Congratulations President-elect Barack Obama!

I will say that your candidate in Minnesota, Al Franken, is going to be an important part of a coalition that brings about change. He's really, I think, in this to fight for working families. I'm looking forward to seeing him serve in the Senate. And if people are looking for fundamental change over the next eight years, then I think an Obama-Biden ticket, Al Franken in the Senate, is going to be the best answer for working families all across the state ~ Barack Obama on WCCO's Don Shelby Show (11/3/2008).

The election is over, and despite the Republican's best efforts, they were unable to steal the presidency a 3rd time. Thank goodness! This blog has been dormant for some time, but now I'm back! Well, probably not. The reason I stopped blogging was because my posts failed to generate any discussions, or very many responses at all.

In any case, although my last two posts (now over a year old) were in support of John Edwards, I did, eventually, get onboard with Barack Obama (who will be inaugurated on 1/20/2009 as our nation's 44th president). I have to say that I would have voted for Hillary without any reservations, but I am glad that things worked out the way they did. I think the best contestant won -- that's including all the Democrats, all the Republicans, and all the 3rd party candidates who threw their hat in the ring.

The topic I've chosen to return with concerns Barack Obama's "troubling associations" that were brought up during the campaign by McCain, Palin, and right wing pundits. This choice of topics may confuse my readers (if any) due to the fact that the election is over. What does it matter now? Barack Obama took the high road and steered clear of taking the bait put forth by the radical right. He addressed these "associations" when pressed, calmly explaining them. His strategy of not going negative worked and he won the election. Americans are tired of the politics of divisiveness.

However, while writing that post I realized that first I needed to congratulate President-elect Obama, so the post mentioned above will be my second post. Hopefully the Republicans plan to rebuild goes nowhere, and their party fails to reclaim the White House, or any of the congressional seats they lost, anytime soon. Has America finally realized that conservative economic policies, namely "supply side economics" don't work? I truly wish that were the case.

However, I think most Americans were simply fed-up with the direction the current (and outgoing) administration has taken us. What they fail to realize is that we've been on this road ever since the election of Ronald Reagan -- with a brief respite during the Clinton years - although Clinton drank the kool-aid to a certain extent (with the passage of NAFTA and declaring the "end of welfare as we know it", among other things).

In addition to congratulating Mr. Obama, I'd also like to congratulate Mark Begich, who narrowly defeated his corrupt opponent, convicted felon Ted Stevens. And proffer my well wishes to Al Franken and Jim Martin. If Mr. Franken comes out ahead in the Minnesota recount, and Mr. Martin prevails in the Georgia runoff, the Democrats will have secured a filibuster-proof majority. Then we can get down to work rebuilding our economy without having to fear Republican obstructionism.

Further Reading
1. Minnesotans Find Voting For Al Franken or Norm Coleman Very Difficult by Alex Carnevale, Gawker. 11/22/2008. (Reason to read: Find out who voted for the Lizard People).
2. Franken's Odds of Winning Recount May Be Long - or Short by Nate Silver, FiveThirtyEight. 11/10/2008. (Reason to read: Odds of Franken winning the recount may be very good. Find out why).
3. Progressive Eruptions Posts -- Well Done, Senator Obama! 6/3/2008, Happy Obama Day! 1/19/2009, President Barack H. Obama 1/20/2009.

 swtd-013 

The American Health Insurance Scam

The current system is not a free market; it is a set of government rigged rules that ensure that the insurance and pharmaceutical industries prosper, and that tens of millions of people go without access to care - Dean Baker (DOB 7/13/1958) co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) and author of "The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer".

Following is an excerpt from the 6/14/2007 broadcast of The Thom Hartmann Show. Thom Hartman interviews John Edwards regarding his proposed health care plan (edited for brevity and clarity)...

Thom Hartmann: Specifically, what are the things you're suggesting we do? (to bring down the costs associated with health care.)

John Edwards: Well, in the case of insurance companies, we want to create competition that doesn't exist today, between the insurance companies that are in these "health markets" that I'm going to set up with my health care plan. ... Everybody will be covered under either a private or public plan. People can choose the government plan if they want to. That creates a competition that doesn't exist today. Secondly, because insurance companies are spending 30-40 percent of every dollar on administrative costs and profits, we mandate a minimum of 85 percent of each dollar has to go towards patient care.

Thom Hartmann: That seems like an incredibly important thing. I was staggered last fall when the wall street journal revealed that William McGuire, the CEO of United Health Group - the second largest health insurance company in the United States, took home 1.6 billion (see update below) ... His company's stock price tripled from January 2003 to January 2006. Net income in 2005 of 3.3 billion - and this is a company that is basically just moving money - moving paper around.

John Edwards: That's exactly right. It's terrible that we have 45 million people without coverage - that's a moral issue - but on top of that the costs are just staggering. We desperately need a president who will take these insurance companies on. They don't need to make that kind of money. ... You can count on the fact that there's going to be millions of dollars spent on television ads fighting what we're trying to do. What you should ask yourself, when you see one of these ads, is "who's paying for it?". It's either a big drug company, or a big insurance company. It's the people who are charging you so much money that you can't continue to pay for your health care.

