Backlash Mountain

America Isn't Ready For A Film Not Really About Gays

Jack Nicholson's usual pompous characature of himself came in handy during last night's78th Annual Academy Awards.

The upset of "Brokeback Mountain" at the hands of "Crash" deserved the combination of shock and despair that Nicholson exhibited as he read the winner of this year's Best Picture.

The easy answer will always be that the voters of the Academy were uncomfortable with the subject matter of the "gay cowboy" movie, but other reasons are more apt.

"Brokeback Mountain" was done in by a more aggressive marketing plan from Lion's Gate Pictures and the undeniable allure of being an L.A. movie with voters entirely from Hollywood.

The problem with the Brokeback gay backlash is that the movie's title has become far more ubiquitous than the actually content. Brokeback could easily be a tale of a lost life and forlorn love between a man and a woman, a person and a pet or anything someone seeks to possess.

The fact that the lovers are gay is merely a clever twist on this well-worn Hollywood cliche, nothing more. The countless internet parodies and incessant late-night jokes only highlighted with bright kleig lights the fearful message of homosexuality. If George W. Bush could win re-election are the barebacks of gay marriage then Brokeback Mountain was doomed from the beginning.

Like that election, we were left with a sub-standard alternative. When was the last time a film won Best Picture with the predigree of mixed reviews? "Crash" was just one big ball of cliches portrayed to have something to say about racism and social interaction in early 21st century America. That it's set in Los Angeles, the land of everything fake, and I mean everything, down to the faux tattoos and botoxed toes, is evidence enough that this is not the daily America that most of us know.

The Academy missed a huge opportunity last night. As Best Supporting Actor winner, George Clooney, alluded to earlier, the greatness of Hollywood is it's ability to bring attention to issues both misunderstood and feared. The Academy dropped the ball and the greatest film of this young century suffered in the process.

Whittington Was In Drunken Veeps Firing Line

WHY DID CHENEY SHOOT LAWYER FROM CLOSE RANGE?

Vice President Dick Cheney shot Texas lawyer, Harry Whittington, from a closer range than previously thought and the presence of alcohol were the reasons why the accidental shooting was reported nearly a day later.

The original story and, quite frankly every subsequent version since, has failed to pass the sniff test.

The New York Times and numerous health experts have reported that the BB-sized pellets lodged in Whittington's chest would have needed a far greater velocity than possible from 30 yards away.

Dr. O.Wayne Isom, the chairman of the heart and chest surgery at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, noted this closer proximity of Cheney to Whittington by excluding the possibility of the pellets reaching the heart via the bloodstream.

"The pellets wre approximately five millimeters, about the size of a BB, and larger than most blood vessels", he said.

Moreover, it's highly unlikely that over the distance of 30 yards that the spraying of Cheney's birdshot would not have dispersed into a far larger area than the relatively small area of wounds on Whittington's body--roughly a portion of his left jaw, neck and over his heart and lung.

The probability that Cheney shot Whittington from close range is very high. The presence of beer with this hunting party may be unrelated to the accident, though.

If anything, the fact that Cheney had one beer at lunch (everyone knows one beer, usually means two or three) only magnifies the inherent comedy of this already infamous storyline. It's quite possible that the effects of alcohol and the shooting are unrelated.

The problem, though, in relation to why it took nearly 18 hours to report the accident, is that the mere presence of alcohol would have vaulted this problem into the stratosphere of full-blown crisis. Although, after Whittington's mild heart Tuesday, it reached those heights anyway.

This is why the local authorities were shooed away from Cheney until around 6am the next day and why the Karl Rove machine was called in.

This story, though, is still missing crucial information, most of which, could probably be derived from a medical point of view. What medications are Whittington currently taking? Was a test done on his blood alcohol? Was he conscious when he arrived at the medical center?

The biggest part of this puzzle lies in why was Whittington shot from such a range that birdshot could embed itself through numerous layers of clothing and lodge itself in his heart.

Many in this press have this completely wrong when they opine that the cover-up of this story over the weekend made things worse. It's pure folly to suggest such a thing when it's been this administration modus operandi to hide facts of potentially damaging national consequences, let alone Dick Cheney blasting his hunting partner.

The national media smells blood like no story in recent memory and will not stop until this story is broken wide open. The surrealness of the entire tale has the potential to become a cottage publishing industry for the next 25 years and that sort of opportunity has happened since two guys at the Washington Post teamed up with a guy named Deep Throat.

Cheney Blames The Victim

In OUR sights: VP Dick
Originally uploaded by wonderbread74.

VP IS DISTRAUGHT; 'WHAT ABOUT ME?' SAYS VICTIM

PLAY THE DICK CHENEY QUAIL HUNTING GAME @ www.huffingtonpost.com

Could there be a story more befitting of the Lunatic Fringe as the second most powerful official in America nearly committing a homicide in the fields of South Texas?

Since facts are at a premium in the accidental shooting of prominent Austin lawyer, Harry Whittington by Vice President Dick Cheney we are left to ponder the case through speculation. Maybe that's what Wild Dick Cheney is hoping for?

Why did it take nearly 21 hours for the plugging of Whittington to become known in this age of ultra-quick news? Obviously, to buy time while the White House and Karl Rove concocted a bandaid to the problem.

What they come up was this:

1) Muddle the facts. Initially reports said that Whittington approached Cheney from behind evoking an ancy VP ready to kill at the slightest provocation.

"Boo!" said Whittington. "Bang!" said Cheney.

Next, an odd tale was passed along that implicated the bright sun was the culprit for Cheney not seeing Whittington in the foreground. Plainly, this muddling of the story, leaves out that Cheney quite possibly shot a man cowardly in the back.

2) Blame the victim. Pretty standard at the Bush White House. Bush operatives were passing along the idea that Whittington should have shouted an audible call to denote his location. It fails to pass the plausible stage.

Why would Whittington scream out when the other hunters were coming up on a covey of quail? The scream would have startled and alerted the quail, thereby, scuttling the hunter's target. Besides, the War Room at Salon.com reported that the NRA's safety manual puts the onus on the shooter as to whether the area is clear of unwanted targets, such as people.

3) Create Sympathy. Not for the victim, but for Cheney. The poor guy just shot what the White House is trying to say was a good friend of the VP, when he was mainly an acquaintance. Why did Cheney not cooperated with the local sheriff? Why because he was so distraught by the mauling of Whittington by his shotgun that he had to accompany the victim to the hospital. If that wasn't enough, act like you're going to cry when recounting the accident to the press.

To the Republicans base, this sounds like an honorable way to own up to his part of the accident. The problem is, that if you or I sprayed ball bearings at another person's face and neck, the local authorities would most likely want to question you at the scene of the possible crime.

