I Wonder

I wonder ... do you suppose this bailout "emergency" is the Administration's "October surprise?" I've been expecting them to come up with some sort of emergency to ensure a Republican victory in the upcoming election, but I actually expected either an attack on Iran or some sort of imminent  "turrurist" threat. However, when Dumbya came on prime-time television tonight to speak to the nation about the imminent financial threat which *must* be dealt with *immediately,* it dawned on me that this could be it - the October surprise. Only, it may have backfired.

As you know, they wanted Congress to adopt Paulson's bailout bill, as written, within 24 hours. When that didn't happen, they sent Cheney in to try to strong-arm the Republicans into supporting the bill. When that didn't work, they started making small concessions to Sen. Dodd's recommendations, and now they've trotted out the Prez to try to get the public's support (no, I do not know what they were smoking when they thought that would work.)

Meanwhile, McCain is SO concerned that he's passing up the chance to debate Obama (what a trooper!) so he can "lead the fight, because that's what leaders do" (his campaign spokeman's words) and handle this "urgent crisis." 

I wonder if their plan was that Obama and the rest of the Democrats in Congress would protest the Paulson bill, but it would get passed anyway - by Friday, mind you - because this is so urgent, and then keep pounding the message from now 'til election day that if it wasn't for the Republicans passing the bailout bill, the American taxpayers would be in the crapper for sure. They didn't count on the taxpayers already knowing what the crapper smells like because they're IN it, not to mention resenting the hell out of a bailout, nor was the Administration prepared for the revolt within its own party. 

When both parties in Congress started saying wait, let's take a good look at this bill and not be rushed into anything, lo and behold, the market held steady - thus, no immediate crisis. This whole thing just might have backfired. And wouldn't that be nice?

Except, that does still leave Iran on the table, doesn't it?

By now you've heard about Iowa Republican Congressman King saying that "if Obama gets elected President Al Qaeda /Muslims will be dancing in the streets even more than they did on 9/11." This latest smear job was on the heels of the picture of Sen. Obama wearing Somalia's traditional garb. Both are attempts, of course, to scare voters into thinking that Sen. Obama is some kind of stealth Muslim poised to take over our country.

Now, according to an MSNBC terror analysis, al-Qaeda thinks the same thing!

Al-Qaeda supporters are so insistent about their hatred for Obama that they have gone as far as to portray him as an "Iranian agent" secretly sent to take over the United States and fight a war against Sunni Muslims. They are enraged by the notion that Obama ( who is Christian & supports Israel) is somehow in league with them.

Read the full article here.

Great minds: Congressman King and al-Qaeda.
----------------------------------------------------

No, it ain't workin

This is an email from Cong. Wexler about the "surge-is-working" propaganda. I just want to scream every time I hear someone on TV say it's working. Grr! Look at the facts, morons!

A Surge of More Lies
by Congressman Robert Wexler

A new troubling myth has taken hold in Washington and it is critical that the record is set straight. According to the mainstream media, Republicans, and unfortunately even some Democrats, the President's surge in Iraq has been a resounding success. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

This assertion is disingenuous, factually incorrect, and negatively impacts America's national security. The Surge had a clear and defined objective - to create stability and security - enabling the Iraqi government to enact lasting political solutions and foster genuine reconciliation and cooperation between Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds.

This has not happened.

There has been negligible political progress in Iraq, and we are no closer to solving the complex problems - including a power sharing government, oil revenue agreement and new constitution - than we were before the Administration upped the ante and sent 30,000 more troops to Iraq.

Too many Democrats in Congress are again surrendering to General Petraeus and have failed to challenge the Bush Administration's claims that the surge has been successful. In fact -- it is just the opposite.

The reduction in violence in Iraq has exposed the continuing failure of Iraqi officials to solve their substantial political rifts. By President Bush's own stated goal of political progress, the Surge has failed.

Of course raising troop levels has increased security - a strategy the Bush administration ignored when presented by General Shinseki before the war in Iraq began - but the fundamental internal Iraqi problems remain and the factors that were accelerating the civil war in 2007 have simply been put on hold.