Thom Hartmann: Senator Edwards, tell us a little more about the Medicare Plus part of this plan, please.

John Edwards: There are a lot of people who believe that we should go from the system we have now to a single payer system. An entirely government run health care system. There's a lot to be said for single payer - it's administrative costs are much lower, they're more efficient, and - certainly in some places - the care is better... but we live in a country where people are used to having choices, and my concern was that jump was to much, to fast. We need to do something big, something bold, cover everybody, real universality ... but we wanted people to have a choice between a private or a government plan. The reason for me setting it up that way is because I think people will choose to go to the government plan. The net result will be to drive the system to a single payer system.

My Commentary: Obviously insurance companies will, by and large, be unable to compete, and will be driven out of business. Fantastic. There is absolutely no reason why the American people should continue to tolerate these leeches which drain away 30 to 40 percent of every health care dollar when the government can do the same job for 3-5 percent.

Seeing as, according to Mother Jones Magazine, 76 percent of Americans agree that access to health care should be a right and should be provided equally to everyone (according to a 2004 survey), the only question is will our elected officials give us what we want, or will they bow to the wishes of their corporate masters?

Meidcare for all would save an estimated $300 billion dollars. Even though millions of us have no health coverage at all, we spend almost twice as much as the other countries that do a better job of covering everyone. We waste hundreds of billions on insurance companies which do not provide any health care. In fact, one third of that money is wasted on company salaries, stock holder profits, lobbying and marketing. The only way to pay for all of us is to remove the useless waste and profits of the insurance companies.

Update, 7/23/2007: Regarding the 1.6 billion United Health Group CEO William McGuire "took home" - Mr. McGuire's stock options are currently frozen due to ongoing litigation. It seems that the Public Employees' Retirement System of Ohio (PERS) and the State Teachers' Retirement System of Ohio (STRS), who own a combined 5.6 million in UHG common stock, are claiming that the value of their stock declined due to "the options backdating scandal in which the UHG board cavalierly abdicated its oversight responsibilities and improperly allowed McGuire to set his own compensation". (Attorney General Marc Dann questions UnitedHealth Group review panel. 2/7/2007)

Further Reading
[1] Facts about Universal Health Care and Single Payer Health Care for All.org.
[2] Sicko Factual Backup From MichaelMoore.com.
[3] Sicko Proves our Health Care Approach is Working by Janet Bagnall, Montreal Gazette. 7/15/2007
[4] Fixing Health Care: Not Government vs. Market by Dean Baker, Truthout.org. 7/10/2007.
[5] United Health sued for racketeering posted by nyceve, The Daily Kos. 2/15/2007.
[6] Edwards Details His Health Care Proposal by John M. Broder, The New York Times. 2/6/2007.
[7] Health Care Administrative Costs: Canada vs. USA From Healthfacts. 10/2003.
[8] The Case For Single Payer, Universal Health Care For The United States (Universal Health Care Myths Debunked) by John R. Battista, M.D. and Justine McCabe, Ph.D. 6/4/1999.

SWTD #12

John Edwards for President

If you look at the history of endorsements in this campaign, they haven't had a lot of sway with voters, which is understandable... voters make their own decisions in presidential campaigns -- John Edwards (DOB 6/10/1953).

Sleeping with the Devil officially endorses John Edwards for President, 2008. Hopefully the resulting bump in the polls with propel Edwards past Democratic front runners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

From the John Edwards for President Official Website...

John Edwards' Plan To Build One America

In America, everyone should have a fair opportunity to realize their dreams, no matter where they came from. John Edwards is running for president to build One America where every American can work hard and build a better life, the same opportunity that Edwards had. At the same time, America's leadership role in the world has grown out of our moral strength as an example for the world, not just our economic and military strength.

In today's Two Americas, it is no coincidence that most families are working harder for stagnating wages when there are nearly 60 lobbyists for every member of Congress. America's image overseas has been tarnished by the war in Iraq, our refusal to join the world in working to halt global warming, and repeated violations of Americans' constitutional rights.

Building One America will take strong, bold steps, not incremental steps and half measures. Edwards has proposed detailed plans to put Washington back on the side of regular families. (John Edwards 08: Issues)

Also, see this same page for in-depth coverage concerning John's plans regarding healthcare, poverty, rural america, tax simplification, working families, predatory mortgages, debt and savings and food saftey.

Personally, I think he has the best plan for getting us back on track after the disastrous and corrupt bush administration. In particular I admire his focus on eliminating poverty in the US. Also, I think his national health care plan, which we desperately need, is the most pratical.

SWTD #11

Scooter Rewarded for His Silence Re bush Treason

The President of the United States has the unrestrained power of granting pardons for treason, which may be sometimes exercised to screen from punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the crime, and thereby prevent a discovery of his own guilt ~ George Mason, 1787 (12/11/1725 to 10/7/1792) was a United States patriot, statesman, and delegate from Virginia to the U.S. Constitutional Convention. He is called the "Father of the Bill of Rights". For all of these reasons he is considered to be one of the "Founding Fathers" of the United States.

