. . . or you have to pay cash.

Emirates Infiltrated By Al Quaeda

Dear Dubai,

You are well aware that we have infiltrated your security, censorship, and monetary agencies along with other agencies that should not be mentioned.

Love,
Al Quaeda

United Press International - NewsTrack - Informant in terrorist case disappears

TOLEDO, Ohio, March 1 (UPI) -- A man identified as a government informant in a case against three terrorist suspects in Toledo, Ohio, has disappeared.

There's been enough published about the man know only as Bilal, a.k.a. "the Trainer" that anyone who knows him, probably knows it was him who fingered the three alleged plotters arrested here in Toledo last week.

If the Feds actually have him spirited away to keep him safe it might be the only place he can stay alive.  If he got scared and is on the run he better keep a low profile.  That might be hard since they describe him as looking like Jerome Bettis.


From looking at the indictments (PDF), a lot hinges on this guy and the feds might not be able to make their case without him. Like Mike says, the guys a "rat" and he must have run in some very nasty circles.

At least he's trying to kill some birds.

Bird Flu Determined to Attack U.S.


Meanwhile, it looks like the boy-king's got sum 'splainin' to do about what he didn't know and when didn't he know it.

After a much appreciated critique from Avedon Carol at the Sideshow, I trashed a couple of neat but slow loading graphics, got carried away and revamped the look of the site.


The idea was to make it load faster, if you like the new look, that's a bonus.

Let me know what you think.

Think Progress ? 72% of U.S. Troops Want Out of Iraq Within One Year

A new poll to be released today shows that U.S. soldiers overwhelmingly want out of Iraq and soon. The poll is the first of U.S. troops currently serving in Iraq, according to John Zogby, the pollster. Conducted by Zogby International and LeMoyne College, it asked 944 service members, How long should U.S. troops stay in Iraq? Only 23 percent backed Mr. Bush's position that they should stay as long as necessary. In contrast, 72 percent said that U.S. troops should be pulled out within one year. Of those, 29 percent said they should withdraw immediately.� [Behind NYT Select's Firewall for now.]

Isn't this the "gung-ho" crowd?  Usually Republican, overwhelmingly so?  Jean "Only cowards cut and run" Schmidt and all the rest of the straight-shooting stay-the-course bunch can kiss my ass.  You want to support the troops?  Scrawl "Bring 'em Home" across your yellow ribbon magnet.

What the hell are we still doing there? We got there for a variety of bogus missteps, and are staying there to what? Keep the peace?  That's a good one.

1,300 dead Iraqis last week.  That's not a misprint.   That's way worse than the Pentagon was saying over the weekend, and what they were saying was bad enough. And our guys were ordered to stand down and do nothing.  You can't fight them over there unless you, um . . . fight.  Our troops can watch the Iraqis destroy each other from the comfort of their own living rooms if that's all we're doing now.

The argument that we can't leave until there's stability in the country is officially bogus.  No longer operative.  Quaint.  We did nothing to stop what many are now resolved to calling a civil war.  We probably will only make things worse and will double our own dead and wounded if we intercede.  We're done, Bush's war in Iraq is a complete catastrophy, there is nothing to win and everything to lose.

Our soldiers know that.  Their commanders know that.  If we're not going to do anything, we can't accomplish anything (whatever we're supposed to accomplish), except waste more of our best and bravest for an unattainable, ever-changing cause we won't even try to attain.

Pull back to Kuwait , Baharain and Dubai, keep the Gulf open, tell Haliburton they're on their own and can fight their own wars for now on, garrison the Baghdad embassy, guard the Kurd areas (the only place where democracy and oil fields work) and end this criminal stupidity.

That's my plan, there are others.

UPDATE:  HERE'S THE POLL, which includes some very disturbing results of Bushspeak propaganda that our soldiers have been fed:  "Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam's role in 9/11".  It's going to take a long time to deprogram these folks.

The wide-ranging poll also shows that 58% of those serving in country say the U.S. mission in Iraq is clear in their minds, while 42% said it is either somewhat or very unclear to them, that they have no understanding of it at all, or are unsure. While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks," 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was "to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq."

"Ninety-three percent said that removing weapons of mass destruction is not a reason for U.S. troops being there," said Pollster John Zogby, President and CEO of Zogby International. "Instead, that initial rationale went by the wayside and, in the minds of 68% of the troops, the real mission became to remove Saddam Hussein." Just 24% said that "establishing a democracy that can be a model for the Arab World" was the main or a major reason for the war. Only small percentages see the mission there as securing oil supplies (11%) or to provide long-term bases for US troops in the region (6%).

How do you tell them that Saddam had no roll in 9/11 or ties to Al Qaeda?  Do you think they know about Santa and the Easter Bunny?

Insight: Cheney To Retire After 2006 Elections... | The Huffington Post

My question is why wait, especially since the 25th Amendment requires that the new VP Nominee be approved by Congress.

Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

I guess even if the Dems win Congress, Rove thinks they can get a quickie confirmation by the lame duck session between November and January.  That'll work.

It also completely changes the '08 Presidential election dynamic.   Loyal Condi rewarded with a built-in base for a presidential election bid?

Gonzales?  He'd make an interesting swipe at Bill Richardson's base.

McCain?  Only if he does more sucking-up than he has been so far this year, AND Arizona's Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano loses her reelection bid to a GOPer (like Goldwater's nephew, Donny?)

Of course, Joe Lieberman might be looking for a job . . . and he did get more votes for the position than Cheney.

If you look at Political Wire, you'll see that McCain probably doesn't need any help.  47% to 37% versus Hillary.

Media Matters - Only on Fox: "All-Out Civil War in Iraq: Could It Be a Good Thing?"


At the risk of sounding like a completely insensitive ass, yes, for Democrats.  But not only is this not what we wanted, whatsoever, it isn't the political tipping point anyone thought it might be.

However, the Prez-Nit-Wit threatening to use his first veto to secure our ports for the Sultan of Dubai must be some sort of cosmic serendipidy.

The very week that Bush's ill-conceived gun-barrel democracy in Iraq displays its inherent instability with the outbreak of unprecedented civil violence, Congress and the American people are presented with the Dubai Port acquisition â€" a deal so utterly wrong on it's surface and so corrupt in it's underpinnings that a GOP revolt is palpable and as imminent as all out civil war is in Iraq.

I am by no means certain of the outcome of any this, and fervently hope that the Iraqis have come to the brink, looked into the abyss, and will decide to take another route than the headlong plunge into all out war.  Their salvation is in their hands and our military forces there are now, more than ever, mere targets.

The perplexing irony is how it is playing out for the administration â€" which is indeed faring worse as Iraq becomes our latest experiment in anarchy â€" but not due to reasons the pundocracy anticipated.

The Dubai Port Buy was a bolt from the blue that conventional wisdom can understandas inherently unwise, but could not predict.  Yet it's completely wrapped in the culture that has always been indicative of Bush's complete lack of qualifications required to lead this nation:  corporate cronyism, incompetent ianagement, Arabian oil sheiks, politically tone deaf hubris, and as time will surely reveal, corruption at the highest levels.

When the likes of William F. Buckley pronounces from his ivory tower that there is no other conclusion but that we have failed in Iraq, you'd think that would be it.  Party over, the end of Bush's support.  The support has eroded, but not because of Iraq alone or other situations on the ground, but rather the situation at sea.

Following a steady downward trend in Iraq, and major blunders at home over the last year (Schiavo, Social Security, wiretapping, Harriet Meirs and Katrina), Bush's numbers had hit a plateau at around 40% representing the stubborn souls who just can't give up on the little idiot.

More and more conservatives are coming to the realization that Howard Dean was right, as distasteful as that pill is to swallow for them.  Andrew Sullivan had jumped ship some time ago, and even Bill O'Reilly. who knows crazy when he sees it, has joined us "pinheads" in opposing our further occupation of Iraq.

But even that might not have been enough without the sheer stupidity of threatening a veto over the Port deal.  Yes, there is still hope that both the Iraqis and the Bush administration can prevent their imminent demise and pull their asses out of the fire. I'm crossing my fingers for the Iraqis, but I can't help but smile watching Bush fall straight past Nixon as the most despised president ever.

---

UPDATE: Sorry, no list of conservatives who have seen the light would be complete without Fukuyama.  How is it that guys like this get paid to be so wrong and only catch up with what I've been saying for three years after it's too late.

Oh, that's right.   hangs out with these kind of intellectual giants.

Thinking way down the road – the road to the White House – while I believe this nation desparately needs a complete change in direction, and the Democrats are the most likely folks to supply such a change, is there a leader in our party who truly captures the imagination?

Hillary may or may not be "electable" but certainly knows how to campaign. What I'm talking about is leadership, statesmanship, not mere political savvy.

Is it John Edwards or Barack Obama, who bring youth, energy and passion while speaking in a soft persuasive manner – lending their passion for the improvement of their fellow man to their rhetoric? Were you inspired by John Kerry or did you find him pompous and unfocused even though you might have agreed with some of his policies? Is Joe Biden a plain-talker or just John McCain without the war record? Is Joe Lieberman a traitor to the party? Did you already forget Zell Miller and just how bad if can get?

Think JFK and Bobby. I'll never forget my grandmother saying that she would have put her hands in fire for Jack Kennedy or FDR. Can a post Vietnam/Watergate/Iran-Contra/Lewinski/Iraq generation ever be inspired again or do we just follow the money?

---

UPDATE: Fixed the spacing cock-up and remembered to add one very important name — Al Gore.

Dick Morris:  History indicates that candidates who won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College have all come back to win revenge in subsequent elections."

(HT: Political Wire)

Is it a little easier to understand the Prez-Nit-Wit's knee-jerk veto threat over the UAE port deal he claims not to have known anything about and is in the process of backing off when this little tidbit is added to the mix?

Chron.com | UAE gave $1 million to Bush library

A sheik from the United Arab Emirates contributed at least $1 million to the Bush Library Foundation, which established the George Bush Presidential Library at Texas A&M University in College Station.

Any questions?

Do you need the to be reminded of the financial ties to brother Jeb (who is the only governor affected by the port deal not screaming bloody murder) and brother Neil's sweetheart financing from his best friend in the dessert kingdom.

We would have been better off electing a true crime syndicate instead of these amateurs.  Mobsters may extort, but they are serious about "protection".

Just a thought, but sometimes it seems like the Bushies think that it is against God's plan that their oil is under Middle Eastern sand instead of Texas switch grass, and they were put on this planet to take as much cash away from those evil heathens and put it where it will do the most good — in their pockets.

It's really not that complicated, and Democrats, long of wind and long perceived as the party of complex nuance, need to dumb it down.

K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid) ALWAYS works!

Our message has always been reducible to common, ordinary concepts. All the more powerful for they're being true as for their plain common sense. Here are some suggestions, slogans if you will, that say a lot with a little:

• They're greedy, we're for the needy.
• Anti-intellectualism is . . . dumb.
• You don't have to sell common sense.
• Trickle down economics is still Voodoo.
• The Land of the Free and Home of the Brave never, ever should resort to torture, bugging it's own people without probable cause or internment without charges — let alone institutionalize it.
• They trust the people less than the people trust their government.
• Results, not rhetoric, matter.
  

And for you approval, some analysis.

• They're greedy, we're for the needy.
  

Name a single policy initiative from the Bush Administration that has not directly benefited, financially, either an industry, company or individual already listed in the Fortune 500. If something happens to benefit the middle class, or (gasp) the poor and disadvantaged, it is just a bonus, an afterthought, a token gesture to quell the great unwashed.

Yes, sometimes there are ancillary benefits which trickle down, or are at least intended to or promise to provide an improvement to all.  But without exception, there is an already powerful and wealthy entity which has reaped the wind of Bush's agenda — while he blows smoke at the rest of us.  From the war and post-war reconstruction, Katrina recovery, energy policy, Medicare reform, and the attempted dismantling Social Security, it all is the stuff of illusions.

• Anti-intellectualism is . . . dumb.

Scientists know stuff.  Generals know stuff.  Career diplomats and intelligence specialists know stuff.  You should listen to them even (and especially) if they are telling you things that you don't want to hear.

If an advisor is brave enough to break ranks and warn the administration that their policy might not be sound, they really should be given a fully hearing and not just lip service or (even worse) a cold shoulder for being disloyal.  Why would someone risk the wrath of those in power by upsetting the apple-cart unless they really, really believed what they were saying?

Scientists have been silenced by this White House and accepted scientific theory repudiated. It takes a lot of dedication and study to become a respected scientist — most of whom this administration consistently ignores or undermines. Scientists know lots of stuff, more than you do. You should listen to them.

Likewise it takes hard work and mastery of a monumental amount of information — and the skill and intellect to process it — to become a career diplomat or intelligence analyst.  On top of language fluency required by State and needed by the intel agencies, the foreign service exam is reputed to be the toughest civil service test there is.  And though I have no personal experience on this next, I doubt very seriously that the CIA or NSA hires too many perpetually underachieving "C-" frat boys like our President.

Warnings from State, CIA and the Pentagon regarding the broken pottery shop that is now Iraq were ignored, warnings that more troops were needed, the Iraqi Army should not be dismantled, looting (by either opportunistic citizens or war profiteering companies) should not be allowed to go unabated.  Stuff, as SecDef Rumsfeld is wont to say, should not have been allowed to happen in Iraq.

• You don't have to sell common sense.

If America is that confident that we don't need a rocket scientist to run the country, just someone you would have fun drinking beers with, then the general consensus must be that Prezidentin' ain't too hard. We should expect, therefor, simple, common sense solutions to even the most complex problems.

Why then, do the conservatives (or Bush fealty faction) feel compelled to sell so hard on absolutely everything?  For over thirty years they have nurtured the "liberal media" narrative, despite every empirical analysis contradicting this canard. They blame that media, accuse it of pursuing a "jihad" when it exposes their incompetence or mendacity by mere reporting of facts, but characterize reporters as lazy and incompetent for not smearing Democratic challengers.

They buy off commentators, outright own a major cable news network, most talk radio and have untoward influence on all the other major media outlets, produce fake news reports at taxpayer expense, stonewall and dissemble every day.

If the Medicare reform was such a good idea, Tom DeLay wouldn't have had to hold the vote open long enough to blackmail reluctant representatives to go along?  They could have been honest about the cost, and we wouldn't have heard any song and dance about why it's a good thing that the program is forbidden to bargain with the drug companies.

If they were "engaged" in the Katrina response, why was the President playing guitar and speaking to yet another party faithful love fest as New Orleans sank?  The party of Duke Cunningham, Jack Abramoff, Bob Ney and Tom Noe would have us believe that the corruption of the local NOLA government was the root cause of so much suffering.  They point to busses undriven but try to explain away mobile homes unoccupied.

How incredibly out of touch are they when they even think that outsourcing the security of our nation's ports to any foreign government, let alone an Arab nation connected to the 9/11 highjacking, is worthy of discussion.  The choice is usually between believing them or your lying eyes, but this is off the table, period.  I don't care how many fighter jets we want to sell to Dubai, or which Sultan's ring (or other appendage) Bush kissed.  This is a non-starter.

Oh, and I'm not buying the crap that no American company can do the job.  They're the great believers in market forces, and this is a market hole that can and should be filled, pronto.  Likewise, the idea that we do other business with all kinds of companies from all kinds of nations, or that they're our ally in the WoT, or that we shouldn't single out a nation just because of a few bad actors sets up a false choice and distracts from the central issue — that this is about opening up a very vulnerable area of our nation's security to a highly suspect foreign entity.

To adopt their frame, this one is unspinnable in a post 9/11 world.  If they can make the argument that setting up an archipelago of secret prison camps throughout Asia Minor and Eastern Europe is a necessary and proper component of the WoT "strategery," they shouldn't have to stretch their cerebellum too much to argue to our dear allies in the Gulf that port security is just one of those things we have to do ourselves.

• Trickle down economics is still Voodoo.

When a multi-billion dollar company gets a direct tax benefits it can run laughing all the way to the bank that very day.  The rest of us are supposed to wait patiently, confident that in addition to a couple of extra trips to Bora Bora, the CEO's quest for even greater profits through investment and growth of the company will result in a translation of his tax cuts into jobs.  This giveaway to the rich stimulates the economy, so the theory goes.

I have another theory, a little less black-box, no gnomish underwear theories, a bit more plain, direct and so common sensical it doesn't need to be sold.

Instead of the government giving away money to the wealthy in hopes that they in turn will hire people, the government itself could, um . . . hire people, you know.  They could make stuff, do things, like run our own ports for example.

Now follow this logic carefully, because I know that those of you spoon fed decades of the virtue of Reaganomics might have to take this on faith.  Those people that are directly hired wouldn't have to wait on the benevolence of the trust fund baby running a company to hire them because they would already be working — AND THAT STIMULATES THE ECONOMY TOO.  Bonus!  You now have more people to tax!

Oh, and before that trust fund baby can pass his amassed portfolio of tax-free municipal bonds, tax abated company holdings, tax sheltered off-shore accounts, and tax exempted realty investments on to another generation of worthless, unproductive progeny without paying any inheritance taxes since the Bushspeak elimination of the so-called "death tax"; can't we get a few bucks off the top to help pay for things that help out the rest of us?  I mean, the kids didn't actually do anything to earn it, they get the first million bucks tax free anyway, they'd hardly miss it.  It's not like we're asking them to join the national guard or do anything else to help this country.

How dare these pampered pricks whine about welfare queens when they live like kings.

• The Land of the Free and Home of the Brave never, ever should resort to torture, bugging it's own people without probable cause or internment without charges — let alone institutionalize it.

They run on "family values."  We've been hearing that phrase constantly, every election year, well before Dan Quayle forgot how to spell.  At the same time they preach that their way is the patriotic way and we're soft on thugs at home and abroad.

AMERICAN VALUES trumps family values.  It is un-American to even try and justify torture.  It is un-American to hold people without charging and trying them.  It is un-American to spy on Americans unless you have at least a hunch that particular American might be up to no good.  Even Timothy McVie got his day in court.  The three alleged terrorists arrested here in Toledo were informed, in detail, of the charges against them and will have the opportunity to be heard in court.  That's the American way.

I've never advocated the overthrow of our government (although I wouldn't mind an expedited regime change by otherwise lawful means).  I've never advocated violence or knowingly associated with terrorists sympathizers.  Yet, I have little doubt that I've been monitored by this government because my published political beliefs are diametrically opposed to the policies of the party currently running Washington D.C.   I am indeed a threat, not to our country, but to the Republican stooges now in charge.

Such is not an indication of how paranoid I am, rather what low esteem I hold President Bush and his enablers.  An informed and critical electorate is their greatest threat.

• They trust the people less than the people trust their government.

The handmaiden of the administration's anti-freedom activities is their obsessive secrecy.  Beyond the legality of what they can and cannot keep from either us or our representatives in Congress, the question is whether they should, politically or from a moral standpoint, habitually take the default position that what they do is none of our damn business.

As is often observed, perception is reality when it comes to politics.  Secretive people have something to hide, and it is just as likely the truth of the matter, when shown the light of day, will have a benign rather than evil purpose.  But daylight is essential because, contrary to the legal presumption of innocence, human nature logically concludes that those that hide something, have something to hide.

Trust in our leaders should be the presumption.  In an open society with democratic representation our elected officials have earned a modicum of trust.  However, and unfortunately in the case of the current administration, openness is our means for constant verification and breaking our trust is easily accomplished when the people's business is hidden from the people.

Not only has the Bush Administration violated our trust, but their scorn for our right to know and sign off on their actions, complete abrogation of scores of international accords, and bypassing of inconvenient institutional checks on their prerogatives provided in the Constitution and by statute has developed to the point where this administration is in utter breach of the social contract at the heart of our republic.

• Results, not rhetoric, matter.

UBL.

So just where is the Waldo of the terrorist world?  No excuses absolve this administration for it's utter failure to bring this demon to justice.

The list of the ineptitude of the Bush administration is exhausting.  In many cases, just one word or an anacronym can summon to mind the entirety of incompetence, like WMD or Katrina

Medicare reform is melting down into a cauldron of gold for pharmaceuticals, a logistical nightmare that was always expected from this gang that can't shoot straight.  NCLB (No Child Left Behind) remains underfunded, student loans cut, and candidate Bush's promise that he would make education his first priority has long since been forgotten.

Of course, there is the double-speak:  Clear Skies has resulted in record levels of pollutants.  Private Personal Accounts would "save" Social Security, not destroy it.  (Thank goodness that lie was thwarted.)  Domestic Spying is transformed into the more friendly sounding "Terrorist Surveillance Program."

It turns out that it wasn't just "Addicted To Oil" that he didn't mean "literally".   WMD was transformed into "We Meant Democracy".   Funny, even that has backfired with the legitimacy of Hamas in Palestine and the Islamists in Iraq through elections.  Turns out, they really hate us.  No amount of hand-holding with Arab Sheiks will put lipstick on these pigs or explain doubling the price of oil and turning our ports over to the UAE while the Iraqi guerillas' "last throes" gets bolder by the week.

Lest I forget, we're still deploying a missile shield that doesn't work and will do nothing to stop North Korean nukes.

Catching the Anthrax mailer would do wonders for our perception of the Bush Maladministration.  Spiking Osama's head on the White House lawn would do more, and might be the only way to make something of Bush's legacy.  But I suspect that short of the complete collapse of Iran and Syria, along with the peaceful transformation of Iraq and Palestine into good productive members of the community of nations, Bush will not enjoy near the adulation showered on Reagan when credited for the disintegration of the USSR after his term expired.

How would that legacy have looked if the Russians were more emboldened, expanded into more territory, acted more belligerent, and instead of a relative peaceful democratic transformation, Eastern Europe erupted in flames squelched only by Soviet tanks.  I have no faith whatsoever that five years hence the Middle East will resemble Poland or the Czech Republic circa 1992 more than Boznia circa 1994.