"Since his 3-percentage-point win over Sen. John Kerry, Bush has experienced a complete lack of bounce in the polls. In fact, in at least one national survey, Fox News' Opinion Dynamics poll, conducted Dec. 14-15, Bush's approval rating has fallen five points in the last month, to 48 percent. In other polls, including Washington Post-ABC, NBC/Wall Street Journal, Pew Research Center, Associated Press-Ipsos, Zogby, and Gallup, Bush's already soft approval numbers have flat-lined since the election. That phenomenon stands in sharp contrast to U.S. history, when presidents voted into office for a second term, even after close elections, routinely have received robust approval ratings. According to an analysis posted on the Gallup Web site in mid-November, Bush's current 53 percent approval rating "is actually the lowest of any of the last seven presidents who won a second term in the first poll conducted after their re-election." Right after securing their second terms, Bill Clinton received a 58 percent approval rating, Ronald Reagan 61 percent, Richard Nixon 62 percent, Lyndon Johnson 70 percent, Dwight Eisenhower 75 percent, and Harry Truman 69 percent."

"What to make of these numbers? First of all, Karl Rove got screwed by Time Magazine. He deserved that Man of the Year award after selling this lemon to the American people. But what makes me angry was Kerry and his gang's inability to take advantage of the situation. I may regret saying this later, but fuck it -- they should be lined up and shot. There's no reason they should've lost to this joker. "I voted for the $87 billion, then I voted against it." That wasn't nuance. That was idiocy. And with a primary campaign that consisted entirely of "I'm the most electable", Kerry entered the general without a core philosophy or articulated vision for the job. I could deal with losing to a popular incumbent. But it's tough to deal with the most unpopular incumbent to win reelection. Of course, there's a silver lining to all of this. A Kerry presidency would've been an unmitigated disaster, with a hostile congress, budget woes, the mess in Iraq, etc. Not a good time to be in charge. Those Supreme Court seats would've been nice (whoever we would've been able to push through a hostile Senate), but we've got an opportunity for long-term gain. The left is already working to build it's own version of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy -- the $300 million annual machine that developes the conservative message (think tanks), disseminates it to the public (Fox News, Rush), and trains their leaders in how to wield it. The war isn't going well, and Bush will be hard pressed to rescue anything positive from that quagmire. The budget is a mess, and budget cuts will cause great resentment while savings get eaten up by his Iraq misadventures. The GOP's right wing is screaming for payback with an agenda that doesn't sell on Main Street. GOP moderates may be emboldened by Giuliani's and Schwarzenegger's popularity to reassert themselves. The economy is going nowhere, housing starts are down, and interest rates are rising. This Christmas season has been the worst for retailers in years. That is, unless you are a high-end retailer. Thing are going great for those who can afford $360 Christian Dior glasses for their teenage daughters. Most people have to scavange the clearance rack at WalMart. The Democrats need to offer an alternative agenda over the next four years. It won't be enacted, so they can shoot for the moon. The hell with good policy, make proposals that sound great. The GOP used flag burning and gay marriage to rally their side. We can find equivalents. Don't worry about them becoming law, because they won't. Worry about branding the party and placing every bit of bad news (and there will be plenty) squarely at the feet of the party that controls all levers of government. We need to make the GOP radioactive. Their incompetence is providing the ammunition. It is our job to wield it. Remember, they control everything. We don't need to be bipartisan. We don't need to work with them for them to pass their agenda. So we offer up clear alternatives to everything they propose. We have to be aggressive. We have nothing to lose. Being in the minority is being in the minority. Yet we have much to gain."

12/21/2004 08:45:00 PM|W|P| Rob|W|P|:) As to the American public not being able to make up their minds...Bush will probably label us "flip-floppers" :)12/20/2004 10:45:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Why is The New York Times the only MSM paper that continues to push for election reform, particularly when it comes to voting, both prior too and after the election? Every other paper or media outlet picks up the story time and again when there is an evident problem with certain elections. The Times has kept the message going for quite some time now, since January of this year. And I'm guessing it will continue on. From today's editorial on "Making Votes Count:"

"Clearly the American election system needs significant improvement, starting with voter-verified paper trails for every vote cast electronically. In the current flawed system, the best chance we have of producing accurate results is to be on guard for manipulation of electronic voting machines and tabulation software, and to conduct conscientious recounts when the outcome is at all in doubt."

Go to the site and read the rest of their editorials on the subject. Maybe someday they'll make a significant difference across the country. |W|P|110356153087782762|W|P|Election reform|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/20/2004 01:31:00 PM|W|P| Rob|W|P|Politicians, especially those on the "winning" side, don't care that much about election reform...because the flawed system got them in/keeps them in power.12/20/2004 10:31:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Bob Herbert of the New York Times gets the facts:

"From the earliest planning stages until now, the war in Iraq has been a tragic exercise in official incompetence. The original rationale for the war was wrong. The intelligence was wrong. The estimates of required troop strength were wrong. The war hawks' guesses about the response of the Iraqi people were wrong. The cost estimates were wrong, and on and on. Nevertheless the troops have fought valiantly, and the price paid by many has been horrific. They all deserve better than the bad faith and shoddy treatment they are receiving from the highest officials of their government."

If only our government could admit this. . . And then try to fix it. |W|P|110356041188282756|W|P|Herbert gets it|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/20/2004 10:15:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|UPDATE: Josh Marshall rounds up the lies propagated on Sunday's political talk shows. Both Andy Card and John Snow are guilty of the lies and disinformation coming out yesterday. According to the AP, they both agreed that Social Security is beyond repair as it now stands. Hmm...Lies. Use the Google Search Bar at the bottom of the sidebar and do a search for Social Security on The Political Forecast. It should bring up just about every post that I have talked about it. If you read all of those, then you'll basically understand that there is no impending crisis, but indeed, something will have to be done in 10-20 years. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ruy Teixeira at Donkey Rising offers a great post today. He cites particular evidence showing that the majority of Americans don't feel that Bush has a mandate to reform Social Security, and moreover, that there is little compelling evidence that SS is in crisis mode. From Donkey Rising:

"The Bush administration appears determined to build on its "mandate" and push Social Security privatization early in Bush's second term. This seems an ill-advised plan for several reasons. First, there is little compelling evidence that Social Security is in any kind of crisis and none at all that carving out private accounts will improve Social Security's fiscal position. In fact, it will almost certainly worsen that position. Second, there is no evidence that the public is thirsting for this particular "reform". The new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that only 35 percent believe Bush has a mandate to allow "workers to invest some of their Social Security taxes in the stock market", compared to 51 percent who believe he does not. And when asked whether they thought it was "a good idea or a bad idea to change the Social Security system to allow workers to invest their Social Security contributions in the stock market", half said it was a bad idea and only 38 percent said it was a good one."

I guess the Regime needs to recheck its strategy.

The essential part of this debate, that Teixeira notes and that I do too, is that Democrats can't just be the party of leave it alone and don't privatize it, but we need a clear, coherent, and easy to understand economic message. And if anyone has any ideas what we should say in that message, leave a comment.

|W|P|110355962931754064|W|P|America doesn't want privatization|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/19/2004 02:25:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|The Brookings Institution, a non-profit Washington-based thinktank, has two great articles on Social Security and the impacts of privatization. First, they offer a policy brief on Social Security Reformation--one that does not include privatization. Instead, it offers a balanced plan for reform, extending 100% benefits into 2080. Second, an op-ed piece from Senior Fellow Henry J. Aaron. Its excellent. And recent. Now, some may argue that Brookings is a left-leaning institution that heavily favors Democrats. That is a false assumption. They have been one of--if not the--most center-situated thinktanks in all of Washington and offer the most balanced reviews of policy that I've seen. But just in case you might disagree, here is one of the highly conservative Heritage Foundation's reports on Social Security. It is a large policy report (Adobe Acrobat required to view), essentially arguing for Private Retirement Accounts (PRAs). That is simpy privatization, but only for folks under the age of 45. Any one older than that would be stuck on the current Social Security system. The most interesting part of the report is where they state that we should privatize SS (that's what PRAs would do) is where they state that wealth makes people happier and live better lives, and since PRAs bring about more wealth, we should privatize. Somehow, that just seems like some crappy logic to me. Another interesting thing they also continuously point out is that low-to-moderate income earners on average pay more SS taxes than they do federal income taxes. But I don't see what the bad part of that is. In general, those low-to-moderate income earners generally receive more average monthly benefits than those who are wealthier. Moreover, they state that the system they want could be voluntary--allowing those who want to keep their money in the basic system to do so. However, that still doesn't create any long-term solvency for SS. Those people would still contribute, however, they would receive less benefits overall, because less and less people would be contributing, leading to decreased benefit returns. Eventually the system would still become insolvent. Therefore, they basically are forcing everyone to choose PRAs when the option becomes open; or wait for the system to become entirely insolvent and then get rid of the system entirely. Now, I'll admit that this is a different proposal than the one that President Bush has been articulating lately. His is even more radical, as he wants full privatization. However, even adopting Heritage Foundation's plans would do little to solve the SS problem, besides pass it along to the individual to take care of by gambling on Wall Street. The Brookings Insitution, on the other hand, provides a means for reforming the system and making sure that one of America's most popular and efficient programs continues its help for Americans that have been provided for over half a century. In the end, the Heritage Foundation doesn't provide government solutions for the problems--they just past them on to the citizens. Meanwhile, in the more progressive fashion, the Brookings Institution policy would create sovlvency clear into 2080 and make sure that the government can be there to help its citizens under unfortunate times or unexpected consequences. |W|P|110348997315455350|W|P|What to do with Social Security|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/19/2004 11:16:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|President Bush says: "Fuck the environment. Who needs it when you can try to rule the world--or just the oil." New York Times story here. I'm sorry mother nature. Your sons and daughters do not know our terrible actions done upon you. |W|P|110347677322662063|W|P|Environment down the shitter|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/19/2004 11:09:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Maureen Dowd answers this question in her fantastic column "A Not So Wonderful Life" in this morning's New York Times. If everything had happened the way its told to Rummy, I might not be so mean towards our "illustrious" leader, Regime Commander George W. Bush. Ah, what could've been. |W|P|110347633854329158|W|P|What if Rummy had never existed?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/19/2004 10:54:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Originally, I was going to write two separate posts about these two stories: An Economist article on the end of the world, and the fact that George W. Bush was selected Time's Man of The Year (for a second time). But the more I thought about it, the more I realized they should be together. Somehow, George W. Bush and the end of the world just made sense to me. But in a way that is so over-exaggerated. I don't believe in the Biblical end of the world crap. However, if the Bush Regime keeps up its dandy work domestically and outside of the country, I think the world as America knows it is gonna go up in smoke. Now, maybe I'm just being crazy, because I'm writing this post while half-asleep and having not had anything with caffiene to drink yet. But I think its plausible. Anyway, here is the AP story on the Bush's selection. Read it and weep. I did. |W|P|110347565938239949|W|P|Man of the year and the end of the world|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/19/2004 05:24:00 PM|W|P| 'yeti|W|P|I wonder how many Republicans are feeling on top of the world right now, not realizing that the Person of the Year is given to the person who had the most influence for better OR worse.12/19/2004 06:01:00 PM|W|P| Chris Woods|W|P|This is quite true. If I remember correctly, Joseph Stalin was Man of the Year once.12/18/2004 11:34:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Back again. Chris is back. Tell some friends. Ok, enough Eminem. I listened to three and a half straight hours of Eminem on the way to Minneapolis. Its been engrained in my soul now. Anyway, I'm back, and regular posting will resume tomorrow. Somethings to look forward to:

• Summary post on the Kerik stuff that I might've missed the past couple of days
• News on the 656th Transportation Company (click the Fair Treatment for Our Soldiers link in the sidebar, and you'll learn all about them if you didn't already know)
• A posted debate between myself and The Political Forecast contributor Chase Nordengren on Social Security and privatization
• Should Iowa and New Hampshire keep their top spot in the primary system?

All of these things and more in the next week or so here at The Political Forecast. Now, it is time for sleep. |W|P|110343476679509872|W|P|Guess who's back?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/17/2004 06:30:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous|W|P|FOX has given pilot approval to a half-hour comedy about TV staffers in Iraq working for a Voice of America-esque station. See this article: Variety.com - Nathan has 'Spirit' The article, of course, compares the idea of MASH. MASH, both movie and television show, were produced during the Vietnam era partially out of a desire to link the Vietnam and Korean conflicts and also to give it some separation from a still-changing story. And for good reason. West Wing creator (and my personal idol) Aaron Sorkin created a degree of separation between the show and reality. Their presidential re-election was in 2002. September 11th existed only as an episode outside of the actual story line. All of the country names (Qumar, Kundu), while obviously based on real-life situations, were fictionalized. Now that Sorkin has left, the storylines have been made accurate to the weekly news; the show has become reactionary rather then actionary. While the show's idea intrigues me (then again, I've always liked television about television), I can only hope that it won't be "Ripped from the Headlines"|W|P|110332982930896089|W|P|IsTelevision Worthy of the War Yet?|W|P|chase.nordengren@gmail.com12/17/2004 01:05:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|For all you regulars out there (not too many :-(, oh well)--I will not be posting for the next two days. I'll be off to the warmness of Minneapolis, Minnesota, judging high school debate. Drop me a line at ThePoliticalForecast@gmail.com to fill me in on anything important. Peace. |W|P|110326355578785097|W|P|No posting|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/17/2004 04:40:00 PM|W|P| 'yeti|W|P|Sadly, "warmness" has been a lot more accurate than it should be up here. Although it's finally supposed to feel a little more like winter soon.

Have fun!12/16/2004 11:39:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Another week, another column destroying the idea of Social Security privatization. Tomorrow morning's article will look at privatization efforts across the globe (vary broadly, mostly focusing in on Chile and Britain). From Krugman's piece:

"As the Bush administration tries to persuade America to convert Social Security into a giant 401(k), we can learn a lot from other countries that have already gone down that road.

Information about other countries' experience with privatization isn't hard to find. For example, the Century Foundation, at www.tcf.org, provides a wide range of links.

Yet, aside from giving the Cato Institute and other organizations promoting Social Security privatization the space to present upbeat tales from Chile, the U.S. news media have provided their readers and viewers with little information about international experience. In particular, the public hasn't been let in on two open secrets:

Privatization dissipates a large fraction of workers' contributions on fees to investment companies.

It leaves many retirees in poverty.

Decades of conservative marketing have convinced Americans that government programs always create bloated bureaucracies, while the private sector is always lean and efficient. But when it comes to retirement security, the opposite is true. More than 99 percent of Social Security's revenues go toward benefits, and less than 1 percent for overhead. In Chile's system, management fees are around 20 times as high. And that's a typical number for privatized systems."

Krugman also goes on to note that he doesn't believe the idea of privatization is in an effort to help big supporters on Wall Street, but its merely a bad ideological issue.

As long as those on the left can keep hammering away at the terrible problems with privatization, we can win this battle.

|W|P|110326226882483300|W|P|Krugman hammers away on Social Security|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/16/2004 07:22:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Frank Rich has a great column out today discussing the influence of Christianity on politics and on the year in review:

" As we close the books on 2004, and not a moment too soon, it's clear that, as far as the culture goes, this year belonged to Mel Gibson's mammoth hit. Its prurient and interminable wallow in the Crucifixion, to the point where Jesus' actual teachings become mere passing footnotes to the sumptuously depicted mutilation of his flesh, is as representative of our time as "Godspell" was of terminal-stage hippiedom 30 years ago. The Gibson conflation of religion with violence reflects the universal order of the day — whether the verbal fisticuffs of the culture war within America, as exemplified by Mr. Donohue's rant on national television or, far more lethally, the savagery of the actual war that radical Islam brought to our doorstep on 9/11. . . . Yet if you watch the news and listen to certain politicians, especially since Election Day, you'll hear an ever-growing drumbeat that Christianity is under siege in America. Like Mr. Gibson, the international movie star who portrayed himself as a powerless martyr to a shadowy anti- Christian conspiracy in the run-up to the release of "The Passion," his fellow travelers on the right detect a sinister plot — of secularists, "secular Jews" and "elites" — out to destroy the religion followed by more than four out of every five Americans. . . . What is this about? How can those in this country's overwhelming religious majority maintain that they are victims in a fiery battle with forces of darkness? It is certainly not about actual victimization. Christmas is as pervasive as it has ever been in America, where it wasn't even declared a federal holiday until after the Civil War. What's really going on here is yet another example of a post-Election-Day winner-takes-all power grab by the "moral values" brigade. As Mr. Gibson shrewdly contrived his own crucifixion all the way to the bank, trumping up nonexistent threats to his movie to hype it, so the creation of imagined enemies and exaggerated threats to Christianity by "moral values" mongers of the right has its own secular purpose. The idea is to intimidate and marginalize anyone who objects to their efforts to impose the most conservative of Christian dogma on public policy. If you're against their views, you don't have a differing opinion — you're anti-Christian (even if you are a Christian)."