An Excerpt from the Thom Hartmann Radio Program, 7/5/2007 (edited for brevity and clarity).

Thom Hartmann: In my opinion this is the real issue behind the Scooter Libby case - the real issue is not being discussed in the mainstream media, and frankly is not even being much discussed in the blogosphere. This is the real issue. ... I find it very very curious that in the first week of February of this year Dick Cheney went on Wolf Blitzer's show and said, "I can't talk about the Scooter Libby Trial because I'm going to be subpoenaed to testify". Scooter Libby's lawyers had subpoenaed Karl Rove. ... They brought into evidence a memo in which Dick Cheney said, "The president has asked this guy to do this".

In other words pointing out that basically the defense was that Scooter was a small cog in a large machine that was being run by George bush and Dick Cheney to out a CIA agent for revenge. And then all of a sudden on February 14th Scooter Libby decided to roll over. He is not going to present a defense, he's not going to call any witnesses, he's not going to subpoena Dick Cheney, he's not going to subpoena Karl Rove, he's smiling a lot... and he knows he's going to be convicted now. Why?

I'm suggesting that another crime was committed. The first crime was bush's lie in the State of the Union address - knowingly lying to us to get us into a war. There was the second crime of them trying to destroy Joe Wilson's Wife, and also put the fear of God into anyone at the CIA who might try to tell the truth about the lies that bush was telling.

That crime, which was a cover-up of the first crime was also treasonous. And now here, I am submitting to you, is the third crime, and that is that someone from the office of the president, or the vice president, or both, went to Scooter Libby - probably in the first or second week of February of this year - and said, "Stop your defense. Stop defending yourself in court. Don't worry. Stop your defense, you will be convicted. We will set aside any jail time, and when bush leaves office in January of 2009 he will pardon you on the way out - the conviction will be removed from your record".

This, in my opinion, is the third impeachable offense. The third felony committed by bush and Cheney. When you look back at the Watergate proceedings, Richard Nixon tried to stop judicial inquiries into his own crimes. Congress investigated - and the press investigated as well - and discovered that Nixon was part of a criminal conspiracy based in the White House.

This from the articles of impeachment, "Richard Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation. He made false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States.

Withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States; approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings; interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations; and making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States".

And finally, and this is the kicker - this is from the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon, "endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony". That's what Richard Nixon was impeached for. I believe, this week, that's what we saw George W. bush do.

My Commentary: Well said Mr. Hartmann. I am in 100 percent agreement with your analysis.

Further Reading
[1] The Libby Commutation: Coincidence, or Conspiracy? by Thom Hartmann, Common Dreams. 7/5/2007.
[2] Gore: Libby Had 'Knowledge That Could Incriminate His Bosses In The White House'. Posted by Nico, Think Progress. 7/5/2007.

SWTD #10

This Blog isn't dead. Or is it?

The Best way to be boring is to leave nothing out ~ François-Marie Arouet (11/21/1694 – 5/30/1778), better known by the pen name Voltaire, was a French Enlightenment writer, essayist, deist and philosopher known for his wit, philosophical sport, and defense of civil liberties, including freedom of religion and the right to a fair trial.

I haven't posted anything new here for over 8 months now, although I did update the look of my blog several weeks ago. The reason is an apparent lack of interest. I can't even get family members to take a look. As I said in my initial post I'd give it some time, but if nobody joined in the discussion this blog probably wouldn't last long. Well, VERY few people have joined in the discussion. I only received a handful of comments. Is the lack of interest due to long winded posts (which a Conservative blogger claimed), or poor writing? I said I'd accept criticism in my initial post, yet I haven't received any critical responses either.

Should I give up, or should I complete the half dozen posts I started but never finished? If anybody out there has a successful blog and would like give me some pointers it would be appreciated.

I think what's really going on is that most Liberals are hanging out at the Daily Kos and not seeking out dinky blogs like mine.

I've created a poll so you can let me know what you think without having to formulate and enter a response. It's easy, just select a response from the drop down box and click "vote".

5/30/2013 Update: If you click the "vote" link Pollhost says, "We're sorry, we couldn't find that poll. It may have been removed by its owner or deleted for inactivity". The inactivity thing must be the reason Pollhost got rid of my poll, as I most certainly did not delete it.

If you still want to vote please do! But please do so here... this is my latest post on the same topic (shutting down my blog). Thank you.

7/30/2014 Update: Obviously my blog didn't die, but it HAS been on life support for a long time. Or maybe it did die and I simply refuse to acknowledge it. I mean, this blog STILL (7 years later) gets very little traffic. There was a short period of time (before, during and after the George Zimmerman trial, that a number of very racist individuals came to my blog to bash me in regards to my commentaries on the subject of the murdering Zimmerman, but they went away after awhile.

Now SWTD is, as one commenter put it a "blog ghost town". Or back to being one. Still, I wrote (as of this update) 256 more posts after this one, so, even though I was right (I just did not know it yet), giving up on post 9 was a little premature... although perhaps I should have. Perhaps I still should?

