Brownback is Looking for Yellow Brick Road to White House

Bio Box Brownback
By The Associated Press

January 20, 2007, 1:38 PM EST

NAME — Sam Brownback.

AGE-BIRTH DATE-LOCATION — 50, Sept. 12, 1956, Garnett, Kan.

EXPERIENCE — U.S. senator, 1996-present; U.S. representative, 1995-1996; Kansas Secretary of Agriculture, 1986-1993.

EDUCATION — Bachelor’s degree, Kansas State University, 1979; law degree, University of Kansas, 1982.

FAMILY — Wife, Mary, five children.

QUOTE — “My family and I are taking the first steps on the yellow brick road to the White House. It’s a great journey.” — Brownback said as he announced his candidacy Saturday in Topeka, Kan.

Posted in Politicians | 1 Comment

Will the Real Alpha Democrat Please Stand Up

Hang It Up, Obama — It’s Hillary’s Nomination
by Matt Towery
Posted Jan 18, 2007

People often ask me who will be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008. I always answer without a trace of hesitation: “Hillary Clinton.”

Usually they look stunned. Whether they are rabidly pro-Hillary or rabid Hillary-haters from the GOP side of the fence, it makes no difference. They all seem to be buying into the misguided notion that Sen. Clinton is so controversial that she is entirely unelectable.

Partly thanks to that belief, “Obama mania” is sweeping the nation via newspaper and magazine headlines, and television news shows.

Like it or don’t like it, but trust me: Hillary will win the Democratic nomination.

For one thing, Obama is a red herring. Sure, it’s a novel and refreshing concept that a highly appealing black man could leapfrog to the head of the Democratic ticket. But black is not the key color here, green is.

Barack Obama is too green behind the gills to be ready for the most-prime prime time of all, a presidential campaign. Already, news reports like a January 16 Washington Post article are dissecting Obama’s record as a former Illinois state senator and calling it lacking. The bloom on the Obama rose will fade.

From the dispassionate perspective of public opinion polling, there’s little historical evidence from past presidential candidacies by prominent black politicians to suggest that black voters will blindly follow black candidates purely out of racial loyalty.

Obama is clearly miles above the quality of Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. Even so, if current numbers and past patterns hold, the best Obama can hope for is to carve some of the black vote away from Sen. Clinton, and then hope that white liberals propel him to the nomination.

If Hillary Clinton weren’t running, I’d give Obama’s candidacy a far better chance of success. But with possibly substantial dark-horse candidacies from Democrats such as Bill Richardson and John Edwards pulling votes this way and that, Hillary’s consistent candidacy and dedicated support base among voters make her the alpha in the pack. As the Democratic primary season approaches, her base will become more and more energetic.

Most analysts are missing a vital point. The vote is far enough away that many women who view themselves as political independents still have time to register as Democrats, or they will simply vote in the Democratic primary in states where party registration is not required.

Democratic Party caucuses may prove more problematic for Clinton — or maybe not. It’s in the world of caucuses that hard-core political junkies thrive. That means the old Bill and Hillary Clinton machine awaits, well-oiled and ready to rumble.

It’s true that several Democratic contenders besides Hillary will pull more conservative voters to their side. Yet I would argue that there are too darn few “conservative” voters left to determine the winner of the Democratic presidential nomination.

That leads to the other half of the equation. Can Hillary Clinton defeat a Republican nominee and become president?

Yes, quite possibly. For one thing, the Bush administration has so crippled the Republican Party that any GOP nominee likely will be running with a huge millstone around his or her neck.

With that in mind, realize that if the liberal Obama wins the Democratic nomination by beating the first truly viable woman presidential candidate in history, then even a wounded Republican nominee could probably win.

And no, a warmed-over Democratic nominee such as John Edwards likely wouldn’t do the trick for his party.

But a woman would, if that woman is so well-known that polls show she draws considerable support from independent women. Hillary does.

And don’t forget, we’re talking about a Clinton. They’re smart enough to know the value of a third-party candidate to shear off votes. If there’s another Ross Perot out there, they’ll find him.

