As has been well-documented by Joe Wilson, Kossacks and other individuals/journalists since before the Iraq War began, The Bush Administration made a false case for war, and they made a significant portion of that case through Scott McClellan's mouth on TV and to the Press as Press Secretary. So it burns me the fuck up to read this from his testimony today:

He also suggested that Bush could do much to redeem his own credibility and that of politicians in general if he would embrace "openness and candor and then constantly strive to build trust across the aisle."

Spare me, Scotty. Where is KarateExplosions to document this bullshit? No one had better even mention John Dean's name in even the slightest comparison with this pathetic worm. Sure I'd rather hear him criticize the President and WH rather than make dishonest arguments for them, but it doesn't make any fucking difference now, especially since he's unwilling to actually point the finger at any of them for breaking the law. Thanks for letting me vent, have a great weekend.

I will start with a sincere apology to the loyal Edwards supporters. I sat on the edge of my seat waiting for the Iowa and New Hampshire results, hopeful that Edwards would have a strong enough showing to be taken seriously by voters as the real threat to Hillary Clinton's nomination. No matter how right Edwards is, politics is not just about being right, it is also about being in a position to win. At this point, objectively speaking, that is not likely to happen for Edwards, and this is a bitter pill for me to swallow.

A few weeks ago, I wrote a heart-felt e-mail to my friends and family asking them to buy into the idea of either an Edwards-Obama or Obama-Edwards ticket, because I think that's the one that will energize our base and get a big "D" in the White House. Maybe this will help my case: I have not yet donated to the Obama campaign, but I have donated over $100 to the Edwards campaign. I don't have a lot of money but I am very concerned about the outcome of this election!

Today I am writing to appeal to the practical bones in the bodies of even the most loyal and visionary Edwards supporters - to back Barack Obama (More after the fold if you care to join me).

[NOTE: I started out writing this rant just to get it off my chest, not even to send out. But it turned into something else, and I emailed it to family and friends. The fiance told me to post it here, so I am!]

As we know, the American occupation of Iraq breeds the hostility that leads to anti-American terrorism; our imposed presence in the Middle East only fuels the hatred that led us to the tragedy of 9/11. The jihad that attacked us in 2001 is the same jihad that our government once funded and armed when it advanced our now obviously short-sighted goals. Now we are in the midst of pursuing more short-sighted goals. Just imagine what we could have accomplished if we had chosen a different route...

(Come with me below the fold!)

With our troops mired in a foreign war, millions uninsured at home, and most of New Orleans still destroyed two years after Katrina, its good to know that CNN has got the important stuff covered. And I don't just mean covered - - I mean on the front page of its website as the lead story.

Now I know CNN isn't the only news organization doing the job this well. So many deserve the same recognition. But I felt compelled to really give CNN a gold star for this one. Because, with all that we're up against, this is the kind of story that needs to be heard. Tune in to CNN at 8pm for all the vital details. Don't worry about that other show on another cable news network in the same timeslot with that guy who uses all the big words.

President Bush's veto of an Iraq war spending bill that set timelines for U.S. troop withdrawals puts new pressure on Democrats in Congress to craft a compromise even as their caucus grows more fractious on the topic.

No. When the President vetoes what the American people want, the pressure is on HIM to convince the public, and thereby their representatives in Congress, that we should do this some other way. If he can't convince the public we should stay in Iraq, then why should Democrats compromise? The public sees $500 billion dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives wasted... let's be the party that says NO MORE!

Look, this is an opportunity for Democrats to show the American people exactly how they stand up to bullies, home and abroad. We're right on this one and the American people see it. If Democrats back down out of fear, the party will deserve the accusations of "weakness" that come from the other side.

I read the NBC news ticker this morning and it said that Pat Robertson predicted another terrorist attack on the U.S. in the second half of this year. If only Christianity were the state religion, then God wouldn't have to punish us with terrorist attacks like 9/11:

We have allowed rampant pornography on the Internet, and rampant secularism and the occult, etc. to be broadcast on television. We have permitted somewhere in the neighborhood of 35-40 million unborn babies to be slaughtered by our society.

We have a court that has essentially stuck its finger in God's eye and said, "We are going to legislate You out of the schools and take Your commandments from the courthouses in various states. We are not going to let little children read the commandments of God. We are not going to allow the Bible or prayer in our schools."

We have insulted God at the highest level of our government. Then, we say, "Why does this happen?" It is happening because God Almighty is lifting His protection from us. Once that protection is gone, we are vulnerable because we are a free society.

My friend Netta remarked to me this morning that there isn't any U.S. Media coverage of France's military support of the CAR army near Darfur, a force that is feared responsible for rapes and executions in the region:

In the past two weeks, with minimal publicity, [French] Mirage F1 jets have attacked and scattered a rebellion in north-eastern Central African Republic (CAR). But reports from the ground say the operation has had a devastating impact on civilians.

(Emphasis Mine) More excerpts below the fold...

If a doctor diagnosed a person with a cureable illness, would you accuse their doctor of trying to make them look bad, or help them? When a person cant argue an issue on its merits they try to change the subject so they can win a different argument. That scheme distracts a lot of people and anytime someone does it, of any political persuasion, they should be called on it and forced to have an honest debate.

Three great examples of how the Democratic Party loves America first on the flip.

harold ford jr. showed what kind of man he is with his concession speech tonight against the backdrop of this blue wave for which, defeat notwithstanding, he deserves considerable mention for his significant contribution.

given the unseemly context of his campaign's loss, encouraging people to let go of their anger and personal resentment to search for healing and progress is, for lack of a better word, deeply admirable. I look forward to the day harold ford jr. represents tennessee in the united states senate in pursuit of a more perfect union.

"If you listen closely to some of the leaders of the Democratic Party, it sounds like -- it sounds like -- they think the best way to protect the American people is, wait until we're attacked again," - George W. Bush

What else can I say that Keith Olbermann won't say in a special commentary about this.

First, Matthews quotes the NIE, and asks Tony Blankley to respond. I would advise holding your nose before you click below the fold (I feel rather unclean having listened to it over and over transcribing it). Don't worry, its worth it because he really gets Franken riled up, who then proceeds to administer a deservedly scathing rebuttal.

"The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supports for the global jihadist movement."

Especially when, more directly related to our occupation of Iraq and the basic needs for security this is the dynamic:

U.S. officials have accused Iran of not doing enough to stop militants from infiltrating across the shared, 1,000 mile-long porous border, but Iraqi officials have said there was no evidence to prove such charges.

An excerpt from deepsouthdoug's diary:

Olbermann speaks from a far more vulnerable platform [than did Murrow or Cronkite], which makes his commentary even more remarkable. Olbermann's criticism of Bush was the most direct criticism of a President EVER delivered on TV by a broadcaster.  Because Keith Olbermann made these commentaries he has achieved greatness, and he has also achieved journalistic immortality as long as there is a free United States of America.  Not that Keith had any choice.  The criminal activities of Bush and his thugs thrust greatness upon him.

"Long ago I learned it was a planet and I see no reason to unlearn it. Why should I? Somebody somewhere, some mysterious person who answers to no one and seems to have dictatorial power sets new standards for planets and all of a sudden one of the original nine is dropped?"

Why should you unlearn it? Maybe because the universe doesnt revolve around you, John. No one is suggesting Pluto suddenly isn't there anymore or that what we know about it is no longer true. A few years ago you might recall that people believed the earth was flat and they had to unlearn it when scientists told them it wasn't true. As for the "mysterious" power charged with deciding these standards, one doesn't need a high-powered telescope to find out its identity. I googled it in 5 seconds. As it turns out, its only a paltry 8,858 highly-educated people:

I was so pleased to read that Countdown's ratings continue to improve. Olbermann is the only one on TV that really calls bullshit on things like "terror warnings" coinciding with political problems from which that the administration would like to change the conversation. Thanks, Keith!

Gore told me he is not running for presidency in 2008. When I asked him if the film--which very astutely addresses his loss in 2000 and the resulting Supreme Court ruling--was a set up for another shot at the White House, he said, very happily, "No, no, no. I'm not doing that. I'm too happy doing this."

But it was a loaded question, by asking him if he was using the film as a springboard to run again. By saying "I'm not doing that" Gore could just as easilly been making the point that he didn't have alterior motives for working on the film as he was denying he'd run again. If I were a politician I wouldn't make that kind of announcement on a Saturday night at Cannes in the form of a casual remark to one reporter.

I could give a damn who got the scoop. Tomorrow could be sweet. This goes down, Im buyin everyone at the bar a shot.

One other tidbit from WMR is that Luskin "has moved into the category of a 'subject' of the special prosecutor's investigation..."

More...