Rumsfeld Never Signed Military Dead's Condolensce Letters

Sorry to be so chatty today, but I'm running across a lot of amazing crap. Such as this incredible shocker. Every time, frankly, I think that the Bush Administration can't sink lower, can't do one more thing to disgust me, they do something new.

Such as learning that to date, condolence letters to the families of soldiers killed in action by the Department of Defense were signed by a machine, not by Rumsfeld.

I found this via a Daily Kos diarist.

Jesus. Every time I hear about this kind of stuff, the words of Joseph Welch come to my mind: "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

Brits' House of Lords Rule Against Indefinite Detention

From remarks in the judgement by the House of Lords that the British government is wrong to detain foreign terrorist suspects indefinitely without trial, via author William Gibson's blog and a Guardian article:

Lord Hoffman:

This is a nation which has been tested in adversity, which has survived physical destruction and catastrophic loss of life. I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive Al-Qaeda. The Spanish people have not said that what happened in Madrid, hideous crime as it was, threatened the life of their nation. Their legendary pride would not allow it. Terrorist violence, serious as it is, does not threaten our institutions of government or our existence as a civil community ...

Such a power in any form is not compatible with our constitution. The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these. That is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory.

Lady Hale:

It is not for the executive to decide who should be locked up for any length of time, let alone indefinitely. Only the courts can do that and, except as a preliminary step before trial, only after the grounds for detaining someone have been proved.

Executive detention is the antithesis of the right to liberty and security of person. Yet that is what the 2001 act allows.

We have always taken it for granted that we cannot be locked up in this country without trial or explanation.

If the situation really is so serious and the threat so severe that people may be detained indefinitely without trial, what possible legitimate aim could be served by only having power to lock up some of the people who present that threat?

Cuba Gets in a Rather Good Zinger at the U.S.

The United States diplomatic mission to Cuba put up a Christmas display that supports Cuban dissidents. Among the decorations of Santa Claus, candy canes, and white lights around palm trees, there is a sign that reads "75," a reference to the 75 Cuban dissidents jailed last year.

Cuba asked us to take down the "75" sign. We refused. They said a diplomatic phrase that, translated into normal speak, said, "Okay, if that's the way you want to play it ... "

On Friday, Cuba put up a billboard across from the mission that had photographs of American soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners, as well as a huge swastika overlaid with a "Made in the U.S.A" stamp.

Secretary of State Colin Powell's response was:

[T]o put "75" on the side of the building was showing solidarity with people who are being held and intimidated and whose rights are being denied by the Cuban Government. And the Cuban Government's response is to show solidarity with people who are being held and intimidated and whose rights are being denied by the American government? Ouch. Touche, Fidel. Good one.

*record scratch* Actually, I'm sorry. Got that wrong:

[T]o put "75" on the side of the building was showing solidarity with people who are being held and intimidated and whose rights are being denied by the Cuban Government. And the Cuban Government's response is to put forward and show the world a swastika? I don't think that is very wise on their part, and we will continue to stick by our troops down there, our diplomats down there and our Christmas display, with the "75."

Very well done, Colin. If the swastika hadn't been there, would you have remarked on, oh, the size stock they used? Ignoring something a little there?

The Associated Press interviewed Wayne Smith, who headed the Cuban U.S. mission during the Carter and Reagan administrations. He said, "If I were in their shoes, this is what I would do -- call attention to the fact that the United States is now guilty of torture, of massive violations of human rights. Yes, I'd like to see the 75 all released, but we're in no position now to criticize anyone."

That's the point, and one that Colin can't really outright acknowledge. We used to be able to stand with Amnesty International and criticize when egregious human rights violations were committed. After Abu Gharib, we lost our moral standing to do so, especially when the buck stopped absolutely nowhere on that whole sordid event.

The Drug Companies won't like this!!!!!

"Polymeal" could slash heart attack risk.

Dining regularly on a "Polymeal", devised with ingredients to boost the health of the heart and blood vessels, could cut the risk of cardiovascular disease by more than three-quarters, researchers claim.

They say feasting on fish, garlic, almonds, fruits and vegetables, dark chocolate, all polished off with a glass of wine could substantially reduce the risk of problems such as heart attack when compared with the general population.

