Raise your hand if you too were disgusted by, weeks after the story of disgusting conditions for our wounded soldiers was widely revealed (although many of us have cited such stories for more than two whole years), President Bush finally finds his way over to Walter Reed but only to use the soldiers again, this time for a photo op.

As I noted in a Saturday post, it is most disgusting to see the rabid right, even those who are smarter than the average, use Elizabeth Edwards’ Stage 4 cancer diagnosis as an excuse to pretend they know what is best for the family which means husband John Edwards should walk away from the campaign for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination for president.

But Frank Rich offers even stronger words; see his entire Sunday column at Rozius Unbound and/or read the Editor & Publisher take on it here.

While many of us were saddened at the discovery that John Edwards’ wife, Elizabeth, has had her 2004-diagnosed breast cancer metastasize to the bone, while we simultaneously were awed at the family’s courage to allow John to go forward with his bid for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, some on the right just can’t be satisfied.

I’m both shocked and awed (neither in a good way) with the way many on the far right have attacked both John and Elizabeth for this decision. Even professional women who should know better, who should realize that every family must deal with tragic news in their own way and make very personal decisions for themselves, have come forward to criticize the Edwards family.

Gosh, I guess it’s just too bad for far right Republicans that Elizabeth doesn’t want to just sit down and die with John by her side. But… uh… this is not a decision for Republicans to make. Nor is it a decision for Democrats to make. It’s a decision for John and Elizabeth to make, and they’ve made it.

I think I join most Americans in wishing Elizabeth and her family the very best. Odds do get beaten in cancer, even with metastases. I would love to see her beat this well enough that she lives a long and full life.

I also appreciate the bravery inherent in a woman who, facing this obstacle, says, “There are more important issues for our country right now. I happen to think my husband is well suited to address and fix many of these issues. So I want him out on the campaign trail.”

If you’re thoroughly enjoying gas prices which - in my blue state - are nosing in around $3 a gallon and climbing daily, remember to send your thanks to President George W. Bush. All that saber rattling at Iran is doing wonders for energy companies as well as Iran’s Ahmadinejad’s popularity rating (much of the world seems to like him better than Bush).

If you want a powerful argument for why there should NEVER be a blending of far right religious ideology in the administration of a government - and particularly American government - try reading this from Thursday’s Washington Post. 

After reading this about Monica Goodling at Gonzalez’ Department of (In)Justice, I almost like the days of John “put expensive drapes on a new statue” Ashcroft and his daily prayer meetings. Sheesh.

Earlier this week, Bush claimed that Iraqi bloggers were telling the tale of how very much better life in Iraq is since Bush began his Iraq war “surge”. Funny thing was, however, that Bush did not name the blogs or the bloggers.

Sure, you could say Bush left the names out intentionally for their safety. After all, praising Mr. Bush is NOT very popular in Iraq (and hell, it’s far less popular here at home these days). But given that Bush helped “out” a CIA covert operative, Valerie Plame, and he commits vast other boners, I doubt Bush was worried about the bloggers.

Instead - as discussed last night on Keith Olbermann’s Countdown show on MSNBC - it’s likely Bush was referring to, and inflating, blog posts made by a couple of Iraqi dentists who have a blog that has been somewhat supportive of the American occupation in their country. But supposedly these bloggers are becoming more critical of what is going on, so Bush may not have named the blog because he did not want Americans logging in to see what else - besides unwavering support for him and his surge - is being posted.

The House passed its version of a bill that not only provides the funding Bush wants for the continuation of the Iraq war - the so-called “surge” or “escalation” - while the Senate just passed its version in a slim (51:47) vote.

Bush, of course, has promised to veto ANY measure that amounts to ANY attempt to put checks and balances on his administration of a war that was his to lose… and lose it, he did. But he wants that money, and both the House and Senate bills indeed give him the funding.

What do you think will be the fallout? Will Bush veto both and do as he’s already started this week, scream and yell for his money? What if the House and Senate refuse to change their bills?

I think the following story is simply appalling. Gut churningly, sickeningly… make me want to retch, appalling!

The Texas Rangers conducted an investigation into allegations that administrators of the Texas Youth Commission were sexually abusing the kids they had locked up. These are kids incarcerated in youth facilities for various run ins with the law. It turns out that these administrators of the Texas Youth Commission are perverts who would wake these kids after hours for “all night sex parties”. The investigation proved that these abuses were systematic.

But the Justice Department declined to prosecute. Not because the abuse did not occur. But because none of the boys who were abused complained of experiencing physical pain during the course of the abuse. Also listed as reasons to not prosecute were that the Justice Department could not find that the administrators had used death threats or other such threats of force or kidnapping in order to abuse the teen age boys. So if some pervert has his way with a minor by offering them candy, or a reduced sentence in exchange… that’s ok? COME ON! The letters from the Justice Department even use the word “assault” to describe the interactions between the administrators and the boys… but somehow they can’t find any reason to prosecute these child rapers! It really is outrageous. (more…)

Sadly, I don’t think any of us should be particularly surprised if many, especially the neocons, decide to use the detaining of 15 British sailors by Iran as an excuse to launch an all-out war with Iran. For folks like Frank Gaffney and John Bolton and others, no excuse is needed.

Be prepared to speak up and out unless you’re willing to have a whole new war that makes the horrific quagmire of Iraq seem like a walk in the proverbial park.

One of the problems the U.S. and allies like Great Britain will encounter in their great disdain for the Geneva Conventions when applied to others is just the situation we see played out now in Iran, with 15 captured British sailors whom Iran claims were found within their own waters.

While both the U.S. and England yell and moan about the treatment these sailors receive, they really must look closer to home: how do you think the videos of degrading behavior of U.S.-held hostages at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and other detainee sites where we know torture is being used are playing in the homelands of these detainees?

As “quaint” as now U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales claims the Geneva Conventions of war are, the whole point of them was to insure that there would not be different standards of war held by different countries. When we paraded around death photos of Saddam Hussein’s sons in July 2003, we seemed to have no concern how that would play elsewhere. And if the U.S. and Great Britain cannot observe these conventions, we’re going to see a lot worse treatment for our soldiers than what appears the kid gloves used to handle these Brit sailors in Iran.

I taught high school English. Just one year in a rural town where there was one high school for the entire county. And when I taught Elie Wiesel’s Night, one student I had related the horrific tale of how Judaism was treated in the concentration camps this way: “If the Jews had chosen Jesus Christ as their personal savior, none of this would’ve happened.”

Um, what?

Some background: I have two college degrees and have seen the Bible studied. As literature. In a state college. Where students are given a cavalcade of choices and place their votes into the available electives with their dollars. It’s a supply and demand system decided by an assload of student money. And it works.

Time magazine recently gave the argument for teaching the Bible in public schools.

I see the light, but I disagree.

If you hate spoilers for news magazine stories, stop reading now. Much of the story is quoted and commented on in the following post. But it’s really good, so read it online, then join us. Or just rock on.
(more…)

NOTE: This is the second in a series of posts on prior Democratic Party presidential candidates. The purpose of this series is quite simple, to knit the threads of the past into the fabric of a political party so that they form a vision of what that party once represented and must recover if it hopes to govern. Yet, as Wilson noted, that vision must not be a mere restatement of the past but relevant to the new times we live in.

It said, Loyal to your highest, sensitive, brave,
Sanguine, some few ways wise, you and all men are drawn out of this depth
Only to be those things you are, as flowers for color, falcons for swiftness,
Mountains for mass and quiet. Each for its quality.

–“Woodrow Wilson,” Robinson Jeffers

In the camera’s excessively soft focus light refracts diffusely through the diamond-cut glass pendants that sway soundlessly from the chandelier. This image, which dominates Public Television’s documentary of Woodrow Wilson, seems a director’s desperate attempt to symbolize a subject that so baffled him, he could only fall back on a shopworn image.

Although he is routinely ranked among our greatest presidents, Woodrow Wilson also could be our most enigmatic. Our mental pictures of those who occupied the White House in the last century quickly conjure up Teddy Roosevelt’s toothy grin, Franklin Roosevelt’s jaunty cigarette holder, and the dour ministerial face that aptly personifies Silent Cal Coolidge.

But evoking Wilson becomes more difficult. The enigma of Woodrow Wilson confounded his own times as well as ours. David Houston, who served eight years in Wilson’s cabinet, took almost 100 pages to compose “An Estimate of Woodrow Wilson,” which begins with several pages describing the difficulty of his task.

Wilson also remains an enigma because in the era of the sound bite we associate with him few memorable quotes. Wilson’s writings and speeches are so well-constructed that extracting a single sentence from them is like ripping a piece from an old master’s painting. (more…)

When I entered junior high more than half a lifetime ago, the principal gave us a speech about being big kids and coming to a big school and he only had one word for us: Try. It wasn’t until later that I realized how completely defeatist that word can be, how it opens the door wide to failure. I’ll try to do the laundry. I’ll try to mow the lawn. I’ll try to limit my drinking to a twelve pack.

There’s no accountability.

And now the senate:

The House passed a troops-pullout measure last week, but with a tougher deadline. Whereas the Senate identifies March 2008 as a goal — giving the president leeway to ignore the deadline — the House voted 218-212 to require all combat troops out as of August 31, 2008.

As a goal? I’m sure the president will take it under deep, reflective advisement.

Mr. President, here’s one hundred twenty two billion dollars. Could you, um, try to end that war in about, um, a year? And could you try not to come back and ask for a bunch more money? I mean, we’ll give it to you, but we’ll be a little disappointed, and we’ll scrunch our lip up towards our nose.

Why the hell even bother? Yoda was right: “Do or do not. There is no ‘try.’”

UPDATE: Senate preserved the deadline! Now for that veto…

While President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, along with their brown-nosing darlings on Capitol Hill, insist that American voters are mad and angry that “unpatriotic” Democrats want to push for a timetable for the evacuation of U.S. troops from Iraq, a new poll tells us (once again) that hard-core reality and the Bushies are very rarely on speaking terms.

A new poll finds that nearly six in 10 back the House Dem bill mandating withdrawal from Iraq by Fall 2008.

Yet somehow, your media commentators keep reflexively recycling the bogus claim that Congressional Dems are offering voters nothing.

For a man whose very office demands people tell the truth and nothing BUT the truth, so help them God, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales sure seem to have a problem with doing so, under oath or not.

From The Times today:

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and senior advisers discussed the plan to remove seven United States attorneys at a meeting last Nov. 27, 10 days before the dismissals were carried out, according to a Justice Department calendar entry disclosed Friday.

The previously undisclosed meeting appeared to contradict Mr. Gonzales’s previous statements about his knowledge of the dismissals. He said at a news conference on March 13 that he had not participated in any discussions about the removals, but knew in general that his aides were working on personnel changes involving United States attorneys.