Catching up here. Portuguese Water dogs is one of my favs. My friends in Miami have one since 1991, and it was love at first sight. Berlusconi has been an angel and great leader for the people of Aquila. He deserves high praise for his quick actions. Almost 300 dead and they keep finding bodies. I don't have any relatives there, but I have been there. There is a fantastic castle built by the Spaniards, but I have had no word on its condition. The other monuments and the Cathedral... it is a shame. A terrible tragedy. That whole area is prime for earthquakes, Umbria and Toscany too. :-( Obama did not bow to Queen Elizabeth, but he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, that is wrong.

Those are beautiful dogs. Bo looks fun! He was going to get a rescue dog, but now will give a donation to ...the DC Humane Society or something similar. Forget which one I read now. I didn't get the bowing thing, though I only got a quick glance at a pic.

(Me) I see a TV movie of the week coming next year. I was wrong. A reality show. :-((( http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090413/ts_alt_afp/entertainmentsomaliapiracyusshipping_20090413222206

LOL! Reality shows are cheaper.

True dat!

LOL! Reality shows are cheaper. And not as easy to "fictionalize". I can't see Hollywood being kind or even *true* to the military. They would rather revel in Mai Lai-like events.

Here's the video with the bow: http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Obama_bow_king/2009/04/08/201193.html?s=al&promo_code=7DA6-1

When or how often has Hollywood not been kind to the military in the past?

Oh Please...let me count the ways. Of recent times..only Private Ryan of the big films. And no VN films that I can remember I can just see the movie focusing on.... 'pre-emptive shooting", not "reading the pirates their Miranda Rights"...blah, blah, blah...

(Dorine) When or how often has Hollywood not been kind to the military in the past? If your script is nice to the military--portrays them in the best possible light--then they'll give you the stars and the moon in terms of access, support, etc. If negative, slightly critical, wrong image, etc, then bupkis.

LOL! Reality shows are cheaper. And not as easy to "fictionalize". But fictonalizing takes a writer, one has to pay. Reality shows are all about the money. They're cheap, cheap, cheap. No need to pay actors according to union scale. This isn't about bias, slants, prejudicial leanings, etc. Why does everything have to be about that. Getting really sick of that attitude.

That's your perception It's not an *attitude*,IMO, it's the truth.

(Karen) If your script is nice to the military--portrays them in the best possible light--then they'll give you the stars and the moon in terms of access, support, etc. If negative, slightly critical, wrong image, etc, then bupkis Right. But I wasn't asking in reference to what kind of actors/stars they'd get. Just the tone. It's not like the military have always been saints and should be always portrayed in a positive light if it's not true. I was basically asking if (or how often) Evelyn thought the military was portrayed in what she thought was an unkind light, basically wrongly.

Bo!! Slideshow of a bunch of pics introducing Bo to the media. Lots of repeats, but new ones interpersed. Gorgeous dog. http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Obama-family-picks-Portuguese-water-dog/ss/events/pl/041209obamadog

April 15th Nationwide Tax Day Tea Party ! Get your protest signs ready! Get out and march!

LOL!!! Where's the winkie? ;-)

That's your perception It's not an *attitude*,IMO, it's the truth. I have a right to my opinion, don't I? But I hadn't realized that when you do it is a "truth." Nationwide Tax Day Tea Party ! What utter silliness, obviously engineered by Repubs with nothing better to do than stir up trouble. The only ones who should be protesting are those making over $250K, but there will be plenty of idiots (Joe the Plumber types) who don't get it. :-( Better they should dump their tea on Wall Street, the source of everyone, who used to have "savings" and "investments" for retirement, etc., real problems. Deception, subterfuge, obfuscation. Sickening.

I think most *stars* get paid about $250K for stints on these reality shows. Blagojevich to star in 'Celebrity' Impeached Illinois governor set for reality TV By MICHAEL SCHNEIDER They may want to name it "I'm a Disgraced Public Figure... Get Me Out of Here." Impeached Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich is set to star in NBC's upcoming summer reality skein "I'm a Celebrity... Get Me Out of Here," the Peacock confirmed Tuesday. But there's a catch: A federal judge must first give his OK. According to the Chicago Tribune, which first broke the story, Blagojevich's attorney has asked a judge handling the corruption case against the former governor to loosen his travel restrictions. That's because Blagojevich would be required spend time on Costa Rica, where the show will take place and air live this summer on NBC. Since his departure from the Illinois gubernatorial job, Blagojevich has maintained a very public profile, having just served as a guest host on Chicago's WLS talk radio station. "Based on the hit U.K. reality show, "I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here!" is a groundbreaking live series event premiering June 1 and stripped over four weeks in June," NBC said in a statement. "Ten celebrities of various backgrounds will be dropped into the heart of the Costa Rican jungle to face challenges designed to test their skills in adapting to the wilderness and to raise money for their favorite charities. Rod Blagojevich will be a participant on the show pending the court's approval." http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118002427.html?categoryid=1043&cs=1 [Ed note: I wonder what Rod's charity is. But I'd bet it is one Patty set up. *snort*]

Anti-Obama 'tea party' protests mark US tax day by Sebastian Smith Sebastian Smith 1 hr 16 mins ago NEW YORK (AFP) � Critics of President Barack Obama marked national tax day Wednesday with "tea party" protests that Republicans are calling the birth of a grassroots opposition, but Democrats dismiss as a fraud. [Ed note: a synonym for truth] Organizers promised hundreds of protests across the country against taxes and Obama's big-spending budget proposals. Obama says his budget will jump start the economy out of recession, but protesters warn the country will instead sink beneath its debt burdens. The demonstrations, styled on the famous 1773 Boston Tea Party revolt against British colonial taxes, came as Americans rushed to meet the annual deadline for filing income tax returns. Protests were to feature dumping of teabags, iced tea and other tea-related stunts. But despite the catchy theme and revolutionary-era symbolism, there were questions about whether the scattered Republican forces would be able to ensure a significant turnout. Organizer Eric Odom said protests would take place in almost 800 cities. Calling it "a new day for the freedom movement," he estimated that tens of thousands would take to the streets. Dick Armey, chairman of the conservative Freedom Works group, described the tea parties as "the shot across the bow as taxpayers defend themselves against out of control government spending." But Democrats scathingly attacked the tea parties as an imitation grass roots movement manufactured by fringe elements of the right. The tea parties "have been largely a creation of the same gang that already ran conservatism off the rails," wrote David Waldman on the liberal Daily Kos politics blog. Meanwhile, Obama was to meet with working families to "discuss the unprecedented action his administration has taken to give tax cuts to the Americans who need them, while jump-starting growth and job creation in the process," the White House said. The man credited with sparking the protests is CNBC television commentator Rick Santelli, who called in February for a "tea party" to oppose government bailouts for mortgage defaulters. The clip of Santelli's angry outburst has been viewed on YouTube more than a million times. The protests stand out for the use of Web-savvy marketing, something barely seen in John McCain's unsuccessful battle for the White House against Democrat Obama. Odom described Wednesday as the birth of a new Republican movement able to match Obama's formidable support network. "New leaders will come into play, new coalitions will form, new tax groups will be born, and a new energy will surround us all across the country," Odom wrote. "A completely new face will be put on a movement that has suffered at the hands of attempted top down control and old school political hacks over the years." But Democrats were working overtime, well in advance of the protests, to dismiss them as irrelevant. Criticism ranges from allegations that the protests are a political con staged by corporations, to poking fun at Republicans' seemingly innocent vow to go "tea-bagging" -- a word that in slang signifies a sex act. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090415/ts_alt_afp/uspoliticstaxprotest

