UPDATE: THE AUTOPSY IS IN

The results of the Terri Schiavo autopsy are in, and to what should be no one's surprise:

1. Her brain had atrophied to half the weight of a normal human brain (so she was in fact in a Persistent Vegitative State)
2. She was blind because the vision centers in her brain were dead (in other words -the video that apparently showed her visually tracking an object was misleading).
3. She was incapable of ingesting food by mouth as her parents insisted.
4. She died of dehydration not starvation.
5. There was no evidence of her ever having been abused.

So just as her husband and over 40 judges having relied on numerous medical examinations had said, she was no longer conscious. Therefore the majority of the drama was the result of the shameful manipulation of the natural emotions of her grieving parents by vultures who had no other motive but political or financial gain.

Meanwhile her husband was subjected to unbelievable and unconscionable slander.

Will there be any apologies from Congress or the other slimebags who shot their mouths off?

Don't hold your breath.

THE BEST JUSTICE MONEY CAN BUY

Well -yet another major celebrity has slipped through the long arms of the law. Micheal Jackson was found "weird but not sick" by a jury of his non-peers.

This prosecutor apparently had his legs cut out from under him when the 1993 case against Jackson was settled. That, from all accounts was the case that "had legs". He reportedly obsessed about that case afterward, and went on a worldwide search for other cases against Jackson -even traveling to Australia (a *local* prosecutor!) to chase down rumors of other victims.

From listening to the jurors, they simply didn't have enough evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt. They also made it clear what a huge gaff it was to put the mother on the stand.

What surprised me was that they didn't even convict him of *attempted* lewd acts with a minor. Attempt requires planning plus a substantial step toward completion of the act, and a defendant does not have to be guilty of the completed act to be guilty of attempt.

I guess they didn't find the porno mags enough for "planning" (or didn't believe the testimony about the mags) and since they didn't find him guilty of giving the kids wine -that couldn't count for planning either.

On the other hand the not guilty for the conspiracy charges was no surprise: conspiracy requires 2 or more parties and from what (little) I heard there was no one who could be considered co-conspirator.

Have to say though -it sure seems like you can buy your freedom down here. OJ, Robert Blake, Scott Peterson, Jackson -sing it with me:

"One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just isn't the same..."

(hey what do you want -I have two kids under 3)

UPDATE: THE OTHER MEMOS

(NOTE: I've been trying to make this blog a series of "columns" -that takes way too much time and results in my only posting every several weeks or so -in the meantime I miss out on events because I don't have time to write a "column" for each one.

Therefore I've decided to try to write more "blog style" so that I can post more and keep current.

-OP )

***

More memos have been published in the Times UK which 1) predate the Downing Street Memo and 2) further substantiate the idea that the Bush cabal were looking for an excuse to go to a predetermined war and not as Bush has claimed as a last result.

Of course the mainstream press have regretted the error of their ways and have pursued this with the vigor better suiting an independent press...Oh they haven't? Crap.

Actually - some news orgs are starting both notice and discuss the appalling lack of attention paid to this bombshell -is the worm turning? Don't bet on it. The AP itself didn't report this, it just admitted it when questioned.

Representative John Conyers has created a website with a letter that can be signed by folks that will be presented to Bush on Thursday 6/16/05.

SMOKING GUN? / THE OTHER (BETTER) GEORGE

So here it finally is -confirmation that what those of us on the left have been complaining about, and what was supported by former U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and former NSC guy Richard Clarke (who were dismissed as kooks by the Bushies) is absolutely true.

The "Downing Street Memo" should be the smoking gun that brings down the White House -like the Nixon Tapes. It will however be relegated to the dustbin of history as the ultimate proof that Americans have completely lost touch with the activities of their elected officials.

The memo proves that

1. the Bush Administration was planning to go to war with Iraq at least as as early as July of 2002 -Long before Colon Powell's grand opera before the UN.
2. They were "fitting the facts and intel to the war"
3. The US had no plan for after the war.

Now 89 members of Congress have asked Bush to explain the memo -but raise your hand if you honestly think it will change one thing...anyone? Anyone? Ok you over there with the Dave Matthews T-shirt put your hand down.

Apparently the Brits would be on board -but they understood that the legal ways to go to war were either direct threat, ultimatum, or UN sanction, and since there was no perceivable direct threat, and since neither Iraq nor the US had issued an ultimatum, they insisted that we go the UN route. They also insisted that the USA provide a fuller picture of their planning ---

HHEEEEHHHHEEEHHHAAAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

*ahem* *cough*

Sorry -uncontrollable laugh break

A fuller picture *snicker* of their pla- *snort* Ok (control yourself OP!)

Pla-nnning, *HEHE* before they committed troops.

So just as I and every other liberal have said since the words "Saddam" and "Iraq" were first confoundingly muttered by W and his handlers when we were retaliating at Al Q'aeda in Afghanistan, this war was manufactured out of whole cloth to line the pockets of the PNAC profiteers.

Of course once again the "liberal media" are all over this one and are shaking it by the neck like the watch dogs they ar-- oh, rats.

Well ok, at least Americans are informing themselves using the publicly available materials on this story and using their outrage at the deceit to...to...oh, hell.

Ever wonder when we'll be able to live in America again?

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

In the same vein:

GOD BLESS GEORGE GALLOWAY!!!!

In case you haven't yet heard -George Galloway is a British politician who was called to testify before the Senate subcommittee on Homeland Security by Senator Norm Coleman (R- MN). Coleman apparently was psyched to be in the spotlight and was hoping to make a name for himself as the guy who finally gave it to the Oil For Food scandal people.

Coleman was all set to lambaste Galloway -but Galloway handed him his ass!! Truth can be such an aphrodisiac -I'm not gay but even I have to admit I got a little hot listening to that Scottish brogue nail the truth to Coleman's forehead!!

And predictably the only news source carrying a complete transcript of his testimony was the London Times -US sources have tightly edited versions interspersed with Coleman's afterward whining that Galloway's testimony isn't credible. Read it and judge for yourself. Or better yet -watch or listen! Of course the wingnuts are going to spin the bejesus out of this one and hope it dies a quiet death, which the "liberal media" will ensure it will.

