McCain: "I Would Rather Win an Election Than Keep My Soul..."

Andrew Postman, son of the late media scolar and educationist Neil Postman, wrote the following in an e-mail to the Media Ecology listserve:

While I honestly respect opinions on both sides of the political divide, certain behavior in the last couple of weeks finally moved me to action. Over the weekend, I taught myself iMovie and made this movie, which is now on YouTube. It will take under four minutes to watch. If you think the video is of use to pass along to others or post somewhere, please do. If not, not. I realize there are people out there who will disagree with my conclusion. I respect that.

I am more than happy to accomodate Andrew's request.

It is a good first-time video and shows the power of this new converged technology. Anyone -- even a "grown-up" educated in the tradition of literacy -- with a computer can find both a public voice and a public forum for his/her ideas and views.

While the mainstream mass media keep America IN THE DARK, the internet, blogs, vlogs, YouTube and other new media might just be the thing to keep some semblance of democracy alive. To be sure, as Neil Postman has pointed out, it is not going to be democracy as we have previously understood it, and we should not take that fact lightly or face it without some degree of trepidation.

But the alternative is to give in to just the kind of forces that Andrew Postman points to in his debut video.

I hope we see more from him.

Not enough money to pay the speechwriters?

Since the conventions wrapped up, I've been watching a lot more of the 24-hour news stations. Keith Olbermann played a portion of Gov. Sarah Palin's speech from Pennsylvania on his show tonight.



I've seen portions of her speeches played quite often lately -- earlier this week, it was a speech in Colorado Springs. But what has struck me as funny is, it's the SAME SPEECH as the one she gave at the convention. Did Sen. John McCain not pay his speechwriters? Or do they not have time to write new material for Palin? I don't get it. Why would you continue to give the same speech over and over, complete with all the lies that the media has already exposed several times over since Palin's speech at the convention? And not just the lies, but the same hokey insults, such as how Obama lavishes praise on working people when they are listening and talks about them behind their backs. It's like a bad comedic sketch, where you know you've heard the comedian's jokes a thousand times over and they just aren't funny anymore. You almost feel sorry for her -- talking about the chef she fired (the chef was reassigned to another job); the jet she sold on eBay for a profit (she didn't sell it on eBay and certainly not for a profit); the "thanks, but no thanks" line with respect to the Bridge to Nowhere (she was for it before she was against it); and how she's against earmarks (she hired lobbyists to get $27 million in earmarks for the town of Wasilla). It's one thing to give the same tired speech over and over, but to repeat the same lies and exaggerations everyone knows to be such? That's just craziness.

So I started to wonder why she'd do such a thing? It almost makes the McCain campaign seem amateurish. Yet, people are eating this up. Oh, Palin is injecting life into the campaign. She's just what the campaign needed. Blah de blah blah. But I think I figured out the secret. See, Palin is out there giving this lame speech again and again, and the rest of us are talking about it. Republicans, Democrats, the mailman in your town -- they are all talking about her. And what aren't they talking about? The issues. Where does McCain stand on the issues? Oh sure, we hear it brought up from time to time, but most of the news programs I've been watching and blogs I've been reading are Palin this, Palin that. McCain could probably take a dump on the sidewalk in some town, and the news that day would be, "Did you hear that Palin fired her gardener for planting petunias instead of tulips?" I remember right after Palin's speech, some political analyst said that the worst thing Obama's campaign could do was make this election about Palin. This Associated Press article states that anonymous Democratic strategists said something similar lately:

"Two Democratic strategists, speaking on condition of anonymity, complained that Obama should assign his own running mate, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, the task of countering Palin, rather than do it himself."

