David Corn

Scheduling note: I won't be blogging on Friday.

To remedy that, i'll save the bloggerhead.tv episode until tomorrow and then i'll see you Friday.

Mitt Romney claims he balanced the budget in Massachusetts without raising taxes BUT he cut aid to cities and towns by $700 Million. Cities and Towns spend more than half their budgets on schools. How did they cover the shortfall, raise real estate taxes.

Romney is too slick by half. He has no clue how the other half live$. His five sons don't need to fight in Iraq becuase they're helping him campaign - the Romneys are privileged to choose their self-agrangizing public service - poor people's kids are fighting this war. Mitt is running against Massachusetts liberals. F*ck him and F*ck Happy too.

DC,

I guess as long as you are not the mayor, you don't charge thousands of dollars to the city - a long weekend is in good order.

Both parties are going to end up with stuffed shirts. No one is showing much substance at all. I think this will play itself out when we see the third party guy from Unity08 arrive. Anyone who runs by explaining themselves, non-evasively, on the issues that truly matter to us is going to look strong against all these flip-floppers pandering for a nomination.

Sorry, David, I'm too busy to read your every postingt! But I see I've picked up a stalker fan....heheheheh

HAPPY on your mind, oh, HAPPY on your mind...(Willie Nelson tune)! ROTFLMAO!

Neil,

Why do you care if Romney cut spending in Mass? You still get that free oil from Chavez, don't ya? Oh, wait, he's busy murdering protesters.

Corn,

Thanks for letting us know what conservatives should think about Romney but since you didn't even make the top 100 most influental liberals in America list, I doubt anyone cares.

I just do not get it, James Pinkerton of Newsday can't find his backside with both hands in a room full of mirrors. I think DC demeans himself and legitimizes Pinkerton who is more kook than intellectual.

Then again maybe I hold DC in too high regard.

Thank you for signing on to the letter to Chairman Art Torres. The issue should move to the Senate floor sometime the week of December 3. We will be back in touch as the situation evolves.

Meanwhile, please tell your friends, family and neighbors by sending them the following link:

LINK HERE

As you may know, the Courage Campaign does more than just hold our elected representatives accountable. From working to block Blackwater's plans to build a mercenary base on the California border to our "NoDirtyTricks.com" campaign to stop the Republicans from stealing the White House, we are fighting for you on multiple fronts.

To build a people-powered progressive California, we need to build progressive infrastructure. Please join with us in common cause by making a contribution to the Courage Campaign, in whatever amount you can afford:

Contribute HERE

Thank you so much for taking action today to protect our Constitution and build progressive infrastructure.

Rick

well, ok, I don't really disagree with any of this. And the five sons thing is hugely offensive. And yet...Romney is the only one of these clowns who has built a record of some accomplishment outside of politics, he's not an obvious crook, he's no worse on Iraq than these other fools (except Paul, and he doesn't count), he seems to have a successful marriage, and he shows signs of actually having read a book or two. The interesting thing about Romney is why Republicans are so prepared to wrap themselves up with Rudy (who is an obvious crook, for example, with incredible marriage baggage) instead.

***Breaking idiot alert ***

Murtha admits Bush was right and he was wrong "The surge is working".

Can't wait to see Corn's post next week apologizing for being as wrong as Murtha on the surge.

Murtha finds military progress in trip to Iraq
Warns that Iraqis must do more for their own security
WASHINGTON - U.S. Rep. John Murtha today said he saw signs of military progress during a brief trip to Iraq last week, but he warned that Iraqis need to play a larger role in providing their own security and the Bush administration still must develop an exit strategy.

"I think the 'surge' is working," the Democrat said in a videoconference from his Johnstown office, describing the president's decision to commit more than 20,000 additional combat troops this year. But the Iraqis "have got to take care of themselves."

Violence has dropped significantly in recent months, but Mr. Murtha said he was most encouraged by changes in the once-volatile Anbar province, where locals have started working closely with U.S. forces to isolate insurgents linked to Al Qaeda.

He said Iraqis need to duplicate that success at the national level, but the central government in Baghdad is "dysfunctional.

********************
So, it doesn't matter what we do. If the corrupt government Bush insists on propping up refuses to take control Iraq will fall. LBH, your attempts at missleading by only presenting half a story will not work here.

Nice spin eyes. Spin is all ya got.

Eyes,

Did Murtha say this or not? It's a yes or no question?

"I think the 'surge' is working," the Democrat said in a videoconference from his Johnstown office.

You are the one ignoring the second half of Murtha's statement but you accuse me of spinning? If you have a more complete transcript which shifts analysis of his messege back in your favor please cite it. Otherwise you just continue to be a poor parody of a debater.

It's a yes or no question, did he say the surge is working or not?

