A plan for Democrats.

Does anyone have a clue as to the plan of attack of the Democratic Party in the upcoming election? Insisting that they aren't like republicans just isn't going to make it.

Voters who had had enough of the criminal incompetence and corruption of Republican rule will vote Democrat, Progressive or Independent for sure, but what of the moderate or (gasp) liberal republican? Democrats need to lay out a plan to reverse the near irreparable damage caused by republicans during the last 5 years.

Here is an idea or two.

The war on Iraq. The current plan of staying until the Iraqis can provide "their own security" is not a plan, it is a recipe for more of the same and anyone advocating such a "solution" is part of the problem. The American people are not tired of the war because it seems to be dragging on, rather they are tired of the war because they know, they know, we are there as a result of a lie. They want a plan, any plan short of the one they remember from Vietnam. Can the Democrats deliver on this?

Perhaps the first thing that should be done is to acknowledge that the government of Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq. If it is truly a sovereign government then the United States should cease meddling in Iraqi affairs of state, the recent call by Bush for the prime minister to step down comes to mind. We should honor the request of the Iraqi government and remove our troops from the country, period. As for the security of the oil fields, perhaps when we realize that oil field security is the responsibility of the Iraqis and the oil itself belongs to them.

To paraphrase a comment from the days of Vietnam, how can we get the troops out of Iraq? Ships and planes, the same way they got there in the first place. Could a post US dominated Iraq be any worse than the Iraq of today? Not likely and perhaps, just perhaps, once we are out of Iraq, the Iraqis will come together. If they don't and the Civil War continues, then what? Like the rest of the world did during OUR civil war, LEAVE THEM ALONE! It is THEIR country, it is THEIR problem, it is THEIR place to work out a solution.

How about a no nonsense, straight forward ban on the use of torture, gulags and abuse of the Constitution and Bill of Rights? How about a serious effort to restoring the good name of America in the eyes of the world?

Congress on the take? How about requiring lobbyists to document all gifts, donations (including meals), etc. in addition to the time, location and subject of their meetings? How about requiring the same of congressmen? How about requiring publication of these logs in a new, public journal? Or, as an alternative, how about allowing no gifts of any kind? How about disallowing any congressman from joining, as a lobbyist or in any capacity, industries which they regulated or otherwise ruled over while they were in office?

How refreshing it would be to see democrats offering a clear alternative to the corruption and incompetence of republican rule.

Newt Gingrich was correct when he said that the best slogan democrats could have would be two words, "Had enough?" But a catchy slogan, no matter how appropriate, is not enough. Democrats must offer real choices for the real problems created by republicans, they must show the people that they "get it" and will bring real change, governed by the voice of the people, to Washington.

The Bush Regime

"They were careless people, Tom and Daisy -- they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made"
--- From The Great Gatsby

Isn't that really what Bush was saying with his comment that ending the war of aggression in Iraq and bringing the troops home would have to wait for another president? Has not that been the story of his life?

Time and again, like Blanche DuBois in A Streetcar Named Desire, Bush has “always depended on the kindness of strangers' to clean up the messes he has made of everything he's ever done. A failure in business who could not find oil in West Texas. A failure in the baseball world who would trade Sammy Sosa away for next to nothing. A failure in the world of state government, running Texas into the ground and burying its people in an ocean of red ink. Sound familiar?

Bush is a failure as president, running up the largest deficits in the history of the republic, bringing the specter of financial ruin to generations yet to be born. He is a failure as Commander-in-Chief, for as a result of his ill thought out war of aggression in Iraq, the army, reserves and national Guard are near the breaking point in terms of both men and material.

Finally, he is a failure of monumental proportions because of the damage he has done to the reputation of The United States of America. From pre-emptive war, to the acceptance of torture, to the Soviet style gulags in Guantamano and elswhere, to the brazen violation of the Bill of Rights in conducting warrantless monitoring of the words and deeds of American citizens.

It is past time to say ENOUGH! In the words of Robert Welch so long ago, 'At long last have you no shame?' Words today meant not for Bush, his Band of Bunglers and Cadre of Corruptables but words meant for the American people!

At long last America, have you no shame as a result of what these corrupt criminals have done and continue to do to America?"

What Democrats need to be saying

James Spader's closing argument, from Boston Legal, THIS is what Democrats ought be saying!

