Bush Compares Himself to a Real American President - What a Joke

It gets worse. At the commencement exercises at West Point the other day Bush compared himself to Truman. What a joke. Not only was Truman a liberal and decent human, a man and mason who loved people and actually cared about America (rather than his personal agendas).

Bush the Worst went as far as saying "This is only the beginning," he said. "The message has spread from Damascus to Tehran that the future belongs to freedom, and we will not rest until the promise of liberty reaches every people in every nation."

He even went as far as saying "By the actions he (Truman) took, the institutions he built, the alliances he forged and the doctrines he set down, President Truman laid the foundation for America's victory in the Cold War," Bush said.

"Today, at the start of a new century, we are again engaged in a war unlike any our nation has fought before. And like Americans in Truman's day, we are laying the foundations of victory," the president said.

Again, Truman was a man and mason who cared about people and America. Truman realized the war in Japan could have been dragged on for years but opted for quick and decisive action to end it. Had Bush been in the same situation he would no doubt have made illegal and back alley deals (like has been doing now) with the military industry complex companies to insure that profits will be made.

Any and all Democrats who read this should be as offended as I am by this speech.

More highlights (or should I say low lights) can be found here.

If you are offended, pass this along to your fellow Democrats and Democrat elected officials.

When Will the Tyranny of the Bush Administration Stop?

The other day a Congressman's office was raided by the FBI, an arm of the Executive branch of the government (aka, King Bush's minions.) This is the first time in the history of the United States a Congressman's office was raided. If this is not a wake up call for America and even the GOP, I do not know what could possibly qualify as such. Thankfully, both sides are outraged by what can only be called a gross breach of Constitutional powers.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R) weighed in, following what colleagues describe as angry phone calls from his staff to the Justice Department. "The Founding Fathers were very careful to establish in the Constitution a separation of powers to protect Americans against the tyranny of any one branch of government. They were particularly concerned about limiting the power of the Executive Branch," he said in a statement.

"Insofar as I am aware, since the founding of our Republic 219 years ago, the Justice Department has never found it necessary to do what it did Saturday night, crossing this Separation of Powers line, in order to successfully prosecute corruption by members of Congress," he added, noting especially the need to protect "certain legislative branch documents." "Nothing I have learned in the last 48 hours leads me to believe that there was any necessity to change the precedent established over those 219 years.

This is from the Speaker of the House, the leading GOP in Congress. Needless to say, my fellow Democrats are saying things much stronger than that. All I can do from here is reiterate that Bush is out of control and needs to be stopped. Please, use the links to the right and contact your Senators and Congresspersons and let them know you think enough is enough and that it is time to impeach the fool in the White House while they still have the right to do so.

Good-Bye Lloyd

We Dems lost a good man the other day... Lloyd Benson, a soft-spoken man from Texas who served this nation as a WW2 aviator who flew over 50 bomber missions over Europe, county judge, US Representative, Senator and Secretary of the Treasury.

As a former Texan I was very proud of Sen. Benson during the famous VP debate with Dan “how do you spell potato” Quail.

Good-bye and God Speed!

Religious Absolutism

The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…" Yet under the Bush administration we see how the "Christian Right", which is neither, has a strangle hold on the President's agenda. A recent story from Reuters details former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s thoughts on this issue.

"I worked for two presidents who were men of faith, and they did not make their religious views part of American policy," she said, referring to Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, both Democrats and Christians.

"President Bush's certitude about what he believes in, and the division between good and evil, is, I think, different," said Albright, who has just published a book on religion and world affairs. "The absolute truth is what makes Bush so worrying to some of us."

I believe that any from of absolutism is unhealthy. Whenever one refuses to see or consider that they may be wrong, or at the very least not 100% correct on something dialog ends. Given Bush’s seemingly messianic visions of what he thinks the Middle East should be is it any wonder the mess it is. I see very little difference between Bush’s crusade against the Arab world and those of the medieval crusaders. Both were told by Christian leaders and believed it was their destiny and legacy to save the Middle East from itself. Both sacrificed resources, human and material to the point of near destruction of their governments. Both will go down in history as barbarous.

It has been said that those who do not study and learn from history are condemned to repeat its mistakes. Napoleon attempted to invade Russia in the winter and lost his army. Hitler followed in Napoleon's footsteps and received the same fate. Bush is on the same path. Many have tried to conquer the Middle East to only come home in failure. Perhaps if Bush paid more attention to history rather than the lies of the "Christian Right" he you and I would not be in this mess. Then again, perhaps he is as ignorant and foolish as many critics make him out to be.

The Beginning of the End of the GOP?

Could this be the beginning of the end of the GOP? My heart skipped a beat when I read this story from the AFP. Here are the high points:

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The patriarch of US conservatives has urged his followers to halt their financial support of the Republican Party and start an independent movement, signaling a major political shift that could result in heavy losses for the US ruling party in upcoming elections.

Richard Viguerie, who was instrumental in cementing the winning coalitions behind Ronald Reagan in 1980 and George W. Bush in 2000, declared that conservatives were "downright fed up" with both the president and Republican-controlled Congress.

"At the very least, conservatives must stop funding the Republican National Committee and other party groups," Viguerie wrote in a lengthy essay in The Washington Post Sunday.

He suggested conservatives "redirect their anger into building a third force," which he defined as a movement independent of any party, and laying the groundwork for the 2008 election campaign.

Traditional conservatives, who abhor big government and excessive spending, equate abortion with murder and emphasize individualism over collectivism, have always formed the so-called "base" of the Republican Party and determined its viability as a political organizations.

Viguerie's public outburst and his suggestion that conservatives should sit out the next election is seen as another ominous sign for the party less than six months before the November congressional vote.

Viguerie insisted that Bush only "talked like a conservative to win our votes but never governed like a conservative."

He lamented that the conservative movement has been rewarded by the president for its support with "an amnesty plan for illegal immigrants."

"We've been rewarded with a war in Iraq that drags on because of the failure to provide adequate resources at the beginning, and with exactly the sort of 'nation-building' that candidate Bush said he opposed," the conservative patriarch went on to say.

He also called congressional Republicans "unprincipled power brokers", whose agenda "comes from big business".

Often referred to as "the conservative voice of America", Viguerie gained prominence in the 1960s and 1970s when he pioneered political and ideological direct mail, an innovation that helped conservatives organize and gain their voice.

He is the author of numerous books and credited with forming dozens of political organizations.

GOP Attack on the 1st Amendment

Bill of Rights, Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That is the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The founding fathers of this nation who wrote this over 200 years ago did so with the intention of Americans having to right to worship or not worship as they see fit, to speak as they see fit, to print what they see fit, to hold meetings (of any sort) as they see fit and to charge the government with wrong doing as they see fit.

There are no provisions in the 1st Amendment for mandatory prayer in public school and there are no provisions in the 1st Amendment for national security. It very clearly says Congress shall make no law preventing or restricting the ability of the media to print whatever it chooses to print.

However, the GOP controlled congress and president now claim they have the right and duty to prosecute individual reporters for exercising their constitutional right to print whatever they see fit.

According to this AP story Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Sunday he believes journalists can be prosecuted for publishing classified information, citing an obligation to national security.

The nation's top law enforcer also said the government will not hesitate to track telephone calls made by reporters as part of a criminal leak investigation, but officials would not do so routinely and randomly.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales: "There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility," Gonzales said, referring to prosecutions. "We have an obligation to enforce those laws. We have an obligation to ensure that our national security is protected."

Read again the 1st Amendment and then what the Attorney General had to say. If such laws do exist, and I presume they do, they are unconstitutional and thus illegal. Either the Attorney General has not read the 1st Amendment, does not understand it or is deliberately choosing to violate it.

Please the links to the right and let your Senators and Congresspersons know how you feel about your Constitutional rights being stripped away from you.

It Is About to Get Harder to Vote in Arizona

In Arizona, like most other states, those who wish to vote are required to register and bring their cards to the polling places. When the voter gets to the poll a clerk examines the card and makes a note in the logbook that the voter has visited the polling place. This is pretty standard stuff and a good idea in that it helps to prevent voter fraud. It is a good and fair system. Conservatives want to change that and make it harder for those less likely (lower income persons) to vote.

The conservative plan is to require a form of government issued ID (driver’s license, state ID card or federal passport) to vote. These things cost time and money to acquire. A single mom who cannot afford a car and rides the bus typically does not have such ID because she does not need it, cannot afford it and dose not have the time to get it. A single mom has more important things to attend to such as spending money on food, rent, medicine, school supplies and bus fees. It is ludicrous to expect such an individual to invest the time and money to pay for a bus ride to go to get an ID and then pay for the ID just so she can exercise her guaranteed constitutional right. The so called “Christian Right” (which is neither)/ GOP/ neo-con cabal are counting on single moms and other in similar plights to give into this evil plan, not get an ID and not vote.

Do not let this happen. Go to the Arizona Democratic HQ website and volunteer to help register voters. Then on Election Day offer rides to those you helped register.

My Thoughts on Loose Change 2

I finally saw loose change last night. If you have not seen it yet, go to www.seeloosechange.com. From there you can download it from Google. You will have to download and install some free Googleware but it’s worth it.

The movie covered so much that I’m going to have to see it again to take it all in. However, there are a few things that stand out in my mind. The first thing is the attack on the Pentagon. According to the movie there was no debris that resembled that of what would be found in a conventional airliner wreck – specifically no engines, wings or tail sections. The excuse given by the government for this is it was burnt up by the aircraft’s fuel. This is not possible since the metal used in the aircraft requires a much higher temperature than that of what the aircraft fuel burned at. The other odd thing about the Pentagon attack is that the initial hole made by what hit the building was 16 feet in diameter. If an airliner hit the building the hole would have been much bigger than that. Think for a moment of how big those things are.

The attack on the Word Trade Center towers looks like every commercial demolition I have seen. The Discovery Channel from time to time does shows on commercial demolition of buildings. As I recall, in each the explosions, the buildings look like they are neatly sinking into the ground. There are also small flashes that occur in order from top to bottom of the building as the building goes down. This is exactly what the World Trade Center towers look like. Besides, no other building has been brought down by a fire before. So how could a buildings built as well as the World Trade Center burn for a few minutes and then collapse? Even buildings hit by aircraft before have not collapsed. Case and point, the Empire State building was hit by a military bomber and still stands today.

My Take on the Marriage Amendment

Congress has been at work again on the proposed Marriage Amendment. I believe they are doing this to rally the so-called Christian Right (which is neither) on account of the very low approval ratings of the president and congress. Now the fundies and progressive groups are at war and regardless of the outcome the conservatives in power will win. Why do I say this? I say this because those that are not conservatives in power are being distracted from more important pressing issues (the war, the 911 debacle, the debt and health care crisis).

That statement may get me in trouble with some progressive thinkers, but please read on. The Marriage Amendment, like the other intentionally made disasters by the conservatives, is just that… a self-made disaster. Had the GOP left the gay marriage issue alone there would be no discussion on the issue. Progressive local governments would grant gay marriages on demand and areas that were not inclined to do so would not. Let’s face it, there are not a lot of applications for same sex marriages in rural Kansas. In San Francisco however, there are. Then again, even if there was an application for a same sex marriage in Kansas what would the big deal be? Would rural Kansas develop a large gay community? I think not.

Fundies will tell you that same sex marriage is a sin against God and that those that do are going to hell. How do they know? Have any of them ever been to hell much less had direct communication from God on the issue? (Insert Pat Robertson jokes here.) What proof do they have of this claim or any other aspect of Christianity? They don’t because there is none. This does not stop them from trying to force their way of thinking on others. Besides, even if the fundies were right, how would that impact their eternal reward? Is there something in the Bible that says that if same sex marriages occur that God will punish straights?

Those that are not fundies but claim to be responsible conservatives propose another equally weak argument. They assert that if same sex marriage were allowed that gays would flock to the alter and get divorced in a matter of weeks or months. Sounds like what straights have been doing in Las Vegas for decades. Should marriages be banned in Las Vegas? The other argument I have heard from conservatives is that many same sex marriages would occur just for the sake of getting heath care or other benefits. More simply put, one person would marry another because the other had health care insurance. First, we should all have heath care insurance. Second, what is there to stop straight people from getting married for this purpose? Nothing. It happens all the time.

Bottom line, the marriage amendment is diversion created by the conservatives in power to divert time and money from progressives. We are forced to fight a battle that even if we win we will loose valuable resources over. The arguments that fundies are propose are flawed at best. They have no proof they are right. Fiscal conservatives have equally weak arguments. The very thing they are trying to prevent gays from doing is not only legal for straights, but it’s commonplace.

Iran's Nuclear Program: The Way Out

What follows is something that you will probably never hear about on TV or read about in most newspapers. However, TIME had the balls to acknowledge and publish this second letter from Iran to King Bush. The king dismissed the first letter saying that if it was relevant to the nuclear situation he would have given it greater weight. However, what Bush failed to mention was that there was a second letter. This second letter came from someone who is, for all intents and purposes, more relevant to the nuclear situation than the president of Iran. While reading this letter consider the source... Hassan Rohani.

Hassan Rohani is representative of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini, on the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) and Iran's former top nuclear negotiator.

Posted Tuesday, May. 09, 2006
A nuclear weaponized Iran destabilizes the region, prompts a regional arms race, and wastes the scarce resources in the region. And taking account of U.S. nuclear arsenal and its policy of ensuring a strategic edge for Israel, an Iranian bomb will accord Iran no security dividends. There are also some Islamic and developmental reasons why Iran as an Islamic and developing state must not develop and use weapons of mass destruction.

Three years of robust inspection of Iranian nuclear and non-nuclear facilities by the IAEA inspectors led Dr. El-Baradi to conclude and certify that to date there are no indications of any diversion of nuclear material and activities toward making a bomb. At the same time, El-Baradi has pointed out that the IAEA cannot certify that Iran's program is exclusively peaceful. But the fact is that few among many states with a nuclear program have received such a clean bill of health from the IAEA. Such certification by the IAEA does and should take time and effort. Iran is prepared and willing to invest the time and effort necessary to receive the IAEA clean bill of health. The IAEA is also ready to pursue its investigation of Iran's nuclear activities. So should the states that have concern about it.

What is, then, the motive for the rush to heighten the situation and create a crisis? Could it be that the extremists all around see their interests — however transient, domestic and short-sighted — in heightened tension and crisis? This situation, if not contained with cool head and if miscalculations continue, can easily turn into a crisis with potentially global ramifications for the rule of law under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and for the economic and security interests of all concerned in the region and beyond. It is high time to cease sensationalism and war mongering, pause and think twice about where we are heading.

Iran is not accused of having the bomb. There are no indications that Iran has a nuclear weapon program. If Iran were to have a weapons program, the alarmists in the U.S. and Israel have reportedly said that it would take at least another seven to ten years for Iran to make the bomb. What is often cited by American officials as 20 years of Iranian secret nuclear military program turned out to be, as declared by the IAEA, nothing more than the failure to declare, in a timely manner, some experiments and receiving some material and equipment. Such failures to declare are not uncommon among the NPT members. Remedial steps are envisioned in the Safeguards Agreement to address them, and Iran has done so. Moreover, it was no secret that we were in the European, Russian and Asian markets to purchase enrichment technology in the late '80s and '90s. Therefore, an Iranian secret weapon program is only hype, and the sense of urgency about Iran's nuclear program is rather tendentious. The world should not allow itself to be dragged into another conflict on false pretenses in this region again.

Iran is intent on producing nuclear fuel domestically for reasons both historic and long-term economic. The U.S. and some Europeans argue that they cannot trust Iran's intentions. They argue that they cannot accept Iran's promise to remain committed to its treaty obligation once it gains the capability to enrich uranium for fuel production. They ask Iran to give up its right under the NPT, and instead accept their promise to supply it with nuclear fuel. This is illogical and crudely self-serving: I do not trust you, even though what you are doing is legal and can be verified to remain legal, but you must trust me when I promise to do that which I have no obligation to do and cannot be enforced. It is this simple and this unfair. There must be a better way out of this than to top this travesty with threatening Iran in the Security Council with possible sanctions and perhaps even use of force. This path can potentially cause harm and suffering at differing degrees to all parties to the conflict.

A negotiated solution still can and must be found if we intend to strengthen the non-proliferation regime and avoid an unwise and unnecessary conflict. To this end, we must dare to leave the emotions aside and avoid polluting the atmosphere with the baggage of immediate and long-past history of Iran-U.S. relations. A solution imposed on Iran by the Security Council is unlikely to provide the assurances the U.S. seeks about the Iranian nuclear program. In my personal judgment, a negotiated solution can be found in the context of the following steps, if and when creatively intertwined and negotiated in good faith by concerned officials:

* Iran would make an active contribution, provided that other countries with similar sensitive fuel cycle programs also do the same, to fixing the loopholes in the non-proliferation system and to developing a technically credible international control regime.

* Iran would consider ratifying the Additional Protocol, which provides for intrusive and snap inspections.

* Iran would address the question of preventing break-out from the NPT.

* Iran would agree to negotiate with the IAEA and states concerned about the scope and timing of its industrial-scale uranium enrichment.

* Iran would accept an IAEA verifiable cap on enrichment limit of reactor grade uranium.

* Iran would accept an IAEA verifiable cap on the production of UF6 — uranium hexafluoride, which is used for enrichment — during the period of negotiation for the scope and timing of its industrial scale enrichment.

* Iran and the IAEA would agree on terms of the continuous presence of inspectors in Iran to verify credibly that no diversion takes place in Iran.

* Iran's readiness to welcome other countries to partner with Iran in a consortium provides additional assurance about the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program.

It is not Iran's intention to disregard Security Council decisions. The way out is for the Security Council to mandate the IAEA to address this issue and establish a negotiating process for a fixed period to formulate a credible plan taking into account the suggestions I made in my personal capacity.

Iran is prepared to work with the IAEA and all states concerned about promoting confidence in its fuel cycle program. But Iran cannot be expected to give in to United States' bullying and non-proliferation double standards.

From Bill Schorr

NSA has massive database of Americans'phone calls

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

"It's the largest database ever assembled in the world," said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders, this person added.

For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made — across town or across the country — to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.

Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, nominated Monday by President Bush to become the director of the CIA, headed the NSA from March 1999 to April 2005. In that post, Hayden would have overseen the agency's domestic call-tracking program. Hayden declined to comment about the program.

With access to records of billions of domestic calls, the NSA has gained a secret window into the communications habits of millions of Americans. Customers' names, street addresses and other personal information are not being handed over as part of NSA's domestic program, the sources said. But the phone numbers the NSA collects can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information.

Comment... So my calls to my 89 year old grandmother to see how she is doing are going to help the NSA fight terror? I do not have the words to express how I feel but I will give it a try. Outraged, pissed off, betrayed and more convicted than ever to fight these evil bastard pigs. Join me in this fight and use the links to the right to contact your Senators and Congresspeople while you still have the right to do so.

Cover the Uninsured Week 2006

The Problem
Nearly 46 million Americans, including more than 8 million children, are living without health insurance - forced to gamble every day that they won't get sick or injured. That's a risk no one should have to take. Uninsured Americans live sicker and die younger than those with health insurance. Just one serious illness or injury can wipe out an uninsured family's bank account, and the problem is getting worse.

The Response
That's why the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and some of the most influential organizations in the country again organized Cover the Uninsured Week. This year's effort mobilized thousands of individuals and organizations from many sectors of society to plan activities to tell Congress that health care coverage must be their top priority.

Cover the Uninsured Week 2006 created a groundswell of activities in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, including press conferences, health and enrollment fairs, seminars for small businesses, campus activities, business leader summits, interfaith outreach, and more. These activities were designed to mobilize a diverse mix of business owners, union members, educators, students, patients, hospital staff, physicians, nurses, faith leaders and their congregants, and many others at thousands of events across the country.

The Result
Millions of people were alerted to the pressing needs of those living without health insurance. These 46 million uninsured Americans need our - and your - help.

This is a very important issue that unfortunately, the GOP pigs have put on the back burner. Here is a link to the CoverTheUninsured.org web site. After checking it out, be sure to use the links to the right to contact your elected officials and let them know how you feel.

From Bill Schorr

Conservatives Drive Bush's Approval Down

Angry conservatives are driving the approval ratings of President Bush and the GOP-led Congress to dismal new lows, according to an AP-Ipsos poll that underscores why Republicans fear an Election Day massacre.

Six months out, the intensity of opposition to Bush and Congress has risen sharply, along with the percentage of Americans who believe the nation is on the wrong track.

The AP-Ipsos poll also suggests that Democratic voters are far more motivated than Republicans. Elections in the middle of a president's term traditionally favor the party whose core supporters are the most energized.

This week's survey of 1,000 adults, including 865 registered voters, found:

• Just 33 percent of the public approves of Bush's job performance, the lowest of his presidency. That compares with 36 percent approval in early April. Forty-five percent of self-described conservatives now disapprove of the president.

• Just one-fourth of the public approves of the job Congress is doing, a new low in AP-Ipsos polling and down 5 percentage points since last month. A whopping 65 percent of conservatives disapprove of Congress.

• A majority of Americans say they want Democrats rather than Republicans to control Congress (51 percent to 34 percent). That's the largest gap recorded by AP-Ipsos since Bush took office. Even 31 percent of conservatives want Republicans out of power. (Looks like even Republicans can only take so much nonsense.)

• The souring of the nation's mood has accelerated the past three months, with the percentage of people describing the nation on the wrong track rising 12 points to a new high of 73 percent. Six of 10 conservatives say America is headed in the wrong direction.

Republican strategists said the party stands to lose control of Congress unless the environment changes unexpectedly. (Even they can read the writing on the wall!)

"It's going to take some events of significance to turn this around," GOP pollster Whit Ayres said. "I don't think at this point you can talk your way back from those sorts of ratings."

