Islamofascists

"Islamofascists." We are hearing a lot about them from the right.

I hate that word. It is used by the right to lump together terrorist groups like al Qaeda and dictatorships such as Iraq while Saddam was in power. While both may be evil, these are two different problems which required different solutions.

Lumping these groups together just acts to make people more willing to accept the Republican line that the invasion of Iraq was related to 9/11. These are quite different groups which see each other as enemies, with Iraq having had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks on the United States.

Destruction of secular dictatorships was one of Bin Laden's goals. In attacking Iraq and turning it into a terrorist training camp we just wound up assisting those who attacked us on 9/11.

I suppose "Islamofascists" was made up by the same sort of person who uses words like "FemiNazi." Despite all the uproar from the right after Durbin used a Nazi analogy, the conservatives love to use such comparisons.

Senator Edward M Kennedy: Accountability in Iraq

Accountability in Iraq
29 June 2005

President Bush addressed the nation once again last night about the war in Iraq, and once again he refused to level with our troops and the American people and offer an effective strategy.

The Administration's view of the war in Iraq is divorced from reality, and does a disservice to our troops and the American people. Only when President Bush, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and the rest of the Administration address the realities of what is happening on the ground can we hope to make progress in the region.

We must hold them accountable for refusing to outline an effective strategy for success in Iraq.

MORE

Media Coverage of Bush's Speech

George Bush had nothing new to say last night, primarily repeating the discredited claims of a connection between 9/11 and Iraq along with the irrational theory that by fighting terrorists in Iraq (where they weren't present before the war) we are somehow reducing the risk of having to fight them here. We really didn't expect much from George Bush, a man who has taken dishonesty and incompetence in national leadership to new levels. What is surprising is that the three networks decided to cover this. Tom Shales believes it was the right wing bloggers who forced this decision:

In a time when some polls show the popularity of the news media to be even lower than the approval rating for Bush's conduct of the war, the managements of the networks may have feared hostile reaction if they didn't air the speech live. Political conservatives keep up a steady drumbeat of hostility against the media, something the Bush administration does nothing to discourage. Refusing to air the speech probably would have led to unpleasantness -- or at the least given the new subculture of bellicose bloggers another alleged media conspiracy to shriek about.

I had some post-speech notes at LUTD on the television coverage as I channel surfed. CBS left immediately, with Shales writing this off to the CBC boss being "no friend to the news division" and contrasts this with the glory days of CBS. I was pleased to hear George Stephanopoulos on ABC discuss the untrue claims made by Bush, such as the connection to 9/11. NBC's anchors took a conservative line, but also had an excellent interview with Nancy Pelosi. I thought Pelosi did an even better job in refuting Bush's arguments while answering the questions during this interview than in her prepared statement.

We are all aware of CNN's interview with John Kerry. The Note reports on another televised interview with Kerry: "John Kerry was Matt Lauer's guest this morning once again called for getting the training of Iraqi forces "on a real war time footing" and getting serious (perhaps with the help of an international force) about making Iraq's borders less porous."

I missed MSNBC, but that might be for the better considering the description provided by Shales: "Matthews led a post-speech discussion that included assembled experts, most of whom leaned to the right or far right, and an audience made up largely of military families."

Among the print media, Ronald Brownstein points out the contradictions in both Bush's changing rational for the war, and in the dangers of making Iraq a terrorist haven:

President Bush on Tuesday retooled his original argument for the Iraq war, justifying the U.S. military presence there as the solution to a problem that critics say the war itself caused.

More than two years ago, Bush argued that Saddam Hussein's control over Iraq could make the nation a haven for terrorists. But in his nationally televised speech, Bush asserted that the tumult that has followed Hussein's removal created the same threat.

In the lead-up to the war, Bush presented the invasion of Iraq primarily as a means of preventing the Iraqi dictator from providing nuclear, biological or chemical weapons to terrorists.

After coalition forces failed to find evidence of such weapons, and several investigations did not uncover meaningful links between Hussein and Al Qaeda, the president increasingly stressed the possibility that creating a democracy in Iraq could encourage democratic reform across the Middle East.

The Washington Post also discusses the contradiction between Bush's pre-war claims on terrorism and the reality:

Two and a half months later, when he declared that major combat operations were over, the president said it was a victory in the war against terrorism because Hussein was "a source of terrorism funding" (referring to Iraq's role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) and because "no terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime."

Bush also described Hussein as "an ally of al Qaeda," a point he suggested again last night, but the Sept. 11 commission concluded there had been no collaboration between Hussein and the terrorist group headed by Osama bin Laden.

Now, many analysts inside and outside the government portray Iraq as a breeding ground for terrorist groups, in part because of mistakes made by the administration after it defeated Hussein and occupied Iraq. Bush emphasized the gains fighting terrorism, but the Pentagon commander for the Middle East, Gen. John P. Abizaid, said this month that more foreign fighters are now moving into Iraq than were six months ago.

Clarence Thomas: No Retirements Planned

Law.com reports that Clarence Thomas said Tuesday that none of the members of the Supreme Court plan to retire. This occurred during a speech given in Georgia at the swearing in of the new chief justice of the state Supreme Court.

Members of the Senate apparently do not believe this. USA Today reports that, "Senate leaders said Tuesday that they have begun preparing for a vacancy on the Supreme Court, even though the justices wrapped up work for the year without any word of a retirement."

WMD Quotes

William Rivers Pitt collected these quotes (with many more also posted):

“We are greatly concerned about any possible linkup between terrorists and regimes that have or seek weapons of mass destruction…In the case of Saddam Hussein, we’ve got a dictator who is clearly pursuing and already possesses some of these weapons. A regime that hates America and everything we stand for must never be permitted to threaten America with weapons of mass destruction.”

- Dick Cheney, Vice President
Detroit, Fund-Raiser
6/20/2002

“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”

- Dick Cheney, Vice President
Speech to VFW National Convention
8/26/2002

“There is already a mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein is gathering weapons for the purpose of using them. And adding additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest.”

- Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Response to Question From Press
9/6/2002

“We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”

- Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor
CNN Late Edition
9/8/2002

“Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.”

- George W. Bush, President
Speech to UN General Assembly
9/12/2002

“Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.”

- George W. Bush, President
Radio Address
10/5/2002

“The Iraqi regime…possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.”

- George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002

“And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons.”

- George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002

“After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.”

- George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002

“We’ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas.”

- George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002

Salon: What Would Kerry Do?

From the Salon War Room:

What would Kerry do?

We have a pretty good sense now of what President Bush will say in his prime-time speech on Iraq tonight: The road is long, but there's progress being made in the training of Iraqi security forces and in the building of a real Iraqi government; we need patience, not timetables; and just in case you've forgotten, let me remind you one more time that Iraq is part of a war on terrorism that began when America was attacked on 9/11.

Now imagine that we live in some other universe, one in which the 53 percent of the public that disapproves of Bush's job performance now had voted in accordance with those feelings back in November. What would President John Kerry be telling the nation tonight?

We don't have to imagine because Kerry is telling anyone who will listen. The senator from Massachusetts has "what the president should say" op-ed in today's New York Times, and he's repeating much the same advice in an email message to supporters and in a floor speech this afternoon in the U.S. Senate.

Kerry's message: The president has made a mess of things in Iraq so far, and it's "long past time to get it right." "Our mission in Iraq is harder because the administration ignored the advice of others, went in largely alone, underestimated the likelihood and power of the insurgency, sent in too few troops to secure the country, destroyed the Iraqi army through de-Baathification, failed to secure ammunition dumps, refused to recognize the urgency of training Iraqi security forces and did no postwar planning," Kerry wrote in the Times this morning. "A little humility would go a long way -- coupled with a strategy to succeed."

So what should Bush do now? Start by telling the truth, Kerry says. "We must tear down the wall of arrogance," Kerry says in the remarks prepared for delivery on the Senate floor. "When the vice president absurdly claims the insurgency is in its 'last throes,' he insults the common sense and intelligence of the American people and diminishes our stature in the world. And how can we expect the Iraqi people to take us seriously and do their part when the White House says the insurgency is fading. . . . While we shouldn't dwell on mistakes, we need to understand their consequences on our ability to effectively move forward. With allies reading the Downing Street memo, and the American people realizing the rationalization for this war changed midstream, it becomes that much harder to rally the collective strength of the nation and the world to our cause. We have to acknowledge the past to overcome it, because the truth is the stubbornness of this administration matters. It hurts our chances for success. It leads to frustrated expectations at home, makes it so much more difficult for the Iraqi people to embrace this cause, and makes it so much easier for sidelined nations to turn their back on a common interest and say: 'OK, it's their deal.'"

After coming clean, Kerry says, Bush should make it clear that the U.S. doesn't intend to stay in Iraq permanently; insist that the Iraqis build a "truly inclusive political process" and meet their deadlines along the way; and announce that he's putting the training of Iraqi troops on a "true six-month wartime footing" by, among other things, ensuring that the Iraqi government has the budget it needs to train and deploy the troops and by accepting offers from Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more to help. Kerry says the administration should set -- and share with Congress --"clear milestones and deadlines for the transfer of military and police responsibilities to Iraqis after the December elections." Kerry says Bush should push Iraq to rely on tribal, religious and ethnic militias while its own national army is being built, and that the administration should establish a multinational force to help protect Iraq's borders. Meanwhile, he says, the administrations should encourage Iraq's Sunnis neighbors to help more with the rebuilding of Iraq by presenting them with a "strategic plan" for regional security that acknowledges their fears about an "Iran-dominated crescent and their concerns about our fitful mediation between Israel and the Palestinians."

It may sound like a lot of hard work to the man who is president in the universe in which we live, but Kerry says that the next few months in Iraq will be critical. "If Mr. Bush fails to take these steps, we will stumble along, our troops at greater risk, casualties rising, costs rising, the patience of the American people wearing thin, and the specter of quagmire staring us in the face. Our troops deserve better: They deserve leadership equal to their sacrifice."

Kerry's New Best Friend

The Hill:

Sen. Kerry finds a new best friend

What could ease the sting of a presidential election defeat better than wet, sloppy kisses and spirited games of fetch?

Probably not much. Enter Stache, Sen. John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) new schnauzer puppy. Thanks to the Boston Herald, we learn that the pup’s name comes from “the pronounced hair on his face.”

Stache joins Kim, the would-be first couple’s German shepherd, in what must be an enviable lifestyle for a pooch. He was spotted by Herald sources on the Kerry speedboat in Nantucket.

Said Kerry spokesman David Wade, “Stache sleeps half the day, barks just to hear himself speak and loves to shake hands, so he fits in perfectly in politics.”

Boston Herald:

Kerry's new pup a howl onboard By Gayle Fee and Laura Raposa Monday, June 27, 2005 - Updated: 05:06 AM EST What's a man to do when his White House hopes are dashed? Like President Harry Truman once said: ``You want a friend in Washington? Get a dog.'' So the newest addition to Sen. John Kerry's inner circle is a Schnauzer puppy named Stache, who takes his handle from the pronounced hair on his face. Thankfully, Stache is a male. . . . Anyway, the pup reported for Man's Best Friend duty recently joining a German shepherd named Kim and Sunshine, the family canary, in the Kerry-Heinz household. Last week, Stache was spotted by our dogged spies being taken for a ride on the family speedboat in Nantucket. So he's slipping comfortably into the Kerry-Heinz haute ways, although Teresa was overheard telling a neighbor that her new pooch barfs on board. ``Stache sleeps half the day, barks just to hear himself speak and loves to shake hands, so he fits in perfectly in politics,'' said Kerry spokesguy David Wade. Woof.

John Kerry To Speak Out on Iraq, Details Concrete Steps the President Must Take to Rescue the Mission

John Kerry will go to the Senate floor today to offer a concrete set of steps the President needs to take to rescue the mission in Iraq, get it right, and deal with a series of mistakes that have brought us to this point.

We’ll have an update for the time on LightUpTheDarkness.

Kerry Email on Iraq

Email from John Kerry:

Tonight, President Bush will speak to the nation about the situation in Iraq. It's about time.

I hope tonight he'll address his words not just to us, and certainly not to Karl Rove or Donald Rumsfeld, but to a young American soldier in Iraq right now -- the soldier carrying an M-16 in a dangerous place where he or she can't tell friend from foe, the marine out on patrol at night who doesn't know what's coming around the next bend. America's brave young men and women deserve to hear the truth.

For too long, the Bush administration's strategy has been to divide not unite, to spin not to lead, to attack their political enemies at home rather than fight America's enemies attacking our troops in Iraq.

It's long past time to get it right in Iraq. The administration's current lack of a coherent strategy is courting disaster instead of doing what's needed for success.

That's what we need from this administration. No more false rosy scenarios. No more happy talk about the Iraq insurgency being in "its final throes" when our military leadership knows that's just spin.

It was with our troops in mind that I offered up a plan for Iraq in a New York Times op-ed this morning. I wrote: "The reality is the Bush administration's choices have made Iraq into what it wasn't before the war -- a breeding ground for jihadists."

As I said in the article and I will say again on the Senate floor today, there's no time to wait -- this is a time for humility from the White House, and a time to take specific steps to finally get it right in Iraq. It starts by telling the truth, and being straight with Americans.

Here's what I think President Bush needs to address tonight - and we need to hold him accountable:

• The president must announce immediately that the United States will not have a permanent military presence or bases in Iraq.
  
  
• The United States must also insist that the Iraqis establish a truly inclusive political process and meet the deadlines for finishing the constitution and holding elections in December.
  
  
• We need to put the training of Iraqi troops on a true six month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget needed to deploy them.
  
  
• The administration needs to work not just at security but at reconstruction -- Iraqis need to see the electricity working and the water flowing.
  
  
• The administration needs to get Iraq's neighbors off the sidelines -- they can't afford a failed Iraq on their doorstep, and Bush-style unilateralism needs to bend to getting these countries on board.
  
  
• And the administration must immediately draw up a detailed plan with clear milestones for the transfer of military and police responsibilities to Iraqis after the December elections. The plan should be shared with Congress.

It's the only way we can set the stage for American forces to begin to come home.

The next months are critical to the future of Iraq and our security. If the administration fails to take the kind of steps I outlined today, we will stumble along, our troops at greater risk, casualties rising, costs rising, the patience of the American people wearing thin, and the specter of quagmire staring us in the face.

I urge you to watch the president's speech tonight with a careful eye and to act in every way possible to demand what our troops deserve - leadership equal to their sacrifices.

Sincerely,

John Kerry

Bush Flip Flops on Exit Strategies

George Bush has (forgive the f-word) flip flopped on the value of timetables per these quotes from Think Progress. The 1999 quotes were from Bush's criticism of Clinton's military involvement in Kosovo (where we did not get bogged down in a quagmire as in Iraq).

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”-- George Bush, April 9, 1999

“I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.” --George Bush, June 5, 1999

“It doesn’t make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you’re — you’re conceding too much to the enemy.” --George Bush, June 24, 2005

Kerry To Speak on Bush's Failings in Iraq

In response to George Bush's speech scheduled for John Kerry has an op-ed in the New York Times today. He will also be speaking on the Senate floor to give a major speech on Iraq. They will be sending out an emailing to three million members of johnkerry.com. Also watch for more response to Bush's speech on Light Up The Darkness.

In his op-ed in the New York times, Kerry states:

The reality is that the Bush administration's choices have made Iraq into what it wasn't before the war - a breeding ground for jihadists. Today there are 16,000 to 20,000 jihadists and the number is growing. The administration has put itself - and, tragically, our troops, who pay the price every day - in a box of its own making. Getting out of this box won't be easy, but we owe it to our soldiers to make our best effort.

Our mission in Iraq is harder because the administration ignored the advice of others, went in largely alone, underestimated the likelihood and power of the insurgency, sent in too few troops to secure the country, destroyed the Iraqi army through de-Baathification, failed to secure ammunition dumps, refused to recognize the urgency of training Iraqi security forces and did no postwar planning. A little humility would go a long way - coupled with a strategy to succeed.

Kerry is being a bit modest here. He could have pointed out that our mission is harder because George Bush ignored the advice given by John Kerry in the months leading up to the war. This advice included:

• Only going into Iraq if we were proven to be threatened by weapons of mass destruction
• Go in for the purpose of removing the threat of WMD, not nation building
• Go into Iraq as part of an international force, not unilaterally, if feasible

Kerry predicted the problems we now face when he spoke at Georgetown University before the war:

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.

Vilsack to Chair DLC

The Des Moines Register reports that Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack will become chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council next month, replacing Evan Bayh.

Chairmanship of the DLC will help establish Vilsack as a leader among Democratic moderates. The group is credited with propelling Bill Clinton's candidacy. Hillary Clinton is also expected to have a leadership position in the DLC, and the article speculates on a future Clinton-Vilsack ticket.

The DLC has become a frequent target in the more liberal blogs, which I consider a foolish course. Being a majority party requires having a variety of views, and sometimes the views of DLC members are even right.

Kerry's Warnings Right on Cost of War

It seems that every few weeks we have another post on how Kerry was right and Bush was wrong. This includes the Iraqi weapons (and here), Bush's failure to capture Bin Laden, as well as the warnings that Bush would attempt to privitize Social Security after the election.

An editorial today in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette now argues that Kerry was right about the costs of the war:

During last year's campaign, President Bush's operatives ridiculed John Kerry for forecasting that the cost of the war in Iraq would exceed $200 billion. Now it appears that the Massachusetts senator's estimate was, if anything, on the low side.

The $82 billion war spending bill signed by Mr. Bush pushes the cost of military operations in Iraq well past the Kerry prediction, with no end in sight.

Andrew Sullivan on Rove and Durbin

Howard Kurtz quoted Andrew Sullivan's comments on Karl Rove and Dick Durbin today, giving them far more coverage:

"It seems to me that Karl Rove's sickening generalization about 'liberals' in the war on terror is revealing in ways not obviously apparent. Sure, there were some on the hard left who really did jump to blame America for the evil perpetrated by the monsters of 9/11. I took names at the time. But all 'liberals'? The New Republic? Joe Lieberman? Hitch? Paul Berman? The Washington Post editorial page? Tom Friedman? Almost every Democrat in the Congress who endorsed the war in Afghanistan? You expect that kind of moronic extremism from a Michelle Malkin, but from the most influential figure in an administration leading a country in wartime?

"Ok, ok, I'm not surprised. Rove is a brutal operator. But to my mind, the hysterical attacks on Durbin and now this outburst (and the White House's subsequent endorsement of it) are an indication of some level of panic. We face at least three more grueling years of warfare in Iraq with our current troop level, and it's not at all clear that the public is prepared to go along with it, given the incremental progress we are making. Rove knows this. He also knows that the haphazard way in which the White House prepared for the war, its chronic under-manning of the occupation, its failure, as Abizaid conceded yesterday, to make any progress against the insurgency over the past six months despite the enormous psychological boost of the January election: all these have made the administration unable to really shift the blame."

The Return of the Credibility Gap

The mainstream media failed to do its job in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Finally, perhaps emboldened by public opinion turning against the war, we are seeing more signs of the media reporting the truth.

The Los Angeles Times has a news analysis entitled Bush's Credibility Takes a Direct Hit From Friendly Fire. They both tear down the credibility of the Bush Administration and make Cheney look like the dumber one compared to Bush for a change. If all this reminds you of credibility gaps during the Vietnam war, you aren't alone:

Historian Robert Dallek, a biographer of President Lyndon B. Johnson and an outspoken critic of Bush, said: "Analogies are imperfect, and I hate to press this one, but this is so much like Vietnam. It has echoes of the Vietnam experience when senators like [Arkansas Democrat J. William] Fulbright began to hammer Johnson on our aims and goals and credibility….

The New York Times sums it all up in this editorial (emphasis mine):

Three Things About Iraq

To have the sober conversation about the war in Iraq that America badly needs, it is vital to acknowledge three facts:

The war has nothing to do with Sept. 11. Saddam Hussein was a sworn enemy of Washington, but there was no Iraq-Qaeda axis, no connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks on the United States. Yet the president and his supporters continue to duck behind 9/11 whenever they feel pressure about what is happening in Iraq. The most cynical recent example was Karl Rove's absurd and offensive declaration this week that conservatives and liberals had different reactions to 9/11. Let's be clear: Americans of every political stripe were united in their outrage and grief, united in their determination to punish those who plotted the mass murder and united behind the war in Afghanistan, which was an assault on terrorists. Trying to pretend otherwise is the surest recipe for turning political dialogue into meaningless squabbling.

The war has not made the world, or this nation, safer from terrorism. The breeding grounds for terrorists used to be Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia; now Iraq has become one. Of all the justifications for invading Iraq that the administration juggled in the beginning, the only one that has held up over time is the desire to create a democratic nation that could help stabilize the Middle East. Any sensible discussion of what to do next has to begin by acknowledging that. The surest way to make sure that conversation does not happen is for the administration to continue pasting the "soft on terror" label on those who want to talk about the war.

If the war is going according to plan, someone needs to rethink the plan. Progress has been measurable on the political front. But even staunch supporters of the war, like the Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, told Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at a hearing this week that President Bush was losing public support because the military effort was not keeping pace. A top general said this week that the insurgency was growing. The frequency of attacks is steady, or rising a bit, while the repulsive tactic of suicide bombings has made them more deadly.

If things are going to be turned around, there has to be an honest discussion about what is happening. But Mr. Rumsfeld was not interested. Sneering at his Democratic questioners, he insisted everything was on track and claimed "dozens of trained battalions are capable of conducting anti-insurgent operations" with American support. That would be great news if it were true. Gen. George Casey, the commander in Iraq, was more honest, saying he hoped there would be "a good number of units" capable of doing that "before the end of this year."

Americans cannot judge for themselves because the administration has decided to make the information secret. Senator John McCain spoke for us when he expressed his disbelief at this news. "I think the American people need to know," he said. "They are the ones who are paying for this conflict."

Fighting Back Against Republican Lies

Karl Rove's attack on liberals with false claims of opposing necessary use of military force is nothing new. Josh Marshall argues that this is the "exact same thing" as occurred when John Kerry's military record was attacked last August.

Marshall links back to a post from August 19 which is notable for showing the need to fight back against these attacks. This is also notable as many of Kerry's critics claim he never fought back against the attacks. Josh Marshall proves otherwise as he reports how Kerry "responded squarely to the attacks" and quotes from this statement given by Kerry in a speech to the International Association of Fire Fighters in Boston:

Over the last week or so, a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been attacking me. Of course, this group isn’t interested in the truth--and they're not telling the truth. They didn’t even exist until I won the nomination for president.

But here's what you really need to know about them. They're funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Republican contributor out of Texas. They’re a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the President won’t denounce what they’re up to tells you everything you need to know--he wants them to do his dirty work.

Thirty years ago, official Navy reports documented my service in Vietnam and awarded me the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. Thirty years ago, this was the plain truth. It still is. And I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a wound in Vietnam.

As firefighters you risk your lives everyday. You know what it’s like to see the truth in the moment. You’re proud of what you’ve done--and so am I.

Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: "Bring it on."

NY City Council Consider Resolution Calling For Firing of Rove

New York' s city council is considering a resolution to call on the President to fire Karl Rove.
The resolution reads: "Rove's rhetoric and cynical strategy of dividing Americans against each other for partisan gain has no place in our nation's public discourse."

Salon on Kerry's Letter Requesting DSM Investigation

The Salon War Room has two posts so far on Kerry's letter. First they report on the letter (followed by a copy of the text):

A few weeks ago, John Kerry vowed to make an issue of the Downing Street memo in the U.S. Senate. And then nothing happened -- or so it seemed.

In fact, Kerry has been working behind the scenes to get some of his Democratic colleagues to join him in calling for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to look into Downing Street, and now it's finally happening. Kerry -- joined by Sens. Jon Corzine, Tim Johnson, Ted Kennnedy, Frank Lautenberg, Barbara Boxer, Tom Harkin, Jack Reed, Jeff Bingaman and, yes, Dick Durbin -- has just written a letter to the committee's chairman and vice chairman, arguing that the revelations contained in the Downing Street memo "raise troubling questions about the use of intelligence" in the run up to the Iraq war and provide "renewed urgency" for the committee to complete an investigation that Republicans have said is no longer necessary.

Afterwards they ask, Where Are The Other Democrats?

For those who have been itching for someone -- the national media, the White House, Congress, anybody -- to take the Downing Street memo seriously, the news today is mostly good: Even if the Republicans will never let it happen, John Kerry and nine other Senate Democrats have actually asked for an investigation that will include the revelations set forth in the Downing Street memo.

And yet -- where are the rest of the Senate Democrats? There are 44 Democrats in the Senate, and Kerry circulated a draft of his letter to the whole lot of them two weeks ago. In the end, he was able to persuade just nine of his colleagues to sign on: Jon Corzine, Tim Johnson, Frank Lautenberg, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Tom Harkin, Jack Reed, Jeff Bingaman and Dick Durbin.

Where are you, Harry Reid? Any reason you didn't sign, Sen. Clinton? And while we wouldn't expect to see a signature from someone like Joe Lieberman on this letter, why don't we see your name there, Sen. Obama?

It would be one thing, we suppose, if Kerry's letter were outrageous somehow -- say, if it impugned the patriotism of millions of Americans or suggested their real "motives" were to put U.S. troops in mortal danger. But Kerry's letter isn't like that. It simply quotes passages from the Downing Street memo and highlights the "troubling questions" that they raise.

Is it that you don't think those questions are worth answers, Joe Biden? Or does the experience of Dick Durbin -- who did, after all, sign the Kerry letter -- have you too scared to raise them?

Campaigning Against the Washington Republicans

Oliver Willis asks if John Kerry is reading OW.com as he notices that this ad uses the term Washington Republicans twice. Willis had a post on his site which I linked to on May 3 with this advice:

You're running against the Washington Republicans. Whether you're a challenger or an incumbent, you're running against the Washington Republicans and their total inability to work for America. The Washington Republicans are everything we hate about politicians - partisan, greedy, and elitist.

It turns out that John Kerry had used this term on May 2, if not earlier:

“It’s another example of how Washington Republicans are completely disconnected with the values that are important to the American people. Together we must hold them accountable and let them know that cutting kids’ health care is just plain wrong.”

Kerry used the term again earlier this month:

“The Washington Republicans ignore facts, push aside America’s real problems, promote partisan sniping and division, and flat out refuse to turn their attention to finding ways we can work together to make America stronger.”

He used Washington Republicans in talking about the DSM last week:

“It’s not too much for Americans to expect a thorough explanation of the Downing Street memo,” he said. “The administration and the Washington Republicans who control Congress scoff at the idea of congressional oversight, and insult Americans by brushing off even the most basic questions about pre-war intelligence and planning for the aftermath of war.”

Other times he gave the same message even if he wasn't quoted as using the exact term. This comes from a Boston Globe account of Kerry campaigning:

"Washington seems more and more out of touch with the difficulties the average family is facing,” Kerry told the crowd of about 150 last week in Baton Rouge. ‘’Go out of here, take some anger and a little bit of outrage at the fact that Washington is not dealing with the real concerns of our country.”

(Later in the story) His new political action committee bought a large ad in tomorrow’s USA Today that accuses Bush and GOP leaders of ignoring soaring gas prices, children without health insurance, and the lack of quality jobs with good wages.

‘’They think it’s all about them,” the ad states above pictures of Bush, House majority leader Tom DeLay and Senate majority leader Bill Frist. ‘’Don’t let them forget about what really matters to you. . . . Make Washington stand up for the needs and values of America’s families.”

I don't know if the quote I found above is the first time that Kerry spoke of the Washington Republicans, but we've quoted Harry Reid using the term back in April:

“Our children know that you can’t change the rules just to get your way. I think it’s time that Washington Republicans remembered those truths.”

He also used it more recently:

"But if the Washington Republicans stopped to listen to the American people, this is what they’d hear:

Americans are sick and tired of getting caught in the crossfire of partisan sniping.

Americans want us to put the common sense center ahead of nonsense.

Americans want us to bring people together, to focus on what we owe to one another, and the responsibilities we share.

And Americans want their agenda – their jobs, their health care, their security – to get back on the front burners of the nation’s agenda.

Americans are coming to realize this Republican Congress is out of touch with the real problems of working families and that the agenda the Republicans are advancing is at odds with what people in this country really care about.”

John Kerry and Senators Pressing for Answers from Senate Intelligence Committee on Downing Street Memo

John Kerry’s office has released a copy of his letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee requesting an investigation of pre-war Iraq intelligence failures (and the Downing Street Memo) to LightUpTheDarkness.org.

June 22, 2005
The Honorable Pat Roberts, Chairman
The Honorable John D. Rockefeller, IV, Vice Chairman
United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
SH-211
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Roberts and Senator Rockefeller:
We write concerning your committee's vital examination of pre-war Iraq intelligence failures. In particular, we urge you to accelerate to completion the work of the so-called "Phase II" effort to assess how policy makers used the intelligence they received. Last year your committee completed the first phase of a two-phased effort to review the pre-war intelligence on Iraq. Phase I-begun in the summer of 2003 and completed in the summer of 2004-examined the performance of the American intelligence community in the collection and analysis of intelligence prior to the war, including an examination of the quantity and quality of U.S. intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and the intelligence on ties between Saddam Hussein's regime and terrorist groups. At the conclusion of Phase I, your committee issued an unclassified report that made an important contribution to the American public's understanding of the issues involved. In February 2004-well over a year ago-the committee agreed to expand the scope of inquiry to include a second phase which would examine the use of intelligence by policy makers, the comparison of pre-war assessments and post-war findings, the activities of the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group (PCTEG) and the Office of Special Plans in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and the use of information provided by the Iraqi National Congress. The committee's efforts have taken on renewed urgency given recent revelations in the United Kingdom regarding the apparent minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting between Prime Minister Tony Blair and his senior national security advisors. These minutes-known as the "Downing Street Memo"-raise troubling questions about the use of intelligence by American policy makers-questions that your committee is uniquely situated to address. The memo indicates that in the summer of 2002, at a time the White House was promising Congress and the American people that war would be their last resort, that they believed military action against Iraq was "inevitable." The minutes reveal that President "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

The American people took the warnings that the administration sounded seriously-warnings that were echoed at the United Nations and here in Congress as we voted to give the president the authority to go to war. For the sake of our democracy and our future national security, the public must know whether such warnings were driven by facts and responsible intelligence, or by political calculation. These issues need to be addressed with urgency. This remains a dangerous world, with American forces engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other challenges looming in Iran and North Korea. In this environment, the American public should have the highest confidence that policy makers are using intelligence objectively-never manipulating it to justify war, but always to protect the United States. The contents of the Downing Street Memo undermine this faith and only rigorous Congressional oversight can determine the truth. We urge the committee to complete the second phase of its investigation with the maximum speed and transparency possible, producing, as it did at the end of Phase I, a comprehensive, unclassified report from which the American people can benefit directly.

Sincerely,
John Kerry
Co-signers: Sens. Tim Johnson, Jon Corzine, Jack Reed, Frank Lautenberg, Barbara Boxer, Edward Kennedy, Thomas Harkin, Jeff Bingaman, Richard Durbin

Joe Conason on Karl Rove's Statement

From Karl Rove Is A Liar by Joe Conoson (Salon):

The truth is that liberal New York -- and the vast majority of American liberals and progressives -- stood with the president in his decision to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban. On the day of the attacks, I wrote a column that endorsed "hunting down and punishing" those responsible because the dead deserved justice -- and noted that when the culpability of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban was established, the United States "is fully capable of dealing with them."

Six weeks after 9/11 and two weeks after the United States started bombing the terrorist camps in Afghanistan, I appeared on CBS's "Early Show" to support the Bush administration's actions. Correspondent Lisa Birnbach made the point that liberals and Democrats who had once opposed the war in Vietnam were standing shoulder to shoulder with a president they didn't much like (and, although she didn't mention it, whose legitimacy they continued to doubt).

Noting the ubiquitous presence of American flags as she walked around the very liberal neighborhood where I live, Birnbach said, "This old lefty [Conason] is suddenly siding with the White House."

Responding to her question about the U.S. war against al-Qaida and the Taliban, I told Birnbach: "I'm not going to say I agree with every policy this administration will pursue, but so far, so good." Although she sounded surprised, the fact is that I was scarcely alone on the liberal left in expressing those sentiments.

In the aftermath of 9/11, liberal Democrats on Capitol Hill stood proudly with conservative Republicans to pledge their support for military action against al-Qaida and the Taliban. The wobbly weakness of George W. Bush's initial response to the terror strikes went unmentioned, as did anything else that might hint at dissension at a moment of crisis. When Bush delivered his powerful speech to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001, he won standing applause across the bitter divide left by the 2000 election. For the first time, Democratic congressional leaders declined free airtime to answer a Republican presidential address.

"We want America to speak with one voice tonight and we want enemies and the whole world and all of our citizens to know that America speaks tonight with one voice," said Rep. Richard Gephardt, then the House Democratic leader. "We have faith in Bush and his colleagues in the executive branch to do this in the right way."

Tom Daschle, then the Senate Democratic leader, stood with his Republican counterpart, Trent Lott, to show bipartisan support for the president. "Tonight there is no opposition party," said Lott. "We stand here united, not as Republicans and Democrats, not as Southerners or Westerners or Midwesterners or Easterners, but as Americans." Daschle echoed Lott: "We want President Bush to know -- we want the world to know -- that he can depend on us."

Even Rep. Maxine Waters, the liberal Los Angeles Democrat who was at the time among Bush's toughest critics on the left, praised him without reservation. "He hit a home run," she said. "We may disagree later, but now is not the time."

Among the liberal journalists who backed Bush was Jacob Weisberg, editor of Slate magazine, who has published several volumes mocking Bush's difficulties with the English language.

He was very shaky at first, but I resisted the urge to write a piece saying that, because I didn't think it was appropriate ... Bush deserves the benefit of the doubt to an enormous degree. He needs to rally the nation. I want to contribute to that effort to the extent that I can."

But we now know that even then, at the peak of national unity, Rove was planning to make suckers of the Democrats and liberals who had spoken out in support of the president. He didn't care about bipartisan cooperation, or about the benefit of the doubt that Democrats had given Bush. He behaved as a partisan, not a patriot.

Rove would soon discard the inspiring presidential rhetoric that had joined Americans across race, religion and ideology. The slogan of a nation at war that blossomed on billboards, bumper stickers and storefronts -- "United We Stand" -- was no longer operative.

Or so Rove explained to his fellow "patriots" at a closed meeting of the Republican National Committee during their winter conference in Austin, Texas. Less than four months after Bush's Sept. 20 address to the joint session of Congress, he was scheming to win the midterm elections by transforming the "war on terror" into a war on Democrats.

Full Column Here

Related Posts:

• Rove Plays Politics With 9/11 Attacks, Again
• Email From John Kerry on Rove's Comments: "Calling on the President to Fire Karl Rove"
• Comments from Peter Daou of The Daou Report
• Families of September 11 on Karl Rove's Statement
• More From Rove
• Reid Response to Rove

The Battle for Heats and Minds

What Rove misses is that Democrats, in addition to be willing to use military force where it makes sense (such as in Afghanistan as opposed to Iraq), also understand that there are limits to what can be accomplished with military force.

In addition to the use of military force, and use of intelligence, it is necessary to win the battle for hearts and minds if we are ever going to end the threat of terrorism.

As the Republicans don't even realize this is a major part of the war, we are losing badly. Here's another example (hat tip to DemBloggers):

Poll: China Image Scores Better Than U.S.

The United States' popularity in many countries - including longtime allies in Europe - is lagging behind even communist China.

The image of the U.S. slipped sharply in 2003, after its invasion of Iraq, and two years later has shown few signs of rebounding either in Western Europe or the Muslim world, an international poll found.

"The U.S. image has improved slightly, but is still broadly negative," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. "It's amazing when you see the European public rating the United States so poorly, especially in comparison with China."

MORE

Boston Globe: Kerry Leads Attack on Rove's Comments

Democrats say Rove exploiting 9/11

Kerry leads attack on 'divisive' speech

By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | June 24, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Senator John F. Kerry led a chorus of top Democrats yesterday in condemning White House political chief Karl Rove for saying that political liberals wanted to ''prepare indictments and offer therapy" to terrorists involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. The Democrats urged President Bush to fire Rove if he refuses to apologize.

Kerry called Rove's comments ''disgraceful" and said Rove's speech Wednesday to a gathering of New York conservatives a few miles from the site of the former World Trade Center disrespected Democrats and the nation, which rallied behind Bush following the 2001 attacks.

''That spirit of our country should never be reduced to a cheap, divisive, political applause line from anyone who speaks for the president of the United States," said Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, in a speech on the Senate floor. ''It is really hard to believe that last night in New York, a senior adviser -- the most senior adviser to the president of the United States -- is twisting, purposely twisting those days of unity in order to divide us for political gain."

Rove, the keynote speaker at a Conservative Party of New York State dinner, told his audience that ''perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

Rove is Bush's longtime campaign strategist and closest political aide; the president has referred to him as the architect of his reelection victory over Kerry last year.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush wouldn't ask Rove to apologize. McClellan said Rove was referring to people who have sought to fight terrorism with the law instead of by war, though he declined to name anyone specifically.

''There are many who have looked at the war on terrorism and said it is a law enforcement matter, that we should prosecute people," McClellan said. ''The president recognizes that it is a war and that we must stay on the offensive, we must take the fight to the enemy."

In an interview yesterday with CNN, Vice President Dick Cheney said he hadn't seen or read Rove's speech, but he defended the idea that ''there was a distinction" between what the left and the right considered the best response to the terror attacks.

''One is sort of a crime-solving approach, a law enforcement approach, and the other is a national strategy, military, intelligence, wartime approach," Cheney said. ''And I think that the history clearly demonstrates that there were different approaches prior to 9/11 and after 9/11" by the two sides.

Rove's comments drew harsh criticism from leading political voices. Less than a week ago, in a speech on the Senate floor, the Senate's number two Democrat, minority whip Richard J. Durbin, equated US soldiers' treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay to actions by Nazis.

Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, apologized Tuesday, after stern rebukes from the White House as well as a wide range of Republican lawmakers and conservative commentators. Rove's speech continued the assault on Durbin: ''No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."

With the dust-up over Durbin's comments in mind, Democrats piled on Rove yesterday. House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, noted that just after the Sept. 11 attacks, only one of the 535 members of Congress voted against authorizing military action in Afghanistan.

''I guess Karl Rove has decided to move to center stage in the theater of the absurd," Pelosi said. ''For him to try to exploit 9/11 for political purposes once again just shows you how desperate [the Republicans] are."

The office of Senate minority leader Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, issued a compendium of recent quotes from Republicans, titled ''Here we go again." The list included Rove's remarks as well as those of Senator Rick Santorum comparing Democrats' defense of the filibuster to actions by Hitler, and remarks from Representative John N. Hostettler this week saying that Democrats were drawn to ''denigrating and demonizing Christians" like a ''moth to a flame."

Email From John Kerry on Rove's Comments

Just hours after learning about an outrageous speech delivered by Karl Rove, President Bush's most senior advisor, I went to the Senate floor -- and I spoke from my heart. I want to share those words with you -- not as a Democrat or Republican, not as a liberal or conservative -- but as an American.

I've attached part of my speech to the end of this email. But, before you read what I said, look again at what Karl Rove said:

(P)erhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.

I hope you will join me right now in signing an open letter to the President urging him to thoroughly reject Karl Rove's purposeful attack on the patriotism of those who dare ask the tough questions that best protect American troops. Sign our open letter to President Bush now:

http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/rove.php

This isn't the first time that Karl Rove and other White House officials have sought to divide America in ways that make it harder to keep our country safe and our democracy strong. But, it should be the last. That's why I ended my speech with a call on President Bush to fire Karl Rove. It is the only way the President can make it clear that he rejects Rove's effort to distort one of the most unified and patriotic moments in American history into a cheap, divisive, political applause line.

That, of course, is what is most outrageous about Karl Rove's claim that President Bush's political opponents offered "therapy and understanding for our attackers." It isn't true. In the days after 9/11, there were no Democrats, no Republicans. We were all Americans, standing together. President Bush acknowledged that unity in a clear and compelling way at the time.

Now, Karl Rove is purposely twisting those days of unity in order to divide us for political gain. I hope you will act right now to join a growing chorus of Americans calling on the President to fire Karl Rove.

http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/rove.php

Please act right now. Sign our open letter to the President and pass it on to others. All Americans have to speak with one powerful voice in response to this outrage. I will continue speaking out and I know I can count on you to stand with me.

Sincerely,

John Kerry

---

Make America Safe, Not Divided
Excerpts of remarks by Senator John Kerry on the Senate floor on Thursday, June 23.

"None of us here will ever forget the hours after September 11... and the remarkable response of the American people as we came together as one to answer the attack on our homeland.... [I]t brought out the best of all of us in America.

That spirit of our country should never be reduced to a cheap, divisive political applause line from anyone who speaks for the President of the United States.

I am proud, as my colleagues on this side are, that after September 11, all of the people of this country rallied to President Bush's call for unity to meet the danger. There were no Democrats, there were no Republicans, there were only Americans. That is why it is really hard to believe that last night in New York... the most senior adviser to the President of the United States [was] purposely twisting those days of unity in order to divide us for political gain.

Rather than focusing attention on Osama bin Laden and finding him or rather than focusing attention on just smashing al-Qaida and uniting our effort, as we have been, he is, instead, challenging the patriotism of every American who is every bit as committed to fighting terror as is he.

Just days after 9/11, the Senate voted 98 to nothing, and the House voted 420 to 1, to authorize President Bush to use all necessary and appropriate force against terror. And after the bipartisan vote, President Bush said: "I'm gratified that the Congress has united so powerfully by taking this action. It sends a clear message. Our people are together and we will prevail."

That is not the message that was sent by Karl Rove in New York City last night. Last night, he said: "No more needs to be said about" their "motives."

I think a lot more needs to be said about Karl Rove's motives because they are not the people's motives... They are not the motives of a nation that found unity in that critical moment--Democrat and Republican alike, all of us as Americans.

If the President really believes his own words, if those words have meaning, he should at the very least expect a public apology from Karl Rove. And frankly, he ought to fire him. If the President of the United States knows the meaning of those words, then he ought to listen to the plea of Kristen Breitweiser, who lost her husband when the Twin Towers came crashing down. She said: "If you are going to use 9/11, use it to make this nation safer than it was on 9/11."

Karl Rove doesn't owe me an apology and he doesn't owe Democrats an apology. He owes the country an apology. He owes Kristen Breitweiser and a lot of people like her, those families, an apology. He owes an apology to every one of those families who paid the ultimate price on 9/11 and expect their government to be doing all possible to keep the unity of their country and to fight an effective war on terror.

The fact is, millions of Americans...are asking Washington for honesty, for results, and for leadership--not for political division. Before Karl Rove delivers another political assault, he ought to stop and think about those families and the unity of 9/11.

Kerry Fights to Help Small Businesses and Farmers Deal with Soaring Fuel Costs

WASHINGTON, June 24 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), ranking member of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, today announced the Senate passage of an amendment to the energy bill that will help small businesses and farmers affected by significant increases in fuel costs.

"Across the country, rising fuel costs are hammering small businesses, truckers and farmers. Skyrocketing fuels costs are a major hit on their hard-earned profits. It's pain at the pump that can literally destroy some businesses," said John Kerry. "With their budgets already tight and credit stretched thin, small- business owners and farmers need working capital to cope with this surge in fuel costs. Low-interest disaster loans can help. They are not a handout, but a smart, short-term investment for the government to make in our nation's economy."

Nationally, the average price of gasoline is now at $2.16, up 22 cents since last year, and the spot price of oil hit a record high of $58.90 just this week. The cost of home heating oil has risen as much as 45 percent.

The amendment (S.Admt. 825), modeled after Kerry's Small Business and Farm Energy Emergency Relief Act of 2005 (S. 269), gives small farms and businesses hurt by the price spikes in heating oil, natural gas, propane, gasoline, and kerosene access to low-interest credit through disaster loan programs at the Small Business Administration (SBA) and the Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Kerry's amendment has bipartisan support. Also cosponsoring the amendment are: Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.).

He's Back

Families of September 11 on Karl Rove's Statement

FOS11 Statement on Comments Made By Karl Rove

As families whose relatives were victims of the 9/11 terror attacks, we believe it is an outrage that any Democrat, any Republican, any conservative or any liberal, stakes a "high ground" position based upon the September 11th death and destruction. Doing so assumes that all those who died and their loved ones would agree. In truth, some would and some would not. By definition the conduct is divisive and, because it is intended to be self-serving and politicizes 9/11, it is offensive.

We are calling on Karl Rove to resist his temptations and stop trying to reap political gain in the tragic misfortune of others. His comments are not welcome.

Families of September 11 is a non-partisan nonprofit organization founded by the relatives of those who died in the attacks of September 11, 2001. For further information, please visit our website at www.familiesofseptember11.org.

Kerry on Karl Rove's Comments

Text of John Kerry's Floor Speech on Karl Rove's 9/11 remarks:

Intro to Kerry's speech: "Karl Rove made some remarks last night that need to be addressed, that need to be apologized for..."

"Mr. President, None of us will ever forget the hours after September 11th, the calls to our families, the evacuations, the images on television -- and then the remarkable response of the American people as we came together as one to answer the attack against our homeland.

"We drew strength when our firefighters ran up the stairs and risked their lives, so that others might live. When rescuers rushed into smoke and fire at the Pentagon. When the men and women of Flight 93 sacrificed themselves to save our nation's Capitol. When flags were hanging from front porches all across America, and strangers became friends. It brought out the best in all of us.

"That spirit of our country should never be reduced to a cheap and divisive political applause line from anyone who speaks for the President of the United States. I am proud that after September 11th all our people rallied to President Bush's call for unity to meet the danger. There were no Democrats. There were no Republicans. There were only Americans. That's why is hard to believe that last night the most senior advisor to the President of the United States is twisting those days of unity to divide us, that rather than focusing attention on finding Osama Bin Laden and smashing Al Queda, he is instead challenging the patriotism of Americans every bit as committed to fighting terror as he is.

"For Karl Rove to equate Democratic policy on terror to "indictments" and "therapy" is an outrageous attempt to divide the nation at just the moment we must be unified. Just days after 9/11 the Senate voted 98-0 and the House voted 420-1 to authorize President Bush to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against terror. After the bipartisan vote, President Bush said, I quote: "I am gratified that the Congress has united so powerfully by taking this action. It sends a clear message - our people are together, and we will prevail."

"Karl Rove also said last night, quote: "No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."

"Well, I think a lot more needs to be said about Karl Rove's motives, because they're not the people's motives, and if the President really believed his own words of unity, then he should fire Karl Rove. If the President of the United States knows the meaning of his own words, he should listen to the plea of Kristen Breitweiser, who lost her husband when the Twin Towers came crashing down: she said, "if you're going to use 9/11, use it to make this nation safer than it was on 9/11.

"And that's not being done. If you're going to use 9/11, if you're going to be impassioned about the lives lost on 9/11, then do so by making us safer."

"Karl Rove doesn't owe me an apology, he doesn't owe Democrats an apology, he owes her an apology -- he owes an apology to every one of those families who paid the ultimate price on September 11th.

"Millions of Americans across our country are questioning whether this Administration is making us safe. Kristen Breitweiser wants to tell her daughter that she'll grow up in a country safer than on the day her father was taken from her.

"Mothers and fathers spend sleepless nights worrying about sons and daughters in humvees in Iraq that aren't protected. They're asking Washington for honesty and results and leadership, not political division.

"Before Karl Rove delivers another political assault, he needs to think about those families. The 9-11 Commission has given us a path to follow, endorsed by Democrats, Republicans, and the 9-11 families. Implement the recommendations of that commission. We shouldn't be letting ninety-five percent of container ships come into our ports without ever being physically inspected. We shouldn't be leaving our nuclear and chemical plants without enough protection.

"Until they've done the work of making America safe, don't dare question the patriotism of Americans who offer a better direction. Before wrapping themselves in the memory of September 11th, and shutting their eyes and ears to the truth, they should remember what America is really all about -- that leadership isn't insult or intimidation, it's the strength of making America safe -- they should remember what their responsibility is to every American -- and start to do the work of living up to it."

Winning the Second Time

Article of Faith points out that "three of our greatest presidents, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson all lost in their first runs for the presidency."

Of course that was before the right wing noise machine declared that each losing Democratic candidate was a terrible candidate and before far too many liberals began repeating these Republican talking points.

But Which Button Restarts My Game of Donkey Kong?

More From Rove

If Durbin's words really put our troops in greater danger, how come the Republicans are repeating them so often, guaranteeing that more people will hear them?

Reid Response to Rove

Update to previous post on Rove's statement:


REID CALLS ON BUSH TO REPUDIATE ROVE’S REMARKS


Democratic Leader Harry Reid released the following statement:

“I am deeply disturbed and disappointed that the Bush White House would continue to use the national tragedy of September 11th to try and divide the country. The lesson our country learned on that terrible morning is that we are strongest when we unite together, that America’s power is in its common spirit of democracy and freedom.



“Karl Rove should immediately and fully apologize for his remarks or he should resign. The lesson of September 11th is not different for conservatives, liberals or moderates. It is equally shared and was repeatedly demonstrated in the weeks and months following this tragedy as Americans of all backgrounds and their elected representatives rallied behind the victims and their families, united in our common determination to bring to justice those responsible for these terrible attacks.

“It is time to stop using September 11th as a political wedge issue. Dividing our country for political gain is an insult to all Americans and to the common memory we all carry with us from that day. When it comes to standing up to terrorists, there are no Republicans or Democrats, only Americans. The Administration should be focused on uniting Americans behind our troops and providing them a strategy for success in the war on terror and the conflict in Iraq. I hope the president will join me in repudiating these remarks and urge Mr. Rove to take appropriate action to right this terrible wrong.”

Rove Plays Politics With 9/11, Again

The New York Times quotes Karl Rove as saying, "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

So much deceit is present in this single sentence.

The first part, regarding conservatives preparing for war, is technically true, but deceiving. Conservatives prepared for war not against the attackers, but instead took advantage of the attack to pursue their long term goals, such as the invasion of Iraq. This was the new Pearl Harbor which neoconservatives such as those in the Project For The New American Century had been waiting for, knowing such an event would be necessary to pursue their goals.

The second part regarding liberals is even more untrue. Yes, liberals wanted to prepare indictments, but supported a combination of criminal and military responses as appropriate. The line about offering therapy in nonsense. Liberals did acknowledge the need to understand the attackers in order to prevent further attacks, but that was not in place of military action.

The nation appeared to be standing together immediately post 9/11. Liberals were willing to back George Bush in any military response to the attacks. After all, it had been the Democrats who attempted to go after Bin Laden during the Clinton years despite opposition from the Republicans. It was the Clinton Administration which provided plans to deal with al Qaeda, which the Bush Administration ignored.

The difference was that liberals wanted to take action against the threat, while conservatives used 9/11 to further than political goals, resulting in a course which has increased our vulnerability to terrorist attacks. For that reason alone, the current crop of Republicans is unfit for national leadership.

Bush Provides New Training Grounds For Terrorists

More evidence of how George Bush has helped al Qaeda due to his reckless and senseless foreign policy:

Iraq May Be Prime Place for Training of Militants, C.I.A. Report Concludes
By DOUGLAS JEHL

WASHINGTON, June 21 - A new classified assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency says Iraq may prove to be an even more effective training ground for Islamic extremists than Afghanistan was in Al Qaeda's early days, because it is serving as a real-world laboratory for urban combat.

The assessment, completed last month and circulated among government agencies, was described in recent days by several Congressional and intelligence officials. The officials said it made clear that the war was likely to produce a dangerous legacy by dispersing to other countries Iraqi and foreign combatants more adept and better organized than they were before the conflict.

Congressional and intelligence officials who described the assessment called it a thorough examination that included extensive discussion of the areas that might be particularly prone to infiltration by combatants from Iraq, either Iraqis or foreigners.

They said the assessment had argued that Iraq, since the American invasion of 2003, had in many ways assumed the role played by Afghanistan during the rise of Al Qaeda during the 1980's and 1990's, as a magnet and a proving ground for Islamic extremists from Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries.

The officials said the report spelled out how the urban nature of the war in Iraq was helping combatants learn how to carry out assassinations, kidnappings, car bombings and other kinds of attacks that were never a staple of the fighting in Afghanistan during the anti-Soviet campaigns of the 1980's. It was during that conflict, primarily rural and conventional, that the United States provided arms to Osama bin Laden and other militants, who later formed Al Qaeda.

MORE

Kerry Proven Right, Yet Again, This Time on Ohio

I've had several posts (such as here and here) on how Kerry has been proven to be right over time on numerous election issues, such as Bush's "out-sourcing" of the hunt for Bin Laden and allowing Iraqi weapons to be stolen. Today more evidence came in that Kerry was also right despite attacks from both the left and the right on his handling of the Ohio vote.

After the 2004 election, Kerry was attacked by conservatives for stating that voter suppression influenced the election results. He has also been attacked by some liberals for not fighting more to expose what they believed was outright fraud.

A report entitled Democracy at Risk: The 2004 Election in Ohio was released today supporting Kerry's position against both types of attacks. The New York Times summarizes the report by stating, "A five-month study for the Democratic National Committee found that more than one in four Ohio voters experienced problems at the polls last fall, , but the study did not find evidence of widespread election fraud that might have contributed to President Bush's narrow victory there."

The report verifies Kerry's claims that voter suppression was a factor, and gives suggestions for future elections to reduce these problems. The lack of evidence of fraud in a this five-month study conducted by the DNC also shows that the attacks on Kerry in parts of the liberal blogosphere for not contesting the Ohio results were unwarranted.

Democratic Control of Senate a Possibility in 2006

The conventional wisdom has been that the Democrats will pick up seats in 2006, but have too many open Senate seats to defend to allow them to take control of the Senate. National Journal is now questioning this conventional wisdom:

With just under 18 months to go until Election Day 2006, things continue to look up for Senate Democrats. The ingredients -- violence in Iraq, the uneven economy and partisan tension -- are there for the party to make a comeback after two cycles of GOP dominance

Iraq, the number one issue for voters, is devouring the Republican Party. And with no new moment to look for that doesn't have the word "withdrawal" in it, it's hard to see how the situation improves before next November. We've caught Saddam Hussein, we've turned over power, we've held elections and the level of violence appears to be the same to the lay voter. We've been writing for months that at some point, Iraq was going to hurt the Republicans as much as it helped them in 2002. They lucked out in 2004, but 2006 is a whole new ballgame.

National Journal also ranks the most vulnerable races.

O'Reily: Lock Up Air America

If there was any doubt that some on the far right do not support the First Amendment, just take a look at this statement from Bill O'Reily's June 20 radio show, per Media Matters for America:

Everybody got it? Dissent, fine; undermining, you're a traitor. Got it? So, all those clowns over at the liberal radio network, we could incarcerate them immediately. Will you have that done, please? Send over the FBI and just put them in chains, because they, you know, they're undermining everything and they don't care, couldn't care less.

Kerry on Voting Rights Report

Kerry Statement on the Release of the DNC Voting Rights Institute Ohio Report

Click to View the Bill summary of Count Every Vote Act

“It couldn't be more clear from this far reaching study that America has some serious work to do to strengthen our democracy and secure the fundamental rights of all our citizens. The findings of the Ohio Election Report strike at the core of our most cherished values of freedom and equal opportunity, and should concern every American no matter their political party, who they voted for or their racial and economic backgrounds.

“Our democracy is only as strong as the people's faith that their voice counts and their votes will be counted. It is unacceptable that forty years after the Voting Rights Act, Americans are still being denied their fundamental rights and protections under the law.

“I compliment Governor Dean, Donna Brazile and the DNC Ohio Investigation Team for this thorough report that documents the abuses we fought against in neighborhoods, the courts and at the polls. The recommendations for future action are critical. I suggest another important measure - that any pattern of voter challenges based on race should be a per se violation of our civil rights and voting rights laws and Congress must address them in the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act in 2007.

“As we head into the 20005 and 2006 elections, I will work with the DNC and Democratic, Republican and Independent leaders across the country to implement the recommendations of this report and restore faith in American democracy. We must insist on reform at every level to stop voter suppression, strengthen voting rights and secure funding for election officials to purchase reliable and verifiable voting machines so that the discrepancies the voting rights team found in Ohio do not occur again.

“President Bush and Republican leaders should also read this report and use their control of Washington to take action on real electoral reform pending in the House and Senate.

“Protecting the right to vote isn't a Democratic or Republican value, it's an American value. Washington must pass reform like the Count Every Act of 2005, but we must also build a groundswell of support in communities across the country to hold elected leaders accountable for failing to protect the right to vote. “I will share the results of this study with elected leaders across the country and the hundreds of thousands of Americans who volunteered on my campaign in 2004. I am also committed to working with civil rights leaders and community activists across the country to secure real investments of time and resources for voter education and training.

“Forty years ago, in August 1965, the Voting Rights Act was signed by President Johnson. It was a landmark bi-partisan bill that allowed millions of Americans a true voice in our democracy. Forty years later as American troops put their lives on the line every day in the name of democracy across the world, we here at home must do everything we can to strengthen our democracy for all Americans.

Science Tuesday

I'm sure regular readers here realize that I scan through lots of political articles most days. I also go through several science articles and some days, like today, the science is more interesting to blog about than the politics.

AP reports that "Four decades after the birth control pill became available to women, researchers at the University of Kansas and the University of Kansas Medical Center are working to develop a similar contraceptive for men."

"The research is being conducted with a $7.9 million grant from the National Institutes of Health. Scientists will test compounds at a high-tech laboratory on the university's Lawrence campus."

I can imagine the lines of volunteers at that campus. If they really want to reestablish the United States's supremacy in science, I'd suggest they concentrate on a morning after pill for men. (The temporal mechanics would be particularly interesting).

Many political scientists believe that political beliefs are influenced more by upbringing and experience. "But on the basis of a new study, a team of political scientists is arguing that people's gut-level reaction to issues like the death penalty, taxes and abortion is strongly influenced by genetic inheritance. The new research builds on a series of studies that indicate that people's general approach to social issues - more conservative or more progressive - is influenced by genes."

Imagine the implications if stem cell research goes forward. We may one day be able to cure neoconservativism.

Those of us who work on blogs and political forums are familiar with using technology to shut up the more obnoxious trolls. This may soon be possible in the real world: "A remote control that allows you to switch off annoying noises could be available soon. The gadget – the size of a mobile phone – will allow you to zap the sounds of bickering children, thundering traffic, pounding road diggers, barking dogs or twittering colleagues.

"The sleek, high-tech silencer, called the Mute, uses technology created for use in hearing aids. It sends a signal via a wireless connection to two little 'buds', which users stick in their ears."

Imagine if this can be fine tuned to zap out the sounds of particular people.

I'll just quote this study out of Copenhagen without comment: "New research indicates parts of the brain that govern fear and anxiety are switched off when a woman is having an orgasm but remain active if she is faking."

Health Care Costs Continue To Rise

Yesterday we commented on an evaluation of proposals to control health care costs with John Kerry's proposals being more meaningful than the Republican plans. Today the Washington Post looks at health care costs. While those with lower incomes have been more likely to be unable to afford insurance in the past, it is feared that more in the middle class will be unable to afford insurance:

Health spending by privately insured Americans rose 8.2 percent in 2004, virtually the same increase as the previous year, according to analysts at the Center for Studying Health System Change, a nonpartisan research group.

More significantly, for the eighth straight year the growth in medical costs far outpaced the growth of wages -- by nearly four times in 2004 -- a trend that suggests more Americans will be unable to afford their health insurance, said the group's president, Paul Ginsburg.

Religious Right Takes on Hillary and Religious Freedom

Jerry Falwell believes he helped defeat John Kerry in 2004, and is now concentrating in defeating Hillary Clinton if she should run in 2008:

"The church won the 2004 elections and don't let anyone tell you any differently," Falwell told a crowd of about 9,000 attending Southern Baptist Convention Pastor's Conference, a prelude to the two-day annual SBC convention which starts Tuesday.

"Now we've got a bigger challenge ahead of us. We've got to deal with Hillary in '08," Falwell said Monday, amid cheers and clapping from audience members in the Gaylord Convention Center in downtown Nashville.

Their lack of understanding of separation of church and state was seen when former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore also spoke. Moore lost his job as chief justice last year after defying a federal order to remove a Ten Commandments monument he had installed in the state courthouse.

"Separation of church and state doesn't mean separation of God and government," Moore said. "Rule of law doesn't mean rule of man. Without the acknowledgment of God, there would be no First Amendment."

In other words, it sounds like he would subject us to his interpretation of religious laws.

Besides the attacks from the religious right, Hillary is under attack in Ed Kline's new book The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She’ll Go to Become President. Dick Morris objects to some of the more salacious attacks, but with friends like Dick Morris, who needs enemies? While arguing against using the type of attack Kline wrote of, Morris both publicizes the attacks further and attempts to give them more credibility:

How can anyone say if the charges are true? Ed Klein is a respected author, a former editor in chief of The New York Times Magazine and the foreign editor for Newsweek. He would not have written these charges without some substantiation.

John Kerry, Iraq, and the Downing Street Memos

After John Kerry first brought up the Downing Street Memos, the right wing noise machine mobilized to attack Kerry in order to distract from the real issues. Mike Hersh has an excellent refutation of some of these attacks, along with debunking the presistent claims that Kerry voted for the war. AfterDowningStreet.org has also reposted the article on their site.

Republicans and Nazis

The Republican Noise Machine's attacks on Senator Dick Durbin were such an obvious case of attacking the speaker to avoid discussion of the real issue that I hardly thought it was even necessary to take the time to defend Durbin. There have already been tremendous number of blogs which have posted defenses.

Raw Story has a unique defense as they report several cases in which Republicans have compared Democrats to Nazis, with the analogy being far weaker than the manner in which Durbin criticized to use of torture. For example, Senator Phil Gramm compared a Democratic tax plan to Nazi law in 2002.

"Now, forgive me, but that is right out of Nazi Germany,” Gramm said. “I don't understand ... why all of a sudden we are passing laws that sound as if they are right out of Nazi Germany."

Senator Rick Santorum compared Democrats with Adolf Hitler more recently during the fight over filibusters:

"Imagine, the rule that this is the way we confirm judges has been in place for 214 years, broken by the other side 2 years ago, and the audacity of some Members to stand up and say, How dare you break this rule, it is the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying: I'm in Paris, how dare you invade me, how dare you bomb my city. It's mine," Santorum said May 19. "This is no more the rule of the Senate than it was the rule of the Senate before not to filibuster."

The article includes multiple additional examples, with no reports of apologies received from the Republicans.

Controlling Health Care Costs

Ron Brownstein discussed health care in the LA Times today. He notes that Republican proposals are unlikely to do much to affect health care costs:

There's no silver bullet for controlling medical costs. The inability of even a massive consumer like GM, with its vast bargaining power, to hold down its bills belies the simplistic suggestions from Bush and conservative thinkers that transferring more of the cost to individuals will significantly reduce costs by making patients smarter consumers.

He has a more favorable view of John Kerry's health care proposals:

The best domestic policy idea that Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) produced in his 2004 presidential campaign directly addressed that problem. Kerry proposed that Washington assume 75% of the cost for any patient whose annual health expense reaches $50,000. One leading analyst estimated that change alone could reduce health insurance premiums by 10%.

Kerry plans to embody his proposal in legislation this year. Frist hasn't progressed as far toward a specific plan, but he has proposed a public-private partnership that could absorb more risk for the most expensive cases from individual insurers.

What else? Allowing Medicare to bargain directly for prescription drugs would establish benchmarks that could lower the massive pharmaceutical costs now inflating healthcare spending. (GM alone spends about $1.5 billion annually on prescriptions.) More creative efforts to encourage fitness would reduce the incidence of expensive illnesses, such as diabetes, linked to a widening (sorry) obesity problem.

Finally, covering more of the nearly 45 million uninsured Americans would shrink the huge bill for uncompensated care (recently estimated at $43 billion annually) that the insured pay through higher premiums.

Each of these steps would require more federal spending or intervention in the market. Big employers like GM contributed to their problems by allowing their ideological resistance to such activism to mute their support for innovative ideas like Kerry's. But Wagoner now talks urgently about the need for national action, and Washington should respond.

While Brownstein specifically gives Kerry credit for government reinsurance of catastrophic claims, other ideas Brownstein endorses were also part of Kerry's health care proposals, including allowing the government to negotiate drug prices under Medicare and covering more of the uninsured.

The Advantages of Medicare Over Private Health Insurance

In arguing with Paul Krugman's recent call for universal health care, libertarian economist Arnold Kling writes:

There is no actual evidence that the elderly receive better care, or more cost-effective care, or more egalitarian care than people under 65. Particularly interesting is the data that the U.S. spends about 40 percent more per capita on health care for the elderly, just as we spend about 40 percent more per capita on health care for those under 65. Where in the data is the much-vaunted efficiency of Medicare?

Maybe this isn't proof of better care, but one point which contradicts the standard right wing talking points against government plans is the fact that Medicare recipients are more satisfied with their health coverage than those with employer-based health plans.

Arguing over whether there is better care misses the point. The point is that everyone over 65 has coverage--something which certainly cannot be said for those under 65. I wouldn't expect quality of care to differ significantly when comparing Medicare recipients to those under age 65 who have insurance as Medicare recipients generally see the same doctors and go to the same hospitals as those who are covered under 65.

Coverage for people under 65 may be better or worse than for those under 65. This is based upon traditional Medicare (not Medicare HMO's). If you have private insurance, compare this with your policy:

• No exclusions for preexisting conditions under Medicare.
• The deductible for many years was only $100, with an increase to $110 this year (thanks to George Bush).
• Co-pay is 20% of what Medicare allows. (On the average Medicare allows around 60% of typical charges).
• Some services are covered 100% without any deductible or co-pay, including all lab tests, flu shots, and Pneumovax.
• No prior authorization is needed for referrals.
• Some preventative services are covered such as routine mammograms.
• Medicare recipients can go to virtually any doctor, not a limited list of those who accept a private HMO or PPO.
  
• Payment is fee for service, not capitation as in many private plans which result in incentives to deny medical care. (Ironically it is these private plans which are have the deleterious features often attributed to government plans in other countries by conservatives).

I bet that most people with private insurance are paying much more out of pocket than those in Medicare. Also note that supplemental insurance is provided to many people by their previous employer, or is available for purchase, which often covers the above co-pays and deductibles.

There are of course some restrictions on coverage, but in my experience I find Medicare rules to be less of a problem than those of many private plans. Another benefit of Medicare is that there is a meaningful appeals process. While a private plan can arbitrarily deny payment for a variety of reasons, Medicare has fixed rules. When they have denied payment in violation of these rules, I have successfully argued the case before an administrative law judge and received payment on behalf of my patients. On the other hand, I've often had private plans arbitrarily deny payment and had little recourse.

As for efficiency, the overhead of Medicare is typically one-fourth that of private plans. Considering how much more medical care the typical person over sixty-five requires compared to those younger, Medicare sounds more efficient if Kling's figures show comparable spending on those under and over age 65.

Some Democrats have suggested allowing people under 65 to buy into Medicare, considering this more achievable than universal health care. I hope they manage to accomplish this for selfish reasons. Most likely I'd dump my over-priced high-deductible private plan for Medicare.

Despite Calls for Closing GITMO, New Contract Awarded to Halliburton Subsidiary to Expand GITMO

Democrats have recently called for closing down GITMO. A few days ago, it was reported that the White House was split over closing GITMO. Then Cheney stepped in said NO GO! Yesterday Alberto Gonzales defended keeping GITMO open, reiterating Cheney’s stance. Rumsfeld jumped in with his 2 cents supporting keeping GITMO open, too.

Now, it has been announced that a contract has been awarded to a Halliburton subsidiary, to expand GITMO…

A day after Democratic Sens. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Patrick Leahy of Vermont, both pivotal figures on the Judiciary Committee, suggested the U.S. prison for enemy combatants in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should be closed, a contract to expand it was awarded.

The Navy announced Thursday that Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., a subsidiary of Halliburton, will receive $30 million to build “Detention Camp #6” and a security fence.

The contract outlines construction of a two-story, 220-person facility with day rooms, exercise areas, medical spaces and security control room.

Of course, claims have been made the biding for the contract was competitive but it appears this is more greasing of the palms of Cheney’s pals…

The contract, which was competitively bid, drew fire from Democratic Senator
Frank Lautenberg, a critic of past contracts awarded to a company once headed by
Vice President Dick Cheney.

"After all of Halliburtons misconduct, why is the Bush administration giving them more contracts? Its just another example of how in this Administration, the foxes are guarding the henhouse," said Lautenberg.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports “Already, $110 million has been spent on construction there, and the prison costs about $95 million a year to operate.”

John Kerry on Juneteenth

"This is a time to ensure that the values of freedom and liberty in this country are afforded to all its citizens."

Below is a statement by Senator John Kerry that he entered into the official Congressional Record in honor of Juneteenth.

"Mr. President, I wish to recognize the upcoming Juneteenth celebration that will occur this Sunday, June 19, 2005. This celebration commemorates the end of slavery throughout the United States. Although the Emancipation Proclamation was issued on January 1, 1863, the information had not been passed to the most rural parts of the South until some two and a half years later. On June 19, 1865, General Gordon Granger entered Galveston, Texas, and issued the proclamation, officially freeing the town.

There are a number of theories to explain why it took so long for the message of freedom to reach many slaves throughout the South. The first is that the messenger sent by President Lincoln to deliver the proclamation to Texas was murdered on the way. The second is that news was purposely withheld by plantation owners wishing to extend their ownership of slaves. The third theory is that federal troops withheld the news to allow the plantation owners to utilize the slave labor for a final cotton harvest.

Although annual Juneteenth celebrations had been recorded in the years following 1895, they were not popular in the Jim Crow-era South and activities were banned from public property. In order to continue the celebrations, churches throughout the South held fundraisers to sponsor Juneteenth events. These events began to lose their financial support during the Great Depression as a result of lower incomes throughout the nation. At the same time, public schools also focus their teachings on the Emancipation Proclamation and often abstained from discussions of Juneteenth. There was limited recognition of the importance of Juneteenth until the Texas legislature recognized it as an official holiday on January 1, 1980.

This weekend, we take time to reflect on the evils of the institution of slavery and the effects that we see today as a result of that institution. We recognize that too many of our citizens who are the descendants of slaves suffer in poorly funded schools, with limited access to health care, and an unemployment rate twice the national average. This is a time to learn from the past and to redouble our efforts to ensure that the values of freedom and liberty in this country are afforded to all its citizens. Juneteenth is a day for reflection, for prayer and for hope that our country will continue to grow together in the spirit of liberty, equality and justice.

Mr. President, I am proud to honor the 140th commemoration of the African American Emancipation Day, June 19, 1865. Thank you."

John Danforth: Onward, Moderate Christian Soldiers

When criticizing the religious right we've often quoted liberal people of faith. We musn't forget that the extremism of the religious right is also unrepresentative of the views of many Republicans. Former Senator John Danforth has an op-ed piece in today's New York Times where he shows how moderate Republicans differ from the religious right:

IT would be an oversimplification to say that America's culture wars are now between people of faith and nonbelievers. People of faith are not of one mind, whether on specific issues like stem cell research and government intervention in the case of Terri Schiavo, or the more general issue of how religion relates to politics. In recent years, conservative Christians have presented themselves as representing the one authentic Christian perspective on politics. With due respect for our conservative friends, equally devout Christians come to very different conclusions.

It is important for those of us who are sometimes called moderates to make the case that we, too, have strongly held Christian convictions, that we speak from the depths of our beliefs, and that our approach to politics is at least as faithful as that of those who are more conservative. Our difference concerns the extent to which government should, or even can, translate religious beliefs into the laws of the state.

...snip...

When, on television, we see a person in a persistent vegetative state, one who will never recover, we believe that allowing the natural and merciful end to her ordeal is more loving than imposing government power to keep her hooked up to a feeding tube.

When we see an opportunity to save our neighbors' lives through stem cell research, we believe that it is our duty to pursue that research, and to oppose legislation that would impede us from doing so.

We think that efforts to haul references of God into the public square, into schools and courthouses, are far more apt to divide Americans than to advance faith.

Following a Lord who reached out in compassion to all human beings, we oppose amending the Constitution in a way that would humiliate homosexuals.

...snip...

In the decade since I left the Senate, American politics has been characterized by two phenomena: the increased activism of the Christian right, especially in the Republican Party, and the collapse of bipartisan collegiality. I do not think it is a stretch to suggest a relationship between the two. To assert that I am on God's side and you are not, that I know God's will and you do not, and that I will use the power of government to advance my understanding of God's kingdom is certain to produce hostility.

Is This Any Way To Treat Someone Who Stole An Election For You?

If not for Katherine Harris, George Bush might have had to spend the last four and a half years in Crawford pretending to be a rancher, as opposed to pretending to be waging a war on terrorism in Washington, D.C.. Is this any way to treat the person who helped steal an election for you:

"Gov. Jeb Bush and the White House are pushing House Speaker Allan Bense to challenge fellow Republican Katherine Harris for the U.S. Senate, fearing her candidacy would damage the GOP's chances in that race and the governor's contest next year.

"The behind-the-scenes maneuvering appears to negate what was widely viewed as a deal that kept Harris out of the 2004 Senate campaign in exchange for her party's support in a 2006 challenge of Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla." (Sun-Sentinel)

Next time a member of the Bush family asks someone to steal an election for them, I bet they'll think twice.

Frist Credibility Questioned Over Video Diagnosis

Things are getting even worse for Bill Frist. As we noted Wednesday, Frist's video tape diagnosis of Terry Schiavo was contradicted by the autopsy results. Frist is now being embarrassed by his statement on the Today Show yesterday. When asked about his faulty diagnosis by Matt Lauer his response was, ""Well, first of all, I never made a diagnosis." When Lauer noted that Frist had claimed Schiavo was responding, Frist claimed, "I never said she responded."

While the video tape wasn't very useful in diagnosing Terry Schiavo, the video tape of Frist making his diagnosis on the Senate floor on March 17 is very helpful in demonstrating Bill Frist's lack of credibility.

Excerpts from Frist's Senate floor speech March 17:

"A lot of people have severe disabilities, such as cerebral palsy and receptive aphasia, but [Terri Schiavo's] brother said that she responds to her parents and to him. That is not somebody in persistent vegetative state…."

"Persistent vegetative state, which is what the court has ruled, I say that I question it, and I question it based on a review of the video footage which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office here in the Capitol. And that footage, to me, depicted something very different than persistent vegetative state…."

"Once again, in the video footage — which you can actually see on the website today — she certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli that the neurologist puts forth."

Excerpts from an interview Thursday with Matt Lauer on "Today" on NBC:

Matt Lauer: "The long-awaited autopsy report on Terri Schiavo was released on Wednesday. It concluded that she was in a persistent vegetative state, suffered from severe and irreversible brain damage. You remember back in March … you were on the floor of the Senate at that time, not only as a senator but a doctor. And in talking about Ms. Schiavo, you said, quoting you now, 'She does respond,' end quote. Were you wrong in your diagnosis?

Frist: "Well, first of all, I never made a diagnosis. I think it's very important that we saw the autopsy today. It does give us the definitive information that we did not have at that point in time, and that's why I think it is big news that she had totally irreversible brain damage, and we now have that information. All we were arguing for on the floor of the Senate is to get an accurate diagnosis before you withdraw a feeding tube from a live person…."

Lauer: "But when you stood on the floor and you said, "She does respond," are you at all worried that you led some senators … "

Frist: "No, I never said she responded. I said in our review, the court videotapes … the same ones the other doctors reviewed, and I questioned, 'Is their diagnosis correct?' …. We had a presumptive diagnosis. I simply said, 'Before withdrawing food — killing her, in effect — let's make sure we have the right diagnosis.' I never, never on the floor of the Senate made a diagnosis, nor would I ever do that."

Fox News Hires Wesley Clark

Wesley Clark has been hired by Fox News s a military and foreign-affairs analyst. Clark is quoted in media reports as saying, "I am excited by this opportunity to contribute to Fox News Channel's coverage and offer my perspective to the important issues facing the United States and the global community."

Teresa vs. Santorum

From Radar Online:

Heinz’s 57 Varieties of Vengeance

Former first lady-in-waiting Teresa Heinz Kerry is devoting her considerable wealth and resources to routing paleo-con Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum in the 2006 election, sources say. Last time she dipped into her political war chest, it was for second husband John Kerry. This time, it’s to avenge the memory of her first husband, Republican Senator John Heinz. The sassy ketchup queen has made it a “real priority” to see challenger Robert P. Casey, Jr. unseat Santorum because “she believes Rick has ruined her late husband’s legacy,” says one highly-placed Democratic insider. Despite their differing agendas, Heinz Kerry has been hosting fundraisers and campaigning around the clock for Casey, the pro-life state treasurer, a solid she once did for Santorum.

“Teresa supported and helped Rick win in ‘95 when he ran for her late husband’s senate seat. She’s known him and his family for years; he was John’s intern, for chrissake,” notes our source. But Santorum’s increasingly right-wing rhetoric seems to have alienated his earliest backer. “No matter what John Heinz’s party was, he worked on behalf of Pennsylvanians and voted for what he believed was best for them,” says a close friend of Heinz Kerry. “She just finds it unacceptable that Rick votes with his religion. The fact of the matter is he took a constitutional oath as senator to separate church and state, which means making secular decisions.” His comments equating homosexuality with “man on dog” love couldn’t have helped either.

Update:

Thanks to florida dem for providing this information onLUTD disputing the above claim that Teresa previously backed Santorum:

She told Pennsylvania Republicans in 1994 that their conservative Senate nominee, Rick Santorum, was "an unfortunate example" of politicians who "rule by fear and ridicule."

She still hasn't forgiven Santorum, who had suggested John Heinz was not conservative enough. Some Republicans haven't forgiven her. "Her record warns us that she'll be more of a character than she will display character," Republican columnist Ruth Ann Dailey wrote Feb. 16 in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. "Her lack of graciousness in local politics is particularly startling."

Bill Frist: Bad Senator, Horrible Doctor?

Well, I guess I'm going to have to cancel those plans to attend Dr. Bill Frist's seminars on video diagnosis and continue to take the time to examine patients the old fashioned way. The autopsy results are out on Terry Schiavo showing she was severely and irreversibly brain-damaged, confirming the presence of a persistent vegetative state. According to the AP report:

"This damage was irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons," said Pinellas-Pasco County Medical Examiner Dr. Jon Thogmartin, who led the autopsy team. He also said she was blind, because the "vision centers of her brain were dead."

While the practice of video diagnosis was considered inappropriate at the time, the autopsy reports further discredit the diagnosis from Dr. Frist. Frist questioned the presence of a persistent vegetative state:

"I question it based on a review of the video footage which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office," he said in a lengthy speech in which he quoted medical texts and standards. "She certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli."

I note that many conservative sites are arguing that the autopsy results do not change their positon. That is no surprise. When has the right wing let the facts influence their opinions?

Stem Cell Compromise

John Kerry, Following Through on the DSM

Ron posted a quip earlier from the Washington Post that “Kerry is circulating a letter about the memo among Democratic senators before sending it to Bush.”

I just received this a short time ago from a Kerry confidant :
“Kerry has been enlisting other Senators to sign onto a letter to the intelligence committee seeking answers to the Downing Street Memo so Americans can trust that security decisions are driven by facts and responsible intelligence, not by political calculation.”

Raw Story apparently received the same statement from Kerry confidants but also claimed that the statement came “after nearly two weeks of silence from the senator,” implying that by not speaking to the media that Kerry has been silent, when indeed he has not been silent, since he has been talking to his Senate colleagues.

With John Kerry, silence does not mean he has been inactive. Au Contraire… John Kerry has been doing what John Kerry does best… following through in a pragmatic manner on this issue to actually get something achieved.

In addition, John Kerry has had a full schedule in the past week, one set not by Democrats but by the Republicans who control the Senate.

In the last week, John Kerry has joined a bipartisan coalition fighting to stop SBA from gutting rural small business loans, he has joined with Henry Waxman to demand an investigation into the doctored Global Warming reports and he’s been dealing with an economic disaster in MA due to the Red Tide outbreak. Today, Kerry attended the CAFTA hearing and offered an amendment and offered an amendment on the Energy bill as well.

No doubt, we’ll hear more from John Kerry regarding the DSM soon. As his “confidant” reports he has been actively pursuing the DSM issue, while dealing with other pressing issues in the Senate as well. LUTD is staying on top of this story and we’ll keep you posted.

Last note for now on the DSM, Salon’s War Room reports - AP: We "dropped the ball" on Downing memo.

Democrats who blame Kerry are missing point

The Republicans often win Presidential elections by demonizing the Democratic candidate, and Democrats have been falling for this. We've seen the post-election criticism that Dukakis was a bad candidate, Gore was a bad candidate, and now that Kerry was a bad candidate. Only Bill Clinton escapes this, but there are not many Bill Clintons out there.

E.J. Dionne warns about the dangers of blaming Kerry for the loss:

This habit is dangerous because dissing Kerry is an easy way for Democrats to evade discussion of what the party needs to do to right itself.

By focusing on the past, the Kerry alibi allows Democrats to avoid engaging the future. In 2008, the Democrats could nominate a candidate who combines Harry Truman's toughness, JFK's charm and FDR's gifts of leadership -- and still face many of the problems Kerry confronted. Blaming everything on Kerry as the supposedly elitist, stiff and indecisive Massachusetts liberal is the Democrats' version of cheap grace.

Dionne notes that the Republicans would have attacked any other Democratic nominee as they attacked Kerry, likely with the same results:

That raises the larger question. The Republicans and their allies spent millions taking Kerry apart. They would have done the same to John Edwards, Wesley Clark or Dean. Would they have handled the attacks better? Who knows? Would they have looked a lot worse for the wear? You bet.

Bush's lieutenants always understood that their candidate couldn't win unless his Democratic opponent was turned into Frankenstein. This crowd may not know how to beat the Iraqi insurgency, but they sure know how to make Democrats look bad.

If Democrats are going to win in the future, they need to stop using Kerry (or Gore, or Dukakis) as an excuse and turn to the real problem of finding better ways to fight the Republican Noise Machine. If this is not done, the next Democratic nominee will suffer the same fate as other recent candidates.

Kerry Continues Action on the Downing Street Memos

John Kerry stated in early June that he would be raising the Downing Street Memo upon his return to the Senate after Memorial Day. This led to a storm of speculation, as some Democrats misinterpreted this as plans for a formal Senate speech and the right wing media twisted this to claim he planned to call for the impeachment of George Bush. The statement from Kerry that he will take this up in the Senate was followed by considerable talk about the DSM, with other Senators publicly discussing it up for the first time after Kerry broke the Senate's initial silence on the subject.

The response of the right wing media necessitated more than a simple statement if Kerry's efforts were to be effective. Much of Kerry's work has been behind the scenes since his return to the Senate, with hints of more to come. Last week a statement to the Boston Phoenix promised that "John Kerry will demand answers in the Senate. Stay tuned."

The Washington Post provides further information on Kerry's actions today, reporting that "A senior aide close to Kerry said this week that Kerry is circulating a letter about the memo among Democratic senators before sending it to Bush. The aide predicted that Kerry would make the letter public in the next few days."

Jeffords and Kerry File Renewables Amendment To Energy Bill

Last night I reported that Kerry and Jeffords were expected to file an amendment to the Energy bill today. Marketwatch reported that the debate on the Energy bill was expected to start today. John Kerry’s office reports it will start tomorrow.

Kerry’s office released the following press release on the Energy Bill amendment filed today by Jeffords and Kerry:

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Sens. Jim Jeffords, (I - Vt.), and John Kerry, (D - Mass.), today filed an amendment to the Senate energy bill to require that by the year 2020, 20 percent of U.S. electricity production shall come from renewable resources like wind, solar and geothermal energy. The Senate is expected to begin debate on the energy bill tomorrow.

Jeffords, the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee said, "Currently less than two percent of the electricity generated in our country is produced by clean, renewable energy sources. This amendment will harness under-utilized renewable energy sources and reduce harmful air and water pollution from coal and other fossil fuels. It is time for Congress to realize that renewable energy is the long-term solution to our dependence on foreign oil."

MORE

John Kerry: We Need a New, Common-Sense Approach to Trade

Late last night, I reported that John Kerry would be offering an amendment to CAFTA today. The AFL-CIO who has strongly opposed CAFTA, supports the Kerry amendment. It should be noted that John Kerry has been opposed to CAFTA, in it’s current form, for over a year. Senator Schumer is a co-sponsor to the amendment.

Below is a statement by Senator John Kerry from the Senate Finance Committee's mark-up this morning of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).

Kerry Amendment Would Give Teeth to Existing Labor Standards

"An Administration's job is to make sure that open markets and robust trade benefit America's workers, consumers, corporations and ultimately our security. This Administration has broken that tradition by negotiating trade deals out of step with the globalized world in which we're living and by refusing to enforce the trade agreements we already have.

MORE

CAFTA Hearing and the Kerry Amendment

It appears John Kerry will be busy tomorrow with the Energy Bill debate set to start and Kerry is slated to offer an amendment with Jim Jeffords and the CAFTA hearing is also scheduled for tomorrow at 10:00 est.

Details are sketchy, but John Kerry’s Senate website has three documents available on CAFTA, including the Kerry CAFTA amendment, a letter of support for the amendment and a comparison of labor obligations under the Jordan FTA and CAFTA.

We will be posting more details on Kerry’s amendments for both CAFTA and the Energy Bill as soon as they are available.

John Kerry: After Decades of Inaction, A Time to Heal A Nation's Wounds Over Lynching

Below is a statement by Senator John Kerry on S. Res. 39, a formal apology for the Senate's failure to pass an anti-lynching bill during the first half of the 20th century. More than 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced during that time.

"For too many who have never stopped to consider the thousands of their fellow citizens who died swinging from a tree branch because of the color of their skin, and for those who know too well the vicious act that took away a father, brother, son or loved one, this is a day of reckoning for America.

"It is tragically and unforgivably late in coming, but important that the United States Senate is now talking openly about one of the biggest stains on our history, and working to heal wounds across generations.

"Almost 5,000 Americans lost their lives to hangings, floggings and burnings. Countless others were terrorized. And every single one of them was robbed of the bedrock promise our country was built upon. We can never erase what Mr. Cameron, Mr. Wright, and too many others went through, but we can honor the legacy of these civil rights heroes before us and the martyrs who came before by finally saying on behalf of the American people, 'We are sorry, we do remember, and we will never forget.'

"I am honored to cosponsor this official apology with Senators Landrieu and Allen and Leader Reid. It is time to put into actions - not just words - the commitment to justice for which so many were so tragically killed, and to bring us one step closer on the journey of civil rights in our country."

MORE

Court More Representative Than Extremist Republican Leadership

Conservatives are pushing the use the judiciary to move the country further to the right, claiming that moderate decisions made by Republican dominated courts have been too liberal. Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University, argues in the New York Times Magazine that the courts have been more moderate than Congress, and more representative of the views of the American people:

Yet even as interest groups were bemoaning the fact that a handful of centrists had narrowly prevented the Senate from blowing itself up, the country as a whole was applauding the compromise. An independent poll conducted by Quinnipiac University found that 55 percent of respondents thought the filibuster should be used to keep unfit judges off the bench, as opposed to 36 percent who thought it should not. Moreover, the country seemed less worried about partisan judges than about partisan senators and representatives. In the days before the deal, a CBS News poll found that 68 percent of respondents said that Congress ''does not have the same priorities for the country'' as they do. By contrast, the Quinnipiac poll found that a 44 percent plurality approved of the way the Supreme Court is handling its job.

Put another way, it would seem that, on balance, the views of a majority of Americans are more accurately represented by the moderate majority on the Supreme Court, led in recent years by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, than by the polarized party leadership in the Senate, led by Bill Frist and Harry Reid. Congressional Republicans and Democrats are pandering to their bases, wooing conservative or liberal interest groups that care intensely about judicial nominations because they're upset about the current direction of the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the country as a whole seems to be relatively happy with the court and appears to have no interest in paralyzing the federal government over a confirmation battle that would do little to affect the court's overall balance -- a battle that is likely to take place this summer if Chief Justice William Rehnquist steps down.

How did we get to this odd moment in American history, when unelected Supreme Court justices are expressing the views of popular majorities more faithfully than the people's elected representatives? The most obvious culprit is partisan gerrymandering. In the 2000 elections, 98.5 percent of Congressional incumbents won their races definitively (75 percent of them by more than 20 percentage points), thanks to increasingly sophisticated computer technology that makes it possible to draw House districts in which incumbents are guaranteed easy re-election simply by catering to their ideological bases. As a result, Democrats and Republicans in Congress no longer have an incentive to court the moderate center in general elections. This, in turn, has created parties that are more polarized than at any other point in the past 50 years. And since more than half of the current senators previously served as representatives, the radically partisan culture of the House is now contaminating the Senate.


(Comment: While the public is dissatisfied with the current extremist policies of the Republican controlled Congress, it remains to be seen whether Congress would continue to be viewed as extremist and out of touch with the desires of the majority of the people under Democratic control. Polls have shown that voters agree more with Democratic positions regardless of which party they actually voted for.)

Dean: Fox News is a propaganda outlet of the Republican Party

I've had some critical responses to some of Dean's comments lately (here and here) but have always been willing to report on Dean's more significant comments (most recently here). Here's another comment from Dean where his outspoken nature works for us as he says something which has been said too little outside of the blogosphere:

Dean's recent remarks drew a rebuke from Vice President Dick Cheney in an interview to be aired Monday on Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes," according to the Associated Press.

Cheney called Dean "over the top" and "not the kind of individual you want to have representing your political party," according to the Associated Press.

Asked by a reporter Sunday to reply to Cheney's criticisms, Dean said: "My view is that Fox News is a propaganda outlet of the Republican Party and that I don't comment on Fox News." The response drew applause from the room.

Downing Street Memo Receives Increased Coverage

There is increased attention on the Downing Street Memo with new information released. Sunday's Times of London has another story, starting with a summary showing that the decison to go to war had already been made: "MINISTERS were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal."

The role of bloggers in publicizing the DSM was also noted:

There has been a growing storm of protest in America, created by last month’s publication of the minutes in The Sunday Times. A host of citizens, including many internet bloggers, have demanded to know why the Downing Street memo (often shortened to “the DSM” on websites) has been largely ignored by the US mainstream media.

The story concludes with:

The complaints of media self-censorship have been backed up by the ombudsmen of The Washington Post, The New York Times and National Public Radio, who have questioned the lack of attention the minutes have received from their organisations.

Apparently this is all working. The Washington Post has a front page story, concenterating on the lack of post-war plans as revealed in the DSM:

A briefing paper prepared for British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top advisers eight months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq concluded that the U.S. military was not preparing adequately for what the British memo predicted would be a "protracted and costly" postwar occupation of that country.

The article also discusses the misuse of intelligence:

In those meeting minutes -- which have come to be known as the Downing Street Memo -- British officials who had just returned from Washington said Bush and his aides believed war was inevitable and were determined to use intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and his relations with terrorists to justify invasion of Iraq.

The "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," said the memo -- an assertion attributed to the then-chief of British intelligence, and denied by U.S. officials and by Blair at a news conference with Bush last week in Washington. Democrats in Congress led by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), however, have scheduled an unofficial hearing on the matter for Thursday.

Political Advantages of Moderation

Some of the Democratic blogs have been claiming that the Democrats would have a better chance of winning by moving further to the left. The theory is that this would give people clearer reasons to vote for the Democrats. While there are limits to such polling, a Rasmussen poll says the opposite:

June 10, 2005--Election 2008 will be a toss-up if Democrats nominate a liberal candidate and Republicans nominate a conservative. A Rasmussen Reports survey finds that 40% of Americans say they would vote for a liberal Democrat and 39% for a Conservative Republican.

The survey also found that if both parties nominate a moderate candidate, the Democrats have a 42% to 38% advantage. Obviously, events over the next three years could change these figures in either direction, but the survey generally shows an electorate that remains evenly split between the two parties.

The survey documents the conventional wisdom concerning the political center. If Democrats nominate a moderate candidate and the GOP selects a conservative, the survey shows that Democrats would have a nine-point advantage. On the other hand, if Democrats nominate a liberal candidate and Republicans pick a moderate, the GOP gains an 8-point advantage.

Some might question this by arguing that in 2004 the Democrats did run a moderate liberal against an extremist conservative and lost by two points. That was clearly caused by a combination of the Republican's advantage in incumbency and their ability to falsely claim Kerry was on the far left with the number one most liberal voting record in the Senate (when actually his lifetime rating was number 11 among Democrats). George Bush initially ran claiming to be a compassionate conservative, knowing that it would have been a huge disadvantage running from the extremes. In this rare case, George Bush was wiser than many Democrats.

Conservatives Continue to Evade Reality on Kerry Records

Remember how just last week the claim of every conservative blog and publication was that signing Form 180 would be a definitive way of finding the truth about Kerry's military record?

It appears the conservatives are all flip flopping. Signing Form 180 proved conclusively both that 1)all the charges against Kerry were fabrications, and 2) that the military records released by Kerry last fall were complete and accurate. All of a sudden, conservatives no longer consider signing Form 180 as meaningful, showing that there was absolutely nothing Kerry could have done which would have stopped the lies against him.

One claim is that Kerry sent Form 180 to the Naval Personnel Command, as opposed to a central storage location in St. Louis, and due to this his complete records were not released. The New York Sun investigated and found this charge to be false:

OFFICIAL: KERRY’S RECORDS SENT TO THE NAVY A top official at the national repository for military personnel files confirmed yesterday that the full record of the Navy service of Senator Kerry, a Democrat of Massachusetts, was sent to the Navy to prepare responses to requests from Mr. Kerry and others for his service history. “We have sent the original file to the Navy,” the director of archival programs at the National Personnel Records Center, Bryan McGraw, said in an interview yesterday.The statement from the St. Louis-based center, which is part of the National Archives and Records Administration, undercuts claims by critics of the senator that he effectively withheld part of the file from news organizations.

Some critics of Mr. Kerry, who ran unsuccessfully for president last year, complained that privacy waivers he signed recently for selected news organizations were directed to the Navy Personnel Command in Millington, Tenn., which does not usually maintain detailed records on retired service members. However, Mr. McGraw said that is precisely where the original file was sent, though a copy was kept in St. Louis.“The request came from the Navy commander in Millington.The Navy has everything we have.They have had for some time,” Mr. McGraw said. He said Mr. Kerry’s record was sent to the Navy last year, well before the presidential election. Separately, a former Navy lawyer who raised questions about Mr. Kerry’s discharge said yesterday that an unexplained delay in Mr. Kerry’s separation from the service could have been the result of an administrative foul-up.

Rush Limbaugh claimed Thursday that Kerry's "trying to fake everybody out. He did not get his Form 180 records released that show his naval records. He didn't do that. He has not come forth with that. The records that he released only gave his grades from Yale. And he's hoping that this satisfied everybody. He still has not come forth and signed what's necessary to produce his records in the Navy, and that's what everybody's curious about."

Media Matters for America refuted this on Friday, showing that Limbaugh is as big a liar as the original Swift Boat Liars:

Nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh falsely asserted that Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) "did not get his Form 180 records released that show his naval records" because the "records that he released only gave his grades from Yale." In fact, Kerry authorized the full release of his military records to The Boston Globe when he signed Standard Form 180, according to the Navy.

Defend Dean, Not the Comments

Yesterday I commented on the controversy over Howard Dean's recent comments. One mistake I believe many are making is confusing support for the person and their positions with the need to defend every comment.

Nobody is perfect and everyone makes mistakes in what they say--including, but certainly not limited to, Howard Dean.

It is not contradictory to support the types of changes in government supported by Howard Dean while still questioning the wisdom of some of his comments. Despite reservations over his views on Medicare, which resulted in my change in support from Dean to Kerry in 2003, I'm generally in agreement with the direction Dean wants to go. Both Dean and Kerry are similar in being socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Both have had very similar views on Iraq--although I would have much more respect for Dean if he had admitted this earlier, and acknowledged that Kerry was speaking out against Bush's foreign policy blunders even before Dean was, rather than falsely claiming Kerry voted for the war based upon a distortion of the meaning of the IWR vote.

For some reason, many Dean supporters seem to believe that support for Dean's policy positions means defending every Dean political statement, regardless of how absurd. This is just not necessary, or wise.

In supporting Kerry, I felt no obligation to agree with every statement Kerry made. When Kerry made his famous statement on the $87 billion, I had no problem admitting that it was a terrible statement to make politically. I would explain the context, such that there were two votes and how this was a largely a dispute over how the money would be raised, but would never have attempted to claim it was a sensible sounding way for Kerry to explain it. Kerry admitted the same. In contrast, if Dean had made the comment we'd be hearing endless arguments as to why it was exactly the right thing to say.

Similarly, when limited to sound bites rather than fuller explanations, Kerry often did do a poor job of explaining his position on Iraq. I wouldn't deny that certain comments he made during the campaign weren't ideal. Rather than trying to defend a specific sound bite, I'd explain Kerry's position in full, and refer people to Kerry's more detailed statements where he did provide a sensible explanation of his position.

Dean's comments are fine if Democrats are talking to each other. However, Democratic leaders who are running for office know that such comments are counterproductive in attracting others--especially when it sounds like Dean is lumping everyone who votes Republican together. As I said previously, Dean must be careful to distinguish between current Republican leaders and the typical person who has voted Republican.

Democrats have enough obstacles. They know they don't need the added ones of being dragged down by being associated with these comments, which is why so many have felt the need to go on record distancing themselves from some of Dean's comments. It is possible for Dean's supporters to discuss Dean's strong points and why they support Dean without denying that some mistakes were made. It is also not necessary, or productive towards our goals for them to attack those Democrats who have criticized Dean's comments while continuing (at least for now) to support retaining Dean as DNC Chair.

Kerry: One of the Finest Young Officers

GLOBE EDITORIAL

Kerry's Vietnam

June 10, 2005

DESPITE THE continuing gripes of his critics, records released this week show that Senator John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam. The documents should put to rest claims that Kerry misrepresented his military record in the presidential race. But Kerry's failure to respond to the smear campaign launched against him last summer lent credibility to its real objective: to impugn his equally honorable opposition to the war.

John O'Neill, a Houston lawyer and Kerry's adversary on the war since 1971, acknowledged as much in a telephone interview Wednesday. ''We produced seven commercials," he said of his anti-Kerry group, now called Swift Vets and POWs for Truth. ''Only one dealt with Vietnam activities." O'Neill was incensed by Kerry's memorable testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971, in which the young veteran, clad in a combat shirt, criticized the war.

Kerry has said that he may have used a poor choice of words when he cited other veterans' reports of atrocities as being ''in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan." But his basic analysis was sound: Vietnamese and Americans were dying needlessly because the war was a mistake, and US policymakers allowed it to continue even though they were aware that their strategy for victory was failing.

The Swift Boat ads made much of the plight of US pilots captured by the North Vietnamese -- and most were horribly treated by their captors. But these men languished in prison for years in part because the US government failed to follow Kerry's advice to end an unwinnable war.

Still, the ads were successful because Kerry failed to fully rebut them. He needed to release those records during the campaign, when it counted. They would have underscored that there was no inconsistency between serving courageously in the war and drawing on that experience to argue that Americans and Vietnamese should no longer be put at risk.

Perhaps Kerry didn't adequately grasp the ambivalence many Americans still feel about the war, just as many did in the 1960s. George W. Bush, for instance, supported it at Yale, but after graduation he chose reserve duty that kept him out of combat.

O'Neill said he didn't think the election should have hinged on either candidate's war record, and he's right that Bush's choice was typical of many in his generation. It is Kerry's choice that was atypical.

The records Kerry allowed to be released this week show that his commanders in Vietnam called him ''one of the finest young officers with whom I have served," and ''the acknowledged leader of his peer group. " His stand against the war only confirmed these qualities.

Kerry Appeals for Federal Aid Made on Behalf of Shellfishing Industry

The New England coastline has been hit with the worst case of Red Tide since 1972. The average person may not think much about this or even know what Red Tide is, but it is devastating to the Shellfishing industry in New England. In Massachusetts, alone the shellfishing industry has an “annual wholesale value of about $24 million.”

New England Red Tide “is a northern algae” that contaminates “only shellfish, making them unsafe and even fatal for animals and humans to eat.”

About two thirds of Massachusetts shellfishing flats have already been closed, as well as shellfishing flats in New Hampshire and Maine. The toxic Red Tide algae bloom is expected to continue through the peak shellfishing season, over the next few weeks leading up to July 4th.

Mass. Lawmakers Seek Aid for Red Tide - By Jay Lindsay, The Associated Press

A letter written Wednesday by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and also signed by Sen. Edward Kennedy, and U.S. Reps. William Delahunt, Barney Frank, John Tierney and Jim McGovern asks the U.S. Small Business Administration to declare an "economic injury disaster," which would make some of region's sidelined shellfishermen eligible for low interest loans. MORE.

John Kerry and Massachusetts Delegation Members Senator Kennedy and Congressmen Frank, Tierney, Delahunt and McGovern Strongly Urges SBA to Act Quickly to Aid Fishermen in Red Tide Crisis

“This disaster could not come at a worse possible time. Many of our fishermen provide shellfish to businesses on our coast that cater to tourists seeking local seafood during the summer months. The levels of toxicity from this red tide outbreak have been escalating in recent weeks. Local officials currently estimate that many shellfish beds will not be allowed to open for most of the summer months. The fishermen and other small businesses affected by the red tide disaster are an important part of the economic and cultural history of Massachusetts’ coastal communities. Emergency assistance for the shellfish industry is important for the continued growth of the Massachusetts economy.” The entire letter can be read here.

This is not the first time John Kerry has stood up to help the fishing industry in MA and New England. Kerry has consistently championed the local fisherman who provide so much to the local economy and culture of MA. Most people don’t think too much about where their New England seafood comes from, it’s either in their supermarket or served in a restaurant and how it got there is of no consequence. However, to many in the coastal towns of MA, NH and ME, fishing and the seafood industry is a way of life and the history and culture is rich and diverse.
I was raised around the fishing industry in MA with three uncles who were all in the industry.

The “family fish market” is an institution in area I grew up, including the one started by my uncle in 1946, which now run by his grandson. I remember only to well the effects of the Red Tide on the industry in 1972 and the panic and financial strain that it caused.

It should be noted that there are Red Tide outbreaks in other coastal areas of the U.S. as well, including the Florida area and the west coast. Not all Red Tide algae’s are the same.

Kerry and Waxman Ask GAO to Investigate Manipulation by White House of Global Warming Science

Yesterday Sandy reported here that on the NY Times story about the White House official who “has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.”
Today, Sen. Kerry and Rep. Waxman have asked the GAO to investigate the extent to which White House officials and political appointees at agencies have manipulated the science on global warming. Below is their letter.

June 9, 2005
Mr. David M. Walker
Comptroller General of the United States
Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548

Dear Mr. Walker:

Yesterday, the New York Times reported that a top White House official, former oil industry lobbyist Phillip A. Cooney, has reviewed and altered government scientific reports on global warming. According to the Times, Mr. Cooney has "repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between [greenhouse] emissions and global warming, according to internal documents."

In addition to altering documents, political appointees dictated government climate research priorities, according to a government whistle-blower, Rick Piltz, former Senior Associate with the U.S. Climate Change Science Policy Office and former Associate Director of the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Mr. Piltz resigned in protest in March 2005. He states, "The White House so successfully politicized the science program that it was impossible for me to carry out my duties with integrity."

We are writing to request that the Government Accountability Office investigate these serious allegations.

The Times article reported on numerous documents where Mr. Cooney's edits changed scientific conclusions made by government and academic researchers. For example, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program regularly compiles and transmits to Congress a report on the program's research activities entitled "Our Changing Planet." In an October 2002 draft of this report, Mr. Cooney deleted as "speculative" a summary of findings by government climate researchers that climate change had been projected to reduce mountain glaciers and snowpack. Similarly, Mr. Cooney systematically changed language to introduce uncertainty in affirmative statements (e.g., changing "is" to "may") and to amplify references to uncertainty made by scientists (e.g., adding "extremely" to a statement indicating that an attribution is difficult). According to the New York Times, Mr. Cooney is a lawyer with a bachelor's degree in economics who has no scientific training.

Unfortunately, the incidents reported by the Times are simply the latest in a pattern of interference with climate science by the Bush Administration. This pattern is evident across government agencies. For example, early in the Administration, ExxonMobil successfully lobbied the White House to oppose the re-appointment of a leading U.S. climatologist to chair the preeminent international global warming study panel. The State Department complied, giving no scientific rationale for its opposition to Dr. Robert Watson. Lacking the support of his own country in an election to an international body, Dr. Watson was not re-appointed.

Dr. James E. Hansen, a world-renowned climatology expert at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, was told by NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe not to talk about "dangerous anthropogenic interference" with the climate. Dr. Hansen has publicly objected to what he views as the Administration's unprecedented screening of information flow from scientists to the public.

Other examples include changes made by the White House or agency political appointees that distorted scientific findings and summaries in reports, articles, and press releases from EPA, NASA, and NOAA addressing climate change.

We request that the Government Accountability Office investigate the extent to which White House officials and political appointees at federal agencies have interfered with federally funded science on global warming. Specifically, we request that GAO:

*Review and evaluate the changes made or requested by White House officials to documents produced by federal agencies that relate to climate change;

*Review and evaluate the changes made or requested by political appointees at federal agencies to documents produced by federal agencies that relate to climate change;

*Review and evaluate any efforts by White House officials or political appointees at federal agencies to influence the direction of federally funded science related to climate change.

*Review and evaluate other efforts, if any, made by White House officials or political appointees to interfere with federally funded science related to climate change.

We look forward to consulting with you about this important request.

Sincerely,
John F. Kerry, U.S. Senator

Henry A. Waxman, U.S. House of Representatives, Ranking Minority Member Committee on Government Reform

Related post: President J. R. Ewing: White House sought advice from Exxon on Kyoto stance

Dramatic Response of Support to John Kerry’s Kids First Ad

John Kerry’s call to supporters yesterday, to help fund his Kids First ad has received a “dramatic response.” Not only has the MSM newswires picked up on the story, but as noted in a new email today to JohnKerry.com supporters, “In just 24 hours, thousands of you have acted to help Keeping America's Promise call dramatic attention to the needs of 11 million American children living without health insurance.”

Some quips from John Kerry’s email today:

The dramatic response to the Kids First ad demonstrates the conviction of the johnkerry.com community that it's long past time for Republican leaders in Washington to stop dominating Congress with their power grabs and their radical agenda.

Their arrogance may have no limits, but the American people's patience does.

We're going outside of Washington - to the hometowns of people like Bill Frist, Tom DeLay, Trent Lott and Rick Santorum - asking American families to demand that those who control Congress' agenda put Kids First.

Repeated polls are revealing that the American people are fed up with the Bush White House and the Republican Congress refusing to lift a finger on vitally important issues like health care for America's children.

With your help, Keeping America's Promise and the Kids First ad can help turn the tide. Act now to help build a groundswell of public pressure that forces Republican leaders to stop blocking action on the initiatives that matter most to America's families.

If you've had it with Republican inaction, it's time for you to take action. Let's keep driving the powerful Kids First message home. And let's move past the arrogance and stunning indifference of Republican leaders and take America forward.

Sincerely,
John Kerry

Click Here to View the Ad
Click Here to Help Fund the Ad
Join LUTD in supporting the Kids First Act.

Kerry Ad Promotes Health Care for Children

8 June 2005

AP News gets a nod tonight for giving John Kerry’s Kids First ad (mentioned here earlier today)a headline in the newswires. Note where the ad will first air, Texas and Tennessee…

Sen. John Kerry is funding a political advertisement in key Republican districts, a move aimed at rallying support for health care coverage for uninsured children.

The ad will begin airing Monday in the home districts of House Republican leader Tom DeLay of Texas and Senate Republican leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, as well the districts of GOP members of the House Commerce and Senate Finance committees. Those districts will be in Pennsylvania, Mississippi and Maine, but the specific media markets were not released.

Kerry spokeswoman Katharine Lister said it will be an aggressive media buy and the ad will run for a week, but she would not disclose the cost. It is being funded by Kerry's political action committee, Keeping America's Promise.

The ad talks about the 11 million children who have no health insurance, and it urges viewers to tell politicians in Washington to support health care legislation for America's kids, legislation Kerry has sponsored. It does not mention Kerry or any of the Republicans by name.

View the Ad Help Fund the Ad
www.kidsfirstact.com

The Kids First Act (S. 114) is currently sponsored by Senators Boxer, Landrieu, Kennedy, Dayton, Lautenberg, Corzine, Murray and Cantwell. Please join LUTD in asking your Senator to sponsor and support the Kids First Act.

Deja Vu

Winter 2004:

Howard Dean makes repeated gaffes.

Dean supporters deny Dean made gaffes, filling up Democratic message boards with explanations as to why Dean was right.

Dean supporters send hate mail to Democrats who criticize Dean.

Dean supporters demand that nobody criticize Dean in the name of party unity, while simultaneously attacking other Democrats.

Dean's campaign self-destructs and Dean winds up third in Iowa caucus, never to recover.

Spring 2005:

Howard Dean makes repeated gaffes.

Dean supporters deny Dean made gaffes, filling up Democratic message boards with explanations as to why Dean was right.

Dean supporters send hate mail to Democrats who criticize Dean.

Dean supporters demand that nobody criticize Dean in the name of party unity, while simultaneously attacking other Democrats.

Do we break this cycle, or does the Democratic Party go the way of the Dean campaign in 2004?

Are we doomed to have the media concentrate on Dean's gaffe of the week, or can we get back to talking about Iraq, health care, social security, abuse of power under the current Republican leadership, judicial appointees, and the other issues?

There is no doubt that the right wing noise machine is ready to jump on anything Dean says, but it is also true that Dean repeatedly gives them all the ammunition they need.

Unlike some of the blogs out there which have been routinely attacking Kerry and defending Dean regardless of what is said, we are happy to report it when Dean says something worthwhile. Monday, when most of the media was criticizing Dean, I had a favorable post on his statements in Washington. This wasn't the first favorable post I've had on Dean, and I sure hope it isn't the last.

In contrast, there are Democratic blogs which recently have attacked Kerry for criticizing the Republican leadership, falsely quoting him as claiming to be an outsider. They attacked Kerry for saying that, despite his personal opposition to gay marriage, he would take no action to oppose the gay marriage plank in the Massachusetts party platform, and called this gay bashing. This week they are attacking Kerry following the release of his military records which verify everything he has said all along under a strange belief that this would have satisfied his right wing attackers if done earlier. They spread tin foil hat theories of how Kerry could have changed the outcome by fighting more in Ohio, and ignore everything Kerry is doing to fight for election reform. They play into Republican hands by calling the Iraq War Resolution a vote to go to war, rather than a vote to get the inspectors back in and to use military force as a last resort under conditions which were not met. These tend to be the same blogs which are defending everything Howard Dean has to say, regardless of how absurd or destructive to Democratic hopes. While Kerry has been their favorite target, they are also attacking others who have said anything critical about Howard Dean

I hope Howard Dean can put this all behind him as our success depends upon it. He must learn to stick to the issues. He must learn a lesson from the Republicans, where the personal attacks are left for people outside of the government and party structure. If he must go beyond the issues, he must be very clear to differentiate between Republicans and the current Republican leadership.

We must never forget that we need to attract the votes of people who voted Republican in 2004. Many, probably most, of these are hard working people. This includes both the working class, many of whom voted for Bush, and businessmen and professionals who also put in an honest day's work. Some of them are also minorities. While Ken Mehlman is doing an excellent job speaking to traditional Democratic groups to attempt to grow the Republican Party, Dean is exciting only his base, and risks alienating those we need to attract.

Playing "What if. . .?" Election 2004 Edition

George Bush won reelection out of a combination of convincing voters he was keeping them safer against terrorism, a campaign based upon distorting Kerry's views and record, voter suppression, and mobilizing new voters from the religious right to offset the new Democratic voters.

There's also been speculation from the usual gang of Kerry bashers that if other things were different he would have won. This week there are the claims that if Kerry had signed Form 180 earlier the results would have been different. As we've discussed here, that would have changed nothing. The right wing noise machine did not care about the facts and would have continued the attack--as they are now doing despite the release of the military records. After all, if they had any concern for the truth there was already plenty of evidence released to prove that the charges were lies.

Another claim I've seen multiple times is that Kerry would have won if he had voted against the Iraq War Resolution. That is also unlikely to be the case.

The one thing which would have been different is that Kerry probably would have been the front runner for months and won the nomination with even less difficulty than he had, and Howard Dean would probably be an obscure former Governor of Vermont.

While voting yes on the IWR would have made it easier to win the nomination, it would have hurt rather than helped Kerry in the general election. Most voters, in contrast to bloggers, did not hold the vote against him. After all, most opponents of the war voted for Kerry, not Dean, once they had a clear look at both. Fortunately the majority of Democratic voters did not fall for the claims that a vote for the IWR was a vote for the war. More voters agreed with Wesley Clark's interpretation that the vote was a poor litmus test than agreed with Howard Dean.

The IWR was a typical Rove trap which Kerry tried to avoid. Rove loves to place opponents in positions where they must chose between two bad options. We saw how they campaigned against a candidate who voted yes in falsely claiming Kerry had supported their decision to go to war.

It would have been even more to Bush's advantage if Kerry had voted no. At the time of the IWR vote, the resolution was not presented by Republicans as a vote to go to war. Just four days before the vote, George Bush stated in Cincinnati on October 7, 2002 that "war was not inevitable." He portrayed the vote not as one to go to war, but a vote which meant that "America speaks with one voice" against a foreign enemy who may have had weapons of mass destruction. (Of course we now know that Bush had intended to go to war regardless of what occured, but he would have never admitted this.)

A no vote would have been taken as not only a rejection of Bush's ultimate Iraq policy, but that the voter would not agree to defend American under any condition, even if threatened by WMD. The result would likely have been more like the last time a Democrat was seen as too far to the left during a controversial war, when Richard Nixon beat George McGovern in a landslide.

John Kerry attempted to avoid Rove's trap by both voting yes but fully explaining his vote in his Senate floor statement. Kerry had many similar anti-war statements such as a New York Times op ed piece, his Georgetown speech, and his call for regime change in Washington at the onset of the war. John Kerry made his opposition to George Bush's policies clear. This strategy probably would have worked even better if not for having been falsely attacked by some in his own party for having voted for the war. While this undoubtedly did hurt, the consequences of voting no would have been far worse.

Paying For Health Care For The Uninsured

A study from Families USA shows that providing health care for the uninsured increases the annual cost of insurance premiums for the average worker by $341 and for the average family by $922.

Providing universal health care, or even a more modest program as proposed by John Kerry during the 2004 Presidential campaign which would greatly reduce the number of uninsured, would provide significant savings to the workers who are already subsidizing care for the uninsured. Such cost shifting also places a burden on government programs such as Medicare, causing tax payers to indirectly pay for care for the uninsured.

The uninsured also receive much of their health care by inefficient means. They frequently are seen in the Emergency Rooms and Urgent Care Centers rather than in mors cost efficient physician offices. They also receive much less preventative and routine care of chronic problems, resulting in greater overall expenses when they receive care for more catastrophic problems. We are already paying for medical care for the uninsured indirectly by cost shifting. It would be far more economical to have a better organized program which will provide such care in a more cost effective manner.

The Goal of Deficits

Apparently someone does not understand the ideology behind Republican policy. AP reports that Federal Reserve Governor Edward Gramlich is arguing that the United States cannot grow its way out of the budget deficit:

"Fortunately, the budget numbers and the trade numbers have gotten a bit better recently but that doesn't solve the long-term problem," Gramlich said in response to audience questions after a speech to Milwaukee-area business leaders.

This misses the point of Republican plans. They realize that claims of growing our way out are bogus. Their real goal is to "starve the beast" and force the elimination of programs such as Social Security and Medicare by denying the government enough money to finance them. They also realize that the could not win elections by being honest about their long term goals.

Gramlich also added some honesty about another GOP proposal in saying, "Individual accounts may or may not be a good idea, but they won't solve the basic actuarial problem" facing Social Security.

CNN Counterprograming Against Fox

When Fox first became a threat, CNN first tried to compete by moving to the right. That didn't work as Fox took a significant lead, averaging 842,000 viewers to CNN's 458,000. After all, if you want biased right wing Pravda-style propaganda , nobody does it better than Fox.

USA Today reports that CNN is now trying a different approach with the announcement of format and anchor changes. These include more concentration on news and analysis and less on political debate. USA Today quotes CNN chief Jon Klein and News analyst Andrew Tyndall:

"There are many tactical things we could do to try to beat Fox, but we're trying to be ourselves: Roll up our sleeves and report the news, don't talk about it," Klein says.

News analyst Andrew Tyndall says that in making the changes, CNN chose to "counterprogram against Fox rather than compete."

Hopefully this counterprograming will also means abandoning their rightward tilt. One change which might not be favorable towards objective reporting is thatWolf Blitzer will have a weekday 3 to 6 p.m. ET news show called The Situation Room, which replaces Inside Politics, Crossfire and Wolf Blitzer Reports.

A change to news and analysis may offer an improvement over the current trend of putting up competing viewpoints and claiming this as balance. Typically these shows put up a conservative who distorts the facts in line with GOP talking points against a more honest liberal or moderate. Without true new analysis to show the dishonesty in the conservative argument, the "facts" fabricated by the conservatives are seen as valid by the viewers. Hopefully CNN will offer true journalism and investigate the claims made by each side. I also hope that they concenterate more on the facts needed to understand the political issues and less on the horse races.

Another Blog Defending Kerry

I just came across this sound take on the release of Kerry's military records from August J. Pollack who says:

. . .the Guys With Websites don't care. This shouldn't be a suprise. They declared Kerry a traitor and a bad soldier in the 2004 election; if he released his records then they wouldn't have shut up, they simply would have done what they've instantly resorted to doing now, which is now claim that Kerry tampered with them.

If Kerry bowed to right-wing pressure last year and given them the records because he actually felt he had something to prove to them, what would be next? Accepting their challenge to debate them in that god-awful Sinclair Media propoganda "Stolen Honor" event? Allowing them to examine his scars live on television the night before the election? Each ridiculous demand would top the next, and each would be backed by the warbloggers with the proud standby that "if he doesn't say yes, he's hiding something."

They just hated Kerry, guys. There was nothing Kerry could have done to prevent that. Giving in to their nonsense demands wouldn't have proven a thing to them or the media; it merely would have validated them as a legitimate interest group.

President J.R.Ewing

Revealed: how oil giant influenced Bush

White House sought advice from Exxon on Kyoto stance

John Vidal, environment editor
Wednesday June 8, 2005
The Guardian

President's George Bush's decision not to sign the United States up to the Kyoto global warming treaty was partly a result of pressure from ExxonMobil, the world's most powerful oil company, and other industries, according to US State Department papers seen by the Guardian.

The documents, which emerged as Tony Blair visited the White House for discussions on climate change before next month's G8 meeting, reinforce widely-held suspicions of how close the company is to the administration and its role in helping to formulate US policy.

Article continues

---

---

In briefing papers given before meetings to the US under-secretary of state, Paula Dobriansky, between 2001 and 2004, the administration is found thanking Exxon executives for the company's "active involvement" in helping to determine climate change policy, and also seeking its advice on what climate change policies the company might find acceptable.

MORE

Universal Healthcare Vouchers

Washington Monthly has a suggestion for a form of universal health coverage which avoids many of the political obstacles to a single payer plan. While I'd suggest checking out the full article, here's a summary:

Ten Principles of Universal Healthcare Vouchers:

1. Universality: Every American under 65 years of age would receive a voucher that would guarantee and pay for basic health services from a qualified insurance company or health plan.
2. Free Choice of Health Plan: Individuals and families would choose which basic insurance program or health plan they wanted among several alternatives.
3. Freedom to Purchase Additional Services: Americans who wanted to purchase additional services or amenities, such as wider choices of hospitals and specialists, or more comprehensive mental health or dental services, could do so with their own money.
4. Funding by an Ear-Marked Value-Added Tax: Earmarking creates a direct connection between benefit levels and the tax level, serving as a political restraint on health care inflation. If the public wants more services to be covered in the basic plan, they must be willing to support a tax increase.
5. Reliance on Private Delivery System: This proposal does not call for government health care and would not legislate changes to the current private delivery system. Health insurance companies and health plans would continue to contract with physicians, hospitals, rehabilitation facilities, pharmacies and other providers for services to the individuals who enroll in their plans.
6. Ending Employment-based Insurance: Experience demonstrates that health insurance provided by employers lowers wages, raises prices or reduces employment. The end of employment-based health insurance would translate into higher wages, lower prices, and the recapture of lost tax revenue.
7. Eliminating Medicaid and Other Means Tested Programs: Since every individual and family would receive a voucher, there would be no need for Medicaid, the state Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIPs), or other means tested programs. Those covered by such programs would be incorporated into the mainstream health care system without means testing.
8. Replacing Medicare over time: While no existing beneficiary would be forced to change to the voucher system, Medicare would be phased out over time. Individuals turning 65 would continue to be enrolled in UHV; there would be no new enrollees in Medicare.
9. Administration: Modeled on the Federal Reserve Board, management and oversight would be the responsibility of a Federal Health Board with multiple regional boards to facilitate implementation of programs in different geographic regions. The board would be active contractor with health plans, defining and periodically modifying the basic benefits package, informing Americans about their health care options, reimbursing health plans, and undertaking data collection and research related to patient satisfaction, quality of care, and risk and geographic adjustments for payments. The board would regularly report to Congress on the health care system.
10. Technology and Outcomes Assessment: An independent Institute for Technology and Outcomes Assessment would be established. Its research and database would focus on assessing the effectiveness and value of different interventions and treatment strategies and disseminate information concerning outcomes of treatments delivered in regular practice.

Kerry on Downing Street Memos

Statement from John Kerry's office to the Boston Phoenix:

"Senator Kerry believes every American deserves a thorough explanation of the Downing Street memo. The Administration and the Washington Republicans who control Congress insult Americans by refusing to answer even the most basic questions raised in this memo about pre-war intelligence and planning for the aftermath of war. That’s unacceptable, especially with the lives of America’s sons and daughters on the line. John Kerry will demand answers in the Senate. Stay tuned."

Kerry to Air "Kids First" Ad on TV

In an email today to his over 3 million online supporters, John Kerry announced his intention to run his first TV ad for his Kids First campaign.

Here’s some quips from his email:

Following last year's elections, I made the Kids First Act of 2005 my top priority legislative initiative. From organizing a Kids First Petition drive that has now gathered 700,000 signatures to traveling the country promoting our bill, I've poured time and attention into moving Kids First forward. And so have you. In fact, you were one of the first people to sign on to help. We both acted because we know that nothing matters more than helping children living without health care.

Now, it's time to take to the airwaves and carry our message - and our cause - even further. The ad I've enclosed is being put on the air by Keeping America's Promise, a political action committee determined to "give voice to our values" in the most critical legislative and electoral contests of 2005 and 2006.

All the Republican leaders in Congress want to talk about is amassing more power for themselves. But, we're changing the subject and demanding that Congress put Kids First. I'm urging each and every member of the johnkerry.com community to get involved in this effort - especially people like you, those who saw the importance of putting Kids First from the very beginning of our effort.

With your immediate help, this Kids First ad will run across America, focused where it can do the most good -- in the hometowns of Senate Finance and House Commerce committee members. They are the ones who can either move forward with efforts to help uninsured children and their families or block those efforts.

We're going to insist that they act. Real reform to make sure America's children don't have to live without health care isn't even on the radar screen for Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, George Bush and other Republican leaders.

They're too busy protecting their own power and forcing extreme judges and radical proposals through Congress. Let's use our power to put Kids First.

The Kids First ad and the entire Kids First effort have a single goal - to create a groundswell of popular support for this essential legislation -- one that can't be denied by the endless foot-dragging of Republican leaders in Congress.

I urge you to help press forward on this vitally important task. Together, we will give voice to our values - and we won't stop working until we win.

Sincerely,
John Kerry

View the Ad Help Fund the Ad
www.kidsfirstact.com

The Kids First Act (S. 114) is currently sponsored by Senators Boxer, Landrieu, Kennedy, Dayton, Lautenberg, Corzine, Murray and Cantwell. Please join LUTD in asking your Senator to sponsor and support Kids First.

Kerry Calls Swift Boat Liars Bluff, Will They Come Clean?

John Kerry’s newly released Form 180 records revealed yesterday that there were no deep, dark secrets hiding in Kerry’s previously unreleased military records as the Swift Boat Liars had claimed. The Boston Globe noted that these newly released records prove what the Kerry campaign ascertained all along, that all of Kerry’s records were made available in April 2004. It does appear that the conspiracy theories have been disproved, yet again.

Now we’ll watch the spin on the right and the left once again and see where this story leads us. Sadly, along with the right-wing blogs spinning this story yesterday, there were left-wing blogs blowing it out of proportion as well. Evidently some on the left enjoy helping the right-wing, as I mentioned here Tuesday. The Leftcoaster is claiming “vanity” as the answer to why Kerry did not previously release his Form 180 records, noting that the news generated from this story yesterday is the spin on Kerry’s grades at Yale as opposed to his military record.

And of course, the vitriol from the right-wing continues in wake of the release of Kerry’s records, including a call from one blog for the Boston Globe to release all the records on their website as a PDF and another who has written the Globe’s ombudsman asking for verification of what is in the records. What we have not seen from the right-wing or the Swift Boat Liars is any sort of acknowledgement that they were wrong. Not that we expected that we would.

The right-wing Disinformation Society is hard at work spinning more spew over this issue. Aside from the media’s attention yesterday on the “grades” story further examples of the right-wing spin can be found here (including a statement from Kerry nemesis John O’Neill), here, here, here and here. So tight is the Republican hold on the spin that the reality is, as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said in his Vanity Fair article in May – The Disinformation Society, “No matter who the Democratic nominee was, this machinery had the capacity to discredit and destroy him.”

The Swift Boat Liars have never had anything solid on John Kerry, nor has the right-wing for that matter. In lieu of real dirt, the next best alternative of course is to sling synthetic mud. And when that does not stick, sling more synthetic mud. Now they are slipping and sliding in their own nasty mess, like a bunch of sorry mud wrestlers and they cannot come clean on this with out a whole mess of lye soap. Not even lye soap will wash away the fact that a few men saw fit to besmirch the military record of American war hero, a candidate for president, a seated senator of the United States. It is the Swift Boat Liars, who are covered in dirt here, not John Kerry.

As a Kerry spokesperson pointed out yesterday morning, off the record, now Kerry has “called the Swift Boat Liars' bluff and let's see if they will come clean about THEIR records.”

And, for that matter, when will Bush be releasing all of his records?

Related posts:
Kerry allows Navy release of military, medical records
Why Kerry May Have Been Right In Not Signing Form 180 Earlier
A Tale of Two Students

Americans Say War in Iraq Has Not Made U.S. Safer

You can't fool all of the people all of the time. From a Washington Post-ABC News Poll:

For the first time since the war in Iraq began, over half of the American public believes the fight there has not made the United States safer, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

While the focus in Washington has shifted from the Iraq conflict to Social Security and other domestic matters, the survey found that Americans rank Iraq second only to the economy in importance -- and that many are losing patience with the enterprise.

Nearly three quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting -- in all three cases matching or exceeding the highest levels of pessimism yet recorded. More than four in ten now believe the U.S. presence in Iraq is becoming analogous to the experience in Vietnam.

Perhaps most ominously, 52 percent said the war in Iraq has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States, while 47 percent said it did. It was the first time a majority of Americans disagreed with the central notion President Bush has offered to build support for war: that the fight there will make Americans safer from terrorists at home. In late 2003, 62 percent thought the Iraq war aided U.S. security, and just three months ago 52 percent thought so.

Overall, more than half-- 52 percent -- disapprove of how Bush is handling his job. A somewhat larger majority-56 percent-- disapproved of Republicans in Congress and an identical proportion disapproved of Democrats.

However, there were signs that Bush and Republicans in Congress were receiving more of the blame for the recent standoffs over such issues as Bush's judicial nominees and Social Security. Six in ten respondents said Bush and GOP leaders are not making good progress on the nation's problems; of those, 67 percent blamed the president and Republicans while 13 percent blamed congressional Democrats. For the first time, a majority, 55 percent, also said Bush has done more to divide the country than to unite it.

How Bush Misled Nation on War Plans

The evidence in the Downing Street Memo demostrates that George Bush had planned to go to war while he was claiming the decision had not yet been made, and that he was looking for non-military solutions. George Bush stated in Cincinnati on October 7, 2002 that "war was not inevitable" just four days before the Senate voted on the Iraq War Resolution. John Kerry cited Bush's statements in his Senate floor speech on his IWR vote, which was clearly not seen as a vote approving the type of war planned by George Bush, when he said:

"As the President made clear earlier this week, 'Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.' It means that "America speaks with one voice."

Think Progress has listed many other examples of Bush misleading Congress and the country about his plans:

The Downing Street Memo reported that in a July 23, 2002 meeting between Prime Minister Blair and his war cabinet, attendees of the meeting discussed the fact that President Bush had already made up his mind to attack Iraq. According to the minutes of the meeting:

“There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action.”

Yet, as the record below proves, President Bush claimed over and over after July 23rd until the war began that he had not made up his mind.

Bush: “Of course, I haven’t made up my mind we’re going to war with Iraq.” [10/1/02]

Bush:“Hopefully, we can do this peacefully – don’t get me wrong. And if the world were to collectively come together to do so, and to put pressure on Saddam Hussein and convince him to disarm, there’s a chance he may decide to do that. And war is not my first choice, don’t – it’s my last choice.” [11/7/02]

Bush: “This is our attempt to work with the world community to create peace. And the best way for peace is for Mr. Saddam Hussein to disarm. It’s up to him to make his decision.” [12/4/02]

Bush: “You said we’re headed to war in Iraq – I don’t know why you say that. I hope we’re not headed to war in Iraq. I’m the person who gets to decide, not you. I hope this can be done peacefully.” [12/31/02]

Bush: “First of all, you know, I’m hopeful we won’t have to go war, and let’s leave it at that.” [1/2/03]

Bush: “But Saddam Hussein is – he’s treated the demands of the world as a joke up to now, and it was his choice to make. He’s the person who gets to decide war and peace.” [2/7/03]

Bush:“I’ve not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully.” [3/6/03]

Bush: “I want to remind you that it’s his choice to make as to whether or not we go to war. It’s Saddam’s choice. He’s the person that can make the choice of war and peace.” [3/6/03]

Bush: “We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force.” [3/8/03]

Bush: “Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it.” [3/17/03]

A Tale of Two Students

While John Kerry and George Bush may have had similar grades as undergraduates, the differences between the two became clear by graduation. Kerry's freshman grades were hardly predictive of his ultimate success. While Bush's academic record remained one lacking in distinction, the Boston Globe reports that, "Kerry received a high honor at Yale despite his mediocre grades: He was chosen to deliver his senior class oration, a testament to his reputation as a public speaker. . . Despite his slow start, he went on to be a top student at Naval Candidate School."

We are well aware of the differences of the two following school. Today's review of the military records shows once again that John Kerry was undisputably a true war hero, while George Bush avoided his duties in the National Guard. After the war, Kerry had a distinguished career, while Bush had a series of business failures which his father's friends repeatedly bailed him out of. John Kerry has had a brilliant Senate career, while George Bush has become one of the worst Presidents in American history, undermining our national security, seriously harming our reputation in the world, and doing long term damage to the economy.

The difference between the two predictable while George Bush was in Harvard Business School, as is seen in this account in the Harvard Crimson from last July. Yoshihiro Tsurumi, a visiting associate professor of international business at Harvard Business School between 1972 and 1976, and now a professor of international business at Baruch College in the City University of New York, said he remembers the future president as scoring in the bottom 10 percent of students in the class. The article goes on to report:

Thirty years after teaching the class, Tsurumi said the twenty-something Bush’s statements and behavior—“always very shallow”—still stand out in his mind.

“Whenever [Bush] just bumped into me, he had some flippant statement to make,” said Tsurumi when reached at his home in Scarsdale, N.Y. “The comments he made were revealing of his prejudice.”

The White House did not reply to requests for comment on Bush’s time at HBS.

Tsurumi said he particularly recalls Bush’s right-wing extremism at the time, which he said was reflected in off-hand comments equating the New Deal of the 1930s with socialism and the corporation-regulating Securities and Exchange Commission with “an enemy of capitalism.”

“I vividly remember that he made a comment saying that people are poor because they’re lazy,” Tsurumi said.

Tsurumi also said Bush displayed a sense of arrogance about his prominent family, including his father, former U.S. President George H.W. Bush.

“[George W. Bush] didn’t stand out as the most promising student, but...he made it sure we understood how well he was connected,” Tsurumi said. “He wasn’t bashful about how he was being pushed upward by Dad’s connections.”

Tsurumi said that the younger Bush boasted that his father’s political string-pulling had gotten him to the top of the waiting list for the Texas National Guard instead of serving in Vietnam. When other students were frantically scrambling for summer jobs, Tsurumi said, Bush explained that he was planning instead for a visit to his father in Beijing, where the senior Bush was serving at the time as the special U.S. envoy to China.

In addition, Tsurumi is still sore about what he recalls as Bush’s slight to his cinematic taste. When he arranged for students to view the film of John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath during their study of the Great Depression, Tsurumi said, Bush derided the film as “corny.”

At the time, Tsurumi said his worries about his student extended no further than the boardroom.

“All Harvard Business School students want to become president of a company one day,” Tsurumi said. “I remember saying, if you become president of a company some day, may God help your customers and employees.”

When he discovered that his former pupil was vying for the presidency in 2000, Tsurumi said he tried to inform the public about his experience with the then-Texas governor at HBS—but got few results beyond hate mail.

“Last election time, if you recall, the American mass media did a shameful job of vetting [the presidential candidates],” Tsurumi said.

As another November approaches, Tsurumi is trying again to air his criticisms of the man he once taught and his actions as president.

“This time it seems to be getting around a bit more widely,” he said. “After three years of dismal record, people seem more inclined to believe that all his failed leadership was apparent during the Harvard Business School years.”

In a July 2 speech to the Foreign Correspondents Club of Japan in Tokyo, Tsurumi repeated the broadside he has launched repeatedly in the past.

“I always remember two groups of students,” Tsurumi said then, according to published reports. “One is the really good students, not only intelligent, but with leadership qualities, courage. The other is the total opposite, unfortunately to which George belonged.”

Why Kerry May Have Been Right In Not Signing Form 180

The review of John Kerry's military records demonstrated that the charges of the Swift Boat Liars were not true. The records reviewed following the signing of the Form 180 were also found to be the same as those which Kerry released during the campaign and had posted on line.

This has raised questions as to why Kerry didn't just sign the Form 180 earlier. One reason given by Kerry was that, "The call for me to sign a 180 form came from the same partisan operatives who were lying about my record on a daily basis on the Web and in the right-wing media. Even though the media was discrediting them, they continued to lie. I felt strongly that we shouldn't kowtow to them and their attempts to drag their lies out."

The media coverage shows Kerry may have been right in not kowtowing to them. Although the records show that the charges by the Swift Boat Liars were untrue, we have yet to see any admission of this from the right. O'Neill said yesterday that he would be disappointed if Kerry's files do not contain new information but told that Boston Globe that, ''I would still have the same beliefs expressed in my book." So much for their earlier claims that signing the Form 180 would be what determines the truth.

There were bound to be consequences to signing a form which allows those who have been proven to be distorting the truth to go through records. It was inevitable they would find something new to spin. So far it has turned out to be Kerry's grades at Yale.

The media initially reported that Kerry and Bush's grades were identical, and by this afternoon the right wing media is now claiming that Kerry's grades were worse than Bush. They even make a point that one of his better grades was in French. How clever of them. They don't point out the improvement seen in Kerry's grades following the freshman year or the other activities Kerry was involved in which affected his grades. Ultimately Kerry showed his intellectual abilities during his years in public life, which mean far more than freshman college grades.

Kerry never claimed to have been a great student. In Tour of Duty he is quoted as saying, "I was a capable student, but not a very dedicated one." He also says while talking about his favorite teacher, "Gaddis was a great, great lecturer," Kerry attested. "The Lectures were all energy and knowledge. I confess that I was .... I don't know, maybe I suffered from attention-deficit disorder... never really paying full attention in (any other) class. I just had so many extracurricular things going on."

The Boston Globe reports that, "Kerry received a high honor at Yale despite his mediocre grades: He was chosen to deliver his senior class oration, a testament to his reputation as a public speaker. . . Despite his slow start, he went on to be a top student at Naval Candidate School."

The right wing noise machine is using the grades to distract from the real story that the records verify Kerry's account of his military service. There is no mention of how John Kerry has proven his intellectual superiority over George Bush in their accomplishments after leaving school. There is also no mention of George Bush's failure to release his military records.

We see the double standard of the right wing media in play. When the memos presented by Dan Rather were found to be of questionable legitimacy, they dropped the story despite evidence that the content of the memos, if not the memos themselves, were correct with regards to Bush's National Guard record. In contrast, I bet that we have not heard the last of the Swift Boat Lies.

Related Stories:

Kerry's Records Released Disputing Attacks of Swift Boat Liars

Comments on Kos's use of the release to continue his attacks on Kerry discussed in Senator Kennedy, Please Do Not Support The Kerry Bashers

Senator Kennedy, Please Do Not Help The Kerry Bashers

Letter to Senator Kennedy's office following the posting of his comments on the Downing Street Minutes on Daily Kos:

I was pleased to see Senator Kennedy's comments on the Downing Street Minutes as posted on your web site.

I do wish that you hadn't used this release to help promote Daily Kos by cross posting there. There are plenty of better venues for releasing information to the Democratic bloggers. Kos has been using his site to regularly attack the other Senator from Massachusetts. Just today Kos used the release of Senator Kerry's military records as reason to attack John Kerry, and in another recent week had three main blog posts attacking him.

A site which regularly attacks John Kerry does not deserve the support of prominent Democrats such as Senator Kennedy.

The negative tone of Daily Kos is also frequently cited by other blogs to claim liberals are negative and full of hatred, obscuring our message. Unfortunately Kos's site gives them far too much ammunition to make this case. During the Presidential campaign the Kerry campaign even wound up removing Daily Kos from their blog list due to Kos's inappropriate comments following the death of American workers in Iraq.

While I understand and applaud your desire to make use of the liberal blogosphere, I hope you reconsider your use of Daily Kos in the future.

Ron Chusid
Light Up The Darkness Blog, and
The Unofficial Kerry for President Blog

Kerry's Records Released Disputing Attacks of Swift Boat Liars

Kerry allows Navy release of military, medical records

Show numerous commendations

By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff June 7, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Senator John F. Kerry, ending at least two years of refusal, has waived privacy restrictions and authorized the release of his full military and medical records.

The records, which the Navy Personnel Command provided to the Globe, are mostly a duplication of what Kerry released during his 2004 campaign for president, including numerous commendations from commanding officers who later criticized Kerry's Vietnam service.

The lack of any substantive new material about Kerry's military career in the documents raises the question of why Kerry refused for so long to waive privacy restrictions. An earlier release of the full record might have helped his campaign because it contains a number of reports lauding his service. Indeed, one of the first actions of the group that came to be known as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was to call on Kerry to sign a privacy waiver and release all of his military and medical records.

But Kerry refused, even though it turned out that the records included commendations from some of the same veterans who were criticizing him.

On May 20, Kerry signed a document called Standard Form 180, authorizing the Navy to send an ''undeleted" copy of his ''complete military service record and medical record" to the Globe. Asked why he delayed signing the form for so long, Kerry said in a written response: ''The call for me to sign a 180 form came from the same partisan operatives who were lying about my record on a daily basis on the Web and in the right-wing media. Even though the media was discrediting them, they continued to lie. I felt strongly that we shouldn't kowtow to them and their attempts to drag their lies out."

Many of the records contain praise for Kerry's service. For example, the documents quote Kerry's former commanding officers as saying he is ''one of the finest young officers with whom I have served;" is ''the acknowledged leader of his peer group;" and is ''highly recommended for promotion."

Kerry's refusal to waive privacy restrictions dates back to at least May 2003, when the Globe asked in writing for Kerry to sign the Form 180. As questions were raised about various actions in Vietnam, the Kerry campaign gradually released documents last year, but had not authorized the release of the entire file until now.

In April 2004, Kerry said he had already released his military records. ''I've shown them, they're available for you to come and look at," Kerry said in a television interview. But when a reporter showed up at campaign headquarters, he was told that no new records would be released. That prompted a flood of Republican criticism, and the campaign responded by gradually releasing more military records on its website. Kerry then released his ''fitness reports" -- evaluations by commanding officers -- on April 21, 2004.

Two days later, the campaign allowed some reporters to view Kerry's medical record but did not allow copies to be made and did not post that information online.

By signing Form 180 now, Kerry may hope to achieve several goals: settle the question of whether there is an explosive document in the file; put pressure on critics to release their military records; and try to put to rest an issue that dogged his 2004 campaign and would probably come up again if he seeks the presidency in 2008.

The file does not provide new documents about various combat actions. It contains mostly a repetition of Kerry's citations for the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts. For example, it does not include the combat ''after action reports" that detail what happened in some of the firefights in which Kerry participated. Those reports are available for public inspection at the Navy historical center in Washington and have already been widely disseminated.

John O'Neill, the leader of the Swift Boat veterans group and coauthor of the book ''Unfit for Command," said yesterday that he would be disappointed if Kerry's files do not contain new information. ''I would still have the same beliefs expressed in my book," he said.

O'Neill, who said he has already authorized the release of his records, has questioned a number of Kerry's combat actions involving the first Purple Heart, the Silver Star, and the Bronze Star.

For example, Kerry received his first Purple Heart for action on Dec. 2, 1968. Kerry told historian Douglas Brinkley that ''I never saw where the piece of shrapnel had come from." Kerry's critics have questioned whether the wound came from enemy fire, and his former commanding officer said the wound resembled a ''scratch." The file includes a previously reported reference to Kerry being treated for the wound and that he was awarded the Purple Heart, but it does not address the details of the combat that night. No after-action report for the incident has been found.

Olbermann Debunks Right-Wing Spin on Kerry’s Downing Street Memo Statement

Keith Olbermann aired a brief debunking tonight on the conservative spin on John Kerry’s Downing Street Memo statement last week in the Standard Times, which Ron posted here last Thursday. Newsmax picked up the story early Friday morning and twisted it into a claim that Kerry would call for impeachment. The Conservative Voice quickly rallied to the right-wing spin machine and posted their version, which Ron debunked here first on Friday.

Watch Keith Olbermann’s debunking here: Real Media Format or Windows Media Format

Spin, Spin, Spin and How the Left Helps the Right…

Most disturbing in this classic case of spin is how the left-wing helped the right-wing in perpetuating these untruths. In his statement to the Standard Times, Kerry said that the Downing Street Memo, though not being discussed by the media, had not been missed by the internet. No truer words could have been spoken by Senator Kerry, as the internet took off with his statement to the Standard Times, and blogs and forums, right and left had a heyday with their own versions of the statement.

MORE

Kerry: Too early to think of White House

The Boston Herald has a short piece on John Kerry today. This about says it all…

Sen. John F. Kerry is still the well-oiled President Bush-basher he was on the campaign trail last year, but he claims it is “too early” to say whether he will take another run at the White House in 2008.

“Honestly I know it sounds bizarre . . . but it is not bizarre,” Kerry (D-Mass.) told Herald editors and reporters. “It is so crazy, too early to be talking about 2008... You've got to see where the country is ... then you sort of begin an evaluative process. The important thing right now is to do my job, and the important thing right now is to continue to fight for the things that I fought for.”

Kerry assailed the Bush administration for “running the economy into the ground” and “spending like crazy.” He added, “There is nothing conservative about this administration. They're extreme.”

Most Americans Back Stem Cell Research

Most Americans Back Research
Using Stem Cells, Poll Shows

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE
June 7, 2005

Most Americans, regardless of party identification or religious affiliation, believe stem-cell research should be allowed, according to a Wall Street Journal Online/Harris Interactive health-care poll.

However, while support has generally stabilized since 2004, the poll indicates a growing division of opinion among some groups regarding stem-cell research, with people who were once unsure of their stance on the issue now taking sides.

Stem cells come from embryos left over from in vitro fertilization that aren't used, and are normally destroyed. Many medical researchers want to use them to develop treatments, or to prevent diseases, such as diabetes, Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease.

A large majority of Democrats (83%) say they support stem-cell research, up from 80% in 2004. But support from Independents decreased to 79% from 83%, while Republican support was unchanged from a year ago at 60%.

However, one-in-four Republicans, compared with one-in-five one a year ago, now believe that stem-cell research shouldn't be allowed, while the proportion of Republicans who are unsure has likewise declined.

Among those with a religious affiliation, born-again Christians saw the biggest increase in opposition to the research, rising to 29% from 21% a year ago.

"This suggests that political and religious conservatives are gaining support as they continue to campaign against stem-cell research," says Katherine Binns, senior vice president of Harris Interactive.

Kerry Exposes Fraud in Small Business Contracting

Buried Report Proves SBA Knew About Fraud
Monday June 6, 2:41 pm ET

SBA Allowed Big Businesses to Steal Billions in Government Small Business Contracts

PETALUMA, Calif., June 6 /PRNewswire/ -- A recently uncovered 1995 internal investigation from the Small Business Administration Inspector General's office, "Government Contracting Programs: Activities to Enhance Fraud Detection and Deterrence," proves executives at the SBA have known for almost ten years that there was intentional fraud in federal small business contracting programs:

"Over the past few years, the Investigations Division has noted several instances of a particular fraudulent practice: companies that SBA, after sustaining protests against them, had prohibited from representing themselves as small businesses, were continuing to falsely certify themselves as eligible for small business set-aside contracts."

The documents were uncovered by the American Small Business League. ASBL has launched a national campaign to end fraud and other abuses in federal small business contracting programs. ASBL President Lloyd Chapman said, "This report and the most recent investigations by the SBA's own Inspector General clearly show the SBA has known about this rampant fraud for ten years and they have lied to Congress, the media and the public."

Seven separate government and private studies have found billions in US government small business contracts have actually been awarded to some of the largest firms in the world. The SBA has angered members of Congress and the small business community by claiming the staggering diversions of federal small business programs was the result of "computer glitches" and "miscoding."

The Center for Public Integrity found the Pentagon alone had awarded $47 billion in federal small business contracts to some of the nation's largest defense contractors.

SBA Administrator Hector Baretto told the House Committee on Small Business in February the billions in abuses were the result of "data entry errors." Representative Nydia Velasquez of New York accused Baretto of being "dishonest."

The SBA's own Inspector General released three separate reports in February and March (5-14, 5-15, 5-16) that found large firms were still intentionally misrepresenting themselves as small businesses to illegally receive federal small business contracts. An investigation by the SBA Inspector General at the request of Senator John Kerry found the SBA itself had knowingly awarded millions in small business contracts to large businesses.

Kerry accused the Bush Administration of "fostering an atmosphere of fraud and abuse in federal small business contracting programs."

Even though misrepresenting a firm as a small business is a felony under federal law with a ten-year prison term and a $500,000 fine, the SBA has never taken any action against any firm for fraudulently claiming to be a small business.

Critics of the SBA believe the SBA has turned a blind eye to billions in fraud and misrepresentation since it dramatically inflates the government's small business contracting statistics. In March of 2004, the SBA issued a press release claiming it was "a victory for America" that the Bush Administration had reached the Congressionally mandated 23 small-business contracting goal.

The 1995 fraud report and the most recent investigation by the SBA's Inspector General indicate that claim was dramatically overstated.

The Lies About Hillary

I don't know how much truth the book will contain, but the publication of Edward Klein's book, "The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President," may be interesting in evaluating Hillary as a potential Presidential candidate.

We know the right wing will go ballistic about her, and she will undergo the same type of smear campaign which John Kerry was subjected to. The real questions are not what type of garbage a book like this raises, but how the general public responds, and how good a job Hillary does of repelling the attacks.

The book is being rushed to print rather than waiting until fall as originally scheduled. It may be a major test as to whether Hillary will be a viable candidate to take on both the GOP and the Republican noise machine.

Dean: We don't need Republicans interfering with our lives

Putting aside the well publicized distractions of a couple of public statements which were not the wisest, Howard Dean is laying out what appears to be a strong plan for future government action per this report in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Dean is urging Democrats to spread a message of "individual freedom" and "fiscal responsibility," two longtime conservative mantras he says Republicans have squandered by racking up governmental debt and legislating so-called "moral values." He notes that, "we don't need Republicans interfering with our lives."

Dean also said, "I'm tired of being lectured on moral values by the likes of Rush Limbaugh. They can't lecture us on moral values. This is the party that has the moral high ground and we ought to say that every day on the ground."

Dean pointed out that having having such a message is necessary to keep Republicans from setting campaign agendas and forcing Democrats to respond defensively. This looks especially important after a recent campaign in which Republicans, with the aide of the right wing noise machine, regularly distorted John Kerry's positions and then campaigned against their own distorted reports rather than Kerry's true positions and record.

Dean also spoke of running a fifty state national campaign. This includes putting four DNC-funded field directors in all 50 states for four-year commitments to organize, mobilize and conduct outreach efforts.

Teresa Heinz to graduates: Give something back

Teresa Heinz to graduates: Give something back
June 5, 2005 4:04 PM The Associated Press

CALDWELL, Idaho Teresa Heinz -- wife of former presidential contender John Kerry -- told graduates of Albertsons College of Idaho this weekend that they have a role to play in creating a healthy environment.

Heinz has a vacation home in the Sun Valley area. She told the students that the stars in Idaho's night skies remind her of her homeland in Mozambique, East Africa.

But she said that in too many world cities, air pollution and bright lights have taken the stars away. She says the next generation must dare to demand more from their world and their environment.

During Heinz' visit this weekend, she was greeted by local newspaper ads and letters to the editor criticizing her as a radical leftist.

But leaders of Albertson's Class of 2005 say they invited her because of her credentials in issues on the environment, education, the arts and women's issues.

Kerry Putting Kids First

Putting kids first
Kerry wants to redirect the debate on values
By STEVE URBON, Standard-Times senior correspondent

The term "values," as it applied in last year's presidential election, boiled down mainly to two things: opposition to abortion and opposition to gay marriage. It worked in favor of President Bush.
Sen. John Kerry, the losing Democratic challenger, now wants to redirect the values debate to a new area favorable to Democrats: guaranteed health care for poor children called "Kids First."
"If you want to talk about values as a lot of these politicians would just throw it at you, then let's have a values test."
The test he proposes is this: "If you simply take the top 5 percent of the tax cut (for next year) and say you're going to do health care, you could cover health care for all 11 million children" who now are without any coverage at all, he told The Standard-Times editorial board in a visit last week.
"It would affect people of $300,000 in income and up," he said.
"Now, everybody I talk to at that level of income, sitting down to dinner or whatever, says, You know, this tax cut isn't going to do anything to change what I invest in. It's going to give me more disposable income to go out and buy more or do something. But it's not going to change my fundamentals of investing. The bottom line is, we can't afford it and it's the wrong moral choice."
"I'm taking part of the health care plan I proposed to the country last in the course of the campaign. I'm just saying if we can't start with kids, where can we start?"
Asked whether the Bush White House would even allow a vote in Congress on such a concept, Sen. Kerry said, flatly, "No."
"What I'm doing is putting a stake in the ground around which we can organize and draw a clear values distinction."
He said the message is being well-received. "In Austin, Texas, a few weeks ago we took the health care thing on the road and 3,000 people came out on a Saturday morning. Twelve hundred in Seattle."
But don't the states and federal government already provide health care for children living in poverty, or something close to it? Isn't there something called CHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program?
There is, but Sen. Kerry said it's not working well enough, missing millions of children.
"The CHIP program is actually an expansion of Medicaid, and Medicaid goes up to 100 percent of poverty. Fifty percent is shared by the states, approximately. Above that, states have been given an incentive through the CHIP program to try expand health care to children. That's what our theory was, help give them incentive to cover more kids. And they've expanded. There has been growth in the number of kids covered up until last year.
"But this year the Bush administration is actually cutting Medicaid and it will cut available funds for children to have health care," he said.
Another problem with CHIP is that above the poverty level, some states provide significant help while others do not. While Massachusetts might extend care to those families earning as much as the poverty level of $15,670, others are "terrible," said Sen. Kerry.
He added that many states do an inadequate job of enrolling eligible children, partly because of the bureaucracy.
"What I propose to do is take over Medicaid children from the states. I will cover kids up to 100 percent, $15,670 of income. The deal with the states is if I agree to take over 100 percent, they take over from there.
"In exchange we ask states to take a lesser burden and cover kids from 100 percent up to 300 percent of poverty. That's how we get every kid covered. And it's a net plus to the states of $6 billion. So every state in country makes out with several hundred million dollars and it's an incentive for governors to do it," he said.
"The reason the states will love this is that, No. 1, they hate the bureaucracy, and No. 2, they don't do it well. They don't enroll the kids. There's a huge burden to enrollment.
"In my program, there's automatic enrollment. You go to school, you've got health insurance. You go to day care, child care, you've got health insurance. You're covered. So any provider will know immediately they don't have to wrestle with 'This kid doesn't have health care. We can't take him to the hospital,' " Sen. Kerry said.
"You have no idea of how many family physicians I talk to around the country who tell me of kids they don't see until they're 12 years old, and the kid has an earache perpetually in school and the kid winds up with a learning disability because they just didn't get a visit to the doctor. These are real stories."
He said he put his Kids First plan out in three million e-mails "and we got 20,000 phone calls leaving a message as to why it is important."
But Sen. Kerry said he has no expectation that his plan will advance with the GOP in control of Congress and the White House.
He's even having trouble getting backing from Republican governors, he said.
"I've called (New York Gov. George) Pataki. I've called (California Gov. Arnold) Schwartzenegger. I've called these guys and I say look, here's a choice, and Arnold says, no, we can't change taxes."
"They're just scared. The Holy Grail of the Republican Party is a tax cut, whether it makes sense or doesn't. It's the single opinion of their politics now."

This story appeared on Page B1 of The Standard-Times on June 5, 2005

Read Them Before They're Banned

Human Events, a rather dangerous publication to those supporting liberty and modern civilization, has come up with a list of the Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries, along with a list of books receiving honorable mention.

Looking at the list gives some insight as to how far the right wing has become out of the intellectual mainstream of western civilization. Fortunately they lead with books which really could be considered harmful for their support of totalitarianism. Personally I would rank Mein Kampf, which truly advocated totalitarianism, above The Communist Manifesto which, although highly misguided in its own right, was no where as evil as those who distorted its meaning to justify the Communist regimes of the 20th century.

Beyond the first few, the list becomes rather disturbing. They include books such as The Kinsey Report, Feminine Mystique, and Dewey's Democracy and Education. Beyond Nazis and Communists, we see the other enemies of the far right: sex, education, feminists, science, and the environment. While I could understand opposition to various books which advocate Communism based both upon the totalitarianism they led to and their failed economic principles, including Keynes General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money as harmful is rather extreme, even if they disagree with its economic principles.

Their honorable mention continues the distrubing trends seen in their top ten, including The Population Bomb, John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, Skinner's Beyond Freedom and Dignity, Silent Spring, Mead's Coming of Age in Samoa and Freud's Introduction to Psychoanalysis.

The influence of the religious right can be seen in their reasons for including many of these books, with explanations only included for the top ten. For example, John Dewey makes the list for being a "leading advocate for secular humanism in American life." Among his sins was that, "He signed the Humanist Manifesto and rejected traditional religion and moral absolutes." Auguste Comte makes the list because he "turned his back on his political and cultural heritage, announcing as a teenager, 'I have naturally ceased to believe in God.'" It is no surprise they include Nietzsche who argued that "God is dead." Their opposition to evolution leads to two works by Darwin, Origin of the Species and Descent of Man, making honorable mention. I wonder if the division of the vote between two books is what kept Darwin off the top ten.

Of course we can never underestimate the right wing's dedication to making a buck, even if it means distributing works they consider harmful. Human Events includes links to purchase its harmful books through Amazon so that they can receive a percentage of the sales.

If this list isn't enough to prove how far out of the mainstream Human Events is, take a look at their list of columnists on the left side of their site. Leading the list is Ann Coulter. Rational conservatives should realize that Coulter's irrational rants are most harmful to the credibility of the conservative movement.

Following is the complete list:

1. The Communist Manifesto — Authors: Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels
2. Mein Kampf — Author: Adolf Hitler
3. Quotations from Chairman Mao — Author: Mao Zedong
4. The Kinsey Report — Author: Alfred Kinsey
5. Democracy and Education — Author: John Dewey
6. Das Kapital — Author: Karl Marx
7. The Feminine Mystique — Author: Betty Friedan
8. The Course of Positive Philosophy — Author: Auguste Comte
9. Beyond Good and Evil — Author: Freidrich Nietzsche
10. General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money — Author: John Maynard Keynes

Honorable Mention

These books won votes from two or more judges:

The Population Bomb — Paul Ehrlich
What Is To Be Done — V.I. Lenin
Authoritarian Personality — Theodor Adorno
On Liberty — John Stuart Mill
Beyond Freedom and Dignity — B.F. Skinner
Reflections on Violence — Georges Sorel
The Promise of American Life — Herbert Croly
Origin of the Species — Charles Darwin
Madness and Civilization — Michel Foucault
Soviet Communism: A New Civilization — Sidney and Beatrice Webb
Coming of Age in Samoa — Margaret Mead
Unsafe at Any Speed — Ralph Nader
Second Sex — Simone de Beauvoir
Prison Notebooks — Antonio Gramsci
Silent Spring — Rachel Carson
Wretched of the Earth — Frantz Fanon
Introduction to Psychoanalysis — Sigmund Freud
The Greening of America — Charles Reich
The Limits to Growth — Club of Rome
Descent of Man — Charles Darwin

Smithsonian Withdraws Support of Film on Intelligent Design

Here's a small victory for science and reason over the flat-earth mentality of the anti-science religious right. The Smithsonian has withdrawn co-sponsorship of a documentary on intelligent design. From the Washington Post's account:

"We have determined that the content of the film is not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian Institution's scientific research," said a museum statement. The film, "The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe," is based on a book by Iowa State University astronomy professor Guillermo Gonzalez. Opponents say it and other arguments for intelligent design are creationism in disguise.

"They are trying to borrow from the scientific community by using words like 'quantum' and looking at the age of the Earth," writes James Randi. He's founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation, which financially supports research or efforts that dispel paranormal or supernatural claims. "They are trying to get scientific validity by doing faux scientific research."

Bush Welfare for the Ultra-Rich

Under traditional sterotypes, I should be a Republican, at least in terms of socio-economic status. I've argued for quite a while that Bush policies no longer benefit us run of the mill affluent people, as opposed to the ultra-rich who Bush is really looking out for. The New York Times provides more evidence of this in an article on how the "Richest Are Leaving Even the Rich Far Behind."

The article notes that, "The people at the top of America's money pyramid have so prospered in recent years that they have pulled far ahead of the rest of the population, an analysis of tax records and other government data by The New York Times shows. They have even left behind people making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year."

Some of the most interesting information is on the effects of Bush's tax laws:

¶Under the Bush tax cuts, the 400 taxpayers with the highest incomes - a minimum of $87 million in 2000, the last year for which the government will release such data - now pay income, Medicare and Social Security taxes amounting to virtually the same percentage of their incomes as people making $50,000 to $75,000.

¶Those earning more than $10 million a year now pay a lesser share of their income in these taxes than those making $100,000 to $200,000.

¶The alternative minimum tax, created 36 years ago to make sure the very richest paid taxes, takes back a growing share of the tax cuts over time from the majority of families earning $75,000 to $1 million - thousands and even tens of thousands of dollars annually. Far fewer of the very wealthiest will be affected by this tax.

The Times compares the tax policies of recent Presidents noting that, "President Ronald Reagan signed tax bills that benefited the wealthiest Americans and also gave tax breaks to the working poor. President Bill Clinton raised income taxes for the wealthiest, cut taxes on investment gains, and expanded breaks for the working poor. Mr. Bush eliminated income taxes for families making under $40,000, but his tax cuts have also benefited the wealthiest Americans far more than his predecessors' did."

People from Warren Buffett to even Alan Greenspan have found these trends to be disturbing:

But some of the wealthiest Americans, including Warren E. Buffett, George Soros and Ted Turner, have warned that such a concentration of wealth can turn a meritocracy into an aristocracy and ultimately stifle economic growth by putting too much of the nation's capital in the hands of inheritors rather than strivers and innovators. Speaking of the increasing concentration of incomes, Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chairman, warned in Congressional testimony a year ago: "For the democratic society, that is not a very desirable thing to allow it to happen."

Values of Modern Liberalism

I see from the comments at Light Up The Darkness that we have the return of a visitor who is confused as to what we stand for. He appears to be trapped in an old Ayn Rand novel with little understanding of what liberals really believe in. Our model is far closer to what the founding fathers envisioned, in a sense placing us more in the tradition of true conservativism than the current neoconservatives. This is for our visitor, as well as everyone else who has been blinded by the propaganda of the far right.

Contrary to what is claimed in a recent comment, this site isn't for Democrats Only. We have many people who have voted Republican in the past, but who are opposed to the extremist policies of the current Republican leadership. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, true Conservatives, Libertarians, and others have much in common in opposing this nightmarish union of neoconservatives and the religious right.

Of course different people have different priorities and their priorities may be a little different. Ultimately liberalism stands for individual liberty and an openness to different ideas. This unites us in opposing the current far right policies of the current Republican leadership regardless of our specific political views. Following are some of the principles behind my writings here:

Individual liberty rather than a government which is increasingly intrusive in individual's lives.

Free market capitalism rather than the crony capitalism and corporate welfare system of the far right which uses the government to transfer wealth from small businessmen, entrepreneurs, and working people to big business and the ultra-wealthy.

A rational and strong defense against foreign enemies, which understands our need to work with other nations, and to win the battle for hearts and minds around the world.

Separation of church and state rather than imposing a single set of religious values upon all.

Separation of powers, including an independent judiciary, rather than centralization of power within a small group.

Transparency in government rather than increased government secrecy and dishonesty.

A free and honest news media rather than an increasing trend towards media under control of the far right using Soviet-style propaganda techniques to influence public opinion.

Agreement with Bill Clinton that "the era of big government is over" and opposition to its return under George Bush.

Support for government programs which have been proven to be both necessary and valuable, such as Medicare and Social Security, rather than a knee jerk opposition to all government programs.

Sound fiscal policies rather than running up huge deficits.

Protection of the environment, which does not have to be overly restrictive on business, but which is also not going to come about without some government regulation.

LUTD Breaks Old Record

Thanks to interest in the Downing Street Memos, and many links to our stories from sites including Buzz Flash and the Daou Report (plus a link today from AlterNet on a different topic) we have broken our previous record for page loads at Light Up The Darkness.

Moments ago we passed our old record 0f 6017 page loads for a single day, with a few hours to go due to the stat counter being set on Pacific time. This is on top of the 4019 page loads yesterday, bringing the total to over 10,000 and running.

The recent stories on John Kerry's plans to raise this issue when he returns to the Senate have generated the bulk of the interest. A listing of many of our stories related to the Downing Street Memos can be found here.

A combination of the support from our regular readers and frequent links on major blogs has greatly increased our readership over the past couple of months. The last time I posted regarding the growth of Light Up The Darkness, breaking 1000 page loads on a single day was something which happend intermittently. Now it happens on a regular basis, with our average now exceeding 1500 page loads per day.

Republican Control of Washington

One of the more serious threats to democracy under the Republicans has also received much less discussion than their other acts such as lying us into war, promotion of right wing judicial activism, use of Soviet style propaganda techniques, and voter suppression. This is the K Street Project, the topic of an article by Elizabeth Drew in the current New York Review of Books. Here's a section:

The Republican purge of K Street is a more thorough, ruthless, vindictive, and effective attack on Democratic lobbyists and other Democrats who represent businesses and other organizations than anything Washington has seen before. The Republicans don't simply want to take care of their friends and former aides by getting them high-paying jobs: they want the lobbyists they helped place in these jobs and other corporate representatives to arrange lavish trips for themselves and their wives; to invite them to watch sports events from skyboxes; and, most important, to provide a steady flow of campaign contributions. The former aides become part of their previous employers' power networks. Republican leaders also want to have like-minded people on K Street who can further their ideological goals by helping to formulate their legislative programs, get them passed, and generally circulate their ideas. When I suggested to Grover Norquist, the influential right-wing leader and the leading enforcer of the K Street Project outside Congress, that numerous Democrats on K Street were not particularly ideological and were happy to serve corporate interests, he replied, "We don't want nonideological people on K Street, we want conservative activist Republicans on K Street."

The K Street Project has become critical to the Republicans' efforts to control all the power centers in Washington: the White House, Congress, the courts—and now, at least, an influential part of the corporate world, the one that raises most of the political money. It's another way for Republicans to try to impose their programs on the country. The Washington Post reported recently that House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, of Missouri, has established "a formal, institutionalized alliance" with K Street lobbyists. They have become an integral part of the legislative process by helping to get bills written and passed—and they are rewarded for their help by the fees paid by their clients. Among the results are legislation that serves powerful private interests all the more openly—as will be seen, the energy bill recently passed by the House is a prime example —and a climate of fear that is new. The conservative commentator David Brooks said on PBS's NewsHour earlier this year, "The biggest threat to the Republican majority is the relationship on K Street with corporate lobbyists and the corruption that is entailed in that." But if the Republicans are running a risk of being seen as overreaching in their takeover of K Street, there are few signs that they are concerned about it.

When the Republicans first announced the K Street Project after they won a majority in Congress in the 1994 election, they warned Washington lobbying and law firms that if they wanted to have appointments with Republican legislators they had better hire more Republicans. This was seen as unprecedentedly heavy-handed, but their deeper purposes weren't yet understood. Since the Democrats had been in power on Capitol Hill for a long time, many of the K Street firms then had more Democrats than Republicans or else they were evenly balanced. But the Democrats had been hired because they were well connected with prominent Democrats on Capitol Hill, not because Democratic Congresses demanded it. Moreover, it makes sense for lobbying firms that want access to members of Congress to hire people with good contacts in the majority party—especially former members or aides of the current leaders. But the bullying tactics of Republicans in the late 1990s were new.

DeLay, Santorum, and their associates organized a systematic campaign, closely monitored by Republicans on Capitol Hill and by Grover Norquist and the Republican National Committee, to put pressure on firms not just to hire Republicans but also to fire Democrats. With the election of Bush, this pressure became stronger. A Republican lobbyist told me, "Having the White House" has made it more possible for DeLay and Santorum "to enforce the K Street Project." Several Democratic lobbyists have been pushed out of their jobs as a result; business associations who hire Democrats for prominent positions have been subject to retribution. They are told that they won't be able to see the people on Capitol Hill they want to see. Sometimes the retribution is more tangible. The Republican lobbyist I spoke to said, "There's a high state of sensitivity to the partisanship of the person you hire for these jobs that did not exist five, six years ago—you hire a Democrat at your peril."

Kerry's Warnings Right--Again

Remember before the election when John Kerry warned us about the missing weapons in Iraq? Once again, further evidence shows John Kerry was right, and that George Bush's reckless foreign policy has further endangered us. From an AP report:

"U.N. satellite imagery experts have determined that material that could be used to make biological or chemical weapons and banned long-range missiles has been removed from 109 sites in Iraq, U.N. weapons inspectors said in a report obtained Thursday."

Related Stories:
Kerry Right on Bush's Failure to Capture Bin Laden
Kerry Right Again, This Time on Iraqui Weapons

Another Call for Impeachment

From the Bangor Daily News:

Administration's offenses impeachable

Thursday, June 02, 2005 - Bangor Daily News

Let's consider an item from the news of about two weeks ago:

A British citizen leaked a memo to London's Sunday Times. The memo was of the written account of a meeting that a man named Richard Dearlove had with the Bush administration in July 2002. Dearlove was the head of the England's MI-6, the equivalent of the CIA. On July 23, 2002, Dearlove briefed Tony Blair about the meeting. He said that Bush was determined to attack Iraq. He said that Bush knew that U.S. intelligence had no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and no links to foreign terrorists, that there was no imminent danger to the U.S. from Iraq. But, since Bush was determined to go to war, "Intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy." "Fixed" means faked, manufactured, conjured, hyped - the product of whole cloth fabrication.

So we got aluminum tubes, mushroom clouds imported from Niger, biological weapons labs in weather trucks, fear and trembling, the phony ultimatums to Saddam Hussein to turn over the weapons he didn't have and thus couldn't. We got the call to arms, the stifling of dissent, the parade of retired generals strategizing on the "news" shows, with us or against us, flags in the lapel, a craven media afraid to look for a truth that might disturb their corporate owners who would profit from the war. Shock and Awe. Fallujah. Abu Ghraib.

It was all a lie. Many of us have said for a long time it was a lie. But here it is in black and white: Lies from a president who has taken a sacred trust to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

So, what does it mean? It means that our president and all of his administration are war criminals. It's as simple as that. They lied to the American people, have killed and injured and traumatized thousands of American men and women doing their patriotic duty, killed at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians, destroyed Iraq's infrastructure and poisoned its environment, squandered billions and billions of our tax dollars, made a mockery of American integrity in the world, changed the course of history, tortured Iraqi prisoners, and bound us intractably to an insane situation that they have no idea how to fix because they had no plan, but greed and empire, in the first place.

What does it mean? It means that everyone in this administration should be impeached. It means that our Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and our Congressmen Tom Allen and Mike Michaud should call for immediate impeachment. They were lied to by their president, voted for war, and are thus complicit in the multiply betrayals of the American people unless they stand up now for the truth.

Richard Nixon was impeached for a cover-up of a two-bit break-in. William Cohen, a young Maine Republican, played an important role for the prosecution in those proceedings. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about sex with an intern. Now we have the irrefutable evidence that George W. Bush lied about the reasons for taking the United States to war. The intelligence wasn't flawed. The weapons weren't hidden. Our elected leaders were lying.

Democracy, like any sound relationship between people, is built on trust. We trust our leaders to tell the truth so that the consent that we give them is honestly informed. If the consent is won through manipulation, propaganda, fear, or lies, the basis of our democracy has been subverted. It is no longer democracy at all, but we continue to call it that because we have not the courage or stamina to demand its overhaul.

We live a lie when we fail to hold leaders accountable for their lies. By not calling now for impeachment, we are saying that we condone hypocrisy, pseudo-democracy, and murdering thousands of Americans and Iraqis for strategic control of energy resources that we have no right to. Patriotism demands that we insist on the ideals of democracy, not that we support the "leaders" who cynically destroy them.

What's curious is why anyone like me should have to even point this out. Don't our senators and congressmen feel betrayed? Are they content to continue the murdering rather than do what truth demands? Do they think they can lie to history, too. Do they think that this little Iraq problem will somehow just go away, that the courageous resistance to the United States occupation will give up and hand Bush the keys to the oil wells? Do they think that any of the grave crises facing the world now - energy consumption, global warming, species extinction - can be solved by lying about them?

We are living in an age of no accountability. It's also an age upon which may hang the survival of human life on this earth. One should not bet one's future on people who abjure responsibility. The first courageous step is to come to terms with what we know is true: America's president lied to America's people to create an unnecessary war. I ask Sens. Snowe and Collins, Reps. Allen and Michaud to take that step. Begin impeachment proceedings. It's really no more or less than their duty. It's also the first step toward restoring America's integrity.

Robert Shetterly is a writer and artist who lives in Brooksville.

Conservative Spin on Kerry Statement

We know that many modern conservatives no longer support the Constitution in backing the principles the country was founded on such as individual liberty, separation of powers, an independent judiciary, and separation of church and state. We also learned during the Clinton years that they have a strange sense of what constitutes an impeachable offense, such as a private consensual sexual relationship. What is a surprise is to learn is that the conservatives apparently don't even recall the Constitutionally mandated procedure for impeachment.

The Conservative Voice has twisted one of Kerry's statements reported yesterday, claiming that "Kerry advised that he will begin the presentation of his case for President Bush’s impeachment to Congress, on Monday."

Actually Kerry said nothing of impeachment when he said, "When I go back on Monday, I am going to raise the issue," when speaking of the Downing Street Memos. A basic understanding of the Constitution, not to mention a respect for honest journalism, should make the author realize the absurdity of this false statement. Impeachment must begin in the House of Representatives, and therefore Senator Kerry would not be involved in a move towards impeachment. However, as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, it would be reasonable for Kerry to investigate such evidence that President Bush lied to Congress, as well as the American people, while preparing to go to war against Iraq based upon distorting intelligence reports.

Such misquotations of John Kerry are not unusual from the right. Afterall, this was the main means by which the Republicans attacked Kerry throughout the 2004 Presidential campaign. This again raises the question of why, if they apparently have so many areas of disagreement with John Kerry, they don't have the honesty--or guts--to attack him based upon things he actually said.

More Republican Flip Flops

As it appears Republican flip flops are becomming the theme for the day, here' an item from Salon's War Room:

A flip-flop from Bush on North Korea?

John Kerry would surely prefer to have been elected last November than vindicated this June, but sometimes you have to take what you can get. And on at least one front this week, what Kerry can get is some sense that he was right and George W. Bush was wrong on a serious foreign policy matter.

The matter: North Korea. In his first debate with Bush, Kerry vowed to begin bilateral discussions between North Korea and the United States. Bush's response: "I can't tell you how big a mistake I think that is, to have bilateral talks with North Korea. It's precisely what Kim Jong Il wants. It will cause the six-party talks to evaporate. It will mean that China no longer is involved in convincing, along with us, for Kim Jong Il to get rid of his weapons. It's a big mistake to do that. We must have China's leverage on Kim Jong Il, besides ourselves."

So what is the Bush administration saying now? According to the New York Times, senior Bush administration officials say that the deadlock in the six-way talks -- a deadlock that began last June, well before the presidential debates -- is untenable and that the United States needs to find "a new strategy to persuade the Koreans to disarm." "In a change that reflects a failure of the present policy," the Times said earlier this week, "some officials say that they will no longer rely on China to sway the North Koreans" because they "now realize" that China "may never be willing to use its leverage over North Korea."

Score one for the junior senator from Massachusetts. And while it isn't vindication, exactly, Kerry can also take some kind of bemused comfort in the comments of Vice President Dick Cheney this week. During the campaign, the Republicans went ballistic on Kerry after he said that he'd substantially reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq by 2008. The GOP accused Kerry of having a "cut and run" policy on Iraq, of emboldening the insurgents by suggesting that they merely had to "wait out" U.S. troops.

And what did Cheney say this week? When Larry King asked him if he thought there would be a substantial reduction in U.S. troops in Iraq by 2008, Cheney said: "I do."

The Real Massachusetts Flip Flopper

It looks like there is a flip flopper who tries to take both sides of an issue in Massachusetts politics--and it certainly is not John Kerry. The Boston Globe reports on how Governor Mitt Romney faked being pro-choice when running for the Senate in 1994 and Governor in 2002. Now an advisor reveals he was "faking" his support for abortion rights.

Conservatives for Legalization of Marijuana

Here's another issue where the economic conservatives and the religious right will not agree--legalization of marijuana. From Forbes:

Milton Friedman leads a list of more than 500 economists from around the U.S. who today will publicly endorse a Harvard University economist's report on the costs of marijuana prohibition and the potential revenue gains from the U.S. government instead legalizing it and taxing its sale. Ending prohibition enforcement would save $7.7 billion in combined state and federal spending, the report says, while taxation would yield up to $6.2 billion a year.

Later in the article:

At 92, Friedman is revered as one of the great champions of free-market capitalism during the years of U.S. rivalry with Communism. He is also passionate about the need to legalize marijuana, among other drugs, for both financial and moral reasons.

"There is no logical basis for the prohibition of marijuana," the economist says, "$7.7 billion is a lot of money, but that is one of the lesser evils. Our failure to successfully enforce these laws is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people in Colombia. I haven't even included the harm to young people. It's absolutely disgraceful to think of picking up a 22-year-old for smoking pot. More disgraceful is the denial of marijuana for medical purposes."

Pelosi and Reid To Increase Pressure on GOP on National Security

From The Hill e-news:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) sent a letter to Democratic donors Thursday to raise money for radio ads criticizing congressional Republicans for voting "to deny adequate health care to the National Guard and Reserve." The ads have already run in several districts around the country, according to Pelosi's appeal, which asks supporters to "keep these ads on the air by making a gift of $35, $50, or more." The ads and fundraising push seem to be the latest incarnation of efforts by Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to pose a stronger challenge to Republicans on national security, an issue that the GOP has dominated in recent years. Reid's and Pelosi's national security staffs have been in contact several times a week to coordinate their policies and message, according to Democratic aides, and plan to ratchet up pressure on the GOP on other aspects of the issue, such as what Democrats call the overstretching of U.S. forces and the deterioration of military readiness.

Reid Sticks to View of Bush

From the Rolling Stone interview:

Rolling Stone: You've called Bush a loser.

Harry Reid: And a liar.

Rolling Stone: You apologized for the loser comment.

Harry Reid: But never for the liar, have I?

Kerry To Raise Downing Street Memo

Kerry assails Bush on Iraq
Policies on Social Security, health care also draw fire
By STEVE URBON, Standard-Times senior correspondent

NEW BEDFORD -- Sen. John F. Kerry yesterday called on Americans to be more aware of the "bait and switch" Iraq war and the "hollowing out" of the Army in the pursuit of a mistaken policy.
In a swing through SouthCoast, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee attacked the priorities of the Republican Party and President Bush, elaborating on what they are sacrificing -- health care for children, infrastructure, Social Security -- in the pursuit of tax cuts.
"The Holy Grail of the Republican Party is a tax cut, whether or not we need it," he said in a meeting with The Standard-Times editorial board.
Sen. Kerry puzzled over the apparent lack of interest by Americans in the Iraq war and the near silence in the U.S. mass media about the so-called Downing Street Memo.
That leaked secret document, the minutes of a 2003 cabinet meeting of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, says bluntly that Mr. Bush had decided to attack Iraq long before going to Congress with the matter, and that "intelligence was being fixed around the policy."
It caused an uproar in Great Britain and badly hurt Mr. Blair in national elections but went almost unnoticed in the United States.
"When I go back (to Washington) on Monday, I am going to raise the issue," he said of the memo, which has not been disputed by either the British or American governments. "I think it's a stunning, unbelievably simple and understandable statement of the truth and a profoundly important document that raises stunning issues here at home. And it's amazing to me the way it escaped major media discussion. It's not being missed on the Internet, I can tell you that."
He questioned Americans' understanding of the war and the sense that criticism equals disloyalty, saying, "Do you think that Americans if they really understood it would feel that way knowing that on Election Day, 77 percent of Americans who voted for Bush believed that weapons of mass destruction had been found and 77 percent believe Saddam did 9/11? Is there a way for this to break through, ever?"
Earlier in the day, Sen. Kerry met in a "town hall"-style meeting with about 75 seniors, where he assailed the recently passed Medicare prescription drug benefit, the GOP's tax cuts for wealthy Americans and the attempts to privatize Social Security.
He said to the largely supportive group, "The next time one of those conservative senators or congressmen comes to you and starts talking to you about American values, I want you to look him in the eye and say, what is the value that is represented in providing the wealthiest people in America with a great big tax cut at the expense of the poorest people in the country?"
"I went back and reread the New Testament the other day, and I've got news for you. Nowhere in the three-year ministry of Jesus Christ is there any suggestion at all that you ought to take from the poor and give to the rich and leave children at risk," he said to a loud round of applause.
Invoking the legacy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal's "safety net," Sen. Kerry accused Mr. Bush and the GOP of misleading the public about Social Security and their intentions. "They're never telling the truth," he said.
"There were people who opposed Social Security in the '30s and '40s. There were people who voted against Medicare in the last quarter-century. And they're still there," he said

Ralph Nader Calls for Impeachment of Bush

Ralph Nader is calling for the impeachment of George Bush, the man he helped elect President in 2000, in an editorial in the Boston Globe:

THE IMPEACHMENT of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, should be part of mainstream political discourse.

Minutes from a summer 2002 meeting involving British Prime Minister Tony Blair reveal that the Bush administration was ''fixing" the intelligence to justify invading Iraq. US intelligence used to justify the war demonstrates repeatedly the truth of the meeting minutes -- evidence was thin and needed fixing.

President Clinton was impeached for perjury about his sexual relationships. Comparing Clinton's misbehavior to a destructive and costly war occupation launched in March 2003 under false pretenses in violation of domestic and international law certainly merits introduction of an impeachment resolution.

Eighty-nine members of Congress have asked the president whether intelligence was manipulated to lead the United States to war. The letter points to British meeting minutes that raise ''troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war." Those minutes describe the case for war as ''thin" and Saddam as ''nonthreatening to his neighbors," and ''Britain and America had to create conditions to justify a war." Finally, military action was ''seen as inevitable . . . But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

The article concludes with:

The president and vice president have artfully dodged the central question: ''Did the administration mislead us into war by manipulating and misstating intelligence concerning weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to Al Qaeda, suppressing contrary intelligence, and deliberately exaggerating the danger a contained, weakened Iraq posed to the United States and its neighbors?"

If this is answered affirmatively Bush and Cheney have committed ''high crimes and misdemeanors." It is time for Congress to investigate the illegal Iraq war as we move toward the third year of the endless quagmire that many security experts believe jeopardizes US safety by recruiting and training more terrorists. A Resolution of Impeachment would be a first step. Based on the mountains of fabrications, deceptions, and lies, it is time to debate the ''I" word.

This raises one question for Ralph Nader: Are you now willing to admit that there was a difference between George Bush and Al Gore?