SWTD #9

Will George W. bush Answer for his Crimes?

Impeachment should not be used simply because you disagree with a person's policies. If you disagree with someone's policy, you vote them out. But President Bush has committed crimes, and that's what impeachment is for ~ Rep. David Zuckerman.

Bush Crimes Commission Releases Final Verdict 9/13/2006

From the Bush Crimes Commission website: The Commission of Inquiry on Crimes Against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration will release its final verdict on Wednesday, September 13, 2006.

The final verdict will address the five indictments dealing with the Bush administration's wars of aggression, illegal detention and torture, destruction of the global environment through global warming, imposition of abstinence-only on AIDS prevention programs in the Third World, and the abandonment of New Orleans before, during and after Hurricane Katrina.

On September 13, the verdict will be formally served on the White House and the Department of Justice, read over the radio across the country, and released in printed form for national distribution.

Following the release of the verdict, the Commission is calling a national "Bush Crimes Day" on Tuesday, September 19. Inspired by the verdict of the Bush Crimes Commission, campuses and communities across the country will organize public events - demonstrations, student walk-outs, teach-ins, street-theatre, art exhibits - that draw attention to acts of the Bush administration that, by their scope and nature, shock the conscience of humankind - and bring to the fore our moral and political responsibility to bring these horrific crimes to a halt!

The release of the verdict fulfils a primary responsibility of this tribunal to deliver findings of fact and a verdict on the central question before the commission: "whether George W. Bush and his administration have committed crimes against humanity". The final verdict and the national Bush Crimes Day continue the Commission's mission "to frame and fuel a discussion that is urgently needed in the United States: Is the administration of George W. Bush guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity?" (Continue Reading)

About the Commission: The International Commission of Inquiry on Crimes Against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration of the United States documents the evidence on wars of aggression, detention and torture, destruction of the global environment, sabotage of global health programs, and the abandonment of New Orleans.

President Nancy Pelosi?

This is the moment to say that there are things in life worth fighting and dying for, and one of them is making sure Nancy Pelosi doesn't become the speaker! ~ Sean Hannity, the August 29 edition of ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show.

Following is Air America Radio host Thom Hartman's reaction to the preceeding Sean Hannity insane diatribe... (Transcript of the August 31th broadcast of the Randi Rhodes Show, Thom Hartmann, guest host)

Thom Hartmann: Sean Hannity is so terrified that he's nearly wetting his pants - this guy's going to be so frightened that he won't be able to leave the studio and get on his private jet. It's come to that. He is willing to die, he says - or maybe he wants somebody else's son or daughter to be willing to die - to stop Nancy Pelosi from becoming speaker of the house. I kid you not. These guys are running scarred!

(Plays audio clip of above Sean Hannity Quote)

Yes!! It's worth dying for, to make sure Nancy Pelosi doesn't become speaker of the house! You get this? Now, the reason why - pretty straightforward - the Speaker of the House, were by some coincidence the president and the vice president to be convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors or treason and thus impeached by the House and convicted in the Senate - the Speaker of the House becomes president of the United States. And if Nancy Pelosi, God bless her, were President of the United States... the phobias that would begin developing among these right-wingers.

So is it conceivable? Is it even remotely conceivable, that George Bush might go to prison, and thus be unavailable as President? Or that he might simply be impeached in the House - that's indicted in the House and convicted in the Senate - and removed from office? If the Democrats take control of the House and the Senate - those are the stakes.

(skip ahead aproximately 20 minutes. In the next segment Thom starts off by discussing how the bush administration releases bad news on a Friday evening - a pratice know as the "Friday Night Massacre" - so that by Monday it is old news and is burried by the press...)

...That same morning, just hours after the JonBenét Ramsey information hit the press, and just after I got off the air, it was revealed that US district court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor had ruled that George W. Bush and now CIA director Michael Hayden - remember him, the guy that was head of the NSA? - had committed multiple high crimes and misdemeanors and felonies, both criminal and Constitutional. If her ruling stands bush and Hayden could go to prison.

I mean, this is the story... you talk about the story of the century! Bill Clinton lost his law license - and he got impeached in the Senate - but I'm talking about in terms of legal consequences - lost his law license - over lying to a grand jury. And you know, the Republicans, they thought they had him - he could have gone to jail for that. They sure wanted to make it happen. Well this, I would say, is a little more serious than lying about having a little too much fun in the Oval Office.

Nancy Pelosi on Impeachment

According to Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats won't be seeking impeachment. This might surprise you, but I agree with her. The Democrats should not be saying - now - that if we retake the house and/or the Senate, that we will seek to impeach. Let me be clear: I believe bush deserves to be impeached. I think he is a lying amoral criminal that belongs behind bars. However, declaring an intention to immediately impeach if we are able to retake either house would be counterproductive. First of all, the Republicans would claim that there was no basis for impeachment, and that the only reason Democrats want to impeach bush is because they want "revenge" for Clinton, or because of "sour grapes" over the "defeat" of Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. Secondly, the Republicans would use these claims to mobilize their voters and discredit Democrats.

So impeachment should be "off the table" for now. If the Democrats retake the House and/or Senate - and regain subpoena power - then they could begin to investigate this administration's crimes...

From the Washington Post: Seeking to choke off a Republican rallying cry, the House's top Democrat has told colleagues that the party will not seek to impeach President Bush even if it gains control of the House in November's elections, her office said last night. [However] In an interview with The Washington Post last week, Pelosi said a Democratic-controlled House would launch investigations of the administration on energy policy and other matters. She said impeachment would not be a goal of the investigations, but she added: "You never know where it leads to". (5/12/2006. Democrats Won't Try To Impeach President. By Charles Babington, Washington Post Staff Writer).

The article concludes with a statement from Brendan Daly, Nancy Pelosi's spokesman...

"Pelosi never considered impeachment a priority. Republicans are in such desperate shape", he said, "we don't want to give them anything to grab on to".

There is, however, an argument AGAINST impeachment - and I believe it is a valid argument which has to be considered seriously before proceeding. If any president ever deserved to be impeached, it's this scumbag - but there is a very real chance that impeaching George bush could hurt the Democratic Party.

From the online only version of The New Yorker: (New Yorker writers Jeffrey Goldberg and Amy Davidson discuss the Democrat's prospects) Jeffrey Goldberg: The problem - and this is what a lot of Democrats say who are cautioning against this - is that by the time the Democrats take over the House, if they do, it'll be 2007, and the Bush Administration will be on its last legs. The argument is that, if the House goes Democratic, the leadership should spend more time convincing the American people that this is the party you want in the White House in 2008.

Imagine if the Democrats in the House voted to raise the minimum wage, or for college-tuition tax credits. That sort of legislation would be broadly attractive to millions of voters, and either the Republican Senate or President Bush would be put in a position of stopping it. Or let's say that the Democrats take over the House and vote to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. That would probably be pretty popular. So they could work to make the country safer and to help the poor - or they could spend their time investigating the run-up to the Iraq war. (5/22/2006)

Conclusion

Whatever happens I sincerely hope that these people are not allowed to get away scot free. bush, Cheney and Rummy all belong behind bars. How likely is it that this will happen? Probably not very. At the very least a Democratic House or Senate should take steps to ensure that the upcoming presidential election won't be stolen - again. If they can't prevent that from happening then all is lost - and I'm talking about the survival of our nation, not the Democratic Party.

Further Reading
[1] Bush Crimes Commission FAQ.
[2] Bush Fears War Crimes Prosecution, Impeachment. by Marjorie Cohn, Znet. 9/7/2006.
[3] NSA Eavesdropping Program Ruled Unconstitutional. by Bill Mears and Andrea Koppel, CNN News. 8/17/2006.
[4] Did Bush commit war crimes? by Rosa Brooks, The Los Angeles Times. 6/30/2006.
[5] Talk host: Death penalty for Bush. Says president, Rumsfeld guilty of war crimes. World Net Daily. 5/27/2004.

7/30/2014 Update: To answer the question posed in the title of this commentary... NO. We know now that GWb will NOT answer for his crimes. All the bush criminals got off scot free. This I knew would be the likely outcome when I originally wrote this post almost 8 years ago. Looking back, I SHOULD have know it with absolute certainty. Did I think GWb might actually face justice? I don't recall exactly what I was thinking.

However, I must have had SOME hope that the next president would hold him accountable. But, given that Reagan and the elder Bush were both let off the hook by the Clinton administration, I really should have know that there was NO WAY GWb was going to be held accountable in any way what-so-ever.

History has shown us that US presidents can get away with anything. Nixon was the ONLY POTUS to ever get in any kind of trouble, and he got off with a slap on the wrist... and was pardoned by Ford. This, in my opinion, was a mistake, as it set the precedent that Presidents never face consequences for their actions, no matter what they do.

SWTD #8

Are Liberal Blogs More Popular Than Conservative Blogs?

Attending that Convention and talking with those people and many others convinced me that I should become a blogger in my efforts to reform the government and uphold the integrity of the Constitution and the laws made in furtherance thereof - John Jay Hooker, Democratic nominee for the Governor of Tennessee in 1970 and 1998.

Ranking Political Blogs

Prompted by a comment from a Conservative blogger, I recently asked myself the following question: Of all the political blogs out there, which are more popular, Liberal or Conservative Blogs? Of course everyone who is into blogging has heard of the Daily Kos - and knows it is one of the biggest Liberal blogs in existence. But is there any Conservative blogs that even come close? How many of the most popular blogs are Liberal and how many are Conservative?

According the 2/20/2006 issue of New York Magazine, of the 50 most linked to blogs, 12 deal with American politics. 8 of those 12 are Liberal, Democratic and Anti-War, whereas only 3 are Conservative, Republican, and Pro-War (and only 2 of those 3 are pro-bush). There is also one Libertarian/conservative Pro-War blog - so I'll bump the Conservative/Pro-war tally up by one - for a total of 8 Liberal/Progressive and 4 Conservative/Libertarian. (2/20/2006. Linkology, By Stuart Luman.)

A further Break-down reveals the following...

Liberal, Democratic, Anti-war (total: 8 Blogs)

Daily Kos #4, The Huffington Post #5, Crooks and Liars #9, Think Progress #20, Wonkette #29, Talking Points Memo #32, Eschaton #39, AMERICAblog #43.

Conservative, Republican, Pro-war (total: 4 Blogs)

InstaPundit #7 (The Libertarian Blog), Michelle Malkin #11, Power Line #37, Andrew Sullivan #50 (The Blog which isn't pro-bush).

Conclusion

Liberal blogs win hands down. According to The Truth Laid Bear, The Daily Kos reigns supreme with an average daily total of 499,153 hits/day, while Michelle Malkin comes in a distant second with 135,721 hits/day. (Instapundit comes in at third place, with a per day total of 112,617). Even Malkin herself, in a post dated 3/1/2005, concedes that the top spot undeniably goes to Daily Kos, which, according to her estimates, is visited by 29,460 US adults per day (hits per day includes multiple visits by the same individual) - compared to the runner-up Instapundit, with an estimated total of 25,020 visits by US adults per day. (Malkin estimates her blog receives 10,200 visitors per day.)

Washington Monthly: The [Daily Kos], which has existed for only around three and a half years, now has 3.7 million readers each week. That's more than the top 10 opinion magazines - of both left and right - combined, more readers than any political publication has had, ever, in the history of the world. (Kos Call by Benjamin Wallace-Wells, January/February 2006).

SWTD #7

Justice for the Kurds in bush's Kangaroo Court?

This is not about Saddam Hussein, and this is not even about regime change in Iraq or ...missiles or chemical weapons. It's about whether the United States is allowed to run world affairs -- Pierre Lellouche, French Politician.

The Anfal campaign, which began in 1986 and lasted until 1989, is said to have cost the lives of 182,000 civilians, according to Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. The campaign was headed by Ali Hasan al-Majid, a cousin of the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The campaign included the use of ground offensives, aerial bombing, systematic destruction of settlements, mass deportation, concentration camps, firing squads, and chemical warfare, which earned al-Majid the nickname of "Chemical Ali". (Source: Wikipedia).

In a second trial which began on Monday, August 21, Saddam Hussein and six co-defendants (all former members of Hussein's government) will face Iraq's High Tribunal. The charge is genocide of the Kurdish people.

I think it can be said with a certain amount of certainty that Saddam will eventually face the death penalty for his crimes. However, discussing Saddam's guilt is not the reason I chose to post on this topic. Assume, for the purposes of this discussion, that Saddam is guilty of ordering the use of chemical weapons against the Kurds. My concerns, are as follows: Who supplied Iraq with these chemical weapons, should they be held accountable - and to what extent?

Before I get to those questions, however, there are a few other points I'd like to raise. First of all, should we even care if Saddam gets a fair trial? Secondly, should we care if that trial is perceived as being fair by the Muslim community?

Frontline (India's National Magazine): The appearance of Saddam Hussein in a United States-appointed and supervised court in Baghdad has once again highlighted the double standards adopted by the occupation forces in Iraq. As commentators have observed, the trial in Baghdad was very different from the historic Nuremberg trials of German leaders. Many in the Arab world viewed the entire drama as yet another illustration of "victor's justice" being meted out. (A Farcical Trial by John Cherian, 11/18/2005).

According to a 2004 article published by The Guardian, "the only way to guarantee an appearance of impartiality, and lend the proceedings a greater air of authority, would be for the trial to be handled by an independent, internationally staffed war crimes tribunal set up in accordance with international law".

Global Policy Forum: Human Rights groups and legal experts agree that the Iraqi people must have the right to try their own persecutors, but question the competence and impartiality of Iraq's judicial system. The Regime Crimes Liaison Office (RCLO), run by the US Department of Justice, is actively involved in the court's investigations, the translation of materials and the training of Iraqi lawyers and judges. Critics believe that by backing a trial in Iraq, Washington hopes that its past support for Saddam Hussein will not be revealed. Opponents of the court had hoped for an internationally organized tribunal with significant domestic participation, similar to the special court for Sierra Leone, to avoid the tribunal degenerating into "political show trial". An international tribunal would also have allowed Kuwait and Iran to take part in the trial (as they have requested) for crimes committed against these two countries. (Trying Saddam Hussein and Other Top Baath Leaders, The Global Policy Forum).

This mention of "past support" brings me back to my original question. Is it possible that the United States provided the chemical weapons used to murder the Kurds? As it turns out, the answer is YES. Not only did Washington provide chemical weapons to Iraq, but the "past support" referred to in the article above also included the approval of millions of dollars in loans and the shipment of US weaponry and technology to Iraq (in violation of the Arms Export Control Act) (Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement.)

In particular, note the following sequence of events...

May 1985: The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax.

March 1988: Saddam Hussein launches a poison gas attack on the city of Halabja in which four to five thousand Kurdish people were killed, most of them women and children. In total, the Iraq regime will go on to use chemical weapons to kill over 100,000 Kurdish civilians and destroy over 1,200 Kurdish villages (Wikipedia: Al-Anfal Campaign).

