The aftermath: Alabama

Alabama

Governor Bob Riley (R) won another 4 years to tell us one thing and do the opposite.

Jim Folsom (D) became Lt. Governor, so now Luther Strange can go back to being the Washington lobbyist that he is.

Beth Chapman (R) beat Nancy Worley for the Secretary of State Job. Worley was tied up with scandals and Chapman's campaign was basically pictures of her with Bob Riley. Everyone give a big sarcastic "yeah" for choices.

Troy King (R) won the Attorney General race, showing that keeping our children safe from legalized gambling and sex toys will win over the 25,000 convictions that John Tyson, Jr got as District Attorney for Mobile. Congratulations, Alabama, on picking the politician over the guy who actually gets convictions.

Sue Bell Cobb (D) is now the first female Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court! Congratulations to her for making history, and showing that experience counts. Drayton Nabers can now resume his insurance career in Birmingham.

Tom Woodall (R) kept his place on the Alabama Supreme Court, place 2. Gwendolyn Thomas Kennedy got almost 44% of the vote, even though Woodall's campaign had well over 20 times the amount of campaign money. Much like the governor's race, this was closer than what most had predicted, so congrats still go out to Kennedy for putting up a bigger-than-expected fight.

Lyn Stuart (R) held on to place 3 of the AL Supreme Court.

Glenn Murdock (R) held on to place 4 of the AL Supreme Court.

Ron Sparks (D) retained his seat as Agricultural Commissioner, so congratulations to him.

Samantha Shaw (R) beat Janie Baker Clarke for State Auditor. Her accomplishments include being a member of the Republican party and going to church. I guess that's all it takes these days.

Kay Ivey (R) was reelected as State Treasurer. She seems to be scandal-free, so congrats to her. Serve us well.

Susan Parker (D) won place 2 on the Public Service Commission, beating incumbent Perry Hooper, Jr. 53% to 47%. Congratulations to Parker for beating Hooper and his smear campaign. Now, Hooper won't worry about having any more fines from the Alabama Ethics Commission - he should be glad he lost.

"Walking" Wendell Mitchell (D) won his Alabama Senate seat with 62% of the vote. This is great news because his opponent - insurance agent Joan Reynolds - has run one of the nastiest campaigns that I have seen. Mitchell was not present during a vote that "thanked" the troops for fighting in Iraq, and Joan Reynolds made commercials and sent mailings saying that Mitchell "did not sign" the bill. Joan Reynolds used our troops as a cheap campaign ploy, and now that she lost.....and I mean lost....she should go home, hang her head in shame, and start writing the most profound apology letter that her cold heart can muster. Congratulations to Mitchell for sending Joan Reynolds home by a landslide.


Thanks

I would like to thank Lane Powell of WAUD am 1230 for allowing Joseph Patton and myself to join him on the air last night for election coverage, proving that politics can also be fun.

Bush: "If we leave Iraq, they will follow us home."

You have probably heard this statement by President Bush or one similar to it. "We either fight them there or fight them here." Etc.

In a special Newsweek report, Fareed Zakaria says of this,

"This makes no sense. Qaeda terrorists from Iraq could have made their way to America at any point in the last three years. In fact, Iraq's borders are more porous today than they have ever been. If a terrorist wanted to inflict harm on U.S. civilians, he could drive across Anbar into Syria, then hop a plane to New York or Washington, D.C. Does the president really believe that because we're in Iraq, terrorists have forgotten that we're also in America?"

Remember this when you hear the speeches.

The special report does give tips for the Iraq War. Definitely worth a read.

Newsweek: Rethinking Iraq: The Way Forward

Pastor Ted Haggard ::hearts:: gay prostitutes and meth

Pastor Ted Haggard of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs has admitted to "sexual immorality" in regards to buying meth from and having sex with a gay prostitute.

Mike Jones, the gay prostitute/dealer who had relations with Taggard, said in an interview that he decided to publicize these allegations to point out Haggard's hypocrisy. Haggard advised people on how to have strong marriages and strong families. He spoke out against gay marriage. He had conference calls with President George W. Bush. And he had gay sex with a male prostitute while on meth.

Now, with the midterm elections happening tomorrow, will this, as well as the new book by David Kuo (see this post: "James Dobson ::hearts:: Ann Coulter"), have any effect on the turnout?