This solution has one serious drawback, no one is going to make big bucks on it. The drug companies prefer the "polypill".

This wonder pill - a cocktail of six existing drugs - was proposed in June 2003 as a preventive pill which might slash the risk of heart attack or stroke in people over 55 years old by as much as 80%. The proposal was underpinned by an analysis of over 750 trials of the existing drugs.

And I bet the polymeal won't even destroy your liver like most prescription drugs, unless of course you get carried away with the wine.
Of course, fortunately for the drug companies most of us would rather pop a magic pill than attempt to live a responsible life style even if it kills us.

White House Publicly Chastises Bush Confidante

The White House has released a videotaped statement acknowledging that a close confidante of the President has failed in the primary job duty assigned to him by the President. Furthermore, when this confidante approached several key members of the Administration, they refused to offer assistance. Mrs. Bush, oddly enough, was the one to advise the confidante that they had totally misread the parameters the President had handed down, ensuring that said individual would still be able to carry out his task in January.

To view the statement, click here.

Jogging Fearful via Yahoo ...

If you use My Yahoo!, and you would like to have Running Scared's headlines display there, just click here.

Cool, huh?

Edit: Changed the URL to match Yahoo's official FAQ answer. If you were having problems before, try again.

When the puppet takes charge

In the comments section of a Left Coaster post yesterday T2 said:

"I'm starting to fear my greatest fear; that Bush actually is in charge up there. He may be like the pit bull someone buys for protection, only to find the dog is just as likely to turn on the owner as anyone. Could George be a loose canon in the Cheney/Rove White House? or, god forbid, is he actually their boss."

Digby talks about a Bush actually in charge this morning and the prospect is frightening.

....But it is past time that they come to the realization, however frightening it may be, that Bush actually is making decisions. In the first term it seemed clear that he was manipulated by a powerful group of courtiers who were able to guide him in the direction they wanted him to go through flattery and access. Now that he has been validated by the people his personal arrogance has come to the fore.

All we need do is look to the Kerik debacle to see that Bush himself is now making decisions and he is doing it against the will of his advisors. It is obvious that Kerik appealed to Bush as a man's man. It was a sympatico relationship --- a pair of testosterone cowboys, one blue, one red, in love with their images as tough guys who take no shit. Bush saw in Kerik the man he now believes he is --- self-made, salt of the earth, leader of men, killer of bad guys. The empty frat boy and the crooked bureaucrat teamed up as adventure heroes.

The minute I read about this I knew that this had been a case of Bush saying "I take the man at his word, Alberto, now make it happen." This wasn't sloppy vetting. It was Junior issuing an edict based upon his vaunted "gut" with the predictable result. And I have no doubt that rather than blame himself for this mess, the Preznit blames Kerik for not being the man that Bush wanted him to be and blames the others for being right. (And I imagine that Bush will stick with Rumsfeld no matter what for the simple reason that so many want him out. That's the way dumb megalomaniacs think.)

This is the big story of the second term. Bush himself is now completely in charge. He did what his old man couldn't do. He has been freed of all constraints, all humility and all sense of proportion. Nobody can run him, not Cheney, not Condi, not Card. He has a sense of his power that he didn't have before. You can see it. From now on nobody can tell him nothin. It makes the hair on the back of your neck stand up, doesn't it?

And you thought it was bad before. The pit bull is loose and he is about to maul the country and the world.

Jane, get me off this crazy thing ...

There are days where I want to cry.

President Bush has ordered plans for temporarily disabling the U.S. network of global positioning satellites during a national crisis to prevent terrorists from using the navigational technology.

(Oh, never mind people who might need to use it. Like, oh, 911 call centers.)

And there are days when I want to laugh.

The American Conservative Union on Thursday announced it has tapped Sen. Zell Miller, D-Ga., to present the �Courage Under Fire� award to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth at the Conservative Political Action Conference�s Feb. 16 banquet.

Students forced to labor for Republicans

John Sugg at Atlanta's creative loafing has a story about students being forced to work for Republicans at an Atlanta area High School.

