A $5000 reward is being offered to any Auckland University student who can make a successful citizen's arrest of United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during her visit to the country this weekend.

Auckland University Student Association (AUSA) president David Do said the arrest would be for her role in "overseeing the illegal invasion and continued occupation" of Iraq. -Link

Susan Rice was born in Washington DC to Dr Emmett J Rice and Lois Dickson Fitt in 1964. She grew up in DC and attended the National Cathedral for Girls. She earned her undergraduate degree in history in 1986 at Stanford University. She became a Rhodes Scholar the same year and did her masters at New College, Oxford, in 1988. She completed her PhD in International Relations from Oxford in 1990. Dr Rice started her career as a management consultant at McKinsey & Company in the early 1990s. In 1993, she joined the Clinton Administration as a Director for International Organizations and Peacekeeping at the National Security Council. She became a Special Assistant to the President in 1995. Susan Rice took over as Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs in 1997 and served until the end of Clinton Administration. She is married to Ian Cameron, a TV producer, from Toronto, Canada.

Dr Rice is highly qualified to be the next Secretary of State or the National Security Adviser. That is her biggest problem. She has a perfect pedigree and that brings to her a natural arrogance of a highly qualified scholar. Too many academics have done great damage to America's Foreign Policy as well as the national security. Susan Rice is a specialist in African Affairs and would therefore come in immediate conflict with the Chinese in Darfur, Sudan. She has no understanding of the 'Muslim Sensibilities' and therefore a potential trip-wire in the Middle-East. She is ill disposed towards Europe (excluding United Kingdom) and would isolate India. Rice is not interested in South America and would be a drag for WTO (World Trade Organization) and the Kyoto Protocol. Ironically she has a lot in common with Condi Rice.

• Somebody Get Him the Talking Points. During a photo op with McCain in Maine, former President Bush ( "41") responds to a press question on how he feels about Obama's planned events abroad, "A little jealous, is all."
• Ben Smith of Politico has a pair of contrasting photos capturing the day (if not the campaign): one is of Obama in Iraq with General Petreaus, looking as cool as Neo in the Matrix, and the other is of McCain riding with G.H.W. Bush ( "41") riding in a golf cart, looking like two grumpy old men. As one commenter put it, Bush's "Hands Off!" sign on the cart is the new "Get Off My Lawn!"
• Obama margin widens in Gallup daily tracking poll, 47-41%.
• After Obama-Maliki meeting, Iraqi Government spokesman states Iraq wants U.S. troops out by 2010. He said it in English - very low risk of translation error.
• Bush's approval rating 17%; disapproval rating 77%.
• And the First Gaffe of Obama's Trip Abroad is... McCain's! In an interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer this morning, McCain was asked whether, "the situation in Afghanistan is precarious and urgent." McCain responded:"I think it's serious. . . . It's a serious situation, but there's a lot of things we need to do. We have a lot of work to do and I'm afraid it's a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq/Pakistan border." Umm, Iraq/Pakistan border? Another episode of confusion for McCain? Perhaps he meant the Iraq/Czechoslovakia/Arizona border. You know, the one the Sunni and Shia (or whatever) are sneaking over illegally, despite the mental recession, to take advantage of Viagra's coverage under health insurance.
• Will the Office of Special Counsel investigate whether the Hatch Act was violated when U.S. Embassy personnel strong-armed Maliki's government to issue a statement to mitigate the damage to McCain's campaign? Will Congress hold hearings? Who encouraged the Embassy to make the calls -- the Secretary of State? The White House? UPDATE: Ironically, the night before Obama traveled abroad, Secretary of State Rice sent a cable to all embassies reminding personnel not to assist presidential candidates (per the Hatch Act). I guess the U.S. Embassy in Iraq didn't get the memo.

