The latest evidence of this:
Washington - US congressional Democrats voiced alarm on Tuesday about Iraq's denunciation of Israel in the Mideast conflict, and some said Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's upcoming address to Congress should be cancelled unless he apologises. A group of House of Representatives Democrats was circulating a letter to House Speaker Dennis Hastert urging the Illinois Republican to secure an apology from Maliki or cancel the address on Wednesday to a joint meeting of Congress.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?sf=2813&click_id=2813&art_id=qw1153841400948B262&set_id=6

This is insane (The Dems I mean).

With gratitude and grateful cooperation,

Can we have a "vote of confidence" and then have another election? Like some of the states do (California a few years back). And then remove the entire administration. Is there such an item as a "vote of confidence" followed by a new election for the White House?

We can start with either a democratic or republican politico (or both).   How to mobilize?   It's the Internet, dummy!    And how about TO as our central communication hub?

On your mark, get set, go!    Ok, which Congressperson / Senator do we go after first?    

Although our constitution IS a fine document, we are trapped by it to suffer through what has been a coup by corporate military interests exploiting the ignorant and ill informed xtian taliban

They follow the laws they want, and NOBODY has has been held accountable for any of the items raised in Mr Swanson's post.

And what may not be impeachable is that they have stolen and bankrupted this nation.

We are screwed.

Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Tom DeLay is Good for the Jews
by David Benzion | 07/25/2006 11:11 am | Alert moderator

Tom DeLay's love of and support for Israel is legend, but even I was impressed by the depth of feeling shown in an interview he gave to Tovia Singer of Israel's Artuz Sheva radio station. (Arutz Sheva is sort of like the "KSEV of the Jews.")

Listening to DeLay speak, keep in mind that this is someone who is out of power, who doesn't need to court the pro-Israel vote in Congress, talking to a bunch of people who live halfway around the world and who couldn't even vote for him if he were still running for office.

Particularly noteworthy is the following excerpt, which comes at about 18 minutes, 10 seconds into the program-

"[Israelis should know that] The United States is behind them. Everything that we can do we will do, including, if it takes it, we will push to put our own soldiers shoulder to shoulder to yours. That this fight is our fight as well as theirs and we are there with them. And we will do everything that we can to support them and see that they win."

[Emphass added by LST]

Tom DeLay, calling for US troops to join the Israel Defense Forces in combat, hunting Hizb'Allah.

And yes, I've already alerted my contacts down at the Houston Chronicle; let the Moonbatterish editorializing commence. ;)

Oh- and thank you Tom DeLay.

Washington

It's too bad President Bush spurns evolution -- both in his view of the universe and his view of himself.

Scientists see more and more evidence that human evolution not only exists but is ongoing, as people adapt to changing circumstances with shifts in everything from skin color to the protein structure of sperm.

But with W., it's more a matter of survival of the stubbornist.

If you turn on TV, you see missiles flying, bodies lying, nuclear missiles unleashed and a slaughterhouse in Iraq. But don't despair, because yesterday President Bush announced the establishment of "a joint committee to achieve Iraqi self-reliance." He called it a "new partnership," as if it were some small business.

Isn't it a little late, in July 2006, to be launching a new partnership for such an old mess? Isn't it a little late to realize that Baghdad, a city where 300 garbage collectors have been killed in the last six months, according to press reports, has spun out of control?

In a press conference at the White House with his rogue puppet, the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, Mr. Bush explained that "our strategy is to remain on the offense, including in Baghdad." Then why, after three and a half years, does our offense look so much like a defense?

The president sounded like a Jon Stewart imitation of himself when he assured reporters that Mr. Maliki had "a comprehensive plan" to pacify Iraq. "That's what leaders do," W. lectured, in a familiar refrain. "They see problems, they address problems, and they lay out a plan to solve the problems."