So true. Palin is the vice presidential pick, and while vice presidents do count in the sense that they are a "heartbeat away from the presidency" (I hate that phrase by the way, used WAY too much lately), they are not the top of the ticket. It's Obama and McCain. The more Obama, or anyone else on the left, focuses on Palin, the more this election becomes about her and takes the focus away from the person it should be on -- McCain. Palin is obviously a liar and thinks much of herself. She must if she thinks she can perpetuate this myth about herself as the Alaskan maverick. Let her lies speak for themselves, now that they have been shown as such, and deal with her when she lies and exaggerates about Obama's stance on issues or his record as a politician. Maybe conservatives think she's hilarious, with her sad insults about Obama's days as a community organizer, but all she does is make herself look like the elitist. It's clear who is the insecure one. I'd like to see Palin fade into the background where she belongs. Do we hear about Sen. Joe Biden every day? No. Do we hear the McCain campaign attacking Biden more frequently than they attack Obama? No. Let's shift the focus back to Obama v. McCain for a few days, huh? Please. I can't take hearing Palin's voice on the news anymore. And if I hear the joke about the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull one more time, I'm going to hurl. This is the United States presidential election, not Last Comic Standing, Sarah.

Republican National Convention, Night Two

The GOP last night distanced itself from the Republican Party.

"What?" you say. The Grand Old Party of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt is the Republican Party. Well, what I'm saying is you wouldn't have known that fact listening to the speakers. The GOP, to hear people like Fred Thompson and Joe Lieberman, is not a political party at all -- the GOP IS America.

And by extension, the Democratic Party (in George W. Bush's words, "the hate-filled left") is something other than America.

Listening to last night's speakers (if, I point out frankly, you could stay awake through them) you'd get the sense that the GOP was the only group in America that was in step. You'd get the sense that it was irrelevant that 81% of Americans believe that the country is headed in the wrong direction, that it was a matter of little importance that Americans want the next Congress to be a Democratic one, or that they were entirely unconcerned that Americans have a much better of view right now of the Democratic Party than they do of the Republican Party.

George W. Bush was the first speaker of the night. He spoke from a secure distance (1,100 miles away, in the White House), and at a time when no one in America was watching anyway -- which was just fine, because he really had nothing to say.

There were, of course, moments of irony in his speech, as when he talked about what it means to be "prepared" to be President:

I know what it takes to be president. In these past eight years, I’ve sat at the resolute desk and reviewed the daily intelligence briefings, the threat assessments, and the reports from our commanders on the front lines.

Yes. And, apparently, ignored them all. Like the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing titled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike US."
And in a moment of unusual candor, he managed to articulate exactly what this election is about, and exactly why the American people have distanced themsleves from the Republican Party (my emphasis):

My fellow citizens, we live in a dangerous world and we need a president who understands the lessons of September the 11th, 2001; that to protect America, we must stay on the offense, stop attacks before they happen, and not wait to be hit again.

This theme of continuing the neo-con policies of the Project for a New American Century (gone, sure, but not forgotten) of regime change, pre-emptive first strike against potential adversaries, fighting multiple wars simultaneously with small forces, and spreading "US influence" was continued throughout the evening by Fred Thompson and Joe Lieberman. And I don't think the American people are going to continue to buy it.

Fred Thompson was the second featured speaker of the evening. Honest to Gosh -- could there be a more stark contrast between these two conventions? I mean, Teddy Kennedy getting out of his hospital bed while enduring radiation therapy on his brain has more life in him than Fred Thompson.

Thompson, right out of the starting gate, took a page out of Lindsay Graham's playbook:

Listening to (Democrats) you'd think that we were in the middle of a Great Depression; that we are down, disrespected and incapable of prevailing against challenges facing us.

Americans are concerned about the economy, Fred, not just Democrats. It's the biggest problem on their minds right now, for better or for worse. And we are NOT respected around the world right now, not even by our allies.

The rest of Thompson's speech was fairly militaristic bordering on jingoistic, including a bold claim that John McCain would be

A president who feels no need to apologize for the United States of America.

Even when we invade a country who never attacked us, never colluded with al Qa'ida, and was not in possession of the weapons we claimed they had? Well, the Republicans were all denying it last noght, but sure sounds to me like a continuation of the neo-con attitudes of the last eight years.

The yawner of the night, of course, was Joe Lieberman.

Again the contrast between the Democratic and Republican speakers could not have been more stark, and really symbolic of the differences between these two parties, as well as the differences between the US of the past and of today.

Here's where the seperation between the GOP and the Republicans became most pronounced.

