Sunday, April 30, 2006
To those of you who are (or were) regular readers, I apologize for not having posted more frequently, as in the past, and for not putting this post up sooner. For those of you who have just started reading my blog I also wish to apologize.
To those of you whose blogs I visit daily (usually) I apologize for not having visited much lately, if at all. I especially wish to apologize to Fixer, Gordon and AOB at Alternate Brain, Shea at Constantly Amazed and Liberal Thought, and sweet Tina at Fuzzy And Blue....who gets an extra apology because I think I may have offended her with a response to a comment she made to one of my most recent posts. I am sorry if I offended or upset you, kid.
Now to try to give you an explanation as to why I haven't been posting and visiting your blogs without going into all the long boring stuff.
About two months ago Mary's parents offered us one hell of a deal on their house....one we just couldn't pass up. It's an older home that has had several additions since the original house was built in 1841. There is a carriage barn behind the house which is in great condition, and the property is 410 feet deep....a full acre.
Getting the loan was a real pain in the ass, though. The morgage company made us jump through all kinds of hoops. We would get done jumping through one set and they would have another set waiting for us. After alot of scrambling, the loan finally went through.
Mom and dad have moved out, but have moved to a much smaller place....so there's a lot of stuff that they left behind. Some of it will be sold at the rummage sale Mary, her sister, and her mom are going to have later. Some will be split up between Mary and her sister and Mary's two kids. The rest looks like it will end up at Goodwill or in the trash.
Both Mary and I are going to be very busy over the next couple of months with this list (and probably much more) of things:
1) Make room in the carriage barn for things from both the new and old houses.
2) Get the rest of the things left behind by mom and dad from the house to wherever it's supposed to go.
3) Paint the rooms in the our new house before we start moving in. It's been several years since they have been painted...and neither Mary nor I like her mom's color selection.
4) Move all of our things....including Mary's 23 years of "collecting"....into the new house.
5) Do all the things....painting, repairs, etc....that need to be done to the old house in order for us to be able to rent it out or, eventually, sell it.
All of this plus all the regular lawn maintinance on a full acre and another half acre, along with Mary looking for employment.
As you can see we both are going to be very busy over the next couple of months...cause it's gonna take that long, at least. One of the easy parts of this whole thing is that the new house is less than a block away.
I will try to get at least a couple of posts up every week, and I will try to keep you updated on our progress. I will also try real hard to get around to other blogs for visits.
Please accept this apology and thanks for your patients.
Monday, April 24, 2006
Albright warns of Iraq disaster
|Albright (L) says democracy cannot be impose|
Madeleine Albright, the former US secretary of state, has warned that the invasion of Iraq may end up as one of the worst disasters in American foreign policy.
In an interview with The New York Times published on Sunday, Albright said she did not think Saddam Hussein had been an imminent threat to the United States. "You can't go to war with everybody you dislike," she said. "I think Iraq may end up being one of the worst disasters in American foreign policy." Asked what she would consider the greatest mistake of the Bush administration, she said what troubles her is that democracy is getting a bad name "because it is identified with imposition and occupation". She said much of what she had worked for during her tenure under Bill Clinton's presidency, has unraveled. "I'm for democracy, but imposing democracy is an oxymoron. People have to choose democracy and it has to come up from below," she said. Albright's comments come amid a growing chorus of domestic criticism of the Bush administration in the run-up to November's critical mid-term elections. Kerry criticised Rumsfeld for His comments came after a new audiotape attributed to the al-Qaeda leader was aired by Al Jazeera on Sunday. Asked for his reaction, Kerry said: "It underscores the failure of this administration to capture him. "This is one of the reasons Donald Rumsfeld should resign". The biggest failure he said was the missed opportunity to capture bin Laden in the caves of Tora Bora in Afghanistan in late 2001. "The design of the attack on Afghanistan, which had insufficient troops to surround Tora Bora, insufficient effort to commit American troops, was one of the great catastrophes of this entire effort in the war on terror," Kerry said. "Osama bin Laden is loose today because we allowed him to escape at Tora Bora. It's that simple."
failing to capture Bin Laden
In an interview with The New York Times published on Sunday, Albright said she did not think Saddam Hussein had been an imminent threat to the United States.