Conservative voters blame the White House and Congress for runaway government spending, illegal immigration and lack of action on social issues such as a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage. Those concerns come on top of public worries about Iraq, the economy and gasoline prices.

"I think he's the dumbest president we've ever had," said Mark Rauzi, a conservative voter from Gillespie, Ill. "I disapprove of a lot of the stuff he's doing. This war was a big boo-boo and he won't admit he did wrong."

Hardline conservatives are not likely to vote Democratic in the fall, but it would be just as devastating to the Republicans if conservatives lose their enthusiasm and stay home on Election Day.

AP-Ipsos polling suggests that Democrats may be winning the motivation game. Fewer voters today than in 2004 call themselves Republicans or Republican-leaning. In addition, 27 percent of registered voters were strong Republicans just before the 2004 election, while only 15 percent fit that description today.

Only 23 percent of the public approve of the way the president is handling gasoline prices, the lowest in AP-Ipsos polling. Those who strongly disapprove outnumber those who strongly approve by an extraordinary 55 percent to 8 percent.

As for his overall job performance, history suggests that Bush's paltry 33 percent spells trouble for Republicans in the fall.

In the past six decades, only one president had a lower job approval rating six months before a midterm election — Richard Nixon in May 1974, the year in which Watergate-scarred Republicans lost 48 seats in the House and four in the Senate. By November, Nixon was out of a job too, having resigned the presidency in August. (Let's hope Bush is gone too!)

Nearly half of the public strongly disapproves of Bush, a huge jump from his 5 percent strong disapproval rating in 2002. The poll has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

Of all Republicans, nearly 30 percent disapprove of the job Bush is doing, including 13 percent who feel strongly about it.

Democrats need to gain 15 seats in the House and six in the Senate for control of Congress. (When that happens, America will be on the right track again.)

From Bill Schorr

Rumsfeld Heckled by Former CIA Analyst

Protesters repeatedly interrupted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld during a speech Thursday and one man, a former CIA analyst, accused him of lying about Iraq prewar intelligence in an unusually vociferous display of anti-war sentiment.

"Why did you lie to get us into a war that caused these kind of casualties and was not necessary?" asked Ray McGovern, the former analyst, during a question-and-answer session.

With Iraq war support remaining low, it is not unusual for top Bush administration officials to encounter protests and hostile questions. But the outbursts Rumsfeld confronted on Thursday seemed beyond the usual.

Three protesters were escorted away by security as each interrupted Rumsfeld's speech by jumping up and shouting anti-war messages. Throughout the speech, a fourth protester stood in the middle of the room with his back to Rumsfeld in silent protest. Officials reported no arrests.

Rumsfeld also faced tough questions from a woman identifying herself as Patricia Roberts of Lithonia, Ga., who said her son, 22-year-old Spc. Jamaal Addison, was killed in Iraq. Roberts said she is now raising her young grandson and asked whether the government could provide any help.

President Bush seldom faces such challenges. Demonstrators usually are kept far from him when he delivers public remarks. (Guttless coward!)

Rumsfeld has been interrupted by anti-war demonstrators in congressional hearing rooms as he has delivered testimony to lawmakers in recent months, and at some speeches around the country.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has had direct confrontations overseas. These include demonstrators who called her a murderer and war criminal in Australia in March, and throngs of anti-war protesters who dogged her every move in northern England in April.

Demonstrators were kept far away from Rice during a visit last week to Greece, where riot police confronted a violent street mob that smashed shop windows in protest of U.S. policies and Rice's role in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

More than half of Americans say the war in Iraq was not worth the cost financially or in loss of life, recent public polling has found. Just over one-third of those surveyed say they approve of Bush's handing of the war. Public sentiment about the war has been at those low levels since fall.

Just over one-third of the public says Rumsfeld is doing an excellent or pretty good job, according to polling in March, while six in 10 said fair or poor.

In the run-up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration repeatedly spoke of evidence that Saddam Hussein had acquired weapons of mass destruction. No such armaments have been found. Officials also spoke about connections between Saddam and al-Qaida that critics say remain unproven.

In recent weeks, at least a half dozen retired generals have called for Rumsfeld's resignation, saying he has ignored advice offered by military officers and made strategic errors in the Iraq war, including committing too few troops. But he has received strong backing by Bush, who repeatedly has indicated he will keep Rumsfeld at the Pentagon.

"There is no question our country is facing difficulties in Iraq and difficulties in Afghanistan," he said. (No S***!)