Americans do support the Democratic agenda

AP-AOL poll shows strong support for the agenda that Democrat's are going to start enacting Thursday:

The survey results come as the 110th Congress is set to convene at noon Thursday, with Democrats eager to keep their promises to pass several pieces of legislation in the first 100 hours of business, including the minimum wage increase and stem cell research funding. Voters, exasperated by investigations into the ethics of GOP lawmakers and unhappy with the situation in Iraq, toppled Republican majorities in the House and Senate last November.

Democrats will hold a 233-202 edge in the House and will control the Senate by 51-49.

A boost to the $5.15-an-hour federal minimum wage would be the first since 1997. Democratic leaders have proposed raising it in stages to $7.25 an hour. President Bush has said he supports the idea, along with help for small businesses.

Fully 80 percent of survey respondents favor an increase, too.

Support is strongest among Democrats, 91 percent, while 65 percent of Republicans back the idea. Women, men without college degrees and single women all are especially likely to favor a minimum wage hike.

Nearly seven of 10 adults, 69 percent, favor the government taking steps to make it easier for people to buy prescription drugs from other countries, where some medicines cost significantly less than in the U.S.

Importing prescription drugs to the United States is illegal, but the Food and Drug Administration generally does not bar individuals from bringing in small amounts for personal use. At the same time, the government has estimated that buying drugs from other countries would do little to influence what they cost at home.

Some 56 percent of adults support easing restrictions on using federal money to pay for research on embryonic stem cells. Supporters say such research could lead to treatments for everything from Parkinson's disease to spinal cord injuries. Bush and other opponents say the embryos from which the cells are extracted are human lives that should not be destroyed in the name of science.

The GOP will do what they can to obstruct the Democratic agenda. In doing so, the Republicans will be denying the wishes of the American people -- their constituents. Read the rest of this post...

Bush wants a balanced budget - so what's his plan and where will he cut?

Interesting talk from a guy who has shown no interest in spending restraint at all and now intends to add another 20,000 troops to Iraq. Where's the money for the additional troops coming from? Certainly not from the Lee Raymond's of the world, that much is sure. Somehow Bush is showing a sudden interest in spending control but his so-called plan, like every plan with this administration, is another worthless pile of fact-less talk. How can the administration even think of talking about a balanced budget, when the war spending is not a part of the program? Where was the desire to have transparency with Iraq money when we were losing hundreds of millions and giving no-bid contracts to Halliburton?

Lawmakers and the independent, bipartisan Iraq Study Group have criticized the Bush administration for funding the war through emergency supplemental bills, instead of including the costs in the administration's yearly formal budget request for running the government. That means the full cost of the war is not included in the administration's deficit calculations, and are not subject to overall spending caps.

This is the kind of irresponsible spending that the GOP has delivered to the American middle class and somehow we're supposed to take this guy seriously. Read the rest of this post...

Froomkin asks questions about Bush's plan to escalate the war

Dan Froomkin is back. And, he's asking questions. Questions that need answers. Dan is on to something here when he asks "Where's the outrage?" It's almost surreal to watch Bush plan an escalation of the war -- I wonder if most Americans still can't grasp the idea that he will really do it. Americans want this war to end. It just doesn't make sense that Bush is going to get us more involved. But that is where Bush is headed and that can't happen:

The American voters in November made it clear that it's time to start withdrawing from Iraq. Political leaders from both parties and any number of experts are increasingly coming to the realization that American soldiers are dying, day in and day out, in pursuit of an unattainable goal.

So what is President Bush about to do? By all indications: escalate. His "new way forward" in Iraq appears to call for more troops -- along with a series of other measures that might have helped if he'd taken them three years ago.

News reports suggest that Bush's plan is not likely to win enthusiastic support, even from within his own party. But my question is: Where's the outrage?

If the vox populi and the cognoscenti agree that throwing more American bodies at the problem will only result in more American deaths, then how is the apparent Bush plan anything short of a betrayal of the troops and an expression of contempt for the will of the people?

And is there any more plausible explanation for Bush's behavior than that he is willing to sacrifice more troops so he won't have to admit -- at least not yet -- that he made a mistake? Is that a good enough reason to ask even one more soldier to die?

Bush made a mistake. A huge mistake. His mistake has destroyed the lives of tens of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. There is not a good enough reason to ask anyone else to die. Who, besides Bush, thinks there is?

A couple weeks ago, Condi Rice said we've been making an investment in Iraq. We've invested enough. More than enough. Bush has to be stopped from compounding his errors. Read the rest of this post...

Rep. Ellison to use Thomas Jefferson's Koran at swearing in

From today's Washington Post gossip column, the Reliable Source, we learn that the Koran to be used by Rep. Keith Ellison was owned by Thomas Jefferson. Interestingly, Jefferson, who helped forge the idea of freedom of religion for our nation, was born in the Virginia district represented by the bigoted Congressman, Virgil Goode.

Nothing like a big step backwards for religious tolerance from a member of Congress. Republicans, like Goode, are increasingly intent on destroying the very Constitution that they swear to uphold. So, let's review the hypocrisy: Goode swears on a bible that he will "support and defend the constitution" which includes freedom of religiion, then doesn't. Not very American and not very Christian.

Now, the other question is why the Post thinks this is gossip, but gave prominent coverage to Goode's attacks on Ellison in the news section of the paper. Read the rest of this post...

Bush will reportedly call for sending more troops to Iraq as part of our shared "sacrifice"

And MSNBC's Keith Olbermann isn't happy.

First we sent Americans to their deaths for your lie, Mr. Bush.

Now we are sending them to their deaths for your ego.

If what is reported is true — if your decision is made and the “sacrifice” is ordered — take a page instead from the man at whose funeral you so eloquently spoke this morning — Gerald Ford:

Put pragmatism and the healing of a nation ahead of some kind of misguided vision.

Atone.

Sacrifice, Mr. Bush?

No, sir, this is not “sacrifice.” This has now become “human sacrifice.”

And it must stop.

You really need to read his entire commentary. It's excellent. Read the rest of this post...

Why the botched execution matters

By now it's clear to everyone not living in a cave that the Saddam execution was a botched, amateurish debacle. I wrote last week that I'm neither opposed to the death penalty nor its application to Saddam, but the way it was carried out was highly representative of the ham-handed and dangerous failures of both the Bush administration and the nascent Iraqi government. The fact that something so important was screwed up so badly, and on such a massive scale, is chilling.

I initially suspected that the execution would have little effect on the overall situation in Iraq, certainly not improving things but also not doing much to inflame people who hardly need, at this point, more motivation to hate each other. But I committed a blunder that is, for me, exceptionally rare: I assumed that somehow this, a historic and potentially inflammatory event, would be handled with even a minimal amount of decorum and professionalism by the Bush administration and the Iraqi government. Instead, the Bush administration turned over Saddam to the Iraqi government prematurely . . . to a band of thugs-as-executioners . . . who wore not uniforms but leather jackets and ski masks . . . who shouted Shia chants, including invocations of Moqtada al-Sadr . . . all of which was illicitly videotaped and then emailed around Iraq and throughout the world . . . on, no less, one of the holiest days of the Sunni religious calendar.

Virtually everything that could have been screwed up, was. And now, against virtually all odds, Saddam managed to look good by dying and the Iraqi and U.S. governments are scrambling to do damage control in the face of massive Sunni demonstrations, international condemnation, and the general disgust of pretty much everyone who knows anything about Iraq.

Not surprisingly, Nir Rosen has the best wrapup and explanation that I've seen, including this description of the final moments, which are tremendously inflammatory:

The unofficial video of the execution, filmed on the mobile cell phone of one of the officials present is sure to further inflame sectarianism, because it is clearly a Shia execution. Men are heard talking, one of them is called Ali [note from AJ: Ali is generally a Shia name]. As the executioners argue over how to best position the rope on his neck Saddam calls out to god, saying, "ya Allah." Referring to Shias, one official says "those who pray for Muhamad and the family of Muhamad have won!" Others triumphantly respond in the Shia chant: "Our God prays for Muhamad and the family of Muhamad." Others then add the part chanted by supporters of Muqtada al Sadr: "And speed his (the Mahdi's) return! And damn his enemies! And make his son victorious! Muqtada! Muqtada! Muqtada!"

I'm not overly concerned with Saddam's dignity -- though it does disgust me when a legitimate punishment turns into vengeance -- but by any measure, this is the opposite of the closure that the execution was supposed to bring. Now there's an "investigation" in progress by the Iraqi government, the U.S. is claiming to have tried to delay the handover, and none of it will do nothing to mitigate the entire disgraceful episode. Read the rest of this post...

Republican religious leader says God told him terrorists will attack US this year, probably with a nuke, causing massive casualties

These are the people who have access to, and comprise, the top levels of the Republican party. This is what it means to be a Republican today in America. All because the current flock of Republicans let their party be taken over by wackos, and now won't do a thing about it.

From AP:

Evangelical broadcaster Pat Robertson said Tuesday that God has told him that a terrorist attack on the United States would cause a "mass killing" late in 2007.

"I'm not necessarily saying it's going to be nuclear," he said during his news-and-talk television show "The 700 Club" on the Christian Broadcasting Network.

"The Lord didn't say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that."

Robertson said God told him about the impending tragedy during a recent prayer retreat.

Read the rest of this post...

McCain just "faking" his support of religious right, former aide tells Vanity Fair

What day is today? It's "John McCain is pro- 'family values'" day. Not to confused with tomorrow, which is "John McCain is really a moderate" day. Someone needs to buy John McCain one of those desktop "quote a day" calendars (position-a-day?) so he can keep his doubletalk straight.

From Vanity Fair, John McCain waffles on evolution and his "faking" support for the religious right:

Nor, presumably, was it straight talk last summer at an Aspen Institute discussion when McCain struggled to articulate his position on the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. At first, according to two people who were present, McCain said he believed that intelligent design, which proponents portray as a more intellectually respectable version of biblical creationism, should be taught in science classes. But then, in the face of intense skepticism from his listeners, he kept modifying his views -- going into reverse evolution.

"Yes, he's a social conservative, but his heart isn't in this stuff," one former aide told me, referring to McCain's instinctual unwillingness to impose on others his personal views about issues such as religion, sexuality, and abortion. "But he has to pretend [that it is], and he's not a good enough actor to pull it off. He just can't fake it well enough."

Oh, but it gets better. Here is McCain pandering on immigration.

A day earlier, in Milwaukee, in front of an audience of more sympathetic businessmen, McCain had been asked how debate over the immigration bill was playing politically. "In the short term, it probably galvanizes our base," he said. "In the long term, if you alienate the Hispanics, you'll pay a heavy price." Then he added, unable to help himself, "By the way, I think the fence is least effective. But I'll build the goddamned fence if they want it."

Yep, that's John McCain. He's for whatever you're for. Read the rest of this post...

Why is Bush more worried about the legal rights of Arab dictators than innocent Americans?

I just find it funny that the latest spin from the Bush administration, dissected below, includes the supposed concern that Saddam's conviction and execution might not have been legal. Yeah right. Bush and the Republicans think Americans should be picked up in the dark of night and secretly thrown into prison, forever, with no access to a lawyer or a court of law, ever, but when it comes to the dictator who they were so sure is guilty they invaded his country and killed 3000 American troops in the process, suddenly Bush is now very worried that Saddam's conviction might be illegal.

So what the Republicans are saying is that Arab dictators have more rights than innocent Americans.

Nice. Read the rest of this post...

Bush "wrote" an op ed in today's Wall Street Journal

Today's Wall Street Journal publishes an op ed, "by" Bush, addressing his agenda for the next two years. It's funny. Let me count the ways.

1. Bush refers to "the partisan environment of today's Washington." There is nothing of the sort. Today's Washington has been Republican, 100%, for six years now. Republican Supreme Court. Republican Congress. Republican White House. Republican governors. 100% Republican. So spare us the "partisan environment" crap. It wasn't partisan at all, it was uni-partisan. The Republicans controlled everything - the budget, the war, the economy - and screwed it all up.

2. Bush touts his accomplishments - tax cuts, education legislation, and the Patriot Act. He doesn't bother telling you that all of these things happened in the first 20 months or so of his presidency. He doesn't brag about a single accomplishment since that date, because he doesn't have one.

3. Bush apparently thinks his presidency started in August 2003, rather than January 2001.

...since August 2003, America's employers have added more than seven million new jobs.

That's nice. How many more jobs does the country have since you actually took office from the Clinton administration?

4. Bush reminds us as to how badly he and the Republican have damaged our national security.

If democracy fails and the extremists prevail in Iraq, America's enemies will be stronger, more lethal, and emboldened by our defeat.

That democracy has already failed, thanks to you and the Republicans.

5. Bush thinks that what America needs right now is yet another tax cut. Why? Because Republicans no longer have any ideas. All they can do is bash gays, try to outlaw abortion, and cut taxes (oh yeah, and attack countries based on a lie, then screw it up).

6. Bush says that the lesson he learned from the 2006 election repudiation of his disaster in Iraq is that the public doesn't like earmarks. Someone needs to tell him that they don't like 3,000 dead soldiers either.

7. Bush wants us to believe that suddenly he, and the Republicans, actually believe in the values our nation is based on.

[W]e will show our enemies that the open debate they believe is a fatal weakness is the great strength that has allowed democracies to flourish and succeed.

Funny, I was hoping we could show the Republicans the same thing. Read the rest of this post...

Republican radio host calls for the execution of half of Congress

Check out the article in WingNutDaily. It's particularly interesting how weasel-y the FBI's responses are about this threat. Funny, but I suspect the FBI would take the threat a lot more seriously if the guy making the threats were a Muslim-American rather than a typical far-right immigrant-hating Republican. (Hat tip: Specious Reasoning blog.) Read the rest of this post...

Uh, there were obviously two videos of Saddam's hanging, not one

Why am I reading the Jeff Gannon article, I mean NYT article, that Joe cites below, and getting the sinking feeling that I'm reading a Bush administration press release?

The article keeps talking about the "unofficial" cell phone video. First off, we don't know for a fact that the video was unofficial. In fact, I'd wager that the White House and the Iraqi Prime Minister both wanted that video taken and distributed, just as Bush wanted the pictures of Saddam's dead sons publicly disseminated to "prove" their death.

Second, as for there being "one" cell phone video. Bull. I just watched what was clearly a second video, and it was pretty damn professionally shot for a "cell phone video." Check it out. Here is the crappy cell phone video. Now here is CNN's coverage of a second video, a video that is obviously much better quality than the "cell phone video." And note that the second video is shot right next to Saddam, so it wasn't exactly done undercover.

Also note in the video that there are several flashes as pictures are being snapped. That means the recording of the event was hardly surreptitious. They knew it was going on, and they didn't care.

Also, a little red meat for the religious right Republican extremists out there. Note that Bush was (allegedly) concerned about the execution taking place during the Muslim holiday. The White House wasn't concerned about hanging a man during the week of Christmas, oh no. They were concerned about a Muslim holiday, rather than "our" own Christian holiday. Not that I believe the White House was concerned about anything - they very likely pushed the Iraqis to kill Saddam pronto - but it is funny how Bush is publicly pandering to Islam, since his religious right supporters, and much of his own party, is made up of anti-Muslim religious bigots.

Oh yeah, and one final very interesting fact from the NYT article. If the White House was so adamant about Saddam not being killed just yet, then why did they happily hand him over to the Iraqis to be executed?

After Mr. Maliki made it clear to the Americans in Baghdad that his decision was final, the official who discussed the events on Friday night said, American commanders were told to deliver Mr. Hussein to an execution bloc in the Kadhimiya district of northern Baghdad that Mr. Hussein?s military intelligence agency used to execute countless opponents of his government. At 4 a.m., Mr. Hussein was flown by an American military helicopter from an American detention center and handed over to the Iraqis.

Yeah right. Maliki, the pit bull, made it clear to the weak, wimpy, powerless Americans that his decision was final. Seriously, how did any editor at the Times read this and keep a straight face? Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

The creche in the cathedral in Bayeux, Normandy (France). Click the image to see a larger version.

Read the rest of this post...