As we were rolling back from a few peaceful days in the desert this week, steam was building in the Republican Attack Machine against John Kerry's war record. That, in and of itself, should be jaw-dropping coming as it does from the blustering "We Support our Troops!" crowd. I guess by troops, they don't mean John Kerry. But it seems Americans are becoming immune to such baseless and unsubstianted attacks - and perhaps that's the whole point.

So, kudos are due Kevin Drum (formerly blogging as CalPundit) at The Washington Monthly for putting things in a bit of perspective...

None the less, I'm sure such to-the-point perspective won't keep the chattering usual suspects from repeating their contemptable claims over and over again until every uninformed DittoHead in America buys it. Or until everyone else is so sick of it they simply give up caring. Mission accomplished.

I'd been pondering some kind of a satirical blog item for some time that would line up all the former Bush folks that have been branded as "liars" for exposing information that the Bushies didn't want exposed. It's a growing list of rather impressive and credentialled individuals who have patriotically spoken up and subsequently found themselves systematically trashed by the Whitehouse Attack Monkeys and their loyal band in the Rightwing Echo Chamber.

And then, incredibly, I came across a page called "Meet the Liars: The People Leading the Reckless Charge Against President Bush and the War on Terror" at BushPresident2004.com:

Surely this was a satirical Anti-Bush website in disguise, no?! Incredibly - and sadly - after several astounding pages browsed, I learned that it wasn't.

UPDATE: As eagle-eyed satire exposer and Brad Blog commenter Larry pointed out, the site in question is indeed a satirical one! So kudos to the folks at BushPresident2004.com for putting one over on me! Well done! I guess the lesson is either that I should read more closely next time, or that real Republican sites have become so outrageously ridiculous that they have become virtually indistinguishable from the fake ones making fun of them!

We've been on the road for the past few days, and thus not locked into our usual media routine. Out here, in the desert, we get a dose here and there of Cable News, though without the erstwhile FOX News drone to keep us as aware of what the Evil Doers are up to.

Rush comes in partially, with much static, so I haven't been able to keep up with the Right Wing Marching Orders with my usual alarming up-to-the-moment accuracy. Nor have I had any Internet Access for the last 3 days or so, so please pardon me if I'm missing a beat or two, and - unbeknownst to me - the entire Blogosphere is abuzz with this already. But from here, I've got just one big question since last Sunday's Bob Woodward explosions on 60 Minutes.

(DISCLAIMER: Both CBS, the producer of 60 Minutes and Simon & Schuster, publisher of Woodward's Plan of Attack are owned by the same parent company, Viacom. I have watched CBS before and have read books published by Simon & Schuster. As well, I have also watched both VH-1 and MTV on several occasions. Both of those cable channels are also owned by the parent company Viacom.)

So, anyway...The various Cable News programs we've been able to catch since Sunday, seem to be dwelling on the Powell-outta-the-loop and Bush-Saudi-low-oil-prices-before-the-election issues.

Yes, the most alarming item from Woodward on Sunday to my ears, was the bit about Bush having diverted some $700 million from the Congressionally approved Afghanistan spending over to a secret unapproved pre-Iraq War effort.

So my question is this...If Bill Clinton lying about a blowjob is an Impeachable offense, how can it be that subverting the US Constitution by diverting $700 million to a Congressionally Unapproved project by the this Administration barely raises an eyebrow by anyone? Both the House of Representatives (responsible for instituting Impeachment Proceedings) and the supposed "Liberal Media" seem to be completely ignoring the issue.

Now, I realize that the House is controlled hard by Republicans, but where is that supposedly "Liberal Media" on this one? And how can even the supposedly "Conservative" Republicans in the House sit by and ignore such a blatant disregard - if true - for the United States Constitution by this Administration?

Surely there must be at least a couple of intellectually honest Republicans out there who are outraged enough by this report to begin a very serious investigation into this very serious alleged breach of ethics by this Administration. No?

Can you imagine the Republican apoplectics that would be occurring today if it was Bill Clinton (or John Kerry!) who was reported to have done such a thing?

As Bill Bennet would have certainly asked in such a situation had this been a Democrat at the helm, "Where's the outrage??"

Or is it out there and I'm just missing it?

