Clinton for VP?
Read Josh Marhsall's www.talkingpointsmemo.com for analysis of the President's nothing-is-my-fault strategy for the upcoming election. It simply echoes everything I've been saying about the Republicans refusing to take responsibility for anything.

Of course, the Kerry VP speculation is running wild. There was an interesting op-ed in yesterday's New York Times that speculated Kerry's best move would be to tap Clinton as VP. Not Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton! It looks like it would be legal since he wouldn't be running for President but for VP.

Can you imagine the shock waves from that one? While it's extremely doubtful it would happen, I would love to see it, if for no other reason than to shake things up.

Molly says...
Molly Ivins is awesome. Let me say that first. Here's something from a recent column of hers:

"In one of the mind-boggling deceptions wrought by said (corrupt) CEOs, the cost of the war isn't in Bush's budget, even though Bush is blaming his budget deficit on the cost of the war. Honest: War cost is not in there. Bush will ask for another supplemental budget after the election to cover it. And at this rate, it won't be the estimated $40 billion to $45 billion, it'll be another $87 billion.

It is a source of continuing frustration to me that we have so many big problems, I rarely get to report on the little things this administration is doing that are just as telling. Here's an example: Last week, Bush dismissed two members of his own handpicked Council on Bioethics. One is a scientist, and the other a moral philosopher -- and both are advocates of stem-cell research.

According to The Washington Post, "In their place he appointed three new members, including a doctor who has called for more religion in public life, a political scientist who has spoken out precisely against the research that the dismissed members supported and another who has written about the immorality of abortion and the 'threats of biotechnology.'"

Go get them, Molly. Welcome to Christian American. Other faiths need not apply.

Potential life changing experience
I almost ran over a kid last night with my pickup truck. He couldn't have been more than 4 years old. I was driving about 30 miles an hour through a residential neighborhood at about 8 p.m. The kid ran from behind a van and I swerved to miss him. I did, but only by about five feet. If I had kept going straight, I would have run him over.

He was running towards his mother, who was in the car across the street. She looked like she was getting the car ready for them to leave, like I do with my nine-month old when I get the car seat ready. My guess is that she left him in the house while she got the car ready and he ran out on his own.

You always hear people say, "He came out of nowhere..." and it's true. It all kind of happened in slow motion. I distinctly remember what he looked like: Hispanic, dark hair, colored striped shirt. In my rear view mirror, as I drove away, I saw him cross the street and his mother take him by the hand, walking him back towards the house.

There's a chance she didn't even notice the whole episode. And he didn't appear to be rattled in the slightest. Me, I couldn't sleep last night.

Coulda got him...
All the wowsers in the world love to repeat: Clinton could have had Bin Laden; he just chose not to. Let's see how they react to this one from NBC News:

"With Tuesday's attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq.

But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself -- but never pulled the trigger.

In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

`People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president's policy of pre-emption against terrorists.'


-- Roger Cressey
Terrorism expert


"Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn't do it," said Michael O'Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.

"People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president's policy of preemption against terrorists," according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.

The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi's operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late -- Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone. "Here's a case where they waited, they waited too long and now we're suffering as a result inside Iraq," Cressey added.

Listen up!
I've told you this a few times, but here goes again: Listen to Randi Rhodes over the internet on weekdays from 3-7 EST. Go to www.therandirhodesshow.com and click on listen live. Then, spread the word.

Excited about Kerry?
I'm still going to cast my vote for Wes Clark today, even though he's no longer officially running. Screw it... I figure I put in all that time, I might as well get some satisfaction.

In November, I'll pull the lever for Kerry, even though it's hard to get too excited about it. The closest correlation I can come up with is the 1996 race. Clinton was still very popular with his base (as is GW Bush) while Dole did very little to excite anyone. People were motivated to vote for him simply because they didn't like Clinton.

A lot of people will pull the lever for Kerry for the same reason. I don't see people getting very excited about him, but they figure anyone is better than Bush. So far, Kerry has shown a strong inclination to fight back when attacked. Believe me, he's going to need it.

The Passion of Bill O'Reilly
I saw Sean Hannity screaming last night that the Democrats were evil for politicizing the war on terror. Of course, Alan Colmes whimpered something about extremists on both sides of the aisle before wetting himself and them leaving to wash Hannity's car.

I almost fell out of my chair when I heard old Luggage Head Hannity. Politicizing the war on terror? Who would do that? Why, that's downright sleazy and un-American. That would be like a political party holding its nominating convention in New York and moving the date as close to 9/11 as possible to capitalize on that national tragedy. Whoops. That's what the Republicans did. Hmmm.

I was thinking that last night, then this morning I read www.democraticunderground.com. Every Monday, they have their top ten conservative idiots of the week. In today's list, they make reference to the 9-11 hypocrisy. This week's list is especially good, although it might make you a little sick to your stomach.

Bill O'Reilly is on the list, but it's not for the reason I anticipated. O'Reilly, who uses the word "secular" in every sentence he spits out, is acting as point man for Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion." He was on a bunch of shows last week, including "The View", and he was slamming anyone who dared question "The Passion."

On some of those appearances, he did mention the minor fact that Gibson's production company has optioned a fictional book that O'Reilly once wrote. That disclaimer isn't enough; it should run as a crawl underneath O'Reilly's image everytime he goes nuts defending Gibson.

This isn't about Mel Gibson. He has the right to make whatever kind of movie he wants. It's about O'Reilly's righteousness, which appears to be driven only by his desire to see his book end up on the big screen.

Next thing you know they'll make a movie called "Who's Looking Out For You?" Who could they get to play O'Reilly? Maybe Joe Don Baker or Fred Thompson. I can only imagine the Dirty Harry fantasies O'Reilly has when he puts on his jammies at night.

Fold
So Dennis Hastert relented and allowed the 9-11 commission two more months to complete their report. I'd love to know the inside scoop on this one. My guess is the Administration plans to stonewall so hard that it doesn't matter if they have two more years to put a report together. Josh Marshall has an insightful piece on this topic at www.talkingpointsmemo.com.

Party of Responsibility
I love how Republicans never, ever take responsibility for anything. What's funny is that they paint themselves as the party of responsibility, while shucking the blame for everything. The recession is Clinton's fault; 9/11 is Clinton's fault; Janet Jackson's boob is Clinton's fault.

The first World Trade Center bombing took place in February 1993, less than two months after Clinton took office. When the bombs went off, he didn't rush to the microphones blaming the first President Bush.

The right loved to vilify for the Black Hawk Down incident that took place 10 months into his term. You know who sent those troops to Somalia? The first George Bush. So Clinton may have been to blame for Black Hawk Down, but following that logic, GW Bush is responsible for 9-11. And again, Clinton didn't blame the first Bush for something that happened partway through the first year of his first term.

But to right wing crazies, GW's not responsible for anything. Listen up folks: he's been in for over three years, he has both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court in his pocket. The deck is stacked in his favor. And still, we've had a record loss of jobs and a record deficit that is only getting worse.

So who's fault is it? And has GW ever done anything that was his fault?

Shameful
It's too bad the general population is in such a coma because what is happening with the 9/11 commission is one of the most shameful episodes in modern history. Here's how it breaks down: the Administration has been stonewalling the commission, giving them tons of useless interviews while resisting any efforts to turn over relevant material or allowing officials like Condi Rice to testify under oath.

The President himself is going to "visit" (his word) with the Chair and Vice Chair of the commission, but here's the catch -- it's only for one hour. So basically, Bush will do the same thing he did on Tim Russert, which is talk ad nauseum, glance at his watch, and then bolt from the room when the hand hits the magic hour.

Here's the most dishonest part: the President says he'd grant the commission a two month extension to finish their work, which has in essence been stifled by the administration's refusal to cooperate. And now Rep. Dennis Hastert says Congress will not allow the extension. The story is Bush asked him personally, but Hastert said no. What a load of horseshit. Just imagine Hastert telling Bush no under these sircumstances. So what it basically boils down to is the fact that Bush agreed to the extension, knowing Hastert would deny the extension.

Their behavior is so shameful, it's hard to fathom.