Word Definition

According to Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, the word "condemn" means, "to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil usually after weighing evidence and without reservation."

According to the United States Constitution, the First Amendment says that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Today, the House of Representatives voted to condemn - to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil - MoveOn.org's Petraeus ad that was in the New York Times. Last week, the Senate voted to condemn - to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil - MoveOn.org's Petraeus ad.

In effect, what we have here is Congress saying that - because they did not like the ad - it is wrong. Since when did freedom of speech become wrong? When did it become so important for Congress to stop work on actually running this country (Iraq war, health care, infrastructure), to find time to condemn freedom of speech?

And not once - not once - was this idea of condemning free speech brought up when the republicans placed an ad in Georgia where Sen. Max Cleland, a veteran who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam, was placed in a TV ad with Saddam and Osama.

There are numerous ads, both on television and in print, that I have seen and read and in no way, shape, or form like or agree with. Yet I do all I can to ensure that they are able to say what they believe and have a viable avenue to express it.

The actions by the House and the Senate I condemn. This is something one would expect from China or Stalinist Russia; not from the supposed "leader" of the free world. Not from the country who invades other countries to bring "liberty" and "freedom."



But then again, this same country engages in revising history. Compare what the White House website says Bush said yesterday here with what he actually said here. One may say they were just fixing a mispronunciation, but that is still changing the official record of what was said. If you can fix it in print, why not edit it out of the video as well? When does it stop?

I barely know what to say...how can this be allowed to happen? And this isn't the first time. Look here. The official White House press transcript has words purportedly said by the President that were NOT said by the President! Why doesn't the House and Senate condemn this?

Is this not what Winston did in 1984, for Big Brother?

"Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record."

How soon will it be before the White House changes what facts and figures Bush (or any president) said? How long before the president has always been correct and said the right things?



It is actions like this that make me truly proud to be an American. There is hope -- better 6 years late than never.



Here we have devoutly peaceful monks staging protests against a military junta (government by a committee of military leaders). In 1990, the military junta called a general election, which the National League for Democracy won decisively. Being the NLD's candidate, Aung San Suu Kyi under normal circumstances would have assumed the office of Prime Minister. Instead, the results were nullified, and the military refused to hand over power. Aung San Suu Kyi was placed under house arrest - and is still there today.

Why isn't President Bush sending into troops to Burma? Here is a total crackdown on peaceful, nonviolent protesters demonstrating for democracy (which was stolen from them); something Bush loves to say he is bringing to the world.

Why, then, are we doing nothing for these people? Sorry noble citizens of Burma, maybe if you weren't so geographically close to China or maybe if you had some oil under your land, we'd actually care about you.



Here are true American patriots. In a time of war, in a time of need, they show us what sacrifice really means.

So Much Work for Patriots

A lot of important things have been brought to my attention in the past few days. So much so that I would have a week's worth of blogging if I talked about every issue. At the end of this blog - and maybe all future blogs - I will have a section titled: Must Read Articles. These are articles I find very important that should be on the nightly news at least once - if not repeatedly. It will also contain articles pertaining to subjects that I have previously written about. You could consider them follow-up articles.


This morning I received an email from George W. Bush. Well, from GOP.com - one of those HTML form letters trying to rally people to vote for them and give money. I get them from the Democrats as well. While reading today's email, this struck me as particularly interesting:

"After the enemy attacked us, I vowed I would rally this nation and use our resources to protect you. And that is exactly what we have done. We have reformed our intelligence services to make sure we can find the enemy before they strike. We have fought to deny them safe haven in Afghanistan and Iraq so they cannot plan and plot again.

"The fight for freedom in Iraq is the fight for the security of the United States of America and we must prevail. If we leave before the job is done, the enemy that attacked us would be emboldened."


The GOP write that "the enemy" attacked us. Who is this "enemy?" If it was al Qaeda, why wouldn't you write that? This is nothing more than a continued blurring of the lines between what really happened and what the Republicans want people to think happened.