Besides, the second half of the question is irrelevent because Murtha is on record saying, before this statement, that the surge is a complete failure. So, Murtha is either a liar or finally telling the truth.

I wonder if he supports drivers licenses for illegals -har har

"If you have a more complete transcript which shifts analysis of his messege back in your favor please cite it."

It's not my favor eyes, it's the hard work and comitment of our men and women in uniform who voluntarily signed up to win this war.

It's not a strict yes or no question. It depends on how you define success. He said violence is down. That's not the same thing as the stated goal of providing the Iraqi government a buffer so they can move ahead politically. If you define success as strictly lowering violence then yes it is succeeding, if you define it as the advancement of the goal of Iraq moving ahead politically then no, it is not succeeding. Quit trying to put words in other people's mouths, "Bush was right", by dumbing down the conversation ommitting details inconvenient to your argument.

I'm not even going to address your red herring.

It's not my favor eyes, it's the hard work and comitment of our men and women in uniform who voluntarily signed up to win this war.

And now you show your total lack of comprehension of what I wrote. By analysis of his messege I mean does Murtha's complete announcement support your argument or mine. Bringing in commitment to the troops is a non-sequiter.

The problem with Congressman Murtha's offerings is that the clarifying statement was made long AFTER the original, probably after being woodsheded by Congresswoman Pelosi.

Another problem is in attempting to "refine" the original comments. Any time a policitican tries to define what he is "not" ("I am not a crook." "I did not have sex with that woman.") or what he "didn't" say, usually just the opposite is true.

Lastly, perhaps the worst thing for them is that the Democrats are now having to play defense on this one, and defense is the worst position in which to be.

Tom

It depends on how you define success.

Sounds like "It depends on the meaning of is, is"

No one has said that the surge is a complete success yet. What has been said recently by Murtha and other Dems is that the surge is working.

The goal of the surge is to regain security so that the political process can continue. Since it has been only a few short months since the surge started then it is only reasonable that we give them more time to complete the process.

The Dems in Congress can't even pass a budget and they want to complain about Iraqis? I would say that they are dysfunctional. Can anyone say 11% approval rating?

Judge Radhi Testifies on Iraqi Corruption; GOPers Attack--UPDATE
Their spin: corruption in Iraq is no big deal.
But Radhi in his testimony reiterated what he said in an interview with me several weeks ago: corruption is "rampant" within Iraq (perverting virtually every ministry and costing tens of billions of dollars); it's undermining the entire government and has "stopped the process of reconstruction"; Maliki has consistently blocked corruption investigations (especially probes involving his associates and family); in some instances corruption is "financing terrorism" by funding sectarian militias; and the situation is getting worse. Radhi noted that of the 3000 corruption cases his commission investigated and forwarded to Iraqi courts for prosecution, only 241 have been adjudicated. Also appearing as a witness at the hearing, Stuart Bowen Jr., the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, echoed Radhi, testifying that corruption within the Iraqi government is the "second insurgency." Bowen reported that corruption is on the rise in Iraq--partly due to Maliki's protection of crooked officials. He quoted one Iraqi official who said that "corruption is threatening the state."
********************
The problems of our congress do not compare to those in Iraq. Face it, the Iraqi governemt the Bush administration supports is working against our interests and itself. Until Bush admits he is backing the wrong guy and pushes for a change in leadership the surge may keep violence somewhat down but will continue to be an unending drain on American resources and lives.

Eyes,

Say after me "The surge is working"

This explains why Gallop reports that republicans have better mental health than progressives.

Face it, the Iraqi governemt the Bush administration supports is working against our interests and itself.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Bush administration supports this government because thet were democratically elected by the people of Iraq. The political system has plenty of time to work itself out as long as the people have security.

Maybe Hugo Chaez, every progressives hero, can show them how to run a government to your liking.

If you define success as strictly lowering violence then yes it is succeeding, if you define it as the advancement of the goal of Iraq moving ahead politically then no, it is not succeeding.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's how others are defining it:

Newsday ^ | November 30, 2007
Reports of a steady reduction of violence in Iraq are now so consistent and credible that the effectiveness of the U.S. troop surge can no longer be denied.

Multi-National Force - Iraq ^
NAJAF — Shia and Sunni religious leaders met in Najaf Tuesday to discuss peace and unity in Iraq. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the top-ranking Shia cleric in Iraq, hosted the meeting, calling for an end to the sectarian violence that has plagued the country.

American Forces Press Service ^ | Fred W. Baker III
WASHINGTON, Nov. 29, 2007 – Iraqi security forces have taken “huge steps forward” in growing and moving toward independent operations, a senior commander in Iraq said today. And they’ve made this progress despite fighting a war on their own soil and working through an immature bureaucracy, said British Army Brigadier S. M. Gledhill, deputy commanding general for the Multinational Security Transition Command Iraq.