Read the full article. Rich is brilliant when it comes to cultural insight and affairs. His weekly column is always a great read. I hope you enjoy. |W|P|110324686839422270|W|P|Frank Rich: The Year of "The Passion"|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/16/2004 07:09:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|David Brock of Media Matters for America calls out Bill O'Reilly:

"You once offered your viewers your definition of the word "coward." On the January 5, 2004, O'Reilly Factor, you declared: "If you attack someone publicly, as these men did to me, you have an obligation to face the person you are smearing. If you don't, you are a coward." Well, Mr. O'Reilly, you have attacked me publicly on numerous occasions, and you refuse to face me. You, sir, are a coward -- by your own definition of the term."

Ouch. Read the full letter to Bill O'Reilly here. |W|P|110324601769898639|W|P|O'Reilly is a Coward|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/16/2004 03:31:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|UPDATE: Here is the New York Times story on Bush's comments. Today at his economic summit (read: group of businessmen and women who nod and smile when Bush opens his mouth) President Bush continued to up the ante on Social Security, and continues to spin the truth, or dare I say it, LIE! According to the AP, Bush said that "now is the time to confront Social Security" and went on to describe the systems shortfalls. However, again and again, the MSM and the Republican spin machine have come out yelling that Social Security is doomed soon and that we need to gamble with it on the stock market to save it. That is just bullshit. From the AP:

"Bush was not specific about his own ideas for solving the problem, but laid out a few do-or-die principles.

He said that for an undefined group of seniors "nothing will change'' in their benefit structure, that there should be no increase in payroll taxes and that younger workers should be moved toward private accounts for some portion of their Social Security contributions."

Yeah, the undefined group of seniors is the top little group of folks who are on their deathbed and won't keep feeding off the system for too much longer.

Moreover, the AP adds to the impending "doom" of Social Security:

"In 2018, the system starts paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes. In 2042, the system will be able to cover 73 percent of promised benefits, according to Social Security's trustees.

The White House acknowledges that allowing younger workers to invest funds in private accounts would do little to help plug the shortfall.

"It will take more to solve the problem than just personal accounts,'' White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Wednesday. The transformation would be part of a "comprehensive solution to strengthen Social Security.''"

First of all, Social Security will be able to cover 100% (full) benefits up until 2042, by most estimates. After that date, it will most likely drop down to about 80% of benefits.

And granted, there is a problem with Social Security, but is gambling with it on the stock market and Wall Street really the wise thing to do? Most young folks have no idea how to invest in the stock market and how to play it safe. Its a risky business--and for the capitalist system to work, someone has to lose. If Bush's plan comes about, it'll be the big businesses on Wall Street and the few lucky folks that win. . .and just about everyone else who loses.

Finally, I refer you again to Josh Marshall's excellent post on the future of Social Security. And here is a link to Media Matters for America and their excellent look in to the MSM's falsehoods about the "impending doom" of Social Security.

|W|P|110322433479378442|W|P|Social Security fear-mongering and lies|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/16/2004 11:20:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|I guess once you're out of the military, you realize how bad some of these folks in the Bush Regime are. From the New York Times ("Ex-Miltary Lawyers Object to Bush Cabinet Nominee"):

"Several former high-ranking military lawyers say they are discussing ways to oppose President Bush's nomination of Alberto R. Gonzales to be attorney general, asserting that Mr. Gonzales's supervision of legal memorandums that appeared to sanction harsh treatment of detainees, even torture, showed unsound legal judgment. Hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the nomination are expected to begin next month. While Mr. Gonzales is expected to be confirmed, objections from former generals and admirals would be a setback and an embarrassment for him and the White House. Rear Adm. John D. Hutson, who served as the Navy's judge advocate general from 1997 to 2000 before he retired, said that while Mr. Gonzales might be a lawyer of some stature, "I think the role that he played in the one thing that I am familiar with is tremendously shortsighted." Mr. Gonzales, as White House counsel, oversaw the drafting of several confidential legal memorandums that critics said sanctioned the torture of terrorism suspects in Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and opened the door to abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. A memorandum prepared under Mr. Gonzales's supervision by a legal task force concluded that Mr. Bush was not bound either by an international treaty prohibiting torture or by a federal antitorture law because he had the authority as commander in chief to approve any technique needed to protect the nation. The memorandum also said that executive branch officials, including those in the military, could be immune from domestic and international prohibitions against torture for a variety of reasons, including a belief by interrogators that they were acting on orders from superiors "except where the conduct goes so far as to be patently unlawful." Another memorandum said the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the conflict in Afghanistan. Mr. Hutson, who is dean and president of the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, N.H., said that Mr. Gonzales "was not thinking about the impact of his behavior on U.S. troops in this war and others to come." "He was not thinking about the United States' history in abiding by international law, especially in the wartime context," he said. "For that reason, some of us think he is a poor choice to be attorney general.""

Hmm. . .if only this would stop his confirmation. Does anyone think its possible tha the might have a "nanny" he didn't pay for? If not, let's just keep the pressure on the Regime to find someone else better and more qualified for the job of America's top cop.

|W|P|110321797269148436|W|P|Ex-military lawyers speak out against Gonzales|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/16/2004 11:07:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|The New York Times explores the nanny issue in the Bernard Kerik story this morning. Essentially, the Times could not find any conlcusive evidence that this woman existed--at all. From the Times:

"Last night, Mr. Kerik was told that skeptics in city government circles were questioning the very existence of the nanny, and he was pressed to provide any kind of evidence to document that she was real. But after taking time to consider the request, Mr. Kerik again decided to remain silent on the subject."

It seems that the question over whether there really was ever a nanny has become quite "legit" as Josh Marshall put it. He's got a lot more stuff on Kerik here, here, here, and here. This story keeps spinning out of control, all while Kerik's hole is dug deeper and deeper. |W|P|110321724296445424|W|P|No nanny?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/15/2004 08:47:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous|W|P|Just made a brand spanking new post on my new personal blog Imbittered Idealism on Kerik(1/2)gate and the Bush leadership style. Go read it and your secret crush will say they like you. |W|P|110316534917360651|W|P|Self-Promotion|W|P|chase.nordengren@gmail.com12/15/2004 04:18:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Rep. John Conyers, who I discussed yesterday, will be on Keith Olbermann's "Countdown" tonight on MSNBC (check your local listings for time and channel) to discuss the proposed investigation into the 2004 election by Conyers, particularly his efforts in Ohio. I recommend Olbermann's blog (Bloggermann) and his show because he is the only MSM (mainstream media) member to continuously follow and discuss the irregularities in Ohio. Unlike his counterpart over at MSNBC, Joe Scarborough, who thinks that Conyers whole effort is to give ground to conspiracy theory fanatics. What a loser he is. |W|P|110314976355993452|W|P|Conyers on Olbermann's "Countdown" tonight|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/15/2004 04:11:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Josh Marshall has simplified Social Security and the upcoming privatization battle in a way I never thought possible. He makes it easy for everyone--from people with no economics experience to folks who can barely understand English--to understand. And puts a clear message out that Democrats should hang on to. I recommend reading it. We need all the info and help we can get in this battle. |W|P|110314907252632604|W|P|Simplifying Social Security|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/15/2004 10:19:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|UPDATE: The New York Times has a small article on the issue. Rep. Conyers will ask an Ohio prosecutor and the FBI to "explore "inappropriate and likely illegal election tampering" in at least one and perhaps several Ohio counties." Read it, and then Investigate the 2004 Election. Tomorrow morning's Washington Post chronicles the disastrous voting errors in Ohio on November 2nd. From the Post:

"Electoral problems prevented many thousands of Ohioans from voting on Nov. 2. In Columbus, bipartisan estimates say that 5,000 to 15,000 frustrated voters turned away without casting ballots. . . . But similar problems occurred across the state and fueled protest marches and demands for a recount. The foul-ups appeared particularly acute in Democratic-leaning districts, according to interviews with voters, poll workers, election observers and election board and party officials, as well as an examination of precinct voting patterns in several cities. In Cleveland, poorly trained poll workers apparently gave faulty instructions to voters that led to the disqualification of thousands of provisional ballots and misdirected several hundred votes to third-party candidates. In Youngstown, 25 electronic machines transferred an unknown number of votes for Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) to the Bush column. In Columbus, Cincinnati and Toledo, and on college campuses, election officials allocated far too few voting machines to busy precincts, with the result that voters stood on line as long as 10 hours -- many leaving without voting. Some longtime voters discovered their registrations had been purged."

Ouch, Ohio sucks for voting. All the more reason to followthrough with John Conyers request for House Judiciary Committee hearings on the 2004 election. It probably won't change the outcome, but at least it'll be a fight to protect democracy. |W|P|110308834728220132|W|P|Lost votes in Ohio|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/14/2004 11:32:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|LATE UPDATE: The New York Times will also run a story reporting on the apartment that Bernard Kerik used to carry on his extramarital affair with book publisher Judith Regan. From the Times:

"An apartment in Battery Park City that former Police Commissioner Bernard B. Kerik secured for his personal use after Sept. 11 was originally donated for the use of weary police and rescue workers who were helping at ground zero, according to a real estate executive who has been briefed about the apartment. After the cleanup had settled into a routine that fall, the executive said, Mr. Kerik, who was still police commissioner, asked to rent the two-bedroom apartment for his own use. During his use of the apartment, Mr. Kerik and Judith Regan engaged in an extramarital affair there, according to someone who spoke to Mr. Kerik about the relationship. Ms. Regan published his best-selling autobiography in 2001."

The article goes into more detail. I recommend reading it. My, oh my, how did the vetting process and the Bush Regime miss this?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The New York Times continues its reporting (although a bit behind, they offer clear White House insight) into the demise of the nomination of Bernard Kerik for Secretary of Homeland Security.

In tomorrow morning's paper, the Times details the missteps in the vetting process into Mr. Kerik by the White House.

According to the Times, Kerik had failed to turn in many forms prior to his nomination as Homeland Security Secretary--even as far back as the days after September 11th. Kerik never filled out a question from the FBI in order to gain security clearance for certain information. Since he never turned the questionnaire in, he never had a background check and was never given the security clearance.

Moreover, certain financial forms were not turned in by Kerik prior to his trip to train Iraqi troops in 2003. This lack of candor from Kerik prior to and during the nomination procedure could've definitely added to his quick demise (it took less than a week for the big rumors to start pouring out).

Finally, the Times quotes insiders as saying that "Mr. Bush's personal enthusiasm for Mr. Kerik" was a contributing factor in Kerik's quick demise. Evidentally, the announcement of Kerik as the nominee for the position was done before the FBI had even begun their full-fledged background check and investigation. If that had been able to occur, "such an investigation would have readily uncovered the problems that doomed Mr. Kerik's nomination."

It seems that the Regime was just too giddy to get Kerik into the job to even check and see if he had the same moral and ethical values as many of the Christian folks who voted for Bush.

And it looks like Republicans are already quick to pass the blame onto Rudy Guilliani: "As for problems in his past that might have derailed his nomination, Republicans noted that former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani was enthusiastically vouching for Mr. Kerik."

Josh Marshall still asks the best questions: Was there really a nanny?

|W|P|110308588246021923|W|P|Kerik problems keep pouring out|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/14/2004 11:22:00 PM|W|P| Rob|W|P|Rather than blame Guiliani, Bush should fire the person responsible for nominating Kerik without a proper vetting.

Oh, wait, that would be Bush...12/14/2004 04:13:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Representative John Conyers (D-MI), ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, has asked for one million emails from folks across the country demanding full Judiciary Committee hearings on the 2004 election. Please visit the House Judiciary Democrats site to send an email demanding full hearings. Here's a sample message:

"Please investigate the 2004 Election. We can't let another one be stolen by fraud and voter intimidation! We need full hearings, from the entire House Judiciary committee. Fight to save democracy. Make sure every vote counts."

Short, sweet, and to the point. While I don't expect the results to change, I feel it is important that every vote is important. We need a nationwide system that works. Democracy is failing in America. It is up to us to fix it. |W|P|110306277128201166|W|P|Investigate the 2004 Election|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/14/2004 11:57:00 PM|W|P| Rob|W|P|Done, and blogged.

For the record, my message:

As an American citizen who has lost much of my faith in the election system in light of the 2000 and 2004 elections, I demand that the Judiciary Committee hold hearings for the purpose of finding the root causes for the numerous errors and shady dealings (voter suppression, lost votes, partisan elections superviors who campaign for candidates). This should be a bipartisan concern, as fair elections concern all voters and candidates, of all parties. Take action before the American people lose all faith in what look more and more like puppet elections.12/14/2004 04:10:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Two can play at this game. . . Check out Eschaton for the latest FCC Action Alert--Rush Limbaugh's the guilty party this time! |W|P|110306237565535908|W|P|FCC ACTION ALERT!|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/14/2004 10:47:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Here is some of the better news since the unfortunate results of November 2nd. The New York Times and Washington Post are both reporting that yesterday Democrats announced they would effectively become the watchdog party in Congress and begin to hold numerous oversight hearings and effectively throw down the gauntlet for Washington Republicans. From the Times article ("Democrats Say They'll Assume Watchdog Role"):

"The announcement, which came on a sleepy afternoon in an otherwise deserted Capitol, amounted to a throwing down of the gauntlet by Democrats, who are struggling to find a voice in Washington with Republicans in control of the White House and both houses of Congress."

And from the Post article ("Democrats Planning Watchdog Role"):

"Senate Democrats announced plans yesterday for wide-ranging hearings to examine Bush administration policies and conduct, saying the Republicans who control both houses of Congress have abdicated responsibility for oversight of the GOP administration. . . . Dorgan and Reid listed possible targets for the hearings, including contract abuses in Iraq, the administration's use of prewar intelligence, misleading cost estimates for the Medicare drug benefit, the cost of the administration's plan for private Social Security accounts, the implementation of the No Child Left Behind education bill and administration policies on global warming. Holding up a large photograph of President Harry S. Truman, Dorgan said Truman as a Democratic senator conducted hearings on defense contract abuses by a Democratic administration; Dorgan suggested that Iraq contracts would be a major focus of the new hearings. The hearings are part of a broader effort by Senate Democrats to strengthen their message and create mechanisms for getting it out after their four-seat loss in the November elections. They have announced a beefed-up communications operation, including a "war room" for rapid response to the administration and to the Senate Republican majority."

Oh, my. Look how the tables have turned.

It is time to get ready to fight. . .and we've got Truman on our side.

|W|P|110304334127859036|W|P|Watchdog Democrats|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/14/2004 10:42:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Yesterday, the illustrious Senator John McCain (D-AZ) finally voiced his disgust for Donald Rumsfeld (which I'm sure many other folks agree with):

"Senator John McCain said Monday that he had "no confidence" in Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, citing the secretary's handling of the war in Iraq and troop levels there that Mr. McCain deems insufficient."

AP story here, via the NY Times. Maybe we can convince the Regime to have votes of confidence on all elected leaders in Washington (i.e. the Republicans)? Nah, probably won't go over to well with them. |W|P|110304281530025328|W|P|No confidence in Rummy|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/14/2004 11:01:00 AM|W|P| Rob|W|P|I fully agree with McCain on this one.

Makes me even more angry when I hear of troops having to scrounge for gear and getting a dishonorable discharge for it.12/14/2004 10:34:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|In today's Chicago Tribune, Congressman Rahm Emmanuel (D-IL) writes a great op-ed piece about Social Security privatization. From the Tribune:

"Two major shifts in our economy have fundamentally changed the social contract between employers and employees. We are transitioning from defined benefit to defined contribution retirement plans and from employer-provided health care to individually purchased plans. Republican policies have accelerated these trends while simultaneously cutting regulations and oversight capabilities. This combination has pulled the regulatory rug out from under individuals, leaving them to traverse the markets alone, without recourse against powerful interests. Free-market-oriented Democrats share an interest in providing Americans with more choice and control, from their investment portfolios to their medical care. But we believe the "ownership society" must come with a warranty. A warranty is not a guarantee of outcome. It ensures a level playing field through a fair and efficient marketplace. Unlike many of our Republican friends, we recognize that the free market is not infallible. Moreover, recent corporate scandals have convinced us that those individuals negotiating the marketplace need government to help level the playing field against powerful interests that don't always play by the rules. The past 20 years have seen a wholesale weakening of such protections--under both Republican and Democratic administrations. The resulting combination of more individual choice and less government oversight has led to repeated hardships for millions of Americans--from Enron employees and mutual fund investors to Vioxx users. These scandals have cost individuals their dreams and, sometimes, their lives. If the Bush administration and the Republican majority in Congress are going to require Americans to navigate the marketplace for their health care and retirement security, Democrats believe those policies must be accompanied by more government oversight and enforcement to ensure fair play in the marketplace--not less. That is the minimum warranty Americans should expect. Markets function most effectively when they are transparent, empower individuals and are subject to balanced regulation. When New York Atty. Gen. Eliot Spitzer stepped into the oversight and enforcement void left by the Securities and Exchange Commission, his actions strengthened the mutual fund industry in the long term by restoring its lost credibility."