The military progress is a testament to the patience and dedication of our brave troops - even in the face of 15 month-long deployments followed by insufficient Veteran's health services when they return home. They have performed brilliantly - despite the insult of having President Bush recently veto a military spending bill that enhanced funding and benefits, and increased care.

Despite the efforts of American soldiers, the surge alone cannot bring about the political solutions needed to end centuries of sectarian divide.

As it stands, little on the ground supports the assertion that Iraqis are ready to stand up and govern themselves. Too few Iraqi troops are trained, equipped and combat ready, and they cannot yet provide adequate security. Loyalty is also an issue in the Iraqi army as Al Queda and Sunni insurgents infliltrate their defense forces. The consequences turned deadly just recently when an Iraqi soldier purposely killed two U.S. troops.

On the streets of Baghdad and Mosul, the Sunni and Shia factions have paused their fighting, awaiting guarantees and protections that have not yet been delivered. As Iraqi refugees return, there is no mechanism to help them rebuild their lives, nor recover their now-occupied homes. Neighborhoods once mixed are now segregated.

In Northern Iraq, Kurdish terrorists conducting nefarious operations across the border into Turkey have compelled our NATO ally to strike at bases, inflaming tensions between Baghdad and Ankara.

The surge is working? We suffered more U.S. casualties in 2007 than in any other year of the war. We can't afford any more of this type of success.

How can we create the situation that is most likely to deliver political progress in Iraq? Not by continuing the surge and occupation. Our best chance (there is no guarantee) is by putting real pressure on the Iraqi government to force action. Telling the national and local Iraqi leaders that we are withdrawing our troops can help accomplish this goal. Today, the majority Iraqi Shia government led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has little incentive to act when American troops remain in the country to provide security and stability.

Based on the Administration's plan, John McCain's proposal of a 100-year US occupation could be a reality!

The Democratic Congress must act aggressively to first cut off funding for the surge and then the entire war. Many of my colleagues avoided a showdown with the administration because they mistakenly believed such a fight would endanger the safety of the troops.

In fact, we must accept that every soldier killed or injured in the coming months should have already been home. Every billion dollars of war-appropriations we spend from here on should have been spent on genuine priorities here at home such as children's heath care.

Enough is enough: While the Administration over-commits American forces in Iraq, we see Al Qaeda-regrouping and Osama Bin Laden still at large. We remain seriously bogged down in Afghanistan, and are witnessing a crisis in Pakistan that has left a nuclear country on the brink of a meltdown. America's resources and attention are desperately needed elsewhere and our soldiers must no longer be needlessly sacrificed as we wait for Iraqis to stand up.

The Surge has failed. If my colleagues gullibly accept the moving rationale for the Surge, just as so many have for the war itself, we will have failed as well.


***To contact me or for more information, go to www.wexlerforcongress.com .

More idiocy from the TEA

In a previous previous post, here, there was the story about the Texas Education Agency forcing the resignation of its Science Curriculum Director, Christine Comer, because she might have suggested a bias toward science. Yes, you read that right - a bias toward science.

Now read this, reported in The New York Times:

Green Light for Institute on Creation in Texas

By RALPH BLUMENTHAL

Published: December 19, 2007

HOUSTON — A Texas higher education panel has recommended allowing a Bible-based group called the Institute for Creation Research to offer online master’s degrees in science education.

The action comes weeks after the Texas Education Agency’s director of science, Christine Castillo Comer, lost her job after superiors accused her of displaying bias against creationism and failing to be “neutral” over the teaching of evolution.

The state’s commissioner of higher education, Raymund A. Paredes, said late Monday that he was aware of the institute’s opposition to evolution but was withholding judgment until the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board meets Jan. 24 to rule on the recommendation, made last Friday, by the board’s certification advisory council.

Henry Morris III, the chief executive of the Institute for Creation Research, said Tuesday that the proposed curriculum, taught in California, used faculty and textbooks “from all the top schools” along with, he said, the “value added” of challenges to standard teachings of evolution.

