Better than I could have put it

Jim Moore of Town and Country wrote a letter to the editor to the Post Dispatch that puts my view of Religion so well, that I had to publish it on here. It starts out a bit dishjointed, but I'll bet that's the Post Dispatch's doing. He's obviously responding to a Krauthammer article, which I personally can't stomach to finish. Or even begin to read.
Anyway, onto the letter (with a little emphasis courtesy of moi):

What is missing in our discussions about religion is historical perspective. In the history of mankind, formal religion is a relatively new phenomenon, arriving on the scene in the past 2,000 to 3,000 years. It was then a man-made device to help control human behavior as we made our way from small tribes of friends to large societies of strangers. Today, it still is a man-made device to control human behavior and is, by design, mutually exclusive in membership and intolerant.

That Islam now is engaged in acts of violence is deplorable but, as Charles Krauthammer points out in his column "Violence to protest charge of violence?" (Sept. 24), not unique among the world's religions; it just may be Islam's turn at bat. Mr. Krauthammer's assertion that "Christiandom long ago gave (religious wars) up" assumes there will be none in the future; That's debatable.

I suspect that some time in the future, mankind will look back at religion and be mystified at how the world could have worshipped one God, but murdered each other over the way they went about it. Children will be taught about religion as part of their history studies and will probably think to themselves, "What the heck was that all about?"

Jim Moore | Town and Country

Jim answered his own question, really. It was all about the control of a population to meet a political agenda. I think the more pertinent question would be "Why would otherwise educated people allow this to happen?"
Maybe I just answered my own question...

PERA=Injustice

I'm kinda glad I outed myself as an atheist. It gives me the perfect segue to address this abomination of a bill now in the House:

The U.S. House of Representatives will debate legislation TOMORROW, TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 26 that would penalize groups and individuals going to court in order to uphold the First Amendment by disallowing attorney fees and other costs. This would make it prohibitively expensive to end government practices which violate the separation of church and state! It means that even when courts find government at fault, attorneys in these cases cannot be reimbursed for their fees and costs.

The bill, H.R. 2679 is disingenuously labeled the "Public Expression of Religion Act." Legitimate religious expression is already protected under the First Amendment (so is our right to criticize religious belief). This measure is meant to discourage and even punish citizens who seek to hold government accountable, however, when it promotes, finances or advances a specific religion, or religion in general. Supporters of this unfair measure are disenchanted that courts frequently strike down or otherwise limit unconstitutional actions by the State in respect to the First Amendment.

In legaleze, "disallowing" means that lawyers would be BANNED from collecting fees to protect those who feel their 1st Amendment rights are being infringed upon.
Can you say "Imperialist"? How about "FASCIST"?
Hitler was a Christian, too. Go ahead, look it up:

Hitler wrote in his book,Mein Kampf: ". . . I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work." He made essentially the same claim in a speech before the Reichstag in 1938.

Hitler considered himself a Catholic until the day he died. In 1941 he told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." In fact, Hitler was never excommunicated from the Catholic Church, and Mein Kampf was not placed on the Church's Index of Forbidden Books.

I put that there for you, Travis. CALL ME CLOSED MINDED AGAIN.
I DARE YOU.
And by the way, fuck Godwin's law. It's nothing but a tool of censorship.
Now, I don't care about piddly-ass thing like the Pledge of Allegance or the the phrase "In God We Trust" on our currency. That is nothing but trivial.
However, if an agnostic or atheist is being harassed, bullied or is being denied their basic constitutional rights and wants to take it to the courts to have the culprits brought to justice, they have to find a lawyer that will work pro bono, or they're just screwed.
Have you heard of Dominionism? Thi is why PERA exists, and the REAL danger that people like Jim Talent (or a more obvious target, Todd Akin) pose to Freedom in our democracy.
I give Akin some credit, simply because he's honest about where he stands. Talent is more dangerous, simply because he is a so-called "moderate", and doesn't talk about the influence these "Dominionists" have on his office.
Or Kit Bond, for that matter.
Like it or not, America was designed to be a secular nation. Our Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights to protect us from the political ambitions of religious institutions, no matter what they are. Look up what Jefferson said about priests and religion.
And, let me remind our Congressmen of St. Louis, Lacy Clay and Russ Carnahan, that I'm watching you and I know where you live.
MY freedom is at stake, as well as millions of Americans. If PERA passes, then expect a call for an all out Tax Revolt.
Think I'm kidding? Try me. I know my rights, and I will invoke them if pushed.
And Travis? You're a pussy, and your blog smells of fish.
Not to insult women. I'm sure that ALL female genitaila has more credibility than this jackass named Reems.

