<sigh> Is there anything more tiresome than going round-n-round with a “disconnected from reality” Bush apologist?

If you aren’t already aware, I maintain a video archive on YouTube called “The Thinking Liberal” under the name “BI30” (”Mugsy” was taken). The mantra to all the videos I post: “No opinion, spin or conspiracy theories. Just hard facts straight from the horses mouth.” You can argue someone’s opinion, but you can’t argue hard fact when it stares you in the face (though many still try).

In any case, one of my most recent videos is from a newscast just eleven days before George Bush took office proving that his Administration chose to ignore the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole:

“This newscast, just 11 days before Bush takes office, is the first time anyone reports that OBL was reportedly behind the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in October of 2000.”

…a clip from 1/9/01 reporting for the first time that the bombing of the Cole was connected to Osama bin Laden. Bush then took office and did NOTHING in response. Faced with this evidence, the Bush apologists have gone on the attack, blaming Clinton for 9/11 and anything else they can think of. Sadly, half of the comments in response to this video have been replies by me responding to their ridiculous arguments and defenses. Apparently, reminding me that “Bush wasn’t even in office when the Cole was attacked”, despite the fact that is the description beside the video and the first frames in the video is text saying that very thing… is the most popular response I get. The second most popular theme is to blame Clinton for 9/11 yet excuse every failure of George Bush in the months before. I want to share with you one exchange with a rabid Bush apologist that has his own video collection of Fox and GOP Talking Points blaming Clinton and the Democrats for everything bad that has ever happened since the crucifixion of Christ 2000 years ago (if you REALLY want to see his clips, you can find his link though his comments).

From “ArcticGarlicX:” > The Cole bombing occured on Oct 12,2000, Al-Qaeda declared > responsibility immediately. Al-Qaeda, was active > throughout the 90’s, Clinton’s own ppl have faulted his > lack of dealing with Al-Qaeda properly. I am one of those > ppl who FIRMLY believe had Clinton done his job, 911 never > would have happened. It matters little when the Media gets > wind of W.H. Media is irrelevent to the true workings of > the administration. My response: First, “reminding me” when the attack occurred is pretty obtuse since THE first image in my video is text noting that the bombing took place in October of 2000, so obviously I am well aware of when it took place. It helps in these matters to have a good memory of what the political climate was like at the time. Every time President Clinton tried to use force to get bin Laden or contain Saddam Hussein, Republicans screamed “Wag the Dog!”, suggesting he was “inventing” conflicts to divert attention from the non-scandal of him cheating on his wife with some 22-year old tart in the Oval Office. As for the Cole, the Presidential election was barely four weeks away, and the Republican Party had created a “what’s Bill going to try and pull to help Gore?” overtone to the looming election. IF YOU CAN PRODUCE EVEN ONE CLIP OF A LEADING REPUBLICAN *DEMANDING* CLINTON ATTACK AL QAEDA IN RESPONSE TO THE COLE, then I will delete my video. Yes AQ “accepted responsibility right away”, but you conveniently forget that they claimed responsibility for EVERY attack, trying to provoke the U.S. into a war. Regarding 9/11, I have yet to hear ANYONE in the GWB Administration DENY that they were warned by the outgoing Clinton Administration about the threat of AQ. One of the few holdovers from both Clinton and Bush-41, Richard Clarke, has repeatedly talked about how he could not even get Dubya and Rice to meet with him to discuss AQ until September 1st. And let’s please not forget the infamous August 6th PDB that warned that bin Laden was scouting buildings in New York for an imminent attack. Dub’s response was to ignore it. Rice called the PDB “historical”. Since when does the CIA waste the President’s time loading up his daily intelligence briefings with history lessons? Remember how hard they fought the release of that particular “history lesson” because they considered those PDB’s so sensitive. “Blaming Clinton” for failing to prevent 9/11 is a joke. The GOP did its damnedest to tie his hands for eight years with countless pointless investigations (by comparison, they spent $20 Million investigating the “misuse” of the WH Xmas Card List” but recently only $5 million to investigate Abu Ghraib). But with the ignored 8/6 PDB, refusal to meet with Clarke until 9/1, and now evidence that OBL himself was not connected to the attack until just days before taking office and Dubya chose NOT TO RESPOND… had Bush of acted on ANY ONE of these, he himself might of prevented 9/11. But instead, you engage in “revisionist history”, ignore/excuse Dub’s failures, and try to pin the blame on a guy who wasn’t even in office at the time and whose hands you tied for eight years with countless pointless investigations. Why can’t “the Party of Personal Responsibility” accept responsibility for ANYTHING?

