Cody Lyon
The "Reuters" report says that spokesperson Len D'Eramo said in an emailed statement "if the Iraqi government decides it wants international oil companies to partner with them in developing their resources, Exxon Mobil would be interested in participating."

Mr. Hannity: "Liberals," including US Catholic bishops, reproachfully stirred up millions of people to join nuclear freeze demonstrations in the early 1980s. (p. 76)

My response: Some brief background on this issue might help clarify the discussion. Early in the Cold War, American administrations pursued a strategic, offensive-defense security doctrine known as Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). The idea was for the US to maintain "strategic parity" with the Soviet Union --that is, a balance among number, power, sophistication and readiness of atomic bombs such that neither country would dare to start a nuclear war against the other thanks to fear of equally destructive retaliation by the adversary. Except for a temporary challenge during President John F. Kennedy's administration, which began courageously downsizing America's nuclear arsenal, the MAD doctrine more or less continued to guide American nuclear policy through containment to the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) of the 1970s, which aimed to mutually reduce US and Soviet nuclear forces. The acronym of MAD was quite appropriate; this delicate policy was truly insane, as it could not be continued for long without leading eventually to a global nuclear disaster.

Mr. Hannity (Quoting Jeane J. Kirkpatrick): "'[The] Carter administration...actively collaborated in the replacement of moderate autocrats friendly to American interests with less friendly autocrats of extremist persuasion.'" (p. 66)

My response: This statement typifies a biased Republican slant on history, which holds that Carter openly surrendered our national interests to foreign extremists, particularly to Iranian radical Ayatollah Khomeini. In fact, this incorrect yet ingenious claim exhibits a quadruple negative, propounding a lie within a lie within a lie within a lie.

The topic below was originally posted in my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal, as well as the Wild Wild Left, the Independent Bloggers Alliance, the Peace Tree and Worldwide Sawdust.

Anybody out there ever watch the Family Guy cartoon on the American Goebell's Network otherwise known as FOX? The only reason to watch FOX is for cartoons such as The Simpsons or The Family Guy. How ironic FOX airs cartoons with satirical commentary about America's conservative culture.

Anyway, some years ago, an episode of the Family Guy showed imbecile father/husband Peter Griffin watching Star Trek on television. In typical Peter fashion he observed, "Holy crap!  Lt. Uhura is black!" Adding to the humor was how Peter watched Star Trek regularly and only realized Uhura was black that very moment.

Watching news coverage of this year's presidential campaign I feel like everyone from corporate media executives, field reporters and the Clintons have declared: "Holy crap! Barack Obama is black!"

Mr. Hannity: "[Saddam Hussein] was capable of using WMDs [weapons of mass destruction] against America ...our invasion was a beneficial thing." (p. 17)

My response: After more than five years of intense searching by US weapons experts, it has become evident that, as the regime of Saddam Hussein itself insisted, Iraq did not create a single weapon of mass destruction later than 1991.

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal, as well as the Independent Bloggers Alliance, the Peace Tree, the Out of Iraq Bloggers Caucus, the Wild Wild Left and Worldwide Sawdust.

In 2007, the Democratic Party was a self-gelding machine of ineptitude. Activists such as myself worked feverishly in 2006 to retake congress and end America's occupation of Iraq. Instead the Bush Administration implemented a "surge" as Democrats retreated from flexing their constitutional muscle. They continued to fund military operations, never invoked the War Powers Act and impeachment was taken off the table.

Remarkable considering how unpopular both the Iraq occupation and President Bush had become. Cracks even appeared in the façade of GOP unity as their Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell warned the Bush Administration that congressional Republicans would not allow Iraq to harm their electoral prospects in 2008. Indeed, on June 26th the Washington Post quoted McConnell as saying,

"I anticipate that we'll probably be going in a different direction in some way in Iraq. And it'll be interesting to see what the administration chooses to do."

McConell was anticipating the September testimony of Army General David H. Petraues. Yet as 2007 ends there is no denying that the unpopular Bush Administration successfully thwarted both the Democratic majority and the will of the people. How did this happen?

Mr. Hannity: "You cannot negotiate with evil...sweet-talk...compromise...give ground to it. You can only defeat it, or it will defeat you." (p. 6)

My response: As a Catholic, I agree wholeheartedly with this principle. In the great cosmic struggle between good and evil in which we are all participants, vigilance and unwavering determination are crucial for those fighting evil. Wishy-washiness in confronting evil allows the devil to take a person over. But Mr. Hannity's book fails to take into account the difference between the unchanging moral law and the application of that law to the political sphere.

The Progressive Democrat Newsletter grew out of the frustration of the 2004 election. I have try mixing my own rants and ideas, with national issues, news items, and some very local groups and events in an attempt to both help shape debate and to help people find their own ways of getting involved.

This week I discuss the latest horrors committed by America's mercenaries in Iraq, a couple of comments on the special elections in OH-5 and VA-1, and the comments from the Anti-Defamation League regarding the Christianization of American plitics. I also do a roundup of local progressive events for places where I have had the most readers over the last couple of weeks including anti-Semitism in NYC, Veterans for Peace in Atlanta, Georgia, and upcoming chances for meeting Rick Noriega in Texas. Don't forget to visit an advertiser or two and if you want more, please visit Culture Kitchen.

As a blogger I get invited to many political events Now as a parent and scientist I can't make many of them, but I still meet more candidates and politicians than the average voter. So I hear lots of political speeches. Usually, since I am meeting similar minded people, I like the speech. But only occasionally do I find the speech to be dead on and exemplary of what ALL Democrats should be shouting from the top of every hill. Things like: Liberal IS patriotic, pro-Choice IS pro-life and marriage equality is about nothing but fairness. Oh, yeah, and how about we have to get out of Iraq. This is what I heard from Steve Harrison, a fairly traditional man running for Congress, and I would like to introduce you to him.

New York City has only one Republican Congressional Rep, Bush Lap Dog Vito Fossella. This guy opposes securing America's ports, flip flops on privatization of Social Security, and has voted to support Bush's Iraq quagmire at every opportunity. Fossella has voted the Bush Republican Party line more than 90% of the time. Hence his designation as Bush Lap Dog. Steve Harrison is the man who can defeat Lap Dog Fossella and actually represent New Yorkers.

Appearing at The Jaundiced Eye, the Independent Bloggers' Alliance, and My Left Wing.

"The man went into Iraq without justification, without a plan; he just decided to go in there and win, and he had no idea what was going to happen. There have been terrible deaths on our side, and it's even worse for the Iraqi population. It's another Vietnam." -- Mary MacNeely, Mother of Air Force Reservist

Vietnam, which ruptured this country in incalculable ways. Among them, a right/left split that moved most military and military families to kneejerk Republican allegiance. Speaking as a member of one of those few left-leaning military families, let me say that I have seen this this coming; this Republican loss of its reliable military voter base.

Families with ties to the military, long a reliable source of support for wartime presidents, disapprove of President Bush and his handling of the war in Iraq, with a majority concluding the invasion was not worth it, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

The views of the military community, which includes active-duty service members, veterans and their family members, mirror those of the overall adult population, a sign that the strong military endorsement that the administration often pointed to has dwindled in the war's fifth year.

The Bush Administration's obsessive pursuit of "victory" in Iraq has not only managed to destroy its own support from military culture, but that of its party.

When military families were asked which party could be trusted to do a better job of handling issues related to them, respondents divided almost evenly: 39% said Democrats and 35% chose Republicans. The general population feels similarly: 39% for Democrats and 31% for Republicans.

Mr. Hannity: "The primary evil we face today is terrorism." (p. 3)

My response: With the traumatic images of September 11 burned into our consciousness, it can be tempting to look on international "Islamic" terrorism as the greatest evil inflicted by human beings upon our civilization. However, this view is erroneous, pathetically myopic, unconsciously self-pitying, encourages unlawful revenge, and is hypocritical.

Originally posted in my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal, as well as the Out of Iraq Bloggers Caucus, the Independent Bloggers Alliance, the Wild Wild Left and Worldwide Sawdust.

In 2001, Aidan Delgado was twenty-years old and in need of a life anchor. Delgado had primarily grown up abroad in far away places such as Cairo, Egypt, Thailand and Senegal due to his father's career as a diplomat. While attending college in Florida, Delgado felt culturally out of place and adrift. Having led an "ivory tower" existence of academia and privilege, Delgado opted to join the United States Army Reserves for a different perspective.

By sheer coincidence he signed his enlistment contract on September 11th. Those closest to him questioned the wisdom of Delgado's choice. The terrorist attacks convinced Delgado he made the correct decision as the country underwent a surge of patriotic feeling and rallying to the flag. At the time he was proud of having decided to join the United States Reserves before September 11th. Delgado didn't know it yet but the next three years of his life would transform his entire being.

*Foreword*

As a politically independent member of Political Cortex for five months now, I would like to begin publishing a new series of controversial essays which I originally drafted more than two years ago. Since late 2005 I have submitted this twenty-five part series to dozens upon dozens of political magazines and websites--neoconservative, conservative, independent, liberal, Catholic, secular and every outlook in between--both paying and not-for-profit. I have received hardly a single response, and no replies whatsoever indicating any interest. So finally, to dispel my growing impatience, I have decided to share this series with Internet readers by publishing it myself on a weekly basis.  

"Answers to Sean Hannity" is a formal debate with the popular neoconservative radio figure based on excerpts from his bestselling 2004 book, Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism and Liberalism. I hope you all enjoy it, and I look forward to receiving any questions or comments you may have.

Here's a spooky story that tells you why Iraq is related to Christmas toys.  It takes us to Baghdad and China, Washington and Wal-Mart, and ends (or begins?) under the Christmas tree.  It's our 2007 version of the 1925 poem by T.S. Eliot:

We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpieces filled with straw

It starts with the scary mercenaries of Blackwater and the evil sorceror Rumsfeld...

Episode 1: The Hollow Military (Read on if you dare...)

Author Note. The following essay was co-authored with Coleen Rowley, retired FBI agent and former Minneapolis division counsel.

Among the most important public health advances of the past century has been the development of potent vaccines against dangerous and life-threatening illnesses. Polio, tuberculosis, and measles quickly come to mind. Through a process of inoculation, a small dose of the pathogen is intentionally administered to the patient which induces immunity against the full-blown disease.

In a similar way, social scientists have demonstrated that attitude inoculation can be used to prevent the transmission of hazardous beliefs and behaviors from one person to another. For example, research reveals that adolescents can more effectively resist pressure from cigarette-smoking peers if they are given role-playing opportunities in which they rehearse their responses to students pressuring them to smoke.

But today we are in urgent need of an inoculation campaign against an entirely different threat to our nation's health--namely, the Bush administration's exploitation of its "global war on terror" to eviscerate the rule of law and our constitutional checks and balances; to prolong the disastrous occupation of Iraq; and to lay the groundwork for military strikes against Iran. Ever since the tragic events of 9/11 six years ago, the White House has promoted this agenda by working non-stop to spread a simple yet infectious idea: All actions taken by this president and his representatives are necessary to protect the United States from future catastrophic terrorist attacks.