April 1988: US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. (Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement).

Notice that Washington approval for the sale of chemical weapons to Iraq continued AFTER the Anfal campaign for which Saddam is currently being tried. (If you want to know why Ronald Reagan decided to sell Saddam chemical weapons in the first place, see the article "Who Was Behind the Prolongment of the Iran-Iraq War?" listed below under "further reading").

I find it more than unlikely that US involvement (or more precisely, the Reagan and Bush Sr. Administration's involvement) will be mentioned during this trial. The Wikipedia entry I quoted above lays the blame for Iraq's acquisition of chemical on a multitude of countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, France and China. It also states that "By far, the largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore, the Netherlands, Egypt, India, and Federal Republic of Germany". This, however, does not negate the United State's involvement.

Support for Saddam Hussein's regime began under the Reagan Administration, and continued under the administration of George HW Bush...

The Washington Post: [Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez D-TX, alleges] Senior Bush administration officials went to great lengths to continue supporting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his unreliable regime long after it was prudent to do so. U.S. officials insisted in 1989, for instance, on playing down the importance of a scandal involving an Atlanta-based bank and more than $5 billion in unauthorized loans to Iraq, including $900 million guaranteed by the U.S. government. They even intervened in the case to prevent indictment of the Central Bank of Iraq while the Persian Gulf War was raging. Senior policymakers pressed for continued Export-Import Bank financing despite congressional sanctions -- and kept sharing intelligence information with Baghdad until a few weeks before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. (Excerpt from a 3/22/1992 Washington Post article, as quoted on the Global Policy forum). In the wake of the gulf war when Congress began demanding more information about the prewar conduct of U.S. policy toward Iraq, administration officials tried to hide their embarrassment under a cloak of national security and created what Gonzalez has called a "cover-up mechanism" to keep investigators at bay. According to interviews with knowledgeable officials, records made public by Gonzalez and documents obtained from other sources, it was soon apparent that Iraq was involved in a massive fraud to pump billions of dollars in illegal loans and credits out of BNL-Atlanta, far above the amounts reported to the Federal Reserve. Investigators said [more than half of this money] had helped fuel Iraq's military buildup. U.S. Customs Service reports dated Sept. 21, 1989, and Oct. 20, 1989, pointed out that BNL was suspected of financing shipments of industrial machinery, military-type technology and various controlled chemicals to Iraq and providing loans "to various U.S. firms for the illegal export to Iraq of missile-related technology". (Excerpt from Gonzalez's Iraq Expose: Hill Chairman Details U.S. Prewar Courtship, by George Lardner Jr. Reprinted on the web by Global Security.org). Prison Planet: What if Saddam Hussein were to have a genuinely fair trial? That is the central question of a hard-hitting documentary to be aired on French television Tuesday. Michel Despratx of France's Canal Plus television teamed with independent Canadian filmmaker Barry Lando to produce "The Trial of Saddam Hussein, the Trial You'll Never See". The 43-minute film begins with frank and graphic highlights of Saddam's brutal reign. But it soon delves into a history of collusion going back to the cataclysmic Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, when Washington, fully aware that Saddam was using mustard and nerve gas against Iranian civilians, calculated that it was better to keep backing him as the lesser of two evils. One of the most notorious episodes of Saddam's rule was the gassing of 5,000 Kurds in northern Halabja, an atrocity which drew little international condemnation. "The West closed its eyes a little bit... Iraq was a strategic country for the balance of the region", adds Peter Galbraith, top adviser to the Senate foreign relations committee at the time. "Nobody wanted to upset Saddam Hussein, and if Kurds getting gassed was something that would cause troubles, neither the Reagan nor the Bush administration wanted to hear a word about it". (New documentary indicts US as co-defendant with Saddam. Article from Prison Planet, 10/25/2004).

Taking into consideration the enormous support given to Iraq by both the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations, my conclusion is that the trial of Saddam Hussein under US auspices is, in large part, a farce. The primary purpose of these trials will be to (1) Justify the junior bush's illegal invasion, and (2) keep quiet the United State's involvement in Saddam's crimes. As Haroon Siddiqui of the Toronto Star described it, "This is an American show trial, through and through".

The Toronto Star: The problem with all this is not that Saddam may not get a fair trial, as the bleeding hearts fear. Or that the nincompoops running it will let him steal the show from the prosecutors. The real danger is that the propagandist phoniness seeping out of this exercise will undermine its validity. As a human rights activist told The Star's Middle East correspondent Mitch Potter, "the majority of Arabs will see this as nothing but a charade". (Saddam Trial Won't Hide Bush's Historic Mistakes by Haroon Siddiqui, The Toronto Star 10/23/2005. Reprinted on the web by Common Dreams).

My conclusion? How can we prevent this from happening again if the United State's role in selling Saddam chemical weapons is simply swept under the rug? Obviously those who supplied Saddam with weapons and technology knew he would use them to murder Iranians (even though the use of chemical weapons in war is prohibited by the Geneva protocol of 1925). And, as I already pointed out, the Reagan Administration continued to approve the sale of chemical weapons to Iraq even after he used them against the Kurds. How can we call this trial justice for the Kurds when our own government is actively attempting to cover-up its involvement in these crimes?