• National Review: Phil Gramm's resignation late Friday was the result of an internal revolt in McCain's campaign early that day once word leaked that McCain was going to keep him around. Conservatives are now panicked that Gramm's absence will leave the economically challenged McCain rudderless, and they're already seeing examples of it on the trail.
• WaPo's Balz, traveling abroad with Obama, reports on Obama's "unprecedented" trip, and the remarkable confidence it shows by Obama.
• Even the Right recognizes that Maliki's support for a timetable for withdrawal of troops from Iraq has undermined McCain's campaign strategy against Obama, and strengthened Obama's message.
• Buried Lede: NY Times, despite headline suggesting Maliki backtracked on his remarks, translates Maliki's remarks from the original Arabic and confirms Der Spiegel's translation as accurate (i.e., he did express support for Obama's timeline). Story also reports on how US Embassy in Iraq called Maliki's office and pressured for the release of the later Iraqi statement, which seemed to vaguely cast doubt on Der Spiegel's translation.
• Politico: McCain is the odd man out over timing of withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. McCain is now in the uncomfortable position of opposing the wishes of the democratically elected government of Iraq.
• Israeli newspaper Haaretz describes Obama's next stop in Israel.
• Obama visited Basra and is now in Baghdad, Iraq.
• WaPo: How will Netroots adapt to political success if Obama wins and the Democratic majority grows in both houses of Congress.
• Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) extends huge fundraising lead over GOP's RSCC.
• Politico notes events in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran seem to have fortuitous timing for Obama. Or another way of looking at it, Obama's judgment was correct.
• WaPo: While Obama toured war-torn Afghanistan, McCain took in a Yankees game with Rudy Giuliani. Unfortunately for McCain, Giuliani got the bulk of the attention from fans.
• Team Obama confirms site of his Berlin speech.
• WaPo reports on Obama's "working lunch" with Afghan leader Karzai.

Jerusalem - Security officials have foiled an alleged plot to assassinate U.S. president George W. Bush.

Six young men were taken into custody and held as suspects by police for the time being.

Four Palestinians and two Arab Israelis have allegedly contacted Al-Qaeda through the Internet to discuss the best way to kill the U.S. president during one of his two visits to Israel earlier this year.

One of the men had taken cell phone pictures of the helipad where Bush was to land, but their plot never got off the ground.

mondiale-Downside World News

United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will hold talks with Prime Minister Helen Clark and Foreign Minister Winston Peters when she visits Auckland next week.

National Party leader John Key has also indicated he expects to meet Dr Rice, whose visit will be the first by a US Secretary of State since Madeleine Albright in 1998.

The US State Department yesterday confirmed Dr Rice would attend an Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) regional forum in Singapore on July 23 and July 24 before travelling on to Perth and then Auckland.

Read more

On Monday, the prosecutor for the International Criminal Court charged Sudan's president al-Bashir with genocide and crimes against humanity. It's about time.

Of course, there are those who believe that this will destabilize the region further and endanger the peace process. This brings me to Aesop's quote. The "peace process" has gone on for at least 5 years. In that time, 2.5 million people have been murdered, raped and/or displaced. This is the equivalent of the entire population of Mississippi being either killed or forced to flee to neighboring states. All of this has gone on during the "peace process."

Colin Powell has called Darfur a genocide. Condi Rice has called Darfur a genocide. Bush has called Darfur a germicide, but we know what he meant. President al-Bashir has been allowed to talk, and talk, and talk, and talk. And let's face it -- he's a good multi-tasker because during all that talking he's been allowed to kill and kill and kill and kill. He's a busy man.

On July 31, 2007, the U.N. Security Council authorized the deployment of 19,000 peacekeepers to Darfur. One year later, only 2,000 have arrived. Actually, that number is 1,993 because on July 9, 2008, 7 peacekeepers were killed by al-Bashir's thugs.

Since January alone over 100,000 people have been driven from their homes. Lots and lots of lip service has been given to the people of Darfur, but "when all is said and done, more is said than done."

How tragic. And the cruel irony is that it doesn't have to be this way. Visit SaveDarfur.org or the Genocide Prevention Network. There are petitions that you can electronically sign; you're not expected to just give money. Of course you can do that to -- and get a t-shirt out of it. Point being, these organizations and countless others have set it up so that you can do plenty to pressure our government and the other governments around the world to stop the genocide in Darfur. People's lives are at stake.

It's time that more is done than said.

There is strong speculation that McCain will try to make history by choosing a female running mate, either as a gesture in itself, or as a response to Obama choosing a female running mate. My view is that there is only one credible female candidate, Condoleezza Rice. Now, by saying that there is only one credible female Republican candidate I am not denigrating female politicians, or trying to be a chauvinist. The fact is that the pool of female Senators and Governors is sadly very small, so it is logical that McCain should have extremely limited options when I think there are only two strong male running mates (Lieberman and Giuliani) and several reasonable choices (Ridge, Huntsman Jr & Alvarez). Indeed, in addition to the Secretary of State only Sarah Palin, Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Carl Fiorina have been tipped by commentators.

Firstly, I think that the political benefits of choosing a female running mate are wildly overestimated. The 'Hillary-istas' (women who supported Hillary because she was a woman) will eventually return to Obama, or support McCain, irrespective of the gender of any running mates. In fact Hillary Clinton fans might actually prefer to wait until 2012 so that Hillary can run again, and not look kindly on a woman who tried to steal any limelight that they felt belonged to Hillary Clinton. The only exceptions to this are single African-American women who identify more with Condi's story than that of Hillary's. Choosing a female running mate in response to Obama might even look like pandering. More importantly, I think that Sarah Palin lacks the experience; Kay Bailey Hutchinson is too much of a Republican hack while Carly Fiorina would be a disaster.