I'm glad Democrats understand the volatility and understand the market. Emmanuel is a pretty bright guy. I hope he can be one of the Democratic leaders in the House against the ridiculous policies of the Bush Regime. |W|P|110304253784422096|W|P|More on Social Security|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/14/2004 10:29:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|David Brooks has pissed me off while reading his past couple or articles, particularly the one where he tacitly consents to privatizing Social Security. However, today's topic is quite humorous. Brooks, writing about the Bush Regime's economic conference at the White House this week, essentially says there will be a lot of head-nodding, smiling, and agreeing with the President. The article is entitled "The Wonks' Loya Jigra." |W|P|110304202136144738|W|P|Punditus maximus!|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/14/2004 05:15:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|UPDATE: I've been working most of the day to try and find an email address of someone to send a complaint to. I've found one. LTC Daniel Baggio is the aide to Lt. Gen. Thomas F. Metz, who is trying the six members of the 656th Transportation Company. Send any and all emails to: Daniel.Baggio@vcmain.hq.c5.army.mil --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I admit, I've been slow to pick up on this story. But thanks to Rob's imploring, I'm making an all-out effort to get this story out. I will be copying most of the text from posts (here, here, here, and here) over at Rob's Blog. Please do what you can to support these troops by blogging the story anywhere you can. You Go To War With The Army You Have Army Chief Warrant Officer Darrell Birt saw a problem, one that just wouldn't work out through official channels. His National Guard unit had to ship out on a dangerous mission without enough vehicles, guns, or parts. So he took what they needed to complete the mission...from Army vehicles left behind by units that had already moved deeper into Iraq. He was awarded a Bronze Star for his courage and initiative at one point. According to the citation he "proved vital to successful combat operations in Iraq." Hero? Sound like it to me...and anyone who has been in the military knows you sometimes have to do some "midnight requisitions" to get the mission accomplished. Personal gain...no, that would be wrong. He was just trying to accomplish the mission and protect his men. Well, the Rumsfeld Army sees it differently; he had to plead guilty in a deal to reduce his sentance from 80 years to 16 months, and he lost all his pay, benefits, and retirement. You read that right...he is now considered a felon by the Army...for the same actions that won him a Bronze Star. Because he saw the "army you have" wasn't cutting it in supply terms, and took action (maybe not technically correct action) to make sure his unit had the best chance to do the job, and survive it. Now this real war hero has to hope a clemecy request can restore his retirement benefits; otherwise this 23 year soldier, who has served as a Marine, soldier, National Guardsman, and been decorated in combat, will not even get a flag at his burial, or a pension from the nation he so faithfully served. I suppose his actions...to arm/armor/supply his men even outside "official" channels...go contrary to the Rumsfeld Doctrine. 'Cause you're supposed to deal with "the army you have..." 6 Court-Martialed for scrounging equipment More on Chief Warrant Officer Birt, and the 5 other court-martialed for getting the job done. Remember, you go to war with the Army you have, not the one you want...right? Birt's clemency has been denied, by the way...this Bronze Star awardee will never draw a pension from the nation he so loyally served (unless an appeal works out for him). This is not how we should treat 23 year vets who only tried to protect their men and do the mission. 'Scrounging' For Iraq War Puts GIs In Jail

This story continues to piss me off.

"I admit that what we did was technically against the rules, but it wasn't for our own personal gain. It was so we could do our jobs." The thefts mirror countless stories of shifty appropriation that has been memorialized in books and films as a wartime skill. Birt and other reservists in the unit said that what the prosecutors called theft was simply resourcefulness, a quality they say is abundant among soldiers in Iraq. While in confinement, Birt had a chat with a military police officer who was puzzled by why Birt was in the brig. The MP, a guard, told Birt that his unit had "acquired" a Humvee in a similar fashion.

All the while Donald Rumsfeld apparently felt the army we went to war with was good enough...since he couldn't be troubled to tell the factory to jack up production. And of all the cabinet members leaving, Rumsfeld is staying on...what a reflection on the Bush Regime and how they "support" their troops. Soldier Punished in Effort to Supply Troops Yes, I'm blogging the Darrell Birt story again? Why...because it amazes me that THIS IS NOT GETTING MORE PRESS!!! Am I emotional about it? Yep. Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, is enough of an asshole to tell troops, well, basically, "tough shit" when they complain of lack of adequate supplies/armor/guns/ammo on the front lines. And then guys like Birt bend over backwards, go above and beyond, get a Bronze Star for doing whatever it takes to get the mission done and get fuel to the troops on the front...and he and his CO GET A DISHONORABLE DISCHARGE!!!! The guys who refused a similar mission due to being unequipped for the danger (and I don't blame 'em)...no court martial. Reprimand. The guys who supported the front line troops at all costs...get a court martial. I'd say they deserve a medal. They got one...they deserve a higher one. I'd say a Silver Star, for starters. Conservatives paint as heros guys who kill bound, unarmed prisoners. But where are those supposedly pro-military conservatives for this story of injustice to real heroes? Where are you, Mr. President? Step in and clear these men...you're the Commander-in-Chief. Mr. Rumsfeld? You can fix this. Don't hand me all the blather about not interfering with the chain of command...that didn't stop you from awarding a Bronze Star to Jessica Lynch for a car accident. If this is how we treat our troops, what kind of message does it send? Good looking blonde girls from the South who are in the wrong place at the right time and those who kill injured and unarmed (and cuffed) prisoners on camera are heroes, and those who go above and beyond the call of duty to get the job done are criminals! Once Again, a story of how the Army punishes those who try to make the "army you go to war with" the "army you want" OK, OK, OK...I know, this is at least the fourth post on this subject...but it still makes me angry. Confinement, dishonorable discharge, loss of all pay and benefits, loss of retirement, and loss of their civilian jobs...for taking abandoned Army equipment for an Army mission that they were awarded the Bronze Star for. Bloggers, if you read this, I implore you...blog the story for all you are worth. This is injustice in the extreme...Chief Warrant Officer Darrell Birt served 23 years (Marine Corps, Army, National Guard), and he (along with his CO, Major Cathy Kaus) have lost everything...their careers, their civilian jobs, their military pay, their retirements, even the right to have a flag draped over their casket or military honors at their burial. They risked their lives delivering fuel to the front lines, and took the abandoned Army equipment to use in completing their missions and protecting their troops. To say I'm upset by this...is an understatement. The Army's treatment of these soldiers is CRIMINAL! People from radio show hosts to former military officers have made a hero out of the Marine who killed an unarmed Iraqi prisoner, but no one seems to give a damn about real heroes who were thrown out with the trash by their own service. Make some noise, folks. Our troops who serve with honor deserve better...whether you agree with the war or not, these men and women, whose mission was to supply and support the troops on the front, are the real heroes. They did what they had to do to keep their people alive and do their mission, and this is the treatment they get from our Army brass (and, ultimately, the SecDef and President, who I'm sure are aware of this and do NOTHING.) While Rumsfeld makes his crass comments and essentially tells the troops to "lump it", these folks in the 656th Transportation Company did what they had to do to accomplish the mission; they deserve more than a slap in the face and a boot out the door. Blog it...make the American people hear how the Army is treating it's citizen-soldiers. |W|P|110304593839402014|W|P|Troops court-martialed for scrounging equipment|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/14/2004 05:02:00 PM|W|P| Rob|W|P|Thanks, guys, for blogging this story and writing the emails. I was rather shocked that Major Krum herself posted a comment; I copied her on my letter to the Leiutenant Colonel (that bounced)...and sent very similarly worded letters to the President, both my senators, and my congressman.

This has been so ignored by the "mainstream" media that I've yet to hear it on the broadcast news. I'd like noting better than a "blog tidal wave" to push this story out and hopefully spur the Pentagon and White House to some sort of action. Imagine the embarassment, when just after Rumsfeld's little chat with the troops in Kuwait a story hits like this. It could make all the difference in the world to these shortchanged soldiers.

Blog it up, pass it around, sound the trumpets in the blogosphere. Let's blow the lid on this one sky-high!12/13/2004 10:13:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|UPDATE: The first comments thread has been closed, vote here now by leaving a comment. The 3rd Annual Koufax Awards nomination process is now open. Please go nominate The Political Forecast for "Best New Blog" or "Most Deserving of Wider Recognition." Vote here. |W|P|110299777793608128|W|P|Vote for The Political Forecast!|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/13/2004 11:56:00 PM|W|P| Rob|W|P|'k den.

(Hawaii "pidgen" for "okay, then")

IOW, consider yourselves nominated. So there ;)12/13/2004 10:01:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|The Minneapolis Star Tribune is reporting that one of its 10 electors accidentally casted a vote for vice presidential candidate John Edwards as president instead of John Kerry. The story is here. Hopefully conservatives won't argue that this gives Bush an even bigger mandate and even more political capital. And in other news, it is finals week here at Drake, and it sucks. That is all. |W|P|110299715666386513|W|P|Oops. . .is it John Kerry or John Edwards?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/14/2004 07:45:00 PM|W|P| Chase Nordengren|W|P|Last time this happened in history, it was because somebody misread the ballot and wrote the VP on the Prez line ...

Let's just all remember that the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College to make votes that were .... smarter then ours?12/13/2004 02:38:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|UPDATE: The most enraging quote from the article:

"It's like when the hijackers took over those four planes on Sept. 11 and took people to a place where they didn't want to go," she added. "I think a lot of people feel that liberals have taken our country somewhere we don't want to go. I think a lot more people realize this is our country and we're going to take it back."

Last month, I posted about the ideological onslaught that started to appear in the end of the 108th Congress--before the new Congress could even gavel in. That onslaught was over one particular issue--abortion rights in the omnibus spending bill. I may have spoke too soon. And my focus may have been in the wrong place. I predicted that an ideological onslaught would begin in the US Congress because of the particularly ideological victories of Republicans in both the House and the Senate. However, I think the debate that will be keeping them busy for the next few months won't be ideological issues (from the Christian right perspective) but more ideological policy issues, like Social Security and taxes. The real battlefield when it comes to religious ideology will be in that state legislatures. And it looks to be a dangerous battle--resulting in the elimination of rights for a lot of folks. The New York Times today profiles the actions of numerous Christian conservatives in statehouses that are expected to take place next year. From the Times:

"Energized by electoral victories last month that they say reflect wide support for more traditional social values, conservative Christian advocates across the country are pushing ahead state and local initiatives on thorny issues, including same-sex marriage, public education and abortion.

"I think people are becoming emboldened," said Michael D. Bowman, director of state legislative relations at Concerned Women for America, a conservative Christian advocacy group based in Washington. "On legislative efforts, they're getting more gutsy, and on certain issues, they may introduce legislation that they normally may not have done."

It is on the state level "where most family issues are decided," Mr. Bowman said. And it is there that local advocacy groups hope to build quickly on the momentum from the election when legislatures convene in the new year.

In Texas, conservative Christians are backing an amendment to prevent human cloning, a measure that would also block the kind of cloning used in embryonic stem-cell research. In Georgia, advocacy groups hope to win approval this year of two measures limiting abortion, after redistricting helped Republicans take control of the state legislature. In Kansas, conservatives have won a majority on the State Board of Education, which is expected to introduce changes this spring to the high school science curriculum challenging the theory of evolution. And in Maryland, some black churches have joined with a white Republican state delegate to push for a ban on same-sex marriage.

"People were mobilized during the election and they're still mobilized," said Judy Smith, Kansas state director for Concerned Women for America, which is working to put a measure on the ballot in 2006 to amend the Kansas Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. "We would be stupid not to act now. This is exactly what we had hoped for."

Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood cautioned that despite surveys of voters leaving the polls showing that President Bush was supported by 80 percent of those who listed "moral values" as their top concern, conservative Christians might not have gotten the mandate they say they have."

This could get ugly--and quick.

If you are a blue-stater living in a red-state, right for your rights. I know that when we elect Howard Dean the next chair of the DNC, he'll do everything he can to get you the support you need.

The onslaught begins next year. Have a happy holidays and get ready to fight.

|W|P|110296760086658258|W|P|More on the ideological onslaught|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/13/2004 08:46:00 PM|W|P| Rob|W|P|I'm soooo glad I live in a "blue" state.12/13/2004 10:06:00 PM|W|P| Chris Woods|W|P|I wish Iowa were a blue state again. Thank god I live on a liberal college campus.12/12/2004 09:55:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Excellent post by blogster Rob Schumacher, who is also an active Navy submarine officer. If only all of our armed forces members were this brilliant. Oh well, I still support our troops in their efforts to come home safely. Godspeed. |W|P|110291031897997296|W|P|Rob's Blog: Who really supports our troops?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/12/2004 10:35:00 PM|W|P| Rob|W|P|Officer?!? I work for a living :) (I'm an E-6 :)

Thanks for the mention...I'd have researched/linked some of the stats in there, but I've been a bit under the weather today, and wrote that post through a screaming headache.12/12/2004 11:04:00 PM|W|P| Chris Woods|W|P|I hate to say it, but I don't know the difference between an officer and an E-6. :-/12/13/2004 08:34:00 PM|W|P| Rob|W|P|http://www.learnmoreindiana.org/@counselors/counselors_elem/academic_guidance/postsecondary/military/officers.xml

:)

Hey, speaking of troop support, take a gander at the story of Army CWO Darrell Birt (http://www.albasrah.net/maqalat/english/1104/gi-special2c11.htm)

Court marital, dishonorable discharge (the worst you can get) for something he received a medal for (in a way) earlier..."borrowing" some abandoned Army trucks so his unit could complete their mission.12/13/2004 10:07:00 PM|W|P| Chris Woods|W|P|Hey, thanks for the link. I feel smarter already.12/12/2004 09:48:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|If only we hadn't outsourced the job to Afghan warlords. . . "Mountains and Border Foil Quest for bin Laden" |W|P|110290981098064546|W|P|Where did he go? Where did he go?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/12/2004 09:34:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Tomorrow morning, the New York Times will report that a bitter war is being waged inside the Pentagon over whether or not the DoD should use propaganda and deception to influence public opinion abroad. As if lies to the folks at home weren't enough:

"The Pentagon is engaged in bitter, high-level debate over how far it can and should go in managing or manipulating information to influence opinion abroad, senior Defense Department civilians and military officers say.

Such missions, if approved, could take the deceptive techniques endorsed for use on the battlefield to confuse an adversary and adopt them for covert propaganda campaigns aimed at neutral and even allied nations.

Critics of the proposals say such deceptive missions could shatter the Pentagon's credibility, leaving the American public and a world audience skeptical of anything the Defense Department and military say - a repeat of the credibility gap that roiled America during the Vietnam War.

The efforts under consideration risk blurring the traditional lines between public affairs programs in the Pentagon and military branches - whose charters call for giving truthful information to the media and the public - and the world of combat information campaigns or psychological operations.

The question is whether the Pentagon and military should undertake an official program that uses disinformation to shape perceptions abroad. But in a modern world wired by satellite television and the Internet, any misleading information and falsehoods could easily be repeated by American news outlets.

The military has faced these tough issues before. Nearly three years ago, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, under intense criticism, closed the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence, a short-lived operation to provide news items, possibly including false ones, to foreign journalists in an effort to influence overseas opinion.

Now, critics say, the missions of that discredited office are quietly being resurrected elsewhere in the military and in the Pentagon.

Pentagon and military officials directly involved in the debate say that such a secret propaganda program, for example, could include planting news stories in the foreign press or creating false documents and Web sites translated into Arabic as an effort to discredit and undermine the influence of mosques and religious schools that preach anti-American principles.

Some of those are in the Middle Eastern and South Asian countries like Pakistan, still considered a haven for operatives of Al Qaeda. But such a campaign could reach even to allied countries like Germany, for example, where some mosques have become crucibles for Islamic militancy and anti-Americanism."

It's like a scarier version of "Wag the Dog."

Instead of lying to Americans (or maybe just continuing the procedure already in place), now we're going to propogate our falsehoods to the rest of the international world? Wow, now that sounds like a plan!

I swear to God, Donald Rumsfeld and the DoD staff are getting senile. It might be time for some euthanasia in the Pentagon, if so.

In a previous post, I discussed what was found in an internal DoD report by the Defense Science Board. It stated that public opinion abroad was horrendous, and needed to be counterracted by eliminating the arrogance that we've been putting out. Evidentally, our plan now is to lie to the world and hope that fixes things.

