Thursday, August 31, 2006
Lies, Lies and More Lies. Bush Fires More Weapons of Mass Deception at American Legion Propaganda Speech
Honest Abe he's not. But for just a second last week we had a rare moment of truth (albeit off the cuff and under pressure from a dogged reporter) when President Bush admitted that the Iraq war had "nothing" to do with the war on terror. All that of course changed Thursday during Bush's first in a brand-new series of PR speeches designed to justify the Iraq war, bolster the Busheviks' image and perhaps salvage the midterm elections for Republican incumbents.
Speaking before thousands of veterans at the American Legion convention in Salt Lake City, UT, Bush was in rare form, once again masterfully morphing Saddam and bin Laden, Iraq and al Qaeda, in an effort to confuse the hell out of Americans and scare them into the voting booths. It was a most shameful, pathetic and desperate display of lies and deception, and it came a day after his miserable failure of a Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, accused those against the war of being like Nazi-era appeasers. Just when you think this administration cannot sink any lower they find new cracks in the political pavement through which to crawl and spew their bile.
Let's remember again that a week ago Iraq had "nothing" to do with 9/11 and the war on terror. But to his applause-generous audience Thursday, Bush lobbed these weapons of mass deception:
"The security of the civilized world depends on victory in the war on terror, and that depends on victory in Iraq."
"Some politicians look at our efforts in Iraq and see a diversion from the war on terror. That would come as news to Osama bin Laden, who proclaimed that the third world war is raging in Iraq. It would come as news to the number-two man of Al Qaida, Zawahiri, who has called the struggle in Iraq, quote, 'the place for the greatest battle.' It would come as news to the terrorists from Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, Libya and Yemen and other countries who have come to Iraq to fight the rise of democracy."
"The truth is there is violence, but those who cause it have a clear purpose. When terrorists murder at the World Trade Center or car bombers strike in Baghdad or hijackers plot to blow up planes over the Atlantic or terrorist militias shoot rockets at Israeli towns, they are all pursuing the same objective: to turn back the advance of freedom and impose a dark vision of tyranny and terror across the world."
"As veterans, you have seen this kind of enemy before. They're successors to Fascists, to Nazis, to communists, and other totalitarians of the 20th century. And history shows what the outcome will be: This war will be difficult; this war will be long; and this war will end in the defeat of the terrorists and totalitarians, and a victory for the cause of freedom and liberty. We're now approaching the fifth anniversary of the day this war reached our shores."
"The war we fight today is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century. On one side are those who believe in the values of freedom and moderation ... and on the other side are those driven by the values of tyranny and extremism."
Bush's new Traveling Bullshit Campaign is a desperate attempt to save face and drum up support for a war that two-thirds of Americans are against, and 61% of whom see as separate from the global war on terror, according to recent polls. Yet the president stated, "My series of speeches, they're not political speeches." I'm not sure what's worse: his blatant lying, or the mainstream media's impotence in calling him on it.
This is not the first time Bush has hit the road for a PR mission. He did so last Fall and early Spring this year to no avail. The war took more violent, unsuccessful turns, his poll numbers dropped precipitously, and so did voters' patience. There's little doubt that the same will happen again. Bush can't simply make the war a success by saying it is. The "news on the ground," which he likes to curiously cite so often, contradicts him at every turn, and it will continue to.
More important is that voters will not likely accept the new round of incendiary rhetoric about Iraq, the war on terror, and calculated comparisons to World War II. The simple fact is, we've been fighting terrorists for decades. It's nothing new. Terrorists killed Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972; bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in 1983; tossed Leon Klinghoffer off of the Achille Lauro in 1985; and have been committing random acts of violence since. George Bush did not invent the battle against terrorists despite coining the grammatically-challenged phrase, "war on terror." So for him to compare it to WW II and the battle against the Nazis and Fascists is more reprehensible, completely irresponsible, and supremely insensitive to the millions of victims who died at the hands of these brutal dictatorships.
The Iraq war is not about fighting terrorists, at least in the sense of retaliation for 9/11. Roughly 95% of those we're battling there are home-grown insurgents; Saddam loyalists and holdovers from his Baathist regime. It's also about Sunnis vs. Shia. Our soldiers are dying in the middle of a civil war. A war that has nothing to do with protecting America from those who attacked us five years ago.
"There is a struggle going on in Iraq," said Sen. Jack Reid (D-RI) on MSNBC's Hardball Thursday evening. "But at this moment it appears to be a struggle among the Shia community as to who will control Iraq in the future...This is a fight that goes back many, many years between ethnic groups within Iraq. To see this as 'the great struggle' misperceives the point."
And as Democratic strategist Bob Shrum said, the Busheviks, by throwing around terms like Nazis and Fascists, "Number one, you know they're desperate, and number 2, you wonder, did they just figure this out? Three years into the war they're deciding what it's all about? They're gonna run the third 9/11 election in a row because they have nothing else to run on."
Monday, August 28, 2006
Republican Flip-Flopper Shays Now Adopts Kerry-Like Timetable Plan for U.S. Troop Withdrawal From Iraq
Back in May when Sen. John Kerry put forth his resolution calling for a timetable for withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, Republicans branded Kerry and the Democrats the party of "cut and run." Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) said "setting a timetable would be foolish." President Bush, VP Dick Cheney and the rest of the Bushevik clan said such a move would "embolden the terrorists" and cause chaos in Iraq. Three months and one Lieberman loss later, Shays is having a change of heart, essentially putting forth the same timetable proposal as Kerry. Political expedience, you say? That's exactly what it is. Shays, facing a tough re-election bid in Connecticut, would rather break ranks with the president than face a similar fate as the hawkish Joe Lieberman did in the state's recent Democratic primary.
Speaking on MSNBC's Hardball Monday, Shays weaved and bobbed, ducked and dodged, as host Nora O'Donnell pressed him to draw a distinction between his proposal and that of Kerry and the Democrats. Offering little, Shays said the only difference--but that it's a big difference--in his call for a timetable is that it's based on one major fact: that our troops will come home when they're replaced by Iraqi troops. Duh. Tell us something we don't know.
"The way to get the Iraqis to wake up to do the heavy lifting is to let them know that we are not there indefinitely, there's not an open checkbook, that were not going to take sustained losses indefinitely," he said.
Didn't Kerry say all this months ago? What makes it new all of a sudden? Some self-serving, frightened Repug incumbent just got the bajeesus scared out of him by watching his Senate colleague Lieberman get kicked to the curb over the war, that's what. It's not hip to be pro-war anymore. And, it can be suicidal. Two-thirds of the country is against the war; 51% see it as separate from the war on terror; and 65% disapprove of Bush's handling of it. And in Connecticut, as Ned Lamont proved, you're clearly walking on hot coals if you're a hawk.
When O'Donnell stated Bush's commitment to "staying the course," Shays responded with, "He's wrong."
Well, after 14 pro-war trips to Iraq, Shays curiously returned from his last visit finding sudden clarity on the issue. Is he flip-flopping because of the battleground in his home state versus the one in Iraq? Is he just another example of what may soon become a full-fledged desertion of Bush and the war as we get closer to the midterms? And will the GOP attack machine kick into high gear this week to skewer Shays for his abandonment of the King's policy? Stay tuned.
The Republican Party is extremely adept at framing issues, labeling Democrats, and boxing them into a corner. And they're attempting to do it once again by painting anti-war Senate hopeful, Ned Lamont of Connecticut, as a fringe candidate who represents the radical left wing of his party. But nothing could be further from the truth.
Lamont's made his strong opposition to the Iraq war the cornerstone of his campaign, effectively mobilizing the grassroots/'netroots movement to beat incumbent Sen. Joe Lieberman in the state's recent primary. Lamont's not alone. The latest polls show that two-thirds of Americans are now firmly against the war and believe it was/is a mistake. What's more, a NY Times/CBS News poll last week found that 51% saw no link between the Iraq war and the broader war on terror, an increase of 10% points since June.
If you listen to the Repugs, Lamont doesn't represent mainstream America, and they're trying to scare Republican and Independent voters into thinking that a vote for Lamont-like liberals will not only spoil the fun in Iraq, but it will be an invitation to terrorists to attack us here at home. But all of this rhetoric presents an enormous opportunity for Democrats, if they have the guts to follow through.
The fact is, Lamont does represent mainstream America, which is solidly against the war. As the polls prove, it's Bush and the GOP that's out of touch with a majority of Americans, not Lamont. With this position, he's not only very successfully drawn a distinction between himself and Lieberman, but with pro-war Republicans overall. If they're smart, Democrats will do precisely the same, and boldly. Democrats must not fall into the Rovian trap and fear being branded "cut and run" lefties. Polls indicate that the November midterms are going to be a referendum on the Iraq war, President Bush, and the GOP-led Congress. The Democrats' message to voters should be, "we're not Republicans. We're not for this wasteful, unjust war. We're like you. We want to end this war and bring the troops home." They should not be afraid to stand up and shout this message at every opportunity. It's what won Lamont his state's primary, and it's what can be the Dems' ticket to victory this Fall. The question is, will Democrats be smart of enough, and ballsy enough, to capitalize on the opportunity that Lamont has given them?
