John Kerry Was Right, Part II

When George Bush unveiled his new Iraq strategy last week, most people focused on his plan to send 21,000 additional troops. That plan was roundly criticized by both Republicans and Democrats as not meeting the needs of the Iraq or the U.S.

While the troop surge was probably the highlight of the plan, and the part Bush and Dick Cheney focused on, administration staffers who were given the task of actually improving the situation in Iraq may have secretly devising plans based on reality rather than politics.

In other words, whether of not they actually listened to Sen. John Kerry's criticism of why Bush is stuck in Iraq, they are now doing the things Kerry said Bush had not in previous planning, or lack of planning.

In the past, the problem was that the Bush administration tried to use Iraq as an experiment to test their political theories rather than trying to win the peace. That approach may now change.

As the Washington Post pointed out, desperate for new approaches to stifle the persistent Sunni insurgency and Shiite death squads that are jointly pushing the country toward an all-out civil war, the White House made a striking about-face last week, embracing strategies and people it once opposed or cast aside.

So apparently staffers are now studying the situation, doing their homework on why the previous efforts didn't work and are trying to be smart this time.

"The plan unveiled by Bush last week calls for many people who lost their jobs under Bremer's de-Baathification decree to be rehired. It calls for more Sunnis, who were marginalized under the CPA, to be brought into the government. It calls for state-owned factories to be reopened. It calls for more reconstruction personnel to be stationed outside the Green Zone. It calls for a counterinsurgency strategy that emphasizes providing security to the civilian population over transferring responsibility to local military forces."

Those people include Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, who will take over command of all coalition forces in Iraq. During his first tour, the Post said Petraus didn't care for the original tactics, saying "he chafed at the way reconstruction funds, personnel and decision-making were centralized in Baghdad. The CPA's policies, he said in 2004, should have been "tempered by reality.'"

Reality, gee what a concept. Next thing you know the administration will look at the various nuances of the situation, and not just look at everything as black and white. Perhaps then we will see a start toward solving the mess in Iraq.

John Kerry Was Right

All those "smart" people who had such a fun time instigating or perpetrating outrage over Sen. John Kerry's purported criticism of the American troops can now satisfy themselves with the knowledge that the U.S. will be stuck in Iraq for a very long time.

And why are we stuck? Because, just as Kerry said, Bush didn't study, didn't do his homework and didn't try to be smart. Instead Bush decided he was the decider and what he believed was the truth, no matter how little truth was in his beliefs, and so he got stuck in Iraq.

Following hearings on Thursday, the Washington Post reported Sen. Joe Biden asked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice how long she thought American forces would need to stay in Iraq. She responded that she could not give an "exact timetable."

Rice's condescending comments were code for a very long time. So why are we stuck in Iraq? Because Bush had some grand vision for Iraq and now, 27 months too late the public, the Congress, and possiby even the military, has finally figured out that Bush didn't do his homework and got us in a mess.

The Post mentioned that at the hearings "not a single senator from either party said they supported the president's plan, many posed hostile questions, and others expressed deep doubt about the Bush administration's premise of creating a viable democracy in the heart of the Middle East."

So Bush's original grand theory was all an illusion. And his new theory?

"I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out," said Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.

And with that the country can be assured that there will be no early exit from Iraq.

Day 2: Act Like Americans, Not Like Republicans

If anyone had any doubt that conservatives don't believe in the golden rule, all one has to do is look at the continual whining from conservatives that the Democrats are treating them (gasp!) like Republicans used to treat Democrats.

Consider the following gem of a statement from the House Minority Leader.

"What we really expect out of the Democrats is for them to treat us as they would have liked to have been treated,” the Kansas City Star reported.

Like they would have liked to have been treated?????

The Wall Street Journal piled on saying Democrats "deserve full marks for paying attention while in the minority, because it's clear Democrats learned a few things from Tom DeLay--to wit, how to rush through legislation without any minority participation or public debate."

Gee, I guess after years of GOP rule in the House & Senate that put the country in precarious financial and security standing it must be surprising that the Democrats aren't rushing to get Republicans involved in the process.

David Ignatius of the Washington Post noted that "Now that the Democrats have taken control of Congress, President Bush has decided it's time for fiscal discipline and a balanced budget. That's shameless, even by local standards. Who does Bush think was in power when the big deficits of the past six years were created?"

