“One of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.” — George orWell Bush, CBS News interview, September 6th, 2006

Looking back, I remember where I was 7 years ago, today, when I first saw the replay of the first plane hitting the tower.

And I watched the news about that attack, closely. For a long time. As in, “still.” But I didn’t hear about what Condoleeza Rice was scheduled to do, on this date 7 years ago, until April of 2004.

She was going to give a speech. Not about Osama Bin Laden; not about al Qaeda; not about Extremist Islamic Fundamentalism. No, Condoleeza Rice was going to talk about what this misAdministration felt was the most dangerous threat to America, long-range missiles, furthering the goals set out in 1997 by the neo-conservative goup, Project for the New American Century.

Fast forward to George orWell’s comment, on September 6th, 2006, above – “One of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.”

Ladies and Gentlemen, this misAdministration has never been focused on the real threat to America; this misAdministration used the ol’ “bait ‘n switch” ruse to do what the Neo-Con Right Wing always wanted: topple Saddam and radically transform America’s military. From Project for the New American Century’s 76 page “Rebuilding America’s Defenses:

Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor.(page 51)

So, just who are the people that formed PNAC; the PNAC that thought that a “new Pearl Harbor” might speed up the transformation of the American Military in a way they thought beneficial? Let’s look:

Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush,

Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz

So, today, as we mourn those that fell as the towers fell; those that fell in the heroic struggle on United Airlines Flight 93 in Pennsylvania; those that fell on American Airlines Flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon; those brave men and women that have fallen in Iraq, remember this:

“One of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.” — George orWell Bush, September 6th, 2006

Of course it’s hard; Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 but everything to do with furthering neo-conservative goals.

In 130 days it will be January 20th, 2009 – The End Of An Error

(cross posted from ; comments welcome there)

The Night of the Generals

The six retired generals who stepped forward last spring to publicly attack Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s handling of the Iraq war had to overcome a culture of reticence based on civilian control of the military. But while each man acted separately, all shared one experience: a growing outrage over the administration’s incompetence, leading some of the nation’s finest soldiers to risk their reputations and cross a time-honored line.

by David Margolick April 2007
(VanityFair.com)

“Those who forget the lessons of history, tend to vote GOP”

The RumsFailed Doctrine

On September 11th, 2001, our country was attacked. President Bush rightfully issued ultimatums that the Taliban ignored, and he made the correct decision to send troops into harm’s way. Americans united and the world stood with us as American forces led coalition troops into Afghanistan.

The initial results were spectacular. Our volunteer military performed with valor and distinction in this war of necessity. In little more than two months, our enemies had been driven from power and the interim Afghani government was sworn in. The Taliban, Osama Bin Laden, and al-Qaeda were on the run.

The Battle of Tora Bora in Afghanistan’s White Mountains marked the change in U.S. military doctrine. The replaced Powell Doctrine called for overwhelming air and ground forces and a specific exit strategy. But this is the era of the Rumsfeld Doctrine. Indigenous troops staged the direct assaults backed by American air support but only a few American Special Forces Teams. The perimeter of Tora Bora was left unsecured. Most experts now agree that this strategic decision allowed the majority of trapped al-Qaeda fighters to escape.

Then the colossal error by Rumsfeld and others to more or less cut and run from Afghanistan to Iraq was made.

The lack of boots on the ground in Afghanistan prevented the country from achieving stability and peace. Whatever progress had been made quickly began to erode. The Taliban and Al Qaeda, far from being eliminated, have now regrouped, rearmed, and recommenced insurgency operations. Schools that were built have been attacked; many have closed. Newly-built roads now provide ambush opportunities for the Taliban.

Poppy fields flourish. Afghanistan now produces around 90% of the world’s heroin. The drug trade accounts for half of the country’s economy. Despite the connection between narcotics and terrorism, the Bush administration, with a compliant Republican-led Congress, has not devoted the proper attention to Afghanistan’s drug problem. For example, the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) began a multi-national law enforcement program in 2002, with a goal of breaking the link between drug trafficking and terrorism. But the continually increasing Taliban and Al Qaeda violence (fueled by narco-dollars) shows this hasn’t worked. U.S. and NATO forces are now in fact engaged in intense fighting amid Afghanistan’s deadliest spate of violence since U.S. led forces toppled the hard-line Taliban regime.

As in Iraq, there is no obvious exit strategy in Afghanistan. The limitations of the ‘War On The Cheap’ Rumsfeld Doctrine as exemplified at Tora Bora, are evidenced in the prosecution of both the war of necessity in Afghanistan and the war of choice in Iraq. The results of cutting expenses on the front end has incurred incredible expenses on the back end. Congress’ inaction speaks for itself. In our system of representative democracy, Congress serves as the check and balance to ensure change when change is needed. Over the last five years, Congress has unquestioningly given the administration everything it has wanted with no oversight. In fact, this year’s Republican-led Congress is eerily reminiscent of the 1948 ‘Do Nothing Congress’.

Either it is time to go back to the Powell doctrine, or to implement a new doctrine based largely on input from the officer corps of the United States Armed Services, not armchair warfare think tank civilians. However, the implementation of a new military doctrine is the prerogative of the new president to be elected in 2008. This mid-term election is about whether Congress, as an institution, will exercise its constitutional duty to serve as a check and balance against ineffective executive policy, a duty the current Congress has abdicated. Certainly those who marched lockstep with this administration need to be held accountable for that abdication this November.

(co-written by Coleen Rowley, a retired FBI Agent and Candidate for Congress in Minnesota’s 2nd District, and Tommy Johnson, an Army Paratrooper veteran who served with the 7th Special Forces Group – Airborne; September 05, 2006)

The 2008 election of President Obama has occurred; it is now President Obama’s perogative to determine doctrine. Like it or not, this now is his war.

According to the Minnesota National Guard, “More than 20 Soldiers and/or Airmen are currently deployed to Afghanistan” and “More than 1600 Soldiers are currently deployed to Iraq.”

May God Bless, and Godspeed, to each and every one of ‘em.

Eight years after the horrific attack on America, Afghanistan is still a mess. From CBS News, today:

Sept. 11, 2009
Eight Years Later, War’s End Not in Sight

Americans are Increasingly Frustrated With the War in Afghanistan, and President Obama Can Offer No Easy Answers
By Brian Montopoli

It was supposed to be swift and decisive response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks: Operation Enduring Freedom, the U.S. led invasion of Afghanistan, launched less than a month after the attacks and designed to destroy al Qaeda and the Taliban government that harbored the group.

Eight years later the conflict continues — and the endgame seems elusive. Insurgent Taliban forces have gained ground; coalition troop casualties have steadily risen; and Americans have grown increasingly weary of the war, which some critics have begun to describe as a potential quagmire.

Criticism of U.S. policy on Afghanistan from the president’s own party, meanwhile, has grown louder. Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold is calling for a “flexible timetable” for bringing the troops home, arguing that “we’ve become embroiled in a nation-building experiment that may distract us from combating al Qaeda and its affiliates.” House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey of Wisconsin, another Democrat, said Congress could cut war funding in the spring if things haven’t gotten significantly better.

And the criticism is not confined to the left. Last week, conservative columnist George Will offered a much-discussed column calling for the U.S. to pull troops out of Afghanistan and instead “do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units.”
(More, at CBSNews.com)

When our soldiers come home, make sure they are given a hero’s welcome. Hopefully, it will be sooner rather than later.

(originally published at MnProgressiveProject.com)

George W. Bush used to be the prime example of a Republican that believed in state’s rights (except when he didn’t). As Texas Governor, Dubya relished Texas’ sovereignty and eagerly affirmed each and every death penalty he could. As President, Dubya’s administration frequently ignored California’s sovereignty by frequently raiding medical marijuana distributors.

Then yesterday, along comes Michele Bachmann, giving the guy she “enjoys a great relationship” with, a run for his money on ignoring state’s rights. Here’s what Michele Bachmann said yesterday, at her Lake Elmo “Forum”:

“We could do this: there’s a law right now at the federal level that says that states can, in effect, draw boundaries around their state and insurance companies don’t have to compete with other companies outside of their state. This drives, this jacks the cost of healthcare way higher than what it would need to be. If we took a big eraser, and erased those lines, of each state’s boundaries, and allowed people to buy health care anywhere in the United States…in other words, if we, if we allowed more competition among insurance companies, rather than less competition, we would see more insurance products, cheaper prices, and people could buy what they want.” – Rep. Michele Bachmann, Lake Elmo, MN, August 27th, 2009

“If we took a big eraser, and erased those lines, of each state’s boundaries…”

O
M
G.

What other issues does Michele Bachmann feel states shouldn’t control; other issues to pull out a “big eraser” and obliterate state borders?

And that’s before examining her claim of being consumer friendly…..

Let’s take what Bachmann said, replace “insurance” with “credit cards”, and see how it reads…although not an exact analogy, you’ll get the picture of how Bachmann’s “insurance” plan just might work out – for “insurance” guys like Billion Dollar Bill McGuire!

“We could do this: there’s a law right now at the federal level that says that states can, in effect, draw boundaries around their state and credit card companies don’t have to compete with other companies outside of their state. This drives, this jacks the cost of credit cards way higher than what it would need to be. If we took a big eraser, and erased those lines, of each state’s boundaries, and allowed people to get credit cards anywhere in the United States…in other words, if we, if we allowed more competition among credit card companies, rather than less competition, we would see more credit card products, cheaper prices, and people could buy what they want.”

Yeah, “right.”

Barry Goldwater has got to be spinning in his grave, over what Boy Blunder and Bachmann MotorMouth Overdrive have done and said. And Michele Bachmann has once again proven that GOP does indeed stand for GreedOverPrinciples.

(originally published at MnProgressiveProject.com)

The Department of Justice internal watchdog, the Office of Professional Responsibility, submitted to Holder a report today that recommended the department re-examination earlier decisions, made under the Bush administration, to decline to prosecute apparent violations of anti-torture laws.

In reaching his decision to appoint a prosecutor, Holder also reviewed a 2004 report compiled by the CIA inspector general’s office. “As a result of my analysis of all of this material, I have concluded that the information known to me warrants opening a preliminary review into whether federal laws were violated in connection with the interrogation of specific detainees at overseas locations,” Holder said in a statement today. (Law.com)

So, what do the Obstructionists in Party Of No have to say? Let’s look!

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, expressed his strong disagreement with the appointment.

“I respectfully regret this decision by Attorney General Holder and fear our country will come to regret it too, because an open-ended criminal investigation of past CIA activity, which has already been condemned and prohibited, will have a chilling effect on the men and women agents of our intelligence community whose uninhibited bravery and skill we depend on every day to protect our homeland from the next terrorist attack,” Lieberman said in the statement.

…

The ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.), and the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), were among nine GOP senators who sent a letter last week to Holder urging him to back off from the idea of appointing the special prosecutor. (TheHill.com)

There you have it, ladies and gentlemen: The Part Of No, demonstrating once again that when they break laws, laws don’t matter.

Which, of course, is but one reason why GOP now stands for GreedOverPrinciples.

(crossposted from MnProgressiveProject)

The video includes appearances by Oliver Stone, 9/11 family member Patricia Perry, actors Rosie Perez, Noah Emmerich, John Doman and Reg E. Cathey, and musical composer Philip Glass, among others, reading directly from a memo authored by Jay Bybee, former head of the Justice Departments Office of Legal Counsel under the Bush administration. The memo was released in April as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the ACLU.

For more information, visit:
http://www.aclu.org/torturedlogic

Ladies and Gentlemen, I received the following via e-mail:

Opponents of torture will rally at the University of St. Thomas School of Law, LaSalle Ave and 11th Street, Minneapolis, on Monday, August 24, 9 – 11 AM to bring letters and voices of discontent to Dean Thomas Mengler regarding Professor Robert Delahunty. Prior to his current stint as professor of constitutional law for St.Thomas University, Robert Delahunty, along with John Yoo, authored an infamous memo (1/9/02) for the U.S. Justice Department which advised that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the war against al Qaeda, the Taliban, and terrorism. The ‘legal’ advice of this memo helped the Bush administration to legitimize harsh methods of interrogation, which are widely understood to be torture.

The mission statement of St. Thomas University School of Law, posted currently at the University web site, reads, “The University of St. Thomas School of Law, as a Catholic law school, is dedicated to integrating faith and reason in the search for truth through a focus on morality and social justice”. Given this mission statement, many of us who also care about morality and social justice, wonder how the University of St.Thomas can justify maintaining Professor Delahunty on its teaching staff. We also wonder why Dean Mengler finds it necessary to defend Professor Delahunty. Is it the position of the University of St.Thomas Law School that Professor Delahunty’s position on torture is morally correct? Come to the rally August 24 (first day of classes) to hold Professor Delahunty and The University of St. Thomas Law School accountable.

For those who are willing to make it a slightly longer day, some of us will be marching with our banners and letters of discontent from The Center for Human Rights at the U of M to the rally at St. Thomas School of Law. We will be also carrying a copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, given to us by The Center for Human Rights. We hope that Dean Mengler and Robert Delahunty will read it. The Center for Human Rights is located in Mondale Hall, University of Minnesota, on the west bank (229 19th Ave. So). We will gather outside the north entrance of Mondale Hall at 7AM. The 2 mile march will begin promptly at 7:15. The march will go straight down Washington Avenue to Nicollet, turn left on Nicollet to 11th Ave, then turn right to St. Thomas University.

That’s next Monday morning; see you there.

(crossposted from MnProgressiveProject)

So I’m watching Gov. T-Bag, and I spit coffee on the keyboard when Gov. T-Bag said this:

The federal government has run every entitlement program they have essentially into the ground Medicare is broke. Medicaid is broke Social Security is broke they’ve running every program they have them — that nature into the ground why would we give them another one to run and manage into the ground.”

O
M
G.

Just exactly who – WHO – has “run the government” over the last, say, 40 years?

Nixon – 1969 to 1974; Ford 1974 to 1977 (GOP 8, Dems 0)

Carter, 1977 to 1981 (GOP 8, Dems 4)

Reagan 1981 to 1989 (GOP 16, Dems 4)

Bush The Elder, 1989 to 1993 (GOP 20, Dems 4)

Clinton 1993 to 2001 (GOP 20, Dems 12)

Bush The Lesser, 2001 to 2009 (GOP 28, Dems 12)

Over the last 40 years, the GOP has run the federal government, and it’s entitlement programs, for 28 of the last 40 years.

So, when Gov. T-Bag says the “government has run everything into the ground” – that’s HIS party he’s talking about.

And in a way, T-Bag is “right” – we should NOT give the GOP another chance to run government; they break EVERYTHING.

(crossposted from MnProgressiveProject)

McCain started talkin’ to Daddy Yankee about an endorsement in early August, according to FauxFox News (and since it’s Faux Fox News, ya know it’s true!), and brought out Daddy Yankee for the endorsement just the other day, in Phoenix.

Now, why anyone of color would want anything to do with the republiCon party is beyond me, but even more incredible is why anyone in the republiCon party – the “Party Of Family Values” would want Daddy Yankee’s endorsement is far beyond that.

Now, it’s not that I have any problem with what Daddy Yankee sings nor with the message Daddy Yankee sends. I got no problemo at all. I actually think it’s funny that McCain is takin’ this endorsement – after all, regular readers know the ol’ TwoPutter regulary points out hypocrisy in the GreedOverPrinciples party.

But, hey – it’s Daddy Yankee that’s gotta be laughin’ the hardest on this one! Here’s what Daddy Yankee said, about his song, at Bushy McSame’s campaign event:

The sound bite of the day came when the star (Daddy Yankee) was asked what his song “Gasolina” was about. Without hesitation he said, “Energy independence.”(Christian Science Monitor)

“energy independence”??!? ROFLMAO!!! I’ll bet Bushy bit on THAT one! Then again, Bushy McSame thought that the “Miss Buffalo Chip” contest he was gonna stick his wife in, was “a beauty pageant.”

republiCons believe the darndest things.

Here’s Daddy Yankee’s video – the lyrics follow.

shake it mambo so that my cat can turn on the engine,
shake it mambo so that my cat can turn on the engine,
shake it mambo so that my cat can turn on the engine,

Get ready, because whats coming is to give it to her, (hard!
Mamita, I know that you aren’t going to take away (hard!)
What I like is that you let yourself get taken away (hard!)
every weekend she goes out to have fun (hard!)
my cat doesn’t stop hanging out because

She likes gasoline (give me more gasoline!)
How she loves gasoline (give me more gasoline!) 2x

The turns on the turbine
she doesn’t discriminate
She doesn’t even miss a fancy dress dinner
She gets dressed up even to go to the corner store
She wears things so well that even shadow favors her
assasin, she dominates me
she hangs out in cars, motorcycles, and limousines,
she fills her tank with adrenaline,
when she listen to reggaeton in the kitchen

She likes gasoline (give me more gasoline!)
How she loves gasoline (give me more gasoline!) 2x

(me!) Here I’m one of the best
Don’t leave me
On the track they call us “the killers”
You make anyone fall in love
when you dance to the rhythm of the drums
this goes out to cats of all colors
for the older ones, for the younger ones,
for those who are more foxy (foxy = player) that the hunters
for the women who never turn off their engines

You and I have something coming
you owe me something and you know it
with me, she loses herself,
she doesn’t surrender explanations to anyone 2x

shake it mambo so that my cat can turn on the engine,
shake it mambo so that my cat can turn on the engine,
shake it mambo so that my cat can turn on the engine,

Get ready, because whats coming is to give it to her, (hard!
Mamita, I know that you aren’t going to take away (hard!)
What I like is that you let yourself get taken away (hard!)
every weekend she goes out to have fun (hard!)
my cat doesn’t stop hanging out because

She likes gasoline (give me more gasoline!)
how she loves gasoline (give me more gasoline!) 2x

(originally published at MnBlue.com)

So here’s the very first result upon googling “biden plagairsim” and then hitting “news”. That link appeared just 15 minutes ago, and here’s what it looks like:

August 23, 2008
Joe Biden’s plagiarism problem
Thomas Lifson(American Thinker)

“American Thinker” my (backside). “American Bootlicker” is more like it. These bootlickers are claiming that an alleged plagiarism incident from 1965 – FORTY-THREE (cheney)IN’ YEARS AGO – is a problem??!?

And here’s the “republiCons want it both ways” on this one, about an issue THIRTY years ago: McCain’s serial aduterous behavior needs no explanation, because – according to McCain – that was 30 years ago.

According to republiCons, plagiarism is a deep character flaw, but serial adultery by todays’ standard bearer for “The Party Of Family Values” is no problemo; an incident 43 years ago is worthy of discussion but 30 years ago is way in the past.

Ladies and Gentlemen, don’t fall for that pile of republiCon horse(apples).

From here on out, the first two words in Bushy McSame’s name is “Serial Adulterer.”

As in “Serial Adulterer Bushy McSame spoke last night at…” or as in “Serial Adulterer John McCain was on Fox News and…”

Ladies and gentlemen, I know it’s distasteful to stoop to the level republiCons thrive in, but serious times demand serious action. If you want to make the republiCons stop swimming in the sewer, you have to make it hurt – you have to make them feel the pain of trying to have it both ways. You have to hit back, and hit back hard.

To clearly demonstrate Bushy McSame’s Serial Adultery, watch this:

And then remember that to every one you talk to, it’s “Serial Adulterer John McCain did/said/etc….”

(originally published at MnBlue.com)