Watch "Feel Good" -- It's great, but you won't feel good after

Nick Anderson has a new animation that's just brutal against Bush, Rove and Cheney....against a backdrop of the brutality they've foisted upon Iraq. It's called "Feel Good"
Read the rest of this post...

Friday zoo blogging

Sis and I hit the National Zoo today.





Read the rest of this post...

Pope Benedict believes non-Catholics "suffer from defects"

Okay, where to even begin with this statement from the Prada wearing pope, Benedict the 16th Century, who is leading his church back in time:

In issuing a statement Tuesday from the Vatican to clarify church policy on other Christian faiths, Pope Benedict XVI referred to the Protestant congregations as defective and not true churches.

The statement said, in part, "These separated churches and communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives that fullness of grace and truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church."

Now if Benedict is worried about those who suffer from defects, there's plenty to choose from within his own church. Plenty. The pope should check out one of his biggest defenders in America, the bigoted, homophobe William Donohoe:
Read the rest of this post...

George Bush knows where Al Qaeda is hiding in Pakistan, he just doesn't care

Next attack is the Republicans' fault. From ABC:

In testimony before Congress this week, U.S. intelligence officials were straightforward in saying they believe Osama bin Laden is in Pakistan and freely operating there.

"It's not that we lack the ability to go into that space," said Tom Fingar of the office of the Director of National Intelligence.

"But we have chosen not to do so without the permission of the Pakistani government," Fingar told members of Congress who demanded to know why the U.S. did not take more decisive action against a known enemy.

U.S. officials say Pakistan consistently denies the U.S. military permission to go after known al Qaeda training camps.

The situation has grown even worse since February, officials say, when Vice President Dick Cheney traveled to Islamabad to demand Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf take action.

"Their (al Qaeda's) situation is actually better today than it was even then," said the RAND Corporation's Jones.

"The U.S. has provided $5.6 billion in coalition support funds to Pakistan over the past five years, with zero accountability," said Congressman Patrick Murphy, D-Calif., at the hearing.

"Why is Pakistan still being paid these large sums of money, even after publicly declaring that it is significantly cutting back patrols in the most important border area?" he asked.

Read the rest of this post...

White House cover-up grows over friendly-fire death of Pat Tillman

Because lying to the family repeatedly wasn't enough, they continue to hide the truth. As we've said repeatedly, George Bush and the Republicans only care about the troops when they're being used for photo ops. Read the rest of this post...

New York Times starts to get it right on Iraq and al Qaeda

Glenn Greenwald (who has a new book you should check out, excerpted on AMERICAblog a couple weeks ago) has a great writeup today regarding the about-face in the New York Times on Bush administration conflation of al Qaeda and Iraq's insurgency. Joe posted the article this morning. For weeks, the Times has unquestioningly reported administration claims as reality, despite their dubious factual basis and obvious political spin, much to the dismay of informed observers. Countless bloggers have explained this problem, including here just yesterday. Glenn has been excellent on this issue, especially for someone without a foreign policy background, and his full post today is worth a read. Money quote:

The New York Times this morning features a rather disorienting article by Michael Gordon and Jim Rutenberg, headlined: "Bush Distorts Qaeda Links, Critics Assert." ... The article is "disorienting" because, among other things, it is Gordon who has been conflating "the 9/11 Al Qaeda" with "Al Qaeda in Iraq" as aggressively as, and probably more destructively than, even the President himself. The article is equally disorienting because the eager complicity of the Times itself in helping the President to promote this deceit was the subject of a scathing column by its own Public Editor just this weekend, which targeted several articles written or co-written by Gordon -- an issue which was not referenced in this morning's article. Instead, Gordon poses today as the myth-buster, exposing the fraud behind a rhetorical practice which, up until today, found its most robust expression in his own reporting.

Why this adjustment in reporting? Could be a change in the public mood, or perhaps a growing (if long overdue) realization from the press that their job is to probe and question claims from authority, or, at least in some small part, due to, well, us? As Glenn comments,

When I first began blogging back in October 2005, it was not always clear to me that the target of bloggers even heard the criticisms being voiced, let alone listened to them. Now, there is no doubt that they hear them.

This is a very, very good thing. Read the rest of this post...

O'Reilly takes on Tony Snow, 'You can't win' in Iraq'

They've lost FOX News. It's over. Read the rest of this post...

Bush had Al Qaeda's #2, and didn't take him out

We reported on this the other day, but it hasn't gotten much play. Bush had Zawahiri, Osama's right hand man from the Al Qaeda that did attack the U.S., in his sights but didn't take Zawahiri out because it would have ticked off the Pakistanis. Well boo frigging hoo. Having the World Trade Center come down on 3000 people ticked off a lot of Americans, and the next time it happens Bush can explain to the families of the dead just why it was he was afraid of ticking off the Pakistanis.

Interestingly, this is the lie that Disney/ABC, along with their right-wing producer, tried to peddle about Madeleine Albright in Disney's fantasy film "The Path to 9/11." Remember how they claimed that Madeleine Albright wouldn't let us take out Osama because the Pakistanis might get upset? Never happened. But now we know that it DID happen under Bush's watch.

Bush and his military lapdogs keep telling us that Al Qaeda is the biggest threat we face in Iraq. It's totally untrue. But to the extent that the administration wants us to believe that Al Qaeda is the "big bad," we need to keep reminding them that the only reason Al Qaeda is still around is kicking is because George Bush gave them a pass.

Chew on that for a while. Read the rest of this post...

That Al Qaeda in Iraq that Bush keeps talking about "did not exist before the Sept. 11 attacks"

Bush loves to talk about Al Qaeda. But, no surprise, he doesn't get his facts right. Because, basically, he fostered the creation of the Al Qaeda that exists in Iraq. The amazing thing is that the NY Times is actually calling him on it:

In rebuffing calls to bring troops home from Iraq, President Bush on Thursday employed a stark and ominous defense. “The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq,” he said, “were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th, and that’s why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at home.”

It is an argument Mr. Bush has been making with frequency in the past few months, as the challenges to the continuation of the war have grown. On Thursday alone, he referred at least 30 times to Al Qaeda or its presence in Iraq.

But his references to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and his assertions that it is the same group that attacked the United States in 2001, have greatly oversimplified the nature of the insurgency in Iraq and its relationship with the Qaeda leadership.

There is no question that the group is one of the most dangerous in Iraq. But Mr. Bush’s critics argue that he has overstated the Qaeda connection in an attempt to exploit the same kinds of post-Sept. 11 emotions that helped him win support for the invasion in the first place.

Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia did not exist before the Sept. 11 attacks. The Sunni group thrived as a magnet for recruiting and a force for violence largely because of the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, which brought an American occupying force of more than 100,000 troops to the heart of the Middle East, and led to a Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad.

Read the rest of this post...

The Washington Post still doesn't get it about Iraq

The Washington Post wrote an editorial yesterday that shows the degree to which it still doesn't understand what the Iraq debate is all about:

Advocates of withdrawal would like to believe that Afghanistan is now a central front in the war on terror but that Iraq is not; believing that doesn't make it so. They would like to minimize the chances of disaster following a U.S. withdrawal: of full-blown civil war, conflicts spreading beyond Iraq's borders, or genocide. They would have us believe that someone or something will ride to the rescue: the United Nations, an Islamic peacekeeping force, an invigorated diplomatic process. They like to say that by withdrawing U.S. troops, they will "end the war."

Conditions in Iraq today are terrible, but they could become "way, way worse," as the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan C. Crocker, a career Foreign Service officer, recently told the New York Times. If American men and women were dying in July in a clearly futile cause, it would indeed be immoral to wait until September to order their retreat. But given the risks of withdrawal, the calculus cannot be so simple. The generals who have devised a new strategy believe they are making fitful progress in calming Baghdad, training the Iraqi army and encouraging anti-al-Qaeda coalitions.

