Friday Orchid Blogging

Paph Temptation - Part II

When we last left my Paph Temptation, it was just beginning to throw out a spike. Now, one week later, you can see the first flower opening up nicely, but still a ways to go. You can also see another three (I think four actually), flowers starting to slowly open. Eventually there should be five flowers open simultaneously, and it should be quite a site. Enjoy. Read More......

Cliff's Corner

The Week That Was 5/25/07

Another week. More preposterousness to report.

Thankfully, there was no Republican presidential debate this past week, giving John McCain time to plan his next casual stroll through what has become very unfamiliar territory, the Senate floor to actually cast a vote. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney openly pontificated his love of gayness, although ideally he'd like to outlaw it, and Rudy Giuliani had time to cleanse his intestines after the recent revelations of his role as a happy-go-lucky Oxycontin drug mule writ large.

But the rest of that crazy crew we've grown to love, the GOP, was up to their old tricks--not in a Randall Tobias kind of way--adding to the global warming problem with the methane shooting out of their pie holes. And sadly, many a Democrat joined them this week.

So what did we learn class? Well, that:

1) Being a Republican means you think gay marriage and abortion should be outlawed in South Dakota, but being a 49-year old playing doctor with your foster children somehow shouldn't qualify you to be a human shield in Najaf.

2) Being a Republican means you're allowed to be proud of your lesbian daughter's baby, and unlike everyone else who exercises the same rights you have, you'll actually be able to avoid the requisite warrantless wiretapping for moral crimes and subversion.

3) Being a Republican means you can look like Tanya Harding's trashier, theocratic twin, speak with the verbal dexterity of Jessica Simpson and possess the wisdom of a Bush twin post-Jagermeister body shots and still get to make decisions that impact the entire "Justice" Department.

4) Being a Republican means you get to vote in whatever precinct you want, because you're Ann Coulter, you didn't "abstain" with your friendly FBI agent and your Adam's Apple probably resides in another precinct anyhow.

5) Finally, being Republican and sadly in many cases a Democrat means you still choose to support a war and a befuddled lunatic in the White House whose combined approval ratings barely surpass those of David Koresh (let's face it, birds are publicly crapping on the President these days). But you do represent the will of the people, or just keep telling yourself that until primary season begins.

For more go to the usual spot, cliffschecter.com Read More......

Bush was warned Iraq war would benefit Al Qaeda -- and it has

Intelligence agencies, yes, U.S. government intelligence agencies, warned their boss, George Bush, that Iraq would embolden Al Qaeda and Iran. Of course, that's proven to be true. Funny, cause that's exactly what Bush is accusing his political opponents of doing now. Bush was so determined to go to war against Iraq, he was willing to sacrifice the safety of the country. And, that's what has happened.

The Associated Press reveals what Bush was warned about in 2003. Amazingly accurate. Figures Bush ignored it:

Among other conclusions, the analysts found:

- Establishing a stable democracy in Iraq would be a long, steep and probably turbulent challenge. They said that contributions could be made by 4 million Iraqi exiles and Iraq's impoverished, underemployed middle class. But they noted that opposition parties would need sustained economic, political and military support.

- Al-Qaida would see the invasion as a chance to accelerate its attacks, and the lines between al-Qaida and other terrorist groups "could become blurred." In a weak spot in the analysis, one paper said that the risk of terror attacks would spike after the invasion and slow over the next three to five years. However, the State Department recently found that attacks last year alone rose sharply.

- Groups in Iraq's deeply divided society would become violent, unless stopped by the occupying force. "Score settling would occur throughout Iraq between those associated with Saddam's regime and those who have suffered most under it," one report stated.

- Iraq's neighbors would jockey for influence and Iranian leaders would try to shape the post-Saddam era to demonstrate Tehran's importance in the region. The less Tehran felt threatened by U.S. actions, the analysts said, "the better the chance that they could cooperate in the postwar period."

- Postwar Iraq would face significant economic challenges, having few resources beyond oil. Analysts predicted that Iraq's large petroleum resources would make economic reconstruction easier, but they didn't anticipate that continued fighting and sabotage would drag down oil production.

- Military action to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction would not cause other governments in the region to give up such programs.

You know, every time Bush mentions Al Qaeda, it's actually an admission that he's failed to defeat the enemy that attacked us on his watch. Every time John McCain or any other Republican mentions Bin Laden or Al Qaeda, they are acknowledging that their President failed to defeat the enemey that attacked us on September 11th.

Clearly, Al Qaeda owes its on-going existence to the fact that Bush a) didn't finish the job in Afghanistan and b) started a war in Iraq that's emboldened and strengthened Al Qaeda.

A much more detailed analysis and a link to the full report can be found on the website of the Senate Democrats. Read More......

Crazy McCain is at it again

The man who laid out the red carpet for Al Qaeda to enter Iraq in the first place is now accusing us of enabling Al Qaeda. News flash, angry man: If it wasn't for you, Al Qaeda wouldn't even be in Iraq. And now you want to kill more US troops for a failed lie because you're not man enough (or sane enough) to admit the truth. It's over. You wanted this war, and you lost this war. It's on your increasingly disturbed head now. Read More......

Open thread (and an anniversary)

Just wanted to quickly note that his weekend marks my one year anniversary here at AMERICAblog.

Looking back at some of my initial posts, it’s sad how many of them are still applicable today. Iraq was a debacle then; it’s a debacle now – and for mostly the same reasons. U.S. foreign policy was a mess then; it's a mess now. Homeland security is overlooked a year ago; nothing has changed today.

As regular readers know, when I joined the blog I had just left the Department of Defense, where I was an Intelligence Officer working on Iraq. I departed because I felt I could no longer be part of a profoundly broken, politicized process (more on that in the coming months), and I wanted to be part of making things better, not worse. John was kind enough to take me on, taking a chance on me with one of the best, most popular blogs on the internets, and since then it’s been a pleasure and a privilege to work in (and get to know) the various progressive communities.

Our readers welcomed me from the beginning, and I enjoy every day on this site as much as the first. I think I’ve been able to provide some commentary and insight that you can’t find anywhere else, and I certainly intend to keep it up. We have fantastic readers and an unparalleled team of contributors, and I look forward to my second year being even better than the first.

So . . . chat away! Read More......

Bird craps on Bush during presser

No crap.



Crap on left bicep (right side of screen).



Bush wipes it away.

ThinkProgress has the video. Read More......

John Edwards on civil rights for gay and lesbian Americans

Here is Edwards' response to the questionnaire from the Human Rights Campaign.

As an aside, and for the record, we've posted a good deal of updates from John Edwards of late - his statement of opposition to the Iraq supplemental, his call for rallying on Memorial Day for a US withdrawal from Iraq, and now his questionnaire about his commitment to civil rights. We've not posted very much at all from Hillary or Obama. Why? Quite simply because Edwards' is the only campaign that bothers to ever talk to us or send us anything, let alone anything of interest (it is a rare week that I don't receive three or four interesting things from the Edwards' people, like the questionnaire below - oh, and Edwards doesn't have us on some press list, a real person emails me only the interesting stuff).

In contrast, it's a rare week that we hear boo from Hillary's campaign - even after I defend her on TV, repeatedly, in the face of vicious GOP attacks, not a peep (though they did send us that "pick her song" thing the other week). Ironically, we reached out to one of Hillary's senior people a year ago. You see where it got us.

And Obama, my hometown Senator, is non-existent. If he's running for president, it's news to me.

We don't have a favorite yet for president. What we have is one candidate who is paying a hell of a lot of attention to the Netroots (Edwards immediately sent us his statement on the Iraq supplemental yesterday), and two others who don't seem to care what you think (not a word on what Hillary or Obama had to say about the supp). I think that's interesting. I hope you do too.

And without further ado, here are Edwards' answers to the gay civil rights questionnaire:

1. Currently, there is no federal law protecting individuals from job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Qualified, hardworking Americans can still be denied job opportunities, fired or otherwise be discriminated against just because of their sexual orientation in 33 states and because of their gender identity in 42 states As president, would you support and work for passage of a federal bill that would prohibit job discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity?
X Support __Oppose

Comments: Yes. Workers should be judged by the quality of their performance, not their sexual orientation or gender identity. While in the Senate, I cosponsored the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. I also believe that stronger enforcement is necessary to prevent employment discrimination by federal agencies.

2. Currently the federal hate crimes law does not protect all Americans from bias-motivated violence. Would you support federal legislation that adds sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and disability to existing federal law giving authority to the federal government to investigate and prosecute violent crimes (H.R. 1592)? This authority already exists for crimes committed because of the victim's race, color, religion and national origin and because they were attempting to exercise a federally protected right.
X Support __Oppose

Comments: Yes. Everyone is entitled to live in dignity without fear of violence. We should strengthen the ability of law enforcement to investigate and prosecute hate crimes based on race, gender, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability or gender identity. While in the Senate, I cosponsored legislation to give law enforcement agencies the tools they need to investigate and prosecute hate crimes.

