Bush Approval Rating at 34 Percent!

The latest CBS News poll finds that the Bush approval rating has fallen to a new all time low of 34 percent. That's down from 42 percent last month.

When asked to comment, GOP candidates, hoping to win elections this November, replied, Bushie Who?

Bushie can't even muster 34 percent when it comes to his war in Iraq. Only 30 percent think he knows what he's doing in Iraq. That's another all time low. Also, another poll - Zogby - finds that 72 percent of U.S. Troops in Iraq say end the Iraq War this year, dammit.

Thirty-two percent approve of the way the pResident is responding to the needs of Katrina victims.

Seventy percent of Americans are opposed to Bushie's plan to give the Dubai-owned company control over American ports. That includes 58 percent of Bushie's own party.

King George pulls in another all time low on his handling of the War on Terror. A mere forty-three percent approve.

Ah, Bushie, who knew that 42 percent would one day look so good? Just think, next month 34 percent may also look like one of your finest moments. Heh. But really, 34 percent seems a bit high when your middle name is miserable failure.

But how do the American people feel about the Vice?

Cheney scores an approval rating of 18 percent! That's down from last month's 23 percent.

Bushie's previous all time low of 35 percent came one month after he was caught strumming a guitar and eating cake while Katrina victims died of hunger and thirst.

If the U.S. political system was not so uniquely perverse, this confidence crisis would be justification for calling a special election, and bozos Bush & Cheney would be history. We really need to fix that.

Bush Cheney Bush Approval Poll Ports Impeach Bush Miserable Failure Impeachment Iraq

Radical Right Training Kids to Fight in Culture War

Fighting to end the separation of church and state, fighting gay rights and abortion rights are just a few of the things rightwingers in East Tennessee are training children for in a group called Generation Joshua.

While Generation Joshua bills itself as "designed for Christian youth between the ages of 11 and 19 who want to become a force in the civic and political arenas," the group seems to primariliy target Christian homeschoolers.

Generation Joshua's website says the goal is to "ignite a vision in young people to help America return to her Judeo-Christian foundations." With 31 chapters in the nation, the East Tennessee chapter is the largest.

After looking at some of the photos on the rightwing website, it becomes obvious that these kids are also being used as free labor for Republican candidates.

East Tennessee teens mix politics with prayer

Bill Waldrep can't vote yet, and he can't run for political office, but at 14 he's leading one of the most influential groups of young people in the country. They're called Generation Joshua. School aged kids who meet once a month to learn about civics and politics

"Unfortunately lots of adults today aren't involved in politics and if we can get kids our age interested and involved and give them the information they need now, then hopefully as adults they'll continue to be involved," Waldrep says.

Generation Joshua started as an online civics education program for home-schooled students. Now, there are 31 clubs like the one in Knox County nationwide. It runs a lot like student government. There's the cabinet with 14 year old Waldrep as President, and Vice-President Joshua McDonald who, at 11, is the youngest Generation Joshua member.

There is also a secretary, treasurer, a media representative, and committees very similar to Congress. So far Knox County has the largest Generation Joshua club in the country. With 50 members, every student gets a hands on approach to politics.

"We actively encourage our students in projects that involve contacting their legislatures about issues that are important to us," Parent Coordinator Staci Proctor says.

President Bill Waldrep says his group is against abortion and same sex marriage. As a faith based organization, Generation Joshua promotes conservative viewpoints. 16 year old Kaity Proctor is taking a stand against separation of church and state.

"We took the church out of the state, but you've still got that thing of our founding fathers were Christians and they put God in the government and the way things have gone now, it's just gone almost," Kaity says.

Generation Joshua Rightwingers Abortion Gay Christianity Church and State Reproductive Rights Tennessee Christian Propaganda

Portsgate: Another Day, Another Bad Bush Deal

Along with the new poll which finds that 70 percent of Americans oppose the Bush backed Dubai ports deal, comes the news that the Coast Guard warned the Bushies about security risks in the ports deal.

The US Coast Guard warned there were gaps in intelligence over the security risk of an Arab firm bidding to run six major US ports, the Senate has heard.

At a Congressional hearing on Monday, Senator Susan Collins released an unclassified section of the Coast Guard document on the takeover.

The excerpt read: "There are many intelligence gaps concerning the potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist operations, that precludes an overall threat assessment." Ms Collins said the document suggested a "rush to judgment" by the administration.

Also, a counter-terrorism expert under the Bush Administration says Bushie's plan for U.S. ports is a bad deal (via dkos):

Joseph King, who headed the customs agency's anti-terrorism efforts under the Treasury Department and the new Department of Homeland Security, said national security fears are well grounded.

He said a company the size of Dubai Ports World would be able to get hundreds of visas to relocate managers and other employees to the United States. Using appeals to Muslim solidarity or threats of violence, al-Qaeda operatives could force low-level managers to provide some of those visas to al-Qaeda sympathizers, said King, who for years tracked similar efforts by organized crime to infiltrate ports in New York and New Jersey. Those sympathizers could obtain legitimate driver's licenses, work permits and mortgages that could then be used by terrorist operatives.

Dubai Ports World could also offer a simple conduit for wire transfers to terrorist operatives in the Middle East. Large wire transfers from individuals would quickly attract federal scrutiny, but such transfers, buried in the dozens of wire transfers a day from Dubai Ports World's operations in the United States to the Middle East would go undetected, King said.

Photo credit: Buckfush

Bush Portsgate Ports Dubai Impeach Bush Empire UAE United Arab Emirates Imperial Presidency

Kristof: Soldiers Speak. Will Bush Listen?

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

"A new poll to be released today shows that U.S. soldiers overwhelmingly want out of Iraq — and soon."

When President Bush held a public meeting with troops by satellite last fall, they were miraculously upbeat. And all along, unrepentant hawks (most of whom have never been to Iraq) have insisted that journalists are misreporting Iraq and that most soldiers are gung-ho about their mission.

Hogwash! A new poll to be released today shows that U.S. soldiers overwhelmingly want out of Iraq — and soon.

The poll is the first of U.S. troops currently serving in Iraq, according to John Zogby, the pollster. Conducted by Zogby International and LeMoyne College, it asked 944 service members, "How long should U.S. troops stay in Iraq?"

Only 23 percent backed Mr. Bush's position that they should stay as long as necessary. In contrast, 72 percent said that U.S. troops should be pulled out within one year. Of those, 29 percent said they should withdraw "immediately."

That's one more bit of evidence that our grim stay-the-course policy in Iraq has failed. Even the American troops on the ground don't buy into it — and having administration officials pontificate from the safety of Washington about the need for ordinary soldiers to stay the course further erodes military morale.

While the White House emphasizes the threat from non-Iraqi terrorists, only 26 percent of the U.S. troops say that the insurgency would end if those foreign fighters could be kept out. A plurality believes that the insurgency is made up overwhelmingly of discontented Iraqi Sunnis.

So what would it take to win in Iraq? Maybe that was the single most depressing finding in this poll.

By a two-to-one ratio, the troops said that "to control the insurgency we need to double the level of ground troops and bombing missions." And since there is zero chance of that happening, a majority of troops seemed to be saying that they believe this war to be unwinnable.

This first systematic look at the views of the U.S. troops on the ground suggests that our present strategy in Iraq is failing badly. The troops overwhelmingly don't want to "stay the course," and they don't seem to think the American strategy can succeed.

It's tempting, but not very helpful, to repeat that the fatal mistake was invading Iraq three years ago and leave it at that. That's easy for a columnist to say; the harder thing for a policy maker is to figure out what we do next, now that we're already there.

