Why do I feel like the proverbial skunk at a Labor Day picnic? Sorry; but I thought you might want to know that this time next year, there will probably be more skunks than we can handle. I fear our country is likely to be at war with Iran — and with the thousands of real terrorists Iran can field around the globe.
A COURT challenge to the Bush Administration’s warrantless wiretapping program has run squarely into a comic-book caricature of a monolithic government slapping aside all challenges to its power by invoking the Kafkaesque distortion of the legal system inherent in the concept of “state secrets.”
In theory, the integrity of American democracy is protected by the
vigilant watchdogs of our national news media, seeking constantly to illuminate the truth without fear or favor. In practice, many citizens understand, our celebrity Washington press corps too often performs in ways having more to do with personal (and institutional ) ambition and unspoken agendas than informing the public.
It is as though I’m back as an analyst at the CIA, trying to estimate the chances of an attack on Iran. The putative attacker, though, happens to be our own president.
by Ray McGovern
The Pentagon will fall far short of its goal of sending 3,500 lifesaving armored vehicles to Iraq by the end of the year. Instead, officials expect to send about 1,500.
Courtesy of Larry M:
(A few quotations you won’t see on Fox News (especially the last two :)
*************************
“‘I couldn’t believe it. . .Far more Vietnamese died during the war than in the aftermath of the US withdrawal. . . [It] is not revisionist history. It is fantasy history,’
–Allen Lichtman (historian, American University)
******************
“‘I don’t think what happened in Cambodia after the war has anything to do with Iraq, . .Is he saying we should have invaded Cambodia? That’s what we would have had to do, and we would have never done that. I don’t see how he draws the parallel.’
–Melvin Laird (sec. of def. under President Nixon, 1969-1973)
*******************
“‘This was history written by speechwriters without regard to history. . ..And I think most military historians will find it painful. . . . because in basic historical terms the president misstated what happened in Vietnam. . . .One sits sort of in awe at the lack of historical comparability.’
–Anthony Cordesman (military analyst)
********************
“‘If we get into a Vietnam argument, the country is divided, but if you are going to try sell this concept that the blood is on the American people’s hands because we left and were weak-kneed in Asia, that is a very tenuous and inane historical argument”
–Douglas Brinkley (historian)
********************
“What is Mr. Bush suggesting? We should have stayed there forever? We should have invaded North Vietnam? It just doesn’t make any historical sense to me.”
–Robert Dalleck (presidential historian)
********************
“The speech was an act of desperation to scare the American people into staying the course in Iraq. He’s distorted the facts, painting all of the people in Iraq as being on the same side which is simply not the case. Iraq is a religious civil war.”
– Lawrence Korb (assistant defense secretary under President Reagan)
*********************
“Bush is cherry-picking history to support his case for staying the course. What I learned in Vietnam is that U.S. forces could not conduct a counterinsurgency operation. The longer we stay there, the worse it’s going to get.”
– Ret. Army Brig. Gen. John Johns (counterinsurgency expert who served in Vietnam)
**********************
“The president emphasized the violence in the wake of American withdrawal from Vietnam. But this happened because the United States left too late, not too early. It was the expansion of the war that opened the door to Pol Pot and the genocide of the Khmer Rouge. The longer you stay the worse it gets.”
– Steven Simon (senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations)
***********************
“He’s [Bush] tried all along to say this is not Vietnam. By invoking Vietnam he raised the automatic question, well, if you’ve learned so much from history, Mr. President, how did you ever get us involved in another quagmire? Why didn’t you learn up front about the perils of Vietnam and what we faced there? . . .
“But here’s the other point, that if you look at Vietnam today, you have to say that Vietnam at the end, after 30 years, has actually become quite a driving country. It’s a very strong economy. So there are those who say, yes, when we pull back there were bloodbaths in the immediate aftermath, but after that the Vietnamese started putting their country together. Is that not what we want Iraq to do over the long term? . . .
“[And] the other issue and why it’s dangerous territory for him to go into Vietnam and the Vietnam analogy is reason we lost Vietnam in part was because we had no strategy. And the problem we’ve got now in Iraq, what is the strategy for victory? If the strategy for victory is let our troops give the Maliki government enough time to get everything solved, and the Maliki government is going nowhere, as everybody now admits, you know, what strategy are we facing? What strategy do we have to win in Iraq? It’s not clear we have a winning strategy in Iraq. And that’s what cost us Vietnam, and that’s why we eventually withdrew under humiliating circumstances.”