Do any of the guys in the Regime have anything beyond an elementary education?

|W|P|110290946047165936|W|P|Pentagon looks to lie to the world|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/12/2004 10:36:00 PM|W|P| Rob|W|P|So much for the truth...another casualty of the war.12/13/2004 10:09:00 PM|W|P| Chris Woods|W|P|Hmm...the truth effects everyone in the world. That is like 6 billion people right? So add that to the total American soldiers killed (from a war based on a lie). That totals like 6,000,001,100 or something, doesn't it?

Is that enough to end this idiotic war?12/12/2004 09:24:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|The New York Times tomorrow will report that former NYC mayor Rudy Guilliani attended a Christmas dinner at the White House tonight, where the main theme was apologizing for Bernard Kerik's fuck-ups and to try and mend a relationship with Bush and the Regime. From the Times:

"Former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani had a Christmas dinner at the White House on Sunday night, and he attended with one goal in mind: to apologize to his host for pushing Bernard B. Kerik as homeland security secretary and then watching as Mr. Kerik's nomination collapsed in legal problems and embarrassed the president of the United States.

That embarrassment has put a new strain on a mutually beneficial relationship that has always been more complicated than mere friendship.

"I feel very bad," Mr. Giuliani said in a telephone interview on Sunday afternoon, adding that he felt somewhat responsible for the nomination of Mr. Kerik, who withdrew his name on Friday because he had failed to pay taxes for a nanny who was in the country illegally."

Bernard Kerik = big mistake.

Josh Marshall over at TPM is still pointing out some interesting things about Kerik, but I recommend this previous post by moi detailing his numerous problems.

Now I wonder who Bush will nominate. . .This could get interesting.

|W|P|110290874795779278|W|P|At White House, Rudy says 'My bad'|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/12/2004 12:34:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|According to CNN, NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe will resign to become chancellor at Louisianna State University. I heard this for the first time about half an hour ago and thought nothing of it. But now, I'm becoming more worried. Last year, President Bush proposed a massive plan for NASA to bring humans back to the moon and take a man to Mars. Now, I don't know how supportive of the policy O'Keefe was, but now that he'll be moving out of the way, Bush will be sure to appoint another loyalist to the position, giving the Regime a powerful space and intergalictic relations minister. More seriously though, this opening can provide Bush with numerous possibilities. The most evident one I see is fulfilling this promise to reinvigorate space flight, and doing this will cost enormous amounts of money. If the Regime goes spend-crazy on this, we're all screwed. And let's hope we don't piss off the Martians in the process. |W|P|110287627722445975|W|P|NASA administrator leaves|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/12/2004 11:01:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Quite possibly one of the weirdest things I have seen in a long time. At one time scary and frightening, at another it is intriguing and mind-blowing. Watch the whole thing here. Definitely worth it. The premise is that media convergence and personal editing of news by computers (in tune to your demographic and previous habits) will provide you with a new form of participatory news--where you are the editor, reporter, etc. A couple of folks over at PoynterOnline, a web resource for journalists, created the thing. Way freaky. Thanks to Rob for this one. |W|P|110287123262180191|W|P|EPIC 2014|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/11/2004 11:28:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous|W|P|How the Grinch Stole Marriage Fa la la la la la - la la - la la! |W|P|110282929004516723|W|P|'Tis The Season|W|P|chase.nordengren@gmail.com10/01/2005 11:18:00 PM|W|P| jon|W|P|amazon textbook are so expensive. I agree, We have been looking for amazon textbook all night for a new amazon textbook class but havent been able to track down used amazon textbook that I can afford. Anyway, I enjoyed looking at you amazon textbook blog...

jon10/01/2005 11:31:00 PM|W|P| TS|W|P|Nice Blog!!!   I thought I'd tell you about a site that will let give you places where
you can make extra cash! I made over $800 last month. Not bad for not doing much. Just put in your
zip code and up will pop up a list of places that are available. I live in a small area and found quite
a few. MAKE MONEY NOW10/03/2005 10:03:00 AM|W|P| Admin|W|P|Wow, what a great site. I will bookmark this site and return often. It's nice to see sites like this.

Please visit my website and let me know what you think. Disney Vacation12/11/2004 07:19:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|I haven't been too contemptous of the Democratic Leadership Council here at the Forecast. Numerous other commentators in the blogging world have been. I think they've been a fundamentally critical group to a solid Democratic strategy for the past several years. But maybe they've begun to wear out their welcome. Peter Beinart's most recent artilce (which I've discussed here and here) was welcomed by those in the DLC and has the message of a "push to the center," at least when it comes to the War on Terror. I don't want Democratic infighting, but when Jonah Goldberg of the National Review endorses Beinart's article, I begin to get a little worried. A hawkish foreign policy by liberals is not the answer to defeating the Republican domination we felt in the last election cycle. The next steps aren't entirely clear, but numerous options have been alluded to, including a southern strategy (see the Lion's Den) and a stronger message that is easy to understand. Treating militant Islam like the Cold War is not what we need to do. Its not what America needs to do. We need to understand the problem better, and address it once we have a strategy that takes the understanding into account. |W|P|110281506426022676|W|P|Warning signs|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/11/2004 06:39:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Wow...I'm laughing so hard. I mean, the women's beach volleyball was great to watch, but come on! The Washington Post is reporting that the FCC has asked NBC to send them their tapes of the Olympics, in response to at least one indecency complaint. Thanks to Rob for pointing this one out. What the hell has America come to? If this is the work of the Christian right, I'm gonna go ballistic. Cuz if they're pissed over the Olympics, then they should be pissed about this too (from Daily Kos):

"For our Christian overlords who preach values and death at the same time:

Deuteronomy 24:5:

"If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married."

Check out that verse in all the different versions of the Bible here. So how would the wingers respond?"

|W|P|110281258468363782|W|P|FCC investigating Olympic indecency|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/11/2004 06:53:00 PM|W|P| Rob|W|P|Does this mean if a man is newly married he can't compete in the Nude Olympics, either? :)12/11/2004 09:11:00 PM|W|P| Chase Nordengren|W|P|Okay, not to be pissy, but if the FCC's gonna investigate the Olympics, they should investigate the media monopoly that prevented me from watching the opening ceremonies live (not just on TV, they blocked webcasts from the freakin' BBC too.)12/11/2004 12:15:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|As I reported last night, President Bush's choice for Secretary of Homeland Security, Bernard Kerik, withdrew his name because of a potential problem with the immigration status of a housekeeper/nanny. All along I've been wondering if there at been other reasons for withdrawing his name, partially because of the magnificent reporting and compilation of stories that Josh Marshall had been doing over at Talking Points Memo. The newest report comes from this web-exclusive Newsweek story, commenting on an arrest warrant that was issued for Kerik in 1998. For all of those readers still interested in the Kerik story check out links here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. It is a lot, I know, but worth the reading if you're interested in the large amount of controversy surrounding him. |W|P|110278968752596104|W|P|Kerik's numerous problems|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/10/2004 10:39:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|LATE UPDATE: The NY Times has the text of the full resignation letter. I'm hearing that most of Washington was quite stunned at the announcement. I'm really thinking that there has got to be a bigger and more important reason than an illegal immigrant housekeeper. I'm sure it would've caused some troubles, but not that many. According to the Times story (linked below), Kerik's lawyer is saying that the information that prompted Kerik to withdraw his name was found by Kerik himself, and not any other organization. Apparently, the FBI background check was still underway and was incomplete. It'll be interesting to see in the coming days if anything else is uncovered. If I were a betting man (which I am, but only in Texas Hold'em), I'd put a hefty chunk of cash on the possibility of something more controversial being uncovered. ********************************************************************** UPDATE: Most media outlets are reporting that Kerik has pulled his nomination because of information that discovered during his preparation for certain filings to take the position. He uncovered certain documents that made him doubt the immigration status of a woman he had employed as a housekeeper and a nanny. He felt that the scrutiny he would be under for that would be too distracting to the nomination process. This seems like an odd story to me. I somehow doubt its validity, and wonder if there was some other motivation behind the withdrawl. ********************************************************************** President Bush's choice for Homeland Security Chief, Bernard Kerik, has pulled his nomination. The AP has the story here. The New York Times story here. More to come later. |W|P|110273558363339572|W|P|Kerik pulls his nomination|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/10/2004 07:36:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|I don't want to keep bringing up the Beinart article, since I disagree with him on many points, and more imporantly Democrats don't need in-fighting. However, I find it important to offer a few more links to take his argument into perspective by some political experts. First, David Corn at TomPaine.com. Very insightful stuff and I agree wholeheartedly. Second, David Neiwert over at Orcinus. His is more long and involved, but definitely worth the time to read. Enjoy. |W|P|110272931315807985|W|P|Revisiting Beinart's purge|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/10/2004 07:01:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Former Congressman Joe Scarborough and I have never really gotten along on things. He's a conservative fascist, I'm a liberal commie. We know the drill. But we've come to an agreement on something important for the future of America. Its about Social Security. He's against privatization! Ok, you stopped breathing. That's not good. Inhale and exhale. There ya go. Anyway, Scarborough even recommends reading the Krugman article that I talked about earlier! Scarborough boils the arguments down quite simply:

"Take it from a not-so-old former congressman who knows: Proud young Americans, you are in for a con job from Washington that you can't even imagine. Your government has already borrowed almost $8 trillion that it can't pay back. Guess who will have to write the check? That's right. You. Expect massive tax hikes in your future, and wicked cuts in national defense, education, environmental enforcement, police protection and medical care for the poor and elderly. Oh, you say the poor should pay for their health care just like you? Fine. Wait till you have to crawl over 3-year-old kids dying on the front steps of the emergency room where you are taking your kids and then you will be asking yourself if it was really wise for this generation of politicians to spend money as responsibly as pot heads in an open-all-night grocery store. And guess what these politicians who have already straddled you with an $8 trillion debt plan to do as soon as Congress gets back in session? No, guess. Really. You'll love this. They plan to plunge America into debt by $2 trillion more dollars!"

I'm glad folks on the right realize how big of a problem this. I'm sure Scarborough would agree with privatization during the time of a budget surplus, but I'm just glad that some conservatives are still fiscal conservatives.

And now back to disagreeing with Scarborough. Enjoy your evening.

|W|P|110272752401815363|W|P|Scarborough and I agree on something|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/10/2004 05:02:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|What lies ahead for the regime's domestic policy? This Washington Post article may help clear a few things up. The FoPo wing of the Cabinet has basically stayed the same (bye-bye Colin Powell), while most of the domestic policy wing has undergone change. The Post report is pretty good, and outlines Bush's plan to traverse the country in an effort to lie about--I mean promote--his new domestic agenda. The new agenda includes Social Security privatization, a look at the tax code, and some transforming of the way Americans seek legal damges. From the Post:

"Convinced his leadership style and policy vision were vindicated by the election results, Bush is aggressively targeting these domestic programs for the second term by essentially replicating the formula he used to reshape foreign policy in the first. This includes creating a small, loyal and trustworthy team to press for broad changes largely dictated by the White House. To build public support and circumvent critics in Congress and the media, the president will travel the country and warn of the disastrous consequences of inaction, as he did to sell his Iraq and terrorism policies during the first term, White House officials said. He is also enlisting well-funded conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation to help build the case for change -- or "reform," in the words of the White House -- through ads and commentary on television and in targeted publications, the aides said. Bush's post-election moves to strengthen White House control of the government reflect his plans for an aggressive second-term focus on domestic policy, which in his first term was overshadowed by the national security fallout from the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The agenda includes creating private Social Security accounts for younger workers, revising the tax code to make it less complicated, limiting the size and number of lawsuits, and changing immigration laws."

Yikes!

Oh, how I dread the next four years.

|W|P|110272096824752130|W|P|Bush Regime's domestic policy|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/10/2004 04:28:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Kevin Drum, over at the Washington Monthly, does some excellent detective work and discovers how privatization of funds like America's Social Security has worked across the globe. Drum looks at examples from Chile and Sweden specifically. Another prominent example that he could've mentioned is Argentina, but I'm sure most of us are aware of Argentina's big financial troubles. I recommend reading his post, its a worthwhile stop. And while you're there, read this little commentary on the reality of the trust fund that is social security. |W|P|110271828832957269|W|P|Privatization around the world|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/10/2004 01:30:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Paul Krugman, in today's New York Times, is continuing his truth-telling mission on Social Security. The man is supposed to be on extended vacation, writing a new economics textbook. Instead, he's so pissed about the Bush Regime's plans to privatize Social Security that he's come back, and this is his second column since coming back. The column, entitled "Borrow, Speculate and Hope," essentially calls the Regime's plans to privatize SS as simply "borrow trillions, put the money in the stock market and hope." I recommend the whole column...I'm sure he'll be sticking around for the nationwide debate over the issue that will soon begin to emerge. |W|P|110270374566240573|W|P|Krugman's still pissed|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/09/2004 10:48:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Tomorrow morning, the New York Times will feature a fascinating article on Islam, and its internal struggle. The article by Neil MacFarquhar, entitled "Muslim Scholars Increasingly Debate Unholy War," follows two different perspectives on the Islam--the liberal reformist and the radical fundamentalist. The article is able to clarify some of the issues of the rage between the factions of Islam and put into focus why America is becoming involved in this conflict. Two different views are held by Muslims--first is that the holy book the Koran is being misinterpreted by radicals; or secondly, that America and Western culture seek to destroy the Islamic faith and culture. America and western nations face the greatest threat from the radicals who argue that we are launching an all-out assault on their faith. Moreover, those reformers who seek to interpret the Koran in a more just and peaceful way also face the same type of threats. Essentially, America is caught between these two warring factions. Now, I'm sure that is an oversimplification of the conflict that has been brewing for over two decades now. However, I know that is much of the reason the United States has become involved. The problem is that we think our foreign policy approach has to be fighting with the radicals--which in the end only entrenches their beliefs that the US is launching an all-out assault on them and helps them recruit more members to their efforts. Instead, America should boost its measly foreign aid contributions and use our money to support quality education across the Muslim world--education dominated by the facts and by reformers, not by radical clerics teaching in privately funded madrasas. These madrasas are simply tools for indoctrination and growing radical beliefs. Our 'ally' Pakistan receives enormous amounts of money for its military and for basic arms, especially in its effort to root out al Qaeda. However, Pakistan lacks a public education system. There are no public schools in Pakistan; if you want to go to school, you go to a madrasa (which usually receives large amounts of funding from radical Islam groups). America should be spending more money on education in the Muslim world, particularly Pakistan. If we used all the military money we're giving to Pakistan for the military War on Terror and instead put it towards an educational War on Terror, al Qaeda would begin to lose ground. Their recruitment would go down and Pakistan and then we could really put our efforts towards eliminating al Qaeda. However, we're stuck in a Cold War mindset--that militant Islam is the modern-day Communist threat. It is not. These are, as President Bush so eloquently called them, "groups of folks" who are able to work and function because of the interconnected world that we have created. And our militaristic actions against Muslim states only adds to their cause. Our war should be on education--not on states. You fight the threat from the bottom-up, not the top-down. |W|P|110265526557387016|W|P|Understanding Islam|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/11/2004 07:04:00 PM|W|P| 'yeti|W|P|Great blog and post! I wrote a little more over at my place to the effect that you are completely right - education is an infinitely better solution for terrorism.

It's good to hear a reality-based voice from Iowa :-)12/09/2004 06:45:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Media Matters has posted something great (as usual). Evidentally, during and after President Bush's recent trip to Canada, many conservative pundits found it necessary to illustrate how lucky Canada is and why they might become a threat. From Media Matters:

"On November 30, as President Bush visited Canada to meet with Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in an effort to improve the two countries' strained relations, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter and CNN Crossfire co-host Tucker Carlson ridiculed the United States' northern neighbor. On FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes, Coulter said that Canadians "better hope the United States doesn't roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent." On CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports, Carlson stated: "Without the U.S., Canada is essentially Honduras, but colder and much less interesting"; he went on to say that instead of following politics, "the average Canadian is busy dogsledding." And on Crossfire, Carlson referred to the "limpid, flaccid nature of Canadian society.""