At 1337 Canton Road in Marietta is a suite of nondescript offices. Appearances can be deceiving. Think of the offices as (apologies to Tolkien) Saruman's Tower with the dark side's other spire, Sauron's redoubt, being 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, D.C.

The Marietta stronghold harbors some of the nation's most malformed political orcs, members of the Cobb County Republican Party. They've kidnapped Jesus, hoisted a banner of devilish theocracy, embraced George Bush's trampling of liberty and tossed science in the schoolhouse dustbin. In short, the Cobb GOP is goose-stepping into, oh, the 11th century.

And, by the way, they're getting help from Marietta High School.

At the school, there's an "apprenticeship" program run by teacher Sandra Thompson, who happens to be on the Cobb GOP executive committee. According to senior Gabi McMichen, Thompson uses her school post to funnel students into gigs as Republican foot soldiers. During election season, for example, kids were dispatched to labor for U.S. Sen.-elect Johnny Isakson and other GOP candidates.

"We place students [with organizations] that contact us," Thompson says. When asked if Republican campaigns had contacted her -- Thompson, of course, works on the same campaigns -- she says, "Yes." When asked if Democrats had requested interns, she says, "No."

"We live in a Republican district," says Thompson. "That's the way it is all over Georgia. We respond to people who contact us. We do not discriminate."

In addition the curriculum is a bit suspect.

And McMichen says partisanship permeates Marietta High. "In American government class," she says, "Democrats are depicted as only minorities, as only people who need handouts."

So the Theocrats in Georgia have taken over the school system. Sounds like the tactics of the Hitler Youth to me.

Shining some light on the problem?

"LAPD Plan to Curb Flashlight Beatings."

Well, that's good. Because, you know, I'd be really worried if they were planning to increase them.

A Jew on Christmas

I've posted my take on Christmas music at school concerts over at The One True Tami. It's long, and rambling, and takes a couple of side trips. Basically, I've switched my position from all-exclusive to all-inclusive. Feel free to take a gander, if you're so inclined.

Rumsfeld under attack from the right

Tip from MEJ's Bill in DC

First it was Chuck Hagel then John McCain and now it's Bill Kristol super hawk saying Rumsfeld must go.

"As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time."

-- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld,

in a town hall meeting with soldiers at Camp Buehring in Kuwait, Dec. 8.

Actually, we have a pretty terrific Army. It's performed a lot better in this war than the secretary of defense has. President Bush has nonetheless decided to stick for now with the defense secretary we have, perhaps because he doesn't want to make a change until after the Jan. 30 Iraqi elections. But surely Don Rumsfeld is not the defense secretary Bush should want to have for the remainder of his second term.

Contrast the magnificent performance of our soldiers with the arrogant buck-passing of Rumsfeld.

We have seen how the President likes to reward incompetence with the promotion of Dr. Rice, who had never figured out what her first job was, and the presentation of the Presidential Medal of Freedom to three of the men who are responsible for the mess in Iraq is another. Rumsfeld's incompetence, arrogance and total inability to take responsibility is beyond belief. Kristol gives us this example:

But then, what about his statement earlier last week, when asked about troop levels? "The big debate about the number of troops is one of those things that's really out of my control." Really? Well, "the number of troops we had for the invasion was the number of troops that General Franks and General Abizaid wanted."

Leave aside the fact that the issue is not "the number of troops we had for the invasion" but rather the number of troops we have had for postwar stabilization. Leave aside the fact that Gen. Tommy Franks had projected that he would need a quarter-million troops on the ground for that task -- and that his civilian superiors had mistakenly promised him that tens of thousands of international troops would be available. Leave aside the fact that Rumsfeld has only grudgingly and belatedly been willing to adjust even a little bit to realities on the ground since April 2003. And leave aside the fact that if our generals have been under pressure not to request more troops in Iraq for fear of stretching the military too thin, this is a consequence of Rumsfeld's refusal to increase the size of the military after Sept. 11.

In any case, decisions on troop levels in the American system of government are not made by any general or set of generals but by the civilian leadership of the war effort. Rumsfeld acknowledged this last week, after a fashion: "I mean, everyone likes to assign responsibility to the top person and I guess that's fine." Except he fails to take responsibility.