I read last night, this is no true grassroots operation....lobbyists behind it. Lots of $$ and organization behind it. "And Think Progress: Despite these attempts to make the "movement" appear organic, the principle organizers of the local events are actually the lobbyist-run think tanks Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works. The two groups are heavily staffed and well funded, and are providing all the logistical and public relations work necessary for planning coast-to-coast protests" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Corporate Lobbyists Raising Money For Tea Parties By: Jane Hamsher Monday April 13, 2009 7:16 am Teabaggers are having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that "grassroots" demonstrations aren't orchestrated by corporate lobbyists. Understandable -- if you didn't have any experience organizing a demonstration that didn't have millions in free PR from Fox News and well-funded GOP fat cats providing a national infrastructure, you wouldn't know the difference. They seem to be particularly upset about links I sent out yesterday on Twitter (using the teaparty hashtags #tcot and #teaparty) regarding a report by Lee Fang at Think Progress documenting the involvement of corporate lobbyists FreedomWorks in organizing the teabaggers. FreedomWorks is run by ladies' man (and registered lobbyist) Dick Armey, and if they're not "organizing" the Tea parties, it's news to them. From the FreedomWorks website: " With your help, we have been able to organize hundreds of Taxpayer Tea Parties across the country, from Santa Barbara, California to Amarillo, Texas, and all the way to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [] If you are not able to organize or attend a Taxpayer Tea Party, you can still help the cause by donating or buying a t-shirt. You can also spread the word via email, facebook and word of mouth. If you would like to post updates on tea parties in your state, or if you’d like to get in touch with other people planning tea parties, visit our Tea Party HQ. We have created an interactive Google map that you can use to locate a tea party near you!" The "donation" for the Tea Parties page goes to -- you guessed it -- the FreedomWorks Foundation. The "thank you" lettter is signed by Matt Kibbe, President & CEO, who cut his teeth working for Lee Atwater. He was behind the attempt to get Ralph Nader put on the ballot in Oregon in 2004, prompting a complaint to the FEC of illegal collusion with the GOP. FreedomWorks was launched [as] a GOP version of MoveOn. "We believe that hard work beats daddy's money," said Dick Armey at the time. Armey seems to be a bit irony challenged -- Steve Forbes is on the FreedomWorks board. As Krugman notes, their money comes from the Koch, Scaife, Bradley, Olin and other reliable funders of right wing infrastructure including Exxon Mobil. I don't know which is sadder -- the fact that the Teabaggers don't understand that it would be impossible for them to do what they're doing without this kind of infrastructure behind them, or the fact that they're being manipulated by the very people they appear to be raging against who are only looking to channel their anger for their own purposes. Whatever. Glenn Reynolds seems to have blown a gasket over the whole thing today, and that's always a good thing. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ And: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/14/719949/-Its-official:-GOP-is-the-tea-bag-party

From an interview on Fox Business News' show with Stuart Varney, this interview excerpt... Varney: There are thousands of parties and you're saying is the nature of this fraud? Leser: Well, if you look back at it. The Chicago tea party.com website was actually created or registered in August of 2008 that's long before Obama was president had a chance to enact any of his policies. This has actually been in the works for a very long time. It's being portrayed as something recent and spontaneous and it's anything but that. [Ed. note - I read this previously several other places in the past couple of weeks.] I would ask them, where were they during the last 28 years, 20 of which when we had a Republican administration in office that ran up massive deficits. Varney: It's only in the last two or three months, or six weeks that the extent of this problem has emerged. The extent of congressional spending the extent of the deficit, the impending huge tax increases that we face. It's only become apparent in the last six weeks, during which time we've had a Democrat Congress and a Democrat in the White House. Leser: I can't let you get away with that one, Stuart... It's amazing to me that any Republican with a straight face would try and talk about fiscal responsibility. Republicans have absolutely no credibility on fiscal responsibility. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ For the rest of the

Oops... for the rest of the transcript and video of the interview between Stuart and Steve Leser, the Editor of OpEdNews, go here: http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/lesser-tea-parties-these-tax-day-tea-pa

This upsets me more than that ridiculous tea protest. From the AP: Afghans Stone Women Protesting Sex Law KABUL (April 15) -- A group of some 1,000 Afghans swarmed a demonstration of 300 women protesting against a new conservative marriage law on Wednesday. The women were pelted with small stones as police struggled to keep the two groups apart. The law, passed last month, says a husband can demand sex with his wife every four days unless she is ill or would be harmed by intercourse � a clause that critics say legalizes marital rape. It also regulates when and for what reasons a wife may leave her home alone. Women's rights activists scheduled a protest Wednesday attended by mostly young women. But the group was swamped by counter-protesters � both men and women � who shouted down the women's chants. Some picked up gravel and stones and threw them at the women, while others shouted "Death to the slaves of the Christians!" Female police held hands around the group to create a protective barrier. The government of President Hamid Karzai has said the Shiite family law is being reviewed by the Justice Department and will not be implemented in its current form. Governments and rights groups around the world have condemned the legislation, and President Barack Obama has labeled it "abhorrent." Though the law would apply only to the country's Shiites � 10 to 20 percent of Afghanistan's 30 million people � it has sparked an uproar by activists who say it marks a return to Taliban-style oppression. The Taliban, who ruled Afghanistan from 1996-2001, required women to wear all-covering burqas and banned them from leaving home without a male relative. Shiite backers of the law say that foreigners are meddling in private Afghan affairs, and Wednesday's demonstrations brought some of the emotions surrounding the debate over the law to the surface. "You are a dog! You are not a Shiite woman!" one man shouted to a young woman in a headscarf holding aloft a banner that said "We don't want Taliban law." The woman did not shout back at the man, but told him: "This is my land and my people." Women protesting the law said many of their supporters had been blocked by men who refused to let them join the protest. Those who did make it shouted repeatedly that they were defending human rights by defending women's rights and that the law does not reflect the views of the Shiite community. Fourteen-year-old Masuma Hasani said her whole family had come out to protest the law � both her parents and her younger sister who she held by the arm. "I am concerned about my future with this law," she said. "We want our rights. We don't want women to just be used." As the back-and-forth continued, another demonstration of Shiite women who said they support the law began. "We don't want foreigners interfering in our lives. They are the enemy of Afghanistan," said 24-year-old Mariam Sajadi. Sajadi is engaged, and said she plans to ask her husband's permission to leave the house as put forth in the law. She said other controversial articles � such as one giving the husband the right to demand sex from his wife every fourth day � have been misinterpreted by Westerners who are anti-Islam.

IMO, those Shiite women were forced by their husbands to speak in favor. The Shiites are now the majority rule in Iraq thanks to Bush. Saddam Hussein who was a Sunni tolerated even the Christians, in fact some of his cabinet were Christians. Bush has turned back the clock in that country. The US should have been concentrating in Afghanistan and the Taliban instead of pulling out troups for Iraq. I feel for those women. Impeach Bush and Cheney! Or stone them.

I agree, Moon, that's awful. Saw that this morning. Impeach Bush and Cheney! Huh????

No huh, about it, Dorine. Is it too late to impeach? It's their fault we abandoned Afghanistan and created the Iraq disaster. Would you prefer to stone them? I'm up for it. You know where they would be in Dante's inferno.

