So many things to be outraged about... so little time to vent..
Here is one buried inside today's NYTimes:

The Organization of American States (OAS), which includes all the nations of North, Central and South America and the surrounding islands, has voted to exclude the United States from representation on its Inter-American Commission on Human Rights for the first time in the body's 44-year history. The reason for this symbolic rebuke is because the U.S. has done nothing but harp about Cuba since the Bush administration took charge.

"In private, several nations were critical of what they characterized as Mr. (Colin) Powell's excessive and narrow focus on Cuba at the expense of other issues."

This one-note focus on Cuba was made even more clear by the Bush administration's choice for its representative on the Human Rights commission - Rafael Martinez, a Cuban-exhile with no experience in human rights issues. But Mr. Martinez is the brother of Mel Martinez, Bush's Secrectary of Housing and Urban Development, and was a leading fund-raiser for the Bush presidential campaign among Cuban-Americans in Florida.

When Bush first took office, he played up his relationship with Mexico President Vicente Fox. But that relationship has since grown cold starting with Bush's refusal to stop the execution of a Mexican national in Texas (Mexico, like most civilized nations around the world, does not have a death penalty). And then when Mexico did not buy into all of Bush's lies about the immiment threat from weapons of mass destruction and thus did not support the U.S. pre-emptive invasion, Bush dropped Fox like a hot potato. His only other venture into foreign policy on this side of the Atlantic was to encourage and support the failed coup of the democratically elected president of Venezuela. Now, Bush's sole focus for the Southern Hemisphere is to vilify Cuba so as to bolster his support among anti-Castro Cubans in Floriday in the hope that he might actually win Florida during the next election rather than having it penciled in to his column by the Republican members of the Supreme Court.

Here is Howard Dean ( via Slate ) making some points that all the Democratic candidates need to pick up on:

"When Ronald Reagan came into office, he cut taxes, we had big deficits, and we lost 2 million jobs. When Bill Clinton came into office, he raised taxes without a single Republican vote; we balanced the budget; we gained 6 and a half million jobs. George Bush has already lost 2 and a half million. I want a balanced budget because that's how you get jobs in this country is to balance the books. No Republican president has balanced the budget in 34 years. …You had better elect a Democrat, because the Republicans cannot handle money. … We're the party of responsibility, and they're not."

Here is a graphic illustration to help make that point more clear.
We now have a record $400 billion budget deficit and the job losses keep mounting every week.

Why would anyone want four more years of this?

Oh goody! More song lists! This one is from VH-1 and purports to be the Top 100 songs of the past 25 years. I guess that means songs that go back to 1978 are included such as "Who Are You" by The Who and "Start Me Up" by The Rolling Stones. Well, here is the complete list along with my additions at the bottom (an X means I agree with the VH1 selection although not necessarily the placement) :

X1. Nirvana, "Smells Like Teen Spirit"
X2. Michael Jackson, "Billie Jean"
X3. Guns N' Roses, "Sweet Child O' Mine"
X4. Eminem, "Lose Yourself"
X5. U2, "One"
6. Run-D.M.C., "Walk This Way"
X7. Prince, "When Doves Cry"
8. Whitney Houston, "I Will Always Love You"
X9. The Police, "Every Breath You Take"
X10. Madonna, "Like a Virgin"
X11. Van Halen, "Jump"
12. Alanis Morissette, "You Oughta Know"
13. TLC, "Waterfalls"
14. Sinead O'Connor, "Nothing Compares 2 U"
X15. Pink Floyd, "Another Brick in the Wall (Part 2)"
16. No Doubt, "Don't Speak"
X17. Def Leppard, "Photograph"
X18. R.E.M., "Losing My Religion"
X19. Public Enemy, "Fight the Power"
X20. AC/DC, "You Shook Me All Night Long"
X21. U2, "With or Without You"
22. Cyndi Lauper, "Time After Time"
X23. Prince, "Little Red Corvette"
24. Celine Dion, "My Heart Will Go On"
25. Rick James, "Super Freak"
X26. Bon Jovi, "Livin' on a Prayer"
27. Grandmaster Flash, "The Message"
28. Britney Spears, "... Baby One More Time"
X29. Bruce Springsteen, "Born in the U.S.A."
30. Janet Jackson, "Nasty"
31. Dr. Dre feat. Snoop Doggy Dogg, "Nuthin' but a 'G' Thang"
X32. Pearl Jam, "Jeremy"
X33. Tina Turner, "What's Love Got to do With It"
X34. Peter Gabriel, "In Your Eyes"
35. The Sugarhill Gang, "Rapper's Delight"
X36. Joan Jett, "I Love Rock 'n Roll"
37. Alicia Keys, "Fallin'"
X38. The Clash, "London Calling"
X39. Tom Petty, "Free Fallin'"
X40. Michael Jackson, "Beat It"
X41. Red Hot Chili Peppers, "Under the Bridge"
42. Blondie, "Heart of Glass"
X43. The Go-Go's, "Our Lips Are Sealed"
44. Gloria Gaynor, "I Will Survive"
45. Aerosmith, "I Don't Want to Miss a Thing"
X46. Queen and David Bowie, "Under Pressure"
47. Shania Twain, "You're Still the One"
48. Naughty By Nature, "O.P.P."
49. Journey, "Don't Stop Believin'"
50. Lenny Kravitz, "Are You Gonna Go My Way?"
51. George Michael, "Faith"
X52. The Rolling Stones, "Start Me Up"
53. Marvin Gaye, "Sexual Healing"
54. Goo Goo Dolls, "Iris"
X55. Talking Heads, "Once in a Lifetime"
56. Sheryl Crow, "All I Wanna Do"
57. Eric Clapton, "Tears in Heaven"
58. The Notorious B.I.G. feat. Puff Daddy & Mase, "Mo Money Mo Problems"
59. Meat Loaf "Paradise By the Dashboard Light"
X60. Santana feat. Rob Thomas, "Smooth"
61. Backstreet Boys, "I Want It That Way"
X62. Pretenders, "Brass in Pocket"
X63. Beck, "Loser"
64. The Knack, "My Sharona"
65. Nelly, "Hot in Herre"
X66. Squeeze, "Tempted"
X67. John Cougar Mellencamp, "Jack and Diane"
68. Chic, "Good Times"
69. Mary J. Blige, "Real Love"
X70. Culture Club, "Do You Really Want to Hurt Me"
71. Dave Matthews Band, "Crash Into Me"
X72. John Lennon, "(Just Like) Starting Over"
73. LL Cool J, "Mama Said Knock You Out"
X74. Hall & Oates, "I Can't Go for That (No Can Do)"
75. The Ramones, "I Wanna Be Sedated"
X76. Eurythmics, "Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This)"
77. Missy Elliott, "Work It"
78. Green Day, "Good Riddance (Time of Your Life)"
79. Destiny's Child, "Say My Name"
X80. Duran Duran, "Hungry Like the Wolf"
81. OutKast, "Ms. Jackson"
X82. Soft Cell, "Tainted Love"
83. Band Aid, "Do They Know It's Christmas"
84. Radiohead, "Creep"
85. Eminem, "My Name Is"
X86. Tracy Chapman, "Fast Car"
X87. The Who, "Who Are You"
X88. Metallica, "Enter Sandman"
89. Pat Benatar, "Hit Me With Your Best Shot"
X90. The Police, "Roxanne"
91. Melissa Etheridge, "Come to My Window"
92. Salt-N-Pepa, "Push It"
93. Nine Inch Nails, "Closer"
X94. Cheap Trick, "Surrender"
95. Oasis, "Wonderwall"
X96. Beastie Boys, "(You Gotta) Fight for Your Right (to Party!)"
X97. Devo, "Whip It"
98. Hanson, "MMMBop"
99. Norah Jones, "Don't Know Why"
100. Madonna, "Ray of Light"

Songs that did not make the list that should have include:

The Police, "Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic"
Van Halen, "Running With the Devil"
Paul Simon, "You Can Call Me Al"
David Bowie, "Let's Dance"
J. Geils Band, "Centerfold"
Queen, "Another One Bites the Dust"
Asia, "Heat of the Moment"
ZZ Top, "Legs"
Loverboy, "Get Lucky"
Tears For Fears, "Sowing the Seeds of Love"
Peter Gabriel, "Sledgehammer"
Rush, "Tom Sawyer"
Foreigner, "Juke Box Hero"
Smashing Pumpkins, "Bullet With Butterfly Wings"
Stone Temple Pilots, "Vaseline"
Tom Petty, "You Got Lucky"
The Black Crowes, "Remedy"
Billy Joel, "Allentown"
Cheap Trick, "She's Tight"


That is just a sampling. I could come up with many more. I won't even comment on the order of the songs other than to say that placing "Born in the USA" out of the Top 10 is an unforgivable sin.

The Associated Press has determined that 3,240 Iraqi civilians were killed during the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Or perhaps we should say that they were "liberated." Oh well, it was obviously unavoidable considering that Saddam Hussein was sitting on this huge stockpile of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction that posed an imminent threat to the security of the United States. At least, that's what the Bush folks claimed before the war...

From the NYTimes: "President Bush said today that he was "absolutely convinced" that the United States would find proof that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons programs."