But Dubya continues to feel in his gut that Rumsfeld is the right man for the job and Dubya's gut is getting us deeper in the hole everyday.

"Old Europe" strikes back at Rumsfeld

A complaint has been filed in Berlin on the behalf of four Iraqis who were alleged to have been mistreated by US soldiers at Abu Ghraib. The complaint names Donald Rumsfeld. The Pentagon has warned Germany that the Lawsuit Against Rumsfeld Threatens US-German Relations.

The Pentagon made thinly veiled threats on Monday, suggesting US-German relations could be at risk if a criminal complaint filed in German courts over Abu Ghraib proceeds.

The Pentagon expressed concern Monday over a criminal complaint filed in Germany against US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other officials over the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, warning that "frivolous lawsuits" could affect the broader US-German relationship.

Germany was chosen because it has universal jurisdiction for war crimes.

The groups that filed the complaint said they had chosen Germany because of its Code of Crimes Against International Law, introduced in 2002, which grants German courts universal jurisdiction in cases involving war crimes or crimes against humanity.

It also makes military or civilian commanders who fail to prevent their subordinates from committing such acts liable. DiRita said he did not know whether the United States had raised specific concerns directly with the German government. But he said, "I think every government in the world, particularly a NATO ally, understands the potential effect on relations with the United States if these kinds of frivolous lawsuits were ever to see the light of day."

This is not the first Pentagon clash with "Old Europe".

The United States clashed with Belgium last year over a similar law that allowed war crimes charges to be brought against retired General Tommy Franks (photo), who led the US invasion of Iraq, as well as numerous other international figures.

The 1993 law empowered Belgian courts to judge suspects accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, regardless of where the alleged acts were committed, or the nationality of either the accused or the victims.

The United States threatened Belgium and it worked and plan to intimidate Germany in the same way.

US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld threatened to block funding for a new NATO headquarters in Belgium over the law, and said the United States was considering whether it would continue to send officials to meetings in Brussels as long as the law was in place.

The Belgian parliament replaced the law with a watered down version in August 2003 and its high court threw out lawsuits against Franks, former president George H.W. Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Indicating the US planned to play a similar game of hardball with Germany, Rumsfeld has informed the German government via the US embassy that he will not take part in the annual Munich security conference in February should the investigation proceed.

Social Security, even conservatives see through the lies.

From conservative Joe Scarborough. Congressional memo to future generations: You're screwed

Take it from a not-so-old former congressman who knows: Proud young Americans, you are in for a con job from Washington that you can't even imagine.

Your government has already borrowed almost $8 trillion that it can't pay back. Guess who will have to write the check? That's right. You.

Expect massive tax hikes in your future, and wicked cuts in national defense, education, environmental enforcement, police protection and medical care for the poor and elderly.
.......[snip].......
You see, they've got this really cool plan to privatize parts of Social Security that usually make free market conservatives like myself giddy. We start talking about the invisible hand and the power of market forces.

Only problem is that this plan to get government off our backs costs a cool $2 trillion in transition fees.

And-- let me see if you are following me here-- who pays for that?

That's right. YOU!

But that's not the biggest problem with this $2 trillion Social Security plan. What bothers me the most is the fact that everybody in Washington knows that allowing Americans to invest parts of their Social Security payments in the stock market will produce some winners. But capitalism also always produces losers, and we all know that there will be millions of Americans who will make stupid investments in the coming years. (See Enron, etoys, Pets.com, Worldcom)

So what will happen when they retire and start complaining to their local congressman and TV camera crews about how they're about to be thrown out in the streets because of the dumb investments they made with their Social Security payments years ago?

Congress will pass the "Save Our Stupid Seniors Investment Relief Act of 2025," thereby guaranteeing that all Americans will have all Social Security payments restored in full.

That will require that you take your third job in the Chinese high tech factory just so you can pay even more taxes to Washington.

It's a bright future, brought to you by a gang in Washington who really couldn't care less about what happens to the world they pass on to their children and grandchildren.

How do I know this? Because I was in Congress long enough to learn that you judge politicians by their actions, not their words.

And then Joe does something conservatives don't do very often, he sends you over to read Paul Krugman. He doesn't mention that it's not Social Security that's broken but at least he realizes that Bush doesn't have a plan to fix it.

