I hate to say it...
But I think the White House is right:

The White House again rejected calls to tap into the nation's emergency stockpile of oil, called the Strategic Petroleum Oil Reserve. "You have to keep in mind that there are national security concerns involved when you are talking about that issue, particularly after September 11," McClellan said.

Higher gas prices, I realize, are about as popular as gangrenous hemorrhoids. But keeping gas prices low has cost us so much over the years in terms of lives, pollution, sprawl, wars, social fabric, and so on. And on this one, although they're probably just helping out their oil exec buddies, the Bushies are right. When a severe oil shortage hits, which it will, the strategic oil reserve may well be needed to provide critical heating needs in a cold winter and to keep the ambulances and firetrucks running. Depleting that reserve so we can save 10 cents a gallon now (and continue to blissfully ignore the inevitable) would be as shortsighted as, well, huge tax cuts for the rich in the face of massive deficits.

The best and simplest way to address the impending oil shortage is by substantially raising the gasoline tax. Unfortunately, the two Skull & Bones candidates are trying to outdo each other in saying how stupid this great idea is.

Poppy the Wimp Defends aWol the Idiot
I guess it's appropriate that our second worst president ever would defend the worst.

An emotional former President George H.W. Bush on Tuesday defended his son's Iraq war and lashed out at White House critics.

It is "deeply offensive and contemptible" to hear "elites and intellectuals on the campaign trail" dismiss progress in Iraq since last year's overthrow of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, the elder Bush said in a speech to the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association annual convention.

"There is something ignorant in the way they dismiss the overthrow of a brutal dictator and the sowing of the seeds of basic human freedom in that troubled part of the world," he said.
...
"Iraq is moving forward in hope and not sliding back into despair and terrorism," he said. -- Reuters

I guess he doesn't read the news either.

Go with slow
John Ashcroft before September 11 had refused to increase counterterrorism funds and had not placed terrorism in the top-priority issues for the Justice Department. When I and one of my staff met with Ashcroft early in the Administration, we were left wondering if his discussion with us had been an act. My associate asked me on the drive back to the White House, "He can't really be that slow, can he? I mean, you can't get to be the Attorney General of the United States and be like that, right?"

I wasn't sure. "I don't know," I said. "Maybe he's just cagey, but after all, he did lose a Senate reelection to a dead man." -- Richard Clarke, Against All Enemies, p. 256.

Clarke continues:
What Ashcroft and others did in the case of Padilla, and in proposing to amend the Patriot Act to allow for actions without judicial review, was to fundamentally shake the confidence of many Americans in the government's ability to safeguard our rights. At a time when we need greater citizen trust in the government so that we can adapt to the terrorist threat, Ashcroft is doing such things as engaging in a war of words with America's librarians over whether the FBI can scan reading records. The probability of the FBI ever needing to do that is so remote that this controversy should never have been allowed to develop. The Battle with the Librarians, the case of Jose Padilla, and the request for Patriot Act II make it very difficult to gain consensus to do the things that are needed to improve security, because trust in government's sensitivity to civil liberties is eroded.

I just finished reading the book. I don't agree with Clarke on everything. But unlike Bush, Ashcroft or Rice, he gives the distinct impression that he really knows what he is talking about, and is therefore far more deserving of the benefit of the doubt. His criticism of the war in Iraq is scathing and comprehensive. No reason, no need, poorly explained, poorly executed, costly, and a total failure. Plus a few more things besides!

One more quote, for now:
September 11 erased memories of the unique process whereby George Bush had been selected as President a few months earlier. Now, as he stood with an arm around a New York fireman promising to get those who had destroyed the World Trade Center, he was every American's President. His polls soared. He had a unique opportunity to unite America, to bring the United States together with allies around the world to fight terrorism and hate, to eliminate al Qaeda, to eliminate our vulnerabilities, to strengthen important nations threatened by radicalism. He did none of those things. He invaded Iraq.

After a thorough one-hour investigation while the fires were still burning...
The FBI has determined that it was NOT, repeat NOT, an act of terrorism. What wasn't an act of terrorism? A series of explosions at the nation's third largest oil refinery, a BP-Amoco facility in Texas City (near Houston). According to Reuters, the FBI had just issued warnings a few days ago about possible terrorist attacks on refineries.

How could they possibly rule it out so quickly? The first explosion happened at 7:15 Tuesday evening, and the story was apparently on the 11 o'clock news in Houston, including the bit about the FBI saying it wasn't terrorism. They didn't say they knew what it was, just what it wasn't. I can see ruling out certain types of terrorist acts through a quick investigation: No airplanes crashing, no car bombs. But how could they rule out a bomb on a timer or with cell-phone activation, or an inside job of sabotage? Maybe the thing just blew up on its own. But I don't see how they can possibly be sure that quickly.

I remember when, two months after September 11, an American Airlines plane crashed in the Rockaway Beach neigborhood of Queens near JFK Airport. The crash happened about 9 AM. At 12:30, then White House press secretary Ari Fleischer was asked if it was a terrorist attack. In probably one of the few times he ever told the truth, Ari answered that it was too early to tell. But then, about an hour later, Colin Powell is making a statement that it absolutely was not terrorism. What the Secretary of State has to do with investigating a plane crash I'm not sure, but I was quite sure that his statement was based entirely on politics and not at all on facts. September 11 had, with LOTS of help from the media, made Bush look "resolute" and "determined" in "leading the nation" through the tough times. Another terrorist attack so soon might have caused people to start thinking that "incompetent" and "unprepared" were better words to describe him. So Powell pre-empts that discussion and says "not terrorism." And back in November 2001 Powell still had a rather substantial reservoir of credibility. It's bone dry now.

So when I hear the FBI say "not terrorism" I hear "terrorism." Conditioned response.

600 Reasons Why Bush Should Be Impeached
Five more soldiers killed near Fallujah, bringing the total U.S. killed to 600. And not one of them for a good reason.

She shook her head and waved away my words of sympathy, "It's ok- really- I'm one of the lucky ones... all they did was beat me."