I love the defense that “if Clinton had done his job, 9/11 would not of happened. Poor George, if Bill had just taken care of OBL for him before he left office, he wouldn’t of had his glorious agenda sidetracked having to deal with terrorism. Just imagine how GREAT his Presidency might of been if he didn’t have to waste all his time hunting down bin Laden and fighting “terrorists” in Iraq! Yeesh.

NOTE: Register to post comments and receive e-mail notification every time this Blog is updated! (You can still go back and review the old blog at www.bi30.info).

Someone pointed out something on the radio Monday morning that I hadn’t noticed before. What’s wrong with these photos:

 

Here’s a hint:

 

Still not getting it? How about now:

 

Do you think this has anything to do with it?

 

Still don’t believe it? Check out the GOP website and see for yourself.

Why are the stars in the GOP logo upside down? What are they trying to tell us?

Deja Vu:

NOTE: Register to post comments and receive e-mail notification every time this Blog is updated! (You can still go back and review the old blog at www.bi30.info).

(First, I am aware that there are plenty of other more important Breaking News stories out there right now: the Valerie Plame hearing last Friday, Alberto Gone-zales and the White House purge of 8 Federal Prosecutors… including THIS dramatic tidbit Monday, but these topics appear to be well covered elsewhere. Repeating them here would only be redundant.)  
For most Democrats, it has been painfully apparent that religion has been hijacked by those with an ulterior agenda. Last month, I saw the 2006 documentary “Jesus Camp” and was struck by several scenes in the movie that I’ve considered writing about for a while now. I was reminded of this again over the weekend when I finally got the chance to see the controversial 1999 comedy “Dogma“. This excellent movie, which had the Christian community in an uproar back when it came out, is EXTREMELY blasphemous in making its point about the corruption and thoughtlessness of religion in America today. But once you look past the language and blasphemy, it is actually a very “spiritual” movie with a message. While directed by Kevin “Silent Bob” Smith and staring a plethora of soon-to-be Hollywood heavyweights, including Ben Affleck, Matt Damon and Chris Rock, the movie was of a surprisingly high caliber.

In any case, these movies got me thinking (more than usual) about recent religious hypocrisy.

Consider the fact that, while President Bush and the majority of the Republican Party is “pro-life” and controlled both the White House AND Congress, as well as the opportunity to appoint… not just one… but TWO new justices to the Supreme Court with admitted pro-life biases, they never even tried to overturn “Roe V. Wade”. And while the Clinton Administration was “pro-choice”, the economic boom they brought lifted so many people out of poverty that the number of abortions actually DECREASED in the late ’90’s, whereas the economic disaster of the Bush Administration, coupled with their refusal to allow schools to discuss anything other than “abstinence-only sex education” actually resulted in an INCREASE in the number of abortions in this country (52,000 more under Bush in his first four years than Clinton after eight). It has become increasingly obvious that the G.O.P. isn’t serious about wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade (and lose their lead fund-raising tool), and that, while Clinton was “pro-choice”, if your goal is to actually reduce the number of abortions in this country, logic only dictates that your agenda is best served by a President whose policies actually advance that result and has no stake in the outcome. Yet, the Religious Right still supports President Bush and the G.O.P. for what they claim to be.

On the subjects of poverty, caring for the sick, caring for the planet, and denouncing war, high-profile leaders of the Religious Right… Falwell, Robertson, et al… it has become clear that they are more interested in supporting the agenda of the Republican Party. While Falwell compares Hillary Clinton to Satan and blames the Gays for 9/11, Reverend Robertson calls for the assassination of a world leader when he’s not calling Progressive judges “a greater threat to our security than a few terrorists flying planes into buildings”. I’ve pondered many explanations for this… why would anyone support a group ripe with sexual predators, greedy businessmen, corrupt politicians, and war mongers… when the Bible spoke out so clearly in opposition to all these things?

In the movie “Jesus Camp“, one Evangelical mother explained that she preferred to home-school her kids (75% of all home-schooled children come from Evangelical families) and allowed the cameras to sit in briefly while teaching her young son. During the lesson, the mother demeaned the concept of “global warming” to her young son:

“Scientists say that the Earth’s temperature may rise as much as 6/10th of a degree by the year 2050… doesn’t sound like much of a problem, does it?”

