The new media meme for the Edwards campaign

Last night Ana Marie Cox, who has somehow inexplicably become the go-to gal at Time.com, was on Countdown to weigh in on Elizabeth Edwards' remarks about a Hillary Clinton nomination energizing the Republican base in a new (and surprisingly uncatty) Time article about the Edwards campaign.

Cox put forth what seems to be the new media meme about Edwards, that his campaign isn't about winning the nomination, but is instead about how John and Elizabeth plan to live their lives for "however long Elizabeth has left."

Don't you love the way the media want to bury Elizabeth Edwards, and the sooner the beter? I was talking to a co-worker after last week's fund-raiser at my house; a co-worker who's as staunch a Faux Noisebot as you're likely to find. Not only does he find Elizabeth Edwards admirable, but also recounted the experience of a family friend who was diagnosed with stage IV breast cancer -- fifteen years ago -- and is today cancer-free. So those who come to bury Elizabeth Edwards, not to praise her, had better get used to her. Because if anyone with this recurrance can tell cancer to go fuck itself, it's her.

I would tend to believe that the media are confusing Elizabeth Edwards with Lisa Moore, the terminal breast cancer-stricken character in the Funky Winkerbean comics were it not for the fact that the Edwards' populist, take-no-prisoners campaign is gaining traction. Up eight points in Iowa in the latest Time poll, and tied with Obama in New Hampshire, the reports of the death of John Edwards' candidacy are greatly exaggerated.

David Drezner:

It's amazing how well Edwards is doing. Recent polls of the first three states have Edwards ahead in Iowa and tied with Obama for second in New Hampshire* and Nevada. You can find less favorable polls, of course, but there's no question that he's in the thick of the race--an astounding accomplishment given the effort of the elite media to take him down and the celebrity of his two top rivals. One of the big un-discussed stories of the race is that Edwards is not slipping, a la McCain. On the contrary.

I could write a 10,000-word post on the elite media's distaste for Edwards: it's multi-layered. Elite journalists are in many cases members of the D.C establishment, which didn't take to Edwards even when he was a Senator, and which now hates him. Edwards is running against Washington in a very real way--not just rhetorically. He's winning powerful enemies with his "class warfare," his attacks on lobbyists, his criticism of Dems in Congress for caving in to Bush on Iraq, his call for reform at the D.N.C and Congressional committees. I feel confident saying that in the Giant Secret Conversation, in which elites socialize and leak and gossip, few are raving about Edwards.

[snip]

The media assault was unrelenting from the end of March to the end of June. The Haircut dominated. It found its way to every story about Edwards. Compared to Clinton and Obama, he got almost no coverage and when he did, it was negative. He came very close to losing control of his image and his narrative. In a now infamous, blasé post, Marc Ambinder, formerly of the Note and now of the Atlantic, confirmed what we had lost suspected, that the media were "trying to bury Edwards."

A candidacy with a less solid core would have gone under. His substance kept him above ground.

A hit-job by Leslie Wayne on the cover of the Times ratified the glorious, liberating feeling among supporters that we were part of an insurgency, one that simply would not get a fair hearing from elite journalists. So fuck `em, we said. Fuck `em once and for all. The hit-job created energy and intensity and prompted the blogosphere and his allies in a leading grassroots antipoverty group, ACORN, to rally around Edwards.

The press was challenging Edwards to abandon poverty as an issue, trying to convince him that it was a losing hand. So what did Edwards do? He doubled-down. He launched a tour through the South and Midwest focusing on poverty. Though derided in some quarters of the media, it generated a host of positive stories, including the first ones in months that included no mention of the Haircut.

But the corner was officially turned during the You-Tube debate. The "What Really Matters" video generated buzz and signaled that Edwards would be the first Democratic candidate in history to run against the mainstream media. More important, though, was his first comment of the night:

...[H]ow do we bring about big change? And I think that's a fundamental threshold question. And the question is: Do you believe that compromise, triangulation will bring about big change? I don't. I think the people who are powerful in Washington--big insurance companies, big drug companies, big oil companies--they are not going to negotiate. They are not going to give away their power. The only way that they are going to give away their power is if we take it away from them. And I have been standing up to these people my entire life. I have been fighting them my entire life in court rooms -- and beating them. If you want real change, you need somebody who's taking these people on and beating them.

With a single comment, he filled in the holes that the media had dug out of his narrative. It brought together his career as attorney battling violent crime by corporations, the "Two Americas" theme of his last campaign, his antipoverty agenda, and his battle against K-Street. It also distinguished him from Clinton, with her fondness for lobbyists, and Obama, with his inclination toward compromise.

Around the same time, the media finally noticed that JRE's policy positions were shaping the race. Or, as the Wall Street Journal put it, he has "sway over the party's agenda." With its substance, his campaign is built to last, able to withstand attacks from all sides.

One would think that after six years of "I got mine and fuck you" Republicanism, and the current anti-immigrant xenophobia that has Americans pointing their fingers of blameDOWN the economic ladder while corporations steal their wallets from their back pockets, an anti-poverty message would land like a lead balloon. But for the first time, Americans are understanding that they are one foreclosure, one credit card default, one health crisis away from poverty themselves. And the more Hillary Clinton snuggles up with her corporate benefactors, and the more John and Elizabeth Edwards are out there on the stump telling Americans to watch that back pocket, the stronger his campaign is going to get.

I swear, you simply cannot make this stuff up

We almost don't need The Onion anymore:

In an attempt to raise the nation's historically low rate of breast-feeding, federal health officials commissioned an attention-grabbing advertising campaign a few years ago to convince mothers that their babies faced real health risks if they did not breast-feed. It featured striking photos of insulin syringes and asthma inhalers topped with rubber nipples.

Plans to run these blunt ads infuriated the politically powerful infant formula industry, which hired a former chairman of the Republican National Committee and a former top regulatory official to lobby the Health and Human Services Department. Not long afterward, department political appointees toned down the campaign.

The ads ran instead with more friendly images of dandelions and cherry-topped ice cream scoops, to dramatize how breast-feeding could help avert respiratory problems and obesity. In a February 2004 letter, the lobbyists told then-HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson they were "grateful" for his staff's intervention to stop health officials from "scaring expectant mothers into breast-feeding," and asked for help in scaling back more of the ads.

"Cherry-topped ice cream scoops"? What's next, ads for Levitra featuring that old Monty Python clip of rockets being launched at a 45-degree angle?

But underlying the mirth and unintentional hilarity is a very real problem -- the HHS is being manipulated by corporate lobbyists. You know, those people that Hillary Clinton says represent real Americans?

Quick bites in Wellington, New Zealand

Chicken, brie and cranberry roll NZ$3.50Okay so my brief jaunt to Wellington, New Zealand is now but a distant memory, but in the name of thoroughness I'm determined to get around to posting all the pics (most of them edible, of course).As much as I enjoy a fancy meal, sometimes you just need a quick bite to eat. And here's where Mr Bun came in, a cheap and cheerful milk bar along Cuba Mall.As

Meanwhile, back in Progressland

CNN:

A U.S. military plane with three U.S. senators and a U.S. House member onboard came under rocket fire while leaving Baghdad, Iraq, for Amman, Jordan, Thursday night and had to take evasive maneuvers.

"I was looking out the window, a little small window, and I saw a shell or something," said Republican Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama in a phone interview from Amman, where the plane landed safely. "And then I see a flare. Our plane started maneuvering and changing directions and shaking all around."

The rockets were "near misses," he told CNN affiliate WVTM in Birmingham, Alabama.

The flares were part of the missile avoidance system onboard the C-130 aircraft carrying the Congress members. The flares' heat are used as a countermeasure to attract rockets that have heat-seeking guidance systems.

Onboard with Shelby were Rep. Bud Cramer, an Alabama Democrat; Sens. Mel Martinez, a Florida Republican; and James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma.

"Our plane leaving Iraq was fired upon and it was a close call, but this is something that our men and women in combat face every day," Cramer said in a statement. "The flight crew was outstanding and I credit them for the way they handled the situation."

And Harry Reid is getting ready to cave again:

Saying the coming weeks will be "one of the last opportunities" to alter the course of the war, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said he is now willing to compromise with Republicans to find ways to limit troop deployments in Iraq.

Reid acknowledged that his previous firm demand for a spring withdrawal deadline had become an obstacle for a small but growing number of Republicans who have said they want to end the war but have been unwilling to set a timeline.

Senator, this war is opposed by 60% of the American people. Who the fuck do you think you represent, anyway?