–David Gergen (presidential adviser)
*********************
“He’s [Bush] saying, essentially, that 58,000 dead in Vietnam weren’t quite enough, that maybe we should have twice as big a tragic memorial on the Mall.
“And who’s saying it? A man who chose not to serve, took steps, used family friends to get out of serving in Vietnam, didn’t even show up for his own Guard duty, so that better, braver men could fight that war. He stood before those better, braver men today a coward in the company of heroes.”
–Paul Begala (Democratic strategist)
*******************
“As in Vietnam, we engaged militarily in Iraq based on official deception.. As in Vietnam, more American soldiers are being sent to fight and die in a civil war we can’t stop and an insurgency we can’t bomb into submission. If the President wants to heed the lessons of Vietnam, he should change course and change course now.”
–Sen. John Kerry
*******************
“QUESTION: Mr. President…some people are comparing Iraq to Vietnam and talking about a quagmire. [H]ow do you answer the Vietnam comparison?
“THE PRESIDENT: I think the analogy is false. I also happen to think that analogy sends the wrong message to our troops, and sends the wrong message to the enemy.”
–George W. Bush (April 13, 2004 press conference)
**********************
QUESTION: Do you see. . .a parallel between what’s going on in Iraq now and Vietnam?
PRESIDENT BUSH: No.
QUESTION: Why?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Because there’s a duly-elected government; 12 million people voted. They said, we want something different from tyranny, we want to live in a free society. And not only did they vote for a government, they voted for a constitution. Obviously, there is sectarian violence, but this is, in many ways, religious in nature, and I don’t see the parallels.
–George W. Bush (June 14, 2006 press conference)
————
Sources: Dan Froomkin’s White House Watch blog in WashingtonPost.com; Media Matters for America; the Boston Globe; ABC News; NBC News
I’m used to my readers ascribing all sorts of convoluted motivations to White House political mastermind Karl Rove But now several upstanding mainstream media outlets are raising the possibility that Rove’s attacks on Hillary Clinton are a colossal head fake.
Jose Padilla was convicted of federal terrorism support charges Thursday after being held for 3 1/2 years as an enemy combatant in a case that came to symbolize the Bush administration’s zeal to stop homegrown terror.
The women are too afraid and ashamed to show their faces or have their real names used. They have been driven to sell their bodies to put food on the table for their children — for as little as $8 a day.
US citizens and other residents will require prior approval from Department of Homeland Security to get a job, under new immigration guidelines introduced by the Cabinet and sanctioned by President George W. Bush.
Remember the scene in “A Clockwork Orange” where Alex has his eyes clamped open and is forced to watch a movie? I imagine a similar experience for the architects of our catastrophe in Iraq. I would like them to see “No End in Sight,” the story of how we were led into that war, and more than 3,000 American lives and hundreds of thousands of other lives were destroyed.
Roger Ebert
In a hidden corner of Rome’s busy Fiumicino Airport, police dug quietly through a traveler’s checked baggage, looking for smuggled drugs. What they found instead was a catalog of weapons, a clue to something bigger.
[...]
The Associated Press has learned that Iraqi government officials were involved in the deal, apparently without the knowledge of the U.S. Baghdad command — a departure from the usual pattern of U.S.-overseen arms purchases.
We lost a courageous colleague yesterday in Mogadishu, Somalia. Mahad Elmi was a 30-year-old radio journalist who had become an invaluable freelancer for McClatchy’s Africa bureau over the past year.
“The Bush administration opposes a Democratic effort to restore full educational benefits for returning veterans, according to an official’s comments last week.”[. . .]“The Democratic proposal would cost an additional $5.4 billion a year, the VA estimates — and that’s too much, it says.”
And how long does it take to spend 5.4 billion in Iraq?
Let’s ask my buddy, Larry M:
($5.4 billion/year…HELLO!…That’s what it’s costing us for two weeks–TWO WEEKS–in Iraq now!! (Not to mention 50 Americans and hundreds of Iraqis dead every two weeks.) This denial of supporting our troops for $5.4B is from the same Bush Administration that already has “lost” at least $8.8 billion in cash in Iraq, “lost” 190,000 weapons, and “lost” 135,000 body armor pieces. The inept Bushies have also “lost track” of 115,000 helmets, didn’t provide the proper vehicle armor protection, and, according to the Washington Post, several thousand anti-aircraft shoulder-fired missiles are missing. Also, billions in oil money has gone missing–100,000-300,00 barrels daily. And most tragically the Bush administration “forgot” about the wounded at Walter Reed Hospital. And now Bush and his toady VA says $5.4B is too much to give the returning vets for their deserved–and obligated– GI Bill. Disgusting…!)
{Thanks to GL}
|
Remembering Hiroshima |
|
|
|
Sometimes, something happens that is so awful that we find ourselves rationalizing it, talking as if it had to happen, to make ourselves feel better about the horrible event. For many people, I believe, President Truman’s dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, and on Nagasaki on Aug. 9, 1945, were two such events. After all, if the leader of arguably the freest country in the world decided to drop those bombs, he had to have a good reason, didn’t he? I grew up in Canada thinking that, horrible as it was, dropping the atomic bombs on those two cities was justified. Although I never believed that the people those bombs killed were mainly guilty people, I could at least tell myself that many more innocent people, including American military conscripts, would have been killed had the bombs not been dropped. But then I started to investigate. On the basis of that investigation, I have concluded that dropping the bomb was not necessary and caused, on net, tens of thousands, and possibly more than a hundred thousand, more deaths than were necessary. |
http://www.antiwar.com/henderson/?articleid=11405
A Reporter at Large
A rare look inside the C.I.A.’s secret interrogation program.
by Jane Mayer August 13, 2007
In the war on terror, one historian says, the C.I.A. “didn’t just bring back the old psychological techniques—they perfected them.”
Will Murdoch destroy the Journal? Will he undermine the paper’s values and call that “investment”?
FORWARD OPERATING BASE WARHORSE, Iraq — The sign taped to the men’s latrine is just five lines:
“US MILITARY CONTRACTORS CIVILIANS ONLY!!!!!”
It needed only one: “NO IRAQIS.”
Bush’s backers are peddling a sunny view of the president’s strategy — despite Iraq’s political chaos and soaring death counts. By Juan Cole (more…)
Glenn Greenwald
Aug. 04, 2007 | [updated below - updated again (with Sen. Dodd interview) - Update III]
It is staggering, and truly disgusting, that even in August, 2007 — almost six years removed from the 9/11 attacks and with the Bush presidency cemented as one of the weakest and most despised in American history — that George W. Bush can “demand” that the Congress jump and re-write legislation at his will, vesting in him still greater surveillance power, by warning them, based solely on his say-so, that if they fail to comply with his demands, the next Terrorist attack will be their fault. And they jump and scamper and comply (Meteor Blades has the list of the 16 Senate Democrats voting in favor; the House will soon follow).
I just finished a discussion panel with ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero which was originally planned to examine his new (superb) book about the work his organization has done for years in battling the endless expansion of executive power and presidential lawbreaking. But the only issue anyone in the room really wanted to discuss — including us — was the outrage unfolding on Capitol Hill. And the anger was almost universally directed where it belongs: at Congressional Democrats, who increasingly bear more and more responsibility for the assaults on our constitutional liberties and unparalleled abuses of government power — many (probably most) of which, it should always be emphasized, remain concealed rather than disclosed.
Examine virtually every Bush scandal and it increasingly bears the mark not merely of Democratic capitulation, but Democratic participation. In August of 2006, the Supreme Court finally asserted the first real limit on Bush’s radical executive power theories in Hamdan, only for Congress, months later, to completely eviscerate those minimal limits — and then go far beyond — by enacting the grotesque Military Commissions Act with the support of substantial numbers of Democrats. What began as a covert and illegal Bush interrogation and detention program became the officially sanctioned, bipartisan policy of the United States.
Grave dangers are posed to our basic constitutional safeguards by the replacement of Sandra Day O’Connor with Sam Alito, whose elevation to the Supreme Court Congressional Democrats chose to permit. Vast abuses and criminality in surveillance remain undisclosed, uninvestigated and unimpeded because Congressional Democrats have stood meekly by while the administration refuses to disclose what it has been doing in how it spies on us. And we remain in Iraq, in direct defiance of the will of the vast majority of the country, because the Democratic Beltway establishment lacks both the courage and the desire to compel an end to that war.
