RockThrower

Kevin Tillman Weighs In

Kevin Tillman, brother to the former NFL star Pat Tillman who was killed in Afhghanistan, weighs in on what has happened to our country since 9/11.  It's not pretty.  A must read from a former soldier who served in Iraq and Afghanistan - Read "After Pat's Birthday"  on  TruthDig

After Pat’s Birthday
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200601019_after_pats_birthday/
Posted on Oct 19, 2006
By Kevin Tillman

Notes from the Angry Left Fringe

Lamont Win Shows it's Bush and the Republicans Who are Really Out There

I would have written sooner, but I just couldn’t drag myself from the redwood hot tub.

My wife and I, her lesbian lover and six or seven of our friends and acquaintances were just having such a great time.  Who would have thought that group sex would be so hot in our fifty’s.  It must be the Pilates.

But the Marijuana is gone so I might as well say a few words about the implications of the Connecticut Senate Race.  And besides, George McGovern is coming over and somebody’s got to let him in.  And you can’t hear the doorbell from the hot tub.

It seems that my “liberal” friends and I who supported Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Senate race have been encouraging Al Qaida terrorists, so much so that they immediately hatched a plan to rush onto jumbo jets and light their Gatorade on fire.  If I had only known, I would never have dared to express my constitutional rights at the voting booth.  I’ve thought about trying to change my vote, but I figure if it’s really important, George or Dick will change it for me anyway.  Maybe they can just throw it out.

Apparently by supporting Lamont, some Democrats are sending a message that America is in danger of being taking over by an “angry left fringe” who apparently is planning to give Osama Bin Laden the keys to the Capitol.  Gee, I just thought that I was agreeing with the 60 percent of American people who think that maybe going to war in Iraq for bogus reasons wasn’t really such a good idea and disapprove of the President’s job performance.  And I’ll be honest with you, like more than half of Americans, this gig in Iraq and the war on terror aren’t really making me feel a whole lot safer.  I guess I just thought that maybe it would a good idea to have a Senator who would whisper something in the President’s ear besides “atta boy” now and then.

But now that the Republican National Committee has put out its talking points making clear that Democrats have sold out our national security interests to terrorists and that Republican candidates will certainly benefit from the terrorism issue, I can see that I was mistaken. I know that some of my friends on the liberal fringe think the renewed effort to define Democrats as weak on national security amounts to little more than an effort to scare Americans into voting for Republicans in the upcoming Congressional elections. But I think that it’s more like Rep. Tom Reynolds, R-N.Y., the chairman of the House Republicans' campaign committee said immediately after Lamont’s victory,  “National Democrats are stone-cold guilty of engaging in a reckless and irresponsible pattern of neglect for the security of our citizens."  I mean, he wouldn’t try to use the terrorism issue to “benefit’ Republican candidates, would he?

It’s apparent that in joining with the majority of Americans concerned about the conduct of the war and the policies of the Bush administration I have become part of the Anti-American “Angry Left Fringe.” Even though my wife and I have been married 25 years, are raising two kids and working like dogs to pay our mortgage and our taxes I can see now why our support of a candidate who thinks it might be a good idea to ask a question now and then about the Bush administrations management of the war on terror might make some people think we are a couple of America hating radicals. Next thing you know we will be joining up with that “fringe group” made up of the 50 percent of Americans who, according to the recent poll by the Washington Post, disapprove of the Presidents job performance on combating terrorism. I mean, what do these people expect?  Do they think the President should have focused on catching Osama Bin Laden or implementing the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission or something?

At first I found being labeled “fringe” by the Bush/Cheney folks a little confusing, but then I remembered that the Republicans now get to “make up their own reality.  That’s why even though my opinions seem to match up with the majority of Americans I can now understand why Karl Rove is telling everyone that folks like me are just a bunch of liberal nut jobs who are planning to rerun the 1972 election. 

Well, that’s all for now. McGovern’s limo is here and I wouldn’t want the Chardonnay to get warm. He has Gary Hart, Warren Beatty and some girl named Donna with him and we are going to stay up planning our election strategy.  It’s going to be a late night, but that’s o.k.  Us “godless liberals” don’t have to get up and go to church anyway.

The Tip of the Iceberg

President Bush is top recipient of political funds from phone companies that turned over calling records of millions of Americans. AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth gave Bush $511,955.

If there were any justice in the world, federal agents would appear at the White House and arrest President Bush, Vice President Cheney and their lackeys tomorrow morning for multiple violations of laws protecting the privacy of Americans and their rights against illegal search and seizure.  But given that Bush’s attorney general Alberto Gonzales is using Nazi lawyer Carl Schmidtt as his role model, that is not likely to happen.  As for me, I’d settle for even a modicum of Congressional oversight of a presidential administration that appears to be careening dangerously out of control.

On the heels of revelations of illegal wiretapping of international calls and recent reports of National Security Agency (NSA) efforts to gather the phone records of millions of Americans, journalists Brian Ross and Richard Esposito are reporting on the ABC news blog that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been monitoring their calls to confidential sources.  Esposito and Ross say senior federal law enforcement official advised them to “get new cell phones, quick.”  The source, they added, also told them that the cell phones of journalists at the New York Times and Washington Post among others may also be monitored.

Purportedly, the monitoring is part of an investigation into leaks to the press that resulted in stories about the secret prison programs and Bush administration monitoring of international phone calls. The reality may be that it is a chilling attempt to intimidate reporters and stifle dissent from those concerned about what may be illegal activity on the part of the President and others in his administration.

Meanwhile, the Christian Science Monitor, citing a story in National Journal's CongressDaily, says that Russell Tice, a former NSA employee is going tell Senate Armed Services Committee staffers this week that "not only do employees at the agency believe the activities they are being asked to perform are unlawful, but that what has been disclosed so far is only the tip of the iceberg."  According to the story in the Monitor, Tice said he plans to tell the committee staffers the NSA conducted illegal and unconstitutional surveillance of US citizens.

Every day, it becomes a little clearer that the Bush administration is running roughshod over the civil rights and liberties of the American people.  Cynically manipulating the events of 9/11 to crush any opposition, the Bush administration is engaged in an unprecedented effort to consolidate presidential power that threatens the very Democratic principals and institutions that have fostered a free America.  What’s next, arresting journalists? When will they round up the Bloggers in their pajamas?

More importantly, where is the Congress? The Bush Administration and Republican Congressional Leadership has fostered an atmosphere of political and corporate corruption that stifles honest discussion, crushes dissent and impedes the Constitutionally mandated role of Congressional oversight of the Presidency. According to Federal Elections Commission data analyzed by The Center for Responsive Politics, Telephone Utilities have given $6,762,966 to Republican Members of Congress since 2004 and more than $15 million since the 2000 election.  How tough do you think the questions are going to be from a Republican Congress investigating the role of AT&T, BellSouth and Verizon in turning over the phone records of tens of millions of Americans to the NSA?

Meanwhile, AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth have given $511,955 to President Bush since his election in 2000, making him the top recipient of their political largess.

Maybe the Baby Bells, flush with patriotic fervor in the wake of 9/11, did turn over the turn phone records of Americans out of concerns over National Security.  But a cynic might ask whether they turned them over because they didn’t want to risk their investment in the political patrons who are greasing the skids for pending telecom legislation that may open lucrative long distance markets and highly profitable broadband services for them. 

Congressional oversight is an essential check to the power of the President and key to protecting the rights and freedoms of the American people.  But a corrupt Republican Congress, so eager to impose a radically conservative agenda on the American People, has placed their partisan interests ahead of their constitutional responsibilities. And in so doing they have place the freedoms of Americans at risk and empowered a president who may destroy our liberty. They would do well to remember the words of John Adams who said, “a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”

Bush Republicans Covered in Oil

80 percent of oil and gas political contributions go to Republicans

With the price of a barrel of oil hovering at around $70 and a lot of pissed off voters paying more than three bucks a gallon at the pump, President Bush and his fellow Republicans are practically stumbling over each other as they seek to look tough on big oil and act to bring gas prices down before the November election.
 
But scramble as they may, there is no denying that the Republican majority and the Bush energy plan are bought and paid for by the Oil and Gas industry.   According to data published by the Center for Responsive Politics, since 1990, the oil and gas industry has donated $140,870,847 to Republican candidates including the President and leading members of Congress.  In the 2000 elections alone, in which George W. Bush was elected President, oil and gas companies gave more than $26 million to Bush and his fellow Republicans.  A full 80 percent of oil and gas contributions, more than $20 million, went to Republicans during the 2004 election cycle.

It is these same oil and gas companies that are now reaping record profits. Exxon Mobil reported profits of $36.1 billion in 2005 -- the largest-ever annual profit for a U.S. firm.  And numerous news reports say that the nation’s three largest oil and gas companies are expected to report combined 2006 first-quarter profits in excess of $16 billion, an increase of almost 20 percent from last year.  These three companies, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil Corp., and Chevron Corp. have already given Republican candidates $390,000 to date in the 2006 election cycle.

So excuse me if I chuckle a little when I hear Rep. Joe Barton, Republican of Texas, who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee say “ we may need hearings to determine how oil companies invest their profits,” as was reported by the Associated Press. Barton has received $109,450 to date in oil and gas contributions for his current re-election campaign and more than $879,000 in oil and gas contributions since 1994. Barton by the way is the guy who carried the water on the Energy Bill provisions providing oil companies with what the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimates as about $10 billion in tax breaks that gas and oil companies will receive over the next five years.

I also don’t hold out much hope for rumors of a windfall profits tax being floated by Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa. and others.  According the GOP website, President Bush is already on record saying that he would veto a tax on windfall oil profits.  Bush, by the way, received more than $2.5 million in oil and gas contributions during his 2004 re-election campaign.

Meanwhile, any meaningful reforms such as increasing mileage standards for vehicles which the Union for Concerned scientists has said is the “single most effective way to curb oil use” has gotten no support from the Bush administration and was stripped from the recent Energy bill.

Instead Republican leaders apparently plan to use the current gas price crisis to ease restrictions on oil companies, open protected wilderness areas and circumvent environmental protections safeguarding air and water quality.  Their first step is to blame Democrats for failing to vote to open the Alaskan Artic Wilderness refuge to oil drilling and to introduce new legislation to do just that.  According to “The Hill” Republican leaders have scheduled a press conference Thursday at which House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo (R-Calif.) will introduce a legislative package that would include drilling in the refuge.  Pombo by the way has received $66,200 in political contributions to date in 2006 from oil and gas interests in support of his current re-election campaign and more than $180,000 since 2000.

Never mind that oil analysts say that a shortage of crude oil is not the problem.  The effort to tie gas prices to the need to drill in the Alaskan Wilderness Refuge first surfaced in a research-strategy memo developed by the Council of Republican Environmental Advocates (CREA) suggesting that the Bush administration use higher gas prices to promote increased drilling and open the Alaskan National Wilderness Area to oil exploration. CREA is a pseudo environmental front group funded by oil, gas and other energy companies that the organization Republicans for Environmental Protections says has a Steering Committee that includes lobbyists for Amoco, Texaco, Shell Oil, Total Petroleum, Lion Oil and others.  The research memo was paid for in part by convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff who provided $250,000 in funds from his Indian tribe clients in support of the project.  The memo was developed for the Department of Interior, then headed by CREA founder Gale Norton, and somehow apparently wound up in materials collected for Vice President Dick Cheney’s secretive energy policy planning process.  Imagine that.

But don’t worry, I hear that Senate Republicans are going to introduce legislation providing consumers with $100 tax rebates to help them deal with rising fuel prices.  Let’s see, $100 for consumers, billions for oil companies.  Sounds fair.  As for me, I’m going to give my $100 to a Democrat.

Josh Bolton Rearranges the Deck Chairs

“How Many Mai-Tais are enough”.

Contrary to popular rumor, RockThrower is not dead.  And no, I haven’t been whisked off to some secret Bush Gualag.  Not yet anyway.  It’s just that I have been a little busy on an important research project exploring the question “How many Mai-Tai’s are too many? I won’t bore you with the sordid details, but let’s just say that as long as Bush is President, the answer is there in no such thing as too many. 

Frankly, I am down to dark rum and ice these days, and the temptation to remain here under the Banyan tree sipping my cocktail until 2008 is strong.  But now that Josh Bolten has come along and let the big dog loose, I figured I better sober up long enough to throw a few rocks.

For a moment there I was almost a little hopeful.  When Bolten told the White House senior staff that “if anyone is thinking about leaving, now would be a good time to do so,” I could almost see the gleam in the President’s eye.  Rumor has it that Laura found him walking down the driveway with his suitcase packed, his plane ticket back to Texas in his hand and a cab waiting at the gate.  Apparently though she told him that he couldn’t leave until after next year when Uncle Dick had collected another tax refund check for $1.9 million.  Besides, she said, Cheney might shoot him if he went back to Texas where it is apparently O.K. to shoot your friends in the face.  She also pointed out that she and the girls have more shopping to do before they head back to the ranch.

And so he stayed.  Which is really too bad, because until President Bush is gone (or better yet, in jail), Josh Bolten’s changes amount to little more than arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

The real purpose of Bolten’s moves was to set Karl Rove free to go on the attack against Democrats. A lot of states are about to find out that they have a serious gay marriage problem.

But as far as policy goes, the bottom line is that nothing has changed. The dumb, mean, corrupt, Republicans that were working for Bush have just been replaced by more dumb, mean and corrupt Republicans.  The only difference is that the first set will get rich first working in lobbying jobs winning no-bid contracts and earning earmarks for Bush’s friends.

Until Bush and his corrupt congressional cronies are gone and his policies changed things aren’t going to get any better. Under Bush we have:

•    A foreign policy that has engaged the United States in a questionable war, lowered global public opinion of the United States and made our nation less safe.

•    An economic policy that has destroyed jobs while making the rich richer, the poor poorer and screwing the middle class.  Not to mention converting a budget surplus into a staggering budget deficit that my grandchildren will have to pay.

•    A homeland security policy with torture as a cornerstone that says that spying on U.S. citizens is a good thing, even if it is a violation of the United States Constitution.

•    An energy policy that has made oil companies billions, but failed to develop of alternative energy sources.  The Bush administration’s idea of alternative energy is to open the Alaskan National Wilderness Refuge to drilling.

•    An environmental policy that calls a plan that will increase air pollution the Clear Skies Act. The Bush administration plan for global warming is apparently to mandate swimming lessons 

•    A health care policy that has increased the number of Americans without health insurance and driven-up the price of prescription drugs.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration has done a done a “heck of a job’ responding to Hurricane Katrina.

Changing the chief of staff or putting a new liar behind the White House podium isn’t going to make a whit of difference.  The only thing that might is the election of a Democratic Congress willing to mount an aggressive investigation into the corruption and incompetence of the Bush administration.

I just don’t know if my liver will hold out until then.

Is South Dakota Abortion Bill the New Gay Marriage Amendment?

Remember Ohio

This past week, The South Dakota Legislature passed a new bill basically outlawing abortion in the state. And it is expected that South Dakota’s Governor will sign the new legislation. Many abortion opponents are overjoyed. Their hope is that the new legislation will result in the overturning of Roe v. Wade by the new and more conservative version of the Supreme Court. 


But before pro-choice forces launch a full-scale attack, those in the progressive movement might be wise to take a closer look at what this new legislation really represents – the first major salvo in the Congressional elections of 2006 and efforts to shape the next presidential election. 


The new Dakota anti-abortion legislation is just the new and improved version of the Gay Marriage Amendment used so successfully in the last election by Karl Rove to bring conservative voters to the polls. It is wedge politics at its worst or finest, depending on your point of view. It is designed purely to divide voters, and divert them from their interests. 


Already, the bills backers have cut a deal with the Thomas Moore Center, a pro-life public interest legal group to plan and implement a campaign to bring the issue before the Supreme Court. As the legislation begins its journey, expect to see the Republicans use the abortion issue to mobilize their base of conservative Christian voters as foot soldiers and raise funds for the 2006 Congressional campaigns. Their message will be they must maintain a Republican majority to ensure that Congress will continue to pack the courts with conservative pro-life judges -- and that if President Bush should get the chance to appoint another Supreme Court Justice -- a Republican Congress will be there to confirm the appointment. 


The legislation will also shape the 2008 Presidential election. If it hasn’t yet reached the Court, the Republicans will make the case they need another vote on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe, and need a pro-life Republican President to nominate one. If the abortion legislation has already been rejected by the Court, as many legal analysts believe it will, the Republicans will seek to capture the fury of the Christian Right, and channel it into efforts to secure the Presidency for Republicans.

Some abortion opponents have criticized the new legislative effort, saying that the timing is not right, that it will only lead to reconfirmation of the principles of Roe by the Court, and that it may generate a national wave of support for pro-choice forces.  But the Republican leadership doesn’t really care whether Roe gets overturned, and as a political strategy, there is little downside. Not only will it generate money and volunteers, but also it gives them a hot button issue to divert crossover voters from concerns about national security, the economy and domestic matters such as education and healthcare.  And the Republicans don’t need to win nationally, they only need to repeat their wins in Ohio and Florida, and keep the Democrats from picking off a southern state like Virginia. 



They can’t do that if the election is about the incompetence and corruption of the Bush administration and the Republican record on War in Iraq, the economy and jobs, and the response to Katrina. But if the election is about abortion and other lighting rod social issues, at least in key southern and more conservative Midwest states, the Republicans can maintain their Congressional majority and elect a new Republican president. 


Which is why Democrats must carefully consider their next moves. While the temptation to launch a full scale war on the new anti-abortion legislation out of South Dakota is strong, it may only result in recasting the upcoming elections into a debate over social issues and give Republicans the weapons they need to attract moderate cross-over voters in key states that otherwise might be inclined to vote Democratic. 

Democratic forces might be better off ignoring the Dakota legislation and the looming Supreme Court battle for the time being. The best strategy to ensure the rights, privacy and health of women is instead to make sure that we elect a Democratic Congress and President.

To achieve those goals, Democrats must make clear that the incompetence and corruption of the Bush administration and their colleagues in the Republican Congress have undermined the safety and well being of Americans. We are less safe, and we are worse off. And we need to offer a vision of how we would do better. 



The bottom line is if the election is about the foreign policy failures and domestic disasters of the Republican administration, if Democrats can make it clear that the Republicans have put the interests of the wealthy and powerful ahead of the needs and security of the American people, they can win. But if Democrats let the Republicans distract voters by defining the election as being about “moral values” they risk losing. So before spending millions on narrow battles over abortion and the battle for the Supreme Court, let's focus the resources, talents and energy of Democrats on winning the upcoming elections. 

And, let’s remember one thing. If John Kerry had won in Ohio, he would be President.

Bush and Dubai Ports: A Snow Job

Controversy Raises Issues of Competence and Corruption

These guys should at least get their stories straight.

Seeking to defend the sale of U.S. port operations to a company based in the United Arab Emirates President Bush this week said, “Our government has looked at this issue, and looked at it carefully.”  His statements were backed up by assurances from White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan who told reporters "The president made sure to check with all the Cabinet secretaries that are part of this process, or whose agencies or departments are part of this process." 

But not so fast.  On the same day, the Treasury Department issued a statement saying that Treasury Secretary John Snow, the chair of the committee responsible for the review and approval of the sale of the port operations “had learned of the approval of the Dubai Ports deal after the fact,” and that Assistant Treasury Secretary for International Affairs Clay Lowery was the most senior Treasury official involved.

The statement was apparently intended to put some distance between Snow and stories raising questions about what would appear to be a huge conflict of interest on his part.

It seems that before joining the Bush Cabinet as Secretary of the Treasury, Snow was the Chief Executive Officer of the CSX Corporation. When he left CSX he received a $33 million dollar buy out and another lump sum payment of $8 million dollars.  Shortly after Snow’s departure, CSX sold its port operations to Dubai Ports International for $1.23 billion. There was only one hitch to the deal.  The sale was subject to review and approval of the little known Committee on Foreign Investment.  But not to worry, the Committee just happened to be chaired by the newly minted, not to mention newly rich Treasury Secretary John Snow.

So who’s telling the truth here?  Is the President right, was the deal investigated at the highest levels of government?  Did the chair of the Committee charged by law with approving the transaction fulfill his responsibilities to ensure the security of the American people by conducting a thorough review of the sale of one of America’s most important assets? Or, as he says, did the Treasury Secretary only learn of the deal after it was completed?

I don’t know the answer, but either way, it’s not a pretty picture. One thing is for certain though.  If John Snow isn’t smart enough to officially and publicly recuse himself from a decision-making process impacting a company that recently paid him $40 million, he’s not smart enough to be making decisions about the security of the United States.

Meanwhile, the president says that “we don’t need to worry about security” and appears to be surprised about the controversy over the sale.  But the reality is that the furor over the sale is being driven by a public with increasing doubts about the competence of the Bush administration, and growing concerns that a corrupt Republican regime has placed the interests of the wealthy and powerful ahead of the safety and security of the American people.

The Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight

Cheney shooting is symbolic

Apparently there is no truth to the rumor that Dick Cheney thought he was shooting at Cindy Sheehan.

Actually, when I heard about the shooting I figured the VP’s target was some reporter in the White House press pool who pissed Cheney off by writing a critical story of his intentional leaking of classified documents.  Or maybe some blogger.

But the reality is that Harry Whittington is just the latest victim to get an up close and personal lesson in what happens when you get too close to the gang that couldn’t shoot straight.

Whittington wandered a little out of the way and just to show the boy’s who was in charge Cheney fired off an errant shot that caught his hunting pal flush in the face. Pretty typical for an administration that seems to shoot first and think about what they are doing later.  Let’s not even talk about taking aim.

And when things don’t go so well, just cover it up. If it gets out, just deny it ever happened, or better yet, blame it on someone else, preferably a Democrat, or a least a Republican who doesn’t follow the party line.  If things get really tough, you can always play the 9-11 card.

But hey, what’s a little bird shot between friends.  There are a lot of folks who have come out of this deal a lot worse. Just ask the families of some of the soldiers in Iraq who could have used some adequate armor or maybe some the residents of New Orleans who probably would have appreciated it if the White House would have moved a little faster in response to the levee’s breaking during Hurricane Katrina.  Hey, who could have predicted that?  Certainly not a couple of macho guys like Bush and Cheney, one who was off chopping wood and the other doing his impression of Earnest Hemmingway wandering around in some stream.  But as it turns out no one needed to predict it, the authorities told them.

The incompetence of these guys is frightening. Their macho “dead or alive” blustering has placed a lot of people in harms way, meanwhile they are too busy off playing “tough guy” to bother with governing.  And besides, its not as much fun as hanging out at some luxury game farm where they drive you out to shoot at the little birds, and maybe once in a while, take a little shot at your friends.

Maybe Americans should start wearing orange vests. I don’t know about you, but the next time I see Bush or Cheney coming, I’m going to duck.

Will Porter Goss File Criminal Charges Against Dick Cheney?

I wonder if the lecture by CIA Director Porter Goss in the Opinion section of Today’s New York Times  applies to Vice President Dick Cheney? 

Goss came out blazing today against the leaking of classified information to the nation’s news media.  Criticizing those who do so Goss said those who “go straight to the press are not noble, honorable or patriotic. Nor are they whistleblowers. Instead they are committing a criminal act that potentially places American lives at risk.”

Pressing his case he added, “these disclosures can tip the terrorists to new technologies we use, our operational tactics, and the identities of brave men and women who risk their lives to assist us.”

Strong words, but the timing is either interesting or comical depending on your interpretation.  Because just this morning the nation’s newspapers are running a new story reported first by the National Journal that Scooter Libby, the indicted former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney testified that he was “authorized by his superiors” (apparently meaning Cheney) to disclose the highly classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq to reporters. Libby reportedly did so in a meeting with former New York Times reporter Judith Miller during a period in which the White House was seeking to rebuff charges by former ambassador James Wilson that the White House was trumping up its case for the war.  It was during this time that the identity of Valerie Plame, “one of those brave men and women who risk their lives to assist us” was disclosed as a CIA agent.

Goss goes on to say that he takes his “responsibilities seriously” and that “unauthorized disclosures undermine our efforts.” Goss also tells us that since becoming director he has "filed criminal reports with the Department of Justice because of such compromises.”

Does that mean that Goss will file a criminal report regarding the intentional leaking of a highly classified document to the press at the order of the vice president? 

My guess is no.  And i would bet that Goss is in for a little lecture of his own.  Doesn't he know that Vice President Cheney and President Bush are above the law?

An Unmitigated Disaster

The Real State of the Union

President Bush is set to share his vision of the state of the union tonight.  My guess is that he hasn’t had a hallucination this wild since he ate that Peyote Jack Abramoff got for him from his Indian Tribe clients. 

I know, the Republicans get to make up their own version of reality these days, but even die-hards with a few brain cells left must be thinking that the Bush presidency is beginning to resemble a bad trip. It’s ugly out there.

Let’s face it, the Bush presidency is an unmitigated disaster.  From foreign policy failures to domestic doldrums, things aren’t going so well.  Not that that’s going to stop the Bush boy’s from saying it isn’t so.  Remember, were dealing with a group who calls legislation that increases air pollution the “Clear Skies Act.”  They’re not about to let a few facts get in the way now.

So to get a version of the state of the union that might be a little closer to reality, I thought we should take a look at how one of the President’s former favorite states is faring under the reign of Bush II, Ohio. 

You may remember that it was Ohio where Christian conservatives came out of the woodwork to vote to ban gay marriage and deliver the presidency to George Bush. (My bet says we don’t hear anything about the Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in tonight’s speech).  I think there is a picture of Ohio voters in the book of famous phrases next to the line “be careful what you wish for, for you will surely get it.”

Since the beginning of Bush’s Presidency in 2001, Ohio has lost 161,400 manufacturing jobs, 16.4 percent of all manufacturing employment. The state added just 3,600 jobs total during 2005, a gain of less than a tenth of one percent of the Ohio job market, according to Policy Matters, an Ohio research organization. Ohio's unemployment rate was 5.9 percent in December 2005, and just this month Ford Motor Corporation announced more job cuts impacting more than 1700 Ohio workers.

Policy Matters also reports that household income fell for the second straight year and median hourly wages for Ohio workers fell for the fourth straight year in 2004. Twelve percent of the state’s population, 1,362,000 adults, do not have health insurance, according to the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services.  That’s an increase of almost 100,000 since Bush took office.  Today, 11.3 percent of Ohioan’s live in poverty according to U.S. Census Bureau data.

On a more positive note there were no gay marriages in Ohio in 2005. Unfortunately, the same can’t be said about dying in Iraq.  Since the start of the war, 105 Ohio residents have been killed in the war.

There is little doubt that Ohio has paid a tough price for their support of Bush, but the damage done by what is rapidly shaping up to be the worst presidency in United States history is shared by all of us.  So tonight, when the President is spinning out his vision of reality, Americans might want to keep a few facts in mind.

• As of January 30, 2006, 2,242 Americans have been killed in Iraq – 62 since January 1.  16,400 have been wounded.
• No weapons of mass destruction have ever been found, and there is no evidence of any link between Sadamm Hussein and Al Qaeda.
• International Public Opinion of the United States has plummeted.
• More than thirty-seven million Americans live in poverty today, an increase of 6 million people since George W. Bush took office in 2001.
• More than 45 million Americans have no health insurance, an increase of more than 5 million since George W. Bush took office in 2001.
• President Bush has the worst record on job production of any modern president. Nearly three million manufacturing jobs have been lost under the current Bush administration.
• Under Bush, the United States has gone from a budget surplus to a budget deficit of more than $300 billion and is expected to surge to more than $400 billion this year.  The U.S. Government today announced plans to borrow a record $188 billion this fiscal quarter.
• The trade deficit stands at a more than $700 billion, up 80 percent since Bush took office.
• Wages and income for most Americans are stagnant, and the savings rate is non-existent.  Meanwhile, Exxon-Mobil today announced record shattering profits of $36.1 million for the past year, while Americans paid record prices for gas at the pump.

By virtually every objective measure, Americans are worse off today than when President Bush took office.  And many would argue that the Presidents actions in Iraq and against terrorism have made Americans less safe.

The Bush presidency is an unmitigated disaster.  It is a stunning record of incompetence. And that’s before we even begin to discuss the response to Hurricane Katrina, let alone talk about charges of corruption, spying, illegal searches, torture, rendition, secret prisons and censorship.

The President has done, as he might say, “one heck of a job.”  And hold on to your hat.  He’s not done yet.

Thanks Ohio.