Well, I'll tell you what. I'm here to support John McCain because country matters more than party.

Yes. Forget about the damned party, will you? It's McCain. The GOP = John McCain, and John McCain = America. That was the logic of the rhetoric of last night's really boring orations (and I use that word in its most excruciatingly painful sense). The GOP doesn't want to associate with the Republican Party, and they don't want John McCain's name associated with the Republican Party. In the marketing lingo that has become so much the vogue these days, "Republican" is a damaged brand, and the GOP is doing everything in its power to distance itself from that brand.

McCain is not "branded" with this damaged Republican brand, like the outgoing (soon, please God) President, George W. Bush -- and his entire administration. No, John McCain, is his own man, a "maverick," a man so principled that he puts his country before his party, before his own self-interest, and certainly before special interests. O)r as Lieberman said:

You know John, and you know that he understands that it shouldn't take a natural disaster like a hurricane to get us to take off our partisan blinders and work together to get things done. It shouldn't take a natural disaster to teach us that the American people really don't care much if you have an R or a D after your name. What they care about is, are we solving the problems that they're against every day?

Let me tell you, what you can expect from John McCain as president is precisely what he's done this week: put our country first.

Well, you be the judge. Let's not forget that the last time a natural disaster of this sort struck, John McCain was a thousand miles away, celebrating his 69th birthday with George W. Bush. So "country first" seems not to a Kantian categorical imperative, at the very least. But in fact, a McCain Presidency would:

• Bail out banks and lenders, but not families whose mortgages were forclosed upon.
• Cut rather than raise corporate income taxes, and maintain the Bush "tax cuts," which have benefitted the wealthiest 5% of Americans.
• Refuse to remove tax subsidies for US corporations that outsource jobs to other nations.
• Make it more difficult to file personal bankruptcy.
• Leave the decision to teach "creationism" as sicence to local school districts.
• Protect $11 billion dollars annually in corporate tax loopholes that might instead go to education.
• Provide $75 million for "abstinence education."
• Return the US to unsafe, toxic, and deadly nuclear energy.
• Refuse to increase funding for Veterans' healthcare.
• Support corporate polluters' interests before the common good of environmental protection.

And on, and on, and on. Stay tuned for tomorrow's address by Sarah Palin.

(NOTE: I am filing this a day late. Frankly, the combined effects of listening to Bush, Thompson and Lieberman on one night in one sitting put me soundly to sleep.)

The REAL Story of the Primaries in Texas, Ohio, Vermont, and Rhode Island

Okay. First things first. I am one-for-two regarding yesterday's primaries. I was wrong about this, although I still believe I am right about this.

But once again I think the "liberal" media are missing the big story of the day -- and, in fact, I think, of the year -- and that is the raw vote totals in these primaries (something I made note of right after the New Hampshire primary).

In Ohio yesterday, 1,203,924 Democrats voted for Hillary Clinton, and 976,368 for Barack Obama. The total Democratic vote was 2,180,292. On the GOP side, 632,575 Republicans voted for John McCain, 323,074 for Mike Huckabee, and 48,742 voted (for some reason) for Ron Paul. The total GOP vote was 1,004,391, less than half of the Democratic vote. Way less than half.

Now, this is significant because in 2000 (the last year there was a primary without an incumbent running for re-election) the Democratic vote total was 978,512. The Democratic candidates yesterday saw an increase in voters of over 110% from 2000. In 2000, the GOP vote total was 1,397,528. The Republican vote yesterday was down from 2000 by more than 390,000 votes. (Source for all 2000 data: The Federal Election Commission)

Even John McCain's vote total was down: in 2000, he garnered 516,790 votes, roughly 190,000 votes more than he received yesterday.

In Rhode Island yesterday, Clinton received 106,471 votes to Obama's 73,609, with another 1,012 uncommitted, totaling 181,092 Democratic votes. McCain got 17,342 votes, followed by Huckabee with 5,766, Paul with 1,761, and another 565 uncommitted, totaling 25,434 -- about one-seventh the Democratic vote.

