Welcome to 201k.com - A Commonwealth Perspective.

201k's editor had the privilege of speaking to John Carroll's "Persuasion and Opinion" class at Boston University this week. The students -- much brighter than we'd been led to believe -- asked great questions and seemed to follow our line of gibberish, nearly. We even knew one of them (what are the odds?) from a pickup hockey group, though normally we only see the back of his jersey whizzing past us -- because old age and treachery only go so far in hockey.

But, who knows, maybe some day our kid will be flying past him, thus completing the circle of life. Or something. Whatever.

Our only regret is that the constraints of time and an unfamiliarity with the pace of the classroom may have led us to be more glib than thoughtful in answering some questions -- many of which were deeper than we got at the moment. Sorry.

Anyway, the students came closer than they know to having two of 201k's main contributors invade their space; our staff attorney had wanted to sit in the back and make faces at the editor, but was unfortunately obligated to actually do some work in the matter of "Enormo Corp Vs. Gargantu-Dyne". Or something. Whatever.

For her, and for you, Poor Readers, we offer the following insight into tomorrow's communications leaders:

• They don't know what "Pong" is.

• They can read.

• They download music. Lots of it, we think.

• Many of them nod their heads vigorously when you criticize the Bush Administration. Others shift uncomfortably in their seats. All of them -- we hope -- understand that this criticism was by way of example, and not the point itself.

• If you repeatedly walk between two words written on a board while discussing opinion, reporting, blogging, and the marketplace of ideas, they will eventually connect the dots and come to understand that what the speaker is really saying is... that he's a ham. Or something.

In any event, this small exposure to the best and the brightest gave us hope for the future. Whether it's the future of our democracy or just the future of Enormo Corp and Gargantu-Dyne remains to be seen. We hold out hope that even those clearly able to zoom to the top of the latter will find the wisdom and the time to concern themselves with the former -- if not by trade then at least by inclination.

...or at least it could be.

A Message from Bonnie Raitt, Jackson Browne, and Graham Nash

Dear Friend,

Our longtime friend, fellow No Nukes/MUSE artist, John Hall, whom you
may also remember as a leader of Orleans (Dance With Me, Still the One)
is running for Congress in the 19th District of upstate New York. John's
been a lifelong activist and right out of the starting gate, is emerging
as a very welcome and successful candidate in debates and testing so
far. He's up against a very tough contender, the six-term incumbent
Republican (and Tom DeLay crony) Rep. Sue Kelly, and of course needs to raise as much money as possible early in this primary race.

A bunch of us MUSE folks and other music industry friends have already
lent our support and I'm writing to ask if you would consider
contributing to help get John Hall elected. John is extremely smart,
articulate, committed and in our minds, would absolutely bring a much
needed fresh and clearheaded voice to our muddled political quagmire.
Please spread the word if you agree and thank you so much for your
support.

You can check out his positions and background at:

http://www.johnhallforcongress.com/contribute.html

contribute on line at:

http://www.actblue.com/page/johnhallforcongress

or send your contributions to:

"John Hall For Congress," PO Box 377, Dover Plains, NY 12522.

As you may know the limit for personal contributions during the
primary period is $2100 (MARCH 31st is the end of the 1st Quarter FEC
filing period so act quickly please), and an additional $2100 may be
sent to his General Election Escrow Account, which will be returned with
interest if he does not win the nomination.

We think it's fantastic that John has decided to set aside his music
career for the time being and dedicate himself to politics for the
better of us all.

Thank you for your support. We can make a difference,
Bonnie Raitt, Graham Nash and Jackson Browne


P.S. Any amount that you contribute will help. If 2000 people send $50
each, John's campaign will receive a $100,000 boost. This will keep him
in the game to carry the message of peace and diplomacy, economic
justice, government and corporate accountability, healthcare for all,
environmental protection and alternative energy.

[ Paid for and authorized by John Hall for Congress ]
[ PO Box 377, Dover Plains, NY 12522. ]

Don Van Natta, Jr., of the New York Times is reporting on a "confidential memo" written by David Manning, top foreign policy adviser to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain. According to the memo, President George Bush:

• Acknowledged as early as Jan. 31, 2003 that no WMD had been found inside Iraq;

• Was determined to invade Iraq even if no WMD were found;

• Had set the start date for the invasion prior to sending Secretary of State Colin Powell to United Nations to present "evidence" that Iraq had WMD, and while stating publically that he'd pursue every diplomatic avenue;

• In the absence of WMD as pretext for the invasion, proposed several ways to "provoke a confrontation" with Iraq, including painting a U.S. plane "in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire", "...bring[ing] out a defector who could give a public presentation" on WMD, and assassinating Saddam Hussein.

And how, in light of this information, does Mr. Van Natta summarize Mr. Bush's stance, in the first sentence of the second paragraph?

But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable.

Call us picky, but isn't that a bit like saying that a burglar is certain that houses will be broken into?

Far be it from 201k to question the integrity of the New York Times' coverage of the road to the War in Iraq...but seeing as it occasionally happens that the media tends to overlook their role in debacles (Remember "The New Economy"?), we have a few uncomfortable questions about some of the specific language in this article. Since the text of Manning's memo is not provided we're unable to compare it to the Times' reporting. But should the text become available, these are the phrases -- not provided as quotes in the article -- we'll be looking at:

The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq.

"Had been found"? Or would ever be found? What, exactly, did Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair say?

Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion...

"...before the planned invasion"? Or ever? Why did they need to be found before the invasion, and what was the reason for the invasion date? What, exactly, did Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair say?

At their meeting, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair candidly expressed their doubts that chemical, biological or nuclear weapons would be found in Iraq in the coming weeks..."

"...in the coming weeks"? Or ever? What, exactly, did Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair say?

The president spoke as if an invasion was unavoidable.

"Unavoidable"? Why? What, exactly, did Mr. Bush say?

The leaders agreed that three weeks remained to obtain a second United Nations Security Council resolution before military commanders would need to begin preparing for an invasion.

Really? Why? What set the date for the invasion? What, exactly, did Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair say?

It also described the president as saying, "The U.S. might be able to bring out a defector who could give a public presentation about Saddam's W.M.D," referring to weapons of mass destruction.

The memo "described him as saying" that? Really? Funny thing to have said, given that in this same meeting Mr. Bush acknowledged that no weapons had been found. Did Mr. Bush or Mr. Blair discuss this seeming contradiction?

What, exactly, did Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair say?

Number of people reading The Daily Kos: 350,000 a day.

