Rep. Brian Bilbray, called the video “nothing short of a terrorist snuff film.”

If so, Mr. Bilbray, then what in the hell is your Party’s new advertisement?

And Mr. Hunter, CNN using the video to “sell commercials”?

Commercials!

You have adopted bin Laden and Zawahiri as spokesmen for the Republican National Committee!

“To fill or overpower with terror; terrify. To coerce by intimidation or fear.”

By this definition, the people who put these videos together - first the terrorists and then the administration - whose shared goal is to scare you into panicking instead of thinking - they are the ones terrorizing you.

By this definition, the leading terrorist group in this world right now is al Qaida.

But the leading terrorist group in this country right now is the Republican Party.

Eleven Presidents ago, a chief executive reassured us that “we have nothing to fear but fear itself.”

His distant successor has wasted his administration insisting that there is nothing we can have but fear itself.

The vice president, as recently as this month, was caught campaigning with the phrase “mass death in the United States.”

Four years ago it was the now-Secretary of State, Dr. Rice, rationalizing Iraq with “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”

Days later Mr. Bush himself told an audience that “we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun, that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”

And now we have this cheesy commercial - complete with images of a faked mushroom cloud, and implications of “mass death in America.”

This administration has derived benefit and power from terrorizing the very people it claims to be protecting from terror.

It may be the oldest trick in the political book: scare people into believing they are in danger and that only you can save them.

Lyndon Johnson used it to bury Barry Goldwater.

Joe McCarthy leaped from obscurity on its back.

And now the legacy has come to President George Bush.

Of course, the gruel of fear is getting thinner and thinner, is it not, Mr. President?

And thus more and more of it needs to be made out of less and less actual terror.

After last week’s embarrassing Internet hoax about ‘dirty bombs’ at football stadiums, the one your Department of Homeland Security immediately disseminated to the public, a self-described “former CIA operative” named Wayne Simmons, cited the fiasco as “the, and I mean the, perfect example of the President’s Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the NSA terrorist eavesdropping program - how vital they are.”

Frank Gaffney, once a respected assistant secretary of defense and now the president of something called the Center for Security Policy, added, “one of the things that I hope Americans take away from this, is not only that they’re gunning for us not just in a place like Iraq - but truly, worldwide.”

Of course, the “they” to which Mr. Gaffney referred, turned out to be a lone 20-year-old grocery bagger from Wisconsin named Jake - a kid, trying to one-up some other loser in an Internet game of chicken.

His “threat,” referenced seven football stadiums at which dirty bombs were to be exploded yesterday. It began with the one in New York City - even though there isn’t one in New York City. And though the attacks were supposed to be simultaneous, four of the games were scheduled to start at 1 p.m. ET and the others at 4 p.m. ET.

More over, the kid said he’d posted the identical message on 40 websites since September.

We caught him in “merely” about six weeks, even though the only way he could have been less subtle, less stealthy, and less of a threat was if he’d bought an advertisement on the Super Bowl broadcast.

Mr. Bush, this is the - what? - 100th plot your people have revealed, that turned out to be some nonsensical misunderstanding, or the fabrications of somebody hoping to talk his way off a water board in Eastern Europe?

If, Mr. President, this is the kind of crack work that your new ad implies that only you and not the Democrats can do, you, sir, need to pull over and ask for directions.

The real question of course, Mr. Bush, is why did your Department of Homeland Security even release this information in the first place?

It was never a serious threat. Even the first news accounts quoted a Homeland spokesman as admitting “strong skepticism” - the kind of strong skepticism which most government agencies address before telling the public, not afterwards.

So that leaves two options, Mr. President.

The first option: you and your department of Homeland Security don’t have the slightest idea what you’re doing. Thus, contrary to your flip-flopping between saying “we’re safe” and saying “but we’re not safe enough,” and contrary to the vice president’s swaggering pronouncements about the lack of another attack since 9/11, the last five years has been just an accident.

Or there’s the second option: your political operatives leaked this nonsense for the same reason your political operatives put out that commercial - to scare the gullible.

Obviously the correct answer, Mr. Bush, is all of the above.

There are some of us who could forgive you for trying to run your candidates on the coattails of the Grim Reaper, for reducing your party’s existence to “Death and Attacks Us.”

It’s cynical and barbaric.

But, after all, it may be merely the natural extension of the gutter politics to which you have subscribed since you sidled over from baseball, and the business world of other people’s money.

But to forgive you for terrorizing us, we would have to believe you somehow competent in keeping others from doing so.