More to the point on this is the last sentence saying that we denied them safe haven in Iraq. GOP = Grand Ol' Phibbers? Everyone - all together: al Qaeda was NEVER in Iraq prior to us invading! In fact, our intelligence communities all tell us that our being in Iraq has actually caused al Qaeda to go to Iraq.

And finally, the last sentence is very telling. The fight for freedom in Iraq is now not for WMDs, it is not for the toppling of Saddam, it is not to bring democracy to Iraq, it is not to bring freedom and liberty to the people of that nation. No, the fight for freedom in Iraq is "the fight for the security" of the U.S.

What? Our invading a sovereign nation actually caused people to hate us more and has become a rallying cry for al Qaeda. It's what they wanted. It proved their point that all we do is stick our big, bullying bombs and guns into the politics and business of nations in the Middle East. Ron Paul has said it best:

"Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there- we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East - I think Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. "

MUST READ ARTICLES

1.

"The U.S. government is collecting electronic records on the travel habits of millions of Americans who fly, drive or take cruises abroad, retaining data on the persons with whom they travel or plan to stay, the personal items they carry during their journeys, and even the books that travelers have carried, according to documents obtained by a group of civil liberties advocates and statements by government officials."

and

Activist Silenced for Fear of Surveillance

-----Repeat after me: P O L I C E S T A T E. If you don't really know what that means, simply put, it means that you have no privacy and everyone is a suspect for everything. Go read 1984.

2.

"The White House approved a Transportation Department campaign to lobby against California's application for a waiver to combat global warming through auto emissions limits tougher than federal standards, a lawmaker charged Monday."

-----While growing up, I was taught that the government was here to protect us and help make our country a better place to live. Oh my how the tides have turned....


3.

"US soldiers are luring Iraqis to their deaths by scattering military equipment on the ground as "bait", and then shooting those who pick them up, it has been alleged at a court martial."

----- So this is how we get to say that we are killing more "insurgents." Amazing.


4.

"The US Senate is expected to vote as early as Tuesday on a Bosnia-style plan to subdivide Iraq on ethnic lines, touted by backers as the sole hope of forging a federal state out of sectarian strife."

----- Why are WE making their decisions? What happened to the whole "democracy" and "elections" thing? We go in and destroy their country, kill 700,000 civilians, and then vote to break up their country? Amazing.


5.

"Bush: We Can’t Spend $22 Billion On America Because We Need $200 Billion For Iraq War"

----- Reminds me of my favorite bumper sticker: It Will Be A Great Day When Our Schools Get All The Money They Need and The Air Force Has to Hold a Bake Sale To Buy A Bomber. There's ALWAYS money to kill people...amazing...

History the Media Neglects

The drums are getting louder...Bush, Cheney, and their war machine's fear-mongering about the imminent threat from Iran are all over the news. (Why wasn't Iran an imminent threat when Iraq was an imminent threat?).

All of a sudden, Iran is the new Iraq, they want nuclear weapons that Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea, and the U.S. have, and they're supposedly training Iraqi's - a people who are their religious enemies.

They are enriching uranium which can be used for two things: 1. nuclear power and/or 2. nuclear weapons. The funny thing is that Iran has signed the UN Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which allow it to enrich uranium for nuclear power.

In any event, aside from the very astute Ron Paul, I have yet to hear any politician or major media news outlet bring up the history between Iran and the United States. My presumption is that when one does this, it becomes easy to see that we bear a lot of the fault for the Middle East in Crisis.

Excerpts from the main story (1) in this month's edition of Adbusters tells the tale simply:

1953: After an economic blockade and the presence of British warships in the Persian Gulf failed to break Mohammed Mossadegh's will, the British government persuaded the incoming Eisenhower administration to send in the CIA. (Mossadegh was a liberal democrat who believed fervently in national independence - Time magazine's Man of the Year - and was democratically elected as Prime Minister in 1952). A CIA operative named Kermit Roosevelt helped bring about this cautionary note in an official CIA report: "Possibilities of blowback against the United States should always be in the back of the minds of all CIA officers involved in this type of operation."