Oh dear....all of a sudden only Liberals can protest. LOL. FYI it wasn't only Repubs...saw some Dems there as well who are protesting the riduculous budget. I seem to remember...vaguely....people braying around here about the debt...No mo' Had a wonderful time at the Tea Party. Perfect spring day. Band playing, flags flying, buntings on the stands,the ice cream truck, college kids ,moms with strollers. And of course, the Tea Party tee shirts ...people voicing their opinions. As American as it gets. Made me appreciate democracy. "There�s not a lot of countries, of course, that afford their people that, that type of right. It�s a great thing.�

Deception, subterfuge, obfuscation. Sickening. Oh dear...strong words. No use getting sick over this. Besides, not nicey to make fun of my cause...I don't denigrate yours;-((( (Karen)But I hadn't realized that when you do it is a "truth." To me it is. I don't speak for anyone else. (Dorine)I read last night, this is no true grassroots operation....lobbyists behind it. Lots of $$ and organization behind it. Probably, ...that's bad? But I didn't see no George Soros Hedge Fund types around...;-) I guess they're busy funding lib causes...;-)

Probably, ...that's bad? It's fraudulent for one thing. (Moon) Is it too late to impeach? Um, Moon, yes...yes, it is.

Isn't the purpose of impeachment to bring to trial and, if found guilty, to ultimately remove from office????? Those two men are no longer in office.

Oops, this time you beat me to the draw, Dorine. :-)

Probably, ...that's bad? It's fraudulent for one thing. How do you know they were funded by lobbyists or organizations? (Pl , no Daily Kos.) At least they didn't hire protesters!!(NIMBY anyway;-) I had a wonderful day...only having my Drool friends with me would have made it better;-D

LOL, Kathryn. Moon, I completely agree with your sentiment, but what's done is done now (with regard to Cheney and Bush). They should be brought to The Hague, then maybe stoned ;-), but that's a whole 'nother conversation. FYI it wasn't only Repubs...saw some Dems there as well who are protesting the riduculous budget I have nothing against protests, or even protests against the debt, when genuine. And some of those people are genuine. Actually many of them are genuine, except some of them have no freakin' clue what they're talking about nor have any clue what's on some of the stupid signs they're carrying. A lot of them are Joe the Plumbers, and we all know how astute he was. Though just like that guest on the FBN show I posted about earlier, I'm curious where all these same poor, disgruntled people (and I guess you, since you say you support these "tea parties") were over the past 8 years as the debt was being racked up. Nary a peep. It didn't happen a few months ago.

I posted stuff from all over how that's know who funded it. If you read it, you'll know too.

Or how about this.... I was going to post excerpts from this earlier, but now I'll just post the link for the whole thing. http://washingtonindependent.com/38533/tea-party-activists-tax-day-events-will-attract-silent-majority In it, among many links in blue (that I'm sure you'll feel free to ignore also ;-)), is this .... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opinion/13krugman.html?em from where this excerpt comes: "Last but not least: it turns out that the tea parties don�t represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They�re AstroTurf (fake grass roots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects. In particular, a key role is being played by FreedomWorks, an organization run by Richard Armey, the former House majority leader, and supported by the usual group of right-wing billionaires. And the parties are, of course, being promoted heavily by Fox News. But that�s nothing new, and AstroTurf has worked well for Republicans in the past. The most notable example was the �spontaneous� riot back in 2000 � actually orchestrated by G.O.P. strategists � that shut down the presidential vote recount in Florida�s Miami-Dade County."

I posted stuff from all over how that's know who funded it. I'm not sure what I meant to take out or leave in this sentence, LOL!!

(Me) A lot of them are Joe the Plumbers Was just rereading today's comments and OMG, I totally skipped over, Karen, that you made a Joe the Plumber reference, too, regarding the protesters. Ha!

Good?

(Dorine)Actually many of them are genuine, except some of them have no freakin' clue what they're talking about nor have any clue what's on some of the stupid signs they're carrying. A lot of them are Joe the Plumbers, and we all know how astute he was. Not a v. kind statement about the populists...coming from "the elite"????????;-) PS Joe was right! Wealth distribution! and I guess you, since you say you support these "tea parties") were over the past 8 years as the debt was being racked up ah yes, .... the good ole days when we were only $1.T in debit;-)) Sorry...Am now signing off....Opera takes precedence ...don't be offended ;-)"Lucia di Lammermoor" coming on PBS with Ana Netrebko, gorgeous Russian soprano...Don't miss it. "Rabble -Rouser -evelyn" as one of our lurking friends calls me.LOL. My socialist son's warning: "Pl don't get arrested mom". Wonnnnnderful day:-))))

I went to the final dress rehearsal for that last fall. Loved that one. Enjoy! ah yes, .... the good ole days when we were only $1.T in debit;-)) The point being...of course....that at least you...and I'll bet a good amount of those people out there now, weren't out there then. The material questions being....why not? And why now? Is there a limit over which it's inspiring to protest publically? One 1T didn't cut it, I guess. That was ok. Now 10T (which I'm not happy with either) is another matter. If you do get arrested, I'm sure the mug shot would be priceless. :-D

Not a v. kind statement about the populists...coming from "the elite"????????;-) If common sense and critical thinking makes me elite (and perhaps a socialist, too!) I'm proud to wear that banner. :-)

I will say, that there is something that bothers me about Obama's supporters, who worked for his campaign locally and have formed a local branch of his Health Care advocacy group that I joined. They've had several meetings, only one of which I could go to since most of the time they give extremely short notice that they're occurring. But the thing I learned there is that there are 2 plans, Obama's and the Baucus plan. They keep saying we need to call and write this person and that person asking for support for Obama's plan. Except, I'm not sure I can fully support his plan (or Baucus' for that matter), until there's more of an actual..... plan. I can't totally get behind any of the ideas yet, since they're more concepts than plans. I know what'd I'd like to see as a result of any reform, but until some kind of details form, I can't get super involved, unless it's actively supporting healthcare reform vs. no reform at all. That is what I'm totally behind him on. No more status quo. And back to protests, I have nothing at all against people protesting. Matter of fact, I think there was way too little of it for any cause and too much complacency over the past 6-8 years.

(Dorine)One 1T didn't cut it, I guess. That was ok. Now 10T (which I'm not happy with either) is another matter. $1 T. manageable @2% growth which is really what most econs are predicting. Even at 4 % which is the WH predictable $9-10T goes on for generations. I'm with you on the Health Plans...devil is in the details. I still like Hill's plan best and Romney's.. even if Mass. is going broke with it. But we will get a redesign of some kind. Read this article which son sent me ...bu Dr. Atul Gwande in the NYer A bit optimistic, but gives good historical perspective. He was on CR one night. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/01/26/090126fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all

While I'm not saying we shouldn't be cognizant of, nor help the Afghan women, we'd better look in the mirror and clean up our own house first. This is appalling, though I've read some about this before. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/31/military.sexabuse/index.html It's great you like Hill's plan, but really, is that an option anymore? Is that on the table in some form at this point? If not, and potentially won't be, there's no need to reference it anymore. I need to read more on what MA's plan ended up, but yes, it is breaking them. I read yesterday they just worked initially to cover everyone first, then figure out the cost containment part later. Not sure I thought that was the brightest idea, but I need to read more.

And actually, if I remember correctly, wasn't HRC and O's plans extremely similar? Isn't that what was said during the campaigns? Effectively, there is no Hill plan anymore. She's got other things to do.

