More Foley Follies: NY 19th District Democrat Challenger Takes on 6-Term Rep. Sue Kelly for Her Role as Former Page Board Chair

As co-Founder of the 70's band Orleans, John Hall co-wrote such classic gems as "Dance With Me" and "Still The One". Now he's running for Congress in Upstate NY's 19th district against six-term Republican Sue Kelly in solid Bush country (Bush won the district by 9 points in 2004). And he's gunning hard for her, coming out this week with a challenge that she fully explain to voters what role she may have played in the early days of the Mark Foley Follies (we'll be doing a more in-depth story on the Hall campaign shortly).

At issue is whether or not Rep. Kelly (R-Katonah) presided as Chair of the House's Page Board as underage male pages began complaining about Foley's inappropriate communications. Reports from her congressional staff claim she was at the helm from 1999-2001, but the Committee on House Administration said Kelly was chair from 1998 to 2000. By her own account, she "couldn’t remember" how long she served (as reported in the Putnam Journal News). According to the Hall campaign, it has now been discovered that Foley’s lewd behavior did occur while Kelly chaired the Page Board. In fact, says the campaign, a University of Oklahoma law school student who worked as a page from 2000 to 2001 said in a recent newspaper article, "It was like a running joke to look out for Foley."

"Rep. Kelly and her staff can’t seem to get their stories straight on her time of service to the Page Board," said Hall spokesman Tom Staudter. "We think there should be an FBI investigation, and, in the best interest of our country, Kelly be among the first people to be questioned by the federal agents."

"It is now common knowledge that warnings of Rep. Foley’s proclivity for lewd electronic communication with minors had taken place as early as 1998," continued Staudter. "How is it that the chair of the very page program she was responsible for, and is at the center of this controversy, was ignorant of what was going on? I think there are many parents around our country who would like to know the truth."

Two New Polls Show NJ's Menendez With Significant Lead Over Tom Kean Jr. This is Very Bad News for Republicans

The news just keep getting worse for Republicans. On the heels of the scorching Foley sex scandal comes two new polls released Thursday morning indicating that the GOP's troubles extend beyond the House and into the Senate as the critical midterm elections are just a month away.

Over in New Jersey, where Republicans have been praying that they'll pick up the current Democratic seat from Sen. Bob Menendez, the news is getting bleaker every day. The GOP, concerned that Democratic wins in key battleground states Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Montana, Rhode Island, Tennessee and possibly Virginia (Dems are ahead or tied in all races) could give them the six seats they need to gain control, are hoping the NJ seat would be the spoiler which keeps the Senate in Republican hands.

But just days after it was discovered that the latest addition to Kean Jr.'s research team is a convicted felon, the new polls show Menendez pulling away handily. The Fairleigh Dickinson-Public Mind poll gives Menendez a seven point lead, an 11-point upswing for Menendez since August. The new Reuters/Zogby poll shows Menendez leading by ten points. It would appear that Kean Jr, whose campaign's been fueled by aggressive smear tactics against Menendez, is rapidly running out of steam.

"Tom Kean Jr.'s efforts to use mud to cover up the fact that he and George Bush are ideological soul-mates on Iraq, Social Security, stem cell research and so many other issues are not working," Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) spokesman Phil Singer said. "It's time for Tom Kean Jr. to stop the smears and start coming clean about how he thinks George Bush is doing a heckuva of a job."

As the elections near, the Kean campaign has been working with convicted felon Robert Janiszewski, who is currently serving time in federal prison on corruption charges. More troubling for the campaign is that Kean Jr., like most Republicans seeking election or re-election, is quickly sliding off of Bush's diseased coattails. The Fairleigh Dickinson survey showed the president with an abysmal 34% job approval rating in the state.

As the Foley scandal continues to unravel, and with Iraq, Afghanistan, the recent NIE and Bob Woodward's new book creative havoc in the GOP, both the House and Senate are getting more within reach of Democrats than ever.

Fox News Analyst Kirsten Powers on Wednesday's Ostroy/DeLaite Report...Where Democrats Play Rough

Please tune in to tonite's The Ostroy/DeLaite Report...Where Democrats Play Rough. We'll be joined by Fox News Analyst and journalist Kirsten Powers. Besides her work in the media, Kirsten served five years in the Clinton Administration as Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Public Affairs and has worked in New York city and state politics. Since 2004, she's been a Fox News political analyst, where she regularly does on-air battle with Republican opponents on the issues of the day. She appears each Monday night on The O'Reilly Factor to debate conservative columnist Michelle Malkin. She also appears each Sunday on the Big Story with Julie Bandaras. She currently writes a column for American Prospect Online. Her writing has appeared in USA Today, Elle Magazine, The New York Observer, and Salon.

Kirsten recently garnered much attention for blasting conservative author and pundit Ann Coulter for claiming that things were "going swimmingly" in Afghanistan. We'll get Kirsten's thoughts on the news of the day, including the Mark Foley sex scandal, the explosive new Bob Woodward book, Bush, the upcoming midterm elections and Iraq.

The Ostroy/DeLaite Report...Where Democrats Play Rough, is a weekly political call-in talk show that tackles the Right Wing spin machine head on (www.OstroyDeLaiteReport.com). It covers the ever-changing political landscape with guests that include Joe Trippi, Michigan Congressional candidate Nancy Skinner, New York Congressional candidate Kirsten Gillibrand, Nomi Prins, Mark Crispin Miller, WABC Radio's Ron Kuby, Marc Maron, nationally-syndicated radio host Stephanie Miller, Russ Baker, BuzzFlash.com's Mark Karlin, BradBlog.com's Brad Friedman, Mark Green and others. The show airs every Wednesday at 6:30PM in NYC on Time Warner channel 67. It can also be viewed live over the internet at MNN.org. Just follow the steps to "Watch MNN/ch 67."

The Foley Follies: Republicans' Behavior in this Scandal is a Shameful, Disgusting Disgrace

First let's start with a quote from May 18, 2005:

"We're playing Russian Roulette with our children's lives. We need to stop these predators now."

That was scandal-plagued former Rep. Mark Foley speaking to reporters just a year before his Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which created a national sex-crimes registry and increased penalties for such crimes against children, was passed into law. For Republicans, it only goes downhill from there.

In a year which saw the GOP continuously rocked by corruption, where Tom DeLay, Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney have been forced to give up their House seats and where Jack Abramoff and Scooter Libby and others kept Republicans running for cover, the Foley scandal is adding a new layer of sewage to an already putrid party. The stink is so bad it can kill ya.

But Foley's not the only guilty party in this sorry mess. What's taking place in Washington right now is utterly despicable and a disgrace. GOP surrogates in the media such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity bring up news from almost 25 years ago--the 1983 sex scandals involving former Congressmen Gerry Studds (D) and Dan Crane (R) and underage pages--as if in some way it mitigates Foley's behavior and Hastert & Co.'s ensuing cover-up. Hey Sean, didn't your mama ever tell you two wrongs don't make a right?