Think about it, who would let someone drive a car after a series of accidents or who would ask that driver for directions or help driving? It's time to let the GOP wise up and pay for the consequences of their rule.

GOP: Act Like Americans, Not Like Republicans

After six years of screwing the country and Democrats the GOP received a rude response in November when the public told them to take a hike. So what is the GOP's response?

In an editorial in the Wall Street Journal George Bush suggests "we can't play politics as usual" and the Washington Post reports that Republican Representatives are demanding that "the new Democratic majority give the new Republican minority all the rights that Republicans had denied Democrats for years."

That's right, the GOP doesn't want Democrats to act like Republicans. And they probably won't. That's the difference between Democrats and Republicans. When Republicans are treated "unfairly" conservatives rush to complain and everyone is concerned. When Democrats (calling Al Gore) get screwed, it's just business as usual. So basically it's okay for the GOP to play politics as usual to steal an election or prevent the Democrats from being involved, but very, very wrong to offend Republicans.

(In 2004 the Post reported that GOP Speaker J. Dennis Hastert initiated a policy in which Congress would pass bills only if most House Republicans back them, regardless of how many Democrats favored them.)

Apparently the GOP doesn't have a clue on why they lost, possibly Karl Rove got to them and told them the election was too close to consider a loss. In reality, the Democratic takeover of Congress, while fairly slim, was amazing when one considers the gerrymandering that GOP leaders at the state level put in place to limit voters' ability to remove House Republicans from office.

The Senate takeover was even more amazing considering it required taking out six Republican Senators: a GOP leader (Santorum), four red state senators (Ohio, Montana, Missouri, Virginia), and a RINO in Rhode Island while not losing a single Senate seat.

So after six years of AWOL leadership in the White House, it's the Democrats turn to show some leadership. It will be interesting to see if the GOP tries to throw roadblocks in the way of getting America back on track.

Bush's Iraq Mess

With the start of a new year and only two years left to have any kind of impact on his legacy, George Bush might want to thoroughly consider why Iraq is such a mess on his watch. The reason? Throughout his life Bush has relied on friends to fix his many mistakes or help him be successful.

In Iraq Bush was relying on the military to clean-up his mess however initially he wasn't willing to have an adequate number of troops to make the situation work. In addition, in Afghanistan he took a situation that initially was successful into a situation that is deteriorating.

None of this should be a surprise to anyone. One only has to look at Bush's past to guess that Iraq would turn into a mess. Time after time Bush has made a mess out of things (dodging the draft, not having to take military medical tests, his oil companies, the 2000 election) yet was bailed by friends of the family.

However in Iraq, there are no family fixers available to end the civil war. James Baker was called in to help Bush, by way of the Iraq Study Group (ISG), to try to find a way to get the US unstuck from Iraq, but Bush has basically said he will ignore the report.

Baker, along with former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, probably figured their service on the ISG was in penance for their role in putting Bush in the White House in the first place. One has to wonder how many sleepless nights each had considering their roles in deciding the results.

While both may have figured service on the ISG would cover up for their involvement in the election, this time, as they say about Humpty Dumpty,

All the king's horses and all the king's men

Couldn't put Humpty together again.

Remembering President Ford

With the recent death of President Gerald R. Ford, the media has done a lot of examination of Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon and how it saved the country a lot of turmoil that would have resulted from a trial. Interestingly there is little comparison to all the problems caused by the investigations into President Clinton.

More than 30 years after Watergate many Americans still are a little troubled about what Nixon did, yet may be now willing to accept that the country was better off with the pardon. As Ford said when he took office, "Our long national nightmare is over." Yet merely five years after the 1998-99 impeachment hearings there was hardly a peep in the media and the public to note this anniversary. In addition, one only has to look at how impeachment is only an afterthought to any discussions regarding Hillary Clinton's potential run for the presidency in 2008, 10 years after the hearings.

In 1974 Gerry Ford took one for the country and pardoned Nixon because he placed the country over his personal interests. By comparison the GOP placed its personal interests about in 1998 was going after President Clinton. And while the investigations cost them at the ballot box in 1998, their harping on it may have provided the margin that allowed them to be in the lead in Florida in 2000 when the vote counting was halted.