And now Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, with revealing symbolism, cancel their scheduled appearances this morning at Yearly Kos because George Bush ordered them to remain in Washington in order to re-write and expand FISA — a law which he has repeatedly refused to allow to be revised for years and which he has openly and proudly violated. Congressional Democrats know virtually nothing about how the Bush administration has been eavesdropping on our conversations because the administration refused to tell them and they passively accepted this state of affairs.
The intense rush to amend this legislation means that most of them have no idea what they are actually enacting — even less of an idea than they typically have. But what they know is that George Bush and Fox News and the Beltway establishment have told them that they would be irresponsible and weak and unserious if they failed to comply with George Bush’s instructions, and hence, they comply. In the American political landscape, there have been profound changes in public opinion since September of 2001. But in the Beltway, among our political and media establishment, virtually nothing has changed.
I don’t have time this morning to dissect the various excesses and dangers of the new FISA amendments, though Marty Lederman and Steve Benen both do a typically thorough job in that regard. Suffice to say, craven fear, as usual, is the author of this debacle.
There are many mythologies about what are the defining beliefs and motivations of bloggers and their readers and the attendees at Yearly Kos. One of the principal myths is that it is all driven by a familiar and easily defined ideological agenda and/or a partisan attachment to the Democratic Party. That is all false.
The common, defining political principle here — what resonates far more powerfully than any other idea — is a fervent and passionate belief in our country’s constitutional framework, the core liberties it secures, and the checks and balances it offers as a safeguard against tyrannical power. Those who fail to defend that framework, or worse, those who are passively or actively complicit in its further erosion, are all equally culpable. With each day that passes, the radicalism and extremism originally spawned in secret by the Bush presidency becomes less and less his fault and more and more the fault of those who — having discovered what they have been doing and having been given the power to stop it — instead acquiesce to it and, worse, enable and endorse it.
UPDATE: Much of this was undoubtedly the by-product of the Democratic Beltway consultant geniuses who insist that Democrats not resist the President’s instructions on terrorism lest they look “weak.” They need to look “strong,” and they achieve that by giving the President what he wants and thereby generating articles like this one in The Washington Post, the first paragraph of which reports (accurately):
The Senate bowed to White House pressure last night and passed a Republican plan for overhauling the federal government’s terrorist surveillance laws, approving changes that would temporarily give U.S. spy agencies expanded power to eavesdrop on foreign suspects without a court order.
In the mind of the moderate Democratic Beltway centrist consultant, that is how Democrats look Strong — by “bowing to pressure” exerted by one of the weakest and most disliked presidents in modern history. There is nothing like being described as “bowing” and “capitulating” to give an appearance of strength.
And can we please be spared the condescending assurances about how great it is that the law has a six-month sunset provision, since — in 6 months — it will be exactly the same Democrats voting on whether to renew these powers and they will be intimidated by exactly the same threats that if they do not renew it and give the President all of the powers he wants, the Terrorists will kill us and it will be all the fault of the Democrats for disobeying President Bush. The cycle is just going to repeat itself 180 days from now. Why would it be different?
UPDATE II: This afternoon I interviewed Sen. Chris Dodd, who more than any other presidential candidate is attempting to make issues of executive power and constitutional encroachments the centerpiece of his campaign. I’ll post the entire transcript and some commentary in a few days, but for now here is part of the discussion we had concerning last night’s FISA vote in the Senate (Dodd, along with Obama and Clinton, voted against the FISA bill):
GG: Can you describe what you think it is that motivated 16 of your colleagues in the Democratic caucus to vote in favor of this bill?
CD: No, I really can’t . . . We had caucuses during the day, so everyone knew what was there. You had a vote at 10:00 at night, people say I didn’t know what was there, then normally I can understand, but we had a caucus during the day. There was a lot of conversation about it.
GG: So this wasn’t a Patriot Act case where people can claim ignorance because there was a rushed vote? There was a careful assessment of what the terms in this statute were?