When this story broke late Sunday afternoon, the ridiculousness of the tale--Dick Cheney shot a man! What?!--and the absence of any official facts screamed for the wheels of cover-up to begin rolling; and they did. That anything untoward happened on that ranch seems even crazy for even the most conspiracy-minded of us, but why attempt to keep this accident quiet? Is it just standard operating procedure at the White House or is there an important piece of this story that is missing and therefore, making what we know today seem incongruous with a rational mind?

Bush's Body Language: Everybody Hates Me!

FUNERAL OF CORETTA SCOTT KING MIMICS REAL CRITICISM OF BUSH

Eulogists at Coretta Scott King's funeral today gave President Bush an earful. Guess what, George? This is how the whole country talks about you.

That the leader of our country could be so pointedly and brutally criticized from literally ten feet away to national audience shows that our free speech has not yet been demolished.

The unease in the President's demeanor was clearly evident as he withstood biting jabs from Rev. Joe Lowery, Maya Angelou, President Jimmy Carter and Sen. Edward Kennedy. You almost felt sorry for the guy.

The mob smelled blood as President Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton stepped to lectern. The crowd saved their loudest applause for the former president. As the president thanked President Bush and the other ex-president someone in attendance yelled, "You're a real president!" which furthered evident vitriol towards Bush.

Sadly, Bush never hears this contrarian view when his public appearances are meticulously cleansed of any opposition. Last week, war protester, Patty Sheehan, was arrested for attempting to wear an anti-war t-shirt to the State of the Union.

Was Bush surprised? Frankly, he had no business being at the civil rights' leaders funeral other than being the leader of this country. He embodied none of Martin Luther King's philosophy and has been contemptuous toward the entire Civil Rights movement.

It was the soft-spoken former president from Georgia--President Carter--who said it best today when he related the Bush administration's predilection towards spying to the surveillance by the FBI of MLK in the 1960s.

"It was difficult for them personally with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated, and they became the targets of secret government wiretapping and other surveillance."

The work of Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King has yet to be finished.

Gore Personifies Our Hopes And Fears

IS GORE CONTEMPLATING A RUN FOR 2008?

Ben Smith's piece in Monday's New York Observer was part tantilizing gossip and part sobering truth on the state of the Democratic party come 2008.

The opposition party usually gears up its possible and perennial candidates during this point of the election cycle. The sitting president's party is typically hampered by respect for the current commander-in-chief and therefore somewhat murky in buzz over which person may take the party's mantle.

Hillary Clinton is a definite yes and everyone's front-runner. Then you have the rehashed candidates--John Kerry and John Edwards. The up-and-comers who lack gravitas but nonetheless serve the sole purpose of pushing along the dialogue of the race. In 2004, Howard Dean played this role. In 2008, Russ Feingold may well take that role with pet issues such as campaign finance reform and a desire to end the war in Iraq.

Then there's Al Gore who fits into every category. He's been a frontrunner. He's a rehashed good ol' boy of the Democratic Party and comfortable advancing a specific agenda--global warming and, of course, a diatribe against everything that is Bush.

Smith's article contains the ubiquitous citation of denial that Gore is even contemplating another run for White House all the while illustrating a fiery orator and issues-orientated vision. The middle ground between whether Gore runs or doesn't is camped out easily and allows Democrats to think, "should we or could we allow our hopes into the hands of this man, again?"

The post 2000 election Gore, or the "New Gore" is hands down much more comfortable, thoughtful, honest and far more brutally honest than the infamous Gore made of wood.

Is there a single individual who encapsulates the exact feelings of torture, embarrassment and raw fire of the American people more than Al Gore?

Gore is the symbol of newly disenfranchised and divided America. He personally stood humiliated as the Supreme Court stole his bid for the Presidency. He went into hiding, grew a beard, ate a whole lot and returned anew with a unique and dead-on view of the destruction thrust upon America during the past six years.

He's the personification of a metaphorical America in darkness only to rise again under sunny and safe skies. He's lived our doubts, our fears and our frustrations ever day since that fateful weeks in November and December of 2000.

The question is: Do we risk it?

Hillary & Gore Tag Team The White House

2006 Mid-Term Election Season Begins

Former VP Al Gore and the presumptive Democratic nominee for President--Hillary Clinton--fired extremely blunt and pointed remarks at the Bush White House yesterday.

So begins the Democrat's election assault on regaining Congress.

Political Science is such riveting and ever-changing discipline that sometimes requires more couth than rambunction. Did Gore and Hillary go too far in labeling the White House as criminals?

The short answer is probably yes. By being so aggressive they risk alienating the moderate to conservative voters that they hope to woo to the their side. The legitimate question is: What if the charges are correct?

Gore said this:

At present, we still have much to learn about the NSA's domestic surveillance. What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the President of the United States has been breaking the law repeatedly and persistently.

Gore is not out of bounds with this statement. He prefaces it by detailing exactly what various publications have uncovered regarding the spying scandal. The President knowingly broke the law of the land when he ordered wiretapping of Americans under the cover of 9/11 without the knowledge of Congress or without a court order. This is blatantly illegal and if allowed will become so invasive that the very fabric of American could be destroyed. Amazingly, as Gore points out, Bush has owned up to the crime and continued to urge Americans to allow its use.

Sen. Clinton, in a surely coordinated effort with Gore's comments, compared the Bush Adminstration's aversion to dissent to that of a Southern plantation and predicted its place in American history.

"We have cronyism, we have incompetence. I predict to you that this administration will go down in history as one of the worst that has ever governed our country."

Hillary's comments seem more antagonistic than Gore's whose were more thoughtful and grounded in facts. Gore's speech sounded like an concerned American worried for the country's direction. Hillary's was far more political and portends greatly to an aggressive Democratic campaign at painting the Republicans as doing unprecedented and historic harm to the country.

It's definitely a tactic that is widely pervasive in the electorate's collective mind and littered with unbelievable examples of poor and illegal behavior. The Democrats have, again, successful drawn the lines of the conversation with the voters. If they can consistently stay on this message quite a bit of the excessive power the Bush Administration has garnered and abused will be checked.

Dr. King's Message Has Been Silenced

Dr. Martin Luther King
Originally uploaded by wonderbread74.

As America commemorates, or in some states tolerates, the birthday of arguably the greatest American of the 20th century--Dr. Martin Luther King--the past year has shown that the advancement of African-Americans and the poor, in general, have been merely cosmetic.

First, this national holiday in honor Dr. King should not be characterized as a "black" holiday as it is too often. The vision of Dr. King was, indeed racial harmony and equality for all blacks, but also and specifically for the poorest and indigent of Americans.

This overlooked aspect of Dr. King's beliefs--beliefs that he died fighting for--have not been realized, but a gap between rich and poor has widened greatly.