An important part of Democracy is participants understanding and willingness to lose and turn over power following elections. Ford made a tough choice and lost a close election and probably had to think that the pardon was responsible for the slim margin of defeat. Years later, President Clinton conferred on Ford the Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor for his service.

While President Jimmy Carter was a fine man, the nation may have been better off with Ford in office. Unfortunately this scenario repeated itself in 2000 when the Clinton impeachment probably contributed to Vice President Al Gore's loss. In this case there is no doubt that the country would have been much better off if Bush hadn't been placed in the White House.

It's hard to believe that the party of Lincoln and Ford is now the party of Bush.

Making the World...Less Safe?

When George Bush announced he was considering adding additional troops a lot of people probably thought "golly gee whilikers, why hadn't anyone thought of that before?"

Yeah, why hadn't that been considered before? Say during an election campaign, for instance in 2004? You say someone did discuss that? John Kerry? Surely not, the media would have been all over the story that the Bush administration is following John Kerry's recommendation. Right? Oh, yeah, right, we're talking about the Washington Typists here. Never mind...

However, let's go back to the way back machine. In early June 2004 Kerry said "more U.S. troops and a new president could be needed to win international support for U.S. efforts in postwar Iraq." And how did the Bush administration react? Bush's campaign manager, Ken Mehlman, said the country would be "less safe" under Kerry's approach.

So is Bush now working to make the country "less safe"? Or was Kerry the only realist on the campaign trail in 2004 and the Bushies didn't care whether they were being honest, all they cared about was confusing the public just enough and just long enough to win the 2004 race.

Did Bush Listen to Kerry's Criticisms?

After watching George Bush blast Sen. Kerry for his criticisms of Bush over failing to study and do his homework on Iraq, Bush's recent actions leads one to wonder if Bush has realized that Kerry was correct and the only "Way Forward" is to do what Kerry said Bush wasn't doing.

For anyone who forgot, prior to the elections, Kerry told a group of supporters - 'You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.''

After more than three years of being unprepared for the situations that arose following the military victory, the Administration finds itself stuck in Iraq and witnessing daily incidents of carnage killing both Americans and Iraqis.

Finding his administration stuck in Iraq and the public turned away from his policy, Bush has recieved the Iraq Study Group report, visited with U.S. military commanders and also talked with others about "a new way forward."

So Bush is now is trying (at least make an appearance) to study hard on Iraq, to do his homework, and make an effort to be smart so he can find a “way forward,” as opposed to being stuck in Iraq.

So Bush is finally doing the things Kerry criticized him for not doing yet has anyone in the media connected the dots between Kerry’s comments and Bush's recent actions? Of course Bush may not be serious about education and actually have no interest in studying or doing his homework and if that's true the U.S. will remain stuck in Iraq.

So did Bush listen to Kerry's criticism or was Kerry was right? I'm guessing Kerry was right and perhaps that was why Republicans reacted so dishonestly to his criticisms.

Shocking! Media's Drubbing of Kerry Leads to Poor Rating

The media jackals latest point of interest is a survey by Quinnipiac University on the likeability of various potential presidential candidates and politicians. The Washington Typists have focused on the simple part of the story, Rudy Giuliani was the favorite of the 20 and John Kerry was 20th of 20.

Al Gore came in 14th and George Bush came in 15th, yet Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post talks about how in 2000 Bush was the more likeable and that's why he won. Right.

Well, why wasn't Gore, who defeated Bush by 500,000 votes in 2000 and won Florida if all the votes were counted, "the candidate voters were more comfortable welcoming into their living rooms for the next four years?" Maybe the Post should look in a mirror.

As John Harris (ex?) of the Post wrote in is new book: "A number of members of the Gang of 500 are convinced that the main reason George W. Bush won the White House and Al Gore lost was that Gore's regular press pack included the trio of Katherine 'Kit' Seelye (of the New York Times), Ceci Connolly (of the Washington Post), and Sandra Sobieraj (of the Associated Press)."

As the Daily Howler has pointed out about the Post's coverage - "Ceci Connolly made it up about Gore for twenty straight months. And on occasion, John Harris helped out."