Hey, Kids! Let's Ruin a Song!

With great amusement and no little amount of disgust, I note that Yoko Ono has apparently decided to ruin "Give Peace a Chance". If you're a masochist, you can listen to a tad more of it here. (I had to see exactly how much of a train wreck it could be.)

Let me carry the thought of Ms. Ono's lyrics a little further:

The sky was so blue
and we had no clue

Hmmm ...

so we went to the zoo
and waited in a queue
to see a bear named Pooh
and then had a stew
topped off by a brew
which was served by a crew
who was led by Sir Hugh
but who could have knew
I'd get the review
'she gives you
stomach flu'

Interestingly enough, Sean Lennon did a cover of it with the Peace Choir, one of those big huge celebrity supergroups (Flea! Dwayne Wayne! Cyndia Lauper! Q-Tip! Half of 'Was Not Was'!), which provoked the formation of another celebrity supergroup to record "Voices that Care" (Michael Bolton! Alan Thicke! Warrant! and the musical stylings of James Woods!).

UPDATE: Just for clarification, the first two lines are Yoko's. The remainder, after the "Hmmm." were me making fun of the insipid "blue"/"clue" rhyme. The new lyrics are spoken-word poems set to a techno-fied "Give Peace a Chance" melody. Yeah, you read that right. Yoko made "Give Peace a Chance" TECHNO.

UPDATE 2: When I was typing the word 'update' above, I hit the keys just to the left of U and P, then typed D and A, and then wondered why the word 'YODA' had suddenly appeared on my screen.

The Next Great Crossroads

I hesitated before posting this to Running Scared, because it's (a) lengthy [it's too bad Blogger never incorporated 'cut tags' like LiveJournal has] and (b) quite the polarizing document. But then, I have to admit, I began to feel a certain feeling I get sometimes ... a sense of pride when I manage to nail exactly how I'm feeling about something. This is how I feel. Aside from the continual use of the word "we" implying that I'm solidly bound to the Democratic Party, which I did a bit for effect, this is pretty much honestly how I feel about the next crossroads, and so, here we go as I put it out into the ether before getting cold feet. I sent this to Illinois' delegates to the DNC:

I'm sure that you were alarmed as I was to witness John Kerry's defeat on November 3, 2004. It was, for me, a nightmare come true: now, without the restraints of re-election concerns, the next four years will prove to be a neoconservative agenda run amok, and I truly believe that we're going to see some of the worst times this country has ever experienced. Imagine if America had to deal with the domestic horrors of McCarthyism and the wartime horrors of Vietnam at precisely the same time, and that is what is in store for America for the next four years.

I imagine that you are, at the moment, being blanketed with what is called "astroturf" in some circles — the etymology of that coming from the idea of "fake grassroots." But this is something that I actually wrote myself, and is not fake, cut-and-pasted text. Even the "fake grassroots" folks, though, still mean what they're writing about, so I hope you pay attention to them as well.

At the risk of alienating you, I must say I feel the Democratic Party needs a new vitality of purpose, or else it's not going to survive. The Democratic Party faces an extremely momentous decision when it elects its next chair, and this decision will, I believe, determine its very survival.

It is for this reason that I am asking you to vote for Howard Dean as the DNC's next chair.

I believe the Democratic Party lost the November 2 election not because George W. Bush was the better candidate, but because John Kerry's most widespread message was that he was not George Bush. The large bulk of Kerry votes — including mine — were not for John Kerry. They were for "Not George Bush." If a vegetable was called upon to describe itself, if it told you that it was not meat, that would not tell you much about what it inherently was. It could still be a potato, a piece of broccoli, or a carrot.

This was the problem inherent with the widescale Democratic loss in November. We need to start getting out to the public the message, on a widespread, national basis, as to who we truly are — because Air America isn't widespread enough (or, frankly, good enough) to do the job, and the Republicans pundits (like Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reilly) are. And the people are listening to the only message being publicly shouted from airwaves. Howard Dean knows how to leverage these new medias.