Wow...just wow. Ann Coulter is constantly striving for new lows. And Jon Stewart was right--Tucker Carlson is a dick. Video (via Media Matters): Quicktime Windows Media|W|P|110263990976174969|W|P|Watch out for the Canadian threat|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/09/2004 04:10:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|A lot of discussion has emerged from an article by Peter Beinart, the editor of The New Republic, entitled "A Fighting Faith." The article can be found here, but a subscription is required. I can't outright post any others ways to get a hold of it, but drop me an email and I can point you in the right directions. Essentially, Beinart argues that Democrats are in a state similar to 1947 and the growing threat of communism. He argues that the War on Terror is a contemporary example and that Democrats need a strong foreign policy plan to deal with it. He also argues that the Democratic party needs a purge, similar to what the ADA did, in an effort to make the party cohesive in its strong national security stance. I was quite torn after I read his article for the first time. On many levels I agreed and on so many others I disagreed. I had been working on a response to the article, but it had been very hard to articulate. However, Josh Marshall at TPM beat me to it. Today he posted his response to Beinart's article and he bascially echoes all of my thoughts, but is able to put them into a comphrendible form. Thanks for that. I recommend reading it, as well as this post from Ruy Teixeira at the Emerging Democratic Majority as well as an article that John Judis posted on TNR in response to Beinart's article. |W|P|110263097080027217|W|P|Do Democrats need a purge?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/09/2004 11:15:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|The answer to that question is pretty easy, since he's been schmoozing with high ranking Democrats across DC. Dean is on a quest to be the next chairman of the Democratic National Committee. He is one man in a crowded field of candidates--its starting to look like primary season all over again. The New York Times' Adam Nagourney has a fascinating article about Dean today, and his speech yesterday at The George Washington University. From Nagourney's article:

"WASHINGTON, Dec. 8 - Howard Dean began a campaign for his political future here on Wednesday with the unrepentant appeal that he used in his short-lived burst of a presidential campaign: warning that it would be a mistake for Democrats to embrace Republican ideals in their struggle back to power.

"Over 50 years ago, Harry Truman said, 'We are not going to get anywhere by trimming or appeasing, and we don't need to try it,' " Dr. Dean told students at George Washington University. "Yet here we are making the same mistakes. Let me tell you something: there's only one thing Republican power brokers want more than for us to lurch to the left - and that's for us to lurch to the right."

What precisely Dr. Dean is running for is not entirely certain during this period of transformation for the Democratic Party and its better-known leaders. An aide to Dr. Dean said the choice was between running for the chairmanship of the party, or making another bid for the presidency in 2008.

Dr. Dean has told Democratic leaders that he is interested in becoming the next chairman of the Democratic Party, replacing Terry McAuliffe, whose term is about to expire.

Dr. Dean is one of a number of potential candidates appearing before a meeting of state Democratic leaders at Walt Disney World in Florida this weekend. The Democratic National Committee will make its selection at a meeting in Washington in February.

Dr. Dean, looking tanned and cheery, said flatly that he would not seek the presidency in 2008 if he was elected party leader, addressing a concern many Democratic leaders have voiced to him as he has made the rounds these past few weeks. An aide said he needed to determine his presidential ambitions before deciding whether to join the race officially."

Tanned and cheery is an odd description of Dean.

Dean seems to be what the Democratic party needs. But then again, I think I seem to be missing this big push towards the center that Dean is talking about. I saw it happen during the Clinton presidency, but that was ok. The Democrats were in power and the country was on the right track.

However, as Clinton's presidency began to end, Gore emerged as the man for those on the left to follow. Then that bastard of a man Ralph Nader showed up and grabbed every Democrat who existed to the far left. I think that the simple fact that Nader was a deciding factor in 2000 and caused a lot of grief in 2004 is a clear example that folks towards the left end of the political spectrum are still holding steady in the Democratic Party.

I think Dean may have attempting to counteract (very subtly) the words of some Democrats who are encouraging Blue-state folks to adopt some Red-state ideologies. That is not the right plan. We just need to show them that we've believed in these things all along.

|W|P|110261317620161172|W|P|What is Howard Dean running for now?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/08/2004 10:56:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Because he's the only mainstream media member continuously following the mess of the situation in Ohio, and the Democratic House committee that is reviewing the elections. And moreover, today he had a great segment towards the end of his post about the lack of armor situation in Iraq. From today's Blogermann post--about the recount and election in Ohio:

"Jesse Jackson, Jr., of Illinois, turned to the chair of the ad hoc committee, John Conyers, of Michigan, and said “if the votes are not tallied in the state of Ohio by the appropriate time, is there any thought being given that the committee might consider an objection to the proceeding of the Ohio Electors until such time (as they are tallied)?”

Conyers replied, extending each word to about eleven syllables: “We are now.”

These were deep waters, and in an interview with Countdown’s Monica Novotny right after the forum closed, Conyers backed quite a bit away from the river’s edge. He said “We will wait for someone else,” in preference to drawing congress into a legal battle.

And a battle it would be, because the congressionalese Jackson and Conyers were using, translates roughly as this:

Jackson (translated): The Constitution says the states have to tally the votes of their citizens before they can send their electors to the Electoral College. If Ohio doesn’t finish its recount before the College votes, or before the vote is unsealed before Congress on January 6^th, shouldn’t one of us raise a formal objection to those Ohio electors’ votes?

Conyers (translated): After what I heard today, we ought to talk about it.""

And about the lack of armor and Rumsfeld's ignorance:

"You know - like those soldiers in Kuwait Wednesday morning who gave Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld the shock of his life by asking him searing questions about how the troops in, and on their way to, Iraq, are supplied - or not supplied.

Whether you support the war in Iraq or have protested against it, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, whether you are a Veteran, or a Conscientious Objector, it was an appalling image presented by Army Specialist Thomas Wilson of the 278th Regimental Combat Team: “We've had troops in Iraq coming up on three years and we've all been staged here out of Kuwait. Now why do we soldiers have to dig through local land fills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles, and why don't we have those resources readily available to us?"

Keith, keep up the good work. America will benefit. |W|P|110256882058457181|W|P|Why do I love Keith Olbermann?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/08/2004 11:16:00 PM|W|P| Michael|W|P|awesome post, great blog. just wrote about the rummy situation, also.

keep up the good work.12/08/2004 10:13:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|The New York Times has a fascinating plethora of op-ed pieces today by different Democrats attempting to articulate plans and policies for the Democratic party to adopt.

• First, from Donna Brazile, "Hook, Line and Sinker." Essentially, Brazile argues for grassroots activism and appealing to the bigger fish in the stream. It seems to me that she is advocating adopting "Bush-lite" policies. I don't like it.
• Second, from Washington Governor Gary Locke, "Can You Hear Us Now?" Locke advocates understanding the issues of state and local Democrats in an effort to create a core message for Democrats. I think we have the message--let's make it connect instead.
• Third, from Congressman Rahm Emanuel, "Winning With the Tax Code." Emanuel uses this time to push his proposed tax policy and argues that taxes are a good way for Democrats to start. I think not--by simply stating we are gonna roll back tax cuts for the wealthy helps to alienate any potential wealthy donors for us. We need to simply revamp the message of why a progressive tax is the only way for the government to fund the programs the people want and need.
• Fourth, from Howard L. Wolfson (senior advisor to the DNC for campaign '04), "The Politics of Participation." Wolfson offers the most compelling and intriguing piece. He suggests that the DNC should open up elections to all DNC members via the Internet and mailings. As he so eloquently put it: "My proposal is simple. Permit anyone who has voted in a Democratic primary or participated in a caucus and has contributed in some way to the party - either financially or through volunteering - to vote for the next leader via mail or Internet. This vote can be weighted appropriately to give state and county chairmen and longtime activists a proportionately greater say in the outcome. The stakes are high. Today tens of millions of Americans call themselves Democrats but have no real contact with the party structure. They depend on the party leadership but have no real say in its selection." I think Wolfson gets it. We need to revitalize the base and make their choices matter.
• Finally, from Jamal Simmons (spokesman for Wes Clark's campaign), "Looking Out For the Little Guy." Simmons says we need more Democrat state election officials to make sure every voice is heard. I don't know if that solution is so great. Why not encourage all states to adopt a bipartisan election commission to regulate--or simply make the position completely not partisan. And if partisanship is shown, they'll be looking for a new job.

Overall, all of the proposals make for interesting reading and pretty much proves that Democrats need a strong leader with good ideas. All of the different plans are being thrown out left and right. We need someone to mix and match and pick those that are the fundamental ones to make the Democrats a competitive party at the national level again. Oh, and be sure to read Howard Dean's speech from his presentation at The George Washington University. Its good. More reasons for him to be the next chair. Here is Dean's weekly column (on the same issues as the speech) from Blog for America. And if not Dean for chair, then Simon Rosenberg. |W|P|110256700635671114|W|P|Directions for Democrats|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/08/2004 10:03:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous|W|P|It's all a method of promoting little statistic simulators, but it has just a tiny political edge. Play US Secretary of Energy at home: What would it take to end U.S. dependence on foreign oil? Apparently, it takes reducing our use of automobiles by 100%. Who knew?|W|P|110256500445848768|W|P|Some Fun (At Least for Us Geeks)|W|P|chase.nordengren@gmail.com12/08/2004 06:36:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|I apologize to the Grand Forks Herald if they consider this plagiarism in any form. I just think everyone must read this. A war on terror and on those who work to spread terror around the globe is justified--but the war against the nonagressor Iraq is not. "Honoring a Guardsman's request" by Lloyd Omdahl:

"In February, I wrote a column upbraiding the national planners for exploiting the National Guard in conducting the war in Iraq. I argued that continuous life-threatening duty was not in the deal made by all of the Guard men and women but that many of them joined up as a means of financing their higher education. They had bargained for weekend training and emergency duty, such as fighting floods, policing events, and serving as a community resource, but not extended months of combat. For choosing Guard service as the price for their higher education, I noted, young people were being exposed daily to roadside bombs, rocket attacks and sniper fire. And even though they were being exploited, they heroically answered the call in the face of an unjust assignment.

This February column found its way to Iraq and several months later I received a lengthy letter from one of the Guardsmen confirming the comments I had made.

"I hope you don't forget about us because your writing can help people realize the reality of the situation," he wrote in his first paragraph. Then he went on to explain that he had a dream of going to college and was enticed to join the Guard because of its promise to help finance his education.

When he enlisted, he explained, the major emphasis of the recruiter was on the college education. Nothing was said about the possibility of war, let alone deployment in an optional pre-emptive action halfway around the world.

He was assigned to traveling up and down the highways to locate roadside bombs. It was a dangerous mission and the equipment was inadequate. Instead of an armored vehicle, he was assigned a heavy gravel truck insulated with boxes of sand. Not only was he in constant danger of running over bombs but he was a ready target for snipers along the road.

"I told my family and friends nothing about what I do," he wrote. "I don't want to worry them because to me that is the worst part - having loved ones worried about us."

When he was eligible to take leave, he declined. "We knew everyone wasn't going to get leave so I figured I was young with no girlfriend or real need to go home," he explained. "So I volunteered not to go so someone else would have the opportunity."

With Guardsmen facing a prolonged threat to life and limb and a denial of certain benefits, it is little wonder that his July letter reflected a sense of betrayal and abandonment. There was no question that he felt the Guard was being exploited during these months of constant danger, inadequate equipment, extended tours of duty and logistical miscalculations.

For the Guard, service in Iraq has not improved since his July letter. The danger appears to be greater as insurgents continue roadside bombing and sniping. Tours of duty have been extended time and again; pressure tactics have been used to force re-enlistments; troops have not been allowed to leave when their enlistments were up.

All the while, North Dakota's political and military leaders have been silent about these abuses. Maybe they think that it would be unpatriotic to call abuse for what it is. Maybe they don't want to add to the president's embarrassment by publicly protesting. Maybe they don't regard the situation as abuse. Maybe they believe national defense is not their business. Regardless of their reasons for silence, strong public protest by the governor and the adjutant general would lift the morale of those Guard men and women who feel that they are being unfairly treated.

As for my July correspondent, he will not be taking advantage of that college education he was promised. Spc. Cody Wentz of Williston, N.D., was killed in Iraq a few weeks ago. This column is being written to honor his request that we not forget the Guard and to help people understand the reality of the situation."

|W|P|110255302177084296|W|P|Distressing|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/08/2004 01:19:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Editor and Publisher features a great story today. Yesterday, Eschaton posted (I did as well) an interesting bit of information regarding a Bush supporter now engulfed in a teenage sex scandal. Mike Hintz was publicly referred to by President Bush in October when visiting Des Moines to sign a special tax package. Hintz was a youth pastor here in Des Moines at First Assembly of God church. He was fired in November and was charged yesterday for inappropriate relationship with a teenage girl he had counseled through the church. The talk between Bush and Hintz was mainly about these folks' great 'values.' Evidentally, when the Des Moines Register went to report about it this morning, they did not include the fact that he and his family were onstage next to Bush while he signed the bill. From E & P:

"An article in The Des Moines Register this morning announced the arrest of a local youth pastor on charges of sexual exploitation of a 17-year-old client but left out one key element of the story: the pastor’s embrace of President Bush’s “values” in a meeting with the president last year. The clergyman, Michael Hintz, 35, of Clive, Iowa, who is married with four children, ran a youth group at First Assembly of God Church in Des Moines. He was charged Monday with having an inappropriate relationship for several months this year with a girl he had counseled. If convicted he faces up to a year in prison. According to the Register, Hintz was known for urging teens “to avoid pursuing romantic relationships in favor of getting closer to God.”"

I guess the Register just had an "Oops" moment. That happens to them a lot! |W|P|110253414131063919|W|P|Des Moines Register Omits a Key Point in Clergy Sex Case|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/08/2004 12:53:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|According to the Washington Post this morning, a 12-year veteran of the Marines testified of the slaughtering of innocent civilians that he and his fellow troops were ordered to take part in. From WaPo:

"A former U.S. Marine staff sergeant testified at a hearing Tuesday that his unit killed at least 30 unarmed civilians in Iraq during the war in 2003 and that Marines routinely shot and killed wounded Iraqis. Jimmy J. Massey, a 12-year veteran, said he left Iraq in May 2003 after a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress. He said he and his men shot and killed four Iraqis staging a demonstration and a man with his hands up trying to surrender, as well as women and children at roadblocks. Massey said he had complained to his superiors about the "killing of innocent civilians," but that nothing was done. . . . Massey is a former Marine recruiter who served in Iraq as the staff sergeant for a platoon that ranged from 25 to 50 men. He testified that the killings occurred in late March or early April 2003 as his unit, the weapons company of the 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, moved northward to Baghdad and then beyond. During one 48-hour period, Massey said under oath, his platoon set up roadblocks and killed "30-plus" civilians. He said his men, fearing suicide bombers, poured massive firepower into cars that did not stop as they approached the roadblocks. In each instance, he said, none of the cars was found to have contained explosives or arms."

Granted, this testimony was before a refugee board in Canada, however I don't understand how the United States can simply overlook these supposed massacres. I don't doubt that things like this happen during wartime--the army calls civilian deaths 'collateral damage.' However, it is outright slaughter when killing people before they make any hostile sign towards you.

These reports are like the My Lai Massacres in Vietnam.

Where is Seymour Hersh when you need him?

|W|P|110253252724941530|W|P|Iraqi atrocities|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/07/2004 10:11:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|A report to be released tomorrow by the Washington Posts states that sources from inside Syria, most likely Saddam Hussein loyalists, have been funding and controlling the massive insurgency in Iraq. From the Washington Post report:

"U.S. military intelligence officials have concluded that the Iraqi insurgency is being directed to a greater degree than previously recognized from Syria, where they said former Saddam Hussein loyalists have found sanctuary and are channeling money and other support to those fighting the established government. Based on information gathered during the recent fighting in Fallujah, Baghdad and elsewhere in the Sunni Triangle, the officials said that a handful of senior Iraqi Baathists operating in Syria are collecting money from private sources in Saudi Arabia and Europe and turning it over to the insurgency. In some cases, evidence suggests that these Baathists are managing operations in Iraq from a distance, the officials said. A U.S. military summary of operations in Fallujah noted recently that troops discovered a global positioning signal receiver in a bomb factory in the western part of the city that "contained waypoints originating in western Syria."

Well, if we had decided to secure the borders and not disband all the Iraqi forces. . . Looks like we have the next nation the Bush Regime's hit list. |W|P|110247940229485266|W|P|Syria helps to aid insurgency in Iraq|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/07/2004 06:04:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous|W|P|The well-known centrist Democratic Leadership Confrence calls for Kofi Annan's resignation in The Price of Credibility. The once fringe view is becomming not so fringish. The sooner the United Nations can get past this matter, the sooner it can get back to the important business of making itself an effective instrument for collective security against terrorism, failed states, and acts of genocide, a goal that Annan has strongly supported. The secretary general should place this critical mission ahead of his personal interests, and step aside. Given his own lack of credibility on the oil-for-food program, this step is the price Annan must pay to help restore the U.N.'s credibility, and to salvage his legacy as secretary general. To be honest, I'm quite surprised. I can't think of a time in recent history that such a politically-based organization has called for the resignation of an international leader. Then again, Annan appears to have destroyed the effectiveness of an idea that was Bill Clinton's. And we know how much the DLC loves Clinton. Hmm, funny, one of the names that's mentioned as a replacement for Annan is ... hmm, whadya know, William Jefferson Clinton. I wonder if he has some relation to the former president. :) Keep in mind, I'm not suggesting that this is their only motivation, but still...|W|P|110246427558375442|W|P|Hunting Season: DLC vs. the UN|W|P|chase.nordengren@gmail.com12/07/2004 06:13:00 PM|W|P| Chris Woods|W|P|It's odd how everyone is jumping on this "Let's Bash Kofi Annan" bandwagon. I mean, sure, there was something completely wrong with Oil-for-Food (the name of the program says it all).