Indeed, Carly Fiorina represents the worst side of the Mitt Romney wing of the Republican Party. I don't much care for Romney but at least he took the time to be elected to an office before running. In contrast, Fiorina not only put profit (and stock options) before patriotism but she has never shown any inclination for public service whatsoever. She is an execrable campaigner, who didn't even both to read up on McCain's record on abortion before she tried to make up social policy on the hoof. While Lieberman, Rice and Giuliani are all pro-choice they would be savvy enough to make sure people knew that McCain was in charge of that area. Although many people say she would help McCain in terms of economics, the fact her experience in that area would lead many people to believe that her presence in the Naval Observatory would let the CEO wing of the Republican party continue to run riot in a McCain administration. After all, while most Americans accept that free trade and balanced budgets are necessary for the American dream, they are also tired of the ‘no-government anarchism’ that a vocal minority in the Republican party support.

Sarah Palin is also overrated. As Jindal’s problems in Louisiana demonstrate, it is patently absurd to lionize anyone before they have had a chance to prove themselves and, more importantly, shown that they can face adversity. There is also the question of whether McCain really wants a candidate who disagrees with him on energy policy and whose state is associated with big oil. There is also the risk that voters in Alaska might not vote for McCain/Palin ticket because they would rather have her as governor, rather as their Vice-President. Such sentimentality may sound silly but, as William Weld found out in 1996, it can sometimes have a very powerful impact on voters. In any case McCain should be trying to use his choice to turn blue states red, not to nail down far flung outposts that are relatively unimportant in electoral terms.

There are also positive reasons for picking Rice. Although she may have been underwhelming as Secretary of State and more mercenary and ‘neo-Condi’ in her beliefs than anything else, she does has enough credentials and experience to credibly assume the office of President. Also, with her on the ticket the temptation to revisit Iraq would be too tempting for even the newly disciplined Obama campaign. Even if I am sceptical of the necessity of choosing a women from an electoral perspective, I also believe that if McCain has to choose a mainline conservative (though he needs to choose a centrist) it would be nice to choose one who is as different from a while male as possible. At a minimum choosing Condi would signal that the Republican party is prepared to move with the times. I also believe that there is a significant minority of African-American voters who were turned off by the whole Wright-gate incident to the extent that, while they were not prepared to reward Hillary’s references to ‘hard working White people’, they are prepared to cross party lines in November provided appropriate gestures are made. Indeed, I firmly predict that choosing Condi would enable McCain to do much better among African-American voters than Bush did in 2004, even adjusting for potentially higher turnout.

Huh. Makes you wonder how many other lobbyists such as Stephen Payne (a Homeland Security Aide....here's the company he is president of...WARNING PDF) are lobbying Middle Eastern countries to help pay for George Bush's presidential library?

(CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE UNDERCOVER VIDEO OF STEPHEN PAYNE MAKING THE DEAL)

I wonder how much money George Bush is getting for his library from the country of Uzbekistan, you know, the country that ole Georgie sent prisoners to...to be tortured...and the same country whose president likes to boil people alive for shits and giggles?

I'd like to know if there is ANY American money going to Bush's library at this point! Uh oh. Wait a minute....John McCain can't wait to send his money to it! Spit.

(hat tip to Think Progress for uncovering this atrocity)

"Ballistic missile proliferation is not an imaginary threat," said Condi "Mushroom Cloud" Rice, an expert on imaginary threats. The Bush administration promotes the shield as it has promoted pretty much everything else it has wanted to do since Saddam Hussein was dug out of a hole, as a defense against Iranian extremism. In this case, the shield would supposedly defend the U.S. and European allies from long-range missiles launched from Iran.

Even if Iran had weapons capable of reaching the U.S. and a reason to risk total annihilation by using them, of course, this would be a ludicrous argument. On the other hand, Bush and his cronies know that most Americans couldn't use a globe to find Iowa, let alone Iran. If we really worry about missiles from the Middle East hitting the U.S., we should be building defenses in Canada. But then the Canadians aren't as easily swayed by promises of foreign aid as are the eastern Europeans (and even Poland, another planned shield location, is holding out for a bigger U.S. payoff, which may force a shift to another former Soviet territory, Lithuania).