Ignoring the obvious, that her numbers are dead wrong, and her clear lack of understanding over the seriousness of what even such a small change could have on the environment, I couldn’t help but wonder what in her religious beliefs justified criticizing “Global Warming”? I can understand her not wanting her kids to learn about sex in a classroom or from other students, or being taught “evolution” in science class, but what biblical justification could she possibly have for demeaning “global warming”?

Short answer: she has none. She simply does so because Republicans reject it, and she’s a Republican.

Recently, Evangelical leader Jerry Falwell denounced “global warming” as a means of tricking people into focusing more on “the creation” rather than “the Creator”. He then cited two Bible passage in such a way to support his position: “Psalm 24:1 - The earth is the LORD’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it;”, and “Genesis 8:22 - “As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease.” In the case of the first passage, I read nothing to suggest God would not want us to care for his creation, and in passage two, the words “as long as the Earth endures” sticks out like a sore thumb. Why would God put a “qualifier” on how long the Earth may last if it were not a given that it will be around forever, as Fallwell appears to suggest? Couldn’t GOD assure us the Earth would never end? It seems clear that these religious leaders will even go as far as pervert the very scriptures they claim to live by in order to support the Republican agenda. And their congregation follows along, blindly and unquestionably, because they are taught never to question what you are taught, because “faith” means never questioning the Lord’s Will (conflating “questioning the Lord” with questioning the interpretation and motives behind those telling them what to believe.)

This got me thinking about all the Bible Passages that contradict what these Evangelical leaders are using to manipulate their followers into supporting the Neo-Conservative agenda (a brief rundown):

Genesis 6:13 - So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. Psalm 46:8-9 - “Come and see the works of the LORD, the desolations he has brought on the earth. (9) He makes wars cease to the ends of the earth; he breaks the bow and shatters the spear, he burns the shields with fire. Isaiah 2:4 - “He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.” Deuteronomy 16:19 - “Do not pervert justice or show partiality. Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous.” Kings 20:18 - He said, “If they have come out for peace, take them alive; if they have come out for war, take them alive.” Matthew 5:7 - “Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.” Matthew 5:9 - “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” Psalm 104:14 - He makes grass grow for the cattle, and plants for man to cultivate— bringing forth food from the earth: Ezekiel 36:34 - The desolate land will be cultivated instead of lying desolate in the sight of all who pass through it. [Thinking of 9/11 here:] Revelation:13:3-5 - “One of the heads of The Beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was astonished and followed the beast. (4) Men worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, “Who is like the beast? Who can make war against him?” (5) The Beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months.” [The war in Iraq was in its 42nd full month when Democrats won control of Congress in November. How's that for creepy?] Psalm 140:1 - “Deliver me, O LORD, from the evil man: preserve me from the violent man;”

Now, if you were a Muslim living in the Middle East, how might you interpret this passage:

Deuteronomy 28:49 - The LORD will bring a nation against you from far away, from the ends of the earth, like an eagle swooping down, a nation whose language you will not understand,

Sounds like a quote Evangelical leaders might use to justify Bush’s war in the Middle East, right? But notice that comma at the end. The next passages read:

Deuteronomy 28:50-51 - a fierce-looking nation without respect for the old or pity for the young. (51) They will devour the young of your livestock and the crops of your land until you are destroyed.

It is clear the invaders in that passage… sent by God… are the bad guys.

Now, Evangelical detractors might want to point out that “anyone can cite Bible passages to support their own agenda.”

No kidding? You don’t say!

NOTE: Register to post comments and receive e-mail notification every time this Blog is updated! (You can still go back and review the old blog at www.bi30.info).

There is a story in the news today (”Iraqis point to success; U.S. reaction cautious“) that the increase in the number of troops being sent to Baghdad is having the desired effect of reducing the violence there.

But consider what this tell us…

IF al-Qaeda was the main instigator of the violence, targeting U.S. troops, and the Neocon theory that “fighting in Iraq draws the terrorists there ’so we don’t have to fight them here’,” then sending more troops into Baghdad should of made things WORSE not better (though any success is sure to be short lived if living conditions do not improve during this same period) as anti-US fighters were drawn to where our soldiers were. But this has not been the case.

This (sure to be temporary) reduction in violence in Baghdad proves one thing LOUD AND CLEAR: That the fighting in Iraq is being instigated (for the most part) by Iraqi’s, and that quelling the violence there is a POLICE MATTER, not one for American soldiers occupying a foreign country to bring under control!