The general election is so far off as to constitute a wild card from the perspective of now. Anything could happen.

But the Democratic nomination? Take it to the bank. It’s Hillary.

Mr. Towery served as the chairman of former Speaker Newt Gingrich’s political organization from 1992 until Gingrich left Congress. He is a former Georgia state representative, the author of several books and currently heads the polling and political information firm InsiderAdvantage.

Posted in Politicians | 1 Comment

Gonzales Talks About Torture in Blame Canada

`We knew damn well, if he went to Syria, he’d be tortured,’ senator tells Gonzales
Toronto Star
January 19, 2007
Tim Harper
WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON–U.S. Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales stoically endured a dressing-down from a Vermont senator yesterday over the case of Maher Arar Maher Arar Case , the Canadian tortured in Syria after being sent there by American authorities.
It was a sign of the changed atmosphere in Washington, where Democrats now rule Congress and have vowed tough oversight of what they consider the erosion of American liberties under the Bush administration’s so-called war on terror.

In an extraordinary scene at a Senate judiciary committee hearing, the bilateral Canada-U.S. issue exploded as the committee’s Democratic chair, Patrick Leahy, issued the clearest challenge yet to the Bush policy of rendition, essentially the contracting out of torture to third countries.

Leahy said the policy was “a black mark” on the United States.

“Canadians have been our closest allies, (we have) the longest unguarded frontier in the world,” Leahy said.

“They’re justifiably upset. They’re wondering what’s happened to us.”

Leahy also sparked laughter by mocking Gonzales’ statement that former Attorney-General John Ashcroft had received assurances from Syria that Arar would not be tortured.

“It is easy for us to sit here comfortably in this room knowing that we’re not going to be sent off to another country to be tortured, to treat it as though, well, Attorney General Ashcroft says we’ve got assurances,” Leahy said.

“Assurances from a country that we also say, now, we can’t talk to them because we can’t take their word for anything?”

Leahy and Gonzales sparred the same morning Public Security Minister Stockwell Day raised the Arar matter with U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.

Day told reporters his officials had recently seen “all the U.S. information” on Arar.

“And that does not change our position,” he said. “We are still maintaining that he should not be on that (no) fly list.”

Day said he was pleased to hear Gonzales promise to release more information.

Chertoff sought to turn the Arar case into a “hypothetical” issue, even after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay before Christmas that she’d have the homeland security chief review the case.

He said the issue only becomes relevant if someone presents themselves for entry to the U.S.

“Otherwise, it’s kind of a hypothetical issue,” Chertoff said.

Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian, was returning to Ottawa from a family vacation in 2002 when he was detained by American officials at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport – based on erroneous information provided by the RCMP, according to Justice Dennis O’Connor’s inquiry report – then “rendered” to Syria, where he was held for 10 months and tortured.

American authorities did not tell Canadian officials they had sent Arar to Syria.

The U.S. ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins, confirmed late last year that despite the findings of the Canadian probe, Arar remains on a U.S. watch list.

Leahy asked Gonzales why that was. The attorney general replied that he had “some very definite views” on the case, beyond that it is still in litigation.

Arar is appealing a New York court’s decision to deny him compensation for his treatment at the hands of the Americans.

But Gonzales would not expand on that, only telling Leahy he couldn’t answer the questions at the hearing, but would by next week.

“We knew damn well, if he went to Canada, he wouldn’t be tortured,” Leahy said. “He’d be held. He’d be investigated.

“We also knew damn well, if he went to Syria, he’d be tortured.

“And it’s beneath the dignity of this country, a country that has always been a beacon of human rights, to send somebody to another country to be tortured.”

Gonzales told Leahy he understood his government’s legal obligations when someone is extradited or rendered to another country and understood its obligations under the Conventions Against Torture.

It marked the first time Gonzales had used the word “rendered” in relation to Arar.

Until yesterday, he’d always characterized the case as a deportation.