In 2000, it was a lot closer. The GOP racked up more votes eight years ago -- 36,149, about 40% more than they received yesterday -- but the Democratic vote in 2000 totaled only 47,085. They increased their vote total yesterday by more than 300%.

And John McCain got about 4,000 fewer votes yesterday than he got in 2000.

In Texas last night, 1,452,776 Democrats voted for Clinton and 1,354,553 for Obama, totaling 2,807,329 Democratic votes, while 707,622 Republicans cast votes for McCain, 521,951 for Huckabee, 69,824 for Paul, and 17,611 went uncommitted, totaling 1,317,008 Republican votes, somewhat short of one-half the Democratic total.

In 2000, 786,890 voted for Democratic candidates, so last night's vote total represented an increase of more than 300% over eight years ago. In 2000, 1,126,757 Republicans voted, so they too saw an increase last night over eight years ago, but only of about 15%.

And finally in Vermont last night Obama won with 86,924 votes to Clinton's 56,456. Together, their vote total was 143,380. On the GOP side, 26,976 voted for McCain (less than a third of Obama's vote), 5,268 for Huckabee, and 2,490 for Paul, for a total of 34,734 (less than a quarter of the Democratic vote).

By the way, the twin headlines this morning from Vermont: "Obama wins with 59% of the vote" and "McCain wins with 72% of the vote." Gee. McCain did a lot better than Obama...

In 2000, by the way, the GOP kicked the Democrats' butts, receiving 81,355 votes (more than twice what they received yesterday) to the Democrats' 49,283.

The message is clear, and it becomes more clear with every primary vote: This election is the Democrats' to lose. The vast majority of the people want change. The Democratic party is energized and, frankly, the GOP is discouraged, disheartened, dis-spirited.

Now, the only question I have is this:

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT STORY BEING IGNORED BY THE "LIBERAL" MEDIA???

Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters

Harry Frankfurt said it first. I've done my best to drive the point home. I've even dedicated part of a chapter in my new book to it. Now the Onion -- America's Finest New Source -- says its official: Americans are in love with BULLSHIT.

A Dirty Trick by the Ron Paul Campaign?

While looking at my blog traffic, I noticed that I got some hits from a website called "Know Before You Vote." It is a single page website with external links to news sites, blogs, and crap.

It purports to give an objective, side-by-side comparison of all the candidates, Republican and Democratic, running for President. It doesn't. And whether you are a Clinton supporter or a Romney supporter or an Obama supporter or a McCain supporter or an Edwards supporter or a (God forbid) Thompson supporter, you should really take a look at this and ask some questions, because there's a whole lotta mis-representin' goin' on...

For instance: In one category called, "Understands the effects of blowback," All the candidates are listed as "NO" except Paul and Obama, who are listed as "YES." As an explanation of what "blowback" is, there are two links, one to an article in an on-line magazine published by a Canadian college. The other is to an article on Military History Online, a privately-owned website. I have no problem in principle with either article. But in support of "Know Before You Vote's" accusation that John Edwards does not understand the effects of blowback is a posting from IN THE DARK from March 18 of 2007. In this posting I talked about how Edwards said that we need to fight global poverty as a means of fighting terrorism; in other words, that poverty is a (not the) root cause of terrorism. This position has been championed by Peter Munya, the US Conference of Catholilc Bishops, John Edwards, Hugo Chavez, Fernando Lugo, Desmond Tutu, Charles Dickens, Muhammed Yunus, myself, and even Pakistan dictator Gen. Pervez Musharraf who have been saying that you can't win a war on terror if you don't fight a war on poverty. For the record, the late Holy Father Pope John Paul II believed this too.

The website has no identification whatsoever that ties it to either a campaign or a political action committee or a voter education organization like Project Vote Smart (a non-profit, non-partisan website that allows you to find voting records, issue positions, campaign finances, etc.). I have found that the website is registered to 1&1 Internet, Inc., at 701 Lee Road, Suite 300, in Chesterbrook, PA. I have called them and e-mailed them (click the link and you can too) to find out who the owner of this website is. So far I have not received a response.

I find it very curious and a bit disturbing. I would be interested in hearing from both Democrats and Republicans who think their candidates positions have been misrepresented on this website.