What is proved over-and-over again every time we flood a particular Iraqi town with security forces, is that the violence immediately, temporarily, decreases as “the authorities” move in. There can NO LONGER be any defensible excuse for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq on the grounds of “fighting terrorism” in that country. They have now proven TIME AND AGAIN that the great majority of violence is between Iraqi’s, not terrorists, and that the violence can be quelled though increased law enforcement.

Likewise, reports last year of massacres committed by Iraqi’s “wearing police uniforms” proved a very disturbing fact: insurgents are joining the Iraqi police force, being given a uniform, weapon, and training in how to use it by U.S. forces, then going out and committing crimes disguised as the police.

Time to bring our troops home NOW. Not August of 2008. Not 12 months from now. TODAY.

NOTE: Register to post comments and receive e-mail notification every time this Blog is updated! (You can still go back and review the old blog at www.bi30.info).

The DJIA (Dow Jones Industrial Average) plunged another 242.66 points Tuesday, a week and a day after plunging 416.02 points on March 5th… the subject of BI30’s final entry in the old blog format. At that time, I pointed out how… adjusted for inflation… the Bush economy never came close to surpassing the Clinton peak in January of 2000. In fact… adjusted for inflation… the Bush economy is actually well below the levels seen under President Clinton, achieving A NET NEGATIVE GROWTH for the six years GW Bush has been in office. While stocks gained slightly, the market never recouped its losses from that devastating session just one week ago.

Again this week, bad economic news has shaken Wall Street into yet another sell-off, plunging an additional 242 points to close at 12,075.96… a gain of less than 1,500 points since President Bush took office. By contrast, when Bill Clinton took office, the DOW was at just over 3,400 points. Six years later in 1999… same point in his second term as Bush is now… it closed at a record 9,900 points, braking 10,000 two weeks later. That’s a 280% increase in the DOW in just six years. By contrast, President Bush’s 1,488 point gain (10,587.59 to Tuesday’s 12,075.96) over six years amounts to a paltry 14%… again, NOT adjusted for inflation (which has grown at 17% since 2000).

For years, Bush supporters defended this anemic growth when compared to the “Clinton Super Bull” on the grounds that “the Clinton Market was based on hype… over-exuberance of the ‘dot.com bubble’ and not ‘real growth‘.”

But it was bad economic news over the number of people defaulting on their home mortgage loans that precipitated Tuesday’s crash. This “housing bubble” is the direct result of a string of horrifying emergency interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve after 9/11, initiated as a way of preventing an already floundering Bush Recession from turning into a full-scale economic disaster. I say “horrifying” because cutting interest rates to almost zero may promote consumer spending on “big-ticket” items like homes and cars, but discourages foreign investment, namely, the obscene multi-billion dollar loans the Bush Administration depends upon so that they may cuts taxes for the wealthiest 5% and still pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (or anyplace else they set their sights on next), not to mention running the government in general.

So while the “Clinton Super Bull” may have been the byproduct of over-enthusiasm for investing in anything connected to The Internet, the Bush Economy has likewise been fueled by overly-enthusiastic “low interest adjustable rate loans” that lured investors into making huge purchases they could only maintain so long as interest rates remained low. They didn’t. Once interest rates began to rise, many investors found they could no longer afford the monthly payments on those huge purchases resulting in a wave of people defaulting on those loans. Couple that with slower sales on “big ticket” items due to high interest rates, and you have the recipe for a no-growth economy.

Despite what most of us have come to assume, the 1929 Stock Market Crash did not CAUSE The Great Depression. It was merely “the nail in the coffin” of a schizophrenic economy. Just prior to that were “The Roaring 20’s“ (”‘23-skidoo” refers to 1923). An over-exuberance in “investing” fueled one get-rich-quick scheme after another. “Become RICH investing in…”, the Stock Market, Real Estate, Big Business… anything with the potential to make you money without actually having to do any real WORK, was a new concept to most Americans heady off the post-industrial boom following World War I.

The concept of making money without having to work for it was an exciting new idea at the Dawn of the Industrial Age. It was even the theme of the first Marx Brothers movie, “The Cocoanuts“, just months before the crash.
The market peaked with a record close on September 3, 1929 before plunging 13% just seven weeks later. By comparison, “The Bush Crash of 2007″ (from 12,514.98 last January to 12,075.96 yesterday - 439.02 points in eight weeks) at 3.5% doesn’t even approach the severity of 1929, but the parallels are frightening and definitely deserve careful watch over the next few months. Is a possible 800-point “correction” on the way? Don’t say you weren’t warned.