CD: Absolutely. In fact, even during the vote, Carl Levin was sitting there, and Carl said: “look, I want everyone to read this” . . . . Most people know about the Gonzales references and the 180 days — there is also a section, as Carl pointed out, that basically says that if they can prove reasonably that you’re out of the country — not that you’re not a citizen, just out of the country [then they can eavesdrop on you] . . . .
But I wish I had a better explanation. Normally after that, we would be in session Monday or Tuesday, around today, people would be talking about it. So I’m a little stunned, and grasping for some answer here. So I really don’t know. . . .
GG: There is this gap in FISA, which everyone, even Russ Feingold, says needs to be filled, which is that if there is a foreign-to-foreign conversation which happens to be routed through the U.S., it requires a warrant — so why not just say “OK, we fixed this gap and here’s our bill and if you veto it, and there’s a terrorist attack, then it’s your responsibility”?
CD: Hello? Sounds pretty reasonable to me. But part of what this comes down to is that too many people in public life are not secure enough in their own beliefs — feel vulnerable to attacks by people who will attack you — and feel unwilling or unable to respond to them with clarity and conviction. And if you lack that clarity and conviction, and if you haven’t been through this in the past, then you’re likely to be a little weaker in the legs.
I also asked Dodd why Democrats repeatedly engage in the same self-destructive behavior — refusing to take a hard-core principled stance against the administration, and instead capitulating just enough to look like losers, but — despite the capitulation — still allowing the vote to be used against them. As always (see e.g., Iraq War Authorization, warrantless eavesdropping, Military Commissions Act), they capitulate in order to prevent the vote from being used against them, even though it ends up being used against them anyway because so many of them vote (with futility) against it, but do so without ever fighting for, explaining or defending their position.
I also asked him why, when they were in the minority, the Democrats were so afraid to filibuster anything, even something as drastic as the Military Commissions Act or the Alito nomination, whereas the Republicans run around filibustering everything they can find and don’t care at all about being called “obstructionist.” Why are the Republicans so aggressive with using their minority tools to block all Democratic initiatives whereas Democrats failed to filibuster for years?
Dodd, by his own candid admission, has no good explanation for the Democrats’ behavior, which repeats itself endlessly. He has no good explanation as to why so many of his Democratic colleagues are so deeply afraid of being attacked by one of the weakest presidents in modern American history.
Although Dodd’s convictions about the constitutional issues are impressively authentic and come from a place of real passion, and although he agreed with most of the criticisms voiced regarding the timidity of Congressional Democrats, I found the interview rather dispiriting, to put it mildly. That was not due to Dodd per se, but because it is clear that Beltway Democrats have no real strategy for doing anything differently or even any real awareness that something different is necessary.
UPDATE III: The House has now also voted in favor of the FISA amendments by a vote of 227-183 (h/t EJ). A total of 41 Democrats voted in favor.
– Glenn Greenwald
Last October, a weapons audit requested by U.S. Sen. John Warner of Virginia found that the Pentagon had not properly tracked the weapons that U.S. forces were handing out to Iraqi security forces as part of the train-and-equip program. At least 14,000 weapons were simply absent from DoD’s inventory books. Hundreds of thousands of additional serial numbers weren’t recorded, making tracking that much more difficult.
Not only is the “surge” not working, it’s destabilizing Iraq. Yet military leaders say troops should stay for the long term.
By Joe Conason (more…)
The dispute over whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales committed perjury when he parsed words about George W. Bush’s warrantless surveillance program misses a larger point: the extraordinary secrecy surrounding these spying operations is not aimed at al-Qaeda, but at the American people.
By Robert Parry
Move to Amend FISA Sparked by Judge’s Decision
A federal intelligence court judge earlier this year secretly declared a key element of the Bush administration’s wiretapping efforts illegal, according to a lawmaker and government sources, providing a previously unstated rationale for fevered efforts by congressional lawmakers this week to expand the president’s spying powers.
Perhaps you missed it, but Wednesday was the 19th anniversary of Rush Limbaugh’s radio show. Limbaugh was celebrating his ripe old age, in media years, in the same week that liberal blog fans were trekking to Chicago for the YearlyKos convention. Therein lies one of the most important stories in American politics.
Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement
by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky
The Executive Order entitled “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq” provides the President with the authority to confiscate the assets of whoever opposes the US led war.