By the way: I'm sure it is pure coincidence, but Ron Paul gets all the positions listed on this website CORRECT...

Clinton vs. Romney on the Issues (silently)

Smartest damned debate I've seen yet. Priceless postmodernism. And not one lie told!!! How refreshing.

Father's Day Reality Check

An Update on the "Worst President in US History"^TM

The two latest polls show President George W. Bush's approval ratings in the gutter. A Quinnipiac University poll (June 7-11) gives the President a pathetic 28% approval, with 65% disapproving of his Presidency. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll (June 8-11) indicates about the same, with 29% approving and 66% (a full two-thirds) disapproving. In each poll, a handful of apparently comatose Americans had no opinion.

As regards the war in Iraq, a whopping 68% of Americans disapprove of the President's handling of the war, with barely more than a quarter (26%) approving. 54% believe that, since the surge, things have only gotten worse in Iraq, and 59% believe that the US should begin to reduce its troop levels there.

While Congress continues to get pretty poor approval ratings, Americans by a very wide margin (56%-32%) would like to see greater Democratic control of Congress. This is very likely a reaction to Congress's inability -- or unwillingness -- to push the Bush administation back against the wall and demand an immediate start to the redeployment of US troops from Iraq. A similar trend is evident in a Los Angeles Times poll and article that indicates that while a majority of Americans want to see a Democrat in the White House in 2008, head-to-head matchups of potential candidates show Hillary Clinton lagging behind potential GOP candidates.

And as of the moment of this writing, 3,521 US GIs have died in Iraq, not including 111 who died of self-inflicted wounds.

Happy Father's Day.

No Surprise, Right Wing Lies : Documents Show Valerie Plame was Covert CIA Operative at the Time of White House Leak

The right-wing has been insisting that Valerie Plame was not a covert operative since someone in the White House leaked her name to Robert Novak almost four years ago. Of course, to knowingly identify a covert CIA operative would be a felony under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, passed as a result of the assassination of CIA operative Richard Welch in Athens in 1975, who himself had been outed by Counterspy, a renegade magazine that called for the "neutralization" of spies by taking away their cloak of secrecy. So, of course, the last thing the right-wing in the US would want to admit is that Plame was, in fact, covert.

Guess what? Valerie Plame was, in fact, covert. A covert CIA operative. At the time of the leak. Translation: someone in the White House committed a felony. To read the three-page document for yourself, see it here, at Salon's "Primary Sources."

In Federal Court on Tuesday, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald filed a summary of declassified CIA information that proves that Plame was an active spy, and not, as many on the right have disparagingly remarked, a mere "desk jockey." So, all the defensive posturing, the name-calling, and the disparaging was another example of (surprise!!!) the right-wing LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!

Who'd have thought it???

Senate Report : CIA Told White House Before US Invasion That Iraq War Would Go Bad, Create a Haven for Al Qa'ida, and Embolden Iran

An Update on the "So-called War on Terror"^TM

According to a report released Friday (that hole-in-the-newscycle when no one is paying any attention) by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the CIA warned the White House as early as January 2003 that a US invasion would ignite sectarian violence, give al Qa'ida an opportunity to gain a foothold in Iraq, and embolden Iran to assert its influence further in the middle east.

Are you listening, Howie?

So let me get this straight: the White House knew beforehand, according to the Pentagon, that there was no evidence of WMDs, no evidence that al Qa'ida was operating in Iraq, and that there was no evidence of Iraqi complicity in 9/11; we also knew that an invasion would break Iraq into pieces, spread terrorism, and widen Iran's influence. Do I have that correctly?

So I have two questions:

1] What are we doing there?
2] When are we going to have the courage to IMPEACH BUSH???

US Wants to Bar Posada Testifying About CIA Resume in His Upcoming Trial

An Update on "America's Terrorist"^TM

The US Government doesn't want the upcoming trial of terrorist Luis Posada Carriles to draw a lot of attention to the fact that he worked for many years for the CIA.