But the ideas are still there and can be incorporated into a consensus. She didn't copyright them;-) I need to read more on what MA's plan ended up, but yes, it is breaking them. Raise taxes. Isn't that NY is doing?Raising taxes...and The Donald wants to move, LOL If states want to expand benefits, the residents should pay for such, IMO; why expect other states to cover their bills, whose citizens don't enjoy them.

During the campaign Obama copied Hillary's plan except that it did not cover everyone. I've said and even posted here that Obama should have sat with McCain and let McCain trim some of that pork, it would have presented a Bi-partisan united front. They should be brought to The Hague, then maybe stoned ;-) I still can't believe they were not impeached. I certainly signed every petition I saw. I was thinking of the Hague too.

that it did not cover everyone. That's right, that's the difference I keep forgetting. What I really need to research about both is single payer vs. public/private insurance options. And honestly, I think I've tended toward single payer. The problem is, everyone (insurance co's, providers, patients) will have to give up or alter something in the current system to make the new system work. That includes you and me, and Joe Blow down the street. Sacrifices will have to be made and I honestly don't think any of them will be willing to (and I won't elaborate right now on where I think each entity should make the greatest alterations). Everyone gets a piece of the pie now. The pie itself has to shrink where everyone gets less or has to contribute more in some way. IMO. ;-)

$1 trillion in debt? Much higher. That's the cost of the Iraq war alone, and it's a conservative estimate. Bush kept the funding off the books, funding it via "emergency" supplements rather than through the usual budgetary process, so it wasn't reflected in his budgets. But I believe we still owe it.;-) Must ask China.;-) There were no tea parties in Philly or NJ; we're too busy going to work every day and paying taxes.;-) Honestly, if I hadn't read it here, I wouldn't have known what it was.

Actually, there was one in Philly. :-) Found a link this morning to a blog with pics from there that I thought about posting, but hadn't decided yet. Now I will, in a little while.

It got no news coverage that I could see. Nothing in the papers, nothing on the evening news. A non event.

Go through these pics in the first link. Some of the signs are funny. And ironic if you think about it. http://phillybits.blogspot.com/2009/04/yes-its-true-philadelphia-was-heavily.html http://www.philebrity.com/2009/04/15/from-the-desk-brendan-james-walsh-big-wet-tea-bag-decends-on-love-park/ I thought the caption on this was rather priceless http://www.philebrity.com/2009/04/15/more-readers-cameraphone-tea-bag-aerial-view-reveals-small-possibly-poisonous-red-white-and-blue-shrub/ Honestly, I don't disagree with the sentiment of being upset over budget spending, high taxes, etc. It's the hypocrisy that NOW it's a bad thing. Again, where were all these people over the past even few years. Because going from a surplus to a debt in the first place wasn't bad enough (having been dug out of the debt hole we were in the from that previous administration)? And I read last night that the proposed tax changes will still keep people at a level 10% lower than during Reagan's time.

(Mari) Nothing in the papers, nothing on the evening news. A non event. Well, when you see how many were there, or not there as the case may be, I'm not surprised. Though not even the local Fox station was there? Philly's very Democratic? The PTB couldn't get enough local support. That's actually a good thing to investigate. Where the larger protests were.

(Evelyn) Isn't that NY is doing?Raising taxes... Some, but I don't smoke (and raise those to the roof as far as I'm concerned, maybe eveyone will quit). Nor eat a lot of junky sugary stuff (though I think that's off the table now). And my property taxes are spread between all of us in my building. But they ARE raising the MTA fares by beaucoup bucks and cutting service on top of that. That's what I'm up in arms about.

I don't know what people are so upset about taxes anyway for...at the rate we're going, no one's going to be working, so no one will have any taxes to pay with no real money coming in. ;-D

(Moon)that it did not cover everyone. Dorine)That's right, that's the difference I keep forgetting Big diff...if there's no mandate , it won't work. He made a point of criticizing Hill for that...but I agree. Single payer....noooooooo. A non event. I had a good time;-D

I still can't believe they were not impeached. They would have to find The Blue Dress :-D

(Dorine)at the rate we're going, no one's going to be working, so no one will have any taxes to pay with no real money coming in. ;-D Oh dear...now,don't be so despondent. As I tell my family .."be indispensable in your job, you are a good worker, and they can't do w/o you":-) I am v. optimistice about the future of the economy of our country. I have great faith in Tim's bailout plan for banks. LOL..of course it's probably me & the President. But we'll get through this. Of course who's gonna buy those toxic assets...is the $63K question.

(Me), I still can't believe they were not impeached. (Evelyn), They would have to find The Blue Dress :-D Wow, so now Iraq is a great big BJ? ;-) Clinton should have said from the start that it was a private topic between him and his wife. NEVER should the American people have gotten to know about it. I felt so bad for Hillary, that was a private affair between man and wife. He should not have lied, but he should not have been in a position to lie either. The lies of WOMD as an excuse to invade a country is impeachable, IMO. Iraq was better off with Saddam Hussein. Now on to Obama, he wants to get our rail system in order, and I'm all for it. We are so far behind EU and Japan. There are jobs to be had there.

(Evelyn) "be indispensable in your job, you are a good worker, and they can't do w/o you":-) Nice sentiment, but old fashioned. It was true at one time. Unfortunately, I know first hand that's utter BS. Both of my own experiences and most recently a friend at the Met among quite a number of others. Very, very few people are indispensible and many excellent workers lose jobs for no other reason than to save $$. Or some due to job politics. Of course the economy will get better, to some degree, it always does. Just depends on how well, how fast. And how far it will go to bottom out first. But I just hope that ALL the policymakers pull together and take advantage of this opportunity to reboot many things that need rebooting, and do it for the public, not just private good. At least make it a win-win situation for everyone. It's an opportunity that won't (I hope) come again in my lifetime. (Moon) Clinton should have said from the start that it was a private topic between him and his wife. NEVER should the American people have gotten to know about it. Ken Starr and the rest of the Repubs who dug and dug for dirt on him would never have let that be it, and obviously didn't. Have you read any books on how much digging they had to do to get something on him? If only half the effort was made to do something good in this world instead. Unfortunately Bill is his own worst enemy and made it worse by lying and trying to hide it once it came out. Just throw it out there, say you're sorry and move on. Betcha no one would've cared in several months. Frankly, no one should've cared in the first place as it was. But then again, to me, that didn't give Ken Starr, et al the reason or right to spend $72 million of our $$ trying to get that out of him. What a freakin' waste. Those fiscally responsible repubs again. Spending our hard earned money on BS. Just like the Iraq War (though in all fairness, many Dems.... including St. Hillary.... are guilty of that as well for letting it happen, along with the public). Now on to Obama, he wants to get our rail system in order, and I'm all for it. We are so far behind EU and Japan. There are jobs to be had there. Just like Eisenhower with the Interstate highway system in the 50's. But they need to make that train travel much more efficient and accessible than it is now.

Knew that would stir you all up on a dull day.....;-))))

Crap. I'll repost if you delete the above, Karen, please. (Evelyn) Big diff...if there's no mandate , it won't work. He made a point of criticizing Hill for that...but I agree. Single payer....noooooooo. Why not? I haven't decided yet myself. I think I'm leaning to public/private. My ideal on the surface would be....everyone should have access to basic and preventative healthcare. For anything above and beyond that...dialysis, surgeries (at least elective), anything elective really that isn't needed for emergency diagnostic purposes at the very least, should be covered by private insurance that people get either through work or on their own. This is just my initial thoughts and there's so much to consider. The main thing that I think needs to happen (but I have truly no confidence that it will)....and I've said this before, is that there needs to be a tremendous shift in attitude and expectations on the part of each and every individual about their own health and their own responsibility for it. Now I see the concept of it creeping into an increasing number of articles that even remotely touch on healthcare reform, as well as those that focus on a variety of completed studies on various aspects of treatment. Basically what it comes down to is healthcare frequently can't help those who don't help themselves. It was a philosophy I imparted to my patients and especially in rehab it's true. I can give them the tools, equipment and exercises, but it was up to them to do the actual work and help to get themselves better, to maximize their potential. I couldn't do it for them. Unfortunately, people expect the magic pill to make them all better, and it doesn't frequently work that way. And the system can't continue to afford that attitude. *steps off soapbox*

(Evelyn) Knew that would stir you all up on a dull day.....;-)))) *snort* You rabblerouser, you!

(Evelyn) If states want to expand benefits, the residents should pay for such, IMO;why expect other states to cover their bills, whose citizens don't enjoy them. I don't quite understand the etiology of this comment. Did I miss something? What states are expecting other states to cover their bills? What type of services?

This is a long piece, but I think worth copying here. I found this very logical and reasoned. And actually, what I found rather notable about it, is this is the second piece I've read in 2 days that mentions Mumia protests, and he's done it twice here. I don't remember where I read the other article that mentioned Mumia. For those inclined, in the original article I've copied, there are a number of links highlighted in orange that may be of interest for further reading, for clarification, etc. Atrios: "All fun aside, there's obviously nothing wrong with the right attempting to engage in protest politics. The problem is that it was never clear what they were protesting. So far Obama has cut taxes for most of the population and... well, that's it. The protests of "The Left" have long been mocked for lacking message discipline. That criticism has often been fair. The difference is that our side's protests generally have a single point ("don't do this stupid fucking war in Iraq") which gets hijacked by a bunch of other causes when the speakers hit the stage. But the teabaggers... honestly, I still have no idea what it was about. I mean, I know it was about tribal allegiance against Barack Mumia Saddam Obama III. But it wasn't actually about anything else." Now's as good a time as any to take a break from mocking the teabaggers in favor of a more serious look at what they accomplished yesterday. I've never made a secret for my distaste of most street protests, and of groups like Code Pink that think they are accomplishing anything with their street theater. But when I set out to write Taking on the System, my book on effective organizing in the 21st century, I had to dig deep to figure out why I didn't like them, and how to differentiate the usual ineffective ANSWER-organized protests with those that actually had a positive effect (e.g. the Jena Six and pro-immigration protests of a few years ago). I finally determined that for a protest to be effective it needed to: 1. be novel and/or unexpected 2. have a sympathetic, singular, and media-friendly message 3. provide great visuals 4. tap into a hot-button and timely issue. The usual leftist protests fail most of these, falling into the worst, cartoonish stereotypes. They feature a mishmash of causes and issues, with no unifying theme. Is the protest about the Iraq War? Or Palestine? Or American imperialism? Or freeing Mumia? Or legalizing marijuana? Or blah blah blah blah? Who the heck knows? Who the heck cares? This is a classic clip from the Daily Show after one such protest: Stewart: On Saturday, a 100,000 strong peace march descended on Washington seeking to crystallize America's dissatisfaction with the war into one single idea. Clip of young male speaker: Peace! Stewart: Okay. Clip of male speaker: Justice! Stewart: (pause) Fine. Clip of male speaker: Environmental protection! Stewart: (pause, confused look on face) Clip of male speaker: No racism! Stewart: (dumb-founded, and then says in Valley Girl-like voice) Dude! I didn't hike from Oberlin for this. There's nothing novel, new, or interesting about these protests, making them easy to ignore. We've seen them a million times, the visuals are easily mockable, with the dreads and the stupid puppets and whatnot. And not only are they patently ridiculous, but we saw just how ineffective they were during the Bush years. No one gave a damn about them, not the media, not powers-that-be (in either party), and certainly not the public. It wasn't the protest movement that moved the Democratic Party left on Iraq, it was Joe Lieberman's loss in his Democratic primary in 2006. Prior to that, Rahm Emanuel, as head of the DCCC, was telling Democratic candidates to steer clear of the war. After that primary, the Dems fully embraced ending the war in their campaigns and won huge that fall. In other words, the anti-war cause was best served via electoral politics. After Lieberman's loss, not even the media could ignore the saliency and validity of the anti-war position. "Patriotism" could no longer be used to silence anti-war voices, we had helped mainstream them. So now conservatives are out in the cold, far from the levers of power. They are feeling marginalized, ignored, powerless. We know the feeling. It wasn't long ago that we were there. But instead of adopting the tactics that best served liberals on our way back to power, conservatives seemed to have learned the exact wrong lesson, adopting our most ineffective ones. And having decided to do street protests, rather than learn from the people that have done effective street protests (like the pro-immigration forces), they decided to go the Code Pink/ANSWER route. So looking at our list above: 1. be novel and/or unexpected Other than anti-abortion protests, the Right doesn't really do protests. Their instinct is to laugh at the hippies out on the streets, not take to the streets themselves. So yeah, these were kind of new and unexpected. Give them a point. 2. have a sympathetic, singular, and media-friendly message What was the message? Too much taxes? I didn't see many bank executives and Wall Street types out on the streets. And coming on the heels of the biggest tax cut in American history, almost entirely directed at the middle class, this message didn't have much salience. Furthermore, the theme of these protests "taxation without representation", was pretty silly considering that these people did have representation. It's just that they lost the elections, which sort of happens in a democracy. "Representation" doesn't mean you always get your way, it means that you have a vote. So it was an indefensible frame to base the protests around. That's probably why the crowds didn't easily rally around it, deciding to freelance it instead. So there was talk about pork barrel spending! And bail outs! And wanting to stick a knife in Obama's eye (at 1:07)! And secession! And Obama's birth certificate! And Obama taking away their guns! And the American taxpayers are the Jews for Obama's ovens! And Obama is Hitler! And blah blah blah blah. Conservatives were doing their best to impersonate the "free Mumia!" crowd. Throw in the terrible name (you really don't want to be associated with sex acts), and it simply wasn't a great message day for these guys. 3. provide great visuals Did the country really need another group of people getting together to chant crazy slogans and wave stupid signs? It's boring and trite when the ANSWER/Code Pink crowd does it, and it's boring and trite when dumbass conservatives do it. I mean, after all the time conservatives have spent mocking those dirty fucking hippies, they really thought it'd be a good idea to do the exact same thing? The small number of protesters certainly proved counter-productive. If you claim a mass popular uprising, you can't have hundreds of people show up to events. Remember, conservatives claimed that 10 million anti-war protesters back in 2003 were fringe (Bush called them a "focus group"), what's that make 100-250,000 protesters nationwide? That's less than what some cities got during the anti-war and pro-immigration rallies. If we wanted to paint the protesters as part of some fringe (which we did, because they are), there was no better way to do so than to laugh at the pathetic turnout. Throw in an exclusively white crowd protesting our nation's first black president (to the great delight of the Stormfront crowd), and really, the visuals were simply terrible. There's only so much that Fox News' tight crowd shots could do to pretend otherwise. 4. tap into a hot-button and timely issue Tax Day is a good time to protest taxes, sure, but their problem is that taxes aren't currently a hot topic of national debate. As much as they may think otherwise, the nation is focused instead on economic matters, as the financial, jobs, and real estate crisis has decimated families and plunged us into the worst economy since the Great Depression. People like government stimulus spending. Many are benefiting from it. The only people who have any gripes about taxes are those making over $250,000 a year, and there isn't going to be any broad sympathy among the broader public for that crowd (hence the small crowds), especially in this environment. So what did the teabaggers ultimately accomplish yesterday? They proved that even with the combined might of Fox News and Conservative Talk Radio (and their tens of millions of listeners), they couldn't mobilize a significant part of their base to take to the streets. They showed that their views, contrary to their beliefs, are simply not striking a chord with the broader public. They showed that they have learned the worst lessons from progressives (while we were learning the best lessons from their side). They gave their ideological opponents (like us) more visual proof of their fringiness (like Texas Gov. Rick Perry talking secession). And they did a great job motivating and entertaining our side as well (we had our best traffic day in a while yesterday). So what now? The teabaggers are talking about a new round of protests on July 4th, which will likely feature rhetoric and signage, on our nation's most patriotic holiday, dominated by talk of secession and independence from ... the United States of America. Go for it. For a floundering movement desperately seeking a leader (Sarah! Rush! Glenn!) and a cause, there's nothing better for us than seeing them stick with the ANSWER/Code Pink playbook. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/16/720821/-Why-yesterdays-protests-were-stupid