Iran's missiles could reach Europe, and so maybe that alone is an argument for the shield, and of course the Bush administration strives to never avoid exaggeration, unless outright lying might work better. But Europeans also have little to fear from Iran, since the European Union is Iran's biggest trade partner. Eastern Europeans do fear Russia, however, so they'll appease Bush's bait-and-switch if the U.S. might protect them from the Russians. And speaking of the Russians, of course they're protesting the U.S.-Czech plan, with Mad Vlad Putin claiming it could lead to a new Cold War. They were already upset and understandably suspicious because Bush had previously rejected a missile treaty that even Ronald Reagan thought was OK.

And perhaps a new Cold War--which more than anything else helped give various forms of conservatism both the enemy and the credibility they needed to gain power--is Bush's real aim. After all, just before he ran for office he bought a ranch like Reagan had, fashioned himself as a bumbling cowboy like Reagan did (OK, how much of that was intentional is debatable, but still...), attacked a country he thought would be easy to whip (sorry, Gee-dub, Iraq ain't no Grenada), and tried to bring back the Gipper's "Star Wars" defense system.

And still Bush's approval ratings hover in the 20s. So maybe if he can get Putin (or Putin puppet Dmitri Medvedev) to rebuild the Berlin Wall, then insist that he tear it down, all in the next five months...

We could even lend some wall-building expertise and some undocumented labor.

Next day update: The Bush and news organizations are making a big deal of the fact that Iran just just fired nine missiles--with a maximum range of 1,200 miles. Of course Fox's headline (for what it made the lead story of the day) was the scariest: "Iran Test-Fires Missiles Capable of Hitting Israeli, U.S. Bases." Not Europe or the U.S., of course, meaning it took only a day for Condi Rice to be again revealed as a serial exaggerator. But with media attention spans being what they are, if the administration screams loud enough, perhaps people will think today's story actually supports yesterday's claims. The least surprising part of today's story? "Oil prices jumped on news of the missile tests."

by Lachlan Carmichael

BEIJING (AFP) - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pressed China's leaders Monday on sensitive human rights issues, but said she was encouraged by their decision to hold talks with the Dalai Lama's envoys.
 
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has pressed China's leaders on sensitive human rights issues, but said she was encouraged by their decision to hold talks with the Dalai Lama's envoys.mme(AFP/Pool/File/Oded Balilty)
In meetings with President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao in Beijing, Rice said she raised the cases of several dissidents detained by China as well as the ruling Communist Party's controls on the Internet.

"I think that is one of the brewing issues," Rice said as she summarised their discussions on Internet freedoms.

"The Internet is becoming so ubiquitous. It shouldn't be something used to constrain and limit political speech."

Differences over the international response to the political crisis in Zimbabwe were also discussed, with Rice insisting the UN Security Council had a key role to play despite China's preference for a mainly African solution.

Rice said the talks also covered the recent progress in the long-running campaign to end North Korea's nuclear weapons programmes, problems in the international economy and climate change.

In brief comments at the start of their meeting, Hu thanked Rice for visiting China's earthquake-hit Sichuan province on Sunday as well as US assistance following the disaster in May that left nearly 90,000 people dead.

"This has fully demonstrated the warm feeling of the American people towards the Chinese people," Hu said.

China's official Xinhua news agency later quoted him as saying China was committed to improving relations with the United States, which have suffered in recent years over disputes on issues such as human rights and trade.

Rice told reporters the recent unrest in Tibet was also discussed....

Read the rest:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080630/pl_
afp/uschinadiplomacyrice_080630153359

Gorgeous. (pic)

Eat your heart out Johnny McTeleprompter! The United States is sick of you, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, the warmongering Israelis, the color Red, and all of you warmongering republicans!

(CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE SITE CLIF JUST SENT ME & THE DEMOCRATIC BLUE IN ALL IT'S GLORY!)

It's obvious....America is very, very, very tired of this kind of White House...

Yep! The Redneck Neocon White House. After eight years of lies, deceits, distortions, illegal wars, illegal occupations, torturing/raping/killing of innocent people, and breaking the laws of our nation, we've had enough. Goodbye Red!