Yet, last week, construction workers repairing a subway line in New York City, were cleaning out an abandoned manhole on the edge of the World Trade Center site, when they stumbled on to the impossible: human remains from 9/11.

Bones and fragments.

Eighty of them.

Some as much as a foot long.

The victims had been lying, literally in the gutter, for five years and five weeks.

The families and friends of each of the 2,749 dead - who had been grimly told in May of 2002 that there were no more remains to be found - were struck anew as if the terrorism of that day had just happened again.

And over the weekend they’ve found still more remains.

And now this week will be spent looking in places that should have already been looked at a thousand times five years ago.

For all the victims in New York, Mr. Bush - the living and the dead - it’s a touch of 9/11 all over again.

And the mayor of this city, who called off the search four-and-a-half years ago is a Republican.

The governor of this state with whom he conferred is a Republican.

The House of Representatives, Republican.

The Senate, Republican.

The President, Republican.

And yet you can actually claim that you and you alone can protect us from terrorism?

You can’t even recover our dead from the battlefield - the battlefield in an American city - when we’ve given you five years and unlimited funds to do so!

While signing a Military Commissions Act so monstrous that it has been criticized by even the John Birch Society, you told us, Mr. Bush, “there is nothing we can do to bring back the men and women lost on September 11th, 2001. Yet we’ll always honor their memory, and we will never forget the way they were taken from us.”

Except, of course, for the ones who’ve been lying under a manhole cover for five years.

Setting aside the fact that your government has done nothing else for those five years but pat yourselves on the back about terror, while waging pointless war on the wrong enemy in Iraq, and waging war on the cherished freedoms in America;

Just on this subject of counter-terrorism, sir, yours is the least competent government, in time of crisis, in this country’s history!

“These are the stakes,” indeed, Mr. President.

You do not know what you are doing.

And the commercial - the one about which Zawahiri might say “hey, pretty good - we love your choice of font style”?

All that need further be said is to add three words to Shakespeare.

Mr. President, you, and that advertisement of terror, are full of sound and fury - signifying (and competent at) nothing.

~ from http://www.mediamatters.org

Last week on his nationally syndicated radio show, Fox News host Sean Hannity encouraged Democratic voters to “stay home on Election Day,” adding that, “your vote doesn’t matter anyway.” He asserted that Democrats should not turn out to vote “for the sake of the nation” because Democrats’ votes “won’t change who occupies the White House” and Democratic “candidates have absolutely no idea how to win the war on terrorism.”

On the same program, Hannity misrepresented the Democratic Party platform, stating: “I don’t think abandoning our troops on the battlefield, or closing your eyes to enemy communications or listening to enemy communications in our country, or killing the economy, or supporting illegal immigration, I don’t think that’s something to run on.”

Comments like this demonstrate how Hannity and other right-wing media figures hope to impact the upcoming election — regardless of their spin about being objective.

It’s Just A Shot Away
by digby
http://tinyurl.com/uldfh

According to the General, during last nights debate, Sen. Lieberman, noting Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus, declared, “We’re in another time like that.”

That’s delusional BS. We’re in another time like this:

Open link to watch Lamont ad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df1KuS_ziRg

NAACP: Tenn. Senate ad plays to racism
BETH RUCKER, AP
Wed Oct 25
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061025/ap_on_el_se/tennessee_senate_ad

NASHVILLE, Tenn. - A political TV ad targeting a black candidate for Senate contains what critics, including the NAACP, are calling racist sexual innuendo about a black man and white woman.

The Republican National Committee ad began airing Friday and features a series of characters facetiously declaring their support for Democrat Harold Ford Jr., a Memphis congressman who faces Republican Bob Corker, who is white, in the Nov. 7 election. Polls have shown the two locked in a tight race.

In the ad, a blond white woman brags, “I met Harold at the Playboy party.” At the end she looks into the camera, holds her hand like a telephone and says, “Harold, call me,” before winking.

The line is an apparent reference to Ford’s attendance at a Playboy Super Bowl party in Jacksonville, Fla., last year.

“I was there. I like football, and I like girls,” Ford said Tuesday.

“I don’t think they’re doing it to talk about the goodness of me or the goodness of my opponent,” Ford said. “They want to scare people about me.”

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People criticized the ad.

“It is a powerful innuendo that plays to pre-existing prejudices about African-American men and white women,” Hilary Shelton, head of the Washington NAACP office, told the Los Angeles Times.

The Corker campaign denounced the ad, saying it is “tacky, over the top and is not reflective of the kind of campaign we are running.”

RNC spokesman Danny Diaz has defended the ad’s accuracy and said it will run its full course. It cost $457,944 to buy the time for the ad, according to Federal Election Commission filings.