We'll see.

Ps - Join Capital City Free Press editor Joseph O. Patton and myself for election night coverage on WAUD AM1230 in Auburn from 7-10 pm.

More info
ABC News: Can Pastor Come Back After Fall From Grace?

Donald Rumsfeld helped sell nuclear reactors to North Korea

Yes, I said it.

My newest column is up at the Capital City Free Press. Titled, "Rumsfeld's skeleton in the closet," it shows how Rumsfeld lobbied our government to sell nuclear reactors to North Korea when he was on the board at a company called "ABB."

Exceprt:

"Steve LaMontagne, who is an analyst for the Center of Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington, said of Rumsfeld, 'One could draw the conclusion that economic and personal interests took precedent over non-proliferation.'"

Read the entire article here.

John McCain joins in Republican bashing....getting ready for '08

I really miss John McCain. I do. I used to really like him. He was one of the few Republicans who seemed to actually try to be moderate. He seemed to be a uniter, not a divider, in the real way, not in the fantasy way of George W. Bush. But something happened to him, and I am not sure what.

That being said, he has now joined in the Republican chorus attacking John Kerry for some recent statements about education and Iraq.

Let's go ahead and get Kerry's direct quote out of the way. Kerry said, "You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

Dumb statement to make, especially before the midterm election? Yes. Is it 100% false, though? Maybe not.

Not too long ago, there were stories in the media that talked about the military lowering the standards for signing up. The military was now beginning to accept high school drop-outs, something the military was not known for doing.

So if the military is accepting high school drop-outs, wouldn't John Kerry's statements have some validity? I recently heard a professed Republican call into a local radio talk show. He said he did not like John Kerry, but agreed with the sentiment of his statement. He said his son did not do well in school and ended up joining the military, and that his son had recently told him that he wished he had done better in school so that he would have had more options besides the military.

So now John McCain, along with George Bush and White House spokesman Tony Snow, wants John Kerry to apologize to the troops. Now keep in mind that John Kerry and John McCain are both Vietnam veterans. Keep in mind the bravery that both men showed by serving in the military, but now one wants the other to apologize to the troops.

Why doesn't McCain apologize to the troops for continuing to support the Iraq war? Why doesn't McCain apologize for allowing our troops to continue to be caught in the middle of a civil war? Why doesn't George Bush apologize for sending our troops to a war that we have no business in? Why doesn't Donald Rumsfeld apologize for botching the war effort with one bad decision after another?

I guess apologies can go on for days.

I really miss John McCain, the brave Vietnam veteran who served his country. When did he lose himself and become part of a spin machine?

more info:
ABC News: McCain to Kerry: Apologize to Troops

Quick note on the recent Alabama debates...

Monday night, the candidates for Governor, Lt. Governor and Attorney General went at it. If you missed it, here is a quick rundown.

Governor: Bob Riley v. Lucy Baxley.
Baxley came out swinging, calling Riley out on all the lies he has told since he first campaigned for governor. Riley tried to be Reaganesque by saying, "Here we go again," but when it got back to Baxley, she made it clear that "you, sir, are no Ronald Reagan." Baxley also called him out on his no-bid contracts. "Bob Riley said he was going to get rid of Don Siegelman's no-bid contracts, and he did. He then started Bob Riley's no-bid contracts." I think Baxley won it.

Lt. Governor: Jim Folsom, Jr. v. Luther Strange.
Folsom did a great job of painting Strange as the Washington lobbyist that he is. Also, Strange repeatedly mentioned what he and Riley would do. Just about every answer had Riley's name thrown in it, so I am still trying to figure out who initiated the first kiss - Riley or Strange?

Attorney General: Troy King v. John Tyson, Jr.
King got a spanking. Bottom line. Tyson pointed out that he has been on over 500 homicide scenes as the District Attorney for Mobile, the most recent scene being this past Friday. Tyson has over 25,000 felony convictions, and King tried to come back about one case in particular where he took over a case to get "justice." Tyson then said that the suspect in question was in the process of giving names of other suspected murderers, rapists and meth-heads, but the suspect quickly stopped talking when King took over the case. Oh, and King put the crime victim's daughter on his TV ad, but neglected to mention that she herself is a convicted thief. There's King's credibility. Tyson won this one hands down.

My letter to the editor of the Montgomery Advertiser

Here is my letter to the editor of the Montgomery Advertiser, and here is the link to the online version where they printed it: click here.

"GOP leader top mudslinger"

"The chairman of the Alabama Republican party, Twinkle Andress Cavanaugh, should hang her head in shame. For the head of a party who tries so hard to convince voters that it has an exclusive tie to God, she takes her party's politics to an ungodly low.

"For a party that claims to fight so hard for the Ten Commandments, maybe Mrs. Cavanaugh should read those Ten Commandments, paying special attention to the one telling us not to bear false witness. Her slanderous attacks on various members of the Democratic Party are sickening. She would rather throw around empty labels like "liberal" rather than actually talk about issues.

"If there was an election for No. 1 mudslinger, Cavanaugh would win by a landslide."

James Dobson ::hearts:: Ann Coulter

If you ever doubted that Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family was part of the extreme right, all doubt has now been erased.

This morning, I had the extreme displeasure of finding the Focus on the Family broadcast on my radio dial. I heard an interview with a female, and I recognized the voice. It was Ann Coulter.

During the interview, she and Dobson opened their usual bag of tricks, saying that "liberals" (to them, a.k.a. 'Democrats') want to "appease" the terrorists. They said that "liberals" were doing the same thing for Hitler in World War II, and that they want "600-thread count sheets" and "nice music" and "a full eight hours of sleep" for the current detainees at Guantanamo.

So because us "liberals" are against torture, (which really must be a Christian ideal that St. Paul forgot to write down in the Bible,) we must want nice sheets and music for detainees at Guantanamo.

After the taped interview, Dobson talked with his producer about Ann's newest "book" which, with all the plagiarism accusations, really has to be put in quotation marks. He said that Godless is an accurate title because liberals tend to be atheists, adding "not all liberals are atheists, but many are as polls have shown." If you were waiting on specifics on these "polls" you'll be wasting your time.

So Dobson is still blindly supporting the extreme right and the Republican party even after the book Tempting Faith by David Kuo is released. Kuo worked for the Bush administration from 2001 to 2003 as a special assistant to the president and the second-in-command of the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives. Kuo also identifies himself as a "conservative Christian."

In his book, Kuo writes, "National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as 'ridiculous,' 'out of control,' and just plain 'goofy.'"

So we have learned that Dr. James Dobson is a tool of the right, a 'ridiculous,' 'out of control,' and 'goofy' tool, and all we can hope is that his sheep will one day see him for the tool he is.

more info:
MSNBC: Book says Bush just using Christians

McCain's on the campaign trail......again

(Looks like this could be an ongoing piece.)

I reported on September 22 about McCain's "stand" against torture, which basically allowed the White House to continue its practices of torture - only now, it's legal. Anyway, he brought up the big, bad ACLU, saying that they didn't get what they wanted, yada yada, spin spin, lie lie.

Well, in what I believe is his continuing media presence to gain support for an '08 Presidential run, he appeared on NBC's Today show this morning.

During the interview, Meredith Vieira asked McCain about comments he made yesterday, in which he called the Clinton administration's policies on North Korea a "failure."

From CNN.com: "Republican Sen. John McCain on Tuesday accused former President Clinton, the husband of his potential 2008 White House rival, of failing to act in the 1990s to stop North Korea from developing nuclear weapons."

McCain said, "I would remind Senator [Hillary] Clinton and other Democrats critical of the Bush administration's policies that the framework agreement her husband's administration negotiated was a failure...The Koreans received millions and millions in energy assistance. They've diverted millions of dollars of food assistance to their military."

McCain was then called out by Senator John Kerry, "He must be trying to burnish his credentials for the nomination process." Kerry added, "The truth is the Clinton administration knew full well they didn't have a perfect agreement. But at least they were talking. At least we had inspectors going in and we knew where the [nuclear fuel] rods were. This way, we don't know where the rods are. The rods are gone. There are no inspectors. Ask any American which way is better"

During the interview on Today, the fearless McCain backed down on his statements like a kitten in front of a pit bull, saying something about how this is not the time to be pointing fingers - even though that's exactly what he did the previous day.

Here is the point that McCain is missing - when the Bush administration was selling the idea of attacking Iraq, there were some people who pointed out that North Korea was a much bigger threat. Saddam Hussein's regime claimed they didn't have any weapons of mass destruction while North Korea openly admitted that they were pursuing nuclear (or "nucular" if you are the leader of the free world) weapon technology. And now we have a situation where we've been in Iraq for over three years and still have not found all those WMD stockpiles and animated mobile weapons labs that Colin Powell told us about, but Kim Jong Il has told the world that he just tested a nuke.

The Bush administration's policies have not made this country safer, and no matter how many congressmen you put on television to play the "Let's Blame Clinton" game show, it doesn't change that fact.

more info:
CNN: "McCain: Clinton's North Korea policy 'a failure'"

Foley's "vast left-wing conspiracy" has been proven wrong

So you've probably heard about former Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL), who recently stepped down from his seat in the House because of some improper emails and instant messages sent to a congressional page.

Well, of course, to some right-leaning people of the media, it must the the fault of the Democrats. I mean, after all, you can't blame the party in power for things that go wrong, it has to be the big, bad, scary, boogey-man Democrats who don't control any level of government.

Some people, including Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (also, a Republican) have suggested that the emails were leaked by Democrats because of the upcoming election. You may have also heard the phrase "October Surprise" more than once in regards to the timing of the scandal.

According to a CNN report by Dana Bash, Hastert "stepped up a charge that he has been making in the past couple of days that Democrats were behind the timing of all this. He said that his opponents, funded by George Soros, even aligned with Bill Clinton, held on to this to make a bigger splash right before the election."

Here's the problem: The Hill, which is "The Newspaper for and about the U.S. Congress," reported just the opposite.

The Hill published an article by Alexander Bolton titled, "Longtime Republican was source of e-mails."

The article states, "The source who in July gave news media Rep. Mark Foley’s (R-Fla.) suspect e-mails to a former House page says the documents came to him from a House GOP aide.

"That aide has been a registered Republican since becoming eligible to vote, said the source, who showed The Hill public records supporting his claim."

Can too much power held by one political party lead to corruption and a subsequent implosion? I guess we'll see next month.

more info:
The Hill: "Longtime Republican was source of e-mails"
Media Matters: CNN's Bash repeated Hastert's conspiracy theory about Foley emails; ignored report that a "longtime Republican" gave emails to media

Woo Hoo - It's PARTY Time!!! Victory in Iraq!!!

Our beloved Congress has included $20 million in this year's defense spending bill for the "commemoration of success" in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, you heard it right - PARTY TIME!

Apparently, the money was in there last year, you know, since Vice President Cheney told us that the insurgency was in its "final throes" and President Bush had already declared "Mission Accomplished" back in 2003.

The problem is, before you can spend $20 million on a victory party, you have to have a plan for victory - I mean, a little more than "Stay the Course."

more info:
CNN: War plans: Congress OKs $20 mil for victory parties

Uh, oh....the 9/11 Report missed something

This is really too much for me to just go into. Bottom line is that Dr. Condoleeza Rice had a meeting on July 10, 2001, which according to Bob Woodward's new book "State of Denial," was the "starkest warning they had given the White House" about Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. This meeting has been confirmed even though Rice "could not recall" the meeting. Also, it looks like it was missed by the 9/11 Commission.

Read the article in The Guardian: State Dept. Confirms Rice-Tenet Meeting

Religion and war in an election...

October's issue of the Capital City Free Press is out, featuring my column, "Religion and war in an election."

Excerpt:

"If Jesus were on earth today preaching the same three messages from the Sermon on the Mount, he would be told that he was still living in a "pre 9/11 world." He
would be demonized by our political leaders, saying that he cares more about the
rights of terrorists than Americans."

Read the entire article here.

More of the Devil......

On my September 24 post, I talked about Rush Limbaugh calling Tom Daschle "The Devil" as I was talking about right-wing outrage of Hugo Chavez's "El Diablo" remark in front of the United Nations.

Well, in a reportedly "tongue-in-cheek" remark at the recent "Value Voters Summit" (which could have very well been named the "Summit for people who love the baby Jesus and vote according to what extreme evangelical bullies tell them"), everyone's favorite Christian - Jerry Falwell - made the following statement:

"I hope she's the candidate," Falwell said, "because nothing will energize my constituency like Hillary Clinton. If Lucifer ran, he wouldn't."

So these loving, caring, love-your-neighbor-unless-she-happens-to-be-Hillary-Clinton Christians would rally around the defeat of Hillary Clinton before rallying around the defeat of Lucifer?!?!

But when you combine Hugo Chavez's U.N. remarks and the 2004 evangelical vote, I guess they already did.

More info:
ABC provided no Clinton response to Falwell's "Lucifer" comparison and no rebuttal to Perkins's smear of Dems

When is the media going to stop giving George Allen a pass?

Senator George Allen (R-VA) is in the headlines again.

From the Associated Press (AP): "Dr. Ken Shelton, now a radiologist in Hendersonville, N.C., also alleges that Allen, a former University of Virginia quarterback, once stuffed the severed head of a deer into a black household's oversized mail box."

Allen "vehemently denied the allegations" in an AP interview.

Dr. Shelton's allegations were printed in an article published yesterday on Salon.com, which said that Allen frequently used racial slurs when referring to black people, and in one instance, stuffed the deer head into a black household's mailbox. Shelton claimed that this occurred soon after the movie "The Godfather" came out, which had a severed horse head in a bed.

The problem is that Allen has recently been in the news for using the term "macaca" to refer to one of his opponent's campaign workers (who is of Indian descent).

AP refers to the "macaca" incident, saying, "The word denotes a genus of monkeys and, in some cultures, is considered an ethnic slur, but the senator insists he did not know that and had simply made the word up."

"...made the word up."???

Media Matters For America noted that the word "macaca" has North African origins in its use as a racial slur, and that Allen's mother was born and raised in Tunisia, a part of North Africa.

Is it really that inconceivable that Allen had heard that word before? Or did he really just magically make up a word that is a racial slur? And when is the mainstream media going to quit giving him a pass by letting him repeat the fact that he made the word up?

more info:
Sen. Allen denies using racial slur
Media Matters For America article

Rush Limbaugh a hypocrite? No.......

If you haven't heard, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez referred to our President, George W. Bush, as 'the devil' in front of the United Nations last week. And Rush Limbaugh (among others) was so angry. Mad, I tell you, pissed off. He would never stoop so low....oh wait, yes he would.

Besides stooping to the level of referring to Chelsea Clinton as "the Clinton's dog" (when she was 13 years old - what a heartless bastard!) he referred to Democratic leader Tom Daschle as, you guessed it, "El Diablo" while playing "Devil in a Blue Dress" theme music.

Here's Limbaugh in July 2001: "Just yesterday, as Bush winged his way to Europe on a crucial mission to lead our allies into the 21st century...up pops 'El Diablo,' Tom Daschle, and his devilish deviltry, claiming that George Bush is incompetent."

So, if you haven't figured it out by now, Rush Limbaugh is a hypocritical bastard. But this isn't the first time. Remember when a prosecutor wanted to dig through his medical records and he claimed a 'right to privacy' after talking on his radio show about how the US Constitution does not guarantee a 'right to privacy'?

Seems to be the Limbaugh M.O.

more info:
What's Wrong With Calling Bush A Devil?

McCain's on the campaign trail

This morning on NBC's Today show, Senator John McCain was asked by Matt Lauer about the agreement reached between the White House and Sens. McCain, John Warner and Lindsey Graham.

The White House has been wanting to "clarify" the Geneva Conventions, and by "clarify," they mean to "define it the way we [the Bush administration] want it defined." Keep in mind that no other country has sought to "clarify" the Geneva Conventions, specifically common article 3, which deals with prisoners of war and how they must be treated.

"Clarification" to the Bush administration seeks to define common article 3 in such a way as to allow certain "interrogation techniques" which most people have defined as "torture" or even "torture light."

McCain, Warner and Graham were the three Republican senators who actually stood up to the Bush administration against this, stating that redefining the Geneva Conventions to suit our whim would make it seem appropriate for other countries to redefine them for their own purposes - and that puts American troops in more danger. How could we speak out against a country who is not treating our POW's by the Geneva Conventions if we had redefined them for our own purposes?

Former Secretary of State General Colin Powell wrote a letter to McCain, in which he said, "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism."

As McCain was being interviewed by Matt Lauer this morning, he was saying that both he and the White House had won because of the compromise they reached, adding that the only people who did not get their way were people "like the ACLU" who doesn't want us to be able to interrogate prisoners at all.

That shows that McCain is already on the '08 campaign trail and has already resorted to lying. I have found no sources where the ACLU has ever said we should not interrogate prisoners or suspected terrorists. They have spoken out against torture and secret evidence issues regarding terror suspects, but they have never said, "You can't interrogate them."

Unfortunately, McCain has started his campaign out with false accusations and lies. You would think that as a former soldier and POW who was tortured in Vietnam, he would have morals to not only stand up against torture, but also against lying.

I guess not.

more info:
GOP split as Senate panel bucks Bush on terror tribunals

The Pope's gonna have to beef up his security now

So we now see images of protests, riots, fires and more as the result of outrage against the Pope for recent statements. Pope Benedict XVI read a statement from a 14th Century Byzantine emperor (Manuel II Paleologus for all you history buffs) which said, "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

"...His command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." So in the 14th Century, the Byzantine emperor was accusing Muslims of spreading their faith through violence, and when those words were read aloud by Pope Benedict XVI in the 21st Century, the Muslim world shows just how wrong those statements were (the part about spreading faith by the sword, which is rather 'violent') by fire-bombing churches in the West Bank, rioting, setting shit on fire and other acts of _____________? (Hint: "violence").

Today's lesson: The best way to show that your religion is not violent is to not set shit on fire when you get offended. (This lesson also applies to people who assassinate abortion doctors, so any non-Muslim extremists should also learn this lesson.)

more info:
Pope upset that Muslims offended

Just one more reason why you should love Keith Olbermann

The following is by Keith Olbermann, published on September 11, 2006, five years after the infamous attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. The original link where this is found is at the bottom.

"This hole in the ground"
by Keith Olbermann.

Half a lifetime ago, I worked in this now-empty space. And for 40 days after the attacks, I worked here again, trying to make sense of what happened, and was yet to happen, as a reporter.

All the time, I knew that the very air I breathed contained the remains of thousands of people, including four of my friends, two in the planes and -- as I discovered from those "missing posters" seared still into my soul -- two more in the Towers.

And I knew too, that this was the pyre for hundreds of New York policemen and firemen, of whom my family can claim half a dozen or more, as our ancestors.

I belabor this to emphasize that, for me this was, and is, and always shall be, personal.

And anyone who claims that I and others like me are "soft,"or have "forgotten" the lessons of what happened here is at best a grasping, opportunistic, dilettante and at worst, an idiot whether he is a commentator, or a Vice President, or a President.

However, of all the things those of us who were here five years ago could have forecast -- of all the nightmares that unfolded before our eyes, and the others that unfolded only in our minds -- none of us could have predicted this.

Five years later this space is still empty.

Five years later there is no memorial to the dead.

Five years later there is no building rising to show with proud defiance that we would not have our America wrung from us, by cowards and criminals.

Five years later this country's wound is still open.

Five years later this country's mass grave is still unmarked.

Five years later this is still just a background for a photo-op.

It is beyond shameful.

At the dedication of the Gettysburg Memorial -- barely four months after the last soldier staggered from another Pennsylvania field -- Mr. Lincoln said, "we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

Lincoln used those words to immortalize their sacrifice.

Today our leaders could use those same words to rationalize their reprehensible inaction. "We cannot dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground." So we won't.

Instead they bicker and buck pass. They thwart private efforts, and jostle to claim credit for initiatives that go nowhere. They spend the money on irrelevant wars, and elaborate self-congratulations, and buying off columnists to write how good a job they're doing instead of doing any job at all.

Five years later, Mr. Bush, we are still fighting the terrorists on these streets. And look carefully, sir, on these 16 empty acres. The terrorists are clearly, still winning.

And, in a crime against every victim here and every patriotic sentiment you mouthed but did not enact, you have done nothing about it.

And there is something worse still than this vast gaping hole in this city, and in the fabric of our nation. There is its symbolism of the promise unfulfilled, the urgent oath, reduced to lazy execution.

The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and painfully followed it was the unanimous humanity, here, and throughout the country. The government, the President in particular, was given every possible measure of support.

Those who did not belong to his party -- tabled that.

Those who doubted the mechanics of his election -- ignored that.

Those who wondered of his qualifications -- forgot that.

History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government by its critics. It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation's wounds, but to take political advantage.

Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people.

The President -- and those around him -- did that.

They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, "bi-partisanship" meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused, as appeasers, as those who, in the Vice President's words yesterday, "validate the strategy of the terrorists."

They promised protection, and then showed that to them "protection" meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken, a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee, hated al-Qaida as much as we did.

The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had 'something to do' with 9/11 is "lying by implication."

The impolite phrase is "impeachable offense."

Not once in now five years has this President ever offered to assume responsibility for the failures that led to this empty space, and to this, the current, curdled, version of our beloved country.

Still, there is a last snapping flame from a final candle of respect and fairness: even his most virulent critics have never suggested he alone bears the full brunt of the blame for 9/11.

Half the time, in fact, this President has been so gently treated, that he has seemed not even to be the man most responsible for anything in his own administration.

Yet what is happening this very night?

A mini-series, created, influenced -- possibly financed by -- the most radical and cold of domestic political Machiavellis, continues to be televised into our homes.

The documented truths of the last fifteen years are replaced by bald-faced lies; the talking points of the current regime parroted; the whole sorry story blurred, by spin, to make the party out of office seem vacillating and impotent, and the party in office, seem like the only option.

How dare you, Mr. President, after taking cynical advantage of the unanimity and love, and transmuting it into fraudulent war and needless death, after monstrously transforming it into fear and suspicion and turning that fear into the campaign slogan of three elections? How dare you -- or those around you -- ever "spin" 9/11?

Just as the terrorists have succeeded -- are still succeeding -- as long as there is no memorial and no construction here at Ground Zero.

So, too, have they succeeded, and are still succeeding as long as this government uses 9/11 as a wedge to pit Americans against Americans.

This is an odd point to cite a television program, especially one from March of 1960. But as Disney's continuing sell-out of the truth (and this country) suggests, even television programs can be powerful things.

And long ago, a series called "The Twilight Zone" broadcast a riveting episode entitled "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street."

In brief: a meteor sparks rumors of an invasion by extra-terrestrials disguised as humans. The electricity goes out. A neighbor pleads for calm. Suddenly his car -- and only his car -- starts. Someone suggests he must be the alien. Then another man's lights go on. As charges and suspicion and panic overtake the street, guns are inevitably produced. An "alien" is shot -- but he turns out to be just another neighbor, returning from going for help. The camera pulls back to a near-by hill, where two extra-terrestrials are seen manipulating a small device that can jam electricity. The veteran tells his novice that there's no need to actually attack, that you just turn off a few of the human machines and then, "they pick the most dangerous enemy they can find, and it's themselves."

And then, in perhaps his finest piece of writing, Rod Serling sums it up with words of remarkable prescience, given where we find ourselves tonight: "The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men.

"For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own -- for the children, and the children yet unborn."

When those who dissent are told time and time again -- as we will be, if not tonight by the President, then tomorrow by his portable public chorus -- that he is preserving our freedom, but that if we use any of it, we are somehow un-American...When we are scolded, that if we merely question, we have "forgotten the lessons of 9/11"... look into this empty space behind me and the bi-partisanship upon which this administration also did not build, and tell me:

Who has left this hole in the ground?

We have not forgotten, Mr. President.

You have.

May this country forgive you.

Original link at MSNBC: Click Here.

Warrantless=Unconstitutional - at the Capital City Free Press

This is delayed as I have been away for awhile, and if you are in Cozumel, Mexico, find "Casa Denis" and order the 'Cochinita Pibil.' It's a great dish, as eaten by Johnny Depp in the movie "Once Upon a Time in Mexico" (although in the movie, it is called 'Puerco Pibil.')

Anyway...my September column for the Capital City Free Press is now online (and has been for a few days now). It has to do with Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's ruling on the government's warrantless wiretapping program.

Excerpt:

"Many argue that in a time of war, the president's first priority is to protect Americans, and that he can do anything needed in order to do that, however he is supposed to do everything "in his power" to protect Americans. Breaking the law and dismissing the Constitution is not a "power" given to him by the Constitution."

Read the entire article here.