In case I get picked up and taken away under President Bush’s Military Commissions Act of October 2006, I want it on record that I am not a terrorist or an enemy combatant, and that the organization I run in Bellingham is not associated with any terrorist cell.
The Whatcom Peace & Justice Center works non-violently to end the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
If cabinet members were perishable goods, Alberto Gonzales would have passed his “sell by” date sometime last spring. Since January, when he first faced sharp questioning over the firing of U.S. Attorneys, the Attorney General has earned disastrous reviews for his inconsistent testimony, poor judgment and for appearing to place loyalty to the White House above service to the public. By June it was hard to find a Republican willing to defend him. Now Gonzales’ dissembling testimony about a controversial domestic-spying program has raised suspicions about what he is hiding and fueled new calls for him to go. Senate Democrats have called for a special prosecutor to investigate his activities as Attorney General, and a group of moderate House Democrats has called for the House to weigh impeachment proceedings against him.
Citing executive privilege, President George W. Bush on Wednesday rejected a subpoena for his close adviser Karl Rove to testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee in a probe over fired federal prosecutors.
The committee had subpoenaed Rove to testify at a hearing on Thursday morning in its investigation of the firing last year of nine federal prosecutors, which critics said was prompted by partisan politics.
Proposal Would Involve FISA Court in Warrants
By Ellen Nakashima and Spencer S. Hsu
Congressional Democrats outlined a temporary plan yesterday that would expand the government’s authority to conduct electronic surveillance of overseas communications in search of terrorists.
By JANET NOCEK, Hartford (CT) Courant
It must be his poor memory that caused Mr. Gonzales to tell Congress that no abuse had been reported. What else would explain why he did not mention the reports that described abuses and mismanagement of NSLs - which we now discover were in his possession before his testimony?
By: DONALD P. BENTLEY - Commentary
On July 15, your paper ran an article titled, “Pendleton reports dropoff in PTSD” (post-traumatic stress disorder). The Pentagon report indicating that up to one-third of Marines who served in Iraq and Afghanistan may be affected is definitely more accurate than the Pendleton figure of less than 1 percent.
WASHINGTON — Former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld defended himself and took no personal responsibility Wednesday for the military’s bungled response to Army Ranger Pat Tillman’s friendly-fire death in Afghanistan.
Wednesday August 1, 2007
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Army censured a retired three-star general Tuesday for a “perfect storm of mistakes, misjudgments and a failure of leadership” after the 2004 friendly-fire death in Afghanistan of Army Ranger Pat Tillman.
By Robert Scheer —
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is busy shopping a recently unveiled arms package, totaling a staggering $63 billion in aid and first-rate weaponry, to America’s Mideast “allies” like Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia—but, as Scheer notes, there’s a discrepancy between the Bush administration’s official reasons for this show of goodwill and the real motives behind the deal.
Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman
It is time to think about the “unthinkable.”
In 56 of Ohio’s 88 counties, ballots and election records from 2004 have been “accidentally” destroyed, despite a federal order to preserve them — it was crucial evidence which would have revealed whether the election was stolen.
By Steven Rosenfeld
Welcome to Bizarro Congress. The past six months have been stuffed chockfull of triumphs and disappointments for the Democratic Party: bills denouncing the Iraq War, bills prolonging the Iraq War, bills calling the troops home, bills providing the funds to keep the troops in Iraq for up to three more years. The strange news? They’re all the same bill.
by Maya Schenwar
The United States has been in a prolonged Constitutional crisis since the Supreme Court showed it had been corrupted by partisan politics when the Bush vs. Gore ruling was issued in December, 2000. The Bush Administration began by Republican politicians thumbing their noses at the rule of law. The past seven years have been an unending assault on Constitutional government, American political traditions and personal freedom.
Stephen Crockett
By RICHARD SIKLOS
Since the News Corporation’s offer for Dow Jones & Company was made public three months ago, Rupert Murdoch’s business career, character and motives have been dissected in an effort to predict what he might do as the owner of The Wall Street Journal.
Video: Senator Kennedy battles Republicans in the Senate in favor of health care for children. “What would the American people rather have? Coverage for their children or continued conflict in Iraq?”
donkey o.d. feed
© 2007 donkey o.d.