This is not what a free state does

As of now, all so-called conservatives who slap "land of the free" ribbon magnets on their cars and crow about how this country is superior because we are free, have to shut the fuck up.

Governments of free countries do not spy on their own people. Sean-Paul Kelley at the Agonist has received an e-mail detailing the extent of the Bush Administration's warrantless surveillance program. And Wired has more:

The FBI has quietly built a sophisticated, point-and-click surveillance system that performs instant wiretaps on almost any communications device, according to nearly a thousand pages of restricted documents newly released under the Freedom of Information Act.

The surveillance system, called DCSNet, for Digital Collection System Network, connects FBI wiretapping rooms to switches controlled by traditional land-line operators, internet-telephony providers and cellular companies. It is far more intricately woven into the nation's telecom infrastructure than observers suspected.

It's a "comprehensive wiretap system that intercepts wire-line phones, cellular phones, SMS and push-to-talk systems," says Steven Bellovin, a Columbia University computer science professor and longtime surveillance expert.

DCSNet is a suite of software that collects, sifts and stores phone numbers, phone calls and text messages. The system directly connects FBI wiretapping outposts around the country to a far-reaching private communications network.

[snip]

Together, the surveillance systems let FBI agents play back recordings even as they are being captured (like TiVo), create master wiretap files, send digital recordings to translators, track the rough location of targets in real time using cell-tower information, and even stream intercepts outward to mobile surveillance vans.

FBI wiretapping rooms in field offices and undercover locations around the country are connected through a private, encrypted backbone that is separated from the internet. Sprint runs it on the government's behalf.

The network allows an FBI agent in New York, for example, to remotely set up a wiretap on a cell phone based in Sacramento, California, and immediately learn the phone's location, then begin receiving conversations, text messages and voicemail pass codes in New York. With a few keystrokes, the agent can route the recordings to language specialists for translation.

The numbers dialed are automatically sent to FBI analysts trained to interpret phone-call patterns, and are transferred nightly, by external storage devices, to the bureau's Telephone Application Database, where they're subjected to a type of data mining called link analysis.

FBI endpoints on DCSNet have swelled over the years, from 20 "central monitoring plants" at the program's inception, to 57 in 2005, according to undated pages in the released documents. By 2002, those endpoints connected to more than 350 switches.

Today, most carriers maintain their own central hub, called a "mediation switch," that's networked to all the individual switches owned by that carrier, according to the FBI. The FBI's DCS software links to those mediation switches over the internet, likely using an encrypted VPN. Some carriers run the mediation switch themselves, while others pay companies like VeriSign to handle the whole wiretapping process for them.

Remember how smug conservatives were when the Soviet Union fell, because it meant freedom triumphed over Communism? Perhaps freedom triumphed over a huge Communist state...but it fell in the face of just nineteen religious fanatics with boxcutters.

Reality Doesn't Bullshit

Can things get any worse for the Bush Administration?

Uh-huh, sure they can.

Maybe "abysmal"?

"Catastrophic"?

Or how about that old reliable standby "FUBAR"? Better keep a Thesaurus close, folks, we're gonna need it.

Let's start with Iraq, shall we? "From the names of our fallen soldiers to the gradual withdrawal of our allies to the growing insurgency, it's become all too clear that facts in Iraq have an anti-Bush agenda," The Daily Show's Rob Corddry reported. Over four thousand American soldiers dead, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, and billions of dollars misspent, Dubya's plunge down the rabbit hole into Iraq has already lasted longer than World War II. Isn't it scary that a "fake" news program like The Daily Show comes closer to telling the truth than the Fox network or The Washington Post?

But it isn't just Iraq that's gone terribly wrong for Junior. Adding up Abu Ghraib, Katrina, the Downing Street Memo, rising gas prices, Terry Schiavo, Foleygate, Gonzo, the disembowelment of Habeus Corpus, and the ever-growing trillion dollar deficit, historian Sean Wilentz concludes that George W. Bush is the runaway favorite to be remembered as the Worst President in History.

Our arrogant Commander-In-Chief, who once boasted of spending his "political capital" is bankrupt, his approval ratings at a subterranean 28%. The chickens coming home to roost are savage, Godzilla-sized behemoths stampeding towards the White House. And they're hungry.

So, what went wrong?

It's not that complicated: Reality Doesn't Bullshit.

Yes, I know it's vulgar. But it's a slogan easy to remember and it's short enough to fit on a t-shirt, bumper sticker or a business card. It's also the first real truth we learn and it effects us for the rest of our lives.

I like to imagine we're all students in the Big Schoolhouse of Life, and we're trying to graduate with a passing grade. Every day we get a new exam and, as we become older, the harder the exams get. In this turbulent classroom, adventurous children eagerly try to kill themselves as they grow up and call it "fun". Still, the iron laws of Cause & Effect can't be ignored, or very bad things will happen to you. Reality Doesn't Bullshit.

So what happens when you're a immature, nasty-tempered brat who stubbornly refuses to learn? ("Naw! Uh-uh, no thanks, I wanna stay dumb! I won't grow up, I won't !")

Why, you're rewarded with a prestigious, high-paying job in the Bush Administration.

We'll hit the "rewind" button and take another look at that infamous statement by the anonymous Bush aide:

"The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,'which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.' "

Can you say "vainglorious hubris", boys and girls?

Now it's 2007, and after seven ugly years of idiocy, corruption, mismanagement and failure, I think the American public want people in the government who know what to do instead of bad actors who pretend that they do. Last year's midterm elections proved to me that voters are fed up with Republicans. Finally.

Yeah, I think it's that simple. In the real world, you don't go to a bad dentist when an infected tooth needs to be pulled out, hire a bad mechanic to fix your car or use a bad lawyer to handle your divorce. Why would you vote for a bad senator or congressman? Or support a bad President? The image of a triumphant Bush standing on top of the ruins of the World Trade Center is fading into obscurity like the mirage it was. What people remember is a dumbfounded Georgie reading "My Pet Goat."

Reality doesn't bullshit.

Bailouts for McMansions, nothing for New Orleans homeowners

I realize that it's easy for me to sit here in a house we bought ten years ago and say that I have no sympathy for people who bought houses they can't afford and should have known they couldn't afford. But when we started house-shopping, we worked out what we could afford based on what we had to put down, current fixed 30-year interest rates, and our monthly income. When the houses we saw in that price range weren't what we wanted, we decided to wait a year and save some more money. A year later, when we once again had a price point in mind and went to be pre-approved, we heard mortgage brokers tell us that we qualified for $60,000 more than we were looking to borrow. Did we then jump at the chance to buy a more expensive house? On the contrary; we stood firm, ended up buying a house within our price range, and as a result we've been able to withstand some financial setbacks without losing the house.

I understand that 1996, when we bought, was the bottom of the market, but our first mortgage was at 8.5% and the fundamentals are the same: If you can't afford it, don't buy it. Even if option mortgages and interest-only mortgages had been available in 1996, we would still have gone for the 30-year fixed at 8.5%, our logic being that if fixed rates drop, we can always refinance. And so we did -- three times.

You didn't have to be a genius to see that what was going on in real estate was unsustainable. With decreasing wages and a diminishing professional job base, who the heck was going to be able to pay a half-million dollars for a Cape Cod? But people continued to buy houses with no money down, taking mortgages that built no equity, not even considering what would happen when someone finally cried "uncle!".

It's funny how the Administration has sat by while jobs were sent overseas and jobs here paid less and offered fewer benefits; while more and more Americans lost their health insurance and started taking loans from their doctors for medical care. But now that the housing market has collapsed and the financial markets are feeling the pain, suddenly a bailout is necessary:

President Bush, in his first response to families hit by the subprime mortgage crisis, plans to announce several steps Friday to help Americans who have credit problems meet the rising cost of their housing loans, administration officials said Thursday.

The officials said Mr. Bush would call for the Federal Housing Administration to change its federal mortgage insurance program in a way that would let an additional 80,000 homeowners with spotty credit records sign up, beyond the 160,000 likely to use it this year and next.

The administration is offering his plan, which will include what one official called jawboning of lenders to persuade them not to foreclose on some borrowers, at a time of growing attacks on Mr. Bush from Democrats who say he has remained on the sidelines amid increasing anxiety over whether millions of Americans could end up losing their homes. Other elements of the plan would need legislative action, requiring Mr. Bush to win over the Democratic leadership in Congress.

Administration officials, who asked not to be identified, briefed a handful of news organizations on the proposals to be announced by Mr. Bush at an appearance in the White House Rose Garden on Friday morning.

