If you have an interest in the "under god" debate.
Rice Is Agreeable to Return for More of 9/11 Panel's Queries


"The White House announced late Thursday that Ms. Rice was willing to appear before the panel again, but only in private and not under oath. "

Do we really need to say any more.


I sure hope that gays really are 10% (or more) of America, because it looks like we have their votes....

This is from todays Altercation weblog on MSNBC.....

"Meanwhile, The Daily Mis-Lead catches the following development: Despite what he and his gay supporters have claimed in the past, the president now supports the firing of gay government workers simply because they are gay. Bush has insisted that homosexuals "ought to have the same rights" (1) as all other people, but according to the Federal Times, the president's appointee at the Office of Special Counsel ruled that federal employees will now "have no recourse if they are fired or demoted simply for being gay." (2) To carry out the directive, the White House has begun removing information from government websites about sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace. (3)

1. Debates, 10/11/2000.
2. "OSC to study whether bias law covers gays", Federal Times, 03/15/2004.
3. "Gay Rights Information Taken Off Site", Washington Post, 02/18/2004.

Tis is just funny - and enlightening.....



"At the time of President Clinton’s biggest strikes against Al Qaeda, in August 1998, there were three words on most people’s minds: “Wag the Dog.” After Clinton ordered air strikes on the terrorist camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceuticals factory in Sudan, many people thought of that Robert de Niro movie about a struggling president and an obscure foreign war. Reporters asked Secretary Cohen and Clinton investigator Kenneth Starr about the air strikes and the movie. "


I didn't think of this before - Richard Wolfe make a great point here. Remember, from now until fall, as the Republicans are blaming 9/11 on Clinton, that their partisan politics prevented him from doing anything about it.

Also, after the bombing of the Cole, Clinton/Gore could have made a grand anti-terror gesture that would surely have helped Gore in the poles, but decided it was better to show restraint. They instead passed the info they had onto the new administration.

Would Bush do the same, do you think, or would he play it for political advantage at the ballot box?
Paul Krugman speaks the truth again....

"After 9/11 the F.B.I. requested $1.5 billion for counterterrorism operations, but the White House slashed this by two-thirds. (Meanwhile, the Bush campaign has been attacking John Kerry because he once voted for a small cut in intelligence funds.) "


Wee need to make sure that the attacks on Dick Clarke do not stick. He served under more Republicans that Democrats, and was a registered Republican in 2000. Now the administration is trying to destroy him.

Spread the gospel!