The other alarming trend seemingly being considered by the Democratic Party at the moment is the adoption of a more centrist and conservative platform, as a reaction to the large conservative showing in the 2004 election. I think that may be a fatal mistake. If the Democratic Party positions itself as "Republicans Lite," then the Republicans are going to vote for the Republicans, and large amounts of alienated Democrats are going to seek out third parties. We will certainly never gain enough of a quorum to bring a Democratic candidate to the White House.

Sen. Edwards' and Sen.-Elect Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention this year were amazing visions of the Democratic Party that resonated and excited the American populace. Bush may have cast himself as a "uniter," but the first term of his Presidency has polarized the American public to a degree never before seen, and that trend will only continue to a far worse degree in his second term as he takes more and more action to further the fundamentalists' and neoconservatives' agendas. The Democratic Party needs to be there as a viable, exciting alternative, to embrace and envelop those who dissent against Bush's tyranny. They need to say, as the cover of the Seattle periodical The Stranger did on November 11:

"Do not despair. You don't have to leave. You don't have to move to Canada. You may feel out of place in this United States today. You may feel like you're surrounded by fundamentalist-church-going, gun-hugging, gay-bashing, anti-choice Bush voters, but you're NOT! George W. Bush only got 51% of the national vote."

An additional, corollary note: Dean has paid attention to the teachings of cognitive scientist and linguist George Lakoff, who has wisely observed exactly how over the past 20 years, the Republican Party has engineered its use of terminology and thought patterns (i.e., "pro-life" implying that the alternative is "anti-life", etc.) to great success. The Democratic Party must pay attention to this process, as exhaustively studied by Lakoff in Moral Politics and other texts, in order to win back the harts and minds of the American populace.

I am 30 years old, and Howard Dean was the first candidate to motivate me to participate in and volunteer for Democratic politics. Were I there, physically, in your office, I would actually get down on my knees and beg you to cast your vote for Howard Dean as the chair of the Democratic Party, if that would make a difference. I would do this because I believe that your decision is one of those votes upon which, honestly, and I'm sorry for the melodrama, the fate of the country hangs.

Like it or not, America is a two-party system, and thus, the Democratic Party is the only viable alternative to the now-neocon-hijacked Republican Party. The fate of most of the sane people in America rests in your hands as you decide what its leadership will be, and as a result, how viable a competitor it will be. If the Democrats do not reinvigorate themselves, then Karl Rove may be right when he envisions a Republican dynasty stretching far into the future. Please, please, please make the right choice, and elect Howard Dean as the next DNC chair.

Thanks for your time. I hope you made it all the way to the end of this letter — I had a lot to say, but when it's about the future of this country and everything you hold dear, it's hard to cut it down.

If, by any weird chance, this actually influenced anyone, go check out DraftHoward.Com.

More Social Security Lies from the MSM

Dave Johnson at Seeing the Forest has a good post on mis-information (a.k.a. lies) being forced upon the public by the Mainstream Media. He is talking about a "balanced" article by Leigh Strope in the San Jose Mercury News.

Today it's Social Security. In this San Jose Mercury News story, from the AP, Bush faces tough Social Security battle, Leigh Strope writes a "balanced" article about the battle Great Leader faces saving seniors from the coming "shortfall." From the story:

"The system is headed toward bankruptcy down the road," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "If we do not act soon, Social Security will not be there for our children and grandchildren."

Now we here in the blogosphere all know that this is a flat-out blatant lie. It is a strategic lie, repeated over and over until people think it's true. After enough repetition of this lie, everyone will say that "we all know" Social Security is going broke. Once enough people are tricked into thinking there is a problem that must be "solved," along come Republican candidates with "solutions" -- namely the current Bush plan to phase out Social Security.

Strope writes, "Creating investment accounts alone will not fix the future shortfall. Cuts in benefits are required, and investments are expected to make up the losses." WHAT "future shortfall?" The one we all know is coming. The problem with this article is that (as I'll show below) Strope has to know this is misleading at best, and furthers the Republican plan to phase out Social Security.

Just to be clear, every one of us needs to understand that there is no Social Security "shortfall" at all until 2042. And even that is calculated using an assumption of only 1.6% economic growth until then! Very little is required to fix this. (And if there IS only 1.6% growth, putting Social security into stocks would be a disaster!)