In a nine-page motion filed with a federal tribunal in El Paso, Texas, state prosecutors claimed Posada Carriles's relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency ended more than 30 years ago and that as testimony or questioning about those ties were not relevant to his trial on immigration charges.

Not relevant? Not relevant? Recently declassified CIA documents (viewable here and here) show that the man planned the mid-air bombing of an airliner, killing 76 people, many of them students. How in the world is this not relevant to his trial on immigration charges? And why is he charged only with illegal entry into the United States?

And his tenure as either a CIA operative or associate did not necessarily end in 1976. Even though he was employed as a CIA agent in 1965, he was trained in 1961 (at the School of the Americas) in sabotage and explosives and took part in the CIA-planned and sponsored Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. While still a CIA agent, Posada bacame the Chief of Operations of the Venezuelan Intelligences Services. The CIA believed at this time that Posada was trafficking in cocaine, but he remained on the payroll until 1976.

Imprisoned in Venezuela in 1977 for the 1976 bombing of Cubana Flight 455, Posada escaped to Chile, where he was again jailed. With help from the Reagan administration-funded -- and ultra right-wing -- Cuban American National Foundation, Posada again escaped and settled in El Salvador. Here he worked on regional programs during the 1980s sponsored by the Reagan administration, including selling arms to Iran in exchange for US hostages, the money going to fund (illegally) the Contra war in Nicaragua.

In 1997, Posada was implicated in a number of bombings of tourist hotels in Havana, and indicated that even though he no longer worked directly for the CIA, benefitted from a "tolerant attitude" on the part of US law enforcement.

Why are we fighting a so-called "war on terror" but refusing to extradite a man who we know to be a terrorist? Why are we rushing to deport immigrants who do essential work in the United States, but refusing to extradite that same man who we know to be a terrorist?

On September 23, 2003, President George W. Bush addressed the UN General Assembly and spoke about the so-called "war on terror." Among other things, he said:

“All governments that support terror are complicit in a war against civilization.” – President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03

In training people sabotage and explosice techniques, we are supporting terror. In supporting right-wing death squads, or supporting governments that support right-wing death squads, we are supporting terror. In selling arms to Iran in order to illegally fund a revolutionary army, we are supporting terror. In allowing Luis Posada Carriles to walk the streets free, we are supporting terror. In trying him for illegal entry into the United States, we are supporting terror. In refusing to extradite him to Venezuela to stand trial for variouos crimes he committed there, we are supporting terror.

The Bush administration's so-called "war on terror" is a sham.

IMPEACH!!!

Al Qa'ida : Iraq 'A University of Terrorism'

An Update on the "So-called War on Terror"^TM

An audiotape posted on an Islamic extremeist website provides more information on the state of the war in Iraq. A voice on that tape, purportedly belonging to Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, leader of an al Qa'ida-linked group calling itself the Islamic State of Iraq, indicates that George W. Bush's plan to rid the world of terrorism and sow the seeds of freedom and democracy may not be working as expected.

The largest batch of soldiers for jihad... in the history of Iraq are graduating and they have the highest level of competence in the world... From the military point of view, one of the (enemy) devils was right in saying that if Afghanistan was a school of terror, then Iraq is a university of terrorism.

The fear of the American Marines has disappeared from the hearts of the people of the world, as the mujahideen have become thousands from the few they were after the fall of the infidel Baath regime. These are just some of the achievements of four years of jihad.

al-Baghdadi also claimed that al Qa'ida has set up facilities in Iraq to manufacture their own rockets.

What a Wonderful World?

Trees of green? Red roses too? For some perhaps, but not me and you. Like everything else in George W. Bush's "wonderful world," the trees of green, the red roses, the skies of blue, the stars of white, bright blessed days and the dark sacred nights are distributed unequally and unfairly.

More than 3,000 Americans are dead, and over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians in a war that was absolutely unnecessary. We have accomplished nothing in Iraq other than to create a breeding ground for new terrorists. Meanwhile, we have allowed al Qa'ida to regain strength under the protection of our "ally" in the so-called war on terror, Pervez Musharraf.

