VINDICATION!

Hey! I'm not a paranoid conspiracy theorist in need of psychological help after all!

Well, maybe I am, a little. But with Tom Ridge's recent revelations about the Bush administration issuing terror warnings to strike fear in the public in order to manipulate the election, I feel so vindicated. I just want to jump up and down, pointing, and shout, "I told you so! I told you so! I told you so!" But, that would be immature of me and besides, I was certainly not the only one saying that the Bush administration was putting out phony terror alerts for political gain. Right-wing media called us paranoid, conspiracy theorists and unbalanced for voicing such an opinion. Shall we review?

In the year leading up to the election, there were no less than 16 warnings/alerts issued by the government. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but frankly, I'm exhausted and need to post this before it goes on longer and I get totally disgusted.

December 4, 2003-Foxnews.com reports that the FBI warns that terrorists could be developing plans to hijack airplanes to use as weapons.

December 13, 2003-FBI warns that terrorist operatives may rely on almanacs to assist with target selection and pre-operational plannings and suggests the possibility of attacks against the United States by early 2004 that could rival the terrorist attack of September 11 in scope and impact.

March 4, 2004-Fox News obtains FBI bulletin that terrorists may use pen guns containing poisonous chemicals and biological toxins.

April 2, 2004-FBI warns that terrorists might attempt to slip into the U.S. using cultural, arts or sports visas.

May 20, 2004-FBI issues a bulletin advising police to be on the lookout for suicide bombers attempting to strike inside the U.S. Warned to look for people wearing bulky Jackets on warm days, smell of chemicals, trailing wires from jackets, bombers disguised as pregnant women or in stolen military, police, or firefighters garb.

May 26, 2004-The Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department issue a joint statement that "credible intelligence from multiple sources" indicates that al Qaeda plans to attempt an attack on the United States during the period leading up to the November elections. The New York Times subsequently reports that "Some federal officials and terrorism experts questioned the credibility and the timing of the announcement, noting that much of Mr. Ashcroft's information had been widely disseminated for months." According to the New York Times,Tom Ridge, the homeland security secretary, was not with Mr. Ashcroft for the news conference and suggested that the announcement might have averted required consultation between agencies on domestic threats . . . Late Friday, apparently in an effort to counter the perception of a split, Mr. Ashcroft and Mr. Ridge put out a joint statement saying that 'we are working together' to deter terrorist attacks.

May 28, 2004-The FBI issues an urgent bulletin to several cities warning of a terrorist attack within 24 hours. According to the New York Times, the FBI rescinds the alert hours later because the intelligence proves unfounded, officials said.

June 14, 2004- Attorney General John Ashcroft announces that a shopping mall in Columbus, Ohio, has been threatened by Al Qaeda bomber, stating dramatically, "The American heartland was targeted for death and destruction." It is subsequently revealed that the suspect to whom Ashcroft referred had been in custody for seven months at the time of the announcement and that there was nothing in the indictment about a shopping mall.The charges against him made no mention of a shopping mall.

June 25, 2004-The FBI issues a warning to be on the lookout for booby-trapped floating material in and around the nation's marinas, warning they could contain explosives, explaining that plastic-foam containers, inner tubes and buoys could be rigged to blow up on contact. On June 27, 2004, a homeland security official tells CNN that there is "no intelligence terrorists are planning to or want to do this."

July 6, 2004-Senator John Kerry selects Senator John Edwards as his running mate, monopolizing most of the media attention.

July 8, 2004-Tom Ridge announces that, "Al Qaeda is moving forward with its plans to carry out a large-scale attack in the United States in an effort to disrupt our democratic process." There was no such plot.

July 12, 2004-Deforest B. Soaries Jr., the head of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, confirms he has written to Ridge about the prospect of postponing the upcoming presidential election in the event it is interrupted by terrorist acts.

July 16, 2004-The FBI warns local authorities that the al- Qaida terror network may be recruiting non-Arabs less likely to attract notice as they carry out attacks in the United States and specifically, that Al-Qaida wants operatives who have American citizenship or legal residency status.

July 29, 2004-The Democratic Party nominates Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards as their Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, respectively. Again, the media attention focuses on the Democratic ticket. 

August 1, 2004-The Department of Homeland Security raises the terror alert for financial centers in New York, New Jersey, and Washington to orange based on very out-of-date evidence..

August 7, 2004-The FBI issues a pair of warnings to 18,000 police agencies nationwide that al-Qaida could try launching attacks in the United States by packing explosives into rental limos or helicopters, which could help terrorists sneak near targeted buildings.