NOTE: Register to post comments and receive e-mail notification every time this Blog is updated! (You can still go back and review the old blog at www.bi30.info).

MoveOn.org is giving away free bumper stickers:  
Nice, but I have a few bumper-sticker ideas of my own:

 
Feel free to print and paste as many of these as you want.

NOTE: Register to post comments and receive e-mail notification every time this Blog is updated! (You can still go back and review the old blog at www.bi30.info).  

---

I know last weeks comments by Ann Coulter regarding former Senator John Edwards may be ancient history in news-years, but for many Republicans, it is just one more straw on the backs of old-school Republicans that have been sadly watching their Party degenerate into a Party of nasty “play dirty”, “win at any cost” racists, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic ideologues:

---

GOP: The Party of Hate
Letter from a former Republican to Republicans Guest blogged by Michael R. Honig:

It’s no longer a joking matter; no longer something that we should avoid saying because it’s ‘impolitic’ or disrespectful of others’ views or opinions. No longer something that we should fear saying because it might be seen as hysterical hyperbole.

What do we call a political party or movement that consistently works to aggrandize the rich and powerful; marginalizes the poor and weak; ignores the political oppositions’ legitimate objections and concerns; derogates anyone who disagrees with them or with whom they disagree; ignores inconvenient laws and creates new, Constitutionally questionable laws and policies as it suits their needs; ignores world public opinion; moves military forces anywhere they want at any time they want without regard for domestic political process or international law; puts words that were never said into the mouths of their opponents and then criticizes or ridicules those opponents for those things they never said (aka, ‘the Straw Man’ strategy); creates and widely disseminates lies and distortions with many coordinated voices in many powerful media outlets in order to gain emotionally charged political advantage; engages in character assassination; reveals national security secrets in order to gain domestic political advantage or hurt their political opposition; find or create questionable legal grounds to export people for torture and interrogation that would otherwise be illegal; find questionable legal grounds for indefinite detention of their enemies?

Well … In the 1930s and ‘40s, I think we called them Nazis.

So here it is: As currently constituted, the Republican Party – the GOP, the party of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower – the Republican Party has become a haven and gathering point for bigots, hate mongers, truth-twisters and slanderers. These people – people like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove and their ilk – have to finally be seen as, and called by name, what they actually are: The 21^st Century American equivalent of Nazis.

The Ann Coulter episode, where she implicitly called John Edwards a ‘faggot’ and elicited general laughter and applause from her Republican audience, demonstrates two things: One, that she saw no problem with saying what she said, and two, that her audience had no problem with hearing what she said.

While Ms. Coulter has become the central focus of the debate, she is really just a symptom of what’s wrong with the Republican Party of today. The real, central focus should be on those who make up her audience; those who admire her, invite her back and give her a forum.

Coulter has subsequently tried to excuse her comment by saying she was ‘joking’. Even Michael Richards couldn’t pull that one off, and Mel Gibson at least had the decency not to try.

Rupert Murdoch admits that his Fox News channel has been acting essentially as a propaganda organ for the Bush Administration and the Right-wing agenda. Conservative ‘talk show hosts’ and commentators – a plethora of which we now find ourselves afflicted with, since the dilution and repeal of various equal time and media conglomeration provisions over the years – somehow remarkably start using the same talking points at the same time in a remarkably coordinated cacophony that only the incredibly naive could dismiss as a coincidence.

We live in a dangerous time for our country; possibly not so different from the gradual marginalization of legislature and accumulation of executive power that ultimately led to the transition from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire, or from the Weimar Republic to the National Socialists.

The Republican Party has morphed into something new in this country’s experience: a major American political movement that has by its actions embraced philosophies of ‘win at any cost’, the ends justify the means, the political opposition has nothing to say and nothing to contribute, and obeying the law and the Constitution is for lesser beings; the ends, after all, justify the means.

I know that not all Republicans think like this, but too many of the Republicans in power, and their supporters, do; and those who wish to be in power in the party feel they must pander to those who think this way.

There will always be crackpot fringes who wish to associate themselves with mainstream parties for the legitimacy they represent; even the Democrats have the LaRouchies. The problem is when the crackpot fringes become the party; imagine if Democratic presidential hopefuls had to philosophically and politically position themselves to get the LaRouche vote in order to capture their party’s presidential nomination.