We have the Republican leadership, as well as those involved in this cover-up--including Speaker Hastert (ILL), Majority Leader John Boehner (OH), and Rep. John Shimkus (ILL) chair of the Page Board--engaged in a round-robin of finger-pointing, with Hastert blaming Shimkus and Shimkus and Boehner blaming Hastert.

We have Hastert claiming he cannot remember if Rep. Tom Reynolds (NY), Shimkus and/or Boehner ever told him about the inappropriate Foley emails earlier in the year. On Tuesday Hastert, incredibly, said that he likely doesn't remember being told of the Foley scandal because he was probably informed of the situation at the end of a long list of legislative items. How about them apples? Perhaps the conversation with Boehner that day went something like this:

Boehner: Mr. Speaker, there's a number of very pressing issues me, Blunt, Reynolds and Shimkus need to discuss with you.

Hastert: Ok, Johnny-boy, you know I'm a busy man, so shoot....

Boehner: Well, we got the last vote needed on that $20-million highway reconstruction bill for Illinois. We also have that Immigration press conference set up for Tuesday with you and the president. There's also that hearing on the NSA wiretaps, and, oh, we've gotten complaints from a 16-year-old former page and his parents that Rep. Foley's been sending perverted emails to the boy.

Hastert: Immigration, yeah, big issue. Foley? Really? No shit! I guess we should look into that? Oh, make sure we get some 8x10's from that photo op with Bush. And let's meet next week to discuss status.

Hastert also claims that what he initially saw months ago didn't necessarily seem that inappropriate (a 52 year-old man flirting online with a 16-year-old boy, complimenting the body of another page, and then asking for an email photo isn't inappropriate?). If that's the case, why did he and Shimkus warn Foley not to talk to the boy again? Who the hell does Hastert think he's fooling? His self-defense so far is a colossal insult to every American. He's been lying so much that his head deserves to roll down Pennsylvania Avenue like a bowling ball.

We have White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, demonstrating gross insensitivity and lack of comprehension of the severity of the charges, referring to Foley's salacious communications as "naughty emails."

We also have the president on Tuesday coming to the defense of Hastert, much in the same way Bush typically lavishes praise on those who are completely inept (Michael Brown, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, etc). "I know Denny Hastert. I meet with him a lot. He is a father, teacher, coach who cares about the children of this country. I know that he wants all the facts to come out...and he wants to ensure that these children up there on Capitol Hill are protected. I'm confident he will provide whatever leadership he can to law enforcement in this investigation." Denny, you're doing a heck of a job.

We have Foley himself, who this week officially kicked-off his trial in the court of public opinion by announcing his alleged alcoholism (although no one in D.C. ever remembers the guy even a little tipsy), his homosexuality, and the bombshell that he was molested by a clergyman when he was 13-15 years old. Awww...poor Foley. What's most repulsive about this guy is that he's now trying to play the victim and disease cards. The words of that former page really ring true: Sick, sick, sick. With his political troubles behind him, he's clearly laying the groundwork for his future legal defense.

So what happens now? With the midterm elections just 34 days away, the Foley scandal has explosive consequences. The GOP was in trouble enough prior to the news breaking on this story, and the stakes were already high. Republicans have been afraid that if the Democrats retake the House and/or Senate, that leaves them and Bush open to extensive investigations into illegal wiretappings, torture and war crimes, the manipulation of pre-war intelligence, and also exposes Bush to the threat of impeachment. Well, the stakes just got even higher. Should Democrats regain control of the House, key Republicans--Hastert, Boehner, Roy Blunt, Reynolds, Shimkus, etc--face intense investigation into who knew what and when regarding Foley. Could criminal charges be next?

And what role will Christian conservatives play come November? Will they do the right thing and finally abandon the party that claimed to be the great bastion of morality and family values? Or will they too choose politics over priority and throw their weight to the GOP once again?

This is history in the making, folks. A political shitstorm of epic proportions. A story with great legs that will carry it into November.

Perverts Who Live in Glass Houses Shouldn't Throw Stones. But that Didn't Stop Foley from Blasting Bill Clinton 8 Years Ago

They say that hindsight is a luxury, and if the events of the past few days are any indication, Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) very well may be an authority on sexual addiction, which would explain his comments back in September 1998 about former president Bill Clinton's randy transgressions:

"It's vile," said Foley to a reporter from the St. Petersburg Times after reviewing special prosecutor Kenneth Starr's report . "It's more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction."

Foley had joined a chorus of Republicans who excoriated Clinton over his sexual affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. He was especially disturbed at the time over Starr's account of Monica Lewinsky performing oral sex on Clinton as he chatted with members of Congress on the telephone. That was "just sad," he said. "It's unbelievable that he could behave so carelessly in that setting." Perhaps we'll learn in the near future just how many Congressmen and women Foley might have been chatting with while typing away his perverted emails and instant messages to underage boys.

"Would Have, Could Have, Should Have," Says Hastert. Speaker Must Resign Over His Inept Handling of Foley Scandal

Can you get any more indifferent and flip than, "Would have, could have, should have?" That was House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's response Monday when pressed whether the Republican leadership should have done more after first learning of Florida Rep. Mark Foley's email indiscretions with underage male pages. In general, many would say Hastert should be stripped of his leadership position simply for repeatedly subjugating himself to the Bush administration and for surrendering to it Congress's constitutionally mandated oversight. But the Foley scandal shines a new light on Hastert's ineptitude, and it's officially time for him to go. Hastert must resign over his colossal negligence in failing to reign in Foley months ago instead of allowing the perverted Congressman to not only keep emailing teens, but to continue serving as--get this--co-chair of the House Missing and Exploited Children’s Caucus. I wonder if exploiting children is considered a qualification for the job??

Regarding the content of the emails and instant messages that went back and forth between Foley and a teenage former male page, Hastert incredibly said Monday, "I think that raised a red flag, raised a red flag with the kid, raised a red flag with the parents." Too bad it apparently didn't raise a red flag with Hastert himself though, or Roy Blunt, John Boehner or John Shimkus. I wonder how Hastert might have responded if it was his own teenage son who'd been receiving salacious emails from a 52-year-old man. I suspect there'd have been a much more rigorous investigation.

