Let’s make this an open thread … rant on like you all always do!

  • First, I’m glad The Supreme One, who has the only control over the Revolutionary Guard, will allow the British sailors to go home.
  • Larry was indeed terrific on Olbermann last night (MSNBC video: “McCain’s photo-op in Baghdad?”), and Crackers is right: Larry should have his own show. (The transcript will be here later today.) And, the Chicago Tribune has a great piece on Keith today: “Olbermann ‘mad as hell,’ and MSNBC the winner.”
  • Check out “Breaking: Pet Food Recall-US Wheat Gluten Supplier Identified!” by my cyberfriend, Jhritz, who also wrote the masterful piece on the Kurds below. (Also check out a terrific blog’s “Latest Pet Food Recall News,” constantly updated.)

  • Last night, CNN’s John Roberts talked to the WaPo‘s Peter Eisner whose new book is “The Italian Letter: How the Bush Administration Used a Fake Letter to Build the Case for War in Iraq.” Roberts mentioned his friendship with Pat Lang, and noted that “Pat Lang, the former Middle East chief for the Defense Intelligence Agency, was quoted in your book as saying that Cheney really was delusional on this idea of the intelligence as it pertained to Iraq.”

    EISNER: Pat Lang worked closely with Cheney in a previous incarnation, and he was not alone in saying that this was not the Dick Cheney that he knew. Dick Cheney that was measured in his analysis and what they called an excellent consumer of intelligence. He knew how to analyze the information, and he knew what the incoming information meant.

    Many of the intelligence sources that we spoke to, not only unnamed, but people like Pat Lang, also Larry Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, they said Cheney was at worst leading a kind of second tier that was operating in various parts of the government that was pushing the United States toward war with scant evidence.

Then there’s this gem, via my friend Norma who sends out Gene Lyons’ column every week:

Trust in short supply

Gene Lyons

Posted on Wednesday, April 4, 2007

Here’s a puzzle: If President Bush really thinks he’s holding all the cards in his impending showdown with congressional Democrats over Iraq funding, why bother with a veto? On previous occasions when Congress passed laws Bush found irksome, he’s quietly issued “signing statements” declaring in essence that the president is a law unto himself. Statutes Bush doesn’t like, he vows to ignore. He’s done it scores of times. He did it with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, granting himself the authority to indulge in warrantless wiretaps. He did it again with the 2006 Patriot Act, signing a bill mandating reports to Congress about the FBI’s use of national security letters, but asserting that the president needn’t comply. It’s no coincidence that the Justice Department’s inspector-general later found widespread FBI abuses of privacy rights. So why not just issue another signing statement saying Congress can pass all the resolutions it wants, but U. S. troops won’t be leaving Iraq until the Decider gives the order? Two somewhat paradoxical reasons. First, the stakes are too high, because everybody’s watching. Bush may be commander-in-chief, but the United States isn’t yet a military dictatorship. Second, some Republicans have convinced themselves they’ve got the Democrats where they want them.

A recent Washington Post news story claims that the impending deadlock “has Republican political operatives gleeful.” Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., predicted, “It’s going to be like the government shutdowns” during Bill Clinton’s administration. “The Democrats’ honeymoon is fixing to end. It’s going to explode like an IED.”

Not the most appropriate simile, I wouldn’t have thought. GOP glee is contradicted not only by 2006 election results, but also by every extant opinion poll. A March 29 Pew survey asked whether “Democratic leaders in Congress are going too far… in challenging George W. Bush’s policies in Iraq.” Exactly 23 percent said “too far,” 30 percent answered “about right” and 40 percent “not far enough.”

The Post’s own poll shows that 56 percent favor pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq “even if that means civil order is not restored there.”

The public’s far ahead of the Beltway opinion elite. This president is no longer trusted. Once people make that fundamental decision, they rarely change their minds. … Read all.

  • XB0I83 webarktsizno, [url=http://kiagimgocgmy.com/]kiagimgocgmy[/url], [link=http://sugmstjhdjkz.com/]sugmstjhdjkz[/link], http://rlhsksjmdevz.com/

  • justsomeone

    Sam Horton, sure Taft-Hartly was an obstacle to effective collective bargaining but it was nothing compared to the Worker Replacement Act of the early 90’s. Note: Sen Sam Nunn, a dem, caste the deciding vote & guess who was Pres?

  • Crackers comments, above, about labor unions raises an interesting, and perhaps key, issue.

    It’s true that labor unions have been demonized effectively by business interests using the Republican party as one of their fronts.

    But the key element blocking labor freedom in the US remains the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, which put labor under the thumb of both government and big business. President Truman called it a “slave-labor bill”, adding that it would “conflict with important principles of our democratic society”. It was passed over his veto by a Republican congress and has largely lived up to his predictions.

    One test of the Democratic party in the coming months is what, if anything, they will attempt in order to finally repeal the onerous provisions of this act and return basic labor rights and human dignity to American workers.

  • MEP– http://letsibeledmondsspeak.blogspot.com/

    I too wonder why we haven’t heard more on this case. I found this when I did a search, and thot it was good… there is so much that so many former govt workers could tell if they weren’t afraid (and rightly so, the history of what happens to anyone who dares to tell the truth duringthese past years in hell/purgatory???..). Same goes for many military families, if we weren’t silenced for fear of how our children’s superiors would treat them… it is so sad… many more wil tell the truth about the horrors that they have lived thru, in the very near future… The flood gates have broken, and the truth is going to set us free… keep the faith.

    Thanks Susan for all you do here on this blog, as well as on KOS… I respond on occasion here, but follow KOS without posting there. So many great diaries there to read… I get lost thru the diary rescue frequently… Love the community there almost as much as the great group of cyberfriends here on NQ!!! Marlene

  • bob johnson

    because bush has bitch slapped the cia,why has there beeen no retalliation?i`m confused.

  • ybnormal

    As long as Trust is in Short Supply;

    When Rove decided to use a common un-secure email address at RNC; he may have violated the terms of his security clearance; and also could have compromised national security. Of course, this all depends on the contents of the email.

    Kind of puts his so-called “genius” status into question, doesn’t it?

  • MEP

    Has anyone read or heard anything recently, concerning Sibel Edmonds and congressional hearings? I know Waxman has a lot on his plate but like many people it is my feeling that her testimony could possibly blow several smoldering cases sky high. Is this one too hot for even Bulldog Henry? What gives?

  • Mr.Murder

    Iran’s ‘weather satellite’ story kind of got ingored.

    They were able to intercept a spearhead expedition in their waters.

    How long before they verify missile delivery via satellite?

    We’re fortunate to have apparently quelled the rush to war there for the time being…

  • Graywolf = Stinky Turd

    graywolf: Iran took them hostage!!

    Those sailors were not hostages.


    The Iranian govt did not hold them by force to secure any demands.

    Al-Dawa, one of the two Islamic fundamentalist groups holding the reins of power in Iraq, knows all about taking, holding, executing hostages AND working with Hizbollah.

    Why did Bush, with your fervent and unflinching support, empower Al-Dawa, an ally of Hizbollah?

    (Rem.: In 1983, some men from Al-Da’wa, were imprisoned in Kuwait for horrific attacks on the United States and French embassies in Beirut.

    In 1984, Hizbollah, an Islamic terror organization based in Beirut and conceived by Al-Dawa, intensified its violent opposition to the incarceration of the Al-Da’wa prisoners.)

  • GSD

    Remember we had the discussion about the reports of children being used as decoys to allow a car bomber to get past a checkpoint.

    Well, that story is now being used by George W. Bush himself.

    It may well be true, but it may well be more outright lying in order to convince Americans just what a dastardly enemy we face in Iraq.



  • Reda H


    Like you I had read similar reports in the foreign press [being the news junkie that I am, I read a number of foreign papers in french, arabic, and english) but I was impressed that ABC News ran this story. The only strange thing is that it hasn’t gotten any traction in the blogosphere. One thing that I forgot to mention is that not only are we funding and supporting a terrorist group but according to an expert interviewed by Brian Ross, the leader of this group “used to fight with the Taliban. He’s part drug smuggler, part Taliban, part Sunni activist.” Did you read that. Sunni!!! we’re using Sunni terrorists to topple the Chiite regime in Iran…WTF???

  • Uppity Gal

    graywolf is so boring. can’t the wolf find anyone else to play with?

  • graywolf

    “I bet Bush is very unhappy that Iran won the PR by releasing those soldiers.”

    Iran took them hostage!!
    How do they win the PR by releasing them?

    Only in the eyes of the PC, hate-America, bend-over crowd did Iran “win”.

  • ybnormal

    Conclusion from available facts:
    George W. Bush’s administration has NO intention of promoting stability in Iraq, and NO intention of leaving Iraq as long as he is in office. This is where a number of those in congress just don’t get it. They keep thinking they’re going to convince the president to try some new plan on the advice of some commission’s expertise, or maybe improve his own legacy. They may as well yell at the wind, because he has consistently demonstrated through action, that he intends to maintain Iraq in as bad a state as possible. Yes, I’m saying he’s screwing it up on purpose. Actual results are just too overwhelming to ignore on this.

    What to do?
    Only limited choices.
    1. Give him a fraction of $$$ he asks for, along with a no-compromise no-loophole warning that it is the last and final payment, and a statement in no uncertain terms that he must begin withdrawal immediately, because it’s obvious that the longer he keeps us there, the worse it will get, exponentially.
    2. Impeach little P and VP now, and let Nancy have a whack at it. Theoretically, this should be a good choice, except that trying and then failing anyway, could really cost a lot to some of the good politicians out there, because unfortunately today, the votes just don’t exist.
    3. Leave them in office on their present course; knowing that scores of corpses will pay the penalty; and hoping that it will be so bad by 11/08 that no one even close to this administration’s so-called ideology will have a snow ball’s chance in hell to be elected president.

    It’s really a matter of which choice is worse, not better.

  • Cee


    I saw. I’m surprised that it took so long for something like this to air in US.
    If you read the foreign press, this is nothing new.
    I bet Bush is very unhappy that Iran won the PR by releasing those soldiers.
    What will Oil Can Harry do next to make Iran pay?

  • Crackers

    Great comment! I am going to steal that!

    Posted by: Fade


    If you mean the conclusion that U.S. Corporate America evolved a union called the Republican Party, by all means, yell it from the rooftops.

    Need to know who’s a member of the Republican union? Go here and search:


    Dell, Intel, Halliburton…they’re all dues-paying members. Them, and hundreds of others.

  • Hi Susan!!! for all those concerned with what you feed your dogs, best thing to do is to feed them a raw diet. It is a little bit more expensive, but the benefit is that your dog (or pet) will not have to go as often to the vet. I have my puppy on raw diet for at least two years, and would not switchher to kibble even if they paid me.

  • ________________________________________________
    I truly hate all the emphasis on the presidential campaign this far out. Now we’re talking about all the money raised so far as if that’s a measuring stick to one’s machismo. And most of that money will be given to the networks in the form of attack ads that attack my intelligence.

    I agree with others. It’d be exciting to see Larry host an afternoon or 9p show with broad guests and informed conversation and argument. CNN’s seemed to have gone conservative whole hog, but MSNBC could boot Joe Scarborough’s weak offering and let Larry be a great follow-up to Olbermann. We need to broaden the discussion beyond Anna-Nicole’s DNA and the horse race in preparation for the big changes this country will undergo in the next five years.

    Larry’s just the guy to start the fire.

  • Yeah, Kos pays me. He desperately needs to get more readers (snark).

    ‘sides, I’m not quoting Kos. I’m quoting JHritz’s post about the pet food recall, which she puts up there because so many people will see it. The ‘wingers are just jealous that they don’t have an outlet like Dkos.

    It’s great to go to DKos and find hundreds of diaries every day on every conceivable topic.

    And anyone can participate there, which makes it truly democratic.

  • God of Gods

    USS Nimitz “beefing up” US presence in Persian Gulf


  • Crackers | Wednesday, 04 April 2007 at 12:27

    Great comment! I am going to steal that!

  • there she goes again

    susanunpc, telling us all about what she read on “daily kos”.

    i wonder if markos is paying her in some fashion for publicizing his web site here in front of all the readers

  • Peter Toluzzi

    Hey, I have a question. Why did the captured British soldiers play their part on Iranian TV so well? Were they tortured – or threatened with torture? Surely Iran must have known that would trigger more belligerance if that treatment were discovered if they were released. Without that, why did the British soldiers apologise so quickly? Were they playing a role in a play? What “should” they have done, as good British soldiers captured in an act of war? Surely they should not have admitted guilt in a way that embarassed the British govt. Larry, any thoughts on what might have transpired? Otherwise I have to assume the whole shenanigan was following a script…

  • Tap Duncan

    I would encourage all to check out Scott Ritters’ interview with Robert Scheer over at truthdig.org and he will explain in stunning clarity,the situation in Iran, and then it all becomes clear. It’s long about an hour to read, but great. Hang Tough-Tap

  • Reda H

    Has anyone seen this last night on ABCNews (and later on Nightline):

    The Secret War Against Iran

    A Pakistani tribal militant group responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005, U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources tell ABC News.

    Link: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/

    This sounds like the 80s all over again. Haven’t we learned anything from our support to the Taliban?

  • This is good:

    Nevada Democratic Vets Stand Up to National VFW Leaders
    — by Elliot Anderson, Chair of the Nevada State Democratic Veterans & Military Families Corps Caucus

  • Something has been bothering me about the petfood contaminations for several weeks now – the amount of effort that has gone into spinning this into a case of corporate greed and ethical malaise at the worst or simply of case of lax standards leading to an “accident” at the least.

    Could it not be an act of domestic terrorism spun because, you know, only Muslims are terrorists?

  • Crackers

    As I hear about another corporation (Freightliner) here in Portland shutting down a plant and moving to Mexico, laying off 800 people, I’m thinking about UNIONS.

    The “unions are evil” mindset comes straight from the talking heads of corporate US America. The idea was to transition all control, influence, and dwindling health/salary compensation back to the corporation, not the worker.

    Corporate America succeeded.


    Why, the union known as the Republican Party.

    Corporations pay their dues to the Republican Party, and the Party grants them their wishes. Just look at what has happened the last few years, beginning with Reagan. Granted, Clinton’s support of NAFTA worsened things (and Freightliner was ALL FOR NAFTA).

    Isn’t it time we focused our attention on BUSTING the union known as the Republican Party?

    Unions and rights are for people, not things. We need them back; they are not evil.