The working poor in America has grown exponentially since the late 1960s and President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.

As we stand today, the minimum wage has not increased in nearly 10 years. Corporations are cutting pensions for loyal retirees and health benefits are non-existent. America still functions without a health care program. People get sick and fall into deeper despair.

For those unfortunate and few, the mounting debt and tension rises with no end. This past year, the Republican Congress made it harder for Americans to file for bankruptcy. To this Administration there is no second chance in America, especially when it's their money.

Invariably, a talk regarding Dr. King cannot be given without mention of the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.

The country and the world saw the still seething divide of race and poverty in America. This is simply a regime in Washington that gives short shrift to the poor. Katrina showed that human decency is not contained in the hearts of men who run this country.

But, should we expect anything different? This is, after all, the same government that spied on and sought to end Dr. King's dream, if they didn't literally, with a bullet. And their dream to rid the country's conscienceness of his noble deeds is still with us today.

An assault on Dr. King's legacy surrounds us everyday. First, this day, as mentioned before, is linked to the black struggle. Second, popular culture is devoid of anything related to Dr. King. Have you ever noticed that there has never been a big-budget Hollywood biopic about Dr. King? Why is that? Hollywood can make one for Malcolm X and Johnny Cash, but can't tell the heroic and fascinating story of a Southern preacher changing the way American lived?

The past year has weathered an assault to the issues that Dr. King stood for and today is day that we should regroup and rekindle the fervor and enlightenment that he stoked in America over 40 years ago.

Cheney's Condition May Be More Dire Than Reported

Poor Wittle Baby: The Angelic Cheney
Originally uploaded by wonderbread74.

FOR THE REPUBLICS SAKE, WE CAN ONLY HOPE;

The New York Times, like most in the media, reported the morning hospital visit of Vice President Dick Cheney.

Most exhibited slight concern over his long-term health and, of course, John Stewart on the Daily Show led the chorus of standard guffaws regarding Cheney's ticker, but buried in the Times' story might be a tidbit to tuck away for future reference.

The Times' editors apparently found the newsworthiness of Cheney's hospital visit to be low, placing it on page 14 of the Tuesday's front section, but note the medical analysis at the end of the article.

On Monday, Dr. Christopher P. Cannon, a cardiologist at Harvard Medical School, said the fluid retention possibly indicated Mr. Cheney's heart was decompensating and "teetering on the edge of congestive heart failure." The fluid retention does not necessarily indicate a worsening of his heart condition.

Time will tell whether this would happen in the absence of this event or whether he could stay in compensated heart failure, as he has been," Dr. Cannon said in an interview. He also said it was unlikely that "a healthy person would get short of breath" from taking a nonsteroid anti-inflammatory.

The fact that the VP's ticker may be on the verge of congestive failure seems like big news. In addition, the good doctor must be a Democrat. He goes out of his way to refute the Administration's argument that Cheney "only" had a shortness of breath.

Maybe this isn't news. We've all known Cheney has very little heart and compassion for very anyone not white, not rich and not dedicated the rule of Beezelbub.

Serial Marriager Passes GOP Lies As Fact

Fat Man In A Little Coat: The Fallen Jack Abramoff
Originally uploaded by wonderbread74.

WASH. TIMES ARTICLE ON REID IS FALSE

The Republican family values machine is so hot that it's looking to the mass-wedding guru, the Rev. Sun Myung-Moon and his loony rag--the Washington Times--for ammunition.

A story in the dubious Times reported that the top Democrat in the U.S. Senate--Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada--was supposedly in the "top-tier" of suspects that the Justice Department is investigating regarding fallen uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who pleaded guilty last week to bilking just about everyone in Washington.

Of course, the Republicans ran with it all day, and rose a loud cackle of hypocrisy from its constituency. This is the effect that the GOP masterminds wished for when they unleashed what we now know is a false story.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported shortly after the Washington Times' story that, in fact, Reid was not a focus of any investigation nor has been contacted by the Justice Department.

More telling is that the article mentions that creating a tier system for possible lawbreakers and the fact that the twice-indicted Tom DeLay was not even mentioned in the Washington Times story cast extreme doubt on its veracity.

It doesn't matter to the Republicans, anyway, because hearing a story--whether true or false--regarding Sen. Reid, who has repeatedly pounded away at the corruption in the Republican-led Congress, will stick in the minds of misinformed conservatives across the country.

It's a lose-lose situation for Reid--at least--until the real crooks in Washington are ferreted out into the open and believe me, they'll see the light of day sooner than later.

Robertson Strikes Again; Taunts The Near Dead

BUSH MOUTHPIECE AGAIN DIVIDES AND EMBARRASSES

What God is Pat Robertson exactly referring to today. Robertson claimed that Ariel Sharon's grave condition is the after effects of the Israeli PM's intention to clear land for Palestine.

Watch the video here courtesy of Salon.com.

Supposedly with His backing, Robertson, a few months back, called for the assassination of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and before that called Muslims evil.

What makes today's statement so callous is that Sharon currently lies in a medically-induced coma after suffering a major stroke this week. This leads to two questions: Who exactly subscribes to this sort rhetoric in Christian America and what's the "Inside Baseball" with this latest controversy?

The first answer is hopefully nobody, but realistically, based on the evangelical support of the President in the 2004 election and the wealth and steady television ratings of Robertson's 700 Club quite a few Christians were nodding their heads in agreement with his outrageous sentiments.

What's far more worrisome is that with Robertson's extremist quotables the already remote prospects of any social reconciliation between red and blue states suffers and begins to resemble the conflicts between Israelis and Palestinians.

The chicken-necked Robertson may say stupid things but he's shrewd in his timing and knows to honor certain interests that benefit his organization--the Jewish lobby.

To have Robertson utter these non-sensical ideas over the airwaves goes to show just how firmly entrenched certain factions of the Israeli government lie within the Bush administration.

With much of the current administration exhibiting a distinct neocon look it's not hard to imagine the Republican party being opposed to any approachment to the Palestinian desire for an independent homeland.

It makes me wonder--What would God say about Pat Robertson? Unfortunately, Lucifer will probably get the first interview.

Alito As The Endearing Nerdy Nominee

GOP SPIN EXHORTS THE BENEFITS OF NERDY NOMINEE

That convenient White House anonymous source reared its ugly head on page one of today's New York Times referring to the recent demeanor of Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito.

The Times' source leads us to believe the rehearsals for Alito's upcoming confirmation hearings aren't going well, because, you know he doesn't possess a polished public persona. Voila! Alito isn't coming across as cuddly and well-spoken as John Roberts, therefore, his rough edges are spun to be that of the "everyman"

"He will have a couple hairs out of place," one participant said. "I am not sure his glasses fit his facial features. He might not wear the right color tie. He won't be tanned. He will look like he is from New Jersey, because he is. That is a very useful look, because it is a natural look. He's able to go toe-to-toe with senators, and at the same time he could be your son's Little League coach."