The main objective of the package, one senior official said, is not to affect the stock markets but to help low-income homeowners, many of them concentrated in certain neighborhoods in several distressed areas of the country, such as Ohio and Michigan.

“The primary focus is to help individuals who have an opportunity to stay in their homes to stay in their homes,” this official said. “The subprime mortgage situation is having a crushing effect on a lot of communities right now.”

Despite the assertion that affecting the markets is not the goal, one administration official said Thursday evening that concern about Wall Street’s reaction did affect the timing of the briefing. He said there was a fear that if the White House announced in the morning that Mr. Bush would be making an announcement on housing, there could be confusion as buyers and sellers of mortgage securities guessed what the announcement would be.

But secondarily, this official said, helping homeowners keep their homes and refinance or renegotiate the terms of the mortgages could have a stabilizing effect on the financial institutions that have these mortgages in their portfolios, and help them write down the value of the mortgages or sell them off at a loss.

Don't kid yourself for one minute that this is about helping low-income Americans stay in their homes. If helping low-income Americans stay in their homes were the goal, the 9th Ward of New Orleans wouldn't still be in ruins two years after Hurricane Katrina, its citizens dispersed elsewhere, the better to turn Louisiana into a Republican state and a cash cow for Bush's corporate cronies. This Administration has dragged its heels on helping the most high-profile poor people in the country, but when the wealthy start to feel the effects, suddenly this president rushes into action.

If you don't pay your credit cards on time, but some schmuck was willing to loan you upwards of a half-million dollars to buy a McMansion, the Administration wants to extend a helping hand. If your living comes primarily from your investments in the financial markets, and the housing bubble has caused the value of your investments to drop, the Bush Administration is right there to staunch the bleeding. But if you're guilty of nothing but wanting to return to your home in the 9th Ward, as far as this Administration is concerned, you don't even exist.

"Funding the war means killing the troops"

Senator Durbin, go fuck yourself

How dare you.

Just barely a month ago you recorded a video greeting for the attendees at Yearly Kos. And now you show us that you really don't give a shit. You don't give a shit about the netroots, you don't give a shit about the 60% of Americans who oppose this clusterfuck of a war that the sniveling little rat-faced git in the White House has gotten us into, and you sure as hell don't care about the Americans you are going to give the Blowmonkey-in-Chief the money to kill just so he doesn't have to clean up his own goddamn mess:

On Wednesday, Durbin portrayed the Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as falling apart and said Iraq's political landscape was in a state of disintegration. He said at least one U.S. officer on the ground told him that the current 15-month deployments are taking a toll.

In the debate in Washington, the White House reportedly will ask Congress for an additional $50 billion to expand funding for the war in Iraq, a request that seems likely to prolong troop levels at their current elevated number into the spring of 2008, Durbin said.

Even opponents of the war, as Durbin calls himself, find themselves likely to vote for the extra money, he said. "When it comes to the budget, I face a dilemma that some of my colleagues do," he said.

He voted against the war "but felt that I should always provide the resources for the troops in the field," Durbin said. "But it's now reached a point where we have got to change the way we appropriate this money."

Though he said he is likely to approve the increased request -- it would accompany a pending request for an additional $147 billion in war funding -- Durbin said he would work to attach conditions to it that would require troops to begin coming home in the spring.

You fucking tool. What kind of conditions do you think this president is going to heed? There is only one way you are going to end this war.

STOP FUNDING IT. NOW.

And speaking of military uprising, this had better not be what it looks like

Thanks to Cliff Schecter's blog for finding this little omen of impending martial law:

Members of the 1st Battalion 265 Air Defense Artillery have mobilized and are on a plane headed first to Ft. Bliss, then for federal active duty in the capital region.

The troops will be deployed for a year.

"It's going to be all right It's OK if he helps people and everything, and it's his job. He’s got to do it. He just got to do it," Jessica Ward said, whose father is being deployed.

Jessica speaks for many when she talks about her father's deployment.

Michael Ward and company are leaving for a year, and that weighs heavy on families.

The 265th is part of Operation Noble Eagle.

They are ordered by the president to the nation's capital, where they will operate high-tech weapons systems against any potential air threat.

Thom Hartmann seems to think this is ominous. And so do I.

Military meltdown

I don't ever want to hear that blowmonkey in the White House talk about supporting the troops ever again. Because while he's living in his little fantasy world, surrounded by people under strict orders to only tell him what he wants to hear, real people are dying in Iraq for no fucking good reason:

Facts matter. They especially matter to those with some sense of responsibility at the Pentagon and in the military. That became abundantly clear when McClatchy News reported that the military won't make a single recommendation to the president on what course to pursue in Iraq. The story, detailed by my friend and VoteVets.org Vice Chairman Brandon Friedman here, has two very key quotes:

Military analysts called the move unusual for an institution that ordinarily does not air its differences in public, especially while its troops are deployed in combat.

Jeffrey White, a military analyst for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy...said it suggests that the military commanders want to be able to distance themselves from Iraq strategy by making it clear that whatever course is followed is the president's decision, not what commanders agreed on.

In short, those on the ground aren't seeing progress, and don't want to suggest a policy that would be based on the premise that progress is being made. They're not seeing progress with their eyes, and they don't see it in the statistics or facts.

The result is a Department of Defense and military that is going to speak with multiple voices. If you're a soldier on the ground, that's not what you want to hear.

And finally, yesterday the Washington Post reported that the president was going to request another $50 billion for efforts in Iraq. Today, his own Defense Secretary Robert Gates said to FOX News, via his spokesman, "That's news to me."

The president, in losing control of the war in Iraq and clinging to what he wants to see, and not the reality, now has nearly a full-scale revolt in his own military that just isn't willing to go along for the ride anymore. The GAO surely interviewed a number of people on the ground for their report and got messages that didn't support the administration. The military can't come to an agreement on what to tell the president other than that this is his problem now. And the Secretary of Defense, who has strayed from the White House message a number of times, learns of administration war funding proposals from the Washington Post.



I take no joy in seeing this happen. Our troops are the best in the world. As they are fighting and dying in 130 degree heat, they've had to look to the East to see an Iraqi government that didn't care and went on vacation. Now, they look back to the West and see their department falling apart like a neglected Pinto, because this president is stubborn.

Maybe this president doesn't care because his administration is over. But I care. And I'm going to continue to care long after this president rides off into the sunset to clear brush for the rest of his life.

The weaselly Democrats are too fucking frightened to take on this lunatic, even if it means that thousands more American families receive the knock on the door that no one wants to hear. No price in American lives is too much to pay for them to keep their jobs and not have to expend the effort to explain to the Fox Noisebots in their districts what's really going on. God knows the Republicans won't do it; they're too busy getting off -- and making money -- off of the war effort.

That leaves the military. We know that Congress won't live up to its Constitutional duty to remove this guy from office before he can do any more harm to the Constitution and to our country. We are now left with only the hope that the military will rise up and say "Enough."

A military coup -- that's what it's come to, folks. Because that's the only thing that will rescue us form the clutches of this monster.

This is why.

Goddamn

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' ".
--Dr. Isaac Asimov, proving to us that nothing has changed.

Fortunately there are still a few people in the U.S. government who want Americans to hear the truth

A draft of a GAO report on progress in Iraq has been leaked to the Washington Post, because an unidentified government official "feared that its pessimistic conclusions would be watered down in the final version -- as some officials have said happened with security judgments in this month's National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq":

Iraq has failed to meet all but three of 18 congressionally mandated benchmarks for political and military progress, according to a draft of a Government Accountability Office report. The document questions whether some aspects of a more positive assessment by the White House last month adequately reflected the range of views the GAO found within the administration.

The strikingly negative GAO draft, which will be delivered to Congress in final form on Tuesday, comes as the White House prepares to deliver its own new benchmark report in the second week of September, along with congressional testimony from Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker. They are expected to describe significant security improvements and offer at least some promise for political reconciliation in Iraq.

The draft provides a stark assessment of the tactical effects of the current U.S.-led counteroffensive to secure Baghdad. "While the Baghdad security plan was intended to reduce sectarian violence, U.S. agencies differ on whether such violence has been reduced," it states. While there have been fewer attacks against U.S. forces, it notes, the number of attacks against Iraqi civilians remains unchanged. It also finds that "the capabilities of Iraqi security forces have not improved."

"Overall," the report concludes, "key legislation has not been passed, violence remains high, and it is unclear whether the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion in reconstruction funds," as promised. While it makes no policy recommendations, the draft suggests that future administration assessments "would be more useful" if they backed up their judgments with more details and "provided data on broader measures of violence from all relevant U.S. agencies."