Talk about an inconvenient truth! Unfortunately, the Post helps establish the public's view of a candidate and having someone like Ceci trash Gore enabled Bush to steal the election and lead the US to be stuck (yes, stuck) in a war in Iraq. (Hope she's happy with her work!)

By the same token, the Washington Typists were lead by the nose by the White House over John Kerry sarcastic comment about Bush getting the country stuck in Iraq and lead the charge to demand an apology to those who were either too disinterested or dishonest in learning what Kerry actually said. The Typists efforts played a large role in Kerry's poor rating in the poll.

Grand Old Hypocrites

Members of the Grand Old Hypocrites party were out in full force on Wednesday displaying an amazing, and little questioned, ability to lie and spin their way to attack Sen. John Kerry regarding their own inability to understand the English language.

On the Rush Limbaugh show, only days after Rush made fun of actor Michael J. Fox and his suffering from the effects of Parkinson's Disease, George Bush had the gall to say “Anybody who is in a position to serve this country ought to understand the consequences of words.”

Gee, was Bush speaking about Rush, or himself?

This also days after Bush disgustingly all but called Democrats supporters of terrorism. So according to members of the GOH, it is okay to make fun of people with disesases or suggest your opponent supports terrorism, yet it is wrong, very wrong, to tell a joke that can be misinterpreted by only the lazy or dishonest?

For example the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz joined other members of the Washington Typists in lazily repeated Republican talking points, calling Kerry's joke "a crack about uneducated soldiers." No doubt the GOH was pleased with his typing.

Laura Bush joined in, saying "we must conduct our debate here at home in a way that does not jeopardize our troops in harm's way,” and called for “conversations conducted with civility and respect.”

So implying your opponents are supporters of terrorism is a conversation "conducted with civility and respect"? Hah! If anything her husbands comments place U.S. troops in greater harm than a criticism of the president. But then, what does Bush care, other than doing whatever it takes to "win" an election.

Bush Attacks Troops

In a sign of desperation one week before mid-term elections that could effectively end his Presidency (six years too late), George Bush attacked a decorated military veteran in an effort to win votes.

Responding to criticisms by Sen. John Kerry that Bush and the administration didn't bother to study about Iraq, didn't bother to do the proper background work, or try to find out about the situation prior to invading Iraq. Bush ignored Kerry's criticism and lied about what Kerry said, implying that criticism of Bush are criticisms of the troops.

And in a further sign of desperation, according to the Washington Post, the White House tipped off television networks to when Bush would attack the military, so the comments could be carried live and make the evening news.

What Kerry actually said was "Education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

So did Bush make the most of educating himself on whether there were WMDs in Iraq? Did he study hard enough regarding the situation in Iraq. Did he figure out the smartest approach to the situation? No, and so what happened? Bush got the military stuck in Iraq.

How anyone could think this was a criticism of the troops is unbelievable. However, Sen. John McCain bought into the lies, perhaps in hopes that by selling his reputation he can be President some day. In reality it will more likely raise questions about his ability to be a leader. For if he can't determine the meaning of such a statement than he has no business being president.

But this type of dishonest approach is typical of conservatives and the White House. However one has to wonder if anyone will figure out that if Bush believes that if Kerry's attack on Bush is an attack on the troops, then Bush's attack on Kerry is also an attack on the troops.

In actuality, the attack on Kerry is closer to attack on the troops since he actually served in a war overseas and Bush ended his military career with questions regarding whether he went AWOL in order to avoid a medical exam.

GOP Enlists Osama to Help with Mid-Terms

With the mid-term election only two weeks away, and polls showing the potential for the Democrats retaking the House and possibly the Senate, the Republican Party has called on an old ally to help them win elections.

As others on the web pointed out, on Oct. 29, 2004, just four days before the U.S. presidential election, al-Qaeda leader Osama bin-Laden released a videotape denouncing George W. Bush. Some Bush supporters quickly spun the diatribe as "Osama's endorsement of John Kerry." But behind the walls of the CIA, analysts had concluded the opposite: that bin-Laden was trying to help Bush gain a second term.

With it uncertain whether Osama would be willing to assist the Republican in 2006, reports in the Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune say the GOP has decided to enlist him in ads. While the ads has lots of references to terrorists, and implies that Democrats would be a bad choice.