Little League coach? C'mon!

It's ironic that the White House is trying to paint this picture of a harmless egghead when his record is, in fact, littered with a hostility towards women and signifies the increased liklihood that Roe vs. Wade could be overturned within this generation.

The Times' story also suggests the possiblilty that Alito may mouth off to Democratic senators. Such an outburst or rant could become fodder for 20-second soundbites and rally female liberal groups. This "New Jerseyan" predilication to fight is somewhat foreign to the West Coast, unless Alito plans to break out into Springsteen tunes on the Senate floor.

[CLICK HERE! @ T A I L G A T E R: NOW WATCH VIDEO ON TAILGATER. "THE RAIDERS SEASON IN FIVE MINUTES".]

German Wants To Slap Devices On Islamists

What's Stopping Cheney From Adopting the Same Idea?

Uwe Schunemann, the Interior minister of Lower Saxony in Germany, has proposed electronically tagging purported Islamic militants. The question is, why didn't Dick Cheney think of this first?

Of course, the social and economic morale of Germans has been low in recent years and makes such a suggestion of lashing out at immigrants, namely Turkish Muslims, par for the course.

Germany, if you'll recall, was deeply against Bush's war against terror, so much that their former chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, solely ran on this discontent. Schunemann's idea is rooted not on Bush's premise that terrorists aim to destroy the West, ironically, Germans are more practical. To them, the Muslims are ruining their society, just as the French think North African Muslims are diluting their country and just as red state Republicans blame the demise of jobs and border security on Mexicans.

So, what's stopping the Bush administration from proposing a similar initiative? If the President can so eagerly back the very notion that the government can spy on its citizens with nary a warrant, why couldn't they round up "suspected" (whatever that would mean) terrorists in the United States and slap surveillance devices on their ankles.

The "suspected" part of the equation is what is scary. Just ask any "too" Arab-looking Muslim how embarrassing a trip to the airport can be.

'Sausage King' Dies; Good Riddance!

Santos Linguica: The best ever
Originally uploaded by wonderbread74.

SANTOS LINGUICA WAS THE BEST IN TOWN

STUART ALEXANDER MAY HAVE BEEN CRAZY. HE MAY HAVE KILLED THREE FOOD INSPECTORS IN COLD BLOOD. HE DIED MONDAY OF AN APPARENT SUICIDE, BUT DAMNIT, DID HE MAKE SOME GOOD LINGUICA!

I've heaped scorn on Stuart Alexander for five years, not only because he gunned down three food inspectors as they ran down nearby Washington Avenue in San Leandro, CA, but because his incarceration effectively ended the production of the finest linguica I've ever eaten.

The linguica was perfectly spiced and lacked oily fillers that other mass-produced linguica possessed. For a kid who hated huge chunks of fat in his linguica, Santos Linguica Factory was nirvana.

In the five years since the end of Santos Linguica, I've yet to find a better sausage. During my trip last year to Boston, I discovered a few contenders, but who cares, how could I consistently enjoy linguica from 3,000 miles away?

I've hated what Stuart Alexander did to those innocent inspectors for years and for the loss of my beloved linguica.

HERE'S MY FAVORITE LINGUICA RECIPE. IT'S TO DIE FOR!:

1 lb. linguica
1 cup Red wine
1 onion
water

Cover the whole linguica in a medium saucepan with water. Let boil for 20 minutes.

When boiled drain water and replace with red wine and sliced onions and let simmer for 40 minutes until the wine has reduced and soaked into the linguica.

Place linguica in a sesame seed roll and cover with onions.

LFR TO START 2006 ANEW

The Christmas season is really not the best environment for blogging, especially when the topic of your blog is excoriating Republicans and heaving verbal attacks against the purveyors of what's wrong with America. Instead, just like last year, I shifted my focus to shopping, singing Christmas carols and criticizing my mother's perennial dry turkey.

Now, I'm back with some new ideas for the Lunatic Fringe Report. First, a new look. The same old Blogger-brand templates have bored me since, well, the first time I laid my eyes upon them. I searched outside the site and found this relatively seamless template that will be tweaked upon throughout the year. The ubiquitous poll box will return with more frequent questions that related to weekly topics in the world of the LFR.

Adsense from Google is also a new addition to the top of the blog. It doesn't add much value to the reader, nor does it make much money, but it allows the LFR to, at least, have the look of other (much larger) blogs.

In addition to the relentless abuse of the President and his policies, the LFR hopes to stay above the curve by adding vlogs to the LFR. Vlogs are video blogs that are in the infant stage of use on the internet. Creating content for such an endeavor and a web hosting site will be one of my New Year's resolutions.

Now, back to blogging.

steve

Iraq #1! USA; Patoooie!

So, that's where the former WWF heavyweight champion, The Iron Sheik, went. I thought he was dead.

He's a little gray in the mustache, but still looks like he could apply the Camel Clutch at anytime.

Blue vs. Red: Heat Is On; Neocon Tries To Bail

MEANWHILE, MANDIGO CHOMPS ON NEOCONS' PORK RINDS

Our contestant this week on "Blue vs Red" attempted to capitulate to the side of knowledge by informing us that his voting record might surprise you. Are tie-dye shirts and McGovern posters hanging in his closet?

This tempering of their conservative ideology is similar to Conservatives Unite!, who bent over backwards to show she was tolerant to blacks and the poor in the wake of Hurricane Katrina by unveiling her resume of good deeds towards the indigent.

Calling Daniel-In-Brookline and Rich Casebolt conservative is insulting to the party of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. These are neocons, a sect of conservatism that is anathema to the party's already dubious thought.

Here's my return fire to one of his supporters:

Let me give you some perspective on "your war". Don't you see how foolish your exuberance for a far-flung, phony war looks to the rest of the country and world? Why are you so happy to be duped? Here's an apt analogy:

Wouldn't you feel foolish if you were telling everyone how great your wife was when the rest of the neighborhood knew she was having an affair with Mandingo, the three-legged paper boy, who also eats your favorite pork rinds and watches your 60-inch big screen while you're out saving the Middle East?

Mr. Daniel-In-Brookline had this preposterous statement in regards to the benefits to Israel with U.S. military involvement in the Middle East:

America had strong and compelling reasons, post-9/11, to force Iraq to disarm, by diplomacy or by force. Israel, on the other hand, has no greater interest now than she did in 2000.

Ridiculous.

Does he believe the administration's assertion that Saddam was devising a plan to fly a remote-controlled plane with weapons of mass destruction to the continental U.S. and detonated it? How could he possibly assert that the most-hated rival to all of the Arab and Muslim world would not have an interest in an ally patrolling Baghdad? It's absurd to say such a thing and points again to the fact that his arguments emanate from Israel and cloak their involvement in this war.

And here's my response to Mr. Daniel-In-Brookline's question of why his beliefs stem from his ties to Israel.

By the way, it's likely that the Mr. Daniel-In-Brookline is a pro-choice-Israeli national-neocon-Red Sox fan.

Bill Clinton Calls War 'A Big Mistake'

Bubba and Bush 41 yuk it up
Originally uploaded by wonderbread74.

BILL'S SUMMER FROLIC WITH BUSH 41 ENDS; BACKLASH FOLLOWS

Thanks, Bill. Where were you when we needed you the last two years? Playing golf with George H.W. Bush in Kennebunkport, that's where.

Bubba and the elder Bush must have had a falling out over Clinton taking too many mulligans because he finally spoke the truth about the situation in Iraq.

President Bill Clinton told a group of college students in Dubai that the war in Iraq was "a big mistake"

It's a little too late for Clinton to lead the Democrats against this war today. Where was his leadership when the war president was throwing his post-9/11 weight around in 2003? Why didn't he cite the very quotes that Republicans are using against him and his party back when Bush and Cheney were frightening Americans with visions of atomic winter?

We'll probably never know. If anything, it probably stems with the peculiar neutering of the Democratic Party back then when the party leadership was more afraid of preposterously being called unpatriotic than of the actual terror threat.

If Clinton would have stood up then and said that his administration believed Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction and put it in its proper context; being that he was a risk to the region and in no way a threat to the continental U.S. then many of the questions still lingering today might have been dealt with in the run-up to war.

Instead of hemming and hawwing with the Bush family in Indonesia and countless dinner dates in Maine, Clinton could have called for an extension of his own and the U.S. policy of containment through diplomatic circles rather than becoming complicit by his inaction.

Tim Grieve from Salon makes a good point that the heavy hitters of the party are now vehemently calling for the end of the war. First Sen. John Edwards and now President Clinton.

If Bill is calling the war folly, will his wife be next?

Blue vs. Red: NeoCons Gang Up on LFR

After failing to pick a fight with a feeble-minded Republican in Conservatives Unite, the Lunatic Fringe Report has found two neocons in the mold of Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Stephen Hadley.

Interestingly, Daniel-in-Brookline, resides in the lovely blue-shaded state of Massachusetts. Whatever. It's still about the debate that Americans all too often shy away from: politics.

Read what Daniel-in-Brookline has to say about the public perception that Bush is a liar. He outlines scant evidence that reads like a boring inter-office memo. He offfers nothing except to urge us to take his word on everything.

Daniel-in-Brookline and his cohort, Rich Casebolt attempted to tag-team me when I commented on the above post.

Read the comments Here.

The gist of their argument is the standard neocon talking points since 9/11. Republicans have a newfound special spot in their hearts for the welfare of the Muslim world. Saddam was a monster waiting to be vanquished along the typical macho bravado better served for Dirty Harry than for the world's only superpower.

I will readily admit that I attempted to bait Mr. Daniel-in-Brookline by mentioning his relationship with Israel as a factor in his worldview.

Your Pro-Israel banner, which I am not against, plainly clouds your view of this unfortunately war.

I added the modifier to the sentence to make this point: Being of Portuguese descent, I too, would be a war hawk if the Spanish were raining SCUDS over Lisbon while I'm drinking expensive Port wine in the comfort of my Northern California home, but, they're not and all I have is Two Buck Chuck in my cabinet.

I urge readers of the Lunatic Fringe Report to visit these blogs to witness arguments that are quite foreign to liberal and moderate minds and pointedly un-American. The neocon philosophy of forcefully reorganizing the Middle East with American power along with the brutality of the enemy and political sleight of hand that follows it must be recognized before it transforms this country from the Shining City on the Hill to a ghetto of darkness.

I unleash you, Lunatics!

Newest Beltway Scandal; Come On Down!

BIG OIL'S BOOTS FOUND UNDER CHENEY'S BED

The Administration's bungling of Hurricane Katrina. Ouch!
The indictment of Lewis Libby. Ouch!
The death of the 2,000th American serviceman in Iraq. Ouch!
The dark clouds of faulty pre-war intelligence. Ouch! Now this:

Tomorrow's Washington Post is reporting--similar to the false reasons for war in Iraq that we suspected all along--that executives from Big Oil, indeed, participated in Vice President Cheney's ultra-secret Energy Task Force in the spring of 2001.

Dana Milbank and Justin Blum have obtained detailed Secret Service logs that show executives from Exxon Mobil Corp., ConocoPhillips, Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met with the Task Force's executive director and an aide to Cheney at the White House.

In hindsight, it seems Sen. Ted Stevens' (R-AS) request not to swear in the five executives last week when they testified before the Energy and Commerce committee was a convenient stroke of luck for the oilmen. When Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) queried them about each companies involvement in Cheney's energy task force, three of the five flatly denied it, while BP America's CEO wasn't sure and Shell's CEO has only been on the job for a year.

Toward the end of the hearing, Lautenberg asked the five executives: "Did your company or any representatives of your companies participate in Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001?" When there was no response, Lautenberg added: "The meeting . . . "

"No," said Raymond [ExxonMobil].

"No," said Chevron Chairman David J. O'Reilly.

"We did not, no," Mulva said [ConocoPhillips].

"To be honest, I don't know," said BP America chief executive Ross Pillari, who came to the job in August 2001. "I wasn't here then."

"But your company was here," Lautenberg replied.

"Yes," Pillari said.

Shell Oil president John Hofmeister, who has held his job since earlier this year, answered last. "Not to my knowledge," he said.

Just how long can this precarious house of cards continue to stand before this administration topples in grand fashion? The American people are nearing critical mass in how much they will put up with from their President. Not only has this president betrayed the trust of the American people but now it's becoming more apparent that his policies were drawn up by ruthless, money-grubbing Oil companies bent of swindling every bit of the country's gas money.

If this sort of corruption continues to emanate from our Republican leaders, then pundits can forget about the demise of the Bush-style of governance in this country and begin to wonder whether a huge progressive renaissance is in our future.

We can only hope.

Horny Ol' Clinton Is Now GOP's Buddy?

HELL HATH NO FURY LIKE A COUNTRY SCORN

David Goldblatt wrote an utterly misleading article in the National Review. One that screams Karl Rove is back.

Part of the Bush administration's defense against the Democrats onslaught to pre-war intelligence is to use their Golden Boy, Bill Clinton, against them.

Goldblatt's article is a cacophony of useless eight-year-old quotes attributed to everyone in the Clinton administration from Bubba to Samuel Berger and Madeleine Albright.

None of the quotes call for attacking and occupying Iraq. Of course, it was Clinton's gospel to pursue solutions in a more diplomatic fashion.

So, according to this new Republican logic, the man vilified for his lack of integrity and morality by every conservative in America is now the grand visionary for the backers of this quaint war. Evidently, he couldn't keep his pants on in the Oval Office and impeachment was punishment that befit the crime, but his judgment was sound when it came to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Oh, but wait, goes the apparent logic, Clinton was wrong about the WMD, too and that's the slippery slope coming out of Rove's talking points.

It is from these boldface lies that this administration attacks Democrats who voted for the war by using the argument that they reviewed the exact same intelligence that the neocon cabal in Cheney's office perused.

If this were true, then the dismantling of the entire Senate would be in order. It would mean that nearly every Democratic senator voted for a war in Iraq after looking over documents from CIA that harshly questioned whether WMD existed in Iraq and found the aluminum tubes thought to be used to enrich uranium to be the wrong specs. Democrats in the Senate knew that the possibility of occupation would likely incite a new terrorist enemy and they voted for the war anyway?

No, none of these documents were received by the Democratic leadership only the hawkish rhetoric of mushroom clouds and saving tortured Iraqis and wounded children. Nobody outside of the White House had the raw data that the false intelligence was manufactured from. Democrats did not have the preliminary reports that a captured terrorists claimed a link between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein was "highly dubious" by Pentagon analysts. Instead, the report merely passed the information that the fanatically religious bin Laden and the secular Saddam were in cahoots without the extreme doubt included.

The type of blurring that the Republicans are striving would cover the arguments that pre-war intelligence was incorrect and manipulated to be false in the first place. Today they claim the end justifies the means.

Goldblatt makes another point that is eerily similar to a story on Cheney in this week's Time magazine. Goldblatts says:

In the final analysis, of course, the crucial question is not who believed what about Saddam's WMDs but whether the decision to invade Iraq was the right thing to do. It's a question for the history books; a definitive answer is likely a decade away.

In Time a former Administration official put it this way regarding a tale that makes Cheney look unwavering in the face of doubters:

If the VP isn't proven right until after he has kicked off, he's fine with that. The idea of being proved right before the end of his life is a false deadline in his mind. Right is right.

This second tactic basically says Republicans are resigning themselves to the fact that this pre-war intelligence maelstrom is a losing battle in the present. Instead of owning up to the result, they will take their chances with history fate.

Since Bush's big comeback speech on Veteran's Day, there hasn't been any indication that their arguments are swaying any detractors or if its even stopping the bleeding. What Republicans do not understand is that the vast majority of Americans backed this war initially because they gave the President the benefit of the doubt in those trying days after 9/11 despite their reservations.

The tide isn't going to turn just by perpetrating a negative argument. Americans feel betrayed by this president and that sort of anger doesn't subside so easy.

GOP's Election Shutout Doesn't Say Much

REPUBLICAN DIRTY TRICKS DIDN'T WORK THIS TIME

Yesterday election sweep of governorship Virginia and New Jersey, plus the trouncing Arnold Schwarzenegger took in California was less of a foretelling of the future and more of a missed opportunity for the Republican Party.

It's true that Republicans are running from President Bush as if he were the first known case of the avian flu, but Tuesday's election results could have been had with a approval ratings from a year ago; before the veil of invincibility completely fell from the once powerful "war president".

Virginia is near the gravitational pull of the Beltway, but tends to vote fairly conservative. It's also the home state of Gov. Mark Warner, a Democrat, who enjoys enormous popularity in Virginia and probably would be a strong presidential candidate if not for his abnormally large teeth. To have the Democrat, Tim Kaine, win on the heels of Warner's record is not surprising. All account out of Virginia was that Jerry Kilgore was a weak candidate whether the country was head over heels for the President or not.

Much was talked about Bush's last-minute stop in Richmond the night before the election and whether it was a sign of his weakness or that Kilgore wanted to distance himself from the Prez until the last minute. In fact, Bush's presence in Virginia, despite the GOP loss, helped Kilgore at the polls by energizing the base. Kilgore was still trounced, but far more complex factors were underlining the defeat than Bush's unpopularity.

In New Jersey, the win by Sen. Jon Corzine wasn't a surprise. The mega-millionaire from the Garden State had the uniquely Jersey political machine well-oiled and the cash to make it operate. In any election year, a Republican winning in the increasingly Democratic New Jersey would have been a huge upset. His challenger, Doug Forrester, has been a loser at big time politics and his defeat by Corzine was easily foretold.

In California, Gov. Schwarzenegger has never linked his political future to the President. Whether it's because the Golden State is one of the bluest of blue states or The Governator's conservative credentials are fairly moderate; both sides have been weary of the other. The special election in California and the initiatives Schwarzenegger backed was dumb politics.

In a cash-starved economy as California, spending millions of dollars for a needless election frustrated many. On top of that, Schwarzenegger picked fights with some of the most heroic and cherished institutions in America--nurses, firefighters and teachers! How a positive outcome could have came out of this needless acrimony is beyond many.

Democrats should not judge the GOP's poor showing last Tuesday as the beginning of the end of their majority, but there were more important factors in the way they ran these campaigns and how some of their tried-and-true tactics failed them.

You should expect everything and anything from Republican strategists. These are the political operatives who made a war hero out of a coward by thrashing a five-year POW and a senator with a purple heart.

In Virginia, Kilgore used the same undignified tactics of calling voters and passing false information. Voters in Virginia, received a recorded message that was surreptitiously spliced together and said:

I am running for Governor and I am not afraid to tell you where I stand.
I am conservative on issues of personal responsibility. As a former Christian missionary, faith is central to my life. I oppose gay marriage. I support restrictions on abortion: No public funding and parental consent. And I've worked to pass a state law banning partial birth abortion.

Karl Rove used the exact same ploy in the 2000 South Carolina primary where the message said Sen. John McCain may be unstable from his stint in a Vietnamese prison camp and possibly fathered a black child. This sort of underhanded trick didn't work this time.

In New Jersey, Forrester drummed up controversy by showcasing Corzine's ex-wife on a 15-second television spot. She said, " "He let his family down, and he'll probably let New Jersey down, too."

What both these dirty tricks show is that the difference between the atmosphere in Washington today and last year is that the bread and butter of the Republican party, that is, the ability to win only when the issue are buried in favor of titillating stories is over.

Voters in Virginia, New Jersey and California have all seen these types of shenanigans before and they responded by voting for what's best for their states. If the American people force politics to be played solely on issues, then that could be the lasting marker of last Tuesday's elections.