A GAO spokesman declined to comment on the report before it is released. The 69-page draft, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post, is still undergoing review at the Defense Department, which may ask that parts of it be classified or request changes in its conclusions. The GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, normally submits its draft reports to relevant agencies for comment but makes its own final judgments. The office has published more than 100 assessments of various aspects of the U.S. effort in Iraq since May 2003.

Rest assured, the report that's delivered on Tuesday is going to present a far more positive assessment.

Meanwhile, next month's strategy assessment will not have one unified voice, but will instead be a cacophony of military officials throwing up their hands and saying, "We haven't got a clue what the fuck to do with this mess, Mr. President. You got us into this, now you get us out, asshole":

Military analysts called the move unusual for an institution that ordinarily does not air its differences in public, especially while its troops are deployed in combat.

"The professional military guys are going to the non-professional military guys and saying 'Resolve this,'" said Jeffrey White, a military analyst for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "That's what it sounds like."

White said it suggests that the military commanders want to be able to distance themselves from Iraq strategy by making it clear that whatever course is followed is the president's decision, not what commanders agreed on.

Bush has said on several occasions that he will follow the recommendation of Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, but the Pentagon plan makes certain that other points of view are heard.

Morrell said the commanders will make their presentations to Bush at around the same time that Petraeus appears before Congress to assess progress in Iraq in mid September.

Morrell said that those making presentations to the president would include Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. William Fallon, the commander of U.S. Central Command, which has responsibility for U.S. military actions in the Middle East, Army Gen. George Casey, the chief of staff of the Army, and Petraeus. In addition, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates will share his opinion with the president.

Pentagon commanders are known to be divided over how to proceed in Iraq.

Pentagon officials have told McClatchy Newspapers that Casey, who was the top commander in Iraq, wants the U.S. to draw down forces and focus on training the Iraqi forces, as it did during his tenure in Iraq, and worries about the strain the war is having on the Army.

Earlier this week, the Los Angeles Times reported that Pace would recommend reducing the number of troops in Baghdad because the deployments are straining the military.

Petraeus, however, is expected to argue that the number of U.S. troops should be kept at their current levels, saying that the increase in U.S. forces this year is beginning to reduce sectarian violence.

Because Petraeus is first and foremost, a good loyal sock puppet for his commander-in-chief. And while the increase in U.S. forces may have resulted in fewer American casualties, the violence directed at Iraqis by Iraqis continues unabated.

Of course the Administration cares not a whit for these people. After all, George W. Bush is a chip off the old block, that block being his mother, who said about poor evacuees who were caught in the diaspora from New Orleans and shipped to camp out in the Houston Astrodome, "And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this--this (chuckle) is working very well for them."

And so many of the people here, you know, lived under Saddam Hussein before, so this--this (chuckle) is working very well for them.

Right George? Just like Mama said.

Hey, Rahm 'n' Chuck: You nominate Hillary, expect this nonstop

You'd think that the Clintonistas would have learned by now that even the SLIGHTEST BIT OF IMPROPRIETY, even a single dollar of campaign donations from a single source, is going to be escalated by the so-called "liberal media" into High Treason:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign said yesterday that it would give to charity $23,000 it had received from a prominent Democratic donor, and review thousands of dollars more that he had raised, after learning that the authorities in California had a warrant for his arrest stemming from a 1991 fraud case.

The donor, Norman Hsu, has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Democratic candidates since 2003, and was slated to be co-host next month for a Clinton gala featuring the entertainer Quincy Jones.

The event would not have been unusual for Mr. Hsu, a businessman from Hong Kong who moves in circles of power and influence, serving on the board of a university in New York and helping to bankroll Democratic campaigns.

But what was not widely known was that Mr. Hsu, who is in the apparel business in New York, has been considered a fugitive since he failed to show up in a San Mateo County courtroom about 15 years ago to be sentenced for his role in a scheme to defraud investors, according to the California attorney general’s office.

Mr. Hsu had pleaded no contest to one count of grand theft and was facing up to three years in prison.

The travails of Mr. Hsu have proved an embarrassment for the Clinton campaign, which has strived to project an image of rectitude in its fund-raising and to dispel any lingering shadows of past episodes of tainted contributions.

Already, Mrs. Clinton’s opponents were busy trying to rekindle remembrances of the 1996 Democratic fund-raising scandals, in which Asian moneymen were accused of funneling suspect donations into Democratic coffers as President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore were running for re-election.

Some Clinton donors said yesterday that they did not expect the Hsu matter to hurt Mrs. Clinton unless a pattern of problematic fund-raising or compromised donors emerged, which would raise questions about the campaign’s vetting of donors. Mr. Hsu’s legal problems were first reported yesterday by The Los Angeles Times; The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday about his bundling of questionable contributions.

“Everyone is trying to make the implications that it’s Chinese money, that it’s the Al Gore thing all over again, but I haven’t seen any proof of that,” said John A. Catsimatidis, a leading donor and fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton in New York.

*sigh*

These people never learn, do they? They still haven't learned that an allegation doesn't have to BE true, but that endless repetition by the Mighty Wurlitzer MAKES it true.

Once again, I fail to understand why this Democratic Party is bound and determined to nominate this woman for the presidency. And I fail to understand why the people around her still don't realize the kind of political climate we're in -- despite all the calls to "change the tone."

(Libby Spencer notes a pattern of federal government interest in Democratic donors.

It's the hypocrisy (and the double standard), stupid!

Pam has a compendium of handwringing by wingnuts who all of a sudden, in the wake of the ever-escalating Republican sex scandals, think that perhaps private behavior outside the context of the job a legislator does isn't relevant after all:

First up, Jim Smith, editor of the Jacksonville-based Florida Baptist Witness:

"If someone's walk doesn't match their talk, of course it's relevant. But a politician's conduct "also has to be evaluated in light of other considerations, and we aren't electing saints here," Smith said. "All of us are fallen and subject to sin. We're not looking for perfection. But we do want integrity."

They accuse the left of moral relativism and hair-splitting? On to Father Tony Palazzolo, priest and pastoral consultant at the Diocese of St. Augustine:

"Is it a one-time indiscretion, or a pattern? Was there an apology? Repentance? It seems to me your religious values determine how you make a decision about right or wrong and good and bad, and if you're willing to compromise those values in your private life, it seems the same thing would hold true for a person's public life."

How about this, from John Stemberger, of the Florida Family Policy Council Inc. (he's working to pass a same-sex marriage ban amendment in the Sunshine State). The article notes that he suggests a "sliding scale" when evaluating a politician's fall from grace.

"If I'm going to hire a plumber, their primary job is to do it right, and I'm not too concerned with their character and moral life. When does it become relevant? To be a lawmaker and then a lawbreaker means there has been a violation of trust. Character does matter."

Oh, so it only matters if you're caught breaking the law. What this is really about is going back to the good old days where "forbidden immoral acts" occurred on the DL on Saturday night, and you turned up in church in your Sunday best the next day -- and no one knows you broke your marital vows by blowing that guy in that highway rest stop, potentially exposing your spouse to STDs. That's correct "Christian" behavior.

My personal favorite comes from Ralph Reed, the former executive director of the Christian Coalition, associate of Jack Abramoff, and frequent talking head when the MSM wants a rep from the far right:

Let's be clear what voters of faith are saying. They're not saying that every single politician who professes a conservative viewpoint should live up to that standard. It's really the opposite. None of us are perfect, and we all fall short of God's grace. A lot of times that gets lost when someone's failing becomes politicized."

Yes, working to elect people to deny tax-paying, law-abiding LGBT citizens civil rights while those self-loathing pols cruise for gay sex makes perfect sense.

One frustrated Florida pol wants more reasonable standards for hypocrites. Republican State Senator Jim King of Jacksonville has been fighting off rumors that he was frequenting t*tty bars.

"I live a pretty good Christian life, but in the eyes of some people I'm being disrespectful because sometimes I like to drink wine with dinner. That's frustrating. Elected officials are expected to live a totally different life than their neighbors."

J. Taylor Rushing writes in the Florida Times Union:

Should private behavior matter in public leaders? Some political observers say yes, arguing that morality is the only way to ensure a politician's voting record stays consistent with his or her personal values. But others say the recent revelations only prove hypocrisy, and some politicians say public expectations can be unreasonable.

Allen's arrest is among sex scandals involving state and federal politicians, such as U.S. Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana. Former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley of South Florida remains under investigation after resigning from Congress last year when e-mails revealed him pursuing young former congressional aides. Foley, Vitter and Allen are all Republicans.

One of Florida's gay-rights leaders took note of how some politicians rail against the very behavior to which they are sometimes linked.

"It seems like the people who are the most vocal, the most condemning, the most judgmental, seem to be people struggling deeply with their own personal conflicts, and that's where the scandals come from whether it's the church or politics," said Nadine Smith, executive director of Equality Florida, a Tampa-based gay-rights group. "It's fairly routine. Find someone banging the drum of hysteria around an issue, and you'll find someone, generally speaking, who is wrestling themselves internally."

Jim Smith, editor of the Jacksonville-based Florida Baptist Witness newspaper, which circulates 46,000 copies weekly, said "if someone's walk doesn't match their talk, of course it's relevant."

But a politician's conduct "also has to be evaluated in light of other considerations, and we aren't electing saints here," Smith said. "All of us are fallen and subject to sin. We're not looking for perfection. But we do want integrity."

Part of that integrity is that if you are going to accept that conservatives falter from the righteous path, you cannot attack the same in liberals. Being conflicted and self-loathing because you patronize prostitutes, or because you seek anonymous sex in airport bathrooms does not give you the right to try to punish others for same. If you're going to divorce two wives because something younger and prettier comes along, you cannot preach to others about the sanctity of marriage and work to make divorce more difficult. If you're the Speaker of the House and you're fucking an aide in your office, you do not impeach a president for doing the same. If you're on the down low, you cannot work to pass legislation to prevent gay Americans from marrying, adopting children, obtaining health benefits for their partners, and having jobs and a place to live.

The law is no place for politicians to work out their internal conflicts. Just because "faith not deeds" Christianity gives these guys a "get out of jail free" card in which they are sure to go to heaven because someone told them a story about something that supposedly happened 2000 years ago and they chose to believe it doesn't mean they have the right to sit in judgment on others.

If these guys are so afraid of themselves, let them get some therapy and leave the rest of Americans alone.

$50, 000, 000, 000.00

Yahoo! News:

Bush to request $50 billion more for Iraq war: report

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush is preparing to ask Congress for as much as $50 billion in additional funding for the war in Iraq, The Washington Post reported on Wednesday, citing a White House official.

The request signals increasing White House confidence that it can fend off mounting congressional pressure to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, the Post reported.

The additional funds would come on top of about $460 billion in the fiscal 2008 defense budget and $147 billion in a pending supplemental bill to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Post said.

Reality: Fifty billion dollars. Think about how many schools could be built with that money. Hospitals. Museums. Libraries. We could send every child in the United States to college. Rebuild the railroads. Finance national health care.

Bullshit: Fuck that. We're Americans. We ain't gonna quit like we did in 'Nam.

Reality: Here. This is yours.

Bullshit: Huh? What's this?

Reality: The bill.

The Vineyard, Crows Nest

Warm chocolate tart with vanilla bean ice cream $11.00There were many things to take note of, during a recent fleeting visit to The Vineyard: the abundance of plastic grapes that hang above the entrance; the resplendent cushion room in vibrant hues of maroon, scarlet and crimson at the back; the delicious-looking waygu beef pies with delicate lids of puff pastry that arrive at a table nearby. But

"Nothing has been done"

So sayeth the 84-year-old man in this video.

But one thing HAS been done. The African-American population of Louisiana has been dispersed, the better to make Louisiana safe for Republican rule. Perhaps that's why George W. Bush played a guitar and ate cake with John McCain. Perhaps that's why poor people are still living in formaldehyde-filled FEMA trailers. Perhaps that's why billions in relief funds are missing. Perhaps just as with 9/11, the Bush Administration knew a disaster was coming, and did nothing -- because it was to the Administration's political advantage to do nothing. In the case of the 9/11 attacks, nothing was done to prevent them. In the case of New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, nothing was done to help those trapped in the Superdome and the convention center with no food and no toilets -- except the president's mother saying it was a good situation for those people since they were poor anyway. In the two years since, nothing was done to help these people return to their homes and rebuild their lives there. Instead, they have remained in diaspora, while promised funds lay mired in bureaucracy.

Sign the petition and ask your Senator to pass Senator Chris Dodd's Gulf Coast Housing Recovery Act of 2007.

Bush press release

Ya heard it here first or second, hehehe.

Bush to issue press release. Yes I'm gonna bomb the shit out of those fucking Iranians. Just try to stop me you lily livered Democrats.

Reporters will say its the first honest words out of Bush's mouth.

Hallelujah.

Cross posted as comment at A Tiny Revolution.

Cross posted at Brilliant at Breakfast.

White Noise

When Michael Richards, Andy Dick, and Isiah Washington forgot to lie, they got in trouble. Don Imus got a vacation and more money. If you're a "shock jock", people don't care if you're racist, I guess. Ask Rush.

Some people think that angry, trash-mouthed talk show hosts like Don Imus (who are usually obnoxious white guys) are just free-thinking iconoclasts passionately exercising their First Amendment rights. I think they're big, loud, empty barrels keeping themselves busy by giving the rest of us splitting headaches. But whatever your opinion is, you should never make the mistake of thinking that this is "news".

It's not. It's thinly-disguised racism, and I'm sick of it.

I'm tired of cowards with a microphone hiding behind the First Amendment. Imus wasn't a fearless trailblazer like Lenny Bruce who was harassed, arrested, and finally banned from performing in public. Imus wasn't the controversial Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour being cancelled by CBS. Imus wasn't the subversive Bill Hicks being censored by David Letterman.

Whenever I hear a stupid white man vomit the word "nigger", "nappy-headed hos", or any other racist slur, it feels as though a dirty-fingered bum with a bad cold has suddenly grabbed me like a napkin and blown his nose. I still hate the word, and I hate the smug white sons of bitches who casually delude themselves into thinking they have a right to use it. (Yeah, that's right, Quentin Tarantino's idiotic rant in Pulp Fiction still outrages me.)

You don't.

Yeah, I'll admit that you're exercising your freedom of speech. Legally, you're entitled to that.

Morally, however, as an African-American male, I feel that you're exploiting your white male privilege. That's not "freedom"; that's acting out a mental disorder you inherited from your ancestors who imprisoned hundreds of thousands of innocent Africans centuries ago and brought them here.

But you don't own that word anymore, because you don't own me anymore.

Believe me, African-Americans know what happens when white people forget we're human beings and treat us like we're their property:

Medgar Evers, Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X are assassinated because they're niggers.

Clifford Grover, Eleanor Bumpers, Amadou Diallo, Patrick Dorismond, Michael Stewart, Abner Louima, Sean Bell, and all of the other innocent human targets who found themselves on the wrong end of a cop's billy club or "warning shots," are brutalized and killed because they're niggers.

The men, women, and children of New Orleans either drown, are shot, or slowly starve to death in front of the whole world, because they're niggers.

And Barrack Obama will never be elected President because he's a nigger.

Uh-uh, "nigger" isn't just a word in the African-American community, It's a burglar alarm. It's telling me that somebody who hates me is knocking down my front door. That old saying "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" is a dangerous fallacy. When I hear the word "nigger," I know the damned sticks and stones are gonna be close behind, followed by an angry mob armed with nooses, knives, brass knuckles, baseball bats, and guns.

Remember Cabaret, the brilliant Oscar-winning musical by Bob Fosse? The Kit Kat Klub, a sleazy cabaret in Berlin during the 1930s, is used by Fosse as a grim mirror to reflect the gradual corruption of Germany before World War II. As the Nazi Party grew in power, the "comedy" routines on stage became more viciously anti-Semitic. And I'd bet you money there were "good" Germans who didn't think it was a big deal. What's the matter, you don't have a sense of humor?

Whenever an ugly racist slur turns into a punchline, look out. Not only isn't it funny-- it's deadly.

That sister from Rutgers who's suing Imus knows. I hope she has a good lawyer.

So how about we call a stop to holier-than-thou posturing from politicians, 'kay?

I almost feel sorry for Larry Craig. Imagine how awful it must be to wake up every day terrified that today is the day you'll be found out. Imagine having to fight your true nature every day of your life, wondering when that tipping point will be reached and you won't be able to any more. It's almost enough to make you feel badly for him.

Almost.

If he were just some guy struggling with his own sexuality, I could feel sorry for him. But Larry Craig is just another of the right-wing hypocrites trying to turn an entire group of people into second-class citizens because he can't admit that he is among them.