Reality Check; Put down that damn Rosary!!!

OK it's been a loooong five years since the "War on Terruh" began. We've seen our country's founding principles attacked by hard-line Islamic nutjobs and our own Government via the Patriot Act, torture, and fear in general.
We have also seen in this span of time, the growing power of religious institutions within the United States, something I personally am adamantly oppesed to, since it runs counter to the 1st Amendment.
Full disclosure time: I am an Atheist. I have been for my whole life, and I grow more militant when it comes to my Atheism as thi War on Terruh rages on. I think that the concept of a higher being and the trappings that go along with it(AKA: Religion) will be the reason Humanity vanishes from the Earth.
Simply put, the Rapture is Crap-ture. Fer sure.
If the "End of times" comes, it will not happen because we were "sinners" or "less than Pious"; it will be because we were blinded by this same said piety.
It's at the center of the Rove strategy. Without religion, Karl Rove wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
I know that I will be attacked for publishing this; I may even receive death threats.
Frankly, I don't care. My life is inconsequential when it comes to the future existence of the human race.
As a matter of fact, I want the Christian nutjobs to attack me. That way I can show all people how STUPID they truly are.
Therefore, I feel it's my duty to expose St. Louis to Sam Harris. Sam Harris is an agnostic. He's also the author of one of my favorite books, "The End of Faith", and his latest (which I haven't had a chance to pick up) Letter to a Christian Nation.
Sam has recently weighed in on the "War on Terruh", and I think that everyone, liberal, moderate and conservative should read what he has to say.
Of course, as with us Agtnostic/Atheists, we don't agree on everything. I will insert my comments whether I agree or not, and add my $.02 where I feel like it:
Head-in-the-Sand Liberals
Western civilization really is at risk from Muslim extremists.
By Sam Harris
SAM HARRIS is the author of "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason." His next book, "Letter to a Christian Nation," will be published this week by Knopf. samharris.org.
September 18, 2006

TWO YEARS AGO I published a book highly critical of religion, "The End of Faith." In it, I argued that the world's major religions are genuinely incompatible, inevitably cause conflict and now prevent the emergence of a viable, global civilization.(Damn skippy!) In response, I have received many thousands of letters and e-mails from priests, journalists, scientists, politicians, soldiers, rabbis, actors, aid workers, students — from people young and old who occupy every point on the spectrum of belief and nonbelief.

This has offered me a special opportunity to see how people of all creeds and political persuasions react when religion is criticized. I am here to report that liberals and conservatives respond very differently to the notion that religion can be a direct cause of human conflict.

This difference does not bode well for the future of liberalism.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Hold the phone, stop the presses! A

Liberal

blog says Liberalism is in danger? Say it ain't so, ya Bastid!
But alas, it's true. Read on...

Perhaps I should establish my liberal bone fides at the outset. I'd like to see taxes raised on the wealthy, drugs decriminalized and homosexuals free to marry. I also think that the Bush administration deserves most of the criticism it has received in the last six years — especially with respect to its waging of the war in Iraq, its scuttling of science and its fiscal irresponsibility.

Or maybe we should just try King George for betraying hi Oath of Office, Impeach his ass, and then send him to the Hague to be tried for Crimes against Humanity. However, that is only about Iraq. There i a larger problem we have to talk about. Let Sam spell it out for you:

But my correspondence with liberals has convinced me that liberalism has grown dangerously out of touch with the realities of our world — specifically with what devout Muslims actually believe about the West, about paradise and about the ultimate ascendance of their faith.

On questions of national security, I am now as wary of my fellow liberals as I am of the religious demagogues on the Christian right.

This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that "liberals are soft on terrorism." It is, and they are.

What-what-WHAT!?!?!?

Oh, it's SOOOOOO true:

A cult of death is forming in the Muslim world — for reasons that are perfectly explicable in terms of the Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad. The truth is that we are not fighting a "war on terror." We are fighting a pestilential theology and a longing for paradise.

This is not to say that we are at war with all Muslims. But we are absolutely at war with those who believe that death in defense of the faith is the highest possible good, that cartoonists should be killed for caricaturing the prophet and that any Muslim who loses his faith should be butchered for apostasy.

Unfortunately, such religious extremism is not as fringe a phenomenon as we might hope. Numerous studies have found that the most radicalized Muslims tend to have better-than-average educations and economic opportunities.