“Where the difference is, we provide both sides of the story,” Mr. Morris said. On its Web site, the institute declares, “All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the creation week” and says it “equips believers with evidences of the Bible’s accuracy and authority through scientific research, educational programs, and media presentations, all conducted within a thoroughly biblical framework.”

It also says “the harmful consequences of evolutionary thinking on families and society (abortion, promiscuity, drug abuse, homosexuality and many others) are evident all around us.”

Asked how the institute could educate students to teach science, Dr. Paredes, who holds a doctorate in American civilization from the University of Texas and served 10 years as vice chancellor for academic development at the University of California, said, “I don’t know. I’m not a scientist.”

He said he had no ready explanation for the panel’s recommendation. “I asked about the decision,” Dr. Paredes said Monday in a phone interview from Austin. “I got a three-inch-thick folder an hour ago. We’re going to give it a full review.” But, he said, “If it’s approved, we’ll make sure it’s of high quality.”

Approval would allow the institute, which moved to Dallas this year from near San Diego, to offer the online graduate program almost immediately while seeking accreditation from national academic authorities like the Southern Association of Schools and Colleges within two years.

In California, the only other state where Mr. Morris said the institute was offering degrees, it won recognition from the state superintendent of public instruction in 1981 but was denied license renewal in 1988. The institute sued and in 1992 won a $225,000 settlement that allowed it to continue offering degrees; it now operates under the California Department of Consumer Affairs. Dr. Morris said his program was accredited by the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, which is not recognized by Texas.

Last month, in a sign that Texas was being drawn deeper into creationism controversy, Ms. Comer, 57, was put under pressure to resign as science director after forwarding an e-mail message about a talk by a creationism critic, Barbara Forrest, a professor at Southeastern Louisiana State University.

Lizzette Reynolds, a deputy commissioner who called for Ms. Comer’s dismissal, later told The Austin American-Statesman she was surprised she resigned. Ms. Reynolds did not respond to a message left at her office.

The Texas Education commissioner, Robert Scott, told The Dallas Morning News that Ms. Comer was not forced out over the message, adding, “You can be in favor of science without bashing people’s faith.” He did not return phone calls to his office.

Ms. Comer said the commissioner should show her where she was bashing anyone’s faith. “He just doesn’t get it,” she said.

This explains a lot

I Stumbled upon this article from the Yale Daily News, written almost two years ago. Take a look at what Dumbya was doing back in 1967:

Cartoon on Bush recalls Yale frat hazing

Yale Daily News
December 1, 2005
BY KIMBERLY CHOWS AND JACK MIRKINSONS
Contributing Reporters

Cartoonist Garry Trudeau '70 said he thinks a little-known fact about President George W. Bush '68's past -- that his first mention in The New York Times occurred in 1967 when, as former president of the Delta Kappa Epsilon chapter at Yale, Bush defended the fraternity's practice of branding its pledges with a red-hot coat hanger -- deserves more national attention.

Bush continues to assert that "American doesn't torture." The administration's spin on waterboarding is that it's no worse than hazing. The frat boy brought his "family values" to the highest office in the land and disgraced this country in the eyes of the world.

Bugged

Does this bug you as much as it does me? I mean, there you are at the anti-war march, and you look over and see ...





October 12, 2007
US agencies are staying tight-lipped about robobug research, writes Rick Weiss.

[article excerpt:]

VANESSA ALARCON saw them at an antiwar rally in Lafayette Square in Washington last month.

"I heard someone say: 'Oh my god, look at those'," the university student recalled. "I look up and I'm like, 'What the hell is that?' They looked kind of like dragonflies or little helicopters. But those are not insects."

Bernard Crane saw them, too. "I'd never seen anything like it in my life," the Washington lawyer said. "I thought: 'Is that mechanical, or is that alive?' "

That is just one of the questions hovering over a handful of similar sightings at political events in Washington and New York.

Some suspect the insect-like drones are high-tech surveillance tools, perhaps for the Department of Homeland Security.

Do you believe this shit? And this is domestic spying, folks.
--------------------------------------------------------------