Not sure why she thinks turning the US newspapers into Izvestiya is such a hot idea. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/16/obama-appointee-suggests-radical-plan-newspaper-bailout/ But critics say her proposal would spell an end to the independent media and make journalists reliant lapdogs. Funny, I thought it was this way already to a large degree with current corporate ownership. The decline of print journalism and the rise in online journalism, or "journalism" is a big theme running through the new film, State of Play (v.g. by the way).

I can't possibly disagree more with this statement from Obama: "This is a time for reflection, not retribution," Obama said. "We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past." http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090417/pl_afp/usattackspoliticstorture_20090417030812

I don't read Daily Kos..links or copy/paste material. Sorry

You really don't have to keep repeating that. We get it. But other people do, at least sometimes.

Sorry. AAA

Well, certainly no need to be sorry. :-) Better watch out, the new type of identity theft... but not to take your money, it's for advocacy. This paper is from somewhere in Mass. It was a bit of a fluke they found out. Published: April 13, 2009 03:21 am Elderly used as front in letter-writing campaign 'Grass-roots' effort looks more like Astroturf By Ken Johnson kjohnson@eagletribune.com Across Massachusetts, senior citizens are writing letters to newspapers demanding that their representatives in Congress protect a form of health insurance called Medicare Advantage. At least that's what newspaper editors are supposed to think. Some of those seniors are unaware that they have sent any such letters to newspapers. Some of them hadn't even heard of Medicare Advantage. "I did not write a letter to the editor. It's not from me," said Gloria Gosselin, 75, of Lawrence. Gosselin's name was on one of three strikingly similar letters touting the Medicare Advantage program that were sent to The Eagle-Tribune. [.....cont...] http://www.eagletribune.com/punews/local_story_103032149.html

(Dorine), (though in all fairness, many Dems.... including St. Hillary.... are guilty of that as well for letting it happen, along with the public). Excuse me, but her husband had just finished 2 terms as President, and she knew that the President is privy to secret information. She trusted that Mr Bush was giving out information that left no doubt as to Iraq having WOMDs because her husband would not have gone to Congress and the American people unless there was proof positive. Re: our rail system: if we are to up then standards as in EU and Japan, that means high/speed rail. The US would highly benefit from it. And many jobs will be created. Re: Healthcare: we need to Socialized it. As I've posted here, I've had nothing but good experiences in Europe with the system.

I'm not one of the seniors to be contacted, nor do I subscribe to Medicare Advantage, but I know people in my church who do. IMO the administration is trying to pay for national type health care over the backs of these folks . Medicare Advantage picks up the 20% Medigap that Medicare doesn't pay; at a minimum premium. A real help to lower middle class seniors on fixed incomes who can't afford Medigap premiums which can be hefty,and do not qualify for Medicaid. Medicare Advantage is not a rip-off as as Jules Stein of the Center for Medicare Advocay implies. Perhaps they would like to subsidize the Medigap premiums in lieu of political contributions.

Excuse me, but her husband had just finished 2 terms as President, and she knew that the President is privy to secret information. She trusted that Mr Bush was giving out information that left no doubt as to Iraq having WOMDs because her husband would not have gone to Congress and the American people unless there was proof positive. That's your story and your stickin' to it! ;-D Well, excuse me ;-)), but apparently some other people still felt the need to vote "no". And why would they have any more info than she did? Because, of course, no one knows anything in Washington about what's going on unless the President (and Colin Powell) tells them.

Pssst. They all got the same intel;-) Incl intelligence committees ,UK & Russia ...American people unless there was proof positive. Moon, FYI there's never "proof positive" in intel assessments. They get thousands of reports a day; some conflicting A v. amorphous business.

FYI there's never "proof positive" in intel assessments. They get thousands of reports a day; some conflicting And we found out later the Admin cherry picked what they wanted of that info to support the plan they already had to attack.

And we found out later the Admin cherry picked what they wanted of that info to support the plan they already had to attack. And where did you get that info...."from something you read"? From someone who wrote a book for profit? ..someone in the Bush administration who had been passed over for promotion? Someone who was perhaps fired? ...maybe an "unidentifed source"? Dissect your sources for the rea son of divulging that information. Did George Tenet say that? Anyone who was in the inner circle? As much as I enjoy Bob Woodward books, if you look closely... He never gives verifiable footnotes to his conversations . There were mistakes made in the administration...but I've never been convinced that the president maliciously lied . But I know others have that opinion And I respect their right to do so.

And where did you get that info...."from something you read"? Where have you been the last 8 years? It came out in the British press.

There was a play written about it. Stuff Happens.

Someone in the UK, help me out here. Save me some time having to go back and look this stuff up.

Nevermind. It was the Downing Street Memos. I can't believe I couldn't remember the name of these off the bat. They could be considered modern day Pentagon Papers. That guy risked his life getting copies of those memos. Just like Daniel Ellsberg. " a remark attributed to Richard Dearlove (then MI6 head) that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed [by the U.S.] around the policy" of removing Saddam Hussein from power, which was taken to show that US intelligence on Iraq prior to the war was deliberately falsified, rather than simply mistaken.[3] As this issue began to be covered by American media (Los Angeles Times on page 3 May 12, 2005, Washington Post on page 18 May 13, 2005[4]), two other main allegations stemming from the memo arose: that the UN weapons inspection process was manipulated to provide a legal pretext for the war, and that pre-war air strikes were deliberately ramped up in order to soften Iraqi infrastructure in preparation for war, prior to the October U.S. Senate vote permitting the invasion.[5] Some elements of the U.S. media have portrayed the document as faked or fraudulent, and Dana Perino referred in her daily White House press briefing on December 4, 2008 to the fact that the Bush administration has "debunked" the document previously. The British have tacitly validated its authenticity (as when Tony Blair replied to a press conference question by saying "that memorandum was written before we then went to the United Nations."[6])"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo

And then related to this passage: "The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force." Well, Saddam did let the inspectors back in. They weren't finding anything and something like 2-3 days prior to the start of the bombing campaign ("shock and awe"!!) the inspectors were told to leave by the US govt or they could be killed when the bombing started. They wanted to stay, but that wasn't an option as far as the US was concerned. The bombing was happening anyway. I'm not going over to the bookcase to look in my book for the exact timeline now, written by one of the lead inspectors on the ground at that time. I do tend to read a bit more information than found in blogs.