September 8, 2004-Vice President Dick Cheney tells a town hall audience in Des Moines, Iowa, Tuesday that there will be an increased risk of terrorist attacks if Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., is elected president.

September 22, 2004-A report from a joint CIA-FBI agency called the Terrorist Threat Integration Center. describes a scenario whereby Al Qaeda would use “weapons of mass destruction to launch multiple simultaneous attacks on the United States and overwhelm the US government.”

The weekend before the November 2004 Presidential election- Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft push Ridge to raise the color-coded warning for what Ridge believed were political reasons. In his new book, Ridge writes, "An election-eve drama was being played out at the highest levels of our government" after Osama bin Laden released a pre-election message critical of President George W. Bush, and we weren't seeing any additional intelligence that justified it. In fact, we were incredulous... I wondered, 'Is this about security or politics?'" This incident prompted Ridge to resign shortly after Bush was re-elected.

Even though I do feel vindicated, it still scares the crap out of me that the top echelons of the government conspired to manipulate the public in order to stay in power. It is equally scary that the general public was so gullible and that these people vote. The reluctance of the Obama administration to launch a full scale investigation of this matter seemingly assures that these former government officials got away with their abuse of power.

Obsessed

It must seem that I am obsessed about health care reform and the public option. At this time, I may be. But, the sleazy manipulation of the public by the Republicans and the health care industry, the curiously naive handling of the issue by the Obama administration and the grave necessity for serious health care reform with a public option have captured and monopolized my attention.

I do not understand how or why the Obama Administration has allowed the process to get so out of control. I knew that the Republicans would never agree to a public option or effective and meaningful health care reform. (See my July 29 and July 31 blog entries.) It was so clear that any such efforts would be futile and that the Republicans were being manipulative. If I could see that so clearly, why didn't President Obama see it? (By the way, I am dropping off my resume for the position of resident pundit at the White House this afternoon.) And, after all that has transpired since the last days of July, why is he still talking about a bipartisan agreement? Why is he still acting as if Grassley is negotiating in good faith? It really makes the president appear naive and weak. Then, there is spineless Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Well, he just needs to be replaced. Frankly, I think that Reid and the White House should take a page out of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's book. She is the only one who seems to have control of her troops.

WP's First PUNDIT'S PICK Award!!

Yesterday, at Congressman Barney Frank's town hall meeting on health care reform, a woman holding a picture of President Obama with a Hitler-like mustache stood up and after branding various health care reform proposals as "Nazi policy," asked Rep. Frank why he continued to support them. Bless him, Rep. Frank replied:

“When you ask me that question, I’m going to revert to my ethnic heritage and answer your question with a question: On what planet do you spend most of your time? ... You stand there with a picture of the president defaced to look like Hitler and compare the effort to increase health care to the Nazis. My answer, as I said before, it is a tribute to the First Amendment that this vile, contemptible nonsense is so freely propagated. Ma’am, trying to have a conversation with you is like trying to talk to a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it. ... This notion that something in this bill would require people who are elderly or sick to be denied medical care and killed is the single stupidest argument I have heard in all my years of public office. There is nothing remotely relevant to it.”

Guts! Spine! Courage! This is why Wilsonville Pundit's first PUNDIT'S PICK Award goes to Congressman Barney Frank! You can thank Congressman Frank for being one of the few democratic leaders to actually have a back bone by clicking here. You can also take a peek at the video from the meeting below:

YES!!!!

Yesterday, the US Justice Department filed its reply brief in Smelt v. United States, urging the repeal of DOMA, the Defense of Marriage (anti-gay) Act!! This act denies benefits to domestic partners of federal employees and allows states to reject same-sex marriages performed in other states. The White House released President Obama's statement in conjunction with the filing:

Today, the Department of Justice has filed a response to a legal challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged. This brief makes clear, however, that my Administration believes that the Act is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress. I have long held that DOMA prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. While we work with Congress to repeal DOMA, my Administration will continue to examine and implement measures that will help extend rights and benefits to LGBT couples under existing law.

YES!!!!

Noting that the government has a duty to defend the rule of law and is therefore doing so, the DOJ states in its reply brief:

With respect to the merits, this Administration does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal. Consistent with the rule of law, however, the Department of Justice has long followed the practice of defending federal statutes as long as reasonable arguments can be made in support of their constitutionality, even if the Department disagrees with a particular statute as a policy matter, as it does here.

Smelt, DOJ reply, at 2. The DOJ nevertheless asserts:

[T]he United States does not believe that DOMA is rationally related to any legitimate government interests in procreation and child-rearing and is therefore not relying upon any such interests to defend DOMA’s constitutionality.

