Bush backs Abramoff-linked Montana senator

President Bush shakes hands with Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., left, during a Burns fundraiser on Monday, March 27, 2006 in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

It is time for another exciting episode of The Jack Abramoff Show! This one is going to be fun. From Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush expressed support on Monday for U.S. Sen. Conrad Burns (news, bio, voting record), who is under pressure over his links with Jack Abramoff, a Republican lobbyist at the heart of an influence-peddling scandal.

Speaking at a fund-raising event for Burns' re-election campaign at a Washington hotel, Bush praised the Montana lawmaker as a strong supporter on national security and tax relief.

"He's the kind of person the people of Montana need here. They need somebody who's steadfast when it comes to defending the country, who's wise about how we spend your money," Bush said.

"I'm proud to stand by this man. I strongly urge the people of Montana to reelect Conrad Burns to the United States Senate," he said.

Burns, who faces a tough fight for re-election in November, became ensnared in the corruption investigation involving Abramoff, who pleaded guilty to fraud in January and is cooperating with prosecutors.

In December, Burns said he would return $150,000 he had received from Abramoff-related sources over the past several years. Insisting they were "legal and fully disclosed," he said they had undermined public confidence in the government.

In Vanity Fair magazine's April edition, Abramoff said he worked closely with many top Republicans, despite their claims to the contrary. According to the article, Abramoff said Burns was especially cooperative.

You have got to love this! Bush is standing by his man Burns--even as Abramoff is singing to the federal prosecutors about all the scams and the dirty dealings Abramoff was involved in. How much do you want to bet that Burns' name came up in those conversations with the feds?

I'll also say that it is interesting that Bush is trying to play up Burns' record as a strong supporter for national security and tax relief. Burns is "somebody who's steadfast when it comes to defending the country, who's wise about how we spend your money," Bush said. National security and "defending the country," is about the only issue that Bush can play up to these corrupted Republican congressmen. I'm surprised that Burns even allowed Bush to speak at his fundraising event--is Burns in that much political trouble up in Montana?

Interesting day.

Justice Scalia flips the finger in church

This is off the United Press International:

BOSTON, March 27 (UPI) -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia startled reporters in Boston just minutes after attending a mass, by flipping a middle finger to his critics.

A Boston Herald reporter asked the 70-year-old conservative Roman Catholic if he faces much questioning over impartiality when it comes to issues separating church and state.

"You know what I say to those people?" Scalia replied, making the obscene gesture and explaining "That's Sicilian."

The 20-year veteran of the high court was caught making the gesture by a photographer with The Pilot, the Archdiocese of Boston's newspaper.

"Don't publish that," Scalia told the photographer, the Herald said.

He was attending a special mass for lawyers and politicians at Cathedral of the Holy Cross, and afterward was the keynote speaker at the Catholic Lawyers' Guild luncheon.

This is completely uncalled for--even for a Supreme Court Justice! Scalia could have simply brushed the reporter's questions aside with a "no comment," but NO! He had to use an obscene gesture regarding such questions. An even more, this gesture clearly shows Scalia's philosophical views regarding the separation of church and state--this is a big "screw you" towards the American people regarding this issue. How can we expect Scalia to be impartial towards these constitutional issues?

I sincerely wish that this photographer would publish the photo of Scalia flipping off the Herald reporter. That way, the American people can see what a fine, upstanding, and impartial justice that Antonin Scalia has become.

US home loan demand falls to lowest level this year

Here's an interesting little side story from Yahoo News:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Consumer demand for home mortgage loan applications fell last week to the lowest level this year despite a marked drop in interest rates, as industry trade group said on Wednesday.

The Mortgage Bankers Association said its seasonally adjusted index of mortgage application activity or the week ended March 17 decreased 1.6 percent to 565.0 from the previous week's 574.4, its lowest level of 2006.

Borrowing costs on 30-year fixed-rate mortgages, excluding fees, averaged 6.31 percent, down 0.11 percentage point from the previous week's 6.42 percent level, a near four-year peak.

Fixed 15-year mortgage rates averaged 5.99 percent, down from 6.06 percent the previous week. Rates on one-year adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) increased to 5.68 percent from 5.64 percent.

"A lot of consumers have been having affordability problems, which is why a lot of them have been taking out ARMs," said Chen. "But with ARM rates rising, fewer people have been able to afford a home, which was also behind last week's decline in applications."

With rates on ARMs rising last week demand for floating-rate products dropped, Chen said.

The ARM share of activity fell to 28.3 percent of total applications from 28.8 percent the previous week. ARM demand reached a 2005 high of 36.6 percent in late March.

I find it interesting that US home loan demands are falling, just as my previous post talked about new home prices and sales have also fallen. So there is an interesting correlation here. I also find Chen's remarks interesting, "A lot of consumers have been having affordability problems...." What kind of affordability problems are we talking about here Chen? Credit card debt? Health care costs? Job layoffs and outsourcing? When you turn on the TV, all the home loan mortgage commercials you see are for adjustable-rate mortgages. The mortgage companies know they can make more money off consumers who take out adjustable-rate mortgages at a time when the Feds are raising interest rates. And I still have to wonder how many of these mortgages are aimed at the sub-prime market, with consumers that have credit problems. How many of these folks are in trouble? Could it be that consumers are now waking up to the dangers of adjustable-rate mortgages, especially if they are also hit with high credit card debt, job loss, or increasing health care costs?

An interesting story here. I'm not sure where it is going yet.

New Home Sales, Median Prices Fall in Feb.

Chart shows new-home sales for the past 13 months, seasonally adjusted. (AP Graphic)

This is also from Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON - New home sales fell by the biggest amount in almost nine years in February while home prices declined for a fourth straight month, raising concerns that the once high-flying housing market could be in for a rougher-than-expected landing.

The Commerce Department reported Friday that sales of new single-family homes dropped by 10.5 percent last month to a seasonally adjusted annual sales pace of 1.08 million homes.

It was the second straight monthly decline, following a 5.3 percent fall in January, and marked the biggest one-month drop since April 1997.

The slowdown in sales further depressed home prices with the median price for new homes sold in February falling to $230,400, 1.6 percent below the January level. It marked the fourth straight month that the median, or midpoint for home prices, had fallen since hitting an all-time high of $243,900 in October.

Analysts, who had been forecasting a much more moderate drop of around 2 percent in February sales, said the big decline and downward revisions to sales activity in the previous three months could be signaling that housing will slow more this year than had been expected.

Looks like the housing market is starting to tumble. There is a number of variables that could explain this drop in the housing market. The Feds have been raising interest rates in its quest to fight inflation. Mortgage companies have been pushing the sales of adjustable-rate mortgages on home buyers, rather than fixed mortgage rates. If interest rates continue to rise, these adjustable-rate mortgages will force homeowners to pay higher interest costs. Mortgage companies have also been pushing sub-prime home loans to individuals with dubious credit histories--what's going to happen when these folks miss a payment or two, especially if they're stuck with adjustable-rate mortgages? Credit card debt is up. And we can't forget the speculators in the market, buying and flipping homes for profit. What is going to happen when the speculators can't flip their properties fast enough? All of these variables are placing pressure on the housing market.