3. New treatments have improved the quality of life for those living with HIV/AIDS, but those treatments are expensive, and not available to everyone who needs them. Years of flat-funding for the Ryan White Care Act has forced states across the country to institute waiting lists, limit formularies, and other cost containment measures. The CARE Act provides access to lifesaving treatment and care for over half a million low-income Americans with HIV/AIDS. Would you support increased funding for this critical program?
X Support __Oppose

Comments: Yes. There is an urgent need for more resources in the fight against HIV/AIDS. As a member of the U.S. Senate, I was proud to fight for greater funding for the battle against HIV/AIDS, and I co-sponsored the Ryan White CARE Act. As president, I will continue the fight for the funding that this program critically needs.

4. Would you support the Early Treatment for HIV Act (ETHA), S. 860, federal legislation that would allows states the option to provide Medicaid coverage to low-income, HIV positive Americans. Currently, only Americans that can be considered disabled are eligible for Medicaid coverage, excluding those who are HIV positive but have no symptoms of the disease?
X Support __Oppose

Comments:

Would you support increased funding for HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment and research?
X Support __Oppose

Comments: Yes. The HIV/AIDS epidemic continues to grow in the United States and around the world. I support allowing states to expand Medicaid coverage to low-income, HIV-positive Americans and more funding for HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, and research. My plan to guarantee quality affordable health care for every man, woman and child in America will empower people to prevent, test, and treat HIV without fear of losing benefits if they change or lose their job.

5. Would you support the Responsible Education About Life (REAL) Act which would create a federal grant program to channel money to states that choose to teach comprehensive and age-appropriate sex education for America's students that includes science-based prevention methods?
X Support __Oppose

Comments: Yes. I support comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education for young people that includes information on both abstinence and contraception.

6. Currently, only Massachusetts recognizes equal marriage rights for same sex couples. Do you believe the civil institution of marriage (with absolutely no requirements imposed on religious institutions) should be made legally available to two committed adults of the same sex?
__Support X Oppose

If you do not believe that civil marriage for same-sex couples should be made available to same-sex couples on the same basis as opposite sex couples, is there any legal construct you do embrace that would extend legal recognition to same sex couples?

Comments :

If a state has taken the steps to recognize same sex couples and their families for purposes of state-based benefits, rights, privileges and responsibilities (such as marriage in Massachusetts and civil unions in Vermont and Connecticut), should the federal government recognize the state's legal recognition of such couples and families for purposes of federal benefits and tax treatment?
X Support __Oppose

Comments: Yes. I believe that couples in committed, long-term relationships should have the same rights, benefits, and responsibilities, whether they are straight couples or same-sex couples. I support civil unions to guarantee gay and lesbian couples the same rights as straight couples, including inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, equal pension and health care benefits, and all of the 1,100 other legal protections government affords married couples. I support the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act provision that prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex relationships. Gay marriage is an issue I feel internal conflict about and I continue to struggle with it. However, I believe the right president could lead the country toward consensus around equal rights and benefits for all couples in committed, long-term relationships.

7. According to a 2004 GAO report, over 1,100 benefits, rights and privileges are provided to married couples and their families in federal law that are not available to same-sex couples. Do you support extending federal benefits, rights, privileges and responsibilities to same-sex couples (and their children) provided the partnership meets certain federal standards of commitment and mutuality of interest?
X Support __Oppose

Comments:

Specifically, do you support the expansion of the Family and Medical Leave Act to cover domestic partners and their children?
X Support __Oppose

Comments:

Do you support modifying the Social Security System to pay survivor benefits to the same-sex partners of gay and lesbian people?
X Support __Oppose

Comments:

Do you support fair and equal tax treatment of same sex couples on the same basis as married couples?
X Support __Oppose

Comments:

8. Many gay and lesbian people serve in the federal government but do not receive the same health insurance and other employee benefits of married couples. Do you support domestic partner coverage for gay and lesbian employees of the civilian federal workforce?
X Support __Oppose

Comments: Yes. I support extending health care and other benefits to the committed gay and lesbian partners of federal employees.

9. While 47 states allow gay and lesbian people to adopt children, some legislators are pushing to prohibit capable, committed adults from adopting because of their sexual orientation. As president, would you support giving appropriate judicial authorities the full authority to make decisions on adoption based on the best interest of the child, without bans based solely on sexual orientation?
X Support __Oppose

Comments: Yes. I believe that gay and lesbian parents should be able to adopt children just like any other parents. There are over 120,000 children waiting for homes in our nation's foster care system. Adoption placements should be decided by judges and adoption agencies based upon the best interests of the children. Both members of a same-sex couple raising children together should be able to form a legal relationship with their children.

10. Would you support the Uniting American Families Act, which would enable an American citizen to petition for immigration sponsorship for a same-sex partner, and the INS would treat the relationships between opposite and same-sex couples in the same manner under the immigration code?
X Support __Oppose

Comments: Yes. I believe that all families should be treated in the same manner by our immigration laws.

11. Would you support a congressional repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy which would allow gay, lesbian, and bisexual soldiers the right to serve openly in the military as is currently the policy in nearly every NATO country (H.R. 1246)?
X Support __Oppose

Comments: Yes. I oppose the current "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on gays and lesbians serving in our military.
The military ought to treat all service members equally and in a way that promotes national security, without regard to their sexual orientation.

***

The original PDF of Edwards' response to HRC's questionnaire is here.

Read More......

As death toll mounts now, Bush says war will get "bloody" -- in August

Six more U.S. soldiers dead in Iraq. Bush has his blank check now, still no plan to get out of Iraq, still no accountability -- just a soaring death toll.

The great war commander, George Bush, said the war could get "bloody" in August. In August? As if it hasn't been bloody enough already. As if it isn't bloody enough now. Heckuva job, Congress:

The U.S. military announced on Friday the deaths of six more soldiers in Iraq, hours after U.S. President George W. Bush predicted a bloody summer lay ahead.

Five of the soldiers died on Thursday while another was killed on Tuesday by a roadside bomb in Tikrit, 175 km (110 miles) north of Baghdad, the military said.

April was the worst month this year for the U.S. military since the invasion to topple Saddam Hussein in 2003, with 104 soldiers killed. About 90 have been killed in May so far.

The total death toll for U.S. troops since the invasion now stands at 3,440.

How many deaths would it take for Bush to think the war is bloody now? Read More......

Pentagon using taxpayer money to silence the press

And the Democrats just gave them another $100 billion to subvert our democracy with.

From E&P;

Staffers at McClatchy's Washington, D.C., Bureau -- one of the few major news outlets skeptical of intelligence reports during the run-up to the war in Iraq -- claims it is now being punished for that coverage.

Bureau Chief John Walcott and current and former McClatchy Pentagon correspondents say they have not been allowed on the Defense Secretary's plane for at least three years, claiming the news company is being retaliated against for its reporting.

"It is because our coverage of Iraq policy has been quite critical," Walcott told E&P.; He added, "I think the idea of public officials barring coverage by people they've decided they don't like is at best unprofessional, at worst undemocratic and petty."

Read More......

Friday Morning Open Thread

Bush got his blank check. How many U.S. soldiers and Iraqis will die with that money?

Get it started. Read More......

Bush again caves in to China on trade talks

Hats off to the Chinese negotiators who have schooled the Bush team for seven years. One might almost think that China was the world's great super power and the US was the fast developing but still developing-world country. While it's good to see the Democrats talking about tackling the problem of China's never-ending story about how difficult it is to address their weakened currency that makes exporting easier (and competing against China more difficult) one has to wonder what kind of results they will have if they can't even stand up to the lame duck 28% approval president who is leading a highly unpopular war.

Let's hope this administration or the next figures out how to negotiate because it appears to be a lost art in America. They only know how to beat up on poor countries with their bogus "free trade" talk when they are in a dominating position, much like a school yard bully. Meanwhile, expect more of the same thrashing. Read More......

No wonder Bush won't hold a signing ceremony for the war bill

What is there to celebrate about with 90 US soldiers dead in Iraq this month and yet another brutal bombing, killing 25 in a funeral procession. With the six new US casualties reported today May is on track to be one of the deadliest months. Read More......

Brits are going to hell

Misery loves company and the right wing crazies aren't just in America.

Ninety-five per cent of Britons are heading for hell, according to the principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, who has been under fire from some staff for taking one of the leading Anglican theological training colleges in a conservative direction.

Richard Turnbull, appointed two years ago, made the claim in a speech to the annual conference of Reform, a conservative evangelical pressure group within the Church of England.

Read More......