WARMING-OVER THE COLD WAR

Bush's trip to the former Soviet Block as well as his caustic comments toward Russia would at first seem puzzling -after all haven't we become allies with Russia, with Bush playfully referring to the Russian President as "pooty-poot"? Haven't many of the former Soviet satellites become democratic nations? Haven't we both joined forces to combat the "greater threat" of the Big T?

Perhaps, but let's review:

The worst thing to ever happen to the (to borrow an old phrase) Military Industrial Complex was the end of the cold war. They'd staked their financial futures on being able to keep stockpiling weapons to subdue the 'threat' of the 'evil empire', and when the Iron Curtain came down and revealed not a giant grizzly but an old and shaky Russian circus bear - they went into freefall.

They tried to use the (to them) great stroke of luck that 9/11 provided to change the evil 'ism' from commun-ism to terror-ism, but that has failed in majority public opinion because of the administration's bumbling tactics and neck breaking switch of focus from Afghanistan to Iraq. It also hasn't provided the same economic opportunities that developing new and bigger weapons did because the warfare style doesn't require them.

With the 20th anniversary of the end of the cold war mere years away, and with the increasing memory-loss of the American electorate in their back pockets -why not try to resurrect hostilities with our old nemesis now? After all the Secretary of State is a former cold war specialist, and the VP a former defense contractor -the time is ripe! We know for a fact they have nuclear weapons -so we wouldn't have to sell the threat so hard this time. We also know they've been in league with Iran, Cuba and other numbers of our enemies. It's ready-made resuscitation for the sagging weapons industry!

Now if we can only somehow tie them to 9/11...

THE FILIBUSTERED TEN

By now the statistic that the Senate has confirmed over 200 of the judicial appointees Bush has nominated, and that 10 of those have been disputed (less than 5%) is everywhere. What are less bandied-about are the reasons the disputed nominees have been opposed.

Let's review their individual records shall we (thanks to People for the American Way) :


Terrence Boyle

• Worst reversal record of all district court judges nominated by Bush (and some of the reversals were for errors that were already appealed reversed and sent back to him where he ruled the same way AGAIN)
• Tried to exempt state agencies from federal anti-discrimination laws.
• Said that state discrimination is explained by its "culture".

Janice Rogers Brown:

• Disregarded precedent -especially in regard to civil and constitutional rights.
• Favors property rights over constitutional liberties provided in the Bill of Rights.
• opined that govt employees could wave their constitutional rights by virtue of their employment.
• opposed by the ABA.
• Compared Social Security and Medicare to "being on the government dole"

Richard Griffin:

• Ruled that prisoners are exempt from federal and state disability laws.
• Was reversed by the state Supreme Court for ruling that striking workers who were replaced by permanent replacements were not entitled to unemployment benefits, which contradicted his state's law.

Thomas Griffith:

• Opposes Title IX, and has ruled in contradiction of it. (who is "legislating from the bench" then? )
• Practiced law in Utah w/o a state license as required by that state.

William Haynes:

• Played a central role in formulating policies that led to abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib and other prisons in Iraq and elsewhere.
• Policies he created were opposed by military defense attorneys, the ABA, the committee for Human Rights, and even two of Bush's appellate appointees in the 2nd circuit.
  Brett M. Kavanaugh
• Has the second least amount of experience for his nominated position -2nd only to Ken Starr his mentor.
• As part of Starr's team worked tirelessly to destroy executive privilege -yet has worked as tirelessly to protect it for Bush.
• As associate counsel to the president under Alberto Gonzalez coordinated the administration's nominations of the most controversial and divisive judges.
  

David McKeague:

• Ruled against environmental polices required by statute. (reversed)
• Ruled that a hospital could fire an HIV positive employee rather than accommodate his condition as required by the ADA. (reversed)
• Ruled that a police department could monitor messages sent to an officer's private pager -contradicting federal law. (reversed)

William G. Myers III:

• Filed an amicus brief stating that the property rights of cattle ranchers are as fundamental as Bill Of Rights rights, and that therefore the Endangered Species Act was unconstitutional. He was reversed by the SCOTUS and not one justice -not even Rehnquist or Scalia- bought his constitutional argument.
• Tried to twist a land management statute to prohibit an Native American tribe's ability to practice their religion.

Priscilla Owen:

• Rulings opposed even by AG Gonzalez
• Repeatedly ignores statute in favor of a conservative agenda, and this has been a complaint of conservatives as well as progressives.

William Pryor:

• Supporters have labeled his penning of majority opinions re civil rights "defending liberties" when they were all cases where the law provided no "wiggle-room" and the court could rule no other way. (at least he follows the law -unlike the others)
• Claims he wants to "end the politicization of the legal system" yet somehow always seems to rule on the predictable conservative side of the issues w/r in the majority, minority, or plurality.

Henry Saad:

• Reversed by his state's supreme court for overturning a jury verdict and requiring a new trial when the verdict and award could have been "harmonized".
• Reversed a trial court's decision that an insurance company was liable to a plaintiff because the insurance company's claim that the defendant hadn't notified them of the suit barred liability was contrary to state law. Was in turn reversed unanimously by the state Supreme Court.

So what's the throughline in all of these nominees, other than that they're all neocon lap-dogs? That they all (Pryor perhaps being the lone exception) show a propensity to rule in contradiction of state and federal law and settled judicial precedent. And what is the Bush administration's response to their being filibustered down -even though over 95% of Bush's nominees have been confirmed? TO RE-NOMINATE THEM!!! That says more about the Bush administration's view of our country's laws than any opposing view could ever manage to do.

Moreover it proves that any Bush supporter who decries "legislation from the bench" or "judicial activism" is a raving partisan hypocrite. But then, after four+ years of them what do you expect?

KICKING THE HABIT

The LA Times had an article today about how the "culture of life" is splitting the GOP. But all I can see is how the Democrats screwed up yet again.

"Democrats never developed a clear message on the Schiavo case, with the party's House leaders dividing in their votes and few party leaders making strong statements. But many Democratic strategists believe the party could benefit among moderate swing voters who believe Republicans overreached in the matter. Some Democrats noted that in several surveys last week, Bush's approval rating slipped to 45% or below -among his worst- while the marks for Congress skidded under 40%.

'The Republican Party traditionally has been the party opposed to the expansion of the federal government,' said Mellman, the pollster for Kerry. 'Now, across a whole range of issues, they have shown a commitment to expanding the reach of the federal government into personal life beyond which anybody has contemplated before.' "

This should have been the iceberg that sunk the Titanic because the right are indeed fractured and licking their wounds from this case after wildly misjudging the opinion of the country on this issue, but already the GOP are starting to spin this colossal misstep in their favor:

"When you take [Democratic] opposition to partial-birth abortion at the beginning of life, and [acceptance of] pulling plugs at the end of life, you begin to get in a danger zone," said one GOP strategist close to the White House. "It could be that this case reinforces a larger impression ...of the Democratic Party."

and predictably, the Democrats are letting the "iron" cool.

Once again the Democrats have dropped the ball in coordinating an effort to get a defining and unifying message out, just as they have with Social Security, and have let the GOP define the issue.

The way they do this is by attacking the GOP for their idiotic actions without saying what they'd do differently. It's going to take regimented training, but here's how they can improve (and this is not my idea, but my adaptation of a concept that James Carville and Stanley Greenberg originated in their Democracy Corps memo "Re Social Security -A time for purpose and renewal" ):

From now on every speech from a democrat should begin with 'This is not about (X), it's about (Y)' and should not end without the phrase 'we believe' being used at least twice. Simplistic I know, but how else can you break bad habits?

Mellman's comment above illustrates just how pervasive insidious, and ingrained the current attack-paradigm is, and how important it is to tear ourselves away from it.

Break down what he says and it comes out as 'they have always said ___, now they're trying to do the opposite to an exponential degree' How does that tell the world what we believe? Why should they trust us?

Here's how it should have been said:

'This is not about w/r Terri Schiavo lives or dies -that's up to God and her family. This is about w/r the government should step in between a family and its personal medical decisions. We believe in families, and we believe that they have a right to make the difficult medical decisions that they face free from political intervention.'

It's hard not to point out how stupidly the GOP act -particularly when, as here, their hypocrisy is so flagrantly on display, but it's easy and lazy to stop after attacking their actions without promoting our alternative point of view, and we must break that habit. We should take support from the fact that the majority of the country agrees with us on this issue, but take care not to let it lull us into inaction.

MORE RE TERRI SCHIAVO

Why is it that the same cons who spew

1. sanctity of marriage

2. state's rights

3. anti 'judicial activism'

crap have completely abandoned those positions and are now advocating

1. Parental rights trumping marital rights.

2. Federal government involvement in issues that have been decided by state appellate courts and rejected by the SCOTUS.

3. Judicial overruling of established statutes and precedent

for ONE SINGLE CASE?

Flippety floppety.

Those advocating continued treatment here are advocating an end run around the statutory scheme of a state AND the judicial decisions of nearly 20 judges over 15 years for political points.

And let's be clear -if 'feeding' must be accomplished by surgical means it falls under the category of medical treatment not merely food. As someone else said - feeding her would be giving her a sandwich and a glass of water, this is medicine.

This woman was a bulimic who vomited so much that her low potassium levels caused heart failure. She was given heroic measures that failed and her brain was severely damaged. She has since deteriorated to the point where she has no cerebral cortex, only spinal fluid in its place. She is incapable of higher brain function, and not even the most promising stem cell treatments can change that. Let her soul be free.

What do you think they'd say if she was an 80-year-old black woman? What if Theresa were Terrence and his family was arguing for discontinued treatment while his partner was fighting to keep him alive, and they'd been married in Massachusetts?

Gee, what do you think would happen to the "Culture of Life" then?

MORE DAMAGE DONE TO MARRIAGE BY CONGRESS

...yesterday, than any court could ever manage.

At the core all marriages as far as the govt. is concerned are
nothing more than a proffer of a bundle of legal rights, given for
agreeing to enter into a committed relationship.

That's the only reason the govt. is EVER involved in marriage (or
anything else for that matter) -to grant and protect legal rights.

Among the rights granted by marital status are medical power of
attorney.

Now the Republican majority Congress has met *on a Sunday* to state
categorically that parental rights trump one heterosexual married
couple's medical power of attorney rights.

Where's the "sanctity of marriage" here? Is this a clever attempt by
the republican Congress to to destroy all marriage so that gays and
lesbians can't have it either?

The fanatics attack Michael
Sciavo for having another relationship 5 years after his wife's
injury -but understand, that's completely irrelevant to the fact that
legally he has medical power of attorney. Even if he were the biggest
A-hole on the planet to her having 7 mistresses while she was still
ablebodied it wouldn't matter -he'd still have medical power of
attorney as long as they were legally married.

Congress' taking that away from him weakens marriage and the rights
it grants more than any expansion of the "definition" of it ever could.

Here's a relatively unbiased blog recounting the story so far...

WTF IS GOING ON IN THAT WHITE HOUSE?

The saga of Jeff Gannon/James Guckert is just plain wierd. He reminds me of the character Joe Pesci played in JFK.

As it turns out, James Guckert is the real name of Jeff Gannon. Reporters use ficticious names all the time -"nom de plume" is commonplace. So that's not too wierd.

It gets wierd when the guy is given regular "daily passes" to the White House press briefings for 2 years. The "hard-pass" or Congressional pass is apparently hard to come by and requires a serious background check. Maureen Dowd, the New York Times Columnist who has been reporting on the White House for over 20 years, had her pass taken back pending a new background check and, well, gee, it's taking a while for her to get it back. Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that she's criticized the Bush Administration would it? The Daily pass apparently doesn't have as strenuous a background check, but then how can one person continually get Day-passes for 2 years? After 9/11???

What's more, if the Secret Service/DOJ/FBI/DHS (or whoever is doing the background checks now) had done even the most cursory check perhaps they would have discovered -as the folks at americablog.com did, that this guy was a gay prostitute. I'll type that again: this guy was a gay prostitute. OK *that's* wierd.

The fact that there was no background check is the key here. I mean "9/11 changed everything"- right?

I want to be careful here. The issue is NOT that Gannon/Guckert is gay -that's just a little wierd given the "organization" he came from. The cons would have you believe that the fact that folks on the left are discussing the fact that Gannon/Guckert is gay is somehow discriminating against him, or hypocritical. Horsesh*t -it wouldn't matter at all -except that the folks he was shilling for are so hell-bent on persuing their ANTI-gay agenda. As such it's hypocracy of the highest order on their part.

