indeed...I'm not sure who to weep for, though...

To be honest, I wouldn't have known about Edwards' haircut,if the blogs hadn't made it into a story. I don't watch the boob-tube, don't listen to the radio and, now that I've found blogs, don't read the papers much anymore, either.

So, if I had been asked, I'd have been in the same percentage group: have heard Hussein didn't have WMDs (you *could* find it in NYT, if you looked closely enough), and have heard about Edwards' haircut (from the blogs).

For what it's worth, I figured Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 quite a while before Sept '03, but that's mostly because, on principle, I didn't believe anything that Bush/Cheney gang was pushing (growing up in a commie country will do that for you -- you tend to mistrust the official "line". The harder they pushed it, the more we doubted it. The only time we believed any piece of news was when the govt issued a "dementi" --denial)

Government of the People, By the People, For the People.

Yet it's the media that's to blame?

America has the government it deserves, ,and I am deeply, deeply ashamed..........

this is a talk radio problem and if edwards is your candidate you might think about waving a sign in front of the right wing local talk radio station, or at least boycotting their sponsors.

our 'democracy' can handle some media consolidation and corporate money in congress, and was doing so. the difference for the last twenty years, resulting in the rise of a new kind of Republican extreme, has been talk radio.

this is right wing talk radio America and the trickle-up effect of it's unaccountable repetition of right wing talking points has been totally ignored by those it attacks the most. while liberals listened to music and media critics read, talk radio was burning democracy under their noses.

dems may never get enough republicans to cross the line for a veto proof majority, or impeach this president, until the talk radio monopoly is broken- the GOP reps are too dependent on and too cowed by the talk radio groudtroops to cross bush.

al gore, like kerry and the clintons, was swiftboated incessantly on talk radio, still is, and will feel it's effects for years to come. much of it was based on exaggeration and lies but talk radio repetition and geographical coverage made it a fad and acceptable. the lie that gore said he invented the internet could not have started on fox and the wash times and stuck. it had to become part of the american conservative culture through talk radio repetition.

same with sadam and 911.

if politics was like football the dems are playing without a front line. until progressives recognize the importance of the right wing talk radio machine in shaping American opinion and pass legislation to cut the monopoly they will continue strategizing and framing in a vacuum.

talk radio is why a sociopath with a 30% approval rating still holds the keys to the white house and the soldiers in iraq are still hostages to his pride. this bush disaster, this occupation of iraq, and total innaction on global warming would not have been possible without the right wing's talk radio monopoly.

until progressives begin calling their local talk radio stations and their sponsors for giving a megaphone to a bunch of unwise blowhard chickenhawks and lying fools without chance of correction, it will continue to be much harder work than it needs to be just to get a little sanity and justice. often the local sponsors of these shows aren't very aware of the crap they are sponsoring, often it may be part of a package deal. in general the crucial importance of RWTR in the overall effort to get us into this mess has been greatly underestimated.

Is it possible for any of us to imagine just how maddeningly trivial and inane things will get before election day '08? The rethuglicunts and neo-cons are painfully aware that they can't retain the White House by legitimately 'winning'. Their only realistic hope at this point is that they can sling enough shit to stick to whomever the Democratic nominee is with the result that their chosen assclown belly crawls into the White House by default.

And they really won't care. They have long since proven themselves without conscience, without shame. Whatever it takes. "Just win, baby". We are guaranteed to witness a viciousness that will be jaw dropping in it's intensity and scale. The question is whether we will, once again, react like a deer blinded by the headlights like the hopelessly wimpy Kerry campaign in '04.

The wiser folk have already begun preparing for the inevitable attack. The fangs of the truly rabid are bared. It's coming, gang. Believe me, it's coming.......

So Hussein DIDN'T have WMD's? Better inform these good Democrats then:

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. And so we had to act and act now. Let me explain why. First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years."
--Pres. Clinton, December 16, 1998

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." --Bill Clinton in 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." --Madeline Albright, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy (is that a top secret document down your pants or are you just glad to see me?) Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
______________

OTHER DEMOCRATS THEN:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." --Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." --Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." --Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: --Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the! e means of delivering them." --Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." --Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." --Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." --Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." --Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" --Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." --Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." --Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." --Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." --John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." --John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." --Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

8-) 8-) 8-)