Saturday, August 26, 2006
The clock continues to click towards the 2008 presidential election, and we're still certain that Al Gore is the best candidate the Democrats can put forth. Is he waiting in the wings, playing it coy as he builds a team that now includes former 2000 campaign aide Roy Neel? Is he ready to go head-to-head against Hillary Clinton for the nomination? Will he soon announce? The time for Gore could not be better. As we've stated here many times before, our money's on him running.
Our Draft Al Gore in 2008 Petition now has over 3400 signatures. If you'd like to help send a message to The Goracle, click here to read and sign the petition.
Or visit: http://www.petitiononline.com/AG2008/petition.html
*For AOL users, it's best to open the petition using Internet Explorer.
Allen's "Macaca" Slur May Not Just Derail His '08 Presidential Bid, New Poll Shows It May Also Cost GOP Virginia in Nov. Midterms
One slip of the tongue is all it takes in politics to ruin a once bright career. In the case of Sen. George Allen (R-VA), one little "Macaca" looks to have put a serious dent in his 2008 presidential bid and may end up giving Virginia to the Democrats in the Fall elections.
Despite his apology to web consultant S.R. Sidarth, a 20-year-old of Indian descent working for Democratic challenger Jim Webb, the damage has been done and it will continue to be a factor for Allen, said Merle Black, a political scientist at Emory University and presidential and congressional elections expert. "Clearly this has damaged his presidential aspirations. It just raises questions about his judgment and how sincere he is in how he deals with these kinds of issues."
What caused the flap was the off-color remark Allen made at a recent campaign event. Motioning towards Sidarth he told the crowd, "This fellow over here with the yellow shirt--Macaca or whatever his name is--he's with my opponent. Let's give a welcome to Macaca here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia." Macaca is a genus of monkey used as a racial slur in some countries.
But more worrisome for Republicans is a new Rasmussen poll showing Allen's eleven-point lead over Webb last month shrinking to just five points. Webb is a former marine and Reagan-era secretary of the navy. Democrats have been counting on several key battleground states--Missouri, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Rhode Island and Montana--and are now setting their sights on Tennessee, as well as Virginia thanks to Allen's loose lips.
"In politics, when you become fodder for David Letterman and Jay Leno and Jon Stewart, you know you've had a bad day," said Tom Rath, a Republican National Committee member from New Hampshire.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
It began with incendiary al Qaeda-connection rhetoric and dire warnings of WMD stockpiles, designed to arouse Americans' fears of another horrific terrorist attack. It ultimately led to the invasion of Iraq, and an occupation that's been disastrous, deadly and never-ending. Apparently, the lessons of this debacle have yet to be learned, as a blood-thirsty band of delusional Bushevik neocons would love to invade Iran and go for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's head. According to the NY Times Thursday, these administration officials and GOP lawmakers are frustrated over what they believe to be the U.S. intelligence community's downplaying of the Iranian threat.
In a chilling repeat of the faulty intelligence found in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate which framed the justification for the Iraq war, the House Intelligence Committee this week, led by Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), cited in a new report the growing weapons threat from Iran and its ties to terrorists. "Intelligence community managers and analysts must provide their best analytical judgments about Iranian W.M.D. programs and not shy away from provocative conclusions or bury disagreements in consensus assessments," the report said.
The consensus of the intelligence agencies is that Iran is still years away from building a nuclear weapon. This assessment angers some Bushevik and Pentagon officials who want to confront Iran directly over the WMD and terrorist threat. It's deja vu all over again.
The Bush neocons created a colossal, bloody mess in Iraq, and its become a tremendous political liability. As a result, many pundits believe--and the polls seem to reflect this contention--that the November midterm elections will be a referendum on the war and the GOP. Is a military action against Iran possible as the Repugs' much-anticipated "October surprise?" Can these war-mongering maniacs truly be going down the same deadly path as they did in 2002/03? If so, is there anything that can stop them?
Hastert Says U.S. Intelligence "Saved the Day" in Thwarted British Terror Plot. Whatever it is He's Smoking, We Want Some
Another Weapon of Mass Deception has been uncovered. In the wake of the federal court's ruling last week that the Busheviks' wiretapping program is unconstitutional, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert defended the illegal spy program by saying such U.S intelligence-gathering tactics were responsible for thwarting the recent airline bombing plot in Great Britain. In criticizing Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's decision, Hastert said "our terrorist surveillance programs are critical to fighting the war on terror and saved the day by foiling the London terror plot." Yes, he actually said "saved the day." Forget the fact that it was British and Pakastani intelligence that prevented this attack, and in the process spared America another horrific attack of catastrophic proportions. An attack which clearly shows America's true vulnerability and the Busheviks' inability to protect its citizens. Yet that didn't stop Hastert from giving the Bushies full credit anyway.
Where is the mainstream media, and why isn't it doing its job calling out this BS? How is that politicians like Hastert are allowed to lie through their teeth with impunity on matters so sensitive as homeland security and the safety of our citizens? How is it that Bush, Cheney, Hastert and the rest of the Bushevik truthiness squad can say whatever the hell they want, and no one in the mainstream press challenges them?
The Busheviks are committing the worst acts of treason in politicizing the Iraq war, 9/11 and the continuing threat from terrorists. They've manipulated intelligence, manufactured evidence, stretched the truth, outright lied and are deceiving Americans every single day in their maniacal quest to maintain power and further their psychotic neocon agenda. We must do everything in our power to rid Washington of these criminals. And when, not if, we regain control of the House and Senate, we must begin aggressive investigations into this criminality, and indict and impeach those responsible. Republicans better start looking over their shoulders. Their day of reckoning is coming.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Britain Foils Horrific Terror Plot Without U.S. Help and Somehow Bush's Poll Numbers on Handling Terrorism Go Up
Can someone please explain this phenomenon to me: President Bush and his cohorts have spent the last 5 years blubbering on about how safe we are from terrorists, citing the fact we've not been attacked again since 9/11 as the proof. Yet, with no involvement from the United States, Great Britain recently thwarted an al Qaeda plot to blow up ten London-to-NY commercial airliners over the Atlantic Ocean. Sounds like Bush fell asleep at the wheel, no? Had it not been for the Brits, we'd likely be picking thousands of body parts out of the Atlantic by now as the result of this catastrophic terrorist attack. But somehow in the ensuing two weeks Bush's poll numbers on his handling of terrorism have increased, climbing 8% according to USA Today/Gallup.
What is going on here? What is it about this president's colossal failings that Americans just can't seem to grasp when it comes to keeping America safe? Do they realize the horror we'd soon be facing, if not already, if not for the keen sleuthing in England? Don't these circumstances warrant a precipitous drop in his numbers? Maybe it's because, as they've done since 9/11, the Busheviks have endlessly lied to the American people. Case in point, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's recent comments about America's role in the thwarted attack earlier this month: ..."Our terrorist surveillance programs are critical to fighting the war on terror and saved the day by foiling the London terror plot." I wonder how happy Tony Blair is to know that the United States "saved the day."
NY Congressional Candidate Kirsten Gillibrand Tonite on Ostroy/DeLaite Report; Democratic Strategist Joe Trippi to Appear Sept 6
Please tune in to tonite's The Ostroy/DeLaite Report...Where Democrats Play Rough as we welcome Kirsten Gillibrand, the Democratic challenger to Rep. John Sweeney in NY's 20th Congressional district. We'll get an update on her campaign and also get her thoughts on the November midterms overall; Iraq; the economy and more.
Click here to contribute to the Gillibrand campaign. (www.gillibrand2006.com)
Please also mark your calendar for September 6th, as we'll be joined by Democratic strategist Joe Trippi, former campaign manager for '04 presidential candidate Howard Dean and now head of his own political consultancy. We'll tap Joe for his thoughts on the midterm elections as well as other key news of the day.
The Ostroy/DeLaite Report...Where Democrats Play Rough, is a weekly political call-in talk show that tackles the Right Wing spin machine head on (www.OstroyDeLaiteReport.com). It covers the ever-changing political landscape with guests that include The Nation's Katrina vanden Heuvel, WABC Radio's Ron Kuby, Marc Maron, nationally-syndicated radio host Stephanie Miller, Russ Baker, Marc Crispin Miller, Nomi Prins, BuzzFlash.com's Mark Karlin, BradBlog.com's Brad Friedman, NY State Attorney General candidate Mark Green, Michigan's 9th Congressional District candidate Nancy Skinner and others. The show airs every Wednesday at 6:30PM in NYC on Time Warner channel 67. It can also be viewed live over the internet at MNN.org. Just follow the steps to "Watch MNN/ch 67."
On May 2, 2003 President Bush landed with much fanfare aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln and declared "Mission Accomplished" regarding the war in Iraq. At Monday's soon-to-be-considered-a-classic press conference, Bush, in rallying against what he and the Repugs call the Democrats' "cut and run" policy, said "You don't succeed by leaving before the mission is complete" Obviously, mission definitely not yet accomplished.
The press conference exposed Bush once again for lying through his teeth on the subject of the war and its justification based on revenge for the 9/11 attacks. In between what felt like hours of inane, repetitive drivel about the "war on terror," Bush was interrupted by a reporter who challenged the president with "what does Iraq have to do with that?" Bush shot back, "Nothing...except that it's part of...and nobody's even suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack." But this, as we all know by now, is a crock. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and the rest of the Busheviks have, since 9/11, been beating into Americans' heads that Saddam and the attacks are indeed inextricably tied. In fact, that's why as of September 2003, polling showed that an astounding 69% of Americans believed that Iraq was responsible for the attacks.