Additionally, it would be one thing if he were merely gay (still hypocritical but Ok whatever), or even if he were the lover of someone in the White House -sexual nepotism is nothing new, but this guy was a prostitute, - and while that fact slipped by the FBI/DOJ/DHS or whoever it WAS was uncovered by *bloggers* fer chrissakes!!!! How the hell does a guy like that get to ask the president anything?

WTF is going on in that White House?

And that's not even to mention that he was attending White House briefings a mere month after the phony news organization he works for came into existence!!

Of course the "liberal media" are all over this story and are...Oh...wait...where are they?

I repeat: WTF?

That old song by The Crass ("WTF")keeps going through my mind.

Read More:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/9/191334/0754

http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/gannon.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14148-2005Feb10.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/281982p-241637c.html

http://mediamatters.org/archives/search.html?topic=Jeff%20Gannon

WHAT IF BUSH IS RIGHT ABOUT IRAQ?

Mark Brown, a columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times has a problem. The problem is that he's seen the TV coverage of elections in Iraq and is now questioning his resolve against the war. In his latest column "What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?" he wrings his hands, and gives an Oscar caliber performance as what the cons call "the whining liberal".

"But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?

It's hard to swallow, isn't it?"

Well it would be Mark, except that to believe Bush is "right" about Iraq, you have to have at least a passing memory of the several versions of the facts he and his minions have presented the American People and then allow that it is true.

Here are just a few:

1. Iraq possessed stockpiles of WMD that could be deployed in as little as 45 minutes using unmanned drones to attack US shores.

2. Iraq had recently purchased yellow-cake uranium from Niger that could be used to build a nuclear centrifuge.

3. Iraq was in violation of the UN security council's resolution 1441 which needed to be enforced even if that same body was an inconsequential bunch of liars and cheaters.

4. The people of Iraq were simply begging us to go there and liberate them, and would welcome us with flowers.

5. Ahmed Chalabi (remember him?) had given us credible intelligence and therefore should serve as the interim Priminister.

6. Iraq's oil revenues would pay for the whole operation.

7. Saddam and Al Qaeda were both responsible for 9/11.

8. The armed forces are prepared to fight this conflict -and even if they aren't "you go to war with the army you have".

Don't at least several of the above reasons need to be true for Bush to be "right all along" about Iraq?

Or does it only take one weasely "liberal"'s second guessing himself for neocons to be "right"?

COLLECTIVE SOUL SEARCH

It's been too long.

Now that the dust has begun to clear, let's explore a few of the reasons why having won all three debates, and even with record deficits and a controversial Republican owned war, the Democrats had their asses handed to them in this election.

The Democrats have lost touch with America, but not for the reasons the conservative sheep bleat, e.g. "they've moved too far to the left", "they have no morals", "they want socialism", that drivel is ultrasimplistic stupidity.


1) the Democrats have too long labored under the misapprehension that the "game" is played a certain way. They've continued to do things in the way they've been done since WWII. While they've been doing that the GOP have redefined the game. There is no longer any honor among thieves (politicians) and the Dems need to dump the altruism and go for the juggular like the Rove Spin Machine. Bye Terry McCauliffe, bye Tom Daschle.

2) The Dems need to start calling both the Press and the GOP on their BS.

The press has fallen so far into the morass in the last four years that they just let people on both sides spout their opinions under the guise of "equal time". That is not the job of journalists, their job is to *challenge* both sides not to give them a soapbox. There used to be a rule that you wouldn't publish (air) a story unless you had reliable confirmation by two sources. Now you don't even need one -so long as you give the other side a chance to rebut. Horsesh*t.

Take the Smearboat Vets as an example: They were allowed to say whatever they wanted in most mainstream media outlets, and despite the fact that their stories had more holes than swiss cheese the "press" rather than challenge the SBV themselves ("oh my, we might lose our cushy jobs!") would defer to the other side to say "how do you answer that?" Pussies.

A more recent example: On NPR this morning John Thune was asked why he thought the voters of SD voted for him rather than for Daschle. He replied that he thought they wanted a Senator who would not be responsible to the national party, and then went on to tick off all of the GOP talking points -complete with telltale catch-phrases like "grow the economy", and the best the interviewer could say was "thank you". NPR has corporate sponsors now too.

The Democrats need to start pointing out things like these out to both the press and the GOP everytime they happen, again and again and never tire. Stop hoping for them to do the right thing. Here's someone who has been doing this for a while already -maybe they can follow his example.

3) The Democrats have let the GOP define what morality is. To combat this they need to take morals back from the right to the center. They can begin by reviewing the impetus for the successful programs of FDR and the Great Society. That impetus came from the Judeo-Christian values not of "personal responsibility" (i.e. you're on your own and if you have problems, tough. It's probably your own fault anyway) but of responsibility to our neighbors, local, national and global, as beautifully expressed in Matthew 25:35-40.

Finally, the Democrats have fallen pray to their own myopic memory. The current conservative utopia didn't just happen, it began after Watergate, when the GOP, having plunged as low as it could go, vowed never to be caught with its pants down again. This has been planned for years folks. It has taken a generation (and they had a few lucky breaks along the way -Reagan for example) but they're the same people.

Democrats will need to be patient. To paraphrase -Rome neither rose nor fell in a single election cycle. They should be vigilant scribes of every word from the GOP, so that when the soldiers finally begin coming home from Iraq, they and we can be reminded of what the GOP said when the soldiers were sent abroad.

Hey, maybe it'll be consistent. Then again, there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'll sell you for cheap.

QUESTIONS FOR THE DEBATES

Now that both the conventions are over, the next "big" events in this election are likely to be the debates (assuming there are any -Bush is already waffling about one). Here are some questions I would love for Senator Kerry to ask Bush:

1. Your vice president has stated that if we don't make the "right" choice in November that we are running the risk of "being hit again" - Does your administration know something the American People have the right to know to protect themselves, and are you willing to guarantee our safety if you win in November?

2. You have repeatedly made the claim that I voted against funding the troops in Iraq -are you willing to admit that you threatened to veto the bill we originally sent to you if Congress converted any of Iraqi rebuilding money into loans, and if we included health care for veterans in the bill?

UPDATE/ NEW KERRY AD

So apparently Aahhnold said he was watching the Nixon-Humphrey "race" not the Nixon-Humphrey "debate" as I stated in my last post. Mea culpa. Here's the transcript:

"I finally arrived here in 1968. What a special day it was. I remember I arrived here with empty pockets but full of dreams, full of determination, full of desire.

The presidential campaign was in full swing. I remember watching the Nixon-Humphrey presidential race on TV. A friend of mine who spoke German and English translated for me. I heard Humphrey saying things that sounded like socialism, which I had just left."

Well gosh, that's not what he said during the CA recall election, according to the Christian Science Monitor on 9/15/03. Moreover, according to the LA Times in RECALL NOTEBOOK / THE RECALL CAMPAIGN; The Curious Nixon-Humphrey Debate: Los Angeles Times, Aug 20, 2003. pg. A.18 (which I do not have permission to reprint so you're on your own) Arnold told Bill O'Lielly he was watching the Nixon-Humphrey "debate" in May of 2001. He said the same thing to Newsweek in 2003, and to the Republican National Convention in 2000.

But after he was called on it he started telling people he merely heard Nixon and Humphrey talking on TV. Aah yes the learning curve. Now he just says "race".

Apparently he even snowed CNN and conservatives at MSNBC who both mistakenly thought he'd said "debate". Guess it's just a knee-jerk reaction after having heard him say "debate" so often before.

***

After watching Zealot Miller last night I have an idea for a new Kerry campaign ad:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

ANNOUNCER: The republicans and their friends are for a lot of things:

ZELL MILLER (edited): "The B-1 bomber!, The B-2 bomber! The F-14A Tomcats! The Apache helicopter! The Patriot Missile! The Aegis air-defense cruiser! The Strategic Defense Initiative! The Trident missile! I could go on and on!

ANNOUNCER: They're also against a few things:

MILLER AND CROWD: "Against! Against! Against! Against!"

ANNOUNCER: Against things like a balanced budget, restrained spending, creating new jobs, making a plan before making war, protecting the environment, and civil rights for all.

It's your choice America:

More expensive wars,

or a better America.

John Kerry believes America can do better.

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

Fair? Who gives a rat's ass? Think the GOP have been "fair" so far?

Ponder this:

Why was the most ostensibly hawkish person to speak at the RNC convention a "democrat"?

Because these guys know exactly who they are, and they're deathly afraid that the voters will find out too.

AND THE TONY GOES TO…

Well the 2004 kinder-gentler-compassionate-moderate convention got underway this week.

It amazes me how the press doesn't nail these liars more on this kind of crap. First we have the suspicious timing of Cheney's announcement the week before the convention that he disagrees with the president on amending the constitution to ban gay marriages -yeah Dick, how come you waited until a week before the party makeover to unleash this bombshell? Hmmm.

Then we have the parade of the moderates: Guiliani, Schwartzenegger, McCain, - hasn't anyone told these guys they're out of lockstep with the rest of the Born-agains?

McCain really disgusts me. There was a time (oh, say 4 years ago) when I said "well, I wouldn't vote for McCain but at least if he was president I could sleep at night". No more. McCain has shown that he's as spineless as the rest of the GOP. It takes a special kind of person to be able to campaign for someone who, when he opposed you 4 years prior, had the unmitigated gall to send people to call voters and insinuate that your adopted Bangladeshi-born child was actually the product of an illicit extramarital affair with an African-American woman. It takes a special kind of person to campaign for someone who never served in Vietnam himself, but 4 years ago at a fundraiser stood next to a man who accused you of selling out your fellow Vietnam Vets. It takes a special kind of person to campaign for a person whose minions insinuated that your wife had a drug problem. There are three words that best describe such a special person: Gutless, Soul-less, Sellout. But then again that's par for the course with these weasels.

Then we had Rudy-boy. Never mind the fact that no republicans would ever vote him into any place of respectability because he has a (to put it mildly) chequered past. This guy had the temerity to assert that he actually saw the jumpers from the towers and remarked "thank God George W Bush is president". This is the guy who brought his mistress to Gracie Mansion to shtup while he was having a nasty public separation with his wife. This is the guy under whose watch Amadou Diallo was shot 41 times because he was black and had a wallet. This is the guy whose police sodomized Abner Louima with a plunger handle. But no, he's trotted out as the Mayor of America to parrot all the GOP lies about John Kerry's senate record yet another time. You know them by now - the I voted for it before I voted against it crap. Anyone who's been paying attention (and, lucky for you, your own OP is obsessed with this stuff) can tell you that every republican on the hill voted against it before they voted for it -and ONLY voted for it when it would be paid for by loans. But will anyone in the "liberal media" call Rudy on it? Of course not. They know on which side the bread is buttered.

Speaking of calling people on things: I have a story for you. It's called "True Lies". On Tuesday the governator told the charming story of how he chose to be a republican because shortly after he arrived in America, he had a friend translate as they watched the Nixon-Humphrey presidential debates in 1968. According to Aaahhnold, Humphrey was espousing socialism (lie) -which he said he had escaped (in Austria?), and Nixon was for free trade etc. Arnold related that he said "If he's a republican, then I'm a republican". One small problem. NIXON AND HUMPHREY NEVER DEBATED. In fact Nixon had had his ass whooped so badly by JFK in 1960 that he never debated again! So will the liar-nator be called on it by the "press"? Don't count on it.

So now tonight Zell(out) Miller a "democrat" from GA will address the faithful congregation. Ever get the feeling that the GOP are afraid to say what they really think? Where's Trent Lott? Where's Bill Frist? Where's Tom "The Hammer" Delay? Where's gay-bashing Rick Santorum? Anyone read the party platform? Think it's consistent with the beliefs of the speakers so far?

So now you know why Cheney had to come out as a (not so) closet gay parent. Fits the theme.

I heard next week they're taking the show down the block to Broadway.

BTW don't forget about the "Great American Shout-Out" on Thursday as Bush takes the stage.

BUSH AND KERRY ON THE ISSUES

If there's one thing that pisses me off when discussing politics it's when someone makes the claim that George W. Bush and John Kerry are identical. Usually this comes from people who have become jaded and alienated from the political process, and have either stopped voting (AARRGH) or defected to some third party. Ralph Nader for example, in his disingenuous campaign, often makes the claim that voting for Bush or Kerry is voting for the same policy (I've never forgiven the Nader voters for screwing the election in 2000, but that's another column)

In an effort to add the slightest bit of clarity, and to prove once and for all that THEY ARE NOT THE SAME, I humbly offer the following, which is by no means exhaustive and in fact was compiled with a minimum of research.