But why do American political leaders (those not in an office that directly deals with FoPo) feel an obligation to demand his resignation? The people that should be dealing with this issue are other national leaders across the globe.

Moreover, if Americans are gonna get more pissed off at Annan instead of Bush, this country has gotten a lot dumber than I ever imagined.12/07/2004 09:43:00 PM|W|P| Chase Nordengren|W|P|Right after I posted this, I remembered the last political organization that called for the resignation of a world leader ...

1999
Republican National Committee
Bill Clinton

Hmm, a common theme :)12/07/2004 04:45:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|According to a press report by the AP, two government officials who witnessed the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison and had pictures were threatened not to tell anyone of what they saw. From the New York Times and the AP:

"U.S. special forces accused of abusing prisoners in Iraq threatened Defense Intelligence Agency personnel who saw the mistreatment and once confiscated photos of a prisoner who had been punched in the face, according to U.S. government memos released Tuesday by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The special forces also monitored e-mails sent by defense personnel and ordered them "not to talk to anyone" in the United States about what they saw, said one memo written by the Defense Intelligence Agency chief, who complained to his Pentagon bosses about the harassment.

Prisoners arriving at a detention center in Baghdad had "burn marks on their backs" as well as bruises and some complained of kidney pain, according to the June 25, 2004 memo.

FBI agents also reported seeing detainees at Abu Ghraib subjected to sleep deprivation, humiliation and forced nudity between October and December 2003 -- when the most serious abuses allegedly took place in a scandal that's remains under investigation."

Just more examples of American military and defense cover-ups. Why are we doing this? I understand this is war and "what should I expect." However, I don't expect this from a nation I pledged my allegiance to everyday as a child, from a nation that signed the Geneva conventions, and from a nation supposedly founded on Christian moral principles.

If the Bush Regime and their Christian fundamentalist followers are going to argue that this is a Christian nation, then goddamnit, make it look like it!!! Hypocrisy is NOT a virtue.

Don't distort the message of Jesus Christ to fit your politics. If you do, so help me God, you will go to hell.

|W|P|110245992994174869|W|P|Officials who witnessed abuse threatened|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/07/2004 04:39:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Via Daily Kos: Former congressman Martin Frost (D-TX) has officially announced he is running for chair of the Democratic National Committee. His name can pretty much be considered now with Simon Rosenberg of the NDN and former governor Howard Dean (D-VT). The official press release:

"In response to requests from numerous Democratic leaders across the country to run for Democratic National Committee Chair, Congressman Martin Frost (D-TX) has confirmed that he is actively campaigning for the post.

Congressman Frost has accepted an invitation extended by the Association of State Democratic Chairs (ASDC) President Mark Brewer to attend ASDC's weekend conference in Orlando, Florida.

"I have been gratified by the outpouring of support and encouragement I have received in the last several weeks to make a bid to become DNC Chair. For over 30 years, I have been actively involved in strengthening the Democratic Party at the local, state and national levels," said Congressman Frost, former DCCC and Democratic Caucus Chair. "I look forward to hearing from state and local leaders regarding their views as we work to return the Democratic Party to majority status in our country. I am convinced that the core values and ideals of the Democratic Party best reflect the hopes and aspirations of America."

Now the field gets increasingly crowded... Let's see where this goes.|W|P|110245942133426436|W|P|Frost officially running|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/07/2004 11:39:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Eschaton points out something quite ironic, yet disturbing. Yesterday:

Bush introduced Mike and Sharla Hintz, a couple from Clive, whom he said benefited from his tax plan. Last year, because of the enhanced the child tax credit, they received an extra $1,600 in their tax refund, Bush said. With other tax cuts in the bill, they saved $2,800 on their income taxes. They used the money to buy a wood-burning stove to more efficiently heat their home, made some home improvements and went on a vacation to Minnesota, the president said. "Next year, maybe they'll want to come to Texas," Bush quipped. Mike Hintz, a First Assembly of God youth pastor, said the tax cuts also gave him additional money to use for health care. He said he supports Bush's values. "The American people are starting to see what kind of leader President Bush is. People know where he stands," he said. "Where we are in this world, with not just the war on terror, but with the war with our culture that's going on, I think we need a man that is going to be in the White House like President Bush, that's going to stand by what he believes.

and today...

A Des Moines youth pastor is charged with the sexual exploitation of a child. KCCI learned that the married father of four recently turned himself in to Johnston police. Rev. Mike Hintz was fired from the First Assembly of God Church, located at 2725 Merle Hay Road, on Oct. 30. Hintz was the youth pastor there for three years. Police said he started an affair with a 17-year-old in the church youth group this spring.

|W|P|110244137224564819|W|P|Family Values|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/07/2004 10:34:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Paul Krugman at the New York Times has gotten so pissed about the emerging Social Security debate that he came back from his vacation (writing an economics textbook) to write a great piece today entitled "Inventing a Crisis." Krugman explains everything that is important to know about Social Security--and why the Bush Regime is manipulating the facts and potentially causing an even bigger problem. He's like a superhero--Krugman to the rescue! Now we just have to make sure the American people know this--and right away! From the piece:

"Privatizing Social Security - replacing the current system, in whole or in part, with personal investment accounts - won't do anything to strengthen the system's finances. If anything, it will make things worse. Nonetheless, the politics of privatization depend crucially on convincing the public that the system is in imminent danger of collapse, that we must destroy Social Security in order to save it. I'll have a lot to say about all this when I return to my regular schedule in January. But right now it seems important to take a break from my break, and debunk the hype about a Social Security crisis.

There's nothing strange or mysterious about how Social Security works: it's just a government program supported by a dedicated tax on payroll earnings, just as highway maintenance is supported by a dedicated tax on gasoline.

Right now the revenues from the payroll tax exceed the amount paid out in benefits. This is deliberate, the result of a payroll tax increase - recommended by none other than Alan Greenspan - two decades ago. His justification at the time for raising a tax that falls mainly on lower- and middle-income families, even though Ronald Reagan had just cut the taxes that fall mainly on the very well-off, was that the extra revenue was needed to build up a trust fund. This could be drawn on to pay benefits once the baby boomers began to retire.

The grain of truth in claims of a Social Security crisis is that this tax increase wasn't quite big enough. Projections in a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office (which are probably more realistic than the very cautious projections of the Social Security Administration) say that the trust fund will run out in 2052. The system won't become "bankrupt" at that point; even after the trust fund is gone, Social Security revenues will cover 81 percent of the promised benefits. Still, there is a long-run financing problem.

But it's a problem of modest size. The report finds that extending the life of the trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits, would require additional revenues equal to only 0.54 percent of G.D.P. That's less than 3 percent of federal spending - less than we're currently spending in Iraq. And it's only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts - roughly equal to the fraction of those cuts that goes to people with incomes over $500,000 a year.

Given these numbers, it's not at all hard to come up with fiscal packages that would secure the retirement program, with no major changes, for generations to come. It's true that the federal government as a whole faces a very large financial shortfall. That shortfall, however, has much more to do with tax cuts - cuts that Mr. Bush nonetheless insists on making permanent - than it does with Social Security."

Simply, if President Bush and the Regime would roll back their tax cuts, and dedicate some real time and energy to the Social Security problem, then maybe would could get this country back on the fast track. However, it doesn't seem likely to happen. So, thanks all you Bush-voting, change-hating, red-staters who voted for this asshole...and there are a good number of ya--bitches. |W|P|110243767613999991|W|P|Defeating the Social Security myths|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/06/2004 09:50:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|The New York Times with a huge splash tomorrow morning: "2 C.I.A. Reports Offer Warnings on Iraq's Path." The report chronicles two confidential CIA wires back to the US describing some of the progess made, but the deteriorating situation overall in Iraq. From the report:

"A classified cable sent by the Central Intelligence Agency's station chief in Baghdad has warned that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating and may not rebound any time soon, according to government officials.

The cable, sent late last month as the officer ended a yearlong tour, presented a bleak assessment on matters of politics, economics and security, the officials said. They said its basic conclusions had been echoed in briefings presented by a senior C.I.A. official who recently visited Iraq.

The officials described the two assessments as having been "mixed," saying that they did describe Iraq as having made important progress, particularly in terms of its political process, and credited Iraqis with being resilient.

But over all, the officials described the station chief's cable in particular as an unvarnished assessment of the difficulties ahead in Iraq. They said it warned that the security situation was likely to get worse, including more violence and sectarian clashes, unless there were marked improvements soon on the part of the Iraqi government, in terms of its ability to assert authority and to build the economy."

Evidentally, it seems as if the Bush Regime is again lying to the public; they are attemping to paint a pretty picture in a nation so ready to fall apart at the seams. Americans need to become aware of the deteriorating situation there. I don't know what the solution is. One part could be greater international support and calling on NATO and EU nations to send as many troops as they possibly can to stabilize the situation. We need to admit we were wrong--or we will become entrenched in a death cycle in Iraq forever. We need to get on our knees and beg. America can't keep this up. And we can't let Iraq fail. If we let Iraq fail, we've doomed the Middle East. We need international support and we need to understand that this simply isn't a war on terror--that we're caught in the middle of an Islamic Revolution.

I ask the world now, apologizing for the Bush Regime, their lies and misdeeds, and beg of you: Help us--please. The fate of the world rests on our shoulders.

Whether or not you suppor the US is not at hand. We immediately need to turn control over to an international authority and work to understand the cultures and factions that are prevalent. In this case, we must negotiate--not with the terrorists--but with the majority of Arabs in the Middle East. They want reform. And the world supports their efforts to liberalize and join an understanding world community.

All hope is lost, however, if US policy in Iraq is proven a failure with Iraq. They are on their way to becoming the new home to terrorists and becoming a huge breeding ground.

We need help, we need help. . .

|W|P|110239203735079698|W|P|CIA reports 'bleak' situation for Iraq|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/06/2004 04:30:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|While I've commented incessantly on the loyalist nominees to the Bush Regime, a more important position will be opening up far too soon under the reign of the Bush Regime. Federal law will require Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan to leave his post in January of 2006. The position of the Chair of the Fed has, since its inception, but a highly un-politicized position of government, strictly because of its enourmous influence over the monetary policy of the entire country. It requires a fierce dedication and interpretation of numerous reports and complex figures. Even more, the position practically requires a person to be politically ambivalent. When making decisions on economic policy, folks inside the beltway in DC look to polls and public reaction, as well as ideology. The Fed Chair must look at economic consequences. Any student of any level of economics understand the tremendous dilemmas that constantly face the Chair of the largest central bank in the world. I fear that instead of picking a highly respected and effective chair, President Bush may pick a well-known economist, but one that will fit his political ideology and will express a monetary policy that reflects his politics. I think that this is because of the precedent the Bush Regime has set recently when appointing nominees for executive branch positions. And while I do not believe he'll take this to the extreme when it comes to the Fed Chair, I fear that politics will come too much into play. The New York Times reports on the story, with excerpts below (emphasis mine):

"Speculation on who will succeed Mr. Greenspan has focused on Martin S. Feldstein, a prolific author and former adviser to President Reagan who is now a professor at Harvard University and president of the National Bureau of Economic Research in Cambridge, Mass.

But a growing number of Republicans say that the top candidate may be R. Glenn Hubbard, 46, who was a chief architect of President Bush's tax cutting packages of 2001 and 2003 and is the dean of Columbia University's School of Business.

Mr. Feldstein, 65, has a formidable reputation as an economist. But he has also displayed a fierce streak of independence that may not sit well with Mr. Bush, who places top value on unflinching loyalty.

As chairman of President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers from 1982 to 1984, Mr. Feldstein angered many White House officials by criticizing the soaring budget deficits that followed the Reagan tax cuts. Mr. Feldstein has refrained from criticizing the deficits under President Bush, and has been an outspoken defender of his tax cuts.

Mr. Hubbard was chairman of Mr. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers in 2001 and 2002. An advocate of bold tax cuts and a longtime student of tax overhauls, Mr. Hubbard's views mesh with those of Mr. Bush, and he was a relentless advocate for Mr. Bush's proposal in 2003 to eliminate taxes on stock dividends. Congress ultimately cut dividend taxes but did not end them. Mr. Bush is expected to seek their elimination next year.

The Fed chairman plays a major role in the public debate on tax cuts and Social Security. Mr. Feldstein and Mr. Hubbard support the president's two big domestic priorities: to overhaul the tax code and to let people divert some Social Security payroll taxes to private accounts."

Both men seem highly qualified to do the job. However, their open and outright support for the Bush Tax Cuts and the detriment it has done to the economy should worry investors and the public both. With the declining value of the dollar and the growing value of the euro, an appointment of a loyalist over an expert should definitely cause concern. The growing Social Security debate, the sputtering economy, and the declining dollar are all delicate yet critical issues that need an ubiased viewpoint. And America won't get that with an ideological appointment. |W|P|110237245402059858|W|P|Replacing Greenspan: A tough act to follow|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/06/2004 01:25:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Josh Marshall at TPM has some great commentary on what questions Bernard Kerik, Bush's nominee to head Homeland Security, should be asked during his Senate hearings. Essentially, Kerik was to go to Iraq to help coordinate the training of Iraqi police forces. What ends up ensuing are a lot of conflicting reports on how long he was going to be there. Some reports said 90 days, others 6 months, and some even said 18 months. However, as soon as some of the going got tough, Kerik returned to the US having 'completed' his mission. It's a long and convoluted story, one that I can't describe as well as Josh did, so take a look at it. |W|P|110236150935737338|W|P|Bernard...you got some 'splaining to do!|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/06/2004 01:15:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|The New York Times is reporting that Treasury Secretary John W. Snow will soon be out of a job, according to top Republican sources. In the past few weeks, it has been relatively clear by many inside the Regime that Snow was not wanted and that President Bush needed someone more loyal in the position. He needs someone more loyal because of his hefty plans with Social Security and major propositions to adjust the national tax code. From the Times (emphasis mine):

"President Bush has decided to replace John W. Snow as treasury secretary and has been looking closely at a number of possible replacements, including the White House chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., Republicans with ties to the White House say. . . . Treasury secretary is a high-profile job, and one likely to be especially prominent in the next few years if Mr. Bush makes good on his pledge to press for big changes to Social Security and a rethinking of the tax code. . . . Mr. Bush announced immediately after Election Day that Mr. Card would stay on as chief of staff, but Mr. Card is said by some Republicans to be very interested in the treasury job. Mr. Bush has already nominated several loyalists in White House staff positions to top cabinet posts, including Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, as secretary of state, and Alberto R. Gonzales, who would shift to attorney general from White House counsel."

Just more examples of the continuing exodus of any type of sensical voices from the Regime. The nomination/appointment of Card to Treasury Secretary would almost definitely be a final move to secure loyalists at all the top Executive departments. One could like assume that once all of his loyalists are in place, the Regime will move ahead with many of its dastardly plans it likely has lurking in the darkness. |W|P|110236105271372796|W|P|Bush Regime looks to another loyalist|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/06/2004 01:04:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Eight US soldiers have filed a complaint in Federal district court in an effort to return home to their families and challenge a policy requiring them to serve an extended tour of duty. The AP has the story. From the report:

"In a lawsuit being filed Monday in federal court, the soldiers are seeking a judge's order requiring the Army to immediately release them from service. "The Army made an agreement with me and I expected them to honor it," said David Qualls, one of the plaintiffs. He signed up in July 2003 for a one-year stint in the Arkansas National Guard but has been told he will remain on active duty in Iraq until next year. Under the Pentagon's "stop-loss" program, the Army can extend enlistments during war or national emergencies as a way to promote continuity and cohesiveness."

I can understand why the Pentagon would want to implement a stop-loss policy--their rationale makes sense. However, it only makes sense if these people who signed the contracts understand that this policy could and would be implemented. I don't feel they could've known this policy would've been implemented. The Bush Regime made a strong case for war in Iraq (based on fear and lies) to the American people. We went in with force, quickly toppled Saddam's regime, and then declared "Mission Accomplished." I think the soldiers have a logical complaint that if major combat operations have been declared over--and that was over a year ago--why are hundreds of thousands of troops (and more to come) on their way over to engage an insurgent enemy force that was supposedly quickly defeated, thus making the US's mission accomplished? It seems to me that the rhetoric the Bush Regime has employed to the American people may, in fact, come back and bite them in the ass in our courts of law--with those terrible activist judges whom they hate.

|W|P|110236032504506996|W|P|Soldiers fight stop-loss policy|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/06/2004 09:26:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|The Associated Press has released a report stating that the federal government has concluded that it can use evidence gained from torture on the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. From the AP:

"Evidence gained by torture can be used by the U.S. military in deciding whether to imprison a foreigner indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as an enemy combatant, the government concedes. Statements produced under torture have been inadmissible in U.S. courts for about 70 years. But the U.S. military panels reviewing the detention of 550 foreigners as enemy combatants at the U.S. naval base in Cuba are allowed to use such evidence, Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Brian Boyle acknowledged at a U.S. District Court hearing Thursday."

