I implore you to read this, one of the last remaining Democrats with any cajones!

I think it should be required reading for every child in America.

By Rep. Pete Stark (D, CA)

"Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution (authorizing military force against Iraq). I am deeply troubled that lives may be lost without a meaningful attempt to bring Iraq into compliance with U.N. resolutions through careful and cautious diplomacy.

"The bottom line is I don't trust this president and his advisors.

"Make no mistake, we are voting on a resolution that grants total authority to the president, who wants to invade a sovereign nation without any specific act of provocation. This would authorize the United States to act as the aggressor for the
first time in our history. It sets a precedent for our nation -- or any nation -- to exercise brute force anywhere in the world without regard to international law or
international consensus.

"Congress must not walk in lockstep behind a president who has been so callous to proceed without reservation, as if war was of no real consequence.

"You know, three years ago in December, Molly Ivins, an observer of Texas politics, wrote: 'For an upper-class white boy, Bush comes on way too hard. At a guess, to make up for being an upper-class white boy.'

"'Somebody,' she said, 'should be worrying about how all this could affect his handling of future encounters with some Saddam Hussein.' How prophetic, Ms. Ivins.

"Let us not forget that our president -- our commander in chief -- has no experience with, or knowledge of, war. In fact, he admits that he was at best ambivalent about the Vietnam War. He skirted his own military service and then failed to serve out his time in the National Guard. And, he reported years later that at the height of that conflict in 1968 he didn't notice 'any heavy stuff going on.'"

"So we have a president who thinks foreign territory is the opponent's dugout and Kashmir is a sweater.

"What is most unconscionable is that there is not a shred of evidence to justify the
certain loss of life. Do the generalized threats and half-truths of this administration give any one of us in Congress the confidence to tell a mother or father or family that the loss of their child or loved one was in the name of a just cause?

"Is the president's need for revenge for the threat once posed to his father enough to justify the death of any American?

"I submit the answer to these questions is no.

"Aside from the wisdom of going to war as Bush wants, I am troubled by who pays for his capricious adventure into world domination. The administration admits to a cost of around $200 billion!

"Now, wealthy individuals won't pay. They've got big tax cuts already. Corporations won't pay. They'll cook the books and move overseas and then send their contributions to the Republicans. Rich kids won't pay. Their daddies will get them deferments as Big George did for George W.

"Well then, who will pay?

"School kids will pay. There'll be no money to keep them from being left behind -- way behind. Seniors will pay. They'll pay big time as the Republicans privatize Social Security and rob the Trust Fund to pay for the capricious war. Medicare will be curtailed and drugs will be more unaffordable. And there won't be any money for a drug benefit because Bush will spend it all on the war.

"Working folks will pay through loss of job security and bargaining rights. Our grandchildren will pay through the degradation of our air and water quality. And the entire nation will pay as Bush continues to destroy civil rights, women's rights and religious freedom in a rush to phony patriotism and to courting the messianic Pharisees of the religious right.

"The questions before the members of this House and to all Americans are immense, but there are clear answers. America is not currently confronted by a genuine, proven, imminent threat from Iraq. The call for war is wrong.

"And what greatly saddens me at this point in our history is my fear that this entire spectacle has not been planned for the well-being of the world, but for the short-term political interest of our president.

"Now, I am also greatly disturbed that many Democratic leaders have also put political calculation ahead of the president's accountability to truth and reason by supporting this resolution. But, I conclude that the only answer is to vote no on the resolution before us."

Yesterday was a sad, sad day in America. One of the saddest ever. Congress seems determined to turn the presidency into a imperialist office.

But I don't blame the Republicans. This is to be expected of right-wingers. The only Republican in the Senate who didn't vote for the resolution was Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island.

No, I have to blame the Democrats. Scared little wimps. Unprincipled, fund-raising, no-backbone sons of bitches. Once again, the Dems have fucked us all.

And all I have to do to prove my point is direct you to the Senate roll call for yesterday's vote on the resolution.

Media Whores Online has done it again: they've acted in the same manner as the very whores they pretend to so thoroughly despise.

In today's "issue", they have a blaring headline: "NADER BACKS BILL SIMON, CALIFORNIA GOP"

Naturally, this is a lie, as is everything MWO has to say about Nader. In fact, he was in California supporting the gubernatorial Green Candidate Peter Miguel Camejo. Surprise, surprise.

Sometimes MWO believes that black is white, but only when it supports their cause of the day. "Gore won the election," they (and most Democrats -- and Greens, for that matter) cry. Then, they turn their heads and say, "Nader made Gore lose the election." See... something doesn't hold up there.