Random thoughts

Massaoui, arrested on Aug 20, 2001, was charged as an accessory in the events of 9/11 because he knew of the plot and did nothing to alert the authorities so that they might have prevented the attack.

George W. Bush, given the PDB of Aug 6, 2001 titled "Bin Laden determined to strike the US" knew of the plot and did nothing to alert the appropriate security personnel so that they might have prevented the attack of 9/11.

George W. Bush possessed this knowledge, and was in a position to do something with it on Aug 6, 2001, a full 13 days before Massaoui was arrested.

Explain to me again why Massaoui is on trial and Bush is not.

---

South Dakota passed into law an anti-abortion law that bans all abortions, out of an alleged reverence for the life of the fetus, save when one is required to spare the life of the mother.

Does this mean that South Dakota values the life of the mother over the life of the fetus? If so then the law is a sham and is more about limiting what a woman may or may not do in the event she finds herself in the first trimester of an unwanted pregnancy.

The doctor or other medical personnel performing an abortion can be charged with a felony. Given the fact that there are few examples of a doctor forcing a pregnant woman to have an abortion, one can presume that said doctor would not be doing the procedure were it not for the woman requesting it. If the doctor can be charged with a felony does the law also address the fact that the woman is an accessory and therefore also subject to a felony charge? If not then the law is a sham and designed only to limit the choices that are a woman's right regarding the outcome of unwanted pregnancies.

Paul Hackett

The decision by Paul Hackett to withdraw from the Ohio senate race after being urged to do so by senior Democratic Party officials is offensive.

These senior officials will not get very far in promoting the Democratic Party by acting like republicans.

Absolutely disgraceful.

Destroying the Constitution in order to save it

After hearing the following idiotic comment in answer to the FISA lawbreaking president, "FISA doesn't overrule Article 2" I am continuously amazed at the willful ignorance of those on the right.

I would ask someone, anyone, to articulate where, exactly, in Article 2 of the constitution that the president is empowered to "protect, preserve and defend the constitution" by disregarding it.

Cindy Sheehan

Cindy Sheehan was arrested in the capitol building last night for breaking the law barring demonstrations inside the building, she was wearing a T-shirt with, '2,245 Dead. How many more?' printed on it. Safia Taleb Al Souhail, on the other hand, an Iraqi woman was applauded by Bush during the SOTU address in 2005 for waving her purple finger, after he had noted the election in Iraq

So we have two demonstrations, a year apart. In one, the demonstrator is applauded for her action while in the other she is arrested. Perhaps the law should be changed to say that only those demonstrations against The Coward who would be king are prohibited for that is the implication.

The Founders, wherever their spirits reside, must be saddened by the events unfolding in their dream that became America.

Hand delivered letter to Senator Nelson, D-FL

Sir,

If Alito is not the nominee to be opposed, by filibuster if necessary, who exactly would warrant such action?

If this time of a presidency engaged in illegal and immoral acts and ignoring both the legislative and judicial breaches of our government is not the time to say, "enough" what exactly would you require of the times to finally say, "enough?"

If Alito, and his ideas regarding the presidency, is not the embodiment of the ideas that the Founders spoke so elegantly to in the Declaration of Independence, please Sir explain the difference.

Alito is most assuredly qualified for the court based on his legal education and training. He is most assuredly not qualified based on his interpretation of both law and the Constitution, to say nothing of his ethical lapses brought on by a rather unique interpretation of conflict of interest and lying under oath.

The time is now to oppose Alito, both in the floor vote and with a filibuster if necessary.

Please do not turn your back on the dream of the Founders.

Vote NO on the nomination of Samuel Alito.

As a registered democrat, I shall remember your actions come November.

No to Alito

On a straight party line vote, the Alito nomination is headed for the floor of the senate.

If he is to be nominated then let it be over a democratic filibuster. Democrats cannot rollover and play nice on this. Come to think of it, neither can the so called republican moderates.

For what it's worth, I see little difference in the judicial philosophy of Alito, as regards an imperious leader, and that of the judges in 1930s Germany.

"One of the ways to protect the American people is to understand the intentions of the enemy." --- George W. Bush 01-23-06

We understand your intentions George.

The coming war on Iran

Seems Iran will open an oil bourse in March, trading in currency other than the US dollar and that would likely be a financial disaster for America.

Disregard the nonsense over the nuclear weapon ambitions of Iran because, for as with the WMD arguments regarding Iraq, it is lie after lie, one upon another, designed to build fear in the American people in order to get them to support another naked aggression by the criminals of the Bush-Cheney regime.

The likely result of such an aggression on Iran? Think oil embargo, not by Saudi Arabia but by Venezuela. Think the insurgency in Iraq and the increased likelihood of the Shi'tes joining with the Sunnis. Think Russia and their new Topol-M and last but not least, think China and the significant amount of dollars (as well as other government paper) they hold.

One thing is certain though, and that is the agression on Iran will likely not include US ground forces as they are stretched to the breaking point worldwide.

Such is the mess awaiting us as a result of aggression upon Iran by the Band of Bunglers and The Coward who would be king.

Abramoff to get layed

From TIME:
[snip]
Bracing for the worst, Administration officials obtained from the Secret
Service a list of all the times Abramoff entered the White House complex,
and they scrambled to determine the reason for each visit. Bush aides are
also trying to identify all the photos that may exist of the two men
together. Abramoff attended Hanukkah and holiday events at the White House,
according to an aide who has seen the list. Press secretary Scott McClellan
said Abramoff might have attended large gatherings with Bush but added,
"The President does not know him, nor does the President recall ever
meeting him."
[snip]

Oops, looks like Abramoff is about to get (Ken) Layed.

Questions for republicans

Three questions for republicans:

Does a president, ANY president, have the right, 'war' or no war, to ignore either US Code, The Constitution or both?

If so, exactly where is this right enumerated?

If not, what is the responsibility of the Legislative and Judiciary branches to correct such actions?

Keep your eye the ball

GratisNet: "It would do well to remain focused in the upcoming fight over the unauthorized spying upon Americans. The dispute is not about 'security' but about whether, in 'wartime', a president must follow the law. It is not about the speed one needs to react to threats for the FISA law clearly allows immediate wiretaps requiring only that the warrant be submitted to the FISA court within 72 hours.

It is, most certainly, about the oversight granted by the constitution to the congress and the courts, over the executive branch. In other words, is the Constitution of The United States still the supreme law of the land? If it is, then the president committed an illegal act when he ordered the wiretaps on the American people. If the constantly changing excuses made by The Coward who would be king (and by extension, his law hating, unamerican apologists) says anything it shouts that these psuedo patriots know damn well that his actions were illegal under both the constitution and US Code.

The unique advice that a president, in his role as CIC, is somehow above the law (L'etat, c'est moi) would be laughable were it not so serious. The bootlickers will raise the example of Lincoln and Habeas Corpus but do not be fooled for the question of whether the president must obey the law, at all times, was settled when the SCOTUS ruled against Truman's attempt to keep the steel plants open in 1952 during the Korean War.

Do not be mislead by claims that the constitution is not a suicide pact, that extreme times call for extreme measures. The fact remains that the principles of the founders, as vested in the constitution will not and cannot be protected by a failure to act within the boundaries set forth by them.

9/11 did not 'change everything' America is still a nation where the law is king.

America is one village that we will not let be destroyed in an attempt to 'save' it."

Remember this.

Through all the excuses brought forth by Preznit TruthSlayer, his Band of Bunglers and brain dead supporters regarding the spying, sans warrants, on American citizens remember this:

The current FISA law allows the initiation of the wiretap, etc. without a warrant then, within 72 hours or 15 days depending on circumstances, a warrant must be obtained to continue the tap.

So it is not about being able to react quickly, is it? No, it is more likely that this abominable covey of criminals did not want the FISA court to be involved because they knew that they would be thrown out of court. Which begs the question, just who were this latter day KGB spying on? The question needs to be answered because the very existence of our republic depends upon it.

That's it, now have yourselves a Happy Holiday, or Merry Christmas if you prefer, be safe and enjoy the company of family and friends and remember, do something nice for someone you don't know this week.

To be a liberal

“Yes, I’m a liberal and I’m sick of it being a bad word. I don’t know at what time in history liberals have stood on the wrong side of social issues. We thought that blacks should sit at the front of the bus, that women should be allowed to vote, that maybe McCarthy was a jerk, that Vietnam was wrong and strip-bombing Cambodia was probably stupid. We’ve been on the right side of all these issues.” --- George Clooney


And he is right, conservatives basic premise is that change, any change, is bad. In fact, if the republicans had their way, women, blacks, all minorities, for that matter, would cease having the right to vote as well as other rights.

