In two months The Seminal has had two front page stories on digg.com. Our server has been down twice. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me right? Not quite.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. What then, are 30 pictures worth? The pictures in this photo essay illustrate the failures of the Bush administration. Topics represented include: Iraq, Katrina, Torture, Global Discontent, 9/11, and more. WARNING: Some of these images are somewhat graphic, not for the faint of heart.

Our latest installment of artwork and poetry. Check it out after the jump…

Leaked Memos . . . how to be hated by Joe Klein . . . the ugly truths of the America’s greatest bloodsport.

First off, I’d like to thank The Seminal for inviting me to become a regular author. It is truly a delight in my life to be able to vent my frustrations online, rather than to whoever is bartending or to my poor mother who makes the common mistake of answering the phone. I’m glad to be a part of something truly special. It was also nice to see a photo of me online that doesn’t involve some sort of celebrity sex scandal. I’m glad that’s finally behind me now. (Ok, that was a lie, sadly.)

Recently there have been many strategy memos leaked by Republican campaigns. Romney’s grand strategy, which is nothing more than reminding voters he married only one woman, was leaked. As was McCain’s strategy. The most recent strategy memo that’s been brought to the forefront has been that of Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (who, for the sake of my inability to repeatedly type his last name, will be mentioned as Rudy from now on). First off, it needs to be made clear that the authenticity of this newly unearthed information is questionable. However, as someone who has read campaign strategy memos as well as written them myself (yes, my rants sound the exact same), I find what the author of the memo says - probably someone who does work similar to me - to be authentic from a consultant standpoint. Let’s look at my favorite paragraph and examine it, shall we?

Presumably aiming to keep his presentation symmetrical with his governance, recent changes have been made to Alo Presidente, the weekly, ninety-minute program of Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez. Fans of the show, however, needn’t worry the change in format will kill the quality: the website assures us it will retain “novel, pedagogic elements and, above all, his [Hugo's] immense love for the people that embrace us [The Bolivarian Revolution], and let us know that we are moving forward, opening spaces of communication never before permitted.”

To most, explicitly the US media, this beneficent rhetoric will no doubt ring hollow. Instead of “opening spaces of communication” they report he is putting the clamps on the press, on his government and acting in the mold of tyrant. With selected bits of news from Venezuela they support their case, and at times the presentation is a convincing one. Their representation, however, is problematic. While it may not be explicitly false, it manipulates the information to present an image that is not a faithful reproduction of the reality. By dissecting one particular issue we can understand how the media manages the task.

With the Iraq withdrawal deadline narrowly surviving the Senate, even an inevitable Presidential veto won’t change the fact that the tide finally seems to be turning. A new Gallup poll shows that 60 percent of Americans now support such a timetable, and with the situation staying the course (i.e. deteriorating), one can only imagine this number will rise. I’m glad to see Democrats taking the charge on this, as the stiffly partisan voting indicates that Republicans are never going to stand up to the White House insofar as Iraq is concerned. But there’s something still bothering me. A lot of quotes have been flying around from Democrats that sound like this:

“It is now time for us to make clear to the Iraqis that it is their war, their country, their future.”

The Senate has voted to withdraw troops by August 31, 2008 in spite of vows from the president to veto any such paper that managed to reach his desk. The 2/3 we would need to override such a veto does not look likely at this point, but all is not lost. There is another avenue opened up by this historic vote, the sweetest taboo; impeachment.

While the mere threat of impeachment may be sufficient in forcing Bush to heed the will of the people and the legislative branch, that seems to be as far as we can hope. If a 2/3 vote needed to override his veto is unlikely, it stands to reason a 2/3 vote for impeachment is also out of reach. This pessimism, however, is limited in the factors it weighs. It cannot take into account the crimes that will surface via the thorough investigations required for the Inquiry of Impeachment Resolution. Before we get ahead of ourselves, however, we need to focus on the steps necessary for the Inquiry to manifest itself.

“There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods today, the U.S. is beginning to succeed in Iraq.” This quote comes from John McCain, in his recent appearance on Wolf Blitzer’s The Situation Room. Despite this self-assured attitude, his statements are wholly inconsistent with reality.

When Wolf Blitzer proceeded to raise this incongruity, McCain snidely accused him of “giving the old line of three months ago.” Wolf takes it in stride, moving on to the next guest, Michael Ware, who has been on the ground in Baghdad for roughly four years. He immediately and summarily dismisses McCain’s statements as rubbish; “to suggest that there’s any neighborhood in this city where an American can walk freely is beyond ludicrous. I’d love Senator McCain to tell me where that neighborhood is and he and I can go for a stroll… I don’t know what part of Never-land Senator McCain is talking about when he says we can go strolling in Baghdad.”

Democrats: Carpe Diem!!

I’ll be the first to admit that not many Americans saw Former VP Al Gore’s testimony before House and Senate committees. If you’ve seen the film “An Inconvenient Truth,” you need not witness the testimony…but wait a minute, something odd happened.

During his testimony, Mr. Gore was grilled repeatedly by a certain Senator from Oklahoma, James Inhofe. Inhofe, a product of the fossil fuel lobby, wanted “yes or no” answers during testimony, and anyone who has a brain knows that most questions asked during any sort of testimony cannot be covered by a “yes or no answer.”

Even more insultingly, Senator Inhofe repeatedly referred to Mr. Gore, Vice President Gore, as Senator Gore. Sure, Al Gore is a former Senator from the great state of Tennessee (go Vols!), but he did attain a higher office and therefore he deserves the respect that this office entails.

Here’s what I’m getting at.

I don’t like George W. Bush as a President. As a person, well, I’m not at that level nor will I be. Same goes for Dick Cheney. But, no matter how liberal I am perceived to be or would like to be, I will always refer to them as either the President or Vice President out of respect for the office that they hold. Even in private debate I try to refer to Bush as President Bush because I do, in fact, respect the office of the Presidency. For a Senator from Oklahoma, a nobody by most standards, to refuse to refer to a former Vice President by his former office is, well, insane. When Chair-woman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) went after Inhofe for his ridiculous aggressiveness towards Gore, she referred to Gore as “Vice President.” Therefore, it’s no “mistake” on Inhofe’s part: he knew what he was doing.

Everyone here at The Seminal is tremendously sorry for the ridiculous server outage we suffered today. We were down for about 12 hours after this article hit the front page of digg.

We are moving hosts and I sincerely hope it will never happen again.

Once again, sorry.