Helping the Poor, the British Way

Helping the Poor, the British Way
By Paul Krugman
The New York Times

Monday 25 December 2006

It's the season for charitable giving. And far too many Americans, particularly children, need that charity.

Scenes of a devastated New Orleans reminded us that many of our fellow citizens remain poor, four decades after L.B.J. declared war on poverty. But I'm not sure whether people understand how little progress we've made. In 1969, fewer than one in every seven American children lived below the poverty line. Last year, although the country was far wealthier, more than one in every six American children were poor.

And there's no excuse for our lack of progress. Just look at what the British government has accomplished over the last decade.

Although Tony Blair has been President Bush's obedient manservant when it comes to Iraq, Mr. Blair's domestic policies are nothing like Mr. Bush's. Where Mr. Bush has sought to privatize the social safety net, Mr. Blair's Labor government has defended and strengthened it. Where Mr. Bush and his allies accuse anyone who mentions income distribution of "class warfare," the Blair government has made a major effort to reverse the surge in inequality and poverty that took place during the Thatcher years.

And Britain's poverty rate, if measured American-style - that is, in terms of a fixed poverty line, not a moving target that rises as the nation grows richer - has been cut in half since Labor came to power in 1997.

Britain's war on poverty has been led by Gordon Brown, the chancellor of the exchequer and Mr. Blair's heir apparent. There's nothing exotic about his policies, many of which are inspired by American models. But in Britain, these policies are carried out with much more determination.

For example, Britain didn't have a minimum wage until 1999 - but at current exchange rates Britain's minimum wage rate is now about twice as high as ours. Britain's child benefit is more generous than America's child tax credit, and it's available to everyone, even those too poor to pay income taxes. Britain's tax credit for low-wage workers is similar to the U.S. earned-income tax credit, but substantially larger.

And don't forget that Britain's universal health care system ensures that no one has to fear going without medical care or being bankrupted by doctors' bills.

The Blair government hasn't achieved all its domestic goals. Income inequality has been stabilized but not substantially reduced: as in America, the richest 1 percent have pulled away from everyone else, though not to the same extent. The decline in child poverty, though impressive, has fallen short of the government's ambitious goals. And the government's policies don't seem to have helped a persistent underclass of the very poor.

But there's no denying that the Blair government has done a lot for Britain's have-nots. Modern Britain isn't paradise on earth, but the Blair government has ensured that substantially fewer people are living in economic hell. Providing a strong social safety net requires a higher overall rate of taxation than Americans are accustomed to, but Britain's tax burden hasn't undermined the economy's growth.

What are the lessons to be learned from across the pond?

First, government truly can be a force for good. Decades of propaganda have conditioned many Americans to assume that government is always incompetent - and the current administration has done its best to turn that into a self-fulfilling prophecy. But the Blair years have shown that a government that seriously tries to reduce poverty can achieve a lot.

Second, it really helps to have politicians who are serious about governing, rather than devoting themselves entirely to amassing power and rewarding cronies.

While researching this article, I was startled by the sheer rationality of British policy discussion, as compared with the cynical posturing that passes for policy discourse in George Bush's America. Instead of making grandiose promises that are quickly forgotten - like Mr. Bush's promise of "bold action" to confront poverty after Hurricane Katrina - British Labor politicians propose specific policies with well-defined goals. And when actual results fall short of those goals, they face the facts rather than trying to suppress them and sliming the critics.

The moral of my Christmas story is that fighting poverty isn't easy, but it can be done. Giving in to cynicism and accepting the persistence of widespread poverty even as the rich get ever richer is a choice that our politicians have made. And we should be ashamed of that choice.

And So This Is Christmas

And So This Is Christmas
By Cindy Sheehan
t r u t h o u t Guest Contributor

Monday 25 December 2006

And so this is Christmas,
And what have you done?
Another year over,
A new one just begun.
- John Lennon

Today is the 21st birthday of my youngest child, Janey. It is the third birthday that she has "celebrated" since her oldest sibling, Casey, was killed in Iraq. My other son, Andy, turned 21 the year Casey was killed. Carly, my oldest daughter, turned 24 the year after Casey was killed ... the same age he was when BushCo sent him to die in their oil war for profit. In the one letter that Casey was writing three days before he was killed in the ambush that took the lives of six other soldiers, he expressed regret that he wouldn't be home for Janey's high school graduation that June. Little did we know that he would be home, buried in his "final resting place," forever.

Christmas 2006 will be the third Christmas that our family has endured since the death of Casey. The holiday season is hard for so many people as evidenced by the skyrocketing number of suicides and suicide attempts. Many people feel lonely and separated from joyous events, and the orgy of consumerism that now is the "reason for the season." Especially since Christmas 2003 was the last time we saw Casey alive, this season is so difficult for our family. Imagine getting out the boxes of Christmas decorations and pulling out your dead child's stocking or "Baby's First Christmas, 1979" ornament. Well, the Sheehan family and almost 3,000 other American families don't have to imagine the pain - we deal with the trauma 24/7; Christmas, birthdays, graduations, weddings, births, anniversaries, will never, ever, be the same for us again.

2006 was a year of ups and downs for our family and for the nation. Despite the facts, the criminal and corrupt occupation of Iraq continues unabated, and in fact - worsens on an hourly basis. Body bags are coming home from the Middle East in the dark of night at a steady clip, and our troops are being grievously wounded for no other reason than to reward the CEOs of the war profiteers with phenomenal holiday bonuses. Our children are being sacrificed like Christmas turkeys so the turkeys in the White House can strut around and posture like dictators of banana republics.

With the transfer of power in the legislative branch of Congress, our nation has a unique opportunity for true change in 2007. But with the Democratic leadership cozying up to the killers who have led our country down a path of destruction in the name of "bipartisanship" - which in this case can only be truthfully called criminal collusion - we have little hope of the change that we the people voted overwhelmingly for this past November.

The best holiday presents for my family, our nation and the world, would be for the troops to speedily and safely exit from Iraq and for BushCo to be held accountable for their crimes against our Constitution and humanity. These gifts, however, will not be realized unless the grassroots community who put the Democrats back in power redouble our efforts for peace and accountability.

A very Merry Christmas,
And a Happy New Year,
Let's hope it's a good one,
Without any fear.

As Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." An out-of-control Executive Branch, threatening to send more troops to Iraq and another battleship group to the Persian Gulf - to intimidate Iran and perhaps incite an attack from that country that would justify another war - is not the only thing the world has to fear. I am also afraid that the recent electoral victory of the Democratic Party will lead to complacency in the grassroots movement. May I remind everyone that the Democrats have started more wars in the last century than the Republicans - and all war is wrong, no matter what political party or which politician starts it. We have to do more than "hope" for a good 2007. We have to stay vigilant and motivated, and constantly remind our employees in DC who they work for and what we expect from them. The Democrats cannot be afraid to end the monstrosity that BushCo has perpetrated on the world. Our nation and the nation of Iraq demand heroes.

We have to be the ones who give our leaders the courage to do the right thing.

War is over, if you want it,
War is over, if you want it.
War is over, war is over,
If YOU work for peace.

War Profits Trump the Rule of Law

War Profits Trump the Rule of Law
By Chris Floyd
t r u t h o u t | UK Correspondent

Friday 22 December 2006

I. The Wings of the Dove

Slush funds, oil sheiks, prostitutes, Swiss banks, kickbacks, blackmail, bagmen, arms deals, war plans, climbdowns, big lies and Dick Cheney - it's a scandal that has it all, corruption and cowardice at the highest levels, a festering canker at the very heart of world politics, where the War on Terror meets the slaughter in Iraq. Yet chances are you've never heard about it - even though it happened just a few days ago. The fog of war profiteering, it seems, is just as thick as the fog of war.