Number of people reading Judith Miller: 0.

Gallup Poll March 20, 2006

Bush Approval Steady at 37%
Bush has averaged 38% over last four Gallup Polls

by Frank Newport

There has been little change in George W. Bush's job approval rating since mid-February. Four polls conducted from that point through March 16 have shown job approval ratings between 36% and 39%. The latest rating is 37%, essentially unchanged from the 36% measured in the previous poll.

201k January 19, 2005:

...experience (and number crunching) has convinced us that the number of Americans who agree with the far right on most issues hovers between 33 and 37%. We know the right claim that at least half of all Americans are with them, but that's bluster, deceit, and wishful thinking.

The point, Poor Readers, is that President Bush has hit rock bottom (unless, maybe, he knocks over a bank). 37% is the number of people who'll stick with him no matter what.

The other point, of course, is that we were right again. How did we do it? How did we know Mr. Bush's baseline of support was 37% way back when Gallup was still trying to convince us that "the values voters" had put him in office a second time? Simple math:

Evil people that Mr. Bush actually represents + stupid people + decent people who believe what they see on "The News" = 37%.

President Bush continues to play with his time machine:

"The first lesson is, is that oceans can no longer protect us. You know, when I was coming up in the '50s in Midland, Texas, it seemed like we were pretty safe. In the '60s it seemed like we were safe."

That's nice, Mr. President. But what about on September 10, 2001? Was the threat to the US any less that day than it was the next?

How about on August 6, 2001, when you read a presidential daily briefing entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US"? Did "we" think oceans protected us then?

How about on February 26, 1993, when Islamic terrorists detonated a car bomb in the garage of the World Trade Center in New York City? Did oceans protect us then?

How about in 1959, when the Soviets deployed the world's first intercontinental ballistic missile? Did oceans protect us then?

Why does President Bush continue to insist that prior to 9/11 he thought "oceans protected us"? He can't possibly have believed it.

Having had some success defending his policies with double-talk in front of hand-picked audiences of supporters, President Bush thought he'd try them out on more skeptical ears this week, with predictable results. Well, predictable to everyone but him, probably.

In case you've missed any of his recent speeches (lucky you), they revolve around the carefully worded contention that, prior to 9/11, "we" believed that "oceans protected us". If you make the effort to sort through his speechwriters' reasoning you'll find that this is their justification for everything: the invasion of Iraq, the Patriot Act, warrantless-wiretapping -- everything.

Unfortunately for Mr. Bush it's not true. No one in the government -- not even Mr. Bush himself -- believed that "oceans protected us" before 9/11.

Thus, the problem: he needs Americans to think it's true, but he can't come right out and say it because it isn't true. (This happens to President Bush a lot.)

His solution, as usual, is rhetorical. He fragments sentences, mixes verb tenses, and contextualizes this "belief" in distant time periods, like this:

"...a lot of us grew up thinking that oceans would protect us..."

and

"...when I was going to college, I never dreamed that the United States of America could be attacked."

[This last bit presents the problem of Pearl Harbor, which the President deals with thusly: "...yes, there was an attack on Pearl Harbor, obviously, but it was a kind of hit-and-run and then we pursued the enemy."]

The reason for this nonsense is that absent the idea that "everything changed" on 9/11 -- which it didn't -- the President has no rationale whatsoever for the unprecedented abuses of power that have passed for policy under his administration.

He himself can't possibly have believed as late as September, 11, 2001 that "oceans protected" us. At least we hope not.

Which leads us to propose the following question -- which someone should ask him:

"Mr. President, on numerous occasions you've said that we learned on 9/11 that 'oceans no longer protect us'. Was it in fact on September, 11, 2001 that you yourself realized this?"

Hint: He'd have to say, "No".

Another citizen of the Commonwealth shoots and scores:

To the Editor:

The president said at his Tuesday press conference, "Listen, every war plan looks good on paper until you meet the enemy, not just the war plan we executed in Iraq but the war plans that have been executed throughout the history of warfare."

Well, no, actually, the war plan for Iraq was always naïve and half-baked, even before it blew up in the face of car bombs, improvised explosive devices and sectarian violence.

The war plan for Iraq was fundamentally flawed, notably providing too few boots on the ground to secure the country once the regime change was accomplished.

The president and his top advisers chose to ignore and indeed tried to suppress any advice or facts that conflicted with their dream of an easy and transformative pre-emptive war.

The chaos that ensued was all too predictable to the many who are not mired in the happy-talk groupthink that defines the upper echelon and the policies of the Bush administration.

Moreover, the president refuses to widen his circle of advisers or to make necessary and appropriate adjustments to misguided policies, and not just regarding Iraq.

President Bush needs to stop serving up facile, misleading answers and start asking the hard questions.

Gene Richard
Newton, Mass.,
March 22, 2006

Mr. Richard clearly doesn't understand that "everything changed on 9/11" or that, prior to 9/11, "oceans protected us", and instead insists on having things make sense.

We note that he's zeroing in on the quesion we've been asking for some time now, which is: is the Bush administration inept or dishonest?

The president and his top advisers chose to ignore and indeed tried to suppress any advice or facts that conflicted with their dream of an easy and transformative pre-emptive war.

We'd love it if Mr. Richard were to elaborate on his thoughts here; does anyone know him?

The Republican Party - the Case for Treason
September 17, 2002

I received the same poll and sent it back with a note that said my money went directly to Ned Lamont. Go Ned!

Richard Ross
Fairfield, CT

Believe it or not, the North Star is NOT constant. Because the stars are all moving along their separate paths, the shapes of the constellations shift (very gradually, of course) over time. But it is well documented that during the time of the Romans, the North Star was Thuban (now in the constellation Dragon) instead of Polaris, the present North Star (in the Little Dipper).

Does Mitt Romney know about this?

Sorry. This was actually the point of the email:

The DNC made the mistake of sending me a "Grassroots poll" (and a solicitation for money) in the mail. I promptly used their own business reply envelope to send them back a note saying I was saving my money to donate to Russ Feingold, and hadn't they figured out yet that the "grassroots" want them to stand up and fight? I can't tell you how satisfying it was, knowing they will have to pay 41 cents to open that envelope!

More traipsing through the archives. Here's where we ordered former New York Times Op/Ed columnist William Safire to retire, back on October 20, 2004.

In this case we were less successful than with our Red Sox edict; it was a full three months before Safire obeyed.

Let this be a lesson to you.