As for the "original intent" argument regarding the constitution, they also believe that only white, male, real property owners deserve the right to vote and that slavery or indentured servitude is proper for it was allowed in the constitution produced at Philadelphia in 1787.

Conservatism, yet another synonym for elitism.

And before the wongnuts go on about the republicans who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, remember this, a good number of southern democrats who opposed the act switched parties and became republicans in good standing as a result of the passage of that law. They followed the example set by Strom Thurmond some 15 years earlier.

The Republican Party, the party of the people? Please don't make me laugh.

Conservativism, the philosophy of the future? Please don't make me laugh.

In the words of FDR, "A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward." From a radio address, Oct. 26, 1939.

Pre-holiday ramblings

Regarding Alito, can there be any doubt that this man is a liar of the first order? When he justified his less than candid answers (read, lies) when he was being considered for the Apellate Court as being akin to a job interview where the interviewee provides answers that he thinks the questioners want to hear, can anyone seriously believe any answers he may give to any questions this time around? While he is more than qualified by education, his judicial philosophy seems more apt for a totalitarian regime rather than the Supreme Court of The United States. Placing this man on the SCOTUS, the watchdog of our liberty, would be like having the proverbial fox guarding the chicken coop. No to Alito.

Does anyone besides yours truly get the feeling that the coming days in Iraq could well bring a Tet style offensive by the insurgency? The admission that the opposition to our presence is less an insurgency and more a resistance is quite telling. Just as the French did not learn from their experience in Indochina when they were faced with resistance in Algeria and it seems that we have not learned from our experience in South Vietnam, repeating the same tired canards that were used then, today in Iraq. It is not the matter of 'staying the course' when staying the course means driving off a cliff. Our volunteer army, to borrow from Rep. Murtha, is damn near broken and a universal draft is a dog that won't hunt. As good as our military is, and it is very good, one of the great strengths was the aura of invincibility that took shape after the mismatches in Grenada, Panama and Kuwait. The most powerful military in the world has been revealed, after the relatively easy (and unjustified) invasion of Iraq, as seemingly very vulnerable to an irregular but determined resistance. That loss of the sense of invulnerability promises to bring us much grief in the future.

Does anyone else get the impression that the republican comments regarding the Fitzgerald investigation are solidly in the 'whistling past the graveyard" category? When all is said and done, the indictments and trials will happen in the months before the elections next year and that can hardly be a comforting thought for republicans. Given the albatross that Preznit YellowStripe represents for republicans, the trials arising from Plamegate as well as those from DeLay and Abramoff cannot be providing them with much solace.

When only a liar will do.

Samuel Alito.

Stay the course.

Because that strategy worked so well for Varian in Germania, Crassus at Carrhae, Edward II at Bannockburn and, lest we forget, Hitler at Stalingrad.

Random thoughts.

When will the SCLM accurately quote democrats? Rep. Murtha called for a six month withdrawal schedule. His plan also called for a quick reaction force of marines to be based nearby, outside of Iraqi borders, to be on call to provide assistence, when needed, to the fledgling Iraqi army. Yet we have Tweety not correcting his guests when they said Murtha favored immediate withdrawal. Tweety was not alone for Der Wolf let Rumsfeld's comment about the immediate withdrawal pass sans correction. Is it that difficult to conduct an accurate interview or is it a case of the host fearing that if they did call into question the deceptions being offered up on their shows, they would have difficulty getting republicans to appear? Republicans would appear and they would not continue their dishonest tactic because what they fear most is giving their opponents free rein to offer their arguments without opposition.

More bad news for the Republican Party, cementing the notion that it is a criminal enterprise organization. Scanlon pleads guilty in the Abramoff mess. Michael Scanlon was a former aide to, are you ready for it? Tom DeLay. Scalon is cooperating with prosecutors. Reports that Bob Ney (R-OH) is also cooperating with prosecutors is bringing a sense of foreboding to republicans. Oh, and lest you forget, Patrick Fitzgerald remains on the hunt for more conspiritors in the Plame Affair. Two investigations which are plainly not anywhere close to conclusion threaten to create an implosion of gigantic proportions for republicans. While it is true that the 2006 elections are still a year away and the Diebold and ES&S election factor has not been addressed, any trials will be conducted in the days prior to the elections and news from them will dominate the media in the runup to Election Day. On Election Day itself, the backlash could generate such a massive opposition to republican officeholders that any magical, surprise results would be immediately seen for what it would be, election fraud.