We may be starting to see the effects of these variables on the market.
Some final statistics:

Sales of new homes have fallen in four of the past five months with the sales rate of 1.08 million units in February the slowest pace since May 2003.

The slowdown in sales pushed the inventory of unsold homes up to a record of 548,000 homes at the end of February. At the February sales pace, it would take 6.3 months to sell all of the homes on the market, up from 5.3 months in January.

Analysts believe that the growing backlog of unsold homes will add to downward pressure on prices in the months ahead.

By sector of the country, sales were down by the largest amount last month in the West, a drop of 29.4 percent in February. Sales fell 6.4 percent in the South but they rose 12.7 percent in the Northeast and 5.2 percent in the Midwest.

Report: Scalia Criticizes Europe on Gitmo

This is from Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON - Justice Antonin Scalia reportedly told an overseas audience this month that the U.S. Constitution does not protect foreigners held at America's military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Scalia also told the audience at the University of Freiberg in Switzerland that he was "astounded" at the "hypocritical" reaction in Europe to the prison, said this week's issue of Newsweek magazine.

The comments came just weeks before justices were to take up an appeal from a detainee at Guantanamo Bay.

Justices will hear arguments Tuesday on Salim Ahmed Hamdan's claim that
President Bush has overstepped his constitutional authority in ordering a military trial for the former driver of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, held at the prison for nearly four years.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the detainees could use U.S. courts to challenge their detention. Scalia disagreed with that ruling, and in the recent speech repeated his beliefs that enemy combatants have no legal rights.

"War is war, and it has never been the case that when you captured a combatant you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts," Newsweek quoted Scalia as saying in the speech. "Give me a break."

You know, when regarding these cases, I always thought that Supreme Court judges are suppose to be impartial in weighing the evidence and legal precedents within the Constitution. And yet here we have Scalia flapping his mouth about how "enemy combatants" have no legal rights. Consider this quote:

Newsweek said Scalia was challenged by an audience member in Switzerland about whether Guantanamo detainees have protection under the Geneva or human rights conventions. He shot back: "If he was captured by my army on a battlefield, that is where he belongs. I had a son on that battlefield and they were shooting at my son, and I'm not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it's crazy," Newsweek said.

And Scalia is going to provide an impartial judgement on Salim Ahmed Hamdan's case this Tuesday? GIVE ME A BREAK!

FBI Keeps Watch on Activists

It appears the FBI is again looking into the affairs of anti-war groups. This is from the Los Angeles Times:

DENVER — The FBI, while waging a highly publicized war against terrorism, has spent resources gathering information on antiwar and environmental protesters and on activists who feed vegetarian meals to the homeless, the agency's internal memos show.

For years, the FBI's definition of terrorism has included violence against property, such as the window-smashing during the 1999 Seattle protests against the World Trade Organization. That definition has led FBI investigations to online discussion boards, organizing meetings and demonstrations of a wide range of activist groups. Officials say that international terrorists pose the greatest threat to the nation but that they cannot ignore crimes committed by some activists.

The FBI's encounters with activists are described in hundreds of pages of documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union under the Freedom of Information Act after agents visited several activists before the 2004 political conventions. Details have steadily trickled out over the last year, but newly released documents provide a fuller view of some FBI probes.

"Any definition of terrorism that would include someone throwing a bottle or rock through a window during an antiwar demonstration is dangerously overbroad," ACLU staff attorney Ben Wizner said. "The FBI will have its hands full pursuing antiwar groups instead of truly dangerous organizations."

ACLU attorneys say most violence during demonstrations is minor and is better handled by local police than federal counterterrorism agents. They say the FBI, which spied on antiwar and civil rights leaders during the 1960s, appears to be investigating activists solely for opposing the government.

"They don't know where Osama bin Laden is, but they're spending money watching people like me," said environmental activist Kirsten Atkins. Her license plate number showed up in an FBI terrorism file after she attended a protest against the lumber industry in Colorado Springs in 2002.

My question to the FBI is how far should its investigation go into these activist groups? Now I can understand the FBI looking into such groups as the Earth Liberation Front and the publicized bombings of Hummer dealerships in California during 2004. But where should the investigations by the FBI end? Does a single individual throwing a bottle at a storefront window durring the Seattle World Trade Center protests constitute terrorism? Consider this FBI example of its investigation:

An FBI counterterrorism official showed the class, at the University of Texas in Austin, 35 slides listing militia, neo-Nazi and Islamist groups. Senior Special Agent Charles Rasner said one slide, labeled "Anarchism," was a federal analyst's list of groups that people intent on terrorism might associate with.

The list included Food Not Bombs, which mainly serves vegetarian food to homeless people, and — with a question mark next to it — Indymedia, a collective that publishes what it calls radical journalism online. Both groups are among the numerous organizations affiliated with anarchists and anti-globalization protests, where there has been some violence.

Elizabeth Wagoner said she was one of the few students who objected to the groups' inclusion on the list. "My friends do Indymedia," she said. "My friends aren't terrorists."

Rasner said that he'd never heard of the two groups before and didn't mean to condemn them. But he added that it made sense to worry about violent people emerging from anarchist networks — "Any group can have somebody that goes south."

My worry here is that in its overarching zeal to combat terrorism, the FBI is wasting resources looking into the affairs of legitimate protest groups. For all this talk of investigating these groups, has the FBI even broken up a single terrorist attack, purported to be carried out by an anti-war or environmental group? Where do you draw the line between legitimate protest, which is protected by the First Amendment, and combating against violence? Consider this:

In June 2002, environmental activists protested the annual meeting of the North American Wholesale Lumber Assn. in Colorado Springs. An FBI memo justified opening an inquiry into the protest because an activist training camp was to be held on "nonviolent methods of forest defense Â… security culture, street theater and banner making."

About 30 to 40 people attended the protest; three were arrested for trespassing while hanging a political banner. Colorado Springs police faxed the FBI a three-page list of demonstrators' license plate numbers.

In a recent interview, Denver FBI spokeswoman Monique R. Kelso first said the training camp and protest would not have been enough to merit an anti-terrorism inquiry. But later she said that she wasn't familiar with the details of the case and that the FBI opened cases when there was possible criminal activity.

Where do you draw the line?

President Woody!

Author's Note: This last week, I've been a little busy trying to resurrect an old Cyrix Pentium II computer that my sister gave me. This computer has become useful to me since it has the Windows 98 operating system, which allows me to copy some old data off of a couple of Syquest EZ-135 megabyte drives--apparently Microsoft Windows XP will not read something as old as a Syquest drive. So it has been something of a chore to rip into the guts of this old Pentium system. The Cyrix was also useful in that it allowed me to copy some data files off of some old 5 1/4 floppy drives, and then to copy them all to a CD-Rom.

Such is the life of a semi-computer geek.

The fun thing about this little job, was that it allowed me to go through some of the older computer files that I had stored away. Old email letters that I've saved, pictures, word documents, essays, short stories, applications--it is amazing how this stuff accumulates into folders, stashed into folders, stashed into folders. I've discovered files and documents that I thought that I had lost due to computer crashes and such. And I found one such word document that I had written called President Woody.

President Woody was a somewhat satirical essay that I had written for a friend. When the 2000 elections were underway between Al Gore and George Bush, I noticed an interesting similarity between the Republican presidential candidate, and a certain well-known Toy Story character. Hence, the idea for writng a little satirical essay had sprouted within my mind. I wrote it, sent it off to my friend, then just about forgot about it. Until now.

And this weekend seems like a perfect time to publish this little essay. The essay was written just after the invasion of Iraq, although the idea has been within my head since 2000. Enjoy it for a good laugh. E.H.

President Woody

In examining how badly the current Democratic leadership is self-destructing with their failure in developing a coherent opposition strategy against the Bush Administration, I would suggest that the top Democratic officials (Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, Terry McAullif), resign from their positions in politics and enter into a business venture of producing toys. One of the hottest toys they could produce this year could be The President Woody doll.

That’s right—The President Woody doll. President Woody would be a one-foot high doll, with the face in the likeness of President George W Bush, while dressed as the character Woody in the Pixar movie Toy Story. President Woody. He would have an empty gun holster, a shiny gold star emblazoned with the presidential seal, and a highly technological drawstring, which when pulled, would provide the American voter a recording of such Bush witticisms as:

“The government has a surplus—We must cut taxes!”

“The United States is in a recession—We must cut taxes!”

“A giant killer asteroid is heading towards the United States—We must cut taxes!”

Of course, if the Democratic leadership can act now, a new 2004 version of President Woody—The Commander-In-Chief Edition can be produced. Our hero President Woody—dressed in cammo fatigues—can carry the fight against the dangers of world terrorism. Pull the drawstring and President Woody could proclaim:

“We must invade Iraq because Saddam has amassed weapons of mass destruction!”

“We must invade Iraq because Saddam is harboring terrorists!”

“We must invade Iraq because Saddam is a bad guy!”

“There’s a snake in my boots—Oh, I’m sorry. It’s just Dick Cheney!”

Yes, President Woody. It can become a surprised hit in the toy industry. If market studies show that half the American public either loves George W Bush or hates George W Bush, the President Woody doll can be marketed equally on both sides of the political spectrum. Democrats could buy the President Woody doll to show their anger and cynicism of the current occupant in the White House, while Republicans can buy President Woody since he reiterates the same dull tired statements that the current president will say. The dolls can be manufactured here in the United States—thus providing jobs for unemployed Americans. By entering into this new toy venture, Democratic leaders could possibly open their eyes and see the example of cut-throat, dog-eat-dog, capitalistic hard-ball, business tactics which exists in the United States and use those lessons in the 2008 election. Republicans use those tactics all the time. And finally, all proceeds from the sales of the President Woody doll can be used to fund the 2008 Democratic presidential election for Hillary.

And coming soon in 2005—President Woody: The Space Cadet Edition, where our hero is dressed in a Buzz Lightyear Spacesuit!

Order your President Woody Doll Today! Hurry--While supplies last!

Two big stories on Iraq

Okay, I've got two big stories regarding Iraq. Here's the first one, titled "Bush Reaffirms Pre-Emptive Use of Force." From Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON - Undaunted by the difficult war in Iraq, President Bush reaffirmed his strike-first policy against terrorists and enemy nations on Thursday and said Iran may pose the biggest challenge for America.

In a 49-page national security report, the president said diplomacy is the U.S. preference in halting the spread of nuclear and other heinous weapons.

"The president believes that we must remember the clearest lesson of Sept. 11: that the United States of America must confront threats before they fully materialize," national security adviser Stephen Hadley said.

"The president's strategy affirms that the doctrine of preemption remains sound and must remain an integral part of our national security strategy," Hadley said. "If necessary, the strategy states, under longstanding principles of self defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack."

Titled "National Security Strategy," the report summarizes Bush's plan for protecting America and directing U.S. relations with other nations. It is an updated version of a report Bush issued in 2002.

In the earlier report a year after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush underscored his administration's adoption of a pre-emptive policy, marking the end of a deterrent military strategy that dominated the Cold War.

The latest report makes it clear Bush hasn't changed his mind, even though no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.

"When the consequences of an attack with weapons of mass destruction are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize. ... The place of pre-emption in our national security strategy remains the same," Bush wrote.

The report had harsh words for Iran. It accused the regime of supporting terrorists, threatening Israel and disrupting democratic reform in Iraq. Bush said diplomacy to halt Tehran's suspected nuclear weapons work must prevail to avert a conflict.

"This diplomatic effort must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided," Bush said.

Now, you're probably thinking this story doesn't have anything to do about Iraq, but it does. This story pretty much affirms that Bush is going to continue "staying the course," regarding the occupation and the disastrous war in Iraq. Nothing is going to change in Iraq. And what is more, the president is starting to set his sights on Iran--care to place your bets as to when the administration is going to invade Iran? The Bush White House is already starting to build its PR case for invading Iran--Iran supports al Qaida terrorists, Iran is building nuclear weapons, Iran is arming the terrorists in Iraq. I can't even comprehend the magnitude of a disaster to the U.S. if the Bush White House launches an attack, or invades Iran.

Now here's this second story off Yahoo News, titled 'Operation Swarmer' Expected to Last Days:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. forces and Iraqi troops launched what the military described as the largest air assault since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion Thursday, targeting insurgent strongholds north of the capital.

The U.S. military said the raid, dubbed Operation Swarmer, was aimed at clearing "a suspected insurgent operating area" northeast of Samarra and was expected to last several days. The Pentagon said 41 people were arrested but it was not clear if suspected insurgents put up any resistance.

Residents in the targeted area said there was a heavy U.S. and Iraqi troop presence and large explosions could be heard in the distance. The U.S. military said there was no firing or bombing from the air and the source of the blasts was not known.

"More than 1,500 Iraqi and coalition troops, over 200 tactical vehicles, and more than 50 aircraft participated in the operation," the military statement said.

The U.S. command in Baghdad said it was the largest number of aircraft used to insert troops and the largest number of troops inserted by air, although larger numbers of troops overall have been involved in previous operations.

Gen. John Abizaid, chief of the U.S. Central Command, told reporters at the Pentagon the operation was not related to any anticipated outburst of sectarian violence in the area or a significant departure from previous military actions.

Abizaid said it was aimed at al-Qaida in Iraq and other insurgent cells although there was "no specific high-value target that I know of."

"I wouldn't characterize this as being anything that's a big departure from normal or from the need to prosecute a target that we think was lucrative enough to commit this much force to go get," he said.

Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi interim foreign minister, said the attack had been necessary to prevent insurgents from forming a new stronghold such as they had established in Fallujah, west of Baghdad.

"After Fallujah and some of the operations carried out successfully in the Euphrates and Syrian border, many of the insurgents moved to areas nearer to Baghdad," Zebari said on CNN. "They have to be pulled out by the roots."

Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad, was the site of a massive bombing against a Shiite shrine on Feb. 22 that touched off sectarian bloodshed that has killed more than 500 and injured hundreds more, threatening to push Iraq into civil war.

It is a key city in Salahuddin province, a major part of the so-called Sunni triangle where insurgents have been active since shortly after the U.S.-led invasion three years ago. Saddam Hussein was captured in the province, not far from its capital and his hometown, Tikrit.

In recent months U.S. forces have routinely used helicopters to insert troops during operations against insurgent strongholds, especially in the Euphrates River valley between Baghdad and the Syrian border. U.S. warplanes are always in the air, ready to strike targets under direction from troops on the ground.

Thursday's assault was launched just hours before Iraq's new parliament was sworn in Thursday, with parties still deadlocked over the next government, vehicles banned from Baghdad's streets to prevent car bombings and the country under the shadow of a feared civil war.

Reading this article, I'm struck by the unnamed paraphrase that really showed the futility of the American pacification program in Vietnam--we had to destroy the village in order to save it. And what are we doing here in Iraq, but sending a large force of troops, helicopters, fighters, bombers, tanks, and who-knows-what-else into a supposed insurgent stronghold of Samarra. I"m sorry, but Operation Swarmer is going to be another loss for the U.S. Oh, it won't be a tactical loss--the American forces will be able to go where ever they want, and practically do whatever they want. They will march into Samarra, but they won't find much in terms of a terrorist stronghold, since the terrorists will melt back away into the countryside, and the city. They will hide--they will not openly engage against the superior American firepower. And once the Americans leave Samarra, the terrorists will go back in, and continue their low-tech warfare of bombings, planting roadside explosives, attacking Iraqi police forces, and such.

Just as in Vietnam, this is a war we cannot win.

1st Declassified Iraq Documents Released

This is from Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration Wednesday night released the first declassified documents collected by U.S. intelligence during the Iraq war, showing among other things that Saddam Hussein's regime was monitoring reports that Iraqis and Saudis were heading to Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks to fight U.S. troops.

The documents, the first of thousands expected to be declassified over the next several months, were released via a Pentagon Web site at the direction of National Intelligence Director John Negroponte.

Many were in Arabic — with no English translation — including one the administration said showed that Iraqi intelligence officials suspected al-Qaida members were inside Iraq in 2002.

The Pentagon Web site described that document this way: "2002 Iraqi Intelligence Correspondence concerning the presence of al-Qaida Members in Iraq. Correspondence between IRS members on a suspicion, later confirmed, of the presence of an Al-Qaeda terrorist group. Moreover, it includes photos and names."

The release of the documents, expected to continue for months, is designed to allow lawmakers and the public to investigate what documents from Saddam's regime claimed about such controversial issues as weapons of mass destruction and al-Qaida in the period before the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003.

The Web site cautioned that the U.S. government "has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available."

The first big question I have to ask is, why is the Bush administration even releasing all these documents? This is an administration that loves secrecy, and yet they are supposedly releasing thousands of Iraqi documents that were collected by U.S. intelligence during the Iraq war. What is the Bush White House trying to prove here--that they were justified in invading Iraq? If I recall, the original White House arguments for invading Iraq was that Saddam Hussein was acquiring nuclear weapons, and that if we didn't invade, we'd be seeing mushroom clouds over New York. Only after the weapons inspectors went into Iraq, did we realize that Saddam was nowhere near to building nukes. And then the White House went into PR-spin in making up more and more explanations for its invasion--Saddam was harboring terrorists, Saddam was an evil dictator (an Adolf Hitler), Saddam was supressing his people, and so on.

Now we come to this interesting part of the story:

A handful of prewar Iraq government documents released Wednesday had been translated into English.

They included one Iraqi intelligence document indicating Saddam's feared Fedayeen paramilitary forces were investigating rumors in the fall of 2001 that as many as 3,000 Iraqis and Saudis were going to fight in Afghanistan after the U.S. invasion.

"In the report on the status of rumors for November of 2001 regarding Fedayeen Saddam in al-Anbar, there is an entry that indicates that there is a group of Iraqi and Saudi Arabians numbering around 3,000 who have gone in an unofficial capacity to Afghanistan and have joined the mujahidin (mujahedeen, or holy warriors) to fight with and aid them in defeating the American Zionist Imperialist attack," the translated document stated.

On the surface, this translated document seems to support the Bush administration's assertions that Saddam was harboring terrorists--hey, 3000 Iraqis and Saudis went into Afghanistan to fight against the U.S. invasion. Of course, I would also have to ask how many Egyptians, Syrians, Lebanese, Iranians, and other Muslim men throughout the Middle Eastern countries also went to Afghanistan to fight against the U.S. invasion? Why haven't we invaded these other Middle Eastern countries that allowed their citizens to join the mujahedeen in Afghanistan?

I'm not going to say that the Bush White House was wrong in releasing these documents--they will certainly be important to future historians in analyzing the events of the Iraq war. But I have to question the motives for the Bush administration in releasing these documents. I have to wonder if the Bush White House has pre-screened these documents, and have pulled out those pages that may be damaging to the Bush administration's PR-image. I also have to wonder if this release of Iraqi intelligence documents is nothing more than a diversion, so that Congress can look over these Iraqi intelligence documents rather than demanding the White House hand over the flawed intelligence assessments that the Bush administration used to market their invasion of Iraq--it is certainly interesting that these documents are still in Arabic and have no English translations, meaning that congressional investigators would have to translate the documents first, before determining what was in them. As always with this administration, there is a political calculation in any action this Bush White House undertakes.

The question is, what is the political calculation for releasing these documents and why?

Likely Vote to Up National Debt Looms

This is from Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON - Senate Republicans cast symbolic campaign-season votes Wednesday to increase spending for border and port security — one day before a likely vote to increase the national debt by an additional $781 billion, to $9 trillion.

The uncomfortable vote to increase the debt is the fourth since President Bush took office, and it comes as Republicans struggle to pass a budget plan for next year. GOP leaders have already dropped Bush's plans for tax cuts and curbs to Medicare, but now his cap on appropriated spending is in danger as well.

The debt limit increase is an unhappy necessity; the alternative is a first-ever default on U.S. financial obligations. The Senate devoted just two hours to the topic Wednesday evening, with only one Republican participating. Action on the debt limit is overshadowing the weeklong debate on the GOP's budget blueprint.

Also, it comes as Republicans try to convince their supporters that they are getting serious about restraining spending.

Yet, in a series of budget votes this week, Republicans approved symbolic increases for politically sensitive programs such as education, port security and veterans' benefits while distancing themselves from Bush's proposal in an election year.