The Iraqi-based blog Baghdad Burning has a story about a family being dragged off to Baghdad's notorious Abu Ghraib prison by American troops.

M. and her uncle later learned that a certain neighbor had made the false accusation against her family. The neighbor's 20-year-old son was still bitter over a fight he had several years ago with one of M.'s brothers. All he had to do was contact a certain translator who worked for the troops and give M.'s address. It was that easy.

Jesus returns, questions war on Iraq; White House goes on the attack
The White House, still reeling from this week's surprise return of Jesus Christ and His condemnation of the Bush administration's war in Iraq, has gone on the defensive.

An administration aide admitted to growing White House frustration that staffers had been "caught napping," not only by Mr. Christ's unexpected return, which the aide likened to "a thief in the night," but especially by His strongly worded condemnation of Bush's foreign policy. "After all," stated the staff member on condition of anonymity, "we've been working since day one to bring about Armageddon specifically to hasten the Lord's return. Then He does this. I've got to question both His loyalty and His timing."

In a blitz of morning show appearances yesterday, administration officials sought to cast doubt on the savior's credibility, as well as His motivations. National security advisor Condoleeza Rice stated on NBC's Today Show that the King of Kings "Never gave us a plan to follow, really. We would have welcomed his input, but He was apparently too busy converting water into wine."
...
Appearing on conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh's program, Vice President Dick Cheney questioned the Everlasting Light's credibility in His scathing critique of the Iraq war. "Frankly, He was out of the loop. I mean, where's He been for the past 2,000 years?" Cheney asked. "And now He suddenly makes Himself manifest in an election year?"

Fox News released a transcript purporting to show four different versions of the Messiah's story. Former Republican governor James Thompson referred to Fox's story stating "Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. At least three of these are lies." "I'm from the Midwest," Thompson added.

More here! I found it a blog called A-Changin' Times; they link it to DailyKos, but I couldn't find it there. So I really don't know who wrote it.

And Big Jim? I'm from the Midwest, too!

The War on Terror
It's working--for al Qaeda. Nineteen die in Uzbekistan, while bombing plots are apparently foiled in England and the Philippines.

The president of Egypt said, "If you invade Iraq, you will create a hundred bin Ladens." He lives in the Arab world. He knows. It's turned out to be true. It is now much more difficult for us to win the battle of ideas as well as arresting and killing them, and we're going to face a second generation of al-Qaeda. We're going to catch bin Laden. I have no doubt about that. In the next few months, he'll be found dead or alive. But it's two years too late because during those two years, al-Qaeda has morphed into a hydra-headed organization, independent cells like the organization that did the attack in Madrid. -- Richard Clarke on Meet the Press, 3/28/04.

From Tom Toles.

Kerry whoring on gas prices
Occasionally I get my moments of doubt. I should lay off John Kerry--he's better than Bush, one of them is going to win, better Kerry than Bush, etc. I've heard all the arguments, and they sometimes make a dent. But then Kerry opens his mouth again and reminds me what a total sellout sleazebag he is.

He's now announcing a plan to cut gas prices, which as I've tried to point out again and again are WAY TOO LOW for the good of the country and the world.

With gasoline prices at a record high, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry is calling for the government to stop pumping oil into its emergency stockpile.

Kerry says that's one of several steps President Bush could take to slow the soaring cost of gasoline, which reached a national average of almost $1.80 a gallon in the past two weeks, according the private Lundberg Survey.

"If it keeps going up like that, folks, Dick Cheney and President Bush are going to have to car pool to work together," Kerry said at a fund-raiser Monday night in San Francisco, California. -- CNN

Digging into the strategic oil reserve was the Gore plan in 2000 that convinced me that he wasn't serious about his environmental positions, and Kerry's suggesting the same thing.

Plus, that car pool joke is really stupid. First off, carpooling is a good idea, and Kerry seems to be suggesting that it's asking way too much of people or something. Second, Bush doesn't drive to work--he lives in the dang office!

Kerry needs to be attacking Bush on his greatest vulnerability--the war in Iraq and how it has made us much less safe while costing thousands of lives and billions of dollars. Everything is in place: the policy has been shown not just to be wrong, but to be criminal in many ways. And since one of the real reasons for the war was to corner the market on world oil, Kerry needs to be informing people that it is a limited resource, that prices WILL go up, and if we're unwilling to make a few sacrifices now we'll be forced to make much greater sacrifices later. Instead, he panders on an issue that is of greatest concern to those who have been wasting oil prodigiously--the SUV driving commuters and soccer moms.

It's all just a game to Kerry, pretty much like it is to Karl Rove. Regardless of the facts or common sense, Kerry will say whatever he thinks will buy him a few votes. Those on the left who have unconditionally given him their support already just enable him to slide farther right. Maybe he actually is a liberal, and will resort to those policies once elected. But the pandering just validates the ridiculous arguments on the right and prevents the uninformed voters from learning what is really happening. And they REALLY need to know. If they did, Bush wouldn't stand a chance against Kerry, or Nader--or Satan, for that matter.

Testify! Testify!
CNN is reporting that the White House will now allow Condiliar to testify publicly under oath before the 9/11 Commission. Which, of course, she would like nothing better than, according to her 60 Minutes interview:

ED BRADLEY:
The secretary of state, defense, the director of the CIA, have all testified in public under oath before the commission. If - if you can talk to us and other news programs, why can't you talk to the commission in public and under oath?

CONDOLEEZZA RICE:
Nothing would be better, from my point of view, than to be able to testify. I would really like to do that.

I sure wish Max Cleland were still on the commission. I'm not sure if I trust any of the current commission members to cook Rice properly.

Takin' it to Turd Blossom
Hundreds rallied Sunday outside the home of Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, urging legislation that would allow undocumented immigrants who graduate from high school to legalize their status and qualify for in-state college tuition.

Protesters stood outside Rove's Washington house to show their support for the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, or the DREAM Act. -- CNN.

From Doug Marlette.

From Dwane Powell.

From R.J. Matson.