I still believe that while the war was a dreadful mistake, an immediate pullout would also be a misstep: anyone who says that Iraq can't get worse hasn't seen a country totally torn apart by chaos and civil war. Mr. Bush is right about the consequences of an immediate pullout — to Iraq, and also to American influence around the world.

But while we shouldn't rush for the exits immediately, we should lay out a timetable for withdrawal that would remove all troops by the end of next year. And we should state clearly that we will not keep any military bases in Iraq — that's a no-brainer, for it costs us nothing, but our hedging on bases antagonizes Iraqi nationalists and results in more dead Americans.

Such a timetable would force Iraqis to prepare — politically and militarily — to run their own country. The year or two of transition would galvanize Iraqi Shiites to find a modus vivendi with Sunnis while undermining the insurgents' arguments that they are nationalists protecting the motherland from Yankee crusaders.

True, a timetable is arbitrary and risky, for it could just encourage insurgents to hang tight for another couple of years. But we're being killed — literally — because of nationalist suspicions among Iraqis that we're just after their oil and bases and that we're going to stay forever. It's crucial that we defuse that nationalist rage.

For now, we've become the piñata of Iraqi politics, something for Iraqi demagogues to bash to boost their own legitimacy. Moktada al-Sadr, one of the scariest Iraqi leaders, has very shrewdly used his denunciations of the U.S. to boost his own political following and influence across Iraq; that's our gift to him, a consequence of our myopia. And many ordinary Iraqis are buying into this scapegoating of the U.S. Edward Wong, one of my intrepid Times colleagues in Baghdad, quoted a clothing merchant named Abdul-Qader Ali as saying: "I can tell you the main reason behind all our woes — it is America. Everything that is going on between Sunnis and Shiites, the troublemaker in the middle is America."

Will a timetable work? I don't know, but it's a better bet than our present policy of whistling in the dark. And it's what the troops favor — and they're the ones who have Iraq combat experience. It's time our commander in chief stopped stage-managing his troops and listened to them.

Nicholas Kristof Bush Cheney Iraq Poll War Impeach Bush Impeachment Kristof

Outrage in South Dakota

by Femmefire


The international mainstream press is awash in coverage of the abomination that is occurring in South Dakota. The Boston Herald, the Australian Broadcasting Company, and the Hartford Courant top the list when I Google for articles related to the South Dakota legislature's passage of an outright ban on abortion.

We have stepped back in time and are going headlong down a slippery slope of restrictions on women's reproductive freedoms that I never expected to see in my lifetime. I grossly underestimated the forces that surrounded me in my childhood here in East Tennessee in a small town completely dominated by two Southern Baptist churches. I thought that after I left and moved to live in other areas of the country that I had left behind the misery that the imposition of their rigid lifestyle imposes on everyone in the community.

I feel as if I am awakening now to a nightmare in my 50s in which that same emotional and cultural straitjacket that was the burden of my childhood and adolescence is suddenly going to be imposed on the entire country. This is an outrage.

Do I hear the drumbeat of fascism closing in? Will our freedoms erode so slowly that there is no real resistance? Is there an echo in the room that originated in Europe in the 30s?

I do not believe I am overreacting.

The thought of incest and rape victims forced into pregnancies brought on by the rampant violence against women in our country moves me to rage and action. We must stop this monster before it consumes our reproductive freedom from border to border and coast to coast. The ethnocentric bigots who are pushing these bonds of reproductive slavery on the women of the United States need to know that we will not submit without an all-consuming struggle.

While we have been complacent in our professional services that stand in for political movements these days, we have allowed the opposing forces to move ahead incrementally until we have arrived at this scenario in South Dakota. We need to fire the social workers and the grant writers and get some activists with fire in their bellies to move this movement forward in the tradition of Alice Paul and others like her who would stand in the rain and the cold enduring all manner of cruelty, knowing that women's lives were at stake.

Women's lives are at stake now. Where are the women and supportive men with fire in their bellies? We need you now.

Prepare for the battle in your state. It is coming.

Cross posted at Venus View

Related TGW Posts:
Morality of Forced Maternity in an Anti-Family Nation
Underground Railroad to Abortion Services
Abortion Help for Low-Income Women

Abortion Reproductive Rights Roe Feminism Tennessee South Dakota

posted by egalia for Femmefire

Harper's Editor Calls for Impeachment

I've been hearing about the call for impeachment by Lewis H. Lapham, editor of Harper's magazine. Finally, there's an excerpt of the essay online. Admittedly, I was already persuaded, but Lapham makes an excellent case.

Harper's is also sponsoring a public forum later this week on the case for impeachment (see link below). Every city should have such a forum!

Here's a snippet:

The Case for Impeachment

Why we can no longer afford George W. Bush

The Conyers report doesn't lack for further instances of the administration's misconduct, all of them noted in the press over the last three years—misuse of government funds, violation of the Geneva Conventions, holding without trial and subjecting to torture individuals arbitrarily designated as “enemy combatants,” etc.—but conspiracy to commit fraud would seem reason enough to warrant the President's impeachment.

Before reading the report, I wouldn't have expected to find myself thinking that such a course of action was either likely or possible; after reading the report, I don't know why we would run the risk of not impeaching the man.

We have before us in the White House a thief who steals the country's good name and reputation for his private interest and personal use; a liar who seeks to instill in the American people a state of fear; a televangelist who engages the United States in a never-ending crusade against all the world's evil, a wastrel who squanders a vast sum of the nation's wealth on what turns out to be a recruiting drive certain to multiply the host of our enemies. In a word, a criminal—known to be armed and shown to be dangerous.

Under the three-strike rule available to the courts in California, judges sentence people to life in jail for having stolen from Wal-Mart a set of golf clubs or a child's tricycle. Who then calls strikes on President Bush, and how many more does he get before being sent down on waivers to one of the Texas Prison Leagues?

Read the full excerpt

Conyer's Report Lewis Lapham Bush Cheney Impeach Bush Miserable Failure Impeachment

Governors Worry About Next Bush Disasters

Like many of us, Governors of both parties are worried about the coming disasters under the reign of King George. As the storm season approaches, expect to see Bushie strumming guitars, eating cake and waving to you from a very safe distance.

Don't expect to see Destroyer Dick anywhere.

How many disasters will it take before Congress gets a clue and begins impeachment proceedings?

Governors of both parties said Sunday that Bush administration policies were stripping the National Guard of equipment and personnel needed to respond to hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, forest fires and other emergencies.

Tens of thousands of National Guard members have been sent to Iraq, along with much of the equipment needed to deal with natural disasters and terrorist threats in the United States, the governors said here at the winter meeting of the National Governors Association.

Hat tip to Americablog

Bush Cheney National Guard National Governors Association Impeach Bush

Herbert: Ike Saw It Coming

The War Machine
By BOB HERBERT

Early in the documentary film "Why We Fight," Wilton Sekzer, a retired New York City police officer whose son was killed in the World Trade Center attack, describes his personal feelings in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11.

"Somebody had to pay for this," he says. "Somebody had to pay for 9/11. ... I wanna see their bodies stacked up for what they did. For taking my son."

Lost in the agony of his grief, Mr. Sekzer wanted revenge. He wanted the government to go after the bad guys, and when the government said the bad guys were in Iraq, he didn't argue.

For most of his life Mr. Sekzer was a patriot straight out of central casting. His view was always "If the bugle calls, you go." When he was 21 he was a gunner on a helicopter in Vietnam. He didn't question his country's motives. He was more than willing to place his trust in the leadership of the nation he loved.