It's one thing to be uncomfortable around a group because your entrenched upbringing is bumping up against what your rational mind knows is nothing to fear. That kind of discomfort ebbs with time and familiarity. I've always distinguished between what I call the "bigotry of ignorance" and the "bigotry of hate." When I was at a small, provincial college in Pennsylvania in the 1970's, people who had had no prior exposure to anyone Jewish asked me questions like where my horns were, and why I drove such an old car, because all Jews are rich, aren't they? But it doesn't matter whether someone carries preconceived notions about you because they were lied to as a child, or because they genuinely hate you -- it always feels like the bigotry of hate.

It's quite another to take that discomfort, run for and win public office, and use it as an excuse to enact legislation that denies some Americans the same rights everyone else takes for granted. And it's even more heinous to take your own self-loathing and try to turn it into public policy as a substitute for coming to terms with yourself.

And that is why it's impossible, ultimately, to feel sorry for Larry Craig or for any of the other right-wing sexual hypocrites who have come to light in recent weeks.

And what a parade of them it is, too, these closet cases, such as Ted Haggard and Bob Allen, Glenn Murphy, Jr and Larry Craig, who could be living a normal life as gay men, but instead choose to live a lie.

And yet, the response in Republican Washington is, predictably, not to re-examine its platform of Sexual Restraint for Everyone, but to bemoan the loss of a Big Daddy Leader who could keep them all in line:

It is tough enough being in the minority, weighed down by the burden of the war in Iraq. Now Republicans have an even more pressing task: keeping their party from being portrayed not just as hypocritical and out of touch with the values of people they represent, but also as a laughingstock — amid headlines like “Senator’s Bathroom Bust,” which ran all Tuesday afternoon on CNN. The story also ran at the top of all the network evening newscasts on Tuesday.

[snip]

With President Bush hobbled by his own political difficulties, the party can hardly look to him to lead them out of the morass. “If we had a coach,” said John Feehery, who was press secretary to Representative J. Dennis Hastert when Mr. Hastert was the House speaker, “the coach would take us in the locker room and scream at us.”

Some Republicans are indeed screaming, particularly the party’s social conservative wing, which places a high priority on ethics and family values. Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, a conservative advocacy group in Washington, said the elections of November 2006, in which Republicans lost control of the House and the Senate, proved that voters want politicians in Washington to clean up their act.

“Exit polls show that was the No. 1 factor in depressing Republican enthusiasm,” Mr. Perkins said in an interview Tuesday. “There is an expectation that leaders who espouse family values will live by those values. And while the values voters don’t demand perfection, I do believe they want leaders with integrity.”

But what constitutes "integrity"? Does being a closeted gay man trying to push other gay men back into the closet give you "integrity"?

Why can't these people realize that legislating sexual behavior among consenting adults has no place in the political arena? Perhaps if Republicans would stop peeping through the keyholes of the bedrooms of consenting adults, both gay AND straight, while they themselves are cruising for anonymous sex and paying hookers to put diapers on them, they might do something about the appalling preponderance of pedophiles in their midst.

Imagine if the Republican Party just told the Christofascist Zombie Brigade to go stuff it, that the Republican Party stands for less government, not more government intrusion into people's private lives. Perhaps then it might be a party we could take seriously.

We currently have a president who lied us into a war, whose general in Iraq has an assistant quite probably involved in selling American weapons to the very insurgents who are killing American troops, who sat by while an American city died, who has appointed inexperienced, unqualified cronies to Federal positions, who had an Attorney General who declared the Magna Carta to be null and void and who turned the Justice Department into just another political arm of th Republican Party, and who has shoveled billions of dollars of American taxpayer cash into the pockets of corporations who donate to Republicans. And we can't impeach him because his predecessor was impeached for lying about a blowjob.

Hasn't this Republican obsession with OTHER people's sex lives caused enough damage? Can we please get this out of the political discussion now?

Two years ago today...

Let us not forget how the Bush Administration sat by while an American city was lost.

...and that the crony appointments continue to this day. And that George W. Bush may be getting ready to promote the incompetent boob Michael Chertoff to the highest law enforcement position in the country.

And let us vow that no doctor -- and no patients -- should ever, ever have to go through anything like this ever again:

How did things change on Wednesday?
Tuesday night, we lost generator power, and that changed things a lot. ‘Til then we were on generator power so we did have some lights, and we did have some water. Water wasn’t clean, but it was running. But then we didn’t have water, we didn’t have any electricity, commodes were backing up everywhere. Conditions in the hospital started to deteriorate Tuesday night and early Wednesday. When that happens it makes care a lot more difficult. I was called to help suction a patient who had a tracheotomy but we had no suction running. We were going down to very, very basic care. You try every old-time method you can … [P]eople in charge were trying to get helicopters to come, [but] at that time we were told we were low priority. There were people on rooftops [who were going to get rescued first]. They said … there’s not going to be a lot of help coming, [so] what we decided [was] if helicopters were going to show up sporadically, we have to have patients ready and waiting to go.

How many people had died at this point?
I can’t tell you the number. The morgue was full and patients were already in the chapel, people were asking for body bags and “What do we do with bodies?"

In normal triage situations, the sickest people are treated first. But my understanding is that conditions were so bad, you and the other medical staff switched to a reverse triage or battlefield approach. Tell me about this.
The conditions were unbearable. Inside the hospital it was pitch black, with odors, smell, human waste everywhere. It was very rancid. You would take a breath in and it would burn the back of your throat. The patients were very sick. That’s when we had to go from triage to reverse triage because we came to realize if patients aren’t being evacuated, [we had to deal with what we had]. Basically it was a general consensus that we’re not going to be able to save everybody. We hope that we can, but we realize everybody may not make it out.

What were the categories?
We divided patients into groups one, two and three. Patients in category one are able to sit up and walk and are not very sick. Patients in three are critically ill, “Do Not Resuscitate.” The ones in category two were sick, but doing much [better than those in category three]. The triage system was very crude—we’d write the number 1, 2 or 3 on a sheet of paper and tape it across the patient’s chest with their hospital records. There was limited use of flashlights. There were limited batteries. [Parts of the hospital] were pitch black. I’m talking jet black. Very dangerous. It was pitch dark in inner rooms.

What is the reverse triage process like?
Let me tell you, for a patient to be triaged—typical triage isn’t that difficult. Reverse triage is heart wrenching. Absolutely heart wrenching. You place patients into categories. With boats coming and going we could evacuate patients who could sit. There were elderly couples—how do you make that decision who can go when one was sick and the spouse wasn't? Do you let elderly couples go together as husband and wife? Some of these couples had been married 50 years.

When was the first time you were on the seventh floor LifeCare acute unit? How did you come to be there?
On Monday, mid afternoon around 2 p.m. or 3 p.m, the intercom system was still working then. I was with nurses, doing things like setting up emergency operating rooms. We heard a code, a code in LifeCare. The nurse next to me said, “Anna, I think you better go. I don’t think there’s anybody up there.” So I ran up the stairs and when I got there, there was a patient who had arrested and some nurses in room. I intubated the patient, put an endotracheal tube in. The nurses had already started the code. Then another physician came up from the emergency room. The patient didn’t survive. What was interesting to me was that my friend said, “You better go there, I don’t think there’s any doctor there.” The nurses said it’s rare we get a doctor there on LifeCare.

Tell me about conditions from Wednesday night until Thursday.
By the time Wednesday evening came around, if you can imagine in our mind, there is a central area that is a sea of people. A lot of very sick patients in that central triage area. It’s grossly backed up. Few patients had been evacuated. So there was just enough space to walk between the stretchers. It is extremely dark. We’re having to care for patients by flashlight. There were patients that were moaning, patients that are crying. We’re trying to cool them off. We had some dirty water we could use, some ice. We were sponging them down, giving them sips of bottled water, those who could drink. The heat was—there is no way to describe that heat. I was in it and I can’t believe how hot it was. There are people fanning patients with cardboard, nurses everywhere, a few doctors and wall-to-wall patients. Patients are so frightened and we’re saying prayers with them. We kind of looked around at each other and said, “You know there’s not a whole lot we can really do for those people.” We’re waiting [for help]. The people in that area could have [been evacuated] by boat but no boats were coming. I would do what I could with the nurses: changing diapers, cooling patients down with fanning. It wasn’t like, “I’m a doctor, you’re a nurse.” We were all human beings trying to help another human being, whatever it took.

Were people still dying at this point?
Every now and then a nurse would say, “Dr. Pou, this patient isn’t breathing any more.” Or I would be fanning patients and watch them take their last breath. So that’s basically what it was like Wednesday night: kind of a feeling of helplessness, frustration, sadness. It’s sad. You look around and think we live in the greatest country in the world and yet the sick could basically be abandoned like this.