The debt limit bill is the fourth such measure required since Bush took office five years ago. If approved, the latest version would mean that the debt had grown over that span from about $6 trillion to $9 trillion — about $30,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States.

"We are plunging deeper and deeper into debt and it is increasingly financed by foreigners," said Sen. Kent Conrad (news, bio, voting record) of North Dakota, top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee. "We keep on spending, we keep on cutting taxes, we keep on funning up the debt."

The debt had grown from $6 trillion to $9 trillion. President Bush added $4 trillion to the national debt over this past five years. The U.S. Treasury is broke--broke due to the tax cuts given to the rich, broke due to the disastrous war in Iraq, broke due to the incompetence of Katrina. And yet the Republicans still play this insidious game of spending money for guns and butter even though the U.S. has no more money.

The crap is going to hit soon.

Bush Approval Falls to 33%, Congress Earns Rare Praise

This is off the Pew Research Center's website. Pew Research tags President Bush's job approval ratings down to 33 percent--a somewhat lower number than the CNN / USA Today / Gallup poll number of 36 percent on March 13 (See my post on the story here). It is a pretty long article with a large number of statistical tables, but it is especially interesting in looking at how the numbers break down. And then there is this little graph:



This graph speaks volumes on Bush's deteriorating numbers. Bush is losing support among the independents, and among his Republican supporters--with a 16 percent drop from 89 percent to 73 percent. His support among independents has dropped by around 21 percentage points. President Bush is losing support among the moderates and the moderate-to-conservatives within the electorate. These were the folks who supported the president because of his strong on terror message, and the White House campaign message that you shouldn't change presidential horses midstream in 2004. With the American public realizing that the war in Iraq has become a disaster, and that the Bush White House was responsible for creating such a disaster, the president's poll numbers are continuing to drop. If the bad news on the Iraq war continues to make front-page headlines until November, I'd say that Bush's support among the independents could drop by another 16 percentage points--perhaps equaling to the Democrats support of Bush. I'm not sure how far the Republican support for Bush can drop, until he reaches his evangelical and religious right-wing base. Any drop in Bush's core supporter base would have to be influenced by other factors, such as future revelations of the Bush White House repeatedly breaking the law in Iraq WMDs, Valerie Plame and such. For these scandals to be further exposed, the Democrats are going to need to take control of Congress, and start investigations into these White House scandals.

The midterm elections are now starting to get interesting, considering these presidential poll numbers....

Security Clearance Rules May Impede Gays

I saw this off Yahoo News. It is a small story, but it appears to be generating some major criticism within the liberal and progressive blogosphere. I've commented on this story through the blog Shakespeare's Sister, but I think I may want to include my thoughts here on my own blogsite. Here's the news story:

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration last year quietly rewrote the rules for allowing gays and lesbians to receive national-security clearances, drawing complaints from civil rights activists.

The Bush administration said security clearances cannot be denied "solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the individual." But it removed language saying sexual orientation "may not be used as a basis for or a disqualifying factor in determining a person's eligibility for a security clearance."

The White House sought to play down the changes, approved by President Bush in December, as an effort to ensure the security clearance rules are consistent with a 1995 executive order about access to classified information.

"The minor language change did not and was not intended to alter the way sexual orientation is treated," National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said Tuesday. "The U.S. government policy has not changed in any way."

Continuing with the details here:

Rules approved by President Clinton in 1997 said that sexual behavior may be a security concern if it involves a criminal offense, suggests an emotional disorder, could subject someone to coercion or shows a lack of judgment.

The regulation stated that sexual orientation "may not be used as a basis for or a disqualifying factor in determining a person's eligibility for a security clearance."

Bush removed that categorical protection, saying instead that security clearances cannot be denied "solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the individual."

The new rules say behavior that is "strictly private, consensual and discreet" could "mitigate security concerns."

My question here is why did Bush rewrite this law? Somewhere within this policy, I have to wonder if President Bush is caving into the Religious Right demands for discriminating against gays and lesbians. Security clearances cannot be denied solely on the basis of sexual orientation? With this new rewriting of the law, neoconservative ideologues can now deny security clearances against qualified gay or lesbian applicants due to both sexual orientation and whatever other factor they can make up. How many other factors can these ideologues think up--regardless of whether these factors are valid or not? Talk about the potential abuse of discrimination here.

In the comments section of Shakespeare's Sister, I noted an interesting parallel here. I shall include the comment here in this post:

This is just another example of the Republican PR-election cycle spin. Only this time, the Republicans are trying to link their "strong on defense and security" image with their gay-bashing social issue. I'm actually amazed that they connected these two issues together, considering that they're failing on both the defense and security issues regarding the disastrous war in Iraq, and the illegal NSA spying issue.

And yet, it makes perfect sense for the Republicans here. Because they're floundering in Iraq, with a majority of Americans now starting to oppose the Bush administration's war in Iraq, the Republicans have got to find some issue that they can maintain their control of Congress. Social issues of expressing hate and phobias to their red-state electorate is the only political advantage the Republicans may have for this election. And gay-bashing is one prime social issue the Republicans can use with any influence in the red state electorate during this upcoming election. Link the gay-bashing with restricting security clearances, and you have a tailor-made social / national security issue that the Republicans can claim they are strong on--especially with courting their evangelical and southern base. And if the Democrats object, the Republicans can use this in saying the Democrats are soft on national security--gays are not only bringing down the moral fiber of our country, but they are also helping the terrorists.

What is so funny is that sexual orientation has absolutely nothing to do with obtaining national security clearances.

At this point, the White House is trying to downplay the changes in this security clearance rules, but how long will that last? This is a perfect negative-campaigning political issue for the Republicans. They can play up the homophobic fears of gays leaking classified information to the terrorists in red-state enclaves of evangelical and religious right-wing voters. The Republicans can certainly taint the Democrats with the idea that the Democrats are destroying the morality of our country with their support of gay marriage, and embarking on treason in allowing gays to leak classified information to terrorists. And of course, it doesn't have to be the Republican Party or the Bush White House to spread these messages--they can certainly use the Swift Boat tactics of spreading this hate through independent conservative-leaning political organizations.

We'll have to see where this goes during this election.

Another Turn in Ferrari Saga

Cue creepy music. It is time for another episode of The F-Files!

From The Los Angeles Times:

Sheriff's officials investigating the crash of a Ferrari in Malibu last month are asking how a small private transit company could create its own police department and allegedly hand out law enforcement identification to civilians, including the car's owner.

According to Yosef Maiwandi, it wasn't as difficult as you might think.

The San Gabriel Valley Transit Authority is a tiny, privately run organization that provides bus rides to disabled people and senior citizens. It operates out of an auto repair shop.

Maiwandi is the owner of Homer's Auto Service in Monrovia and is also one of three San Gabriel Valley Transit Authority commissioners.

Maiwandi said he started the nonprofit organization after receiving a bus in a trade for several motorcycles. He decided to use that bus and four others he later purchased to help transport disabled people in his community. The transit agency has memorandums of understanding with Sierra Madre and Monrovia to transport disabled people.