1954: Anglo-Iranian (Oil) changes its name to British Petroleum and regains its assets, but must share its monopoly with American oil companies. Mohammed Reza Shah is restored to the throne with help from the American-trained SAVAK secret police who torture and disappear even the most timid of dissidents. (Mossadegh had nationalized Iran's oil industry in 1951).


1971: The Shah throws himself a $100-million party at Persepolis to commemorate the 2,500th anniversary of the Persian Empire...the party must be held behind barbed wire, guarded by men with machine guns as protests erupt at Tehran University.


1979: After enduring a long reign of terror, a broad-based popular revolution overthrows the Shah. Five million Iranians crowd the streets of Tehran to welcome the revolution's symbolic leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, on his return from exile in Paris.


November 1979: Fueled by the belief that the U.S. is about to launch another coup after allowing the Shah to take refuge there, militant students seize the American embassy in Tehran, holding 52 hostages for 444 days. Ayatollah Khomeini, who was not involved in the hostage-taking, nevertheless lends his support and uses the distraction to consolidate power. Students piece together hundreds of pages of secret documents outlining the extent of former American control of Iran and its plans to destabilize the new regime.


1980: President Jimmy Carter orders a hostage rescue operation that goes terribly wrong. With Carter's popularity plummeting, Ronald Reagan wins a landslide victory in the presidential election. The hostages are released six minutes after Reagan is sworn in, contributing to allegations that his emissaries secretly negotiated to extend the hostage-taking until after the elections.


1983: Saddam Hussein, who invaded Iran in 1980 with the quiet encouragement of the U.S., has begun to use poison gas on Iranians on an almost daily basis. According to the Washington Post, "The administration of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague."


1983: Donald Rumsfeld visits Saddam Hussein in Baghdad as special envoy of Ronald Reagan to discuss common interests and Iraqi oil shipments. Rumsfeld was previously involved (along with Dick Cheney) in promoting the development of Iran's nuclear program under the Shah.


2005: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a veteran of the Iran-Iraq war, is elected president of Iran. Within days of his election, the country announces it is proceeding with uranium enrichment.


2007: As Iraq descends into chaos with 700,000 Iraqis dead, the U.S. administration issues a troop "surge" in hope of regaining control, and makes the unusual argument that Tehran is arming anti-US insurgents - most of whom are Sunni and traditional enemies of the Shia Iranians. In January the U.S. raids an Iranian consulate in Kurdish Iraq, capturing low-level Iranian diplomatic staff; Iraqi troops working for the U.S. later capture an Iranian diplomat in Baghdad. Soon after, Iran captures 12 British sailors on an intelligence mission in disputed waters. The sailors are released a day after the Iranian diplomat, who claims to have been tortured by the CIA, is returned to Iran.


2007: U.S. fleet carriers gather in the Persian Gulf; Mohammad ElBaradei, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, announces that a military attack on Iran would be "an act of madness," and stresses that nonproliferation efforts are undermined as long as the "big boys" - such as the U.S. and Israel - are permitted to have nuclear weapons. The U.S. president authorizes the CIA to engage in covert operations to destabilize the Iranian regime.

In the media coverage, comparisons to the 1953 CIA regime change in Iran are nowhere to be found.





1. Campbell, Deborah Iran vs. The United States of Amnesia; Adbusters #73, Volume 15 Number 5; 2007.

Where Are We Heading?

Sunday night, my roommate and I were playing some football on our Playstation 2. The game was ESPN 2K5. It's a regular football game - just like Madden - however there are some twists to it. One being that there is a cool halftime report where they talk about key plays made in the first half. The other involves "crib credits." You get crib credits - money essentially - for making touchdowns, sacking the QB, playing for certain amounts of time, and other such activities. What can you use these crib credits for? Only one thing: pimping out your crib!!

That's right. You have no choice but to buy more and more expensive furniture, TV's, DVD players, home theaters, etc. You are given no option to save your "money," no option to invest it or even give some to charity. The entire goal of the game is to get "money" so that you can buy things; buy really expensive and honestly unnecessary things. What kind of message are we sending to our children? We give them no options but only point them in the direction of consuming more and more and more.

There was a time when this nation was above that - wasn't there?