UPDATE: Digby and Susie Madrak were just as horrified by this article as I was.

You Know What Would Restore Confidence in the DOJ?

Just three things:

Impeachment, impeachment and more impeachment. Impeachment of Gonzales, which is still technically feasible. Impeachment of Cheney. Impeachment of the monkey who gave his bestest buddy the top cop job in the nation. Nothing less would do. And I am fucking sick and tired of Republicans and especially Democrats calling for Bush to nominate a successor to Gonzo who will “restore confidence in the Justice Department,” yadda yadda yadda.

You want to know who Bush has in mind to replace Gonzales? Take a gander at this short list of the Usual Suspects:

George Terwilliger, Jr., whose profile on CNN.com states: “Leader of President Bush’s legal team during the Florida election recount of 2000.” Hmm… Let’s try the next guy…

Theodore B. Olsen: “Member of President Bush’s legal team during the Florida election recount of 2000.” Oooh…

Michael Chertoff: Need we say more? Current and failing chief of a Homeland Security bureaucracy that is neither efficient nor needed. Co-author of the USA PATRIOT Act that we also never needed, nominated to fill a post in which his predecessor was needed about as much as a German Shepherd’s teeth in an Iraqi’s ass. Maybe we’ll have better luck with the acting AG…

Solicitor General Paul D. Clement: Well, Clement’s resume looks respectable and nonpartisan enough. He’s the Justice Department’s top lawyer at the SCOTUS, arguing cases in favor of Bush’s anti-terror programs… and, uh, against “federal laws imposing limits on abortion and campaign fundraising.”

Still, that’s not too bad since… Oh, shit:

Prior to serving as solicitor general, Clement was the deputy to his predecessor in the post, Theodore Olson. He also worked for Ashcroft, then a Missouri senator, and filed supporting briefs with the Supreme Court on behalf of Bush in the dispute over the 2000 presidential election.

Add to the pile his working under Tony “Hothouse Grapes” Scalia.

What the fuck is Russ Feingold thinking of besides “fellow cheese head” when he threw his lot in with this partisan hack?

So, bottom, folks, when you look at this short list, and I don’t know how official this is, you can see what the Senate Judiciary Committee will have to work with and we’re going to have a “Don’t bother sitting down, sir” type of confirmation hearing like the one that got Robert Gates into the Pentagon. Best case scenario, we’re looking at Gonzo Lite.

And, since there’s just under 16 months left in Bush’s criminal empire that’s not-so-quietly dedicated to Republican supremacy (despite what Richard Viguerie thinks in his cockroach brain) and totalitarian spying that would make Big Brother reach for his legal pad and take notes, how much confidence can be restored between now and January 20, 2009?

George Bush could single-handedly raise Oliver Wendell Holmes from the dead and nominate him and it still wouldn’t come close to repairing the damage that Gonzales and his Liberty University Legion (many of whom are still in place) has inflicted on this country, its confidence in its criminal justice system and our two party system of government.

And to give you an idea of how the Senate will vote on this, note that not one senator of either party has once outright said that Gonzales simply lied to the Judiciary Committee. We’re hearing phrases like, “not forthcoming with his testimony”, “lack of candor”, “conflicting testimony”, blah blah blah.

In other words, when Gonzales’s possible successor sits down, provided they let him sit down, to testify for his confirmation, they will let him lie, lie, lie regardless of his past affiliations, statements or actions and not even call him on it. Just like they let Roberts lie about him respecting stare decisis, just like they let Alito lie about him not knowing about CAP’s misogynistic, racist charter, just like they let Gonzales lie two and a half years ago about his stance on torture.

They will let him skate away with impunity after he makes any and every pious attempt to sound as inoffensive and nonpartisan as possible despite the fact that odds are three in four they’ll be questioning someone who helped Bush mug Al Gore and steal the fucking White House…

…all for the purpose of replacing someone who aggressively engaged in a ferociously partisan, hideously illegal campaign to get Republican scumbags like Duke Cunningham off the hook and smear Democrats before election day on trumped-up charges of voter fraud then to fire those US attorneys when they didn’t comply like good little Republicans.

And it’s the Senate Judiciary Committee that got us into this mess in the first place, by making Gonzo sound like a shoe-in because he rose from poverty and that anyone who opposed him on the Bybee torture memo and other issues was a bigot, plain and simple. The same Mexican-baiting Republicans of today who are even now slamming the door on Alberto’s fat ass on the way out. So spare us the fucking piety and hankie-wringing over the subversion of the rule of law.

And perhaps they ought to reconsider who they confirm in light of Congress just giving the Attorney General as well as the DNI the power to designate terrorist suspects for extra-FISA warrantless wiretapping.

Because they’re about replace Gonzales, someone who succeeded in achieving the impossible and unthinkable: Making John Ashcroft, his predecessor, look like a principled, ethical, conservative American hero. Ashcroft wrote and sang a song entitled, “Let the Eagle Soar.”

Gonzo wrote and orchestrated a followup called, “Let the Eagle Shit.”

I'm pissed off

People are going on and on about Senator Larry Craig (R-ID).

What he does with a willing partner is none my business nor of yours.

The guy should have been more discreet. Granted. He is a hypocrite because of his voting record and marriage to a woman, but that is also none of our business except...

I agree his indiscretion is our business. He's an elected official of the US Senate. He should be smarter than I.

His voting record.


4/26/07 Vote 147: H R 1591:

House and Senate conferees approved this legislation providing $124.2 billion primarily for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and setting benchmarks and a timetable for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, but President Bush vetoed the bill on May 1.

The measure, which also addresses a wide variety of unrelated issues, makes emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30.

The conference agreement on H.R. 1591 also aims to improve health care for returning soldiers and veterans. It addresses needs related to hurricane recovery for the Gulf Coast, bolsters homeland security programs and provides emergency drought relief for farmers.

The legislation says that troops in Iraq would not have their service extended beyond a year for any tour of duty. It also mandates that the president must certify that the Iraqi government is meeting certain diplomatic and security benchmarks. If that certification is made, deployment would begin no later than Oct. 1, 2007, with a goal of completing the redeployment by within 180 days. Some U.S. forces could remain in Iraq for special counterterrorism efforts along with protection, training and equipping Iraqi troops.

According to a bill summary provided by the House Appropriations Committee, the legislation seeks to make it possible for the U.S. military to focus resources on al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and to destroy his base of operations in Afghanistan.

The conference report also provides $3 billion for special vehicles designed to withstand roadside bombs, and it increases from 20 to 270 the number of heavy and light armored vehicles authorized to be purchased for force protection purposes in Iraq and Afghanistan. It prohibits government funds from being used to establish any military installation or base for a permanent stationing of U.S. armed forces in Iraq and does not allow funds to be used to exercise U.S. control over any Iraqi oil resource.

It does not fund two Joint Strike fighters and five of six electronic attack airplanes because lawmakers say they are not urgent.

The conference agreement provides $268 million for the FBI, that’s about $150 million above the president’s request. The agency’s budget includes $10 million for the FBI to implement the Office of Inspector General’s recommendations about the use of special secret subpoenas called national security letters.

On the homeland security front, it provides funding for port and mass transit security as well as other similar investments for a total of $2.25 billion.

Meanwhile, farmers and ranchers would get $3.5 billion to help ameliorate agricultural disasters. The agreement also includes emergency funding for forest firefighting, low-income home energy assistance and pandemic flu preparations.

The legislation includes $5 billion for health care for returning troops and veterans, $8.9 billion for victims of hurricanes Katrina and Rita. It also offers approximately $650 million for a children’s state health insurance program.

It phases in a federal minimum wage increase to $7.25 an hour and applies the increase to the Northern Mariana Islands. It also amends tax law to allow certain benefits for small businesses that were not included in the House or Senate bills.

It provides an additional $17 million for domestic violence programs.

Among many other things, it makes additional fiscal 2008 appropriations for the U.S. Agency for International Development along with funding for a program aiding Africa, and monies for international narcotics control and enforcement, refugee assistance and international broadcasting operations.
No No Yes
3/29/07 Vote 126: H R 1591:

This $122 billion war spending bill calls for combat troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq this summer. The 51-47 vote fell mostly along party lines. Two Republicans -- Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Gordon Smith of Oregon -- joined Democrats in support of the package, which would fund U.S. military activity in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Democrats also attached language that would start troop withdrawals within 120 days of passage, with a March 31, 2008, goal for completing the process.

The bill addresses many unrelated issues. It offers funds for disaster relief and recovery stemming from hurricanes Katrina and Rita, funds influenza pandemic response programs, offers disaster assistance for livestock and crops, and makes appropriations to bolster Medicare and Medicaid.

It also requires the secretary of Defense to inspect military medical treatment facilities and housing. It prohibits the use of funds in this or any other act to change essential services at Walter Reed Army Medical Center until certain requirements are met.

It requires the Congressional Budget Office to report to appropriators on anticipated funds necessary for the departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs to continue providing health care to Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans.

It also requires the Coast Guard to exercise competition for contracts related to the Integrated Deepwater System Program.

Lastly, among many other things, it provides funds to assist Liberia, Jordan and Lebanon.
No No Yes
3/15/07 Vote 75: S J RES 9: This non-binding resolution would have revised U.S. policy on Iraq. However, it was defeated 48-50. The measure had directed the president to begin a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq within 120 days of the resolution’s enactment. The measure’s main sponsor, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, sought redeployment by Mar. 31, 2008, of all U.S. combat forces from Iraq. It included exceptions for certain forces charged with protecting coalition members as well as those who support infrastructure, conduct training, equip Iraqi forces and conduct counter-terrorism operations. The resolution also had directed the president to report to Congress on the progress of the suggested plan. Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) did not vote. No No Yes
2/1/07 Vote 42: H R 2: This bill would increase the federal minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour over two years. It would increase the minimum wage in three increments. Sixty days after enactment, the minimum wage is to be raised to $5.85. A year after that it will be $6.55, and a year after that it will be $7.25. This would be the first change to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 since 1997 when the federal minimum wage was increased from $4.75 to $5.15 an hour. The bill would also apply the federal minimum wage to the Northern Mariana Islands, a territory of the United States. The legislation passed in the Senate on Feb. 1, 2007, on a 94-3 vote. The Senate measure includes about $8 billion over 10 years in tax breaks for businesses like restaurants, which is likely to be a sticking point when the chamber tries to reconcile its version with the House. The House passed its version of the bill on Jan. 10, 2007, with a vote of 315-116. Every House Democrat voted in favor of the proposal along with 82 Republicans. Yes Yes Yes
1/18/07 Vote 19: S 1: The measure is designed to provide greater transparency in the legislative process and is commonly known as the “ethics reform” bill.

The bill amends Senate rules in an effort to make more transparent legislative earmarks. It also aims to make clearer the relationship of lobbyists and lawmakers by changing rules governing meals and travel that lobbyists provide to lawmakers and their staff. The bill also makes some restrictions on post-employment for members and staff.

For example, the bill amends a current rule so that if a member’s spouse or immediate family member is a registered lobbyist or works for a lobbyist, that the lawmaker’s staff is not allowed to have any official contact with the lawmaker’s spouse or immediate family member.

Among other things, the measure requires all Senate bills or conference reports to include a list of earmarks in the measure, to list the lawmaker who introduced the earmark, and to explain why the earmark is essential.

It also requires public disclosure of a senator’s intent to object to proceeding to a measure or matter.

The bill also requires that conference reports be posted on the Internet for at least 48 hours before the Senate considers the report. Yes Yes Yes
9/29/06 Vote 262: H R 6061: H.R. 6061; Secure Fence Act of 2006 Yes Yes Yes
9/28/06 Vote 259: S 3930: S. 3930 As Amended; Military Commissions Act of 2006 Yes Yes No
8/3/06 Vote 229: On the Cloture Motion: Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to Consider H.R.5970; Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act of 2006 Yes Yes No
7/18/06 Vote 206: H R 810: This legislation would allow federal funding for research on stem cell lines derived from embryos that would otherwise be destroyed. No No Yes
6/27/06 Vote 189: S J RES 12: This vote would have given Senate approval to a proposed constitutional amendment that would give Congress the authority to ban 'desecration of the American flag.' Yes Yes No
6/22/06 Vote 182: S 2766: This amendment called on the president to withdraw troops from Iraq, but set no firm deadline. No No Yes
6/22/06 Vote 181: S 2766: This amendment to the annual defense appropriations bill would have set a firm deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. No No No
6/7/06 Vote 163: On the Cloture Motion: A Senate cloture vote on the gay marriage amendment failed, effectively killing the amendment. Yes Yes No
5/25/06 Vote 157: S 2611: Would tighten border security and establish guest worker and "path to citizenship" programs Yes No Yes
5/11/06 Vote 118: H R 4297: Extended the Bush tax cuts. Yes Yes No
3/2/06 Vote 29: H R 3199: Reauthorized a slightly modified version of the 2001 USA Patriot Act. Yes Yes Yes
1/31/06 Vote 2: On the Nomination: Confirmation of Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to be an Associate Supreme Court Justice. Yes Yes No
12/21/05 Vote 363: On the Motion: Cut nearly $40 billion from the federal budget by imposing substantial changes on welfare, child support and student lending programs. Yes Yes No
10/5/05 Vote 249: H R 2863: Supported a ban on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees held by U.S. forces and to requires the military to follow the Army field manual for interrogations. Yes Yes Yes
9/29/05 Vote 245: On the Nomination: Confirmation of John G. Roberts, Jr., to be Chief Justice of the United States. Yes Yes
7/29/05 Vote 213: H R 6: Offered tax breaks and incentives in what supporters said was an effort to spur oil and gas companies to provide innovative wasy to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil, conserve resources and reduce pollution. Yes Yes Yes
6/30/05 Vote 170: S 1307: Established a free trade zone between the United States, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua; a separate agreement with the Dominican Republican was also included in the measure. No Yes No
6/20/05 Vote 142: On the Cloture Motion: Blocked, for the second time, the confirmation President Bush's choice for U.N. Ambassador, John Bolton. Those opposed to the confirmation voted "no" on a measure to limit debate. Those in favor of the confirmation fell short of the 60 votes needed to limit debate and move the nomination process forward. Yes Yes No
3/10/05 Vote 44: S 256: Made it harder for people to erase debt by declaring bankruptcy. Yes Yes No
2/10/05 Vote 9: S 5: Sought to curtail the ability of plaintiffs to file class-action lawsuits against corporations by making cases that were filed in multiple states the responsibility of federal courts. Yes Yes No


He's a slug, K?

Sorry for the formating, but it is as it is. I'm no expert and take what I get.

Cross posted at SPIIDERWEB™.

The original voting record.

Hot Wokmaster, Ultimo

Peking duck pancake"Peking duck for lunch? That's all we're having? Isn't that a little, ah, excessive?" I ask increduously."Omigod, you haven't lived! I used to do it all the time. It's fantastic!" comes the reply.That's disgusting. But okay. You twisted my arm.Complimentary house soupWe head to Oriental Wokmaster, the Chinese bbq shop I've walked past hundreds of times on Broadway but never

Blues for New Orleans

In a just world, folk singer Mary Gauthier would be making Britney Spears money.

Unfortunately, we’re living in a world where pop music has been kidnapped by teenagers. Instead of hearing adult music informed by hard-earned experience, we’re subjected to smug children rummaging in Mommy and Daddy’s closet and wearing clothes much too big for them.

Sure, they work hard pretending they’re grownups, but how much does Justin Timberlake really know about loss, betrayal and heartache?

Mary Gauthier does. This songwriter from Louisiana has been around the block a few times. In a husky growl sandpapered by shots of whisky, cigarettes, and yelling at the backs of lovers walking out the door, Gauthier sings bleak, unsentimental tales shimmering with a haunting beauty. Drunks, losers, and abused wives live in her songs, and Gauthier’s sorcery keeps these broken people lost in America chillingly authentic. And tragic.

Speaking of tragic, Mary Gauthier’s song “Mercy Now” is a grim soundtrack to this video directed by Demetria Kalodimos. It’s about what happened in New Orleans after Katrina came. Other than making rich people richer, the Bush Administration has been monstrously incompetent, and seeing New Orleans slowly drown as dozens of stupid politicians did nothing but make useless speeches was, and is, an American tragedy that will haunt this country for years. Even Osama bin Laden never managed to destroy an entire city. So please tell me why an useless idiot like Michael ("I'm not Skeletor, damn it!") Chertoff is being considered for Gonzo's old job? I haven't forgotten about what he didn't do, nor have I forgiven him for his stupid negligence.

Because of what happened at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, 9/11 aren’t just numbers anymore.

We have new numbers now to think about now:

8/29/2005.

Remember.