Former Greater Boston executive producer and current Assistant Professor of Mass Communications at Boston University John Carroll has asked 201k to give a guest lecture on political blogging to his "Persuasion & Public Opinion" class next week, which sent us through our archives to delete any critical comments about him clean up the grammar in anticipation of being grilled by idealistic, hung-over undergrads.

In the process we found this entry, from Tuesday, August 31, 2004:

You Heard it Here First

1. More people will cast their votes for John Kerry on November 2nd, but that may not be enough to unseat George W. Bush.

2. The Red Sox will, in fact, win the World Series this year. Really.

Not bad.

People are starting to ask the right questions, finally. No, not the media, silly -- we mean actual people.

To the Editor:

You write that "in the pell-mell race to Baghdad ... the generals in the field were overruled by directives from Washington, where military decisions were being made by men who were guided not by reality, but by their own beloved myths about what Iraq was like and how the war was going to be won."

One of those myths was that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and was presumably crazy or evil enough to use them.

So my question is this:

Did the generals on the ground or the decision makers in Washington have any plan for what we would do if Saddam Hussein did in fact use W.M.D. against our onrushing troops?

Or did they know from the start that he didn't have such weapons?

If it's the former, one wonders what they considered to be acceptable losses to our brave men and women in uniform.

If it's the latter, then they willfully and deliberately led us into war under false pretenses, and history will judge them accordingly.

Mitchell Kapner
Tarzana, Calif., March 19, 2006

Very good, Mitchell.

201k July 19, 2004:

...it's time for knee-jerk supporters of the Bush administration to start to honest-up a bit, and consider the possibility -- believed here from the start -- that they took the U.S. to war in Iraq not because that country had weapons of mass destruction and ties to al Queda but because they KNEW IT DID NOT.

Get it? They went to Iraq not because it was a threat but because it was the EASIEST TARGET IN THE REGION.

The question all Americans should be asking is why? What were the reasons for invading Iraq that they couldn't tell Americans?

Why didn't they trust the public?

"...I didn't think you could ask our front-line officers to defend us if they didn't have all the tools necessary to share intelligence, and to share information -- by the way, tools which have been granted to use in tracking down drug dealers, for example. My attitude was, if it's good enough -- these tools are good enough to find a drug dealer, then they ought to be good enough to protect us from the new threats of the 21st century."

On March 4 we issued this challenge to the media:

...in the face of a nearly collapsed society and increasing violence--no small feat in Iraq--the U.S. is toying ever more seriously with "standing down" whether or not the Iraqis "stand up". So the time seems right to ask an obvious question:

Did the Bush administration ignore those who predicted the current situation, or was their goal all along the destabilization of Iraq?

It has to be one or the other; there aren't any other possibilities. Either they chose to ignore the advice or they were always up to something quite different than they've claimed.

Which is it?

We challenge members of the media to address this question.

Today, the NY Times editorial page dances around the same question.

"...The last three years have shown how little our national leaders understood Iraq...the generals in the field were overruled by directives from Washington, where military decisions were being made by men who were guided not by reality, but by their own beloved myths about what Iraq was like and how the war was going to be won.

...the fact that Mr. Rumsfeld continues to hold his job tells us that Mr. Bush doesn't care, that he prefers living in the same dream world that his secretary of defense inhabits...

If the mission in Iraq was to create a stable democracy in the heart of the Middle East and inspire neighboring countries to follow the same path, the results have been crushingly bad...

When Americans ask themselves whether anything has been accomplished in Iraq, they do take note that there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11...It's possible that the chaos in Iraq has distracted Al Qaeda, diverting its energy to fomenting civil war between Sunnis and Shiites in the heart of the Middle East...

201k has not heard this "Al Qaeda is distracted by the war in Iraq" reformulation of the "fight them there so as not to have to fight them here" talking point before; has it been offered by the administration or its flunkies elsewhere, or did it come from the Times itself?

In any event, we'd hope that whoever offers it up will be asked to reconcile it with all the rhetoric about "spreading freedom and democracy". In other words, the essential question remains unanswered: was the Bush administration inept or dishonest?

David C. Unger in the New York Times, March 15, 2006:

I. 10 Questions That Should Have Been Asked Before the Invasion

1. What would Iraq look like without Saddam Hussein?

Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, but he was also just about the only thing holding Iraq together. The people planning this war should have foreseen that once the repressive lid of Baathist rule was lifted, just about everything would be up for grabs in Iraq, including national unity and the balance of power among Sunni Arabs, Shiites and Kurds.

201k.com September 14, 2005:

But Saddam was a Bad Man....

Yes, he was. But he was also the cork in the bottle in Iraq. And Bush's war pulled it out.

We can't wait to hear the president claim that "no one could have foreseen" that Iraq would descend into sectarian violence if Saddam was removed without some viable control being put in place after he was gone.

Because lots of people foresaw it. The experts all warned about it. The people who know the region jumped up and down trying to explain that Iraq was a powder-keg held in check by a madman, and that if you removed him you'd need to put something solid back in the bottle or the whole place would explode.

But they experts were hooted down by the Bush administration and its ideological allies in the media. Not that anyone will remember that now.

David C. Unger in the New York Times, March 15, 2006:

II. 10 Questions That Should Have Been Asked Since the Invasion

7. What would it take to get more international support?

Incredibly, the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon seemed to have assumed at first that America's Western and Arab allies, and the United Nations, would practically trip over each other to get right with the new order by sending peacekeeping troops and conferring international legitimacy on the political transition. By late 2003, it was increasingly evident that wasn't about to happen. To those not hypnotized by blind self-righteousness, it was no surprise.

Washington had spent much of the previous year generating international ill-will and undermining the United Nations by bypassing Security Council opposition and pulling the plug on international weapons inspectors. President Bush's harsh with-us-or-against-us rhetoric also created a poor climate for multinational cooperation.

The administration might have attracted more nations to help with the hard work that lay ahead in Iraq by offering substantial political and economic concessions. But it never wavered from its insistence on controlling all political, military and contracting decisions itself. In recent days, President Bush has begun to talk more about the difficulty of going it alone, not just in Iraq, but in all of America's dealings. But this represents a turnabout that comes very late in the day and that many will find hard to fully credit.

201k.com April 16, 2004:

...how are our troops in Iraq better off fighting essentially alone, just because the Bush administration didn't want to cut France and Russia in on the oil?

Who does that greedy pig-headedness help? Our soldiers?

What percentage of the Iraq oil do you think our soldiers would trade for a truly international coalition to be with them right now?

More importantly: who made the decision not to give that percentage up? And why?