If only the plan were a little less robbing-Peter-to-pay-Paul, and a little more road-to-Damascus epiphany. Taking troops out of Anbar Province, where the insurgency is thriving, to quell violence in Baghdad doesn't inspire confidence that the plan is truly "comprehensive."

And despite W.'s praise of Mr. Maliki's leadership, the plan to start from scratch, in essence, stabilizing neighborhood by neighborhood in Baghdad is, as The Times's Michael Gordon writes, "an implicit acknowledgment of what every Iraqi in Baghdad already knows": the prime minister's "original Baghdad security plan has failed. In the past two weeks, more Iraqi civilians have been killed than have died in Lebanon and Israel."

Mr. Bush also sent Condi Rice to lay out a plan to the Arabs and Europeans about the destruction and refugee flight in Lebanon, but the plan turns out to be a plan to do nothing until Israel has more time to kick the Hezb out of Hezbollah.

W. says he supports more diplomacy, but it's the diplomacy of sanctimony. He now grudgingly notes that "the violence in Baghdad is still terrible," but doesn't seem to grasp the tragic enormity of an occupation that is sliding into civil war and constricting his leverage to deal with all the other crises crackling around the world. The U.N. reported last week that in May and June no less than 5,818 Iraqi civilians were killed.

Although he talked about whether America could be "facile" and "nimble" enough to change with the circumstances in the Middle East, in fundamental ways, he has not changed his attitude at all.

Newsweek's Richard Wolffe says he conducted four "freewheeling" interviews with the president last week, and concluded: "Bush thinks the new war vindicates his early vision of the region's struggle: of good versus evil, civilization versus terrorism, freedom versus Islamic fascism. He still believes that when it comes to war and terror, leaders need to decide whose side they are on."

The president sees Lebanon as a test of macho mettle rather than the latest chapter in a fratricidal free-for-all that's been going on for centuries. "I view this as the forces of instability probing weakness," he said. "I think they're testing resolve."

The more things get complicated, the more W. feels vindicated in his own simplified vision. The more people try to tell him that it's not easy, that this is a region of shifting alliances and interests, the less he seems inclined to develop an adroit policy to win people over to our side instead of trying to annihilate them.

Bill Clinton, the Mutable Man par excellence, evolved four times a day; he had a tactical and even recreational attitude toward personal change. But W. prides himself on his changelessness and regards his immutability as the surest sign of his virtue. Facing a map on fire, he sees any inkling of change as the slippery slope to failure.

That's what's so frustrating about watching him deal -- or not deal -- with Iraq and Lebanon. There's almost nothing to watch.

It's not even like watching paint dry, since that, too, is a passage from one state to another. It's like watching dry paint.

Imagine a surgeon who is completely clueless, who has no idea what he or she is doing.

Imagine a pilot who is equally incompetent.

Now imagine a president.

The Middle East is in flames. Iraq has become a charnel house, a crucible of horror with no end to the agony in sight. Lebanon is in danger of going down for the count. And the crazies in Iran, empowered by the actions of their enemies, are salivating like vultures. They can't wait to feast on the remains of U.S. policies and tactics spawned by a sophomoric neoconservative fantasy -- that democracy imposed at gunpoint in Iraq would spread peace and freedom, like the flowers of spring, throughout the Middle East.

If a Democratic president had pursued exactly the same policies, and achieved exactly the same tragic results as George W. Bush, that president would have been the target of a ferocious drive for impeachment by the G.O.P.

Mr. Bush spent a fair amount of time this week with the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. There was plenty to talk about, nearly all of it hideous. Over the past couple of months Iraqi civilians have been getting blown away at the stunning rate of four or five an hour. Even Karl Rove had a tough time drawing a smiley face on that picture.

"Obviously the violence in Baghdad is still terrible," said Mr. Bush, "and therefore there needs to be more troops."

