Joementum or Joe Mama?

Sen. Joe Lieberman is a vexing political figure for the Democratic Party in that he regularly comes to the defense of the party's political nemeses while continuing to be a truly decent guy. His high-profile support for the Iraq war and the infamous (and bizarre) kiss from President Bush at the State of the Union have turned the left-wing blogosphere against him with a fury. Having the left-wing bloggers root against you is usually a good thing- thus far I don't believe they've helped a Democratic candidate win a significant race yet (Howard Dean, Francine Busby, Paul Hackett)- but the intraparty strife is worrisome.

It's especially worrisome because the left-wing bloggers seem to have no institutional memory of the Democratic Party prior to 1998. All they seem to remember is impeachment and the recent losses at the presidential level. And, in truly bizarre fashion, their inspiration has come not from those who appeal to their ideals, but from those whom they despise- Karl Rove and Tom DeLay. They pray at the altar of party discipline, believing that all Democrats should believe what they do and "fight" for their agenda. They don't realize that without Susan Collins and Chris Shays and Dianne Feinstein and Joe Lieberman, today's moderates, Democrats would wield ZERO influence over the political process.

Sirota, Kos and the rest of the blogging crowd fail to recognize that the extremes are often wrong on both politics and policy. The framers of the Constitution established the many checks and balances so as to ensure that compromise and consensus would steer the political process. Just because a bunch of radicals from Texas hijacked our government doesn't mean that we should hijack it back for our own agenda.

Moderates are frustrating and wishy-washy, but they've made many important contributions to our political system. Sen. Lieberman deserves another term.

Taking liberties with presidential power

An interesting debate is occurring among the DC chattering class and run-of-the-mill political junkies about the effort inside the Bush administration to dramatically expand presidential power. The nomination of Samuel Alito, who pathologically defers to the executive on all matters of dispute between the president and Congress, makes this issue of even greater importance. Coupled with the recent revelation of the far-reaching domestic surveillance program under way, a robust debate should take place. By now it's clear that the president broke the law in establishing the domestic surveillance program. The question is now whether he was right or wrong to do so.

There are differing arguments about whether the administration would have obtained the authority to conduct surveillance if it had sought the approval of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court judges. This clipmonkey will assume that the administration would NOT have been given the authority because there often isn't any evidence of an actual crime, but merely communications with suspected terrorists. On this matter I'm willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt. Indeed, if you are corresponding with Al Qaeda, I believe our intelligence agencies, with the support of the president, have a responsibility to find out what you're up to.

However, when an administration hides behind "executive privilege" in refusing to hand over documents related to its response to Hurricane Katrina (while everyone else is handing over even their most embarrassing bits of information), it becomes clear that this expansion of presidential power is not an effort to keep us secure. In fact, it is an effort merely to keep the jobs of Republicans in the administration and in Congress secure. This is not protecting us from terrorists. This is shameful.

The Senate's drama queen

After failing once again to secure approval for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), crotchety old Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens threatened to go to the states of all the senators who opposed his drilling plan to tell their constituents "what you've done." I'm sure it was just more bluster from the self-described "mean, miserable SOB," but if it's not I imagine many senators would welcome such an opportunity to discuss federal spending priorities.

I'm sure the senators would love to point out to their constituents and Sen. Stevens how much of their tax dollars are redistributed to the state of Alaska. I'm sure they'd love to point out how Alaskans don't pay any state income taxes, but instead receive an annual payment from their state government. This year every man, woman and child in Alaska received $845.76 from the fund merely for breathing the air in the 49th state.

DC Clipmonkey has written before about how Alaska's welfare mentality contradicts the state's image as a land of rugged individuals. I guess it's just one more example of how we've entered an age of hypocrisy. Sen. Stevens embodies that hypocrisy like no one else- a "conservative" who binges at the government trough.

It's time for Congress to do its job

While many on the left are salivating over visions of impeachment hearings in response to the news of the president's domestic wiretapping program, it's important to acknowledge that the man's intentions, at least in this particular case, are not evil. Yes, he and Cheney do have some devilish designs on consolidating power within the executive branch. But if you had a friend who you knew was emailing Osama bin Laden, wouldn't you let the FBI know? I certainly would.

Clearly the administration overstepped its bounds. It should have at least sought the endorsement of those members of Congress serving on the intelligence committees before undertaking such a program. It should have even sought legislation that would have provided this authority. In fact, the refusal to seek congressional approval reveals a certain contempt or condescension toward the legislative branch and the American people.

As John Dean clearly laid out in his excellent book Worse Than Watergate, this administration has gone to incredible lengths to consolidate power in the executive. Maybe they felt they deserved such power or sincerely believed that it would not be granted by Congress. Considering that the administration has pretty much had its way with Congress for five years now, it would be surprising if such authority would not have been quickly provided, especially in the aftermath of 9/11.

Nearly half of Americans lack any trust in this administration. They are well-justified in this viewpoint. But there is no evidence that the administration has used this particular power to spy on Americans for political purposes. The administration certainly must be held accountable for spying on certain left-wing groups (including the Catholic Workers, a group this clipmonkey once considered joining) under other provisions within the law. That discovery warrants serious scrutiny. And we may find out about appalling excesses in the coming weeks, but until then this president deserves the benefit of the doubt. Many of his policies are loathsome, but he's no J. Edgar Hoover.

The real test now is what Congress will do next. Will it stage show hearings and express alarm while tacitly approving the surveillance program? Or will the Republicans in Congress finally fulfill their oversight role of the executive branch rather than continuing to serve as the pro-corporate, pro-Bush patsies they've been for the past five years?

The poor: Not a high priority for the religious right

This writer has repeatedly excoriated "Christians" who spend their time demonizing gay people while ignoring the concerns of poor Americans. It has always been a mystery to me how these folks on the religious right could be such activists around so many causes (evolution, gay rights, nominating judges, tax cuts) yet completely disregard Christ's teachings with regard to the poor. Well, in a Washington Post story this week, many of these fixtures of the religious right explained why they do virtually nothing about the issue of poverty in America- it's just not a high priority.

Money quote:

"It's not a question of the poor not being important or that meeting their needs is not important," said Paul Hetrick, a spokesman for Focus on the Family, Dobson's influential, Colorado-based Christian organization. "But whether or not a baby is killed in the seventh or eighth month of pregnancy, that is less important than help for the poor? We would respectfully disagree with that."

Jim Wallis, editor of the liberal Christian journal Sojourners and an organizer of today's protest, was not buying it. Such conservative religious leaders "have agreed to support cutting food stamps for poor people if Republicans support them on judicial nominees," he said. "They are trading the lives of poor people for their agenda. They're being, and this is the worst insult, unbiblical."

Thank you, Jim Wallis, for calling attention to this staggering hypocrisy.

(Some) candor from Bush

Dare I say it, but is President Bush starting to grow up? His childish refusal to admit mistakes during the first four years of his administration seems to have finally passed as this week he acknowledged that the prewar intelligence on Iraq was wrong and that the war itself has not been such great news for 30,000 dead Iraqis.

Of course, it was not a perfect week for Bush. He stated his belief that Tom DeLay was innocent on the charges currently pending against him, a comment that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid deemed a high-level act of jury tampering. News reports also revealed this week that the president has been trampling on the Constitution by authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals.

But these embarrassing instances aside, Bush did something else this week that has been extremely rare since he took office - compromise. On Thursday, he and torture enthusiast Dick Cheney gave up on their effort to retain the right of the CIA to torture detainees. Of course, loopholes abound in the president's compromise, but this is a step toward reestablishing our nation's traditional respect for human rights.

Are these signs that the administration is maturing? Compromising and speaking with candor are what adults do, but for the most part neither have been part of this administration's repertoire. With three painful years ahead under this regime, these actions offer a little hope.

Under the radar: Plumbing the leaks

Several weeks ago WashPo reporter Dana Priest uncovered the news that the U.S. government was detaining some Al Qaeda suspects in several Eastern European countries, away from the attention of the Red Cross and safely in that netherworld where torture and prisoner treatment standards are nebulous. This was alarming, but not surprising news as it's been well-documented that this administration supports the use of torture and has used a variety of means to enable other countries to practice torture on terrorism suspects.

The one surprising thing about this episode was not that it was occurring, but how Republicans reacted to it. Rather than condemning the use of secret prisons, Messieurs Frist and Hastert initiated an inquiry into how news of the detention facilities was leaked to the press. They expressed no outrage about the facilities themselves. Sadly, this is today's Republican Party- more concerned about protecting its leaders than doing what is right. Even the Wall Street Journal supports the Republicans' pro-torture agenda.

Howard Dean's at it again

Just when it seemed like the Democrats were on a roll that might carry them through November 2006, Democratic Party Chair Howard Dean recaptured the role of useful idiot for the Republicans. On a talk radio show early this week Dean commented, "The idea that the United States is going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong."

As with most of Mr. Dean's ill-timed statements, there may be some truth to this one. However, it was not a helpful comment and it ultimately depends on how you define winning. In fact, the best way out of Iraq may well be to simply declare victory and get out soon. If this is the case, Democrats and progressives who want us out should be shouting what a success the war has been. Although the country is a total mess, one could argue that we've already won- we've deposed Saddam, we've enabled the country to hold elections, we've enabled the Iraqis to govern themselves at least partially.

The problem with this latest statement is that it changes the subject from how poorly Bush is handling the Iraq war to are the Democrats treasonous naysayers? Howard Dean has made a significant contribution to the Democratic Party, but he should never have been chosen as its leader. Now he should step down and run for the Senate where he'll only embarrass a few hundred thousand people from the state of Vermont, not Democrats across the country.

In Bush's America, facts are for those who lack power

John DiIulio, President Bush's former director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, said it best in a story that appeared in Esquire Magazine in January 2003:

"There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus. What you’ve got is everything—and I mean everything—being run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis."

So it is with the news this week that political appointees in the Justice Department overruled the findings of a team of lawyers who unanimously concluded that the 2003 Texas redistricting plan, initiated by a certain indicted figure, was a violation of the Voting Rights Act. As we know, the plan was approved and five new Republicans were elected in Texas in 2004 singlehandedly increasing the Republican majority in the House.

Similarly, we learned several weeks ago that administration officials at the FDA had circumvented the agency's normal procedures to block Plan B emergency contraception from being available over the counter.

With this administration, the pattern is clear. There is no room for dispassionate policy analysis. Facts and data are merely for people who lack power. In this White House, there is only power and the will to exercise it.

Bring it on

As memos continue to leak out revealing the activist leanings of Judge Samuel Alito, it's becoming clear that this man could be the guy to overturn Roe v. Wade. Of course, he won't say it during the course of his hearings and he'll look like a sweet little puppy when DiFi confronts him over some of his Reagan era writings. But sooner or later, we are going to have to deal with the fact that the right-wingers on the court are determined to overturn the right to an abortion.

While this action may be devastating for women for some years to come, it's time to air this spat before the entire nation. A solid majority of Americans believe that women should have the right to choose. And another solid segment of the Republican Party supports it, too. But both sides have been allowed to hide behind hypotheticals for decades. It's time to stand and be counted. Should the state force a woman to have a child against her will?

This writer strongly supports efforts to reduce abortions from occurring in the first place, but at the end of the day, he would NEVER take away a woman's right to choose. Would you, President Bush, or you Chief Justice Roberts, or you soon-to-be Justice Alito? It's time to bring this discussion out in the open.

What's another word for lying?

In Slate last week, Jacob Weisberg explores the question of whether the Bush Administration deliberately misled the American public during the buildup before the Iraq war. His conclusion- it most certainly did. Money quote:

If you examine these [erroneous claims] and other pillars of the administration's case for invading Iraq, a clear pattern emerges. Bush officials first put clear pressure on the intelligence community to support their assumptions that Saddam was developing WMD and cooperating with al-Qaida. Nonetheless, significant contrary evidence emerged. Bush hawks then overlooked, suppressed, or willfully ignored whatever cut against their views. In public, they depicted unsettled questions as dead certainties. Then, when they were caught out and proven wrong, they resisted the obvious and refused to correct the record. Finally, when their positions became utterly untenable, they claimed that they were misinformed or not told. Call this behavior what you will, but you can't describe it as either "honest" or "truthful."

It's nice that Weisberg shows the administration the courtesy of not calling them liars, but let's be honest, the Administration presented Saddam as a clear and present danger to the United States. It simply wasn't true. Images of mushroom clouds and smoking guns were bandied about without any tangible evidence. Several years later not a single shred of evidence has emerged revealing that we were in any danger. Yes, even this writer thought that Iraq probably had WMDs, but he was skeptical about whether those weapons were a threat to us. Clearly, they were not. They lied.

The worst consequence of our actions is that they've given the radicals in the Middle East what they always wanted- a legitimate reason to hate us. They no longer have to hate us because of our support for Israel. They don't have to mention the sanctions we placed on Iraq which harmed so many children. Now they can just show pictures of the many thousands who have been killed since this war began.

We invaded a country that was no threat to us and may have spawned a civil war that could become a pan-Arab war. Way to go, President Bush.

Op-ed: Another difference between Democrats and Republicans

DC Clipmonkey has had countless conversations with his many very liberal friends and acquaintances about whether it matters who wins presidential elections. During the 2000 election, he regularly battled with Nader supporters over whether it mattered if Gore or Bush won. He'd like to think that those debates have been clearly decided, but if not, it's important to remind those Naderites that there are small, but significant ways in which the current administration's policies contrast with those of hypothetical Gore and Kerry administrations every day.

This week another glaring example of this appeared in the news when a report revealed that political appointees at the FDA had overruled scientists in determining whether the morning-after pill, also known as Plan B, should be available without a prescription. For those friends of clipmonkey who aren't aware, Plan B is an emergency contraceptive that can prevent a woman from becoming pregnant if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex. Approved by the FDA in 1999 as a prescription drug, it is most effective within the first 24 hours after unprotected sex. If a woman is required to see a doctor and obtain a prescription, the delay could make the drug far less effective. For example, if the unprotected sex occurs over a weekend and no appointments are available until Monday, it could mean an unwanted pregnancy.

The GAO report found that the FDA did not follow its normal procedures in determining the status of Plan B, deferring instead to political appointees like Dr. Mark McClellan, the brother of beleaguered White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. During the course of the review process, McClellan repeatedly raised many of the objections to the drug's availability posed by various right-wing "Christian" groups.

This case is but another example of how the current administration simply hands off decision-making to one interest group or another regardless of the evidence or policy impact. Remarkably, it also raises the question of whether the policies of Bush and the religious zealots who back him have actually increased abortions.

Do these so-called Christians actually care about reducing abortions or do they simply like to use the issue as a cudgel with which to win elections?

Must-read: The case against torture

It's fascinating to think how different the world would be had Al Gore been elected president back in 2000. Would we be anywhere near Iraq right now? Would global warming be on the national agenda? Would 9/11 have even occurred?

But an even more interesting question for this moment is what the world would be like if Sen. John McCain (pictured in a Hanoi hospital) had secured the Republican nomination in 2000 and become president. Over the years, McCain has proven himself to be a decent, reasonable man. On issues ranging from health care to gun control, he has been a voice of moderation and compromise. Although something of a hawk on national security, it's hard to imagine that the war in Iraq would have been fought as it has been or even at all under a McCain administration.

One thing that would certainly be different is our government's policy on torture. McCain, a victim of torture himself, knows how reprehensible and impractical the use of torture is. He lays it out beautifully right here. Money quote:

To prevail in this war we need more than victories on the battlefield. This is a war of ideas, a struggle to advance freedom in the face of terror in places where oppressive rule has bred the malevolence that creates terrorists. Prisoner abuses exact a terrible toll on us in this war of ideas. They inevitably become public, and when they do they threaten our moral standing, and expose us to false but widely disseminated charges that democracies are no more inherently idealistic and moral than other regimes. This is an existential fight, to be sure. If they could, Islamic extremists who resort to terror would destroy us utterly. But to defeat them we must prevail in our defense of American political values as well. The mistreatment of prisoners greatly injures that effort.

John McCain is a man truly worthy of the presidency. Too bad George W. Bush and his sleazy benefactors deprived our nation of this man's leadership.

Alaska, Aleutian for "land of government waste"

Several weeks ago, Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens gave an indignant speech on the Senate floor in response to a proposed amendment that would cut some pork designated for his home state and redistribute it to the ravaged Gulf Coast region. Stevens warned his colleagues:

"I will put the Senate on notice -- and I don't kid people -- if the Senate decides to discriminate against our state and take money only from our state, I will resign from this body."

Unfortunately for our nation's fiscal health, it didn't come to that. The amendment was defeated 82-15 and Alaska will continue to receive its ridiculously disproportionate share of government largesse. But this episode has called attention to the scandalous amount of tax dollars that ends up in the pockets of Alaskans.

Alaska is a stunningly beautiful place. It remains one of the last places in the world where you can truly witness nature unencumbered by human beings. On two trips there I've encountered grizzly bears, a wolverine, watched multitudes of salmon swim upstream, and viewed towering mountain ranges. On these trips, I've been impressed by the kind of rugged individualism it takes to live in Alaska. You've got to be tough to survive those winters.

With that toughness, Alaska's conservatism seemed to make sense. I imagined that Alaskans had a self-reliant, independent streak. In reality, Alaska is an enormous welfare state that would make the Europeans blush. Its residents pay no sales or income tax and each year every man, woman and child who has lived in Alaska for the preceding year receives a dividend check from the Alaska Permanent Fund. This year it's $845.76 just for breathing the Alaska air.

Meanwhile, Alaska receives more federal spending per capita than ANY state, $1,150 per person. And soon, U.S. taxpayers are poised to spend $223 million for a bridge to nowhere in the 49th State.

Any notion of conservatism and self-reliance among Alaskans is nothing more than a myth. It's time to cut Alaska and Sen. Stevens off. Learn more about the "bridge to nowhere" and how Alaska's congressional delegation is fleecing you from Taxpayers for Common Sense.

A glimpse of what's to come?

It's premature to call the solid victories by Democrats Tim Kaine and Jon Corzine a bellwether for the 2006 elections. Much can happen between now and then to change the political landscape and there were many factors unique to their respective states that enabled Kaine and Corzine to win. But yesterday's results are certainly a promising sign for Democrats.

Tim Kaine's victory in Virginia was a resounding rejection of the Republican attack dog style of politics which has been employed so successfully in recent decades. Kaine's opponent, Jerry Kilgore, tried to tap deep into the Republicans' arsenal of wedge issues, bashing illegal immigrants and stoking fear of death row killers, most prominently. For some reason, he forgot to bash gays. Fortunately, Kilgore's vapid negative campaign failed miserably.

Meanwhile, in New Jersey Jon Corzine won an ugly, nasty election he was widely expected to win. No great lesson came out of Corzine's race other than a reminder that New Jersey is now a safely blue state.

What does all this portend for the 2006 election? Probably not much, but after the devastating loss of 2004 it feels good to be a Democrat again.

What's really the matter with Kansas

On Nov. 8th, 2006 the Kansas Board of Education formally filed for a divorce from reality. By a 6-4 margin, board members adopted new public-school standards that elevate the concept of intelligent design to the same academic standing as the theory of evolution.

This is particularly distressing at a time when less American kids are going into fields involving Math and Science. While China produces 150,000 programmers per year, children in Kansas will be forced to study supernatural causes for opposable thumbs. Not only is this decision damaging to the children of Kansas; it also perpetuates an ugly, anti-intellectual crusade intended to introduce a very Christian God into every classroom in the United States.

Charles Krauthammer writes a very stirring op-ed piece explaining the blatant fraud of intelligent design.

Spotlight on Dick Cheney

The Vice President has always been a shadowy, Wizard of Oz-like figure presumed to be pulling levers behind the scenes in the Bush White House. Of late, he's garnered attention for his involvement in the unfolding Valerie Plame/CIA leak scandal. Indeed, it appears Cheney may have even started the entire mess. But as Karl Rove and the VP's pal, Scooter Libby, practice their perp walks, the roguish Cheney continues to walk freely while doing his best to shame the United States and earn the scorn of the entire world.

His latest misguided project is ensuring that CIA interrogators retain the right to practice torture on detainees. This is an interesting move by Cheney considering he doesn't even think the CIA should be charged with its primary functions, gathering and analyzing intelligence. As he demonstrated in the lead-up to the Iraq War, Cheney doesn't trust the CIA, so he and SecDef Donald Rumsfeld set up the Office of Special Plans within the Defense Department to build the case for war (Newsweek lays the entire story out here.). According to the British newspaper the Guardian,

"The ideologically driven network functioned like a shadow government, much of it off the official payroll and beyond congressional oversight. But it proved powerful enough to prevail in a struggle with the State Department and the CIA by establishing a justification for war. "

In another time and with a less compliant news media, Dick Cheney would be a ridiculed figure. His public statements would be laughed at by reporters much like the words of the infamous Iraqi information minister. To wit,

"The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." -Cheney, June 20, 2005.

"Now, I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." -Cheney, March 16, 2003.

Meanwhile, his current, er, former employer, Halliburton, continues to win huge contracts from the U.S. government despite innumerable shady dealings. Cheney continues to receive a deferred salary from the company and owns stock options worth as much as $8 million.

Now, the Vice President is battling with a torture survivor, Sen. John McCain, to protect the right of our government to commit torture. This is coming from a guy who received five deferments from serving in Vietnam.

The man is truly shameless.

A glimpse at Corporate America

After a brief foray into corporate responsibility following the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, Wal-Mart, the nation's largest private employer, is back at its usual ways of gutting employee benefits and freeloading off the government to care for its employees. In a memo obtained by the New York Times, Wal-Mart has revealed its true colors- it wants to cut employee benefits without looking too awful in the eyes of the public.

The proposals laid out in the memo include:

• discouraging unhealthy employees from accepting work at Wal-Mart by requiring that "all jobs include some physical activity,"
• hiring more part-time workers, and
• attracting more young workers at lower pay since older workers are no more productive.

The memo acknowledged that in cutting benefits Wal-Mart must walk softly because 46 percent of the children of its 1.33 million U.S. employees lack health insurance or receive Medicaid. I guess times are tight for the Walton family since the company only earned $10.5 billion last year.

Meanwhile, another industry with questionable business practices is reporting jaw-dropping earnings this week. ExxonMobil is expected to announce today that it has earned the largest quarterly profit of any company ever!

I wonder what proposals for corporate welfare Congress has in store for the oil companies now?

Op-ed: Standard Operating Procedure

The Weekly Standard has revealed what I’ve suspected for years. Unethical, amoral, and probably criminal behavior is the hallmark of conservative governing. Jeffrey Bell and William Kristol unite to search low but not high for an explanation to the unfortunate fact that the entire Republican leadership seems to be under investigation. Bell and Kristol might find the answer to their probing question if they were to look within; of course, conservatives are incapable of introspection, reflection, or any other form of self-critical analysis.

Still I must query the authors: if conservatives control the executive and legislative branches of government (not to mention that a majority of the Supreme Court has been appointed by Republican presidents), how could a conspiracy of criminalization exist – let alone thrive – in the first place? Democrats, both liberal and moderate, are on the outside looking in and the so-called “moderate Republican” is such a rare species that it couldn’t possibly exert a significant influence. No, it seems to me that other forces must be at work.

I suggest two alternatives. First, conservatives are cannibals. This seems far-fetched and, as Bell and Kristol note, so many conservative leaders are under investigation for so many transgressions that the cannibalistic explanation seems incomplete as well. For this explanation to hold, conservatives would have to be cannibals on the order of gerbils and I for one have a hard time believing – given their limited appetite for thought – that they could devour much above the order of a lost expedition. My point is that they wouldn’t choose to eat their own. Rather they would only attempt to stomach themselves if driven to it by some force majeure.

The second alternative is that DeLay, Libby, Rove, Frist, and Co. may be miscreants whose bad acts have run afoul of the system of laws that we as a nation cherish. Admittedly this is a less sexy explanation but it’s where I’ll put my money. Under this premise there is no vast any-wing conspiracy presently at work – only wrongdoers and conscientious enforcers of the law. In short, the dilemma for Bell and Kristol is not that there is a conspiracy that is out to criminalize conservative governance; rather, it’s that there isn’t one in place to shield them from their criminal acts. I guess that will give them something to work for in 2006.

-This post was written by Brookland Clipmonkey.

Outrage of the week: Screwing the troops, Part II

It continues to amaze DC Clipmonkey how members of the military get routinely screwed by their leaders yet continue to strongly support their government (For Part I, click here). It is particularly stunning how anyone in the military would vote Republican after the disaster that is the war in Iraq.

The fruitlessness and short-sightedness of the Iraq war aside, in recent weeks we've learned:

• Injured soldiers who've returned to the U.S. are continuing to receive combat zone wages, but are later sent huge bills to repay the government for its mistake.
• The Armed Forces earn $120 million from on-base slot machines, forcing many servicemembers into debt (You can't help but wonder if Abramoff is behind this.).
• The Army has tried to cover-up the truth about how football star-turned-Army Ranger Pat Tillman died in Afghanistan.

These bits of news come on the heels of a Pentagon report that the Bush Administration failed to pay attention to prewar intelligence that "predicted the factional rivalries now threatening to split Iraq." According to USA Today:

"In an ironic twist, the policy community was receptive to technical intelligence (the weapons program), where the analysis was wrong, but apparently paid little attention to intelligence on cultural and political issues (post-Saddam Iraq), where the analysis was right," they write.

U.S. servicemembers, Pat Tillman's family and the American people deserve better than the dishonest, short-sighted, malevolent leadership of the current administration and its civilian cronies at the Pentagon.

Update: For even more military shenanigans, click here.