The Washington Post and their editorial staff have shown their colors.

This is NOT the Washington Post of the Watergate era, this is a Washington Post that is starting to look more and more like the Washington TIMES every day.

Bob Woodward should be shunned publicly at any gathering of so-called "journalists" he attempts to attend. I would spit in his disgusting face for his allowing this tripe to be published.

Charlie L
Portland, Oregon
CLL2001@Gmail.com

The Days of Decision are coming: We are frogs begin slow-cooked, and by the time we realize the water is boiling, we won't have the strength to jump out of the pot. Keep an eye out for your "jumping moment" and we'll all jump together. FROG FREEDOM!!!

The Republicans in power have lied and innocent people died.
The Republicans in power have stolen and given to their rich friends, leaving just an IOU for our kids to pay off.
The Republicans in power have cheated and claim they are the "moral" ones.
We must flush all Republicans out of power in '06 and '08.
Take back American Democracy. Don't vote Republican.

Terrific letter from the great Mr. Conyers to the lying bastards in the press. Thanks for posting it.

The Washington Post is starting sound like FrontPage Magazine.

This does not surprise me at all. Wilbanks is a snarky worm.

OT - (also posted on another thread, I apologize in advance for that) -

To the famous 6 or 7:

Please call Sen. Dick Durbin and thank him for speaking
out about torture in Gitmo. He is being attacked by the White House and of course the Right Wing Media. Even Jon Stewart took an uninformed shot at him.
Please call him to thank him and ask him not to back down.

DC ofc: 202 224 2152
Chicago: 312 353 4952
Springfield: 217 492 4062
Marion: 618 998 8812

Thank you.

oops typo, should read: Milbank is a snarky worm.

Perhaps I am missing something from the American vernacular, but when is the chairman of a meeting not the chairman??

This was cited as one of the reasons the hearing rooms were made unavailable to Representative Conyers. How childish! More pre-adolescent behaviour from the Grandstanding Outdated Party.

Charlie, you're using the wrong tense, sir. Bush is lying and people are dying.

omg, it breaks my heart what the radical regressive majority and the corporate controlled media are doing to our country and especially to patriots like Rep Conyers who has put so much of his life into fighting for US - ALL OF US - even those who don't know or acknowledge it.

Will try to compose a polite letter to WaPo but it's gonna be hard to stay cordial.

Great post Brad - thank you.

God bless John Conyers!

I already sent a letter to the general comments section, but will now also send it to the link above. Great letter by Rep. Conyers and wonderful hearing yesterday!

Very childish "article" by Milbanks and not what we have come to expect from him.

Dissing Conyers Reveals Truth: Invasion was for Israel
Milbank knows damn well the meeting was an effort to get to the bottom of the Downing Street Memo, not specifically a prelude to an effort to impeach Bush, who will not be impeached, due primarily to the indisputable fact Bush owns Congress, much of the judiciary, and Washington itself, including the corporate media.

Hey guys I just tried to blog at a neo-con web site.

Look at the warning they post to me about any comments I make...if Brad's website had their rules, they would have been removed at their first entries....

JUST READ IT QUICK

http://www.pabaah.com/mo...file=viewtopic&t=135

What do you think??
Charlie

Charlie
That warning is creepy. I tried to find the trolls corner, but couldn't.

More on Milbank--Don't forget to mention this:

(sorry, I couldn't get the Community Assistant to work to make clickable links)

------------From Common Dreams:

"On June 8, Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank referred to Downing Street Memo activists--some of whom were offering a cash reward for the first journalist to ask Bush about the memo--as "wing nuts."

http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0615-20.htm

Milbank had reported the same day (6/8/05) that his paper's latest poll showed that only 41 percent of Americans approved of the Iraq war--which makes one wonder when exactly the war would cross Milbank's threshold and become unpopular enough to make the memo newsworthy.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05159/517430.stm

FYI--------------The Washington Post Company (WaPo, Newsweek, Kaplan, etc.)

Company Goals

1. To produce the best newspapers, magazines, television programs, educational services, and other products we can.
2. To run an outstanding business, measured by the increase in intrinsic shareholder value over time.
etc.

http://www.washpostco.com/company-goals.htm

FYI------------Donald Graham message (Chairman, CEO WaPo Company)

Above all, we try to be careful stewards of our shareholders' money. By continuing to build the intrinsic value of the company, we believe we are doing the job our shareowners expect us to do.

Donald E. Graham,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

http://www.washpostco.com/company-message.htm

---------------------------

The Downing Street Memo by Michael Smith Reporter, Sunday Times of London Thursday, June 16, 2005; 10:00 AM

Washington, D.C.: I think the implications of all of this information is truly unknown. Our Post reporters chat with us here online saying that it's not going to lead to impeachment. I am not so sure. But if not that far, I see this as causing a great deal of problems for our government. What do you think will be the consequences, if any, for Blair?

Michael Smith: I bow to their better judgment on impeachment. I do think that the pressure now is such that it could go that way but only with continued pressure from us journalists and you the people. I firmly believe that Congress will turn against this awful ill-conceived war. I frankly don't care if Saddam Hussein and his buddies ended up in a grave like the ones they prepared for so many of their own people. What I do care about is the way in which nearly 2,000 allied soldiers, more than 1700 of the Americans with yet more today, have died simply because Blair and Bush didn't prepare for what would come afterwards.

OMG not the evil hordes of anti-semites again!

Curses, our secret plans to drive the Jews into the sea is foiled again by the intrepid Mr. Milbank. Give that man a Freedom Medal.

#11

Nazis.

I think the "emoticon" (or whatever?) of the "Goat with Sickle" pretty much speaks for itself.

#11 How interesting. Presumably these idiots would also ban Sen. Lautenberg's awesome Senate floor speech of yesterday, the most pertinent of which I just happened to have typed up and is as follows:

Sen. Lautenberg 6/16/05 – excerpts from Senate floor speech:
"On Tuesday… President Bush gave a speech in which he complained that the Democrats… are obstructionists because we’re not accepting his agenda. The president also said we say no to everything… but look at all the things HE says no to… to Tony Blair when [he asked] for more help for Africa... no to kids with juvenile diabetes or autism, or other childhood diseases, when they ask to be permitted to do stem cell research… says no to parents and teachers who want education fully funded… no to a real patient’s bill of rights… no to making polluters pay for Superfund environmental cleanup…[but] said YES to making taxpayers pay… said no to getting tough with the Saudis [re oil prices]…

"What is means if you oppose any of President Bush’s policies is that you’re an obstructionist, and frankly in a democratic nation, it’s unacceptable, it’s a disastrous line of thinking… if you don’t like challenges, then you don’t understand democracy.

"This isn’t a nation where we have a dictator…

"Saddam Hussein didn’t have to worry about obstructionists, not in his country, he killed them, jailed them…

"Leaders who are free of obstructionists are also known as dictators.

"Throughout history, so-called obstructionists have been the champions of democracy."
(Lautenberg showed posters and talked about each: of a man standing in front of tanks, the Boston tea party, the founding fathers who stood against King George III, Rosa Parks getting fingerprinted, photo of Margaret Chase Smith who stood against Joe McCarthy, and a photo of woman suffrage advocates. Each poster had the word “Obstructionists?” printed at the top.)

"Obstructionism is not an evil course if you’re on the side of the people. In light of our democracy’s heritage of productive obstruction, I will be proud to obstruct some of President Bush’s proposals this year." (He noted privatization of social security, Medicaid cuts to the poor and elderly “Is there any compassion there – I don’t think so.”, and other issues.)

"Obstructionism is all that separates democracy from dictatorship."

In re #6: You are absolutely right on the tense, and I shall correct that immediately in my sig. You should, however, note that I try to __NEVER__ use "Bush" as my emphasis, but always "The Republicans in power." This is not an accidental or irrelevant choice. Barring changes to the Constitution, Bush has had his last election --- our battle now is with the Republicans in control of the House and Senate. I like to "paint" the entire Republican party and every single person who would claim to be a Republican with the brush of Bush/Cheney/Rice/Ashcroft/et al.'s crimes.

Let us not think of "Bush" as the villains here, but the "Republicans in power" as the ones trying to subvert our Constitution and turn our republic towards Fascism and theocracy.

As for #11, that just proves it. It is the Republicans in Power who are afraid of open debate and dissent --- two hallmarks of freedom and Democracy --- but would have us march in lockstep to their beliefs without any questioning. THAT is not American Democracy --- that is the way of Hitler and Mussolini. However, that said, we must adopt SOME (but not all) of the right wing's tricks and begin to SLAP DOWN those who interfere in our open debates by spewing irrelevant or inappropriate comments, and I will support any progressive SysOp or Admin who needs to do that to Neo-Con Trolls on occasion.

Charlie L
Portland, Oregon
CLL2001@Gmail.com

The Days of Decision are coming: We are frogs begin slow-cooked, and by the time we realize the water is boiling, we won't have the strength to jump out of the pot. Keep an eye out for your "jumping moment" and we'll all jump together. FROG FREEDOM!!!

The Republicans in power lie and innocent people die.
The Republicans in power steal and give to their rich friends, leaving just an IOU for our kids to pay off.
The Republicans in power cheat and claim they are the "moral" ones.
We must flush all Republicans out of power in '06 and '08.
Take back American Democracy. Don't vote Republican.

I called and left a message for Dana Millbanks. Lets see if he calls back. If not I said what I had to say about his dis-service to this country. His story stinks like propaganda all the way down here in Louisiana.

Hannah #17 - thank you for posting this!

Check it out - Brad Blog is linked in Media Matters News Dissector- twice!

Here's what I sent in email:

How sad it is that the Washington Post of my youth, which uncovered hideous crimes of state and purged this nation of a crook in the highest office, should have descended so low as to throw spitballs at a hearing to shed light on what is perhaps the greatest high crime of our lifetimes.

Did Milbank even bother to watch the Downing Street Minutes hearings before poison-penning "Democrats Play House to Rally Against the War"? Or did he just take his snarking points from right-wing radio bloviators? For that matter, has he even read the Downing Street Minutes? If so, what part of "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" doesn't he understand?

I *did* watch, after Tivo-ing CSPAN3 while I worked during the day. It's an outrage that hearings of this dire nature must be held in an overgrown broom closet because the party in power can't bear the truth to be heard, but it's inexcusable that a "journalist" writing for a paper with the reputation of the Post would ridicule the decor and the problems arising from cramped proceedings instead of treating the subject with the seriousness it deserves. Indeed the entire article is a catty yowl. This is how you treat America-shaking stories? What next for the Post: Joan Rivers covering Supreme Court decisions, spending most of the story bad-mouthing the robes?

Get Milbank on the society column or the Michael Jackson beat. This latest article demonstrates that he's certainly not fit to cover stories of any importance.

I think 6 or 7 of us just got really pissed.

Thought for your pleasure I would post my email to Millbanks and his Omnibudsman.

Dear D. Millbanks,

Regards,
J. Pentz

JPentz #22 - Most Excellent letter!! Mine pales by comparison - fwiw, here it is:

Dear Sirs,

Dana Milbank's piece, "Democrats Play House To Rally Against the War," ridiculing the serious intent of Rep. Conyers, other Dem elected officials and everyday American Patriots to address the Downing Street Minutes, is not only an uncalled for smear, it is also filled with outright lies and deems to discredit hundreds of thousands of us who support their effort 100%. One can only see this as an attempt to once again protect the lies and crimes of the current administration.

You can all congratulate yourselves for being on the front lines of the march to taking our once free, beautiful country and leading us on our way to a theocratic dictatorship.

I seriously thought I was immune to your callousness in dealing with (or ignoring) issues that actually effect "we the people" but nope, you've caught me off guard and once again I'm shocked at your shallowness, myopia and abject cruelty.

I'm having a hard time understanding your motives - I know about bottom line profits, corporate power, unimagined wealth - but at what point does love and loyalty to one's country enter the picture? At what point will the duties of your JOB as watchdog of our government and truthteller to the public play a role in your decisions of what is fit to print?

I pray to God you all wake up from your stupor and realize what you are doing to our country before it is too late. Oh, and I DARE you to print Rep. Conyers' response to you regarding this tripe.

Sincerely,
jen

#21 #22

These are great letters!

I suggest that they, and other emails, also be copied to The Washington Post Company:

TWPCoReply@washpost.com

Here's a copy of the letter I sent to wapo...

Mr. Milbank

With as much restraint as I can muster, and with the hope that you will actually read some of the e-mails sent to you, I must register my utter dismay and 'embarrassment' for your appaling and shameful coverage of the hearing regarding the "Downing Street Minutes" run by Representative Conyers. Your lack of journalistic fairness is only overshadowed by your clear endorsement of the president and mockery of any process that questions his integrity. When a NY Times 'journalist' was fired for creating stories in order to get bylines, I was elated. I am not sure what the difference is with respect to your coverage of this story.

Before I allow myself the privilege of using foul language, I will sign off by informing you that I will forward this letter to Michael Getler, Ombudsman...as well as Michael Abramowitz, National editor. I end with the hope that you will be held accountable for your embarassing and humiliating behavior. Journalists report the news. You destroyed it!

Dr. Alan H. Levinson
docdaddy@optonline.net

cc. Micheal Abromowitz
Michael Getler

I'm increasing my cash offer. You are all eligible.

To recap........After hearing complaints of the tax cuts for the rich, I responded to BT that the rich benefited from tax cuts because they PAY INCOME TAXES, whereas the poor don't pay income taxes. Thus, no tax cut.

NOTICE - the tax cuts in question were reductions in the federal withholding, known as FEDERAL INCOME TAXES. I am not referring to FICA, which remains at the same rate. I am not referring to ANY OTHER TAX.

At least half a dozen Bradblog followers have responded in typical fashion, with insults, namecalling, vague references to abstract assumptions, but no substance.

Now we have Unirealist (I mistakenly referred to him as "unrealist". Sorry.

He claims his teenage daughter earned $2000 babysitting and she had a federal income tax liability of a few hundred dollars. (?????)

I will pay anyone on Bradblog $1000 if they can demonstrate that a teenage girl has a federal tax liability on a $2000 income. I will also donate $1000 to Bradblog.

My first offer remains - $1000 to anyone who can demonstrate that poor people in America have a federal income tax liability. I am talking about FEDERAL INCOME TAX. The same FEDERAL INCOME TAX that had a minor rate reduction (thanks to GWB).

I am NOT talking about any other kind of tax (FICA, cigarette, sales tax, state tax, etc etc.)

My offers ONLY APPLY to FEDERAL INCOME TAXES.

#23

Your letter doesn't pale by comparison! And, it's a good thing that each letter is different from the others. That way it can't be assumed that there are only "6 or 7" of us at work, sending form emails.

Charlie #11 What do I think?

I think they are fascist little wannabees.

Dana Milbank proves the point that for every good journalist in the MSM there are ten bad prostitutes calling themselves a journalist.

I just can't figure out why Dana Milbank thinks he is a journalist.

We continue to ignore the American hating trolls while writing letters to the vile and complicit media to make them understand that we the people will hold this administration accountable for murdering Americans at home and abroad.

My letter to WaPo:

"In the Capitol basement yesterday, long-suffering House Democrats took a trip to the land of make-believe."

You should be ashamed of yourselves! Did you not hear the testimony of Cindy Sheehan? She gave her own son over the lies that are so clearly spelled out in the Downing Street Memo.

You owe her... and all of us... an apology. I cannot believe that you would mock someone who only wants to get a fair hearing for the death of her son. Cindy Sheehan knows more about reality than Dana Milbank would ever care to know.

Her son is dead, Dana Milbank should apologize. And he should also mention that all of us who have been struggling to get the full story on the Downing Street Memo would love to have bipartisan hearings on the matter, but it is hard when a bitterly partisan majority refuses to even acknowledge the issue for fear that it will chip away at their tawdry veneer of moral righteousness. It is they who are living in a "land of make-believe" when they stonewall rather than give the American people access to the facts that we need to fulfill our duties as citizens. They hope the lies will go away. Dana Milbank hopes the lies will go away. But like the spot on the hands Lady Macbeth, the blood of innocents is a scandal too dark to be scrubbed clean and forgotten.

America reads the Washington Post. And Americans know that the intelligence was "fixed." If you want to be taken seriously, I would suggest that you bring your publication into greater harmony with reality, and spend less time insulting people who only want to see more truth from our leaders.

I an furious that the Washington Post would print such insulting crap. Here is my letter to Milbank:
----------------------------------------------------
To Mr. Dana Milbank of the Washington Post,

I'm a middle-aged adult American citizen. I remember Watergate. I remember the Iran Contra hearings. I remember the impeachment of a president for lying about sex. I remember how the media drooled and frothed at the mouth when waiting for each new sexual tidbit about a presidential affair.

I watched the events unfold on 9/11 with horror. I then watched our country go to war with a country unrelated to 9/11 with even more horror. I saw Congress lay down and play dead as the president of this country forced his fake war "intelligence" on them and then went to war based on made-up bullshit. I saw the media do nothing. I watched the press ignore it all as some of our civil rights were taken away from us and we got involved in an insane, illegal, and insanely expensive war with a country that was no threat to us.

I'm enraged that you, Mr. Dana Milbank would call yourself a journalist and get away with writing erroneous malarkey like you wrote yesterday ("Democrats Play House to Rally Against the War," ) about the Democratic hearings on the Downing Street memo. Your article didn't pay homage to your teachers in high school, your parents, your family or your fellow American citizens. You failed in your duty and you should be ashamed and your teachers and parents should be ashamed.

These were serious hearings about a very serious matter, and you obviously don't get that. There are millions of Americans who feel that getting to the bottom of why the war started is the most important news today. It directly affects the lives of each and every American. It affects our rights, our economy, our very futures. It may very well lead to the impeachment of a president for high crimes.

I can't think of a "higher crime" than leading a nation into war based on lies, and lying to Congress to accomplish that, can you?

We got into this idiotic, illegal war in Iraq in the first place because journalists laid down and played DEAD. You're still doing it! In fact, you're complicit in all of this. You're completely abrogating your DUTY to report the news in a fair and informative matter. I now must assume that the whole of the Washington Post, like your article, will be all stinking, biased BS.

Report the news or admit you're not a journalist. Call yourself an "entertainer" like Rush Limbaugh does.

You're now among those I consider "in on it." So is the Washington Post as a whole.

Sincerely,
[my sig.]
------------------------------
NOW.... does anyone know where I can get a transcript of the entire hearing yesterday? I can't navigate CSPAN.org to save my life. Could someone send me an email of where it is please because I don't know if I'll be back here today? I want to post parts of it on a forum or two.

I love your blog, "Brad", and Thank God for you and what you are doing!

Guess who this was to:

Dear "Sirs",

Dana Milbank's "reporting" of the Conyers' forum on the Downing Street Minutes is absolutely shameful. It would not even past muster as an piece of news reporting, never mind the juvenile insults, in the more accountable and reputable high school or college newspapers.

Milbank's "Washington Sketch" on this matter is scurrilous.

The Washington Post (and the Washington Post Company) has been cashing in on its "Watergate Coverage" for far too long. You have lost my respect in a complete way. I trust that others have much the same reaction.

{ed note: Deleted. Same poster posting as different names. When he posts with one name, the comments will be allowed to stay.}

So many excellent letters here! 6 or 7 over at CCN are writing as well. I'd love to know how many emails they're getting about this.

Shelly, the Downing Street Hearing will be on C-Span2 at 8pm eastern time tonight!

{ed note: Deleted. Same poster posting as different names. When he posts with one name, the comments will be allowed to stay.}

* * * * * Space * * * * *

(ed note: Deleted. Same poster posting as different names. When he posts with one name, the comments will be allowed to stay.)

That's not true. My post was unpopular and outside of the mainstream here. I like to think that I'm being provocative. The truth is I'm just bored out of my freakin mind.

But the smoking really ins't cool. You could get ill or some kid who looks up to you as a role model could pick up the habit devasting an over-protective mother. Even worse, a young lady could start smoking and everyone will assume she's loose.

Three more hours everyone! Once this thing airs things are finally gonna start to change. Just think about it; hundreds of millions of people spending Friday night glued to CSPAN2. Saturday morning; REVOLUTION!

My letter to the Washington Post:

To Messrs. Abramowitz, Getler, and Milbank:

I am writing to express my profound disappointment with your paper's coverage of the hearing conducted by Cong. Conyers yesterday on the Downing Street Memo and its implications. Dana Milbanks exercise in creative writing, it could scarcely be called journalism or reporting, should have been printed under a banner of "Opinion," or perhaps on the funny pages. Your paper has virtually ignored the issues raised by the very troubling information contained in the Downing Street Memo and related documents. While I will not jump to any conclusions about the reasons for your avoidance of this topic it does lead many of your better informed readers to become concerned about the lack of coverage and to speculate about the reasons your editors and owners have not pursued this very serious issue.

What an irony that just as we learn of the identity of "Deep Throat" and are reminded of the great service your paper rendered to our nation during "Watergate" we are simultneously reminded of the depths to which your paper has fallen.

I can't remember ever since when having been so outraged by a single piece of "reporting" in the so-called MSM. Please, everyone likewise insulted, use the email info that Brad provides to send a message to WaPo.

My view: As long as what you write is true, and from the heart, even a short email will have an impact. We've already seen some emails that do an eloquent job of covering the 6 or 7 points that need be addressed. So, now, I believe it's about numbers.

Brad et al., is there anything else we can do to give this story more "legs"? By "story" I am specifially referring to your article on the Milbank "report"-- but, inasmuch as it covers the "forum" itself, and Conyers' letter to WaPo, it is a much bigger story than what Milbank "reported".

Milbank has, to my mind, become the "Poster Boy" for everything that is wrong with the MSM.

I emailed Dan Froomkin at WaPo, giving a link to this thread/ story, suggesting that he check it out. Are there any other people you would suggest writing to?

Dan Froomkin--Author of washingtonpost.com's White House Briefing column.

email Froomkin

June 17 Froomkin

Part of what he wrote:

Paul Koring writes for Toronto's Globe and Mail: "The emotive and charged word 'impeachment' was voiced yesterday on Capitol Hill as a clutch of Democratic congressmen, backed by distraught mothers of soldiers slain in Iraq, put together a piece of theatre that could become the summer's political drama."

But Dana Milbank of The Washington Post saw yesterday's event more as farce: "In the Capitol basement yesterday, long-suffering House Democrats took a trip to the land of make-believe."

Re: June 16, 2005, Jim VandeHei of The Washington Post, on MSNBC's "Countdown" with Alex Witt who was sitting in for Keith Olbermann ---

In the opening remarks of her interview with VandeHei, Alex referred to THE hearing in the following manner: "... Democrats on Capitol Hill holding an unofficial hearing today to debate" ... !

VandeHei explained, "... what you had here were antiwar liberals holding a mock hearing.... it‘s interesting, I mean, my e-mailbox has been filled with e-mails from several Democrats who are just angry that the media‘s not doing enough on the issue."

This evening, on Lou Dobbs, the same-0 (zero), same-0, bland Richard Gephardt (sp?) saying that the memo had nothing in it, that we should move on. (I paraphrase, of course. He must think he is running for President again, not unlike the last Democratic candidate, (Almost As Bland) who has such strange timing for releasing pertinent information, and hires the Republican attorneys in Ohio to investigate the vote count.)

Here's mine:

Dear Sirs,

Mr. Milbank's absurd and demeaning article "Democrats Play House To Rally Against the War" about the June 16th Conyers hearings was a new low point in the evaporating credibility of the Washington Post.

We would expect something of the sort from a low-level courtier of power who hasn't a clue about journalistic standards and whose sole purpose is to ingratiate himself into the current regime or his Beltway bosses. By printing such sloppy, nonfactual, absurdly slanted, sycophantic, sneering drivel, the Washington Post has abdicated any kind of pretense of journalistic standards worthy of a 'major newspaper".

If Mr. Milbank believes that the Conyers hearings were a game and that clear evidence of misleading Congress and the public about the reasons for going to war resulting in the deaths of more than 1700 Americans is unworthy of congressional investigation and testimony or serious journalistic interest, then we - millions of concerned Americans - will certainly consider Mr. Milbank and the Washington Post unworthy of consideration and get our journalism from the hands of those do who take it seriously.

There is dangerous abuse of power in our nation, and it is clear that the Washington Post is a participant in it.

Nevertheless, I hope you will have the minimal decency to publish Rep. Conyers letter to the Post dated June 17 in reply to Mr. Milbank's childish essay.

Sincerely,

Dana Milbank spits in the face of all of our troops killed in action, by making light of the serious inquiries of John Conyers, inquiring whether our troops may have been misled into a war with lies. This is serious business, and Dana Milbank's coverage is disgraceful, and so is the Washington Post. They're a big joke, now. They've been a big joke for a long time. Who is the editor that allowed this to be published? He's more responsible than Dana Milbank. The editor of the Chicago Tribune suppressed a column about voter fraud, and the Washington Post allows coverage of a serious matter, with derrogatory opinion.

#44

Big Dan,

I hope you've emailed your sentiments to WaPo, using Brad's email info.

VG

To Buckshot comment #26.

You don't get it. The rich have a high % of disposable income, so they can pay more taxes. They made their $$$ in a society, called the United States of America. Societies are as strong as their weakest link, and especially in democratic societies, we should all be striving for the greater good of everyone. Poor people have ZERO disposable income. Even though your comment has nothing to do with the Milbank subject, it needed response. Maybe we should lower the riches taxes even more, so there's more of a gap between rich and poor, and the poor will revolt. There's lots more of them, ever think of that? Throughout history, whenever the gap between rich and poor got out of hand, there was revolution. Do you want that? What's your point, by the way?

UCKSHOT UCKOFF

It's like Milbank obviously had his own agenda. Was this an op-ed piece?
If not, how could he ridicule the DSM forem for taking place in the "broom closet" etc, when that proves the 1 party rule tactics of the Repub leadership?
Thus adding to the seriousness of the accusations of the forum.

Knight Ridder story

Dear Mr. Milbank,

To even quantify the term "journalist" with the likes of you is a direct slap in the face to every newsman that has faced the adversity of war on the battle lines.

I qualify that by being a former Decorated U.S. Navy Photographer. I know what it is like be carrying a camera, while everyone else is carrying a gun.

Your recent condescending, factually incorrect article on the Downing Street Memo hearings chaired by the honorable Congressman Conyers, and many other distinguished Members of the House, is an affront to what the WaPo used to stand for.

Take a look at the Pulitzer Prizes decorating the walls, look at the distinguished names, the likes of which you will never be spoken with in the same breath.

It pains me to have to comment on your neo-con controlled spin of the serious historic hearings yesterday. Your article was so fraught with inaccuracies that I could write a Gettysburg Address sized rebuttal. It would be fruitless however, because I doubt any one there that proof reads this drivel has more than an eighth grade education, hence I presume you receive some sort of paycheck for your irrelevant ramblings in print.

I'll bet you get all the "Skittles" you can eat.

You sir are a complete waste of time. Your articles aren't worthy of wrapping fish, let alone the lining of a cat box.

You are a disgrace to the profession of journalism. You should get a broom and a shovel with a tall set of boots to clean out your office of the fecal matter you write and pass off as a news story.

And continue to sweep it down the street to the nearest landfill, where it can be disposed of as hazardous waste.

Citizen A

Here's my comment on the Milbank article. It is titled One of those Rosa Parks moments

You might also want to check out our satire on Michael Kinsley.

Another interesting tidbit that I found upon inspecting today's print version of WaPo A6. The AP wire story that Rep. Conyers mentions, which disproves Milbank's statement that Conyers was the sole member of Congress which brought up the DWM on the floor, ran below Milbank's article. Now, the online which the Post put on their website was 'Democrats Cite Downing Street Memo in Bolton Fight' (the same as what appeared in the original AP wire story). In the print version, however, the exact same story ran in full, but with a different title - 'Senators to Call for Bolton Vote.'

This is a title which not only deflects the possibility of the above article's statement being false, but isn't at all newsworthy. Senators have called for a vote on Bolton for a considerable amount of time now. Nothing catchy or attention-grabbing.

So, the question is, did the WaPo editors purposely change the title of the AP wire story in the print version in order to misinform the public regarding Conyers' lone stance on mentioning DSM?

Why did the headline of the NY Times article look like it was written by Scott McClellan?

Wow. Great letters. Charles, too.

LOL! You guys rock! Between the 6 or 7 letters from here, the 6 or 7 from CCN and who knows how many from Kos, maybe 8 or 9? well geesh, that's like SEVERAL letters!

Someone at CCN had a good point and I'm wondering if anyone here can help. He's looking for the names of the 104 Reps who attended the forum with Rep Conyeres so we can send them thank you's. Anyone know how we can find that out? Thanks!

Milbank, like Bush, is Skull & Bones. It explains a lot...

Check out this listing

Gee, you think there was any arm-twisting involved in getting this guy the position of White House correspondent at the WaPo? These maniacs truly thought of everything.

So that means he can't get fired. He's a neocon appointee. Everyone else at the paper can get fired, but not him. Maybe he can get Guckert a job there.

Edit #55

Should have said attended the forum or signed Rep Conyer's letter.

# Minor mistypes -

Should be:

"...ingratiate himself into the current regime or the graces his Beltway bosses."

"...get our journalism from the hands of those who do take it seriously."

That's my letter #43. Better take a walk "around the block."

All of you are great! I sent mine off too but again, they were civil but they weren't pretty.

Hello #34 & #36!

I am happy to say the hearings were mentioned on our CBC news here in Canada.

http://www.cbc.ca/clips/...halton_downing050616.mov

Alison, I emailed the NYT about their article, which wasn't all that bad, but complained about the title too.

Thanks to CSPAN! (someone should give them a Freedom Medal) I now have the entired hearing recorded, but if there's a transcript out there I would still love to find it. At the very least, is there a source where all the submitted statements by the participants can be found? I checked Conyers website and it's not there.

Dear Mr. Abramowitz:

I just completed reading an article concerning Representative Conyers’ informal hearing to determine whether the President committed impeachable offenses against our Constitution. Apparently, your reporter was not in attendance, because his report did not vaguely resemble what transpired. Also, it’s an insult to the American people to label this meeting as an antiwar gathering in an attempt to detract from its significance. It is the first step towards restoring dignity and honor to the White House. Sound familiar? Bush’s promise in 2000 - what a joke.

I can’t explain how angry I am that this guy claims to be a journalist. I was appalled the way he degraded the people in attendance especially Mrs. Sheehan. I doubt if your reporter knows the meanings of patriotic or honor since he appears to lack both traits.

Someone should start monitoring this guy’s work and insist that he report the facts - not make them up. If not, you paper is nothing more than toilet paper. I am fed up with the lies from this administration and the media cover-ups. BRING BACK BRADLEE!!!

ahoy troll buckshot.

I can't claim your prize; but I've a question for you.
Do you know the difference between $300 and $3.3 million ? No? Give up?

Let me explain it to you.
$300 is the tax cut i got. Which in case you haven't noticed, is not even enough to cover the rise in the price of gasoline during Bush's tenure, at 10 gallons per week.
While $3.3 million is the tax cut Bush gave to individuals who made $50 million last year. $3.3 million - i think that will cover their gas costs, don't you?

Get it? No? Haha hopeless you are.

Here's mine. I'm so revolted and furious I don't know what I might do if confronted with the worm that is Dana Milbank, a frequent (and wriggly) CNN political pundit.

To ___:

This outrageous travesty of a "report" on Congressman Conyer's hearing to address the implications of the Downing Street Minutes deserves nothing less than the condemnation and contempt of the American public. Such denigration of honesty and integrity on the part of serious, honorable public officials is disgraceful. This hearing, far from being the clownish show you have portrayed, was the truest, most honest display of democracy I have witnessed in this country for too many long years.

Mr. Milbank, you have eradicated any vestige of respect intelligent readers might have retained for The Washington Post.

Very sincerely,

Sent to every Post address I could find.

Re #57 --

So, dana milbank is a member of the skull and bones. Does it mean he is a fascist? Or worse?

Buckshot, don't make us all laugh. You represent the kind of fascism we're trying to get rid of in this country. The entire war was an illegal, unmoral mass murder disaster. Anyone who fully goes along with it needs to be out there shooting Syrians, Iranians and Iraqis as we speak- Not here in the United States of America.

Now get out there and stop projecting your hate on the rest of us. The truth of the matter is these people are criminals, and must be held responsible once and for all to the rule of justice. I am a long time republican and recognize this is not about party loyalty. No, it is about right and wrong. What Bush, his band of cult christians and the PNAC, CNP groups did is unquestionably and unequivocably wrong. What America did was right in calling them out on what it was: Lies to the world about going to war. Lies about saving everyone from terror. Lies about protecting everybody through "destroying their privacy" in the Patriot Act.

It's time for you to wake up and stop following the lies, or get out of the way. We don't need anymore liars, we need the truth. The truth will set us free.

Ronald Price

The Iraq attack!
Florida 2000.
Ohio 2004.
Invasion of privacy!
Fouling our own nest and trashing the environment!
Gosh, Georgie Boy, what do you do for an encore?

Check out who else dana milbank cuddles up with:

the new republic including pnac co-founder robert kagan. Is it any wonder?

BTW, my most recent emails are bouncing back from washington post as pasted here:

Your message has encountered delivery problems
to the following recipient(s):

No recipients were successfully delivered to.
-------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps 6 or 7 of us are all the neocons can handle before emotional collapse!

I wouldn't be surprised if they are firing reporters at the Washington Post. That just proves PNAC is scared of going down once and for all, so they are infiltrating the offices to print their own conspiracy theories.

Reminds me of a time back in 1970, only this time there are millions more of all of us.

Ron

I've done some journalism in my day, and I wonder when any paper decided to let NEWS writers put editorial OPINION in their stories. As a writer and a writing teacher through the years, I've always held this out to be journalism rule #1.
JUST THE FACTS.
When reporting a news situation, a reporter should never give personal opinion. That should be reserved for a column of - opinion.
How could Dana Milbank's story have ever run as a news story?
I always had a great respect for the Washington Post. Damn.

oops.
I've done a little journalism in my day, and one thing a writer should do is actually read the writing in question before firing off an opinion. I didn't. Just got bothered by all I read hear, and didn't check the column itself before throwing my two cents in. So Dana Milbank's piece WAS an opinion column. My bad for the last post.
Did anybody else in the WaPo newsroom cover the Conyers hearing as news?

Torqued,

I have just left a comment at Lampley's Huff post. As I told him, I would steer clear of TBRNews. That is the Barnes Review. The DoD does undercount, but I think there are better sources for this info.

The Barnes Review

The Barnes Review is an anti-Semitic web site whose primary propaganda goal is disparagement of Jews and denial that the Nazi Holocaust ever occurred. The home page of the Barnes Review has included articles with titles such as "The Myth of the Six Million" and "Jewish History, Jewish Religion," which states, "When the Roman historian Tacitus pointed out 19 centuries ago that the Jews are unique among the races of man in their intense hatred and contempt for all races but their own, he was only repeating what many other scholars had discovered before him."