Because the ad was created by an outside group that contracts with the Republican National Committee, neither the RNC nor Corker’s campaign saw it in advance and can’t order it to be taken off the air.

Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act passed by Congress in 2002, political parties can pay for “independent expenditure” advertisements against opponents that do not count against legal spending limits on campaigns. But the party is not allowed to play any role in creating the ad or deciding how and when it will be used.

Former Clinton Defense Secretary William S. Cohen, also a former Republican senator from Maine, said on CNN that the ad was “a very serious appeal to a racist sentiment.”

Rush Limbaugh On the Offensive Against Ad With Michael J. Fox
David Montgomery, Washington Post
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/24/AR2006102400691_pf.html

Possibly worse than making fun of someone’s disability is saying that it’s imaginary. That is not to mock someone’s body, but to challenge a person’s guts, integrity, sanity.

To Rush Limbaugh on Monday, Michael J. Fox looked like a faker. The actor, who suffers from Parkinson’s disease, has done a series of political ads supporting candidates who favor stem cell research, including Maryland Democrat Ben Cardin, who is running against Republican Michael Steele for the Senate seat being vacated by Paul Sarbanes.

“He is exaggerating the effects of the disease,” Limbaugh told listeners. “He’s moving all around and shaking and it’s purely an act. . . . This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn’t take his medication or he’s acting.”

Limbaugh, whose syndicated radio program has a weekly audience of about 10 million, was reacting to Fox’s appearance in another one of the spots, for Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill, running against Republican Sen. James M. Talent.

But the Cardin ad is similar. It is hard to watch, unless, for some reason, you don’t believe it. As he speaks, Fox’s restless torso weaves and writhes in a private dance. His head bobs from side to side, almost leaving the video frame.

“This is the only time I’ve ever seen Michael J. Fox portray any of the symptoms of the disease he has,” Limbaugh said. “He can barely control himself.”

Later Monday, still on the air, Limbaugh would apologize, but reaction to his statements from Parkinson’s experts and Fox’s supporters was swift and angry.

“It’s a shameless statement,” John Rogers said yesterday. Rogers, Fox’s political adviser, who also serves on the board of the Parkinson’s Action Network, added: “It’s insulting. It’s appallingly sad, at best.”

“Anyone who knows the disease well would regard his movement as classic severe Parkinson’s disease,” said Elaine Richman, a neuroscientist in Baltimore who co-wrote “Parkinson’s Disease and the Family.” “Any other interpretation is misinformed.”

Fox was campaigning yesterday for Tammy Duckworth, a congressional candidate, outside Chicago, when he alluded to Limbaugh’s remarks. “It’s ironic, given some of the things that have been said in the last couple of days, that my pills are working really well right now,” he said, according to a report on the CBS2 Web site.

After his apology, Limbaugh shifted his ground and renewed his attack on Fox.

“Now people are telling me they have seen Michael J. Fox in interviews and he does appear the same way in the interviews as he does in this commercial,” Limbaugh said, according to a transcript on his Web site. “All right then, I stand corrected. . . . So I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong, and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox, if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act.”

Then Limbaugh pivoted to a different critique: “Michael J. Fox is allowing his illness to be exploited and in the process is shilling for a Democratic politician.”

Limbaugh’s shock at Fox’s appearance is a measure of the disease’s devastation, advocates say. Contrary to the charge that Fox might not take his medicine to enhance his symptoms, the medicine produces some of the uncontrolled body movements.

“Stem cell research offers hope to millions of Americans with diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s,” Fox says in the Cardin ad. “But George Bush and Michael Steele would put limits on the most promising stem cell research.”

Fox has appeared in ABC’s “Boston Legal” this season. In his scenes, taped over the summer, Fox does not shake or loll his head as he does in the Cardin commercial, but does appear to be restraining himself, appearing almost rigid at times.

A source with direct knowledge of Fox’s illness who viewed the Cardin ad said Fox is not acting to exaggerate the effects of the disease. The source said Fox’s scenes in “Boston Legal” had to be taped around his illness, as he worked to control the tremors associated with Parkinson’s for limited periods of time.

Santorum is the only thing standing between us and fascism
October 24, 2006
http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8854.html

In May 2005, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) raised a few eyebrows when, during a debate on the “nuclear option,” he compared Democrats’ approach to Bush’s judicial nominees to Adolf Hitler in Paris in 1942.

Some of the cooler heads among us argued that Santorum was not necessarily drawing a moral parallel; he was only using World War II as an “easily understood historical reference.” Maybe so.

But how about this one?

Likening the times to the late 1930s as Nazi Germany was rising to power, Sen. Rick Santorum said last night that if he loses his re-election bid, it could set the stage for terrorism to become more of a threat than the Nazis ever were.

“If we are not successful here and things don’t go right in the election, there’s a good chance that the course of our country could change,” he said. “We are in the equivalent of the late 1930s, and this election will decide whether we are going to continue to appease or whether we will stand and fight while we have a chance to win without devastating consequences.

“And you here in Pennsylvania ā€” you here in this room ā€” will have a huge role to play as to what happens.”

What?

In 2004, Dick Cheney told audiences that if voters backed Kerry-Edwards, the United States would get “hit again” by terrorists. It was one of the more startling instances of the GOP using the politics of fear ā€” vote for us or you could very well die.

But Santorum seems to be taking matters considerably further. If Pennsylvanians don’t vote for him, there’s a “good chance” terrorists will start taking over countries and posing a Nazi-like risk to the world. Without Rick Santorum, the U.S. will embrace appeasement. Santorum will, apparently, single-handedly save civilization against a terrorist nightmare, which only he fully appreciates. A vote against Santorum not only opens the door to more attacks, it undermines the future of our very society.

I’ve heard of delusions of grandeur, but this is ridiculousā€¦.

James Dobson: “I have never seen such hatred in my life. I am being bludgeoned”
Children Will Be Targeted if States Change Marriage Definition, He Warns
Gudrun Schultz
Friday October 20, 2006
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/oct/06102005.html

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado, October 20, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The social consequences of a liberal victory in the coming elections will be grave, particularly for children, Dr. James Dobson warned in a radio broadcast urging pro-family voters to go to the polls.

Dr. Dobson accused the national media of attempting to influence pro-family voters to stay home. Despite media efforts to convince “values voters” that the issue of homosexual marriage is no longer of central importance, Dr. Dobson said, activists’ push for same-sex “rights” is increasingly focused on the next generation.

“Children are being targeted,” Dr. Dobson stated. “If one of these states do not confirm traditional marriage, adoption laws will change. Those put in foster care will be placed in different kinds of homes, the training foster care parents receive will be consistent with the homosexual perspective.”

Dobson said the key significance of the coming elections is evident in media attacks on pro-family supporters.

“I have never seen such hatred in my life. I am being bludgeoned,” Dobson said, making reference to an NBC broadcaster who allegedly referred to him as ‘the worst man in the world.’ “Why? Why now? Well, it’s not really personal to me. But they identify me as one of the people who turned out the values voters last time–and they are determined to never, ever let it happen again.”

“If people of faith–the so-called values voters–don’t come out and let their voices be heard, there are going to be some major implications for this country”, he said. “There are these statements from the media that values voters don’t care this year and that they’re going to stay home.”

Recent efforts by the California legislature to pass a measure mandating the inclusion of pro-homosexual material in all public school curricula, beginning with kindergarten, was a vivid example of the child-oriented goals in the homosexual activist movement, Dr. Dobson pointed out.

“Teaching five year olds about adult perverse behavior instead of fairy tales is unconscionable.”

While the California measure was vetoed on the last day possible by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, it had passed the Assembly and Senate by a wide margin despite a national and state-wide outcry by parents and pro-family organizations–an example, Dobson said, of the lack of any accountability on the part of those behind the pro-homosexual movement.

Bombing The Google
by digby
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/
[open to get links — do click if you have a chance]

Back in 2004, the rightwing bloggers came up with the idea of google bombing the name John Kerry so that negative articles came up first on the search page when people googled his name. it worked.

Chris Bowers decided we should do the same thing with our wonderful GOP opponents this time and has come up with a handy list of links to make this easy.

So, while you are on hold on the phone today or sitting in a boring meeting or simply looking to kill a couple of minutes, click on the links below and help us bring the truth about these Republicans to the top of the Google search pages.

Update: Never mind. You don’t have to click on the links (although you might learn more about why you hate these candidates.) Just post the links on whatever site on which you have posting privileges or on your own blog. Mr. Google will do the rest.

What’s right and good doesn’t come naturally. You have to stand up and fight for it - as if the cause depends on you, because it does. Allow yourself that conceit - to believe that the flame of Democracy will never go out as long as there’s one candle in your hand.
~ Bill Moyers

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.) adult credit sex teens cams chat500 casino sets chipexpress credit american addwordscasino against gamblingcredit elements adobe roll premiere tutorial2007 codes no deposit casinofree play hr online 1 casinoscredit assessment portfolio accredited based Map

Add comment October 25th, 2006