The Issues:

1. JOBS & OUTSOURCING

Bush thinks "economic isolationism" is bad and that therefore outsourcing labor to foreign markets will encourage foreign firms to build plants here creating more American jobs.
http://www.georgewbush.com/Economy/Brief.aspx

Kerry wants to create incentives (cut taxes) for American companies to hire American workers. He also wants to cut taxes for middle class families to increase middle class income.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/

2. DEFICIT

Kerry plans to cut the deficit in half by rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans (those making over 200k/yr). He also wants to form the McCain-Kerry Corporate Welfare Commission to reduce unnecessary corporate subsidies.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/budget.pdf

Bush agrees with Alan Greenspan: "'I prefer lower taxes ... for economic reasons,' Mr. Greenspan told the House Financial Services Committee. Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.) pressed the Fed chairman: 'Even if it makes the deficit worse and has this long-term negative effect on the national savings rate?' 'I am for lower taxes and lower spending and lower deficits,' Mr. Greenspan replied." I.E. he thinks that reducing the deficit will not strengthen the economy. He thinks that "Good luck" was responsible for the economic prosperity of the 90's not deficit reduction.
http://www.georgewbush.com/Economy/Read.aspx?ID=3029 http://www.georgewbush.com/Economy/Read.aspx?ID=3225

3. IRAQ

The Bush position is clear, so I won't put too much here other than to say that Kerry wants to stabilize Iraq, train more Iraqi forces, and encourage the other UN security council and NATO nations to take a larger role http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0430.html http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/compare.html

4. SOCIAL SECURITY

Bush wants to privatize retirement saving.

http://www.georgewbush.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=3218

Kerry wants to strengthen the current plan and not use the SS trust fund to balance the budget. He also wants to expand healthcare so that seniors won't be forced to use most of their SS payments to cover medical costs.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/health_care/seniors.html http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/health_care/medicare.html

5. EDUCATION

Kerry wants to establish an Education trust fund to ensure that No Child Left Behind actually works (i.e. that it's not just an unfunded mandate)He also wants to reward teachers that meet the higher standards and schools that turn around, increase after-school programs, and give a tax credit for college tuition.
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/education/

Bush Supports "school choice", wants to increase spending for job training, and private tutoring, and wants to measure results by testing.
http://www.georgewbush.com/Education/Brief.aspx

6. WAR ON TERROR

Bush created the Homeland Security Department, has recently created an "Intelligence Czar" and supported the Patriot Act. And of course there are the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. He also wants to increase Defense spending particularly on Missile Defense and things like UAV's
http://www.georgewbush.com/NationalSecurity/Brief.aspx

Kerry wants to increase international alliances, modernize the military (not sure what that means) , and decrease dependence on Middle Eastern Oil.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/

7. STEM CELL RESEARCH

Kerry supports it
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/health_care/stemcell.html

Bush "Supports Exploring the Promise of Stem Cell Research" but wants to "do so in a way that doesn't cross a clear moral threshold" apparently that means increasing funding for non-embryonic SCR and limiting funds for embryonic SCR. Bush however also notes that is the first president to fund embryonic SCR ( duh, I'm guessing neither Washington nor Lincoln funded it either) He also wants to encourage more private funding for embryonic SCR.

http://www.georgewbush.com/healthcare/Read.aspx?ID=3226 http://www.georgewbush.com/healthcare/Read.aspx?ID=3226

How's that for a brochure? ;-)

I won't pretend that I've presented the positions entirely fairly to both sides but I've given enough info to dispel any notion that they candidates hold the same positions. People may disagree as to how effective either candidate's policies (or proposed policies) are or will be, and one can still decide that they're voting for the "lesser of two evils", however as of now it is clear: there IS a choice to be made.

Finally, it took me less than an hour to find the above information, so anyone who is still trying to say that they're the same, or that Kerry has not defined his position on the issues, is either advancing an agenda, or not paying enough attention.

SAME SEX MARRIAGE

Oh Boy so much has happened and I haven't had the chance to post. Well, lets get right to the meat.

The Republicans in the US senate this week brought the Anti Gay marriage amendment to be debated for cloture and promptly lost.

Why were they seeking to amend the Constitution rather than pass a bill to "define" marriage? Because an amendment would become part of the Constitution and could not therefore be challenged on constitutional grounds.

Bills must be passed by both houses and signed by the president. If they infringe on people's civil rights they need to be reviewed by the Supreme Court to see if they meet constitutional scrutiny. If they are inconsistent with the Constitution they are stricken down per Marbury v. Madison.

I've seen several arguments against SSM

1. That it sanctions immoral behavior.

This is a falsehood, in that SSM does not sanction the sexual behavior that may or may not be a part of the relationship, it merely recognizes that certain people may choose to be in a committed relationship with each other and enforce the rights which that relationship carries. For example, celibate people may still identify themselves as gay (I know at least one celibate gay couple who have been together for 30 years), so the sex is irrelevant.

2. That SSM will somehow weaken the institution of marriage.

In order to believe that you have to believe that it either will reduce the incidence of marriage or that marriage is meant to between men and women only. There is no credible evidence of the first, and as to the second, "meant" implies that there is someone doing the "meaning". Whether you identify it or not, most people identify that "someone" as God. To advance, as some have, that that "someone" is society is both unproven and allows for the tyranny of the majority our founding fathers expressly precluded.

3. Sometimes human rights must take a back seat to the will of the majority.

This was the reason the Founding Fathers created the Bill of Rights, not to insure the rights of the majority -their rights are not generally in need of protection because (duh) they're the majority. I.e. if a majority of people are in agreement they have the power to effect their will, and as such their rights need no protection. The Founding Fathers recognized that this power left unchecked can lead to injustice.

4. That it would open the flood gates to such things as government sanctioned polygamy, incest, and even bestiality.

All of these things have compelling interests to prevent their being constitutionally recognized other than religious ones. The religious interests in banning them co-exist with those compelling interests. The compelling interests include public health, protecting children from abuse, and in the case of polygamy reducing the volume of litigation in the legal system. (polygamous divorce would be a nightmare in the current system. E.g. if a man divorces one wife and pays Community Property/alimony to her it denies support to the other wife who may not have legally divorced the first one, would all parties in a polygamous marriage have to divorce the one leaving, who is legally obligated to whom, etc. The conceivable backlog would grind the family law system to a halt.)

Marriage in this society, from the prospective of the government, is a bundle of rights. (Why else would the government be involved in marriage). Power of attorney, Medical power of attorney, succession, and child custody are just some of the bundle of rights marriage in this country guarantees to married couples. Denial of those rights to people based on their sexual orientation, without a compelling interest is invidious discrimination and should fail.

REAGAN IS GONE

"The Gipper" is dead. You'll be overwhelmed with the tide of tributes to the uber-con, so let's review the legacy they wont tell you about.

1. After 200 marines were blown up by an Iranian suicide bomber, sold arms to Iran in contravention of US law, and then diverted the profits to fund fascist dictators in Central America who were supposed to be fighting the democratically-elected communist govts. there, but were really running brutal cartels that were producing more cocaine than at any time in history which ended up in the US. (I know this is a run-on sentence but I needed to get everything in there!)
2. Cut funding and flung open the doors of the govt. mental institutions.
3. When that resulted in an upswing in homelessness because people could no longer get their meds -said they were homeless "by choice".
4. Gave a massive Tax cut to the rich in 1981 and then increased taxes on the middle class every year of his presidency after 1981, to make up for the shortfall in revenue that he needed to fund his astronomical increase military spending.
5. Gave Saddam battle planning assistance at a time when they knew full well he was going to use chemical weapons.
6. Here's a window into his character: "In November 1983, Reagan told visiting Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir that he had served as a photographer in a U.S. Army unit assigned to film Nazi death camps. He repeated the story to Simon Wiesenthal the following February. Reagan never visited or filmed a concentration camp; he spent World War II in Hollywood, making training films with the First Motion Picture Unit of the Army Air Corps."
7. Got his political career start as a rat for the HUAC naming names for the blacklist.

Americans -particularly republicans- were demoralized after Watergate and Reagan was right there with a gleam in his eye, and an optimism that America craved. He could piss on them and tell them it was raining, and people still buy it even in the face of historical facts proving what a jerk he was.

I've heard people who swore he was the devil during the 80's call for "respect" for him in death. Bullshit. Anyone who disagreed with his policies as much as I did when he was president, but who spews this "don't speak badly of the dead" crap is a hypocrite. I hated him then and I refuse to venerate him now simply because he's 'shuffled off this mortal coil"

...but you have to admit, he sure knew how to give a speech, and he seemed sincere. Here's why:

Reagan was the Great Communicator because he was the first president to truly take full advantage of the teleprompter. I once spoke to his teleprompter operator and he said that Reagan was a "natural". He could follow the words as they scrolled across the screen and still make them sound as though they were his own. This, as I later found as a broadcaster, is more difficult than it seems because you're continually drawn to look the screen to get your words -it's like a security blanket. This is what creates the "zombie stare" that many news casters get -sometimes they don't even blink!

It wasn't enough for him to be able to read from the teleprompter though. He wanted to be able to look at the crowd more, so a new version of the teleprompter was developed especially for him. If you watch political speeches now, sometimes you'll see these weird panes of clear plastic on sticks at the left, center, and right of the podium. I used to think they were high-tech microphones, but they are actually teleprompter reflectors. They allow the speaker to look directly at the audience and still be reading the speech.

This is amazingly effective at amplifying the point for a couple of reasons. First, since the speaker does not appear to be reading the speech, the speech appears more to come from his or her own belief or "from the heart" or whatever. Secondly, looking directly at the audience is an effective way to convey sincerity -try this sometime: when you're speaking to someone and you want to leave an impression, wait until the main point you wish to make and when you get to it look the person you're talking to directly in the eye. You'll floor them, and they'll never know why. This is exactly what the screens enabled Reagan to do. It's an old actor's trick that was retooled and used to great success by an old actor. People still think he sincerely believed the crap he unloaded on the nation.

One of the reasons Bush II is so lame -and probably the reason that will lead to his political demise- is that he can barely string two words together, much less approach even an iota of the salesmanship Reagan had. It's one thing to have hateful policies, it's another thing to be able to get people to go along for the ride. Reagan could even get some Democrats to buy his line. Conversely, Bush II is alienating even some Republicans.

SAME PLAN, DIFFERENT "ISM" / BACK OFF BUCKLEY

The Neocons are directly responsible for the terrorist threat now posed by militant Muslims to the US.

Beginning with Nixon they have followed a plan again and again with disastrous results but to the relative ignorance of the American electorate who are mostly concerned with taxes.

That plan goes like this: Communism is the great evil, so it must be fought at all costs. Fund, support and guide anyone who is vehemently opposed to communism. When the people funded turn out to be whackos or are no longer useful, invent a reason to take them out.

They did it in Afghanistan. They Funded the Mujahadeen because they were in a war with the USSR. The CIA even recruited militant Muslims from around the world to fight alongside them. One of the Muslims who came to fight was a man who'd been kicked out of his homeland Saudi Arabia for being too extreme (!). His initials were OBL. When the Mujahadeen and the militant Muslims later merged into the Taliban the Neocons turned the other way and pretended they'd had nothing to do with it. Only after the militants created the greatest tragedy in American history did they proceed to take them out.

They did it again in the 1980's. Iran and it's neighbor Iraq were in a bitter war. Iran was funded and armed by the Soviets, so guess who the Neocons supported? They even gave chemical and biological weapons to Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to use against Iran, and when he later used them against the Kurdish population in his own country -whom GHW Bush had promised to support if they took up arms against Saddam, but when they did left them to twist in the wind- the Neocons again ignored their complicity and filed the event away for later use.

The Soviet Union eventually buckled under its own weight, and the Neocons having no more Red Menace to fight were at a loss as to how to keep the war money flowing, so they changed the "ism" to Terrorism. Now they could both disguise their having created the problem in the first place and wage preemptive wars to counter the real threat they'd created -thus "having their cake and eating it too".

The cast is largely the same -Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice (an expert on Cold War intel), Wolfowitz, the Bush family, and Powell. The list of operatives has also been strangely familiar -Pinochet, Noriega, the Contras, The Mujahadeen, OBL, Saddam Hussein. Who's next? You figure it out.

The true terrorists are in Washington. Lets get rid of them before it's too late.

Coincidentally (?):

This week several sources from the right lambasted the supposed new theme for John Kerry's campaign: "Let America Be America Again". The phrase is from a poem by Langston Hughes. William F Buckley, in his typically glib fashion says in his column "A Campaign Slogan For Kerry" that because the line was from a poem by Hughes, and because Hughes wrote another poem "Goodbye Christ", which contained the lines

Goodbye,
Christ Jesus Lord God Jehova,
Beat it on away from here now.
Make way for a new guy with no religion at all—
A real guy named
Marx Communist Lenin Peasant Stalin Worker ME—

that Kerry's use of the slogan "Let America Be America Again" was somehow a horrible gaff of scandalous proportions, and that Kerry's staff should have done more research before "introducing Langston Hughes as the poet laureate of the Democratic Party in 2004."

"Langston Hughes was asking America to "be America again," meaning, not an America that history had known and chronicled, but an America realizable in a new and different vision. The land of Marx and Lenin and Stalin. Mr. Kerry's campaign team is going to have serious homework to do before introducing Langston Hughes as the poet laureate of the Democratic Party in 2004."

This is what is known in more intellectual circles as "bullshit".

Buckley's statement that Hughes desired for America to become like the land of Stalin and Lennin is preposterous. Research into Hughes' life and works reveals that he wrote "Goodbye Christ" during a trip to the Soviet Union in the 30's that was spurred by his dissilusionment over his break up with Charlotte Mason.

En epiphany he had on the trip was that in the USSR Jews, Blacks, whites, poor are all treated equally -equally downtrodden. Moreover the poem is a rant against the more sanctimonious elements of Christianity -Pope Pius and Aimee McPherson among them, and also musing on how the Soviets had banished religion.

Hughes later broke any leftist ties and vehemently denied any ties with communists, as he referred to the poem as "ill advised".

So for Buckley to a) use it to frame "Let America be America Again", and b) use it as the sole criterion to judge Hughes' life and works is intellectually dishonest at best, and pseudo-intellectual "red-baiting" at the worst.

In the end Buckley's screed is just another attempt by the far right to slander Kerry by slandering Hughes (Again -he was humiliated by the HUAC in the McCarthy era) and by twisting a possible campaign theme into being a nod to communism. This "liberals are communists" crap is getting old.

The Soviets are gone -can't we finally let go of the Cold War please?

GOP LESSONS LEARNED

Carl Bernstein, who along with Bob Woodward broke the Watergate story in the Washington Post) has written an op/ed piece in USA TODAY that compares the Nixon administration during Watergate with the current G.W. Bush administration. Bernstein's editorial is a sharp analysis but leaves out the emotional undertone that has permeated GOP politics since Watergate.

The GOP have never forgiven their own or the Democrats who brought the Watergate scandal to light. They were completely demoralized when their leader was caught so dead to rights that he would've actually faced jail time had he not resigned. Like the south after the civil war they stewed and festered and vowed that they would rise again.

While the public analysis in the aftermath of Watergate came largely from the left -in private the GOP turned over every stone and looked in every crevice to find out what went wrong.

The Iran-Contra scandal illustrated this perfectly: while the OIC report found that knowledge of the operation went all the way up the chain of command, neither Regan nor Bush I could be pinned as having authorized the conduct of the sponge Oliver North. The creation of the Fall-guy, and the cutting off of the paper trail below Regan and Bush were lessons learned from Watergate.

Another lesson learned was the pre-trial pardoning of Caspar Weinberger after he was indicted for selling missiles to Iran. Ford had pardoned Nixon one month after he had announced his resignation, preventing any criminal or civil justice for his crimes, and Bush senior (probably to prevent info coming out that could lead to his own impeachment) pardoned Weinberger just before he left office in 1993.

The coverup of Iran Contra however only inflamed the GOP more - why didn't the Democrats have any scandal on their resume? Why should republicans be the only ones called to account for their criminal conspiracies? They stewed and festered more, and finally came up with a plan - crucify the next Democratic president no matter what the cost.

They were obliged by a president who was charismatic and who had had marital troubles in his past because he'd demonstrated a proclivity toward extra marital affairs. From the moment CLinton announced his candidacy they came out of the box with the Gennifer Flowers revelations, which were diffused when Clinton admitted on 60 minutes that any extramarital activities had been dealt within the privacy of his marriage.

This stymied the republican smear machine but did not dampen its spirit, and they came right back with the "draft dodger scandal" alleging that he'd manipulated the system to avoid Viet Nam service.

That failed so they instituted Whitewater against the first lady. That investigation gained them the majority in congress which led to the "Contract (on) America", but eventually failed to "get" the Clintons as well.

There were several other attempts at scandal making "Travel Gate", "Vince Foster's suicide was really a murder", "China-gate", but all of these fell flat so they went back into sex scandal mode with the Paula Jones debacle. This eventually failed as well.

Eventually they seized upon the Lewinsky affair and tried to twist it into Watergate-like proportions even impeaching Clinton in the house. This however finally failed as Clinton was not convicted in the Senate.

Even as Clinton left office they attacked with "pardon gate" a last pathetic attempt to create a scandal.

None of the "scandals" amounted to more than posturing from the GOP - but they succeeded in the short run because they'd soured the country so much that it stupidly elected another Republican president, even though Clinton had presided over the most robust peacetime economy in American history.

So what have the Republicans learned?

1. Deny everything.
2. Never leave a paper trail.
3. Cushion the president from the fallout.
4. Pardon anyone who can hurt you.
5. If you make enough noise eventually someone will listen to your lies.
6. Get in, make as much money as you can for yourself and your cronies, and get out.

What will they NEVER learn?
1. sex scandals don't work because every one has one- This was proven by the Henry Hyde, Newt, Bob Livingston triad of "scandals" in the House. Even the GOP had to back off of the sex scandals when some of their own were thrust into the light.

2. Revenge is for punks. They'll never "balance the scales" of scandal because they have to create more scandal to do it. Scandals are ugly for everyone and often blow up in their creator's face.

3. You can do your dirty deeds (or rather have someone do them for you) in secret, but eventually the truth will out -particularly in the "information age".

Now the Abu Ghraib scandal is festering into a cancer on both the military and govt. The Bush administration has known about it at the very least since January, but covered it up until the pictures came out. They're trying to blame it on the low level enlisted soldiers and bring it to a swift conclusion, but the situation is unraveling to reveal a systemic policy endorsed all the way up the chain. When the real story comes out look for Rumsfeld to take the fall for Bush, but be pardoned after Bush loses the election.