Smelt, DOJ reply, at 6-7. This is a good first step toward granting equal rights and benefits to gay couples!

At this point, all that stands in the way of universal health care in America are the greed of the medical-industrial complex, the lies of the right-wing propaganda machine, and the gullibility of voters who believe those lies.

Paul Krugman, New York Times Op-Ed August 16, 2009

As Gomer Pyle once said, "SURPRISE, SURPRISE, SURPRISE!"

FOX News surprises with accurate report on the history of GOP support of and disingenuous GOP opposition to end-of-life-counseling

I was pleased as punch to stumble across this article (well, maybe I actually found myself on the ground after reading it, having been knocked off my rocker). I found it on the FOX News site, of all places. Granted, it is an AP wire piece by Ben Evans, but who'dah thunk it would be published on the web site of the "crazy and unbalanced" network? Here it is:

GOP Backs Away From Promoting End-of-Life Counseling

Republicans who eagerly backed the idea of end-of-life counseling in government health care programs like Medicare are distancing themselves from it or lying low in the face of a backlash from the right.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Until last week, Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson was among the most enthusiastic backers of end-of-life counseling in government health care programs like Medicare. That was before conservatives called it a step toward euthanasia and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin likened the idea to a bureaucratic "death panel" that would decide whether sick people get to live. And even though those claims have been widely discredited, the issue remains a political weapon in the increasingly bitter health care debate.

Now, Isakson and other Republicans who eagerly backed the idea are distancing themselves from it or lying low in the face of a backlash from the right. "Until last week this was basically a nonpartisan issue," said John Rother, executive vice president for policy at AARP, the seniors lobbying group. "People across the political spectrum recognize that far too often people's wishes aren't respected at the end of life and there is a lot of unnecessary suffering." The idea for government-backed end-of-life counseling - while delicate given the subject matter - has garnered significant consensus on Capitol Hill, fueled in part by cases such as that of Terri Schiavo, whose divided family fought for years over whether she would want to be kept alive in a vegetative state. Just a year ago, Congress overwhelmingly approved legislation requiring doctors to discuss issues like living wills and advance directives with new Medicare enrollees. And the government already requires hospitals and nursing homes to help patients with those legal documents if they want support, under a 1992 law passed under Republican President George H.W. Bush.

Supporters say the current House proposal just goes one step further by paying for the counseling, with the idea that doctors and patients would spend more time on it instead of just having a cursory discussion in an initial Medicare visit. The counseling is voluntary. Isakson and other Republicans such as Sens. Richard Lugar of Indiana and Susan Collins of Maine have co-sponsored legislation in recent years promoting the counseling, including in initial Medicare visits and through a proposed government-run insurance program for long-term care. In the House, Republican Reps. Charles Boustany of Louisiana, Geoff Davis of Kentucky and Patrick Tiberi of Ohio co-sponsored legislation from Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., that would authorize Medicare to pay for the counseling. That measure served as a model for the current House language.

Earlier this summer, Isakson sponsored an arguably more far-reaching measure that would have required that new Medicare patients have a living will or other advance directive. But the Georgia conservative found himself in a storm of criticism when President Barack Obama said at a town hall meeting this week that Isakson was a chief architect of the House approach. Isakson quickly issued a statement repudiating the proposal. "The House provision is merely another ill-advised attempt at more government mandates, more government intrusion and more government involvement in what should be an individual choice," he said. Pressed later to explain his opposition, Isakson and his spokeswoman, Joan Kirchner, said he doesn't like the fact that the House bill would expand Medicare costs by paying for the consultations and giving doctors an incentive to conduct them. He also said the House bill is too specific in detailing what must be discussed in the sessions. "There are similarities ... but there are substantial difference," Isakson said. "I'm not running away from anything but I'm not going to accept the president of the United States telling people I wrote something that I didn't." Isakson, who initially called Palin's "death panel" characterization "nuts" in an interview Monday, declined later in the week to criticize Palin's statement, in which she said the measure would force people like her baby Trig, who has Down syndrome, "to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide ... whether they are worthy of health care." "The best I can read she's applying the House bill and using her child with Down syndrome as an example," Isakson said. "I would never question anyone's defense of their child."

Spokesmen for Lugar and Collins-two other longtime proponents of end-of-life planning-declined to comment on the House bill. Sen. Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican and a lead negotiator on health care legislation, told constituents at a community meeting last week that they have good reason to fear the proposal. "I don't have any problem with things like living wills, but they ought to be done within the family," he said. "We should not have a government program that determines you're going to pull the plug on grandma." Grassley said Thursday that lawmakers negotiating on the Senate version of the health care bill had dropped the provision from consideration, citing how it could be misinterpreted.