I read an interview today with a woman who has written a book on the luxury industry and how it impacts our society. This part really struck me:

"Yesterday, after a signing, I went to have dinner with friends out in Mill Valley and they showed us the town and the town square, and there was a young boy selling lemonade, and my daughter wanted to get some, so I gave her a quarter and she went to buy it. I went with her, and one of the little girls there was about 8 years old -- about the same age as my daughter -- was standing there with a little Louis Vuitton handbag on her shoulder. I said 'Well, that's a nice handbag," and she turned to me and said, "Thank you, it's Louis Vuitton." Eight years old! That is how they are realigning our social network and our self-worth."

It doesn't matter what you do for a living. It doesn't matter if you are devoting your life to picking up all of the trash I and my neighbors generate; it doesn't matter if you devote your life to researching a cure for cancer (both extremely noble, by the way). No, no, no. This little girl didn't have such lowly ambitions. She's already at the top of her game, respected among her 8-year old peers. She has a Louis Vuitton handbag. THAT is making it American style. That is success, accomplishment, and truly making something of yourself.


Here is it comes. Are you ready? It's being done just the way it was before. Subtle hints of deception along with public pronouncements - more each month - that we're doing all we can, we're trying our best but it's really their fault that our diplomacy is failing. I don't blame the Administration anymore. I blame the media - and unless you protest this, I blame you.

A Great and Wise Man Once Said...

During my 3rd and 4th grade years, I was living in southern New Jersey and a distinct memory I have during that time period is quite poignant for today. Driving around, I would look out the window from my usual seat in the back and stare at huge smoke stacks with endless columns of smoke pouring into the air I was breathing. I couldn't help but notice thick black clouds of exhaust coming out of buses and trucks. As a 9 year old I thought: this can't be right, how can adults let this happen and be OK with destroying the air I'm breathing?

The only answers I can come up with are ignorance and greed.


A great and wise man once said:

The Great Chief in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy our land. How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land? The idea is strange to us. Yet we do not own the freshness of the air or the sparkle of the water; how can you buy them from us? Every part of this earth is sacred to my people....

There is no quiet place in the white man's cities; no place to hear the leaves of spring or the rustle of insect wings. But perhaps because I am a savage and do not understand. The clatter only seems to insult the ears. And what is there to life if a man cannot hear the lovely cry of the whippoorwill or the arguments of the frog around the pond at night?

The Whites too shall pass - perhaps sooner than other tribes. Continue to contaminate your bed and you will one night suffocate in your own waste. When the buffalo are all slaughtered, the wild horses all tamed, the secret corners of the forest heavy with the scent of many men, and the view to the ripe hills blotted by talking wires. Where is the eagle? Gone. Where is the buffalo? Gone. And what is it to say goodbye to the swift and the hunt, the end of living and the beginning of survival?


Chief Seattle to President Franklin Pierce, 1855

We're becoming the Borg

Part of what makes a democracy a democracy is the ability of citizens to be given facts and figures for all sides of an issues. Especially with the war in Iraq, there is all kinds of howling on the Right that the media is unfair to Bush & Co. and that it's a vast wasteland of Liberal thought. Oh, if only it were true.

Here's a study released today that analyzed Syndicated Op-Ed columnists in papers all across the country. And guess what they found:

• Sixty percent of the nation's daily newspapers print more conservative syndicated columnists every week than progressive syndicated columnists. Only 20 percent run more progressives than conservatives, while the remaining 20 percent are evenly balanced.

• In a given week, nationally syndicated progressive columnists are published in newspapers with a combined total circulation of 125 million. Conservative columnists, on the other hand, are published in newspapers with a combined total circulation of more than 153 million.2

• The top 10 columnists as ranked by the number of papers in which they are carried include five conservatives, two centrists, and only three progressives.

• The top 10 columnists as ranked by the total circulation of the papers in which they are published also include five conservatives, two centrists, and only three progressives.

• In 38 states, the conservative voice is greater than the progressive voice -- in other words, conservative columns reach more readers in total than progressive columns. In only 12 states is the progressive voice greater than the conservative voice.