As the debate continues about the right thing to do in Iraq at this point, it seems a good chance to revisit some of the more memorable lines we were adamently sold by the Conservative Echo Chamber (dutifully selling the NeoCon Party Line of that Moment) in the not-too-distant past. Ah...the memories...

Ah...those were the days....

And now we're supposed to rely on the same folks who sold us the above bill of goods to determine where we should go from here? Surely you're kidding...right?

Kevin Drum on the blog job over at Washington Monthly:

Interesting cross examination of Rep. Patrick Toomey on today's Hardball. Toomey is running in the Republican primary against Sen. Arlen Specter, who Toomey describes as a "Liberal" --- just to give you an idea how far outta touch these Right Wingnutz are.

Anyway, Chris Matthews pressed him hard on his Anti-Abortion position, asking what he would do - after making abortions illegal in the US and in Pennsylvania as he supports - to enforce such a law.

Toomey started to discuss what would happen to the doctor, when Matthews cornered him to ask what would be done to the woman who - by Toomey's own terms - would be a murderer in such a case. Toomey hemmed and hawed and had no answer, but refused to suggest jailtime or anything like it for the woman.

Well done, Chris. Don't know why it all never occured to me in such stark terms before, but if the Anti-Abortionists believe that abortion is murder, one would assume they would back throwing a woman who "commits" one into jail. Or perhaps even sentencing them to the Death Penalty since it would be, by their own definition, a capital crime.

To date, I've yet to see a "pro-life" politician who called for anything but punishment of the doctor who performs the operation in such a supposed crime.

Is the Anti-Abortionists very own premise ("Abortion is murder") simply that weak? Or are they just too cowardly to actually stand behind their own purported convictions?

(I now look forward to DittoHead replies speaking to the Liberal position against the Death Penalty in lieu of an actual explanation for the hypocrisy of the Conservative position on Abortion. When you can't defend yourself, of course, attack the other guy. See any recent Bush attack ad on Kerry for further instructions.)

P.S. Catholic Priest and Novelist Andrew M. Greeley followed that segment on Hardball to toss in an interesting statistic. He once did a survey to find out who was both Anti-Abortion and Anti-War, both tenets of Catholic faith. The answer: just 6% of those surveyed were against both. Telling.

So Jaime Gorelick should resign from the 9/11 Commission even though she already recused herself long ago from questioning any witness with whom she may have had a perceived conflict of interest while sitting on an exploratory commission who will produce a non-binding report of recommendations.

But Antonin Scalia should not recuse himself because there is no "appearance of impropriety" in flying on Airforce Two with the Vice President or going Duck Hunting with him while he is a Defendant in a major case pending before the Supreme Court of the United States.

It's Bizarro World out there I tell ya. More soon...

Überblogger Josh Marshall asked last night:

Good question, Josh.

But he was on a late-night roll last night, posting this brilliant piece on the latest US/Israel/Palestinian muck that George W. has now signed us on for.

If you're not up to speed on the seachange that has just occured before our very eyes, and nearly behind our backs and certainly without our permission in regards to the US/Israel/Palestine thang and the profound effect it will likely have for years to come, I can't recommend that link enough. It's as if Dubya's now officially hellbent on taking us all down with him before his time is up in a few months.

But will we all make it that long?...And beyond?...If you really wanna be terrified, check this item that he posted just prior to the others.

That one, frankly, just scared the hell outta me when I made the mistake of reading it last night around 2am just before turning in for the night. I can't recommend it enough either. It's longer than the other, but worth the read. Just be careful if it's the last thing you intend on reading before going to bed tonight.

It's the sort of sobering reality that has actually forced me to consider supporting John Kerry. At this point, what Howard Dean said may be true, we simply can't afford George W. Bush in the Whitehouse, and if that means holding our noses and pulling the lever for Kerry, that may just be the responsible thing to do at this point.

Somehow overlooked by Drudge, but reported by AP:

Now, the United States is responsible (legally - you know, Geneva Convention and all) for the security of a soveriegn nation that we are currently occupying. And, as I recall, one of the reasons (that later wasn't really the reason at all, but never mind...) it was so important for us to go into Iraq was to ensure they didn't share their WMD technology or materials with others who wanted to harm us.

But now we're not even guarding these facilities? And radioactive materials are getting out of the country?

The report goes on:

Good lord. No doubt it's all Bill Clinton's - or Jamie Gorelick's - fault.