But here's how the deal went down. On December 14, the UK attorney general, Lord Goldsmith (Pete Goldsmith as was, before his longtime crony Tony Blair raised him to the peerage), peremptorily shut down a two-year investigation by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) into a massive corruption case involving Britain's biggest military contractor and members of the Saudi royal family. SFO bulldogs had just forced their way into the holy of holies of the great global back room - Swiss bank accounts - when Pete pulled the plug. Continuing with the investigation, said His Lordship, "would not be in the national interest."

It certainly wasn't in the interest of BAE Systems, the British arms merchant that has become one of the top 10 US military firms as well, through its voracious acquisitions during the profitable War on Terror - including some juicy hook-ups with the Carlyle Group, the former corporate crib of George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush and still current home of the family fixer, James Baker. BAE director Phillip Carroll is also quite at home in the White House inner circle: a former chairman of Shell Oil, he was tapped by George II to be the first "Senior Adviser to the Iraqi Ministry of Oil" in those heady "Mission Accomplished" days of 2003. BAE has allegedly managed to "disappear" approximately $2 billion in shavings from one of the largest and longest-running arms deals in history - the UK-Saudi warplane program known as "al-Yamanah" (Arabic for "The Dove"). Al-Yamanah has been flying for 18 years now, with periodic augmentations, pumping almost $80 billion into BAE's coffers, with negotiations for $12 billion in additional planes now nearing completion. SFO investigators had followed the missing money from the deal into a network of Swiss bank accounts and the usual Enronian web of offshore front companies.

Nor was continuing the investigation in the interest of the Saudi royals, whose princely principals in the arms deal were embarrassed by allegations that a BAE-administered slush fund had supplied the fiercely ascetic fundamentalists with wine, women and song - not to mention lush apartments, ritzy holidays, cold hard cash, Jags, Ferraris and at least one gold-plated Rolls-Royce, as The Times reported. One scam - uncovered by the Guardian in a batch of accidentally released government documents - involved inflating the price of the warplanes by 32 percent. The rakeoff was then presumably siphoned into BAE's secret accounts, with some of it kicking back to the Saudi royals and their retainers.

The Saudis were said to be incensed by the continuing revelations spinning out of the investigation, which had begun in 2004 after the Guardian first got wind of the alleged slush fund. Last month, with talks on the new $12 billion extension in the final stages, the Saudis lowered the boom, threatening to ashcan al-Yamanah and buy their warplanes from - gasp! - the French instead. For a week or two, the Blair government played chicken with the Saudis, hoping the threat was just a hardball bluff for better terms (or maybe bigger slush).

Then came a curious intervention. Last month, Dick Cheney traveled to Riyadh for talks with Saudi King Abdullah. There he beseeched the king to step in and help pull America's fat out of the wildfire of Iraq by using Saudi influence on Iraq's volatile Sunni minority, the Scotland Sunday Herald reported. It's also thought that Cheney asked the Saudis to stump up more cash to replace some of the billions of dollars in missing "reconstruction money" that White House cronies and local operators have somehow "misplaced" into their own pockets during the war.

It is widely believed in top UK political circles that among the many considerations the Saudis asked for in return for the possibility of helping out in Iraq was the application of White House pressure on Tony Blair to quash the BAE investigation. The king apparently put this more in the form of a demand than a request: senior sources in the Blair government told the Observer that the Saudis threatened to stop sharing its extensive intelligence on terrorism and kick all British intelligence and military personnel out of the kingdom if Blair didn't kill the probe.

But if Cheney and Abdullah did do a strongarm number on Blair, they probably didn't have to break a sweat to convince him. In this case, Blair no doubt could echo the words of Macbeth when he saw the ghostly dagger drawing him on to dirty deeds: "Thou marshall'st me the way that I was going." For certainly, Blair had no desire to see the fraud probe of BAE progress any further. He has been one of the arms peddler's biggest cheerleaders - and most assiduous shills - throughout his long term in office. For example, in January 2002, as India and Pakistan teetered on the edge of a nuclear exchange over Kashmir, Blair made a lightning trip to both countries to preach peace - and to hawk a $1.4 billion deal for BAE jet fighters with India. This move, of course, only made the already outgunned Pakistanis even more likely to use their nukes to stave off any attack. It seems not even the greatest threat of nuclear war that the world had ever seen was enough to stop Blair from throwing gasoline on the fire in the service of BAE's bottom line.

Yet although the Saudis certainly weren't pleased with the investigation and wanted it to go away, as the SFO moved forward it became increasingly clear that BAE itself had more to fear from the probe than did the gilded guardians of Mecca. In 2002, the UK adopted a set of stringent anti-bribery laws that criminalized the use of old-fashioned baksheesh to grease a deal with foreign powers. As the Guardian reported, the SFO were pursuing three key questions: Were members of the Saudi royal family getting secret UK payoffs? Were the financial transactions crimes under UK law? And had BAE lied to government agencies in its claims to have reformed its past practices and dispensed with the "confidential Saudi agents" who served as bagmen for the bribes?

They believed the answers were waiting in Berne, Switzerland, in a box of files being kept for them by the Swiss federal prosecutor's office, the Guardian reported. This box "was the hottest potato of all. The Swiss dossier contained print-outs of BAE's recent offshore banking transactions with key Saudi middlemen. The normally highly-secret bank records had recently been secured by the authorities at the British investigators' request."

But just before they were to fly down to claim the Swiss bank trove, Goldsmith ordered the SFO to stop the probe and turn over all their existing files for his examination. After two days of poring through the material (or perhaps not poring through it), Goldsmith suddenly announced that, upon consultation with the cabinet and the prime minister, he was quashing the entire investigation in the name of "the UK's security and foreign policy interests."

Legal experts told UK papers they could find no precedent for such a move. Oddly enough, Her Majesty's Attorney General - a certain Lord Goldsmith - had been of a similar mind just 10 days before, when, in response to a ferocious PR campaign against the SFO probe launched by BAE's friends among the great and good, he declared that he had "no intention of interfering with the investigation," as the Guardian reports. What a difference 10 days, Dick Cheney and Saudi blackmail makes!

Not to mention Blair's desire to peddle even more BAE weaponry on yet another "peace mission" - this time to the Middle East, where he conducted a frantic and utterly fruitless "whirlwind tour" in mid-month. But before jetting off to seek ever-elusive "breakthroughs" on Iraq and Israel-Palestine, Blair wanted the SFO imbroglio wrapped up, so he could proffer BAE planes to the United Arab Emirates without all that folderol about bribes hanging over the company, the Times reported.

In delivering his ruling on BAE, Goldsmith acted with the same bold flip-floppery he had displayed in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Then too, there was a small gap of time in which a momentous reversal was made, between his first, detailed private advice to Blair that there were at least six different ways in which the invasion could be considered a war crime and his last-minute, hastily-sketched public declaration that, by gum, he thought the war just might be legal after all. Despite a few minor quibbles on various tactics in the never-ending Terror War - Goldsmith has on occasion voiced a few mild objections to the American concentration camp on Guantanamo Bay - the good Lord has proven himself a worthy counterpart to his comrade across the sea, US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, in exalting the principles of political expediency and war profiteering above the rule of law.

II. Tony in Wonderland

There is yet another parallel between the fraud probe kibosh and the Iraq warmongering: the official reasons given for the action have been constantly changing. Indeed, in the days following Goldsmith's hugger-mugger announcement - carefully timed to coincide with the release of the final report on Princess Diana's death, which the government knew would consume every ounce of media oxygen that day - Blair and his high ministers of state peddled a dizzying and often contradictory array of justifications for stifling the investigation.

There was the initial "security and foreign policy interests" offered by Goldsmith to Parliament and initially echoed by Blair. The UK-Saudi relationship "is vitally important for our country, in terms of counterterrorism, in terms of the broader Middle East, in terms of helping in respect of Israel-Palestine, and that strategic interest comes first," Blair said after the ruling, as AP reported.

However, that explanation didn't play very well, for it seemed to confirm the reports that Britain had indeed been blackmailed and bullied by Saudi Arabia into dropping the probe. The underlying implications of Blair's stance were riddled with glaring contradictions: Saudi Arabia is our strong, trusted friend and ally who, er, uh, has threatened to fan the flames of regional conflict and expose us to a much greater risk of terrorist attack if we don't disregard our own laws.

Somehow, the sight of a British Prime Minister declaring "if we don't do what they say, they'll hurt us" did not convey the degree of wisdom and reassurance the government sought to project about the decision. As AP noted, some of those most upset by the ruling came from Blair's own increasingly-fractious Labour Party - which hit another new low in the polls this week, dropping further behind the resurgent Tories. "We appear to be giving businessmen carte blanche to do business with Saudi Arabia, which may involve illegal payments or illegal inducements," said Eric Illsley, a Labour member of Parliament's Foreign Affairs Select Committee. "We have been leaned on very heavily by the Saudis."

And so this argument was largely supplanted by the economic considerations that BAE's supporters had been trumpeting in the press in the weeks before Goldsmith's ruling. If the Saudis had slaughtered "The Dove" deal because of the SFO probe, Britons were told, it would have cost the nation 100,000 jobs. This figure, first floated by BAE's media and parliamentary front men last month, soon became the standard number touted by government backers after the Goldsmith ruling. The fact that it was flatly contradicted by a University of York study which showed that a cancellation of the impending al-Yamanah extension would have eliminated just 5,000 jobs cut no ice with the panicky spin doctors. (To be sure, even the lesser job loss would have been a heavy blow to the workers involved; but at that smaller level, it was a blow that could have easily been cushioned by government compensation and genuine efforts at retraining or re-employment elsewhere: the kind of action that Blair's government has often promised yet seldom delivered to the many industries that have gone belly-up - and overseas - during his tenure.)

The new line also flatly contradicted Goldsmith's original declaration to Parliament, in which he insisted that economic considerations had "played no part" in his decision. When the rank hypocrisy of this was pointed out, Blair and Goldsmith both came up with a new reason: the case wasn't strong enough to go forward, there was not enough evidence of wrongdoing. Aside from the fact that Goldsmith himself had prevented the SFO from examining the most relevant evidence in the entire case - BAE's own secret bank records - this stance was, again, at odds with his position just days earlier, when he'd declared he would not intervene in the investigation. That declaration had come after he had gone over the case and the evidence for it in a meeting with SFO director Robert Wardle.

SFO officials strongly disputed Blair and Goldsmith's claim that the case was weak. And in any case, the whole point of the probe was not to guarantee a prosecution but to establish the truth. While the Blair government's disinterest in establishing the truth as opposed to pushing a political line is well-established (see the Downing Street Memos), they are vitally interested in information. So much so that they apparently bugged the SFO offices during the probe, the Independent reported. "I was told by detectives that the probe was being bugged. They had reached this conclusion because highly confidential information on the inquiry had been reaching outside parties," a senior figure involved in the investigation told the paper. SFO investigators believe the probe was actually quashed because the Blair spies had learned how very substantial it was, not because the evidence was lacking.

In the end, after the "weak-case" justification turned out to be a weak case itself, Blair and the gang reverted back to a variation of the "security" line: the noble struggle to free the peoples of the Middle East from the clutches of armed Islamic extremism superseded all other considerations. Despite the ever-soaring rhetoric, however, Blair failed to make clear exactly how providing $80 billion worth of advanced arms to perhaps the most repressive Islamic extremist state on earth can be said to advance the cause of freedom and tolerance in the Middle East.

Lord knows - and lords know - that unseemly accommodations sometimes have to be made in this world, especially in geopolitics. A wink here, a little baksheesh there between unsavoury characters are often better than, say, launching a war of aggression and murdering more than half a million innocent people to achieve your political and commercial ends. But in the BAE case, as in so much else in politics, it is the hypocrisy that rankles most. Western governments obviously believe they must give guns and bribes to extremist tyrants in order to obtain the oil that keeps their own nations in such disproportionate clover - but they lack the guts to say so in plain language, dressing up this ugly business with meaningless trumpery about freedom, peace and security.

Are they trying to mask their own cynicism - or protect the tender sensibilities of their electorates, who might prefer sugared lies to acknowledgements of the dirty deals that undergird their way of life?

Ten Reasons to Impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney

I ask Congress to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney for the following reasons:

1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal "War of Aggression" against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization, and subjecting our military personnel to unnecessary harm, debilitating injuries, and deaths.

2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.

4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.

5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.

6. Violating the Constitution by using "signing statements" to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress.

7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.

8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.

9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a "Unitary Executive Theory" giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, in ignoring urgent warnings of an Al Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in increasing air pollution causing global warming.

Free Holiday E-Book

I have a nice ebook about holiday traditions that I would like to give to you absolutely FREE of charge. Please email me dottye789@earthlink.net to get your copy.

Protect women in Darfur from abuse. Make sure help arrives by year's end!

As the holidays approach, our thoughts turn to those who are less fortunate than ourselves. This year, we have an opportunity to make a difference in the lives of countless innocent women and their families who are suffering in Darfur, Sudan.

These women and their daughters are struggling to survive in cramped refugee camps where sexual assault is common, food is scarce, and medical help is almost non-existent. But there is hope. Tell our leaders to protect women from abuse and genocide by sending humanitarian aid to Darfur!

Women and girls as young as eight risk being raped and attacked when they leave their homes or refugee camps to gather firewood and food.

Hungry families face a terrible choice each day - do they send out their husbands and sons who may be killed, or their mothers and daughters, who may be raped and beaten? This is a choice no one should ever have to make!

Speak up for the women and girls who have no voice: http://go.care2.com/e/R2Qq/btrH/DmWm

It's been nearly three months since the government of Sudan agreed to send help to those suffering in Darfur. But they have yet to follow through on this promise. The situation in Darfur is shocking, but if we don't send aid now the worst may be yet to come. Ensure that the suffering in Darfur ends today by signing the petition letter to UN Secretary-General Annan and President Bush.

In the three years since the rebel fighting started, over 400,000 women, children, and men have been killed; more than 2 million have been forced from their homes; and over 3.5 million rely completely on international aid for survival. And most recently, the UN Secretary General's special representative was ordered to leave the country. All the while, the number of civilian deaths in this brutal civil war continues to climb.

That's why it's so important that our leaders ramp up the pressure and demand that the peacekeepers are admitted!

This is our chance to reach millions of women who need help right now. Thank you for making a difference today.

George Harrison~hard to believe it's been 5 years...

Hare Krishna George...we miss you, mate!

TELL WALMART: STOP SELLING RELIGIOUS VIOLENCE FOR CHRISTMAS.

What's Wal-Mart promoting this holiday season? The religious right's extreme ideology.

Just in time for Christmas, the religious right has released a violent video game in which born-again Christians aim to convert or kill those who don't adhere to their extreme ideology. The video game, "Left Behind: Eternal Forces," is based on the apocalyptic "Left Behind" novels - written and promoted by religious right leader Tim LaHaye. Despite the violent, intolerant message being marketed to children, Wal-Mart, the nation's #1 video game seller, is selling the "Left Behind: Eternal Forces" video game - just in time for the holidays!

Take action now and urge Wal-Mart to stop selling religious violence this holiday season.

"Left Behind: Eternal Forces" takes place in New York City, shortly after the rapture. Gamers are charged with creating Christian militias who roam the streets of New York City, looking to convert non-believers and killing those who they are unable to draw to their side. In fact, after particularly bloody battles, players must use prayer to recharge their "soul points" that have been diminished by the killing.

Most disturbing is the game's apparent attempt at religious indoctrination - aimed at children and focused on violent, divisive, and hateful scenarios.

The game has outraged progressive and conservative Christians alike, and despite the religious right's typical opposition to violent video games, "Left Behind: Eternal Forces" has not generated any criticism from this group and in fact gained a gleaming review from a Focus on the Family affiliated website this week.

While the religious right apparently has no problem pushing the product this holiday season, America's #1 video game seller should know better.

Click here and urge Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott to stop selling our kids religious violence.

You know you’re a diehard conservative when…

Anybody you don’t agree 100% with is a “liberal”.

No matter how much of a jerk and a betrayer of your values the candidate is, ALWAYS VOTE REPUBLICAN!

Any website or source providing whatever data that you don’t like (talk.origins, WikiPedia, RealClimate) has a liberal agenda. (see #1)

Voting machines can always be trusted, but exit polls can’t.

Anybody who doesn’t believe in Biblical Creationism is an atheist “evolutionist”. (see #1)

Failure of the government to endorse your religion and proselytize it equals oppression of your faith.

People who disagree with your stance on the War on Terror are “supporting the terrorists” and are “anti-american”. (see #1)

You think that people who support a secular society want the terrorists to win.

Anybody who wants the state to keep out of the institution of marriage is pro-gay and a “sodomite agitator”. (see #1)

You think Fox News really is “fair and balanced”! (…and the rest of the media is leftist! ALL OF IT!)

You think that there were WMD in Iraq, and they have been found. Anyone who denies that is a liberal (see #1).

Abortion is murder, but capital punishment is A-OK (and so is bombing abortion clinics)!

WE ARE WINNING THE WAR IN IRAQ!!! (any day now…)

You know that the USA was founded on christian principles, and should be ruled according to biblical law. Never mind that the founding fathers were strongly skeptical of involving religion in political matters… (hey, they were probably liberals!… see #1)

You think anthropogenic global warming is a hoax perpetrated by useless scientists who only want government handouts.

You think that atheism is a religion.

President Bush in Denial about Iraq

Now, members of his own party are wanting out of the mess he and Cheney created out of their greed for oil and no-bid government contracts for Halliburton!

"It is not too late. The United States can still extricate itself honorably from an impending disaster in Iraq," Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a potential presidential contender in 2008, said in urging for a planned withdrawal of U.S. troops. "We have misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam," said Hagel, a combat veteran of that war. "Honorable intentions are not policies and plans."

Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, called Iraq the worst U.S. foreign policy decision since Vietnam. He said Democrats do not have a quick answer and any solution must be bipartisan.

"It is time to tell the Iraqis that unless they're willing to disband the militias and the death squads, unless they're willing to stand up and govern their country in a responsible fashion, America is not going to stay there indefinitely," Durbin said.

That theme - pressuring al-Maliki and his government - seemed to unify Republicans and Democrats.

"If the president fails to build a bipartisan foundation for an exit strategy, America will pay a high price for this blunder - one that we will have difficulty recovering from in the years ahead," Hagel wrote in Sunday's Washington Post.

We've been in Iraq longer than we fought in World War II!! There is no "Mission Accomplished"- we just keep getting in deeper and deeper, and the country falls into anarchy. Plus, me have made so many enemies worldwide- even the Canadians don't like us!

The Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan 10-member commission led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana, is working on a set of strategies for Iraq. The New York Times reported Sunday that the commission's draft report recommends aggressive regional diplomacy, including talks with Iran and Syria.

Bush, after a NATO summit in Europe, plans to meet with al-Maliki on Wednesday and Thursday in Jordan. That summit, coupled with Vice President Dick Cheney's trip to Saudi Arabia on Saturday, is evidence of the administration's stepped-up effort to bring stability to the region.