As much as I hate to admit it, this has been true since the first Crusade. The moslems of that age were more advanced when it comes to science and knowledge in general. Unfortunately, the Pope wasn't lying when he said that Islam is a violent and ignorant religion, either.
Not that he wasn't playing politics, or that he isn't a Fascist. He is. (And fuck you too, Archbihop Raymond Burke) But that fact doesn't mean he wasn't telling the truth for once.
Let's get back to Sam's article:

Given the degree to which religious ideas are still sheltered from criticism in every society, it is actually possible for a person to have the economic and intellectual resources to build a nuclear bomb — and to believe that he will get 72 virgins in paradise. And yet, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, liberals continue to imagine that Muslim terrorism springs from economic despair, lack of education and American militarism.

Now, I don't agree with this statement 100%. I think that the poverty brought on with the culmination of the War in Iraq has a lot to do with the ability of terrorists to recruit new members in Iraq and Afghanistan, because of the desperation the extreme conditions that exist today have brought to the Iraqi people.
But, that does not excuse the Liberal denial that exists in America today:

At its most extreme, liberal denial has found expression in a growing subculture of conspiracy theorists who believe that the atrocities of 9/11 were orchestrated by our own government. A nationwide poll conducted by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University found that more than a third of Americans suspect that the federal government "assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East;" 16% believe that the twin towers collapsed not because fully-fueled passenger jets smashed into them but because agents of the Bush administration had secretly rigged them to explode.

Such an astonishing eruption of masochistic unreason could well mark the decline of liberalism, if not the decline of Western civilization. There are books, films and conferences organized around this phantasmagoria, and they offer an unusually clear view of the debilitating dogma that lurks at the heart of liberalism: Western power is utterly malevolent, while the powerless people of the Earth can be counted on to embrace reason and tolerance, if only given sufficient economic opportunities.

I don't know how many more engineers and architects need to blow themselves up, fly planes into buildings or saw the heads off of journalists before this fantasy will dissipate. The truth is that there is every reason to believe that a terrifying number of the world's Muslims now view all political and moral questions in terms of their affiliation with Islam. This leads them to rally to the cause of other Muslims no matter how sociopathic their behavior. This benighted religious solidarity may be the greatest problem facing civilization and yet it is regularly misconstrued, ignored or obfuscated by liberals.

Conspiracy theories aside (and I don't believe the official story for a minute), the unvarnished truth is that ther are PLENTY of moslems that feel they have a duty to destroy "the West". They're still mad that the Crusades happened a millenia ago, and all the injustices that have happened to their "homeland" ever since. They want revenge, pure and simple. More Sam:

Given the mendacity and shocking incompetence of the Bush administration — especially its mishandling of the war in Iraq — liberals can find much to lament in the conservative approach to fighting the war on terror. Unfortunately, liberals hate the current administration with such fury that they regularly fail to acknowledge just how dangerous and depraved our enemies in the Muslim world are.

Recent condemnations of the Bush administration's use of the phrase "Islamic fascism" are a case in point. There is no question that the phrase is imprecise — Islamists are not technically fascists, and the term ignores a variety of schisms that exist even among Islamists — but it is by no means an example of wartime propaganda, as has been repeatedly alleged by liberals.

In their analyses of U.S. and Israeli foreign policy, liberals can be relied on to overlook the most basic moral distinctions. For instance, they ignore the fact that Muslims intentionally murder noncombatants, while we and the Israelis (as a rule) seek to avoid doing so. Muslims routinely use human shields, and this accounts for much of the collateral damage we and the Israelis cause; the political discourse throughout much of the Muslim world, especially with respect to Jews, is explicitly and unabashedly genocidal.

Given these distinctions, there is no question that the Israelis now hold the moral high ground in their conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah. And yet liberals in the United States and Europe often speak as though the truth were otherwise.

And here, we see the cloth cut both ways; we can't say that Islam is a peaceful religion, nor can we say all moslems want peace. Neither statement is true. Nor do I give the Israelis a pass; they too killed civilians when they attacked Hizbollah in Lebanon. They also targeted UN checkpoints durin the latest military actions there. Ther really is no high ground for any of these religions to claim.
And so, I give you the money shot:

We are entering an age of unchecked nuclear proliferation and, it seems likely, nuclear terrorism. There is, therefore, no future in which aspiring martyrs will make good neighbors for us. Unless liberals realize that there are tens of millions of people in the Muslim world who are far scarier than Dick Cheney, they will be unable to protect civilization from its genuine enemies.

Increasingly, Americans will come to believe that the only people hard-headed enough to fight the religious lunatics of the Muslim world are the religious lunatics of the West. Indeed, it is telling that the people who speak with the greatest moral clarity about the current wars in the Middle East are members of the Christian right, whose infatuation with biblical prophecy is nearly as troubling as the ideology of our enemies. Religious dogmatism is now playing both sides of the board in a very dangerous game.

While liberals should be the ones pointing the way beyond this Iron Age madness, they are rendering themselves increasingly irrelevant. Being generally reasonable and tolerant of diversity, liberals should be especially sensitive to the dangers of religious literalism. But they aren't.

The same failure of liberalism is evident in Western Europe, where the dogma of multiculturalism has left a secular Europe very slow to address the looming problem of religious extremism among its immigrants. The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists.

To say that this does not bode well for liberalism is an understatement: It does not bode well for the future of civilization.

Religious lunacy seems to be the order of the day. It doesn't matter which religion it is anymore, or what way your church leans.
God is not peace. God is a metaphor for War. It's about time all of Humanity learn this lesson, before Bush and bin Ladin can commit Armageddon and destroy us all.

Talent's "Against it before I was for it" moment

So, if you've been paying attention to what Jim Talent says, you know he's been crowing about his bill to cap interest rates that "payday loan" establishments charge our servicemen.
Now, that's all well and good, even though ALL Americans are being gouged seems not to worry him too much.
However, that's not the issue right at the moment.
Did you know Jim Talent is playing politics with the issue? "What! Preposterous" you say? Well check this out:

Back in 2005, when the credit card industry lobbyists were corralling Republican and Democratic lawmakers to vote for the corporate-written Bankruptcy Bill, Sen. Dick Durbin offered an amendment to preserve existing protections for troops serving in Iraq. National Guardsmen, for instance, sometimes are forced to take a pay cut from their regular jobs when they are called into service and deployed overseas. Lord knows our soldiers serving in Iraq have enough to worry about - and gutting their bankruptcy protections while they were deployed was something Durbin thought was unacceptable. Unfortunately, only 38 of his Senate colleagues agreed with him, and his amendment was defeated. Those voting against the amendment included Montana Sen. Conrad Burns (R), Ohio Sen. Mike DeWine (R), Virginia Sen. George Felix Allen, Jr., Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum (R), Missouri Sen. Jim Talent (R), Rhode Island Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R)...

Jimbo, Jimbo, Jimbo. Say it ain't so! But alas, it is. Mr. Talent had the opportunity to help these servicemen avert the crippling debt that comes from borrowing money from these sharks over a year ago, yet chose to vote down an amendment that would have done exactly that. This is from Jimbo official Senate website from a mere two days ago:

Currently, there is no federal law stopping predatory lenders from targeting active duty servicemembers who, in some cases, are now paying over 800 percent APR on a loan.

Yeah, and if you the rest of the republican corporate puppets had voted for Durbin's amendment, this wouldn't be a problem today.
Way to support the troops, dingus.

Fear Factor: The Jim Talent episode

Man, I'd love to see Joe Rogan come along and make these Bush supporters tell their lies while forced to sit in a vat of maggots or something. Or how about forced to eat the maggots if it were proven that they were indeed lying to keep the American public in fear. That would be some compelling TV!
Speaking of compelling TV, Ol' Jimbo has a new ad out about "the War on Terruh". Of course, he's jumped on the National Security Agengy's eavesdropping program, and the Bush administration's flouting of the Geneva convention.
I think Jimbo made a huge boo-boo by doing so, too. Why? Because fmr. Secretary of State Colin Powell came out against the Bush policy on our handling of prisoners accused of being terrorists. Not only that, but Sens. John Warner, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, whom I am not normally fans of, have also bucked the party line on this as well. Check this quote from Powell out:

"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism."