New Hampshire Union Leader ^ | 11/26/07 | Nathan Ritzo
Nathan Ritzo: Leaders meet to boost reconciliation efforts in Iraq By NATHAN RITZO Monday, Nov. 26, 2007 Iraqi Shi'ite and Sunni leaders reached out to each other in the District of Taji on Nov. 8 to discuss the future of northern Baghdad Province.

ap ^ | LAUREN FRAYER
Nearly 6,000 Sunni Arab residents joined a security pact with American forces Wednesday in what U.S. officers described as a critical step in plugging the remaining escape routes for extremists flushed from former strongholds.

LBH, now you are making this too easy. Read the Gallop poll again. It doesn't say Republicans have better mental health, it says they report themselves as having better mental health. Why don't you read this for something more scientific: The more psychotic the voter, the more likely they are to vote for Bush, study

First, President Bush has been condemned for practicing "regime change".

Now he is being condemned for not promoting it.

I wonder if the Iraqis will ever have as many earmarks or lobbyists as we do.

The surge is such a success we must keep doing it!

The economy is great and getting better.

Bush never lied.

The GOP are not corrupt it's the non-GOP that are just waging a giant smear campaign.

Anybody that can say anything against dear leader will be re-educated at the ministry of love.

Captain,

Actually, according to most of the above, the surge is working.

Economy - WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The U.S. economy expanded at the fastest pace in four years during the third quarter, growing at a real annual rate of 4.9%, the Commerce Department said Thursday in making its second estimate of growth for the three-month period.

Iraq Study Group - Bush did not lie.

You may have been trying to be cute, but most of what you say is true.

Mitt Romney an empty suit? Let's see.

Honors MBA and JD from Harvard.

Republican governor of the bluest state in the nation.

Chairman of the U. S. Olympic Games at Salt Lake City.

Founder of a company that now employs over two thousand people.

U.S. Presidential candidate.

David, while I respect your integrity, your sincerity and your passion, I don't think a Brown graduate who has been nothing more than a writer all of his life has any cause to call Governor Romney an empty suit. He may have many policies with which you disagree, but he is certainly not an empty suit. He is a man of many accomplishments. Whether you agree with the those results and accomplishments is entirely another matter.

It doesn't say Republicans have better mental health, it says they report themselves as having better mental health.

So progressives report that they are mental cases because life sucks and republicans report that they're happy because lifes great.

Did I get it right this time?

I don't think a Brown graduate who has been nothing more than a writer all of his life has any cause to call Governor Romney an empty suit.

Tom,

You forget to mention that Corn attepted to be a comedian, this could be humor.

An empty suit is not even making the Telegraphs top 100 most influential liberal list.

'Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?'

The ‘Surge‘ is Working? Fine then Bush should be Impeached

So the surge is working, eh?

Well, maybe, though you’d be a fool to necessarily believe it, especially coming from such reliable sources as the Bush administration and the American media. It’s not like they actually ever got any single thing about this war right. Ever.

For the quality of media reporting we’ve been getting – from WMD hype to the Downing Street Memos to election theft – these guys might as well have been on a different planet. What does it tell you about the state of the media in your country when people have to rely on foreign sources to get a remotely accurate account of the news? Can you say ‘Pravda’?

And, as for the congenital liars who call themselves the government of the United States of America, when even former press officers for these clowns are now documenting their deceits, it’s pretty clear just what we’re dealing with.

Before we buy into the supposed sweetness and light of Operation Humbling Bungling, we should remember, first of all, that we are being told that the surge (really a market-friendly term for escalation) is working at the end of the bloodiest year yet for American forces in Iraq. That is somewhat, ahem, less than encouraging. Or at least it would be if we lived in a place that wasn’t a psychiatric ward of 300 million masquerading as a sovereign state. It is also quite possible that fighting in Iraq has diminished – if it indeed has – because so much ethnic cleansing has now been completed. If the Sunni residents have been driven from Shiite neighborhoods, and vice versa, there would certainly be less to fight about. That’s definitely one way to end a war, eh?

It may well also be that US forces are cherry-picking their missions in Iraq, having been effectively driven out of the more challenging areas of the country. We know, for sure, that the British have more or less completely turned over the southern portion of the country to the local militias and called it victory. “Paging a Mr. Carroll, Mr. Lewis Carroll. The British government would like to thank you for your service to the Ministry of Defence.”

Of course, there is another quite prominent possible explanation for the alleged reduction in violence. Imagine you were doing strategic planning for the folks intent on driving the US out of Iraq. You would know, just like the rest of us do, that Bush is now going to start withdrawing American forces, because he has to. (And, of course, virtually everybody else in the Coalition of the Missing has long ago departed.) Already extended rotations are now ending, there are no additional troops available, and a draft would be out and out political suicide. Clearly, the maxed-out American military has only one direction left to go – home. Knowing that, Mr. Strategist, what would be your advice? Pretty plainly, I think, it would be to wait and fight when your enemy has fewer troops in the field.

Doing so would also have an additional advantage. The war is already hugely unpopular in America. If expectations are raised once more and hopes dashed again, the result will be serious political hostility that will prove finally fatal to the war – just as the Tet offensive did for a similar war forty years ago. Heck, maybe that other branch of government, controlled by that other political party, might even find itself motivated to actually do something about this tragedy. Stranger things have happened, you know – though not often.

There are other good reasons to be dubious about this ‘success’. It would be more than just a bit prudent, wouldn’t it, to also consider that if this is victory, at what price has it come? Even if the war has now been turned around, and even if we ignore that that probably would still mean another decade of occupation and bloodshed before American forces could come home, what has been accomplished? We invaded a country which had nothing to do with 9/11 or any security issues the United States faced at the time. In doing so, we expended enormous blood and treasure. We mortgaged what the Founders referred to as our “sacred honor”, then proceeded to drain and bankrupt that account. And, without question, we succeeded only in radically diminishing our national security, even by the blinkered standards of what passes for conventional conceptions of what that entails. In short, even a ‘victory’ in Iraq would represent an incredible debacle in terms of any remotely meaningful cost/benefit analysis. If you paid someone a million bucks to put a shot through your foot for you and then celebrated what a clean wound it was, it would make about as much sense.

Finally, before we all party down in recognition of the wonderful progress made in Iraq, let’s bear in mind this small crucial fact: The entire point of the surge was to create the political space for Iraq’s warring factions in government to reconcile and actually do something. Almost an entire year has now gone by since the surge began, and there is no sign whatsoever of political progress. This means that even if the highly dubious military success has in fact been such, it has completely failed the greater purpose for which it intended. Imagine if the United States invaded Argentina tomorrow with equal ‘success’ as the surge, in pursuit of getting the Chinese government to quit their day jobs and become professional square-dancers, and you have a pretty good idea of the magnitude of the disconnect. A ‘successful’ war which does not successfully serve some particular political goal is no success at all. Unless, of course you’re just doing it to keep your cronies flush of the hundreds of billions in spoils. But we all know that Republicans are far too patriotic for that.

And so, even the best case scenario that can be made for the ‘success’ of the ‘surge’ is embarrassingly pathetic. Not for nothing have even some conservatives described this war as the greatest foreign policy disaster in American history.

But let’s forget all that, and, just for the sake of discussion, assume Little Bush has achieved something worthwhile in Iraq during 2007. Shouldn’t he be recognized for his achievement?

No. He should be impeached.

Some may claim that he has committed no crime related to Iraq (that’s actually an endless list, but don’t get me started). For those folks, it is well to remember that an impeachable offense is, as Gerry Ford once aptly reminded us, anything that a majority of the House of Representatives believes it to be on any given day. I’m not one who believes that this nuclear warhead of constitutional government should be used lightly, but surely we can all agree that gross incompetence and negligence are well within the range of what constitutes an impeachable offense. Imagine if the country had a president who had gone barking mad in his first year of office, and was making reckless decisions that were grievously harming us. Would anyone argue that these behaviors didn’t rise to the level of impeachable offense, and that the country should endure another three years of serious damage because insanity wasn’t a high crime or misdemeanor? Heck, would anyone argue that gross incompetence and negligence aren’t impeachable offenses when lying about oral sex is? (Okay – I mean anyone besides those people?)

If the surge is working, Bush should be impeached precisely for the reason that it is working. This is a president who was told by at least two top generals in the military that he would need additional forces in Iraq in order to succeed in his objectives. Notice that they were not saying that the war was immoral or even a bad policy choice. They were simply arguing that to effectively achieve the political objectives Bush was pursuing, he would, in their professional opinion, need a much greater level of force presence. Notice that the same president who today incessantly hides behind the supposed force requirements of his generals, falsely claiming to defer to their military judgement, not only disastrously failed to adhere to this advice in 2003, but went so far as to cashier these career officials out of the military and destroy their careers instead in order to send a warning to anyone else stupid enough to be so candid.

Okay, so he’s a liar and a hypocrite. That ain’t exactly headline news. But here’s the larger point: If the surge is working, it would have worked a lot better had Bush listened to Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki and others back at the beginning. The fact that he did not demonstrates gross misjudgement which quite likely has meant the difference between a stupid and ill-advised war that might have ended quickly and relatively painlessly, on the one hand, versus a stupid and ill-advised war that will probably never end and has taken over a million lives so far, on the other. However ironic it certainly is, it is nevertheless indisputable that the very ‘success’ of the ‘surge’, such as it is, is therefore actually an indictment of Bush. It proves how dangerously wrong he was when he rejected precisely this advice even before the war was launched. The results of that failure of judgement have been astronomically huge and catastrophically disastrous. Anyone guilty of such egregious errors has no business being commander-in-chief, his slimy fingers gripping the nuclear trigger. If the surge is a success, Bush should be impeached for gross incompetence.

But he should also be impeached for gross negligence. We know from the Downing Street Memos that the British were stunned and amazed (and deeply concerned – rightly so, as it turned out) to learn in the months before the invasion that the Bush administration had no plans whatsoever for what to do after the land war was completed and the occupation began. No wonder they were apoplectic! Blair rightly realized that nothing less than his premiership and his place in his history was held in the hands of this bungling moron who couldn’t be bothered to plan for the management of a country he was sure to be owning very shortly. So down went Blair, as has just about every government associated with this debacle since the invasion, the Polish and the Australian ones being just the latest examples. Of the fourteen governments foolish enough to climb into bed with the Boy King in 2003, today only two remain in power today. After those, just one more is left to go down, and if American voters aren’t fully as dumb as a bag of hammers sitting out in the pouring rain, then this one will go as well next November.

I mean, good lord. This is a president who dressed up like a flyboy in order to declare the war was over before the fighting had really even begun. Leave aside that these same folks who love to wrap themselves in bogus concern for the troops forced the crew of the USS Abraham Lincoln to wait an extra day to get home in order for to get his photo-op. And leave aside that Rove tried to blame the military (you know, the folks they’re always so concerned about) for the “Mission Accomplished” banner hanging off the carrier when it became an unshakeable albatross pointing out their hubris and stupidity. And you can even leave aside as well that the guy who led America to war in the heart of Mesopotamia was, by his own admission, a ‘gentlemen’s C’ student, and didn’t know that there was such a thing as Sunni and Shiite Muslims only two months before the war began. Even forgetting all that, if a commander-in-chief is such a boob-in-chief that he can’t figure out the difference between the beginning and the ending of a war, isn’t that alone grounds for impeachment? Now that he’s wrecked the Army and Marines, do we have to wait for him to sink the Pacific Fleet as well, and then declare victory over... jellyfish? If he drives us all into debtor’s prison and declares “mission accomplished” because we inmates no longer have to pay any bills, will that be victory enough to end this nightmare?

Nothing about this war has been right. Nothing. We know from the Downing Street Memos that Iraq was no threat, and that the Bush organized crime family knew it. We know from the same source that the administration therefore launched an entire phalanx of Madison Avenue high-pressure sales initiatives in order to sell a war that they knew was bogus, creating fake intelligence data and facts in the process. We know – by Bush’s own admission, actually – that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We know that the administration hadn’t a clue what to do with the country they inherited after their invasion. We know that the people they sent over there to run the place knew nothing whatsoever about how to do their jobs, but instead were Republican Party hacks who could be counted on for their blind loyalty to an idiotic president. We know that the military operation in Iraq and indeed the country itself have been turned into giant cash cows, handed over to be milked dry by the long list of cronies connected to the US Federal Bank of Cheney. And we know that the Afghanistan war is teetering toward disaster because American forces are fighting an irrelevant war in Iraq instead.

This goes on ad nauseam. And now we learn, in addition, that the one so-called positive development to come out of Iraq in nearly five years is due to a strategic choice that the president not only rejected before the war, but went so far, additionally, as to shoot the messengers who alerted him to its necessity.

Can you imagine what conservatives would have done to this guy if his name was Bill Clinton?

David Michael Green on Politics

Capt,

You still having those wet dreams of impeachment, or did you see a UFO while drinking kool aid with Dennis K. the menace?

Reporters say Baghdad too dangerous despite surge

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Nearly 90 percent of U.S. journalists in Iraq say much of Baghdad is still too dangerous to visit, despite a recent drop in violence attributed to the build-up of U.S. forces, a poll released on Wednesday said.

The survey by the Washington-based Pew Research Center showed that many U.S. journalists believe coverage has painted too rosy a picture of the conflict.

A separate Pew poll released on Tuesday showed that 48 percent of Americans believe the U.S. military effort in Iraq is going very or fairly well, up from 34 percent in June, amid signs of declining Iraqi civilian casualties and progress against Islamist militants such as al Qaeda in Iraq.

But most journalists said they believe violence and the threat of violence have increased during their tenures.

Much of the danger for journalists is faced by local Iraqis, who often do most of the reporting outside Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone, the data showed.

****

Too dangerous for journalists? So the “Surge is a success” narrative must be coming from the ministry of peace and truth, eh?

Come on Capt-

No one believes reporters anymore, everyone knows that they're anti-war wingnuts lefties.

Too dangerous for journalists? So the “Surge is a success” narrative must be coming from the ministry of peace and truth, eh?