From Steve Greenberg.

From Jim Day.

From Kirk Anderson.

From Steve Sack.

From Mike Thompson, who deserves a Pulitzer for that!

Here's the quote and a link:

"When you are dealing with secretive regimes that want to deceive, you're never going to be able to be positive" about intelligence, Rice told NBC on Thursday. -- CNN, January 30, 2004

Stealing a post from Left I
Eli at left I had this post regarding the shutting down of a paper in Baghdad:

From The New York Times:
American soldiers shut down a popular Baghdad newspaper on Sunday and tightened chains across the doors after the occupation authorities accused it of printing lies that incited violence.

Thousands of outraged Iraqis protested the closing as an act of American hypocrisy, laying bare the hostility many feel toward the United States a year after the invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.

"No, no, America!" and "Where is democracy now?" screamed protesters who hoisted banners and shook clenched fists in a hastily organized rally against the closing of the newspaper, Al Hawza, a radical Shiite weekly.


A newspaper? Printing lies and inciting violence? I have just a few things to say:

The New York Times. Judith Miller. Invasion of Iraq. Tens of thousands of Iraqis and Americans and others dead or permanently injured.

Short and to the point!
A letter to the Ann Arbor News:
Democracy in Iraq. Wow. And at the point of a sword. A page out of Moslem proselytizing. Too bad the CIA and father Bush kept it from the Iraqis by keeping Saddam in power for 35 years.

If all the Arab-Moslems are suspected of being terrorists, should all Catholics be suspected of being child molesters?

Sahag Avedisian, Ann Arbor

Paul Craig Roberts gets it
Roberts is a conservative who used to write for the Washington Times (I don't see him there at the Moonie Times anymore--the Times is owned by Rev. Sun-Yung Moon, a long-time Reagan and Bush supporter). Here is Roberts' take on what I think is Richard Clarke's most damaging assertion: That what the Bushies have done since 9/11, particularly in Iraq, has made us LESS safe.

From Roberts' latest column on lewrockwell.com:

There are no excuses for the invasion of Iraq. Intelligence failures notwithstanding, terrorist attacks are surprises by definition, but we knew beforehand that Iraq had nothing to do with 911.
...
Prior to the US invasion on March 19, 2003, Iraq was not a major problem for the US. One year later, it is. The occupation strains our military and budget. The US seeks to install a puppet regime, but the majority Shi’ites are having none of it. Will civil war and the breakup of the country come next?
...
Stung by criticisms that the invasion of Iraq has undermined the war on terrorism, the Bush administration has pressured its Pakistani puppet to risk the stability of his own rule by sending his army into tribal areas in search of bin Laden.

The Pew poll found that 65% of Pakistanis have a positive view of Osama bin Laden, but only 7% have a positive view of President Bush. A symbolic capture of bin Laden that resulted in the overthrow of the US puppet, Musharraf, would be a bad bargain.
...
The invasion of Iraq is a far greater intelligence failure than 911. The mistake is too great to be acknowledged. Denial will rule while unintended consequences play out to America’s disadvantage.

The question for the 911 Commission is not whether the Clinton administration missed chances to assassinate bin Laden or whether the Bush administration’s loose immigration controls and interagency communication failures ensured the terrorists’ success. The only question is: why does the US persist with a foreign policy that breeds terrorism?

The challenge for the US is to break free from the folly and arrogance that power begets.

Conservatives like Roberts and Pat Buchanan get it:

Why does the US persist with a foreign policy that breeds terrorism?

Why can't John Kerry get it too?

You can still vote in this poll! (Here, on the left, about halfway down.)

Israel and the Iraq War
From Juan Cole:
The fact is that Israeli intelligence failures in Iraq contributed to drawing the United States into the war (pace the Knesset report). Undersecretary of Defense for Planning Douglas Feith, a representative of the American branch of the Likud Party, met repeatedly with Israeli generals at the Pentagon (who were not properly signed in, contrary to post-9/11 regulations), and they gave him fodder for his pre-determined insistence on ginning up a war against Iraq, reinforcing what was being said by liars like Ahmad Chalabi. They were conveying Israeli intelligence to a key American policy maker, and it was wrong.

Of course, being wrong is one thing. Deliberately being wrong is another. Although the subcommittee report refuses to consider the possibility, it seems clear that there were conspiracies within the intelligence and military services of the UK, Israel and the US intended to draw the US into war against Iraq. One sees reports in the British press of a "Rockingham Group" in the UK ministry of defense pushing for war, and of British intelligence planting anti-Iraq stories in the US press.

I'm surprised that someone this smart was actually in the Bush administration at all
MR. RUSSERT: But if you were willing to go forward, and, as you say, "spin" on behalf of the president, then why shouldn't people now think that this book is also spin? Why should people believe you?

MR. CLARKE: Because I have no obligation anymore to spin. When you're in the White House, you spin. And people have been doing a lot of that against me this week. You know, they're engaged in a campaign. People on the taxpayers' rolls, dozens of people, are engaged in the campaign to destroy me, personally and professionally, because I had the temerity to suggest that the American people should consider whether or not the president had done a good job on the war on terrorism. The issue is not me. The issue is the president's job on the role on terrorism.

Check out the whole Meet The Press transcript.

More excerpts:

MR. RUSSERT: On a scale of one to 10, how would you rate President Bush's performance on the war on terror prior to September 11?

MR. CLARKE: Well, there wasn't any personal performance by the president prior to September 11.
...
MR. RUSSERT: It sounds like a failing grade.

MR. CLARKE: Well, I think they deserve a failing grade for what they did before because, frankly, they didn't do--they never got around to doing anything. They held interim meetings, but they never actually decided anything before September 11.

Tom Tomorrow's whole cartoon is on Salon (brief ad-viewing required).

Kerry's got a halo now
You've probably seen those staged photos of Bush with a halo around his head. Here's one of Kerry from the Detroit Free Press:

60 Minutes
Shorter Bob's rant on 60 Minutes: Rice bad, Pickering okay, Adu--can't wait until Saturday!

I just watched 60 Minutes. It's hard to imagine that Condiliar convinced anyone with her performance. She practically gave away the game anyway by saying that they continued with the Clinton anti-terror policy for eight months (and the questions aren't so much about the policy, anyway, as they are about how diligently they were pursuing it). She cited long-standing precedence, supposedly, about National Security Advisors not appearing before Congress. But the 9/11 Commission isn't Congress, or even Congressionally-appointed, and besides, who cares? As Ed Bradley said, why not waive precedent for an unprecedented event like 9/11? Clarke 2 billion, Rice 0.

The segment on Charles Pickering was certainly interesting. Maybe it was a setup, but I thought Judge Pickering came off looking great, while his critics like Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) looked petty. Sixty Minutes had several people, mostly African-Americans who have dealt personally with Pickering, vouch for him. The only argument presented by Schumer was that in one case, Pickering reduced a sentence for cross-burning from 7 1/2 years to 2 1/2 years. Pickering made a reasonable explanation for his ruling, I thought. I don't know what would actually be an appropriate sentence for cross-burning, but it certainly seemed as though Pickering took the defendant's previous record (none) into account and lowered the sentence in at least an arguably reasonable way. Mandatory minimums are not a good idea, even for hate crimes, IMHO. Overall, Pickering made a pretty good case for a long pattern of fair and non-racist behavior on his part, and Schumer could only respond by taking a single case and blowing it out of proportion without really considering the facts (very much like Bush's current attack ads on Kerry).

And then there was this:

Charles Evers: You know, maybe you don't know, you know that Charles Pickering is a man helped us to break the Ku Klux Klan. Did you know that?

Clarence McGee: I heard that statement made.

Charles Evers: I mean, I know that. Do you know that?

Clarence McGee: I don't know that.

Charles Evers: I know that. Do you know about the young black man that was accused of robbing the young white woman. You know about that?

Clarence McGee: Nope.

Charles Evers: So Charles Pickering took the case. Came to trial and won the case and the young man became free.

Clarence McGee: I don't know about that.

Charles Evers: But did you also know that Charles Pickering is the man who helped integrate his churches. You know about that?

Clarence McGee: No.

Charles Evers: Well, you don't know a thing about Charles Pickering.

Clarence McGee heads the NAACP in Hattiesburg; Charles Evers is the brother of murdered civil rights leader Medgar Evers. Both are black.

Maybe the whole Pickering thing was 60 Minutes' way of making up to the Bush administration for the Clarke and Rice interviews. But unless the whole thing was faked, I think Democrats like Schumer look really stupid trying to attack Pickering as a racist. Complain about his position on abortion or find something else, but don't pick one case out of hundreds to label him a racist without talking to the people who have worked with him.

And then there's Freddie Adu, the 14-year-old soccer phenom who will debut for DC United next Saturday. The kid is amazing, and just as likeable as can be. I'm a soccer nut, and I can't wait to watch him play!

Government Of the Corporations, By the Corporations, and For the Corporations
Left I On the News cites two recent news stories about how the Bushies have been handing out the grandkids money to their corporate buddies.

One article concerns a huge giveaway to Boeing for aerial refueling tankers. The funding was stuck into one of the post-9/11 pork bills by Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), and had/has the support of House Speaker Dennis Hastert (from Boeing's headquarters state of Illinois) and Rep. Norman D. Dicks (from Boeing's manufacturing base in Washington state), as well, of course, of the White House. Boeing itself was given the "task" of rewriting the specifications for the tankers, eliminating 19 of 26 requested features so that it's 767 could meet the requirements and "beat out" competitor Airbus' bid (which met more of the requirements and was $10 billion less, but they're FRENCH, y'know).

Among the original Air Force requirements Boeing eliminated was that the new tanker be equipped to refuel all the military services' aircraft, refuel multiple aircraft simultaneously, and carry passengers, wounded troops and cargo. Boeing also eliminated an Air Force requirement that the new tankers be at least as effective and efficient as the 40-year-old KC-135 tankers they would replace.

Well, when you're only paying $23 billion, you can't expect everything. And kudos to Sen. John McCain for making a stink about this.

Condiliar is on 60 Minutes Tonight
I hope Ed Bradley makes her take an oath before she starts talking.

Clarke is Way Smarter Than the Bushies
The former chief counterterrorism adviser at the White House, who has criticized the Bush administration's preparedness for the attacks, said he would welcome the attempt by leading Republicans to declassify 2-year-old congressional testimony. -- NY Times

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has been suggesting that Clarke perjured himself by contradicting what he told to Congress two years ago with his testimony. Frist was probably counting on the previous testimony remaining classified so that he could slime Clarke without having to actually deliver the evidence. But just as he did with his opening statement apology on Wednesday, Clarke has immediately taken the wind out of the attack dogs' sails.

With the apology, he took away the argument "How can you blame this all on Bush? Don't you bear some of the responsibility for 9/11?" Clarke took responsibility right from the beginning. And with this statement, Clarke is saying "I have nothing to hide. Bring it on." Frist was bluffing, and Clarke has called his bluff.

Paul O'Neill was shaky from the start. He was unsure of what he was saying, and unwilling or unable to stand up to the heat. He deserves credit for opening the door, but he wasn't ready to really go after the Bushies. Clarke has apparently been preparing for it for a year, and has taken what happened to O'Neill into account. He's credible, he's smart, and he's prepared. If he manages to bring down the Bush administration, he will be one of the greatest American heroes of all time, IMHO!

Not that I want to help Bush get re-elected, but if he were smart (which he isn't) this is what I would suggest that he do:

Immediately stop attacking Clarke. Go on TV and apologize to Clarke for the attacks, and recognize his decades of dedicated service to protecting America--INCLUDING writing his book, talking to 60 Minutes, and testifying before the 9/11 commission. Apologize to the American people for failing to stop 9/11, along the lines of Clarke's apology.

Of course, the only way Bush can possibly pull this off is to admit that he was at least somewhat out of the loop, and was deceived by his subordinates (but not Clarke). This means heads must roll. Condi for sure, then probably Cheney and Wolfowitz, and maybe Rumsfeld and Hadley as well. Then offer Clarke any of the openings created, with a free hand to change things and unlimited access to the president.

It might actually work, but Bush is more likely to balance the budget than he is to apologize. It seems much more likely that they'll try to Wellstone¹ Clarke, so I hope he's got some good bodyguards and stays out of small planes.

(1. Wellstone (vt): To kill someone in a small plane and make it look like an accident. See also Carnahan, Mel, and Kennedy, John F. Jr.)

The incomparable Thomas Friedman
Demonstrates once again what a moron he is:
I have a confession to make: I am the foreign affairs columnist for The New York Times and I didn't listen to one second of the 9/11 hearings and I didn't read one story in the paper about them. Not one second. Not one story.

Lord knows, it's not out of indifference to 9/11. It's because I made up my mind about that event a long time ago: It was not a failure of intelligence, it was a failure of imagination.
...
I am so hungry for a positive surprise. I am so hungry to hear a politician, a statesman, a business leader surprise me in a good way.

Not hungry enough, apparently, to listen to Richard Clarke and all the other witnesses testify in the 9/11 hearings, however. Friedman made up his mind a long time ago, and doesn't want any facts to get in his way.

By the way, Tom Tomorrow has an argument going on with the NY Times over several recent cases where their op-ed columnists Friedman, William Safire, and David Brooks apparently just made up crap to support their opinions. Go Tom! Too bad you don't still have Sparky to help you out! (Obscure reference: Tom Tomorrow's This Modern World cartoons feature a caustic liberal penguin named Sparky. Unfortunately, Sparky was recently hit in the head with a flying toilet and turned Republican.)

Iraq punished for not having WMD's; Libya rewarded for having them
The World Socialist Web Site points out the numerous hypocrisies involved in comparing the U.S. and British treatments of Saddam Hussein and Moamar Khaddafi.

Here's a summary:

• It is widely accepted (I don't know if it's true) that Khaddafi has supported terrorist organizations targeting U.S. and British citizens. He has accepted responsibility (albeit under enormous pressure) for the explosion of Pan Am 103 in 1988. As I said, I don't know how much of this is really true, but it is the accepted position of the U.S. and British governments. The only supposed terror attack on the U.S. that has been linked to Saddam Hussein was an assasination attempt on former president Bush in Kuwait in 1993. Details on this are sketchy. (I'd also add that if any bad guy in history would ever have been justified in killing another bad guy for having screwed him over, Saddam killing Poppy would have been it. Poppy helped Saddam to get the conventional and unconventional weapons that he had, gave him the green light to invade Kuwait, and then destroyed his country when he ran that green light.)
• Libya has actual WMD's; Iraq hasn't had them since about 1995 or so, apparently.

Okay, we already know that Bush and Blair are hypocrites. But why are they being hypocritical with Khaddafi in such a different way than they were with Saddam? The WSWS suggests:

• It's about oil. U.S. and British oil companies are ready to go flying back into Libya.
• It's about weapons. U.K. and U.S. weapons manufacturers are preparing to re-arm Khaddafi with multi-billion dollar deals.
• Most importantly, it's a cynical political ploy to show that the "lesson" of Iraq is working. Bush and Blair will continue to lie and pretend that the lesson is that if you support terrorism and have WMD's, you'll face the consequences. The airhead wingnuts in this country will buy that (they already have). But the lesson most of the world will get is that WMD's and terror are your only defenses against American imperialism: Saddam had neither, and look what happened to him.

WSWS concludes:

The diametrically opposed treatment of Iraq and Libya is not due to fundamental differences between the regimes of Saddam Hussein and Colonel Gadhaffi. Notwithstanding the invocations of humanitarian concern for the Iraqi people and other rhetoric associated with the so-called “war on terror,” Iraq was conquered so that the US could establish its hegemony over the oil-rich Middle East. Libya is now being courted out of the same essential considerations. London may have stolen a march on its European rivals, but the Bush administration will demand the lion’s share of Libyan oil contracts as payback for its billion-dollar [? Try hundreds of billions--Ed] investment in the Iraq war.

Mutual Aid Society
Bush and Osama, that is. Together, they have greatly increased each other's mandate and influence. And when Bush started getting close to catching Osama, he backed off and went after Saddam instead:

The fact that the Pentagon pulled the fighting force most equipped for hunting down Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan in March 2002 in order to pre-position it for Iraq cannot be denied.

Fifth Group Special Forces were a rare breed in the US military: they spoke Arabic, Pastun and Dari. They had been in Afghanistan for half a year, had developed a network of local sources and alliances, and believed that they were closing in on bin Laden.

Without warning, they were then given the task of tracking down Saddam. "We were going nuts on the ground about that decision," one of them recalls.

"In spite of the fact that it had taken five months to establish trust, suddenly there were two days to hand over to people who spoke no Dari, Pastun or Arabic, and had no rapport."

Along with the redeployment of human assets came a reallocation of sophisticated hardware. The US air force has only two specially-equipped RC135 U spy planes. They had successfully vectored in on al-Qaida leadership radio transmissions and cellphone calls, but they would no longer circle over the mountains of the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. -- The Guardian, via Atrios

Sharon May Face Bribery Charges
Saddam's gone. Aznar's gone. Bush, Blair and Howard are in trouble. And Sharon too? Richard Clarke was right last Sunday when he told Leslie Stahl, "I think the world would be better off if a number of leaders around the world were out of power."

Those were six of the worst. Two down, four to go.

(I know, tough call. Should I lump Saddam in there? It gives Bush some credit for getting rid of him, but it nicely lumps the rest of those criminals in with Saddam. I think that was what Clarke was hinting, and I'm going with it!)

I don't think anybody could have predicted that we'd have an National Security Advisor this stupid
"I don't think anybody could have predicted that ... they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." -- Condoleezza Rice, May 2002.