Hastert clearly has been more concerned with politics than with the safety of our youth. In a critical election year, who doubts that the Speaker conspired with other Republican leaders--Boehner, Blunt, Shimkus among them--to keep this explosive story under wraps hoping that it would go away and not blow up around election time? Shameless, self-serving and morally-challenged, they simply issued a faint warning to Foley to keep away from one former page after the boy's parents complained of improper communication from Foley to their son. And he said ok. And now they claimed they were "duped" by Foley, who "lied" to them about his email behavior. And Foley's checked in to rehab, claiming he was "drunk" when he corresponded with the teens. And everything's being tied up in a nice little bow and swept under the rug, right? Wrong. The political fallout over this scandal is mounting exponentially, and Republicans are shaking in their boots as they ponder their fate in November. Between Iraq, Afghanistan, terrorism, gas prices and prior corruption scandals, the last thing the GOP needs on top of all that is a nice, juicy sex scandal involving grown men and young boys (Rick Santorum, what do you make of that?) just 35 days from the midterms. How will they ultimately deal with this damaging new crisis? It wouldn't be surprising to see heads roll, most likely Hastert's, before Election Day.

Countdown to November: Democrats Maintain Leads in Key Battleground States in Bid to Recapture Senate

The clock keeps ticking, with the November midterm elections just 35 days away. Democrats seek to regain control of the Senate, and are fighting fiercely in several critical states. Here's how the key battleground states are shaping up according to the latest polls:

-Virginia: Sen. George Allen's campaign continues to implode. Allen and Democratic challenger Jim Webb are now tied at 43.

-Tennessee: In the battle for the retiring Bill Frist's seat, Harold Ford Jr.'s been running an admirable campaign, and has pulled ahead of Bob Corker by 6 points.

-Missouri: Claire McCaskill and Sen. Jim Talent are in a dead heat at 43, with each candidate overtaking the other every few days.

-Ohio: Sherrod Brown maintains a 45-43 lead over Sen. Mike DeWine. In our opinion, Brown pummeled DeWine on Sunday's Meet the Press debate.

-Rhode Island: Sheldon Whitehouse has a slight lead over Sen. Lincoln Chafee.

-Montana: Sen. Conrad Burns has been continuously slipping in the polls, and now trails Democratic challenger Jon Tester by 7 points.

-Pennsylvania: Sen. Rick Santorum still trails Bob Casey Jr. by a wide 9 point margin.

-New Jersey: Sen. Bob Menendez leads Tom Kean Jr. 44-41.

Democrats need six seats to regain a majority and therefore control the most important chamber of the most important branch of government. Several factors will continue to play a major role in this race: the Iraq war, terrorism, gas and oil prices, and Republican scandal. And just this week, two new wrenches have been thrown into the fray: Bob Woodward's explosive new book, "State of Denial," which chronicles the Bush administration's infighting and ineptitude over the war; and the allegations of sexual misconduct involving former Florida Rep. Mark Foley and several underage male Congressional pages. How will all this play out? Stay tuned.

Hastert and Boehner 'Can't Remember' Discussing Foley's Pervy Email Follies. Who are these Two Liars Trying to Fool?

I ask incredulously, is it possible that the two top House Republicans cannot recall discussing the scandal surrounding Florida Rep. Mark Foley's salacious emails and Instant Messages to 16-year-old male pages? That's what Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Leader John Boehner would like us to believe. Is perversion and corruption so rampant in Washington GOP circles that it's hard for Hastert and Boehner to remember explosive cases like Foley's? Wouldn't you think that the Speaker of the House, and House Majority Leader, would have as a top of mind matter the legal and political consequences of an embarrassing sex scandal involving one of their own and underage boys?

According to Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY), he personally raised the issue with Hastert months ago. Yet the Speaker's office issued the following statement over the weekend: "While the speaker does not explicitly recall this conversation, he has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynolds' recollection that he reported to him on the problem and its resolution." Sure, I bet the conversation went something like this:

Reynolds: "Hey Denny, you're not gonna believe this. Ya know Foley...down in Florida? Been sending dirty emails and instant messages to some teenage boy who used to work for him. Parents are very upset. This could rock the House, Denny. Bad stuff if it gets out. Denny...?"

Hastert: "Ummm...oh...yeah, right. Bad stuff. Sure. Sorry. What was that again? Something bad happened to some kid in Florida?"

Reynolds: "Denny, are you listening to me? We have a gay congressman on our hands who's essentially been soliciting online sex from a minor. Are you grasping the gravity of this situation?"

Hastert: "Gravity, sure. Oh, it's bad stuff, Tom. Real bad. Will get right on it. Check back with me soon."

Of course, Hastert is no forgetful buffoon. But he is a liar. And so is Boehner, whose office said Saturday that months ago he had had a "brief, nonspecific" conversation about the subject with Rep Rodney Alexander (R-LA), for whom the boy worked, but that he couldn't recall with certainty whether he talked about it with other GOP leaders.

I guess these two pillars of House ethics must've been mentally consumed by Tom Delay's conspiracy scandal. Or Duke Cunningham's legal troubles. Or Bob Ney's impending implosion. So many scandals, so little memory capacity.

To be sure, the Republican leadership was well aware of the seriousness of this situation, and chose to keep it under wraps while letting the randy Congressman continue, unbelievably, in his role as Co-Chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children. (It's no small coincidence that sexually-harassing, child-molesting, pedophile freaks always seem to be involved in organizations involving children. They seek out those roles because that's where the kids are. These predators know all too well where to find their prey).

Hastert and Boehner aren't the only negligent ones among the GOP leadership. Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., chairman of the House Page Board, knew about the brewing scandal in late 2005. Shimkus confronted Foley, who assured him and the Clerk of the House at the time, Jeff Trandahl, that nothing inappropriate had occurred. "Congressman Shimkus and the clerk made it clear that to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and at the request of the parents, Congressman Foley was to immediately cease any communication with the young man," a statement from Hastert's office said.

So now to save political face and keep the party from further imploding, Hastert has requested that the Justice Department investigate whether Foley violated federal law by sending sexually explicit instant messages to at least one and possibly more teenage pages. The FBI has begun it's preliminary inquiry into the scandal.

But the bigger issue within the GOP is, who knew what and when. "It's now clear from all the reports coming in from across the country that the Republican leadership team has been well aware of this problem with the pages for well over a year," said Tim Mahoney, Foley's Democratic challenger. "It looks to me that it was more important to hold onto a seat and to hold onto power than to take care of our children."

Democrats are charging that Foley's been protected by top Republicans, in particular Reynolds, through close political connections and financial motivations. Reynolds is chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, and is heading the battle to keep the House. Foley's longtime Chief of Staff Kirk Fordham, is now Reynolds' Chief of Staff. And campaign finance records show that Foley's campaign committee gave $100,000 to the NRCC this summer.

And the GOP leadership is hopping on the bandwagon calling for Foley's head. "His immediate resignation must now be followed by the full weight of the criminal justice system," said a statement from Hastert, Boehner and the majority whip, Roy Blunt. But that directive falls far short of taking any responsibility themselves for allowing Foley to continue operating unchecked.

Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., said any leader who had been aware of Foley's behavior and failed to take action should step down. "If they knew or should have known the extent of this problem, they should not serve in leadership," Shays said.