No just Murtha~~~~

Too bad all you lefties put all your eggs in the "Murtha, war hero, voice of authority basket" Cuz, he just did what he wanted the military to do- retreat and surrender! Ha ha

Is God Using NAFTA Superhighway to Stop Homosexuality?

WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah writes of immigration and the Bush Administration’s alleged secret plans to create a “North American Union”:

It is, ultimately, about moving away from differences between nations that God Himself created for His own divine purposes. It is about following the path of Nimrod and all the others who have attempted to build super-states in defiance of God.

Farah believes God, like him, opposes immigration and NAFTA—not to mention a nefarious superhighway supposedly at the root of the administration conspiracy—but a report from Pat Robertson’s CBN finds a gay-fighting God using that same road as a prophetic highway of holiness.

The concept of a behind-the-scenes “North American Union”—persistently advanced by Farah’s WorldNetDaily, the John Birch Society, CNN’s Lou Dobbs, presidential candidates Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo, and others—is closely tied to the anti-immigrant sentiment that has struck right-wing politics over the last few years. But it has taken on a life of its own, thanks to vivid imagery like “the plan to build a huge NAFTA Super Highway, four football-fields-wide, through the heart of the U.S.” that was alleged in detail by Jerome Corsi last year. Corsi even provided a now-iconic picture, taken from a transportation-industry lobbying group:

*****

Where do these guys come up with this bat-sh*t-crazy stuff?

Not all bad news for you lefties;

Hugo Chavez is about to win unlimited power to become a dictator for many years to come.

Vladimir Putin has used his corrupt powers to retain control of russia and return to communist past.

Irans president has enriched uranium to wipe Isreal off the planet.

Osama is still recruiting freedom fighters

China continues to force abortion on it's people.

Seattle mayor says children should be afraid that global warming will kill Santa.

Dennis K still has hot wife from planet mars.

Now get off that prozac and start feeling better about yourselves so you can report good news to Zogby!

Lies, damned lies and statistics

[...]

What is interesting about the latest statistics is that the Iraqi government is taking the lead. This September, the difference between US and Iraqi data embarrassed General Petraeus who told Congress that the number of such killings had decreased nationwide by more than 55% since December. Meanwhile, the Iraqi government's statistics, which did not differentiate between sectarian and other violent deaths, put the December civilian death toll from war-related violence at 2,075, compared with 1,773 in August - a decline of less than 15%. With Maliki's government now seeking to bask in any reflected glory from the relative calm that has emerged in parts of Iraq, it seems that all officials are on-message.

Beyond the death tolls themselves, does a drop in violence signify success in Iraq? This may seem a strange question, but over the years, the US military has consistently described large-scale violence and multiple-fatality bombings as the "last-gasp" of the insurgency. Vice-president Cheney went so far as to explain that the "last throes" "can still be a violent period, the throes of a revolution." Meanwhile, Noah Feldman, a New York University law professor who worked for the US coalition in Iraq, argued that when violence recedes it is evidence that the insurgency is regrouping.

The truth of the matter is that nobody, regardless of their stance towards the original invasion, should ever argue with the positives of a drop in daily bloodshed. However, for these indices to be used by the US administration as evidence of success stinks of hypocrisy of the most macabre kind.

Please notice how the goal posts are always being moved when it comes to measuring success in Iraq.

First, the barometer was American deaths. When those numbers declined precipitously, the Left then moved the goal posts to be defined as political success.

When Sunnis and Shiites began working at local levels to eradicate Al Qaeda, then the complaint was that Maliki was not doing enough.

Now the measure of success is whether a bunch of pusillanimous reporters feel safe?

Please.

US 'declaration' a setback for Maliki

[…]

Things seemed rosy for Maliki, until this week, when Bush convinced him to sign a "declaration of principles" with the United States. Among other things, the declaration pledged to disarm all militias in Iraq, without naming them, and fire all militiamen who had joined the police and security forces under the nose of the Maliki government.

Politically, it promised to uphold the Iraqi constitution (which is already vetoed in current form by the majority of Sunnis), and prevent any seizure of power in Baghdad through illegal terms (like a political or military coup). Militarily, the agreement specified that the US would come to Iraq's defense if and when it came under any attack by a foreign power.

On the economic level, the declaration called for canceling all of Iraq's foreign debt and helping it attract direct foreign investment. The non-binding agreement does not mention a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Sources in Baghdad say that Maliki was reluctant to say "yes" to the US president, knowing that this would be an earthquake within conservative circles of Iraq. He was pressured to do so, however, by the Americans.

The Sadrists, who had been flirting with Maliki for 10 days, immediately cut off contacts, claiming that the agreement "sets the ground for long-term occupation". Muqtada was furious that Maliki never presented the agreement to Parliament before signing it off with the US President. One of his top commanders, Falah Shanshal, said that it "contradicted" with everything the Sadrists had been working for (in terms of a rapprochement with Maliki).