He said he formed the San Gabriel Valley Transit Authority Police Department shortly afterward in part because he has long been interested in police work. He also found that having a police department allowed him to do background checks on potential volunteers more quickly and seek federal money for security on the buses.

Yes, that's true. The San Gabriel Valley Transit Authority Police Department was created by the owner of Homer's Auto Service! And the owner of Homer's Auto Service is also one of the three commissioners for the San Gabriel Valley Transit Authority and its Police Department. But it gets better:

The Ferrari's owner, Stefan Eriksson, showed deputies a card stating that he was deputy police commissioner of the San Gabriel Transit Authority Police's anti-terrorism division. A few minutes after the crash, two other men who said they were with Homeland Security appeared at the scene and eventually took Eriksson away.

"We are just trying to help people," Maiwandi said, adding that he feels his agency is being unfairly tarnished because of his association with the Ferrari crash. "I wish he was driving a Corvette."

Maiwandi said he came in contact with Eriksson from another member of the transit board, Eriksson's civil attorney, Ashley Posner. Neither Posner nor Eriksson would comment.

Maiwandi said Eriksson approached him with an offer. Eriksson volunteered to install free surveillance cameras and a "facial recognition scan" — which could compare a person's image to one depicted in a wanted poster — on a bus to show law enforcement agencies how that could be helpful in catching criminals. He said he had given a similar system to transit agencies in England.

After a background check on Eriksson came back clean, Maiwandi said, he told the businessman he could use the authority's five buses to install the equipment.

In return for his volunteer efforts, Eriksson was made a deputy commissioner of the police department and given business cards. But Maiwandi denied that the other two men who said they were with Homeland Security had anything to do with his organization.

Although the department's website suggests that it is a fully functioning police agency, Maiwandi acknowledged that it consists of six people, including himself and the chief, who he said is a former Los Angeles police officer who volunteers his services.

So now we know who the three commissoners of the San Gabriel Valley Transit Authority are--Maiwandi, Eriksson, and Eriksson's civil attorney, Ashley Posner. Eriksson was made a deputy commissioner of the police department, after installing all these cool security features, such as surveillance cameras and a facial recognition scanner. How many city and county transit authorities have facial recognition scanners installed on their buses? Even more, this fully functioning police force has a staff of six people--including Maiwandi himself? I wonder if Eriksson heads up the police department's anti-terrorism unit?

I thought I could satirize this story with space aliens and secret government conspiracies, but the more I read this, the more absurd it becomes. A police department developed out of privately-owned non-profit transportation agency for disable people? I have to wonder, do the folks that drive the buses, transporting their disable clients, also carry Glock handguns? Do you need that much security for transporting disabled people--I mean, why would a criminal want to hijack a bus?

But there's more:

State public utility regulations allow transit agencies to create police departments — even if they are not certified by the state's central training body for peace officers.

Typically, such private police departments are established by universities — such as Stanford, USC and Whittier College — or transit agencies like the Napa Valley Railroad.

But forming a police department is not as big a deal as it might seem.

State officials said police agencies cannot arrest people unless their personnel meet training and hiring standards set down by state law.

Most local police agencies are certified by California's Commission on Police Officer Standards and Training. But Alan Deal, a spokesman for the agency, said the San Gabriel Valley Transit Authority Police Department has not been certified.

Without meeting state standards, a police officer has few powers beyond that of a security guard, who can carry weapons and make citizen's arrests.

Deal said that his agency has discovered that several railroad agencies around California have created police departments — even though the companies have no rail lines in California to patrol. The police certification agency is seeking to decertify those agencies because it sees no reason for them to exist in California.

The issue of private transit firms creating police agencies has in recent years been a concern in Illinois, where several individuals with criminal histories created railroads as a means of forming a police agency.

What really scares me is this whole idea that transit agencies can quickly and easily create their own private police departments--police departments that are not certified by the state. The issue here is really one of perception--what constitutes a "police officer?" One perception of a police officer is that of an individual, trained by the state, to enforce the laws of the city, state, and federal government, and to keep the peace within society. A police officer is authorized by the state to carry and discharge firearms, as defined by the state through their regulations and restrictions. A police officer may legally kill a citizen of the state, per the state regulations and restrictions (such as self-defense). Now I understand that there can be private organizations that can form their own police organizations--colleges and universities are an example. But if these private organizations would like to form their own police departments, then such departments would have to meet the same strict training and legal requirements for its officers, just as other city police departments are required to do. And if these organizations are not certified, then they have no right to call themselves a "police department." They are nothing more than a security firm.

The concern here is that if such private firms can form uncertified police departments within the state, then individuals running these departments can use their image as a "police department" for their own self-interests, including illegal or criminal activities. And the regular police departments would have no clue--think about it! The San Gabriel Valley Transit Authority Police Department would have never attracted the Sheriff's Department's attention, had it not been for the Ferarri crash. Who knows what these six guys in their little department could have been doing? I certainly don't believe that the San Gabriel Valley Transit Authority Police Department had an Internal Affairs Division to root out crooked cops. Consider this:

Eriksson, 44, is a former executive with the video game machine company Gizmondo who left the firm shortly before a Swedish newspaper ran allegations that he had been convicted of counterfeiting a decade before in Sweden. Officials at the Swedish National Police confirmed Tuesday that he has a criminal record.

What a mess.

Norquist group faces challenge for Abramoff ties

Looks like we haven't had an episode of The Jack Abramoff Show on for a while. I guess the star of our show--Jack Abramoff--is busy singing and tap dancing his heart out to the federal prosecutors. But not to worry--I'm sure there's a big production number coming up soon, brought to you by the Justice Department.

But now, here's a fun little story off Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An ethics watchdog asked the U.S. Internal Revenue Service on Tuesday to revoke the tax-exempt status of a conservative group for helping disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff secretly fund an anti-casino campaign that benefited his clients.

Americans for Tax Reform also violated its nonprofit status by taking a cut of the money it handled, said Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW.

"This thing that they did where they basically took in money from tribes, laundered it and skimmed some off the top had nothing to do with their purpose" as an anti-tax organization, CREW executive director Melanie Sloan said.

A spokesman for Americans for Tax Reform declined to comment but said he would have an official reaction later.

Americans for Tax Reform founder Grover Norquist has had a close relationship with Abramoff since the early 1980s, when they were active in the College Republicans.

Abramoff went on to a lucrative lobbying career before pleading in January to fraud charges and admitting that he showered gifts on lawmakers in return for official favors. He is now cooperating in a corruption probe that has implicated several top Republicans, including former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

Norquist built his nonprofit group into an influential conservative organization that advocates tax cuts and limited government.

E-mail messages released by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee last year show that Abramoff and anti-gambling activist Ralph Reed discussed passing checks through Americans for Tax Reform. Those documents indicate that Norquist's group kept some of the money it handled.