Nuclear weapons have proliferated across the globe under Bush's watch. So, naturally, we are going tomanufacture more, newer nukes. You'd almost think that the Bush administration might have turned a blind eye to the spread of nukes, just so we could build new ones. After all, it was our "ally" Pervez Musharraf's man, AQ Khan, who shared nuclear secrets with both North Korea and Iran.

Sweat shop globalization has proceeded unabated under Bush. We have far more evidence of the spread of sweatshops in the last six years than the spread of Democracy. The gap between rich and poor nations, as well as the gap between the richest and poorest within individual nations -- including the United States -- has grown under Bush. For the first time in my lifetime, poverty is on the rise in the United States, both in proportion and number of Americans living below the poverty line.

Our reputation has sunk to unprecedented lows across the world. Our Constitution is in tatters. Our American values have been trampled at home. Politics trumps law. Democratic principles are becoming, like the Geneva Conventions, "quaint" and "obsolete."

Want a wonderful world?

IMPEACH BUSH!!!

Pat Tillman's Mom : "You're Still Lying"

The family of Cpl. Pat Tillman has issued a scathing response to the US Army's investigation into his death by "friendly fire," calling it "shamefully unacceptable" and demanding a Congressional investigation. The report fails to address many of the strange circumstances surrounding the former Arizona Cardinals safety's death (read the entire original SFGate.com story here). There is some evidence -- circumstantial, perhaps, but evidence nonetheless -- that Tillman was targeted. Mary Tillman believes this is possible.

Mary Tillman said she was not excluding the possibility that her son was shot intentionally.

"Pat was used," she said. "Once he was killed, I think they saw this as an opportunity." She noted that April 2004 was the worst month up to that time in the year-old Iraq war, and the shooting occurred right after the Abu Ghraib scandal broke.

The Army found no evidence of criminal negligence. Pat Tillman's family is, to say the least, suspicious of both the Army's findings and its motivations. They met with Army officials the same moment the results of the investigation were being made public. Mary Tillman told reporters afterward:

The meeting was a travesty, I mean we were lied to. They told us we were abusive, and I responded back that, you know, lying is a form of abuse, and we've been lied to for three years.

But what they did is make up a story. That's not a misstep, and that's not an error. They made up a story, it was presented on national television, and we believe they did that to promote the war.

Indeed. Here's what the family's statement said:

“No one who knew Pat doubted his physical or moral courage,” the statement said. "But the award of the Silver Star appears more than anything to be part of a cynical design to conceal the real events from the family — but most especially from the public — while exploiting the death of our beloved Pat as a recruitment poster.”

Wow. Pat Tillman came from a family of heroes.

Jury : Libby the "Fall Guy" for Cheney

The jury is in and (righties like Howie will never agree) they have found Vice President Dick Cheney and Special Assistant to the President Carl Rove guilty of leaking the name of a covert CIA agent -- Valerie Plame -- to the press.

The jurors who huddled around two pushed-together conference tables for 10 days, meticulously filling 34 pages of facts from the trial on a large flip chart, believed that Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff had been "pilloried" for a CIA leak that other top White House aides had committed along with him, according to one member of the panel.

"We're not saying that we didn't think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of," said the juror, Denis Collins. "But it seemed like he was . . . the fall guy."

You don't say? Wow. What a shock that piece of news is. The fall guy, though, for whom?

During the jury's days of methodical deliberations, "it was said a number of times, 'What are we doing with this guy here?' " Collins told reporters on the steps outside the federal courthouse. "Where's Rove, where's -- you know, where are these other guys?" Collins said, referring to Karl Rove, Bush's top political adviser, and Richard L. Armitage, a former deputy chief of staff who testimony showed had been the first person to leak Plame's name.

Moreover, Collins said, jurors believed that Libby had been carrying out a directive by his immediate boss, Cheney, to "go out and talk to reporters" to tarnish Wilson's reputation. But Collins said jurors stopped short of discussing whether the vice president specifically urged Libby to tell journalists about Plame's CIA job.

More than three years ago, President Bush promised not to allow this type of leaking to go on in his White House.

"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Ilinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of. "

Here's your chance, Mr. President. For once, make your words mean something.