Rudd sets date for Iraq pull-out

Australia's new leader, Kevin Rudd, has said he will pull his country's troops out of Iraq by mid-2008, fulfilling a promise he made during the election campaign.
Rudd said he would meet Robert McCallum, the US ambassador to Australia, soon to discuss the precise timing of the withdrawal.

The 50-year-old politician, who will be sworn in as prime minister on Monday, has said he believes the presence of troops in Iraq has made Australia more of a target for terrorism.

"The combat force in Iraq we would have home by around about the middle of next year," Rudd said in a radio interview in the southern city of Melbourne.

*****

Is Rudd bringing his troops home because the surge is working or because it is not working?

The answer is . . .

The surge has nothing to do with it. The occupation makes the troops targets and with the Australian troops out of harms way - they will stop dying and being injured for no good reason.

At this point out troops are in Iraq to prop up a corrupt and criminal government designed and put in place by our government. The formula will not work. Iraqis are the same as any other people, they have national pride and want to rule themselves. We have to get out of the way.

I guess the pro-warmongers will call the Australians surrender monkey and come up with some insult about “shrimp on the barbie” or some such thing.

Murtha 'clarifies' stance: view of war unchanged

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Rep. John Murtha yesterday insisted that he hasn't changed his views on the Iraq war, despite telling a group of reporters on Thursday that a troop surge is "working."

"We can't win it militarily. It has to be won by the Iraqis, and they still are thumbing their nose at the United States," Mr. Murtha, D-Johnstown, said last night on CNN's "Situation Room."

He still supports an "orderly redeployment" of U.S. forces from Iraq as soon as possible.

Mr. Murtha, chairman of the powerful House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and a prominent critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, planned several television appearances yesterday, including a spot on MSNBC's "Hardball," and released a "clarification" statement after facing harsh criticisms from Republicans and war supporters who said he was shifting his rhetoric to reflect declining violence.

Mr. Murtha gave his original comments after returning from a trip to the Middle East and Europe last week.

"I think the surge is working, but that's only one element," he said Thursday during a video conference. "The thing that has to happen is the Iraqis have to do this themselves. We can't win it for them."

Just the first part of his quote -- "the surge is working" -- was quickly picked up by both Internet bloggers and mainstream news organizations, and longtime Murtha critics pounced, saying the lawmaker was contradicting his vocal opposition to President Bush's decision to commit nearly 30,000 additional troops to Iraq this year.

A top House Republican said Democrats should now accept the president's request for billions in emergency funding for the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"With one of the Democrats' leading war critics now saying the surge in Iraq is working, it's difficult to understand why the majority continues to push an irresponsible withdrawal plan that jeopardizes critical support funding for our troops," said Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., the minority whip. "Our servicemen and women have made tremendous progress the past six months, with fewer attacks on our troops, greater security in historically insecure areas, and terrorist insurgents on the run."

Last month, the House approved a $50 billion emergency spending package that calls on U.S. troops to pull out of Iraq by the end of 2008. The bill has stalled in the Senate, and President Bush has promised to veto it if the withdrawal timeline isn't removed.

On Thursday, the president said, "Pentagon officials have warned Congress that the continued delay in funding our troops will soon begin to have a damaging impact on the operations of the [Defense Department.]"

During his video conference, Mr. Murtha said he was willing to compromise on the exact timing of a withdrawal, but he said the president still needs a firm exit strategy.

"Mr. Murtha's position on the war hasn't changed," Matthew Mazonkey, a spokesman for the lawmaker, said yesterday. "He still believes a responsible redeployment is in the best interest of the United States."

Security gains in Iraq have been dramatic in recent months. The number of civilian casualties in Iraq for November was 538, according to Iraqi government figures cited by Reuters. Before the surge, the government's monthly total was close to 2,000.

The number of U.S. combat deaths in November was at its lowest since March 2006. (The total number of U.S. dead in the war has topped 3,882, according to icasualties.org.)

Mr. Murtha argues that any gains are temporary if Iraq's central government does not take a much greater role in security or address lingering sectarian tensions between Sunni and Shiite Muslims.

A front-page article in the New York Times yesterday highlighted that concern, with top American military commanders complaining that Iraqi authorities have done little to prepare for significant numbers of refugees who are returning to their homes after fleeing to Syria and Jordan.

"We have been asking, pleading with the government of Iraq, to come up with a policy so it is not put upon our battalion commanders," Col. William Rapp told reporters in Baghdad.

Mr. Murtha warned that the military cannot sustain a highly expensive, open-ended commitment to Iraq, especially if it faces a new crisis elsewhere in the world. Also, over the next six months, the U.S. will begin to withdraw the troops deployed under the surge, raising questions about the durability of the lull in violence.

Jerome L. Sherman can be reached at jsherman@post-gazette.com or 202-488-3479.