Those poor Republicans. With President Bush's recent Terror Tour kicking his approval rating up a few points, and with gas prices on a freefall, the Repubs were starting to get a little breathing room as they march towards the November midterms. But now it seems abundently clear: these guys are ammoral, unethical and corrupt, and no amount of spin can change that. Foley's sexual indescretions with a minor, and the ensuing cover-up, is simply one more example of why it's time for Republicans to go. Twelve years has been enough of this morally bankrupt party.

Corker Campaign Imploding, Putting Tennessee Senate Seat Closer in Democratic Hands Than Ever

In the fight for the retiring Bill Frist's Tennessee Senate seat, it's starting to appear as if Harold Ford Jr. may soon be heading to Washington, giving Democrats one more key battleground state in their quest to pick up six seats and regain control. Republican challenger Bob Corker now trails Ford Jr. by three points in the polls after being ahead by seven points. And now, according to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), Corker's replaced his campaign manager and hired a Hollywood flack (after spending much time on the campaign trail bashing Hollywood).

"When a campaign changes its top leadership with 39 days to go until Election Day, it means one thing: Trouble," said DSCC spokesman Phil Singer. "What Corker doesn't realize is that the problem is him, not his campaign staff."

So now they're rolling out the big guns. Frist's Tennessee Senate colleague Lamar Alexander is donating the services of his Chief of Staff, Tom Ingram, who'll take over from Ben Mitchell as Corker's new campaign manager. According to the DSCC, Ingram's a close friend of Alexander and has worked on his campaigns since the mid-1970s.

Corker also just brought on Hollywood media consultant Fred Davis, of Hollywood-based Strategic Perception Inc. Davis's previous clients include Californiaia Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and President Bush. In his official bio, he highlights an article that dubbed him "Hollywood Fred."

But Corker has spent much time criticizing Ford for his growing Hollywood support, nicknaming his challenger" Fancy Ford."

"The only other person who receives more money from Hollywood than my opponent is the guy who actually represented Hollywood," Coker complained recently to a Chattanooga Times Free Press reporter.

With Tennessee being such a critical state in the battle for Senate control, Republicans have been deeply concerned with the Corker campaign's poor showing. Two weeks ago, Corker and the Tennessee GOP chair Robert Gleason were criticized by the RNC and others key Repubs for running a lackluster campaign. Former RNC member John Ryder noted that "people are concerned" and added that Ford's strong campaign has "caught the Corker people a little off guard."

Menendez Pulls Ahead 6 Points in New Jersey. Democrats Continue to Gain Momentum in Battle for Senate Control

New Jersey had not been considered a key battleground state until fairly recently, when Republican challenger Tom Kean Jr. pulled neck and neck with Sen. Robert Menendez, causing Democrats to cringe. With the Democrats holding leads in at least five other critical states, the tight N.J. race gave new hope to GOP strategists hoping to see the party retain their majority. But a new Wall Street Journal/Zogby poll has Menendez running six points ahead of Kean. Adding insult to injury, the new Rutgers-Eagleton Poll shows President Bush with an all-time low 30% approval rating in the state, causing further dismay in the Kean campaign. This is not good news for Republicans.

The Democrats need six seats to regain control of the Senate. In the latest polls, Claire McCaskill leads in Missouri; Jon Tester leads in Montana; Sheldon Whitehouse leads in Rhode Island; Sherrod Brown is pulling solidly ahead of Mike DeWine in Ohio; Bob Casey Jr. has a double-digit lead in Pennsylvania; Harold Ford Jr. leads Bob Corker by 3% in Tennessee; and the Virginia campaign of George "Pork-eatin' N-word Macaca" Allen is imploding, with Jim Webb trailing now by just five points, way down from a solid double-digit lead.

One heartbreaking doomsday scenario has the Dems successfully executing their strategy of winning six of the above seats but then losing N.J., thus blowing their chance of retaking the Senate. Which is why the new WSJ/Zogby poll is huge.

Just weeks ago the thought of a Democrat victory in the Senate was all but a fantasy. With just 39 days left until the midterm elections, Republicans are now shaking in their boots over the very real prospect of losing control.

Al Franken Rips Tony Blankley a New One on MSNBC's Hardball

Kudos to Al Franken. On Tuesday's Hardball with Chris Matthews the Air America Radio talk show host, author and political pundit berated Washington Times Columnist Tony Blankley over the conservative's misstatements about the war and his misleading column this week about the circumstances surrounding former terrorism czar Richard Clarke's demotion in 2001. Franken was fired up and relentless.

It all started when Blankley minimized the significance of the Afghanistan war, attempting instead to portray Iraq as the central front in the U.S.'s war on terror, while downplaying the newly released National Intelligence Estimate which said the war has increased, not decreased, terrorist activity in the region. Blankley said that terrorists will "follow the sounds of the guns."

"I don't know what Tony's talking about," said an angry Franken. "We were told that this war would last just a few weeks. Rumsfeld wouldn't plan for after the war. We were just going to go in there, a Jeffersonian democracy was going to emerge in Iraq. It was going to be a model for the whole Middle East. It would put pressure on the Mullahs in Iran and the moderates would take over there, which they would de-fund Hezbollah. That's what we were told, and now were being told that, 'Oh, of course, we're in the middle of the war now, and they respond to the sounds of the guns.' What is that? Of course Afghanistan was the right thing to do, and the world was behind us. When we went into Iraq we did it on false pretenses. This president misled us into war. It was a huge gamble, and he has lost. And the 2700 men and women who have died have lost. And their families have lost. And the 20,000 that have been wounded have lost. And how dare you say...this is just, this is just a complete re-spin of what was said before we went in there. And I resent it."

Shaking his head and smirking, Blankley replied: "Look Al, you should've been reading my columns, and then you'd understand things a little bit better. I wrote a column before the war in September 2002..."

An even angrier, incredulous Franken interrupted: "I think I understand things perfectly well Tony. I think it's you that don't understand things. And don't be patronizing like that, ok?"

Blankley responded by saying he was merely trying to explain things to Franken, who, at this point, grew more agitated and sarcastic. "Ok, Tony. Try to explain it to me because I'm a little thick here today...because...didn't you say, didn't the president say that this was going to be over pretty soon? Weren't we going to be treated like liberators? Weren't we going to be greeted with sweets and flowers?"

Later in the segment, as Blankley was blathering on with his right wing drivel about the NY Times "cherrypicking" from the NIE, Franken, holding up papers and waving them into the camera as he read, interrupted him to quote directly from Blankley's column this week where he "misled" his readers by claiming that Clarke "demoted himself" early in 2001, rather than being marginalized and demoted by the Busheviks after they took office. Franken accused him of intentionally lying to his readers. The fact is, it was after 9/11 that Clarke, frustrated in his reduced counterterrorism role, requested a transfer to a new NSC office dealing with cyberterrorism. Clarke, who served under Presidents Reagan, Clinton and both Bushes, eventually had enough with Dubya and left government in 2003.

I have never seen Franken more aggressive, and more effective. Bravo, Al.

Bubba Blew it on Fox. Wallace, the Right Wing Prince of Nepotism, Got the Best of Him. Wake Up Democrats, this is War

The Fox News Sunday interview with Bill Clinton was a disgrace. To being with, it was a classic right-wing set-up by host Chris Wallace, who obviously has learned the tricks of ambush television from the master--his mentor, benefactor and dad, 60 Minutes' Mike Wallace. The former president was in the studio to presumably discuss his Global Initiative, which has raised $7-billion to help fund the fight against global warming. But it quickly became clear that Wallace, behind the thick dark veil of Fox's conservative bias, was more interested in attacking Clinton's record of fighting global terrorism. Kudos to Wallace. Another great ReTHUGlican bait and switch.

With a smirk on his face (which Clinton called him on) and a general smarminess that detracted from his credentials as a supposed legitimate journalist, Wallace started the fracas by asking, "Why didn't you do more to put Bin Laden and al Qaeda out of business when you were President." Rightly so, Clinton's reaction was animated and harsh, and he ultimately accused Wallace and Fox News of perpetrating a hatchet job on him while treating the Bush administration with kid gloves.

"...I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked why didn't you do anything about the Cole. I want to know how many you asked why did you fire Dick Clarke." He was referring to terrorism czar Richard Clarke, who had served under Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton and George W. Bush.

Let me be clear about one thing: I think Clinton is one of the greatest presidents this country has ever had. Truly brilliant, and a master communicator. The most passionate, charismatic and articulate politician in modern history. But he made a big mistake Sunday. Once it became obvious what Wallace was doing, Clinton justifiably grew agitated and came at Wallace hard in defense of his and his administration's policies and actions in fighting terrorism, and his efforts to find and kill Osama bin Laden. This initially lasted a few minutes. And then it should've stopped. But it didn't.

Clinton soon appeared undignified and very un-Clinton-like. He should've dressed-down the nepotism-engorged, right wing journo-punk Wallace for about five minutes and then, in a commanding authoritative voice said, "Now that we've established exactly how my administration did more to kill bin Laden and fight terrorism than any other, let's move on to the Clinton Global Initiative and the $7-billion we've raised to combat global warming." Instead, Clinton relentlessly pursued the topic even after Wallace smugly and sarcastically suggested three times, to no avail, that they shift the conversation to the Global Initiative. Clinton just kept pleading his case. His tone, body language and agitated state said one thing to Wallace: "You hurt me." It was highly uncomfortable to watch. I found myself squirming. Score another one for Fox News and the bad guys.

Following this charade, Secretary of State Condi Rice on Monday criticized and refuted Clinton's assertions about his administration's efforts in fighting bin Laden and terrorism, as well as his contention that he did more than Bush.

"What we did in the eight months (before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks) was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years," Rice said. She added that the Bush administration was "not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al-Qaeda" when Clinton left office.

Well, she's flat out wrong, but I won't get into just how inept Rice, Rummy, Cheney and Bush have been in fighting terrorism. The new National Intelligence Estimate makes that perfectly clear. But as Clinton said, anyone who wants to truly understand what he and Bush did or didn't do, and what the Clinton administration did or did not leave the Busheviks with in January 2001, should read Clarke's book "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror."

Said Clinton: "He (Clarke) has a variety of opinion and loyalties now but let's look at the facts. He worked for Ronald Reagan. He was loyal to him. He worked for George Herbert Walker Bush and he was loyal to him. He worked for me and he was loyal to me. He worked for President Bush; he was loyal to him. They downgraded him and the terrorist operation. Now, look what he said, read his book and read his factual assertions, not opinions, assertions."

The biggest lesson to be learned from Sunday's sham interview is that Democrats better understand the war they're in and start knowing how to fight back. Between now and November 7th there'll be plenty more biased interviews with lots more Chris Wallace's. These guys are very, very good at what they do. They're all graduates of Rove University. They excel at effectively framing an issue to make Democrats appear in the most negative light. They don't come any smoother than Bill Clinton...and look what happened. They've deftly played the terrorism card once again. Wake up, Democrats.

16 Spy Agencies Now Validate Ned Lamont's Campaign Message. New NIE Makes it Clear Why He, Not Lieberman, is Right About Iraq

A 30-page National Intelligence Estimate, completed in April and released last week, reported without equivocation that the war in Iraq has fueled violent Islamic extremists; has increased terrorism in the region and throughout the world; and has served as an unprecedented recruitment tool for al Qaeda and other terror organizations. The NIE, titled "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States," was prepared by the National Intelligence Council of 16 U.S. intelligences agencies, which is comprised of current and former senior intelligence and national security officials. The findings, of course, are in direct contrast to the progress and success falsely and repeatedly claimed by the Busheviks when framing the war's overall impact on the fight against global terrorism. In short, the Iraq war is a self-fulfilling prophecy; it's created the very beast we supposedly went over there to fight. And if Ned Lamont plays his cards right, it would appear that the NIC just handed him victory on a silver platter.

In the wake of the NIE and between now and November 7th, on the national level, the Party needs to hammer home Bush's colossal failure in Iraq, demonstrating just how dangerous the war has become and how it's making America more vulnerable, less safe and exposing us to terrorist violence more than ever. The party must remind voters of Bush's own recent statement that the war had "nothing" to do with 9/11, thereby drawing the conclusion that the only impact Iraq has had on the global war on terror is to legitimize, mobilize and energize monsters like Osama bin Laden and terror groups like al Qaeda. Democrats must at every turn show how this miserably ill-fated war has given cause and strength to terrorists throughout the world.

In Connecticut, Lamont must use the gravity of this national security threat and build on his anti-war momentum, holding up the NIE as proof-positive that he carries the right message for the his state's voters and for America. That he, not the hawkish and delusional Bush-sympathizer Joe Lieberman, must be sent off to Washington to help guide the nation out of this dangerous quagmire, which has served no purpose other than to squander our precious political, financial and military resources, diverting them from the real fight against terrorists..

Is Bush's Terror Tour Working? New NY Times/CBS News Poll Shows Some Disturbing Trends

We've all seen it before. Bush's approval ratings sink to new lows and then voila, out comes a brand-new series of fear-mongering speeches across America where the president perpetrates his own reign of terror in an effort to scare voters into supporting his deranged foreign policy and to keep Republicans in power. It's worked like a charm in the past. But is it working again? A new NY Times/CBS News poll released this week indicates that voters may just be falling into the same terrorism sinkhole as before.