• In three out of the four broad regions of the country -- the West, the South, and the Midwest -- conservative syndicated columnists reach more readers than progressive syndicated columnists. Only in the Northeast do progressives reach more readers, and only by a margin of 2 percent.

• In eight of the nine divisions into which the U.S. Census Bureau divides the country, conservative syndicated columnists reach more readers than progressive syndicated columnists in any given week. Only in the Middle Atlantic division do progressive columnists reach more readers each week.

There is NO liberal media. 99% of all newspapers and television stations are owned by only 10 HUGE corporations. What's the #1 goal of a corporation? It's bottom line. Not democracy, not hearing all sides of an issue and obviously not letting all sides have equal air & print time.

Same ol', Same ol'

Am I the only one that hears the end of our society as we know it approaching? In 45 years, almost all polar bears will be gone. Gone. These penguins are going, too. In one week - that's 7 days - a portion of the Arctic Ice shelf the size of Florida has melted away. Gone. If you don't care or understand why the loss of a species is bad, then lets think about ice - when it melts it becomes water. More water in the ocean makes the oceans rise. From the same report by ABC News - it gets worse because, "2007 has already broken the record for the lowest amount of sea ice ever recorded, say scientists, smashing the old record set in 2005."

Honestly, I don't care about universal health care right now. I don't care about Osama bin Laden or the Iraq war. Because what is about to happen; what we are on the verge of crossing into, will make us wish we only had those things to argue about.

What is going to happen to the coastal cities once the ice starts melting faster and faster? Pretty soon, we won't even be measuring the sea ice melting - we'll be measuring how fast the seas are making their way into our cities; our business and our homes.

Remember Katrina? Remember how completely unprepared we were? Remember how we had thousands and thousands of people displaced with no food and no water? Well, what happens when that same situation presents itself in Miami and Tampa and Houston and San Francisco and Seattle and Honolulu and New York City and -- hopefully you get the picture.

Am I the only one who doesn't want to look into our children's eyes and say I'm sorry. That I'm sorry for not doing enough to help others from screwing up your future?

I do not want to have to say that. But I do and I shall.

I'm sorry I couldn't help convince my fellow humans that Hummer H3's really aren't cool - that whoever has the fattest crib, takes up the most space, throws away the most garbage, and buys the most crap every weekend aren't really those people we should be modeling our society on. I'm sorry I couldn't stop Exxon and Chevron and other oil companies from paying millions of dollars to lie to people about global warming.

However...

I am the change I seek in the world. I have passed the word on and been an example for others to see. I have been laughed at and asked if I had a job (yes I did - and while going to graduate school at the same time). I have done - and many others like me have done - all we can. But it looks like it's still not nearly enough. And I'm sorry it wasn't enough.

You Can't Keep Keepin' Us Down

The more I hear Ron Paul talk and the more I see the MSM ignore him, the more I know he's onto something and the more I truly respect him. I don't know if I'd vote for him because some of his Libertarian views are just too far of a stretch for me to take, however, he's smart, articulate, full of integrity and has a firm grasp on the issues -- which is a lot more than I can say for any other Republican candidate and quite a few of the Democratic ones. I'd like to include those from the Green, Libertarian, or other third parties in this discussion, but for some odd reason, we in this country like to limit our freedom of representational choice to two sides of the same coin.

Outstanding Ron Paul at the recent Republican Debate can be seen here with some transcripts and a blog by Eric Garris about it here.



Now this (and this) has been making me smile all day. I truly love good ol' fashioned checks and balances. Let's hear it (finally) for some democracy in the USA!



This just really amazes me. It amazes me not only that the MSM doesn't report on this, but that Congress allows it to happen. If you have this revolving door of people who work for the government, then go work for major corporations, then back to the government - are they really going to represent the people and do what is in our best interest? Or are they going to bend over backwards to please those who gave them these cushy loyalty jobs?



I get a very dark, sinister feeling about this. (Another Eric Garris blog - the original story is here.) Bush has already admitted that his plan is to keep troops in Iraq up to, and hopefully after, he leaves office. Iraq is without question a gigantic illegal and immoral disaster. Maybe some quick strikes on Iran will help bolster the GOP's chances for a favorable outcome in 2008. We wouldn't bomb people just to win elections...would we?




Kudo's to Sony (and Japan) for pushing the limits and boundaries of human ingenuity. This is just awesome! Our imaginations are the only boundaries to our creativity.

That's why not for one second do I buy into this crap that Bush & Co keep polluting our national discourse with regarding CO2 limits and reduction: It'll hurt the economy or Other nations pollute, too! What are we, only the greatest nation when it comes to bombing people? News flash - creating new energy resources through research, development, and productions WILL CREATE NEW JOBS AND HELP THE ECONOMY! Why is no one throwing this back at Bush when he repeats the same tired lies?

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

If any teacher of mine, or parent or other person in a position of leadership, kept changing their reason for doing something - whether it be where they ate lunch or how Einstein's theory of relativity worked, I'd be highly skeptical of their trustworthiness. You'd be hard pressed to get me to accept much of anything they said after that.

So why is it so hard for the MSM to question our President. They keep parroting everything Bush says regarding his rationale for the war like he's never changed it! Unbelievable. We've had WMD's, democracy for Iraq, democracy for the Middle East, liberty, liberation, human rights, oil, strategic advantage, Libyan disarmament, blah blah blah.

However, with the release yesterday of a new book on Bush by Robert Draper called Dead Certain, it seems that, maybe, we are finally getting some truth out of Bush. At least about why we're staying in Iraq. And that is "To get us in a position where the presidential candidates will be comfortable about sustaining a presence."

So, it's all political, isn't Mr. Bush. It's all so that you and your neo-con friends' political ambitions can be carried out. You're a sick man and I'm very ashamed that the American people tolerate having you represent us -- because in no way do you represent me.


Thanks Keith.



I love my planet. It's amazing how diverse it is (we're still discovering new species) and how wonderfully it all fits together. Truly the most beautiful and awe-inspiring experience of my life is my life on our planet Earth. That's why I'm upset, angry, and really pissed off that the majority of people in our self-proclaimed "greatest nation in the world" are doing absolutely nothing about this. It's like watching a fully-loaded airliner crash in slow motion - only multiply it by 15 million times.



What more can I say about this? The airwaves that CBS, NBC, and ABC use are OURS. They belong to the American people, by law, and are rented to the networks provided they serve community interests. When they don't do that, when they stifle dissent and American public opinion - how is our country any different than Stalinist Russia or Communist China?



The Pentagon supports our troops! Ok....honestly, they don't.



A little light hearted truth: "It's called the American Dream...because you have to be asleep to believe it!"

Things that go bump in the day

Under the United States Constitution, citizens are given "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

In other words - we can protest, write, call, petition, etc., our representatives (Senators, Congressmen and women, the President, Vice President: those people that we hire to represent us) in order to persuade them change laws, policies, and the like.

How are we to do this if they can't see or hear us? How can we get proper redress if peaceably protesting American citizens are arrested? How can we persuade our leaders if they never see or hear that a large segment of citizens, let alone other democratic countries, disagree with their (our) policies?

You expect me to believe that our goal is to bring democracy and liberty to Iraq, when it's slowly being eroded here? When Bush & Co. can't even export our First Amendment to Australia, how am I to believe they're going to do that in Iraq? John F. Kennedy said it best:

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable."



I do not know how true this is - and the author readily admits as much. However, they did it for the Iraq War and there are telltale signs of it starting up up again, so it wouldn't surprise me in the least. What with General Petraeus's report coming up next week, it makes sense. The Iraqi government is now the fall guy for our disaster there, but do not be surprised if they start saying, or some other mouthpiece for them (read that: a Bush Administration official), starts saying that it's not their fault after all. If Iran would just stop interfering, then the Iraqi government could get their act together. It's all Iran's fault now. The evidence will be there, just like the WMDs.


This one is for all of those people who still trust Bush to tell us the truth. And if he honestly just doesn't remember something so vitally important about the invasion of a sovereign nation, among all other things, he doesn't deserve to be President.