I know, I know... they say, "what if 90,000 people hadn't voted for Nader in Florida?" To which I say, "what about it?" Just because I voted for Nader in Illinois, doesn't mean I would have voted for Gore if Nader hadn't been on the ballot. I wouldn't have voted for Gore and I believe 99% of Nader voters feel the same way. I don't know any person who voted for Nader who now wishes they would have voted for Gore -- even Studs Terkel, who was at the Nader rally in Chicago, backed off his support of Nader 1 week before the election. The fact is, the ones who would have voted for Gore ended up voting for Gore. Nader polled between 5-10% up until election day. He ended up with between 2.5 and 3 percent. Where do you think that other 2.5-7.5% of the Nader voters went?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: MWO can be a great web site. Not only are they right-on about a lot of conservatives, but they're also extremely funny sometimes. But when it comes to Ralph Nader, they just don't get it. In fact, they usually end up acting in a way that would make the REAL media whores proud. They should quit licking the balls of everyone who has a capital "D" after their name.

Democratic Underground posts the Top 10 Conservative Idiots of the Week every Monday. This week's is especially good (my personal fave is #3).

Senator Daschle is going to vote to give Bush a blank check on the "war" with Iraq.
He, too, should drop any intentions of running for president, along with John Kerry and John Edwards. At the rate we're going, it looks like the Democratic nomination is going to come down to Al Gore and Senator Byrd. Oh well -- looks like another vote for Nader in '04.

When I think of all these Senators deciding to support Bush, I can't help but think of that line from "The Big Muddy" by Bruce Springsteen, where he quotes author Pete Dexter: "I had a friend who said watch what you do/Poison snake bites you and your poison, too."

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST

John Kerry, please check your presidential ambitions at the door.

This hurts! Kerry was looking like a real possibility, but it looks like he's gonna sell his soul so that, in case he does get the nomination in '04, Bush won't make him look "soft on terrorism." Well, I guess this is typical of the Democratic Party. I shouldn't be expecting any of them to actually stand up for truth and justice.

From the London Guardian: White House 'exaggerating Iraqi threat'

No, really? I thought this was an administration of truth and integrity.

And I quote:

"Officials in the CIA, FBI and energy department are being put under intense pressure to produce reports which back the administration's line, the Guardian has learned. In response, some are complying, some are resisting and some are choosing to remain silent.

"'Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements and there's a lot of unhappiness about it in intelligence, especially among analysts at the CIA,' said Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA's former head of counter-intelligence."

AND

"But some of the key allegations against the Iraqi regime were not supported by intelligence currently available to the administration. Mr Bush repeated a claim already made by senior members of his administration that Iraq has attempted to import hardened aluminium tubes 'for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons'. ... However, US government experts on nuclear weapons and centrifuges have suggested that they were more likely to be used for making conventional weapons.

"'I would just say there is not much support for that [nuclear] theory around here,' said a department of energy specialist."

What a shocker.

Everyone repeat after me: I HATE MARK DAVID CHAPMAN!

Good! The sonofabitch was denied parole again. Ha ha!

MediaWhoresOnline.com has the rundown on Harken Energy. It appears our "president" hasn't told the American people everything he knows after all.

"These reports document how a long-time Bush family political supporter, Robert J. Stone, Jr., in league with the Cabot family oil interests, manipulated the Harvard Management Company to invest millions in Harken in an off-the books arrangement that bailed the failing company out of a liquidity crisis, kept hidden from Harken investors and the S.E.C., in 1990.

"The reports further show that the financial guarantor of the deal was none other than Robert Abboud of First City Boston -- the one-time head of the U.S.-Iraq Business Forum, a close political supporter of Bush’s father, a personal friend of Saddam Hussein, and a figure with a longtime history of dubious financial and political dealings.

"Finally, the reports show that George W. Bush, as a member of Harken’s audit committee, personally signed off on the secret deals, the deception of investors, and the manipulation of Harken’s stock price."

But will anything be done? Probably not. Not with the scared Democrats giving Bush everything he desires. They wouldn't want to run the risk of exposing Bush as the fraud that he is, now, would they?

Why do I want the Anaheim Angels to beat the Twins?

Well, I wasn't so sure myself when I wrote that yesterday. But then I caught the 9th inning of the game last night (Minnesota won, 2-1) and I realized one really good reason to not support the Twins: Astroturf. I hate astroturf almost as much as I hate the designated hitter.

On the other hand, wouldn't it be beautiful if the Twins made it to the Series and all those crybaby billionaire owners had to eat crow? Remember their cries of "We can't compete against the big market teams"? It was all a lie. This is why it is essential that San Francisco does not make it past the Cards. Two small market teams in the series -- how beautiful, how exciting, how... ironic. Bud Selig, all the arguments you made during the strike negotiations for sharing income just flew out the proverbial window.

Now, I suppose it would be nice if Barry Bonds had an opportunity to sport a ring along with the single-season home run record. But, come on... when it's all said and done, does anyone really care about Barry Bonds (besides San Fran fans)? Is there a bigger crybaby in the game (besides Frank Thomas)? Is baseball going to be any worse off if he never wears a World Series ring? Let him eat cake.

So say it with me one more time: GO ANAHEIM... AND ST. LOUIS... AND MINNESOTA!

And I'll finish today they way I finished yesterday.

GO ANAHEIM!

Bartcop.com is back this week and today they have a very funny 'toon leading off the daily rants. Check it out.

YET ANOTHER REASON THE DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO LOSE MORE VOTERS TO GREEN CANDIDATES

From the Boston Globe.

"WASHINGTON - In the clearest sign to date that Congress is poised to approve an attack on Iraq, Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle muted his concerns about a Bush administration proposal authorizing the use of force yesterday and said he would almost certainly vote for the measure, which is expected to pass in the House and Senate within the next two weeks."

William Saletan in Slate today on the absurdity of Bush trying to make a connection between Al-Qaida and Iraq.

"If Bush had evidence linking the two wars, this was his last plausible chance to divul ge it. He didn't. It's clear that the two stories are objectively unrelated. The link between them is subjective: The events of Sept. 11 lowered our standards for using force."

AND

"Uncertainty becomes a reason to attack rather than forbear...'I am not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein,' said Bush. Fourth, the mere threat of attack by the enemy becomes a basis for striking him first. As Bush put it, "We refuse to live in fear."

Sure, Bush refuses to "stake one American life on trusting Saddam," but he certainly doesn't refuse risking American lives to KILL Saddam, does he?

We refuse to live in fear? You're damn right we do, George.

I would like to finish the day with two words. Two words... because I hate the Atlanta Braves. Always have. Always will -- even if they do get rid of that ridiculous (racist) "chop and chant" the fans do....

GO GIANTS!!!!!!

"But now Iraq has agreed to allow the inspectors to return, unconditionally, and to be held accountable to the rule of law as set forth in existing security council resolutions governing Iraq's disarmament. The opportunity finally exists to bring clarity to years of speculation about the potential threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, as well as an opportunity to resolve this ongoing crisis of international law peacefully.

'But President Bush refuses to take 'yes' for an answer. The Bush administration's actions lay bare the mythology that this war is being fought over any threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. It has made it clear that its objective is the elimination of Saddam Hussein. And this is where I have a fundamental problem. The UN charter prohibits regime removal. The US constitution states that international agreements entered into by the United States carry the force of law. The US has signed the UN charter. Regime removal is not only a violation of international law, it is unconstitutional."

Scott Ritter in the UK Guardian on why he does not support the war in Iraq. Give this one to all your Republican friends and family members who say "better we do something before he attacks us first."

For information regarding the mass protest against war in Iraq in Washington, D.C. on October 26th, click here (thanks to failureisimpossible.com).

Here's something you won't see any Democratic politician doing. Protest Wall Street? The very people who line their pockets? Not on your life. Take it away, Ralph.

Living in Chicago, I don't find much time to stay up-to-date on the New Jersey Senate race, but this is pretty god damn funny. Torricelli quits and Forrester falls behind in the polls to a retired "former" Senator. Life is beautiful sometimes. This Forrester chap must be a real piece of work.

John Edwards (D-NC) is a blow-dried blowhard.

OK, so he's going to "distance himself" from Bush's foreign policy in a speech today, but he still remains an ardent supporter of attacking Iraq.

His other brilliant idea, however, is to form ANOTHER domestic spy agency, one that would take over spying on citizens for the FBI. Of course, he says it would provide greater protections for our civil liberties, but my question is will he go so far as to say we need to overturn the misnamed PATRIOT Act? For that matter, will any Democrat? (Besides Feingold?)

TODAY IN THE "DUH..." CATEGORY

The New York Times reports that the public wants to hear more on the economy and not more beating of the drums of war.

The Great Tom Petty will be on Dave Letterman tonight (10/7/02) and Conan O'Brien tomorrow night (10/8/02). But most importantly, his new album, "The Last DJ", will be in record stores tomorrow.