Michael Moore sees the light

Recallifornia Watch

Playing a massive version of "blame the victim", Californians were happy to toss out the only person who stood between them and being controlled by the very people who screwed them with high energy costs. So now they can really be under the thumb of the pricegougers - way to go, voters! Chalk a victory up to the right wing media and charisma over self-interest.

As a former resident of California, my deepest sympathy goes out to my friends there. I'm sorry you live in a sea of idiots.

Michael Moore Watch

Michael Moore seems to have figured out that maybe supporting Nader to the detriment of Gore in the last election wasn't such a good thing. He certainly seems determined not to make that mistake twice. Here is an excerpt from his new book, "Dude, Where's My Country?" - includes sample pages!), published in the UK (of course), with seven questions for Bush: A sample:

1. Is it true that the Bin Ladens have had business relations with you and your family off and on for the past 25 years?

Most Americans might be surprised to learn that you and your father have known the Bin Ladens for a long time. What, exactly, is the extent of this relationship, Mr Bush? Are you close personal friends, or simply on-again, off-again business associates? Salem bin Laden - Osama's brother - first started coming to Texas in 1973 and later bought some land, built himself a house, and created Bin Laden Aviation at the San Antonio airfield.
.....
After leaving office, your father became a highly paid consultant for a company known as the Carlyle Group - one of the nation's largest defence contractors. One of the investors in the Carlyle Group - to the tune of at least $2m - was none other than the Bin Laden family. Until 1994, you headed a company called CaterAir, which was owned by the Carlyle Group.

After September 11, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal both ran stories pointing out this connection. Your first response, Mr Bush, was to ignore it. Then your army of pundits went into spin control. They said, we can't paint these Bin Ladens with the same brush we use for Osama. They have disowned Osama! They have nothing to do with him! These are the good Bin Ladens.

And then the video footage came out. It showed a number of these "good" Bin Ladens - including Osama's mother, a sister and two brothers - with Osama at his son's wedding just six and a half months before September 11. It was no secret to the CIA that Osama bin Laden had access to his family fortune (his share is estimated to be at least $30m), and the Bin Ladens, as well as other Saudis, kept Osama and his group, al-Qaida, well funded.

Read the whole thing.

Bush Watch

David Corn offers an excellent summary of two current stories at An excerpt on the Valerie Plame affair:

He was arguing that a serious leak attributed to anonymous sources was still not serious enough to cause the president to ask, what the hell happened? And he made it seem as if the White House just ignored the matter. Not so. Mitchell's remark and even the Rove-friendly account of the Rove-Matthews conversation are evidence the White House tried to further the Plame story--that is, to exploit the leak for political gain. Rather than respond by trying to determine the source of a leak that possibly violated federal law and perhaps undermined national security ( The Washington Post reported that the leak also blew the cover of a CIA front company, "potentially expanding the damage caused by the original disclosure"), White House officials sought to take advantage of it. Spin that, McClellan.

and on the Kay report on WMDs:

Reality check: Bush had said that the main reason to go to war was because Hussein possessed "massive" stockpiles of unconventional weapons and at any moment could hand them off to al Qaeda (with whom Bush claimed Hussein was "dealing"--even though the evidence on that point was and continues to be, at best, sketchy). Now Bush is asserting that Hussein was a threat that could only be countered with invasion and occupations because he had weapons research programs that indeed violated United Nations resolutions but that had not produced any weapons. That's a much different argument. Bush, Cheney, McClellan, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and others continue to deny they overstated (or misrepresented) the case for war. But the evidence is incontrovertible, and it keeps on piling up.

Also in this article is the very important quote from Chris Matthews, who says he was told by Karl Rove after the Plame leak that Wilson's wife was "fair game". Never mind the despicable prospect of these people using their positions in government to target the safety of their political enemies' spouses and families. Rove has essentially said that he sees nothing wrong with the treason he has committed, and Bush obviously sees nothing wrong with it either, hoping the media storm will just blow over. Time for federal prison for both of them.