"You can't go to war with everybody you dislike," she said.
"I think Iraq may end up being one of the worst disasters in American foreign policy."
Asked what she would consider the greatest mistake of the Bush administration, she said what troubles her is that democracy is getting a bad name "because it is identified with imposition and occupation".
She said much of what she had worked for during her tenure under Bill Clinton's presidency, has unraveled.
"I'm for democracy, but imposing democracy is an oxymoron. People have to choose democracy and it has to come up from below," she said.
Albright's comments come amid a growing chorus of domestic criticism of the Bush administration in the run-up to November's critical mid-term elections.
Kerry criticised Rumsfeld for
His comments came after a new audiotape attributed to the al-Qaeda leader was aired by Al Jazeera on Sunday.
Asked for his reaction, Kerry said: "It underscores the failure of this administration to capture him.
"This is one of the reasons Donald Rumsfeld should resign".
The biggest failure he said was the missed opportunity to capture bin Laden in the caves of Tora Bora in Afghanistan in late 2001.
"The design of the attack on Afghanistan, which had insufficient troops to surround Tora Bora, insufficient effort to commit American troops, was one of the great catastrophes of this entire effort in the war on terror," Kerry said.
"Osama bin Laden is loose today because we allowed him to escape at Tora Bora. It's that simple."
Sunday, April 16, 2006
From Crooks And Liars:
Joe Klein: Nukes should be on the table
Joe Klein started off today on "THIS WEEK," sounding fairly reasonable in the discussion about Iran and then veered off into neocon, kool-aid drinking lunacy. George Stephanopoulos was even caught off guard by Klein's statements. Does he seriously believe that including nukes whether we attack, discuss or threaten is not seen as a doomsday scenario? We are talking about nukes Joe, freaking nukes.
Klein: We should not take any option including the use of nuclear, tactical nuclear weapons off the table...
Stephanopoulos: Keep that on the table?-That's insane...
One of the main points of Sy Hersh's article is that the inclusion of nukes in an attack plan against Iran has the military leaders freaked out and they are demanding it be pulled or they will quit. It seems that Klein doesn't share those views.
If Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and all the rest of their neoconvict cohorts think that Al Qaeda has been a problem just wait til they attack an Islamic country the size of Alaska. These idiots haven't seen anything like what Iran will unleash on the US, Britian, and our allies (which aren't many anymore, thank you GWB) once the attack begins.
From Aljazeera News:
Iran suicide squads 'ready to retaliate'
Sunday 16 April 2006 4:24 AM GMT
Iran has threatened to hit back if attacked
Iran has trained battalions of suicide bombers to hit western targets if its nuclear plants are attacked, according to a British newspaper.
The Sunday Times quoted Iranian officials as saying that 40,000 trained suicide bombers were ready to strike Western targets.
The Sunday Times quoted Iranian officials as saying that 40,000 trained suicide bombers were ready to strike Western targets.
Doctor Hassan Abbasi, head of the Centre for Doctrinal Strategic Studies in the Revolutionary Guards, said that 29 Western targets had been identified.
"We are ready to attack American and British sensitive points if they attack Iran's nuclear facilities," he said in a speech, according to The Sunday Times.
He said that some of them were "quite close" to the Iranian border with Iraq.
The Special Unit of Martyr Seekers in the Revolutionary Guards was first spotted in March when members marched in a military parade.
The force wore explosive packs around their waists and held detonators, the newspaper said.
"We are ready to attack American and British sensitive points if they attack Iran’s nuclear facilities"
Head of the Centre for Doctrinal Strategic Studies in the Revolutionary Guards
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, announced last Tuesday that the Islamic republic had successfully enriched uranium itself for use as nuclear fuel, sparking a wave of international condemnations.
The International Atomic Energy Agency - the United Nations' nuclear watchdog - is due to present a report on Iran's nuclear programme on April 28.
The United States insists it is seeking a diplomatic solution but has not ruled out the use of force despite opposition from even its closest allies.
"We are ready to attack American and British sensitive points if they attack Iran’s nuclear facilities"
For those who think the gas prices are high now, just you wait until the moron in the White House gives the go-ahead to start the attack...which he won't go before Congress for approval...and fuel prices skyrocket, and things state exploding around you.
I am sooo fucking glad that we live in a small community, for small communities may be the only safe place. Good luck everyone, we're all gonna need it....'cause ya know we ain't gonna get any help from Bush, the Republicans, the neoconvicts, or any of the motherfuckin' chicken-shit chickenhawks.
Here again is even more proof that the Bush administration does not want diplomacy to have a chance to succeed. The only thing Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the neoconvicts want is war so their oil buddies and the military industrial complex can line their filthy pockets with blood money.
From Aljazeera News:
Terror warning over Iran attack
Sunday 16 April 2006 8:01 AM GMT
|Clarke was a former top White House counterterrorism adviser|
A possible US attack on Iran could be more damaging to American interests than the current offensive in Iraq has been, two former White House counterterrorism experts have warned.
************ The warning came as a former US intelligence analyst disclosed on Sunday that the United States have been planning a full-scale military campaign against Iran even before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. Richard Clarke and Steven Simon, who coordinated counterterrorism policy in the Clinton and Bush administrations, wrote in The New York Times on Sunday that "any United States bombing campaign would simply begin a multi-move, escalatory process". They warned that Iran would first attack Persian Gulf oil facilities and tankers, which could cause oil prices to spike above $80 a barrel. However more likely, Iran could use its terrorist network to strike American targets around the world, including inside the United States, Clarke and Simon said. "Iran has forces at its command that are far superior to anything al-Qaeda was ever able to field," they wrote. Military plan William Arkin, who served as the US Army's top intelligence mind on West Berlin in the 1970s and accurately predicted US military operations against Iraq, said the plan is known in military circles as TIRANNT, an acronym for "Theatre Iran Near Term". It includes a scenario for a land invasion led by the US Marine Corps, a detailed analysis of the Iranian missile force and a global strike plan against any Iranian weapons of mass destruction, Arkin wrote in The Washington Post. Preparations under TIRANNT began in earnest in May 2003 and never stopped, he said. The plan has since been updated using information collected in Iraq.
Their article argued that Iran was in a position to make the situation in Iraq far more difficult for the United States than it already is.
A report disclosed by a former US official on Sunday said that the US has been planning an attack against Iran since 2003.
The warning came as a former US intelligence analyst disclosed on Sunday that the United States have been planning a full-scale military campaign against Iran even before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Richard Clarke and Steven Simon, who coordinated counterterrorism policy in the Clinton and Bush administrations, wrote in The New York Times on Sunday that "any United States bombing campaign would simply begin a multi-move, escalatory process".
They warned that Iran would first attack Persian Gulf oil facilities and tankers, which could cause oil prices to spike above $80 a barrel.
However more likely, Iran could use its terrorist network to strike American targets around the world, including inside the United States, Clarke and Simon said.
"Iran has forces at its command that are far superior to anything al-Qaeda was ever able to field," they wrote.
William Arkin, who served as the US Army's top intelligence mind on West Berlin in the 1970s and accurately predicted US military operations against Iraq, said the plan is known in military circles as TIRANNT, an acronym for "Theatre Iran Near Term".
It includes a scenario for a land invasion led by the US Marine Corps, a detailed analysis of the Iranian missile force and a global strike plan against any Iranian weapons of mass destruction, Arkin wrote in The Washington Post.
Preparations under TIRANNT began in earnest in May 2003 and never stopped, he said. The plan has since been updated using information collected in Iraq.
It's not the supposed nuclear...or is that nucular, in the words of the idiot in charge...that the Bush administration is worried about. They're worried about cheap oil for their oil cronies so they can charge high prices for fuel and reap HUGE profits.
Monday, April 10, 2006
From the Guardian Unlimited:
US plans Iran strike - report
The US is planning military action against Iran because George Bush is intent on regime change in Tehran - and not just as a contingency if diplomatic efforts fail to halt its suspected nuclear weapons programme, it was reported yesterday.
In the New Yorker magazine, Seymour Hersh, America's best known investigative journalist, concluded that the Bush administration is even considering the use of a tactical nuclear weapon against deep Iranian bunkers, but that top generals in the Pentagon are attempting to take that option off the table.
Hersh, who helped break the story of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, quoted an unnamed Pentagon adviser as saying the resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians was "a juggernaut that has to be stopped" and that some senior officers and officials were considering resignation over the issue.
There is also rising concern in the US military and abroad that Mr Bush's goal in Iran is not counter-proliferation but regime change, the article reports. The president and his aides now refer to the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as a potential Adolf Hitler, according to a former senior intelligence official.
Another government consultant is quoted as saying Mr Bush believes he must do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do" and "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy".
"The word I'm hearing is messianic," Mr Hersh said yesterday on CNN. "[Bush] is politically free. He really thinks he has a chance and this is his mission."
Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counter-terrorism operations chief said Mr Bush had not yet made up his mind about the use of direct military action against Iran.
"There is a battle for Bush's soul over that," he said, adding that Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser is adamantly opposed to a war.
However, Mr Cannistraro said covert military action, in the form of special forces troops identifying targets and aiding dissident groups, is already under way.
"It's been authorised, and it's going on to the extent that there is some lethality to it. Some people have been killed."
He said US-backed Baluchi Sunni guerrillas had been involved in an attack in Sistan-Baluchistan last month in which over 20 Iranian government officials were killed and the governor of the provincial capital was wounded. The Iranian government had blamed British intelligence for the incident.
The Washington Post reported that while no military action is likely in the short term, the possible targets went beyond suspected nuclear installations and included the option of a "more extensive bombing campaign designed to destroy an array of military and political targets".
It is a widespread belief in Washington's neo-conservative circles that a comprehensive air assault would disorient the Tehran government and galvanise the Iranian people into bringing it down. The departure of senior neo-conservatives from the administration after Mr Bush's 2004 re-election was thought to have weakened their clout, but Mr Hersh's report suggested that the president's personal convictions may yet prove decisive.
More of the article at the link.
Go see Fixer at Alternate Brain and see what he has to say about "Sanity".
Sunday, April 09, 2006
"Democratic state committees in Wisconsin, New Mexico, Nevada and North Carolina have taken similar steps."
Here in Wisconsin, in 24 out of 32 local referendums on the ballot last Tuesday voters cast ballots in favor of Congress starting impeachment proceedings. Fixer at Alternate Brain Had a post up about this last Thursday .
Vermont Democrats call for Bush impeachment
RANDOLPH, Vermont (Reuters) - Democratic Party leaders in Vermont on Saturday passed a motion asking Congress to immediately begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush.
In an elementary school cafeteria strewn with American flags and copies of the U.S. Constitution, some 100 state party officials agreed to make the request to the U.S. House of Representatives.
"You know in your own hearts and minds that something is terribly wrong in this country," said Margaret Lucenti, a Democrat from Vermont's capital Montpelier.
The measure asks the Republican-controlled House to pass articles of impeachment against Bush for misleading the nation on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and engaging in illegal wiretapping, among other charges.
Democratic state committees in Wisconsin, New Mexico, Nevada and North Carolina have taken similar steps.
With a population of just 621,000 -- only Wyoming has fewer people -- the rural New England state is considered far left of mainstream American politics.
Last month residents of the Puritan-founded town of Newfane passed a resolution calling for the Republican president's impeachment. Since then at least six other Vermont towns have followed suit.
In 1999, more than two dozen towns called for a reduction in nuclear weapons. In 1974, one Vermont town meeting drew national attention when officials voted to seek the impeachment of then-President Richard Nixon.
"This is far bigger than a fringe movement on the left," said Dan DeWalt, a 49-year-old woodworker who drafted the Newfane impeachment resolution. "Vermont has a long tradition of speaking out on issues beyond our borders."
From the Associated Press via Yahoo News:
Bush, GOP Struggle for Public Approval
President Bush has hit new lows in public opinion for his handling of Iraq and the war on terror and for his overall job performance. Polling also shows the Republican Party surrendering its advantage on national security.
The AP-Ipsos survey is loaded with grim election-year news for a party struggling to stay in power. Nearly 70 percent of Americans believe the nation is headed in the wrong direction — the largest percentage during the Bush presidency and up 13 points from a year ago.
"These numbers are scary. We've lost every advantage we've ever had," GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio said. "The good news is Democrats don't have much of a plan. The bad news is they may not need one."