Uh gee, ya think??? Well, if you go around gutting the constitution and ignoring International law a'la the Geneva conventions, you're gonna have your moral fortitude questioned. I have, since the day the Patriot Act was signed, as I consider the enactment of that law as a flag of surrender to the REAL culprits of 9-11, Osama bin Laden and Al Queda. Mussolini would have been proud of W and congress that day, yessiree Bob!!!
You know, the Shrub likes to say "the terruhists hate us for our freedoms", yet he thinks the way to win the "War on Terruh" is to take away our freedoms with bad laws like the Patriot Act.
Folks, our freedoms are the bedrock of our humanity, which is defined by our civil rights and liberties in the Bill of Rights. Every time the Bush administration condones "simulated" torture, or tells us that dissent "emboldens the terruhists", we lose the war a little bit more. If we do not extend the freedoms and rights enshrined in our Constitution to those that hate and want to kill us, our country's government looks like hypocrites. It's a recipe for global disaster.
I agree we need to fight and win the War on Terror, but it might be a better strategy to actually fight the terroristd intead of aiding and abetting them by rallying more people to their ranks in Iraq.
Remeber when the world stood with America right after 9-11? When a French newspaper said "We are all Americans now"? When Iran condemned the WTC attacks? Man, how times have changed.
A vote for Jim Talent is a vote against that global sympathy and support, for more anti Americanism sweeping the planet, and for more terrorist recruits. Since Jim Talent has taken on the role of puppet to Karl Rove and the Bush administration, he too is a hypocrite. Really, Jimbo is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He likes to portray himself as "Mr. Wimp, your Mild Mannered civil servant" when he's really a radical right-wing ideologue. Always has been, always will be.
So, while he plays the marionette to the White House, he now has to defend his stance against the Shrub's former Secretary of State's statement. I mean, if we did have the upper hand on moral fortitude, Iraq would not be in the deadly grip of civil war and Afghanistan would notlook like this:
(From the Louisville Courier-Journal)

Believers in "body counts" and other Vietnam-era tallies may be cheered by the weekend's reports that a NATO-led offensive in southern Afghanistan killed more than 200 Taliban militants.Almost everyone else, however, will realize that developments in that cursed country are bad and getting worse.
More significant than any battlefield outcome is the United Nations finding that Afghanistan's opium harvest this year is at record levels, an increase of almost 50 percent over last year's production.
The bountiful opium harvest is evidence of the Taliban's resurgent power. The Taliban, which once outlawed the opium trade for religious reasons when it was in power, now encourages and profits from opium production, which provides money as well as support from farmers.
There are many reasons why a war that once seemed won -- a war launched with overwhelming American public support against the Taliban regime that had harbored the al-Qaida plotters who hatched the 9/11 attacks -- has gone so badly amiss.
American attention and forces were diverted to an unprovoked war in Iraq. Deliveries of aid from the U.S., Europe and elsewhere have fallen scandalously short of promises, thus increasing resentment and anti-foreigner sentiments among Afghans.
Moreover, the Karzai government (which has made political deals of its own with warlords in the opium business) may be well-intentioned, but it has been weak and ineffective.
Getting Afghanistan back on track will be much harder than doing it right in the first place would have been.

Ain't that great? We've outsourced the real war on terror to NATO. Which, by the way, recently went begging for more troops and equipment. They got squat. Good job!
If Jim Talent were not a dangerous radical right-wing nutjob, he would acknowledge that Afghanistan is backsliding, Iraq was a distraction to the real War on Terror, spying on Americans is wrongheaded and counterproductive and "simulated torture" IS STILL TORTURE.
If Jim Talent wins this election, we will be assured a defeat in the War on Terror and in Iraq, plus our freedoms that King George loves to use in his rhetoric to defend his bloodlust will not exist for our children, and their children.
Joe Rogan says tell the truth, or eat some maggots. Take a big bite, Jimbo.

Jim Talent: Terrorist sympathizer?

The original title of this post was "Things that make you go "Hmmm..."
Hi Senator Jimbo! It's me again. I got this question for you. It's about some of your campaign contributions, namely, from Halliburton, Occidental Petroleum and ConocoPhillips.
Jimbo, are you sure you want to take money from these people? Did you know Halliburton does business with terrorist states?
Seriously. Check it out:

Just last week a National Security Council report said Iran was a decade away from acquiring a nuclear bomb. That time frame could arguably have been significantly longer if Halliburton, which just reported a 284 percent increase in its fourth quarter profits due to its Iraq reconstruction contracts, was not actively providing the Iranian government with the financial means to build a nuclear weapon.

Now comes word that Halliburton, which has a long history of flouting U.S. law by conducting business with countries the Bush administration said has ties to terrorism, was working with Cyrus Nasseri, the vice chairman of the board of directors of Oriental Oil Kish, one of Iran’s largest private oil companies, on oil development projects in Tehran. Nasseri is also a key member of Iran’s nuclear development team.

“Nasseri, a senior Iranian diplomat negotiating with Europe over Iran's controversial nuclear program is at the heart of deals with US energy companies to develop the country's oil industry”, the Financial Times reported.

Oriental Oil Kish dealings with Halliburton became public knowledge in January when the company announced that it had subcontracted parts of the South Pars natural gas drilling project to Halliburton Products and Services, a subsidiary of Dallas-based Halliburton that is registered in the Cayman Islands.

Following the announcement, Halliburton announced the South Pars gas field project in Tehran would be its last project in Iran. The BBC reported that Halliburton, which took in $30-$40 million from its Iranian operations in 2003, "was winding down its work due to a poor business environment."

Halliburton, under mounting pressure from lawmakers in Washington, D.C., pulled out of its deal with Nasseri's company in May, but has done extensive work on other areas of the Iranian gas project and was still acting in an advisory capacity to Nasseri's company, two people who have knowledge of Halliburton's work in Iran said.

-snip-

Halliburton first started doing business in Iran as early as 1995, while Vice President Cheney was chief executive of the company and in possible violation of U.S. Sanctions According to a February 2001 report in the Wall Street Journal, "Halliburton Products & Services Ltd. works behind an unmarked door on the ninth floor of a new north Tehran tower block. A brochure declares that the company was registered in 1975 in the Cayman Islands, is based in the Persian Gulf sheikdom of Dubai and is "non-American." But, like the sign over the receptionist's head, the brochure bears the company's name and red emblem, and offers services from Halliburton units around the world." Moreover, mail sent to the company’s offices in Tehran and the Cayman Islands is forwarded to the company’s Dallas headquarters.

The SEC letters are aimed at forcing corporations to disclose their profits from business dealings rogue nations. Oil companies, such as Devon Energy Corp., ConocoPhillips, Marathon Oil Corp. and Occidental Petroleum Corp. that currently conduct business with countries that sponsor terrorism, have not disclosed the profits received from terrorist countries in their most recent quarterly reports because the companies don’t consider the earnings “material.”

Devon Energy was until recently conducting business in Syria. The company just sold its stake in an oil field there. ConocoPhillips has a service contract with the Syrian Petroleum Co. that expires on Dec. 31.

So, if you're so supportive of the Bush administration's strategy in Iraq and the War on Terror, then why are you taking money from rogue corporations who do business with nations who sponsor terrorism? Does that mean YOU support terrorist states?
Hmmm...

Bond: "A colossal waste of time."

Has senility struck Senator Kit Bond? I swear, he must be losing his mind acting as Jim Talent's foreign policy proxy/mouthpiece. I say this because Jim Talent is afraid to talk about this issue, and Kit has no re-election campaign to worry about. So he says stupid shit, like the above quote. "A colossal waste of time" is how Misery's Senior US Senator described the Senate Intelligence Report on the use of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war. This is what the report says:

Saddam Hussein regarded al-Qaida as a threat rather than a possible ally, a Senate report says, contradicting assertions President Bush has used to build support for the war in Iraq.

Released Friday, the report discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that before the war, Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward" al-Qaida operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or his associates.

Of course, this was well known before the US invaded Iraq, but in our modern-day Faux News blustering bamboozler brigade that we call journalists, that salient fact was buried with the intent to sell the American population on Invading Iraq by equating Iraq with 9-11.
More than likely, Bond is playing politics to cover his own ass and our Junior Senator's re-election effort. Or he's both senile AND playing politics.
Or maybe he's afraid that he'll be impeached as well. It wouldn't be undeserving, that's for sure.
However, Kit is not too bright to begin with. He is very skilled at pandering to his puppetmasters (campaign contributors), and that's why he's a US Senator.
But, what do you expect from Republicans nowadays? For example, Jim Talent says he's for alternative fuels and energy independence, but he's taking oodles of cash from gas and oil interests. He says he wants to fix the health care system, but he cozies up to big pharma and the insurance industry, the heart of the problem, and he's against the stem cell initiative. He wants to protect members of our Military from predatory lenders, (which is laudable) but he doesn't support more pay for them, and he could give two shits about protecting you and me from predatory lenders. Or predatory bosses who are against raising the minimum wage.
But I digress. Back to the Iraq war.
Neither Bond or Talent have a real spine. Both are incapable of independent thought,
unlike these two Republican Senators, Chuck Hagel(NE) and Olympia Snowe(MA). It seems they want the American people to know the truth, and fought to get these reports out:

Senate aides said it took two Republican committee members, Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine), to force Roberts to act. Republicans on the committee readily conceded that Democrats would be able to pick through the chapters -- especially the INC portion -- to resurrect charges that the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to build a case for war. And Democrats appeared ready to do just that.

See that? That's backbone. I'm sure they'll both be vilified by their own party for their bravery, too. I wouldn't be surprised if they both end up leaving the Republican party, Jeffords-style. (Chuck and Olympia, come on over to the BIG tent!)
Of course, Kit Bond calls this a "politization" of intelligence by the Democrats, but as you can plainly see, it was Republicans that finally stopped the stonewalling that Committee Chair Pat Roberts was doing with the reports. The thing would have never seen the light of day otherwise.
What are you afraid of, Kit? Why do call the need to find the truth a "colossal waste of time"? Is it because you and Talent are both in it up to your necks on this one? That your lies are coming home to roost? Or maybe that the polls are now showing that the majority of Americans do NOT equate Iraq with the War on Terror? Or even that the REAL front in the War on Terror, Afghanistan, is going bad?

Afghanistan needs 2,500 more troops, says general
By Michael Evans, Defence Editor

A NATO military chief asked yesterday for another 2,500 troops to be sent to southern Afghanistan to reinforce the Canadian and British battlegroups that have been under fierce attack by the Taleban for the past two months.

To add some irony to this post, read what Jim Talent says about Afghanistan (emphasis mine):

The U.S. military victory in Afghanistan was remarkable for its brevity, and for the ingenuity and courage of our servicemen and women. Despite their success, Afghanistan remains a work in progress. The challenge in 2005 remains for the U.S. to provide support to Afghanistan by continuing to push humanitarian relief into the provinces outside of Kabul, rebuild its infrastructure, train a viable Afghan National Army, and support President Karzai’s efforts to break the hold of regional warlords in the provinces. Like in Iraq, we must see this undertaking through to completion. Given how Afghanistan was only recently the sanctuary of Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorists, one of the best ways to ensure our security and win the war on terror is to support Afghanistan’s sovereign government.

Victory. Riiight. Heh heh, that's a funny one, Jimbo! If we were truly victorious in Afghanistan, then Osama bin Laden would be on trial, there would be no Taliban resurgence, and no call for more troops to be deployed there.
In other words, we screwed the pooch in Afghanistan. I mean, do you even remember the failure at Tora Bora? Probably not, since the Republicans were busy with the case to invade Iraq.
You know, lying their asses off. Kit Bond and Jim Talent included.

Memo to the McCaskill campaign RE: National Security

Updated: I wrote this before reading the article about the race in the Post Dispatch

Auditor McCaskill;
Let me say that I think you've done a good job in your campaign to defeat Jim Talent in your bid for the US Senate. I think you've been very effective with the issues that matter to Missourians and who can better represent them in Washington.
Originally, I wanted to urge you to spend more time on issues pertaining to National Security, but as I began to think about it, I realized that this is only one piece of evidence as to why Jim Talent should be defeated in November.
But we'll get to that later.
Right now, I would like to direct your attention the the comments recently made by John Podesta and reported by the Wall Street Journal and TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent:

In both 2002 and 2004, Democrats, in league with top party consultants, made a strategic decision -- "a terrible mistake" -- not to engage Mr. Bush on national security, says former Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta. "You just cannot concede the question; he is vulnerable on it," Mr. Podesta says. "Our D.C. leaders get it now, and the candidates in the states aren't shrinking from it."

Now, I've read your positions on National Security and Iraq, and generally I think you're going in the right direction with them. However, with the recent disingenuous rhetoric coming from President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld, Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rice, I feel it's time, especially with the traditional campaign season about to start, that you take the fight to Jim Talent on the issue of National Security and the disaster in Iraq.
First, let's put to rest the misrepresentation of the nature of what the anti war movement is about. I am and always have been a staunch opponent of the Invasion of Iraq. I was not, nor have I ever been, an opponent of military action against Al Queda and our invasion in Afghanistan. As a matter of fact, Afghanistan is actually where the incompetence of the Bush Administration began. The adminitration never committed enough troops, became dependent on warlords and their existing militias, relationships and divergent self interests that the USA did not share, and how, instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan, the administration failed to capture Osama bin Laden, his lieutenants and allies in the Taliban so he could redeploy our resources to the then upcoming military action in Iraq.
I mean, come on. We all knew what Bush was about to do at that time. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous in its' own right.
How does this affect your race? Because the lapdog you're running against is guilty of this as well. Did Jim Talent use his office to question the administration about the Iraq invasion? Did he ever question the connection to 9-11 and Iraq? Did Jim Talent ever question the veracity of the accusations said connections or the "evidence" that led to the decision to topple the Iraqi regime?
No, of course not. As per the modus opperandi of Jim Talent, he mentioned nothing of this, except for some minimal equivocating language and then voted in lockstep with the president. So, which is the REAL Jim Talent?
It's...a character flaw, I guess.
It's how Jim Talent has always conducted business. Is he the worst kind of partisan, because while he doesn't use partisan language the way a Tom DeLay, Newt Gingrich or Todd Akin would? He speaks like he's bipartisan, but his voting record shows that he is anything but.
Is he a wolf in sheeps' clothing and could easily play the wolf impersonating Granma in a screen adaptation of "Little Red Riding Hood"?
This is why he has not taken a position on the minimum wage, stem cell research, or any issue of substance. The man stands for almost nothing if you believe what comes out of his mouth. Yet his voting record shows exactly what he is; a lapdog to those he owes his electoral success to; his fundraisers and donors.
So, this is your mision: find out who this man really is, and then find out why he's letting his buddies besmirch my name and misrepresent why Democrats are opposed to the war in Iraq.
See you on the campaign trail...