Dave continues by telling us this is not a Social Security problem but a budget problem.

So, is Strope writing about the 2018 "shortfall" out of ignorance? In another, more informative Strope piece from Dec. 1, Questions, answers about Social Security, Strope writes:

Q: Why are changes needed to Social Security?

A: Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system, with current benefits funded by the 12.4 percent in payroll taxes paid by workers and employers. The large baby boom generation will strain the system, which will start paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes in 2018, according to the Social Security Board of Trustees. Without any changes, Social Security in 2042 will be able to cover only about 73 percent of benefits owed.

What's missing here is a clear explanation to the public that this is not in any way a problem with Social Security. The government has been borrowing from Social Security and using the money to give tax cuts to the rich. In 2018 the government stops getting extra money from Social Security and has to find a way to keep paying its bills. AND it has to start paying Social Security back. Social Security has enough "saved up" to last until at least 2042 with no changes at all. The 2018 problem is a problem with the government paying its bills to all creditors. Bush is trying to get out of paying this, and only this creditor back, because the money would have to come from the tax cuts that were given to the rich.

So the problem is Bush is spending money like a drunken sailor and giving tax cuts to his wealthy benefactors at the same time. This is another case of if you tell a lie often enough people will believe it and if people believe it it's not a lie anymore.
So, repeat after me:
Social Security isn't broken it's the Bush economic policy that's broken.

Manipulation of the Blogging World on Iraq?

Juan Cole brings us a piece from Martini Republic on blog trolling and the Iraq war.

Maybe you�ve wondered: What kind of operations does the U.S. Government conduct in the line of pumping �favorable� propaganda regarding Iraq?

And, more importantly, since this is such an unpopular War: Would the runaway Republican Government dare conduct below-board ops and psy-ops not just in Iraq, but right here in the U.S?
.......[snip]........
All kinds of blogs have attracted suspicion of being bloated beyond their due influence by blog trolling efforts here in the US. IraqTheModel is one of these.
Rightwingers have been chortling with glee all week that two of three brothers who write IraqTheModel from Baghdad are on their "Spirit of America" tour in the U.S., garnering an audience with the President, Wolfowitz, New York, the Wall Street Journal, and today with emphatic war supporter RogerLSimon. Simon, a friend of Michael Ledeen--will play host the brothers today, as of this posting right in Simon�s own home. (Simon, has, in fact, linked to the bloggers at IraqTheModel 21 times since July�and rightwing extremist Little Green Footballs� Charles Johnson has mentioned the brother�s blog 150 times, both men winning the brothers thousands of readers).

Though the brothers have already met many rightwing luminaries, their arrival in the land of the free and the home of the brave will not expose them to many questions from objective, disinterested mainstream media.


There are certainly a few questions worth asking them.


It would be worthwhile to hear from the brothers, for instance, the story on how they decided to alight on a company near Abilene, Texas as their Internet Service Provider when they commenced their blog, six months after the initial "fall" of Baghdad.

MSM might also be able to confirm if the blog was facilitated in any way by the 490th Army Civil Reserve Unit, also based in Abilene,TX, which serviced Baghdad in 2003 at the same time the brothers started the blog.

The U.S. Government, as an NPR commentator recently wrote to Martini Republic, can be �one hell of a press agent.� Does the Government, or people closely connected to Pentagon strategists, have a shadow role in promoting this particular �Spirit of America� tour? Why is the Wall Street Journal so interested in these particular Iraqi bloggers, and not, say, Riverbend?

Other questions are not likely to be addressed by the blogging bros this weekend:

--Were these bloggers prompted by invasion forces to start their blog?

--Who was their contact for their unlikely Abiline, Texas domain host?

--Are the brothers now or have they ever been in any kind of American pay (beyond the largesse of their rightwing PayPal contributors)?

--And most importantly: why are We, the People of the United States, being invited (by our President, no less!) to care so much about what these particular brothers think, when polls out of Iraq indicate that their blog has historically run far, far outside of Iraqi mainstream thinking?

I have no doubt that representatives of the neo-cons in the administration would use such tactics. Most of what comes out of this administration can only be described as propaganda. I suggest you read Juan Coles post for some good insight on the dangers.