This seems to have become the case with the Republicans. You have candidates and potential candidates whose political and philosophical history seems to make them moderates within the party – McCain and Giuliani, for example – now catering to the Ann Coulter/Pat Buchanan/Pat Robertson wing of the party in order to capture enough primary votes and delegates to gain the GOP’s presidential nomination.

Some Republican presidential hopefuls have criticized and disavowed Coulter’s recent comments, but given her inflammatory and hateful history, such objections made now only smack of political expediency. Mitt Romney not only shared a stage with her but introduced her, after all.

I think that it is now time for Republicans who truly believe in the American system – who believe in truth, justice and the American Way – to stand up and be counted. If they cannot change their party back into something Dwight Eisenhower would recognize, then they must leave en masse and form a new party that seeks its political and philosophical objectives while obeying the letter and spirit of U.S. law and history; they must leave behind those who would spew lies and hate and set Americans against each other in order to achieve their own narrow political advantage.

It’s happened before. The Republican Party as originally conceived in 1854 would today be considered Liberal or Progressive. It was created by disenchanted Whigs, Democrats and abolitionists as a philosophical successor to Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans, and apparently didn’t begin to evolve into its present incarnation until after the First World War. (See: The Grollier Encyclopedia description of The Republican Party)

If the price is losing elections, then the question for Republicans everywhere – candidates and voters alike – must become: Is winning elections worth losing your soul?

© 2007

My apologies to my regular readers.

The script we are using to notify members of new posts does not appear to be working. We are working to fix the problem ASAP.

Until then, please check back often for new posts and updates.

NOTE: Register to post comments and receive e-mail notification every time this Blog is updated! (You can still go back and review the old blog at www.bi30.info).

On CBS’s “Face the Nation“ this Sunday morning, host Bob Scheiffer posed the following questions in his closing commentary regarding the outing of Valery Plame: “Was a law actually broken? … We don’t even know if she was a secret agent covered by that law. Nor will we ever.“

This obviously demanded an immediate response which I will repost for you here:

Dear Mr. Scheiffer. Regarding your final comment on Libby’s conviction: I find it remarkable that anyone might still question whether or not Ms. Plame was indeed covert at the time she was outed by this Administration (she was). The fact that it was the CIA themselves that filed the charge should have put that question to rest long ago. BUT, even if she wasn’t, consider the repercussions of her outing: the CIA front company she worked for, Brewster/Jennings, was still active. Any other agent using it as their own cover, was instantly exposed, rendered useless and their lives put in jeopardy because of her outing. Any foreign official that had ever dealt with “Brewster/Jennings” would now know they had dealt with a fake CIA front company, and all those agents lives were put at risk, as was any foreign agent working with them against their own government. Those governments most likely immediately closed all offices of that company operating in their country and a long established CIA Front with long honed business history was lost. Likewise, now that foreign governments know that the spouse of a U.S. Ambassador might be an undercover CIA Agent, ALL of them have now been rendered useless, destroying what was likely an enormous intelligence asset. Please also consider that the reason Fitzgerald has yet to prosecute anyone for the original crime of leaking Ms. Plame’s name is quite possibly BECAUSE the investigation was deliberately misled and derailed by the false testimony of Mr. Libby to the Grand Jury. Please retract your ill-informed comment on next weeks show.

We’ll see.

NOTE: Register to post comments and receive e-mail notification every time this Blog is updated! (You can still go back and review the old blog at www.bi30.info).

Last January, I wrote about all the special creature comforts being provided to our soldiers in Iraq (from fast food to jewelry). It is difficult (if not impossible) to talk about such things without sounding like “You don’t support the troops! You want to deny them a few creature-comforts?” Of course not, but there’s “niceties”, and then there are “extravagances”, and when those extravagances could get someone killed, someone needs to say something (I highly recommend reading my previous Op/Ed, “Dying for a Cupcake“, first if you don’t know of what it is I’m talking about).

I had a bit of difficulty finding even a few photos of these extravagances online at the time I wrote the story, but just this past week, NBC Nightly News did a puff piece about life for our soldiers in Iraq, showing all the amenities without any noticeable concern over the implications of bringing in all this stuff.

Not wanting to sound like an unappreciative jerk wanting to deny our troops in Iraq whatever we can do for them to make life in a warzone more bearable, I asked friend and former Vietnam Vet “LongFisher” to comment on some screenshots I took of the video, which I have arranged into a slideshow here: