I have been pouring over the diaries today and am overwhelmed by some of the truly creative ideas I'm hearing hear about how to counter the massive right-wing movement in America.

I was thinking, wouldn't it be cool kos formed his own think tank online?  Maybe it would go like this:

Whoever wants to be included in a think tank signs up.  The first 10 to sign up form one think tank.  Each group of 10 is a think tank.  These people would meet on line to chat a few designated times a week.  At the end of the week, the main focus of the group and the ideas of import would be reported for all to read!  Thereby spawning further strategies, ideas, philosophies, platforms, candidates, etc.

As new people come and sign up, they form new think tanks.

Obviously, I haven't thought this all the way through but present it here, to the kos community.

Do you think this or something similar is a good idea?  What do you think?  Write it below!

Bush and other republicans are claiming that Kerry and the democrat's comments are "emboldening the enemy".

I would like to set this discussion straight.  It is especially important as this is the topic of this morning's discussion on C-Span, MSNBC, Fox and CNN.  Once again the statement "emboldening the enemy" is not backed up with any reasonable explanation as to why or how this emboldens them.

If logic is to prevail, we would first have to ask, why are terrorists attacking us?  Logic would tell us that statements that "embolden" terrorists would depend on the terrorist's gripe with us and what their ultimate aim is.  For instance, Nazis wouldn't have been emboldened by someone calling them Jew haters.  They would simply say, "yes we are".  However, any challenge to their belief system would certainly "embolden" them.  Hey, people who attack you are already emboldened especially if they already know you have nuclear weapons, have used them and have waged other wars and are still willing to take the risk you might do the same to them.  Any statement we might make following 9/11 can't possibly embolden the terrorists any more than they already are.

For instance, it is claimed that terrorists are a fraction of Islamasists who are ultra-fundamentalists who see the U.S. as embodying all that is evil and threatening to fundamenalist Islam.  They believe that the United States behaves in the world, in ways, that are in direct conflict with fundamentalist beliefs and are therefore a threat to their lives and their God.  If this is truly the reason that some Moslems become terrorists then which is more emboldening, Bush's attack on a predominately Moslem nation or Kerry's criticisms of Bush's decisions?

By the way, which would be more threatening to terrorists; waging war on an Arab nation or infiltrating their training camps and secret cells?  Attacking Iraq or launching an all out, well structured and persistant search for Osama bin Laden?

I am tired that these declarations from Bush go unchallenged.  Not one person on C-Span this morning bothered to discuss the view of terrorists and how Bush's attacks are very emboldening to terrorists in their own right.

Another discussion that shouldn't be one is,  "we invaded Iraq so that we could fight terrorists on their own soil rather than here at home".  Either these people believe that there never were terrorists already in the U.S. before 9/11 or they are naive enough to believe that the war in Iraq drew them all out of the U.S. like robots attacking you in a video game.
Terrorists know that their ultimate aim is better served by staying here, already in place, rather than to leave the U.S. and then find they can't get back into the country.

By the way, where is Kerry today?  This conversation has gone on long enough.  Once again, Kerry's late to the dance.  And if he doesn't attack Allawi as a handpuppet for the Bush campaign then he's missed two opportunities.  Please, John, please.  You have been attacked in the most aggregious way - fire back, quickly and decisively.

Currently on C-Span,is a forum of Republicans who have become Democrats.  The forum is headed up by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, New Jersey, who is now a democrat.

In the first 10 minutes of this program I am deeply moved by what I've heard.

Please tune into this program.  Promises to be good.

Time now is:  10:30AM CST

Try today's Drudge Report for a taste of the ridiculous.

http://www.drudgereport.com/ufd1.htm

Wonder who scrambled this book together?  Interesting how the current, chickenhawk regime, is obsessed with discrediting Kerry's military service.

Anyone know who's behind it or is it another made up story by Drudge?

Take the poll.

Decided to meander this morning on this subject.  A few days ago I received an article from The Onion, forwarded by a friend, discussing this problem.

http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4027&n=3

I need some help with this.  Have ya'll noticed that there is a new neocon meme centered around the debunking of the Al Queda/Hussein connection?

Yesterday, on Crossfire and the day before on another program, my itchy little ears caught this answer in response to the statement, "The 9/11 commission cleary reports that there is no connection between Al Queda and Saddam Hussein."

Wolfie responded that the his cronies never implied that but instead based the invasion of Iraq on the fact that there is a connection between Hussein and "TERRORISTS" in general (!) and went on the discuss Hussein's various meetings with OTHER terrorist groups other than Al Queda.

So, the new meme for the neocons is, "What connection?  We never said specifically OBL.  We said terrorists in general."  

Now, I'm confused.  Didn't this administration, minimally imply back in Feb. 2003 that there was a connection between the two?  Isn't this what they did when, by implication, they sold the lie to the American people that Saddam was connected to 9/11 and Al Queda?  OK.  They're trying to wear us out from the shear exhaustion of investigating every little thing they say.  The 9/11 commission dealt with the question of a connection between Hussein and 9/11.  However, since it didn't cover the connection between Saddam and Al Queda, are the neos using this as a smokescreen - knowing they can claim that this was classified so they couldn't tell us about it at the time. Do we have to have a permanent investigative committee installed do monitor this bunch of lying liars?

Just drove home from the hospital (work) and listened to Bill O'Reilly.  He says he has an exclusive on Michael Jackson that he's going to air tonight on his tv program.  He says it's really BIG.  His little background assistant was jumping up and down begging for him to break the story now.

I have to admit - it peaked my interest and at that moment I thought to myself - whatever the story is, someone else has already gotten it and it'll be on the web.

Lo and behold, I get home and can't find anything.  Seeing as how I'm a bit bored today and haven't posted a diary I'm wondering if anyone here knows what he's talking about.

By the way, I know this isn't usually dKos fodder and I apologize for being openly voyeuristic and petty but I usually don't post this stuff and maybe, just maybe, someone else likes a little gossip now and then, too.

So - anyone know what O'Reilly's talking about?

The following article was sent to me by someone I admire and respect.  With so much reading to do I know it's impossible to cover everything, especially long articles.  But this one is worth it.

In case you occassionally need a real shot in the arm to keep you in the fray.  Read this article.  Long, but worth it.

http://www.populist.com/04.10.crowther.html

Piggybacking the following diary issued this AM:

 Gore: The US as Addict & The National Identity Struggle
by hyperbolic pants explosion
Thu May 27th, 2004 at 03:51:34 EDT

Jonathan Swift said, "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Following Gore's speech, I have identified him as one of the geniuses.  In fact, here's a short list of my geniuses and dunces.

Genius:  Chomsky, Dean, Gore
Dunces:  Bush, Limbaugh, Rumsfeld

I am more interested in whom you may view as one or the other.  It's time to identify our geniuses and dunces.

DFA has some of your comments posted in a blog entry today.  If you'd like to see if they quoted you from yesterday's Dean Dozen thread, head on over to the DFA website.

Here's the link: http://blog.deanforamerica.com/index.html

Yesterday, I participated in a Zogby Poll.  One of the questions asked was if I considered myself:

Progressive/Very liberal
Liberal
Moderate
Conservative
Very conservative
Libertarian
Not Sure
Refused

Do you notice what I did?  Do you think Progressive/Very liberal creates a bias?  And if so, in what way and does this matter?  If you think it matters, would you notify Zogby?

What does he mean by that - money?

I say, if you break their windows you can give them "compensation".

However, when you break their souls, what good is money?

Comments on Rumsfeld's testimoney, please.

At what point does one say, our nominee was prematurely selected and he ain't gonna cut it?

Is it too late to change nominees?  A good argument could be made (on the eve of the release of Bush's Kerry bashing book) that making someone else the nominee would really screw Bush.  He's already developed a campaign designed to beat Kerry and it seems to be working.  He's spent some of that war chest - on Kerry.  He's written a book - about Kerry.

Would the joke be on George Bush if someone else was to be our nominee?  If so, who and by what time should that person announce?  If it's not someone new - how would a new campaign be launched say for John Edwards for instance?

Look, Bush should have been close to toast by now but the polls remain the same. It seems that Kerry can't gain anymore support.  We even joke about how he needs a VP who won't upstage him.  The only person who fits that description is a corpse.

And, maybe we should stop courting the swing voter and concentrate on people who don't vote, like say, 18 to 30 year olds, by making a big issue out of the draft.

C'mon, let's have spirited discussion about this.  Be creative, explore possibilites, tell me I'm an a*h**.  I don't care.  Just keep the conversation going.

We have an election to win that's too precious to lose.

And...no, I haven't been drinking.  

OK.  Let's say Dean, by some miracle was Kerry's choice for VP.  And, let's say by some other miracle Dean accepted the slot...Would you vote for a Kerry/Dean ticket?

I stopped listening to Rummy in order to post this diary.

Rumsfeld swears up and down that we will turn over the Iraqi government on June 30th.  If he doesn't do this, how will this affect the world's view of us?

Next question:  Why would we turn over Iraq on June 30th?

Lastly, take the poll!

Howard Dean, in an interview with Judy Woodward just aired on CNN, reported that IF he was to have his own TV program it would center around bringing local candidates to the forefront and around everyday people and their lives.

If Howard Dean were to have a TV show, what would you like it to be about?

Of all the Dem nominees, who them is still, front and center standing up for democratic values?  Who, among the nominees, is out actively campaigning for Kerry?  Who deserves, who has EARNED the support of the dem voters?  Who should be Kerry's VP?

Is the Prince the Shrub's Buttboy or is it the other way around?

Some salient moments during the interview:

1.  Russert wants to know if the rumors about Bandar promising to lower cost of oil during the summer months before the election are true -
Bandar says he will try to keep the prices down but that this has nothing to do with the election.  Then, he adds that Clinton had asked him to do the same thing but that he has no control over the oil prices.  In other words, he tells Clinton he has no control but tells Bush he'll try.

2.  When asked about who gave the order to allow 124/7 (?) Saudis to leave the U.S. on 9/13/01, he first denies that he has any idea who gave it.  Russert points out that Cheney, Rumsfeld deny it.  Bandar then says that he called Richard Clarke who said he didn't have a problem with it if it was OK with the FBI.  Is this Bandar being the Shrub's Buttboy?
3.  Russert says that the Federal Reserve is investigating the transfer of billions of Bandar's money from U.S. back to Saudi Arabia following 9/11.  Bandar denies this is true.  

Hey, if you were a billionaire living in France and had alot of money in French banks, would you transfer your money back to the U.S. if it appeared that their might be an economic collapse coming in France? It would be an obvious thing to do and there would be no reason to deny it would there?  Seems to me this fucker can't tell the truth even when it only makes sense for him to do so.

By the way, Bandar's visa is possibly being revoked due to this money issue.  Should we send him back to Saudi Arabia - or exile him to Crawford where he can be Bush's Buttboy forever.

Besides, isn't this spy v spy?  The Project for a New American Century specifically outlines a plan that calls for the invasion of Saudi Arabia after the rest of the Middle East has been taken over by us.  Do you think the Fresh Prince isn't aware of this or is he so egotistical and naive that he really believes Bush is his friend?  Leaving the last question - whom is who's Buttboy?