First let's start with the good stuff. The stuff which makes Democrats sleep a little easier at night:

-Just 25% of those polled approve of Congress's performance
-71% said they do not trust the government to make the right decisions
-77% said incumbents do not deserve re-election (the highest since 1994)
-48% said it's time for a new Congressperson for their own districts
-54% said Democrats will win more seats in November
-42% said Democrats will make better choices about Iraq
-50% favor Democrats on the economy
-44% trust Democrats to be more honest about Iraq
-59% said Bush was hiding something when he discusses Iraq
-25% said he's actually lying when discussing Iraq
-52% believe we will not have lost the war if we pull out of Iraq today
-Bush's approval rating is unchanged from August at 37%

So let's assess. Voters are increasingly unhappy with Bush, and disdain for Congress is at its lowest point since 1994 when Newt Gingrich and his Rethuglican Contractors for America blazed through DC in a House and Senate sweep. Looks good for the left, right? Well maybe not. Just like the above GOP doomsday scenario ultimately meant nothing in '04. Let's make no mistake: as in 2002 and '04, the single biggest X-factor here is terrorism. And there's some interesting data behind the data in this week's survey.

The Times/CBS poll found that since Bush completed his recent series of Iraq cheerleading speeches and terrorism fear-mongering, Americans are more scared than ever. The number of people who think terrorism is the #1 issue doubled to 14% from 7% in July. 22% said Iraq was the most important issue, unchanged from July. Additionally, 36% now approval of Bush's handling of the Iraq war, up from 30%. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see what's happening here. The Busheviks are playing the Iraq/terror card more aggressively and more shamelessly than ever because, for the GOP, the stakes have never been higher. What's most terrifying about all this? They are very, very good at playing this game.

Is America falling for the same scare tactics all over again? Will the Busheviks successfully frighten voters in the polling booths in six weeks to vote Republican? At this stage in the election, that's anyone's guess. To be sure, the data at times appears contradicting as Americans, while extremely dissatisfied with the status quo, do show a propensity to put their faith and trust into the GOP when it comes to protecting the nation. But to complicate matters more, while 42% believe the Repubs are better at dealing with terrorism than Democrats (37%), the margin has shrunk considerably, suggesting that Democrats may be gaining ground on this critical issue. So clearly, when it comes to terrorism, voters seem bi-polar. Or at best, vulnerable to the Busheviks' fear-mongering yo-yo they're kept on.

Perhaps one of the most troubling indicators from the Times/CBS survey is that, while unhappy with the status quo, only 38% of voters polled said the Dems had a clear plan for how they'd run the country, as opposed to 45% for the Repubs. As such, will the midterms truly be a "referendum" on Bush and Iraq as the pundits believe, or will voters be sucked back into making their worst terrorism fears the primary lever when voting? Will they stick with the "devil they've got" instead of the one they don't know? Will the Dems somewhow create a message that truly resonates? Stay tuned.

Countdown to November: New Polls Indicate Democrats Gaining Momentum in Bid to Recapture Senate. This is Winnable

Less than seven weeks from now Americans will go to the polls to vote in the midterm elections which are shaping up as a referendum on President Bush, the Iraq war and the threat from terrorism. Democrats need six seats to regain control of the Senate, and if current polls are any indication of things to come, there's a very strong chance they just might prevail. Races in key battleground states are getting tighter, with Democrats holding their own in leads over Republican incumbents, while staving off Republican challengers to open seats and seats the Dems currently hold.

A new SurveyUSA poll shows Tennessee Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Harold Ford Jr. leading Republican candidate Bob Corker, 48%-45%. This race was earlier predicted as a toss-up by pundits, but Ford has been gaining steadily. Rasmussen Reports show that in Montana, Jon Tester leads Sen. Conrad Burns 52%-43%. Additionally, in one of the tightest races, Missouri Democratic challenger Claire McCaskill now leads Sen. Jim Talent 45%-42%. In Rhode Island, Sheldon Whitehouse has widened his lead to 51%-43% over incumbent Lincoln Chafee, up from a 6% advantage in August. In Ohio, Rep. Sherrod Brown, who's challenging Sen. Mike DeWine for his Ohio seat, leads 47%-41%. Over in Pennsylvania, the 3rd highest-ranking Republican Rick Santorum trails challenger Bob Casey Jr. by 14 points, up from 11 points last month, according to The Hill. Last but not least is the brewing battle in Virginia, with Sen. George "Macaca" Allen unexpectedly fighting for his political life against tough-as-nails war hero Jim Webb. Survey USA has Allen ahead of Webb just 48% to 45%, a statistical dead heat.

In their bid to hold onto seats, the Democrats are faring extremely well. In Washington, incumbent Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell now leads Republican challenger Mike McGavick 52%-35%, up from 6% in the August poll. In the fight for outgoing Sen. Mark Dayton's seat in Minnesota, StarTribune shows DFL U.S. candidate Amy Klobuchar maintaining her commanding lead over GOP rival Mark Kennedy, 56%-32%. Lastly in Michigan, a Detroit News poll has Democratic U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow with a solid 54%-34% lead over GOP challenger Mike Bouchard.

On the national spectrum, Democrats lead by a 12-point margin (53%-41%) over Republicans in a generic ballot.

There's been much recent talk that the Democrats' best shot at power is in retaking the House of Representatives. But the Senate is more in play than ever before, and the above polls show that both chambers of Congress are now within reach of Democrats. On a trip to D.C. last week the mood on The Hill among Republicans was gloom with a touch of doom thrown in for good measure. It's almost as if the GOP's already conceding the House, preparing to fight a bloody war to the death over the Senate. Stay tuned.

Bush's Bulldog Hughes Says Geneva Conventions Need Clarification. For 57 Years the World Has Understood them Just Fine

So there was Karen Hughes, top Bush advisor, on MSNBC's Hardball Monday night stating that the 57-year-old time-tested Geneva Conventions, which have been good for every U.S. president since FDR, are too "vague" for her boss. Seems the poor guy and his Attorney General Alberto Gonzales cannot distinguish between horrific torture and simple "handcuffing," and need Congress to rewrite the rules for them. The only problem is, Congress isn't buying. And many prominent Republicans--among them Sens. John Warner (VA), Lindsey Graham (SC), John McCain (AZ), and former Secretaries of State Colin Powell and George Schultz--have come out in strong opposition to Bush's proposed legislation.

The criticisms of this administration are mounting by the minute. Powell has recently said that "the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism because of our treatment of terror suspects." Former President Jimmy Carter said the U.S.'s position on Iraq and our treatment of terror suspects has "lost the support and trust and confidence and admiration that this country's had for generations."

Asked by host Chris Matthews to comment on Carter's statement, Hughes said "I think that's unfortunate that he would say something like that because I think what's happened instead is that we had to make a series of very hard decisions faced with unprecedented threats against our country and against our freedom. In the case of Iraq, the president had to make a difficult decision that, in the light of September 11th, we could not afford the possibility that terrorists might be able to access weapons of mass destruction that we thought Saddam Hussein had. In the case of detainees, we are faced with the situation with a very serious, tough group of terrorists who are determined to kill Americans.."

The president, she said, seeks to "set out clear standards for questioning for our interrogators." Citing as an example the future capture of high-level terrorists, she said the president feels that it's very important that we be able to question that person and that the rules be clear for those who are involved in the questioning."

She then proceeded to make an absolute, utter mockery out of the Geneva Conventions, which has been the bedrock international rule of law on the treatment of prisoners of war since 1949. "The Geneva Conventions Common Article 3," she said, "which is right now very vague, it basically says you can't have 'an affront against personal dignity.' Well you know, some criminals, some terrorists, might say being handcuffed is an affront against personal dignity. Certainly being put in jail is an affront against...So what the president is trying to do is to define what that means..."

To quote one of my favorite rockers, Tommy Lee, all of this rhetoric is just sauteed in wrong sauce. Did you notice Hughes's slick morphing of Iraq and 9/11? Despite her boss saying weeks ago that the two had nothing to do with each other, he still has his spinheads hit the streets spewing the same rubbish to anyone who'll listen.

As for the Geneva Conventions, where's the confusion? World leaders for almost 60 years now have understood the Conventions just fine, and respected them without question. By redefining their meaning, by reinterpreting their Common Articles, the Busheviks proposed changes, as John McCain said, would result in the torture and abuse of American soldiers captured in future wars.

What the real issue is in this whole debate is that the Busheviks are petrified that that their treatment of terror suspects to-date constitutes war crimes; crimes they could soon be held accountable for, especially if the Democrats recapture the House and/or the Senate and obtain subpoena power and oversight. While Hughes said the president stated "we do not torture and have not tortured," they know exactly what they've done. And it is precisely these actions that could land those at the top in jail. This administration, under the vast umbrella of national security, has flagrantly and consistently violated the law, and Hughes acknowledged that those involved in questioning terror suspects could be accused of war crimes "if they did not comply with standards." Which is why she and her Rovian cohorts, on behalf of her boss, continue to muddy up the waters and create ambiguity where it heretofore did not exist. "The standards aren't clear," Hughes claimed, "so they (the interrogators) have to know the rules. They have to know what they're complying with. That's why the president went to Congress to try to clarify this."

This is Cover Your Ass 101, folks, and it likely won't work. The Geneva Conventions have held up through Korea, the Cold War, Vietnam, Bosnia and everything else in between. Only George W. Bush has had a problem with its interpretation and meaning. Only George W. Bush believes he cannot properly defend America unless he breaks the law and reshapes it to his personal liking. Call me crazy, but just when you think this guy can't possibly be any worse of a president........

On a final note, while I usually admire and respect Chris Matthews, he could've renamed his show Softball given his passive treatment of Hughes. Oddly, it was as if he felt honored to be in her presence; as if having someone that high up the Bush food chain was to be relished, and that playing hardball, his usual shtick, would've been sacriligious, or even punished somehow. He basically let her spin with relative impunity until her head almost whipped off. He contested nothing. It was embarrassing.

Allen's Re-Election Bid Imploding. "Sen. Macaca" Freefalling in the Polls, Putting Virginia Firmly in Play

Sen. George Allen of Virginia is in trouble. Big trouble. And he knows it. On NBC's Meet the Press Sunday, he bobbed and weaved as host Tim Russert had him on the ropes over everything from his now-infamous "Macaca" slur weeks ago to his unyielding support of the Busheviks' war in Iraq. It was a veritable minefield, and Allen did his slippery best to avoid practically every direct question with evasive indirect non-answers.

In what could be another major foreshadowing of the Republican Party's mounting doomsday scenario in the November midterm elections, a Mason-Dixon poll conducted this month found Allen's once double-digit lead over Democratic challenger Jim Webb now down to a paltry 46-42%, with a margin of error of 4 percentage points. Statistically, it's a dead heat. And that's great news for Democrats, who need to win six seats to regain control of the Senate. Previously, the tightest battles had been expected in Missouri, Rhode Island, Montana, Pennsylvania and Ohio, with Tennessee and Virginia considered longshots. With Virginia now firmly in play, and SurveyUSA showing Harold Ford Jr. leading Republican Bob Corker by 3 points, the Dems' chances at winning get better and better every day.

On Sunday, Allen doggedly stood by his support for the war and his support for Bush. Consider the following exchange:

RUSSERT: But let me ask you a simple question. If the CIA said in 2003, "Saddam does not have weapons of mass destruction. That is now our--the finding," would you still have voted to go to war?

ALLEN: Tim, we, we made decisions. You can't say, "Gosh," five years later--and this is what my opponent's campaign's about is the second-guessing.

RUSSERT: No, but it's a serious question. People are saying, knowing what they know today, they still would have gone in. It's a serious question. If you knew Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction, was it still worth going to war?

ALLEN: I stand by my vote, and the vote was based on the evidence and information before us. And we had a choice. We had a choice whether to listen to the critics and do nothing, and then have this world more dangerous if, if we were right.

Fascinating stuff, considering that every single justification for the Iraq invasion has been proven unfounded, and that we now also know that the administration manipulated the facts and cherry-picked intelligence in its run-up to war.

Allen is now facing the fight of his political life. Webb is a former Republican; a highly decorated Marine and former Reagan-era Navy Secretary who told Russert that the Iraq war is an "incredible strategic blunder of historic proportions." He said he's lost confidence in Bush's foreign policy, and repeatedly reminded viewers that he and his father, unlike Bush or Allen, had served in combat. His son is currently serving a tour of duty in Iraq with the Marines.

"Very few people who have brought us this war have served, and very, very few of the children of these people who have brought us this war have served," Webb said.

On the war, Russert asked Allen to define "stay the course" and whether or not he would support sending more troops. Both questions brought vague, political answers. Regarding the $300 billion cost of the war so far, Allen was asked if that money could've been better spent in the fight against global terrorism. "We have spent money on all those things. You can't be constantly second-guessing, Monday-morning quarterbacking," Allen said.

But that's just the point. Yes we can, and should. The Busheviks and the GOP leadership are accountability-averse. They started a war of choice with a sovereign nation that posed no threat to the United States. Over 2600 of our soldiers are now dead, tens of thousands maimed and wounded, with perhaps 30,000 Iraqis killed. We've spent $300 billion, created a terrorist breeding ground where one did not exist, and there's no viable exit strategy on the table. And Allen says we shouldn't "Monday morning quarterback?" Given the disaster Bush created, heads should roll, for Pete's sake.

What Webb has going for him is that he's an original opponent of the war. He spoke out against an invasion early on, arguing that the same containment strategy that kept Russia in check throughout the cold war would work again against Saddam Hussein. In a September 2002 Washington Post op-ed piece he warned that American occupation forces in Iraq would "quickly become 50,000 terrorist targets." And he was right.

Bush to Congress: "My Way or the Highway: We Spy the Way I Want or I Shut Down the Whole Program"

In his Rose Garden press conference Friday President Bush tossed the same threat that's worked for years for millions of other spoiled, petulant adolescents: "It's my ball, so either we play my way or there's no game." Except this isn't sandlot baseball we're talking about. It's the security of our nation. Bush clearly has trouble defending the United States unless he's able to break domestic law and violate the nearly 60-year-old Geneva Conventions.

"Well heck, I don't like being told what to do, ya know? I'm the president. I'm the decider. I make all the rules. I live in the White House, not you. I'm married to the First Lady, not you. I'm the boss, see? The top dog. The commandeerer-in-chief. The head guy. And I say we can spy on who we want to, and we can torture them A-rab terrorists (actually in BushSpeak pronounced as 'terrists') if I say its' ok. And if you're gonna rub them dang FISA laws and Geneva Conventions in my face, them I'm just gonna make the NSA, CIA and everyone else shut down all them dang programs. You see, we just can't be safe here in America unless I break the law and torture people!"

Bush's tactics for interrogating terror suspects has been under fire for some time, but only this week has it kicked into high gear when three prominent Republican Senators--John McCain (AZ), John Warner (VA) and Lindsey Graham (SC)--aided by former Secretary of State Colin Powell, vehemently opposed any legislation the Busheviks are seeking that would reinterpret key articles of the Geneva Conventions relating to the treatment of prisoners of war. The Supreme Court recently ruled that the provisions apply to terrorism suspects as well.

Specifically, Common Article 3 bars "outrages upon personal dignity." Bush is seeking to clarify the provision and asked Friday "What does that mean, ‘outrages upon human dignity’?" Honestly, Mr. President, do you really not know? Would you have a problem if one of your kids was stripped naked, with a black sack placed over her head, and dragged around on all fours by a chain? Or perhaps if she was kept awake for 48 hours in a dark room, with no food or water, while she was questioned? Or how about having her stand naked with fake electrical wires hanging from her arms as she thinks she's about to be electrocuted. Perhaps one of the Bush twins might enjoy a little Water-Boarding, where she's bound to an inclined board, feet raised, head slightly below feet, with cellophane wrapped over her face as water is poured over her as she gags and experiences a terrifying fear of drowning. Maybe then you might see all this as 'outrages upon human dignity?"

In his press conference, Bush threatened to scrap the CIA program for the interrogation of high-level terrorism suspects if Congress passed an alternative set of rules affording these suspects many of the same basic rights as other prisoners. He repeatedly referred to the intelligence "professionals" who allegedly support his policies. Yet the heads of all four branches of the U.S. military have voiced strong public opposition to Bush's proposed rules for greater coercive interrogation and prosecution of terrorists.

What Bush is failing to understand--which the military officials clearly do--is that by the U.S violating the Geneva Conventions, the Busheviks are putting our servicemen and women in grave danger throughout the world. Our enemies can and would perpetrate the same abuse and torture on our own soldiers. A simple concept indeed, but one the commander-in-chief is oblivious to.

Yes, Chafee Won in Rhode Island, But the Numbers Behind the Numbers Could Mean a Win for Democrats in November

Sen. Lincoln Chafee (RI), perhaps the most liberal Republican in the Senate, might be looking at defeat in November if Tuesday's primary results are any indication. While Chafee handily beat his Republican challenger, Cranston Mayor Stephen Laffey, it's the overall voter turnout that's key here.

A couple of interesting stats:

-Chafee won less than 55% of the GOP vote
-Democratic Challenger Sheldon Whitehouse received more than 81% of the Democrat vote.
-Whitehouse’s vote total was more than 5,700 votes above the combined Republican vote
-The total Democratic vote exceeded the total Republican vote by 21,439.

Here are the actual vote totals:
-Lincoln P. Chafee: 34,873 (54.17%)
-Steven Laffey: 29,500 (45.83%)
-Total Republican Vote: 63,373

-Sheldon Whitehouse: 69,159 (81.54%)
-Christopher F. Young: 8,916 (10.51%)
-Carl L. Sheeler: 6,737 ( 7.94%)
-Total Democratic Vote: 84,812

The data is a potential foreshadowing of the trouble Chafee faces this Fall if the Democratic Party wins the get-out-the-vote war. The very liberal Rhode Island is a critical battleground state in the Democrats' push to recapture the Senate. They need six seats to regain control, with Montana, Ohio, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Tennessee comprising the other key states. Virginia has recently beocme in play following Sen. George Allen's "macaca" blunder weeks ago. Allen's once commanding lead over Democratic challenger Jim Webb has diminished considerably.

America Wake Up. Don't be Fooled Again By the War-Mongering, Fear-Mongering Bushevik Rhetoric

As expected, the Republican leadership is smelling defeat in November, and is on a fear-mongering shooting spree over the Iraq war and terrorism. The intensity level is staggering, and it's an indication of just how ugly it's going to get in the next seven weeks.

The ubiquitous President Bush has been aggressively defending his quagmire, desperately trying to convince Americans that it's a central link in the fight against what he calls Islamic fascism. He and his cabal--Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove--incessantly challenge our collective patriotism by claiming that anything less than full support for this miserable military blunder is tantamount to appeasement and treason. On The Hill, we have House Majority Leader John Boehner (OH) going so far this week as to claim that Democrats "are more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people." Bingo. There it is. Bottom. That's the last straw, folks. This time they've gone too far.

America, it's time to wake up and realize how shamefully sinister this administration is, and how they're relentlessly trying to manipulate you, exploit your fears and politicize 9/11, the most horrific tragedy in U.S. history. I'll be as frank as I can here: if there's anyone, anyone, in America who thinks that any politician, be they Republican or Democrat, truly wants to protect the terrorists more than our own citizens, then they are complete and utter fools who deserve everything they get from this corrupt administration and GOP leadership. This new round of rhetoric is irresponsible and reprehensible. It's indendiary propaganda at its worst. It's shameful and unprecedented it its scope. Americans on both ends of the political spectrum must reject this hate-speak in November by sending the culprits home to spend their days playing golf with Tom DeLay.

Wake up America. Hold this administration accountable for their miserably failed war. For bungling Afghanistan and allowing the Taliban and drug lords to reconstitute. For their failure to secure our borders, our ports, our railways, and airways. For failing to find Osama bin Laden. For their abysmal response to Hurricane Katrina. For rising interest rates and inflation, and declining wages. For record deficits, gas and oil prices. For failing to improve education and healthcare. The list is endless. But what you should not do, America, is let them tell you that Democrats are weak, scared and in bed with terrorists. That's a colossal insult to your intelligence, and that should make you very, very angry.