"Why We Fight," a thoughtful, first-rate movie directed by Eugene Jarecki, is largely about how misplaced that trust has become. The central figure in the film is not Mr. Jarecki, but Dwight Eisenhower, the Republican president who had been the supreme Allied commander in Europe in World War II, and who famously warned us at the end of his second term about the profound danger inherent in the rise of the military-industrial complex.

Ike warned us, but we didn't listen. That's the theme the movie explores.

Eisenhower delivered his farewell address to a national television and radio audience in January 1961. "This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience," he said. He recognized that this development was essential to the defense of the nation. But he warned that "we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications."

"The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist,," he said. "We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes." It was as if this president, who understood war as well or better than any American who ever lived, were somehow able to peer into the future and see the tail of the military-industrial complex wagging the dog of American life, with inevitably disastrous consequences.

The endless billions to be reaped from the horrors of war are a perennial incentive to invest in the war machine and to keep those wars a-coming. "His words have unfortunately come true," says Senator John McCain in the film. "He was worried that priorities are set by what benefits corporations as opposed to what benefits the country."

The way you keep the wars coming is to keep the populace in a state of perpetual fear. That allows you to continue the insane feeding of the military-industrial complex at the expense of the rest of the nation's needs. "Before long," said Mr. Jarecki in an interview, "the military ends up so overempowered that the rest of your national life has been allowed to atrophy."

In one of the great deceptive maneuvers in U.S. history, the military-industrial complex (with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney as chairman and C.E.O., respectively) took its eye off the real enemy in Afghanistan and launched the pointless but far more remunerative war in Iraq.

If you want to get a chill, just consider the tragic chaos in present-day Iraq (seven G.I.'s were killed on the day I went to see "Why We Fight") and then listen to Susan Eisenhower in the film recalling a quotation attributed to her grandfather: "God help this country when somebody sits at this desk who doesn't know as much about the military as I do."

The military-industrial complex has become so pervasive that it is now, as one of the figures in the movie notes, all but invisible. Its missions and priorities are poorly understood by most Americans, and frequently counter to their interests.

Near the end of the movie, Mr. Sekzer, the New York cop who lost his son on Sept. 11, describes his reaction to President Bush's belated acknowledgment that "we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved" in the Sept. 11 attacks.

"What the hell did we go in there for?" Mr. Sekzer asks.

Unable to hide his bitterness, he says: "The government exploited my feelings of patriotism, of a deep desire for revenge for what happened to my son. But I was so insane with wanting to get even, I was willing to believe anything."

Bob Herbert Bush Cheney Military Industrial Complex Eisenhower 9/11 Iraq Impeach Bush Empire Herbert

Vowell: When Bush Falls in Love

by Sarah Vowell

The charges of cronyism against the current administration have piled up higher than the rotting rubble in New Orleans: "Heck of a job, Brownie," is fast replacing "Way to go, Einstein" as the wiseacre-to-dummy put-down du jour. And what of Harriet Miers, the good friend/lame nominee for the Supreme Court the president defended as "plenty bright."

Then there's the 24-year-old political appointee who was rewarded for working on the president's re-election campaign with a job as a press aide at NASA, where he was accused of trying to silence a top climate scientist who is, go figure, concerned about global warming. That, and he demanded that the apparently too science-y NASA Web site insert the word "theory" after every use of "Big Bang."

(To be fair, he resigned after it turned out that he'd lied on his résumé about graduating from college, so he might have dropped out before his class got to the textbook chapter titled "Just Big Bang: That's What Jesus Calls It, Too.")

Plus, in a word, Abramoff.

Read the whole thing

Sarah Vowell Cronyism Bush Cheney Vowell Impeach Bush Abramoff

Morality of Forced Maternity in an Anti-Family Nation

The Supeme Court decision to reconsider the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act combined with the South Dakota legislature's unconstitutional effort to outlaw abortion have moved the issue of abortion to center stage.

Sounding a lot like Hillary Clinton, Newsweek and a host of other mainstream media manage to analyze the morality of abortion without ever touching on the morality of mandating forced motherhood in a nation that flaunts an anti-family, anti-life policy so harsh that it results in 46 million Americans without healthcare and the highest child poverty rate in the developed world.

And the leaders of this nation insist that it is the pro-choice women of America who are morally bankrupt? Hello?

The U.S. fails miserably in keeping up with other nations in the most basic of health measures such as infant mortality, for god's sake. We are one of only six nations that do not mandate paid maternity leave. In America, women are routinely left to raise children on their own without even the aid of minimal child support payments, affordable and safe childcare, or even the family allowances that are so common in the other developed nations. Nothing makes the women of America poor like children, yet elected representatives insist that women should just do the 'morally right' thing by producing hordes of children for the convenience of an anti-family, anti-life nation.

There is nothing "pro-life" about a nation that has the highest child poverty rate in the developed world. If the goal is to persuade American women to give birth to more children, this nation is going to have to join the rest of the developed world and get serious about coughing up a pro-family, pro-life policy.

Excerpt from Newsweek, sounding like Hillary Clinton (who had ONE child):

Though a narrow majority of Americans say they are pro-choice, recent polls show that roughly two out of three favor some restrictions on abortion. The anecdotal evidence is growing that women have moral qualms about any abortion, even if they feel compelled to have one. The pro-life movement has done an effective job of showing that a fetus is not just a "blob of tissue," says Peg Johnston, who runs an abortion clinic in New York state. Her patients now talk about " 'babies' " and " 'killing'," she says. "At first I thought they were picking up the language from [anti-abortion protesters] outside. But then I started really tuning in to my patients, and I realized, 'She really feels that way'."

The language of pro-choice politicians has started to reflect the grass roots. Abortion is a "tragic choice," says Sen. Hillary Clinton. But the pro-abortion-rights groups are still partly in denial. Last month William Saletan of Slate, the online magazine, wrote an op-ed piece in The New York Times that has set off a buzz of controversy. "It's bad to kill a fetus," wrote Saletan. "You can't eliminate the moral question by ignoring it." But Nancy Keenan, the new president of NARAL, throws up her hands at Saletan's characterization of abortion as "bad," and exclaims, There it is again! Judgment!" Frances Kissling, head of Catholics for a Free Choice, is pushing for "more honesty about ambiguity," as she puts it. "There is a deep-seated fear that if you address the moral issues, you're going to lose," says Kissling. "But we're losing anyway. It's only by addressing the moral issues that we'll get some relief on the political questions."

This week Kissling and the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, are hosting an unusual sum-mit meeting in Washington between old-line true believers and middle-of-the-roaders. They are unlikely to reach a consensus, but at least they will begin facing important questions about morality and abortion.

Photo by Jesse: NOW demonstration, Legislative Plaza, Nashville, TN, Summer 2005

Related TGW Posts:
Underground Railroad to Abortion Services
Abortion Help for Low-Income Women

Abortion Reproductive Rights Roe Feminism South Dakota Hillary Clinton

The Buckshot Stops Here, Or Maybe Not

What Quailgate Did to Portsgate

Washington Post staff writers, Jim VandeHei and Paul Blustein tell us that the Bushies were blindsided by the huge and bipartisan national uproar over the Dubai Ports deal largely because they were "consumed with the fallout of Vice President Cheney's recent hunting accident." Heh. And they said we made too big a deal about the day that Vice President Dick Cheney, or Destroyer Dick, shot a 78 year old man in Texas.

Oh, and check out the innocent Quail's side of the story -- via Al Gore's cable channel, via Shakespeare's Sister (video clip).

More on Portsgate

Nicholas Kristof argues in his latest column - The Arabs Are Coming! - that criticism of the Dubai Ports deal amounts to little more than scaremongering, George W. Bushie style.

Molly Ivins begs to differ.

Snippets from Ivins:

AUSTIN - So aside from the fact that it's politically idiotic and at least theoretically presents a national security risk, just what is wrong with the Dubai Ports World deal? . . .

We have already been warned that should we back out of the DP deal, the United Arab Emirates might well take offense and not be so nice about helping us in the War on Terror -- maybe even cut back its money, as well as its cooperation. This is a problem specific to the fact that we are dealing with a corporation owned by a country: A corporation only wants to make money, but a country has lots of motives.

Second, this is a corporation -- consequently its only interest is in making money. A corporation is like a shark, designed to do two things: kill and eat. Thousands of years of evolution lie behind the shark, whereas the corporation has only a few hundred. But it is still perfectly evolved for its purpose.

That means that a corporation that makes money running port facilities does not have a stake in national security. It's not the corporation's fault any more than it is the shark's. . . .

I have no idea whether DP World represents a security threat, but U.S. News & World Report said in December that Dubai was notorious for smuggling, money laundering and drug trafficking in support of terrorists. I suppose the same could be said of New York, but it doesn't sound pleasant.

Molly Ivins Bush Cheney Portsgate Ports Dubai Impeach Bush Empire UAE United Arab Emirates Ivins

Kristof: The Arabs Are Coming!

Port Scaremongers
by Nicholas Kristof

This fuss about ports is really about Arabs.

Port terminals have been managed, without alarm, by companies from Britain, China, Japan, Singapore and Taiwan. So let's look at the arguments of those who believe we should discriminate against Arabs. ...

Look, Kristof, if this is discrimination against Arabs, that's because it was Arabs who attacked us on 9/11 and still threaten us today. If Singaporeans were plotting to set off nuclear explosions in American cities, then we'd scrutinize them, too.

Even if you believe in racial profiling, you have to look beyond the profile. Senators talk about Dubai in dark tones that suggest they've never been there. Dubai is the Disneyland of the Arab world — it's the place people go to relax, to shop, to drink. It is staunchly pro-American and pro-business, and its vision of the Arab future is absolutely the opposite of Osama bin Laden's. If we want to encourage Arab modernization, we should be approving this deal — not engaging in quasi-racist scaremongering.

Critics of the deal seem to suggest that swarthy men in black turbans are going to be arriving to provide port "security" in Newark. But Dubai Ports World is run mostly by Western executives, under an American chief operating officer. Nothing is going to change on the ground in Newark.

That's easy for a columnist to say; by this time tomorrow, your words will be forgotten at the bottom of the bird cage. But you can't be sure of what will happen in Dubai in 10 years, and this is about ports, the weak link in our homeland security.

Suppose you were Osama bin Laden and wanted to set off a nuclear weapon or a "dirty bomb" in front of the U.S. Capitol. First you would bribe Russians with access to loosely secured nuclear materials.

Then you would ship them to the U.S. — but the key step would occur in the foreign port: hiding the materials in the shipping container of a well-known and trusted exporter. If the container were shipped out of Rotterdam and seemed to contain Lego toys, for example, U.S. customs officials (who are now also based abroad) might not bother to examine it.

So even if agents of Al Qaeda infiltrate Dubai Ports World, and some manage to get U.S. visas and be stationed in Newark, it's not clear that they could help the plot.

So you're claiming that there are no security implications about a company from Dubai running American port terminals?

Sure, there are "implications," but they are manageable. And there are also implications about rejecting and scorning a modernizing ally like the United Arab Emirates — that would be a gift to Qaeda propagandists.

The reality is that ports aren't the only investment with security implications, and all countries wrestle with such concerns. China imported American telephone switches and discovered that the U.S. could eavesdrop more easily on Chinese officials; the Chinese imported U.S. planes, and the U.S. installed sophisticated bugs on the Chinese version of Air Force One.

So every country accepts trade-offs. We admit European tourists without visas, even though terrorists may slip in as well. But since 9/11 there has been a nativist, Know-Nothing streak in politics; a year ago it blocked China's deal to acquire Unocal, and today it rages at the Dubai ports deal.

Secretary of State Cordell Hull used to say that "when goods do not cross borders, armies do." If we want to promote global markets, as an avenue to peace, we have to practice what we preach.

Look, 9/11 showed that you can't be blasé about national security.

But paranoia doesn't work so well, either — it has led us to Iraq, Guantánamo and domestic N.S.A. wiretaps. It was counterproductive for Republicans to get so hysterical about national security that they justified locking up hundreds of Muslims after 9/11. And it's just as wrong for Democrats to get hysterical today.

If Democrats want to improve national security, they can tackle it in a thousand ways. The biggest vulnerabilities in our ports could be addressed by increasing customs inspections abroad, by adding radiation detectors, by examining more containers or by making containers tamper-proof. And if the aim is to reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism, then how about more support for the Nunn-Lugar program to secure Russian nuclear materials?

Democrats have so many legitimate reasons to criticize President Bush — from ruining our nation's finances to despoiling American wilderness — that it's painful to see them scaremongering in just the way that Mr. Bush himself has.

Nicholas Kristof Bush Portsgate Ports Dubai Empire UAE United Arab Emirates Kristof

Government Sponsored Homophobia

The constitutional amendment which would make same-sex marriage doubly illegal here in Tennessee is set to be on the ballot this November. Although the ACLU is challenging the measure on procedural grounds, a Davidson County judge ruled against the civil rights organization last Thursday.

The ACLU is appealing to the Supreme Court, so there is still some hope of stopping the offensive effort to write bigotry into this state's constitution.

But bigotry is all the rage in the USA. Ballot measures against same-sex marriage will appear on ballots this year in Tennessee, Alabama, South Carolina, Idaho and South Dakota. There are even more states currently debating marriage bans and other homophobic measures. In Ohio, lawmakers are considering a bill that would outlaw gay adoption and foster parenting.

Nice country we live in, eh? Government sponsored homophobia is one more scary thing the USA has in common with Iran.

We really need to lose some Republicans this November. And then there is the matter of Democrats, such as Hillary Clinton, who are miserable failures at leading the nation away from the Republican led path of discrimination.

Gay Same-sex Marriage Homophobia Tennessee Gay Marriage

Underground Railroad to Abortion Services

In the previous post about financial aid resources for women in need of abortion services, I mentioned Haven, a group of pro choice volunteers in New York who offer women and girls a place to stay when they must travel for an abortion. Below is an excerpt from a December 2005 piece in New York Magazine which provides more information about this group, as well as the controversial late term abortions available in New York.

There are more abortions in New York City, the Pro Choice Capital, than in any place in the country. With the anti feminist backlash in full force, it looks like even more women will be making the trip. And with our government so intent on making abortion services difficult to obtain, you can be sure there will be an increase in the risky and costly late term abortions, legal or not.

The article includes some practical information such as costs. There is also a frank, and somewhat uncomfortable, discussion about class differences between Haven hosts and the women they aid.

The New Underground Railroad

Thousands of women come to New York each year for late-term abortions. A hundred New Yorkers take them in.

It’s not difficult in most urban areas to find an abortion clinic that will treat women in the first trimester, when the vast majority of pregnancies are terminated. But 1 percent of abortions take place after 21 weeks, late into the second trimester, and many of these women must resort to making a pilgrimage to New York City. More late-term abortions are done here than anywhere else in the country. The procedure takes two days from start to finish. There’s a night of waiting in between.

Five years ago, Catherine Megill, a then-23-year-old counselor at a Manhattan abortion clinic, heard about a patient who couldn’t afford a hotel and was going to be sleeping on the street unless someone offered her a couch. Megill offered, and later she began asking friends to do the same. By mid-2001, her project had a name, Haven, and a half-dozen volunteers. It now has about 100 members and is the only group of its kind in the country. “You’ve heard of ‘armchair liberalism,’ ” goes the recruiting pitch. “But have you given any thought to ‘futon liberalism’?” Some 2,000 women have late-term abortions in New York City every year. This year, Haven members have opened their homes to 125 of them (including a 10-year-old).

Most Haven hosts are white, Jewish, well schooled, and political. Some are empty-nesters with beds to spare and memories of the sixties and seventies women’s movement; many are young idealists with matchbox apartments and roommates who don’t mind an extra body crashing in the living room. Meanwhile, most of the women helped by Haven are black and Latina, with GEDs or less, low literacy skills, and not much civic moxie.

I know that, often as not, it’s poverty that has pushed their bellies into the fifth or sixth month. Medicaid in most states won’t cover abortions, and money for the procedure is hard to round up. Ending a seven- or eight-week pregnancy costs about $400. That’s a lot of money to these women. And the price shoots up as the weeks pass and the procedure grows more complex. At 24 weeks, the price is about $2,000 in New York—much cheaper than the $7,000 it costs in New Jersey, but still a virtually insurmountable sum. . . .

“I had to tell myself, ‘Every abortion is the choice of the woman having the abortion. This is about somebody else’s body. It’s not President Bush’s body, but it’s not mine, either,’ ” she says. “Being pro-choice is a morality that takes you morally out of the picture.”

Photo credit: Culture Kitchen

Abortion Reproductive Rights Roe Feminism Late term Abortions Abortion Funds Tennessee New York Haven

Abortion Help for Low-Income Women

The South Dakota Legislature's unconstitutional effort to outlaw abortion is a good excuse to talk about where girls and women can get help accessing their constitutional right to abortion.

In many states, Medicaid does not cover abortion unless a woman or girl is a victim of rape or incest, or unless her life is endangered. If the womb patrolling legislators in South Dakota were to have their way (not likely), abortion would be offered only when a woman's life was threatened.

For many women, the cost of an abortion makes the constitutional right null and void. But there is help.

The National Network of Abortion Funds (NNAF) "support[s] women who want abortions and cannot afford them." The NNAF provides "direct financial assistance and support" to women in search of an abortion.

As you can see on the map, the vast majority of states offer low income women help via NNAF Member Abortion Funds. Tennessee does not. But NNAF offers help in establishing Abortion Funds where they do not exist. And women in Tennessee can seek help from other states.

One of the better known abortion funding organizations is the New York Abortion Acess Fund (NYAAF). It is "a volunteer-run, non-profit organization that provides financial assistance to low-income women who cannot afford to pay for an abortion." Women who travel to New York for an abortion can find a place to stay through Haven, a group of volunteers who offer women and girls a bed or a couch. You can contact Haven through the NYAAF.

Just as abortion funds are available in most states, most states are decidedly pro choice. But you'd never know it by the behavior of this nation's womb obsessed lawmakers. One hundred and five South Dakota legislators are men who should not even have a vote on the issue. Only seventeen of the state's legislators are women!

South Dakota lawmakers have proved once again that this nation's elected officials are out of touch with ordinary Americans. What kind of state forces women and children to reproduce their rapists? It's taking its own sweet time, but a fierce nonforgiving backlash is coming, and they are going to rue the day.

Abortion Reproductive Rights Roe Feminism Abortion help Abortion Funds South Dakota Money for Abortions Tennessee New York

Re-elect Al Gore

In a piece title, Look Out, Here Comes Al, Dick Morris writes in The Hill that the real battle in 2008 may well be Gore v. Clinton.

According to Morris, there is a history of candidates coming back to win the White House after first losing the Electoral College but not the popular vote.

And Gore may be a man whose time has come in his party. It was he who warned of climate change and predicted its consequences. Hurricane Katrina was just a fulfillment of the prophesies Gore wrote about in his late-1980s book Earth in the Balance. He has been an energy-conservation nut for years, and his obsessions with alternatives to oil will play better and better as we come to realize how our addiction to oil has led us to dependency on the dealers of this particular drug — Iran, the Saudi royal family and Hugo Chavez.

But Gore has three things going for him: A perception that he was robbed of the White House and Hillary’s possible stubbornness in continuing to back the war.

The third thing? The weather. As the evidence of global climate change impresses everyone who doesn’t work at the White House, Gore looks more and more like a man whose time may have come.

Al Gore 2008 Election Bush Cheney Tennessee Global Warming Gore

Krugman: Osama, Saddam and the Ports

By PAUL KRUGMAN

The storm of protest over the planned takeover of some U.S. port operations by Dubai Ports World doesn't make sense viewed in isolation. The Bush administration clearly made no serious effort to ensure that the deal didn't endanger national security. But that's nothing new — the administration has spent the past four and a half years refusing to do anything serious about protecting the nation's ports.

So why did this latest case of sloppiness and indifference finally catch the public's attention? Because this time the administration has become a victim of its own campaign of fearmongering and insinuation.

Let's go back to the beginning. At 2:40 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld gave military commanders their marching orders. "Judge whether good enough hit S. H. [Saddam Hussein] @ same time — not only UBL [Osama bin Laden]," read an aide's handwritten notes about his instructions. The notes were recently released after a Freedom of Information Act request. "Hard to get a good case," the notes acknowledge. Nonetheless, they say: "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

So it literally began on Day 1. When terrorists attacked the United States, the Bush administration immediately looked for ways it could exploit the atrocity to pursue unrelated goals — especially, but not exclusively, a war with Iraq.

But to exploit the atrocity, President Bush had to do two things. First, he had to create a climate of fear: Al Qaeda, a real but limited threat, metamorphosed into a vast, imaginary axis of evil threatening America. Second, he had to blur the distinctions between nasty people who actually attacked us and nasty people who didn't.

The administration successfully linked Iraq and 9/11 in public perceptions through a campaign of constant insinuation and occasional outright lies. In the process, it also created a state of mind in which all Arabs were lumped together in the camp of evildoers. Osama, Saddam — what's the difference?

Now comes the ports deal. Mr. Bush assures us that "people don't need to worry about security." But after all those declarations that we're engaged in a global war on terrorism, after all the terror alerts declared whenever the national political debate seemed to be shifting to questions of cronyism, corruption and incompetence, the administration can't suddenly change its theme song to "Don't Worry, Be Happy."

The administration also tells us not to worry about having Arabs control port operations. "I want those who are questioning it," Mr. Bush said, "to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company."

He was being evasive, of course. This isn't just a Middle Eastern company; it's a company controlled by the monarchy in Dubai, which is part of the authoritarian United Arab Emirates, one of only three countries that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate ruler of Afghanistan.

But more to the point, after years of systematically suggesting that Arabs who didn't attack us are the same as Arabs who did, the administration can't suddenly turn around and say, "But these are good Arabs."

Finally, the ports affair plays in a subliminal way into the public's awareness — vague but widespread — that Mr. Bush, the self-proclaimed deliverer of democracy to the Middle East, and his family have close personal and financial ties to Middle Eastern rulers. Mr. Bush was photographed holding hands with Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia (now King Abdullah), not the emir of Dubai. But an administration that has spent years ridiculing people who try to make such distinctions isn't going to have an easy time explaining the difference.

Mr. Bush shouldn't really be losing his credibility as a terrorism fighter over the ports deal, which, after careful examination (which hasn't happened yet),, may turn out to be O.K. Instead, Mr. Bush should have lost his credibility long ago over his diversion of U.S. resources away from the pursuit of Al Qaeda and into an unnecessary war in Iraq, his bungling of that war, and his adoption of a wrongful imprisonment and torture policy that has blackened America's reputation.

But there is, nonetheless, a kind of rough justice in Mr. Bush's current predicament. After 9/11, the American people granted him a degree of trust rarely, if ever, bestowed on our leaders. He abused that trust, and now he is facing a storm of skepticism about his actions — a storm that sweeps up everything, things related and not.

Paul Krugman Bush Portgate Ports Dubai Impeach Bush Empire UAE United Arab Emirates Krugman

Koppel: Will Fight for Oil

By TED KOPPEL

The American people ... know the difference between honest critics who question the way the war is being prosecuted and partisan critics who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil, or because of Israel, or because we misled the American people.

— President Bush, Jan. 10

Let us, as lawyers say, stipulate that the Bush administration was genuinely concerned that weapons of mass destruction, which they firmly believed to be in Saddam Hussein's arsenal, might be shared with the same Qaeda leadership that planned the horrific events of 9/11. That would have been a reasonable motive for invading Iraq; but surely now, three years later, when the existence of those weapons is no longer an issue, it would be insufficient reason for the United States to remain there.

Let us further acknowledge that continuing to put American lives at risk in Iraq purely for the protection of Israel would arouse, in some quarters, anti-Semitic murmurs, if not growls.

But the Bush administration's touchiness about charges that we acted — and are still acting — in Iraq "because of oil"? Now that's curious. Keeping oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf and through the Strait of Hormuz has been bedrock American foreign policy for more than a half-century.

Fifty-three years ago, British and American intelligence officers conspired to help bring about the overthrow of Iran's prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. Mossadegh's shortcomings, in the eyes of Whitehall and the State Department, were an unseemly affinity for the Tudeh Party (the Iranian Communists) and his plans to nationalize the Iranian oil industry. The prospect of the British oil industry being forced to give way to Soviet influence over the Iranian oil spigot called for drastic action. Following a military coup, Mossadegh was arrested, imprisoned for three years and then held under house arrest until his death in 1967. Power was then effectively concentrated in the hands of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi.

The shah's unswerving commitment to the free flow and marketing of Iranian oil would, by the end of the 1960's, become a central pillar of the so-called Nixon Doctrine, in which American allies were tapped to be regional surrogates to maintain peace and security. The sales of sophisticated American weapons to Iran served the twin purposes of sopping up billions of what came to be known as "petro-dollars," while equipping (in particular) the shah's air force.

That reliance on Iran to maintain stability in the Persian Gulf enjoyed bipartisan support. On New Year's Eve in 1977, President Jimmy Carter, visiting the shah in Tehran, toasted his great leadership, which he said had made Iran "an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas in the world." By January 1980, after Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini had driven the shah from the Peacock Throne, President Carter made absolutely clear in his final State of the Union address that one aspect of our foreign policy remained unchanged:

"An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."

The Reagan administration announced its intention to continue defending the free flow of Middle East oil, by whatever means necessary. In March 1981, Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger clearly signaled that the United States was seeking a new base of operations in the Persian Gulf:

"We need some facilities and additional men and materiel there or nearby, to act as a deterrent to any Soviet hopes of seizing the oil fields or interdicting the line."

Subsequently, the United States began establishing military bases in Saudi Arabia and, to much criticism, selling Awacs aircraft to the Saudi government. In 1990, when Saddam Hussein appeared likely to follow his invasion of Kuwait by crossing into Saudi Arabia, the defense secretary at the time, Dick Cheney, laid out Washington's concerns:

"We're there because the fact of the matter is that part of the world controls the world supply of oil, and whoever controls the supply of oil, especially if it were a man like Saddam Hussein, with a large army and sophisticated weapons, would have a stranglehold on the American economy and on — indeed on the world economy."

What Mr. Cheney said was correct then and remains correct now. The world's oil producers pump approximately 80 million barrels a day. The world's oil consumers, joined today by an increasingly oil-hungry India and China, purchase 80 million barrels a day. Were production from the Persian Gulf to be disrupted because of civil war in Iraq, the freezing of Iranian sales or political instability in Saudi Arabia, the global supply would be diminished. The impact on the American economy and, indeed, on the world economy would be as devastating today as in 1990.

If those considerations did not enter into the Bush administration's calculations when the president ordered the invasion of Iraq in 2003, it would have been the first time in more than 50 years that the uninterrupted flow of Persian Gulf oil was not a central element of American foreign policy.

That is not to say that the United States invaded Iraq to take over its oil supply. But the construction of American military bases inside Iraq, bases that can be maintained long after the bulk of our military forces are ultimately withdrawn, will serve to replace the bases that the United States has lost in Saudi Arabia. There may be other national security reasons that the United States cannot now precipitously withdraw its forces from Iraq, including the danger that the country would become a regional terrorist base; but none is greater than forestalling the ensuing power vacuum and regional instability, and the impact this would have on oil production.

H. L. Mencken is said to have noted that "when someone says it's not about the money — it's about the money." Arguing in support of his fellow Arkansan during Bill Clinton's impeachment trial, former Senator Dale Bumpers offered a variation on that theme: "When someone says it's not about the sex — it's about the sex."

Perhaps the day will come when the United States is no longer addicted to imported oil; but that day is still many years off. For now, the reason for America's rapt attention to the security of the Persian Gulf is what it has always been. It's about the oil.

Ted Koppel Bush Cheney Empire Oil Iraq War Koppel

Quote of the Day: Bushie Opens Mouth

"People don't need to worry about security. We wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security of the United States of America."

-- pResident George W. Bush

The Boy King was attempting to alleviate fears about port security. Instead, the miserable failure spoke words that resemble the truth. Like Shooter Cheney says, accidents happen.

Panic did not ensue when the pResident spoke, cuz no one takes anything this pResident says seriously enough to panic.

Hat tip to Mathew Gross

Bush Portgate Ports Dubai Impeach Bush Cheney Empire UAE United Arab Emirates Imperial Presidency

The Irony: Obama, Ford & Cohen in Memphis

Brassmask over at Elevator Cabeza attended Harold Ford's rally in Memphis, the one that featured rising progressive star, Barack Obama. The socially conservative Congressman Ford, who calls himself a Democrat, hopes to win Bill Frist's seat in the senate. It's certainly odd that he brought in the flaming progressive yankee to help him on his home turf. Memphis supports some of the most progressive politicos in this state, but progressive politics has nothing to do with why Ford is supported in Memphis.

Autoegocrat at Pesky Fly says it better:

If yesterday's pairing of Barack Obama and Harold Ford, Jr. was intended to establish Ford's credentials, it can safely be said that the effort failed miserably. . . I must force myself to remember with all of my might that Ford, not Obama, is the candidate from Memphis, because in truth it is Ford is who needs an introduction to his own constituency from a Northerner. The irony of the overall situation is breathtaking: a Yankee from Illinois can walk right into town and make a native Memphian look like a carpetbagger.

Apparently, if you ask someone like Chuck Schumer, Barack Obama needs to travel all the way from the South Side of Chicago to convince me that Harold Ford, Jr. is black.

Brassmask has a report with lots of photos, and you want to check out his stinging captions. For example, to the image pictured here, Brassmask writes, "I think that Ford sensed that this wasn't turning into the battle cry for his campaign that he had hoped it would be."

Snippets from Brassmask :

Harold Ford Jr. held a rally at the University of Memphis Holiday Inn today. He brought in Barak Obama to lend credence to his burgeoning run for Bill Frist's soon-to-be vacated seat in the US Senate.

Ford supported a ban on benefits for same-sex couples, as well as a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage, has told Democrats they should be more supportive of George W. Bush on the war in Iraq, has criticized Senate Democrats who attempted to filibuster Samuel Alito, has voted for the Bankruptcy Bill, and supported limits on a woman's right to choose.

.. Ford brought in Obama as star power. They tried to draw all kinds of comparisons to each other, which in my opinion, didn't seem too exciting a proposition to Barak Obama.

So, it was well attended. I'd say maybe one thousand people, maybe more. I can't find stats on it yet. But they came out and the place went semi-crazy for a couple of minutes.

The blogger adds that "a source Very close to the [State Senator] Steve Cohen camp told me today that they are very close to announcing his candidacy for Jr's old seat in Congress."

Steve Cohen is one of the state's few genuinely progressive lawmakers, we could sure use him in Washington, but who will take his place here in this progressively needy state?

Previous TGW posts on Harold Ford Jr.

Harold Ford Tennessee Obama Steve Cohen Frist Election Memphis Tennessee 2006

More Fun at Cheney's Expense: Destroyer Dick

Sorry Cheney, the fun at your expense is not over yet.

Check out Mark Fiore's latest animation:

Destroyer Dick

Hat tip to Donkey O.D.

Newsweek story: The Shot Heard Round the World

Cheney Got a Gun Cheney VP Shoots Man Dick Cheney

Cheney's Got a Gun T-Shirt

We know Bushie doesn't like for us to wear our politics on a shirt, but what the hey. We've added the Cheney's Got a Gun t-shirt to the TGW Cafe Press Shop.

Cheney Got a Gun Shirt Cheney Cheney Shirt Shooter

Herbert: No Justice, No Peace

No Justice, No Peace
by Bob Herbert

If you talk to Maher Arar long enough, even on the telephone, you'll get the disturbing sense that you are speaking with someone whose life has been shattered like a pane of glass.

"Sometimes I have the feeling that I want to go and live on another planet," he told me. "A completely different planet than planet Earth. You know?"

Mr. Arar, thanks to the United States government, went through the almost incomprehensible agony of being tortured. Now he is trying to live with the aftermath of torture, which is its own form of agony.

On Sept. 26, 2002, Mr. Arar, a Canadian citizen born in Syria, was taken into custody by American authorities at Kennedy Airport in New York. He was locked in chains and shackles and accused of being "a member of a known terrorist organization."

There was no evidence to support the accusation, and no evidence has ever come to light. Nevertheless, as part of the hideous U.S. policy known as extraordinary rendition, Mr. Arar was shipped off to Syria, where he was kept in an underground rat-infested, grave-like cell, and tortured. (When I visited him in Ottawa last year,, he told me how he had screamed and wept and begged both God and his captors for mercy.)

After 10 months, he was released. No charges against him were ever filed.

I called Mr. Arar last week after a federal judge in Brooklyn threw out a lawsuit in which Mr. Arar had sought damages from the U.S. government for his ordeal.

"I don't feel like I am the same person," he said. "I feel that my brain or my inner soul does not want to think about what's going on. My soul is trying to distract itself from reality."

The reality, he said, is that his life has been all but completely destroyed. He is fearful. He has become psychologically and emotionally distant from his wife and two young children. He has nightmares. He can't find a job. He spins dizzily from one bout with depression to another. And some former friends who are Muslim will no longer associate with him because "they're afraid to be the next target."

"I mean, you can tell, no one wants to hear about me," he said. "After 9/11, everyone branded with the terrorism label — they're doomed."

Mr. Arar, now 35, made a comfortable living as a software engineer before he fell into the demonic embrace of the rendition program. Now no one will hire him. "They put it in a nice way," he said. "They've said to people: 'Listen, we believe he's innocent. But, you know, we don't want to hire him.' "

Mr. Arar's own psychological difficulties have compounded the external challenges he faces. "I was invited to go and speak in Vancouver, which is west of here," he said. "But I can't take the plane anymore. Psychologically I am so scared to fly. So I couldn't go."

He said he frequently lacks the confidence or motivation to perform even minor tasks, and often feels overwhelmed by the thought of something as ordinary as a scheduled meeting with the principal at his 9-year-old daughter's school.

He said his 4-year-old son, Houd, panics whenever he thinks his father is about to go out. "He always wants to come with me," said Mr. Arar. "He insists, and he cries if I can't take him. He's afraid that if I go, I won't ever come back."

So the nightmare that began with rendition continues with no end in sight. Mr. Arar is grateful that his wife was able to land a job last year with a political party. "It's not much money," he said, "but had she not found a job we would be in a very, very miserable situation. We're just barely surviving."

Unexpected emotional support has come from ordinary Canadians; strangers frequently come up to Mr. Arar on the street and shake his hand. "They might say, "We're behind you,' or, 'We support you,' " he said. "It means a lot to me."

The rendition program is one more example of the way the United States, using the threat of terror as an excuse, has locked its ideals away in a drawer somewhere. We don't even give them lip service anymore. A person like Mr. Arar is not seen as having any rights. He's not even seen as human. He was carted away in accordance with official U.S. policy, and treated like an animal.

"They are doing this to people and it is wrong, wrong, wrong," said Mr. Arar. "This is an evil practice, and I want them to acknowledge it. I want them to acknowledge that what they did to me was wrong."

Bob Herbert Bush Empire Torture Maher Arar Canada Syria Herbert Arar

Bikers Counter Phelps Protest in Ft. Campbell

Fred Phelps and his family of anti-gay hate mongers showed up at a recent soldier's funeral in Fort Campbell. But the crude and vulgar jeers and taunts of the Phelps family were drowned out by a group of bikers who call themselves the Patriot Guard Riders.


Apparently, the Patriot Guard Riders are 5,000 strong across the nation and always looking for more volunteers. They have lots of online photos of their noble actions at soldiers' funerals across the nation.

FORT CAMPBELL, Ky. -- Wearing vests covered in military patches, a band of motorcyclists rolls around the country from one soldier's funeral to another, cheering respectfully to overshadow jeers from church protesters.

They call themselves the Patriot Guard Riders, and they are more than 5,000 strong, forming to counter anti-gay protests held by the Rev. Fred Phelps at military funerals.

"The most important thing we can do is let families know that the nation cares," said Don Woodrick, the group's Kentucky captain. "When a total stranger gets on a motorcycle in the middle of winter and drives 300 miles to hold a flag, that makes a powerful statement."

Gay Fred Phelps Homophobia Phelps Patriot Guard Riders Fort Campbell Tennessee Kentucky

Portgate Round Up

White House Says Bush Clueless About Portgate

The bipartisan rage continues to boil as the nation is stunned to discover that Bush is taking a 'soft on terrorism' stand on Portgate. The White House insists that Bushie knew nothing of the deal until his Administration approved it, which reminds some of us that the real pResident is the one with the gun.

While everyone from Tom Delay to Hillary Rodham Clinton unites against Bush's plan to outsource port security to the UAE, John McCain proves once again that Rove has some serious dirt on him.

McCain's response to Portgate? We should all just lighten up, and "trust" Bush, reports CNN. Toward that goal, the UAE has hired former Viagra spokesman Bob Dole to 'sell' Congress on the idea of trusting the pResident with the lowest approval ratings since tricky Dick, er, that's Nixon, not Cheney.

Here's the round up from bloggers and the MSM:

"President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday."

"Nobody seemed to know about the ports deal but U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow and the committee he controls. And Snow stood to benefit financially from the exchange, according to some reports."

"Rummy didn't know. Pace didn't know. Senior anyalysts at Homeland Security weren't consulted. And now we learn that even George W. Bush didn't know about the Ports deal until after it was approved."

"'I can understand why some in Congress have raised questions about whether or not our country will be less secure as a result of this transaction,' the president said. 'But they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully.'"

"'..[When] the acquiring company is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government,' it requires a 'mandatory,' 45-day investigation. That was never done, and what's more, 'Administration officials ... could not say why a 45-day investigation did not occur.'"

"Scott [McClellan] is hoping no one will notice the difference in legal scrutiny standards for the transaction that are required for a state-owned business as opposed to a private company -- and that the Administration didn't follow the law for the state-owned UAE company."

"Bush administration officials "could not say why a 45-day investigation did not occur."

"FRIST CALLED FOR DELAY OF DUBAI DEAL BUT VOTED AGAINST PORT SECURITY SIX TIMES -- This week, Republican Senators have come out in force against a controversial deal through which a company based in the United Arab Emirates would take over six major American ports. But these are the same Senate Republicans who have repeatedly voted against Democratic efforts to invest in improving the security of America’s ports after 9/11. In fact, most of the Senate Republicans speaking out against the deal have voted against port security at least SIX times since the 9/11 attacks."

"Ports are essential pieces of the infrastructure of the United States, and they are best run by public authorities that are accountable to elected officials and the people those officials represent. While traditional port authorities still exist, they are increasing marginalized as privatization schemes have allowed corporations -- often with tough anti-union attitudes and even tougher bottom lines -- to take charge of more and more of the basic operations at the nation's ports."

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - "For almost five years President George W. Bush has warned Americans to fear terrorism, but now those words may come back to bite him. . . 'Politically, for the president, it is a huge mistake for him to be defending this decision. The president will be overturned,' said U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, the former number two Republican in the House of Representatives."

"Bush's veto threat sought to quiet a political storm that has united Republican governors and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee with liberal Democrats, including New York Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Schumer."

"CNN is reporting that the UAE company involved in this has hired Bob Dole to lobby Congress to calm their outrage over the deal and get things to go through. Gee -- how is Liddy Dole going to deal with that conflict along with running the RSCC? Wonder what the folks back home will think?"

Bush Portgate Ports Dubai Impeach Bush Empire UAE United Arab Emirates Imperial Presidency

Jack Cafferty on Deranged Port Deal

Last night CNN's best, Jack Cafferty, stuck it to the Bushies again :

Wolf, this may be the straw that finally breaks the camel's back, this deal to sell control of six US ports to a company controlled by the United Arab Emirattes. There are now actually Senators and Congressmen and Governors and Mayors telling the White House "you're not gonna do this." And it's about time.

No one has said "no" to this administration on anything that matters in a very long time. Well this matters. It matters a lot. If this deal is allowed to go through, we deserve whatever we get. A country with ties to terrorists will have a presence at six critical doorways to our country. And if anyone thinks that the terrorists, in time, won't figure out how to exploit that, then we're all done.

Nothing's happened yet, mind you, but if our elected representatives don't do everything in their power to stop this thing, each of us should vow to work tirelessly to see that they are removed from public office. We're at a crossroads - which way will we choose?

Here's the question: What should be done to stop a deal that would allow an Arab company to run US Ports??

When President Bush threatened to veto he said "I want those who are questioning this to step up explain why all of a sudden a middle eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company." How about these:

The United Arab Emirates, which owns the company that would be operating these ports, served as both an operational and financial base for several of the 9/11 hijackers who murdered 3,000 innocent people in this country on 9/11.

Want some more? The United Arab Emirates served as a transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components that were sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.

Great Britain, on the other hand, has been an ally of the United States against people like terrorists and dictators for more than 200 years.

Here's the question: Should a company from the United Arab Emirates be held to a different standard than a company from Britain when it comes to controlling US ports?

Email Jack Cafferty

Via RenaRF at dkos

Jack Cafferty Bush Ports Impeach Bush Empire UAE United Arab Emirates Imperial Presidency

Dowd: G.O.P. to W.: You're Nuts!

By MAUREEN DOWD


It's enough to make you nostalgic for those gnarly union stevedores in "On the Waterfront," the ones who hung up rats on hooks and took away Marlon Brando's chance to be a contend-ah.

Maybe it's corporate racial profiling, but I don't want foreign companies, particularly ones with links to 9/11, running American ports.

What kind of empire are we if we have to outsource our coastline to a group of sheiks who don't recognize Israel, in a country where money was laundered for the 9/11 attacks? And that let A. Q. Kahn, the Pakistani nuclear scientist, smuggle nuclear components through its port to Libya, North Korea and Iran?

It's mind-boggling that President Bush ever agreed to let an alliance of seven emirs be in charge of six of our ports. Although, as usual, Incurious George didn't even know about it until after the fact. (Neither did Rummy, even though he heads one of the agencies that green-lighted the deal.)

Same old pattern: a stupid and counterproductive national security decision is made in secret, blowing off checks and balances, and the president's out of the loop.

Was W. too busy not calling Dick Cheney to find out why he shot a guy to not be involved in a critical decision about U.S. security? What is he waiting for — a presidential daily brief warning, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack U.S. Ports?"

Our ports are already nearly naked in terms of security. Only about 5 percent of the containers coming into the country are checked. And when the White House assures us that the Homeland Security Department will oversee security at the ports, is that supposed to make us sleep better? Not after the chuckleheaded Chertoff-and-Brownie show on Capitol Hill.

"Our borders are wide open," said Jan Gadiel of 9/11 Families for a Secure America. "We don't know who's in our country right now, not a clue. And now they're giving away our ports." The "trust us" routine of W. and Dick Cheney is threadbare.

The more W. warned that he would veto legislation stopping this deal, the more lawmakers held press conferences to oppose it — even conservatives who had loyally supported W. on Iraq, the Patriot Act, torture and warrantless snooping.

Mr. Bush is hoist on his own petard. For four years, the White House has accused anyone in Congress or the press who defended civil liberties or questioned anything about the Iraq war of being soft on terrorism. Now, as Congress and the press turn that accusation back on the White House, Mr. Bush acts mystified by the orgy of xenophobia.

Lawmakers, many up for re-election, have learned well from Karl Rove. Playing the terror card works.

A bristly Bush said yesterday that scotching the deal would send "a terrible signal" to a worthy ally. He equated the "Great British" with the U.A.E. Well, maybe Britain in the 12th century.

Besides, the American people can be forgiven if they're confused about what it means in the Arab world to be a U.S. ally. Is it a nation that helps us sometimes but also addicts us to oil and then jacks up the price, refuses to recognize Israel, denies women basic rights, tolerates radical anti-American clerics, looks the other way when its citizens burn down embassies and consulates over cartoons, and often turns a blind eye when it comes to hunting down terrorists in its midst?

In our past wars, America had specific countries to demonize. But now in the "global war on terror" — GWOT, as they call it — the enemy is a faceless commodity that the administration uses whenever it wants to win a political battle. When something like this happens, it's no wonder the public does its own face transplant.

One of the real problems here is that this administration has run up such huge trade and tax-cut-and-spend budget deficits that we're in hock to the Arabs and the Chinese to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. If they just converted their bonds into cash, they would own our ports and not have to merely rent them.

Just because the wealthy foreigners who own our debt can blackmail us with their economic leverage, does that mean we should expose our security assets to them as well?

As part of the lunatic White House defense, Dan Bartlett argued that "people are trying to drive wedges and make this to be a political issue." But as the New Republic editor Peter Beinart pointed out in a recent column, W. has made the war on terror "one vast wedge issue" to divide the country.

Now, however, the president has pulled us together. We all pretty much agree: mitts off our ports.

Maureen Dowd Bush Ports Impeach Bush Empire UAE Portgate United Arab Emirates Imperial Presidency Dowd