Okay, first off, I've said this before and will say it again. Those of us who think Iraq is a disaster - the majority of the American people, thank you - do not think everything is going to be okay after we leave. Quite the contrary. We're screwed, Iraq is screwed, and once we pull out all hell is likely going to break loose. But Iraq, my dear neo-con editorial page editor Mr. Hiatt, is Terri Schiavo. All the king's horses and all the king's men aren't going to be able to put Humpty Dumpty back to together again. Schiavo's life was over. Iraq is a goner. Pulling the plug sucks, we get that. But sometimes pulling the plug is the only option left.

And as for the assurances from Crocker and the military on the ground, seriously, what drugs are you on, Hiatt? You're still quoting Bush administration officials to prove anything about Iraq? The same officials who yesterday said that Al Qaeda was the greatest threat to Iraqis, an outright lie?

The debate isn't between those who think Iraq is going to be a disaster and those who think Iraq is going to be fine. It's between those who are trying to bring back the dead, and those who don't want to waste another American life on a fantasy. Read the rest of this post...

Because things are getting worse in Iraq, we get to stay longer

It reminds me of an old job I had, I really needed a personal day, lots of things were going on, a friend was dying, just needed a day off. So the head of our office told me I could only get the day off if I got a list of 15 huge things done. I tried to explain that some of those things were not yet done because my friend was dying and I was having a hard time concentrating on work. Too bad.

Which brings us to Iraq. Now the Republicans are saying that if the surge doesn't work, we'll just need to stay in Iraq longer to make it work. But of course, if the surge does work, then we'll just have to stay in Iraq longer because now we have a real chance of winning. There's no way out. Bush and the Republicans plan to keep us in Iraq forever. There is no plan for victory, no plan for exit. Those of us too young to remember Vietnam are now living Vietnam. You're watching, real time, how great powers fall. Read the rest of this post...

Friday Morning Open Thread

Well, another intervention with Bush has failed. He won't admit he has a problem -- and the Republicans on the Hill continue to enable him. John Edwards was right when he said what Bush said yesterday "border[ed] on the delusional." Actually, Bush crossed that border long ago.

There's so much to discuss...so have at it Read the rest of this post...

Gordon Brown to promote rules-based, multilateralism in Iraq

The trial balloon was floated by a UK cabinet minister who spoke in the US and Brown is expected to promote this idea during his visit to Washington in the near future.

In what will be seen as an assertion of the importance of multilateralism in Mr Brown's foreign policy, Mr Alexander said: "In the 20th century a country's might was too often measured in what they could destroy. In the 21st century strength should be measured by what we can build together. And so we must form new alliances, based on common values, ones not just to protect us from the world, but ones which reach out to the world." He described this as "a new alliance of opportunity".

He added: "We need to demonstrate by our deeds, words and our actions that we are internationalist, not isolationist, multilateralist, not unilateralist, active and not passive, and driven by core values, consistently applied, not special interests."

Obviously the jury is still out with Brown but it's healthy to have new and different viewpoints in this relationship. We've already seen what good a lapdog is so this is a very welcome new development. Competing ideas can only help the process which today is mired in a bubble that serves no benefit to finding a way out of some previously very bad policies. Blair was a disastrous failure with offering and standing firm on opposing points of view. He talked as though he might, but the end result was always the same. Let's see what the new PM can do to make a break with the failures of the past. Read the rest of this post...

China not the only food supply problem country

Shocking, isn't it? And here it sounded as though China was the root of all problems despite evidence to the contrary such as problems with US food sourcing. A core issue with the problems whether they are US-based or foreign based is that everyone wants the cheapest price possible and while sure, you can find cheap, but that doesn't mean you will find quality. The regular problems with e. coli in beef are connected with the cheap labor and fast pace of processing in the slaughterhouses. Problems with mad cow are connected to cheaper feed being given to cows. The problems are similar whether in the US, China or other countries who want to compete in the global food market.

Higher price will not guarantee superior quality, as the cat food problems have shown, but our constant demand for the lowest price carries a cost. Chopping the FDA and USDA budgets only adds to the problem, but again, the GOP wanted to cut costs without a care for the repercussions to consumers. Read the rest of this post...