But what it doesn't say is that the GOP's Cut and Run strategy in Afghanistan has emboldened terrorists and it's Stay and Die strategy in Iraq has only lead to the deaths of many American's and Iraqis.

One could only imagine where the world would be today if the administration had taken the war on terror seriously and actually gone after the people who attacked the United States on September 11. Instead they went off on another directions, requiring the US to basically give up on the War on Terror before it was won.

Perhaps the reason the Administration didn't go after Osama is that if they captured or killed him then Iraq would not be viewed as part of the war on terror and being able to attack Iraq was more important that winning the war.

National Debt Up $574 Billion

The U.S. national debt increased by more than $574 billion in the fiscal year ending September 30, a $20 billion increase over the previous year, according to figures from the Department of Treasury.

The Bureau of Public Debt reported that the national debt was $8.506 trillion as of September 29, the last business day of the fiscal year. The government had ended the previous year at $7.932 trillion, an increase of $553 billion over the year ending September 30, 2004.

This marks the fourth consecutive year that the national debt has increased by more than $500 billion and fifth that the increase was more than $400 billion. The last time the national debt increase was under $100 billion was in 2000 when Bill Clinton was President and the debt increased by only $17 billion.

One unusual note about the 2000 increase was that in the two weeks prior to the end of the fiscal year and the two weeks after the end of the fiscal year, the national debt ranged from a decrease of $12 billion from the previous year to an increase of $6 billion. Only on the last day of the year did the debt increase reach $17 billion.

The administration and the press, such as the Washington Post, are reporting that the federal deficit "fell" to a four-year low in the budget year that just ended at $247.7 billion.

The Post did report that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that the deficit for the current budget year will rise to $286 billion. Over the next decade, the office forecasts that the deficit will total $1.76 trillion.

One of the reason the administration reported lower numbers is that they were able to use Social Security to mask the deficit.

The Need to Fight Back

If Democrats want to learn what they need to do win all they do is watch President Clinton's response to Chris Wallace and (to ABC's recent alleged documentary on 9/11). The lesson is that one has to fight back as conservatives have no problem in dishonestly fighting.

During the interview Chris Wallace attempted to say that the only reason he was asking about Clinton not being able to take out Osama bin Laden was that FOX News viewers had it on their mind. To that Clinton raised the major point that the media is unwilling to discuss.

"Well, there's a reason it's on people's minds. That's the point I'm trying to make. There's a reason it's on people's minds: Because there's been a serious disinformation campaign to create that impression," Clinton said.

For years the Democrats have faced disinformation campaigns (homeland security in 2002, swift boats in 2004, and torture in 2006) and Republicans came out ahead in the first two elections. Unless they figure out what happen before, history will repeat as Republican have no other issues that could gain American's support, as Clinton pointed out happened in 2002.

"In 2002, our party supported them in undertaking weapons inspections in Iraq and was 100 percent for what happened in Afghanistan, and they didn't have any way to make us look like we didn't care about terror.

And so, they decided they would be for the homeland security bill that they had opposed. And they put a poison pill in it that we wouldn't pass, like taking the job rights away from 170,000 people, and then say that we were weak on terror if we weren't for it."

Democrats need to listen to Clinton if they are going to win this year - This is perfectly predictable: We're going to win a lot of seats if the American people aren't afraid. If they're afraid and we get divided again, then we may only win a few seats.

The causes of 9/11

Five years after the attacks on September 11, 2001, the country and the media took a long look back at the attacks and noted the importance of the events. Perhaps one can tell the importance of an event by the amount of time people spend on remembering an event.

More than 200 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence the country annually celebrates the birth of the country. For more than 40 years the country has looked back on November 22 to remember where they, or the country, was on that fateful day.

Part of the fifth anniversary events surrounding the 9/11 attacks was a so called docudrama on ABC, called the Path to 9/11. According to news reports, the show seeks to blame the Clinton administration for the attacks, in part suggesting that the administration was preoccupied with Monica Lewinsky.

If correct, that reflects just as badly, or worse, on conservatives and the media for they are responsible for the excessive time spent on Whitewater/Monica. One has to wonder if the resources spent on this meaningless event were spent on finding and fighting terrorism, could 9/11 have been prevented?

Conservatives may argue that it was important to investigate but that argument falls flat when one considers how little was made of the fifth anniversary of the impeachment hearings of President Clinton. Oh, a few in the media remembered the event, if only in their mind to justify what they had done.

So if there was little or nothing to the Clinton investigations and conservatives believe that Clinton was preoccupied with the investigations, and that preoccupation with the investigations kept the U.S. from preventing 9/11, then doesn't it stand that those who pushed the investigations helped set the stage for 9/11?

So if we are going to assign blame, will the GOP, conservatives, and many in the media be held accountable for their role in allowing 9/11 to happen?

Funny Business in Ohio?

One of the hallmarks of the Bush administration is that they make various claims and belittle people who don't swallow the claims hook, line and sinker. After awhile, when the claims turn out to be as valid as WMDs in Iraq, the administration changes the story to a new line, ignoring the old, leaving only historians and opponents to figure out the truth.

The latest news out of Ohio that that rather than destroying the ballots from the 2004 Presidential election as soon as they can following the 22 month waiting period, J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Ohio secretary of state, has decided to wait.

The New York Times said that "critics, including an independent candidate for governor and a team of statisticians and lawyers, say preliminary results from their ballot inspections show signs of more widespread irregularities than previously known."

Those inspecting the ballots aren't trying to say that Kerry should be President, although one has to wonder if that was required. The Times reported that the investigation has not inspected all 5.6 million ballots in the election because the critics were not given access to them until January. That followed an agreement by the League of Women Voters, a plaintiff in another election suit against the state, that it was not contesting the 2004 results.

However, after eight months inspecting 35,000 ballots from 75 rural and urban precincts, the critics say that they have found many with signs of tampering and that in some precincts the number of voters differs significantly from the certified results.

Gee, right on time. One would hardly be surprised to eventually find out that John Kerry did win Ohio, and therefore should have been President. Is it ironic that the current president talks long and hard about developing democracies in the middle east yet his team has harmed democracy more in the United States than most people ever will.

Democratic Party representatives said that the the investigations haven't found anything new, although one has to wonder if they also don't want the truth uncovered as it would show that the election should have been contested.

The Kerry Edwards team pledged to support the idea of every vote would count and every vote would be counted but it appears they may have gotten rolled by Rove Inc. Washington Governor Christine Gregoire figured that out and is the reason she is governor

Conservatives: Faked Photos Bad, Words OK

After reading columns by outraged conservative columnists about the Reuters photograph that was altered one has to believe that conservatives are lucky that the media and public have such short attention spans.

When the enhanced photo was discovered, conservatives went after Reuters. However, to its credit, Reuters ended it's relationship with the photographer, pulled all of his photos to look for other potenital problems, and tightened editing procedures for photographs from the conflict and apologized for the case.

That's a lot more than you can say about many conservative bloggers like Michelle Malkin who had no qualms of using manipulated quotes by Democrats yet screamed about the altered photos. Perhaps she believes what's the big deal over a little faked smoke, sorry, faked words?

Compare conservatives' reaction to the manipulated photo and then look at how they reacted the manipulated Al Gore comments regarding the Internet. Yes, the famous alleged comment that Gore "invented" the Internet. Using that term is about as honest as using the doctored photo, and even worse today since the term has been discredited.

The "quote" came from an interview on CNN where Gore said During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. As Snopes.com pointed out in discrediting the inventing claim, if President Eisenhower had said he had created the interstate highway system, it's doubtful he would have been ridiculed.

Instead, despite defenses from Vinton Cerf, called by some as a founding father of the Internet, and Republican Newt Gingrich (Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet) Eric Boehlert found that during the 2000 election and counted more than 4,800 television, newspaper and magazine mentions during the campaign of Gore supposedly claiming to have invented the Internet.

What conservatives knew is that the media is lazy and would accept the faked term "invented" and so they could easily continue to use it in the future. So the next time you read the words "invented the internet" or "earthtones" (a whole nother story) think about the double standards about why it's wrong to fake photos but ok to fake words.

The GOP's Favorite "Democrat" Goes Down

The "Blinders for Bush" crowd are in full-scale denial this week with the primary election in Connecticut and win by Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman.

To the "Blinders" crowd, the election was solely about the Iraq War, not about anger about the complete utter disaster George Bush has been as president and Sen. Lieberman's role as a Bush enabler.

Martin Peretz, editor in chief of the New Republic, writing in the Wall Street Journal, says of Lamont "he does have one issue, and it is Iraq."

George Bush, why he's not an issue and in fact in the 1,400 word plus article it is 1,300 words in before Peretz bothers to mention Bush, and then only in passing.

To the true believers, Bush can do no wrong and he's not the reason people are upset enough to try to vote a senator out of office. In reality, more than the 49 percent who voted against Bush in 2004 or 51 percent in 2000 are upset at what's been going on.

As Dan Froomkin pointed out, according to the latest Washington Post poll, a near-majority of Americans -- 46 percent -- strongly disapprove of the job Bush is doing. That's strongly. Another 12 percent somewhat disapprove.

So nearly 60% are upset and so the only way people could take it out on Bush was to vote against Lieberman, GOP's Favorite Democrat. Now, as Lieberman said he would, and just as Bush did in 2000, Lieberman will disregard the will of the people .

Perhaps if Lieberman had been a true Democrat and fought Dick Cheney in 2000, today he would be Vice President and thinking of running for President in 2008 rather than a losing in a primary.

GOP Breaks Down, Admits Bush is Bad

One of the criticisms of the Democratic Party is that they offer nothing but attacks on Bush. At least that's the script that the media is pushing.

The problem lately it that it's not just Democrats who are criticizing Bush. Just look what a Conservative Republican candidate for the Senate told Dana Milbank of The Washington Post.

On the Iraq war: "It didn't work. . . . We didn't prepare for the peace." On the response to Hurricane Katrina: "A monumental failure of government."

At first the candidate didn't want to be identified, but since Milbank's article mentioned that Senate Leader Bill Frist walked by during the luncheon with reporters, it was inevitable his identity would be unveiled.

The candidate was Lt. Gov. Michael Steele of Maryland, fighting an uphill battle to win an open Senate seat in Maryland. Because of that some wondered if the comments weren't intentional, to give him some credibility with Democratic voters in Maryland, who outnumber Republicans.

Whether or not there was a political calculation to the comments, one should look at what Steele said and consider that perhaps EVERYTHING the Democrats have been saying for the past six years has been correct. Bush is a disconnected, uncaring and incompetent President. It just took Hurricane Katrina for people to open their eyes, according to Steele.

"In 2001, we were attacked and the president is on the ground, on a mound with his arm around the fireman, symbol of America," he said, between bites of hanger steak and risotto. "In Katrina, the president is at 30,000 feet in an airplane looking down at people dying, living on a bridge. And that disconnect, I think, sums up, for me at least, the frustration that Americans feel."

But for anyone following the news, none of this should come as a surprise. As Rolling Stone reported, a panel of historians voted Bush the worst American president. So now that pretty much everyone now admits Bush is a failure, can we stop with the "all Democrats do is attack Bush."

Paying Back Lieberman

Perhaps former President Bill Clinton could have repaid Sen. Joe Lieberman for his 1998 Monica Lewinsky speech by making a similar speech on Monday condemning Lieberman for his support of George Bush. It's hard to tell which was more disgusting, Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky or Lieberman with Bush.

There are some that say Lieberman's speech helped Clinton and the Democrats for providing the outrage many Americans were feeling toward the president, thereby ending the desire for retribution except among the most extreme Americans. It was no surprise that most Americans supported Clinton and that his approval ratings were double of that of Bush.

Most Americans were smart enough to figure out there is large difference about lying or misleading the public about a personal failure in one's personal life than lying or misleading the public about sending Americans to die in a foreign country.

Too many in the media are painting Lieberman's trouble solely to his vote regarding Iraq. Today Lieberman says he is in the fight of his political life. It's too bad he didn't think that the 2000 Presidential election was the fight of his political life.

Instead in the debates with Cheney he was unwilling to challenge dishonest statements like that in his road to riches that "the government had nothing to do with it," Cheney said -- a remark that overlooked that his firm had received more than $2 billion in federal contracts for support of American troops on peacekeeping missions."

Cheney and many on the right were disdainful of Lieberman in 2000 but today it's interesting that those on the right now support Lieberman. Funny these were the same people who were calling him Loserman in 2000.