Lorne Waldman, Arar’s Toronto lawyer, said he was heartened by Day’s comments indicating that Ottawa had seen the file and could see no terror links.

“It looks like we’re making some progress here,” he said. “It’ll be interesting to see the file, but it should tell us there was never any basis to keep him on the no-fly list.”

Gonzales appeared one day after the Bush administration announced it was ending a controversial domestic wiretapping program that bypassed court supervision, reversing itself and subjecting wiretaps to the courts.

The program had faced prolonged opposition, but Bush asserted his right to circumvent the court, until the Democrats took control of Congress.

“It is a little hard to see why it took so long,” said Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who headed the panel until his party lost power in November.

“There hasn’t been a sufficient sense of urgency” to change the policy, he said.

Posted in War and Peace | Comments Off on Gonzales Talks About Torture in Blame Canada

Senator John McCain Powers up for 2008

From New York Times Blog
McCain Powers Up His Media Team
By Jim Rutenberg

Senator John McCain has enlisted the core players of President Bush’s advertising team, adding them to what was already a group of bare-knuckled political advertising strategists working for his nascent campaign.
The Caucus has it exclusively that the senator’s 2008 exploratory committee is set to announce today that he has hired Russ Schriefer, Stuart Stevens and Fred Davis.
Mr. Schriefer and Mr. Stevens served on Mr. Bush’s media team in 2000 and 2004 and unleashed some of the president’s hardest charging ads.
Among the most memorable:
*John Kerry saying “I voted for it before I voted it against it” on that year’s $87 billion war appropriation.
*John Kerry windsurfing this way and that (whichever way the wind blows, get it?) in front of a ferry spurting water out of its bilge.
*Weapons systems disappearing off a desert battle-staging scene as an announcer ticks off those Mr. Kerry voted against.
And that’s just the top of their ad playlist.
Mr. Schriefer and Mr. Stevens also worked on the heated advertising campaign against Mr. McCain during the 2000 primary season –­ apparently impressing Mr. McCain, at least retrospectively. That experience may give them an edge in predicting spots likely to come from opponents this time around.
Mr. Davis is based in Hollywood, Calif., and has a cinematic style. He worked on, among others, the initial spots of the 2004 campaign in which Mr. Bush and First Lady Laura Bush spoke directly into the camera in the White House residence.
These days, he’s one of the rare Republicans riding atop wins in the latest campaign season — ­ having worked for Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bob Corker in Tennessee.
The newly hired consultants join a high-powered team already stacked with headliners, including Stevens, Reed, Curcio & Potholm — the firm that produced the ads for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that attacked Mr. Kerry.
And let’s not forget that Mr. McCain accumulated top-tier talent by bringing on Mark McKinnon, Mr. Bush’s chief media strategist in 2004.
People familiar with the structure of the latest deal say Mr. McKinnon will take on a sort of senior advisory role and Mr. Schriefer will fill the chief strategist role that Mr. McKinnon filled for Mr. Bush and will oversee the day-to-day media operation. Mr. Davis

Posted in Politicians | Comments Off on Senator John McCain Powers up for 2008

Fantasy Role Playing Politics

Posted in Political Humor, VIDEO | Comments Off on Fantasy Role Playing Politics

Republican Senators slowly start to wean themselves from Bush

Republican rebels defy Bush line

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Thursday January 18, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

Republican senator Chuck Hagel
Chuck Hagel is one of two Republican co-sponsors of a Democratic Senate resolution opposing extra US forces. Photograph: Stefan Zaklin/EPA

The Republican leadership was struggling to maintain a united front with the White House on the Iraq war today after two leading senators broke ranks to vote against the proposed troop increase.In the latest sign of rebellion against President George Bush’s plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq, Republican senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia Snowe of Maine agreed to co-sponsor a Democratic resolution against the additional forces.

“It is wrong to put American troops in the middle of a civil war – Iraqis killing Iraqis, Shias killing Sunnis, Sunnis killing each other, Shias killing each other,” Mr Hagel, a Vietnam veteran, told ABC television. “To feed more American troops into this bloodbath is wrong.”

Mr Hagel is viewed as a potential contender in the 2008 presidential elections, which would make him very attentive to opinion polls showing a majority of Americans opposed to the troop increase.

Such calculations could also underlie the decision by a conservative Republican senator, Sam Brownback, to break with the White House. He is due to announce his candidacy in 2008 from his home state of Kansas tomorrow. On his return from a trip to Iraq on Wednesday, he called for a new round of diplomacy instead of more troops, arguing that the Iraqi government was not sufficiently engaged with trying to bring peace.

“All of this suggests that, at the present time, the United States cares more about a peaceful Iraq than the Iraqis do. If that is the case, it is difficult to understand why more US troops would make a difference,” Mr Brownback told the Senate.

With many Republicans worried that Iraq could prove as devastating in the 2008 presidential vote as it did in 2006, the party has been hard-pressed to maintain loyalty with the White House. A number of party rebels are from states that voted for Democrats in November, and are afraid of losing their seats in 2008.

The White House spokesman, Tony Snow has indicated that those who embarrass the administration will not face an easy time. “What message does Congress intend to give?” he asked. “And who does it think the audience is? Is the audience merely the president? Is it the voting American public or, in an age of instant communication, is it also al-Qaida?”

That is the end of the artcle from the Guardian, but is Tony Snow saying that these Senators are working on behalf of al-Qaida? And if not, as he claims, then what in the hell is he saying? Is this just more of the politics of fear from this White House?

Alan

Posted in Politicians, War and Peace | Comments Off on Republican Senators slowly start to wean themselves from Bush

Guest post; what would you do if…

Your country were attacked? You’re horrible dictator were hanged after a kangaroo court proceeding? Your army was disbanded by the invading army? Foreign troops take your cities? They remove you from your home? When you find some place to live you have intermittent power for 4 years so you can’t keep limited food supplies from rotting and can’t feed your children? You can’t bathe or mix baby formula because there’s no water? There’s 70% unemployment? They take control of your natural resources? People around you are fired from their jobs for their political affiliations? People are rounded up in the middle of the night and you never see them again? Raids are killing your neighbors, women, and children? You’re called evil and have lost almost all your god given human rights? Your people are being tortured in foreign countries? The invading army was building 14 permanent military bases and the largest foreign consulate ever? Your schools and hospitals are mostly closed and when they’re open are intermittently bombed? If you complain you’re taken to a foreign country and tortured? The leader of the invaders is threatening yours and other countries with nuclear attack?

I know what I’d do.

I’d fight to the death.

Now, what would you do if your President were responsible?

89% of Iraqi’s want us to leave. We were lied to in order to go to war. The CIA laughed at the “evidence” of WMDs. 15 U.S. intelligence agencies discredited the same spurious proof. The military warned about the poor strategy of going into Iraq. Everyone who spoke up was discredited. One of the major spearheads of the CIA effort to stop proliferation of nuclear weapons was destroyed to conceal the lies leading to an unknown number of disappearances, death and torture of undercover agents across the world in the process. The President has said in Congressional Examination “We have found no ties between Iraq and Al Queda.” Yet he continues to tie the two together to justify the invasion. $8,000,000,000,000 went missing in the first week of the invasion. Evidence that the attack on Iraq was planned prior to 9/11 has been silenced as “against national security.” One of the most respected newsmen in America was forced out for bringing up allegations of a forged military record of our President while the information on that forged record was never discredited. We, our relatives, friends, and future children each owe over $30,000 to support this war.

This is not about the troops. This is about the leadership.

Contact your local representatives. It’s time to call for impeachment of this administration. It won’t happen without you demanding it.

This post is from a fantasy football sight I participate in.  The Writer is The BitterGators.  This was copied here without his permission, but I hope to get more ramblings from him in the future, and with his permission next time.  This is just an example of writtings I would like to include on this sight.  Thoughtful and Insightful.  thanks BitterGators.

Posted in Guest Posts, War and Peace | Comments Off on Guest post; what would you do if…

Troops bring back sand disease

Troops Being Treated For Leishmaniasis
By Lisa Burgess
Stars and Stripes
European Edition

March 20, 2004, 

ARLINGTON, Va. — About 500 soldiers who have served in Iraq have been diagnosed with a skin disease caused by sand flies in the largest outbreak of leishmaniasis faced by the U.S. military since World War II, according to Defense Department doctors.  

The disease is caused by parasites transmitted via sand fly saliva, and comes in three forms: cutaneous, affecting the skin; mucosal, affecting the mouth, nose and throat; and visceral, affecting internal organs, which can be fatal if untreated.

All but two of the cases diagnosed so far have been the cutaneous form and all but three of those were contracted in Iraq, according to Dr. Alan Magill, a specialist in infectious diseases at Walter Reed Army Institute of Research in Maryland.

The remaining three cases of cutaneous “leish” were contracted by U.S. servicemembers deployed to Afghanistan, Magill said in a Thursday interview, as were the two cases of visceral leishmaniasis.

The last time the Pentagon doctors had to cope with a leishmaniasis outbreak was 1943, when about 1,000 U.S. soldiers stationed in what is now Iran came down with the cutaneous version.

Significant numbers of U.S. troops also were deployed to countries where leishmaniasis is a risk during Operation Desert Storm.

But that conflict produced just 32 confirmed cases — probably because almost all the servicemembers were deployed in November 1990 and were sent home before peak sand fly season, which runs from late March to late September.

“We got lucky,” Magill said.

When it came time for Operation Iraqi Freedom, however, DOD’s core group of about a dozen “leish” specialists were certain that luck would not hold.

“We were sending thousands of troops to an area of known disease,” Magill said, under conditions ripe for maximum sand fly exposure.

The troops were entering Iraq just as the sand flies were beginning to multiply. Insect control programs were limited to the sprays and salves soldiers could apply on the move. And the troops were living “in the rough,” bedding down atop vehicles or directly on the ground.

“So it was absolutely no surprise” when hundreds of troops were affected, Magill said.

Experts from the 520th Theater Army Medical Laboratory began testing sand flies for leishmaniasis in Iraq in June.

“We found an enormous amount were infected,” Magill said. “We knew right then and there we were going to see lots of cases.”

But it wasn’t until late August that the first case was confirmed, Magill said — in part because cutaneous leishmaniasis has a two- to eight-week incubation period; and also because samples from all suspect lesions have to be sent back to Walter Reed for evaluation.

By October, “we knew there were scores of cases” among Iraq-deployed troops, Magill said. “And late November was about the time everything really ramped up.”

Military experts believe the numbers will drop in the second Iraq rotation, Magill said.

“I’m pretty sure we’ll see fewer cases this time around,” he said. “Troops are moving around less,” with less makeshift billeting, and commanders have had time to implement rodent-control programs that in turn help control the sand flies.

Magill and his colleagues have also worked hard to educate both medical personnel and troops, traveling both in Iraq and to bases in the United States to spread the word.

“There certainly has been an attempt to get the message out,” Magill said. “Ninety percent of the battle is just getting people thinking about it.”

Meanwhile, to handle the current influx of patients, DOD officials are opening a second treatment center at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio that will be authorized by the Food and Drug Administration to administer Pentostam, the only drug used to treat the cutaneous version.

Brooke will open to servicemembers “within weeks” for leishmaniasis and will join Walter Reed as the only facilities in the United States with the FDA certifications to administer the investigational drug.

Cutaneous patients receive Pentostam intravenously for 10 to 20 days. But only the more serious cases require the often-uncomfortable regime, Magill said.

Mild cases can be treated with liquid nitrogen, which freezes the lesions and kills the parasites. Doctors can also carefully apply heat to stop the infestations, Magill said.

But the best news is that cutaneous leishmaniasis heals by itself in time, even without treatment, Magill said.

“I don’t care how bad [the lesions] look,” he said. “It may take a year more, but they will all heal.”

About 200 of the diagnosed servicemembers have decided to let the lesions heal, despite the military’s offer of medical treatment, he said.

Posted in War and Peace | 1 Comment

Bush doesn’t approve of what’s going on in Iraq

    President Bush: “I’m frustrated at times about Iraq because I understand the consequences of failure. I want the Iraqis to succeed for our own sake. This is a war; part of a broader war, and that if we fail in Iraq, there is a better likelihood that the enemy comes and hurts us here. And so, I am frustrated with the progress. If you were to take it and put me in an opinion poll and said do I approve of Iraq, I’d be one of those that said, no, I don’t approve of what’s taking place in Iraq.”  This is President Bush from a recent interview on PBS with Jim Lehrer.  Yet at the same time Bush is going on through with his plan to send an additional 21,000 troops to Iraq.  The Senate and House are expected to vote on this soon as well with talks of caps on troops and US Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) introduced legislation requiring the President to get Congressional approval before sending more troops to Iraq.   There is opposition to this troop build up on both sides of the aisle with at least a dozen Republicans against the “surge”.  Bush is also going against the the will of military leaders, foreign policy experts, and the  American public with this decision.   I don’t see how adding more troops will help a civil war, just make more targets.   And if he doesn’t approve of what’s going on now, I doubt he will like what is coming.  Even though Congress can, and probably will vote against this idea, they can’t stop it.  The money is already in the pipeline, and approved.  The house knows this already, it is just a political show for us the constiuents.  Entering this war was a grave mistake, and getting out will cost pleanty.  We can’t fix these problems with the force, and should stop now.  We enterered this war on false premises, weapons of mass destruction, ect.  And I am sure they will continue this war on more falsehoods.   I feel President Bush doesn’t want out of this war before he leaves office.  That way “losing” this war will be on the next Presidents shoulders.  The only thing Bush is really working on right now is his legacy.  The Right Wing would like to compare him to Lincoln, another President caught up in war, but in reality he is more like Hoover.   At least we all agree on one thing, the majority of us don’t approve of what’s going on in Iraq. 
    Alan
Posted in Politicians, War and Peace | Comments Off on Bush doesn’t approve of what’s going on in Iraq

Bush bumper Stickers

 1) 1/20/09: End of an Error

 2) That’s OK, I Wasn’t Using My Civil Liberties Anyway

 3) Let’s Fix Democracy in This Country First

4) If You Want a Nation Ruled By Religion, Move to Iran

5) Bush. Like a Rock. Only Dumber.

6) If You Can Read This, You’re Not Our President

7) Of Course It Hurts: You’re Getting Screwed by an Elephant

8) Hey Bush Supporters: Embarrassed Yet?

9) George Bush: Creating the Terrorists Our Kids Will Have to Fight

10) Impeachment: It’s Not Just for Sex Anymore

11) America: One Nation, Under Surveillance

12) They Call Him “W” So He Can Spell It

13) Whose God Do You Kill For?
14) Cheney/Satan ’08

15) Jail to the Chief

16) No, Seriously, Why Did We Invade Iraq?

17) Bush: God’s Way of Proving Intelligent Design has flaws.

18) Bad President! No Banana.

19) We Need a President Who’s Fluent In At Least One Language

20) We’re Making Enemies Faster Than We Can Kill Them

21) Is It Vietnam Yet?

22) Bush Doesn’t Care About White People, Either

23) Where Are We Going? And Why Are We In This Handbasket?

24) You Elected Him. You Deserve Him.

25) Impeach Cheney First

26) Pray For Impeachment

27) The Republican Party:  Our Bridge to the 11th Century

28) What Part of “Bush Lied” Don’t You Understand?

29) One Nation Under Clod

30) 2004:  Embarrassed
     2005: Horrified
     2006: Terrified

31) Bush Never Exhaled
32) “I never thought I’d Miss Nixon.”
33) Support our Troops, Bring them home Alive

Posted in Political Humor | 1 Comment