I have pointed out before how ridiculous this statement was, since planes had been flown into buildings in reality, in planning, and in fiction for years before 9/11. Tom Clancy's 1997 novel Debt of Honor ended with a 747 being crashed into the Capitol building.

Allan from Ottawa e-mailed me, telling me about another fictional hijacking story:

Here is a "Summary" Plot for the popular movie, "Executive Decision", copied verbatim from "The Internet Movie Database":

"When Oceanic Airlines flight 343 is hijacked, the U.S. Military devises a plan to get Army Commandoes onboard the jet at 39,000 feet. The hijackers are unaware of the commandoes, while the soldiers are unaware of a weapon planned to take out the eastern seaboard of the U.S., the rogue unit must fight against time and the shaky government before they blow the jet out of the sky."

And when was this training script for terrorists released? ... 1996!

Of course, maybe Condi doesn't read many books or watch many movies. Too bad nobody else noticed the similarities between these stories and the reality of 9/11. Except New York Times reporter Michiko Kakutani noticed it immediately:

For the most part, however, large-scale terrorist plots and huge public disasters--so sensationalist in tone, seemingly so far removed from our daily reality--have remained the province of commercial screenwriters and novelists like Tom Clancy, whose 1994 novel, "Debt of Honor," featured a plot in which a Boeing 747 is crashed by a Japanese airman into the Capitol building during a joint session of Congress, killing virtually everyone. The Sylvester Stallone movie Daylight postulated a disastrous explosion in the Holland Tunnel; Die Hard 2 showed terrorists taking over the air control system at Dulles Airport and crashing an airplane; and Black Sunday depicted an extremist group planning to blow up the Superbowl with explosives loaded on a blimp. Executive Decision depicted Arab terrorists armed with a nerve-gas bomb who take control of a 747 and head for Washington. -- NY Times, September 12, 2001, quoted from the blog Remains of the Day.

So Condi doesn't read books, doesn't watch movies, AND doesn't read the nation's most important paper. Nor apparently does she study reports of previously-attempted terrorist plots, like crashing a plane into the Eiffel Tower, crashing a DC-10 into FedEx headquarters, simultaneously hijacking 12 jetliners over the Pacific, etc. WHAT THE $%$@^@!! DOES SHE DO? Just watch football and play the piano while New York burns?

There's really only two choices for Rice--she's either terribly dishonest or terribly incompetent. Either way she has no business being National Security Advisor. No wonder she doesn't want to appear before the 9/11 commission.

Electric Bill Cut in Half!
My March 2003 electric bill: 610 kilowatt-hours over 29 days, $56.84.
My March 2004 electric bill: 284 kilowatt-hours over 29 days, $25.66.

I have gas heat, hot water and cooking. So while it was slightly warmer this winter than last, I don't think that was much of a factor (the furnace fan is a big KWH user, so warmer weather would be part of the story). The main savings? Probably the compact fluorescent bulbs, which I have installed in most of the lamps and fixtures in my house. But I also bought a high-efficiency washing machine last April, and I've put most of my "phantom" loads onto power strips so I can cut their power off completely when I'm not using them. Anything with a remote has a phantom load, usually three to five watts. Anything plugged in with a clock, like a microwave, is also a constant phantom load. I found that my 19" CRT monitor also draws about 55 watts when it's on, even in blanked-out "power-saving" mode. So even if it is more convenient to leave the computer on sometimes when I'm not using it, I try to shut off the monitor.

I expect even bigger savings this summer, since with a little research I discovered that my biggest energy hog over the course of a year was the dehumidifier in the basement. It's control mechanism is pretty worthless, so I had been letting it run almost constantly during the humid summer months. But it draws about 480 watts, and that adds up to a lot of KWH when run constantly! I bought a humidity guage at the hardware store so that I can more accurately judge when the dehumidifier is needed. I will also stop using the bathroom and shower that I have in the basement, and make sure that all clothes drying in the summer is done on the outside line.

Is the $30 savings on my March bill worth it? I think so, even just from an economic point of view, although I'm not poor (and I'm really not giving up much of anything). But DTE Energy supplies that power by burning coal, oil and natural gas and through nuclear fission. [Ed. Note: I mistakenly had "fusion" there for a week!] And these are things that we have to cut down drastically on or stop completely. Unless you've already carefully analyzed your energy usage and taken a lot of steps to cut it down, chances are that you too can cut your bill in half or more.

One very useful tool for ferreting out your power hogs is a wattmeter. Here's the one I bought, which works just fine and was about $100 less than I could find anywhere else. (For some reason they are not easy to find in stores.) You just plug the wattmeter into the wall and the electrical device into the wattmeter, and it tells you how many watts it is using. For appliances which cycle on and off a lot, like refrigerators, it will tally up the total kilowatt-hours while keeping track of the time so that you can determine an average wattage. If you live near me (Ann Arbor, MI), I'll be glad to loan you my wattmeter for a day or two--it should only take a couple of hours to check most of your stuff.

Another key to saving energy? If you've got natural gas, use it anytime something needs heating. Gas furnaces, hot water heaters, and ranges are much more efficient than their electric counterparts. Reheating on a gas stove is more efficient than in the microwave (microwaves are huge energy hogs, drawing 500 to 1500 watts).

I did all this research because I wanted to install some solar panels. I still plan to, but since I've already cut my bill in half, there's no way I'll save as much through solar as I will through some simple conservation methods. From a strictly personal economic viewpoint, the solar panels and batteries are unlikely to pay for themselves for a very long time unless electricity costs skyrocket (albeit a very real possibility). Solar power will be my new toy. But I hope that the panels on the roof will at least get my neighbors to ask me some questions, and I can tell them just what I've told you here: you can probably cut your electricity use in HALF without giving up a thing.

From Mark Streeter.

Tom Toles, via Michelle.

The real goal
The real goal until November is to lower W's popularity down to 1 or 2 percent so that conservatives can vote for Kerry and liberals for Nader without having to worry about Bush.

Wouldn't it be great if Kerry supporters were badgering the far right to get them to vote for Kerry, because "a vote for Bush is a vote for Nader?" Conservatives angrily demanding that Bush drop out of the election for fear that he'll throw the election to Nader?

I mean, seriously--of those three candidates, why is the best one the one who is being asked to drop out? And there will be Green, Libertarian, Socialist, and probably several other candidates on the ballot. All will be better than Bush, and most probably better than Kerry.

Gasoline $3 a gallon by Labor Day?
Paul Roberts writes in the LA Times about the end of cheap crude. The U.S. has refused for three decades, and continues to refuse, to face the inevitable. Instead of weaning ourselves from oil, we've actually become even more dependent on it. What could have been a gradual and well-planned transition to a more sustainable America will probably just end up being totally FUBAR. Massive unemployment, riots in the streets, people dying. The longer we remain in denial and try to "solve" the problem by cornering more of the world oil market through war and threat of war, the worse it will be in the long run. Allowing prices to find their appropriate high level seems to me to be about the only way in a somewhat free-market economy to sort this out.

Nailing the hammer?
Tom DeLay, the Congressional Republican mafioso from Texas, may have to step down from his post as house majority leader "if he is indicted by a Texas grand jury investigating alleged campaign finance abuses."

DeLay is one of the most evil and corrupt politicians in U.S. history, and that's saying a lot. Throwing him in jail would go a long ways towards fixing our system.

Chomsky's Blogging!
Noam Chomsky on the candidates:
People in the more civilized sectors of the world (what we call "the third world," or the "developing countries") often burst out laughing when they witness an election in which the choices are two men from very wealthy families with plenty of clout in the very narrow political system, who went to the same elite university and even joined the same secret society to be socialized into the manners and attitudes of the rulers, and who are able to participate in the election because they have massive funding from highly concentrated sectors of unaccountable power that cast over society the shadow called "politics," as John Dewey put it.

Noam Chomsky on the March 20 demonstrations:
I spoke at a demo of about 20,000 people in Vancouver, very enthusiastic and engaged, and as far as I could tell, inspired to go on. Also to audiences of several thousands, which seemed the same. The pre-war demonstrations were without historical precedent, and surely important. The anniversary demos were also without precedent, and again surely will have an impact. Obviously no one expects the same turnout in a mass effort to prevent a war and in a later mass effort to compel the occupiers to grant Iraqis authentic sovereignty, along with a host of other highly significant concerns.

Those who participate should understand that demos are doubly significant: first as a message to the rulers, but more important, as one step in the far more important process of popular mobilization and activism that goes on day after day. No one expects a few dramatic mass actions to stop a juggernaut. But they do throw a wrench in the works, raising the costs of the next move. And if they continue and grow, they can halt its course, reverse the course, and dismantle it. But only if they serve the primary function of popular mobilization, bringing people together, energizing them, increasing their commitment to engage in the constant hard work of education and organizing, and undertaking appropriate actions that range from very local to international in scope.

Kerry comes up with a good plan to bring $12 billion back to the government...
But says he'll give it all back to the corporations:

In a speech in Detroit, Kerry will propose ending a tax provision that lets companies defer paying U.S. taxes on income earned by foreign subsidiaries. He would use the $12 billion in annual savings for a 5 percent cut in corporate tax rates. -- Reuters

Jeez, John! Wouldn't that $12 billion fund the "No Child Left Behind" bill that you voted for but complain about Bush not funding? Or buy lots of body armor? Or provide health care for millions? Maybe just pay down the huge deficit?

If cutting corporate taxes is your idea of the best way to spend $12 billion, you ain't no Democrat.

Thank You, Richard Clarke!
Billmon points out that a topic which has been almost taboo for 2 1/2 years--what really happened on 9/11--is now being openly discussed in the media and the public. And we have Richard Clarke to thank for that:

...The fact that the general embargo on critical thinking about 9/11 has been broken is very encouraging. The truth -- the whole truth -- is probably too much to expect, given the narrow limits of what's considered "legitimate" debate in this country, and the powerful forces lined up in defense of ignorance. But at least people are asking questions, and looking for answers. Compared to where we were just a few months ago, that's an ecouraging good sign.

Which means that whatever the accuracy, or completeness, of Richard Clarke's story, he's done a great public service simply by breaking the strange spell of public apathy that's been choking off debate about what happened on 9/11 -- and why -- for the past two and a half years.

From R. J. Matson.

From Jim Morin.

From Scott Stantis.

From Chris Britt.

My cat Ragu sends a message to Bush

Kerryoke
On foreign policy, Kerry keeps singing Bush's tunes.

Venezuelanalysis has a rebuttal to Kerry's position on Venezuela.

The leader of my upcoming Global Exchange tour to Venezuela sent that, encouraging us to contact Kerry and complain. Of course, I already did.

You're probably sick of reading my complaints about Kerry. Sorry!

Digital Camera Fun
My trip to Venezuela is coming up, and I wanted to see if the rechargeable battery in my digital camera would hold up through 150 pictures (the approximate capacity of the memory card). It did! I took some pictures of my dead old car, my "new" '89 Toyota pickup, my cats, my house, my cats, the yard, my neighbor's cat, and, well, my cats. These are my two favorites. The first one is my cat Marcos (Subcatendante Marcos), with a lot of playing around with brightness, contrast and gamma. The second one is my neighbor's cat Ray, whose eyes don't really glow like that.

HA HA
I guess the WMD's are just a big joke to Bush now. He spoke at a media gathering last night:

Bush put on a slide show, calling it the "White House Election-Year Album" at the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association 60th annual dinner, showing himself and his staff in some decidedly unflattering poses.

There was Bush looking under furniture in a fruitless, frustrating search. "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere," he said.

Check inside your head, nimrod.

Two more soldiers killed in Iraq
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- A U.S. soldier died in a bomb blast north of Baghdad on Thursday amid warnings that attacks will likely increase with fewer than 100 days left before the coalition hands over sovereignty. A day earlier, a gunbattle with insurgents left one American soldier and three rebels dead. -- AP

From Mike Thompson.

The despicable Thomas Friedman
There he goes again:

There is nothing more important for the future of Western democracies than the question of whether, in the wake of the Madrid bombings, the new Spanish government will go ahead with its plan to withdraw Spanish forces from Iraq ? unless the U.N. assumes control of the occupation forces there by June 30. If Spain goes ahead, every terrorist in the world will celebrate, and every democracy will be a little more endangered. I so hope Spain's incoming prime minister, Jos? Luis Rodr?guez Zapatero, reconsiders this decision.

Right Tom. Nothing more important for the future of Western democracies than for the new Spanish government to ignore the will of the people who elected them. You're probably right there--no democracy left when that happens.

You know Tom--If displeasing al Qaeda is more important than pleasing your own constituency, well, I hate to say it, but the terrorists have won.

Operation Enduring Occupation
From the ashes of abandoned Iraqi army bases, U.S. military engineers are overseeing the building of an enhanced system of American bases designed to last for years.
...
Now U.S. engineers are focusing on constructing 14 "enduring bases," long-term encampments for the thousands of American troops expected to serve in Iraq for at least two years. The bases also would be key outposts for Bush administration policy advisers. -- Chicago Tribune

Maybe the biggest thing wrong with the 9/11 commission...
Is that they are only investigating what MORE might have been done to stop 9/11, without considering that 9/11 was the result of TOO MUCH aggression and meddling over the years. From the WSWS:

Not one panel member broached the issue of US foreign policy in Afghanistan and the Middle East, and its role in fostering the growth of Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda. Nor was there any probing of the economic and geo-strategic interests that underlie the policy of succeeding US administrations toward Central Asia and the Persian Gulf. The word “oil” went virtually unuttered in the course of hours and hours of testimony.

Instead, the framework for the hearings was the assumption that 9/11 was the result of a “failure” of intelligence, or diplomacy, or military policy—or a combination of all three. From this narrow and disingenuous starting point, the thrust of both the witnesses’ testimony and the questioning by the panel followed: namely, that the proper response to the threat of terrorist attacks is to remove all remaining restrictions on US spying and covert operations abroad, including assassinations, intensify government spying within the United States, and apply the Bush doctrine of preventive war on an even more massive and bloody scale in the future.

The gist of the criticisms made of both the Clinton and Bush administrations—including those made by Clarke—was that they were too timid and squeamish in the pre-9/11 period, and too bogged down by considerations of US and international law. They should have used military force and covert violence sooner, more often and on a larger scale.

The most rabid of the panel members was former Democratic senator and current president of the New School University in New York, Bob Kerrey, who, as a Navy Seal in the Vietnam War, led a death squad attack on a village in which the six enlisted men under his command killed 21 women, children and elderly men. In one revealing exchange, he berated Albright for failing to use military force to eliminate Osama bin Laden in the 1990s. She replied: “You, senator, I know, were the only person that I know of who suggested declaring war. You were, you know, in retrospect—you were probably right.”

How Lieberman won the nomination
The ballots have been counted and, for all intents and purposes, the Democratic primaries are over. In a stunning come-from-behind upset, a clear winner has emerged—Senator Joseph Lieberman.

True, Lieberman failed to receive more than 5 percent of the vote in most of the states in which he contested the nomination—including his home state of Connecticut—and did not even put his name on the ballot in a number of primaries because of lack of support. His efforts produced not a single Lieberman delegate for the party’s upcoming convention in Boston. Yet he is a winner nonetheless, as it is his right-wing, pro-war politics that will serve as the fundamental platform of the Democratic Party in the 2004 presidential election. -- from Socialist Equality Party presidential candidate Bill Van Auken.

From Rob Rogers.

Clarke right, Bushies wrong
That's my shorter Fred Kaplan.

There's a limit to intelligence...
But no limit to stupidity. Here's a letter to the editor from yesterday's Detroit Free Press:

I find it terribly ironic that President George W. Bush is being criticized for not taking action against Al Qaeda before they attacked the United States at the same time he is being criticized for taking action against Iraq before they attacked us.

Even those who aren't Bush fans have to see how ridiculous that is. Make up your minds. You can't have it both ways.

Vicki Morton, Troy

Earth to Vicki Moron:
A brief review--
Al Qaeda: Had attacked America before, had promised to do so again.
Iraq: Had never attacked America, had no weapons with which to attack.
Canada: A lot bigger and closer than Iraq, and better armed. Why aren't YOU criticizing Bush for not attacking Canada?

You can't have it both ways.

On a brighter note, seven of the eight letters to the Free Press about Spain's election and decision to withdraw troops from Iraq were supportive of Spain. The eighth was relatively incomprehensible.

Daschle on the attack--again!
For the second day in a row, and the second time in recorded history, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle makes a strongly-worded speech criticizing the criminals in the Bush administration.

I've got to believe that Bush is toast now. He's actually costing his big-corporation backers money, the replacement emperor is in place, and the order comes down from on high: Release the hounds!

Kerry, you swine!
We need a balanced energy policy that protects consumers from high gas prices, invests in renewable energy and promotes responsible development here at home. -- John Kerry, quoted in the NY Times, reacting to "high" gasoline prices.

I knew Kerry would do the wimpy political thing on gas prices, but it's still disappointing to see that I was right. Gas prices are NOT high by either historical (inflation-adjusted) or world levels. A gallon of gas still costs less than a gallon of milk, and the price is not high enough to cause most Americans to have a second thought about buying an SUV or taking an unnecessary trip. "Investing in renewable energy" means handing out research dollars to multinationals like BP-Amoco, now one of the leading makers of solar panels. (There really should be anti-trust action to keep big oil's hands off of the solar energy business. We need that good old American entrepreneurial spirit in the renewable energy field, but with giants like BP and Siemens dominating the market and ready to buy up--and shut up--real innovators, we won't get it. BP's interest is in keeping solar from becoming affordable.) "Responsible development here at home" means more drilling.

No candidate is serious about protecting the environment, nor about protecting America from foreign terrorists, who is unwilling to seriously promo