Today WaPo ran an article entitled "Lieberman Certified to Appear on Ballot" with an accompanying photo. The caption reads, in part, "U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., speaks at a rally . . ."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Which I found hilarious since, well, the entire point of the article was how Lieberman has now been certified to run as the sole member of the "Connecticut for Lieberman" party. And I got to thinking, so why the fuck is he IDed as a Democrat?

So I wrote a letter to the editors and everyone's favorite ombudshack, Deborah Howell, asking them to please correct the error. Here's my letter. I suggest you send your own. Joe's not a Dem -- not officially on the ballot; I don't give a rat's ass who he caucuses with -- and he should be IDed as such from now on.

When Bush won the 2004 election by a couple of percentage points, it was considered a "mandate". But when Bush is beaten two-to-one consistently in a CNN poll

http://www.cnn.com/...

and does not lead in a single indicator against his predecessor, well, then they say that Bush was simply, merely "outperformed."

So, you went to Iraq and got killed. And now the President who sent you there for duplicitous reasons is using your death to justify furthering the deaths. Are you just going to sit there. . . um, I mean, lay  there, mouldering and rotting? Is that the American thing to do -- just stay dead? Are you going to be -- apologies in advance for this one -- silent as the grave?

Hell no. And now we can all see what might happen -- on Showtime's Masters of Horror series Dec. 2 -- if some/a lot of those who have died could come back and speak Death to Power.

link on the flip.

We are in post-Murtha America. The "withdrawal" card has been played and the debate is now firmly out in the open. However, if you listen to everyone in the "debate" so far, strangely, our current situation in Iraq only seems to have two possible outcomes, which are predictably Manichean:

> Either we "stay the course" and continue to lose a grueling guerrilla war that only worsens U.S. security, influence and prestige (to say nothing of the death toll for our troops and Iraqi civilians); or

> We "redeploy immediately", which most likely leaves Iraq incapable of controlling itself such that it is easy to imagine all hell breaking loose with an all-out civil war, invasions by Syria and Iran and Turkey and basically WWI happening all over again, only in the Middle East this time.

I think there's another option, and I have yet to hear anyone talk about it:

Sorry if someone else mentioned this.  

November 28 edition, second page of Notebook section in front.

Full text w/ requisite snark on flip.

CNN's David Ensor today has 2 minutes and 16 seconds of "fuck you" to Bush's speech today about  critics "re-writing" history on the lead-up to Iraq.

It is on their main page:  www.cnn.com

In the report, Ensor utterly demolishes, point by point, Colin Powel's speech to the U.N. -- and I have to say, I feel for the general, just a wee bit. . . as he was seriously lied to and made to look the tool.

To wit:

-- the two prime intelligence sources for much of the Admin's case on mobile bio-weapons labs, like were both considered a "liar and fabricator" and a "screwup".

-- "the powers that be weren't interested" in the veracity of the intelligence

The story strongly implies that Bushco (outside of the State Dept.) knew damn well it's info was wrong or misleading

Yes, yes, I know, this isn't "news" to Kossacks. But it is on CNN today, on their front page. And it is an unapologetic smackdown of Bushco.  That makes it worth looking at and passing on.

Please see this for yourself and if anyone can provide a direct link to it, I would be much obliged.