TBRNews.org (http://tbrnews.org) is a website that says it "originally came from the Barnes Review (http://tbrnews.org/aboutus.htm)" but is now "under different management." However, its website continues to offer links to websites that sell Nazi memorabilia and promote books by authors including British Holocaust denier David Irving.

Retrieved from "http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barnes_Review"

It really pisses me off to read crap like Milbanks wrote. The Washington Post has become the National Enquirer or worse! What a shame, considering the history of that paper. Thanks for the links Brad. Here's what I wrote:

"Gentlemen:

I am writing to respond to Dana Milbank’s article covering the forum held by Congressman John Conyers regarding the Downing Street Minutes entitled “Democrats Play House To Rally Against the War” published on June 17, 2005.

The tone of Mr. Milbank’s article was immediately condescending and arrogant, and demonstrates the irresponsible demeanor of the Post towards reporting news in an unbiased and accurate manner. In fact, because the Post would even publish such a piece clearly shows that the Post has become part of the right wing propaganda machine. That’s a shame, considering the history of your paper. The Washington Post has been a shining example of what journalism is all about, but lately has taken the course the rest of the mainstream media seems to have taken, to be no more than a brown nosing rag for the Bush Administration.

And you cannot hide behind the excuse that the Downing Street Minutes are not newsworthy, because even I understand the significance of their content. How can you offer up such a piece of garbage as news while ignoring the fact that these memos prove what we all suspected all along: That the President fabricated the facts leading up to the invasion of Iraq, then used them to lead us into war? Doing so only proves what the Washington Post has become these days, and you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Don’t believe for a second that the American public buys this kind of crap. Just look at the results of the recent polls that reflect what Americans think about the job the President is doing these days. The only performance that’s even worse is the “job” the mainstream media is doing to cover (up) all the lies and misdeeds this administration has perpetrated.

But it doesn’t matter any more anyway because I, like most Americans that want to read the news, no longer look to the Washington Post, but instead rely the internet to find out what’s really going on in the world today. I’ll bet your circulation numbers reflect what Americans think of your coverage of world events lately. Let me know when you start doing your job again and offering up real news instead of the opinionated dribble coming from the likes of Mr. Milbank.

Sincerely,
Jeff J."

Nunya, #79 --

That's why I want to verify the numbers myself, I can't trust them either.

What needs to happen is a public, database-driven website where deaths can be reported by families and automatically cross-checked with the official listing. My problem with that solution is the necessary involvement of an immediate family member... seems so unethical to me. Akin to ambulance-chasing undertakers...

That sounds like a good idea, Torqued. Most of the TBR report may be factually accurate. Probably is, but one wants to be careful who one links to. This is one thing you might check out. See if it has been reported in the media yet and keep checking Bart's reports from Iraq. He e-mails them to the General at TAS

http://www.reachm.com/am...-wiped-out-media-silent/

The DoD fudges numbers in other ways. Just find the DoD records of total deaths by service and figure that many of those listed as not combat related probably are.

http://web1.whs.osd.mil/...d/casualty/OIF-Total.pdf

ATTENTION ATTENTION ATTENTION ATTENTION

Raw Story has just reported that AP now has 3 --- count them --- THREE stories on the Downing Street Memos!!

Here, here, & here.

I encourage everyone to recommend each story with 5 stars, guys.

RE: #76

http://thomas.loc.gov/cg...ry/z?c109:H.J.RES.24.IH:

1st Session
H. J. RES. 24
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 17, 2005
Mr. HOYER (for himself, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SABO, and Mr. PALLONE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein),
THAT the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article --
`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed.'.

Is that shit for real????

Amend the 22nd constitution???

Is it even possible?

Could Bush get re-elected??

Would he be allowed to run again???

I need someone who is smart to lay this one on the table for me because 2 years ago I was saying that they would try to repeal the 22nd amendment.

Lets say it starts moving forward, what does it take to pass and how long would it take?

Charlie

Charlie # 85 - It would be very tough to pass this amendment. Here's the relevant constitutional article:

Article V:

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

Anything these people do is of concern to me, but I think they don't have the whole thing wrapped up enough to pass this amendment, as much as they would like to be in control of everything. It could take years, and I think there would be a huge public resistance. (Not to mention that things will be changing in the meantime, quite soon I hope.)

Just my opinion.

Of course, if enough non-verifiable voting machines throughout the states...

If the Bush Administration's hold on power is threatened, they WILL go for another "trifecta". And if they stage another terrorist attack, it will be a doozy, because it will be designed to carry their hold on power PAST the end of Bush's term. These people are not beyond murdering a hundred thousand of us or so to maintain their grasp on power.

Re: #84, #86 Amending Article 22 to the Constitution, someone posting on Indymedia here: http://nhindymedia.org/n...e/display/2452/index.php says that the person who introduced this bill, Steny Hoyer, is a Democrat. This raises worrying issues if there is bipartisan support for this bill.

Who is Steny Hoyer and why would he be supporting this bill?

For everybody following buckshot's $2,000 offer and Unirealist's claim:

Buckshot's ORIGINAL offer

Unirealist's claim

Let's find out who won!

Off-topic --- This concerns something I've often wondered about, but haven't figured out how to verify the facts, while at the same time respecting military families and their loss of loved ones. I don't know where else to drop this.

Our friend Jim Lampley has brought up the official count of American military deaths in Iraq on The Huffington Post:
The Ultimate Deception?

In his article he links to TBR News.org where the author claims to have a DoD document explaining how our government under-reports Iraq war deaths.

Check it out when you get a chance. I nosed around the TBR News site and found this paragraph from bottom of this TBR news page:

Update as of June 16, 2005: We have been receiving a surprising number of emails concerning U.S. military personnel who died but were not listed as Combat Deaths. Their names are not found on the public postings of the DoD. More later!

I have thought about setting up a website as a way to cross-check the official death count in the Iraq war, but as mentioned above, I can't figure out how to do it without intruding on the mourning families. Any ideas?

Catherine A #88

6 Democrats and 2 Republicans introduced that bill. Weird. I don't understand. In one of my earlier posts on another thread I asked folks to join in and research the 6 Dems. I don't have time. It really is very odd.

Re: Jose #74 --

Like Hitler's Germany, they intend to maintain their power through as many legal (sans fraudulent electronic "elections") means possible. Consider that H.J.RES.24: Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution to Repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States will allow sitting (or sElected) presidents unlimited terms in office.

We should be doing something about this one don't you think? 6 or 7 of us at least?

Awesome column about Milbank's article on the Conyers forum:

http://www.editorandpubl...nu_content_id=1000964303

(I'm sorry I don't know HTML, is there a place on this site that shows how, I thought I read that there was at some point.)

I am noticing the Democrats making a lot of weird concessions. Almost like Republicans ran as Democrats, won, and now are acting like Republicans Again.

Weird But Check out my next post you're sure to like it.

Charlie

These are only exerpt of their whole statements on Clinton Impeachment...

John Mcain "Presidents are not ordinary citizens. They are extraordinary, in that they are vested with so much more authority and power than the rest of us. We have a right; indeed, we have an obligation, to hold them strictly accountable to the rule of law.

Are perjury and obstruction of justice expressly listed as high crimes and misdemeanors? No. Why? Because they are self-evidently so. Just as the President is self-evidently the nation's chief law enforcement officer, despite his attorneys' quibbling to the contrary. It is self-evident to us all, I hope, that we cannot overlook, dismiss or diminish the obstruction of justice by the very person we charge with taking care that the laws are faithfully executed. It is self-evident to me. And accordingly, regretfully, I must vote to convict the President, and urge my colleagues to do the same.'

Bill Frist "President Clinton committed perjury and obstructed justice. In so doing, he broke his oath of office and his oath to tell the truth. He broke the public trust. I took an oath to do impartial justice by the Constitution and laws of our country. I had a duty to the Constitution and laws of this nation to convict President Clinton, so I voted to remove him from office and restore the trust of the American people in the high Office of President. Prosperity is never an excuse to keep a President who has committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Though many of my colleagues agreed with these conclusions, two-thirds of the Senate did not. I am concerned about the message this acquittal will send to our youth. So, I am convinced that you and I now have a shared duty: Rather than give in to easy cynicism, we should work toward integrity and responsibility in all that we do. We must remind our children that telling the truth and accepting responsibility for wrongdoing are virtues with currency. Our nation's future depends on how earnestly we fulfill that shared duty. "

Senator Hagel "Americans deserve to always expect the highest standard of conduct from their elected officials. If that expectation is defined down over time, it will erode the very base of our democracy and put our Republic in peril. That is the point of the Impeachment Clause of our Constitution . . . to protect the Republic. The Impeachment clause of our Constitution is there to ensure the fitness of an individual to hold high office. President Clinton's conduct has debased his office and violated the soul of justice--truth. He has thereby debased and violated the American people. I have no other course to follow than to vote to convict President William Jefferson Clinton on both Articles of Impeachment. "

Sen. Voinovich "I believe the framers of the Constitution had a President like Bill Clinton in mind when they drafted the impeachment provisions in Article II, Section 4--a very popular, brilliant communicator with extraordinary interpersonal skills who abuses his power, violates his oath of office, and evades responsibility for his actions because he believes he is above the law.

One who has committed high Crimes and Misdemeanors disqualifies himself from serving as President, Commander-in-Chief, and chief law enforcement officer. The President also represents much more than these titles and responsibilities. He is a symbol of the greatness of the American people. Presidential scholar Clinton Rossiter observed that the president of the United States is `the one-man distillation of the American people.' And, President William Howard Taft described the president as `the personal embodiment and representative of their dignity and majesty.'

By virtue of his own conduct, William Jefferson Clinton has forfeited his elected right to hold the office of president. I sincerely believe that this country can survive the removal of a popular president who has forfeited public trust. But, our country cannot survive the abandonment of trust itself."

Sen. Fitzgerald- "And truly, the call to do nothing is seductive. I hear it, too. We are so comfortable--so prosperous--that it is difficult to be bothered with unpleasantness. But as the youngest member of this body, I believe we must hold firm to the oldest truths. The material blessings of peace and prosperity are but the fruit of liberty that does not come without a price --a liberty sustained, only and finally, by the rule of law, and those willing to defend it. Our commitment to impartial justice, now and forever, is an abstraction more profound and precious than a soaring Dow and a plummeting deficit. I vote as I do because I will not stand for the proposition that a President can, with premeditation and deliberation, obstruct justice and commit perjury before a grand jury. It cannot be. "

Sen. Grams "Again, in my view, this is a double standard and is completely unacceptable for a nation that prides itself on a legal system which provides equal justice under the law.

As to our final duty, the final vote, I believe the so-called `so what' defense has controlled the outcome. `He did it, but so what' we have heard it a thousand times from a hundred talking heads. We have heard it from our colleagues, too, in both chambers. Well, for this Senator, `so what' stops at perjury and obstruction of justice. I will cast my vote with sorrow for the President, his family, and for the toll this trial has taken on the nation, but with certainty that it is the only choice my conscience and the Constitution permits me to make. "

Anyways, these are just exerpts read the whole thing from all senators at this link

http://www.washingtonpos...ies/bynametext021399.htm

Wonder what happened between then and now, oHHHH yeaaaa Sept 11 and the terrorist.

What a bunch of hypocrits.
Charlie

Kira,

I agree. You previously said you "know they (poor) people pay (income) taxes, yet when I challenged you to offer something more than your feelings, you declined.

I further offered any & all of you to enlist Brad's help to determine if America's poor folks pay income taxes.

I believe there is only one person on this blog (besides Brad) who knows that poor people don't pay income taxes. That would be Robert.

The rest of you must have a hell of a time doing your taxes each year. The majority of your responses have been regarding either ....

1) FICA taxes
2) state taxes
3) unspecified taxes
4) vague "feelings"
5) insults & namecalling.

My offer stands. The discussion was about the Bush tax cuts (federal income tax cuts) and how they benefited the rich (who pay a lot of taxes)

I replied that the poor didn't get a tax cut because they would have to pay federal income taxes first. If you don't pay the tax, you don't get a cut.

#94

Nobody wants to waste their time talking to you, buckie. You have only 1 interest and that is being a troll --- you are trying to disrupt and you enjoy putting people down. Your admissions to your own beliefs are enough to make any of us know your true agenda.

As far as accepting any challenge from you to get into a debate --- I say no. You have refused numerous opportunities to engage in reasonable debate with numerous people.

Take your insults elsewhere.

Kira, It looks like you've chosen to end the debate by laying down and admitting defeat.

Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) banged a large wooden gavel and got the other lawmakers to call him "Mr. Chairman." He liked that so much that he started calling himself "the chairman" and spouted other chairmanly phrases, such as "unanimous consent" and "without objection so ordered." The dress-up game looked realistic enough on C-SPAN, so two dozen more Democrats came downstairs to play along.

This article is gold!

Kira #90

Thanks for reminding us about the 6 Democrats and 2 Republicans who introduced the bill to repeal Amendment 22. (I looked for it on google but could only find the reference to the Indymedia post I linked to, which only mentioned that a Democrat had introduced the bill.)

This bolsters the case for the 2 main parties being in bed together on the main issues: take lots of $$$ from corporations for campaign contributions, then "thank" them afterwards via legislation they're sure to like.

While the current crowd in the WH is a special case all its own (I don't consider them to be representative of the GOP though it's a pity so many seem ready to go along w/o questioning), the "oridinary" members of Congress from both main parties do not differ wide from one another on many major policy issues. The 2-party system is a sham. They all know which side their bread is buttered on. Some are better/worse than others, but they all have to play the same game with vested interests in order to survive. Not a good situation. It guarantees support for elite vested interests, not the public good (and certainly not democracy).

We need to stop being surprised that we do not see real opposition from most elected Democrats. We need to understand why this is, and work to change the underlying issues (campaign finance reform in addition to election reform).

Buckshot-

You do not seem to make any congruent points. If you are trying to measure whether "poor" people share an unfair burden of taxes than you must look at all taxes, not just federal income tax.

Perhaps you will clarify what point it is you are trying to make.

But in regards to federal income tax, I was working for minimum wage at one point in my life (2001) at the Ritz Carlton in Naples Florida and did have Federal Income Taxes withheld. Will a check stub suffice to show this point? Is that what you wanted one person to show?

In regards to your statement:
"I replied that the poor didn't get a tax cut because they would have to pay federal income taxes first. If you don't pay the tax, you don't get a cut."

I did pay federal income taxes but thats not the point. As you provide, there are many other taxes besides the federal income tax. Therefore there are other ways to cut taxes in a manner that would have benifited everyone instead of just the rich.

Never mind that those tax cuts would have funded social security until the year 2075.

Perhaps Kira is right, you just have an agenda to disrupt serious inquries and offenses of the Bush administration with fruitless debate on less then worthy topics(at this point in time).

Tell me Buckshot name three things Bush has done that you disagree with, surely there is something.

Charlie

Unanimous Consent...

I read that once a member of congress is adressed as Mr. Chairmen...thats how people must refer to him from then on regardless of whether he is currently the chairman or not.

Really a sensless point...care to adress any of the larger points made in the "FORUM".

Charlie

I will talk to you, Buckshot. As I said before I think before dismissing the 9/11 scam you should fully read and understand David Ray Griffin's report.

I believe it will simply make the issue very clear for you. It's easy to dismiss these things as conspiracy theories, until you have fully viewed all the evidence.

David

Re: #94 and tax cuts,

In fairness to Buckshot, it doesn't sound to me like s/he is bringing up anything troll-like, just factual information about taxation and who benefits from certain tax cuts and who doesn't. At worst, it's OT and not clearly connected to this thread's topic.

We have a similar tax situation here in Ireland--loads of tax loopholds that benefit the very wealthy. The wealthiest people pay zero taxes because they can take advantage of the most loopholes.

When the government gives tax breaks to low- or middle-income earners, it is of no use to the very poorest because they are not paying tax at all. They are "outside the tax net." Tax cuts only benefit you if you're earning enough money to be paying tax in the first place. (I know because I am in this situation at the moment.)

Different policies are needed to address the needs of the poorest members of society. In Ireland we have some tax credits (so you can receive a payment even if you have no tax liability at all, e.g. "Child Income Supplement" which all parents receive regardless of income). A policy promoted by the Green Party in Ireland is called "Guaranteed Basic Income." That's a whole separate topic in itself so I won't go there now but anyone can google for "Basic Income" if they're interested.

Another way of helping the almost-poorest is to take more of them out of the tax net altogether (e.g. by raising the amount you're permitted to earn tax-free)--though this doesn't benefit the very poorest who are not earning enough to pay taxes.

Another point about some other taxes (in particular sales taxes which cannot be avoided in states that have them) is that these taxes are "regressive"--they tax poor people disproportionately as a percentage of their income.

Buckshot's posts on this issue are OT at worst. His points about taxation are factually accurate. (What constitutes appropriate taxation policy is another question--but I don't think I've heard Buckshot propose any particular policy so far, just comment on the existing tax cuts and who they do and don't benefit.)

Other folks have interjected OT comments from time to time so I don't see the problem unless Buckshot were taking over the whole thread (which doesn't seem to be the case, unless I've missed some previous bad behaviour).

Y'all will have to fight it out as to whether or not it was clear from the context (& previous postings) that Buckshot was talking about Federal Income Taxes. It was clear to me what the point was.

I should add that I'm really interested in economic policy so the OT-ness of this didn't bother me.

Maybe more open threads are needed to avoid distraction from other issues.

HELP NEEDED!

MSM MEDIA BLITZ NOW STARTING TO OCCUR --- FINALLY!!!

U.S. War Plans Much-Discussed in Memos
-AP --- 1 of 5 AP articles!!!!

see:
DSM BLITZ!! 5 stories on DSM --- by AP!!!

for more on todays MSM media blitz and what you can do about it to keep it in the media.

TIME TO TAKE ACTION!
- recommend this diary
- rate the Yahoo stories with 5 stars and email them as many times as you can!

(as of 5:30 pm EST:)

- Top Story on AP
- Top Story on CP

YAHOO NEWS:
- Top Story (only 3 star average rating!!)
- #1 World News
- #1 "Most recommended list" (NEW STORY!!!)
- #1 "Most emailed" Story
- #2 Politics News
- #3 Most Viewed Story

It is now a top story on MSNBC and ABC.

Dear Buckshot:
By protocol and tradition in the House, once you have been a Chairman you are always referred to as such.
FYI: Conyers was the CHAIRMAN of the House Government Operations Committee from 1988 to 1994.

If you did not know that maybe you do not know that by protocol and tradition once you have been a President of the United States you are always referred to as "Mr. President."

BTW, Brad:

It would help a great deal if you could make a separate post on this Yahoo News blitz.

Thanks, Bud!

Catherine A, you'd have to go back to 6/8/2005 to start reading all of buckshot's comments, and then make your own judgement call as to whether or not you think he's been practicing troll-like behavior.

Here are the places where her/his comments turn up:

· 06/17/2005: "WaPo's Dana Milbank Plays 'Journalist', Gets Paid for It!"

· 06/16/2005: "The Congressman Makes a House Call..."

· 06/16/2005: "Scott McClellan Continues Ron Ziegler Imitation"

· 06/15/2005: "Former Bush Administration Official Expresses Doubt about Collapse of Twin Towers"

· 06/13/2005: "NeoCons Haul Out All-Purpose 'Conspiracy Theory' Defense for Downing Street Minutes"

· 06/12/2005: "1,702"

· 06/12/2005: "The 'Humane' Treatment U.S. Armed Forces Can Look Forward To When Next Captured..."

· 06/10/2005: "MoveOn.Org Closes In on Half a Million Signatures..."

· 06/08/2005: "Freeway Blog of the Moment..."

#103
Thank you. WOW
AP, Yahoonews,ABC,etc. And these articles are NOT "Milkbang-alike".

This is the way you start a real article:

"LONDON - When Prime Minister Tony Blair’s chief foreign policy adviser dined with Condoleezza Rice six months after Sept. 11, the then-U.S. national security adviser didn’t want to discuss Osama bin Laden or al-Qaida. She wanted to talk about “regime change” in Iraq, setting the stage for the U.S.-led invasion more than a year later."
AP article posted on http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8270144/

Since the conversation about economics and poverty (my particular interest) has continued here courtesy of buckshot (who has denigrated the poor), here is a great place to start:

Facts about poverty in the US

Facts about taxes every American should know

Sorry I don't have anymore time to write up my own report, but anyone who will take the time to look at the facts will be able to see there is a problem for those who aren't in the top bracket.

BTW - the median household annual income for Americans is now abt. $45,000.

Regarding appealing the 22nd amendment. I wouldn't waste time worrying about it. It takes a lot of time and effort.
Also, if I remember my history, it was introduced after Franklin Roosevelt died. By repugs. He had been elected to his 4th term as a Democrat.
I think Presidents and Congress should be elected for 6 year terms. When a new President starts his term, it
seems like by the time his administration is really settled , they are distracted by getting elected again.
Of course I'm thinking of the normal situation, not this scary, bizzarro world of Orwell.

I agree BS has been a trollic time-waster, although I have nothing against him bringing up the tax issue. The problem is 1.) He has talked with no apparent understanding or intelligence about a number of other things (see Kira's list) including vague unsubstantiated statements with no interest in clarification or debate. and 2.) A hell of a lot of time has been spent on this diversionary one-note tax question/challenge when what is important and urgent (if we discuss it at all) is a discussion of the massive wealth redistribution of the last 30 years that has made a republic impossible and a plutocracy in fact. (And substantially weakened the economy.)

Here is Edward Wolff in a couple of places - here and here . Here is another interesting write-up.

#26 Buckshot:

Per the 2004 tax table, anyone with a taxable income (line 42 of form 1040) over $15 has a tax liability.

Adding back in the numbers that are subtracted to get to line 42 (assuming a single person under age 65):
Line 42 $15
Line 41 $3,100 (personal exemption)
Line 39 $4,850 (standard deduction)

Total adjusted gross income: $7,965

Now maybe in a third world country one could make $7,965 and not be considered poor, but obviously not in the USA. (A person working 40 hrs/wk, 52 weeks a year at $5.15 minimum wage makes $10,712.)

So, Buckshot, where's my $1,000???

Here's mine to Milbank and crew:

"You are a bunch of fools!" Sincerely...

And it got thru without rejection...

I will try to find one of his rants at Think Progress about sugar and snacks and the fat and lazy poor people who don't pay any taxes just soak up the non-existent welfare handouts. Clue for Buttsnot, Clinton, the best Republican president since Eisenhower, "reformed" welfare. It no longer exists it's "Workfare" in every state in the union. That's why we called him Commander Cupcake or Commander Ding Dong, Commander Twinkie, you get the idea. I do volunteer work in a homeless shelter. I know what a load of crap that racist pansy spews.

Don't Cry For Us, Argentina...

To Catherine A. I must say.....

THANK YOU.

I knew that eventually SOMEONE would say, "Hey, Buckshot is telling the truth".

There were too many comments on this thread for me to respond to every one, so I'd like to just make a couple of points to all of you in general... First, if you don't like what I'm saying....

DON'T READ MY POSTS.

Now, if you're still reading, and no one is holding a gun to your head, you are doing it by a conscious choice.

The best response was again from Kira, who gave me two references, both of which back up my statement, and refute hers. Way to go Kira!

One of your references claims the bottom twenty percent of Americans pays MINUS 3.7 % of the total income tax burden in America. That means that they not only paid zero federal income taxes, but (like Catherine observed) they get tax credits.

The government CAN'T give them tax cuts, because......listen carefully Kira......

THEY DIDN'T PAY INCOME TAXES IN FIRST PLACE.

Now, one guy said he had tax withheld, therefore he paid tax. I've heard this one before. He conveniently forgets to mention that he got a refund for everything he paid in, plus some.

Another of Kira's references claims 33 million Americans are poor. According to the IRS, about 42.5 million tax filers have no income tax liability (no-payers) and there are anywhere from 40 to 60 million additional Americans who do not earn enough to have to file a return.

So, Kira, thanks for backing up my claims once again.

I'd like to thank Catherine A for her observation that while I may be "off topic", I'm the only one getting trashed for it. Others ramble on about anything & everything - no one gives a hoot.

My point is actually VERY RELEVANT to all of these threads, because if "progressives" cannot even face a simple fact of life as I have pointed out, why should we trust them to be experts on foreign policy?

Thanks Catherine A. #101 for some good ideas on the tax situation.

Re: My posting #110 about the systemic problem of the wealth redistribution of the last few decades -could this be a way out?

The New Ownership Society

Newt Gingrich is calling for censure of Senator Durbin, for Sen. Durbin's comments on Guantanamo (comparing them to Gulags). Make sure you read Newt's despicable attempt to censure Senator Durbin. Here is my email to Newt:

You sir, and the Bush administration are the ones that have dishonored America and its citizens, not Senator Durbin. With the release of the Downing Street Minutes it is now clear the the Bush administration deceived the American people and Congress. Your censure should be directed at those in the administration, including our commander in chief, who have actually caused the murder of our own brave soldiers, and tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens, who continue to hold detainees indefinitely, who sanctioned the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and other prisons, have fueled an international hornet's nest of hatred at our country and have destroyed America's good reputation even amongst its own citizens. Stop playing your pathetic politics and exposing your enormous hypocrisy. The truth will set us all free. You should try it.

I now declare this thread successfully derailed.

Troll 1 - Facts 0.

I'm sorry people, but I'd hoped that this trick would have stopped working here by now.

Apparently not.

Did this whole argument start when Buckshot baselessly claimed 'most young progressives think poor people pay more in taxes than rich people'? Are you going to beat this dead horse forever? Fer chrissakes man, you still haven't even proven that the youth turnout was the same in 2004 as in 2000.

Wasn't the thread suppose to be about "WaPo's Dana Milbank Plays 'Journalist', Gets Paid for It!"?

Yahoo had a great article and even posted Conyers letter yesterday. Back on topic at least for now.

Why do you guys give in to the trolls BS?

I now declare this thread successfully derailed.

Apparently not.

So it would be nice to run him off, yes? It's easier to do that then get every new person who drops by to telepathically know not to engage him. And some who do engage him and say he makes sense may even be his shills. Whether he is here to recruit or derail or do both, it makes sense to explain to him in no uncertain terms that he is full of shit.

My point is actually VERY RELEVANT to all of these threads, because if "progressives" cannot even face a simple fact of life as I have pointed out, why should we trust them to be experts on foreign policy?

A a simple fact of life? Very interesting turn of phrase. Two things in life are certain, death and taxes. You seem to be the one who has a difficult time accepting or facing a simple fact of life. What the one issue, Taxes, has to with the other, Foreign Policy, is beyond me, but then your childish attempts at sophistry have ceased to underwhelm even me.

Nunya,

Normally I would ignore your silliness, but I'd like to take a minute to tell you ......

THANK YOU.

Thank you for your tireless efforts to get my message out. (even the ones you altered)

Your continual meltdown, your child-like insults, your namecalling, all provide a nice contrast to my direct honest style.

I will continue to address any reasonable question from anyone in a mature, straightforward manner. The more you act in the opposite direction, the more you lose credibility and give it to me.

Thanks again. Please don't change a thing.

Catherine A,

It's sort of ironic that the only person (out of hundreds on this blog) who can honestly address my point, is not an American. Thanks. My point, again, is that is is senseless for poof folks to cry about not getting (income) tax cuts, because they don't pay (income ) taxes in the first place.

Apparently, our public schools have had such an affect on the younger generations that they cannot accept this honest truth. POOR PEOPLE DO NOT PAY INCOME TAXES. (thus, no tax cut for them)

Another irony is the number of times I have seen these young "progressives" end their posts with this cliche.... "The truth shall set you free".

I agree. But you have to accept it first!

Poor people do not pay income taxes. That's the truth. If it is not the truth, you should be showing me, and collecting on my generous offer.

Buckshot wouldn't know the truth if it bit him on the ass. Even the rightwingnut libertarians at The Ludwig von Misers Institute don't buy his bilgewater. His whole scam is to focus on particulars that are insignificant while avoiding the larger issues. It's an old libertarian evagelists argument. He has been discredited, as well as his so-called theories, everywhere he goes, and that includes the right wing sites that have banned him. He's homeless. Notice the article referenced from this von Miser post is the Washington Times. If the Rev. Moon says it. It must be true. Many people have won B.S.'s bet. He just ignores them like he does the big picture, the facts, the truth and reality in general.

"The Problem is not that the poor pay too little

Everyone quoted here worries about progressivity and the dangers it creates. But what could possibly be solved by raising taxes on the poor? Why not lower the taxes on the rich and leave it at that? Instead of arguing about who among us ought to have has limbs sawed off, someone ought to be willing to suggest that we leave everyone's limbs on. In any case, it seems that free marketeers ought to hold up the non-taxed as an ideal, not go complaining to the press that they are too low for a particular group."

Some choice Buckshot bullshit and these aren't even the worst and most subtley racist. The CDC has been backpedaling on the Obesity scare for months, like eveything else about the administration, and Buckshot's nonsense, especially the tax bullshit, it's based on junk science and crap you would expect to hear from the John Birch Society. That's probably where it comes from. when I find the link refuting Buckshot's ridiculous claim about the poor and obesity, I will post it. Oh, and Katherine, you are full of blarney.

Shorter Buckshot: "You are all fat, lazy, poor slobs, and you have to stop buying those diamonds and fancy cars and eating all those Ding Dongs."

(Shhhh! Poor = dark people)

"Most young “progressives” really don’t have a positive net worth yet anyway, so most of this cynical blather is pointless anyway. If you haven’t figured out how to control your own budget, why would you be qualified to give advice to those who have?"

"Silly to jump to the conclusion that people in financial straights are usually the victim of something beyond their control. (like illness)

The number of people who have refinanced in recent years has been tremendous. Millions of people pulled money out of their equity in order to finance everything from cars to jewelry to college educations for kids to vacations to purchases of various other unnecessary items."

"The “poor” folks who are grossly overweight, smoke, drink, and have a yard full of trash, and they NEED HELP???????

Let’s get back to that topic of poor people and taxes, shall we?"

"I will answer your question “What galls me about the poor". I have no issue with poor people - I merely responded to repeated assertions by you and others that the “poor” people are getting shafted by the rich.

As far as the comments about usury, that’s another topic. But it does tie in with people being poor. A poor understanding of interest & compounding puts quite a few folks in the poor house."

"Okay, do I think “that all poor people are accurately described by the following:
“The “poor” folks who are grossly overweight, smoke, drink, and have a yard full of trash…”
If not, what percentage would you estimate fit this criteria? ”

It appears that about 60 to 70 percent of poor people are overweight. Other bad habits of poor people are lotto tickets, short term loans, bad diet, bad financial dealings, impulsive decisions, and taking bad advice."

Catherine,

I only intended the first line or two to you. (the Thanks part)... the rest was to Bradbloggers in general.

The truth doesn't seem to be setting them free....because they aren't able to comprehend the truth.

Poor people in America do not pay federal income taxes.....thus when there is a tax cut, they don't benefit....because they didn't pay any taxes....

How does the government "cut" the rates when the rate is zero percent? Anyone want to explain that "truth" to me and set me free?

Poor, fat people. I do volunteer work in a homeless shelter. The fat, lazy people just aren't there. They might just be at Buckshot's house. Don't believe everything a person posts on the internets. Especially Buckshot.

The intellectual jerkoff begins when taxes are given fancy names and trollology commences to brag about seeing distinctions in the non-distinct.

Government taking the people's money and doing bad things with it is the same thing no matter what words you would like to dress it up in.

Taking poor people's money and using it to oppress other poor people is the same whether or not the rhetorical word describing it is capitalized.

Get a freaking grip you who seek to make a distinction where none exists.

Unnatural death and taxes are game for all and are generally imposed without proper consent.

so many strawmen to knock down, so little time...

I haven't finished perusing this thread, but it just occurred to me that the repugs should be careful what they wish for - Slick Willy would have the right to subject us all to Slick Willy Part II, and even Diebold (Die bold, die sniveling, we don't give a shit, just die!) couldn't stop it... I say go for it!

Buckshot Re: #124

I am an American! (grew up in the Midwest USA) I live in Ireland since 1990 and am a Dual Citizen (I'm entitled to an Irish/EU passport since I have grandparents born in Ireland).

I don't yet have any idea what tax policies you propose.

Here in Ireland, as in the States, there is a widening gap between the richest and the poorest. In fact, Ireland is becoming the most unequal society in Europe. Here, too, there is a government that persists in using tax policy to help the wealthiest.

I think one of the biggest differences over here in Europe between so-called "right" and "left" has to do with economic policy and the extent to which one feels a moral obligation to help the most vulnerable members of society, or to avoid creating dependencies and expect everyone to look after themselves. (I'm trying hard to present both sides in a semi-neutral way.)

Most European countries are "socialist" to some degree in that there is a general consensus that it is morally right to give assistance to the most vulnerable members in society. Where one draws the line varies a lot from one country to another. Here in Europe we have lots more vacation time than in the USA, typically 1 month a year (more in countries where there's a strong skiing culture--really!). There is better child-care (except not in Ireland). There is more health care provided by the State. There is funding for parents to stay at home and raise their children. There are higher rates of taxation to pay for these social benefits.

Others have written eloquently about the need for systems such as capitalism to be balanced by some system of moral values so that decisions are not made based on economics alone.

In the USA I see rampant capitalism without controls. Everything is supposed to serve "the bottom line" no matter what. Ironically, this attitude is destroying the planet--which is the ultimate "bottom line" on which we all depend. This approach is also destroying the economic/employment/knowledge base in the US as jobs are outsourced to wherever people will work for less.

A more humane approach--including regulations on corporations so that they serve the public rather than the other way around--is in everyone's best interests for the long term.

Part of the problem with politics is that it brings with it a short-term way of looking at everything. Most political decisions are made based on trying to win the next election, and "spinning" issues to do whatever is most likely to appeal to voters and/or campaign contributors in the short term. There is no political incentive to take a long-term view of things.

How might this be changed? Any ideas?

Buckshot, your "credibility" is in your mind, and nowhere else. Since I provided links, anyone who wants to waste further time investigating your spurious claims is free to do so, and verify that none of your words were altered by me. I excerpted the particularly choice parts, like this one for example:

"It appears that about 60 to 70 percent of poor people are overweight."

You will never see Buckshot provide a link for these ridiculous assertions. We would love to see the source.

You had better refine your "message". In at least one case, as has been cited by unirealist and kira, you now owe Brad Blog some money for failure to stipulate the specific tax.

Catherine, if White Nationalism is not your thing, Buckshot may not be for you. He claims to be non-religious, however, even religious fundamentalists in this country have argued that secular humanism is a religion. He has a very specific and simplistic moral code, a recipe for a clean life if you will, that reminds me of the kind of thing that the nazis tried to inculcate in the Hitler Youth. Buckshot is a right wing libertarian with some very disturbing undertones racial separatism and nationalist tendencies. This is where he is coming from:

Politically Correct Racism

Maybe it's your cup of tea. I hope not.

Dredd,

That's a new one. "Income taxes" are "fancy names"? And thus should not be discussed? Intersting that you think I would value your advice on what I choose to discuss. Scroll past if you don't like my choice of subject.

Catherine,

Thank you for the intelligent commentary. I agree with purt'near everything you said. Yes, pure capitalism is harsh. And pure socialism leads to death camps, and it appears society swings back and forth between the two, the question being a matter of degree.

Suggestions? you ask. When I was younger I would have had suggestions for "fixing" things. Now I face the facts that out of 100 or more people, it took several weeks to find ONE PERSON (that would be you) who understands that the poor don't even pay income taxes.

I could list another long list of similar (easily verifiable) truths, some of which are politically incorrect, that would get the same result. Lots of name calling, lots of arguing, lots of insults, but no accpetance.

People are not interested in facts. People for the most part are interested in saying things that make them "feel good about themselves". That's why it sounds so lame to hear young progressives, who can barely take care of themselves, telling us all the wonderful things they would like to do for others. (with someone else's money, of course)

I do have a few suggestions (since you asked) for individuals who do not enjoy living in poverty, who desire to lift themselves up out of poverty and live comfortable lives....

1) stop trying to change the world and work on yourself.
2) observe the habits of the poor people you know - and DO THE OPPOSITE
3) Don't let politicians pander to you with silly twisted "factoids", such as "the rich are taking from the poor". (it isn't true)
4) accept that whatever you are going to make of yourself in life, YOU are going to have to do it on your own.
5) If your income is not sufficient, stop wasting time surfiing blogs; and go out and put your effort towards a better paying job.
6) always be improving your marketable skills.
7) teach your kids self reliance, so they don't become dependent on government handouts.
8)Vote 3rd party. It won't make any difference, but you won't be supporting the two parties who take turns shafting the future generatons with a debt than cannot be paid.

The alternative is.....

1) slouch through life expecting financial assistance at every turn.
2) blame every one of your own failings on a political party
3) curse those who have done well by their own efforts. Curse your own bad luck.
4) Vote for the party that promises to borrow the most money to throw at your particular pet interest.
5) insist that the government take care of your teeth, your health, your kids daycare, and even help with your rent. Blame everything on "the rich".
6) Eat high carb foods, spend your money on pull tabs, cigarettes, caffeine laced soft drinks, and don't stay in shape.
7) If anyone disagrees with your opinion, call them a jerk, a m**ther***ing ba**ard, a troll, an a**hole, and anything else that comes to mind. Generally act like you are on the Jerry Springer show.
8) Don't stand up straight like you have some self respect. Slouch. Get that curved back thing going. Soft, round bodies are in. Very common in "poor" people. Die in poverty, cursing those who have done well, after setting a fine example for your children to follow.

Nunya,

Thank you for giving me another opportunity to state my point. You seem to be saying that out of my last 50 posts discussing the fact that America's poor people don't pay federal income taxes, you say there is one of my posts where I left "income" out?

Wow.

Keep in mind, the Bush tax cuts were cuts in the rate for federal withholding. That was the subject matter. Still is, despite the attempts of a dozen who would like to divert the topic to one of their choice.

So, Nunya, if you'd like to earn a grand, just show me that poor folks in America pay income taxes. If you can't, and you are still confused, ask me and I'll explain it to you again. I have endless patience.

Again, thank you for your input and your research.

Or, Catherine, you can look at the radical redistribution of wealth (see #110) and look into why it is happening.

Dredd is right. There are lots of ways to redistribute wealth and when 1% of the population own nearly 40% of the wealth of the nation it is much easier yet - in a snowball effect. That is exactly what is happening.

BS, for all his vaunted maturity, has never gotten beyond kindergarten.

The rapidly growing population of working poor works very hard. BS can can certainly focus on one rather insignificant fact if it is what he prefers, but there will be more poor people in our nation soon (unless some "progressive" measures are instituted) and not because they are eating Twinkies.

Of course, there is also the matter of losing individual sovereignty in the landslide to very evident plutocracy.

I don't follow a "progressive" line or any "line" and I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican. (I'm a registered Green.) I've worked with many people who would consider themselves progressives in the last few years, including many young folks. My experience doesn't coincide with BS's in the least. I have found young progressives to be far more informed about the state of the affairs, including the intricacies of politics and economics than those of other groups. (Almost everyone of them also has a job or is in school.)

If they tried to take up BS on his challenge (stated as he would prefer to have it stated), it wouldn't upset me a whole lot because most of them could argue him under the table if they got past his monotone mind and methods of obfuscation. ("JUST DON"T READ IT.")

And, Catherine, I would be surprised if you agree with BS on very much. I think it is wishful thinking on his part as you are his only "friend".

Hey Buckshot!!!
You have not responded to my post #111, which I repeat below:

Per the 2004 tax table, anyone with a taxable income (line 42 of form 1040) over $15 has a tax liability.

Adding back in the numbers that are subtracted to get to line 42 (assuming a single person under age 65):
Line 42 $15
Line 41 $3,100 (personal exemption)
Line 39 $4,850 (standard deduction)

Total adjusted gross income: $7,965

Now maybe in a third world country one could make $7,965 and not be considered poor, but obviously not in the USA. (A person working 40 hrs/wk, 52 weeks a year at $5.15 minimum wage makes $10,712.)

So, Buckshot, where's my $1,000???

Hey Buckshot!!!
You have not responded to my post #111, which I repeat below:

Per the 2004 tax table, anyone with a taxable income (line 42 of form 1040) over $15 has a tax liability.

Adding back in the numbers that are subtracted to get to line 42 (assuming a single person under age 65):
Line 42 $15
Line 41 $3,100 (personal exemption)
Line 39 $4,850 (standard deduction)

Total adjusted gross income: $7,965

Now maybe in a third world country one could make $7,965 and not be considered poor, but obviously not in the USA. (A person working 40 hrs/wk, 52 weeks a year at $5.15 minimum wage makes $10,712.)

So, Buckshot, where's my $1,000???

oops, sorry for the double post...

maybe Buckshot will actually see it!

Since we are on the topic of tricky trolls.... Anybody fire off a second round of letter to Post's disassembler in chief, Dana Milbank. They still haven't apologized. I have started writing to other papers to print Conyer's letter.

Another thing, we need to start leaning on the "good" Republicans, and remind them that they need not be sucked down the drain with the turds that will get flushed over the DSM. We need to start working on getting the votes we need to have official hearings.
---------------------------------------------------
And Buckshot needs to spend a bit of that loot he's rolling around in and get himself his very own webpage: Buckshot's 1000 Dollar Challenge or at least start his own "special" thread...if he really is so wounded by the increasingly popular idea that he is a troll. I know liberals are supposedly cheap, but pigging up someone else's party because you can't afford your own free blog is even worse. I showed him that poor people pay taxes... and he up and changed the rules, telling me I needed to get retroactively married and have kids to qualify for the loophole he wanted to give me to prove his absurd allegation that I didn't pay taxes while I was in graduate school like he works for Enron or something. Then he went on to insult me about being lazy for earning low wages while putting myself through college and graduate school. But until he gets his own webpage, I'm officially tuning him out and would encourage everyone to do the same until he mails 1000 to Brad Blog for each of us, because it's public information that poor people do pay taxes, not much... but the debate was never about quantity anyways.

Hannah,

Please excuse me for missing your post earlier. I must've scrolled past.

Apparently your point is that any single person who earns less than $7950 is "poor". I don't see that definition in the dictionary.

Most folks who fit the category of single wage-earner earning $7950 per year are kids living at home, college kids, or single men. Mostly part time workers.

I don't see how a kid living with Mom & Dad and working a McJob can be considered "poor". Neither do I view a college student as poor. (I realize they may not have much spending money, though) And most single men in that range are part time employees for one reason or another.

The IRS reports that over 42 million Americans who file tax returns have ZERO INCOME TAX LIABILITY. That is 32% of the total number of filiers (total of about 131 million filers)

These are the "poor". Also, they figure there are at THE VERY LEAST, another 15 million folks who don't earn enough to file. (also poor people)

That's at least 55 million people who have no tax liability.

And there are tens of millions more who pay only a few dollars or a few hundred dollars a year in income taxes.

A typical young family with three kids can earn $40,000 and still pay no income tax. Not only will they get all their money back that was withheld, but they will get an ADDITIONAL $1500 or so, because of child tax credits.

Here's a reference that's pretty straightforward. Taxfoundation.org

You'll see that almost a third of Americans WHO BOTHER TO FILE A RETURN will have no income tax liability whatsoever. Are you telling me a third of America is living in poverty?

What we find when we study "poor" people in America is that they generally have....

1) a home
2) several cars
3) several tv's
4) several pets
5) tend to smoke more than upper middle class
6) tend to be overweight more than upper middle class
7) tend to buy pulltabs more than richer folks

I just don't see any evidence that "poor" people in America are paying income taxes. Show me some. Forty thousand dollars a year for a family of five isn't rich, but it definitely isn't poor.

Give me an example of a "poor" person who pays income taxes. (teenagers living at home don't count)

BT,

Your position changed several times. When you were a college student, working part time, you may have felt poor, but let's be serious, okay? The reason you weren't earning more money was because you were IN SCHOOL.

After you got out, your income increased and you now have a family, and you still aren't poor, right? You have enough to eat? You have a car? Tv? Computer? Go out to eat?

Are you really poor?

As far as me getting my own webpage, it is just another diversion by you. I would like you to give me an example of a poor person who pays income taxes.

I didn't realize that the total insanity John Conyers displays on a daily basis was catching. Sorry to see Brad and his toadies are infected. Nothing a strong dose of antibiotics and a complete course of electroshock therapy won't cure. Hint: once the Neocons under your bed stop singing Hava Nagila you're on the road to recovery.

Dave
http://www.elitispig.com

As you can see, Catharine, Buckshot does not deny it. He basically admits it. He's a politically correct racist.

I could list another long list of similar (easily verifiable) truths, some of which are politically incorrect, that would get the same result. Lots of name calling, lots of arguing, lots of insults, but no accpetance.

Ask him about the holocaust sometime, but you won't get an honest answer now, or " facts", you will just hear Buckshot say all kinds of "things that make him feel good about himself".

"Pure socialism leads to death camps."

Buckshot is not very good at this. I guess he agrees some form of socialism is not the end of the world. That's actually progress. Although I am not sure how he can claim that this statement, "Pure socialism leads to death camps" is an easily verifiable truth.

My guess is that he will argue that the Nazis were socialists, but that is easily, verifiably false. And there is the crux of his biscuit. Nationalism minus socialism, is perfect. That's not progress. Let me show you the bizarro world of Buckshot.

World Ideologies as Explained by Reference to Cows

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feudalism
You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.

Now do you see why a company with $62 billion in assets is declaring bankruptcy?

Back to Buckshot's bizzaro world.

Suggestions? you ask. When I was younger I would have had suggestions for "fixing" things. Now I face the facts that out of 100 or more people, it took several weeks to find ONE PERSON (that would be you) who understands that the poor don't even pay income taxes.

Out of the thousand or so people he's run this game on, hundreds have proved him wrong, yet none has seen the money. what do you expect from a con artist. First, he never actually defines "poor people", a relatively easy thing to do, so this renders the whole exercise a waste of time. He has been provided with actual cases where "the poor" broadly defined pay income taxes and those of us who know and dislike him so well shudder while he contradicts himself again and goes on to give us some suggestions anyway:

1) stop trying to change the world and work on yourself.

Except at progressive blogsites where the bandwidth and soapbox is paid for by somebody else.

2) observe the habits of the poor people you know - and DO THE OPPOSITE

I consider Buckshot to be a poor person. I don't think or act like him.

3) Don't let politicians pander to you with silly twisted "factoids", such as "the rich are taking from the poor". (it isn't true)

I don't listen to politicians much, but I sure haven't heard that one in awhile. It's almost as big of a pander as that trickle down crap or calling the inheritance tax a death tax.

4) accept that whatever you are going to make of yourself in life, YOU are going to have to do it on your own.

At this point, none of us are surprised that Buckshot's parents left him on someone else's doorstep at birth, but we don't by the "I was raised by wolves" shit, either.

5) If your income is not sufficient, stop wasting time surfiing blogs; and go out and put your effort towards a better paying job.

There are so many ways to attack this gem, I may have to do a separate post to include all the ideas for ridicule, satire and parody bouncing around in my head, or you could just try living simpler. All you progressives out there, sell those yachts, or sell the manions and live on one of the yachts. The biggest one.

6) always be improving your marketable skills.

Being poor is a marketable skill. Buckshot didn't know that. It also creates jobs that create wealth for others. Consider the diet and weight loss industry. Where would it be without the poor?

7) teach your kids self reliance, so they don't become dependent on government handouts.

If that doesn't work, just leave them on someone else's doorstep. Let the wolves raise them.

8)Vote 3rd party. It won't make any difference, but you won't be supporting the two parties who take turns shafting the future generatons with a debt than cannot be paid.

The Progressive party is a third party. But why not co-opt the Democratic party and move it back to the left. Moving it to the center is no longer a good idea. Besides, the very thought of this gives Buckshot and those like him nightmares.

Catharine,

If you are truly interested in this topic, there are plenty of places to find good debate without the likes of a moral reprobate like Buckshot. I do not call him that because he is opposed to income taxes. I am opposed to income taxes. They are morally wrong, but that is the only point at which Buckshot and I am in agreement. I am a proponent of Henry George's economic and political philosophy. Who was Henry George? Basically a left libertarian. Another site that I find invaluable and very informative can explain this further:
Critiques of Libertarianism

Cute site, Dave. Bet you wish you had Brad's traffic. Wouldn't you just love to wallow in the mud of all that ad revenue?

The pig part I get, but what's elite about Texas since the Bush family moved there? Maybe you could convince Kerry to move down there and give you provincials some polish. Funny you should mention Hava Nagila singing neocons under the bed. Did the shock therapy and antibiotics work for you when the communists under your bed were singing L'Internationale?

Federal income taxes are only one aspect of wealth distribution. Even poor people who pay no income tax do pay sales taxes on consumer goods, at the same rate as rich people. Rich and poor pay the same gasoline taxes, the same tolls on highways and bridges, and the same fees for driver's licenses, car registrations, and emissions tests.

All people 65 and over, rich or poor, get free health insurance. It's called Medicare. I'm 63, am now a full-time writer with a very modest income (having been fired from my broker's job in 2001 for blowing the whistle on a Wall Street scandal), and I have to pay $300. a month for Blue Cross with a $5000 deductible! Isn't it silly to argue about federal income taxes, as if to suggest that poor people below the income threshold are getting away with something?

Buckshot lives in Alaska, so it's interesting that he's hypersensitive about distribution of wealth. Alaska is the only state I know of where people actually receive a government check just for deciding to live there! Rich or poor...doesn't matter. Everyone gets a check.

It's totally nuts to act as though poor people are living great. If this were he case, then rich people would give away their money and join the ranks of the working poor.

Being rich in the richest country in the world is a good life. I met some rich people in Honduras, where they can get away with much more than they could here... and guess what, they want to live in America.

It's only rich people like Grover "Starve the Beast" Norquist and his College Republicans who feel so "Oppressed" in America while making money hand over fist. I think working people should be forced to take sensitivity training courses and pay reparations to the poor, poor millionaires who suffer daily worse than Jesus in the Passion. What a cross to bear... to make a billion dollars and only keep most of it.

Buckshot! You so crazy!

Here's a reference that's pretty straightforward. Taxfoundation.org

The Tax Foundation. LMAO! Founded in 1937 and trying to bust FDR's New Deal ever since. Even Greenspan calls it.... wait for it.... BULLSHIT!

Now you know why he doesn't like to source his bullshit. Get him to provide links for his bullshit claims or tell him to piss off.

TAX FOUNDATION FIGURES DO NOT REPRESENT MIDDLE-INCOME TAX BURDENS
Figures May Mislead Policymakers, Journalists and the Public

The Tax Foundation’s analysis employs averages in a misleading fashion that overstates the tax burdens of the vast majority of families. Analysis by authoritative institutions such as the Congressional Budget Office shows most Americans pay significantly less in taxes than the Tax Foundation reports.
In figuring the percentage of income that families pay in taxes, the Tax Foundation counts taxes paid on capital gains but ignores the capital gains income on which these taxes are paid, an approach Alan Greenspan has said is invalid.
The Tax Foundation analysis also counts as taxes certain non-tax items, like the premiums that older American can elect to pay for Medicare Part B, intra-governmental transfers, and rents that individuals or businesses pay to rent property that state or local governments own.

I missed his link the the very first FDR killer, the tax foundation. Here is my link. Do your own googling on BS's BS.

http://www.cbpp.org/4-7-04tax.htm

The Problems with the Methodology

In computing what it says is “the average American tax burden,” the Tax Foundation divides what it says is total tax receipts by what it says is the total amount of income in the nation. The Tax Foundation method suffers from the following problems.

Average Tax Figure is Misleading

Under our progressive tax system, high-income taxpayers pay significantly greater percentages of income in federal income taxes than middle-income families do. Under the Tax Foundation methodology, the higher taxes that high-income taxpayers pay are used to make the taxes that average Americans pay look considerably larger than they actually are.

Greenspan Warns Against Seriously
Flawed Approach Tax Foundation Uses

In a 2002 Congressional hearing, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned that the type of approach the Tax Foundation uses — dividing total tax receipts by total income, as measured by the Gross Domestic Product or a similar measure, to determine an overall average tax rate — is not valid. Greenspan flatly stated: "you can't use tax receipts over nominal GDP as a tax rate." He explained one reason such an approach is improper: although capital gains taxes are counted as part of federal tax receipts, the capital gains income on which such taxes are paid is not counted in GDP. The Tax Foundation uses another, similar Commerce Department income measure (NNP, or Net National Product) that also omits capital gains. Counting capital gains taxes as part of tax receipts while failing to count as income the capital gains income on which these taxes are paid distorts — and inflates — average tax rates.

In this year’s report, the Tax Foundation attempts to respond to such criticism. It asserts that the NNP measure “fully accounts for capital gains.” But this claim is false. As the Bureau of Economic Analysis at the Commerce Department confirms, NNP does not include capital gains.

Suppose four families with incomes of $50,000 each pay $2,500 in income tax — five percent of their income — while one wealthy family with $400,000 in income pays $80,000 in income tax, or 20 percent of its income. If one averages these figures, one finds that 15 percent of the total income of these five families goes to pay federal income taxes. (Dividing the families' total tax payments of $90,000 by their total income of $600,000 shows that 15 percent of their total income is paid in income taxes.)

Under the Tax Foundation methodology, this 15 percent figure would be used to say or imply that the average family in this group pays 15 percent of its income in income taxes and must work until 15 percent of the year has passed to pay its income tax bill. Yet the 15 percent figure is highly misleading as an indicator of the typical tax burden of families in this group. The four moderate-income families in the group pay five percent of their income in income tax, or one-third of the average 15 percent rate. Using averages in this fashion when talking about tax burdens, as the Tax Foundation does, produces skewed results; it essentially ascribes to average taxpayers the tax rates that only people at considerably higher income levels pay.

The Tax Foundation's State-by-State Data Also are Seriously Flawed

The Foundation's report also includes a list of the dates it says represent "Tax Freedom Day" for each states. The serious flaws that mar the Tax Foundation's estimates of tax burdens nationally plague its state-by-state estimates as well.

About two-thirds of the tax burdens in the Tax Foundation calculations are federal tax burdens. The amount of federal taxes paid by the residents of a state thus has a large impact on that state’s “Tax Freedom Day.” Since, as this analysis explains, the Tax Foundation methodology substantially overstates the federal tax burden of middle-class families, the Tax-Freedom-Day figures for each state also substantially exaggerate the tax burdens of middle-class families.
Because the federal income tax system is progressive, states with relatively wealthy residents — those with higher-than-average per capita personal income — end up under the Tax Foundation’s methodology with a higher federal tax burden than other states. The fact that one state has higher-income residents than another state has nothing to do with the level of state and local taxes in a state. Yet by trumpeting state-level Tax Freedom Days that differ across the states, the Tax Foundation misleadingly implies that differences in burdens imposed by state and local taxes account for the differences across states in the Tax Foundation’s “average tax burden.”
The Tax Foundation uses a procedure to allocate corporate and severance taxes based on the location of the consumers who purchase products that businesses sell (adjusted for taxes that tourists pay). This is likely to lead to further misimpressions about the role of a state’s tax policies on the tax burdens its residents are said to face. For example, Maine residents consume a significant amount of fuel and thus pay energy taxes. Yet state legislators in Maine cannot have much impact on the level of taxes that Alaska or other oil-producing states levy on oil.
As a result, the Tax Foundation’s proclamations of state Tax Freedom Days are misleading and do little to inform legitimate debates over levels of state and local taxes and the services those taxes support.

Taxes Counted, but Taxed Income Not Counted

Making the problem worse, the Tax Foundation methodology fails to provide an accurate representation of the average tax rate for the nation as a whole. In 2002, Alan Greenspan declared in a Congressional hearing in 2002 that the type of approach the Tax Foundation uses is not valid (see box above). Despite Chairman Greenspan's warning that "you can't use" this measure, an admonition that other tax experts also have made in the past, the Tax Foundation repeats this error every year.[1]

Non-Tax Items Are Counted As Taxes

The Tax Foundation also counts as taxes certain items that are not taxes. These include Medicare premiums that older Americans elect to pay if they wish to receive coverage for physician's services under Medicare, intra-governmental transfers that are solely bookkeeping devices and not taxes, and rental payments that individuals or businesses pay to state or local governments to rent property those governments own.

Given these and other problems with the Tax Foundation measure, it is not surprising that the Tax Foundation's claims are inconsistent with the findings of the leading authoritative, institutions that study tax burdens, such as the Congressional Budget Office and the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center.

Tax Levels versus Expenditures on Food, Clothing and Medical Care

Finally, the Tax Foundation claims that families must pay more in taxes than they pay for food, clothing, and medical care combined. This Tax Foundation claim, which apparently compares total tax payments in the nation to total food, clothing, and medical care expenditures, may create further misimpressions.

If the statement that total tax payments exceed total expenditures for food, clothing and medical care is accurate (one cannot determine the accuracy of this assertion from the Tax Foundation report), this tells us little about the relationship between taxes and spending for families in the middle of the income scale. It is no doubt true that upper-income families pay more in taxes than they do for these items. It also is true that low- and moderate-income families pay significantly less in taxes than they spend for such items; necessities consume most of their income. The precise family income level at which taxes typically exceed expenditures for food, clothing and medical care is unclear. The Foundation’s report provides no information on that matter.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

End Note:

#143 - Being a rich "victim" is a wonderful scam to accumulate power and additional wealth, and it is especially elegant to identify the source of your victimhood with those whose pockets you are picking. Come to think of it, that's what crooks almost always do.

Don't ya all just wish Buckshot would take his own advice and concentrate on himself and stop trying to change everyone else? Like LA or NYC is going to be Alaska in a few years. Get your head out of your ass, Buckshot. Alaska is going to become more like Seattle or Boston. Deal with it.

The Tax foundation has been doing this for some time now. The last refutation was just a year ago.

This is from 1998.

http://www.cbpp.org/taxday98.htm

They have an agenda. No one takes them seriously anymore. Just like Buckshot on any blogsite he visits.

And just so I'm clear, I am against the current tax system and policy mess. I think it is wrong to tax a person's income from work, no matter how wealthy he is. Rather we tax wealth and land and other forms of real property, paid as rent to the commons. Make what you own productive or lose it if you own that much. See Henry George. That system needs tinkering but it is in practice in communities here and in England. But as long as we have this ridiculous system which is designed to benefit the wealthy on the backs of the poor, fuck them. Soak the rich. If you don't like it. Move to Mexico, but leave the cash and property behind. Call it population redistibution. And remember, you can become wealthy anywhere from hard work, that's what you are always telling us. Good luck and good riddance.

has anyone started investigating on if a republican or republicans are paying her and if so, how much? let's go get her. if people can fire dan rather for the truth, we should hold her liable and get her fired for defying the truth.

Robert,

You're smarter than that, aren't you? Perhaps I misjudged you.

I would answer your points privately if you wish, but since they are diversionary, I won't answer them here.

Write me at home if you want to. I will give you a straight answer. It was my understanding that you didn't want to continue our conversation. Now you're back on the blog - taking diversionary cheap shots?

I'm disappointed.

Re #114

Buckshot said:

"My point is actually VERY RELEVANT to all of these threads, because if "progressives" cannot even face a simple fact of life as I have pointed out, why should we trust them to be experts on foreign policy?"

I can give you a very good answer to that Buckshot.

Being a foreigner, I can't answer about progressives (or their opposite) plans for domestic policies nor how viable they might be, but I can give you one very good reason why they would definately be better experts on foreign policy issues - because the rest of the world is beginning to hate America becuase of your present administrations behaviour since september 11th.

Despite such a huge and unprecedented outpouring of grief which the whole world felt for what happened to your country on that day, and the close to unanimous feeling there seemed to be to offer sympathy and support afterwards, your present governments policies and behaviour since then has not only dissipated all that goodwill, but has actually made your country far more disliked than it has ever been before in its history.

Any party could do a better job of diplomacy and statesmanship in the world than your republicans have in the last four years. Any party is preferable to most Europeans than the one you picked. The general reaction to the election last november proved that beyond doubt.

Or is your country being generally reviled what you think constitutes a good job in foreign policy?

Donna, everything you say is right except the words "...the one you picked."

In fact, we didn't pick him, either in 2000 or 2004. As an American, I'm frankly embarrassed that Bush came close enough for his crooked friends to be able to steal both elections. But that is in fact what happened, and only the refusal of our corporate media to confront the issue, out of fear of offending advertisers and/or causing a stock market crash, has kept a majority of Americans from realizing it.

With the help of the "new media" (us), however, we should be there within a matter of months.

BS says "diversionary". That's funny! He's going around like a cheap drunk pulling on our sleeves while we are trying to carry on a serious conversation. "Hey...hey...did you know poor people don't pay taxes?...I said, did you know poor people don't pay taxes? Wanna bet?..."

Goodbye BS.

#150 Nunya - I agree with you. We need a wealth tax, not an income tax.

No, No, No, No, No Robert!!

I was referring and speaking only to Buckshot in that post. (in fact if you look at other threads I posted here today you'll see I know you regulars didn't - in fact I was so glad to hear a rational voice here this morning after a trip to some other American sites that I gushed a bit about you all)

Sorry you thought I insulted you! And it would have been an insult - the worst I can bestow!

Donna,

Thank you for your foreign perspective. I acknowledge your points, and also agree with Robert's comments.

I did not play a part in "picking" Bush. Nor did I vote for his Daddy.

Now, you may have assumptions about me. Perhaps you believe I am in favor of our actions around the world. Not true. I was opposed to the war in Iraq. Still am.

Perhaps you think I don't understand how the rest of the world feels about Americans. I believe I do.

Here is the problem with your position. You are assuming that I support our contries foreing policy. (Not true) Now you are expecting me to defend something I do not even support. Can't do it. Sorry.

I'm not sure what you read or think you read that made you think I support our involvement in Iraq.

Donna,

Please excuse the typo.

Our country's.... (not countries)

Also, you didn't really address why you thought these "progressives" should be trusted as experts on foreign policy. Basically you are saying...Bush is bad, ANYONE (even naive young "progressives") would be an improvement.

I disagree. I can think of many things that would make life in America a lot worse than it now is with Bush at the helm.

Stolen elections and federal income taxes aren't related, but the war in Iraq is absolutely part of any discussion of tax fairness, for many reasons.
Here are the two most important:

1) The cost of the occupation (it's wrong to call it a war, because war declared only against terrorism, which has nothing to do with Iraq) isn't being met by current tax revenues. The longer we stay in Iraq, the greater the need for funds to pay the bill. Those funds have to come from somewhere; unless the economy starts booming (not likely with skyrocketing oil prices and gradually increasing interest rates), taxes will have to go up. Since the richest Americans benefited most from Bush's tax cuts, it seems logical to assume their taxes should increase the most to pay for the war.

2) The casualties in Iraq have been suffered almost exclusively by lower-income Americans. I've been tracking the deaths in the New York Times, and I haven't seen a single case of anyone from Beverly Hills or Scarsdale dying over there. If we're talking about fairness, should poor people pay taxes to continue the war, when they are bearing the entire burden in terms of casualties?

I sent this letter today to the Post.

Mr. Getler,

I'm writing in response to your article yesterday in defense of Dana Milbank, and his recent articles. I'm surprised to see that there was no mention of his article from Friday, June 9th titled "Democrats Play House to Rally Against War". The article that caused Congressman John Conyers to write a letter demanding an apology.

I'm sure that you got more than a few of those "hateful, obscene, and sometimes anti-Semitic" letters from people as offended as I was over this article. Personally, I wonder why there is no mention of this report, or commentary, or whatever you feel comfortable classifying it as.

If you feel the need to use the anti-Semitic "label" in your article to describe the letters you have received as of late, then I should point out that your friend and colleague, Dana Milbank, is just as guilty as they are in their use of such rhetoric. In case you missed it, I included the quote.

"At Democratic headquarters, where an overflow crowd watched the hearing on television, activists handed out documents repeating two accusations --- that an Israeli company had warning of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and that there was an "insider trading scam" on 9/11 --- that previously has been used to suggest Israel was behind the attacks."

http://www.washingtonpos.../16/AR2005061601570.html

This is the text of the so implied "Anti-Semitic Document" handed out at DNC headquarters. "Complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on 11/26/03 in the case of Mariani vs. Bush. Filed by Philip J. Berg, Esquire".

I would like to refer you to count IV, section 61 A, titled "Explicit warnings from foreign Sources"(note subsections 9, 14, 16 and 19), thru section 61 B, subsection 21 D beginning, "Alhazmi opened a $3000...". This is the source, and section printed and handed out at DNC HQ. I was given a stack outside of DNC HQ that I took home to eventualy distribute in Philadelphia. I'm not in the habit of handing out someone elses literature without scrutinizing, or disclaming my reservations. Nowhere does this document blame Israel for the attacks. This document states that Israel WARNED U.S. officials numerous times. If anything, it states that Israel did what an ally should do. And in the absence of an American response, looked out for their citizens (probably Mosad agents warning family members).

I do not profess to know who was behind the "put options" purchases in the days before 9/11, but I do know that someone did it. But this is not the point of this letter. The point is that a public apology to Congressman Conyers and his supporters should be made by Mr. Milbank for this, and now you for failing to fully understand what he has done. Dana Milbank is misrepresenting the facts, and and in doing so, the people he was reporting or commenting on. Whatever his capacity was when writing this piece, this was out of bounds, and extremely insulting to me, and everyone present at DNC headquarters on 6/16/05.

The label "anti-Semitic" is a tool of character assassination. Whether merely insinuated, or espoused aloud, it can be a one way ticket to a professional black list or worse.

And one other thing. I was one of those people at the DNC Headquarters Thursday. So I tend to take slander, or liable personally.

If a retraction is not filed, I may be forced to seek legal council. I expect immediate action, giving equal space and placement in your publication. To assure this, I am sending this letter to every "Wing Nut" internet posting I can find by my bedtime. It's now 5:00pm, and I don't usualy get to bed untill 2:00am.

Respectfully awaiting your response,
Erik.

SoapBox4Truth.org

No, Buckshot, I made no such assumptions that you supported the attack on Iraq in particular. You have misread what I wrote if you believe so. I will admit though, that since you continually attack 'progressives' in your posts here I was under the impression you were at least a covert Bush supporter on domestic matters (tax), and probably on general foreign policy, however you may masquerade as an independent.

And I'm too well bred to pick anyone up on spelling mistakes far less on typos, so there was no need to apologise to me - it's what people say and mean that matter. But forgive me for saying so, some of your posts in harping on constantly about only one subject, tax, appear manic, however justified or otherwise (and I wouldn't know one way or other) your actual points might be. Perhaps it is because you do have a very one track mind and seem intent more on getting that one point across that people think you a troll. I will further state that from contact I've had with true heartland troglodytes elsewhere, if you were a Bush supporter, you are at least a step up from them, even if you really are manic.

To your second post:
"Also, you didn't really address why you thought these "progressives" should be trusted as experts on foreign policy. Basically you are saying...Bush is bad, ANYONE (even naive young "progressives") would be an improvement."

Yes, unfortunately that is exactly what I'm saying - anyone at all would be better for the world than the bunch you have now. Not a very good argument
maybe, but it shows just how far America has gone down in the opinion of the world that we'd accept almost anyone to get them out. Even Saddam never seemed so dangerous to the world as your lot does. The 'regime change' mantra you see is catching.

and:
"I disagree. I can think of many things that would make life in America a lot worse than it now is with Bush at the helm."

Yes, and that's where you're changing the topic - we were supposed to be talking about American foreign policy and the good of the world at large,
you confine yourself only to the good of America - which I must say is another Bushite doctrine.

Nor did you really answer my point of "Or is your country being generally reviled what you think constitutes a good job in foreign policy?"

You said you disapproved of it, but not how to get them to change it without a change in government - so I ask it again - what makes you think the present (experienced) administration can do any better in foreign policy in future than they have already? What makes you think they'll change?

# 160 - Robert - "Stolen elections and federal income taxes aren't related."

They are to the extent that the current tax structure (to be made permanent... sure...) will have the effect of continuing and accelerating the disparity of wealth which will tend to make elections irrelevant. A "gift" from those who stole the elections.

Assuring fair elections is a huge element in closing the wealth gap - a necessity, IMO, in gaining popular/civic control of the government.

Buckshot #137: "I just don't see any evidence that "poor" people in America are paying income taxes. Show me some. "

No, YOU show ME some. You're the one who brought the whole thing up. I did the math that proves anyone (single, under 65) that makes $7,965 or more has a federal income tax liability.

Besides, as I also pointed out, someone working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year at federal minimum wage only makes $10,712, and would definitely have a federal income tax liability.

The larger issue is economic justice. Why should someone working full time make less than $11K a year? This is not a living wage.

In 1992 George Bush, Sr. ran for re-election. He was losing in the polls. As Election Day neared he repeated the same mantra, over and again, "This election is about taxes and trust. Who do you trust?"

He meant "whom," of course, and number one son has proven even less adept at the English language. But the larger point is that a candidate may not set the agenda for the electorate. Bush lost the election because voters DECIDED FOR THEMSELVES what the issues were ("It's the economy, stupid"). As far as trust was concerned, Bush pere never caught on to the fact that he had promised not to raise taxes ("Read my lips") and then did...correctly, voters saw him as a hypocrite for creating his own issue absent credibility.

I think those of us who realize two elections were stolen, who know Tom Feeney is a crook and that Ray Lemme was murdered, and have figured out that the G.O.P. establishment is running a lawless government on an end-justifies-the-means basis, should cease and desist from talking about whether poor people pay taxes. That is the 2005 equivalent of Bush's "taxes and trust" rant from 1992.

Re: #163 - It is not a radical concept, of course. (The fair elections part is common sense.) Paul Krugman, Kevin Phillips, and others talk about it extensively, usually in terms of the "vanishing middle class".

Erik #161 - FANTASTIK!! I really hope you do sue them if they do not properly retract. May the force be with you!

Erik #161,

For what it's worth, and I view anything with some skepticism in today's climate, Justin Raimondo does have something to say on this matter. I have no opinion I am willing to go on record with, but thought you may be interested in information for information's sake. Read his entire piece here. It's excellent, but this is the part I offer with respect to the issues in your letter. Remember, when we get this close, and you are dealing with people in clandestine occupations, under whatever flag, it is wise to remain skeptical of everything and everyone.

NOTES IN THE MARGIN

By the way, the story about an Israeli company having a "warning" about 9/11 originated not in the fever swamps of the neo-Nazi movement, but with a respected Israeli newspaper, Ha'aretz, which ran a story saying that one or more New York employees of Odigo received instant messages about half an hour before the attacks. When I wrote to the reporter, Yuval Dror, expressing my extreme skepticism about this story, he assured me that the president of the company, a reputable businessman, stands behind Ha'aretz's reporting. My opinion: It looks like a planted story, put out there by the Israelis themselves for whatever reason. The "insider trading" story was run by the San Francisco Chronicle and other mainstream newspapers and later discounted, but what that has to do with Israel is not at all apparent, at least to me.

THE IMPACT OF STATE INCOME TAXES ON LOW-INCOME FAMILIES IN 2004

Summary

Poor families in many states continue to owe substantial taxes as they file personal income taxes for the 2004 tax year. In a large number of the states that levy income taxes — in 17 out of 42 states — two-parent families of four with incomes below the federal poverty line continue to owe income tax. In 16 states, poor single-parent families of three pay income taxes. In addition, 31 of the 42 states with an income tax still tax families with incomes just above the poverty line, even though such families typically have difficulty making ends meet.

In some states, families with poverty-level incomes face income tax bills of several hundred dollars. For example, a two-parent family of four in Alabama with income of $19,311 — the 2004 poverty line for a family that size — owes $513 in income tax, while such a family in Hawaii owes $434 and in Arkansas $403. Such amounts can make a big difference to a struggling family. Other states levying tax of $200 or more on families with poverty-level incomes include Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, Oregon, Virginia, and West Virginia.

There was no improvement in the taxation of poor families in 2004. Yet some states have enacted changes that will lessen the taxation of the poor in future years. Kentucky, which for 2004 levied the highest tax on a family of four at the poverty level ($652), enacted a low-income credit that, beginning in 2005, will shield poor families from paying income tax.[2] Virginia — with the fourth highest 2004 tax on poverty-level families — enacted a 20 percent non-refundable state Earned Income Tax Credit that will take effect in 2006.

In a few states, the income taxes on poor families have increased over the last decade. In Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Virginia, and West Virginia, the income taxes on families of four with poverty-level incomes rose between 1994 and 2004, even after taking inflation into account. The increase after the adjustment for inflation has been as much as 58 percent in Louisiana, 48 percent in Arkansas, and 29 percent in West Virginia. In each of these states, the reason for the tax increase is that personal exemptions, credits, or other features of the tax code designed to protect the incomes of low-income families from taxation have eroded due to inflation.

Read the whole report in PDF here.

Robert,

I understand how you feel about stolen elections. I have repeatedly stated to you that I am not convinced that election fraud by the Bush camp was the deciding factor.

I have conceded that you may be privy to information not available to me. When I have the ear of over 100 people and ONLY ONE will acknowledge something I know to be a fact. (straight from the IRS website - and not a secret by any means) then I can plainly see how dishonest is the average "progressive". Why, then, should I trust them to tell me the elections were fraudulent? (rhetorical question)

To answer your two points....

1) Your first point deals with the cost of the occupation of Iraq. I agree with you. If new taxes hav to be raised to pay the tab, it will necessarily be taxes on the rich....and upper middle class, because.....drumroll please....

THE POOR DON'T PAY INCOME TAXES at all, and the lower middle class only pays a small amount.

Further, you say "Since the richest Americans benefited most from Bush's tax cuts, it seems logical to assume their taxes should increase the most to pay for the war".

Yes, Robert. Very true. The richest Americans benefited the most from Bush's tax cuts, because they paid the MOST taxes. They paid the most dollar amount, and they paid by far the most as a percentage of their income (28% rate)

Your second point, you ask "...should poor people pay taxes to continue the war, when they are bearing the entire burden in terms of casualties?"

Of course not, Robert. They don't have any money. That's why they are called poor! They don't pay tax now, they never have, and they never will. They live on the generousity of others.

Your points are getting silly. You ask questions as if I was advocated forcing the poor people to pay taxes. I didn't. I just pointed out that they DON'T PAY income taxes now, and they NEVER HAVE.

Donna,

Your post was stands head and shoulders above most. I will attempt to honestly address your points.

You seem to be of the opinion that I "attack" progressives. If you will read a few of my posts, you will see that I attack no one. Rather, I am called a whole list of obscene names on a daily basis. People post fraudulent letters from other sites that I allegedly wrote, they call names, twist statements made by me, and generally act like the troll they accuse me of being.

Anyway, you mention that I have been "harping on constantly about only one subject, tax"....

I plead guilty. It has been stated by many of the young "progressives" on this blog that the poor in America got the shaft because they didn't get a tax cut. My response was a simple one. The tax cut was a cut in the rate of the FEDERAL INCOME TAX.

And since the poor people don't pay federal income tax, they did not get a tax cut.

Donna, that is my entire point. And there it would have remained, if not for the explosion of anger, vitriol, hatred, and absolute meltdowns of several dozen people on this blog.

I decided to offer some money to anyone who could demonstrate that poor people in America pay income tax. After another week and nothing but namecalling, insults and a few silly misguided comments appeared, I DOUBLED MY OFFER.

Still, no takers. One girl from Ireland (Catherine) at least said she agreed and understood my point. That's it. The other 100 or so don't seem to understand at all. Do you understand, Donna?

Now your other comments about " troglodytes" ... well I don't know what to say. I'm not sure what you're asking, if anything. But speaking of troglocytes, check out the flame warriors website. The artwork is fantastic and the humor is hysterical - and very accurate.

You say ...."anyone at all would be better for the world than the bunch you have now."

Well, I disagree. Anyone? Another Hitler? Idi Amin? Another Stalin? Another Pol Pot? I don't know, Donna...not very convincing.

As far as your point that America has "gone down in the opinion of the world"...

I don't dispute that...but compared to what?

I cannot tell you what Sadaam would or would not have done. It wasn't my choice. No one knows.

You say..."you confine yourself only to the good of America - which I must say is another Bushite doctrine." Okay, Donna, maybe it is. Bush also has two arms. So do I. There are many similarities betwen myself and Bush. So? I didn't vote for him, I don't support his party, and I don't support his politics. He was lying when he fraudulently got America into this quagmire, he convinced Colin Powell to lie, and he continues to lie. Does that sound like "Bushite doctrine" to you? I also don't trust anyone who belives biblical silliness. Does that sound Bushite?

You ask..."Or is your country being generally reviled what you think constitutes a good job in foreign policy?"

Frankly, I'm not sure what that means.

You ask ..."what makes you think the present (experienced) administration can do any better in foreign policy in future than they have already? What makes you think they'll change?"

I don't expect them to do anything different. I expect them to spend another $500 billion. I expect another 150,000 American deaths over the next several years, or a decade, in the Middle East. I expect tremendous inflation, big interest rates, and tax increases on the rich & upper middle class, who pay virtually all of the income taxes in America.

I hope I answered your questions. If not, at least it was an honest effort.

#170 Buckshot: you are a liar. You claim that poor people don't pay taxes. You ask for evidence that poor people have an income tax liability.

Nunya #168 refuted the first and I refuted the latter (#111). Now pay up (haha, yaright) or shut up with your lies.

#171 correction: Nunya #168 refuted the first and I demonstrated the latter.

I stand by the rest of it, esp. the "shut up with your lies" part.

"You seem to be of the opinion that I "attack" progressives. If you will read a few of my posts, you will see that I attack no one. Rather, I am called a whole list of obscene names on a daily basis. People post fraudulent letters from other sites that I allegedly wrote, they call names, twist statements made by me, and generally act like the troll they accuse me of being."

He's a hoot, ain't he? Federal income tax cuts have caused the states to raise their income taxes to pick up the slack. I have demonstrated that, and the poor pay a greater percentage than the rich in many states that tax income. In either case, the life of the poor and working poor is not a picnic like Buckshot claims. Any idiot knows that. Donna, I don't mean you, you are from somewhere else and Lord, don't most of us wish we were there with you. We love America, we just hate this particular government and some of the people (Buckshot) you are required to put up with in " free country". And Donna, it's easy to explain Buckshot's anti war position. Anti-semite. If you would like, I can direct you to the posts on other sites he claims he never made and have been altered. A person as intelligent and discerning as yourself will recognize his style and substance instantly, not to mention his name, and you will see he is also a revisionist, (I'm not as bad as they say!). I'm sure he thinks the holocaust wasn't that bad either, or denies it completely.

Here is Buckshot making a wild unprovable claim. He never supports them with evidence, he only asks you to provide evidence that his wild claim is untrue:

"Minimum wages are generally starter jobs for young people who often still live at home. For kids under 25, who are single with no children, there are a few who would pay a few hundred dollars in federal income taxes. These kids can hardly be considered poor.

All you have provided so far is sarcasm & insults. That hardly qualifies as a legitimate example."

Meanwhile, our government and Rev. Moon play patty-cake with North Korea, as Gorenfeld points out. But our media toadies, like Milbank, are busy excoriating Durbin and Conyers and Dean. Bullshit!

The Stalinist Right

As this poster at Think Progress notes, it may be backfiring.

Steve -

Comment by Ragin’ Cajun — June 20, 2005 @ 8:54 pm #16

I say again, Bullshit! It's high time we adopt a "take no prisoners" approach with these hypocritical pustules. They already have adopted that approach, and as much as it may go against the grain for some of us, it's either that, or let them have control for good. Live free or die.

If Howard Dean speaks for you, sign this petition:

(Click on the image)

He scares the crap out of them, and the media is scared of him, too.

Buckshot, I hope you won't take this personally, but I wasn't asking those questions of YOU. They were rhetorical questions, meant for the whole readership to ponder.

I hope others got the point that you missed. Paying federal income taxes IN CASH is one way to contribute to society. The people who are paying taxes are financing the Iraq occupation, but not sufficently to cover the cost. If the occupation is to continue, they'll have to kick in more.

Others in the poor and almost-poor categories are fighting and dying over there. That is their contribution...call it "services rendered in lieu of money." Given that not a single rich person has volunteered for combat (save for Pat Tillman, who was killed by friendly fire, only to have the Army lie about it), it renders pointless any further sturm und drang about whether "poor people pay taxes."

Maybe if the issue were framed in human terms it would be clearer. Imagine approaching a young widow, or the parent of a 20-year-old Marine who just died in Iraq, and saying, "Your loved one never paid federal income taxes, you know...even though liberals on bradblog are claiming otherwise."

Would you dare say that to an Iraq widow? Of course you wouldn't. So why not give up this endless, pointless rant? The debate over whether a given person at or near the poverty line pays zero income tax, or a little, is the height of pedantry. I honestly think you're the only person who cares.

Hannah,

I went back and read your #111 post.

Minimum wages are generally starter jobs for young people who often still live at home. For kids under 25, who are single with no children, there are a few who would pay a few hundred dollars in federal income taxes. These kids can hardly be considered poor.

For those above 25 years of age, even if single with no kids, most would qualify for an earned income tax credit that would not only get all their withholdings refunded but would give them a bonus to boot.

And any folks with kids who have head of household status would not pay a dime of income taxes on a minimum wage job.

So your argument vanishes into thin air. Tell me an example of a genuinely POOR person in America who pays income taxes.

All you have provided so far is sarcasm & insults. That hardly qualifies as a legitimate example.

Good job, Hannah and Donna and everyone else who has again shown this equivocating racist reprobate up for what he is!

Buckshot = Lying, racist pig. He's not even rich, by California standards. There ain't no gold left in Alaska, and he doesn't own ANWAR. It isn't about the money with him, not that those people don't disgust me as well, Buckshot just disgust me more. He could liquidate all his holdings there and probably afford to move to Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. The only other place in America he would feel safe from the "poor" with his other like-minded poor, white folk. Like the poor folks he despises, even Buckshot performs a useful, if unpleasant to some, function in society. He is an unpleasant distraction, but this mindset must be dealt with in some form or fashion, because the current administration in particular, and the GOP in general has legitimized thiis thinking, and until it can be marginalized and sent back to the lunatic fringe where it belongs, if not prison, we need to learn to recognize it and defeat it.

Re #175

It isn't all roses over here either at times Nunya and there was a period when we couldn't get rid of Thatcher. And I must confess to my shame I was probably like a lot of your Americans are now - unaware of what was going on in government - I suddenly woke up about half-way through her tenure and saw what she was doing to my country. She had her war too with the Falklands, though it was quick and easy and made her even more popular, as did her stance in Europe and Churchillian pronouncements.

As for Buckshot, from what I've seen here he hasn't been abusive to anyone just irritating and sometimes very patronising. The same name can be used people on forums, different people I mean. I don't understand how you can be so absolutely sure it is the same person. The same style of writing isn't always proof after all. I actually think you're a bit hard on him as far as name calling goes (even no matter how much he may provoke it) but I admit the constant persistence on that one topic is distracting and trivial compared to what the topic is meant to be.

As for dismissing revisionism, well don't! I'm a bit of one myself - for after all what is that but reassessing currently held wisdom about people and events and not taking things too much on trust or for granted as being written in stone? It's good to challenge everything. And I do

Re #170

Buckshot,
I meant you attacked not them personally but the progressive viewpoint they held. I do have the justice to say I don't think I've heard you attack anyone (though you have been patronising at times) and I am aware you have been attacked at times yourself. But possibly people become frustrated with your raising only this one topic of tax constantly. It can be annoying.

I am not in a position to judge about your domestic tax policies - nor will I do so, either based on your statements or for the opposing side based on what I've read in these or other forums - I'd have to read a whole lot more statistics from many sources before I felt able to understand or give a detailed opinion on that. All I will say is that from our tax system here (despite having a welfare state and still relatively 'socialist' principles) that Robert is right, taxation of poor people doesn't only concern direct taxes. Our VAT and other stealth taxes create a disproportionally heavy burden on poor and lower income people. And even here, someone earning as little as £100 pounds a week is still taxed at the lowest rate. Our threshold is set at almost £4,800. We also have national insurance contributions deducted from pay at source and Vat at 17.5% on purchases, all of which everyone must pay. (there are also local rates and water charges set yearly for which there is a sliding scale of help depending on income but the £100 a week earner would be above that help unless supporting children on it, and there is also child credit) Now, we value our welfare state, and though we do pay for it while in work, and it is becoming overburdened and often criticised, but the very fact we have it and you don't I would have thought meant your poor or low paid are very much worse off since they also have to take out medical insurance unless they don't work at all. From what I hear of Medicare it isn't so great - but forgive me if I'm wrong in that.

But I would say to your argument in general that the very fact the rich got a tax cut in itself proves that the poor were being further relatively disadvantaged by that tax cut - since the rich kept more of their money from it, while the poors income stayed the same. Now, your argument, even if you win it, is a bad position to choose since in effect you may win the battle but you lose the larger war - to use an analogy. To win the full war you seem determined to make on this issue, you would have to prove that the poor got some equal advantage at the same time as the rich got that tax cut - I haven't seen you try to do that. Therefore afterall it would seem the poor were worse off in comparison to what they'd been before vis-a-vis the rich because of it.

As for the troglodyte mention, please forgive that. I had got into an argument elsewhere shortly before with rabid mid American vacuums. A bit like listening to your politicians - it jades one. So, sorry, but at least I said you were a step up!

As for your other points:

"Well, I disagree. Anyone? Another Hitler? Idi Amin? Another Stalin? Another Pol Pot? I don't know, Donna...not very convincing."

What I'm saying is that your government seems within a hairsbreadth of going down their road (and is much more dangerous to the world as a whole since far more powerful and also because weapons technology is far more advanced and your government has so much of it and has shown they're eager to use it) That march to totalitarianism seems to be gaining momentum all the time. Democrats first allowing through the judicial nominees they swore to fight to the death then trying to make that sound a success because they had retained the filibuster (what's the bloody use of it if the democrats themselves help castrate it like that?), and now, for the moment anyway, still weakly holding out against Bolton - the force from the right is unremitting and I see ground giving way all the time in front of the left, yet the right aren't having to move back. After all, 10 or 20 years ago, it would have been utterly unthinkable that America, would have been openly declaring that such a ? (substitute war, police action, assisted regime change, interference in a sovereign country, whatever you will) might only be the beginning of armed intervention in any other country they so choose - that they reserve (for themselve alone) the absolute right of unilateral action which might endanger the entire planet - that despite loudly calling this a 'war', and a so-called 'war on terror' (something which by its very nature means it must continue in perpetuity), all the while continually drumrolling for this war they offer not one genuine move towards settling, negotiating or resolving any of the causes which lead to terrorist action, that despite this being proclaimed a war the enemy combatants aren't considered good enough for the Geneva convention, that they are unashamed about abuse and degradation of prisoners coming into the open, that some media openly discuss the right to torture prisoners in certain circumstances, that ... I could go on all day. Now none of that would ever have been thinkable to utter openly not so very long ago (however much your covert operations squads might have been going about things). The difference now is the people in charge make no excuse for any of it, seem to flaunt their double standards along with their bully boy tactics at the entire world, while all the while your economy is going down the drain to China, yet they continue to act pugnaciously towards China too. I'll tell you it says something when Wen Jinbao behaves with more diplomacy abroad and seems to have more negotiating skills than does the American president. Another Hitler or Stalin may be what you have - for after all we only found out about a good deal of their atrocities as their regimes began to crumble, while yours is still very much on the march. All I say is someone else deserves a chance to cock it up as badly so lets replace them.

And bye the bye, that argument of 'the naive opposition might be worse' was one we heard quite a bit before Labour got in again after such a long hiatus because of Thatcher's rise of the right - they used it about Labour's failure economically - yet now Gordon Brown is considered by nearly all business leaders to have great hands on the tiller - and only some of that success was due to policies executed during Thatcher years, the rest is his own. So since he's gone on to be seen as one of the best chancellors we've ever had it proves untried opposition can be better.

No wonder America has gone down in world opinion - down compared to any standard that could be used to measure it before, and compared to the standards of most other western nations in my opinion, though we're not far behind now. Gone down so far and become so extreme that even Iran and North Korea don't look so far from it at times.

One knows that Saddam did not have WMD and considering the capabilities of his country compared to America, one therefore presumes he did not have the power to do the worldwide damage which America is definately capable of inflicting with its huge arsenal and hostile rhetoric and possibly hostile intent. I wasn't talking about Saddam's personal capabilities in comparison to those of Bush, they may be equal for all I know, only the capabilities of the countries at their disposal to cause damage.

And you did change/confine the topic to what was best for America when we were supposed to be discussing foreign policy/world good. Even if unlike Bush.

The reason I replied to your original post was the statement

"why should we trust them to be experts on foreign policy?"

and the reason I asked what made you think the present government was doing well on this was that I initially got the impression that question meant you trusted them.

Now however, understanding more of your position, which seems to be that despite disliking the current government and deploring their foreign policy you still don't want to entrust government with the Democrats, you think things could be worse domestically without Bush at the helm, yet you are unwilling to either vote for a viable opposition or work to try to change the current administrations policies, which however much you may disapprove of, you accept, so I would say now not only does this makes you complicit in any guilt that should be apportioned for the things they're doing but it gives you no real moral right to ask the question above quoted, or at least no right to expect an answer from those people who are trying to change things they disapprove of. I would say also the questions and issues of tax with which you are obsessed are only a small part of what a government does and that your concentration upon it is trivial in comparison to the many major issues which you acknowledge are wrong with your countrys government but which you are happy to leave unadressed. I would also say that with your attitude, even despite your stated expectations of what is likely to happen in the next 10 years, that if your country does go down the way of dictatorship or world abomination, that it is people like you who would be credited with standing by and watching it happen. And, finally, I say also to everyone, that I am sorry for the length of this and the fact it is off topic. I'll make sure it doesn't happen again.

Thank you for your honest effort in answering my questions, Buckshot. I have honestly tried to address points you raised too. Bit long winded but I got there in the end

Please don't apologize Donna!

Your comments are extremely well thought out, intelligent and show how savvy and cognizent you are on today's world issues.

Thank you and please don't worry --- say as much as you like! You are a boon to our blog.

If anyone reading this thread is *still* interested in the Milbank report, here are a few recent commentaries/emails that I've found. Some of these were posted today or yesterday.

The text posted BELOW each link is a snippet, some part of the actual article referenced by the link. AGAIN, these are not my words, they are the words of the linked writer.

After reading the Ombudsman's column by Getler last Sunday, I wrote another email. Frankly, I think we should not shut up about this (VG)

Here's Getler's column:

Memos, 'Wing Nuts' and 'Hit Lists'

The bulk of the mail last week, by far, was focused once again on the "Downing Street Memo."

Milbank is one of the paper's most talented and observant reporters. On the other hand, for the past several months he has also been serving as a columnist, frequently writing observations that go beyond straight reporting in a column labeled "Washington Sketch" that appears in the news pages of the A-section. On Friday, for example, The Post covered an unofficial antiwar hearing on Capitol Hill only in a Milbank column. Several readers found this inappropriate.

Inadequate Disclosure in the Run-Up to War

What we have since learned, as again shown by the Downing Street memo, is that the administration determined that war was inevitable regardless of the outcome of negotiations. The Post is in error in saying that this "add[s] nothing to what was publicly known in July 2002."

Were the administration held to the standards of public financial reporting required by the Securities and Exchange Commission, its statements in 2002 probably would be considered fraudulently misleading.

When business executives deceive the public, fortunes are lost; when politicians deceive the world, thousands of lives are lost. And we are still no safer from terrorism.

What's With the MSM?

I think it’s safe to say the mainstream media (MSM) are having a very hard time with the Downing Street Memos (DSM). I know the corporate media are not our friends, but I’m still stunned by the hostility the DSM seem to arouse in (for want of a better word) journalists.

Take Dana Milbank, a formerly sensible columnist who has frequently criticized George Bush, but who has recently written a truly nasty piece of trash ridiculing John Conyers’ DSM hearings as Democrats “playing house.” Milbank’s column drips with malice, and every single slighting comment is a reference to Democrats’ powerlessness, with words like “make-believe,” “pretend”, and “mock”.

The truth of the matter is that our current MSM is roughly the third generation of a progressively deregulated corporate culture, and they are only intermittently able to tell the difference between ratings and the truth. On the other hand, leftwing internet bloggers have been right again and again. It’s not hard to understand the reason why, which is the exact inverse of the MSM’s corruption. We’re not working for money. We don’t have to answer to corporate bosses.

MSM, Meet DSM

On June 14, Andrea Mitchell, NBC’s chief foreign affairs correspondent, gave her take on mainstream media (MSM) coverage of the Downing Street Memo (DSM). She said, “There have been anti-war groups and anti-Bush groups who’ve tried to generate this [coverage] on the Internet, but . . . there’s no smoking gun here,” because “if you go back to Bush’s own comments [in 2002], you had to be brain-dead not to know what he was up to.” On June 15, The Washington Post took the same position, even more emphatically: “The memos add not a single fact to what was previously known about the administration’s prewar deliberations.” [1]

And that explains it. Our overtly, proudly patriotic MSM --- whose economic interests just happen to coincide with those of the pro-corporate Bush administration --- could not even conceive of a line of inquiry that might lead to the revelation that our leaders have committed, not just impeachable offenses against our constitution, but war crimes and crimes against humanity.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors

Under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution's impeachment clause, and the historical application thereof, leads to the inescapable conclusion that articles of impeachment should be brought against President Bush for his commission of high crimes against the United States.

Bush and his apologists dismiss the Memo as meaningless and accuse those deluded enough to find meaning within it of rehashing old arguments. However, aside from dismissing or simply ignoring the Memo, the Bush administration has made no attempt at an innocent explanation for the claim that it "fixed" the intelligence to fit its Iraq policy.

The Glass Wall Of Media Coverage

Dana Milbank's snotty attack on critics of White House behavior as revealed in the Downing Street memos illuminates a carefully concealed truth about the media: its definition of objectivity stops at the edge of anything left of center. Standard Democratic policy is okay, even a liberal quote or two, but anything further to the left is simply excluded from coverage unless - as in Milbank's case - it is there to ridicule.

Put simply, the media doesn't like the left, social change, Greens, or progressive thought. It deals with them by ignoring them or mocking them, in either case excluding them from its own perverted definition of objectivity.

Re #179

Thanks Kira, but don't encourage me I'm bad enough as it is.

And yes, Valleygirl, I'm still interested in the original topic, though still trying to digest it too, being foreign I often don't know the people mentioned well or at all. Even though I often don't feel competent to comment on certain things I always find the links and passages people post very useful and informative and as I said I won't get caught up in carrying things so far off topic again. I've saved the links for reading later.

Donna,

No apologies needed. The BB reading I've done has greatly educated me.

You might find this link useful to check out for info:

White House Briefing By Dan Froomkin

Froomkin: Every weekday morning I scour the Internet to bring you the most interesting White House-related items from newspaper, magazine and broadcast Web sites, weblogs and more.

----------------------------

I lived in England (and paid UK taxes) for 10 years, once upon a time. It took me quite a while to understand something of the politics there, so I sympathize. I hope you will keep contributing. Considering the Blair Bush links in the war and the DSMs, it's useful to know what reactions are in the UK.

Some comments I've read on various threads express surprise that the Times and Murdoch would publish the DSMs, being a conservative paper! Seems obvious to me that the Tories (and many Labourites) would be more than happy to get rid of Blair, and are furthering the effort, and not necessarily because of wholly "patriotic" feeling, as some US commenters have suggested. I don't remember the concept of "patriotism" having much play (if any?) in UK politics, or am I wrong? Meaning, it is an idea very relevant to US history, but not to the history of the UK, except to Welsh patriots, Scots patriots, etc.

BTW, one of the US institutions that seems totally unwilling to cave in to Bush et al. is the public library system here. I was in the UK before the age of the internet-- but I remember comments to the effect that UK reporters could phone up local libraries in the US and get information that they couldn't obtain in the UK because of the Official Secrets Act! Just a little by the by perspective.

VG

Donna,

No apologies needed. It's just that the Milbank piece made me furious-- a reaction that I can't remember having to any single piece of MSM writing ever, and so I don't want to see him/them (WaPo) off the hook.

The BB reading I've done has greatly educated me too.

You might find this link useful to check out for info:

White House Briefing By Dan Froomkin

Froomkin: Every weekday morning I scour the Internet to bring you the most interesting White House-related items from newspaper, magazine and broadcast Web sites, weblogs and more.

----------------------------

I lived in England (and paid UK taxes) for 10 years, once upon a time. It took me quite a while to understand something of the politics there, so I sympathize. I hope you will keep contributing. Considering the Blair Bush links in the war and the DSMs, it's useful to know what reactions are in the UK.

Some comments I've read on various threads express surprise that the Times and Murdoch would publish the DSMs, being a conservative paper! Seems obvious to me that the Tories (and many Labourites) would be more than happy to get rid of Blair, and are furthering the effort, and not necessarily because of wholly "patriotic" feeling, as some US commenters have suggested. I don't remember the concept of "patriotism" having much play (if any?) in UK politics, or am I wrong? Meaning, it is an idea very relevant to US history, but not to the history of the UK, except to Welsh patriots, Scots patriots, etc.

BTW, one of the US institutions that seems totally unwilling to cave in to Bush et al. is the public library system here. I was in the UK before the age of the internet-- but I remember comments to the effect that UK reporters could phone up local libraries in the US and get information that they couldn't obtain in the UK because of the Official Secrets Act! Just a little by the by perspective.

Also, BTW, does "Private Eye" still exist? That was great reading, with no equal here.

VG

Why the U.S. Press Won't Visit Downing Street

Some snippets from article:

Dana Milbank is a pathetic hack trying vainly to suppress important news on the Iraq War. Fitting job for a journalist, isn't it?

The Washington Post is a joke.

In the past month I have watched the "venerable" institution run its Deep Throat/Watergate connection into the ground as it basks in the self-congratulatory glow only the media heaps upon itself. Countless interviews, editorials and debates have chronicled a descent into madness where news reports focus on how news was reported. Fascinating.

Conyers' decision to hold a hearing outlining the lies that led the United States down the path to war should be an important and vital part of maintaining our democracy. It certainly demands more attention from one of the self-styled bedrocks of journalism than the drunken scribblings of a clearly biased columnist like Dana Milbank.

Veteran analysts and emotional parents alike were discredited as part of the lunatic fringe.

Sorry about the double post. Brad, feel free to remove #182. VG

Re #183

Valleygirl, thanks for the Froomkin link.
You're right, the many issues of Iraq and Afghanistan concern us both - we not only have the many historical links, but now also politicians responsible for the illegal war, lies we have been told and deaths we have suffered. I'm a relative of one of the Scottish soldiers who died in Camp Dogwood last year when they were sent there to allow the American attack on Fallujah. I come from the area of that regiments tradional recruiting ground, my father was himself a member of it and I still know people within it. Their deaths and other casualties immeasurably deepened unease about the war and the opposition Blair faced to it - even on the night he won his own constituency seat in the General Election, and prior to his acceptance speech of thanks, he was forced to stand and listen to a rival independent candidate (who stood because he had lost his son) stand on the same platform and excoriate the war and the government. I personally thought that a far worse drubbing than any George Galloway ever inflicted.

And you are right that many people from many parties want Blair removed, he was considered a liability within his own during the election - the DSM seemed though, to me, played but little part in that, though its release was meant to inflict harm. I think all the other stuff that had gone before was in itself enough to turn people against him. All the DSM did was prove they were right. During your election last year we most of us could not understand why your president did not face a similar backlash since most of us knew even then that Blair would.

Patriotism as a concept is something which most Scots are very firmly aware of - after all we had our own passionate and eloquent cry for nationhood in the Declaration of Arbroath against English interference centuries before the Declaration of Independence was proclaimed. You are correct, the country does not have it for the UK as a whole, and even living here in England now, there is hardly any trace of a distinct English patriotism either. That sort of patriotism which Scotland and Wales has, possibly survived so strongly since after union we were in fact dominated by England and resented that. If there is any feeling which unites the British it is possibly the euro-sceptic stance - so the nationhood thing perhaps comes out only when we feel control is being given away. I should add that though I have always been based here, I have worked on the continent, and don't share that stance at all. And I think that living in a country, being surrounded by the culture - even for far shorter periods than 10 years, does make it much easier to assilimate how that country works internally - and despite our cousinship, I am actually having more difficulty with American domestic institutions and issues since I haven't even visited your country so far.

Your comments about the ease of obtaining information from Britain via telephone with your libraries (I'd assumed journalists had contacted American peers) wasn't something I had heard before - do you think in todays world with governments trying access patrons book withdrawal records etc., that that would still be the case? I became aware of politics in the mid to late 80's and almost immediately realised that your freedom of information act was something we too should have (possibly also a bill of rights or written constitution) and that it created not only openess but accountability. America seemed such a dynamic, free and forward moving country (despite hiccoughs like Macarthism) it always seemed to be moving in the right direction and pulling everyone else with it, ourselves most closely at your heels. In comparison european thinking and institutional
conventions often seemed hidebound, archaic and moribund - which is all part of the thing that makes todays America appear so shocking, especially since we tend to follow your example.

Yes! thank heaven! Private Eye is older than me and still going strong, still subversive, still being sued! I too love the audacity of a magazine which can deliberately print something controversial and also a 'cancel your subscription' coupon with it, lol. There is an online version (in case anyone besides yourself might be interested) here.

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/

(sorry I still haven't mastered clickable links!)

Now I'm off to read those Milbank links.

Just thought i'd paste in another letter sent [admittedly late] to TWP regarding milbank's surreal reporting....Special sincere thanks to J. Pentz, whose fine letter above [way above, by this point in the comments] gave me a skeleton to start with...I was having trouble getting started. Thanks J. Pentz!

To whom it may, or may not, concern;

What a sad day it is when the Washington Post actually pays for neocon propaganda disguised as journalism. You are apparently unaware of this, but a growing majority of the country feels that the mainstream media is no longer credible. We don't believe a word of what Scott McClellan portrays as truth. Gone are the days when White House spokesmen, and clearly partisan 'journalists' like Mr.Milbank, can spew disinformation without widespread challenge. I understand that the first concern of The Washington Post is not the truth, but it's shareholder's interests - but are you so unconcerned with the very existence of your newspaper that you will so blatantly misrepresent the facts? Do you truly think that this sort of ridiculous 'reporting' is being published in some sort of critical vacuum? That readers will continue to support a paper so unconcerned with basic facts?

I am not a registered democrat. I was raised by WV Republicans. I have read and reread the Downing Street memos - as well as the other documents recently released in the UK. While I am not going to replace Albert Einstein on lists of great 20th century minds - I am also not an idiot - How is it that The Washington Post can so shamefully ignore the import of these documents? You claim there is no new information - yet, to readers of TWP and other mainstream sources - there certainly seems to be. Where were you in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq? Not reporting all of these 'well known facts' regarding the thin nature of the Administration's case for war in any way consistent with the basics of journalistic integrity. Nothing new? I would laugh if the 'argument' were not so disingenuous and patently unfunny.

The public does not believe you or the mainstream media. The people are not as stupid as you apparently assume.

The truth always comes out.....

The Washington Post knew that once, as I recall.

Ombudsman, why would you have such a person as Dana Milbank working for your newspaper? You read the article, you are well aware of the facts surrounding this issue, I have no doubt - How can you defend his continued employment? How can you not print a retraction of such a blatant piece of disinformation [at worst]....Such an egregious example of shoddy journalism [at best], as ''Democrats Play House to Rally Against the War' [D.Milbank, 6/17/05]?

I really just can't understand how anyone even remotely concerned with journalistic ethics / accuracy could have given Mr.Milbank's story page space.

How can you not care about basic honesty and accuracy? How? Have the demands and rewards of the boardroom so completely eclipsed the ethics and honor of the professional journalist that Milbank's 'work' is the best you can offer?

Shame on Mr.Milbank for his absurd piece.

Shame on The Washington Post for publishing it.

Most sincerely,

M. Compton

Former reader

:)

虚拟主机
移民
投资移民
技术移民
加拿大移民
移民加拿大
租房
北京租房
上海租房
广州租房

You guys rock! Between the 6 or 7 letters from here, the 6 or 7 from CCN and who knows how many from Kos, maybe 8 or 9? well geesh, that's like SEVERAL letters!