Further Reading
1. Iraq: Flaws in the first trial before the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal should not be repeated. Amnesty International Public Statement. 8/18/2006.
2. Who Was Behind the Prolongment of the Iran-Iraq War? Whose Justice Does Saddam's Trial Serve? By Behrooz Ghamari, Counter Punch. 10/23/2005.
3. Downing Street: The Monster Saddam. The Heretik (blog). 6/22/2005.
4. The Ties That Blind: How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons. By Norm Dixon, Counter Punch. 6/17/2004.
5. Liberal Oasis Interviews Greg Palast. 3/1/2003.

Image: New Film Reveals the Shocking Depth of Collusion between Saddam and US Republicans: Copies of the "The Trial of Saddam Hussein, the Trial You'll Never See", a documentary by French filmaker Michel Despratx and Canadian filmmaker Barry Lando reveals the "history of US collusion [with Saddam] going back to the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, when Washington, fully aware Saddam was using mustard and nerve gas against Iranian civilians, calculated it was better to keep backing him against Tehran. US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is shown shaking hands and joking with Saddam in 1983.

7/30/2014 Update: I changed the link above to the 11/18/2005 article "A Farcical Trial" by John Cherian. The reason is because "The article you are looking for is no longer available in this website". The new link connects to Hindu.com (the exact same article).

 swtd-6 

e-mail Newsletters

The following two articles (which I am posting excerpts from below) were delivered to my inbox this week courtesy of "Bush Headline News" and author/journalist Greg Palast, respectively.

Politics of Deceit: Dictator Bush's Scare Tactics Not Working By Paul Krugman

Just two days after 9/11, I learned from Congressional staffers that Republicans on Capitol Hill were already exploiting the atrocity, trying to use it to push through tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. I wrote about the subject the next day, warning that "politicians who wrap themselves in the flag while relentlessly pursuing their usual partisan agenda are not true patriots". The response from readers was furious -- fury not at the politicians but at me, for suggesting that such an outrage was even possible.

"How can I say that to my young son?" demanded one angry correspondent. I wonder what he says to his son these days. We now know that from the very beginning, the Bush administration and its allies in Congress saw the terrorist threat not as a problem to be solved, but as a political opportunity to be exploited. The story of the latest terror plot makes the administration's fecklessness and cynicism on terrorism clearer than ever. (End excerpt).

The Fear Factory By Greg Palast

I'm going to tell you something which is straight-up heresy: America is not under attack by terrorists. There is no WAR on terror because, except for one day five years ago, al Qaeda has pretty much left us alone.

That's because Osama got what he wanted. There's no mystery about what Al Qaeda was after. Like everyone from the Girl Scouts to Bono, Osama put his wish on his web site. He had a single demand: "Crusaders out of the land of the two Holy Places". To translate: get US troops out of Saudi Arabia.

And George Bush gave it to him. On April 29, 2003, two days before landing on the aircraft carrier Lincoln, our self-described "War President" quietly put out a notice that he was withdrawing our troops from Saudi soil. In other words, our cowering cowboy gave in whimpering to Osama's demand.

The press took no note. They were all wiggie over Bush's waddling around the carrier deck in a disco-aged jump suit announcing, "Mission Accomplished". But it wasn't America's mission that was accomplished, it was Osama's. (End excerpt).

.........................

Paul Krugman (b. 2/28/1953) is an economist at Princeton University who has written several books and since 2000 has written a twice-weekly op-ed column for The New York Times. He is currently a professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University. (Source: Wikipedia.

Greg Palast is a New York Times-bestselling author and a journalist for the British Broadcasting Corporation as well as the British newspaper The Observer. His work frequently focuses on corporate malfeasance but has also been known to work with labor unions and consumer advocacy groups.

Notably, he has accused Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, and Florida Elections Unit Chief Clay Roberts, along with the ChoicePoint corporation, of election fraud during the US Presidential Election of 2000 and again in 2004 when, he argued, the problems and machinations from 2000 continued and that challenger John Kerry actually would have won if not for disproportional "spoilage" of Democratic votes. (Source: Wikipedia).

Additional Options
->Continue reading "Politics of Deceipt" by Paul Krugman.
->Subscribe to Bush Headline News.
->Continue reading "Fear Factory" by Greg Palast.
->Visit Greg Palast's Website.

Recommended Reading
1. Jim Crow Revived in Cyberspace by Greg Palast & Martin Luther King III (2000 election theft).
2. How They Stole Ohio by Greg Palast (2004 election theft).
3. We Don't Need no Stinkin' Recount by Greg Palast (2006 Mexican election theft).

 swtd-5 

Happy Mission Accomplished Day

Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed ~ George W. Bush, 5/1/2003

Why are our soldiers still dying in Iraq 3 years AFTER the mission was accomplished? What happened to that banner? Is it packed away for the NEXT time we need it? After the mission is accomplished in Iran, perhaps?

 swtd-4