8/31/2007:   "I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities."

That was Bush's statement in a speech on August 29th. So basically he has authorized military action against Iran, ignoring the fact that he basically needs Congressional authorization to do so. Because, basically, Bush is the King... um, sorry... unitary executive now. Oh, hell, it's the same thing anyway...

On the other hand, his war in Iraq has given the nutjob in Iran the opportunity to make this statement a few days before, "The political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly," and continuing to opine that Iran would be right there to fill in the "political vacuum."

You get one warmonger beating the drum, and pretty soon other warmongers start picking up the beat.

8/31/2007:   It seems that the upcoming Pentagon report that describes the recent troop surge in Iraq has been leaked. Various Congressmen are getting a lot of mileage out of the report's assessment that the surge is a complete failure.

Okay, let's get logical here for a minute, shall we? If China sent over 120,000 troops to put a lid on Texas, first bombing the crap out of it from the air and then putting people on the ground, what do you think would happen? Yup, they would get their butts handed to them. And if China then trickled another 20,000 troops over here, less people that most small towns contain, with mediocre armor and half-armored transports, their "surge" would be a laughable failure. I mean, come on people, toppling a government is a lot easier than keeping an entire country under your thumb. In fact, I understand that there are people on the Hill that have recommended, with a straight face and in all seriousness, that they need to dissolve the current government there and put something in place that's somewhere between democracy and dictatorship. Something similar to what Pakistan has is looking mighty good right about now.

Maybe we can hire Pervez Musharraf? I hear he's going to be available soon...

8/30/2007:   The GOP is having a hard time coordinating its homophobic "Family Values" campaign and the personal lives of its elected members. Larry Craig, who has fought off several attempts to out him in the past, has essentially outed himself by coming on to an undercover police officer in an airport men's room. And once again, for the third time in as many weeks, the GOP is having to put out another homoerotic fire within its ranks.

Wouldn't it be easier to just own up to the fact that homosexuals exist, they are functional parts of our society, and they aren't hurting anyone?

I think it's interesting that the GOP is burning their bridges, if not their members, with gusto in an effort to distance themselves from, and coincidentally alienate, 10% of the population. You'd think they'd just say, okay, fine, we're going to take the stance that homosexuals exist, and that marriage within a church and the legal bindings that occur as part of marriage are two separate things, and that we can allow two adults to join their legal affairs contractually without necessarily supporting gay marriage or forcing anyone to recognize gay marriage against their religious beliefs, and then we can move on to more important things without embarrassing ourselves needlessly and looking like complete morons.

You know, that position that the Democrats have had all along? Yeah, that one.

On the flip side, I challenge Craig to save himself and his integrity by resigning, coming out, telling everyone his side of the *real* story, not the lies he's been touting all these years, making a fortune and breaking new ground at the same time.

But I don't expect it. He seems pretty weaselly to me. Spineless. A typical GOP politician.

8/30/2007:   Something weird is happening in the press. John Conyers announced that, regardless of Mrs. Pelosi's dictate, he was perfectly okay with exercising his option to initiate impeachment proceedings in the House, and the major press syndicates seem to be ignoring this historic rebellion against the corrupted Democratic leadership.

Yeah, I said it. Corrupted Democratic leadership. Get over it.

Conyers is the only person in the House with the you-know-whats to put his reputation and career on the line to protect the framework of our country. Because in that role of public servant, there is no greater good than the greater good. Our country's Constitution defines the boundaries of our government and secures our freedoms from that government. It empowers us by limiting our government's power over us, and the Bush administration has made its primary goal the advancement of the executive branch over and above the other ostensibly co-equal branchs and in direct violation of the Constitution.

But John Conyer's act of defiance, of rebellion against the co-opted, gutless, perhaps even traitorous Democratic leadership has gotten nary a whisper of mention in the major press. CNN: nothing. NBC: nothing. CBS: nothing. Fox: Oh, wait, we're talking about news organizations not propoganda machines... sorry... CNN is blank. NBC is CBS hasn't mentioned Conyers in over a month, in spite of the fact that he was spearheading the effort to hand down contempt of Congress citations to Bolten and Miers for refusing to appear before Congress.

So what gives, guys? Are you turning into Faux News affiliates or what?

8/30/2007:   Some news organization posed the question, "Is the U.S. ready for a black attorney general?" And I immediately thought of the quote from Al Gore's book, "If you can get them asking the wrong questions, the answers don't matter."

Look, the day for asking if we're ready for a black attorney general passed about 30 years ago. We have politicians of all races right now in nearly every level of government. We just got done tar and feathering an unqualified and treasonous man of Mexican descent from that office. Apparently skin color isn't a factor in doing the job well or doing it really, really badly, so why did this question come up? Because race sells? Because the idea titillates and draws attention? Whatever the reason, it's a stupid question.

I want someone qualified, and I want someone that will stand up for the Constitution against our treasonous president. But since the president doesn't want that, and since he selects the candidate for this office, it's clear that he'll pick someone just like Gonzo. He'll probably pick a minority just to make his party look good. But are we ready? Sure. Of course. Stupid question...

8/28/2007:   Congress' approval rating has made news at a staggeringly low 18%. I'm not going to defend them except to say, if that rating is based on the amount of legislation that has passed, you can lay that at the feet of President Bush. You can't pass laws if the president refuses to sign them. But the approval rating has nothing to do with the ability to pass laws. It has everything to do with the expectatios of the people that voted for them. The referendum represented by the Democratic domination of the legislative branch was built on this country's need for Congress to stand up against the president and bring the executive branch sharply into check. That simply hasn't happened, and not by mistake, but by explicit design. Nancy Pelosi stated in clearm terms that "impeachment is off the table," stunning the American public and dismaying the Democratic Party. Is anyone surprised that a Congress stubbornly refusing to end a war based on lies and to remove or at least control the president's administration is being viewed as doing a poor job?

As I've stated before, if they don't do their job, I'll be leading the charge to remove them and put my support behind their Democratic Party challengers. If you can't do the job, you don't deserve the job.

8/23/2007:   Chris Dodd should never occupy the seat of the President of the United State, and he should be relieved of his seat in Congress with all possible speed. He lacks any semblance of spine and is derelict in his duties.

Dodd was quoted as saying, "If we become preoccupied with an impeachment process, I think we could turn off an awful lot of people who might otherwise be willing to support Democrats and be willing to change the direction of the country in the fall of 2008."

There's a term for men like Dodd, but it's not particularly polite, and after that quote it would be redundant anyway.

I want a man in as President with the spine to stand up to the current President in order to protect the framework of this country from the auspices of an administration whose primary goal is self-enrichment and gorging on power. The oversight of the executive branch is one of the most critical responsibilities of Congress.

Dodd has shown his true color: yellow.

8/20/2007:   On Wikipedia, they have a rating of the Presidents, and somehow Clinton just barely edges out George W. Bush. How the hell do they figure? Clinton was awesome on domestic social policy, education, and domestic economy, and better than average on international policy. His zipper control was the only black mark, followed closely by his inadequate work to fix NAFTA. But to compare him to a man that has done more to destroy our basic constitutional freedoms and liberties and sent more men to their deaths in a war based on flat out lies is comparing a titan to a mental midget. I would rather have a man in that office that sleeps with his subordinates than one that is so direly corrupt and evil as Bush.

8/19/2007:   Wow. The GOP candidates suck SO BAD! There is NO WAY a Republican is going to take the oath January 20th, 2009. It really just comes down to which of the fully qualified and really electable Democrats you should vote for.

8/19/2007:   Quick summary:

Clinton: A+ Good, well thought out, candid answers, as usual. Her delivery is always perfect. You'd never know she was sucking up to corporations. (No, until I hear her adjust her positions on H1B visas and taxes and stick to them, that's my view.) She had a good point about Obama's Pakistan statement, even if she got boo'ed for it.

Obama: Good too, but perhaps too smart. He was right on about NAFTA, but that probably wasn't the place to get cerebral. He needs to shorten his answers to be inspiring *and* short. Great answer on China. Got nailed on his delayed vote on the Iraq supplemental funding bill. Got kicked for suggesting we'd invade Pakistan if necessary to get to Bin Laden.

Dodd: Shouldn't have bothered showing up. Not that he's not good, but rather than talk about the positions, he talked about his record too much. That's what you do when you're running for Congress, not President. Good answer on China, though. China is the 800 lbs. gorilla, and we would do well to recognize that. Bad answer on Iraq. He torpedoed Obama on Pakistan.

Kucinich: Man, he's good. He comes off smart and fresh. Nailed NAFTA as far as the audience was concerned, even if he was wrong. Bad answer on Iraq. Iraq doesn't need vision, it needs an intelligent path to stability and security. Unrealistic answer on healthcare as well -- universal free healthcare is a pipe dream here. Never going to happen.

Edwards: He has *got* to figure out how to come up with a way to look less slick and more like he's actually given this stuff some thought and is fired up and serious about his positions. He's got decent, reasonable answers, but his delivery is too slick. First to use the term "scab."

Biden: Great answers every time. Best answer on Iraq. Too many political buzzwords, though. Got boo'ed for not saying he'd bomb Pakistan.

Richardson: Best line of the night, "I want to thank you and let you know that I will continue to take your financial support." Otherwise, completely unrealistic promises, practically a caricature of a candidate. Best answer had to do with not having Dick Cheney as his VP.

Overall, except for Obama getting kicked about Pakistan, they all were pretty friendly with each other. The crowd had a hard time not yelling like a bunch of morons or flashing their tee shirt logos at the camera during the entire event. They really shouldn't serve beer at debates...

8/19/2007:   One of the things that the GOP has hurt themselves on by selling their souls the evil, anti-Christian-principles, religious right - a classification that clearly has very little to do with being "right" - is abortion. Fred Thompson, who is circling the arena ad nauseum, too cowardly to just throw his hat in right away, has come right out and said he'd make abortion illegal.

Good luck with that Fred... Let me know how that works out for you...

Look, I hate the prospect of abortion, and I despise the use of abortion as a form of birth control, but the reality is that women use it to end unwanted and/or unsupportable pregnancies. "Unwanted" can be a result of rape or incest. It may be because the birth control in use failed and the woman has too many children already or may be too young to be responsible for the child. Either way, it's not my choice

8/17/2007:   Yesterday we passed 4000 official U.S. casualties in the war and subsequent endless occupation of Iraq. A war based on lies. A war that Bush was longing for and searching for a justification to execute from his first day in office. Four thousand men and women that the government will admit to. And along the way, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CIVILIANS. The U.S. got all tore up over just under 3000 people dying in one attack on September 11th, 2001. How much angrier must the Iraqis be knowing that the U.S. stomped the life out of, to date, nearly a million of their people over a pack of lies and the inability to vote for good, not evil, in 2004? What an insensate, idiot, rabid, dog we've become as a nation, allowing our best and brightest to be placed upon the ritual pyre in worship of one man's ego. God help and guide us, truly...

8/17/2007:   I was reading an interesting article tonight that posed the question, "Where are they now," in regards to the architects of the fraudulent and disastrous war in Iraq. A war that has taken nearly a million lives to date and been the excuse for the promise of millions more deaths.

Paul Wolfowitz. PNAC signatore and former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, he suffered an embarrassing and undignified ejection recently from the position of head of the World Bank for showing favoritism to his underling girlfriend.

Stephen Hadley. Former Deputy Nation Security Advisor, he was personally responsible for making sure that the mention of an Iraqi nuclear program stayed in Bush's speeches in spite of extreme efforts on the part of CIA to get those portions stricken prior to Bush appearances before Congress and the United Nations. While he should be in Guantanamo Bay having hot pokers shoved into places they don't belong, he has since been promoted to National Security Advisor.

Richard Perle. Former Chairman of Defense Policy Board and PNAC member, Perle has since resigned and is now a member of a PNAC off-shoot, the American Enterprise Institute. He left his White House post for being, and continues to be, invesigated for war profiteering and related ethics violations and conflicts of interest.

Elliott Abrams. Having cut his teeth on Iran-Contra, during which he was convicted of withholding information from Congress, he is the former Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director of the Nation Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs (wow, that's a lot of words to just say, "Satan"). Another individual that should be benefiting from Alberto Gonzales zest for torture, he is instead serving as Deputy Nation Security Adviser.

Scooter Libby. Dick Vader's Chief of Staff, he twisted the arms of CIA analysts to dish the "truth" as Bush wanted it reported, that there were WMDs and that Iraq was aiding and abetting Al Qaeda. Valerie Plame's identity wasn't the only classified information he provided the press. He also took the "reports" he pressured out of the CIA and fed them to Judith Miller of the New York Times. Propoganda is good unless it's top secret good! He was the principal author of the now historic U.N. presentation in which Bush lied to the entire world about Iraq's nuclear program. Right now, while he should be rotting in prison for perjury and obstruction of justice, Bush's commutation has him sunning himself in the Bahamas. Probably writing another weird-ass bestiality/child sex book.

John Hannah. Former Deputy National Security Advisor and assisting author for the speech of lies given by Bush to the U.N., he has now taken Scooter's place as the National Security Advisor.

David Wurmser. Former Special Assistant to John Bolton, he started pushing for a war with Iraq as soon as Bush got into office. Currently the principal Deputy Assistant to the Vice President. No rest for the wicked.

Andrew Natsios. Former head of USAID, he predicted it would only take $1.7 billion to rebuild Iraq after the quick butt-stomping that would be the Iraq War. Once he was publicly humiliated by the fact that we spend that much nearly every day we're there, he departed to teach diplomacy at Georgetown. Maybe he meant to say "trillion"?

Dan Bartlett. Former White House Communications Director and head of effort to "market" the Iraq War. He finally got tired of being associated with the stupidity that is the Bush administration and resigned a couple of months ago.

Mitch Daniels. Former Director of the Office of Management and Budget, he estimated the war effort would cost no more than $60 billion, he's now the governor of Indiana because most people in Indiana can't read, and those that can like it when mass murder committed in their name goes wildly overbudget.

George Tenet. Except for his single phone call to try to prevent Bush from including the famous "16 words" about Iraq's nonexistent nuclear program in his U.N. speech, Tenet stood by and let Bush lie to the entire world in order to kill millions. George resigned and was later awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom at a time when Bush was trying to make heroes out of idiots and assholes. He now teaches at Georgetown University.

Donald Rumsfeld. PNAC signatore, Rummy was the architect of a war that went well and an endless occupation that was a disaster. Thoroughly lambasted for years, he finally succumbed and resigned. He has written his memoirs and is attempting to create a new spin-off of PNAC.

Condoleezza Rice. Former National Security Advisor, she was one of the loudest cheerleaders for the "mushroom cloud" justification for an Iraq War, having ignored George Tenets admonishments that the evidence for yellowcake purchases was fake. Incompetence rising faster that leavened bread in the White House, she is now the Secretary of State.

I'm not going to even give Bush and Cheney any of my time. These are the people that made the Iraq War possible, the people who, in the face of truth, will tell it's all lies and that they were right the whole time and, even if they weren't, they were. They are evil. They ought to be in prison, they ought to be tortured, they ought to be given over to the Iraqi people for justice, but first they ought to be tried for war crimes at the Hague.

May history never forget what they did to us and to the people of Iraq.

8/13/2007:   Someone once said, "If you can get them asking the wrong questions, the answers don't matter." And I think people are caught up in asking the wrong questions during the "debates" we've seen. I put "debates" in quotes because, let's face it, the YouTube/CNN and Logo shows were really more like interviews than debates. The YouTube show had people sending their questions in the form of videos, and while certainly entertaining, the format left much to be desired. Mike Gravel, while incredibly annoying, was actually spot on when he complained that he wasn't getting any air time. The questions were typically posed to Edwards, Clinton, and Obama, with a little time given to Biden, Kucinich, and Dodd, and the rest tossed like scraps to the remaining individuals. They only had enough time to state their positions, not banter about the pros and cons of their positions. And the Logo show wasn't a debate at all. It was a series of interviews. But I don't want to detract from it -- what you saw on that stage were the candidates who would represent all Americans, not just the ones they profit from or are afraid of.

But the point is, people aren't asking the really important questions, and those nearly all deal with the horrible damage done to our consitutional framework by the Bush administration. For those candidates that pick up this theme on the 'net, here are the issues people should be asking for:

There. That's a pretty good start. Because the other issues will come and go, but you can't build a safe house on a bad foundation, and Bush represents the age and rot of the current foundation. It allows for way too much leeway in interpretation and execution. Future presidents must not be allowed to corrupt the system the way Bush has.

8/13/2007:   I said it last month, and I'll say it again: The smart Democratic presidential candidate is the one that will preempt a press conference by starting *and* ending the conference with the following question to the American public and a dramatic pause as though actually expecting an answer:

"Do you -- each and every American -- do you think Scooter Libby should have more rights than you? Do you think George Bush should have more rights than you? Do you think Karl Rove or Dick Cheney should have more rights than any other American?"

If people won't think critically on their own about what happened yesterday, then get them to focus on the most basic principle violated, and ask them to make it personal to themselves. Set the tone.