Norquist told the Boston Globe last year that he passed along $1.15 million from an Indian tribe that runs a casino in Mississippi to anti-gambling groups trying to block a casino in Alabama.

Because the contributions were routed through Norquist's group, the anti-gambling activists would not know that they were bankrolled by gambling money.

A Republican political group said it might file an IRS complaint challenging CREW's nonprofit status on the grounds that it behaves in a partisan manner.

You know, I have to wonder whether Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform group is also being investigated regarding the corruption scandals? If Abramoff is providing the feds all the details for this corruption probe that is targeting Republican congressmen, you can bet he's also providing the details on how the money was laundered through the different political organizations and charity groups. That doesn't surprise me. We're just going to have to wait until the feds finish their Abramoff investigation, and start handing out indictments against the Republican congressmen. And when that happens, you'll probably see more details coming out regarding Norquist's involvement in this money laundering scheme.

E-Mail Casts Doubt on DP World's Plans

Here's a little something from Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON - The Dubai-owned company that promised to surrender its U.S. port operations has no immediate plans to sell its U.S. subsidiary's interests at Miami's seaport, a senior executive wrote Monday in a private e-mail to business associates.

Even if DP World were to sell its Miami operations to quell the congressional furor over an Arab-owned company managing major U.S. ports, "that would probably take a while," wrote Robert Scavone, a vice president for DP World's U.S. subsidiary.

The e-mail, obtained by The Associated Press, added to questions raised since DP World's announcement last week that it will divest U.S. port operations it acquired when it bought London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

DP World has said those operations are worth roughly $700 million.

That's a pretty penny for DP World to be giving up. Then again, consider how many ports that DP World would be managing--about 22 ports. Here's a list of the ports that DP World would be managing or operating as a result of the deal. The whole point of this deal was to get DP World involved in the shipping operations within the U.S. market, and the last thing that DP World would want to do is give up that profitable market. Unfortunately with the concerns being raised, where the government of the United Arab Emirates--which controls DP World--could have access to security plans for these U.S. ports which could allow the infiltration of terrorists into the U.S. mainland, has caused DP World's acquisition strategy to be delayed. It hasn't been cancelled, nor has the deal gone through yet. At this point, the deal is in limbo. Consider this:

Last week, DP World backed away from the deal further. It pledged to "transfer fully" its U.S. operations to an unspecified American company and said DP World will not suffer economic loss.

The company has steadfastly declined to clarify its statement or the timing of any possible sale, and leading congressional critics have threatened to intervene if DP World's plans fall short of a full divestiture of its U.S. operations.

"As for the 'pending situation,' I myself am not aware of anything about it that would alter the ownership of POMTOC, so unless one or both of our esteemed partners have separately advised you that they plan to sell their interests, you should assume for your own purposes of managing the company that ownership of POMTOC is not going to change," Scavone wrote.

"And even if they do plan to sell, that would probably take a while," he wrote. Scavone's e-mail responded to an earlier message proposing a formal review of the port company's budget, "once the pending situation is resolved and ownership of POMTOC is established."

If DP World does plan to sell its Miami port operations, it would take a while? So what is the time frame that is classified as "a while?" A month? Six months? A year? And while the Miami port operations are up for sale, you can bet that DP World will continue managing the Miami port operations until a buyer comes in to purchase the Miami port. And not only is it just the Miami port, but it is also all the other U.S. ports that DP World would have to divest itself of, if Congress decides to pass legislation killing this deal. DP World could try to sell them all off as a single transaction to another large shipping and management company, or try to sell each port off individually. Either way, it will take time for such a transaction to take place.

And until that transaction takes place, DP World would continue managing those ports.

Bush: Iraq Insurgency Wants Civil War

Got this from Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Monday insurgents in Iraq were trying to ignite a civil war by escalating violence and warned there will be more "chaos and carnage in the days and months to come."

Even on a particularly grim day, when four Iraqi bodies were found hanging from utility towers and Iraqis coped with the deaths of at least 58 people the day before when car bombings and mortar rounds plagued Baghdad's Sadr City slum, the president said progress was being made.

There was relative peace in Iraq on Monday, even though bomb blasts and shootings in Baghdad and north of the capital killed at least 15. It was the second time in less than three weeks that Iraqis stood at the precipice of civil war and pulled back.

Bush highlighted improvements in the Iraqi security forces and repeated his promise that U.S. troops will stand down as Iraqi forces are able to defend the country.

"By their response over the past two weeks, Iraqis have shown the world they want a future of freedom and peace," Bush said in the first of a series of speeches to mark the third anniversary of the start of the U.S.-led war. "And they will oppose a violent minority that seeks to take that future away from them by tearing their country apart."

Democrats charged that Bush was focusing on the same old rhetoric defending policies that Americans oppose instead of a real strategy for victory in Iraq. Both sides of the political debate have their eye on midterm elections in eight months.

"Rather than leading a White House public relations blitz, the president should lead by pulling the factions together right away in a summit to develop a unified plan for Iraq's future," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass.

Bush urged patience among Americans and coalition allies as Iraqis work to form a new government. He said the Feb. 22 bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra "was a clear attempt to ignite a civil war."

"I wish I could tell you that the violence is waning and that the road ahead will be smooth," Bush said. "It will not. There will be more tough fighting and more days of struggle, and we will see more images of chaos and carnage in the days and months to come."

He said the terrorists are using violence in hopes that they can "shake our resolve and force us to retreat. They're not going to succeed."

The president, speaking to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies at George Washington University, said the Iraqi military is taking on more responsibility. He said it was Iraqis, not coalition forces, who restored order after the attack in Samarra.

So Mr. President, I have a simple question to ask you--what are you going to do about this?

Now interestingly enough, back in February 28, 2005, President Bush actually denied that Iraq was heading into a civil war. Consider this previous post that I had written from this Yahoo News story:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush, hit by polls showing America's support for the Iraq war at an all-time low, denied on Tuesday Iraq was sliding into civil war, despite the worst sectarian strife since a U.S. invasion.

Asked what Washington would do if civil war broke out in Iraq, Bush told ABC News: "I don't buy your premise that there's going to be a civil war."

Or how about this previous post that I wrote, where Bush declared that the choice for Iraqis was a choice of chaos or unity? Here's the original Yahoo News story with the Bush quote:

"The people of Iraq and their leaders must make a choice," Bush said. "The choice is chaos or unity, the choice is a free society, or a society dictated by evil people who would kill innocents.

So Mr. President, what are you going to do about this?

Woman Gets Beer From Her Kitchen Faucet

Now this seems pretty cool. From Yahoo News:

OSLO, Norway - It almost seemed like a miracle to Haldis Gundersen when she turned on her kitchen faucet this weekend and found the water had turned into beer.

Two flights down, employees and customers at the Big Tower Bar were horrified when water poured out of the beer taps.

By an improbable feat of clumsy plumbing, someone at the bar in Kristiandsund, western Norway, had accidentally hooked the beer hoses to the water pipes for Gundersen's apartment.

"We had settled down for a cozy Saturday evening, had a nice dinner, and I was just going to clean up a little," Gundersen, 50, told The Associated Press by telephone Monday. "I turned on the kitchen faucet and beer came out."

However, Gundersen said the beer was flat and not tempting, even in a country where a half-liter (pint) can cost about 25 kroner ($3.75) in grocery stores.

Per Egil Myrvang, of the local beer distributor, said he helped bartenders reconnect the pipes by telephone.

"The water and beer pipes do touch each other, but you have to be really creative to connect them together," he told local newspapers.

Gundersen joked about having the pub send up free beer for her next party.

"But maybe it would be easier if they just invited me down for a beer," she said.

Guess all we need now is some pizza.

Concern over Iraq drives Bush's rating to new low

President Bush talks to the press at the conclusion of a briefing from the Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Task Force in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington Saturday, March 11, 2006. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

This is from CNN.Com:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Public opinion of President Bush hit a new low, with concerns about the war in Iraq driving his approval rating down to 36 percent, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll out Monday.

Only 38 percent said they believe the nearly 3-year-old war was going well for the United States, down from 46 percent in January, while 60 percent said they believed the war was going poorly. And 57 percent said they believe the March 2003 invasion of Iraq was a mistake, near September's record high of 59 percent in the same poll.

Nearly half of those polled said they believe Democrats would do a better job of managing the war -- even though only a quarter of them said the opposition party has a clear plan for resolving the situation. (Interactive: poll results)

Pollsters quizzed 1,001 adults between Friday and Sunday for the poll, which had a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Bush's approval rating of 36 percent is the lowest mark of his presidency in a Gallup poll, falling a percentage point below the 37 percent approval he scored in November. The last CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted February 28-March 1, put his job approval at 38 percent. (View Bush's second term approval ratings)

Sixty percent of those surveyed in the latest poll said they disapproved of his performance in office, the same figure as in the last poll.

What else could I say here? A majority of the country thinks that President Bush is sending this country down the wrong track, with regards to the situation in Iraq. And what is President Bush's response to this? How about more PR-spin:

Bush launched his latest effort to shore up support for the war Monday, accusing Iran of providing explosives used to attack American troops and telling an audience at George Washington University that U.S. forces were "making progress" against insurgents. He also praised Iraqis for averting civil war despite the sectarian violence that came after February's bombing of the al-Askariya mosque in Samarra, a revered Shiite Muslim shrine.

"The situation in Iraq is still tense, and we're still seeing acts of sectarian violence and reprisal," Bush said. "Yet out of this crisis, we've also seen signs of a hopeful future."

President Bush has backed himself into a corner. If he starts pulling troops out of Iraq now, then that would constitute an acknowledgement that the entire Iraq war, and PNAC doctrine of American imperialism is a complete an utter failure. Any withdrawal of American troops would result in the collapse of the Iraqi government, and an all-out civil war between the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds for dividing up the country. And if Bush continues with his "stay the course," PR-spin, we're going to see more violence, more American casualties, and more plummeting Bush poll numbers. It is a no-win situation where no one in the Bush White House has a clue on how to resolve Iraq.

So we'll continue to remain stuck in this Purgatory.

Moussaoui Death Penalty Case May Be Tossed

An artist's rendering prosecutor David Novak, right, and defense attourney Edward MacMahon, center, plead their cases to the U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema during the fifth day of Zacarius Moussaoui's, left, sentencing trial at U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va. during Monday, March 9, 2006. The angry federal judge unexpectedly recessed the death penalty trial of confessed al-Qaida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui to consider whether government violations of her rules against coaching witnesses should remove the death penalty as an option. The stunning development came at the opening of the fifth day of the trial as the government had informed the judge and the defense over the weekend that a lawyer for the Federal Aviation Administration had coached four government FAA witnesses in violation of the rule set by Judge Brinkema that no witness should hear trial testimony in advance. (AP Photo/Dana Verkouteren)

This is what happens when you get overzealous prosecutors trying to make an example of a terrorist case. From Yahoo News:

ALEXANDRIA, Va. - The federal judge in the Zacarias Moussaoui case is considering ending the death-penalty prosecution of the al-Qaida conspirator after learning that a federal lawyer apparently coached witnesses on upcoming testimony.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema said Monday it was "very difficult for this case to go forward" after prosecutors revealed that a lawyer for the Transportation Security Administration had violated her order barring witnesses from any exposure to trial testimony.

Brinkema sent the jury home until Wednesday while she considers her options.

If she bars the government from pursuing the death penalty, the trial would be over and Moussaoui would automatically be sentenced to life in prison without possibility of release. The government likely would appeal that ruling.

I look at this story, and I marvel at how the government will use illegal or impropriety means to achieve extremist goals. Here in the Moussaoui case, we have government lawyers coaching witnesses in what to say on the stand during the sentencing phase--it is not enough that Moussaoui is guilty for conspiring with al Qaida to hijack aircraft during the September 11th attacks and will sit in prison for the rest of his life as punishment for his crimes. No, he has to be put to death. And in order to get this death penalty, let's have the government lawyers coach the witnesses so they're all reading from the same page. Did it ever occur to the government lawyers, that such a behavior could result in the judge's throwing out the death penalty sentence for Moussaoui?

I guess not.

GOP Chairman to Single Out Kerry, Clinton

Talk about a pretty crass story here. This is from Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The head of the Republican Party, launching a broad indictment of the Democratic Party six months before midterm elections, is expected to charge Friday that the opposition can't find an election-year slogan, let alone agree on a broad agenda.

In an address to the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in Tennessee scheduled for Friday afternoon, Ken Mehlman will single out party leaders and two potential 2008 presidential candidates - Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Kerry - for criticism on a range of issues, from national security to the economy to judicial nominees.

``Not only can they not settle on an agenda, they can't even agree on a slogan,'' Mehlman's remarks prepared for delivery said. He is expected to offer some suggestions, albeit critical ones.

``If they really want the American people to know what they are going to do, then how about, 'Together, Americans can pay more in taxes,' `` the text said. ``Or, 'Together, we can retreat from the central front in the war on terror.

Now I went ahead and checked in the Webster's dictionary, and the word indictment is defined as, "A formal written statement framed by a prosecuting authority and found by a jury (as a grand jury) charging a person with an offense." Now I don't see how a chairman of the Republican Party can issue an indictment against the Democrats--I don't see Mehlman as being a prosecuting authority, nor do I see him as heading a grand jury. I also don't see Mehlman's arguments as being very persuasive, considering that it is the Republicans in both Congress and the White House that have led this country down this disastrous path that we are currently in. The war in Iraq, Katrina, Portgate, the illegal spying was all initiated by the Republican leadership in the Bush White House, while the Republican leadership in Congress follows meekly along. This is your mess Mr. Mehlman--you made it. And yet, you have the gall to deliver indictments against the Democrats for your own incompetence?

If there are any indictments to be handed down, they should be handed down against the Republicans and yourself Mr. Mehlman.