Well, we all knew this one was coming--eventually. Now that the US has simply declared that enemy combatants have no Constitutional rights in these courts, watch out all you USA PATRIOT Act violators. In this world, there are basic human rights, recognized both by the UN and the Geneva Conventions. The US's acts of abuse and torture go strictly against these universal rights and understandings that we want all of the rest of the world to follow. Evidentally, being a superpower also means you're a superhypocrite. We wonder why we watch hostages beheaded and Americans in Iraq be kidnapped for ransom, with absolutely no respect or human decency. But could part of the reason be that we just aren't respecting the human decency of these insurgents. I'm not trying to stick up for them here, but when the only images that Middle Easter media show are the US being absurdly violent and they hear reports of a soldier shooting an already practically-dead insurgent, the Arab world becomes enraged and we only further entrench the conflict. Let's have some decency here in America--please. |W|P|110234726026545677|W|P|US torture for evidence is OK|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/05/2004 10:51:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|I've long considered Christian Conservatives and their associated fellows to be the American fundamentalist kooks. I don't know if this is an entirely fair judgment, but oh well. Over at The All Spin Zone there is a great discussion going on about said issue. It carries over from a piece from the Unitarian Universalist Association about the same issue. Read it, it could be interesting. Thanks to Rob's Blog for pointing this story out. |W|P|110230903817559187|W|P|The Fundamentalist Agenda|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/05/2004 04:19:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|The Boston Globe is the first big-name nationwide print media outlet to pick up the story on the retina scanning of Fallujans who are re-entering their city. I posted a discussion on the issue last week. Essentially, in an effort to regulate all the city's inhabitants and keep track of any possible insurgency, the US is scanning the retinas of each citizen as they re-enter in waves. Moreover, they will be given ID badges to carry on their person at all times. If they violate any of the rules imposed by US forces, soldiers have orders of "shoot to kill." From the Boston Globe report:

"The US military is drawing up plans to keep insurgents from regaining control of this battle-scarred city, but returning residents may find that the measures make Fallujah look more like a police state than the democracy they have been promised. Under the plans, troops would funnel Fallujans to so-called citizen processing centers on the outskirts of the city to compile a database of their identities through DNA testing and retina scans. Residents would receive badges displaying their home addresses that they must wear at all times. Buses would ferry them into the city, where cars, the deadliest tool of suicide bombers, would be banned."

Nothing like banning terrorists and democracy all in one move. We're not the promoters of democracy around the world--we promote US democracy and when it doesn't work, we adopt police states. What the hell are we doing anymore?

|W|P|110228552947951529|W|P|Retina scanned in Fallujah--print media picks story up|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/05/2004 02:06:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|The New York Times has an excellent report on the problems that former First Lady and current Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) may face if she chooses to run for President in 2008. The link to the story can be found here. From the report:

"In a race for the presidency, Hillary Rodham Clinton faces a problem that has dogged her since her days as first lady: an entrenched bloc of voters who simply do not like her. And her experience as a senator in New York shows that despite vigorous campaigning around the state since taking office, she remains an extremely polarizing figure who is unable to sway these voters to her side.

One poll after another shows that roughly one of three New Yorkers has an unfavorable opinion of Mrs. Clinton, a statistic that has not changed since she took office in 2001.

Nationally, her standing is worse, even as her aides prepare for what is emerging as a possible bid for president in 2008. Roughly 4 of 10 Americans disapprove of her, according to a recent poll by the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion.

The voters who disapprove of Mrs. Clinton are numerous and unshakable, and they have been around so long that they even have a name in political circles. Hillary haters.

Mrs. Clinton offered a revealing answer when asked recently whether Republicans might be hoping that she becomes the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008, since it would give the G.O.P. a divisive figure to run against."

I myself believe it would be a terribly bad idea for Hillary Clinton to run in 2008. I myself was a member of the Hillary Haters for a long time, because I saw her use her position as First Lady and wife of the sitting President in an effort to become a powerful political leader. In my eyes, she had abused her position. I have changed my position on her over time, and I commend her for her efforts as First Lady to reform health care and now her job as US Senator. However, as the Times points out, she's a very polarizing and invigorating person.

I don't think Hillary should run in 2008 strictly on those points alone. She is simply too polarizing and gives the GOP a headstart in pummelling any chance the Democrats may have of achieving a comprehendible message across the country. She should stick to NY for the next few years, NY needs her there. In 2012, maybe the country won't be so deeply divided.

But in 2008, the Democrats need an ideologically strong and independent person for President. Someone who can understand the South, speak a nationwide language of understanding, and who can mobilize members across all different voting blocs. If the Democrats can't do that, then we can't win.

|W|P|110227771759750369|W|P|Problems for Hillary in 2008|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/05/2004 12:46:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Again, Aethern over at the Lion's Den, has posted an excellent report on how to understand and win in the south. In his third post on the issue, he provides a clear strategy to work on winning the south. I won't post the entire piece, but I do recommend its reading. Below I'll post some themes and policies for campaigning in the South, and methods of campainging that should be adopted. All of these come from Aethern's post. Themes and Policies:

• Provide rural communities with job-training, education funding, and economic stimulus
• Strengthen family owned farms against the onslaught of agribusiness and unfair global trade practices
• Increase minimum wage
• Expanded health care
• Fair global trade

Methods of Campaigning:

• Strongly support the local party chapters
• Cultivate and groom promising candidates at the local level for State-wide races
• During campaigns, focus on 'town hall' and 'front porch' style events

Everything he posted are great recommendations, all with better analysis and evaluation on his original post. The South will be critical in a new strategy for bringing back the force of the Democratic party. I hope all liberals/democrats take the chance to learn to understand the south and how to revitalize it in all its democratic glory. |W|P|110227277954767932|W|P|Understanding the South: Part 3|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/05/2004 01:41:00 PM|W|P| Rob|W|P|I recommend Aethern for the DNC Southern campaign leader. Or maybe Presidential nominee? :)

The "Understanding the South" series is OUTSTANDING. Should be required reading for all future Democrat candidates and party leaders.12/05/2004 12:42:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous|W|P| Aid cuts threatened by US over tribunal UNITED NATIONS -- The US government is quietly threatening to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars of foreign aid aimed at combating terrorism, resolving conflicts, and building democracy unless countries agree to shield Americans from prosecution at the UN permanent war crimes tribunal... "US dollars are not free," a State Department official said on condition of anonymity. "It should be no skin off the nose of Jordan or other countries to sign this agreement." Many of the nations that get our moeny for, among other things, secular education, can win more points with their people by opposing the US. The "anonymous" (READ: too scared to put his ass on the line for what he "believes") State Department official needs to re-examine his job description. As an adminstration and a country continue to claim to be for aiding democracy and pluralism in the Middle East, we cannot continue to threaten to revoke our (already paltry) foreign aid. The best way to aid democracy is to pay struggling democracies and fund schools to instill non-authoritarian mindsets. Regardless of your belief on ICC, this is a ridiculous move.|W|P|110227214502702968|W|P|Foreign Aid Used Yet Again as a Weapon|W|P|chase.nordengren@gmail.com12/05/2004 11:44:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Bernard Kerik, President Bush's choice to fill Tom Ridge's job of Secretary of Homeland Security in the Bush Regime, evidentally fathered a child while serving over in Korea. The Korea Times has the story here, read more below:

"Bernard Kerik, the man tasked with protecting the United States from the threat of terrorist attacks, fathered a daughter with a South Korean woman while serving on the peninsula in the mid-1970s, U.S. media reported over the weekend.

Kerik, who was selected to replace Tom Ridge as secretary of the Homeland Security Department on Thursday, had the baby with a woman identified as Sun-ja after arriving in South Korea as a 19-year-old military policeman in December 1974, according to several reports.

The baby, named Lisa, was born in 1975. But Kerik deserted her and her mother when he left the country in February 1976."

Wow, I wonder if the Christian Right is gonna pick this up and tear apart the Bush Regime for choosing a man like Kerik to do this important job. Ok, the moment of wonder is over, we all know they [the Christian Right] are hypocrites.

Evidentally, he might be a little apologetic about it:

"In his 2001 autobiography, titled "The Lost Son: A Life in Pursuit of Justice,’’ Kerik called the decision "a mistake I will always regret, and I pray to God that one day I can make it right.’’"

And I can't believe the Bush Campaign wouldn't ask this guy to be their secretary.

In the 2000 campaign, Candidate Bush and monster-of-a-man Karl Rove illustrated a devious scheme in South Carolina to destroy leading candidate John McCain. In a series of polls, a question asking whether or not they would support a candidate with a foreign-born love child was asked. A few days later at a campaign stop in South Carolina, John McCain and his wife showed up with his young Bangledeshi daughter.

When the images of him shown with his family hit the airwaves in South Carolina, the rumors spread like an airborne virus. This was the lovechild the pollers were asking about!

But in fact, it wasn't. McCain and his wife had ADOPTED the little girl. McCain spent most of his time serving overseas as a POW. It is very unlikely he had the chance to get around while locked up and beaten.

Thanks to Eschaton for the heads up on the story.

|W|P|110226948921958054|W|P|Kerik has great family values|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/05/2004 11:39:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson resigned last week. Evidentally, he said some interesting things during his resignation annoucement. I was unable to watch the announcement live, but here is what everyone is talking about:

"For the life of me, I cannot understand why the terrorists have not attacked our food supply because it is so easy to do."

Was this some kind of announcement for bin Laden? Maybe John Ashcroft shouldn't have resigned--he could've arrested him and called him an enemy combatant then locked him up at Gitmo with no due process. Oh well, there's still Alberto Gonzales. |W|P|110226862450340422|W|P|Departing HHS Secretary is crazy|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/04/2004 04:55:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|According to David Cobb's website a federal judge has ruled that the state of Ohio will face a recount in all counties. Here is the entire press releast: "Cobb campaign is confident that a full and complete recount will take place Ohio — Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb today expressed his satisfaction with a ruling by a federal judge taking jurisdiction over a Delaware County, Ohio lawsuit and denying the county's attempt to stop the recount of presidential ballots in that county. "We are very pleased that the judge recognized our right to a recount and that the recount will go forward in each and every county in Ohio," said Cobb. The judge also provisionally granted the motion by the Kerry-Edwards campaign to intervene in the lawsuit in defense of the position of Cobb and Libertarian Michael Badnarik. Although the judge did not agree with Cobb that the recount should proceed on an expedited basis, the Cobb campaign is confident that a full and complete recount will take place. For more information about the Cobb-LaMarche campaign and its recount efforts in Ohio and New Mexico, see http://www.votecobborg/. Information about the Green Party can be found at http://www.gp.org/." I positive the outcome won't change, but at least it'll make sure every single vote is counted.|W|P|110220135678676623|W|P|Ohio will face recount|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/04/2004 07:07:00 PM|W|P| Rob|W|P|It probably won't change a thing, true...but I would like to see a recount to ensure that the voting was valid.

It angers me to no end that we cannot seem to have an open, transparent election, one that is fair and run by unbiased, nonpartisan people. We are, as a nation, 228 years old and have not seemed to figure this out yet. I don't like unaccountable "black box" voting (I'm all for modernizing, but open source with a receipt-type paper trail is a must), I don't like state supervisors of elections being able to act as a campaign chairperson/high level campaigner for any candidate, and I certainly do not like how anyone who asks for a recount is labeled a sore loser.10/01/2005 02:01:00 PM|W|P| Steve Austin|W|P|Nice blog. Please check out my consolidate debt blog. It is all about consolidate debt.10/01/2005 03:46:00 PM|W|P| TS|W|P|Nice Blog!!!   I thought I'd tell you about a site that will let give you places where
you can make extra cash! I made over $800 last month. Not bad for not doing much. Just put in your
zip code and up will pop up a list of places that are available. I live in a small area and found quite
a few. MAKE MONEY NOW10/01/2005 09:59:00 PM|W|P| Joe Muka|W|P|Thanks for some ideas. I have a site about south carolina debt consolidation and I'm just surfing Blogger looking for ideas. Thanks again10/01/2005 11:18:00 PM|W|P| jon|W|P|buy online textbook used are so expensive. I agree, We have been looking for buy online textbook used all night for a new buy online textbook used class but havent been able to track down used buy online textbook used that I can afford. Anyway, I enjoyed looking at you buy online textbook used blog...

jon10/02/2005 02:04:00 AM|W|P| Natwho|W|P|www.nwcleasing.com offers the lowest rate financing on mortgage What ever your financial situation, mortgage can help. We even have a special loan program that can put money in your pocket within 1 hour of applying. Apply online today and see just how quickly we can get you approved regardless of your past credit. Rates start as low as 4%, apply today.10/02/2005 03:59:00 AM|W|P| I work from home|W|P|Wishing you much success with this site! Good work!

reverse mortgage10/02/2005 11:11:00 AM|W|P| billuk|W|P|Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!
I have a bankruptcy lawyer
site/blog. It pretty much covers bankruptcy lawyer
related stuff.

Come and check it out if you get time :-)10/03/2005 04:32:00 AM|W|P| debt free guy|W|P|I really like reading your blog! its great! I have bookmarked it and will visit it for sure in the near future.. Take care

Debt Free Guy
debt consolidation12/04/2004 01:27:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|The Bush Regime, in an effort to maintain the power over national defense and the executive branch of the government, have made sure that Neocon Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld will stay on through the next four(?) years of the Bush Regime. CNN has the story here. All in all, just another concerted effort of the Bush Regime to continue the consolidation of power and keep voices of dissent from entering into the Regime. Josh Marshall over at TPM has some great commentary on the recent Regime issues and why it should become a big topic for the Sunday news shows.|W|P|110214207265311956|W|P|Rumsfeld solidifies the Bush Regime|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/03/2004 11:54:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|The Guerilla News Network has released an edited Eminem video to the song "Mosh," his politically-themed rap song, featuring a revised and new ending that is quite interesting. It can be found here (broadband connection), and I recommend it. An article about it can be found on GNN. Leave me comments and let me know what you think about it. |W|P|110213989709146450|W|P|Changes to Eminem's 'Mosh' video|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/03/2004 12:32:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|In the upcoming debate on Social Security, it is important to know the facts. Simply put, the Bush Regime's plans to begin privatization of the Social Security system would most likely exponentially compound the US debt, cause much greater risks for those investing in the private accounts, and cause enormous benefits cuts for those currently on Social Security. As I've posted previously, most economists believe that the US debt will increase substantially as well as require substantial borrowing in the form as loans, as much as $1 trillion. Today, there are a lot of stories out on the Social Security issue, but here are a few I've decided to highlight:

• NY Times: "From Bush Aide, Warning on Social Security"
• NY Times Editorial: "A False Start on Social Security"
• Washington Post: "Theoretically, Tax Reform Should Fly"

I recommend reading all of the articles. Most importantly, notice how most conservatives are abandoning the idea of fiscal conservativism in an effort to make sure they keep the Bush Regime's support. Democrats, who during the 1980s were not none as supporters of fiscal conservation, are now becoming the prime couriers of this conservative tradition. John Kerry would never let this happen. Back in the 1980s, he split with the Democrats in favor of budget restrictions and worked to reign in the national debt and work towards fiscal safety. Imagine what could have been. |W|P|110209962624357388|W|P|Social Security debate|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/03/2004 11:36:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Another member of the Bush Regime resigned today, most likely in an effort to allow President Bush to consolidate his power among the leaders of the Executive Branch. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, former governor of Wisconsin, submitted his letter of resignation this morning. CNN has the story here. It is increasingly seeming as if these secretaries are moving out of the way to allow Bush to power up his regime with loyal and influential supporters of the emerging Neocon Regime. I'm still surprised that Norman Mineta is still transportation secretary, seeing as he's the only Democrat in the Cabinet and the lone Clinton Cabinet Member hold over. However, he is quite specialized in managing that department. I expect he will continue on his role up until the Bush Regime finds a better way to manipulate transportation through means other than our terrible Middle East oil dependence. |W|P|110209569796603495|W|P|Exodus Ensues|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/02/2004 07:37:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|It seems that while Bush was in Halifax, he decided to do some historical re-inactments from World War II. I guess he decided to play Stalin. Hmm...sounds about right. |W|P|110203800075001541|W|P|Now and Then|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/02/2004 07:01:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|SECOND UPDATE: Here is a link to the CNN story on Danforth's resignation. No reason for the sudden resignation was given. He had only been on the job for about five months. UPDATE: The AP has a story out, likely to be replaced by a NY Times writer soon. Also more interesting news in the story, US Ambassador to the UN John Danforth has submitted his resignation. More info to come on the Danforth Resignation. Reports are flying around the Net that President Bush plans to nominate former NYC Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik to be his next secretary of Homeland Security. All in all, another effort to insert loyal forces inside the Bush Regime. I'm assuming that Minister of Disinformation Scott McClellan will begin making the leak soon, if he wasn't already the one who leaked it for the White House. Some days, he really reminds me of Tariq Aziz. The problems for Kerik will be monumental, such as overseeing 22 different agencies and hopefully the passing of new intelligence legislation that will create a Director of National Intelligence. I don't think he's going to be well equipped for the job. He's been out campaigning for Bush the past year, and hasn't been in command of multiple organizations since right after 9/11. Granted, acting as NYC police commissioner is not a difficult task, but I definitely don't think it prepares you to be chief of homeland security. Major urban areas are a lot different than the wide open and unprotected rural communities in America. |W|P|110202811187431550|W|P|Kerik to be next Homeland Security Chief|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/02/2004 06:37:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|During the primary season when Howard Dean was every liberal's favorite candidate, I didn't really like him and I despised his campaign manager Joe Trippi. I had a lot of absurd reasons back at the time, none that I would really like to discuss right now. I still find him to be slightly arrogant and elitist on television (he's an MSNBC commentator now). However, I think he's got a good message for the Democrats, and it seems that it would be one that Howard Dean could emulate if he were to become the next chairman of the Democratic Party. He also did a great job managing Dean's campaign, especially when garnering the support of online activists. Here is part of a post he made on "Trippi's Take" over at MSNBC's Harblogger:

"Civic virtue, the common good, the idea that with the rights of the citizen there are also duties and responsibilities of the citizen, the creation of the commonwealth, and the opposition to corruption at every turn, are not naïve notions— they are the tenets of a sound and healthy republic— the principles on which our nation was founded. . . . The campaign of 2004 demonstrated just how far we have strayed, as a nation, from these founding principles.