Capt

Murtha was against the surge, then for the surge, then against the surge.

Sounds like Hillary on drivers licenses for illegals.

Don't you guys have any integrity left at all?

Why is it so hard for progressives to admit they were wrong?

Say after me - "the surge is working"

If John Murtha can admit he was wrong then so can you Capt. After all, Murtha is much more of a man than you progessives will ever be.

Karl Rove caught lying about Iraq claim

Karl Rove now laughingly claims that the true force behind the Iraq War vote was not President Bush, but Congress.

"It was definitely the Bush administration that set it in motion and determined the timing, not the Congress," former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer told the Post.

WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 (UPI) -- Former White House adviser Karl Rove contends the true force behind the Iraq War vote was not U.S. President George Bush, but Congress.

Bush's former deputy chief of staff said members of Congress, not the president, were behind the controversial push for a 2002 vote on the looming war in Iraq, The Washington Post reported Saturday.

"The administration was opposed to voting on it in the fall of 2002," Rove said.

The former White House aide said members of Bush's administration thought the vote was too political for the upcoming election and that additional allies were needed before moving forward with military action.

Some Democrats and Republicans oppose Rove's take on the controversial decision, saying the Bush administration did push the military agenda forward for a vote.

"It was definitely the Bush administration that set it in motion and determined the timing, not the Congress," former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer told the Post. "I think Karl in this instance just has his facts wrong."

****

Kkkarl is a liar? Like that's news?

US says it has right to kidnap British citizens

AMERICA has told Britain that it can “kidnap” British citizens if they are wanted for crimes in the United States.

A senior lawyer for the American government has told the Court of Appeal in London that kidnapping foreign citizens is permissible under American law because the US Supreme Court has sanctioned it.

The admission will alarm the British business community after the case of the so-called NatWest Three, bankers who were extradited to America on fraud charges. More than a dozen other British executives, including senior managers at British Airways and BAE Systems, are under investigation by the US authorities and could face criminal charges in America.

Until now it was commonly assumed that US law permitted kidnapping only in the “extraordinary rendition” of terrorist suspects.

Gays in the Military: Social Reality vs. Conservative Blinders

[...]

Not only are observers diverted from the poor answers given by Republican candidates, but also from the very question itself. Debate over a serious issue is replaced with a faux debate over whether a liberal should be permitted to ask Republicans any debate questions. CNN, of course, apologized for allowing any questions to be asked by anyone not given a thorough background check to ensure that they wouldn't disrupt the august proceedings with ideas that might cause trouble.

The League of Women Voters calls the current debates a "a fraud on the American voter...devoid of substance, spontaneity and honest answers to tough questions," and CNN is an active participant in that fraud. They present these media spectacles as "debates" when in reality, they are little more than scripted collections of sound bites — the relationship between real debates and these events is like the relationship between a real press conference and the fake conference created by FEMA not too long ago.

Society is moving forward on the question of gays in the military; more and more people know gays and discover that it's not such a big deal after all. Not so for the diehard adherents of modern American conservatism, though. Gays coming out of the closet and into the barracks is a graver danger to the republic than warrantless wiretapping, government-sanctioned torture, and being duped into war through lies. Better to live in chains than let queers out of the closet, that's the motto of the Republican Party — and perhaps more than a few religious extremists living in caves in the Middle East.

Cholera crisis hits Baghdad

Iraqi capital fears an epidemic if stricken sewerage system collapses as the rainy season arrives

David Smith
Sunday December 2, 2007
The Observer

Baghdad is facing a 'catastrophe' with cases of cholera rising sharply in the past three weeks to more than 100, strengthening fears that poor sanitation and the imminent rainy season could create an epidemic.
The disease - spread by bacteria in contaminated water, which can result in rapid dehydration and death - threatens to blunt growing optimism in the Iraqi capital after a recent downturn in violence. Two boys in an orphanage have died and six other children were diagnosed with the disease, according to the Iraqi government. 'We have a catastrophe in Baghdad,' an official said.

The United Nations Children's Fund (Unicef) said 101 cases had been recorded in the city, making up 79 per cent of all new cases in Iraq. It added that no single source for the upsurge had been identified, but the main Shia enclave of Sadr City was among the areas hardest hit.

*****

Sewerage surge? A little intentional mismanagement or convenient population control.

Mugabe toughens grip using torture

Stephen Bevan and Special Correspondents in Bulawayo
December 3, 2007

THE Zimbabwean President, Robert Mugabe, has stepped up the use of torture against political opponents, civil rights protesters and students in a bid to clamp down on dissent in the run-up to next year's elections.

Torture methods that were once used only by the feared Central Intelligence Organisation, Zimbabwe's internal security agency, are now routinely employed by uniformed police officers. Victims report that electric shock torture is being used to spread indiscriminate terror.