Comments like Grassley's puzzle Rother, who said "it's been a little disappointing" that more Republicans haven't stepped forward to defend the legislation. He and Jon Keyserling, a vice president at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, say there is little difference between the current proposal and past legislation that Republicans have supported. The current bill specifies that the counseling would be covered only every five years to prevent people from overusing it, and describes what the consultations must include. Keyserling said many people wrongly assume that end-of-life counseling is about terminating treatment. But it really is about making sure a patient's wishes are known, he said, including if that means continuing life-sustaining treatment in all circumstances. He said he's been surprised at the backlash, particularly given the close attention that Congress paid to Schiavo's case, which he said clearly highlighted the need for better end-of-life planning. Schiavo was removed from life support in 2005, though the Republican-led Congress and President George W. Bush had intervened in the family dispute in an effort to continue her care. "I think the House bill is about as innocuous and helpful as possible," Keyserling said. "It's about making sure people are prepared and informed to make decisions."

Associated Press

Dupes for the health care industry

Adele M. Stan, has a well-researched, informative piece on Alternet which exposes the identities and relationships among the town hall wingnuts, Republicans and the health care industry lobby: Inside Story on Town Hall Riots: Right-Wing Shock Troops Do Corporate America's Dirty Work ( How the health-care industry, the GOP and one media mogul made common cause with the anti-government fringe.) From the introductory paragraphs:

The recent spate of town hall dustups may look like an overnight sensation, but they've been years, even decades, in the making.

Since the days in the late 1970s, when the New Right began its takeover of the Republican Party, it has cultivated a militia of white people armed with a grudge against those who brought forth the social changes of the '60s.

These malcontents have been promised their day of retribution, a day for which they are more than ready. Few seem to understand that they are merely dupes for a corporate agenda that will only worsen the conditions in which they live.

Why, you may ask, would men of power and fame shake the rough, unmanicured hands of gun enthusiasts, conspiracy theorists, gay-haters, misogynists and racists?

Read the post and find the answer! It is good reading!

Extra! Extra! Read all about it!

Get the House health care reform bill here!

House bill. If you have questions about a particular provision, you can even search the bill for key words to bring you to the applicable section(s).

More Republican fear-mongering

A New York reader called my attention to a very funny posting at the Wonkette regarding the most recent Republican dirty tricks campaign to convince the public that the Obama White House is compiling an Enemies List of those spreading disinformation about the health insurance reform:

(T)his notion of the “enemies list” has become the hot new well-funded wingnut con-job from Republican operatives over the last 24 hours. * * * This stems from the Democrats’ recent pushback against the anti-health care reform movement’s operation to (a) shout violent nonsense at town hall meetings and (b) spread lies to America’s old people about how the government will first “take over their Medicare” and then murder each of them, for pleasure, well before that first sniffle becomes a full-blown cold or pancreatic cancer.

Emphasis added.

Seriously, these Republican dirty tricks operatives are dishonest, desperate, dangerous people. They are paid by the health insurance industry to stop President Obama's efforts to reform health care/health insurance. The facts do not support their position (which is simply, "no"). So, as they always do, the Republicans started cooking up lies and embarked on a campaign of disinformation and fearmongering. They will stop at nothing.

"Balloon-head talk"

Last night, Chris Matthews made mincemeat out of Max Pappas, spokesman for FreedomWorks, manufacturer/organizer of the phony public outrage displays disrupting recent congressional town hall meetings.

Chris Matthews asked Max Pappas:

• "What are they just saying no to?"


• "Are they saying 'just say no' to reforms to stop people from being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions?"


• "Are they saying 'just say no' to portability-to change jobs and maintain the same health care plan?"


• "Do they really know or is it only what you feed them?"

Regarding the idiots who get up at these meetings and shout, "Keep government out of Medicare!", Chris Matthews said, "That's balloon-head talk." (Referring to the fact that these idiots do not realize that Medicare is a government program.)

By the end of the 9+ minute segment, Max Pappas was tongue tied. Check it out. It is great t.v.

Tyranny of the minority

Tyranny rules in health insurance reform debate, according to David Sirota, in his August 1 opinion piece.

The facts on health insurance reform and why we need it

• There is a great article debunking myths on health insurance reform over at Media Matters.
• Very informative article setting forth the results of a Harvard University study regarding health insurance, illness and bankruptcy from the The American Journal of Medicine.
• Also, the case for health insurance reform is made on a state by state basis by the Center for American Progress.