Here's a sampling of the incendiary rhetoric spewed by Bush himself in order to dupe Americans and scare the bajeesus out of them:
9/25/02: "The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror."
10/7/02: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making, and poisons, and deadly gases...We know that al Qaeda and Iraq have had high-level contacts that go back a decade."
11/7/02: "He's (Saddam) a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda."
And even at Monday's press conference the president couldn't help himself, lobbing these Weapons of Mass Deception in direct contradiction with his earlier denial: "Imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there stirring even more trouble in a part of the world that, uh, that had so much resentment, so much hatred, that people came and killed 3000 of our citizens;"...and that pulling out of Iraq now would embolden terrorists and result in future attacks on U.S. soil.
The war, and Bush's handling of it, remain incredibly unpopular. New CNN poll numbers show that on the subject of the Iraq war, the president's job approval is at a new low of 36%. Only 44% said he is "honest and trustworthy" and just 42% said he "inspires confidence." Let's hope the polls and the pundits are right, that the November midterm elections will be a referendum on Bush and his failed war.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
He bobbed, bounced and chortled, flailed his arms, shouted, pleaded, whined, was stubborn, constantly repeated himself, made ridiculous statements, and acted fidgety and restless as if he just downed five straight fruit juice boxes. No, this wasn't some petulant 5-year-old we're talking about. It was President Bush, as he bizarrely addressed reporters Monday in a marathon press conference that offered up nothing but the same old incendiary rhetoric and weapons of mass deception.
So, what's a blubbering president to do when his vanity project in Iraq continues to look like the worst military blunder in the nation's history, with thousands of people dying each month with no end in sight, and the country engulfed in a full-scale civil war? Why, tell everyone that everything's going just great, that's all, and then suggest that anyone who doesn't support this bloody debacle is a terrorist-sympathizer who's "emboldening al Qaeda types," as VP Cheney maniacally asserted last week. And throughout this charade, act a little kooky and say some really strange things over, and over and over again. How about telling reporters that you are often "happy" with the way things are in Iraq? How about announcing to the world that the U.S. will not be pulling troops out "so long as I'm president." Mention the phrase "before the job is done" about a hundred times. And if that's not enough, when a reporter asks 'what did Iraq have to do with 9/11', quickly reply "nothing," and then pretend that no member of the Royal Order of the Bushevik Monarchy has ever suggested that Saddam was responsible for the NY and DC attacks that fateful day in 2001.
It was easy to surmise from the press conference that this president is in way over his head, has been from day-one, and aside from being a colossal embarrassment to America and throughout the world, he's a dangerous human being. I cringe at the mere sight of him and as he opens his lips to speak. No wonder the world hates us right now.
Monday, August 21, 2006
Kudos to Sen. Chuck Schumer, whose Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) continues to kick the pants out of its Republican counterpart. For the month of July, the DSCC raked in $4.2 million for a total of $77.2 million for the 2006 campaign cycle, compared with the NRSC's $3.3 million July take and $65.9 million '06 total. The DSCC also reported $35.1 million cash on hand, 70% more than the NRSC's $20.6 million.
Needing just six seats to regain control of the Senate, the Democrats are feeling confident that their fundraising successes are a foreshadowing of victory in November. "Democrats are winning the fundraising race because Americans understand that we have the ideas to move the country in a new direction," Schumer said. "People who are sick of the status quo and want change are looking to the Democrats."
In addition to having a desirable candidates with a resonating message, the Democratic Party knows it cannot take back the Senate without a massive war chest. "We’ve run the DSCC like a business and marshaled our resources to ensure that we are able get our message out to the voters," Schumer said.
With just 78 days before the November 7th midterms, Democrats are canvassing the country this Summer aggressively promoting the party's "New Direction" agenda with six central goals as its cornerstone: Strengthening national security, improving jobs and wages, energy independence and lower gas prices, affordable health care and life-saving science, retirement security and college access for all. The party believes these are the issues of most concern to average Americans, who, according to recent polls by both Rasmussen and Fox News, overwhelmingly now prefer Democrats by an 18-point margin.
The Dems seek victory in several hotly contested races in battleground states including Ohio, Missouri, Rhode Island, Montana and Pennsylvania, where their candidates--Sherrod Brown, Claire McCaskill, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jon Tester, Bob Casey Jr. and Harold Ford Jr. respectively--all lead in the polls.
A new Time Magazine poll shows two very interesting things: despite her incessant triangulating and centrist-searching positions as she gears up for the 2008 presidential election, Hillary Clinton remains the top choice (46%) among voters, but not by much. The Comeback Kid, Al Gore, is hot on her trail (41%) in what could be shaping up as a major battle of the Clinton administration spin-offs for the Democratic nomination.
Gore has waited his whole life for this moment. The country is in a state of domestic and foreign policy disarray, and voters are frustrated, angry and ready for change. On the national level, recent Rasmussen and Fox News polls show Democrats with a commanding 18-point lead over Republicans, indicating that the Dems could sweep into the House and Senate much as the GOP did during its 1994 Republican Revolution. Voters are that upset. While many key Democrats are excited about a Hillary candidacy at the primary level, there is still considerable doubt that she can win the general election. The Time poll shows she remains an unpopular, polarizing figure among Republicans and an appreciable amount of Independents; and voters on both sides question her ability to keep America safe from terrorists (67% of Dems, 17% Repubs think she can). Writes Time Magazine, "Most of us agree that she's smart, and there's no doubt she wants to win. Does that mean she will figure out how to get red America to see her softer side, or does that mean she'll quit before she can lose?"
Which brings us back to Gore. As we've said many times, he's got an impressive resume, a fiery new personality, and anti-war/pro-environment messages that resonates with most of the country right now. And he's a winner, having snagged the popular vote in 2000 and, as many believe, the electoral college as well. To date, he's played it coy in denying he's running, but he's also calculatingly left the door open. For Gore right now, that door is wide open, and it's full of opportunity. The question is when, not if, Gore makes it official.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
We don't often explore the non-political here, but there's something that's grabbed us and needs to be stated. How sad, how ironic, how utterly wrong it is that after 10 years of cruel suspicion for the heinous murder of her then-6-year old daughter JonBenet in 1996, Patsy Ramsey is not alive to experience her vindication and have closure on this tragic chapter of her life. For the nine years following JonBenet's death, before her death last year, Patsy, and husband John, were vilified by law enforcement agencies and the media in a cruel conspiracy of accusation. The worst thing in the world as a parent is the death of a child. Next to that is being accused of being responsible. That Patsy is not alive today to face her child's killer and be seen as nothing more than a horribly grieving mother of a brutally murdered child is a crime in and of itself.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
The Bizarro CT Senate Race: Future Repug (?) Lieberman Leads Lamont by 5 Pts; Bush/GOP Refuse to Endorse Schlesinger the Gambler
It's like a sideshow, this Senate race in Connecticut. First, the blogosphere succeeds in helping anti-war candidate Ned Lamont beat three-term Democrat Joe Lieberman in the state's primary. Then Old Joe refuses to lay down and die, announces his Independent candidacy, and is subsequently deserted by every prominent Democrat in Washington who quickly hop on the LamontWagon. The Dems apply pressure on Old Joe to quit the race, but to no avail. He gains momentum and a 46%-41% lead over Lamont (according to a new Rasmussen poll), and watches as President Bush, RNC chair Ken Mehlman, the GOP and every prominent Republican fails to endorse their candidate, Alan Schlesinger, as news breaks of his little problem at the gaming tables. What the heck is going on here? This seems more like a Mel Brooks movie than a political race.
Schlesinger has failed to garner the support of even one major Republican. Last week Mehlman, on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, flat out refused the throw his party's support behind their guy. "I'm leaving that decision up to the people of Connecticut," he said, as he was dutifully campaigning in Ohio for Sen. Mike DeWine, who trails Democratic challenger Rep. Sherrod Brown in the polls. He's apparently not leaving that one up to voters.
On Hardball Tuesday night, Matthews aggressively questioned Schlesinger not only about his lack of party support, but about the gambling allegations as well. Schlesinger confirmed he at one point had at least $10,000 in gambling debts and once used a fake name to acquire a casino VIP card. He's currently banned from several Connecticut casinos for his "level of play," he said (read: cheating). To his party, this guy seems like the plague right now.
So what's up here? Is the GOP heavily courting Lieberman to switch parties? Despite what he says, he's in the race because of ego. This may come as a shock, but politicians have huge egos. They like the attention, the power and all the trappings that go with it. His party rejected him, but the other party can treat him real nice. Make him feel real good. Loved. Wanted. Important. With Schlesinger at just 6%, and with his early and perhaps formidable lead over Lamont, Lieberman has a strong shot at going all the way. He has big Dem donor bucks behind him, and the support of many moderate Republicans, and Independents. It should be noted that Independents comprise the majority of Connecticut's voters. Does he need the GOP? Does he need to actually switch parties? Probably not. Will he? That's a toss-up. But think of it this way. If he goes all the way in November as an Independent, he'll have a very hearty last laugh. And like John McCain, he'll acquire some serious F.U. currency and end up being the darling of both parties, who'll be endlessly kissing his Independent ass for his vote. Not a bad place to be if you have a huge ego.