And can't believe I forgot about this website that I used in a debate with someone else several years ago. The page I'm linking to includes the pdf of the actual memos and a host of other associated documentation. There's a lot of interesting reading there. I've at least skimmed a great deal of it at one time or another. http://downingstreetmemo.com/related.html#DODIGF040507 An interview with the journalist who broke the story. I strongly suggest reading it. http://downingstreetmemo.com/msmith-interview.html I'm done on this for now. There's plenty to keep people busy.

(Evelyn), There were mistakes made in the administration...but I've never been convinced that the president maliciously lied. Thanks Dorine for post looking up and posting the info. Also, let's not forget that Bush Jr wanted to show up daddy and get Saddam Hussein. At least his father knew not to go into Iraq, he knew that if he toppled SH what would come after would be much worse. I wish Jr had had his father's intelligence report. But Jr listened only to Cheney and Rumsfeld. :-(

Downing Street Memo Originals Destroyed The so-called Downing Street Memo - which was presumed to be authentic when Bush administration critics began touting it last month as evidence the president committed impeachable crimes - is actually a manually recreated copy - with the source of the memo now admitting he retyped the document before destroying the originals. British reporter Michael Smith, who broke the memo story in the London Times on May 1, revealed to The Associated Press over the weekend that "he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals Smith's admission means there's now no independent way to determine the accuracy of the Downing Street Memo, i.e., whether he made any typos or transcription errors that could have changed the memo's meaning. The revelation has conjured up memories of the CBS News forged document scandal last year, where anchorman Dan Rather argued that damaging records he obtained from President Bush's National Guard file were essentially accurate, even though they had been faked by his source. While British officials hadn't disputed the authenticity of the Downing Street Memo, a senior member of the Blair government who reviewed the memo in light of reporter Smith's admission could say only that its contents "appeared authentic." That official, however, requested anonymity, refusing to make an on-the-record endorsement of the memo's accuracy. New questions about the authenticity of the Downing Street Memo come at a particularly awkward time for Democrats in America. Only last week, House Democrats staged a mock impeachment hearing based on the re-created document. Former presidential candidate John Kerry announced on June 2 that he intended to confront Congress with the Downing Street Memo, believing at the time that the document's authenticity was beyond reproach. "I think it's a stunning, unbelievably simple and understandable statement of the truth and a profoundly important document that raises stunning issues here at home," he told a reporter. Last week, a Kerry aide said his boss was sending a letter to President Bush demanding that he answer questions about the fake memo http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/6/20/105038.shtml

Was just looking in my bookcase to see which Bob Woodward books I have and forgot I had this: http://www.amazon.com/Hoodwinked-Documents-that-Reveal-Bush/dp/1565849027 Apparently in later printings, they changed the back cover description, as what's in the Editorial Review is not like what's on mine, except for the list of documents, to which they've also added one. My copy says: "As the world concludes that President Bush had little justification for his war on Iraq, Hoodwinked makes publicly available for the first time the primary source documents that show how intelligence on Iraq was consistently distorted, manipulated, and ignored by the administration. Compiled by National Security Archive analyst John Prados, these documents are reproduced, fully annotated, and placed in the context of a detailed narrative of the events leadig up to the conflict. Expanded sections examines the four most contentious issues: the Iraqi nuclear program, unmanned aerial vehicles, uranium from Niger, and the question of Saddam Hussein's link to Al Qaeda and 9/11. Via these "smoking gun" documents, parados offers readers a firsthand view of what may be the biggest government deception since Watergate, bringing out incontrovertible eveidence that we were had. " The list of the documents at the link above is the same except mine doesn't list the first one. It's an incredibly dense and detailed read. It took me a while to get through it and it's hard to assimilate it all. I just opened up to pages 98-99 where they talk about the DOE and a couple of other agencies doing their assessments of the aluminum centrifuges that were supposed to be so critical to their WMD program. Tenet practically contorted himself to use that info for justification to attack when it showed that the tubes were actually the wrong size and that while yes, in some time they could possibly be modified for a weapons program, there was no way it was happening anytime soon and there was no immediate danger as the govt indicated.

And don't forget the highly organized and coordinated propaganda program run by the Defense Dept and the White House using the media and their stable of military analysts, who knew they were being lied to at times and in turn lied themselves to us, all in order to keep their access to the govt for their businesses. It's a very, very long article that took me days to read in the paper. It was at least 2 full pages of that little print inside, plus a good amount on the front page. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2 There's also a sidebar at the NYT site on: How the Pentagon Spread Its Message Audio, video and documents that show how the military�s talking points were disseminated. * Excerpts From Selected Documents * All Documents Released (Department of Defense Web Site) So, in conclusion, it appears to be a little bit more than *opinion* that *all* those people lied through their teeth about the war. Unfortunate, to say the least. On a side note, did anyone ever watch the amazing documentary, Fog of War? I highly recommend it. There are parts in it of excerpts of tapes recorded in the White House of Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara talking about various aspects of the Vietnam War that almost mirror some things that were happening in the Iraq War (troop buildups/strategy/propaganda). It was almost as if you could replace McNamara with Rumsfeld and Johnson with Bush or Cheney. Scary actually, because one would've thought the US had learned something from what happened in Vietnam and not let it happen again. The music from Philip Glass was pretty awesome, too.

*snort* Hate to tell you, Evelyn, you're rather predictable. I was reading some stuff last night about them being destroyed and the Newsmax reference and thought to myself, she'll point that out if saying nothing else. Because really, what else is there to say? Also, so what if they're destroyed. The AP has the pdf's of the copies up. I read 4 1/2 of them last night. The copies exist out there. "Following the advice of company lawyers, Michael Smith, the journalist who first reported on the Downing Street Memo, has said that he protected the identity of his source by reproducing all documents and returning the 'originals' back to the source. In some cases, a document was retyped from a photocopy, and the photocopy destroyed.[43] This has led some to question the document's authenticity, but no official source has questioned it, and it has been unofficially confirmed to various news organizations, including the Washington Post, NBC, The Sunday Times, and the LA Times. Several other documents obtained by Smith, and treated similarly (see below), were confirmed as genuine by the UK Foreign Office.[44]" "According to CNN, currently classified documents which were dated at the same month as the Downing Street memo, March 2002, were uncovered in Iraq, and contained evidence that Russian intelligence notified Iraq about the "determination of the United States and Britain to launch military action."[48]"

You read the interview with the journalist, right? This explains the copies/originals. We can presume the original originals are still intact I suppose. (Michael Smith) "A: I was given the first six documents in September 2004. I have referred to these documents as the originals because they were the first documents that I was given. But these were of course not the "originals" of the actual documents. They were photocopies of the original documents. Such documents have to be registered and the source could not have walked off with them without being found out. Quite apart from that there were a number of different copies of the documents in circulation within government. There was always more than one copy of each of the original documents held by the government. For instance, the Straw letter to Blair was marked strictly personal. But there would still have to have been at least two copies of it, one held by Blair's office and one by Straw's."

You know what? It's a hard pill to swallow and I'd imagine disillusioning. I never thought I'd see something like this happen outside of movies.