201k.com July 22, 2004:

American troops are unfairly being asked to bear the burden of war in Iraq. With only a small British presence--and a token presence from the other "willing" nations--US forces are shouldering the danger almost single-handedly. Worse, 40% of those troops are National Guardsmen. This is unacceptable.

Why, if toppling Hussein was such an unqualified good, could George Bush not assemble a truly international coalition? Doing so would have been far better for US soldiers; it would have divided the danger our soldiers now face alone, avoided the current unprecedented stretching of the military, and removed the need for two unfair and foolish policies: using Guardsmen to fight overseas, and calling out of retirement soldiers who have fulfilled their obligations.

We believe the question of why George Bush couldn't--or wouldn't--build an international coalition is central to understanding why Americans should consider his entire Iraq policy a miserable failure.

While his apologists and spinners suggest that it is the fault of our European allies--mostly France, Germany, and Russia--for not "joining the cause", it is in fact President Bush himself who is to blame.

George Bush deliberately chose to go it alone in Iraq rather than get an international coalition from the U.N., because to get that coalition he would have had to share Iraq oil rights with other members of the Security Council--which he was unwilling to do.

European countries who had contracts to drill for oil in Iraq acted in predictable self interest by not supporting Bush's bid to internationalize the Iraq war--because he would not recognize their contracts or negotiate to share Iraq oil rights with them.

By choosing to keep Iraq oil rights entirely to American companies, George Bush deliberately chose the best interests of America's oil extraction industries over the best interests of US soldiers.

Had he so desired, George Bush could have negotiated deals with France, Germany, and Russia, and brought them into the coalition to invade Iraq. And he could have got a UN resolution. He did neither because it would have required recognizing the rights to Iraq's oil that other Security council countries held.

Conspiracy theory? Left-wing propaganda? Anti-Americanism?

Consider this article from September 29, 2002.

American firms are barred by U.S. law from making contracts with Iraq and have had to watch as the rival firms of other nations sign contracts with the Iraqi dictator to pump oil after U.N. sanctions are lifted.

The oil card is clearly a factor in the current tug-of-war between Baghdad, Washington and key members of the U.N. Security Council that oppose the Bush administration's push for a military move on Iraq. In recent years, seeking to curry favor, Hussein has given huge contracts to oil firms from France, Russia and China, which all have veto power in the Security Council.

The French oil giant TotalFinaElf has the largest position in Iraq, with exclusive negotiating rights to develop Majnoon, a field near the Iranian border with estimated reserves of 10 billion barrels. Moscow has a $3.5 billion, 23-year agreement for several huge Iraqi fields that gives a lead position to a Russian oil consortium led by LukOil.

Iraqi opposition leaders suggest that unless France, Russia and China support the U.S. line in the Security Council, their oil companies may find themselves blacklisted.

"We will examine all the contracts that Saddam Hussein has made, and we will cancel all those that are not in the interest of the Iraqi people and will reopen bidding on them," said Faisal Qaragholi, operations officer of the Iraqi National Congress, the opposition coalition based in London that plays a central role in the American anti-Hussein strategy.

Ahmed Chalabi, the INC leader, has gone even further, proposing the creation of consortium of American companies to develop Iraq's oil fields.

Yes, that's the same Ahmed Chalabi. Now disgraced, and under suspicion of espionage, but in September of 2002, still a spokesman for the coming invasion of Iraq.

Back then Chalabi and other administration surrogates were turning logic on its head, suggesting that the oil contracts would be taken away from countries that didn't jump into the coalition. But this was never anything more than deceptive rhetoric--and a cover for greed. The countries in question already had contracts--contracts that would still be valid following a UN sanctioned invasion.

Chalabi had it backwards--on purpose.

Of course the Bush administration could have made deals to get France and Russia on board in Iraq. They didn't want to. They felt they didn't have to. They could take Iraq alone, and cancel the contracts as an "occupying power".

Which is what they did, just as Chalabi had threatened.

The question is: who gained from this strategy? We know who lost--US soldiers; they're fighting a war in Iraq essentially alone. But who gained? And whose strategy was it?

Who, besides Ahmed Chalabi, decided that keeping all of Iraq's oil in the hands of US firms rather than sharing it with allies who stood to lose billions in prior contracts was more important than giving US troops all the help they could use?

Was it Dick Cheney, aka Captain Halliburton?

Was it Donald Rumsfeld, who insisted the US military could do it alone?

More importantly: why did George Bush go along with it? As president it was his responsibility to ensure that US soldiers going into harm's way have all the help and all the materials they need.

What was more important than that to him?

Mitt Romney, March 16, 2006:

''I know a number of great evangelicals that I speak with and that are very interested in me and what I stand for. We worked together in Massachusetts. They had no difficulty supporting me there. And the reason is because I'm at the forefront of some of the toughest issues in the nation that relate to the culture of our land. So we are on the same page on values. And that's what evangelicals care about."

Mitt Romney, October 29, 2002:

"Protecting a woman's right to choose, I've been very clear on that. I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose and I'm very dedicated in honoring my word."

A thoughtful (anonymous) reader sent us this link, which explains a bit of the story behind the fake John Howard speech we posted about earlier in the week.

A satirical website, johnhowardpm.org has been shut down by Melbourne IT at the request of the Australian Government. Two Melbourne IT customer service personnel have claimed that representatives of the Government requested the site be shut-down, and Melbourne IT's Policy Office chose to honour that request without contacting the site's owner, Richard Neville.

...and the New York Times has yet to report that Iowa Senator Tom Harkin and California Senator Barbara Boxer have signed on to Russ Feingold's measure to censure President George W. Bush.

...and the New York Times has yet to report that Iowa Senator Tom Harkin has signed on to Russ Feingold's measure to censure President George W. Bush.

On Sunday, March 12, 2006, Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin announced that he would introduce a measure to censure President Bush over the illegal warrant-less wire-tapping of Americans.

This announcement rated a 488-word article, written by John Files, in the "News" section of Monday's New York Times. Of the 488 words, approximately 304 were devoted to statements rejecting or attempting to minimize the measure.

On Tuesday, March 14th, the Times followed-up with a 474-word article--written by Carl Huse and also in the "News" section--entitled, "Democrats Beat Quick Retreat on Call to Censure President". In illustrating the point of "Democrats beating a retreat", the article spends 281 of its 474 words quoting Republicans or stating GOP positions. Three Republicans are quoted versus two Democrats. Republicans get both the first and last quotes of the story, and they get the last three paragraphs.

The first quote from a Democrat in Huse's article comes in the fifth paragraph, and it is Feingold himself stating that Bush "plainly broke the law"--but the quote is presented only in the context of "Democrats...distancing themselves" from it. There is no evidence presented to support this "distancing". In fact, the next quote is from minority leader Harry Reid, saying it would not be "appropriate" for the leadership to "try to limit debate on this most important matter."

After that, Huse quotes vice-president Dick Cheney, returns briefly to Feingold, then finishes with three paragraphs of Republicans.

On Thursday, March 16, the Times ran an 1,182-word front-page story, written by David D. Kirkpatrick, entitled "Call for Censure Is Rallying Cry to Bush's Base". The article quotes veteran conservative organizer Paul Weyrich, conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh, The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, Republican spokesman Brian Jones, and National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Carl Forti.

Only 309 words present even a cursory view from Democrats--starting in paragraph twelve--and then mostly to dismiss them. Only two Democrats are quoted, for a total of 61 words.

There is no mention of the impetus for the censure--Mr. Bush's warrant-less wire-tapping--which the article refers to as his "domestic eavesdropping program". Neither the word "warrant" nor the concept it denotes appear in the article at all.

One other note: on Wednesday, March 15, Iowa Senator Tom Harkin announced that he would sign on to the censure measure. As of 11am on Thursday, March 16, the New York Times has yet to report it.

This guy is a hoot.

Sometimes decisions come to your desk unexpectedly. Part of the job of a President is to be able to plan for the worst and hope for the best; and if the worst comes, be able to react to it. On September the 11th, the worst came. We got attacked. We didn't ask for the attack, but it came. I resolved on that day to do everything I can to protect the American people.

You know, a lot of us grew up thinking that oceans would protect us; that if there was a threat overseas, it really didn't concern us because we were safe. That's what history had basically told us -- yes, there was an attack on Pearl Harbor, obviously, but it was a kind of hit-and-run and then we pursued the enemy. A lot of folks -- at least, my age, when I was going to college, I never dreamed that the United States of America could be attacked.

So, despite Pearl Harbor, people George Bush's age didn't think the United States could be attacked, because, after all, Pearl Harbor was "a kind of hit-and-run". As opposed to 9/11.

But more importantly, notice the precision of language: "..decisions come to your desk unexpectedly", "...a lot of us grew up thinking that...if there was a threat overseas, it really didn't concern us because we were safe", "..when I was going to college, I never dreamed that the United States of America could be attacked..."

Mr. Bush did, in fact, know that the United States could be attacked, because the government knew --and he was specifically warned--of an impending attack. But he didn't know back when he was growing up, or when he was in college.

I knew right after September the 11th, though, that the attacks would begin to fade in people's memory.

In other words, "The people who disagree with what I've done since 9/11 have really just forgotten."

I knew that at times people would say, you know, it may be an isolated incident, let's just don't worry about it.

Has anyone heard anyone anywhere say that?

[The terrorists'] vision of the world is dark and dim. They have got desires to spread a totalitarian empire. How do we know? Because they told us. Mr. Zawahiri, the number two in the al Qaeda network, told the world such. He might not have wanted us to read that particular thing he was sending, but nevertheless we did.

Good thing we're spying without warrants! But--shouldn't Bush have kept it a secret? Didn't he just tell Zawahiri that we're listening?

...they have no heart, no conscience. They kill innocent men, women and children to achieve their objective.

Which we never do.

These folks cannot be appeased. We can't hope that nice words will change their point of view.

Again--has anyone ever heard anyone anywhere suggest that?

But [this effort] requires a different kind of response than the old days of nations fighting nations....But since we're not able to track vast battalions or armadas, we've got to have intelligence, good intelligence, to help us locate the dark corners of the world where these people hide. A lot of the decisions I make, and decisions future Presidents make, will be based upon the capacity of our intelligence services to find the enemy and to understand the intentions of the enemy and to share information with our allies. This is a different kind of struggle and requires the best intelligence possible. That's why we're reevaluating, constantly reevaluating, how best to use our intelligence services to be able to protect the American people.

See, in the old days we didn't need to spy on Americans without warrants, because we were fighting Germans and Japanese--and Italians, sort of--who had armies, but today we're fighting Arabs, some of whom have carpet knives and can buy airplane tickets, so you see, we have to be able to spy on Americans without warrants, even though there exists a court which was set up specifically to issue warrants for that purpose, which we ignored, in clear violation of federal law.

...what I'm telling you is, we're using all assets at our disposal to protect you in a different kind of war.

All assets at our disposal, except, of course, the huge tax refund I gave to the wealthiest Americans--the first tax cut during "war" in the history of the nation.

Secondly, right after they attacked us, I laid out a doctrine, and it said, if you harbor a terrorist, you're equally as guilty as the terrorists. The reason I said that is because I understand that a terrorist network can sometimes burrow in society and can sometimes find safe haven from which to plot and plan.

They could be anywhere..burrowed in...anywhere. So absolutely anything I do is ok because, as I say, the enemy could be anywhere...burrowed in.

Like the 9/11 hijackers, who were so deeply "burrowed in" that the FBI field agents who'd been tracking them couldn't get the head office in Washington to do anything about them. So deeply burrowed in that the specific threat of their attack only made it as far as a Daily Presidential Briefing.

The perfect example of that was Afghanistan. For those of you who didn't pay much attention to the initial stages of this war, it became apparent to the world that Afghanistan became a safe haven. You'll hear stories about people that went into Afghanistan to be trained -- trained as to how to brutally kill people, trained in different methodologies, trained in how to communicate.

But definitely not trained by the CIA. Definitely not.

And today, today in Afghanistan, think about what has happened in a brief period of time -- today in Afghanistan there is a fledgling democracy. Al Qaeda no longer has run of the country; the Taliban is routed; there's an elected parliament and a president dedicated to democratic institutions.

So don't believe what you read in the papers about it.

The doctrine still stands: If you harbor a terrorist, you're equally as guilty as the terrorists who commit murder.

Just don't ask me to define "harbor" in public.

Thirdly --and this is very important for the students to understand, and others -- because oceans no longer protect us, the United States of America must confront threats before they cause us harm. In other words, in the old days we could see a threat and say, well, maybe it will cause harm, maybe it won't. Those days changed, as far as I'm concerned. Threats must be taken seriously now, because geography doesn't protect us and there's an enemy that still lurks.

Because prior to 9/11 the United States had no enemies that could suddenly attack us, and even if we did, no one ever considered preemptively attacking them. Nope, it's never come up before. Why, before 9/11 there weren't even any terrorists out there planning to attack us. This is all completely new.

And so early in my first term, I looked at the world and saw a threat in Saddam Hussein. And let me tell you why I saw the threat.

...He was a state sponsor of terror. In other words, the government had declared, you are a state sponsor of terror. And, remember, we're dealing with terrorist networks that would like to do us harm.

There's a reason why he was declared a state sponsor of terror -- because he was sponsoring terror.

Well, that clears that up.

He had used weapons of mass destruction.

On his own people, and possibly in his war against Iran, which we supported.

And the biggest threat that this President, and future Presidents, must worry about is weapons of mass destruction getting in the hands of a terrorist network that would like to do us harm. That is the biggest threat we face.

But not past Presidents, apparently. Because everything is different now.

The world thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

It did?

It wasn't just me or my administration. Our predecessor thought he had weapons of mass destruction.

At one point. Before inspections and new intelligence indicated that he did not.

And there's a logical reason why -- the data showed that he likely had weapons of mass destruction, and he'd use them.

What data, and when? Oh, you mean the data you made sure was the only data you saw?

And so Saddam Hussein was given a choice. He chose war.

When, and how, exactly? When we ordered inspectors out? Or when Saddam was unable to account for the documentation that may or may not have ever existed and that may or may not have accounted for weapons that didn't exist?

And so we moved and he was removed from power. And there is absolutely no doubt in my mind, America is safer for it, and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein.

No doubt in his mind. On paper it's a little harder to establish, but in his mind--we're safer.

And the definition of success, by the way, is for there to be a country where the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten the democracy, and where Iraqi security forces can provide for the security of their people, and where Iraq is not a safe haven from which the terrorists -- al Qaeda and its affiliates -- can plot attacks against America.

Actually, the question was, and is: is Iraq a country from which "terrorists and Saddamists" can threaten America and its interests? There doesn't seem to be much question that as it is now, Iraq is a much greater threat than it was under Saddam, who had no WMD and was economically and militarily contained.

Look, this enemy cannot beat us. They cannot defeat us militarily. There's no chance. The one weapon they have, which is a lethal weapon, is the willingness to kill people. I remember the story -- and it just broke my heart to think about the young soldier that was giving candy to a kid, and they set off the car bomb next to the kids. I mean, it's just -- I cannot describe to you how brutal these people are. And they understand that their scenes will get on TV. And I don't know if they can adequately understand the compassion of the American people. But we're compassionate.

Except for the "shock and awe" part--that was just a matter of unfortunate collateral damage necessitated by the need to free Iraq.

Oh, and also, except for Abu Ghraib. We might have come up a little short on compassion there. And in Gitmo. And on all those CIA flights that render prisoners to countries that torture. But hey, you've got to break a few eggs if you want to be really compassionate.

One of my favorite ways to describe my belief in the capacity of freedom to help achieve peace -- not only security for the American people, but peace -- is to give people the example of my dad and me, in terms of Japan.

Except insofar as it points out that we've also used weapons of mass destruction. We were the first, actually--and did it twice.

...a lot of folks here, relatives...were called into action because the enemy had attacked us. They were the sworn enemy of the United States of America. It was a brutal war against the Japanese. Took a lot of lives -- Japanese lives and American lives -- to win that war.

Yup, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and we went to war with Japan. So you can understand why, when a bunch of Saudis and Egyptians attacked us on 9/11, I invaded Iraq.

Part of my decision-making process is my firm belief in the natural rights of men and women; my belief that deep in everybody's soul is the desire to live free. I believe there's an Almighty, and I believe the Almighty's great gift to each man and woman in this world is the desire to be free. This isn't America's gift to the world, it is a universal gift to the world, and people want to be free.

So don't think of me as acting on behalf of America--think of me as acting universally, on behalf of God.

Some day an American President will be sitting down with elected leaders from a country like Iraq talking about how to keep the peace.

Just as, once upon a time, an American President sat down with the Shah of Iran. And look how well THAT turned out.

...I want to talk about two tools necessary to protect you. First, before September the 11th, our law enforcement and intelligence services weren't able to share information. For example, within the FBI, you had your law enforcement division and your intelligence division -- and for a lot of reasons, if they had information about a potential terrorist, they couldn't share it. That's hard to fathom, but it's the truth. There was a wall built up, and there's a lot of reasons why the wall was built up -- some of it historical, obviously, legal ramifications.

Yeah, historical, legal "ramifications"--hard to fathom, really. Fortunately, we've busted down the wall between domestic criminal investigations and foreign intelligence gathering--to protect you.

And I didn't think you could ask our front-line officers to defend us if they didn't have all the tools necessary to share intelligence, and to share information -- by the way, tools which have been granted to use in tracking down drug dealers, for example. My attitude was, if it's good enough -- these tools are good enough to find a drug dealer, then they ought to be good enough to protect us from the new threats of the 21st century.

First, the War on Drugs, then the War on Terror. Next? The War on Porn, then: The War on UnPatriotism. Drugs, violence, sex, dissent--all those "new threats of the 21st century".

I like to remind people the Patriot Act may be set to expire, but the threats to the United States haven't expired. And exactly what has changed, I asked out loud, after the attack of September the 11th and today?

Well, let's see: you busted a federal union, lied in a State of the Union speech, misled the public, invaded Iraq, authorized illegal wire-tapping, tried to drill for oil in Alaska, privatized the airport screeners, tried to privatize Social Security, tried to scuttle an investigation into 9/11, leaked the name of a CIA officer whose husband called you on your lies...

Let me talk about one other program -- and then I promise to answer questions -- something that you've been reading about in the news lately. It's what I would call a terrorist surveillance program. After the enemy attacked us, and after I realized that we were not protected by oceans...

...even though I was specifically warned beforehand, and the government had known of the threat for years...

I asked people that work for you--work for me, how best can we use information to protect the American people?

Sorry--just want to see that line again: "I asked people that work for you--work for me, how best can we use information to protect the American people?"

See, this is just a question of how best to use information.

You might remember there was hijackers here that had made calls outside the country to somebody else, prior to the September the 11th attacks.

Information we had--without warrant-less wire-tapping--and ignored.

And I said, is there anything more we can do within the law, within the Constitution, to protect the American people.

And they said no, but we can come up with a lame-ass rationalization for claiming it's Constitutional, and then not tell anyone we're doing it, and I said "Great!"