Of Progressive Democrats and the War on Terror

In today's Post-Disgrace, David Broder's syndicated column talked about why he thinks anti-incumbency has come into play.
I would like to ask Mr. Broder this: do you even KNOW what you're talking about? Have you even talked to any REAL progressives about this issue?
Before I get into a full-blown rant, let me show you exactly what I'm talking about:

The usual political torpor of August was shattered this week by the news that three congressional incumbents had lost their races in a single day. There were special forces at work in the contests that saw the defeats of two Democrats, Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman and Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney, and Michigan Republican Rep. Joe Schwarz. But taken together, they are the strongest signal yet of voter dissatisfaction with the status quo in Washington.

Now we'll skip the paragraph about Ms. McKinney and Mr. Schwarz because neither of these races have truly national implications caoncerning progressives. They're just in there to muddy the waters.
The race that matters is the Lieberman defeat:

Lieberman had 18 years of Senate seniority and long service in state government, a reputation for personal integrity, prominence on both foreign and domestic issues, and the active support of his party leaders from Bill Clinton on down. But when I went to Connecticut three weeks before the primary, it was evident that he was going to be overwhelmed by the passion to "send a message'' through Lamont of frustration with the war in Iraq, the Bush presidency and Congress.

-snip-

Now, with former Lieberman supporters such as Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Rosa DeLauro closing ranks behind Lamont, the novice candidate will have an opportunity -- and an urgent need -- to moderate his stance and attempt to broaden his base.

DeLauro told me that Lamont has to be "more than an anti-war candidate,'' and said that he has to balance his calls for an early withdrawal from Iraq with other positions that demonstrate that he and his party understand the need for a robust military and a commitment to oppose terrorism. The Democrats simply cannot afford to be "McGovernized'' by the GOP charge that they would abandon the fight against those who have targeted the United States.

McGovernized. Pfft.
What, is Broder on the RNC payroll? Maybe the DLC's?
See, here's the thing about the "anti-war" wing of the Democratic party. We're really not 100% anti-war. Now, some are, some aren't, but the majority of progressive Democrats, the bloggers and other people that went to help Ned Lamont (and locally Jeff Smith and Maria Chappelle-Nadal) are anti IRAQ war.
Most of us were for the eradication of Osama bin Ladin, Al Queda and the Taliban. And, despite what Fox News says, Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with any of these organizations. The fact of the matter is that George Bush "cut and ran" from Afghanistan, let Osama, Al Queda and the Taliban get away because he wanted to redeploy the military for the Iraqi invasion. Had W. captured Osama, Al Zawahiri, Mullah Omar and the rest of the thugs oppressing the people of Afghanistan (and of course, the REAL culprits behind 9/11), George Bush's approval ratings would not be in the mid thirties and Joe Lieberman probably would be the Democratic nominee for the Senate race in Connecticut.
Instead, pro Iraq war Democrats and many Republicans are in danger of losing their seats because the war on terror should have never allowed to encompass Iraq. Also, the London terror plot probably would have never been planned, Hamas would have never taken over the Palestinian parliament, Iran would not be in a position of strength as they are now.
Sure, these are hypotheticals. However, you can't deny that if Bush hadn't cut and run from Afghanistan, America would at least have the credibility and sympathy of the world like we did immediately after 9/11. he could have claimed the legacy of Ronald Reagan in the lexicon of republican presidents. Instead, he gets his favorite Democrat beaten in Connecticut.
This is just one reason why Bush's presidency is a collosal and utter failure. It's definitely why his foreign policy is in shambles and he has to resort to using a phrase like "Islamic Fascists". (Which, by the way, is a horrible term. It accomplishes what Bush does best; it alienates more people and creates more terrorists)
There would be no Islamic Fascist movement if he had gotten the job done in Afghanistan.
David Broder, you must be going senile...