Guess it was my turn to stir up the nest on a slow day with: And we found out later the Admin cherry picked what they wanted of that info to support the plan they already had to attack. ;-)

Ok, for the sake of argument, let's say the Downing St Memos aren't real. Or even don't exist. What is real and does is exist is the transcript of Hans Blix's UN testimony on March 7, 2003 where he says they found *nothing* so far of a credible WMD program. Wasn't that the reason given to go to war? Because they could launch a missile in 45 mins to hit it's neighbors? The "mushroom cloud" and all that? But they were finding *nada*....2 wks before the invasion. They'd been looking since November when they were allowed back in. Regardless of what the intel said or didn't say, if there was nothing at that point found, there was no reason to attack at that particular time, if at any time at all. Plain and simple.

Let's see what happens.... Obama: Like families, govt to make hard choices By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer 41 mins ago WASHINGTON � Families are making tough decisions about their money and so too will their government, President Barack Obama said Saturday, promising that spending cuts are coming � and soon. At a Cabinet meeting Monday, the president will ask department and agency heads for specific proposals for trimming their budgets. "If we're going to rebuild our economy on a solid foundation, we need to change the way we do business in Washington. We need to restore the American people's confidence in their government � that it is on their side, spending their money wisely, to meet their families' needs," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address, released while he attended the Summit of the Americans in Trinidad. To help achieve his goal of an efficient government, Obama announced the appointment of Jeffrey Zients, a founder and managing partner of the investment firm Portfolio Logic, as chief performance officer. Zients, who also will serve as deputy director for management of the Office of Management and Budget, will work to streamline processes and cut costs. On that front, Obama gave notice he wants to act quickly. "In the coming weeks, I will be announcing the elimination of dozens of government programs shown to be wasteful or ineffective," he said. "In this effort, there will be no sacred cows and no pet projects. All across America, families are making hard choices, and it's time their government did the same." Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is ending consulting contracts to create new seals and logos that, Obama said, have cost the department $3 million since 2003. Obama also cited Defense Secretary Robert Gates' plan to overhaul contracting procedures and eliminate billions in wasteful spending and cost overruns. The president praised Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Carl Levin, D-Mich., who are leading the effort in Congress. Republicans have kept up a steady stream of criticism of Obama's spending, both of his $787 billion stimulus plan and his $3.6 trillion budget proposal. "Earlier this week, President Obama said that we need to get serious about fiscal discipline by trimming waste in the federal budget," Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said in the GOP address. "Republicans couldn't agree more. We want to work with the president to get our financial house back in order." "It's irresponsible to borrow more than all previous American presidents combined. And it must stop if we want to get our economy moving again," McCarthy said. "When will all this spending and borrowing end?" Obama said he's determined to try to cut costs. "That is why I have assembled a team of management, technology and budget experts to guide us in this work," he said, "leaders who will help us revamp government operations from top to bottom and ensure that the federal government is truly working for the American people." Along with Zients at chief performance officer, Obama named Aneesh Chopra, currently the technology secretary for Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia, as the country's chief technology officer. On Feb. 3, Nancy Killefer withdrew her candidacy to be the first chief performance officer for the federal government, saying she didn't want her mishandling of payroll taxes on her household help to become a distraction for the administration. Killefer was one of several Obama choices for top positions who have dealt with tax problems. ___ On the Net: Obama address: http://www.whitehouse.gov McCarthy address: http://www.youtube.com/RepublicanConference Portfolio Logic: http://www.portfoliologic.com http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090418/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_economy;_ylt=Ap7IKSsh9UFH4nam4VNvGc2s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJmdmNrZnE4BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwNDE4L29iYW1hX2Vjb25vbXkEY3BvcwM1BHBvcwMxMQRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNvYmFtYWxpa2VmYW0-

(me) Tenet practically contorted himself to use that info for justification to attack when it showed that the tubes were actually the wrong size and that while yes, in some time they could possibly be modified for a weapons program, there was no way it was happening anytime soon and there was no immediate danger as the govt indicated. Hey!! Somebody give that man a medal for his successful work leading us up into the war! Oh wait, they did. :-(((

Dorine, Dorine....you're giving me narratives...not hard core proof . No NYT, no Hans Blix "said"... I didn't say there were WMDs, I said I am convinced Pres. Bush did not maliciously lie. If the proof was there, I am sure Rep. Conyers would have acted on it long ago while Bush 43 was in office. Now,.... I'm going to go to the movies and out to dinner...so I want you to keep looking for ... The Blue Dress See you later;-)

I didn't say there were WMDs You didn't say it, but the Bush Administration did. Hence this whole discussion about going to war. http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.blix/index.html Conyers and others tried, and as became a pattern throughout the rest of both his terms, Bush, et al, refused to comply with the requests. Why not? Did they have something to hide? "On 5 May 2005, Congressman John Conyers sent a letter to President Bush signed by 89 of his colleagues demanding an explanation of the revelations in the memo. No specific White House response to the letter was ever made publicly. In response to the Bush Administration's refusal to answer the congressional delegation's questions, Conyers et al. have given serious consideration to sending a fact-finding mission to the UK.[8] Conyers initially requested 100,000 signatures from citizens (a petition) to request that President Bush answer the questions in his letter. The letter has been getting between 20,000 and 25,000 signatures a day, which was boosted by MoveOn.org joining the campaign on 9 June. By 13 June 2005, the letter had received over 540,000 signatures from citizens, and more congressmen had signed on, bringing the total to 94.[9] As of 16 June 2005, over 100 congressmen had signed the letter, including then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. On June 16, 2005; Conyers presided over a hearing or forum on the Downing Street memo in a basement room in the Capitol where Joseph C. Wilson and Cindy Sheehan among others testified.[10][11][12] The House Republican leadership did not allow Conyers to use an official hearing room and compelled him to hold the hearing in the basement because the hearing was unofficial." I said I am convinced Pres. Bush did not maliciously lie. And this is it a nutshell. You don't want to believe it, so you won't. It is indeed your prerogative. I, of course, wanted and believed every bit of it to be true, simply because I'm a dirty, stinkin' liberal who disliked Bush for no reason whatsoever except his party affiliation, didn't use any kind of critical thinking or do a significant amount of reading from various sources about anything and believed everything that Bush critics told me is true. Conversely, a lot of people are convinced Jesus Christ was the Messiah, too. And I'd say the evidence about that is a helluva lot less convincing or evident than something like the Downing Street Memos. Actually, don't get me started on the concept of religion and believing or not believing things to be true. ;-)) It's also a lot easier for you to accuse me of not finding "proof" and make me work at finding more things (which has been relatively easy to do) rather than actually coming up with any counterargument or proof to the contrary, with the exception of a weak piece from Newsmax, of all places. I have to find NYT, WaPo, etc pieces as what you consider credible sources.....and you come up with .....Newsmax. Hardly on par with the others, would you say? And I know, if you had some other argument or "proof" to the contrary that was credible, you wouldn't hesitate to post it. I can only gather that it's because as I said before, there's not much more of a counterargument to be made. And I don't understand by what you mean by more narratives vs. proof, but I suspect just more attempts at obfuscating the fact that you have found nothing else to counter the other info that isn't refutable in some way. Believe what you want to believe if it makes you feel better. Denial is a drug cheaper and safer than Oxycontin. I'm off to make a yummy Pacific salmon dinner, have some wine and watch a bunch of BBC TV things I've been saving. Had a great afternoon in Central Park, playing frisbee on a most beautiful day and will now relax with some good food and entertainment.