Today, the sovereign is made up of those with the money. Campaign contributors and lobbyists have more say over our laws than the people.

Both political parties have been practicing transactional politics at the detriment of engaging the American people in common cause to solve our problems, and neither party has demonstrated the courage to ask Americans to sacrifice for the common good.

“A tax cut for your vote” or “A prescription drug benefit for your vote” is transactional— particularly when you have no real plan to pay for either. In a perfect world, both of the parties would step away from the abyss of this kind of politics— but at least one of them must, and I hope it’s the Democrats.

The answer for Democrat Party is not to move left or right— it is to lift itself up to the high principles on which our nation was founded and reform itself in the cause of restoring the republic for which we stand. To do so will require rebuilding the party from the ground up, returning much of the power in the party to the grassroots, and building new institutions that empower more Americans to participate and have a say in the decisions that effect them."

I hope that the Democratic Party can become the party of the principles that Trippi espoused. And I hope that whoever is elected to be the DNC Chairman follows through with these plans. This is what the people want. It was clearly shown in the public's support for Howard Dean's Internet campaign during the primaries and how important the Internet became during the campaign. Keep the good fight going, Democrats. If not, the Bush Regime wins. |W|P|110203517683917116|W|P|Message from Joe Trippi|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/02/2004 11:39:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|I've been pondering the new Cabinet nominations that President Bush has announced as well as looking at the ideologies of folks who've been leaving. I've concluded that President Bush's push for loyalty is in an effort to undermine dissent in the executive and consolidate his advisors into a regime. The Merriam Webster Dictionary of Law defines a regime as a system of principles, rules, or regulations for administration (as of property). President Bush, in his Cabinet reshuffling and placing certain advisors in certain positions, has begun to create his own system of principles and rules to administer this country. He has begun placing these people throughout the executive branch in an effort to consolidate power. A regime is a word that carries a certain connotation of negativity, particularly from those in the opposition. President Bush will never openly admit that his administration is becoming a regime because it is contrary to our American republic. However, a look in-depth at the administration and you see it happening. Colin Powell has openly been the only moderate and dissenting voice within the Regime. But it meant very little. He was forced to compromise his position and damaged his reputation badly when he went and testified before the United Nations. In effect, the Bush Regime was able to push this man out by destroying his reputation and forcing him to have the toughest job in DC--attempting to weaken the Neocon power structure that Bush and Cheney had developed. That brings us to an interesting question in the Bush Regime: Who is in power? One would assume that since President Bush is in the title of the Regime, I would say that he is. However, I feel it is more of an oligarchical approach. The power structure is essentially Bush barely at the top, then Vice President Dick Cheney, and then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. These three seem to compromise the three most powerful men in this power structure. They each have minions that carry out their tasks. President Bush's minion is Scott McClellan, his Press Secretary, who should be called his Minister of Disinformation. He reminds me of the crazy Iraqi Information Minister we saw all over the Western media right before Iraq was invaded. Dick Cheney's minion is Condi Rice, the former National Security Advisor and soon to be Secretary of State. Her time as Provost of Stanford University has helped her figure out how to adminstrate well over the people. The only difference is that she moved from college students to all of the American people. Finally, Donald Rumsfeld's minion is the illustrious Paul Wolfowitz--Deputy Secretary of Defense. Now, there are more people than all of the ones I listed above. Numerous folks within the Regime contribute to this consolidation of power. Regime representatives now exist solidly in the Congress in the forms of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and Speaker of the House Bill Frist (R-IL). Moreover, regime influence even exists in the Supreme Court, though not as powerful as in the Executive and Legislative. Justice Antonin Scalia has the direct ear of VP Cheney and vice versa. All of this spells increasing trouble for American foreign and domestic policy. The Bush Regime's tax cuts have begun to spell doom for the younger generations of America and really helped the Regime achieve greater power by getting the support of the wealthiest Americans, with just a few exceptions. Foreign policy is being destroyed by the arrogance of the Bush Regime with respect to international affairs. We are attempting to "bring peace and democracy to the Middle East" but instead we are simply destroying any support for America because we bring democracy by force and at the muzzle of a gun. Essentially, American power and influence is being manipulated by the Neocon Regime of President Bush. More and more the American people are facing the greatest challenges of our 220-year existence. Rising religious fundamentalism in Muslim nations is occuring right in America in the form of radcial religious conseravtivism. These rising spectres will drive each group--Christain conservatives in America and Muslim fundamentalists in the Middle East--to their respective ends of the spectrum. And as this occurs, America and the rest of the World are in the crossfire. |W|P|110201075594257939|W|P|Bush Adminstration becomes the Bush Regime|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/02/2004 01:05:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|The Washington Post is leading their paper tomorrow morning with a report that claims that some federally funded abstinence education programs in schools teach lies and other falsehoods. From the report:

"Many American youngsters participating in federally funded abstinence-only programs have been taught over the past three years that abortion can lead to sterility and suicide, that half the gay male teenagers in the United States have tested positive for the AIDS virus, and that touching a person's genitals "can result in pregnancy," a congressional staff analysis has found.

Those and other assertions are examples of the "false, misleading, or distorted information" in the programs' teaching materials, said the analysis, released yesterday, which reviewed the curricula of more than a dozen projects aimed at preventing teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.

In providing nearly $170 million next year to fund groups that teach abstinence only, the Bush administration, with backing from the Republican Congress, is investing heavily in a just-say-no strategy for teenagers and sex."

Bascially, a religious right issue that was adopted by Republicans has been forced upon American youngsters and now we are seeing the effects of the lies that they've produced and the corruption that they have created within America's youth. Scaring kids into thinking that sex is dangerous unless you're married and that homosexuality can kill you is just not right. This is just a prime example of how the religious right with policy influence is dangerous to Americans, particularly children who are the most vulnerable. Findings in the report (which is available here from the House (Democrats) Committee on Government Reform--PDF file):

• A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person."
• HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, can be spread via sweat and tears.
• Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse.
• One curriculum, called "Me, My World, My Future," teaches that women who have an abortion "are more prone to suicide" and that as many as 10 percent of them become sterile. This contradicts the 2001 edition of a standard obstetrics textbook that says fertility is not affected by elective abortion.

Here is the statement from Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA ): "I have no objection talking about abstinence as a surefire way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. I don't think we ought to lie to our children about science. Something is seriously wrong when federal tax dollars are being used to mislead kids about basic health facts." At least he got everything right. I hope this message gets out to all those Bush supporters who think the radical right is ok. When you lie about science, you screw things up for all Americans. Lying is not cool. |W|P|110197166295684591|W|P|Federal abstinence programs perpetuate lies|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/02/2004 12:29:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Tom Friedman over at The New York Times has an excellent column out today describing the plight of the folks of my generation--the current 18-24 year-olds in America. He describes a plight of deficits and insufficient funds for us simply called the "9/11 Bubble." He relates the Bush Administration's absurd decrease tax and spend more policies that have destroyed any type of fiscal security in America. From his column:

"We are about to embark on a 10-year period in which recent tax cuts and runaway spending are expected to add $5 trillion to the cumulative deficit. In my lifetime we will have gone from the Greatest Generation to the Profligate Generation to the Bankrupt Generation. Yes, I'm talking to you 20-year-olds. President Bush has called for sacrifice - but not by his generation. He's passing the bill onto your generation."

If that isn't a reason to get Republicans out of the Congress in 2006, I don't know what is. I certainly don't want the bill from a man who is simply passing on the Republican government tradition of "passing the buck." This is ridiculous. The economists around Bush and in neocon circles know what the hell is going on. While they line their pockets with huge contract deals in the countries we invade and solid positions in the Bush Adminstration for being so loyal, the young people who just joined the National Guard and the Army are over in Iraq dying. They passed the buck and they passed the problem all to a younger generation.

"It is now clear to me that we have followed the dot-com bubble with the 9/11 bubble. Both bubbles made us stupid. The first was financed by reckless investors, and the second by a reckless administration and Congress. In the first case, the public was misled by Wall Street stock analysts, who told them the old rules didn't apply - that elephants can fly. In the second case, the public was misled by White House economists, peddling similar nonsense. The first ended in tears, and so will the second."

|W|P|110196942152164299|W|P|Friedman: The 9/11 Bubble|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/01/2004 06:12:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|According to the NBC Nightly News and a reporter live in Iraq, the US military is planning on bringing back citizens of Fallujah in multiple waves, where they will be fingerprinted, undergo a retina scan, and then given an ID card. We basically forced hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens out of their home city and then proceeded to destroy the city in an effort to root out a few hundred terrorists. Now we will track them and control them, almost as if the people of the destroyed city and nation are to become regulated people by the occupying US forces. Moreover, troops will be given orders of "shoot to kill" if any Iraqi violates the rule. Evidentally the Iraqi interim constitution doesn't guarantee any right of Due Process for legal violations--or at least not in Fallujah. I'm working on trying to find more information about the plans for Fallujans. As soon as I find some, I'll post an immediate follow-up. Leave your comments for continuing discussion. UPDATE: Here is more information regarding the US plan for Fallujah via The Day in New London, CT.

"American officials say they fully understand the risks, and have been planning for them since last spring. Already, American civil affairs teams have begun making condolence payments to residents who were injured or had their houses destroyed in the attack, up to a maximum of $2,500 a person. The interim Iraqi government has also promised $100 to each returning family.

The American plan here involves a carefully phased renewal. The city will be opened to residents sequentially, starting in the north and moving southward as basic services are restored to 16 separate areas designated by American military planners, said Col. John R. Ballard, the commander of the Marine 4th Civil Affairs Group, based in Washington. Generators will supply power, and water tanks placed on the city's main boulevards will provide water, at least for the moment.

To prevent looting, the head of every household will be asked to wear an identification badge, Ballard said, and American and Iraqi troops will be given special rules of engagement to deal with theft. No cars will be allowed in the city at first, to prevent car bombs. Instead, a bus system will provide free transportation. Whole areas where the buildings remain unsafe will be fenced off.

Within two or three months, Marine officials say, bigger projects will be set in motion: a new $35 million wastewater treatment plant, four new school buildings, several new health clinics. Badly damaged homes will be bulldozed and rebuilt, or owners will be compensated. To help revive the city's economy, the Marines will ask all returning residents with relevant skills to take a job in the reconstruction projects."

It will be interesting to see how many of the United States' and the Iraqi interim government's plans take effect. I'm guessing they won't be too comprehensive and the rebuilding process will be minimal. TheMarines that would be involved in the rebuilding process involved will undoubtedly have their hands full dealing with the mockery elections planning on being held on January 30, 2005. Already, the US is planning to increase the number of troops to 150,000 and extend the tours of duty of 2-4 batallions. The troop presence required to stabilize the nation on election day is going to require all troops to actively protect polling places and engage any enemy threat. The rebuilding will most definitely be delayed to ensure that the pro-US candidate wins, thus defeating any chance of hope for the Iraqi people. Finally, the rules of engagement that were unspecified in the article from The Day are outlined above. Mainly, you break or do not follow the rules, you are killed. This according to an NBC News employee in Iraq. |W|P|110194448664483003|W|P|Citizens of Fallujah to be given ID cards and retina scans|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/01/2004 02:14:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|The Hill has a great report out today on the plans of members of the Democratic party to move away from its current position of "presidential incubator" and become more supportive of Congressional and state Democrats. From the article:

" In behind-the-scenes positioning, key congressional lawmakers are seeking to prevent the national party from lapsing into another four-year presidential gestation cycle, where the DNC serves as nothing more than an incubator for the party’s ambitions to capture the White House, say leadership aides. That congressional strategy to deemphasize the presidential race is being paralleled at the state level, where party chairmen are withholding their endorsements and plan to swing their 112 votes in one bloc for a single candidate."

I think this is a fabulous idea. Not only are state parties lacking in structure and networking, they are no longer able to encourage or support local and state Democrats and their efforts to make it into elected office. Before the rise of the national political parties, most of politics was dominated by strong state and local party organizations. They met their downfall as the nation shifted to a strong primary system when choosing the president and with the ending of powerful and manipulative political machines. The efforts that this bloc of Democrats are taking are essential to make the Democratic party stronger and more effective at running and maintaining grassroots advocacy between the four years of nothingness that exist between presidential campaigns. Within the new bloc that is forming among Democrats are the Congression Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and the Association of State Democratic Chairmans. I hope that they are able to have a significant impact on the policies of the Democratic party and are able to initiate reform where it is needed. I also hope that they keep in mind that organization works well from the bottom-up as well. Thanks to Ryan over at "Wars of Compassion" for reminding of that a while back in a comment he left. |W|P|110193330383778027|W|P|Democrats seek to revitalize the DNC|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com12/01/2004 01:32:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|The President of the International Committee of the Red Cross plans on visiting Washington DC in an effort to meet with President Bush and senior officials to discuss the abuse of detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The New York Times is reporting this in this mornings issue. From the report:

"Committee officials in Washington, and at the organization's headquarters in Geneva, said that Mr. Kellenberger had made visits to Washington before. But it was clear that any coming visit would be used to raise at a high level the issues contained in a Red Cross report charging that the American military had used psychological and physical coercion on detainees that was "tantamount to torture." A report in The New York Times on Tuesday said the International Committee of the Red Cross made the charges after a visit in June by a team of relief workers that included medical personnel. A memorandum based on the report and obtained by The Times said the Red Cross believed that doctors and other medical personnel at Guantánamo were assisting in the planning of interrogations in what was described as "a flagrant violation of medical ethics.""

The Times first reported on this story yesterday. Today, they have pubished an editorial condemning the actions occuring down at 'Gitmo.' However, the Times story from today offers the Pentagon's response to the charges:

"The Pentagon on Tuesday denied that its forces at Guantánamo engaged in torture and said the detainees there, who now number about 550, were treated humanely.

Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a news conference in Indianapolis on Tuesday, dismissed accusations that the tactics amounted to torture.

"We certainly don't think it's torture," General Myers said before delivering a speech to the Economic Club of Indianapolis, according to the Web site of The Indianapolis Star. "Let's not forget the kind of people we have down there," he said. "These are the people that don't know any moral values.""

It is interesting to see how the term 'moral values' keeps coming up in politics recently. And it is even more interesting if you stop and think about General Myers' response. He says that the detainees at Gitmo have no moral values. Is he stating that all voters who did not cite moral values as their top reason for voting, if arrested, deserve to be treated as detainees and enemy combatants without any Due Process or the rights we have tried to uphold for centuries in our constitution? It seems to me that General Myers is insisting that since these detainees are Muslim and have carried out or conspired to perform acts of violence that they have no moral values and thus it is justified to torture them and abuse them.

What a sick bastard. I bet he laughed when he saw the first pictures coming out of Abu Ghraib.

|W|P|110193027458084629|W|P|Red Cross president to visit DC on detainee abuse|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com