(hat tip to Grantinhouston for sending me this redneck picture among others via email!) ;-)

• Andrew Sullivan's weekly London Times column: The significance of Obama's win, why he won and who Obama and McCain should select as VP (an ambitious piece).
• "It's the Economy, Stupid." On eve of Obama's 17-day economic tour (beginning tomorrow in North Carolina and Missouri), AAA announced that the average price per gallon of gas hits $4.00 in 14 states and Washington, DC. This after Friday's news of the highest unemployment rate in 22 years, a new high price for a barrel of oil, 49,000 jobs lost in May and the Dow dropping 400 points. Today also brings reports of the collateral effect of the oil price increases: sharp increases in the price of oil-based goods, like tires.
• Monday NY Times: Campaign damaged Clintons' legacy. Despite their many foibles, their political reputation was largely insulated by winning. With Hillary's loss, the protective shield is lifted.
• Obama Nomination Bounce. Rasmussen (taken before Hillary's endorsement speech yesterday) shows Obama with a 48-40% lead over McCain, and when "leaners" are included, Obama's lead is 50-43%. The 50% threshold is considered a decisive line in politics: if an incumbent is under it he's in trouble and if a challenger is over it, it's game over. Obama is the challenger given that McCain represents the party holding the White House with the administration's full support. If McCain is struggling at 40-43% range three months after wrapping up the GOP nomination, McCain's stumbling out of the gate in a way he can least afford.
• The Coming "Unity Bounce" and How it Influences McCain's Veep Pick. This week, expect to see a growing "unity bounce" as Hillary's supporters begin to "come home" following her endorsement of Obama. If it grows into a double-digit lead for Obama, then GOP morale will plummet. McCain's standing in the polls will influence the kind of Veep he picks. For example, if he's doing well in the polls, then someone like Senator John Thune (R-SD) might be a good pick: a smart rising GOP star from central casting who would be pretty effective on the stump -- it wouldn't matter he's another white male from a small electoral state that is deep red. But if McCain is dangerously behind in the polls, then he's got to do something bolder to shake things up (e.g., like Mondale picking Ferraro). Does he pick Governor Jindal to add some youth and color (and right wing inexperience) to the ticket? Perhaps Meg Whitman to pick off former Hillary supporters? The greater the gamble, the more likely the MSM and voters won't buy it.
• Bombshell on McCain. Daily Mail (UK) has devastating story on McCain's character (or lack thereof) based on interviews with his first wife, vets he served with in Vietnam, and former friend Ross Perot.
• Politico reports that McCain's mocking tone, anger and condescending belittling of Obama may be not be the best way to introduce himself to the American people. McCain's team over-estimates how well known McCain is by most Americans. While he has been a fixture inside the Beltway and has strong relationships in the MSM bubble, the fact is like many senators he is not really well known out in Main Street. Many Americans can't even name the two senators representing their state. McCain's new ad, biographical in nature, is an admission he has work to do. Right now, with his continued grumpy appearances, he risks defining the race as the grumpy old man versus the young visionary leader.
• Tom DeLay's wife refuses to back McCain - will vote for Bob Barr.
• Both parties are trying to redraw the electoral map. Of course, only one will. Hint: Obama launched his general election campaign in Virginia on Thursday, will be in North Carolina and Missouri on Monday, and has significantly out-organized McCain in states all over the country, many of which went red in 2004.
• Condi Rice is "gratified" by Obama's nomination and considers it a "great thing". She adds that she has no interest in serving as McCain's VP.
• Frank Rich captures the generational divide that separates Obama from both Hillary and McCain.
• Glenn Greenwald slams David Broder as the embodiment of Beltway values.
• Floyd Brown, co-author with the late Lee Atwater and (now McCain adviser) Charlie Black of the racist "Willie Horton" ad twenty years ago, plans to run a similar sleazy campaign against Obama using violent crime as a proxy for exploiting racial fears. Brown has already released run one highly misleading ad about Obama's state senate record in Illinois that failed to get any traction (and which was highly criticized), but he plans to continue his effort during the general election. One issue is McCain's own record on gun rights is less than perfect.
• The Chicago Tribune highlights the differences between McCain and Obama.
• Maureen Dowd explains that Hillary didn't lose because of sexism, but because of her campaign's mistakes.
• A response to the attacks on Hillary and Michelle Obama from GOP and other hacks in DrumsnWhistles: "We are women, not wedges."
• Obama thanks Hillary by text, video, email and blog. Here's his statement of thanks after her speech. Here's his video clip of thanks highlighted on his website right now.
• Mark Penn, professional sleazebag.
• Al Franken wins Minnesota Democratic Party's daily affirmation to run for Senate against Sen. Coleman.
• NY Times Post Mortem: The Long Road to a Clinton Exit. (Lots of details about internecine turf battles and hubris).
• WSJ: Summary of political wisdom on the web.

Before I begin, I want to say that I refuse to dignify Elisabeth Hasselbeck's comments by addressing them here (she's the blonde at the far right). I will say, however, that someone should stuff a sock in her mouth and then wrap her entire head in duct tape, because that would be less embarrassing for her than being allowed to speak in public. She is ignorant and uniformed, and her position on The View is a poor reflection on Barbara Walters, in my opinion.