One did not get the sense, listening to this assessment from the commander in chief, that things would soon be well in hand. There was, instead, a disturbing sense of déjà vu. A sense of the president at a complete loss, not really knowing what to do. I recalled the image of Mr. Bush sitting in a Sarasota, Fla., classroom after being informed of the Sept. 11 attacks. Instead of reacting instantly, commandingly, he just sat there for long wasted moments, with a bewildered look on his face, holding a second-grade story called "The Pet Goat."

And then there was the famous picture of Mr. Bush, on his way back from a monthlong vacation, looking out the window of Air Force One as it flew low over the destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina. "It's devastating," Mr. Bush was quoted as saying. "It's got to be doubly devastating on the ground."

I'll tell you what's devastating. The monumental and mind-numbing toll of Mr. Bush's war in Iraq, which is being documented in a series of important books, the latest being Thomas Ricks's "Fiasco." Mr. Ricks gives us more disturbing details about the administration's "flawed plan for war" and "worse approach to occupation."

Near the end of his book, he writes:

"In January 2005, the C.I.A.'s internal think tank, the National Intelligence Council, concluded that Iraq had replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for a new generation of jihadist terrorists. The country had become `a magnet for international terrorist activity,' said the council's chairman, Robert Hutchings."

Saddled with one failure after another, the administration seems paralyzed, completely unable to shape the big issues facing the U.S. and the world today. Condoleezza Rice is in charge of the diplomatic effort regarding Lebanon. She's been about as effective at that as the president was in his response to Katrina.

But Dr. Rice is still quick with the scary imagery. Her comment, "I have no doubt there are those who wish to strangle a democratic and sovereign Lebanon in its crib," recalls her famous, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

It might help if she spent less time giving us provocative metaphors and more time on the very difficult nuts and bolts of trying to maintain or bring about peace.

It may be that a hamstrung Bush administration is a better bet than the same crew being free to act as it pleases. Imagine how much better off we'd have been if Congress had found the wisdom and the courage to prevent the president from invading Iraq.

In two years and a few months Americans will vote again for president. I hope the long list of tragic failures by Bush & Co. prompts people to take that election more seriously than some in the past. If you were about to be lifted onto an operating table, you'd be more interested in the competence of the surgeon than in his or her personality.

Mr. Bush's record reminds us that similarly careful consideration should be given to those who would be president.

We have watched Election Fraud! We have seen them take us to war on lies and a fixed policy. We can't help but notice as we are hit on the head again and again with abuses of power and illegitimate signing statements. Incompetence is rampant in our Administration and our Congress! A mockery has been made of our Constitution. We witness unfinished jobs, poor prior planning at home and abroad, the deliberate revengeful act of the outing of a CIA agent, the stacking of our Supreme Court, the management of the news media, the secrecy and over use of the excuse of national security again and again. There is not enough outrage and too much apathy as too many live self-centered lives and forget about the destruction of our Democracy at home, while  watching our Administration they try to promote it in lands for profit and power! War after War, failure after failure, look what the Bush Administration and the Republicans have done with their power!!!

"A Society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves!" Bertrand de Jouvenal

We are there people, we are there!

In my view, it's time to get out on the streets. The cabal needs a come-uppance. It's time. It's surely time.

    Has anybody thought about a class action lawsuit by citizens against newspapers and news shows? We could sue them for not broadcasting the news as they advertise that they're publishing/broadcasting the 'news'. We should have them on the dictionary definition, at least.

The 9/11 truth is coming out HARD and FAST, and it needs to be discussed here at truthout.  A good start would be to link to the video of this weeks C-SPAN coverage of 9/11 Inside Job.

Democracy Now has a video link on C-SPAN to it, but it can also be viewed here:

VIDEO COVERAGE OF THE 9/11 INSIDE JOB EVENT C-SPAN COVERED:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5004704309041471296&q=alex+symposium

ALSO, if you've yet to see the "LOOSE CHANGE" DOCUMENTARY - which is covered in a four-page article in "VANITY FAIR MAGAZINE"s AUGUST 2006 ISSUE: