|
Air
America Radio |
 |
|
|
|
|
Head-On
Radio Network |
 |
|
|
|
|
Search
dubyaD40.com |
 |
|
|
|
|
Ads by
The Google |
 |
|
|
|
Take
Action |
 |
|
|
|
| Advertisers |
 |
|
|
|
Recent
Posts |
 |
|
|
|
|
Archives |
 |
|
|
|
|
Today's
Reason To Drink |
 |
|
|
|
|
Want to
link to us? |
 |
It's easy to do. Right click on the image
below and choose "Copy." Then paste it on
your site.

|
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Today's
Topics |
 |
| |
|
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
|
The O'Reilly Fracture: Ratings Bad To The Bone
posted by
Dookie The Webmaster
3:35 PM
Via News Corpse:
The O'Reilly Fracture: Ratings Bad To The Bone
Bill O'Reilly just got some more bad news (pdf). His hairline isn't the only thing that's receding. The February ratings show that he has the slowest growing program (11%) of all the cable news primetime programs in the 25-54 demographic. And he is clearly bringing down the Fox network because the same is true for their whole primetime block. This despite the fact that Greta Van Susteren had the 2nd highest growth (49%) after Keith Olbermann's Countdown (61%).
More
Permalink
::
1 comments
::
|
|
How do you know the Bush administration is worried about upcoming investigations?
posted by
Wally
3:02 PM
It fires qualified U.S. attorneys with sterling track records to make room for its political loyalists and to exert its last shred of control.
Ever since the Bush administration shocked the legal community by dismissing eight U.S. attorneys in December, Justice Department leaders have vigorously denied that the firings were politically motivated. "I would never, ever make a change in the United States attorney position for political reasons," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said lied in Senate testimony in early January. In a Feb. 6 hearing, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty told lawmakers, "When I hear you talk about the politicizing of the Department of Justice, it's like a knife in my heart."
But at least three of the eight fired attorneys were told by a superior they were being forced to resign to make jobs available for other Bush appointees, according to a former senior Justice Department official knowledgeable about their cases. That stands in contradiction to administration claims that the firings were related either to job performance or policy differences.
(snip)
"It's hard not to think you did something wrong when you get a call like this, but that's not always the case." Two other U.S. attorneys in the group, upon seeking clarification from superiors in Washington, were told by a different top Justice Department official that they were being pushed out to give other Bush appointees their posts.
(snip)
"It's really remarkable to have a wholesale removal of an administration's own U.S. attorneys, particularly this deep into the term," said John Kroger, a federal prosecutor under Clinton and Bush who now teaches at Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, Ore. "Clearly there was a concerted decision made to ask a bunch of them to leave. It suggests a desire to more tightly control policy. With the Democrats in control of Congress, perhaps it's because this is one of the few levers of government they have left." Stacking the Courts
Permalink
::
0 comments
::
|
|
Bush: Protecting Corporations From Unions More Important Than Protecting Country From Terrorists
posted by
Wally
11:10 AM
Bush is making it abundantly clear that he would rather screw the American Working Class than catch Terrorists.President Bush and his Senate allies will kill a Sept. 11 antiterror bill if Congress sends it to the White House with a provision to let airport screeners unionize, the White House and 36 Republicans said Tuesday.
"As the legislation currently stands, the president's senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill," said White House spokesman Scott Stanzel. So he's going to veto an "anti-terror" bill, just to prevent security screeners from joining a Union. What he's saying is that protecting the country from terrorists is less important than protecting his corporate pals from making obscene profits by gouging their working class employees. This should surprise no one, especially when you consider that his only other veto in 6 years was a bill to allow stem-cell research to save lives and cure disease.
Republican Priorities On Parade
Permalink
::
1 comments
::
|
|
Walter Reed patients told to keep quiet
posted by
Wally
10:36 AM
Soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center's Medical Hold Unit say they have been told they will wake up at 6 a.m. every morning and have their rooms ready for inspection at 7 a.m., and that they must not speak to the media.
"Some soldiers believe this is a form of punishment for the trouble soldiers caused by talking to the media," one Medical Hold Unit soldier said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
It is unusual for soldiers to have daily inspections after Basic Training. This is the respect, dignity and care the Pentagon gives to the men and women who have served our nation so valiantly.
Bush "certainly was aware" of conditions at Walter Reed. So what is he doing about it? Not a damn thing. Not even talking about it. Half a trillion spent on Iraq, and they can't afford to hire someone to patch the holes and clean up the mold and mouse-shit from our wounded soldiers' hospital rooms. Probably doesn't pay enough for Halliburton to be interested.
Supporting the Troops
Permalink
::
0 comments
::
|
|
Savage Love!
posted by
Dookie The Webmaster
9:48 AM
If you've never heard of Dan Savage and his weekly column "Savage Love," you're missing out. Mainly, it's a sex advice column so be forewarned. I mean, he is the guy who coined the term "Santorum." (warning: link is NSFW)
This week's "Savage Love":
I read your column faithfully every week in the Orlando Weekly. But I need to ask two things. What does the abbreviation GGG stand for? And what was the website that you mentioned a while ago for men to meet transsexuals? ~A Faithful Reader
GGG stands for "good, giving, and game," which is what we should all strive to be for our sex partners. Think "good in bed," "giving equal time and equal pleasure," and "game for anything-within reason." And that tranny website I mentioned was, I believe, http://www.freerepublic.com/. ~Savage
Permalink
::
0 comments
::
|
|
So much for Cheney's visit
posted by
Dookie The Webmaster
9:29 AM
I'm speechless..
Pakistan makes a deal with the Taliban
KARACHI - The Pakistani establishment has made a deal with the Taliban through a leading Taliban commander that will extend Islamabad's influence into southwestern Afghanistan and significantly strengthen the resistance in its push to capture Kabul.
One-legged Mullah Dadullah will be Pakistan's strongman in a corridor running from the Afghan provinces of Zabul, Urzgan, Kandahar and Helmand across the border into Pakistan's Balochistan province, according to both Taliban and al-Qaeda contacts Asia Times Online spoke to. Using Pakistani territory and with Islamabad's support, the Taliban will be able safely to move men, weapons and supplies into southwestern Afghanistan.
The deal with Mullah Dadullah will serve Pakistan's interests in re- establishing a strong foothold in Afghanistan (the government in Kabul leans much more toward India), and it has resulted in a cooling of the Taliban's relations with al-Qaeda.
Despite their most successful spring offensive last year since being ousted in 2001, the Taliban realize they need the assistance of a state actor if they are to achieve "total victory". Al-Qaeda will have nothing to do with the Islamabad government, though, so the Taliban had to go it alone.
Linky
Permalink
::
0 comments
::
|
|
How Big of a Coward is Cheney?
posted by
Wally
7:41 AM
Even on his own plane, in front of the press, he's afraid to come out of hiding.
Is the second in command of the most powerful nation in the world really so much of a pussy that he won't even come out in the open on his own turf, speaking about his own diplomatic mission? You would think he would be itching to be able to explain, in his own words, in his own voice, the reasons for the trip. But for unexplained reasons, Cheney remained hidden in his undisclosed location - even while sitting in front of reporters.The rules were simple. The official who briefed reporters on Cheney's plane could be identified only as a senior administration official. But the high-ranking official wasn't very careful about concealing his identity as Cheney wrapped up his round-the-world trip with surprise stops in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Pay attention to the pronouns - me and I - that the official uses in describing the vice president's mission.
"The reason the president wanted me to come, obviously, is because of the continuing threat that exists in this part of the world on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistan border," the senior administration official said Tuesday.
"Let me just make one editorial comment here," the official said. "I've seen some press reporting says, 'Cheney went in to beat up on them, threaten them.' That's not the way I work. I don't know who writes that, or maybe somebody gets it from some source who doesn't know what I'm doing, or isn't involved in it. But the idea that I'd go in and threaten someone is an invalid misreading of the way I do business.
"I would describe my sessions both in Pakistan and Afghanistan as very productive. We've had notable successes in both places. I've often said before and I believe it's still true that we've captured and killed more al-Qaida in Pakistan than anyplace else. And I think we're making progress in Afghanistan." If your sessions were so productive, why are you afraid to come out of hiding and talk about them like a real man? If you are that much of a coward, Mr. Vice President, while you are perfectly representative of the current administration, you are not worthy of representing either the people or the spirit of the United States of America. Cheney's a Pussy
Permalink
::
1 comments
::
|
|
Caption This
posted by
Wally
7:26 AM
Use the "Post a Comment" link to submit a caption 
Permalink
::
1 comments
::
|
|
|
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
|
The DOW takes a dump
posted by
Dookie The Webmaster
2:21 PM
Let's keep borrowing more and more from China!
Wall Street hammered in global sell-off
NEW YORK - The Dow Jones industrial average plunged over 500 points Tuesday, with losses accelerating in the final hour of trading, as Wall Street joined a global stock decline sparked by growing concerns that the U.S. and Chinese economies are cooling and that U.S. stocks are embarking on a major correction.
A 9 percent slide in Chinese stocks earlier set the tone for U.S. trading, a day after investors sent Shanghai's benchmark index to a record high close.
Investors' confidence has been knocked down by a slew of data showing that the economy may be decelerating more than anticipated. A Commerce Department report that orders for durable goods in January dropped by the largest amount in three months exacerbated jitters about the direction of the U.S. economy, which were raised a day earlier when former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said the economy may be headed for a recession.
Soup Line
Permalink
::
2 comments
::
|
|
Dumb b*tch
posted by
Dookie The Webmaster
11:11 AM
Proving once again how Laura Bush is as dumb as her husband's administration:
"And many parts of Iraq are stable now. But, of course, what we see on television is the one bombing a day that discourages everybody." ~Laura Bush on Larry King Live, 2/26/2007 Today:
18 Iraqi children killed by car bomb; The victims, all boys, were on soccer field in Ramadi
Permalink
::
2 comments
::
|
|
Olbermann's Special Comment on Secretary Rice
posted by
Dookie The Webmaster
8:01 AM
Permalink
::
1 comments
::
|
|
Time to start listening to the Democrats.
posted by
Dookie The Webmaster
7:26 AM
So much for the surge....
Disapproval on Iraq Hits Record More Than Half Favor a Deadline for Withdrawal, Bush Suffers Longest Streak Without Majority Support Since Truman
Feb. 26, 2007 - A record number of Americans disapprove of the war in Iraq and a clear majority now favors the eventual withdrawal of U.S. forces even if civil order has not been restored there - potentially a tipping point in public attitudes on the war.
While solutions remain vexing, for the first time in ABC News/Washington Post polls a narrow majority of Americans supports setting a deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. Two-thirds oppose George W. Bush's troop surge; most, strongly so.
It all makes for a continued hard slog for the president: Just 36 percent approve of his job performance overall, very near his career low 33 percent last month. Bush hasn't seen majority approval in more than two years - the longest run without majority support for any president since Harry Truman from 1950-53.
While rooted in Iraq, Bush's problems with credibility and confidence reach beyond it. Sixty-three percent of Americans don't trust the administration to convey intelligence reports on potential threats from other countries honestly and accurately. And 58 percent lack confidence, specifically, in its ability to handle current tensions with Iran.
ABC
Permalink
::
0 comments
::
|
|
|
Monday, February 26, 2007
|
When it's time to get out.....
posted by
Dookie The Webmaster
1:02 PM
Bush's war is so bad we don't know who we're fighting anymore.....
U.S. Patrols Still Unable to Tell Friend From Foe
American military commanders in Iraq describe the security plan they began implementing in mid-February as a rising tide: a gradual influx of thousands of U.S. and Iraqi troops whose extended presence in the city's violent neighborhoods will drown the militants' ability to stage bombings and sectarian killings.
But U.S. troops, Iraqi soldiers and officials, and Baghdad residents say the plan is hampered because security forces cannot identify, let alone apprehend, the elusive perpetrators of the violence. Shiite militiamen in the capital say they are keeping a low profile to wait out the security plan. U.S. commanders have noted increased insurgent violence in the Sunni-dominated belt around Baghdad and are concerned that fighters are shifting their focus outside the city.
The first brigade of 2,700 American reinforcements is patrolling the capital, bringing the total U.S. troop presence in Baghdad to 40,000, and members of three additional Iraqi military brigades have entered the city, though not at full strength. Soldiers have opened 14 of the estimated 30 joint policing stations they will operate in the capital.
Military patrols frequently push into neighborhoods where they have been shot at or struck with improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, only to find no one to arrest.
"I don't know who I'm fighting most of the time," said Staff Sgt. Joseph Lopez, 39, a soldier based in the northern outskirts of the capital. "I don't know who is setting what IED."
Sitting Ducks
Permalink
::
0 comments
::
|
|
THE REDIRECTION - Is the Administration's new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?
posted by
Wally
8:14 AM
The video and article are long and detailed, but the allegations are damning, pointing at both a buildup for war with Iran, and with the office of the Vice President directly involved in covertly funneling money to terrorist groups. In short, we're trying, on the one hand, to support the Shiite majority in Iraq against the Sunni insurgents who are killing our soldiers, and on the other hand, we're pumping buttloads of cash to Sunni groups in Lebanon and elsewhere to fight the Shiite's who control Iran. New Yorker columnist Sy Hersh says the "single most explosive" element of his latest article involves an effort by the Bush administration to stem the growth of Shiite influence in the Middle East (specifically the Iranian government and Hezbollah in Lebanon) by funding violent Sunni groups.
Hersh says the U.S. has been "pumping money, a great deal of money, without congressional authority, without any congressional oversight" for covert operations in the Middle East where it wants to "stop the Shiite spread or the Shiite influence." Hersh says these funds have ended up in the hands of "three Sunni jihadist groups" who are "connected to al Qaeda" but "want to take on Hezbollah."
Hersh summed up his scoop in stark terms: "We are simply in a situation where this president is really taking his notion of executive privilege to the absolute limit here, running covert operations, using money that was not authorized by Congress, supporting groups indirectly that are involved with the same people that did 9/11."
Click here to read the full New Yorker article.
Permalink
::
0 comments
::
|
|
Caption This
posted by
Wally
7:30 AM
Use the "Post a Comment" link to submit your caption. 
Permalink
::
6 comments
::
|
|
|
Sunday, February 25, 2007
|
Is there a mutiny afoot?
posted by
Clyde
7:42 AM
Disobeying the prez Will generals say no to risky Iran strike?
Many people listen to the White House these days and conclude that a U.S. attack on Iran is imminent: "To be quite honest, I'm a little concerned that it's Iraq again," as Senator John Rockefeller, the new chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said recently.
But if President Bush gives the order, then General Peter Pace, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will face a big decision.
Some senior U.S. soldiers were worried about the strategic wisdom and even the legality of invading Iraq, but nobody resigned over it. It was obvious that the U.S. would win the actual war quickly and cheaply, and almost nobody worried about the aftermath.
But an attack on Iran is different, even though it would not involve American ground troops (since all available U.S. combat troops are committed to Iraq), because any competent general knows that this is a war the U.S. cannot win.
One can only hope
Permalink
::
1 comments
::
|
|
Booming economy alert
posted by
Clyde
7:38 AM
In US, record numbers are plunged into poverty: report
The gulf between rich and poor in the United States is yawning wider than ever, and the number of extremely impoverished is at a three-decade high, a report out Saturday found.
Based on the latest available US census data from 2005, the McClatchy Newspapers analysis found that almost 16 million Americans live in "deep or severe poverty" defined as a family of four with two children earning less than 9,903 dollars -- one half the federal poverty line figure.
For individuals the "deep poverty" threshold was an income under 5,080 dollars a year.
"The McClatchy analysis found that the number of severely poor Americans grew by 26 percent from 2000 to 2005," the US newspaper chain reported.
Way to go Georgie
Permalink
::
0 comments
::
|
|
|
Saturday, February 24, 2007
|
They love the troops but hate the Vets
posted by
Clyde
5:01 AM
Critics: Army holding down disability ratings
The Army is deliberately shortchanging troops on their disability retirement ratings to hold down costs, according to veterans' advocates, lawyers and service members.
"These people are being systematically underrated," said Ron Smith, deputy general counsel for Disabled American Veterans. "It's a bureaucratic game to preserve the budget, and it's having an adverse affect on service members."
The numbers of people approved for permanent or temporary disability retirement in the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force have stayed relatively stable since 2001.
But in the Army - in the midst of a war - the number of soldiers approved for permanent disability retirement has plunged by more than two-thirds, from 642 in 2001 to 209 in 2005, according to a Government Accountability Office report last year. That decline has come even as the war in Iraq has intensified and the total number of soldiers wounded or injured there has soared above 15,000.
A national disgrace
Permalink
::
0 comments
::
|
|
Oh really?
posted by
Clyde
4:57 AM
General says eliminating bin Laden not priority
The Army's highest-ranking officer and the former leader of the secretive world of Special Operations offered his thoughts on the importance of capturing or killing Osama bin Laden during a luncheon here Friday.
They're probably not what anyone expected.
"I don't know whether we'll find him," Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, said in a speech to the Rotary Club of Fort Worth. "I don't know that it's all that important, frankly."
Schoomaker, pulled out of retirement in 2003 to lead the Army, pointed to the capture of Saddam Hussein, the killings of his sons, Uday and Qusay, and the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as evidence that bin Laden's capture or death would have little effect on the threats to the United States.
Link
Permalink
::
0 comments
::
|
|
|
Friday, February 23, 2007
|
Birthday Wishes!
posted by
Dookie The Webmaster
10:58 AM
Tomorrow is Sen. Joe Lie-berman's (CT-D?R?I?SUCKS!) birthday. Feel free to write him a birthday wish from the bottom of your heart here! For example, I wrote: "Happy Birthday F*cktard!"
Oh, and it's no surprise our beloved fence-sitting Senator shares the same birthday as Zell Miller.

Permalink
::
1 comments
::
|
|
Bush gets his ass kicked all over Manhattan
posted by
Wally
9:05 AM
Unfortunately, it was just performance art. New Yorkers got to kick President George W. Bush's butt on Thursday, sort of.
Performance artist Mark McGowan kicked off his bid to crawl for 72 hours across Manhattan dressed as the president, offering the opportunity to kick his backside.
"It felt real good to kick Bush," said Casmirr Sharp, 52, of New York's Queens borough. "He really deserves more than a kick." If only it were real
Permalink
::
0 comments
::
|
|
Chimps using spears to hunt Bushbabies
posted by
Dookie The Webmaster
8:05 AM
Okay, I know this has nothing to do with politics, but I chuckled. I guess it's better than using shotguns on old men.

DES MOINES, Iowa -- Researchers have witnessed a chimpanzee skewering a lemur-like creature for supper, but it's unclear whether the spectacle was a bit of luck or an indication that chimps have a more advanced ability to hunt than was thought.
A team led by Iowa State University anthropology professor Jill Pruetz witnessed the spearing of a bushbaby in Fongoli, Senegal, during an observation of chimpanzees from March 2005 to July 2006. In a study being released Thursday in the online version of the journal Current Biology, Pruetz documents 22 cases of chimps using spear-like tools to hunt bushbabies - a small primate that lives in hollow branches or tree trunks.
"It's not uncommon to have chimps use tools. But to use them in the context of hunting" is nearly unheard of, she said.
McChimp In Chief
Permalink
::
1 comments
::
|
|
Tough talk from the Dems, but do they have the spine and competence to actually "do" it?
posted by
Wally
7:42 AM
Senate Democrats Draft Plan To Take Back War Authority
Four years ago, Congress passed legislation authorizing President Bush to go to war in Iraq. Now Senate Democrats want to take it back.
Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., intends to present the proposal to fellow Democrats next week, and he is expected to try to add the measure to anti-terrorism legislation scheduled to be debated later this month. Officials who described the strategy spoke only on condition of anonymity, noting that rank-and-file senators had not yet been briefed on the details.
Republicans recently thwarted two Democratic attempts to pass a nonbinding measure through the Senate that was critical of Bush's decision to deploy an additional 21,500 combat troops.
After failing on his second attempt last Saturday, Reid said he would turn his attention to passing binding legislation. Maybe the Republicans should have gone with the "non-binding" resolution instead of waiting for real legislation - particularly that added to an anti-terrorism bill. Go ahead GOP, vote against this one. We're all watching.
Only Congress Can Declare War
Permalink
::
2 comments
::
|
|
Caption This
posted by
Wally
7:35 AM
Use the "Post a Comment" link to submit your caption 
Permalink
::
15 comments
::
|
|
|
Thursday, February 22, 2007
|
F*cking do it already.
posted by
Dookie The Webmaster
3:28 PM
I'm so sick of this S.O.B.! "Become" a Republican?
Lieberman to Dems: Cut off funding and I'll become a Republican

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut told the Politico Thursday that he has no immediate plans to switch parties, but suggested Democratic opposition to funding the war in Iraq might change his mind.
Lieberman, a registered independent who caucuses with Democrats, has been among the strongest supporters of the war and President Bush's plan to send another 21,500 combat troops into Iraq to help quell the violence there.
Sucks!
Permalink
::
3 comments
::
|
|
While Britney was cutting off her hair, Bush was giving the Wal-mart family 32.7 Billion in tax cuts, and cutting 28 Billion from Medicaid
posted by
Wally
2:51 PM
I'm not one of those curmudgeons who freaks out every time that Bradgelina moves the war off the front page of the Post, or Katie Couric decides to usher in a whole new era of network news with photos of the imbecile demon-spawn of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. I understand that we live in a demand-based economy and that there is far more demand for brainless celebrity bullshit than there is, say, for the fine print of the Health and Human Services budget.
(snip)
On the same day that Britney was shaving her head, a guy I know who works in the office of Senator Bernie Sanders sent me an email. He was trying very hard to get news organizations interested in some research his office had done about George Bush's proposed 2008 budget, which was unveiled two weeks ago and received relatively little press, mainly because of the controversy over the Iraq war resolution. All the same, the Bush budget is an amazing document. It would be hard to imagine a document that more clearly articulates the priorities of our current political elite.
(snip)
Not only does it make many of Bush's tax cuts permanent, but it envisions a complete repeal of the Estate Tax, which mainly affects only those who are in the top two-tenths of the top one percent of the richest people in this country. The proposed savings from the cuts over the next decade are about $442 billion, or just slightly less than the amount of the annual defense budget (minus Iraq war expenses). But what's interesting about these cuts are how Bush plans to pay for them.
(snip)
That's not only bad government, it's bad capitalism. It makes legalized bribery and political connections more important factors than performance and competition in the corporate marketplace. Beyond that, it's just plain fucking offensive to ordinary people. It's one thing to complain about paying taxes when those taxes are buying a bag of groceries once a month for some struggling single mom in eastern Kentucky. But when your taxes are buying a yacht for some asshole who hires African eight year-olds to pick cocoa beans for two cents an hour ... I sure don't remember reading an excuse for that anywhere in the Federalist Papers.
Alternet
Permalink
::
0 comments
::
|
|
Isn't it ironic?
posted by
Dookie The Webmaster
1:50 PM
Yes Virginia, history does repeat itself.......
White House Brings in Nixon-Era Counsel
WASHINGTON -- In his first job as a White House lawyer, Fred Fielding, barely in his 30s, broke the news to President Nixon about the Watergate break-in.
Fielding was born in Philadelphia and grew up on a farm in Bucks County, Pa. His father died when he was 11. He attended public schools, played football, fished and worked on neighborhood farms in the summers. He attended Gettysburg College and the University of Virginia School of Law on scholarships.
After law school, he worked with a Philadelphia law firm, and in 1970 became deputy to former White House Counsel John Dean. As news of the break-in at the Democratic national headquarters broke over the capital, Fielding remembers trying to convince Dean, who was on his way back from a trip to the Philippines, that he should return to Washington at once instead of staying over in California to rest.
Impeach
Permalink
::
0 comments
::
|
|
Judges put Bush one step closer to his dream of being Dictator
posted by
Wally
8:21 AM
Judges agree that Bush can ignore Habeas Corpus protections
In a victory for the White House, a U.S. appeals court Tuesday threw out the legal claims brought on behalf of the hundreds of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay and ruled that they do not have a right to plead their innocence in an American court.
The ruling sets the stage for a historic showdown in the Supreme Court over whether the White House and Congress can deny habeas corpus -- the right to go before a judge and ask to be released -- to some people who are held for years without charges.
"This decision empowers the president to do whatever he wishes to prisoners without any legal limitation, so long as he does it offshore. (It) encourages such notorious practices as extraordinary rendition and contempt for international human rights law," said Shayana Kadidal, an attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York.LINK The Bush administration claims that the so called "war on terror" gives him extraordinary powers to sidestep the Constitution and ignore the Bill of Rights. To that I say bullshit. There have been far more urgent and dangerous threats to this and other nations than religious whackjobs with box cutters in the 792 years since the Magna Carta was issued, or the 328 years since the Habeas Corpus act was codified in England, or even the 216 years since a little document called the Bill of Rights was ratified.
While it is certain that this ruling will be appealed to the Supreme Court, it is of some concern that a court as high as a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals would allow to stand such a blatant affront to the basic liberties outlined in the Constitution. It is also worrying that this will reach the Supreme Court that has been stacked by Bush with right-wing idealogues who promote the doctrine of Unitary Executive powers (discussed further here).
If the Supreme Court sides with Bush on this, he will have indeed taken several large strides toward dictatorship. As President, he will be above the law - able to do whatever he wants to whoever he wants. The courts will have not only undercut the power of Congress to "balance" the power of the President, they will also have given away their own authority to do the same. What's worse, they will have given credence to Nixon's words "Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal."
Permalink
::
0 comments
::
|
|
The Government Wouldn't Scare Us By Lieing About Terror Investigations and Prosecutions, Would They?
posted by
Wally
8:02 AM
Of Course They Would!
Federal prosecutors and the FBI have significantly overstated the number of terrorism-related investigations and prosecutions they pursue, according to a highly critical report released Tuesday by a Justice Department watchdog.
The study by Inspector General Glenn Fine concluded that the overstatements occurred in large part because authorities counted offenses such as document and marriage fraud and immigration violations as terrorism-related even when there was no discernible tie to terror. "Marriage fraud"? I wonder if I'm on the list for that speeding ticket I got a couple years ago. I'd better slow down - another ticket and I might bump the terror alert level up to Ernie.
Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid
Permalink
::
0 comments
::
|
|
|
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
|
Great Progress: The Iraq Effect - War Has Increased Terrorism Sevenfold Worldwide
posted by
Wally
11:32 AM

Has the war in Iraq increased jihadist terrorism? The Bush administration has offered two responses: First, the moths-to-aflame argument, which says that Iraq draws terrorists who would otherwise "be plotting and killing Americans across the world and within our own borders," as President Bush put it in 2005. Second, the hard-to-say position: "Are more terrorists being created in the world?" then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld asked at a press conference in September 2006. "We don't know. The world doesn't know. There are not good metrics to determine how many people are being trained in a radical madrasa school in some country."
In fact, as Rumsfeld knew well, there are plenty of publicly available figures on the incidence and gravity of jihadist attacks. But until now, no one has done a serious statistical analysis of whether an "Iraq effect" does exist. We have undertaken such a study, drawing on data in the mipt-rand Terrorism database (terrorismknowledgebase.org), widely considered the best unclassified database on terrorism incidents.
Our study yields one resounding finding: The rate of fatal terrorist attacks around the world by jihadist groups, and the number of people killed in those attacks, increased dramatically after the invasion of Iraq. Globally there was a 607 percent rise in the average yearly incidence of attacks (28.3 attacks per year before and 199.8 after) and a 237 percent rise in the fatality rate (from 501 to 1,689 deaths per year). A large part of this rise occurred in Iraq, the scene of almost half the global total of jihadist terrorist attacks. But even excluding Iraq and Afghanistan—the other current jihadist hot spot—there has been a 35 percent rise in the number of attacks, with a 12 percent rise in fatalities.
Read the complete report at Mother Jones
Permalink
::
0 comments
::
|
|
The Definition of a Quagmire by Dick Cheney in 1991
posted by
Dookie The Webmaster
10:19 AM
Classic.
"The notion that we ought to now go to Baghdad and uh uhh somehow take control of the country strikes me as as an extremely uh serious one in terms of uh what we'd have to do once we got there. You'd probably have to put some new government in place. It's not clear what kind of government that would be, how long you'd have to stay. For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of uh the struggle over who's going to govern in Iraq uh strikes me as a uh classic definition of a quagmire."
Permalink
::
0 comments
::
|
|
Olbermann's report on the shameful treatment of Iraq Vets.
posted by
Wally
9:36 AM
Permalink
::
0 comments
::
|
|
Caption This
posted by
Wally
7:27 AM
Use the "Post a Comment" link to submit a caption 
Permalink
::
10 comments
::
|
|
|
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
|
Why did we invade Iraq again? 9/11? WMDs? Democracy? Or was it something else?
posted by
Wally
2:12 PM
New Iraq Oil Law To Open Iraq's Oil Reserves to Western Companies
Amy Goodman of Democracy Now talked to Raed Jarrar - the Iraq Project Director for Global Exchange, and Antonia Juhasz - who has written extensively about the economic side of the US occupation of Iraq and is the author of the book, "The Bush Agenda: Invading the World One Economy at a Time." about the new Iraq Oil Law - an unbelievably generous gift to the oil companies, and an unconcionable ripoff of the nation of Iraq (what's left of it) and the Iraqi people.
RAED JARRAR:There are three major points that I think we should talk about. Financially, it legalizes very unfair types of contracts that will put Iraq in very long-term contracts that can go up to thirty-five years and cause the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars from Iraqis for no cause.
And the second point is concerning Iraq's sovereignty. Iraq will not be capable of controlling the levels -- the limits of production, which means that Iraq cannot be a part of OPEC anymore. And Iraq will have this very complicated institution called the Federal Oil and Gas Council, that will have representatives from the foreign oil companies on the board of it, so representatives from, let's say, ExxonMobil and Shell and British Petroleum will be on the federal board of Iraq approving their own contracts.
And the third point is the point about keeping Iraq's unity. The law is seen by many Iraqi analysts as a separation for Iraq fund. The law will authorize all of the regional and small provinces' authorities. It will give them the final say to deal with the oil, instead of giving this final say to central federal government, so it will open the doors for splitting Iraq into three regions or even maybe three states in the very near future.
ANTONIA JUHASZ:Well, in my mind, the law certainly opens the door to US oil companies and the Bush administration winning a very large piece of their objective of going to war in Iraq, at least winning it on paper. The law does almost word for word what was laid out in the Baker-Hamilton recommendation, which I discussed previously on your show, which is, at the very basic level, to turn Iraq's nationalized oil system, the model that 90% of the world's oil is governed by, take its nationalized oil system and turn it into a commercial system fully open to foreign corporate investment on terms as of yet to be decided. So it leaves vague this very important question of what type of contracts will the Iraqi government use. But what it leaves clear is that basically every level of the oil industry will be open to private foreign companies.
The law definitely sets up a very dangerous setup for Iraq's future economic stability, economic development, and certainly sets the stage for a tremendous amount of increased hostility and violence to US soldiers positioned on the ground, as being seen as the implementers of this oil hijack. Read the full transcript, or listen or watch the interview at DemocracyNow.org
Permalink
::
0 comments
::
|
|
Happy Mardi Gras
posted by
Wally
1:27 PM
Here's to the people and the future of the great city of New Orleans. 
May she rise from the water and wreckage better than ever (in spite of Bush and Brownie).
Permalink
::
4 comments
::
|
|
Supporting the Troops, Bush Style - Soldiers Face Neglect, Frustration At Army's Top Medical Facility
posted by
Wally
8:16 AM
In this series, the Washington Post reveals the care and respect our injured soldiers receive once they're carried back from the battle field.
Behind the door of Army Spec. Jeremy Duncan's room, part of the wall is torn and hangs in the air, weighted down with black mold. When the wounded combat engineer stands in his shower and looks up, he can see the bathtub on the floor above through a rotted hole. The entire building, constructed between the world wars, often smells like greasy carry-out. Signs of neglect are everywhere: mouse droppings, belly-up cockroaches, stained carpets, cheap mattresses.
This is the world of Building 18, not the kind of place where Duncan expected to recover when he was evacuated to Walter Reed Army Medical Center from Iraq last February with a broken neck and a shredded left ear, nearly dead from blood loss. But the old lodge, just outside the gates of the hospital and five miles up the road from the White House, has housed hundreds of maimed soldiers recuperating from injuries suffered in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wash Post
Inside Mologne House, the Survivors of War Wrestle With Military Bureaucracy and Personal Demons
Some soldiers and Marines have been here for 18 months or longer. Doctor's appointments and evaluations are routinely dragged out and difficult to get. A board of physicians must review hundreds of pages of medical records to determine whether a soldier is fit to return to duty. If not, the Physical Evaluation Board must decide whether to assign a rating for disability compensation. For many, this is the start of a new and bitter battle.
Months roll by and life becomes a blue-and-gold hotel room where the bathroom mirror shows the naked disfigurement of war's ravages. There are toys in the lobby of Mologne House because children live here. Domestic disputes occur because wives or girlfriends have moved here. Financial tensions are palpable. After her husband's traumatic injury insurance policy came in, one wife cleared out with the money. Older National Guard members worry about the jobs they can no longer perform back home. The Hotel Aftermath Bring them home. Bring them home safe. Bring them home in one peice. BRING THEM HOME NOW
Permalink
::
4 comments
::
|
|
Shock and Awe Part Deux: Mission Iran
posted by
Wally
8:16 AM
The Bush administration, while accusing Iran of providing weapons to the Iraqi resistance and threatening action if it doesn't stop, keeps insisting that there are "no plans to invade or attack Iran". On "Meet the Press" Tony Snow was asked about military options in Iran, and was quite emphatic that we have no plans to invade. "No," he said. "We are not planning to go across the border [into Iran]. But the president also is not going to rule out any alternatives. But for those who think we are beating the war drums, no [no plans to invade Iran]." Snow: No Plans To Invade Iran In an interview on NPR, Bush himself flat out denied any plans on Iran. Bush dismissed warnings from US lawmakers against attacking Iran, saying: "I don't know how anybody can then say, 'Well, protecting the troops means that we're going to invade Iran.'"
"I have no intent upon going into Iran," said the president. Bush: No Plans To Invade Iran If we have "no plans" to invade Iran, then what are these "plans to invade Iran" that the BBC is talking about? US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned. Not only are there indeed "plans" but there are now multiple "triggers" that can set off the attack. BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon - which it denies.
Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran. Plans to Invade Iraq So, based on this, if King George thinks that Iran is planning on making nukes (just like he thought Iraq had WMD's), or if he links Iran to a "high-casualty" attack on our troops (just like he linked Saddam to 9/11), it's game on, shock and awe, war-president George landing on an aircraft carrier to claim "mission accomplished." How is "high casualty attack" defined by the administration? My guess - the first attack that happens after George decides he wants to play with his toy soldiers again.
No plans my ass.
Permalink
::
1 comments
::
|
|
Welcome to reality Alabama!
posted by
Dookie The Webmaster
8:14 AM
Gallup red-state, blue-state poll paints Alabama purple

MONTGOMERY - Might Alabama, long a red state in national elections and more recently in statewide races, be tracking a little more blue?
A recent Gallup Poll gives credence to that notion, reflecting an almost even split between Democrats and Republicans. In fact, the poll last year shows that more Alabamians identified themselves as Democrats, 49 percent of them, than Republicans, 46 percent.
That might surprise some in a state that has not voted for a Democratic Party candidate for president since Jimmy Carter in 1976.
I Reckon
Permalink
::
1 comments
::
|
|
No surprise here...
posted by
Dookie The Webmaster
8:11 AM
NY | | |