We will find weapons! We will! We will! We will! We will! Bush said stamping his feet.

Meanwhile, according to the New York Times, 138 U.S. soldiers were killed during the war and, more disturbingly, 41 have been killed since May 1 when runner-up for President Bush declared the military action had ended. So what is going on?
Now the AP is also reporting that Saddam Hussein is rumored to still be alive and well in Iraq and paying a bounty for every U.S. soldier killed with the billion or so that he looted from the Iraq treasury prior to the U.S. invasion.

No WMDs, No Saddam Hussein, the Oil Ministry looted and in ruins (according to today's NYTimes). Can things get any worse in Iraq? They're not getting any better at home. Maybe Bush can start another war somewhere else to distract us from all of these problems.

While on the topic of Republican senators from tiny states like Idaho there is this fresh outrage from today's New York Times (Still the best newspaper in the country, hands down).

Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, is blocking the promotion of more than 850 Air Force officers, including young pilots who fought in Iraq and the general nominated to bail out the scandal-plagued U.S. Air Force Academy. His price to free the frozen promotions? Four C-150 cargo planes for the Idaho Air National Guard.

Senate rules give its members the power to hold up federal nominations and promotions, but no one has been stupid enough by my recollection to use this power to hold up military promotions which are typically whisked through the approval process. I would be just as upset with Sen. Craig if he were a Democrat and I would expect his fellow senators and party officials to knock him upside the head. But Sen. Craig is one of those politicos whose radical right views make it difficult to justify labeling him a "conservative." I guarantee that Craig voted for each and every one of Bush's budget-busting tax cuts, and now he turns around and demands a bigger piece of federal pork for his state. This is a fine example of why I often refer to the Republican Party as the Hypocricy Party.

I just wonder how many of my old Corps buddies in the Air Force are caught up in this mess that Sen. Craig has created. It's bad enough that the Bush administration is slashing veteran's benefits for the military personnel coming back from Iraq, but now they have to sit around and wait for their promotions while this Republican senator tries to blackmail the Air Force into giving his state more federal largesse. Never mind whether it is necessary for the security of our nation or even if the military can afford it today with all the pending budget cuts coming down the pike. The NY Times article spells it out pretty clearly that Craig is trying to bulk up the military base in Idaho with more aircraft so it will not be a target for closure during the next round of base closings gearing up for 2005.
I hope the Air Force officers don't have to wait much longer and I hope that the voters in Idaho will find a more honorable person to represent them in the near future.

Here is an interesting observation from blogger Nathan Newman about the U.S. Senate.

"If Senators had voting power proportionate to their state's populations, Democrats would have a significant majority in the Senate. Assuming that each Senator got one vote for every person in their state (as of 2000), the totals would be as follows (remembering each state has two Senators):
Democratic Votes: 301.5 million
Republican Votes: 246.8 million "

But Republicans control the Senate by a 51 to 48 margin (and 1 Independent) because tiny little states like Wyoming, Utah and Idaho with a combined population of slightly more than 4 million can send 2 Republicans each giving them the same voting power as California, Florida and New York whose Democratic senators represent states with a combined population of nearly 70 million people.

So what's going on in Bush's America today? Let's see....

Unemployment hits a 9-year high

Polluters get away with murder while toothless EPA does nothing

Republicans try to eliminate the filibuster rule in the Senate because 2 of Bush's 128 judicial nominees were not approved and Bush demands 100 pecent compliance from a rubber-stamp Congress.

A Pentagon spokesman explains that a DOD intelligence report issued prior to the war that said "there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons" was actually consistent with the administration's claims that Iraq had huge piles of Weapons of Mass Destruction that required an immediate, pre-emptive invasion to eliminate. The spokesman also goes on to explain that black is white, up is down and yesterday is tomorrow.

I'm a real sucker for lists. This one is from Country Music Television and purports to be the Top 100 Country songs of all time.
Lots of good ones on the list, but also some filler. I don't see "Luchenbach, Texas" anywhere.

Seeing as how the flag buring issue is bound to keep resurfacing every few years like some kind of zombie horror show I decided to dig up this old Letter to the Editor on that subject that I wrote during the first Bush presidency. This was published in the Bryan-College Station Eagle on July 13, 1989.

“The hysterical wave of nationalism that has swept across our country has encouraged our President to propose an amendment to our Constitution that would put a serious dent in the Bill of Rights. No, even worse than a dent, it would be a wedge that future leaders could use to pressure in even broader restrictions on our freedom of expression.
Some people seem to be surprised that the First Amendment protects more than just the spoken word. The Surpreme Court has consistently held that symbolic actions are protected as free expression as long as they are conducted peacefully. This is nothing new. What is new is this near idolatry of the flag. Having respect for what the flag stands for is one thing, worshipping the flag itself is something else.
Chief Justice Rehnquist was wrong in trying to compare flag burning to defacing a public monument. A protester cannot purchase a monument, but they can go to any store and buy their own flag. If they burn someone else’s flag then they should be tried for theft and destruction of another’s property. But they should not be penalized for expressing anger and resentment against the government in the most dramatic and shocking way - burning a symbol of that government. What if they fire up a copy of the Constitution or hang an effigy of the President? Would this not be equally offensive? Our founding fathers believed that goodness and righteousness would always prevail through forces of reason and therefore were not afraid to allow a free flow of ideas. Why are we afraid today?”

With folks like John Ashcroft and Tom Delay in charge of things these days maybe we should be afraid!

"Sen. Clinton calls husband a liar"
That is the screaming Page 1, top of the fold, banner headline in today's San Antonio Express-News. One would think, from the way the newspaper is playing the story, that Sen. Clinton had denounced her husband, the former president, just yesterday from the floor of the Senate. But the story is actually an Associated Press review of Hilary Clinton's new book "Living History" which is a memoir of her 8 years as First Lady. Sure, it reveals for the first time the pain she felt when her husband's infidelity was exposed during the Monica Lewinsky/Ken Starr debacle in the late 1990s. And I suppose that even makes it somewhat newsworthy. I could even see a newspaper teasing the story on its front page and then running it inside somewhere. But treating it like the major news of the day in such tabloid fashion is something I thought was beneath my local newspaper. It certainly helps to make the point that Eric Alterman makes in his book "What Liberal Media?" which is that there is no liberal bias in the news media, especially when it concerns the Clintons.

Meanwhile, runner-up for President George W. Bush has told one of the biggest lies in modern political history when he claimed repeatedly that Iraq was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. So where are these tons of biological and chemical agents that Bush detailed in his State of the Union address and in multiple speeches leading up to our pre-emptive military invasion? If he was so concerned that they were there back then, why isn't he more concerned that they are missing now? Did they really end up in Syria or Iran or in the hands of Al Quaeda terrorists? Or is it more likely that these weapons were destroyed long ago and Bush purposely misread intelligence reports to make his case for a military confrontation?

I saw this quote floating around on the Internet and it is particularly apt to think about right now. "Nobody Died When Clinton Lied" Yeah, and nobody lost their job either.

Interestingly enough, the AP story is not really that sensational. It is just the headline writers and editors at the Express-News whose bias is showing in this case. For example, inside on the jump page the story has the following statement "She (Hilary) concludes that what her husband did was morally wrong, but not a betrayal of the public." And what is the subhead for the story as it continues on Page 4A? "Sen. Clinton tells of betrayal"

I noticed on C-SPAN today that in the House they are debating a flag burning amendment once again. This is amazing. It is like an annual ritual that the Republican right must go through every year. They have been debating this thing since I was in college in the mid-1980s and they just keep bringing it back over and over again. I guess I should dig up the old letters to the editor I wrote about this issue back in College Station (where I was probably the only member of the Texas A&M Corps of Cadets who was also active with Students Against Apartheid).

I guess it's not like we have anything more important to concern ourselves with. Like maybe these missing Weapons of Mass Destruction that we went to war over just a few months ago that nobody seems to care about anymore. Or how about the stagnant economy and the 2 million jobs lost since runner-up W. took office? No, the flag debate is a great distraction. Funny how I haven't noticed any flag burning during the past 15 years while our national symbol has remained unprotected by a Constitutional amendment. But I have noticed lots of people wrapping themselves in the flag on a regular basis.

I got to see the big dust-up between right-wing talkmeister Bill O'Reilly and liberal comedian/author Al Franken that was televized on C-SPAN today. I have to admit that it was never as nasty an exchange as I was led to believe. I thought that O'Reilly was pompous and kind of dry. Franken was just flat-out funny. I loved the way he kicked off his talk about his new book "Lies and the Lying Liers Who Tell Them" (with a picture of O'Reilly on the cover, by the way) by announcing that God had told him to write the book to correct the assertion by Bush that he had been chosen by God to be president. No, actually it was Clarence Thomas who chose him to be president, Franken says.

Molly Ivins was also on the bill with Franken and O'Reilly and it was wonderful to see her looking so well and nice to know that she is coming out with her own new book "Bushwhacked." I remember seeing Molly many years ago in College Station when she gave a talk at a local Unitarian Church. Back then, Bush Jr. was just a failed businessman who kept getting one incredible break after another eventually leading up to partial ownership of the Texas Rangers baseball team.

Today, Bush Jr. is our president despite the fact that myself and a majority of American voters (even in Florida) did not vote for him. And so far, his presidency has been an unmitigated disaster. Josh Marshall today talks about a new poll out that shows how America's image with other countries has plummeted since the war with Iraq began. And that image will only get more tarnished if it turns out that Iraq never had the WMDs that we used to justify a pre-emptive military invasion.

This is pretty neat! I'm a "Crunchy Crustacean" in the Blogosphere Ecosystem over at The Truth Laid Bear. The site uses a special program to track the number of inbound links to weblogs registered at the site and then ranks them accordingly.

So far I'm ranked at No. 2076 out of about 2612 web logs tracked on the site. I have 2 inbound links thanks to Off the Kuff and Easter Lemming - Liberal News which both were good enough to link to my May 20th rant about the sparcity of liberal voices in the national media.

Now all I need to do is get blogrolled by a couple more web sites and I can evolve up through the blogosphere food chain to become a "Lowly Insect"!

Today is Bob Hope's 100th Birthday!!! I'm glad to see that he made it this far, same as George Burns a few years ago. I just started reading his memoir called "Don't Shoot! It's Just Me!" but I need to finish reading my Bing Crosby biography first.
Maybe they will play some old Bob Hope movies tonight to celebrate. I can hope, anyway.
Check out the Official Bob Hope web site.

The administration's lies from the Iraq war are finally starting to catch up with them. Now it is just a question as to whether anyone will notice or even care.

The Washington Post reports here that Bush officials are starting to "hedge" on their certainty that Saddam ever had any weapons of mass destruction.

Oh, and remember at the beginning of the war when we bombed that underground bunker in the hopes of killing Saddam? Well, now it turns out that there was no bunker there.

And remember the story of Pfc. Jessica Lynch's heroic rescue after being held as a POW in Iraq? Yeah, that's right, more lies. Read about it here.

Here is report today from the Financial Times in London about the economic disaster that Bush is creating for the country:

"The Bush administration has shelved a report commissioned by the Treasury that shows the US currently faces a future of chronic federal budget deficits totalling at least $44.2 trillion in current US dollars.

The study, the most comprehensive assessment of how the US government is at risk of being overwhelmed by the "baby boom" generation's future healthcare and retirement costs, was commissioned by then-Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill.


But the Bush administration chose to keep the findings out of the annual budget report for fiscal year 2004, published in February, as the White House campaigned for a tax-cut package that critics claim will expand future deficits.

The study asserts that sharp tax increases, massive spending cuts or a painful mix of both are unavoidable if the US is to meet benefit promises to future generations. It estimates that closing the gap would require the equivalent of an immediate and permanent 66 per cent across-the-board income tax increase."

Saw X-Men II over the weekend and also saw Matrix Reloaded the week before that. So I guess I'm all caught up on my summer movie watching for awhile, at least until Finding Nemo comes out next week.
I give both movies a thumbs up. The Matrix sequel did not disappoint on the special effects action sequences and I thought the story line was advanced in an interesting direction with a particularly enticing tease at the end of the film that should be resolved in the final chapter.
Don't listen to the movie critics who are panning this film. Most of them probably panned the first film when it came out, but now hold it up as the gold standard and bash the sequel by comparison. I don't think you need to compare the two films any more than you need to compare two chapters of the same book. Which one did you like better? What does it matter? The only thing that matters is whether or not you like the book.

X-Men II on the other hand was not like the next chapter of a book so much as the latest issue of a comic book series and for my money it was a better movie than the first. Perhaps that is because the characters were already established for me and they could dive straight into the narrative of the story without any long detours to flesh out background details. Whatever the reason, I was entertained by the film and look forward to No. 3 which is undoubtedly in the works.

Some instructive reading in the Wall Street Journal today concerning Bush’s latest multi-billion dollar tax cut package.
The lead story makes the point that the tax cut “will likely provide a significant boost to the tepid U.S. economy, but at a potentially significant long-term cost.”
So short-term gain and long-term pain. So what exactly does that mean?
“It should boost consumer incomes and thus spending, encourage business investment and could lift stock prices...” but at the cost of “... driving up deficits and therefore long-term interest rates, and widening the gap between rich and poor.”

So Bush is willing to sacrifice the long-term health of our country in order to gain a temporary short-term boost to help with his re-election effort.

But there is more... The $350 billion price tag on the tax package is really an illusion pieced together with smoke and mirror accounting gimmicks...

“The true price tag would balloon to more than $800 billion if various temporary provisions are extended...”

The article goes on to spell out in very blatant terms about Bush’s true intentions for the tax cut...

“Mr. Bush is particularly eager to lift the economy and investors’ spirits before he has to face the voters in November 2004 — and avoid the election result his father suffered after winning a war with Iraq but letting the economy slide.”

Ah, but the difference here is that the economy has already slid long before the most recent Iraq war. Bush lied about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein (his elusive weapons of mass destruction and non-existent nukes) in order to distract the public’s attention away from the economic mess on the homefront. His first big tax cut a year ago failed to provide any economic relief or job growth and instead served to sap away the budget surplus built up over the Clinton years and return the nation to huge deficits and a mounting debt burden.

A separate story on the front the the WSJ today makes this intriguing statement...

“As a former business executive, (Bush’s) instincts told him the economy needed some aid and he resolved to give it the largest dose possible.”

They failed to mention that Bush, the former business executive, ran each and every one of his companies into the ground and had to be bailed out each time by his Daddy’s wealthy friends. Please note that these wealthy friends did not bail out George’s companies necessarily, just George himself.
And now the process is repeating itself. Bush has effectively run the nation’s economy into the ground and now these same wealthy individuals are trying to bail him out - not by helping the country, but by helping Bush. Bush just the other day raised another $22 million at a campaign fund raiser.

By the way, aren’t Bush’s instincts a little dull if he is just now figuring out that the economy needs some aid?

There is more good stuff inside the WSJ today... In particular an article headlined “Get Ready for Era of Budget Deficits”

“The compromise 2003 tax bill would usher in a new era of federal budget deficits as far as the eye can see - especially if politicians, as expected, ultimately refuse to go along with an accounting gimmick that calls on key provisions to expire after a few years.”
“Even without the proposed tax cut, the Treasury’s ledgers would have been written in red ink through at least 2007, according to government estimates, thanks to the slowing economy, the war against terrorism and the first two tax cuts under President Bush.”

The Texas Department of Public Safety is not helping its reputation with this latest news of document and records destruction. The DPS has apparently destroyed all of its records
of its actions in trying to hunt down Democratic lawmakers who broke the Texas House quorum last week by absconding to Ardmore, Okla.

This is an incredible story. The DPS would seem to have ripped a page straight out of the Enron/Arthur Andersen playbook here. The only question is whether the agency did it on its own, as is being claimed, or were there behind-the-scenes political machinations involved? I suspect the latter and I want to know whether Tom Delay or Tom Craddick’s fingerprints are on this mess. I don’t like the fact that are state funded law enforcement agency was turned into a politcal tool by the Texas Republican Party last week and it outrageous that someone thinks they can just sweep it all away by pulling off some cheap Nixonian coverup operation now.

Josh Marshall has a good column this week in The Hill about Tom Delay’s involvement in trying to sic federal agents on the Killer D’s who screwed up his political powerplay last week.

There is a new book out that purports to list the Top 500 Country songs called "Heartaches By The Number" by David Cantwell and Bill Friskics-Warren. It looks to be very entertaining and interesting with the authors contributing essays for each of their chosen songs. But what caught my attention is that the book gives a nod to Bing Crosby for his influence on Country music:

"One of the looming presences in the book is Bing Crosby, rarely identified with country but actually one of the genre's most important practitioners.
"He's one of the heroes of the book," Cantwell says. "He was a huge influence on any number of country singers, and he also listened to country music. ... He played a big part in popularizing country songs." Crosby is represented by two tunes -- "Pistol Packin' Mama" (his version of the Al Dexter hit, which reshaped the song considerably) and "Don't Fence Me In" (written by, of all people, the urbane Cole Porter)"

Always good to see Bing getting some long overdue credit now and then. As with Bob Hope, this year is also the 100th anniversary of his birth, but I doubt there will be any TV specials to commemorate that fact, unfortunately.





.

So who serves as the “Voice of the Left” today (see post below)? When liberal commentators started to fade off of the TV screens during the 1990s it was largely attributed to the simple give and take of political power shifting. While the Democrats remained in power through President Clinton, the right wing commentators would take the forefront in the media to harp at and criticize the administration. But now that Bush has been in office for more than two years, the liberal commentators have not come back. In fact, the number of conservative commentators just continues to multiply. Fox News has become the leading cable news channel by offering a steady stream of Republican propaganda and right-wing commentary without even the pretense of trying to be fair or balanced. CNN has abandoned most commentary shows in an effort to avoid being labled “liberal.” Even, the old workhorse “Crossfire” has been cut back and stuck in a poorly watched time slot so as to attract as little notice as possible. I haven’t watched the show in a while, but I believe it is currently one of the only shows where you can hear an unapologetic liberal voice -- James Carville or Paul Begala -- balanced of course by two or three conservative voices. And over at MSNBC, the lone liberal commentator Phil Donohue saw his show canned in favor of a slew of new shows for right-wing talkers including Dan Savage and Joe Scarborough.
The best chance for hearing a liberal perspective on TV these days resides with PBS (which Newt Gingrich and the Republican’s in Congress failed to shut down a few years ago) especially with Bill Moyers’ NOW program. But like CNN, PBS and its radio counterpart NPR have felt pressure to “balance” every liberal voice with a conservative one - something that the other networks and radio shows fail to do in reverse.
For people looking for a left perspective today one is practically forced to turn to the Internet where you can track a few liberal columnists at major newspapers like Paul Krugman and Frank Rich at the New York Times, E.J. Dionne at the Washington Post, Robert Scheer at the Los Angeles Times and Molly Ivins at the Fort Worth Star Telegram. Another powerful voice from the left is Michael Kinsley, the former editor of the online Slate Magazine, whose columns appear regularly in Slate and the WashPo.
Next, one must turn to the blogosphere to find leading voices from the left. Joshua Marshall has become very influential with his Talking Points blog as has Eric Alertman’s Altercation hosted by MSNBC.com. Then there is the anonymous Atrios who runs the Eschaton blog. Also, look for Joe Conason’s regular journal entries at the online Salon magazine.
It is a pretty thin list today, especially when compared to the number of folks lining up to pontificate the right-wing perspective over the corporate-controlled airwaves.
One problem for the left today is the continuing scourge that is Ralph Nader and the Green Party which drove a split through the Democratic Party and handed the presidency to George W. Bush during the 2000 election. A number of left leaders became caught up in the Nader charade including Michael Moore, Jim Hightower and to some extent even Molly Ivins. Today, some though not all of these people have returned to their senses. But it still remains to be seen whether the left can rally around a Democratic candidate be it Howard Dean, John Kerry or someone else.

The Faint, Fading Voice of the Left
Tuesday May 20, 8:41 am ET
By Thane Peterson

Here's a quiz for you: Name the best-known and most influential conservative commentators in America? Rush Limbaugh? George F. Will? Bill O'Reilly? Now, quick, who are their liberal counterparts?

If you can't think of any, you're not alone. Conservatives love to rant that liberals dominate the news media. Trouble is, it's just not true. In fact, I'd argue that the biggest problem with America's public discourse today is that the left is barely represented at all on mainstream TV and radio talk shows and in major newspapers and magazines.
Read the rest here.

I'm a little disturbed by some of the reports I've read of the overzealous efforts of law enforcement officials in trying to track down the Democratic lawmakers who broke the legislative quorum this week. Perhaps most disturbing is a report from the Fort Worth Star Telegram about Rebublicans using part of our new Homeland Defense Anti-Terrorist operations to track down Rep. Pete Laney's Piper airplane. We are spending billions to set up this new Homeland Defense operation and Texas Republicans are using them like their personal stormtroopers to enforce their political dictates.
Then there has been the shameful and excessive use of DPS troopers and Texas Rangers to harass the lawmakers families. One report has a trooper entering a lawmakers home after his daughter left the door open.. Another trooper staked out the hospital where a lawmaker's newborn twins are being treated in intensive care.
Quite frankly these law enforcement officials should get out of this political fight and go back to hunting down real bad guys like we pay them to do. I fully support my lawmakers decision to break the quorum. My interests are not being represented by the group that is left behind in Austin right now and they should not have the power to sick law officers on their political counterparts. It's disgraceful and deeply disturbing.
I understand that some Republicans are upset because they have a majority and feel that therefore they should be able to push through whatever legislation they please, but that is not how our government was set up to work. Our government only works when we are willing to compromise and so far House Speaker Tom Craddick has made it clear that compromise is the furthest thing from his mind.

I loved the response today of New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid when asked by Gov. Rick Perry to track down the missing Texas House Democrats:

"I don't think they are in Santa Fe now. Nevertheless, I have put out an all-points bulletin for law enforcement to be on the look out for politicians in favor of health care for the needy and against tax cuts for the wealthy."

And here is the response of Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry:

"Our position is that, without a warrant signed by a judge, we have no authority. Even under those circumstances, we are hesitant to get pulled into a Texas political battle. If we're going to do battle with Texas, we prefer that it be on the football field," Mr. Henry said through his spokesman.

HaHaHa

Hooray for the Killer Bees!
59 of the 62 Democrats in the Texas House have left the state in a bid to break the quorum and kill legislation that the new Republican majority has been cramming through the Lege in a one-sided, partisan fashion. Here are the latest details.
I'm glad to see that the Texas Democrats are finally showing some backbone! We are going to be bombarded for the rest of the week by Republican namecalling, but these lawmakers should be applauded for standing up for their constituents. Republicans are complaining that they never used these extreme tactics when they were in the minority, but what they don't admit is that they still managed to get much of what they wanted while the House was controlled by Democrats. When the Republicans took over earlier this year they made many of the same mistakes as their counterparts at the federal level did 8 years ago under Newt Gingrich. Rather than working with the minority party to reach a bi-partisan consensus on major legislation the way Democrats did for years - they have plowed ahead in a power-hungry bid to get everything they want all at once without compromise. Republicans never opted for the Killer Bee tactic because they were never driven to it the way Democrats have been this year. Conservative Democrats like former House Speaker Pete Laney always gave the Republicans plenty of leeway to keep them happy over the years. Now, the fact that Pete Laney is among the missing is very instructive in how harsh and partisan the House has become under Tom Craddick.

It looks like Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers has passed up Forrest Gump to take the No. 7 spot on the All-Time Domestic Box Office list.

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-Va., says much of what needs to be said about Bush's campaign speech aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln the other day....

" I was deeply troubled by both the content and the context of President Bush's remarks to the American people last week marking the end of the combat phase of the war in Iraq.  As I watched the President's fighter jet swoop down onto the deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, I could not help but contrast the reported simple dignity of President Lincoln at Gettysburg with the flamboyant showmanship of President Bush aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. 

"President Bush's address to the American people announcing combat victory in Iraq deserved to be marked with solemnity, not extravagance; with gratitude to God, not self-congratulatory gestures.  American blood has been shed on foreign soil in defense of the President's policies.  This is not some made-for-TV backdrop for a campaign commercial.  This is real life, and real lives have been lost.  To me, it is an affront to the Americans killed or injured in Iraq for the President to exploit the trappings of war for the momentary spectacle of a speech. I do not begrudge his salute to America's warriors aboard the carrier Lincoln, for they have performed bravely and skillfully, as have their countrymen still in Iraq, but I do question the motives of a deskbound President who assumes the garb of a warrior for the purposes of a speech.
War is not theater, and victory is not a campaign slogan. I join with the President and all Americans in expressing heartfelt thanks and gratitude to our men and women in uniform for their service to our country, and for the sacrifices that they have made on our behalf.  But on this point I differ with the President: I believe that our military forces deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, and not used as stage props to embellish a presidential speech."

The entire Iraq war, I'm afraid, was part of Bush's 2004 re-election strategy.



 

Time to catch up on a few movie reviews....
First up is “Evelyn,” the film that Pierce Brosnan made while he was waiting to do his latest James Bond caper. It is a shame that the film did not recieve more attention than it did because it is really excellent with an outstanding cast. It is directed by Bruce Beresford, the Oscar-winning director of “Driving Miss Daisy” and the supporting cast includes Steven Rea, Julianne Marguiles and Aidan Quinn. It is nice to see Brosnan going out of his way to show off his acting ability rather than resting on his laurels with his cushy Bond gig. In the film, we get to see Brosnan portray a working-class Irishman in the 1950s who struggles to keep his family together after his wife abandons him and the Church steps in and removes his children. Brosnan’s acting ability is most striking when you see him contrasted against Rea who plays an upperclass barrister who steps in to help him battle the legal bureacracy. It is a wonderful film.

Next up is “The Transporter,” a Hong-Kong style action movie featuring British newcomer Jason Stratham as the latest incarnation of Jean Claude Van Dam. It is a fun movie with a lot of potential that is unfortunately spoiled by the sloppy and cliched ending. The film has a fun car chase sequence at the beginning and several good fight scenes. But even more promising is that Stratham’s character is interesting in the beginning. You want to know more about who he is and how he got to this point. Although the film does not deliver on these points, the very fact that you care in the beginning is a testament to the way Stratham projects a quietly dignified demeanor to his character. Hopefully he will be presented with better material in the future.

“Maid in Manhattan” and “Two Weeks Notice” are both typical Hollywood fare and decent rentals. Maid is actually better than I expected with a good performance from Ralph Feines. Two Weeks is mostly enjoyable because of Hugh Grant’s whimsical performance.

And so another right-wing scold has been revealed to be a hypocrite. This time it is the nation's "Morality Czar" William Bennett, author of "The Book of Virtues," "The Moral Compass," and "The Death of Outrage," and many others, who we now know is a huge gambling addict thanks to this expose in The Washington Monthly.
As the article details, Bennett has lost more than $8 million during the past 10 years playing the high-dollar slot machines in Las Vegas and Atlantic City. Now we finally know what he has been doing with all the money he makes going around the country giving lectures at $50,000 a pop scolding "liberals" for their supposed failure to live up to his high moral standards. He takes all the money he makes and blows it all in "Sin City."

One big problem I have with this is the current proliferation of gambling, especially among Republican anti-tax lawmakers, as a way for state and local governments to make up budget shortfalls during the current Bush recession. Rather than raising government revenue through means that are legitimate and fair, they continue to push for expansions of casinos, slot machines, race tracks, lotteries and so forth.

So gambling isn't really all that bad, Bennett's conservative apologists argue. After all, they argue, it's his own money and he isn't hurting anyone else. It should be something between himself, his wife and his accountant, or so the argument goes. Of course, the same argument could be made on behalf of Bill Clinton and his sexual derilections, but that never stopped these same conservatives - Bill Bennett chief among them - from demanding Clinton's scalp on a stick.
The list of right-wing hypocrites continues to grow.... Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker, Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde, Dan Burton, Bob Livingstone, and on, and on....

My wife and I have been caring for three baby bunnies for the past week ever since a neighbor accidently disturbed their nest with his lawn mower. The little guys seemed too young to be on their own, but after just a week of bottle feeding and giving them handfuls of grass, clover and dandelions twice a day they look like they are ready to go back on their own. I bought a wire critter cage but one of the bunnies that we now call Houdini manages to slip out whenever he wants. We will probably let them go this weekend.

Found a new CD at the library the other day which is causing me to hum and whistle its catchy tunes all day long. I'm talking about none other than "Silly Songs With Larry," the new collection from the VeggieTales show.
I've been a big fan of Veggie Tales since my sister began purchasing the tapes several years ago for my nieces and nephew. The computer animated vegetables that populate the show and sing the songs are a combination of The Muppet Show and Sesame Street with a little Wierd Al Yankovic thrown in for good measure.
I especially like the Song of the Cebu and I Love My Lips. Great stuff. The Cheeseburger song sounds so much like a Wierd Al tune I could have sworn he wrote it, but not so. They should at least credit him as an influence on that particular song.
The good news is they are coming out with more music soon. Check it out at BigIdea.com - Music.

State lawmakers have approved competing budgets for the 2004-2005 biennium that would deny government assistance and medical care to hundreds of thousands of children and low-income adults.
Here are the figures from the Center for Public Policy Priorities (a radical group that thinks public policy priorities should be about helping people in need):

"The Senate Finance budget in 2005 would eliminate Medicaid or CHIP coverage completely for over 211,000 persons; cut benefits (e.g., Medicaid drug coverage; HIV drugs; community care for aged, disabled, mentally ill, and mentally retarded persons) for more than 398,000 Texans, and reduce projected enrollment growth in children’s Medicaid by over 298,000. "

Our lawmakers are willing to put up with these draconian cutbacks all because they refuse to even consider raising taxes to cover shortfalls in government revenue.

I don't resent paying taxes like many people do. I just resent the way the government chooses to spend most of it. The Pentagon budget is above $400 billion a year and continuing to rise 10 percent every year. If we funded education like we fund our military - as if that would ever happen - well it just boggles the mind to think about it, but if we did I bet that our students wouldn't be constantly falling behind other nations when it comes to basic math and science skills.

Meanwhile, here in Texas, our legislators have voted to toss out our "Robin Hood" school funding system without having anything ready to replace it with. But our Republican Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst is ready with a plan that would, he says, cut property taxes in half and make up the difference by jacking up sales taxes and expanding them to cover everything from child care to media advertising. Good news for those wealthy enough to own substantial amounts of property, but if you are renting and apartment don't expect your rent to go down anytime soon.

I have a new program on my computer - an iMac - called iTunes that allows me to load up CDs onto my hard drive to listen to at my convenience. This is great because now I don't have to leave CDs lying around my desk at work all the time just to have something to tune out the rest of the noise. But the first question was which CDs to load up, assuming I have a limited amount of space on the hard drive.
I started with my Bing Crosby records, of course, and my Bix Biederbecke music. Then I added all of my Ken Burns Jazz and Smithsonian Jazz compilations. Next came all of my Bob Dylan, Beatles, Elvis Presley and Rolling Stones CDs. By that point I had used up nearly 3 Gigs of space but I still had about 4 Gigs to spare.
So I continued adding music, picking and choosing: Bruce Springsteen GH (greatest hits) and Born in the USA; Neil Young - Decade; Buddy Holly GH; The Beach Boys GH Vols. 1 & 2; The Bee Gees GH; Simon & Garfunkel GH; David Bowie GH; Led Zepplin I; Boston; The Band GH; The Who GH; The Doors (only have first album on CD right now); Peter Frampton Live; ELO GH; and Stevie Wonder GH.

Now I'm up to 4.3 gigabytes, with 2.9 gigs left available. I wonder how much free space I really need after all?

Someone has finally gone to the trouble of mapping out the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (VRWC).
It's all quite simple, isn't it.

Millions of low-income Americans face the loss of health insurance or sharp cuts in benefits, like coverage for prescription drugs and dental care, under proposals now moving through state legislatures around the country. -- New York Times April, 28, 2003.

Sounds like a domestic crisis brewing here with our faltering economy slowly stripping away the basics of a modest, First-World nation. And that is not even mentioning the crisis in education funding. Here in Texas the Lege is cutting millions from the budget for purchasing school textbooks. Universities are announcing layoffs to deal with 10-12 percent cutbacks in state funding. All of this because our Republican-led government does not believe in raising taxes to pay for anything - not healthcare, not education, not veterans benefits, not even to pay for our own wars.
Raising taxes, as best I can tell, is now considered to be immoral, unpatriotic and very possibly against the law. But never mind that. The federal government could bail the states out of a lot of their problems with current revenue projections - but instead the Bush administration is planning to cut taxes by $728 billion - or $500 billion - or $300 billion, whatever they can get away with.
Remember the last Bush tax cut more than a year ago that was supposed to jumpstart the economy? Oh, well, of course, it just wasn't big enough to do the job.
Columnist Paul Krugman recently pointed out that the Bush administration is touting its $500 billion tax cut proposal as a way to create jobs - 1.4 million is the figure they are throwing around! Only problem is that comes to $500,000 per job, when the average job pays just $40,000 a year. And that is assuming of course that cutting all those taxes will create those jobs rather than creating a huge budget deficit that will drive interest rates sky high and drag the economy down further.

On a related note, here is a link to a study that shows that Democratic administrations have been better for the stock market than Republicans dating back to 1928.

In his State of the Union address in January, President Bush alleged that Iraq was concealing the following Weapons of Mass Destruction:
       500 tons of chemical weapons
       25,000 litres of Anthrax
       38,000 litres of botulim toxin

       To date, we have found:
       0 tons of chemical weapons
       0 litres of Anthrax and
0 litres of botulim toxin

I feel so much safer now.







       

Still no weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) found in Iraq and no trace of Saddam either. The Arab media has been speculating that the fall of Baghdad happened so quickly because a secret deal was struck between the Bush administration and the ruling Baath Party and brokered by Saudi Arabia. The collapse was so sudden and the Iraqi leaders vanished in such a coordinated fashion that it makes you wonder whether something wasn't up, whether or not it was done with U.S. involvement.

We supposedly went into Iraq to deal with the WMDs, but once the fighting got started the propaganda quickly changed to "liberating" the Iraqi people. Now that we've won, that seems to be all that matters to most people. It all bears a striking resemblance to a quote credited to Adolph Hitler in William Shirer's book "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich."

"I shall give a propagandist reason for starting the war. Nevermind whether it is plausible or not. The victor will not be asked afterward whether he told the truth or not. In starting and waging a war it is not right that matters, but victory."

Now that the war is essentially over, many of its proponents have been scolding those of us who opposed it for not being compassionate enough to want to bring freedom and liberation to the Iraqi people. But while we like to say we promote democracy in other nations, the truth of the matter is we just want a government that takes our side and does what we tell it to do. Whether that means a democracy, a theocracy or a dictatorship does not matter.

The Dixie Chicks latest album "Home" is back at No. 1 on the Country sales charts and their upcoming U.S. tour is sold out most everywhere, all in spite of this so-called "boycott" of the band by conservatives.
This is all good. I'm sure there will still be organized protests at some of the concerts, but that will just highlight the intolerance and vindictiveness of the protesters. I understood the initial outcry over Natalie Maines' remarks about being embarrassed that Bush is from Texas, but she apologized and that should have been that. It's unfortunate that some folks can be so obstinately unforgiving.
But that aside, the boycott was bound to fall flat mostly because the Dixie Chicks are just too good to be ignored. Maines' is an incredible singer who makes most other country performers today sound bland by comparison.

Why is it that so many far-right wingnuts prefer to vent their anger and frustration at women anyway? First there was Jane Fonda, and then it was Barbara Streistand and Hillary Clinton, and now its Natalie Maines and the Dixie Chicks. Is it because they have a tendency to want to bully folks who are less likely to fight back? Maybe that is why the rightwing is venting so much of its wrath against France - when Germany, China, Russia, and just about every other nation on the planet was equally critical of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Bush recently snubbed Canada by canceling a trip there and then entertained the president of Australia at the same time. But Bush is going to have a difficult time playing those petty games for long because there just aren't that many countries he can count in his "good" list.

The more I read about the looting of the museum and archive library in Baghdad the more disheartening it is. Most disturbing now are the reports that our civilian leaders were repeatedly forewarned about the possibility of looting and destruction of these historical treasures and still they chose to do nothing to protect it. I don't blame our military forces who were simply following their orders and doing their best to keep from being blown away by snipers and suicide bombers. But it would not have taken much to secure the museum the same way that the Bush folks had the Oil Ministry building secured.
I remember reading about the tragic torching of the ancient Greek library in Alexandria many thousands of years ago and of all the original works by Plato, Aristotle and others that were lost forever. I remember being disgusted by the ignorance of the invading armies that destroyed these priceless treasures. Of course, I never thought that such a tragedy would be repeated today.

There was one piece of good news I saw today in the Wall Street Journal - a report that some of the museum's most valuable artifacts had been hidden away in vaults for safekeeping before the bombing started. But the did not expect the rampant looting that occurred, and the damage that was done cannot be overstated. Some comentators have referred to it as a lobotomy of our worldwide cultural heritage.

But then the Bush administration's overriding concern has always been about how to secure money, oil and power and keep it for the privileged few. We are currently undergoing our own "looting" right here in the U.S. with the Bush adminstration trying to give away millions of acres of nationally protected parklands to oil, timber and mining interests and the slashing of federal and state programs for the poor and elderly to pay for massive tax cuts for the rich.

Some good news today! Republican Sen. Pete Fitzgerald of Illinois announced that he is not going to seek re-election in 2004. That should give Democrats a clear shot at another seat and put them a step closer to reclaiming control of the upper body of Congress. Fitzgerald, who is independently wealthy, said he was dissuaded by the amount of money he would need to raise for the race. No doubt he saw the writing on the wall and realized that few people would be willing to invest a great deal in a losing proposition. Illinois has been trending more Democratic lately and Fitzgerald was already at the top of the hit list.

Al Franken has a new book coming out this summer titled "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," which he describes as "a fair and balanced look at the right," I can't wait.
Some other books on my wish list include:

"What Liberal Media?" by Eric Alterman;
"The Clinton Wars" by Sidney Blumenthal;
"Big Lies: The Right Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth" by Joe Conason;
"Down and Dirty: The Plot to Steal the Presidency" by Jake Tapper.

The Bush administration has just accused Syria of developing "Weapons of Mass Destruction." In Bushspeak that means "prepare to be liberated." We still haven't found those elusive WMDs in Iraq, but it no longer matters. American's now support pre-emptive invasions of other countries by more than 70 percent as long as we can whup up on them real good and declare victory in less than a month. So Iraq wasn't really as big of a threat as we were led to believe, we can still feel good about ourselves for liberating the people from a horrible dictator.
Now that Saddam Hussein has vanished (just like Osama Bin Laden) we have to have a new enemy to focus on so everyone repeat after me --- "Bashar Assad the Demon of Damascus" Hey, that is kind of catchy. Pretty soon more than half the people in the U.S. will be convinced that the very survival of our way of life depends on our taking out Assad.

I see from this article in the Wall Street Journal today that the Bush team has figured out how it will pay for the war in Iraq:

"The U.S. has diverted more than a half billion dollars from relief efforts for famines, epidemics and civil wars around the world to prepare for the aftermath of the war in Iraq, delaying aid to displaced Sudanese and homeless Afghans, among others."

So that's how you pay for a war while cutting taxes at the same time! Brilliant!!

The article goes on to say that the White House is planning to repay most of the money from other accounts in the State Department's foreign aid budget. (Yeah, right!) But adds that Bush is already planning to dip into other foreign aid accounts to free more than $100 million in additional funds for Iraq relief efforts.

All of this shuffling of aid dollars has left places such as the Ivory Coast, which has been wracked by a brutal civil war, unable to protect children from a measles outbreak, the article states. An appeal by the United Nations Children's Fund for $5.7 million to vaccinate 8 million children in the Ivory Coast has so far raised only enough to supply 400,000 vaccinations. Donor nations have been withholding funding for other regions to preserve their ability to fund Iraq relief.

"The U.S., the world's largest supplier of foreign aid, also has diverted the largest amount to Iraq. Since the Bush administration didn't request - and (the Republican) Congress didn't approve - any money for the war in this year's regular budget, the State Department 'scrubbed' $556.4 million from disaster and development accounts for Africa, Asia, Latin America and elsewhere."

Idiots!!

While we are on this subject, here is a blistering critique of U.S. foreign policy (or the lack thereof) under Bush by Jeffrey Sachs, a professor of economics at Columbia University.

Many people woke up this morning happy in the belief that the war in Iraq is essentially over. I hope that it is and perhaps the worst is over, but the nasty aftermath is possibly just beginning. Since the big statue of Saddam was pulled down in the center of Baghdad, there have been more military casualties in a firefight near a mosque, another suicide bombing that injured at least four soldiers and the assassination of a pro-Western Shiite cleric who had just returned from exhile.
The stock market welcomed the news of the fall of Saddam's empire by plummeting another 100 points. Does this bode ill for the big bull market that the administration is counting on to rejuvenate the economy after the war is over?
Michael Kinsley (my favorite columnist) has another excellent article today titled Unsettled - Victory in the war is not victory in the argument about the war. A sentiment with which I fully agree.

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article today comparing George W.'s presidency at this stage with that of his father.
At this point in Bush the Elder's presidency his job approval was at 81 percent.
George W. is at 66 percent.

George the Elder could take credit for the creation of 1.3 million jobs at that point in his presidency.
George W. has so far presided over the loss of 2 million jobs.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average was up 28.5 percent during the first 26 months of Bush the Elder.
The Dow is down 22.6 percent so far under George W.'s stewardship.

George the Elder saw an increase of 2 million Americans without health insurance.
George W. has seen an increase of 1.4 million Americans without health insurance.

Oh, and they had both claimed big victories in Middle Eastern war campaigns.
I can't help but think that Bush Jr. is in a pretty poor position at this point to ever get elected. Good thing he still has the Supreme Court on his side. Maybe they will just cancel the elections altogether.

The NYTimes is reporting that 11 journalists have been killed so far in 21 days of war. Also, there have been about 90 U.S. military casualties to date. During the first Gulf War there were no journalists among the casualties. Is this an indication that the glut of media coverage that we have come to expect today is forcing more journalists to continuously stick their necks out in order to get the story first and constantly up the ante with more and better graphic coverage? Perhaps this is the inevitable result of the "reality TV" fad right now where we expect to see all aspects of the war live as it happens. And unfortunately, this has not sated our appetite for more and more "reality" no matter how bloody and horrifying, not anymore than the Roman's lust for blood was sated by the gladiator fights in the coliseums.

Even with as much news coverage as we are getting, it is still almost impossible to know for sure what is really happening at any given moment. Is Saddam Hussein dead now? Didn't they report that he was dead several weeks ago? And if he wasn't killed by the latest bombing, who was? Was our intelligence wrong again? Who is feeding us this information and why? Pretty disturbing to think that there is someone over there who has the power to direct our bombers to let loose with 2,000 pound bunker busters on 12-minutes notice at their whim. Are they taking out rival factions or getting pay back on their enemies by manipulating our desire to get Saddam?

Then there are the supposed chemical weapons discovered yesterday. Or were they just old cannisters of pesticides? Whatever was in the containers, it reportedly was not "weaponized" so does that still mean it would be illegal under the U.N. inspections program? And what happens if we never do find any "weapons of mass destruction"? Won't that make it that much harder to win back the trust and support of the rest of the world opposed to this pre-emptive military action?

From the New York Times Magazine this week:

"At times, deficits are necessary to stimulate economic growth, and their dampening impact on private investment is occasionally exaggerated. But because of the Bush administration's policies and a weak economy, deficits are now approaching unmanageable levels, as they did in the 1980's. In fact, the federal government's fiscal health has deteriorated at a pace so stunning that few have yet caught up with the facts.

"Here are some of those facts. Even without a war, the budget deficit would have exceeded $300 billion this year -- just three years after the budget experienced a surplus of nearly $240 billion. (This was in the midst of a four-year run of substantial surpluses.) But with war costs escalating and revenues falling as a result of the flat economy, this year's deficit could rise to $400 billion. In fiscal year 2004, it is likely to be higher.

"The president has asked Congress for $75 billion to finance war-related costs, but many think a more realistic estimate of the combined costs of war and reconstruction will be closer to $200 billion. More alarming is the decline of government revenues over the long run. Instead of generating $5 trillion to $6 trillion in surpluses over 10 years from rising tax revenues on growing incomes, the government will now probably come up nearly $2 trillion short through 2013. That recession and slower growth have shrunk tax revenues is predictable enough. But the sinking stock market has taken more of a toll than expected: there are no more outsize capital gains to tax. These yielded fat revenues in the late 1990's, when stocks were soaring, exaggerating the fiscal health of the nation. Now the train is running in reverse.

"Finally, the Bush tax cuts have made long-term financial prospects significantly worse. Occasionally, tax cuts make sense. But the $1.4 trillion tax-cut package passed in 2001 would have been more productive if it had been temporary and applicable to more taxpayers. Instead, it was skewed to the rich (who are prone to save rather than spend) and will be permanent -- far from disappearing should the economy improve, the tax cut will grow larger. The administration proposed a second major tax cut in early January, estimated to cost $726 billion over 10 years, and it appears to be even less effective as a near-term stimulus: more than half of the total results from the elimination of taxes on dividends, an idea raised at Bush's economic summit in Waco, Tex., last August by a stockbroker, Charles Schwab. In addition, the Bush administration followed up this tax plan with a new budget that would extend the 2001 cuts three years past their expiration, costing another $600 billion.

"The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities calculates that reductions in mandatory programs for the elderly, veterans and the poor would come to $265 billion over 10 years. Another $210 billion would be lopped off of discretionary programs. The total of $475 billion is about equal to the tax reduction the president is requesting for the top 1 percent of earners in America."

OK, I'm back! Did you miss me?!? Pardon the extended absence but I took a few days off for a trip to California to visit friends and family and then was swamped with work for the next several days upon my return. I have to say that California was a nice place to visit, but I'm not sure I could afford to live there. Good grief! We looked at some houses that were selling for $1.5 million that weren't much bigger than where I'm living now. You could buy a monstrosity with a huge ranch thrown in for that much green stuff here in these parts. But I guess it is like they always say.... location, location, location. And by that they must mean beachfront property.

It was surprisingly easy to travel on the airlines what with a war going on and the terror alert up at the burnt orange level (but not maroon yet). Going through LAX I assumed we would all be strip searched and forced to provide blood and urine samples, but it was not much different than any other flight I've been on. Got to fly a jumbo jet for the first time. I'd never been on a plane where you get on and see a staircase going up to a second floor.

Unfortunately, the war is still going on. Today I was shocked to find out that the first U.S. journalist to die over there was Washington Post columnist Michael Kelly, also editor of The Altlantic monthly. I guess you never expect a celebrity journalist to be the first to go. Apparently, he was killed in some bizarre humvee accident of which the details are still sketchy. I am sad to see Kelly go, although I was no fan of his writing. His columns were always very conservative and bitter attacks on first Clinton and later Gore. I guess I have to admire his determination in getting out in the field to cover this war which he so stridently pushed for in his columns. I've known and know lots of people whose political views I strongly disagree with but who are nevertheless wonderful, upstanding and decent human beings. From the little I've read about Kelly since his death I get the feeling that he fell into that category.

Today the Senate voted to slash Bush's $726 billion tax cut in half. That means we are halfway back to some fiscal sanity. A $350 billion tax cut is still outrageous when we are in the middle of a war and are already in debt up to our ears.

The Academy Awards were more unpredictable than I had imagined and thus more entertaining. I am still upset that The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers took just two measly technical awards - Visual Effects and Sound Editing - but at least that was better than Gangs of New York which was completely shut out after receiving 10 nominations. I guess Peter Jackson will just have to console himself for now with his $335 million domestic box office take.
I was getting just a bit tired of hearing the theme music to ‘Chicago’ being played over and over, but the film topped out at six awards which - while respectable- is far short of a complete sweep. The film, which I still have not seen, took just one acting award for Catherine Zeta-Jones for best supporting actress. The big surprise turned out to be the Holocaust drama The Pianist which took three really big awards - adapted screenplay, best actor and best director. I’m not sure what to think about the directing award going to Roman Polanski the fugitive child molester who is living in exile in France. But I am happy for Best Actor Adrien Brody after first being upset when his name was called. I was pulling for Michael Caine or Daniel Day-Lewis, but after hearing Brody’s poignant and touching acceptance speech I was somewhat mollified.
I expected Nicole Kidman and her prosthetic nose to win Best Actress - the only award for The Hours. And Chris Cooper’s best supporting actor win was also expected, although I would have preferred to see Paul Newman or Christopher Walken win. Walken’s excellent performance in ‘Catch Me If You Can’ was the only one I have seen so far.
I thought that Steve Martin did an excellent job hosting under the strained circumstances. I was actually afraid that they would just do away with the host altogether like they did at the Grammys this year. But Martin was able to be funny and entertaining without offending the tender sensibilities of a nation in war-mode.
I was happy to see the Japanese animated film ‘Spirited Away’ win in that category and I hope to actually see the film some day too. The American offerings this year just weren’t up to the same level if ‘Ice Age’ is any indication - haven’t seen the others yet. I was also glad to see Eminem win Best Song for Lose Yourself from Eight Mile even though it meant that U2 did not win and Bono was not allowed to make an anti-war statement on the stage.
Documentary film maker Michael Moore’s anti-Bush speech was to have been expected. He clearly deserved to win this year for “Bowling For Columbine” and there was no way he was going to accept the award without saying something that would rattle peoples’ cages. I thought what he had to say was clever - contrasting non-fiction film making with ‘fictitious election results’ in Florida and ‘fictitious reasons for going to war in Iraq.’ We still have found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (and fortunately none have been used against our troops). So if it turns out that Iraq wasn’t really an immediate threat to our national security, then what? Oh, well? He was a bad man and needed to be toppled anyway? At what cost? We are still finding out, unfortunately.
But back to Moore’s rant - even though what he said was clever, if he truly intended to win people over to his side I don’t think that standing up on stage and shouting “Shame on you, Mr. Bush!” was the way to go about it. But of course, Moore has never been very good at actually achieving the results that he espouses. After all, his support for Ralph Nader in the last election just helped to pull down Al Gore and hand the keys to the White House to runner-up George W.

The complete list of Oscar winners is here.

The behavior of the stock market never ceases to disgust me. Typically, you can count on the stock market to react favorably whenever big companies announce mass layoffs or shut down factories to move jobs overseas. Last week when Bush finally announced the long-anticipated start to his war against Iraq, the markets reacted boisterously with back-to-back-to-back rallies for the highest one week gain in years. The more bombs that burst around Baghdad, the higher stock prices would go. But now, after a weekend with more than a few setbacks and U.S. and British casualties climbing upward, the stock market has plunged nearly 300 points. It didn't take long for Wall Street to lose its enthusiasm for the war. Did they really expect it to all be over in a matter of days?
There is a good op-ed piece in the NYTimes today explaining why the war won't help our dreary economy.

It is almost scary how accurate this satirical news story from The Onion ( 1/18/01) has turned out: Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over'

"My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us."
Bush swore to do "everything in [his] power" to undo the damage wrought by Clinton's two terms in office, including selling off the national parks to developers, going into massive debt to develop expensive and impractical weapons technologies, and passing sweeping budget cuts that drive the mentally ill out of hospitals and onto the street.
During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.
"You better believe we're going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration," said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. "Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?"

Sales of Dixie Chicks albums have not suffered too much despite boycott attempts after lead singer and Lubbock native Natalie Maines dissed President Bush during the group's current European tour.

"Although radio airplay subsided about 20 percent, Home's sales remained strong relative to other current releases. Overall, the album finished the week ended Sunday by selling 124,000 copies, down 21,000 copies from the prior week, according to SoundScan data. However, when compared to the other top-selling albums, the Chicks fared pretty well. Home experienced about a 15 percent drop-off, while the top 5 holdovers from the previous week's charts averaged nearly a 26 percent decline.
With Home holding up better than its competition, the Grammy-winning disc actually climbed two spots to number four and remained number one on the country sales chart. (Of course, the fairly stable sales stats could be attributed to those fire-loving yokels stocking up on Home for the next burning.) "

While I think that Maine's comment was ill advised (She said she was embarrassed that George Bush is from Texas), I also think the whole issue is being blown far out of proportion by our nation's right-wing propaganda machine -- talk radio yakkers, Faux News, etc. There were a lot of other ways she could have made her point without fanning so much controversy, but that's what happens every once in a while to people who have microphones stuck in the faces everyday as part of their job without the benefit of professional handlers to tell them what to say and how to say it. At least Maines issued a sincere apology and I think that should be the end of it. Unfortunately, forgiveness is not one of the strong points of the right wingers here in the U.S. And many on the far-right love nothing better than the opportunity to work themselves up in a fit of self-righteouss indignation.

My jaw dropped the other night when Bush spoke about the "broad coalition" that is supporting his war in Iraq. Now the State Dept. has come out with a list of 30 countries that they say are backing the war effort:

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and Uzbekistan. The State Department listed Japan as available for "post-conflict" support.

Of course, the only ones backing up their stated support with actual troop deployments is the UK along with a "token 2,000 troops" from Australia. It is kind of a stretch to include Turkey on the list as well, since they are not allowing U.S. troops to use bases in that country and is also sending its own troops into the Northern Iraq/Kurdish territory in in spite of repeated U.S. requests that they stay out.

The real story, however, is how world opinion of the U.S. has fallen sharply in recent months. The NYTimes is reporting today that opinion polls by the Pew Charitable Trust show "a serious disconnect" between Americans and their traditional allies. While 59 percent of Americans say they support a war against Iraq, only 39 percent of Britons and 13 percent of the Spanish favor military actions. Gee, aren't those our two biggest allies and they don't seem to have anywhere close to majority support of their home populations. The survey also showed that favorable opinions of the U.S. have fallen sharply in many countries including Germany where just 25 percent had a favorable opinion of the U.S. compared to 61 percent last June. In France, the numbers have fallen from 63 percent a year ago to 31 percent today, and in Italy it fell from 70 percent a year ago to 34 percent today. Wow! Just imagine what they will think if things don't go exactly as planned during the next several days.

From the resignation speech of Robin Cook, who stepped down as leader of the House of Commons in the UK to protest the Iraq situation.

"The threshold for war should always be high. None of us can predict the death toll of civilians in the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq. But the US warning of a bombing campaign that will "shock and awe" makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at the very least in the thousands. Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size at the time of the last Gulf war. Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate invasion. And some claim his forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in days.

We cannot base our military strategy on the basis that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a seri ous threat. Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of that term - namely, a credible device capable of being delivered against strategic city targets. It probably does still have biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions. But it has had them since the 1980s when the US sold Saddam the anthrax agents and the then British government built his chemical and munitions factories.

Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years and which we helped to create? And why is it necessary to resort to war this week while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is frustrated by the presence of UN inspectors?"

On the one hand, Saddam is so weak that we are predicting a quick and easy military victory. On the other hand, we are being told that Saddam is an imminent threat to U.S. security and therefore we must embark on a pre-emptive attack with or without the support of international allies.

Last night in his speech, Bush spoke of a "broad coalition" that will use military force to disarm Saddam. But that coalition includes just two nations - the U.S. and Great Britain - Spain is not even providing any troops, just diplomatic cover such that it is. Bush went on to criticize France for its opposition to the war, but Cook makes it clear that France is not alone in its opposition.

"In recent days France has been at the receiving end of the most vitriolic criticism. However, it is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany is opposed to us. Russia is opposed to us. Indeed at no time have we signed up even the minimum majority to carry a second resolution. We delude ourselves about the degree of international hostility to military action if we imagine that it is all the fault of President Chirac.
The harsh reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading member. Not Nato. Not the EU. And now not the security council. To end up in such diplomatic isolation is a serious reverse. Only a year ago we and the US were part of a coalition against terrorism which was wider and more diverse than I would previously have thought possible. History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition. "

I think that "diplomatic miscalculations" is putting it rather mildly.

The United States has ordered the U.N. inspectors to leave Iraq. It is the first clear signal that the diplomatic charade that the Bush administration has been trying to orchestrate is over and the war is set to begin. It now occurs to me that the rightness or wrongness of this war will now be judged on two factors -- the number of U.S. casualties (Iraqi casulaties are irrelevant) and whether or not the U.S. economy will bounce back after it is all over. The stock market already shot up 200 points today in eager anticipation of a quick war. I can only hope that the war does go well, that Iraq's army scatters at the first hint of confrontation and that Saddam either flees or is quickly dispatched. But even if that is the case, the aftermath is still likely to be an ugly, drawn-out and expensive affair.
I have never been convinced that this war is necessary. Perhaps if Bush were capable of defending his position in a one-on-one interview with an aggresive reporter the way that Britain's Tony Blair does here, then I would feel a little better. But I can't even imagine a U.S. TV reporter being that tough and/or knowlegeable in any case, so maybe it is not entirely Bush's fault.

Consumer confidence has plunged to its lowest level in more than a decade, according to a Reuters report. That means it hasn't been this bad since, well, since the last time there was a President Bush in the White House.
War fears continue to drive gasoline prices higher. Unemployment continues to hover at the highest level in more than a decade. The Economic Policy Institute has reported that we are experiencing "the longest continuous stretch of job decline since 1944-46." Since March 2001, the economy has lost 2.5 million private-sector jobs.
Let's face it. Bush has been in office for more than two years, over half his term, and there are no bright spots to point to on the domestic front. The driving obsession of this administration for the past six months - at least since it became clear that Bush's tax cuts were not having the desired effect on the economy - has been in prosecuting an unprovoked conflict in Iraq. As a diversionay tactic it has worked like a charm. It largely responsible for the Republican victories in the November election fueled by "rally round the flag" sentiments. But the question that remains is what effect will the war have on the economy? I'm sure Bush's folks are hoping - betting the farm - that a quick victory in Iraq will be followed by a rebound in U.S. consumer confidence which will then drive the economy back into the black just in time for Bush's re-election campaign in 2004. Then, with a fresh mandate (who knows, maybe he will even win the election this time) and possibly a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and continued control of the House, the Republicans can finally push through their entire agenda on tax cuts, education vouchers, repealing Roe vs. Wade, filling up the federal courts with movement conservatives, elimination of environmental regulations preventing oil drilling and logging efforts, etc. A rightwinger's paradise.
Unfortunately, when this whole loopy fantasy comes crashing down, it's not going to be the wealthy Bush supporters who suffer the most. The vast majority of the Bush team never served in the military, and their children are not serving there now. They did not attend public schools and neither do their children. They live in a different world where you make a fortune by investing big piles of other people's money and then looking for ways to keep from paying taxes on it.

Looks like there will be no diplomatic cover for Bush's war in Iraq after all. Two days ago the White House was insisting that it was just one vote away from securing majority support on the U.N. Security Council. But that prediction has held up about as well as the administration's guarantee that its big surplus-eliminating tax cut last year would jump-start the economy. Guninea has said it will abstain and Chile has said it will vote no. But Bush is going to go forward anyway thrusting our nation into an unprecedented pre-emptive attack on another nation in defiance of the United Nations. Even Bush Sr. has come out in opposition to this foolish course of action!

Meanwhile, Bush's supporters here in the U.S., in a fit of pique, are busy tossing out their French toast and blacklisting the Dixie Chicks on country radio.

In order for Bush to win U.N. support for his pre-emptive war on Iraq, he must gain the support of eight other countries on the 15-member U.N. Security Council and avoid a veto by any of the five permanent members (U.S.; Great Britain; France; Russia; China). This is all but impossible as France and Russia have both made it clear they will veto a move to go to war at this time. Since Bush intends to go to war either way, he is simply trying to garner majority support from the Council to use as diplomatic cover when he ignores the veto. As best I can tell, the only thing that would halt Bush from going forward with the war now would be for Saddam to personally hand over the keys to the Iraqi oil fields to Dick Cheney.

It will be interesting to see if Bush can arm-twist enough of the little countries to get his 9-vote majority. Here is how the field looks right now:

Countries in favor of war:

United States
Great Britain
Spain
Bulgaria


Countries opposed:

France
Russia
China
Germany
Syria

The so-called Undecideds:

Mexico
Chile
Pakistan
Cameroon
Guinea
Angola

 I thought this was pretty funny from some Canadian comic:
       
       “On behalf of Canadians everywhere I’d like to offer an apology to the United States of America. We haven’t been getting along very well recently and for that, I am truly sorry. I’m sorry we called George Bush a moron. He is a moron but, it wasn’t nice of us to point it out. If it’s any consolation, the fact that he’s a moron shouldn’t reflect poorly on the people of America. After all it’s not like you actually elected him. I’m sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean, when you’re going up against a crazed dictator, you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than two years before you guys pitched in against Hitler, but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons."

The last comment raises a good point about the World War II analogies that keep getting tossed around by war proponents today. Comparisons of Saddam Hussein to Hitler are ridiculous on their face, but they are made in such a way as to demonstrate the urgent need to go to war right away. Isn't it ironic then that back when Hitler was around in the days before Pearl Harbor -- attacking his neighbors, persecuting Jews and other minorities, using weapons of mass destruction -- it was the same types of folks who are so eager to go to war today (mostly Republicans and conservatives) who fought tooth and nail to keep us out of the war in Europe. The Republicans back then were even critical of FDR for his efforts to lend economic assistance to our European allies under assault from the Nazi's. So it took two years for us to get involved and only after we were provoked by the Japanese. And that is not counting the years that Hitler was building up his power base, just the time when he was being openly aggresive.

Check out the Adventures of Hercubush!

There was a most disturbing story that trickled out last Friday about the Iraq situation and it has received very little attention since then. It seems that a "key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program" was forged, according to The Washington Post. The New York Times and the L.A. Times reported similar stories.
Apparently, documents that Colin Powell used to show that Iraq officials were shopping for unanium in Africa two years ago had been fabricated. U.S. officials said they were duped. "We fell for it," said one unnamed U.S. official in the story. The U.N. spokeman said they do not blame the U.S. or Britain for the forgeries, but the story does not address who else might have been responsible or why.
That seems like a pretty serious question to me. If there is someone out there forging documents in an effort to help start a war in Iraq wouldn't it be prudent to find out who and why? And have they planted other false evidence. The U.S. media always laughs and dismisses the Iraqi government whenever they call charges against them "lies" but now we have proof for the first time that they were right. This doesn't mean that Saddam is suddenly a good guy or anything, but perhaps he is not as intent on obtaining nuclear technology as some interested parties would have us believe. I would really like to know more about these forged documents before we plunge into a bloody confrontation.

On a lighter note, I saw on one web site a suggestion for what we should name this war once it gets started:
Dubya Dubya III.