Michigan House Candidate Nancy Skinner Returns on Wednesday's Ostroy/DeLaite Report...Where Democrats Play Rough
Please tune in to tonite's The Ostroy/DeLaite Report...Where Democrats Play Rough as we welcome back Nancy Skinner, Democratic candidate for Michigan's 9th Congressional district. We'll get an update on her campaign and also get her thoughts on the Lieberman/Lamont outcome; Iraq; and other news of the day.
The Ostroy/DeLaite Report...Where Democrats Play Rough, is a weekly political call-in talk show that tackles the Right Wing spin machine head on (www.OstroyDeLaiteReport.com). It covers the ever-changing political landscape with guests that include The Nation's Katrina vanden Heuvel, WABC Radio's Ron Kuby, Marc Maron, nationally-syndicated radio host Stephanie Miller, Russ Baker, BuzzFlash.com's Mark Karlin, BradBlog.com's Brad Friedman, NY State Attorney General candidate Mark Green and others. The show airs every Wednesday at 6:30PM in NYC on Time Warner channel 67. It can also be viewed live over the internet at MNN.org. Just follow the steps to "Watch MNN/ch 67."
President Bush is perhaps the most self-absorbed, arrogant, delusional and dangerous president in American history. His foreign policy strategies and actions will be a poly-sci case study for students for years to come. With Iraq in particular, he invaded a sovereign nation on flawed/manipulated/manufactured evidence and intelligence; toppled its leader in a campaign pompously billed as "shock and awe;" turned the country into a chaotic mess on the brink of full-scale civil war; causes over 100 Iraqis per day to be killed in mounting sectarian violence; and then has the supreme audacity to be angry that the Iraqi people aren't somehow happy and excited about all the good that he's done for them. The Iraqis, he believes, are unappreciative. His arrogance clearly knows no bounds.
Bush held a private Pentagon lunch Tuesday for his war cabinet and outside experts whose collective brains he attempted to pick for advice and assessments of the current state of affairs in Iraq. The president clearly is frustrated with the level of progress there, and hinted that Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki may be ineffective in getting the new Democracy to its next stages.
One anonymous person in attendance, according to the NY Times, said Bush appeared frustrated that Iraqis showed little appreciation over the sacrifices the United States had made in Iraq, and was surprised that a recent anti-America demonstration in Baghdad in support of Hezbollah drew such a large crowd. "I do think he was frustrated about why 10,000 Shiites would go into the streets and demonstrate against the United States."
Can you believe that? Bush turns Iraq on its head, hemorrhaging blood down its streets over WMD and al Qaeda connections that never existed, and he can't understand why they'd be angry with us? And therein, folks, lies the central problem with the Busheviks' foreign policy: it's created by a delusional and dangerous fool.
Monday, August 14, 2006
Make no mistake: "We are safer, but not safe." So said Fmr. Gov. Thomas Kean (R-NJ), co-chair of the 9/11 Commission, on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday. Last week's thwarted terror plot in London, he said, "is a wake-up call." This view was shared by the commission's vice-chair, Fmr. Rep. Lee Hamilton D-IN) who said of al Qaeda, "They're still out there. They're still plotting. Their intent is very clear...There isn't any doubt that they're coming at us." Chilling words indeed.
It's hard to believe that five years after the horrific 9/11 attacks we're still living under conditions of imminent threat from Osama bin Laden, the mastermind behind the attacks who, incredibly, remains free, and al Qaeda, the terrorist organization we can't seem to kill off.
Both Kean and Hamilton attribute the continued and growing terrorist threat to a "radicalization of Muslims" that has gotten worse since 9/11. Kean said this is due to the Iraq war, America's unwaivering support for Israel, and continued joblessness, poverty and despair among young Arab men who see martyrdom as an acceptable alternative. "It's a culture of death," not life, he said.
On Iraq, Hamilton asked, "Does it feed terrorism? Does America's policy toward Iraq motivate a lot of these radicalized Muslims? I think there's not much doubt about that. It does"...and it points to the overall disaffection with American foreign policy.
Hamilton added incredulously, "It's an amazing thing that five years after this event we're still struggling with the whole question of developing detection devices for all kinds of explosives. Five years after this event...Development has very slow."
To make airline travel truly safer, for example, Kean cited the need for a unified watch list, more puffer machines that detect traces of explosives, and better bagging screening. "Until they're done we're not as safe as we could be."
Following last week's foiled terror plot in Britain, the Busheviks are ratcheting up the rhetoric against Democrats. Because they've made the Iraq war the "central front" in their war on terror, they're accusing anyone who is against this quagmire to be weak on defense and national security, and acting to make America less safe against acts of terrorism. But the Dems can and should hit back hard. Here's the overall message Democrats should be firing off to Repugs, the media, voters and just about anyone who'll listen:
"The Republicans say we're weak on fighting terror. Weak on defense and national security. Unable to protect Americans where they live. That's what we expect them to say, as they themselves have failed miserably in keeping our citizens safe. The thwarted terror plot in London last week shows just how woefully inadequate, on Bush's watch, U.S intelligence is as compared to Great Britain's. Without the British, ten London-to-New York airplanes would've been hijacked as planned and blown up over the Atlantic resulting in thousands of deaths. And President Bush says we're safer than before 9/11? Bush says leaving Iraq proves the Democrats don't have the will to fight this war on terror. To the contrary, Mr. President, we very much do, as we demonstrated to you when you sought our support for the Afghanistan invasion. We, like the majority of the country, just don't support this colossal mess you've gotten us into in Iraq...a costly embarrassment which has squandered $300 billion and thousands of lives while having nothing to do with fighting those who attacked us on 9/11. In fact, if we're elected this November, we'll broadly expand and increase funding to law enforcement and intelligence agencies to fight the war on terror. We'll re-deploy much-need troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan to finish the job against al Qaeda and The Taliban that you didn't. We'll increase the focus on liquid explosives and other devices you've ignored for the past ten years. We'll require new technology and screening measures at airports, bus and train stations. We'll shore up security at our vulnerable ports. We'll re-open the CIA's bin Laden unit and carry out your failed promise to capture him "dead or alive." We'll increase military pay and recruitment to bolster our armed forces so that we can successfully fight our enemies, wherever they may be. As FDR, Truman, Kennedy and other great Democratic leaders from the past have demonstrated, our party most definitely has the resolve to do whatever is necessary, including using military force, to defend and protect America. Sorry, Mr. President, our vote against your failed Iraq war has nothing to do with our ability to defend and protect America, as much as you'd like voters to think it does. You and your party have failed America in the war on terror. Step aside and let the part of FDR, Truman and Kennedy show America how it's done."
We are indeed in a war with terrorists. We are being terrorized by the Bush administration. Playing the only political card they have left, the Busheviks have moved the war on terror to the top of their agenda, using VP Dick Cheney, RNC chair Ken Mehlman, Congressman, Senators, media spinners and the president himself to scare the bajeesus out of America in a desperate and pathetic attempt to repeat their successes of '02 and '04. Although we're not sure for how long, the thwarted British terror plot last week breathed new life into a dead presidency and gave the Republican-controlled Congress reason to believe they could retain power. But two new polls out last week spell serious t-r-o-u-b-l-e for Repugs, and as a result we can expect more and more political terrorizing here at home between now and November.
In the Associated Press/Ipsos poll, Bush's approval rating fell to his administration-lowest 33%. Voters criticized his handling of nearly every issue, from the Iraq war to foreign policy, and he lost critical support in the Republican-friendly South (34% from 43%) as well as with '04 voters, 19% of whom said they're ready to vote Democrat in the Congressional mid-terms this Fall. These one-time voters are largely female, low-to-middle-income moderates from the Midwest and Northeast...voters the GOP desperately needs to stay in power.
Most alarming in the AP/Ipsos poll was the commanding 18-point (55-37%)lead Democrats hold over Republicans going into the elections. Voters are solidly behind changing control of Congress. Democrats also have an 18-point lead (48%-30%) according to last week's Fox News poll.
To be sure, the Busheviks are very, very good at divide and conquer; at winning the us vs. them war. They're masterful at framing a wedge-issue debate against outlandish claims that put Democrats' backs to the wall. This is evident in how they push their ultra-conservative agenda (Repuglicans are people of faith, while Liberals are not) and their war on terror (to be against the Busheviks' illegal wiretappings, military tribunals, Patriot Act and Iraq war is to be unpatriotic and weak on defense and national security).
The worse the war gets, the more the "unpatriotic/weak on defense" rhetoric we'll be hearing. And the closer we get to November, the more we'll hear about the threat of terrorist attack here at home. Is there any sane individual out there who does not think in the campaign's last days and weeks we're going to have terror alerts; announcements of "foiled plots;" curiously unexplained airport shutdowns which cause havoc for the TV cameras; Bush/Cheney press conferences warning of our continued threat; and lots, and lots of Democrat-bashing?
Let's hope voters see through all the smoke and mirrors this time. Let's hope voters realize it was on Bush's watch that 9/11 occurred. That he's created a breeding-ground for terrorists in Iraq. That took his eye of Afghanistan and let the Taliban and al Qaeda reconstitute. That he shut down the CIA's exclusive bin Laden unit. That, if not for Britain and Pakistan, we'd be experiencing another horrific attack shortly. That we are most definitely not safer since 9/11, as Bush boasted last week.