With that out of the way, I would now like to address Barbara's comment regarding bigotry:

Since when has stating a fact been defined as bigotry? Kathy was absolutely correct in stating that Republicans do not look out for women and minorities; that they are all about rich white men. That is just as factual as saying that Condi is a black woman. Am I a bigot for seeing that and saying so? If you think so, then I contend that you are the bigot.

OK, so Kathy wasn't as careful with her words in the beginning as she should have been on The View, and had to do a little damage control. That does not equal bigotry! Barbara's accusation was plainly ridiculous.

A short story:

A while back, my son and I were visiting a friend at her apartment complex. My son was acquainted with some of the kids who lived there, but didn't know them well. He was asking around for a specific boy that he wanted to play with, whose name he couldn't remember. He began describing the boy to some other children hoping that someone would know who he was talking about. He said, "He's about this tall, thin, curly hair, wears [some kind of cool shoes] and he's black." The other children began shrieking and calling my son a racist! One boy said, "Dude! Why ya' wanna call somebody 'black' for?"

Um, because he is black, and it was relevant in that context?

My son was devastated to the point of crying. I have made a point of teaching him about racism and what a terrible thing it is. He was horrified by the accusation, even more so by the possibility that he had inadvertently said something racist. It took several days of consoling him and reassuring him that he hadn’t said anything wrong before he stopped worrying about it.

My son was merely describing another boy who he liked and wanted to play with! For this, he was humiliated and wrongly accused. So, from which direction did the damage really come?

The same principle applies to the situation with Kathy Griffin. What she said about Republicans and Condi Rice is absolutely true. Republicans do support and protect rich white men and their bank accounts, and do not support women and minorities. That is a fact that Republicans don't even try to conceal. And before any of you start waving Economic Stimulus checks in my face, don't forget that we'll be paying those back next year, just like we paid back the last "gift" from Dubya.

Stating facts does not make anyone a bigot, even if those facts make certain people uncomfortable. If making people uncomfortable makes one a bigot, surely we're all guilty!

by Scott Creighton (Morning was first published here, on July 18th 2007)

 It's 10:00 am on the day the Senate failed to advance legislation to set a time table for withdrawal of US Troops from Iraq, because the Republican minority held their breath and stomped their feet and filibustered all night to keep the American People's wishes from being done. Because the President knows better than we do, what should be done there. Oh, I'm sorry; I mean "the Generals on the ground" do.

This just a week after the President commuted Scooter's well deserved jail time and one day after the ABC documentary about soldiers in Iraq facing gut wrenching conditions and basically pleading with Congress to bring them home.

This on the same day that Harriet Miers' seat sat empty as she contemptuously ignored a subpoena to testify before Congress. Three days after the White House claimed Executive Privilege as the reason to restrict access to documents that would shed light on the friendly fire incident that took a dedicated soldiers life.

JFK 1961

"Ladies and gentlemen;
The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society. And we are, as a people, inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago, that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it."

This is just one day after President Bush spoke to a gathering of Republican lawmakers in DC and swore he would never leave Iraq; or, should I say, our troops would never leave Iraq.

Condi Rice was apparently running back and forth all night meeting with Republican Senators, in private, and no doubt making deals, pushing spin, handing off fresh new copy of speeches that AEI writers penned just minutes before.

She worked hard to keep our troops in harms way; kicking in the doors of frightened civilians, and laying the ground work for her "New Middle East". She worked harder than she has her entire life, to keep our soldiers on IED infested roads and in the cross hairs of insurgent snipers. She should be proud of her work.

And when she appears at the luncheons and gets the pats on the back from the Middle Aged Investment Class 1%ers, she can smile that self confident smile of hers knowing she has helped make the world safe for Democracy, dividends, and an endless war-time economy.

Remember that soldier at the end of the documentary who said he'd stay another tour if the law makers would join him? The one that wiped a tear from his face? I wonder what a warrior like that has to see to make him shed a tear. I wonder about things like that. It's called empathy and there are those who consider it a sickness in this country right now.

I wonder where he is, right now, that soldier. 

I wonder where Condi Rice is. 

She's probably lying next to that AEI fellow who helped write the initial plan for the pre-emptive strike on Iraq and then also served on the 9/11 Commission to help make sure the commission didn't publish anything that would be to embarrassing for the White House.

Yeah, she's getting a smile from one of the planners that helped take us to war, as that soldier is stepping out of a flat bottom humvee and moving toward another house, after only 4 hours rest, to see if the 6 year old in there has any Anti-American propaganda.

Like maybe a copy of the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights or, God forbid, the Geneva Convention.