Reid: Don't Even Think About A Pardon

BEFORE YOU THINK ABOUT, WE'RE AGAINST IT

Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid, struck with another bit of genius yesterday. The Democratic leadership has produced such a precise and detailed plan of attack against the Republicans that it's even reacting aggressively to scenarios a year or two down the line.

Reid and his band of saviors of the Republic announced that they will send a letter to the President urging him not to pardon the recently indicted Scooter Libby.

Where did this come from? There wasn't a groundswell of innuendo about Libby's fate from anybody, at least, not just yet.

Instead, it was a sly move by the Democrats to bring back the conversation of the CIA leak investigation back to above the fold of your local newspaper. It also was a strong dose of clever politics from a party that has been bare of such ideas from Bill Clinton's time in the White House.

The endgame that the Democrats sprung on the White House erases one of the Bush administration's possible moves regarding Libby's fate.

The Democrats took what was lightly discussed in every classroom and smoky bar in America and publicized it. It is inconceivable that Bush--with such low ratings--could pull off the mechanics of a pardon for Libby without plunging the country in a frenzy against anything Republican.

Report: U.S. Used WMDs In Iraq Last Year

EVERY U.S. MEDIA OUTLET IS MUM ON THE SUBJECT

Torture in secret prison camps and the use of chemical weapons against civilians. Only the crimes of Saddam Hussein? Try the United States of America

The Independent is reporting today that it has uncovered evidence that the U.S. military bombed civilians in the Iraqi city of Fallujah last year with the flesh-burning chemical weapon, white phosphorus.

Powerful new evidence emerged yesterday that the United States dropped massive quantities of white phosphorus on the Iraqi city of Fallujah during the attack on the city in November 2004, killing insurgents and civilians with the appalling burns that are the signature of this weapon.

A week after the Bush administration fought back renewed charges that the reasons for war were created under false pretenses, the torturing of prisoners and the shocking use of chemical weapons by the United States has created another black eye for this country.

If the use of chemical weapons against the al-qaeda stronghold of Fallujah is found true, it will be the most heinous and morally reprehensible act in American history.

Given that hyperbole, why has every major media outlet chosen to ignore this report. Just like Abu Ghraib scandal the American media was silent until 60 Minutes had the guts to report a story that Salon.com had reported a full three months earlier. Is this likely to happen again?

If the world hated us yesterday, they loathe us today. The use of chemical weapons was the basis of the barbarism of Saddam by the Clinton and both Bush administrations. How was the use of gassing Iraqis justified in light of this cozy reason to attack Saddam?

Last Thursday, the Washington Post reported the existence of "black sites" in Eastern Europe that tortured terrorist prisoners. The use and knowledge of these prisons was believed to be known be few in our government or the host countries.

There comes a point in time where this becomes more than Democrats and Republicans and more about fighting a sinister evil inherent in our government. This government leaks covert CIA agents therefore endangering her life and others undercover. Led by Vice President Dick Cheney, it wildly supports the use of torture against terror suspects and today we now have knowledge of a hypocritical predilection towards using weapons of mass destruction.

How much more damage can our international reputation take until it becomes suicide for any American to travel abroad?

Hollywood's Love Affair With Sacramento

Warren Beatty as "Bulworth"
Originally uploaded by wonderbread74.

GET WARREN BEATTY AWAY FROM THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE

California is the most powerful state in the Union. It's the most populated and richest state then why are we so poor in leadership? Has our governor's mansion become the plaything of Hollywood?

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has put his limited political capital on the line with four initiatives that will go before voters tomorrow. Many believe that Schwarzenegger would not have won the recall election two years ago if it was, in fact, a standard primary. But, in three months, a lack of time to gain any substance and his considerably fame was too much for former governor, Gray Davis.

Since then, Californians have seen a governor that is a near duplicate of the one they controversially booted out of Sacramento. Kah-LEE-fornia, as the Governor calls it, is preparing for a re-election of its body-building governor next year with a dearth of formidable candidates. What has happened to the land of prosperity in the West?

Thus far, Democrats have countered with a unknown and underwhelming candidates such as Steve Westly and the dour Phil Angelides.

Last Saturday, during a campaing stop in San Diego for Schwarzenegger's initiatives, a band of protesters led by actors Warren Beatty and Annette Benning tried to crash the proceedings. As the San Francisco Chronicle describes it, aides to the Governor ordered the hangar where the rally was held to close the doors on Beatty. Afterwards, the Fire Department ordered the doors reopened for safety reasons.

Beatty's presence at Schwarzenegger's rally is no coincidence, nor is it a concern Californian protesting the establishment. Beatty has intimated to many in Hollywood that he is interested in running for Governor in 2006. With likes of Westly and Angelides on the Democratic side, the horror of an all-actor gubernatorial election pitting "The Terminator" versus "Bulworth" is quite possible.

California's role in our nation is enormous. Legislation and ideas from the Golden State reverberate all over the country. If California passes legislation on topics such as curbing energy consumption, gay marriage and health care to name a few, the rest of the country takes notice. Conversely, when California elects a former action hero with a funny accent, the nation laughs. How loud will this howls be when the governor's mansion pits two overaged Hollywood actors to guide it for the next four years?

Is California's economic problems, bursting classrooms and high housing prices so much of dilemma that we cannot enlist a true politician trained to tackle these problems instead of men more accustomed to playing such roles on celluloid?

Where is Sen. Dianne Fienstein? Where is Gavin Newsom? Where is Willie Brown? Where is the ghost of Edmund Brown?

Governor Brown cradled the growth of this state during the 1960s. He built the world's finest state university system flowing the knowledge for a generation from one end of the state to the others. He built freeway system that facilitated enourmous growth and he watered the dark soils of the Central Valley that feed the state and the country.

The visionaries such as Brown have given way to ego-maniacal thespians with a dearth of casting calls and a boatload of hubris.

Let's hope that the Governor is furthered weakened tomorrow with a political defeat at the polls. Maybe then, the real reformers will find some encouragement in ending Hollywood's love affair with the Governor's mansion.

Lunatic Fringe Lounge: "Love Rescue Me"

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO "LOVE RESCUE ME"

A little Holy Ghost Power! tonight here at the Lounge.

I read the 23rd Psalm from the Bible and recalled this song written by the great Bob Dylan for U2's Rattle and Hum album.

Incidently, the last minute was lost in recording. Maybe we'll find it in time for the Greatest Hits album.

C'mon Kids! Let's Go To Pop's Place

Check out Pop's Place and join in on the conversation.

I'm usually bad with names, too.

The blog writer, Pops Santos, is a former native of Northern California and honored in many Bay Area bars as the "Greastest Drinker Who Ever Lived But Hasn't Died From Liver Failure...Yet".