Saturday, August 12, 2006
A funny thing happened this week. Britain and Pakistan masterfully thwarted a chilling new terrorist plot to hijack 10 London-to-New York airplanes and blow them up over the Atlantic using liquid explosives. But here in the United States the crafty Busheviks have been doing their sniveling best to exploit the situation for all it's worth. Besides indirectly trying to take credit, they're using this frightening new plot to bolster their civil-rights-violating neo-con agenda; further brand Democrats as weak on national security; and make it their defining "ah-ha!" moment in the critical run-up to the November midterm elections.
"Yesterday simply reiterated the importance of the approach that the administration has taken," White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said Friday. Excuse me? Exactly what approach has that been? If not for the deft intelligence of the British, we'd likely be picking thousands of body parts out of the Atlantic. While British law enforcement agencies were tracking these terrorists using sophisticated technology and intelligence, the Busheviks have us fighting a meaningless war against Sunnis and Baathist holdovers in Iraq. Sorry Tony, but most of America now agrees that your boss's approach has been a disaster, making us infinitely less safe and secure, not more.
As I had predicted, the Bushies' terrorism propaganda campaign started early in the week, before the foiled plot in London, and before Connecticut's Joe Lieberman lost to anti-war challenger Ned Lamont. MSNBC's Keith Olbermann purported that the Busheviks knew about the arrests at least a week ago, which they've since admitted, and had plenty of time to ratchet up the rhetoric. "And could it just be coincidence that the President finds out about this plot, then his Vice President and the Republican chairman start slamming Democrats for being soft on terror, then the public is informed about the plot? Could it really be just coincidence?"
What Olbermann's referring to is Republican National Committee chair Ken Mehlman's attack campaign against "weak" Democrats which began Wednesday, the day after Lieberman's loss, and the same day VP Dick Cheney held a surprisingly rare, impromptu, and voluntary conference call with reporters. Said Cheney: "...The Al Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task. And when we see the Democratic Party reject one of its own...it would seem to say a lot about the state the party is in today if that's becoming the dominant view of the Democratic Party, the basic, fundamental notion that somehow we can retreat behind our oceans and not be actively engaged in this conflict and be safe here at home, which clearly we know we won't -- we can't be. So we have to be actively engaged not only in Afghanistan and Iraq, but on a global basis if we're going to succeed in prevailing in this long-term conflict." Cheney and Mehlman talking terror the day before the news out of Britain hits? Coincidental indeed.
Cheney also essentially declared that people who exercised their constitutional right to vote for change (ie: Connecticut's primary) are helping terrorists. Summarizing the veep's rhetoric, The Washington Post's Jonathan Weisman said, "The vice president also said the insurgency in Iraq is in its death throes, and that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators. I'm afraid to say his utterances are losing their news value."
Given the dreadful news coming out of Iraq every day, combined with astronomical gas prices, record deficits, rising interest rates and inflation, playing up the terrorist threat is the only political card the Busheviks have left. And they're now playing it to the hilt in order to breathe new life into their illegal wiretappings, Guantanamo military tribunals, Patriot Act expansion goals and other executive power land-grabs. But where it counts in this "global war on terror" they've been woefully inept, falling far short of their British counterparts in keeping its citizens safe. It recently shut down the CIA's bin Laden unit; it's attempted to divert $6 million earmarked for development of new homeland explosives detection technology; it's ignored ten years of knowledge of terrorists' plans to use liquid explosives to blow up planes; it's failed to complete the mission in Afghanistan; and it's continuing to squander precious financial, intelligence and military resources in Iraq.
In demonstrating their success in the war on terror, the Busheviks and the Repugs like to brag that we've not been attacked since 9/11 (BTW, let's not forget there was a span of eight years between both WTC attacks). Well, the simple fact is, if not for the Brits, that misguided boasting would be coming to a very tragic end.
"...Bush said we are safer today than we were before 9/11," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (NV). "But if one looks around the world today, he could not be further from the truth."
Friday, August 11, 2006
In the wake of Thursday's foiled U.K. terror plot, we're painfully reminded that life as we know it changed dramatically after the Sept. 11 attacks and will never, ever be the same. There's been a fundamental breakdown in world order, and no one is safe anymore, anytime, anywhere. And for that we can thank Islamic fascists, who, in their religious fanaticism and misguided quest for martyrdom, have been responsible for some of the most cowardly acts of hateful, murderous carnage in history.
Now before I get the to the heart of this piece let me say I have a great respect for the majority of God-fearing, peace-loving Muslims who are as angry with the current state of affairs as I am. My anger, frustration and sense of despair is in no way intended to be directed at them. That said, our main enemy today just happens to be Muslim extremists. I don't give a crap about being politically correct, and I wish the U.S. government wouldn't either. If we truly want to keep America as safe as possible--at airports, train and bus stations, major sporting events, concerts, public buildings and elsewhere--then it's time to start profiling our enemy and stop wasting our time and money on those who don't fit this profile.
The unfortunate truth is that it is Muslim extremists who strap on bombs and blow themselves and everyone else around them to smithereens. It is Muslim extremists who kill innocent men, women, and children. It is Muslim extremists who've terrorized students, travelers, beach-goers, diners, worshippers everywhere. It is Muslim extremists who attacked us in New York and Washington, DC. It is Muslim extremists who hate Westerners and America, hate capitalism, hate Democracy, hate freedom, and plot our destruction from the minute they awaken until the minute they lay their barbaric heads to sleep. It is these Muslim extremists who place no value whatsoever on human life, including their own, in their fantastical journey to Allah to receive their 72 virgin reward.
We did not get attacked by, or live in fear of, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, young White families, 3-year-olds, blue-haired old women with canes, homosexual couples, middle-aged salesmen with bad suits and pot-bellies, rappers or acned teenagers with their pants hanging off their asses. Yet if I see one more of these non-terrorists getting frisked at the airport and pulled aside for a near strip-search, I think I may blow a gasket. Here's a message to President Bush, Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and all the other incredibly inept officials in this incredibly inept administration: stop fucking around.
I want the U.S. government to be like the Israeli government, which doesn't give a rat's ass about anything except one thing: protecting its citizens. What the hell has happened to America's resolve? Have we gotten so politically correct that we're too afraid to do the right thing anymore? For every old woman, toddler or gawky White teenager that's searched at the airport, we're wasting a ton of time, effort and money that could be spent on who we've identified as our primary enemy. For crap's sake, this is war, and we need to start fighting like it is one on every possible front instead of squandering resources and assets in the interest of political correctness. We were attacked and killed by Muslim extremists, we live in fear of Muslim extremists, and it is Muslim extremists who we need to find at airports and elsewhere. I want every cop, every guard, every screener, every ID checker and everyone else involved in the security process to have their eyes trained on the enemy; the profiled enemy. Until the profile should change and we therefore need to change and/or expand our focus. But until then, it's Muslim extremists we must be on the lookout for almost exclusively.
Additionally, I want more and better technology at airports, train and bus stations. Our current security and screening equipment and mechanisms are so antiquated and inconsistent from airport to airport (and non-existent at train/bus stations and ports) it's pathetic. I want universal ID cards for U.S. citizens who, after going through an initial extensive security check, can avoid long lines, unnecessary searches and frustrating delays. I want profiling. What I don't want is to be told that everyone's safer because I can't bring my coveted Snapple on board for a 6-hour flight to California even though I'm about as far from fitting the Muslim extremist profile as Richard Simmons.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
If Not for the British, America Would've Faced Catastrophic Attack. Despite What Bush Says, We're Less Safe than Before 9/11
The simple reality in this country is that we are less safe today than before 9/11. President Bush and his kool-aid-drunken supporters constantly point to the fact that we've not been attacked since 9/11 as proof that we are indeed more secure. But the fact is, had the British police and intelligence officials not brilliantly thwarted this week's terror plot to blow up 10 planes en route to the United States, we'd would've faced a horrific attack resulting in hundreds if not thousands of American deaths.
It was not our intelligence that foiled this chilling plot. And that's the real scary part. Our financial, political, military and intelligence resources are being shamelessly squandered in Iraq while American citizens abroad and at home still face the very real threat of a terrorist attack. The Busheviks have taken their eyes off the real enemy. Bush will tell us we're more secure since 9/11, but we're not. Bush will tell us the Iraq war is the central front in the war on terror, but it's not. he will continue to insist that we need to "stay the course" in Iraq, but we don't. The Repuglicans will be relentlessly driving the talking points home between now and November that a vote for Democrats will weaken America and cause another attack on U.S. soil, but it will not. It was on Bush's watch that we were attacked on 9/11, and, if not for the British, I hate to think what'd be happening here again in the days or weeks to come.
Now that we're in the homestretch of the November midterms race, as expected, the terror alerts have begun. To be fair, this latest scare comes out of Britain, where police arrested 20 individuals suspected of being part of a terrorist cell that planned a signifcant attack using liquid explosives in carry-on bags to blow up several commercial flights between the United Kingdom and the United States. According to British authorities, intelligence indicates that the foiled plot was likely masterminded by al Qaeda and was "intended to be mass murder on an unimaginable scale." As a result, England's airports have been crippled, and American travelers will face more stringent security measures at U.S. airports. The Department of Homeland Security has raised the threat level to "severe" or red for commercial flights originating in the United Kingdom bound for the United States, and to "high" or orange for all other flights.
But make no mistake. Karl Rove, Ken Mehlman and the GOP terror thugs will pounce on this new overseas threat as their pivotal "Aha!" moment to scare the crap out of Americans in their new post-Lamont "Democrats are weak on defense and national security" homestretch campaign:
"See, we told ya so. We told ya that Osama bin Laden (remember him? the guy Bush "doesn't spend too much time on anymore?") was out there plotting to attack Americans. We told ya that that's why we need to "stay the course" in Iraq. To "fight 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em here." We told ya these namby-pamby anti-war liberals wussies are wrong for America and will not keep us safe and secure like us brave old Repuglican chickenhawks. So we're tellin' ya again, voting for these liberal cowards will mean and end to the Iraq war, a win for Osama and the terrorists, and a new round of bloody murderous attacks here at home."
Anyone want to take bets on when the next U.S. terror alert occurs?
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
I must say, even though it's highly unlikely, unrealistic, yada, yada, yada....listening to Ned Lamont in the last 24 hours I can't help but think of what a terrific presidential candidate this guy'd make in 2008. He's smart, articulate, engaging and charismatic. He has an overall liberal, pro-business, anti-war message that resonates strongly with voters. And he's proven to be a highly effective campaigner. Plus, with all the hoopla surrounding the Connecticut race this past year, he's been afforded invaluable name-recognition. Scenario: he wins his Senate race in November, spends a highly visible year in Washington, and then, upon seeing none of the Democrat hopefuls gather any real momentum or excitement, tosses his hat into the ring; the dark horse Clinton-like wonderkind who comes out of nowhere to become the first Senator since John F. Kennedy to become president.
Stranger things have happened, kids.
Scared Repugs Ratchet Up the Terrorist Rhetoric in the Wake of Lamont's Victory. Get Ready for Some Serious Ugliness
The Republican Party is running scared in the aftermath of anti-war challenger Ned Lamont's upset victory in Tuesday's Democratic primary, and the political consequences it could reap on GOP incumbents in November's midterm elections. The spin machine was on overdrive Wednesday, with Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman taking the lead in spewing the incendiary rhetoric about the war in Iraq and its connection, according to the Busheviks, to the war on terror.
With new polls that show that 60% of Americans are against the war, no longer can Karl Rove, Mehlman and the Repuglican talking heads label the anti-war Democrats as "fringe" candidates who represent their party's "extreme wing." Not only do these candidates like Lamont speak for most of their party, but they speak for most of America as well. Polls now prove that to be against the war is to be firmly in America's mainstream. It is war-mongers like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove and Mehlman who are statistically out of touch with mainstream America.
Unable to regurgitate the old "fringe" rhetoric, they're quickly shifting the Swift Boat's gears back to the Iraq/bin laden/al Qaeda story. The "fight 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em over here" bullshit. It worked like a charm in '04, and they're banking on Americans being fooled once again. The spin they'll be driving home for the next 2 1/2 months is that a pullout of Iraq will result in another 9/11-like attack here in the States. Here's what Mehlman said on Wednesday's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
"The lesson he (bin Laden) took out of Beirut when we withdrew, and out of Mogadishu when we withdrew, was that America was weak, and that attacking America would produce the political objectives he was trying to achieve. I absolutely believe that if we were to withdraw from Iraq, not on a military timetable but on a political timetable, the effect would be to embolden the terrorists and encourage more attacks against America."
So there you have it. 2004 all over again. Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, terrorists, Iraq, terrorism, terrorism, Iraq, Iraq, terrorists, Iraq, terrorists, Iraq, terrorists, Iraq, terrorists, terrorists, terrorists....you get the picture. Only this time, most of the country is no longer falling for it.
Please tune in to tonite's The Ostroy/DeLaite Report...Where Democrats Play Rough. We'll be joined by The Nation editor and publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel for a discussion on the significance of Joe Lieberman's loss yesterday in Connecticut's primary.
The Ostroy/DeLaite Report...Where Democrats Play Rough, is a weekly political call-in talk show that tackles the Right Wing spin machine head on (www.OstroyDeLaiteReport.com). It covers the ever-changing political landscape with guests that include WABC Radio's Ron Kuby, Marc Maron, nationally-syndicated radio host Stephanie Miller, Russ Baker, BuzzFlash.com's Mark Karlin, BradBlog.com's Brad Friedman, NY State Attorney General candidate Mark Green, Michigan Congressional candidate Nancy Skinner and others. The show airs every Wednesday at 6:30PM in NYC on Time Warner channel 67. It can also be viewed live over the internet at MNN.org. Just follow the steps to "Watch MNN/ch 67."
Ken Mehlman Puts His Foot in His Mouth and Says Democrats are Historically Strong on Defense and National Security
Fire up the Swift Boats, Gentlemen! Man yer battle-stations! We're headed off to war! Ken Mehlman's donned his sailor suit and headed to the political shores of Columbus, OH, Wednesday where he'll use Ned Lamont's anti-war victory in Connecticut Tuesday to further perpetrate the Repuglican myth that Democrats are weak on national security and defense. Only this time the Republican National Committee Chairman appears a bit schizophrenic.
In an email promotion to supporters promoting the RNC's new attack video on Lamont, John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi and other Liberals, Mehlman and the GOP curiously praise loads of Democrats throughout modern history--including FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Humphrey, Moynihan, Nunn and Lieberman--for their ability to bravely defend America, using military force if necessary. Wait a second, Ken. For years you've regurgitated endless reprehensible rhetoric that Democrats don't have the guts, the stomach, the resolve to defend America and keep it safe from enemy attack. Which is it? Are we historically strong or weak? You can't have it both ways, Ken. (Rahm Emanuel, Chuck Schumer and Howard Dean, if you're out there listening, you guys should run like mad with this new praise from Mehlman and show voters just how the Repugs really do believe Democrats are strong on national security and defense).
In his email, Mehlman decries "the decline of the Democrat Party - from leadership that would "pay any price, bear any burden" to defend freedom to leaders who want to cut and run from the War on Terror, and surrender other tools needed to keep America safe."
He then goes on to say that "The message from Connecticut is clear." Mehlman's 100% right. The message is clear: for over 230 years Democrats have courageously defended America's interests both at home and abroad. It's just that they do not support the Busheviks' unjust, ill-advised, ill-fated war in Iraq which has done absolutely nothing to protect America and everything to make us less safe and secure. The real message from yesterday is that voters have spoken their anger over the war. Rove, Mehlman and the Repugs are in for a very rude awakening come November.
Politicians are usually known for their arrogance. But Joe Lieberman takes the cake. He's the first politician who after losing an election delivers a victory speech. "As I see it, in this campaign, we’ve just finished the first half and the Lamont team is ahead--but in the second half, our team, Team Connecticut, is going to surge forward to victory in November."
In his "concession" speech to challenger Ned Lamont Tuesday night, Lieberman attributed his loss not to his own failed policies, support for the war, and perennial ass-kissing of President Bush, but to "partisan polarizing" by the Lamont campaign and voters. And it is these poor, naive, misguided voters--whom Lieberman believes really do want him as their Senator despite their 52%-48% rejection of him--for whom he's vowed to stay in the race.
"For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot, I will not let this result stand," said Mr. Sore Loserman. That's right Joe, stand up for America! We cannot let voters choose their candidates. We cannot let America's fragile Democracy be threatened by fair elections. We cannot let the Democratic Party choose its nominee and then unify around him. It is our duty, your duty, sir, as An American citizen, a Democrat, a patriot, to give voters what they so obviously begged for Tuesday: for you to run as an Independent, split the Democratic ticket, and allow, in true Ralph Nader fashion, an inept Republican to walk away with your seat in November.
Now the odds are, Lieberman's little delusion will end very soon. The man who last night, in one last pathetic homage to his mentor and hero George Bush, actually claimed to be a uniter not a divider, is hell-bent on dividing his party. But thankfully, there will not be one major Democratic leader who'll endorse him. What we're going to see in the next several days is one Lamont endorsement after another by Clinton, Emanuel, Dodd, Schumer, et.al. No leading Dem is going to commit political blasphemy by refusing to endorse his party's primary winner. And then the intense pressure will be cast upon Old Joe by the voices of reason within his former party:
"C'mon Joe, you've had a great run. Eighteen years, three terms. It's time to quit and let the Party and Lamont continue towards victory in November. Don't fight reality. Don't go out this way. Don't throw away 18 years of reputation. Remember 'Sore Loserman' Joe? That's what you'll be remembered by if you don't drop out of the race with dignity.
Let's hope Old Joe will listen.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
For anyone conflicted over the raging violence in the Israeli war against the terrorist Hezbollah militia, I highly recommend reading the terrific piece recently penned by Irwin N. Graulich. It aptly describes the current rules of engagement in modern warfare; warfare that is not limited to army vs army, but army vs. terror organizations who blur the lines between themselves and the civilian populations whom they exploit. Graulich's piece is one of many perspectives that everyone should have in order to intelligently discuss the intensely complex battle that's being waged by Israel against a "hidden" enemy. While I don't agree with everything he writes, (some of it is actually a bit outlandish) the overall message about the Lebanese government's and civilians' complicity in this conflict is highly relevant:
Those Poor, Innocent Lebanese
By Irwin N. Graulich
Aug 4, 2006
Let me get this straight. You allow one of the largest terrorist organizations in the world to set up shop throughout your country. You permit them to completely take over the entire southern third of Lebanon and you claim to have seen nothing.
You allow the terrorists to build sophisticated, fortified bunkers and you did not see any heavy equipment building them. You allow the Hezbollah terrorists to move into many of your towns and villages, including the complete takeover of one of the largest neighborhoods in Beirut, where they proceed to build numerous, complex command and control centers...and then you claim ignorance.
You allow Hezbollah to store weapons, bombs and rockets in your basements. You turn a blind's eye when they carry arms into your restaurants, stores and buildings, yet you call yourself an "innocent civilian."
You watch the Hezbollah parades with hundreds of thousands of participants including children screaming, "Jihad. Death to Israel, Jews and Americans," burning American and Israeli flags, while goose-stepping soldiers with Nazi-like salutes receive your cheers--and all of you "innocent civilians" did not see a thing even though you were captured on videotape. All this, while Koffi Annan and much of the UN insist that "we should not believe our lying eyes about the innocent civilians."
There are giant posters of the rubenesque terrorist leader, Hasan Nasrallah, all over Lebanon with headlines declaring the imminent destruction of Israel. Yet you choose to elect this terrorist party to your government--and all of the so called "innocent Lebanese" do not know anything about anything.
Twenty thousand rockets and launchers are shipped into your country along with other military equipment by plane, truck and ship, and the government industrial complex knew absolutely nothing; and neither did all those "poor, innocent civilians" who are now crying.
So you allow the "Devil" into your homes and into your lives; you take the Devil's money, food and medicine; you sleep with the Devil...and get a serious evil disease. And then you blame the Jews, of course! Well, there is no sympathy for the devil...or his helpers!
The Lebanese "knowingly allowed (aka aided and abbetted)" murderous terrorists to proliferate in their sovereign nation. Like spoiled teenagers, they now refuse to take any responsibility. Of course there are some truly innocent civilians, but there were hundreds of thousands of beautiful German babies and mothers in Dresden and Berlin who were blown to bits. If an attack emanates from your country, the entire country is responsible. That is how life works and it is sometimes unfair.
I hate when people lie to my face and expect me to believe their vile fabrications. Does the Muslim world really think that the vast majority of Americans are that foolish? Only the quislings at CNN like Larry King, Nic Robertson, Wolf Blitzer, et al will fall for this Joseph Goebbals-style propaganda.
The confused, immoral left and their paper of record, The New York Times only see "innocent civilians throughout Lebanon." Europe, that moral bastion which gave birth to Nazism, will look at photos of men, women and children in despair, without putting the image into its proper context. Yet countries like Sweden, Switzerland and Ireland, who could not decide whether to support Hitler or Churchill during WWII, can drum up the moral authority to criticize Israel today. And leave it to Vichy, France 2006 headed by Jaques "Petain" Chirac to condemn Israel's response.
Seeing television snippets of wounded or dead Lebanese with people sitting on the ground crying and calling them all "innocent civilians" is the same as looking at a photograph of the armpit of Christie Brinkley and saying, "Here is the photo of a supermodel. Isn't she beautiful?" The armpit picture is only a part of the story. When human beings see babies or mothers hurting, no matter what, we feel the pain. If we saw baby pictures of Charles Manson, we would want to cuddle him.
We cannot look at photos of so-called "innocent civilians" in a vacuum. It is important for all "moral, decent" human beings to realize that the compassion emotion is similar to the sex emotion. Often times, it interferes with truth, logic and morality.
Listen up all you "Innocent Lebanese along with your innocent, Hezbollah supporting government." Do you want to know why your towns, villages and cities are smoldering? Do you want to know why 800,000 people are homeless and 600 are dead? Do you want to know why your infrastructure is devastated?
The answer is..."That the Jews are simply not going to pack up their little valises and walk into gas chambers again. The Jews will not be taken from their homes and marched into the Mediterranean Sea by Nazis or Hezbollah-Hamas-Syrian-Iranian, Nazi-like sympathizers.
The Jews in Israel or anywhere else are just not going to allow themselves to be shipped away like you dream about every day. Attention all radical Muslims throughout the entire world and Jacques Chirac. The Jews will not be walking into death camps or graves ever again, and if you dare try it, Qana, South Beirut, Tyre, Nabatiyeh, Bint Jbeil, Kounine, Beit Yahoun, Rashaya, Baalbek, Majdel Zoun, Ayt-a-Shab, etc. will all look a whole lot worse than Dresden and Berlin. And Tehran may become hotter than Hiroshima.
Attention Lebanon--your country is smoldering because Jews are sick and tired of being murdered. You keep pushing those pathetic, weak, Torah studying Jews by using terrorism and kidnapping soldiers, and all, yes all of Lebanon will be smoldering.
Listen very carefully enemies of Israel, because you are making a giant mistake. I urge any person that will be having dinner with Sayed Hassan Nesrallah, the big fat brave man hiding in his little rat hole while his fighters are being picked off like little olives on a tree, to make sure his life insurance is fully paid.
Mr. hero Nesrallah is just a pimp for Iran, sending out his Hezbollah terrorist hookers to "screw the Jews." The amazing thing is that Iran is not an Arab country. They should not be involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict. They do not border Israel, so there is no Iranian territorial dispute where they claim, like everyone else, that Israel occupies their land. Yet, Ahmadinejad's (pronounced--"a mad dog on Jihad") hatred for Jews and Israel rivals that of Adolf Hitler.
It is no wonder that the Iranian president feels this way since Israel is supreme in virtually every area--technically, militarily, scientifically, culturally, morally and religiously. Each attempt by macho Muslim/Arab countries to destroy Israel has been met with a totally devastating, humiliating defeat. Like Saddam, the skinny, little Ahmadinejad (pronounced "a mad dog on Jihad") aspires to be the big hero of the Muslim world.
What Ahmadinejad (pronounced "a mad dog on Jihad") does not comprehend, is that Israel will not use a tongue depressor when they capture him and his associates. The truth be told that should Iran dare make one wrong move directly on Israel, then Israel will simply "Beat the Shiite out of them!"
Irwin N. Graulich is a well known motivational speaker on morality, ethics, religion and politics. He is also President and CEO of a leading marketing, branding and communications company in New York City. He can be reached at email@example.com
Monday, August 07, 2006
The war in Iraq is spiraling out of control. The Sunnis and Shiites are engaged in civil war, and the streets are hemorrhaging American and Iraqi blood. This single issue, as illustrated by the fiercely close Lieberman/Lamont race in Connecticut, will be the major campaign issue this election year. The highly unpopular war can and will be the Democrats' ticket to victory in November. To drive this point home, how about the following powerful commercial:
Visuals: We see images of the war. Bombs exploding. People dying in the streets. Soldiers coming home in body bags and coffins draped in the American flag. The following quotes play over the visuals, repeated several times in a loop until they start playing over each other in one jumbled mess of words, getting louder and louder:
"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended" (Bush, May 2, 2003)
"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001, and still goes on" (Bush, May 2, 2003)
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction" (Cheney, August 26, 2002
"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat" (Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003)
"We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so" (Bush, May 3, 2003)
"The insurgency in Iraq is in the last throes," (Cheney, June 20, 2005)
The jumbled quotes are very loud now, and then start to fade until they're playing in the background lightly under the following close:
Voice Over (disdainfully): There were no weapons of mass destruction...there was no connection to Al Qaeda....there was no reason whatsoever to go to war with Iraq. But now we're there, and the Republicans can't seem to find a way out. Our soldiers need to stop dying. It's time to put an end to the madness. Vote Democrat in November.
Think of the impact an ad like this could have. Let's use Bush's, Cheney's and Rumsfeld's own words to remind voters just how dangerously out of touch with reality these maniacs have been over the war.
Friday, August 04, 2006
We Predicted "Zell" Lieberman's Downfall Eight Months Ago. Lamont's 13 pt Lead is a Wake-Up Call to Democrats
It's time to break out the bugle and play Taps for Joe "Zell" Lieberman's political career, which is about to come to a startling end with Tuesday's Connecticut primary. With a new Quinnipiac poll out this week showing challenger Ned Lamont ahead 54%-41%, Lieberman will need a miracle to stay alive. While he has vowed to run as an Independent if he loses the primary election, he will no doubt face monumental pressure from his party to back out of the race for fear he could split the Democratic ticket and allow a Republican to pick up the seat. Dead man walking.
It's amazing that Lieberman would velcro himself to Bush's insane foreign policy coattails in the first place. It's even more incredible that he's maintained his stand on the war even after the Bushit hit the fan. In that instance, he's just like his war hero Bush; both are resolute to the point that, if they're committed to the car, they stay behind the wheel even as it soars over the cliff.
But we saw this coming on like a Mack truck, and predicted Lieberman's demise way back in December. Here's an excerpt:
...Lieberman's "unyielding public support of the Iraq war coupled with his Bush-like morphing of Al Qaeda, terrorism and the Iraqi insurgency, has aroused the ire of key Democrats such as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (CA) and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (NV). He's quickly becoming an outcast in his own party over these radical views.
"As for whether or not he's alienating himself from the voters back home in Connecticut, it's probably unwise for any Democrat to think that an endorsement from Bush, Cheney and Rummy, especially when it comes to the war, will score them any points at the polls. Why Lieberman fails to recognize this shows just how out of touch he is with reality. He's at the Roulette wheel, alright. The Russian kind."
(Click here to read the full December 12 text).
The war in Iraq is a colossal disaster, and voters, in Connecticut at least (for now), have spoken. By Tuesday night, it's likely these voices will have forever changed politics. Politicians on both sides of the aisle should take note: the war is ugly, unpopular and most likely will be the catalyst for record voter turnout this November. And never, ever, underestimate the power of the Blogosphere again. Hillary, are you listening?
We're pleased to bring you this exclusive review by Mark Tucker of Mark Crispin Miller's latest book "Fooled Again," a powerful expose of election fraud in America in which he accuses the Busheviks and the GOP of hijacking the 2004 presidential race. Miller's been front and center in the election reform movement, sounding the alarm about the continuing threat from voting fraud to our Democracy.
(click here to purchase "Fooled Again")
Fooled Forever, Modus Americanus
by Mark S. Tucker
That this book is now more than a half-year old and all but invisible in the press, in book reviews, and in general colloquy is in itself alarming. That a tome so pointedly rushing to the defense of the most basic, valuable, and vulnerable fundament of American democracy, the vote, should pass without klaxons blaring from the highest guardtowers is equally a disquietingly emphatic comment on the dangers of our bought and consolidated media machinery. Ironically, that exact dilemma is one of several amalgamated toxins "Fooled Again" drags kicking and screaming into the light, delineated and exhaustive upon an unhedging interrogation of fact and circumstance. The incestuous media hierarchy illuminates why "Fooled" - despite political, investigatory, journalistic, and linguistic brilliances - languishes: the temples of the fourth estate, which formerly would’ve exalted such work, are corporately ignoring it as anathematic, which in fact it is, thank all the gawds in their manifold heavens.
Mark Crispin Miller is obviously descended from Socrates, thoroughly unencumbered by glib ideological biases or doctrinal blindsides. Thus, his book is as microscopic an unpacking of the myriad elements involved in the infamous Vote Fraud as, to make the metaphor properly, the most cogent etymological and syllogistic parsing of red herrings in a post-grad Rhetoric class. Nothing is left to faith, nothing taken for granted in a mountain of singularities. Even the small side body of sub-data accompanying it, a gatherum of bizarre and repugnant incidents which cannot be hermetically substantiated, resides in a state of circumstantiality amounting to
certainty, something any lawyer would be eager to trot into court, beaming. The vast prevalence, though, is so well researched that the stylistic avenue the author has taken, save for characteristic outrage through gritted teeth, is Chomskian: nearly every sentence is sourced and referenceable in copious end notes.
Miller, though, unlike Chomsky, makes no effort to sublimate his acid wit or pitbull cynicality, turning the reading of what can’t help but be a gooseflesh-inducing rendering into an account refreshing for its middle-class friendliness. His previous releases were noted for sardonicism, but this one laser focuses the bent far more intensely, scientifically, turning white-hot a micron below an ostensibly mannered surface. Holding nothing back, the cogency of the author’s tenets is seen no later than page 1, with a pleasingly snide marking of contrasts between foreign and domestic elections and their relative coverage by a hideously slanted American news
Just as early on, Miller begins demolishing the bewildering mythology surrounding the Fraud’s manifestations, evangelical antecedents particularly to the fore, simultaneously making it evident that every “fact” surrounding the center of the controversial King Bush II has been part and parcel of an elaborate fantasy, a calculated, purposeful, driven, malevolent one. Motive for this alley of ersatz NeoCon legendry lay not only in constructing a biblical poster-boy "alfresco" but more importantly in, through Bush, providing enduring cover for in-work frauds the Party couldn’t be sure wouldn’t be later disinterred, a potent reminder that fascism isn’t merely the marriage of corporation and state but also the worship of The Glorious Leader and his shining path - in this case, the road to the LLC on the hill.
In this dizzying welter of debunkings also reposes a spate of contemporaneous and concurring asides, such as the vindication of Ralph Nader as not at all what screeching liberal mainstreamers had claimed (a spoiler). That electoral strafe on the icon, to discourage free exercise of citizen rights, was odious in the extreme, as every Constitutionalist is well aware, finally now proven in Miller’s exposition that the candidate only received .36% of the vote. If that’s a bad guy, I’ll be running for Congress, and please feel free to pose such opposition against me 24-7-365.
However, the labyrinthine trainload of facts ultimately making Miller’s "secondary" case - and Vote Fraud indeed proves not to be the top outrage here - isn’t what’s so intriguing; rather, it’s the startling revelation of a vastly more crucial primary allegation, something even an Everest of information couldn’t definitively prove, because, so far, not one document has yet been unearthed stating it nakedly. Miller’s bottom line is as basic as it is compelling, an accusation damned few have had the wit or spine to hurl, put thuswise in chapter four’s opening:
"It is not ‘conservatism’ that impelled the theft of the election, nor was it merely greed or the desire for power per se - although many of the perpetrators are insanely greedy and crave power as avidly as the troops of any other movement bent on total domination. The movement now in power is not entirely explicable in such familiar terms. Lyndon Johnson had a monstrous appetite for power, yet he would never have been part of a crusade like this one. The project here is ultimately pathological and essentially anti-political, albeit Machiavellian on a scale, and to a degree, that would have staggered Machiavelli. The aim is not to master politics but to annihilate it."
You’ll find no equal evocation of the entire Straussian putsch except in Chomsky, who’s having no truck with Vote Fraud, being preoccupied with his own menu of equally pressing concerns. That quote is Miller’s thesis statement and every page before and after proves it without reservation. In such an incisive disgorging of not only the beast’s heart but also its horribly damaged id, he joins the ilk of Greg Palast, William Greider, and Michael Parenti. Elsewhere, only Janeanne Garofalo, the irascible and prickly sometime co-host of Air America’s "Majority Report", has come close to this approach. Through Janeanne, ultimately, we get the fruit of another ignored Miller, though Garofalo has yet to, perhaps being unfamiliar with it, mention "Alice" Miller’s dissectatory analyses of tyrants throughout a work forming some the most important psychological proponencies of our time, in such landmark works as "Breaking Down the Walls of Silence." "Fooled
Again" doesn’t tread that path as such, but readily stands glaring into the
sump-house at its terminus, with Alice Miller’s revelations of the true origins of tyranny waiting to be unearthed as the start-point.
We, ladies and gentlemen, are being ruled by the monied insane in a mode of conflagrational capitalism, business gone laissez-faire berserk while diving to Plutonic depths, eating its children. "Fooled" steams through its own ears whilst listing a cornucopia of Republican paranoias, deceits, crimes, cabals, conspiracies, and the innumerable malefic whatnots we’re all presently becoming more and more aware of. In these pages, every single verifiable instance is lined up and forced to disrobe. If you thought yourself hip to the whole gig, this tour de force will remedy that, inducing chillblanes in a too comfortable misconviction.
Vote Fraud is the single most important issue of our time, the key to the
vanquishing of every Bush-generated disaster (if anyone cares to devote time to the legal considerations in a hoped-for backlash), and that’s why major works upon it, such as this, are being savagely suppressed. However, every volume about it that you can lay your hands on is an act of self-preservation. "Fooled Again" sits easily on the shelf alongside the too few bold others being similarly barred from major populist venues, and it marks Miller’s place in the world of top-flight journalism as not merely a superior writer and witheringly incisive analyst but more properly as a force to be reckoned with. Move over, Greg Palast, you’ve got company.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
New Poll Shows Over One-Third of Americans Believe U.S. Government was Involved in the September 11 Attack
9/11 conspiracy theorists got a big boost this week upon the release of a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll indicating that voters trust the Bush administration less than ever over the events surrounding the September 11 attack. A startling 36% of respondents said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that the Busheviks either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or failed to take precautions that could have prevented them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East." What's more, the survey also found that 16% believe that secretly planted explosives, not burning passenger jets, were the cause of the Towers' ultimate collapse. We're not talking some crackpot group of mystery-novel readers here; we're talking over a third of the nation.
According to experts, what we might be seeing here is part of the long-awaited backlash from voters angry with the Bushevik deception about the war in Iraq and the WMD lies. University of Florida Law Professor Mark Fenster, author of the book "Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture," pointed to the public's growing distrust of the Bush administration, which has lost whatever credibility it had after 9/11 and at the outset of the war.
"What has amazed me is not that there are conspiracy theories, but that they didn't seem to be getting any purchase among the American public until the last year or so," Fenster said.
Further fueling the conspiracy theorists' passions is a documentary, Loose Change (part 1 and part 2), written and directed by Dylan Avery, which uses 9/11 footage, interviews and public documents to theorize that the attacks were not the result of terrorism but a series of cleverly executed events perpetrated by the Busheviks in their quest to justify an invasion of Iraq.
Many of us, despite our general distrust and disdain for the Busheviks, still find it hard to believe that they could possibly have been involved, on any level, with either the planning, execution, or willful negligence of the 9/11 attacks. At least our sense of decency and right and wrong says it couldn't be possible. But with their track-record of lies, deception, criminality and an insatiable hunger for power and legacy, let's just say that anything's possible.