Somewhere in Iran, a child sleeps and dreams of parks and playgrounds and unicorns.

Somewhere on a destroyer off the coast, a 20 year old sailor turns on his monitor and lights up a cruise missile with his second cup of coffee next to his keyboard. All for the "birth pangs of a New Middle East".  The new version of "shock and awe" taht will engage "global terror" to keep this child from our shores.

Condi Rice rolls over and notices he's gotten up and is in the shower and she is in bed alone with her thoughts; a scary place to be. So she joins him.

The soldier in Iraq, finding nothing again in this house, moves on next door; tired and stressed out he wonders if this is the door that will end his life.

And the girl in Iran is routinely awakened by her mother, as the missile leaves the ship, and she stretches and yawns and looks out the window on a glorious blue sky morning.

 Abraham Lincoln in his First Inaugural Address on Monday, March 4, 1861

 "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."

Congress will not stop this. Their hands are tied by laws that the administration has broken since the election of 2000, or they are filled with stock options passed out by the many hedge-fund Generals on the ground.

When will it be that we remember what we are and who we came from? When will we take action to give meaning to the loss of every American Soldier who died to protect our freedom? When will we remember those words of our Presidents? Before this morning passes? Before the Dawn of the New Middle East? Only we have the power to stop this.

Did you ever think Liberials would hail you as a HERO and make $Millions$ at the same time? What? Oh, you did? And the country fell for it!!! O.K. All's forgiven. No hard feelings. BUT WAIT! I do remember your criticism of General Wesley Clark for doing the same thing when he wrote his book. Were you also duped then? Did Carl Rove whisper in your ear "Discredit the Gen. for no other reason than...well make up some reasons"? I believe you came up with "The Administration questions Gen. Clarke's motives, he has a grudge because he was forced out".

That was a good line. And everyone bought it. Scott, now the tables have turned and your line is being used against you by your old friends. But I gotta think you're smarter than this. If the last few years have taught us anything its that "Bushies don't take a dump, son, without a plan." Whats yours? That you were lied to by the President and even he didn't know the truth? How does one lie when he doesn't know the truth? Sounds awfully thin to me. The Nazi's had a better defense. Good luck. Your book sales should give you some funds for your legal defense.
Anyway, since everyone is in the forgiveness mood right now I felt like I should make a list. A list of the Traitors, Losers and people we owe an Apology since you were dubed into lying to the American people.

Traitors: Bush, Cheney, Scooter, Colin, Condi, Every one at Fix (or branded as Fox)News, Sean Hannity, Billo,  Tony Blair, Anyone that said "Trust your President" or "During times of War we must..."

Losers: Joe Lieberman, Dennis Miller, Nancy Pelosi, Any Cong./Sen. that voted for the War, Alan Colmes...

Apologies: Anyone who lost someone in the War, 911 victims/survivors, The French, Anyone who paid any $money$ in taxes, Anyone who has paid one cent over $1.50 in gas, PBS, BBC, NPR, The people of IRAQ & their dead, the victims/survivors of Katrina, Cindy Sheehan, Kanye West...

This is a short list. Please add more.

Apparently the book's title was changed after this cover shot was released.

We've all worked with and for people and organization we'd rather not mention. As we move on, sometimes bitterly, we go on, do the next thing, and try to put it out of our heads. Most of us haven't held high-profile positions, so even if we would tell of our experiences working at say--McDonald's as a teenager--we really wouldn't do much to damage the reputation of the mega-business.

But suppose you held a higher position, one that at times had the eyes of the world on you--what would you do when you left that job? Privy to secret conversations and national matters and addressing the press on a daily basis--it's a pretty big responsibility and one that former White House press secretary Scott McClellan held for three years. Now his tell-all book, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception, is set to release this Tuesday.

Working for George W. Bush since his days as governor in Texas, McClellan has been a close ally, confidante, and friend of the President. However, it seems that friendship was strained when McClellan was "pushed out" of his job two years ago and replaced by Fox News anchor Tony Snow. While McClellan's accusations seem damning to some, especially considering the source, I'm not surprised by one word.

According to the New York Times (story), McClellan claims that Bush deceives himself to accomplish his will, that invading Iraq was a "blunder", that the White House lied about the leak of CIA operative Valerie Wilson and the involvement of both Karl Rove and Scooter Libby's roles in the leak, and the Feds failed to act during Hurricane Katrina because they were "in denial". Oh, and Bush flying over the carnage of New Orleans after the hurricane hit? Totally not his fault. It was the idea of that scoundrel Karl Rove, dangit!