Kids, do you know where drinking leads you? To the middle of the Arizona desert stratching and crawling for another drink for your parched throat. What an ironic and vicious cycle.

Also, check out one of the LFR's readers from the East Coast, The Opposite of Progress.

REPUBLICAN VOTERS AT FAULT FOR 2,000 DEATHS IN IRAQ

Red States Pay Cost Of Military Blood

Over 59 million Americans go to bed each night with the blood of those military heroes on their hands. It may seem ridiculous--almost blasphemous--but every American who voted to re-elect George W. Bush did so with the knowledge that the administration falsified intelligence information and fostered a blanket of fear over the country with lies since 2003.

The indictment of Scooter Libby and the others that may follow were only confirmation of what every Democrat in the Presidential race was telling you. What Democratic Party Chairman, Howard Dean, says today about the malfeasance of this rogue regime is not any different to what he remarked in any stump speech from Des Moines, Iowa to Tallahassee, Florida.

The information was out there, yet the Bush machine of trickery and fear overwhelmed you. The false, rugged manhood of the "War President" was too much to ignore. The specter of gays getting hitched and the highly unlikely notion that your rifles would be taken away drove you to vote for Bush. He even tricked you that the guy who actually served in Vietnam with valor was less than the President who went AWOL from the National Guard.

All over the world the media lampooned you for ignoring facts and re-electing this buffoon. But, you went further when evangelicals spoke in reverent tones of Bush's holiness. You found no problem in your heart elevating this man to the right hand of God.

You know nothing different today than you did November 3, 2004. If you would have stood up then the deaths of so many young lives--American and Iraqi--would have been saved. To atone for your sins, you should do this:

Go back to the churches that preach in the name of the lord with such hypocritical doctrines of war and hatred. Ask for forgiveness because you were blinded by your inner prejudices and sought refuge in the fear of our leadership in Washington and remember this: Ultimately, in a democracy, it is not the fault of our leaders who do wrong, but accountability lies in the citizens who neglect to choose them more wisely.

The White House's Incestuous Affair With Holding Power

The underlining question of the CIA leak investigation is what exactly is the White House's men protecting? Is it more than just a boongoogle of a war in Iraq or something more?

The theory goes that Joe Wilson could have been easily muzzled. His accusations that Iraq did not attempt to buy uranium from Niger could have marginalized. The British, of which, President Bush first attributed the Niger findings still hasn't backed off that assertion.

Instead, the administration sought to discredit and possible endanger a covert CIA agent with some of the heaviest hitters in government. What are they hiding? How big is it and how much is it worth to the donors of Bush's presidency?

This murky question has been furthered in recent days with a reshuffling of the usual suspects. Vice President Dick Cheney appointed two familiar cronies of this scandal to replace the indicted Scooter Libby.

David Addington and John Hannah (not the splendid New England Patriots offensive lineman from the 80s) were named to replace Libby's duties in the Vice President's office. These are not administration outsiders, but merely the second string from the neo-conservative's bench.

Addington has been linked to the decision to authorized torturing terror suspects and was obliquely named in Libby's indictment. Addington may have been a part of meetings that first looked into gaining knowledge of Plame's status at the CIA.

Hannah was apparently worried about receiving an indictment as early as a week before Libby's came down from the special prosecutor. Hannah was named in Wilson's book as a possible suspect in the outing of his wife's covert status to various journalists.

The point here is that along with Addington and Hannah, Karl Rove still holds a security clearance for top secret information despite being named as an individual who passed along highly-sensitive information to Matt Cooper and possibly Robert Novak.

Why can't this embattled President follow his beloved idol--Ronald Reagan--and clear house? Or is the house of cards named the War in Iraq only standing with these few felonious architects?

Whoa! Nice Plugs

Ralph Neas is the man responsible for blocking the Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork in the 1980s. Since then he been the Democrats point man on President Bush's three nominations to the Supreme Court and a frequent visitor to Plugs-O-Rama.

Neas has done some wonderful things during his career as an advocate. He's been a powerful ally in some of the most important civil rights legislation of the past twenty years, but how well can you trust a guy who thinks the attrocious black sprouts protruding from his hairline is, in fact, hair follicles.

Listen, we're not even mentioning the face-numbing botox and plastic surgery, either. But, alas, I just did.

At the end of the day, I would rather trust those guys who spray paint hair on the top of their dome. Those guys have the opportunity to go topless anytime they want. It's good to have leaders with functional noggin hair.

The Seed Of Democrats '06 Argument Are Sown

Only time will show what this investigation by Patrick Fitzgerald will really mean in the long run. There's a sense that it will go farther than indictments that are handed down.

What we cannot see is the possible cumulative effect that political pressure will have on the White House and how they handle it. Crimes have been charged. The White House is stumbling and every reporter is speculating what's next and, more importantly, looking intently at every corner for the next big scoop. This is the combination of a precariously built house of cards ready to fall.

Amidst this frenzy, it's not a surprise that the Democrats are slowly building their 2006 midterm case around this CIA leak scandal. For the Democratic Party it's an excellent chance to nab one of the GOP's most revered platforms: The bearers of national security.

In the past months, it seemed that Democrats could successfully run on the platform that Republicans had squandered their majority and wrecked the country. An unpopular war, rising gas and heating prices and botched assistance to the Gulf Coast would have been a proven trinity of bad news to the Republican majority in Congress.

Now, as news about Cheney's Chief of Staff became known, filtered and processed it seems that national security is definitely up for grabs.

Liberal blogger, Oliver Willis is blunt in his assessment of the Republican party's handling of national security,

If you want ethics in government, don't vote Republican. If you want to trust your government not to leak classified information to journalists for political gain, certainly don'’t vote for Republicans

If national security is just within reach, then the issue of accountability and honesty in the Bush White House is a near certainty to played and won by Democrats.

Former White House hand during the Clinton presidency, Paul Begala, posted a rather biting comeback to the current inhabitants of the White House and their pious attitude when they received the keys to government.

As a matter of morality, the Bushies are already guilty. Guilty of smearing the Wilson family. Guilty of twisting intelligence. Guilty of lying about the role of White House aides in outing Mrs. Wilson. Guilty of sanctimony and hypocrisy and hubris. Most of all, they are guilty of misleading us into this God-awful war.

Yesterday's aggressive move to close the Senate was another weapon to root out the truth. In this case the attack is two-fold. One, it serves notice that the minority party will be vociferous in fighting the nomination of Samuel Alito. And second, it simultaneously hovers the ill-fated war and the indictments of Lewis Libby like a dark cloud over red state America.

Thus far, the Democrats plan to quietly lie in the weeds until the wounded elephant was on one knee has proven to be political genius.