Democratic leaders predicted they will seize control of one or both chambers of Congress in November. Republicans said they feared the worst unless the political landscape quickly changes.
_Just 36 percent of the public approves of his job performance, his lowest-ever rating in AP-Ipsos polling. By contrast, the president's job approval rating was 47 percent among likely voters just before Election Day 2004 and a whopping 64 percent among registered voters in October 2002.
_Only 40 percent of the public approves of Bush's performance on foreign policy and the war on terror, another low-water mark for his presidency. That's down 9 points from a year ago. Just before the 2002 election, 64 percent of registered voters backed Bush on terror and foreign policy.
_Just 35 percent of the public approves of Bush's handling of Iraq, his lowest in AP-Ipsos polling.
As bad as Bush's numbers may be, Congress' are worse.
Just 30 percent of the public approves of the GOP-led Congress' job performance, and Republicans seem to be shouldering the blame.
By a 49-33 margin, the public favors Democrats over Republicans when asked which party should control Congress.
That 16-point Democratic advantage is the largest the party has enjoyed in AP-Ipsos polling.
Bush's approval rating is down 12 points among Republicans since a year ago. Six in 10 Republicans said they disapproved of the GOP-led Congress.
Much more of the article at the link.
Sunday, April 02, 2006
From Talking Points Memo via Crooks And Liars:
Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) won't leave all the bamboozlement to Kaloogian?
A new elections complaints alleges (and pretty credibly) she said she had a degree she didn't; earlier one tagged her for bogus 'endorsement' by Ohio Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH).
Schmidt's response: Okay, maybe she never got the degree. But she took enough classes to get it.
The backstory here is that these elections complaints grow out of an inter-wingnut smackdown. The complainant is the Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes, an outfit founded by Schmidt's past primary opponent Tom Brinkman.
by A. Alexander, March 31st, 2006
"Sir! Sir," the Transportation Security Agency's airport screener
called, voice rising with each attempt at gaining the intended's
attention. "Sir, do you need that walker to stand-up?" The target of the
agent's question being an eighty-plus-year-old gentleman. "If not, I'll
take it from you until you've finished screening. If you can I'd like
you to remove your shoes too."
The man apparently informed the security-screener that he did indeed
require the use of his walking aid in order to feel comfortable
standing. For obvious reasons, he didn't seem willing to attempt
removing his shoes. Moments later the elder-citizen was being directed
toward the little coral now found at all airports, that area where still
more security personnel stand ready wand in hand prepared to scan, poke,
pat-down, and probe possible "evil-doers."
There's more at the link above.....but for those of you who don't follow the links, here's some new rules for the Department of Homeland (In)Security from the same column:
Perhaps if America is ever to prevail in the so-called war on terror, it is time to make some new rules:
New Rule Number 1: If a security screener at an airport has to ask an older passenger, "Do you need that walker to stand-up?" -- that passenger is excluded from doing anymore than walking through the metal detector. If someone cannot even walk unassisted, it does not seem terribly likely they'll be bum-rushing the plane's cockpit with a box cutter. Also, if they can't bend over to remove their shoes, they probably won't be bending over to light any shoe bombs either.
New Rule Number 2: No more invading countries just cuz the President wants tah.
New Rule Number 3: Peace activists are pacifists. If they don't like the idea of their government dropping bombs on people, it isn't likely the pacifists would suddenly feel compelled to start bombing people themselves. Therefore, no more government spying on peace activists.
New Rule Number 4: Every political movement has it's share of nutcases. Christian Republican's have Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Rick Scarborough, and -- okay all of them. Still, the FBI doesn't spy on every church in America just because every Republican Christian leader is off their al-Qaeda wannabe rockers, so the government shouldn't spy on environmental groups just because a few immature morons think torching some SUVs is going to make people stop wasting toilet paper. Also, just because people or groups of people disagree with the administration's drunk on oil, drill in every sensitive ecosystem while chasing the dream of another billion dollars for EXXON's coffers, doesn't mean they are "national security" risks. It just means they prefer the country learn to wean itself from a resource with a very limited future and which, should someone not have noticed, requires the United States to either invade nation's that pose no threat to security, or invade sensitive ecosystems like ANWR. Hence, no more spying on environmental groups and labeling them as being "terrorists."
New Rule Number 5: The Constitution is NOT multiple-choice, it is NOT optional, nor is it negotiable. Follow it or be impeached!
One last bit-o-advice: When any part of a nation's national security includes the phrase, "Sir, do you need that walker to stand up," and the reply is "yes" and that person isn't immediately considered a non-threat, you've completely lost the plot. Let's face it America, if someone can be stopped from rushing the cockpit by either a newspaper, novelette, or an IPOD being placed in their path, that individual is NOT anymore a threat to security than was Iraq.
Gen. Clark: Bush took U.S. on 'path to nowhere'
Ex-NATO head slams Iraq war, failure to stop nukes, find bin Laden
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark accused the Bush administration Saturday of taking the nation on a "path to nowhere" with misguided moves on national security.
The retired Army general and NATO military commander argued in the Democrats' weekly radio address that the United States needs a new plan to win the war on terror after failing to find September 11 terror mastermind Osama bin Laden, fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq and stumbling in halting weapons proliferation in North Korea and Iran.
Clark coupled his criticism of President Bush's policies with a renewed call for the Democratic plan on national security that party leaders unveiled this week.
Portrayed by opponents as weak on national security, Democrats contend that they've cut into the Republican advantage in this midterm-election year based on White House missteps on Iraq and ports security.
"This administration has taken us on a path to nowhere -- replete with hyped intelligence, macho slogans and an incredible failure to see the obvious," Clark said in the broadcast.
A candidate in 2004 for the Democratic nomination, Clark has been mentioned as a possible contender again in 2008.
From Iraq to Louisiana
The administration "has shown tragic incompetence in everything from nation building in Iraq to disaster relief in Louisiana," he said. "Let's face it: We're not going to win the war on terror unless we start making more friends and fewer enemies in the world, and we're not going to be able to protect the American people without a new strategy."
Clark joined House and Senate Democrats on Wednesday in calling for a strategy that would provide U.S. agents with the resources to pursue bin Laden, redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq, better equipment for the military and improved screening of containers and inbound cargo.
They amount to many of the proposals that Democrats have offered previously.
"Security is the first promise of any government, and Democrats mean to help deliver it," Clark said.
He argued that the nation "is in danger from the administration's mistaken policies and priorities."
Clark offered a litany of missteps, from the failure to get bin Laden to the more than 2,300 U.S. military deaths in Iraq and the thousands wounded. Domestically, he cited several challenges, including rising gasoline prices, illegal immigration and the impact of global warming.
Thought that would get your attention.
Yes, the Democrats have a platform. There are only three planks, but that's a start.
From the Washington Post:
Democrats Detail Security Policy: Bin Laden, Iraq and Domestic Safety Identified as Midterm Issues
Emboldened by President Bush's declining approval ratings, Democrats unveiled a national security platform yesterday for the midterm elections that stresses renewed focus on capturing Osama bin Laden, reducing the U.S. presence in Iraq and stepped up protection at home.
The new strategy, which comes after months of deliberations and several false starts, aims to neutralize the advantage Republicans have held on national security and terrorism issues, that Democrats acknowledge were critical in the GOP's midterm gains in 2002 and in Bush's reelection victory over Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) in 2004.
Flanked by former secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright and retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark, Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi vowed that Democrats could do a better job of defending the country than the administration has done since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Declaring that the administration's "dangerous incompetence has made America less safe," Reid said, "We are uniting behind a national security agenda that is tough and smart, an agenda that will provide the real security President Bush has promised, but failed to deliver."
.....Of course, the Republican slamming soon started.....
Republicans immediately attacked the Democratic plan, with Vice President Cheney arguing that Democrats' "behavior has been totally inconsistent with what they're now promising they're going to do."
.....Back to the Democrats.....
Among the proposals in the "Real Security" plan: eliminate bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist network, implement in full the recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission, and work to make 2006 a year of "significant transition" in Iraq.
On terrorism, the Democrats call for doubling the size of U.S. Special Forces and eliminating terrorist breeding grounds by "combating the economic, social and political conditions that allow extremism to thrive."
The statement contains language -- voiced by Pelosi, Reid and others yesterday -- that the Democrats' security agenda will be both "tough and smart" in contrast to the "dangerous incompetence" the Bush administration has shown -- language that has been tested by the Democrats in anticipation of the fall campaign.
Albright decried the Bush administration's "rank incompetence" on such issues as the Iraq war and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Albright called for a security plan based on "facts not fantasy."A series of national polls released in recent days have shown Democrats making up ground on Republicans when voters are asked which party they trust to better deal with issues of terrorism and homeland security.
Democrats have polled extensively on national security, testing various possible messages for the fall, and found that the more emphasis put on securing the homeland, the more voters respond. According to one poll taken for the Democratic National Committee, nearly three-quarters of those surveyed responded positively to such a message, rather than a message that emphasized taking the fight to the terrorists and staying the course in Iraq.
Read the rest at the link above.
From the New York Times:
Support for War Tests Lieberman's Re-election Prospects
HARTFORD, March 31 — Three times on Thursday night, Senator Joe Lieberman asked the crowd of 1,700 for quiet during his remarks at the state Democrats' annual Jefferson Jackson Bailey fund-raising dinner.
"Shhh," he told the guests. But rather than interrupting him with applause, many were ignoring him, having struck up conversations after finishing their chicken.
The inattentiveness — as well as the scattered boos amid the supportive calls of "Joe" that welcomed Mr. Lieberman to the podium — convinced some that the three-term senator, criticized for months because of his continued support for the war in Iraq, may be vulnerable in the primary challenge he faces.
"What I was struck by was that not many people were paying attention to him," said Leo Canty, chairman of the Democratic town committee in Windsor, which passed a resolution in February opposing Senator Lieberman's support for the war. "It used to be that he would be more of a presence when he came in."....and I used to like Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, but....
A few minutes later, however, the audience was riveted as Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the guest speaker at the $175-a-plate dinner, stood on the podium and began the customary round of recognition of candidates and incumbents in the room. When he got to Mr. Lieberman, who is his mentor in the Senate and who helped recruit him to speak at the event, the applause again was muted.
"I know that some in the party have differences with Joe," Senator Obama said, all but silencing the crowd. "I'm going to go ahead and say it. It's the elephant in the room. And Joe and I don't agree on everything. But what I know is, Joe Lieberman's a man with a good heart, with a keen intellect, who cares about the working families of America."....and then there's this....
If Mr. Lieberman seems concerned, despite his good humor, he has reason. His rival for the primary, Ned Lamont, a Greenwich cable television executive, has described him as "George Bush's favorite Democrat" and "Republican Lite."
And on Thursday night, while Mr. Lieberman said he was pleased with how he was received, Mr. Lamont and his aides said they were pleased, too. Mr. Lamont described people discreetly flashing Lamont buttons from their pockets and whispering to him, "I'm with you quietly."
Although a February poll of 345 registered Democrats done by Quinnipiac University showed him leading Mr. Lamont by 55 percentage points, a lead far beyond the poll's margin of error of plus or minus 5.3 percentage points, Senator Lieberman says he is taking the challenge seriously.
He said on Friday that he had been calling delegates and town committee leaders who he had been told might oppose him at the nominating convention on May 20.
There's more at the link.
I think we all know by now how these "meetings" work. There's no discussion....everyone gets told what's going to happen.
And after it happens, the terrorism around the world...especially against the US and it's interests...will increase dramatically. The threat of that has already been made. So much for Bush's ideas of how to keep us safe.
From the Washington Post via the Boston Globe:
Iran terror response seen to US strike: Wash Post
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iran would respond to U.S. military strikes against its nuclear sites with global attacks by intelligence operatives and Hezbollah teams, The
Iran would attack U.S. targets in Iraq and there is "growing consensus that Iran's agents would target civilians in the United States, Europe and elsewhere," The Post said.
"U.S. officials would not discuss what evidence they have indicating Iran would undertake terrorist action," it said.
But the article quoted one "senior official" as saying that the matter is "a huge issue" and another saying it "is consuming a lot of time" in the U.S. intelligence apparatus.
Intelligence officials declined to say whether they have detected "preparatory measures" by Iran's foreign-based operatives, such as more surveillance, counter-surveillance or message traffic, The Post said.The Post article comes amid increased international tension over Iran's nuclear program, which some nations say is aimed at building atomic bombs. Iran says the program is civilian.