And they came back with a program, designed a program that I want to describe to you. And I want people here to clearly understand why I made the decision I made.

But will he explain why he lied about it, claiming all wire-tapping was done with warrants years after the "program" started?

First, I made the decision to do the following things because there's an enemy that still wants to harm the American people. What I'm talking about is the intercept of certain communications emanating between somebody inside the United States and outside the United States;

Read it again: "communications emanating between somebody inside the United States and outside the United States"

and one of the numbers would be reasonably suspected to be an al Qaeda link or affiliate. In other words, we have ways to determine whether or not someone can be an al Qaeda affiliate or al Qaeda. And if they're making a phone call in the United States, it seems like to me we want to know why.

Read it again: "a phone call in the United States".

This is a -- I repeat to you, even though you hear words, "domestic spying," these are not phone calls within the United States.

"These are not phone calls within the United States."

It's a phone call of an al Qaeda, known al Qaeda suspect, making a phone call into the United States.

"...a phone call into the United States."

Confused? You're supposed to be. The truth is that the phone companies have already acknowledged that they turned over call information and access for entire trunk lines, which includes "domestic" calls, and several members of the intelligence community have indicated in testimony that the extent of the spying--the so-called "black-ops"--is far greater than even that.

I'm mindful of your civil liberties, and so I had all kinds of lawyers review the process.

The very same lawyers who we asked to justify the invasion of Iraq, the abrogation of the Geneva Conventions, and the holding, torture and rendition of people without representation. They've been very useful, these particular lawyers.

We briefed members of the United States Congress, one of whom was Senator Pat Roberts, about this program. You know, it's amazing, when people say to me, well, he was just breaking the law -- if I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?

Well, that's easy. You told a few cronies in leadership positions some version of the truth so you could later claim you "briefed them" in speeches like this. Duh.

Federal courts have consistently ruled that a President has authority under the Constitution to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance against our enemies.

...and that the President must follow the law--which forbids warrant-less wire-tapping of Americans--and the FISA act, which sets up a secret court specifically charged with granting such warrants, which grants nearly all requests, and which the government doesn't even have to consult in advance as long as they present a case within 72 hours of the wire-tapping--all of which was set up because of past real abuse of power, and all of which George Bush ignored completely, and lied about directly.

And the Court ruled, the Supreme Court ruled that it gave the President additional authority to use what it called "the fundamental incidents of waging war" against al Qaeda.

Um...sorta kinda..but not...

I'm not a lawyer, but I can tell you what it means.

We can't wait.

It means Congress gave me the authority to use necessary force to protect the American people, but it didn't prescribe the tactics. It's an -- you've got the power to protect us, but we're not going to tell you how.

No it didn't. It didn't remotely authorize him to do whatever he wanted--including breaking the law--and no one but his same hack lawyers thinks it did.

And one of the ways to protect the American people is to understand the intentions of the enemy.

I thought they hated freedom?

I told you it's a different kind of war with a different kind of enemy. If they're making phone calls into the United States, we need to know why -- to protect you.

Oh right, this is totally different--we keep forgetting. No enemies of the United States have ever made phone calls before.

And now: time for questions!

Q Mr. President, we salute what you have done, your aggressive stance on terrorism. But more than that, as you know, Kansas is a beef state..We sincerely appreciate your efforts in regaining our markets with Japan, your aggressive stance on trade. We support that tremendously.

Q Hello, Mr. President. I am an American Iraqi Kurd. I would like to salute you and salute all the troops are freeing 27 million people. They are free. (Applause.)

Q Mr. President, I would like to share this thought with all our nation and everybody who is questioning what happened to the chemical weapons. Saddam burned 4,500 villagers. I lost more than 10 members of my family under the ground. We found their bones after, when we freed Iraq. Saddam, himself, and his people, his followers, they are chemical weapons. Please stop questioning the administration and their decision. It was the best decision anybody could take. Freeing 27 million people. (Applause.)

Q Mr. President, all I could tell you, I have two members of my family, they are in the Iraqi parliament. And both of them are women. My sister-in-law and my aunt, they are in the Iraqi parliament. And I would like you to share this happiness with me and with all the Iraqi people. Thank you, Mr. President. (Applause.)

Q Us British, were a querulous people and we know that we're one of your greatest supporters in the world, and Tony Blair, who I have the greatest respect for, is my leader.

Q I have a question less with politics and more with leadership, in general. You're in a situation where you're under a lot of flack, especially for your character. And that's something that, it seems to me, means a lot to you, as it does to many of us here. As a leader, as many of us are going to need to know here because we're going to be leaders in just a few years, what's the best way that you go about preparing yourself for attacks on your character, and how do you deal with others in those matters?

Q Mr. President, thank you for being here. I served under your father, he was my Commander-in-Chief in Desert Storm. And it was with great interest that I followed your campaign; my husband and I both are great fans of yours. I thank you for making the hard decisions, for making -- not listening to the critics and keeping your campaign promise.

And I've been following the confirmation hearings of Judge Alito. And I certainly hope he's confirmed.

Q Hi. First I'd like to say that when I was first able to cast my vote for President, it was my honor to vote for you.

Q Again, I just wanted to thank you for coming. Your speech was very good. I'm a big admirer of your wife.

The White House website says this speech was given "at Kansas State University", but this is the picture of the crowd:

3 Bay Staters join call to investigate Bush

By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | March 15, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Three of the 10 US House members from Massachusetts have signed a resolution calling for an investigation and the possible impeachment of President Bush, placing them among a small minority within the Democratic Party who are supporting the long shot effort.

Representative Michael E. Capuano, a Somerville Democrat, last week joined Representative John F. Tierney, Democrat of Salem, and Representative John W. Olver, Democrat of Amherst, to cosponsor the resolution.

''If all my suspicions are held up, then, yeah, impeach him in a heartbeat," Capuano said. ''If we were lied to to go to war -- if that's an established fact -- that is an impeachable offense. I can't think of a higher crime or misdemeanor."

The John Howard "speech" was, in fact, a hoax. Quite an elaborate one--the false site was an exact duplicate of the real John Howard site (which is here) with only that one speech changed.

The false text has been taken down, but the post left up for the sake of argument. This is, after all, the Internet.

An update on the John Howard post from yesterday: the link no longer works.

Yesterday we navigated through quite a bit of this site, which is www.johnhowardpm.org. It seemed legitimate--or at least there was a lot of information on it, including a complete list of speeches, photos of Howard presenting awards to people, extensive links, etc. Today the entire site won't come up, and isn't listed in Google--a search for any text at all from the site "johnhowardpm.org" fails to turn up any results.

Moreover, we've tried two different "WHOIS" engines in an attempt to discover who the owner of the domain is, and are getting the message, "We are unable to process your request at this time. Please try again later."

Can anyone shed any light on this?

Welcome to "Today's Look at History", from 201k.com. Sadly, one has to purchase this article from the archives of the Boston Globe, but here's an interesting excerpt:

CANDIDATES COMBATIVE IN THEIR FINAL SHOWDOWN
Published on October 30, 2002 [The Boston Globe]

In a freewheeling, contentious debate last night, Republican Mitt Romney and Democrat Shannon O'Brien tangled over abortion rights, taxes, the death penalty, and who will best solve the state budget crisis.

The two leading candidates' final face-off before Tuesday's election was marked by familiar campaign themes, though the format allowed for some more substantive exchanges on issues. Neither yielded an inch to the other during the hourlong debate... (1435 words)

Romney: "Protecting a woman's right to choose, I've been very clear on that. I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose and I'm very dedicated in honoring my word."

A reader sent this link to a speech supposedly given yesterday by Australian Prime Minister John Howard.

We say supposedly because we are flabbergasted to read the remarks--they are uncharacteristically blunt for a head of state--and because we have been unable to verify them. The website on which they're posted looks authentic, but again, the language is strong enough to give us pause. Example:

[removed March 14 12:50 EST]

Can anyone verify these remarks?

[Turned out to be an elaborate hoax. See 201k posts March 14, 2006]

Boom Boom.

...the year is 2010. Jeb Bush is president, and Condi Rice is vice-president. Roe v. Wade has been reversed, and several states have banned abortion.

Deep in the heart of Alabama a young pharmacist's heart goes out to a 16-year-old girl who's been raped by her step-father and is pregnant. The girl has returned from a trip to New York with a prescription for "Plan B" contraceptive--which is illegal in Alabama. But the girl's tears and anguish move the young pharmacist--she had an awful step-dad, too--and, declaring herself a "conscientious objector", she fills the prescription from the stash she keeps for the daughters of local elected officials.

How quickly would today's crop of "conscientious objector" pharmacists leap to the defense of this young pharmacist?

a) Immediately, since all pharmacists have the right to follow their moral sense when filling prescriptions;

b) Eventually, when the girl's plight became known, and public sympathy swelled;

c) When Hell freezes over.

Also refuse birth control to unmarried women.

Meanwhile, Christian Scientist Pharmacists refuse to dispense all medicine to patients, claiming that "purity of spirit" is only real cure.

Elsewhere, health-conscious pharmacists in Southern California refuse to dispense diabetes medicine to overweight patients, citing "lack of proper diet and exercise."

Druggists want right to say "no" to certain medications

By Cara Solomon
Seattle Times reporter

...more than 100 people showed up at a state Pharmacy Board meeting in Kent on Friday to speak emotionally about highly charged social issues -- from abortion to gender discrimination and even assisted suicide.

At the heart of the debate is a proposal put forward by the pharmacy association, a private trade group, that would allow pharmacists to act as "conscientious objectors" when faced with filling prescriptions that go against their moral or religious principles and require them to provide patients with other "options."

The Pharmacy Association in Washington said there members are confused about their rights. Lawyers for Planned Parenthood and the Northwest Women's Law Center point to a collection of state statues that they say strongly "implies" a pharmacist's duty to dispense medication regardless of their religious views. But there is no state statute that specifically deals with the issue.

Gov. Christine Gregoire sent a letter opposing the proposal to the Pharmacy Board.

"This issue goes far beyond women's access to contraception, but appeals to the right of all patients to have their prescription filled without judgment or discrimination," wrote Gregoire.

But some at the meeting said that forcing pharmacists to fill prescriptions against their religious beliefs was also a kind of discrimination.

"For me to go to work, and leave my heart and my morals at home, I can't do it," said Allison Pham, 23, a student at the University of Washington's School of Pharmacy.

Poor Allison! First she's forced to go to pharmacy school, then she's forced to fulfill prescriptions written by doctors.

Next thing you know, firemen will be forced to rescue people from burning buildings even if they "conscientiously object" to the morals of those trapped. Policemen will have to arrest criminals even if they don't think particular crimes should be illegal--and public defenders will have to defend the accused even if they suspect they're guilty!

What will happen to society then?

Good grief.

With all due respect, the sole claim that pharmacists have to being called "professionals" is their expertise in dispensing medicine. Any decision-making in the process is limited to the technical aspects of doing that job.

In a free society there is no room for a third "opinion" between a doctor and a patient.

Pharmacists are licensed to dispense medicine, not moral judgments. In that regard they are like every other professional: they're expected to perform their jobs, and in doing so to distinguish between the "professional" and the "personal". They exercise judgment only as far as it is needed to do their work or comply with the law.

That's the way it is for professionals: professional duty is distinct from the personal. Lawyers, for example, cannot drop clients who fail to pay their bill; the courts don't allow it.

The supposed right of "conscientious objection" for pharmacists is a phony one concocted by the anti-choice movement. It's nothing more than yet another attempt to remove or block the legal choices of American women.

201k applauds those companies who are willing to defend and protect the proper professional conduct of pharmacists in the face of an assault contrived by fanatical crusaders who would force their religious beliefs on all Americans.

Boston Catholic Charities Halts Adoptions

By STEVE LeBLANC Associated Press Writer

March 10,2006 | BOSTON -- The Boston Archdiocese's Catholic Charities said Friday it would stop providing adoption services because of a state law allowing gays and lesbians to adopt children.

The social services arm of the Roman Catholic archdiocese, which has provided adoption services for the state for about two decades, said the law runs counter to church teachings on homosexuality.

In a 2003 document, the Vatican said gay adoption was "gravely immoral," and that children placed in such homes "would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood."

Um...aren't these kids now being deprived of either?

...you'd get the full options package.

I'm not saying you don't love your children--no, no, no. I'm just saying that with the full options package you'd be sure they were safe.

Yes, it costs a little more, but really, what's more important--money or your children's safety? That's all I'm saying.

It's up to you obviously--I'm just giving you the choices.

"The terrorists have a strategic goal. They want us to leave Iraq before our work is done. They want to shake the will of the civilized world. In the past, the terrorists have cited the examples of Beirut and Somalia, claiming that if you inflict harm on Americans, we will run from a challenge. In this, they are mistaken."

You know nothing.

This is writing.