While I believe that McClellan's assessment of the Bush administration is accurate, does anyone really like a whistle blower? Sure, we intrigued by the confirmation on suspected scandals, but deep in the recesses of our minds aren't we thinking, "That guy is a rat!" I know I am.

As I consider McClellan's book several things come to mind. Didn't McClellan have to sign some sort of agreement saying that he was forbidden to speak about the affairs of the White House? I, for one, am uncomfortable that someone can work at the White House and a couple of years later start spilling secrets. Sure, I want to know what's going on in the Oval Office as much as the next person, yet I'm uneasy that the information is so accessible. While these allegations are damaging to the Bush White House, they certainly don't compromise national security.

It seems that choosing to publish this book while Bush is still is office is a great public relations move, but a poor ethical decision, especially for a man who writes, "I fell far short of living up to the kind of public servant I wanted to be." Supposedly this is an example of McClellan taking the blame for his own actions. Except that in the New York Times story, he blames everyone else--Bush, Condi, Karl Rove (his favorite whipping boy), and even the news media for their relentless questioning. Where is his personal responsibility in any of this? Maybe he didn't knowingly participate in any wrongdoing--I don't know.

I have no doubts that McClellan was treated poorly and that he was dismissed because his faith in Bush and his administration wavered. Yet a book like this from someone who was part of Bush's inner circle compromises not only the integrity of our administration, but also of our nation. Like it or not, the United States IS at war and Bush IS our leader. It is certainly McClellan's right as an American to speak out against the President and his actions, but that doesn't mean he should publicly proclaim Bush's shortcomings in a book after working as press secretary. Couldn't the release wait until January or February when Bush is out of office? Given our heated political environment, now is a great time to sell an expose. I understand the business end of things, yet as a former public servant and as a trusted spokesman, should McClellan so viciously bite the hand that once fed him?

Not only will McClellan make a buck off this buck (especially with all this free promotion), but he's getting a nice piece of revenge. McClellan would probably say that he's just clearing his conscience and had to speak the truth. Whatever. The White House press secretary's job is to feeding the press cleverly crafted lines and cover up the truth, sometimes for very good reasons, but more often to clean up the mess of political scandal. McClellan knew the game and played the game and he did it well. Were we supposed to believe him then or are we supposed to believe him now? I guess he was just "doing his job." Hmm...where have I heard that before?

He [McClellan] describes Bush as demonstrating a "lack of inquisitiveness," says the White House operated in "permanent campaign" mode, and admits to having been deceived by some in the president's inner circle about the leak of a CIA operative's name.

The book, coming from a man who was a tight-lipped defender of administration aides and policy, is certain to give fuel to critics of the administration, and McClellan has harsh words for many of his past colleagues. He accuses former White House adviser Karl Rove of misleading him about his role in the CIA case. He describes Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as being deft at deflecting blame, and he calls Vice President Cheney "the magic man" who steered policy behind the scenes while leaving no fingerprints.

McClellan stops short of saying that Bush purposely lied about his reasons for invading Iraq, writing that he and his subordinates were not "employing out-and-out deception" to make their case for war in 2002.

But in a chapter titled "Selling the War," he alleges that the administration repeatedly shaded the truth and that Bush "managed the crisis in a way that almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option."

"Over that summer of 2002," he writes, "top Bush aides had outlined a strategy for carefully orchestrating the coming campaign to aggressively sell the war. . . . In the permanent campaign era, it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president's advantage."

McClellan, once a staunch defender of the war from the podium, comes to a stark conclusion, writing, "What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary."

McClellan resigned from the White House on April 19, 2006, after nearly three years as Bush's press secretary. The departure was part of a shake-up engineered by new Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten that also resulted in Rove surrendering his policy-management duties.

A White House spokeswoman declined to comment on the book, some contents of which were first disclosed by Politico.com. The Washington Post acquired a copy of the book yesterday, in advance of its official release Monday.

Responding to a request for comment, McClellan wrote in an e-mail: "Like many Americans, I am concerned about the poisonous atmosphere in Washington. I wanted to take readers inside the White House and provide them an open and honest look at how things went off course and what can be learned from it. Hopefully in some small way it will contribute to changing Washington for the better and move us beyond the hyper-partisan environment that has permeated Washington over the past 15 years."

The criticism of Bush in the book is striking, given that it comes from a man who followed him to Washington from Texas.

Bush is depicted as an out-of-touch leader, operating in a political bubble, who has stubbornly refused to admit mistakes. McClellan defends the president's intellect -- "Bush is plenty smart enough to be president," he writes -- but casts him as unwilling or unable to be reflective about his job.

To read the review in its entirety, please click here.

Here is an exclusive on the book by Politico.com.