Home

Columnists

Merchandise

Other Stuff

 

 Air America Radio

 Head-On Radio Network

 Search dubyaD40.com

Google


Search Web
Search dubyaD40.com

 Ads by The Google

 Take Action

 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

 
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Typical
posted by Clyde
6:04 AM

Report: Countrywide CEO Cashed Out

Countrywide Financial Corp. Chairman and CEO Angelo Mozilo cashed in $138 million in stock options over the last year, switching his trading plans as the mortgage company went into a tailspin, it was reported Saturday.

Between November 2006 and August, Mozilo changed the plans outlining how many of his shares would be sold monthly, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Mozilo unloaded 4.9 million Countrywide shares, most of which he bought through exercising options.

Hundreds of executives use similar trading plans, approved by federal regulators in 2000 as a way to defend against insider trading allegations. While not illegal, it is highly unusual for the plans to be changed so often in a short period, experts said.

(Bush Donor No Doubt)

Permalink :: 1 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Want to bet he doesn't recall?
posted by Clyde
6:03 AM

Iraq Wiretap Delay Not Quite as Presented
Lag Is Attributed to Internal Disputes and Time to Reach Gonzales, Not FISA Constraints

Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell told Congress last week that a May wiretap that targeted Iraqi insurgents was delayed for 12 hours by attempts to comply with onerous surveillance laws, which slowed an effort to locate three U.S. soldiers who had been captured south of Baghdad.

But new details released this week portray a more complicated picture of the delay, which actually lasted about 9 1/2 hours and was caused primarily by legal wrangling between the Justice Department and intelligence officials over whether authorities had probable cause to begin the surveillance.

Justice officials also spent nearly two hours trying to reach then-Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to authorize the emergency wiretap. He was in Texas appearing before a gathering of U.S. attorneys.

Earlier, the DNI's attorney had determined that legal requirements for surveillance had been met, but Justice lawyers and intelligence officials spent four hours debating that issue and obtaining more evidence, according to officials and a summary of events provided to the House intelligence committee Thursday. Justice officials say the lengthy deliberations were necessary to ensure that the surveillance was legal.

(Heck of a job Fredo)

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Saturday, September 29, 2007
Another Republican Sex Scandal?
posted by Clyde
4:56 AM

US Congressman owned home with another man, took DC tax deduction while voting in NC

Congressman Patrick T. McHenry (R-NC), right, purchased a residence in Washington, DC's Capital Hill neighborhood with another man, PageOneQ has learned. While he owned the home, McHenry and co-owner Scott G. Stewart claimed eligibility for the District of Columbia's Homestead Tax Deduction, a tax reduction program to encourage homeownership and residence in DC. At the same time McHenry was registered to vote, and did so, in Gaston County, North Carolina.

According to records obtained from the Washington, DC Recorder of Deeds, left (click to enlarge), McHenry, who was first elected to Congress in 2004, and Stewart owned the three bedroom, three-and-a-half bath home from February 2001 to January 2002. The house is located at 1360 D Street, SE, in a neighborhood near the US Capitol.

The DC Recorder of Deeds told PageOneQ that McHenry and Stewart received a $60,000 deduction off the property's assessed value for tax reduction purposes in the second half of 2001. In order to receive the tax reduction, homeowners are required to certify that the property is "occupied by the owner/applicant." The eligibility guidelines state that the "property must be the principal residence (domicile) of the owner/applicant."

(Hanky Panky?)

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Bush's shotgun diplomacy hits empty chamber
posted by Clyde
4:40 AM

Europeans angry after Bush climate speech 'charade'

George Bush was castigated by European diplomats and found himself isolated yesterday after a special conference on climate change ended without any progress.

European ministers, diplomats and officials attending the Washington conference were scathing, particularly in private, over Mr Bush's failure once again to commit to binding action on climate change.

Although the US and Britain have been at odds over the environment since the early days of the Bush administration, the gap has never been as wide as yesterday.

Britain and almost all other European countries, including Germany and France, want mandatory targets for reducing greenhouse emissions. Mr Bush, while talking yesterday about a "new approach" and "a historic undertaking", remains totally opposed.

(link)

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Friday, September 28, 2007
Rudy Giuliani & 9/11...Again
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
3:12 PM

While speaking in front of the National Rifle Association last week, Rudy Giuliani interrupted his speech to take a now widely mocked phone call from his wife. So how does Rudy react to the mockery? By blaming 9/11:

Giuliani also addressed a cell phone call he took from his wife, Judith, last week during his speech to the National Rifle Association...

"And quite honestly, since Sept. 11, most of the time when we get on a plane, we talk to each other and just reaffirm the fact that we love each other," he said.
DKos

Permalink :: 2 comments :: Post a Comment
 

WooHoo: The 3,492 "al-Qaida #2" in Iraq killed!
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
11:30 AM

U.S.: Senior leader of al-Qaida in Iraq killed

U.S.-led forces have killed one of the most important leaders of al-Qaida in Iraq, and recent similar operations have left the organization fractured, a top American commander said Friday.

"Abu Usama al-Tunisi was one of the most senior leaders ... the emir of foreign terrorists in Iraq and part of the inner leadership circle," said Brig. Gen. Joseph Anderson.

Al-Tunisi was a leader in helping bring foreign terrorists into the country and his death "is a key loss" to al-Qaida leadership there, Anderson told a Pentagon news conference via videoconference from Baghdad.

Still no Osama

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

If anyone knows about "phony soldiers", it's Rush
posted by Wally
9:25 AM

Never the kind of guys who are too proud to promote someone else's good idea when we see it, we spotted this on ThinkProgress and had to pass it along.
A Challenge For Lawmakers Who Voted To Attack MoveOn Ad: Will They Now Condemn Limbaugh?

On September 20, 72 Senators voted for the highly politicized, "bait and switch" resolution that condemned a newspaper ad by MoveOn.org. The amendment, offered by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), expressly stated that the Senate would condemn "any effort to attack the honor and integrity" of "all members of the United States Armed Forces"

On his radio show yesterday, right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh attacked the "honor and integrity" of some members of the Armed Forces. Limbaugh attacked troops who hold a different viewpoint than his own as "phony soldiers." Iraq war vet Jon Soltz writes that Limbaugh's comments are directed at "the majority of troops on the ground in Iraq" because they "do not back the President's failed policy."

For all the Senators who rushed to make political hay over an empty resolution, the spotlight is on them. Will they now enforce their "sense of the Senate" and condemn Rush Limbaugh?

You can find the audio file at Crooks and Liars and Media Matters for America

Call or write your Senators and insist that they condemn Rush's "effort to attack the honor and integrity" of the troops. Here's some Democratic leadership contact info (thanks to Crooks and Liars):

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Did not vote)
Phone: (202) 225-0100
Email: http://www.speaker.gov/contact/

House Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Voted to condemn MoveOn ad)
Phone: (202) 225-3130
Email: http://democraticleader.house.gov/

House Whip James Clyburn (Voted to condemn MoveOn ad)
Phone: (202) 226-3210
Email: http://hoyer.house.gov/contact/email.asp

House Democratic Caucus Chair Rahm Emanuel (Voted to condemn MoveOn ad)
Phone: (202) 225-1400
Email: http://www.house.gov/emanuel/IMA/issue.htm

You can find your Senator's contact info on the left of this page by entering your zip code in the "Take Action" window.

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Like a black owned restaurant in New York..
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
9:00 AM

The GOP hates blacks, Mexicans, Arabs, and the poor. 2008 won't be nice to them if all they have is rich old white people voting for them:

GOP debate is marked by jabs at absences

Republican presidential candidates discussed the importance of reaching out to people of color during a minority issues debate Thursday night and criticized the four leading GOP contenders for skipping it.

"I think this is a disgrace that they are not here," said Sen. Sam Brownback. "I think it's a disgrace to our country. I think it's bad for our party, and I don't think it's good for our future."

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said he was "embarrassed for our party."

The no-shows -- Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain and Mitt Romney -- cited scheduling conflicts in not attending the debate at Morgan State University in Baltimore.

Moderator Tavis Smiley jabbed at the no-shows, saying, "Some of the campaigns who declined ... have suggested publicly that this audience would be hostile and unreceptive. Since we're live on PBS right now, I can't tell you what I really think of these kinds of comments." Rep. Duncan Hunter, Rep. Ron Paul, Rep. Tom Tancredo and Alan Keyes also attended.

GOPKKK

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Sen Larry Craig returns to Senate in time to vote against bill protecting homosexuals
posted by Wally
6:56 AM

The Senate Thursday voted 60-39 to end debate on the Matthew Shepard Act, which expands federal hate crimes laws to include violence based on a victim's sexual orientation, gender, disability, and other factors.

Senator Larry Craig, arrested in an airport bathroom while cruising for gay sex, voted against the legislation.
It's not gay when Republicans do it. Nor is it adultery, or pedophilia, or drug abuse, or corruption, or.... When a Democrat (or anyone the republicans don't like) is caught, he's an immoral liberal Hollywood faggot (like Fred Thompson and Ronald Reagan - both Hollywood actors?) But when a Republican is caught, he's a victim of entrapment.

Suck it Larry. Oh, wait, never mind.

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Caption This
posted by Wally
6:38 AM

Use the "Post a Comment" link to submit your caption of Dubya talking with "childrens" after doing a "no child left behind" photo-op.


Permalink :: 5 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Thursday, September 27, 2007
I'll party while you die.
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
3:11 PM

Jenna Bush: "I think there are many ways to serve your country"

On other issues, Jenna Bush ducked a question about whether she agreed with her father about the war in Iraq, but she said she understood critics who argue that she and her twin sister, Barbara, should serve in Iraq.

"Obviously I understand that question and see what the point of that question is for sure. I think there are many ways to serve your country. I think ... what's most appropriate for me to do is to teach or to work in UNICEF and represent our country in Latin America."

When asked who was the child in the White House she always thought she'd want to emulate, she replied Chelsea Clinton, the daughter of former President Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York., a Democratic presidential candidate.

"I think Chelsea Clinton is, is very kind and, um, smart and articulate," she said.

Like father, like daughter

Permalink :: 1 comments :: Post a Comment
 

"How do you claim moral high ground when you yourself don't have any?"
posted by Wally
10:15 AM

In the third hour of Thursday's show, Denver's Jay Marvin (AM 760) tore a new one in the hypocrites who are railing about the "Taser This" editorial in Colorado State University's newspaper The Rocky Mountain Collegian. The editorial, in it's entirety, said:


F*ck Bush.

This is the view of the Collegian editorial board.

The response, primarily from the self-righteous right has been considerably longer and louder. Jay wonders where is the outrage when the right "throw(s) out as much hateful and degrading talk as you can imagine. Where were these folks when Anne Coulter endorsed the assassination of John Edwards, or when Rush Limbaugh called Barrack Obama and Halle Berry halfricans? Are you sick of the hypocrisy?"


(click the picture to download Jay's entire program, or right-click

Right click on the link above and "save as", then start listening at 14:50 for the beginning of Jay's rant(or hell listen to the whole thing), including some choice clips from such rightwing heroes as Coulter, Michael Weiner (that silly Savage), and of course the vulgar pigboy. It starts a little slow and builds fast (apparently along with Jay's blood pressure).
"We had Pat Insentenio (spelling?) who's a conservative on the line who said 'Well you can criticize George Dubya Bush but you have to be respectful'. No Pat, read the First Amendment to the Constitution. And who decides what's respectful and what's not..... But let me get back to my point. How do you claim moral high ground when you yourself don't have any? I'm sorry, the GOP and these ultra rightwing conservative talking heads don't have any high ground in this area. And if the College Young Republicans...are gonna come out against this why aren't they gonna come out against anything else? Let me give you some examples".
And he does give examples. It's worth a listen. Keep listening even after you think he's done - he keeps going. (By the way Jay, Republicans don't "come out" until they're forced to. They stay hidden in places like airport bathrooms and congressional-page dorm rooms.)
"And I challenge Dick Waddams or anybody else to come on this program and justify the stuff we've just played and tell me how THAT is okay but printing this in the Rocky Mountain Collegian is wrong. You come on here ya bunch of cowards. You're cowards and you're hypocrites and I'm sick of your crap."
Don't forget about swift-boating John Kerry, or comparing Max Cleland to Saddam Hussein. Jay's right, we shouldn't be taking this crap.

(Thanks to our good friend Nancy for the tip)

Permalink :: 1 comments :: Post a Comment
 

The Iraq war could have only cost $1 billion.
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
9:11 AM

Almost 4,000 dead soldiers and a half a trillion dollars later, we find this out:

Report Says Hussein Was Open To Exile Before 2003 Invasion

Less than a month before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein signaled that he was willing to go into exile as long as he could take with him $1 billion and information on weapons of mass destruction, according to a report of a Feb. 22, 2003, meeting between President Bush and his Spanish counterpart published by a Spanish newspaper yesterday.

The meeting at Bush's Texas ranch was a planning session for a final diplomatic push at the United Nations. The White House was preparing to introduce a tough new Security Council resolution to pressure Hussein, but most council members saw it as a ploy to gain their authorization for war.

Spain's prime minister at the time, Jose Maria Aznar, expressed hope that war might be avoided -- or at least supported by a U.N. majority -- and Bush said that outcome would be "the best solution for us" and "would also save us $50 billion," referring to the initial U.S. estimate of what the Iraq war would cost. But Bush made it clear in the meeting that he expected to "be in Baghdad at the end of March."

....

The account offered a rare glimpse of how Bush interacted with a trusted foreign leader, offering blunt assessments and showing a determination that led even Aznar, a close ally on Iraq, to ask that Bush show "a little more patience" in the march toward war. Bush expressed anger and irritation at those governments that disagreed with him, warning that they would pay a price. He directed particular scorn toward then-French President Jacques Chirac, one of the most public opponents of invasion, saying Chirac "sees himself as Mr. Arab."

Got War?

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Your tax dollars at work. LOTS of your tax dollars.
posted by Wally
8:08 AM

Because things are going so swimmingly in Bush's wars in the Middle east (you remember, the wars that were going to pay for themself with oil revenues - the "cakewalk" wars that Donny Rumsfeld decided to fight "on the cheap") and because the Iraqi and Afghan military and police have things so well under control, US Defense secretary Robert Gates is only asking Congress for another $190 Billion.
At a dramatic congressional hearing that saw the eviction of several dozen mostly female protesters, Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, on Wednesday urged lawmakers to approve $190bn to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2008.

Mr Gates said the Pentagon needed another $42bn for the conflicts on top of the $147bn outlined earlier this year. The request would bring total US military spending for fiscal 2008, which begins in October, to $671bn. If approved, the budget would equate to spending almost $21,300 a second and would rank the Pentagon ahead of the Dutch economy, the 16th largest in the world, in terms of size.
We needn't ask who is profiting most handsomely in that 16th largest economy. But here's a hint, it starts with "H" and rhymes with "alliburton". They, along with the rest of the military industrial complex (Boeing, GE, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, etc.) are reaping billions, taking it straight out of your and my pocket. They are stealing food off of your table and literally blowing it up halfway around the world. They are taking the money that should be paying for your family's medical care and using it to kill and maim strangers who have done nothing to you. And they are telling you that they are doing this to protect you.
In theatrical opening remarks that elicited cheers of approval from tens of "pink lady" protesters who have become a staple of congressional hearings on Iraq, Robert Byrd, Democratic committee chairman, lambasted the administration's "fatally flawed" surge strategy and said the committee would not "rubber stamp" every request by President George W. Bush.
But of course, they will, just like they have in the past. First they'll talk tough about blocking funding and putting restrictions and stipulations on the funding - like a withdrawal date. Then they'll quietly vote to give Bush everything he wants.

So what does the Bush administration plan to do with all this money? I'll let Senator Leahy answer that, in the words he said to deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte. "My telephone bill has a lot more detail than that ... your testimony adds nothing new."

Blank Check

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

But... but... but... Patraeus said the surge was working
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
6:56 AM

Does this mean Bush's hand-picked general was lying? Oh the disappointment and disillusionment.
US Military Says Violence in Iraq Has Increased

Iraqi officials say bombings have killed more than 20 people in northern Iraq and Baghdad, a sharp increase in violence after an apparent lull. A spokesman for the U.S. military in Iraq says the spike in attacks is not a surprise.

"There has indeed been an increase in violence in the last few days, largely in areas in which al-Qaida in Iraq operates and with al-Qaida in Iraq signatures, as they have sought to ramp up attacks," said General Bergner.

There is speculation that the timing of the attacks could indicate an organized attempt to undermine claims by U.S. forces that they are making progress toward reducing violence and achieving control over wider areas of Iraq.

He also says the increase is similar to the pattern in previous years when extremists mounted more attacks in conjunction with the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.
MoveOn was right. Patraeus did indeed betray us, just like Colin Powell did back in 2002 in the run up to the invasion.

Call or write your Congresscritters and tell them to stop funding this war, and by all means, Lieberman-Kyl bill or not - do NOT fund an Iranian invasion.

Surge This

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

This would be good news if Bush cared about the Constitution
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
6:33 AM

Federal Judge Slams USA Patriot Act
A federal judge issued a stern rebuke of a key White House antiterror law, striking down as unconstitutional two pillars of the USA Patriot Act.

U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled Wednesday that using the act to authorize secret searches and wiretapping to gather criminal evidence - instead of intelligence gathering - violates the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

"For over 200 years, this nation has adhered to the rule of law - with unparalleled success. A shift to a nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised," Aiken wrote.
The scary question is, will Bush's new Supreme Court (led by Roberts) uphold the ruling when it is appealed, or dismiss our basic Constitutional rights and continue to give Bush unlimited power?

One small step in the right direction

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Rarely is the question asked: Are our President learning?
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
1:50 PM

Commander Cokehead, speaking about No Child Left Behind, no less:

"Childrens do learn," Bush tells school kids

Offering a grammar lesson guaranteed to make any English teacher cringe, President George W. Bush told a group of New York school kids on Wednesday: "Childrens do learn."

Bush made his latest grammatical slip-up at a made-for-TV event where he urged Congress to reauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act, the centerpiece of his education policy, as he touted a new national report card on improved test scores.

The event drew New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings plus teachers and about 20 fourth and fifth graders from P.S. 76.

During his first presidential campaign, Bush -- who promised to be the "education president" -- once asked: "Is our children learning?"

...

"As yesterday's positive report card shows, childrens do learn when standards are high and results are measured," he said.

Not smarter than a 5th grader

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Iran War...Coming Soon!
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
1:15 PM

I guess the Dems didn't learn a goddamned thing about the Iraq war. Here's the backdoor to war with Iran:

BREAKING: Lieberman-Kyl's Iran amendment passes

By a vote 76-22, the Senate passed the Lieberman-Kyl amendment, which threatens to "combat, contain and [stop]" Iran via "military instruments." Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) called the amendment "Cheney's fondest pipe dream" and said it could "read as a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action."
The Senators who learned from Iraq and voted Nay:

Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Dodd (D-CT)
Feingold (D-WI)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)

Clinton voted yes. Dumbazz.

Roll Call

Permalink :: 3 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Funny, but Bush didn't mention this in his speech to the U.N.
posted by Wally
9:10 AM

Perhaps it got lost in his brain during his struggle to pronounce Myanmar, but for some reason Bush failed to explain this in his speech to the U.N. assembly on Tuesday.

War Inches Closer to Iran
U.S. Soldiers Create Military Base on Iraq-Iran Border

It will be called Combat Outpost Shocker, and it will hardly come as a pleasant surprise to Iran that the United States will have a new base just 5 miles from their border. Col. Mark Mueller, of the 3rd Infantry Division, said it is the first time the U.S. military will be that close to Iran.
It will be called "Combat Outpost WHAT"?



"Obviously, they probably won't be very happy about it," Mueller told ABC's Terry McCarthy.
Ya think?

Send Jenna

Shock and Awe baby:

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Just so you know...
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
8:27 AM

We Americans are not outraged at....

[deep breath]

The Iraq war, Al-Qaeda, Hurricane Katrina, high gas prices, the housing industry, CIA spy leaks, September the 11th, voter caging, attorney firings, Cheney's energy deal, wiretaps, Halliburton, Terry Schiavo, North Korea, global warming, Karl Rove, Minnesota bridges, K-street, Osama, Enron, Rummy, Mark Foley, airport bathrooms, hot tub Tom, Dubai port security, health care, Made in China, tax cuts for corporations, hot missing white chicks, Habeas Corpus, torture, Iran, Fred Phelps, stem cell research, Fox News, a MoveOn ad, foreign policy, WMD's, Lieberman, NSAT&T, Alberto Gonzales, bridges to nowhere, pollution, diaper sex, free speech zones, massive deficits, illegal immigration, Don Imus, the dollar's value, the Patriot Act, Blackwater, Ralph Nadar, the Coalition of the Willing, Macaca, rubber stamping, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, and the last episode of the Sopranos.
No folks, the President had this to say yesterday:

"Americans are outraged by the situation in Burma,"
So you see, the President wants us to be outraged at Burma instead. Makes sense. The top paragraph, for all we know, is Clinton's fault anyway.

2009

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Will Blackwater plead Executive Priviledge?
posted by Wally
7:31 AM

State Dept. intercedes in Blackwater probe

A House panel reveals a letter telling the firm not to disclose information about its Iraq operations without the administration's OK.

The State Department has interceded in a congressional investigation of Blackwater USA, the private security firm accused of killing Iraqi civilians last week, ordering the company not to disclose information about its Iraq operations without approval from the Bush administration, according to documents revealed Tuesday.

In a letter sent to a senior Blackwater executive Thursday, a State Department contracting official ordered the company "to make no disclosure of the documents or information" about its work in Iraq without permission.

Telling administration officials and Cabinet members to keep quiet is one thing, but telling a corporation hired by our government to ignore congressional inquiries is quite another. This begs the question, just how close of a relationship does the White House have with Blackwater that protecting the company is more important than protecting the American taxpayer? What are they hiding? Who is really running the government? Is it our elected officials, or is it the corporations who owns them?

We already know the answer to that, don't we?

Top Secret

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

There must be oil in Myanmar
posted by Wally
6:51 AM

With all the things going on in the world, all the things that he has gotten the United States into and all the ways he has alienated our allies and enemies alike, what critical, all encompassing, edge-of-the-seat topic did Dubya choose to discuss in his speech at the U.N. Assembly? It wasn't Iraq. Nor Iran. And certainly not global warming. The topic that Dubya apparently thought was on everyone's mind and needed to be addressed was.... Myanmar.

I wish I was joking. Hell, I wish I was funny enough to make this kind of thing up. Unfortunately, I don't have to.
President George W. Bush announced new U.S. sanctions against Myanmar's military rulers on Tuesday and urged other countries to follow suit amid Myanmar's biggest anti-government protests in 20 years.

"The United States will tighten economic sanctions on the leaders of the regime and their financial backers," Bush said in his annual address to the U.N. General Assembly.

"We will impose an expanded visa ban on those responsible for the most egregious violations of human rights," he added, declaring that Americans were "outraged" by rights abuses in Myanmar.
Myanmar?
The man who brought us Abu Ghraib and Gitmo and who thinks "waterboarding" is just like a fraternity prank is talking about human rights violations. Give him credit, with the phonetic pronounciations scrolling past on the teleprompter, at least he pronounced it correctly. Just how well did this go over at the U.N.? About as well as you might expect.
Today's performance in New York set a new low even for the Bush Administration. Except for tepid applause when Bush was introduced and when he left the podium, no one clapped. Not even our allies. The world has caught on to the George Bush propaganda game and declines to show him a modicum of respect.

(snip)

The world sat largely silently listening to a crazed little man rant about the abuses in the rest of the world. But his condemnation of the war in Sudan and the creation of refugees in Darfur could not blot out the reality of his war in Iraq and the millions who have fled that hell hole.

This was chutzpah. Just before Bush began speaking a series of car bombs swept Iraq killing and wounding hundreds. A country the United States has occupied for more than four years continues to be ravaged by violence. The Iraqi people themselves are denied the rights Bush extolled. Hell, the United States even protects mercenary armies–like Blackwater–who operate outside of any law and kill innocent civilians without any consequence.

The rest of the world sees and understands our hypocrisy. Unfortunately, many Americans share the ignorance and vacuity of George Bush and do not realize how foolish and stupid we look on the world stage. Today's performance by George Bush does nothing to win friends or influence enemies.
What are the odds he can even find Myanmar on a globe?

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Caption This
posted by Wally
6:21 AM

Use the "Post a Comment" link to submit your caption of Dubya at dinner with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon

Permalink :: 7 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Sound it out Mr. President.
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
2:13 PM

Noooookuuuuular!

White House upset over copy of Bush speech posted to U.N. website

Apparently, a marked-up draft of the president's speech popped up on the U.N.'s website as President Bush delivered his remarks this morning before the General Assembly, USA TODAY's David Jackson reports. The draft included phonetic spellings of some names and countries, and the cellphone numbers for Bush speechwriters.

Press secretary Dana Perino downplayed the incident, and said phonetic spellings are used to help interpreters. Asked if the president has trouble pronouncing some country's names, Perino deemed it "an offensive question."

"There was an error made," Perino said, noting it was not a final draft.

Update at 12:46 p.m. ET: Blake Hounshell at Foreign Policy says he has a copy of the speech that got the White House so worked up this morning. Here are some of the phonetic guides it included, according to the magazine's blog:

  • Kyrgyzstan (KEYR-geez-stan)
  • Mauritania (moor-EH-tain-ee-a)
  • Harare (hah-RAR-ray)
  • Mugabe (moo-GAH-bee)
  • Sarkozy (sar-KO-zee)
  • Caracas (kah-RAH-kus)
(dum-FUK)

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

$9.11 for Rudy!
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
7:56 AM

LMAO! A funny way to expose Rudy:

Giuliani Party Seeks $9.11 Per Person

A spokeswoman for Rudy Giuliani says it is unfortunate that a supporter throwing a party that aims to raise $9.11 per person for the Republican's presidential campaign is asking for that amount.

Abraham Sofaer is having a fundraiser at his Palo Alto, Calif., home on Wednesday, when Giuliani backers across the country are participating in the campaign's national house party night.

.....

"I'm just providing support for him. He's an old friend of mine," Sofaer said of Giuliani.

Sofaer was a State Department adviser under President Reagan and is a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution

9/11!!!!

Permalink :: 2 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Why is the MSM buying the same lies about Iran that they bought about Iraq?
posted by Wally
6:56 AM

In the run up to the Iraq war, the Bush administration spewed a series of lies about how dangerous Iraq was, and how we had no choice but to use military force. The main stream media bought the lies hook, line, and sinker, and repeated them relentlessly like well trained parrots (without bothering to do even remedial fact-checking - i.e. basic "journalism"). We are all witness to how that worked out.

Now we are finding out that not only is the main stream media too lazy to do simple investigation to find out if the politicians are misleading them (ya' think), they are also too stupid to learn from their mistakes.
Bush, the Bomb and Iran

To bomb or not to bomb Iran, that's the question the Bush Administration appears to be debating these days, once again revealing the extraordinary disconnect between the White House and the American people. With a catastrophic occupation of Iraq and polls showing the American public so skeptical about the use of military force that only eight percent support military action against Iran, there is nevertheless a clear and present danger that Cheney and the neocons will again prevail and lead this Administration into another disastrous military misadventure.

The parallels between now and the run-up to the Iraq War are troubling. Nobel Peace Prize-winner Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), who warned the Bush administration in 2003 about the lack of a nuclear program in Iraq and was subsequently attacked for his position by the Bush machine, the neocons and by many in the mainstream media, has now struck a deal with Iran to answer questions about its nuclear program within a defined timeline and improve access for inspectors. ElBaradei has called for a "double time-out" of all enrichment activities and new sanctions.

The result of ElBaradei's attempt to shed light on Iran's nuclear program? More attacks by the Bush administration. More outright hit jobs like this one from the Washington Post, or even the more subtle shading by the New York Times that ultimately portrays ElBaradei as a dictatorial loon. The result is, once again, an amplifying of the Administration's drumbeat calling for war.

(snip)

"Administration officials, including Secretary Rice, attacked the credibility of the director-general [in 2003] too," Cirincione says. "The Washington Post also blasted ElBaradei on his Iraq assessment. They were dead wrong. But this hasn't stopped them from attacking with guns blazing again. ElBaradei's record is far better on these issues than either the secretary of state's or the Washington Post's. You would think they would have some humility given the magnitude of their past mistakes. But some people have no shame."
And the main stream media wonders why subscriptions and ratings are down. They're useless - less than useless - they're dangerous. People are finally realizing it in sufficient numbers to take their search for accurate information elsewhere - like to the internet where they can find something other than just the "Bush" side of the story, where they can find international and unbiased news sources where "journalists" still occasionally do "journalism".

We at dubyaD40 say "you're welcome." (not that we do journalism, but we try to find tne news sources anyway). Now your job is to take this information and do whatever you have to do to NOT let them get away with Iran like they got away with Iraq.

The Nation

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Does this mean the end of Fox News?
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
6:50 AM

FCC Proposes 'Fake News' Fine

The Federal Communications Commission is proposing a $4,000 fine against Comcast Corp. for airing a pitch for a sleep aid without telling viewers that the spot was financed by the maker of the product.

The fine was in response to a complaint by the Center for Media and Democracy, a media watchdog group, which said it marks the first time a company has been sanctioned for airing a "video news release," a type of programming it dubs "fake news."

A video news release is a sponsored public relations video that mimics actual news reports. Such programs are common in broadcasting and are usually offered to news shows for free.

The fine, while small, is significant for another reason: It is being assessed against a cable company. Comcast Corp. says cable programming is not covered under the statute cited by the FCC.

Where facts go to die

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Monday, September 24, 2007
You're fired!
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
1:11 PM

The Donald: Time for Bush to go into 'hiding'

Donald Trump has some advice for President Bush if he wants a Republican to win the White House: Hide.

The business mogul and vocal critic of the Bush administration told CNN's Wolf Blitzer Monday that he thinks the president is a "huge liability" for any Republican seeking the White House. Trump went on to say the best thing Bush can do for his party is to go into "hiding."

"I think President Bush has to go into a corner and hide if a Republican is going to get elected," he said. "There is no way he is an asset. He is a huge liability, and he is going to have to do a big, big hiding act if a Republican is going to win."

Once a Republican nominee is determined, Trump added, Bush "should just go into a corner and say 'Okay, that's it. I am finished. I am over.'"

Osama's cave

Permalink :: 1 comments :: Post a Comment
 

2008 is about Bush
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
9:55 AM

Sorry repukes, but we WILL be using him against you.

Analysis: Bush Unwelcome on the Trail

Republican presidential candidates can't be any more clear: President Bush isn't welcome on the campaign trail.

Competing to succeed him, top GOP candidates Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and John McCain barely utter Bush's name. They essentially ignore the lame-duck president, or give him only passing credit, as they rail against the status quo and promise to fix problems he hasn't solved.

"We all know Americans want change," said McCain, an Arizona senator, explaining the aversion to aligning with Bush. "I give him credit for a number of things but I think the fact is Americans are turning the page, including our Republican primary voters."

.....

How candidates handle the 800-pound elephant in the room now could have implications beyond the primary. Privately, Republican strategists agree their nominee will lose next fall if the general election is a referendum on Bush. They say GOP candidates are wise to distance themselves from the president now, given his unpopularity among the public at large.

Bush

President predicts GOP will keep control of White House after 'tough race' in 2008
"I will work to see to it that a Republican wins and therefore don't accept the premise that a Democrat will win. I truly think the Republicans will hold the White House."
~Bush
Looks like chucklenuts wants to help the repukes next year.

Permalink :: 4 comments :: Post a Comment
 

We The Sheeple, of the United States of America...
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
7:33 AM

Poll: More Republicans Than Democrats Approve Of Congress

Now this is curious. In the latest Gallup poll, more Republicans approve of the job Congress is doing than there are Democrats who approve. According to the poll, 37% of Republicans approve of Congress' performance, compared to 23% of Democrats and 14% of independents, with an overall rating of 24% approval and 71% disapproval.

This is odd, of course, considering that both houses have Democratic majorities. But on second thought, the current Congress has passed President Bush's funding requests for Iraq, passed his FISA bill, and has given the White House exactly what it wanted on a host of other issues. So what do Republicans really have to complain about?

TPM

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Caption This!
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
6:31 AM

Use the "Post A Comment" link to add your caption.

Permalink :: 3 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Sunday, September 23, 2007
Hey KKKarl, so much for your 100 years of Republican rule
posted by Clyde
6:15 AM

Independent voters tilt toward Democrats

Michael Brooks is exactly the kind of voter the Republican Party can ill afford to lose. But in a foreboding omen for 2008, it may have already done just that.

The auto parts store worker from St. Charles, Mo., says he used to be a Republican but felt abandoned and is now an independent.

"For some reason or other, they didn't seem to be for the masses anymore," said Brooks, 59, citing a lack of help for middle-income earners. He said he voted for George W. Bush in 2000, thinking the Republican was "more middle of the road, for the people. Obviously I was incorrect."

Brooks is not alone. From coast to coast, independent voters tilt tellingly toward Democrats in their opposition to the Iraq war, their displeasure with Bush and their feeling that the country is moving in the wrong direction, according to data from recent Associated Press-Ipsos polls.

(link)

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Lovers spat over Blackwater
posted by Clyde
6:07 AM

Rice, al-Maliki keep distance at meeting

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki kept a polite distance Saturday as they attended a group meeting and avoided discussion of a deadly Baghdad shootout involving guards from a U.S. company protecting American diplomats.

The two greeted each other before the meeting, but in a brief exchange of pleasantries, the issue of the shootout didn't come up, deputy State Department spokesman Tom Casey said.

With tensions soaring over the Sept. 16 incident, Rice and al-Maliki chose not to speak about it at a United Nations gathering at which they were among senior diplomats and officials from Iraq's neighbors, including Iran and Syria, weighing future assistance to Iraq.

Earlier, the State Department's Iraq coordinator, David Satterfield, said the two did not have any one-on-one contact. Satterfield testily told reporters that the issue of the incident was not on the agenda. He told reporters after the meeting that Rice had already spoken by phone with al-Maliki about the matter.

(link)

Permalink :: 1 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Saturday, September 22, 2007
Is Bush's private army supplying terrorists?
posted by Clyde
6:35 AM

Feds target Blackwater in weapons probe

Federal prosecutors are investigating whether employees of the private security firm Blackwater USA illegally smuggled into Iraq weapons that may have been sold on the black market and ended up in the hands of a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, officials said Friday.

The U.S. Attorney's Office in Raleigh, N.C., is handling the investigation with help from Pentagon and State Department auditors, who have concluded there is enough evidence to file charges, the officials told The Associated Press. Blackwater is based in Moyock, N.C.

A spokeswoman for Blackwater did not return calls seeking comment Friday. The U.S. attorney for the eastern district of North Carolina, George Holding, declined to comment, as did Pentagon and State Department spokesmen.

Officials with knowledge of the case said it is active, although at an early stage. They spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter, which has heightened since 11 Iraqis were killed Sunday in a shooting involving Blackwater contractors protecting a U.S. diplomatic convoy in Baghdad.

(link)

Permalink :: 2 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Why does the dollar hate America?
posted by Clyde
6:26 AM

Dollar hits bottom, and then falls again

The dollar fell sharply Friday, reaching a record low against the euro and capping a dramatic week for global financial markets that was marked by interest rate cuts, bank bailouts and skyrocketing oil prices.

The level of the dollar - often regarded as a barometer of the U.S. economy's health - dropped to $1.4120 against the euro during business hours in Asia, reaching an all-time low for a second consecutive day.

It also slipped against a number of other major currencies on speculation that the U.S. Federal Reserve would keep cutting interest rates as the world's largest economy weakens.

Sentiment soured for the dollar after Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, stoked speculation that he might continue to lower rates following this week's aggressive trim of half a percentage point. Bernanke said Thursday that the sell-off in credit markets could make the housing recession more severe.

(link)

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Friday, September 21, 2007
MoveOn condemns Congress with new ad...
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
1:47 PM

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Now's the time. (Part 50)
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
1:17 PM

Here we go again. Will the Dems ever say no? Oh wait, they're "keeping their powder dry." Sackless turds:

Bush may boost spending request for Iraq war

The Bush administration may increase the amount of money it is seeking for the Iraq war for the 2008 fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, the White House said on Friday.

The White House outlined a request for around $147 billion for fiscal 2008 for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the administration is reviewing those figures and is considering giving Congress an updated request.

"I would expect it to be higher, I can't tell you what the number will be," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.

Money Pit

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

For the record..
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
9:17 AM

Attacking John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam war veteran, in 2004 to win re-election is okay. Calling Gen. Petraeus a name like "General Betray Us," not okay:

Bush: MoveOn.org ad on Petraeus 'disgusting'

A MoveOn.org political advertisement that criticized the top U.S. commander in Iraq was "disgusting," President Bush said Thursday, accusing Democrats of being afraid to criticize the anti-war group.

Bush told reporters at a White House news conference that MoveOn.org's ad in The New York Times about Gen. David Petraeus was a "sorry deal." The September 10 full-page ad was titled "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?"

"I felt like the ad was an attack, not only on Gen. Petraeus, but on the U.S. military," Bush said. "And I was disappointed that not more leaders in the Democratic Party spoke out strongly against that kind of ad."

Bush said that "most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like MoveOn.org" and they "are more afraid of irritating them than they are of irritating the United States military."

Hide behind your generals

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Tough words..
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
8:03 AM

All bark and no bite by our Majority Leader Reid...

Democrats proceed with Iraq legislation

Senate Democrats defiantly charged ahead Thursday with legislation ordering troops home from Iraq, still lacking the votes to win but armed with the mantra that Republicans, along with President Bush, now own the war.

"They want this war more than they want to protect our soldiers," Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters. "When I say they want the war, they want to protect their president more than they want to protect our troops."

Reid spoke minutes after Republicans successfully pushed through, by a 72-25 vote, a resolution condemning an advertisement by the liberal activist group MoveOn.org. Displayed in The New York Times, the ad taunted Gen. David Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, as "General Betray Us."

Reid's tough rhetoric reflected frustration by Democrats that more Republicans haven't broken with Bush on the war. Several Republican senators had grown increasingly anxious throughout the summer about the violence in Iraq and lack of political progress in Baghdad.

Lap Dogs

Permalink :: 1 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Thursday, September 20, 2007
Bush's Destiny - to Fulfill H.L. Mencken's Prophecy
posted by Wally
1:32 PM

It took just eight decades but H.L. Mencken's astute prediction on the future course of American presidential politics and the electorate's taste in candidates came true:

On July 26, 1920, the acerbic and cranky scribe wrote in The Baltimore Sun: " . . . all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre - the man who can most easily (and) adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
Read the rest here

Permalink :: 2 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Wanna get away?
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
1:18 PM

U.S. Airport Screeners Are Watching What You Read
International travelers concerned about being labeled a terrorist or drug runner by secret Homeland Security algorithms may want to be careful what books they read on the plane. Newly revealed records show the government is storing such information for years.

Privacy advocates obtained database records showing that the government routinely records the race of people pulled aside for extra screening as they enter the country, along with cursory answers given to U.S. border inspectors about their purpose in traveling. In one case, the records note Electronic Frontier Foundation co-founder John Gilmore's choice of reading material, and worry over the number of small flashlights he'd packed for the trip.

The breadth of the information obtained by the Gilmore-funded Identity Project (using a Privacy Act request) shows the government's screening program at the border is actually a "surveillance dragnet," according to the group's spokesman Bill Scannell.

"There is so much sensitive information in the documents that it is clear that Homeland Security is not playing straight with the American people," Scannell said.

Ding!

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

How does he say these things without his head exploding?
posted by Wally
1:14 PM

At a Thursday morning news conference, President George W. Bush scolded Congress for not passing a bill that would provide health care coverage for poor children.

"Congress is putting health care for poor children at risk," Bush said. "If they fail to [pass a bill by Sept. 30], more than a million children could lose health coverage. Health coverage for these children should not be held hostage while political ads are being made and new polls are being taken."

Bush said he will veto the bill Congress is considering, which is to raise the eligibility for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) to include children from families that make $80,000 per year.
Ummmm, George, you're scolding them about passing a children's healthcare bill, and in the same breath threatening to veto the children's healthcare bill? Hitting the sauce a little early today?

And Republicans called Kerry a "flip-flopper"?

Then he said this, while fielding questions about the economy:
"The fundamentals of economy are strong," Bush said. "I'm optimistic about economy. I would be pessimistic if Congress had its way and raised taxes. We're keeping fiscally responsible.
What does that even mean? Is that English? Or maybe Engrish? Or is he taking speech lessons from Tarzan? "Me Tarzan. You Jane. Fundamentals of economy strong." Or maybe Tonto. "Me heap optimistic about economy." It's obvious he has no idea what he's talking about, and that he's just parrotting the big words that his handlers told him to use.

Or are the meds wearing off (or kicking in), and it's time for Laura to put little Georgie's bicycle helmet back on his head and give the overgrown retard a nice cup of pudding.

I like tater tots!

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Why do Republicans hate the Constitution?
posted by Wally
8:56 AM

The United States Senate celebrated this week's 220th anniversary of the Constitution by failing to endorse the restoration of the habeas corpus protections that legal scholar Albert Venn Dicey once described as being "worth a hundred constitutional articles guaranteeing individual liberty."

Of all the insults to the nation's founding principles that have been recorded in this era of undeclared wars, unwarranted spying and unlimited executive excess, none is more galling than this one.

That a single senator, having sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, would vote against the renewal of habeas corpus protections ought to be a shock to the system.

That 43 of them -- enough to block a cloture motion that would have allowed the Senate majority to undo the damage done by the Military Commissions Act of 2006 -- is evidence of the depth to which the Republic has sunk. The founders of the American experiment left no doubt of the commitment of the new United States to the rule of law and right. While Madison, Mason and their contemporaries assumed that habeas corpus protections would be embraced and respected by all Americans who understood the point of their revolt against the British crown, they specifically added a notation to the Constitution stating that, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."
Habeas Corpus was first established as a fundamental right in the Magna Carta in 1215 AD (probably before then, actually, but it was formally written up as a fundamental right at that time).
Magna Carta required the king to renounce certain rights, respect certain legal procedures and accept that his will could be bound by the law. It explicitly protected certain rights of the king's subjects, whether free or fettered - most notably the right of Habeas Corpus, meaning that they had rights against unlawful imprisonment.
No wonder Republicans don't like it - they don't think King George should have to renounce any rights, or be bound by any laws.

What the Republicans (and Joe Lieberman) did on Wednesday when they filibustered the Restoration of Habeas Corpus Act was nothing less than directly, blatantly, and very vocally violate their oath to uphold the Constitution. In so doing, they demonstrated in no uncertain terms that they disagree with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights - rights first established 800 years ago - before the white man even had an inkling that America (north or south) even existed. They call themselves Americans and patriots? Bullshit. Let's call them what they are: Traitors.

Bush's Amerikkka

Permalink :: 1 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Churchill was a crossdresser?
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
8:01 AM

Giuliani associates himself with Churchill

LONDON -- Rudy Giuliani, the Republican front-runner for president, made the rounds here Wednesday as though he were already the head of state.

....

During this appearance on the international stage, he was intent on associating himself with two of the most powerful Britons ever to play on it: Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher.

The entertainment for the luncheon was billed as a conversation between Giuliani and Celia Sandys, Churchill's granddaughter. As chats go, it was stilted, but there was some give and take: Giuliani offered voluminous praise for Churchill's resolute, defiant leadership during World War II, and graciously accepted as Sandys repeatedly likened him to the great man.

....

Giuliani, as expected, spoke at length about 9/11 and his guidance of New York through its darkest hour. That day, he said, as he has before, he looked to Churchill for inspiration. He prepared for Sept. 12, 2001, by forgoing sleep to read Churchill's biography, he said.

9/11 9/11 9/11
Speaking of 9/11:

"I don't think of Sept. 11 as being my defining experience. I think if it was I wouldn't have been able to handle it,"
~Judy Riuliani, Giuliani: I'm Among Best Known Americans

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Republicans support troops by keeping them away from their families
posted by Wally
7:21 AM

Senate Republicans were able to block Jim Webb's (D-VA) amendment to the defense authorization bill to give troops as much time at home as they spend deployed abroad.
Democrats plan several more bills in the next few weeks to try to speed troop withdrawals, but the one on "dwell time" was considered their best chance to get the 60 votes needed under Senate rules to shut off debate. It fell four votes short: 56-44.
Houston Chronicle
That was not surprising, or even unexpected.

Also not surprising, but still disappointing, was that the Democrats didn't have the balls or brains to tell the Republicans "fine, filibuster. prove to the country that you don't want the troops to be with their families." In what could have been a political and Iraq-war ending win, the Dems could have just sat back and let the Republicans (and Joe Lieberman, of course), read the phone book, talk about the weather, and filibuster for months if they wanted, bringing all business in the Senate to a halt until they either gave up and allowed a full Senate vote on the amendment, or keeled over in exhaustion - and allowed a full Senate vote on the amendment.

This would have served two purposes. 1) Politically, the Democrats could keep asking "Why are the Republicans being "obstructionists" and preventing the Senate from doing their job? Why can't we get and "up or down vote" on the amendment?" Remember those two phrases that the GOP was so fond of just 10 months ago? 2) If they filibuster long enough, the defense authorization bill will never get passed, funding will be cut off to the troops, and it will all be the Republicans fault. The Republicans give the Democrats and the majority of Americans who want the war to end exactly what they want, in spite of themselves. What the hell is the Democratic leadership thinking by not keeping the amendment on the floor?

The defeat came after John Warner (R-VA) flip-flopped and decided to vote against the bill, after voicing support for it just a month ago. "I endorsed it," Warner said. "I intend now to cast a vote against it." Who's willing to bet against me that this doesn't make 1/100th the airtime that John Kerry's "I voted for the war before I voted against it" comment?

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Wednesday, September 19, 2007
$9.82 trillion
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
3:25 PM

Congress Asked to Lift Debt Ceiling

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told Congress on Wednesday that the federal government will hit the current debt ceiling on Oct. 1.

He urged quick action to increase the limit, saying it was essential to protect the "full faith and credit" of the country, especially at a time of financial market turmoil.

The current debt limit is $8.965 trillion. Unless Congress votes to raise that ceiling, the country would be unable to borrow more money to keep the government operating and to pay debt obligations coming due. The United States has never defaulted on a debt payment but the decision on whether to raise the debt ceiling often sparks a prolonged political battle in Congress.

.....

The Senate Finance Committee earlier this month approved increasing the limit on the national debt to $9.82 trillion. That boost of $850 billion would be the fifth increase in the government's borrowing limit since President Bush took office in 2001.

What's in your wallet?


Let's do some quick math:
The current debt is $8.965 trillion. Divide that by 300 million Americans and you find that every single man, woman, and child in America currently owes $29,883.
Under the new ceiling, we could each owe as much as $32,733.

What could you do with 30 grand? Or 120 grand if you're a family of four.

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

We should hang a sign on Miss Liberty saying "Welcome to the United Soviet States of America"
posted by Clyde
2:12 PM

Shrub couldn't stop 9/11 with the information he had so what makes us think he will do better by giving up our civil rights?

Bush calls for expansion of spy law

President Bush said Wednesday that a law hastily passed in August to temporarily give the government more power to eavesdrop without warrants on foreign terror suspects must be made permanent and expanded.

If this doesn't happen, Bush said, "Our national security professionals will lose critical tools they need to protect our country."

"Without these tools, it will be harder to figure out what our enemies are doing to train, recruit and infiltrate operatives into America," he said on a visit to the super-secret National Security Agency's headquarters in suburban Fort Meade, Md. "Without these tools, our country will be much more vulnerable to attack."

The 30-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act governs when warrants for eavesdropping must be obtained from a secret intelligence court. This year's update - approved by the Senate and House just before Congress adjourned for an August break - allows more efficient interceptions of foreign communications.

(Give me liberty or just forget it)

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

More love for the troops
posted by Clyde
1:05 PM

This is just another example of why the military needs to vote Democrat!

GOP opposes bill regulating combat tours

Democratic legislation to regulate troops' combat tours in Iraq ran into stiff resistance in the Senate Wednesday from Republicans who said the military, not Congress, should manage deployments.

The proposal by Sen. Jim Webb, a former Navy secretary and Vietnam veteran, would require that troops be allowed as much time at home as they spend deployed. Currently, Army soldiers spend about 15 months in combat and 12 months home.

One of several Democratic proposals intended to challenge President Bush on the Iraq war, Webb's bill was seen as having the best shot at achieving the 60 votes needed to advance. The bill attracted three dozen co-sponsors, including Republicans Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Gordon Smith of Oregon.

"You cannot continue to load on to 1 percent of our society all the burdens, all the sacrifices as we are doing. It's wrong," Hagel told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference.

(Hoo Rah)

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Stay the course with Bush...
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
9:55 AM

This is what you get:

GOP identification drops

Americans aren't just having a tough time seeing themselves pulling the lever for Republicans these days. Fewer are seeing themselves as Republicans, period.

That's the conclusion of one of the party's most respected polling firms, based on a compilation of its national surveys conducted so far this year. Public Opinion Strategies, based in Alexandria, Va., counts among its clients about one-fourth of all Republican members of Congress and is half of the bipartisan team that conducts polling for NBC News and The Wall Street Journal.

.....

Of real concern, however, is the firm's finding of fewer self-identified Republicans among men over the age of 55 and men who live in rural areas - groups that have been GOP mainstays for most of the Bush era.

Data compiled by Public Opinion Strategies this year also reaffirms a more widely acknowledged point in political circles: that the GOP continues to trail dangerously on the question of whether voters would be more inclined to elect a Democratic or Republican member of Congress, aka the generic congressional ballot test.

The Base

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

US Spy Czar: "9/11 could have been prevented". His conclusion: "Expand warrantless wiretapping abilities"
posted by Wally
8:43 AM

How many times in the past six and a half years have we said "you can't make this shit up"? How many times have we thought "there's no way this administration can do anything to surprise me anymore", and then been surprised by their audacity?

Well, they managed to do it again.
Six years after the deadliest attack on U.S. soil, the head of U.S. spy operations admitted to lawmakers that "9/11 should have and could have been prevented."

Director of National Intelligence, Michael McConnell, told members of the House Judiciary Committee Tuesday that "it was an issue of connecting information that was available."
ABC News
Let me repeat that - "information that was available". Having laid that out on the table - that they could have used the "information that was available" to stop 9/11, what was McConnell's recommendation?
He is seeking changes to the Protect America Act, which Congress passed to effectively supersede or modify the Foreign Intelligence Surveilliance Act - a law that administration officials have said tied their hands in combating terrorism.

The new law eased some of the restrictions on government eavesdropping contained in the decades-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, to let the government more efficiently intercept foreign calls and e-mails.

The Protect America Act allows the government to eavesdrop, without a court order, on all communications conducted by a person reasonably believed to be outside the United States, even if an American is on one end of the conversation provided the American is not the intended focus or target of the surveillance.

"Let's have some truth in advertising, the act gives the president almost unfettered power to spy, without judicial approval, not only on foreigners but on Americans," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-NY, the chairman of the subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.
Guardian UK
What McConnell is saying, in other words, is that because they already had plenty of available information to stop the 9/11 attacks, but didn't use it, they need unfettered and uncontrolled access to even more information. I have a better idea. They should fix the processes they have so that they can use the admittedly adequate "available" information they already have.

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

The U.S. is Arming All Sides in the Iraq Civil War to the Teeth. What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
posted by Wally
7:50 AM

The grand debate about Gen. David Petraeus' Capitol Hill testimony last week on U.S. strategy in Iraq focused primarily on troop levels, withdrawal dates and whether Bush's so-called troop surge was succeeding. But widely overlooked was Petraeus' sales pitch to lawmakers for one initiative he said will help save the war-torn country: massive arms sales from the U.S. government to Iraq.

"Iraq is becoming one of the United States' larger foreign military sales customers," Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Sept. 11, noting that Iraq has inked deals to buy $1.6 billion in arms from the U.S., with the "possibility of up to $1.8 billion more." Data obtained by Salon shows the arms sales could rise far higher than even the amount the general suggested last week.

(snip)

The arms deals come as the U.S. has shifted strategy to enlist Sunnis in western Iraq -- some of them former insurgents -- into all-Sunni units of the Iraqi security forces. The fear is that these newly trained and armed units will ultimately turn against the Shiite-dominated central government or against U.S. forces again. "I think this is kind of crazy," Hartung said about the arms sales. "Now we are making deals with some of these Sunni groups. Well, what if they turn around and go back to being insurgents after we have built them up? I think the danger of these arms being misused, even in the short term, is fairly high."

(snip)

Losing control of weapons once they are out of U.S. hands is a risk Petraeus knows about. In July, a Government Accountability Office released a critical report showing that the military had lost track of 190,000 weapons the U.S. military was supposed to hand out to Iraqi security forces, including 110,000 AK-47 rifles. That report received widespread attention in the media. (These weapons, purchased by the United States and handed out to Iraqis, are in addition to these new arms deals with Iraq.)

Late last month, a report from National Public Radio revealed that Glock pistols were part of a growing black market in Turkey for weapons of U.S. origin.
Great, we're not only arming the Shias, Sunnis and Kurds who are killing each other and our troops, and who are certainly selling/giving the weapons to Al Qaeda and other groups who want to follow us home and fight us here if we don't fight them there. We're also supporting a multibillion dollar black market in weapons. What a spectacular plan.

None of this matters for the Bush administration or the Republicans though. Their buddies in the defense industry aren't making shitloads of money off of this war. They're making Metric shitloads. And that's what's important. All the rest - the bloodshed, the killings, the lack of water, food, medicine, electricity, the bombings and shootings and kidnappings, the destruction of America's reputation.... as long as the money keeps rolling in and it's not their kids, to the Republicans, good business IS good foreign policy.

Stupid? Or Criminal?

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Where have we heard this before?
posted by Wally
6:47 AM

Rice attacks IAEA, urges bold action on Iraqn
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has attacked the head of the UN nuclear watchdog for urging caution in the dispute over Iran's nuclear programme.

The criticism came after IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said force should be a last resort in the Iran dispute.

He dismissed talk of military action in Iran as "hype" and urged people not to forget the lessons of war in Iraq.

Ms Rice maintained that "all options" were on the table to resolve the stand-off over Iran's refusal to end its uranium-enrichment work.
Let's hop aboard the WayBack Machine and go back in time just over 5 years, to September 2002. The IAEA was saying that Iraq had nothing in the way of nuclear capacity. The Bush administration was saying that the IAEA was a bunch of know-nothing poopie-heads, and that Iraq had bought aluminum tubes for use in centrifuges (a claim soundly debunked by the IAEA and others - the tubes were for Iraq's version of the Italian made Medusa 81 rockets), and that Saddam was trying to buy yellow-cake from Niger (we all know how that story ended). On September 8, 2002 Condi made her infamous "mushroom cloud" statement during an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." The WashPost did a nice analysis of how the Bush administration clouded the facts while beating the war drums in the run up to the Iraq invasion.

Comparing what was happening 5 years ago with what's happening today, I have to ask: Why should we or would we believe Condi or anyone else in the administration now?

More Lies

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Caption This
posted by Wally
6:28 AM

Use the "Post a Comment" link to submit your caption of Dubya doing a photo-op with 2007 National Spelling Bee Champion, Evan O'Dorney, 14, of Danville, California.


Permalink :: 5 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Condi, you got some splainin to do
posted by Clyde
1:09 PM

Although they are looking at the Inspector General, who in the Bush White House does anything without approval from on high?

State Department under Hill scrutiny

A congressional committee has launched an investigation into the State Department's inspector general, alleging that he blocked fraud investigations, including potential security lapses at the newly built U.S. embassy in Baghdad.

Also under scrutiny is whether Blackwater USA, the private security firm banned this week from working in Iraq for the alleged killing of eight Iraqi civilians, was "illegally smuggling weapons into Iraq," according to a letter to IG Howard J. Krongard that was obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press.

The investigation involves allegations that "your strong affinity with State Department leadership and your partisan political ties have led you to halt investigations, censor reports, and refuse to cooperate with law enforcement agencies," Krongard was told.

Based on allegations made by a number of current and former senior investigators who worked for Krongard, the letter from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee also questioned whether he adequately investigated illegal labor trafficking allegations involving the Kuwaiti company that was building the Baghdad embassy.

(link)

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Senator Hagel on Real Time with Bill Maher
posted by Wally
12:04 PM

Hagel talks about the Iraq war (among other things) on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher

Here, Bill asks him about Patraeus' testimony before Congress.
Maher: Isn't it a dirty trick, sort of, on the American people when you send a military man out there to basically do a political "sell-job"?

Hagel: Well it's not only a dirty trick, but it's dishonest, it's hypocritical, it's dangerous and irresponsible.


Bill: I've heard a lot of Republicans in the last year or so say "I want my party back." .... I imagine you're somewhat in the same camp, you think the Republican party has been hijacked by incompetents and religious fanatics?

Hagel: Oh, I think it's been hijacked by incompetency, I think that's what has driven the Republican party right off the cliff, and we are not who we say we are. And that's at best dishonest.....
Not that we have any great love for Senator Hagel, but at least he has the fortitude to speak out and say that he thinks his party and his president have screwed this country up royally, and that they need to change. We couldn't agree more.

If only he'd listened to us 6 years ago when he allowed his party to elevate numbnuts to god status, and put us on the road to where we are today.

Permalink :: 2 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Finally Somebody Is Taking A Stand Against American War-Profiteers
posted by Wally
7:53 AM

It's a shame it has to be the Iraqi government.

Iraq Orders Blackwater to Leave After Civilian Deaths

The Iraqi government has ordered the American private security contractor Blackwater, which provides protection for US officials in the country, to shut down its operations after its guards were accused of killing 10 civilians and injuring 13 others in Baghdad.

Employees of the company are alleged to have opened fire indiscriminately after a bomb exploded on Sunday in the Mansour district of the city, packed with people shopping for Ramadan.

The Iraqi government's decision, personally endorsed by the Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, is the strongest measure taken yet against private security contractors, who have been repeatedly accused of carrying out unprovoked shootings of Iraqi civilians.
This is what happens when you "outsource" war. I wonder if Dubya will consider this part of his vaunted "draw-down", and substitute it for bringing home real soldiers.

War Crimes

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

The sickest story yet.
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
7:33 AM

Unbelievable.

Airport bust: Sting hits Justice Dept.

A U.S. Justice Department official has been arrested on suspicion of traveling to Detroit over the weekend to have sex with a minor. John David R. Atchison, 53, an assistant U.S. attorney from the northern district of Florida, was arraigned in U.S. District Court in Detroit Monday afternoon. Prosecutors said Atchison flew from Pensacola, Fla., to Detroit on Sunday intending to have sex with a 5-year-old girl.

A 5 YEAR OLD!
Update: This guy is really sick.

The undercover detective expressed concern about physical injury to the 5-year-old girl as a result of the sexual activity. Detectives said Atchison responded, " I am always gentle and loving; not to worry, no damage ever, no rough stuff ever. I only like it soft and nice."

The undercover detective asked how Atchison can be certain of no injury. He responded, "Just gotta go slow and very easy. I've done it plenty," according to detectives.

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Monday, September 17, 2007
Hillary's health care plan
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
1:20 PM

Clinton unveils mandatory health care insurance plan

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton announced a $110 billion health care reform plan Monday that would require all Americans to have health insurance.

.....

"It's time to provide quality affordable health care for every American," Clinton said. "And I intend to be the president who accomplishes that goal finally for our country."

A Clinton adviser compares the plan's so-called "individual mandate" -- which requires everyone to have health insurance -- to current rules in most states that require all drivers to purchase auto insurance, according to The Associated Press.

In her plan, Clinton said families would receive tax credits to help pay for coverage. The tax credit would be designed to limit the premiums to a percentage of a family's income.

HillaryClinton.com

I think I like John Edwards' idea better:

"I'm glad that, today, the architect of the 1993 plan has another care proposal -- and if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then I'm flattered," said Edwards, a former U.S. senator from North Carolina. "The lesson Senator Clinton seems to have learned from her experience with health care is, 'If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.' I learned a very different lesson from decades of fighting powerful interests -- you can never join 'em, you just have to beat 'em."

Edwards' proposal would cut off health care for the president, Congress and all political appointees in mid 2009, if a universal health care plan for all Americans has not been passed by then.

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Tell us something we didn't know.
posted by Wally
7:56 AM

Invasion of Iraq was driven by oil, says Greenspan
Alan Greenspan, the consummate Washington insider and long-time head of the US central bank, has backed the position taken by many anti-war critics - that the invasion of Iraq was motivated by oil.

His claim comes in his newly published autobiography, The Age of Turbulence, in which he also castigates George Bush's administration for making "grave mistakes" in economic policy.

Sounding more like an activist than a lifelong Republican who worked alongside six US presidents, Mr Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, said in an interview with the Guardian that the invasion of Iraq was aimed at protecting Middle East oil reserves: "I thought the issue of weapons of mass destruction as the excuse was utterly beside the point."

In the book Mr Greenspan writes: "Whatever their publicised angst over Saddam Hussain's 'weapons of mass destruction', American and British authorities were also concerned about violence in the area that harbours a resource indispensable for the functioning of the world economy. I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

Duh

Permalink :: 3 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Is Bush being reasonable? Or am I being delusional?
posted by Wally
6:47 AM

Bush to replace Gonzo with a "consensus" nominee for Attorney General
The US president, George Bush, is expected to name a retired New York federal judge to replace the controversial Alberto Gonzales as the attorney general today.

Michael Mukasey - who has in the past received endorsements from Democrats - is expected to win Senate confirmation without much opposition.
Guardian
What do we know about Mukasey? Here's a few items that provide a little hope - not that our hope hasn't been misplaced before, but with Rove gone, Gonzo gone, Rummy gone, etc... maybe Dubya is being allowed to make a decision on his own - and maybe he's feeling conciliatory. Okay, you can stop laughing now. More likely he wants to avoid a fight that he doesn't think he can win. You know how he can't tolerate (or even admit) defeat.

Anyway, some hopeful signs:
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) issued this statement late last night:

"While he is certainly conservative, Judge Mukasey seems to be the kind of nominee who would put rule of law first and show independence from the White House, our most important criteria.
Schumer had suggested his name for Bush to consider for the Supreme Court back in 2003, and again for consideration as A.G. in March of this year.

Another good sign is that most of the neo-cons don't like him and were hoping for more contentious selection (Ted Olson, for example). That alone is not reason to be at least cautiously optimistic about the selection. Based on historical precedent, anyone that Bush chooses is automatically suspect, and should be. The man is undoubtedly conservative - as would be expected - but the primary concern should be not his political bent, but his legal judgement. Does he put rule of law first. Here's what Glenn Greenwald of Salon said about that, particularly referring to the Jose Padilla case:
Judge Mukasey repeatedly defied the demands of the Bush administration, ruled against them, excoriated them on multiple occasions for failing to comply with his legally issued orders, and ruled that Padilla was entitled to contest the factual claims of the government and to have access to lawyers. He issued these rulings in 2002 and 2003, when virtually nobody was defying the Bush administration on anything, let alone on assertions of executive power to combat the Terrorists.

(snip)

None of this is to say that Mukasey should be confirmed as Attorney General if, as appears to be the case, he is the nominee. There is a long record of rulings that very well may constitute potent grounds for opposing him.

(snip)

Criminal defense lawyer Jeralyn Merritt, a tenacious advocate for defendants' rights, says Mukasey is "independent-minded, extremely experienced and smart," and that although he is "far too supportive of the Patriot Act and too close to Rudy Giuliani for comfort, he doesn't run rough-shod over defendants' rights."
So he looks like a mixed bag. Which is still a vast improvement over Fredo, and over several of the other options Bush could have nominated. Let's hope the confirmation hearing is more than a "getting to know you" session, and that the Congress actually asks some tough questions and demands some straightforward answers. Questions like: "What are you going to do about these outstanding subpoenas?"

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Caption This
posted by Wally
5:54 AM

Use the "Post a Comment" link to submit your caption of Dubya standing in the mess line with Marines at Quantico, VA

Permalink :: 2 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Sunday, September 16, 2007
Oh my God, what will we do?
posted by Clyde
5:59 AM

Iraq Coalition crumbles as Iceland recalls lone coalition member from Iraq!

Iceland Withdraws from NATO Project in Iraq

Foreign Minister Ingibjorg Solrun Gisladottir has decided to remove an Icelandic Crisis Response Unit (ICRU) member from a NATO training program for the Iraqi army in Baghdad next month, causing disappointment among NATO leaders.

The ICRU member has been working in Baghdad for the last two years, primarily as a media representative, and will cease working there October 1, Morgunbladid reports.

John Craddock, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe for NATO and the US European Command, said at a press conference in Iceland yesterday that Iceland is an important and active NATO member and that he was disappointed with Gisladottir's decision.

But Craddock added that he understands that NATO member nations have to make decisions according to their best interests and "estimate what they can do and what they cannot do, what they want to do and what they don't."

(link)

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Wise words about war from Gen. Wes Clark
posted by Clyde
5:57 AM

The Next War
It's always looming. But has our military learned the right lessons from this one to fight it and win?

Testifying before Congress last week, Gen. David H. Petraeus appeared commanding, smart and alive to the challenges that his soldiers face in Iraq. But he also embodied what the Iraq conflict has come to represent: an embattled, able, courageous military at war, struggling to maintain its authority and credibility after 4 1/2 years of a "cakewalk" gone wrong.

Petraeus will not be the last general to find himself explaining how a military intervention has misfired and urging skeptical lawmakers to believe that the mission can still be accomplished. For the next war is always looming, and so is the urgent question of whether the U.S. military can adapt in time to win it.

Today, the most likely next conflict will be with Iran, a radical state that America has tried to isolate for almost 30 years and that now threatens to further destabilize the Middle East through its expansionist aims, backing of terrorist proxies such as the Lebanese group Hezbollah and Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank, and far-reaching support for radical Shiite militias in Iraq. As Iran seems to draw closer to acquiring nuclear weapons, almost every U.S. leader -- and would-be president -- has said that it simply won't be permitted to reach that goal.

Think another war can't happen? Think again. Unchastened by the Iraq fiasco, hawks in Vice President Cheney's office have been pushing the use of force. It isn't hard to foresee the range of military options that policymakers face.

(link)

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Saturday, September 15, 2007
Business as usual for a Republican
posted by Clyde
5:30 AM

Work on Stevens House Detailed
Ex-CEO Testifies He Oversaw Project

A former energy company executive testified yesterday that his employees worked on an expansive reconstruction of the house of Sen. Ted Stevens (R), who is under investigation in a federal probe of corruption among Alaska lawmakers.

Bill Allen, the former chief executive of Veco Corp., said he personally oversaw the rebuilding of Stevens's house near Anchorage, visiting the home about once a month, and gave the senator furniture. "I gave Ted some old furniture," Allen testified. "I don't think there was a lot of material. There was some labor."

Contractors previously told a federal grand jury that Veco executives supervised renovations at Stevens's house and that bills for the work went to Veco for Allen's approval. But yesterday was the first time that Allen, who has pleaded guilty to bribing state lawmakers in Anchorage, named Stevens publicly.

Allen testified in federal court in Alaska in the trial of a former state legislator whose case is part of a larger corruption investigation that has ensnared Stevens's son, Ben Stevens, a former state senator. Allen said yesterday that Ben Stevens accepted $4,000 a month in bribes, disguised as consulting fees, while he was in the state legislature.

(link)

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Contracting gone wild
posted by Clyde
5:08 AM

$15B narcoterrorism war to be outsourced

The U.S. Defense Department has invited five contractors to bid on elements of a new, multibillion dollar effort to combat the global flow of illegal drugs allegedly used to finance terrorism.

Awarded by the Pentagon's Counter-Narcoterrorism Technology Program Office in Dahlgren, Va., the contract vehicle has a potential value of $15 billion over five years. One participant is ARINC, a Maryland-based provider of airline communications systems.

"This gives us the opportunity to bid on this work," said Linda Hartwig, an ARINC spokesperson. "We don't have a lot of details yet, but we do know that this is an expansion of what [the U.S] is already doing to fight drug trafficking, and that 80 percent of the work will be overseas."

Hartwig said the other participating vendors are defense giants Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon, and security contractor Blackwater USA. Blackwater confirmed its participation, but the other vendors did not respond to inquiries.

(link)

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Friday, September 14, 2007
Randy Bean & Condi Rice. Red beans and rice?
posted by Wally
2:45 PM


Turns out Dubya is NOT Condi's hubby
This is Condi's hubby




It appears that our suspicions were true. Condi DOES love bush.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice co-owned a home and shared a line of credit with another woman, according to Washington Post diplomatic correspondent Glenn Kessler, who reveals the information in his new book, The Confidante: Condoleezza Rice and the Creation of the Bush Legacy.

According to the book, Rice owns a home together with Randy Bean, a documentary filmmaker who once worked with Bill Moyers. Kessler made the discovery by looking through real estate records. The home is located in Palo Alto, California.

Bean explains the joint ownership and line of credit in the book by saying she had medical bills which left her financially drained and Rice helped her by co-purchasing the house along with a third person, Coit Blacker, a Stanford professor. Blacker is openly gay.
Frankly, we don't give a rat's ass if she's gay, straight, curly, whatever. What pisses us off again and again about these people is the hypocrisy.
"Condi Rice works for an administration that uses attacks on gay rights to win votes. She has stood by silently while the President has proposed writing anti-gay discrimination into the Constitution of the United States. Whenever she is given the opportunity to distance herself from their anti-gay polices she punts."
If you don't have the backbone to stand up for what you believe and who you are, what does that make you? In this case, as the old saying goes, Condi is what she eats.

Pussy

Permalink :: 9 comments :: Post a Comment
 

NewsFlash: News media actually "criticizes" Bush's speech
posted by Wally
8:06 AM

Something happened last night which we haven't seen in 6 years - which I hadn't expected to see happen again for another 18 months at least. Bush gave a speech (that's not the surprising part), and afterwards, the news media actually had the balls to analyze what he said and criticize it. For six years, after every Bush speech, it's been crap like "he looked good tonight. Confident and forceful in his dark blue tie.... blahblahblah...." But last night, some newspeople apparently decided to brush the cobwebs off of their "journalism" degrees and pay attention to the words spoken and analyze the truthiness of them and the factual basis of the "facts" presented by the President. Then (this is the surprising part), they had the 'nads to write articles criticizing the speech and Bush - and the editors and publishers printed those articles!

USNews & World Report has a breakdown:
In a televised speech last night, President Bush said his "surge" strategy has produced positive results, which will allow the US to cut the number of troops in Iraq. The Washington Post say on the front page that Bush coined a new slogan to describe his latest strategy, 'Return on Success,' meaning that further progress will enable further withdrawals." However, Bush's remarks, in which he endorsed the recommendations of Gen. David Petraeus, are receiving generally skeptical coverage. The Washington Post says Bush "made a case for progress in Iraq by citing facts and statistics that at times contradicted recent government reports or his own words." On MSNBC, Chris Matthews said, "The idea we're one of 36 countries fighting the war I think is ludicrous and why the President would throw that out there, I think it only opens him up to ridicule."

TV critic Tom Shales writes in the Washington Post that the speech was "delivered in a stern, stony manner, something like a high-school disciplinarian getting tough, or rather staying tough, with a class of unruly students." Noting the "Return on Success" phrase, the Los Angeles Times says on its front page the word "victory" has "quietly disappeared from the president's vocabulary," replaced "by a more ambiguous goal: 'Success.'" Another front page Los Angeles Times story, however, reports that in his remarks, Bush used "much the same argument he has since the first year of the war -- that terrorists fighting in Iraq are, ultimately, seeking to attack the United States." In an analysis piece, the New York Times also says that "Return on Success," as a "goal," is "very different from the 'victory' Mr. Bush was touting less than two years ago." Also negative is the assessment of the Financial Times, which reports Bush "defied calls for a dramatic change of course, saying the US military role would stretch 'way beyond' his presidency."

The Washington Post reports that if the "prime targets of...Bush's appeal for patience last night were moderates in his own party, his speech may have fallen flat." Republican lawmakers, "facing tough reelection bids in the midst of an ongoing war, reacted with grave concern to the president's call for only modest troop reductions and no dramatic change of mission in Iraq."

USA Today reports Bush's plan would "leave about 130,000 American troops in Iraq -- roughly the same number there when Bush ordered the temporary boost eight months ago." In fact, the New York Times reports "the White House said troop totals may not return to exactly 133,000, the number deployed before the so-called surge began early this year, because of the need to keep in place specialized units, like the military police and helicopter squadrons." McClatchy says the speech left Bush's "war strategy effectively unchanged."

It's About Time


And Then There's CNN (still not a "news" network)
CNN ignored Boehner's "small price" comment after latching onto Kerry's "botched joke"

Summary: On The Situation Room, House Minority Leader John Boehner stated: "We need to continue our effort here [in Iraq] because, Wolf, long term, the investment that we're making today will be a small price if we're able to stop Al Qaeda here, if we're able to stabilize the Middle East, it's not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids." CNN did not re-air Boehner's comments, or provide any discussion of the controversy that followed them. By contrast, CNN extensively covered Sen. John Kerry's October 30, 2006, statement -- which he later explained as a "botched joke" -- that, "Education, you know, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq," and the controversy that followed.

Media Matters for America

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Good Riddance Abu Gonzales!
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
7:58 AM

His last day won't go out with a bang? Or a "shock?"

Gonzales Ready to Leave the Stage

After nine months of noisy controversy over his troubled tenure, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales is leaving office quietly today with a low-key farewell address to Justice Department employees in Washington.

Gonzales, who has made only three public appearances since announcing his resignation on Aug. 27, is expected to dwell on his record in combating terrorism, child exploitation and other crimes rather than on the divisive issues that forced him from the job.

During a brief news conference yesterday in Des Moines, Gonzales played down those controversies, including the congressional uproar over the firings of nine U.S. attorneys last year and the Justice Department and congressional investigations into whether he lied in testimony or attempted to influence the testimony of a witness.

"We're all human and all of us make mistakes, and the thing that's important is to identify when those mistakes are made, acknowledge the mistakes, correct the mistakes and then you move on," Gonzales said in answer to a reporter's question, without going into detail. "So, you know, that's what I've endeavored to do as the attorney general."

Don't Recall

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Caption This
posted by Wally
6:37 AM

Use the "Post a Comment" link to submit your caption of Dubya with his friend (former "evildoer") Sunni tribal leader Abdul Sattar Abu Risha (who was, coincidentally, assassinated 10 days after meeting with Bush)

Permalink :: 3 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Thursday, September 13, 2007
So long majority
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
1:21 PM

Let me see if I get this straight. Bush's approval ratings are in the toilet. Americans want out of Iraq, now. Republicans are distrusted more than ever.

The Democrats just returned from a month long vacation after hearing from their constituents. They want this? Unless they grow some nuts, so long majority...

Democrats Push Toward Middle On Iraq Policy

Democratic leaders in Congress have decided to shift course and pursue modest bipartisan measures to alter U.S. military strategy in Iraq, hoping to use incremental changes instead of aggressive legislation to break the grip Republicans have held over the direction of war policy.

Standing against them will be President Bush, who intends to use a prime-time address tonight to try to ease concerns that his Iraq strategy will lead to an open-ended military commitment.

Both efforts share a single target: a handful of Republican moderates in the Senate whose votes the Democrats need to overcome the threat of a GOP filibuster. Should enough Republican moderates sign on to a compromise measure, Democrats could finally pass legislation aimed at changing direction of the war.

"We're reaching out to the Republicans to allow them to fulfill their word," Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) said yesterday. "A number of them are quoted significantly saying that come September that there would have to be a change of the course in the war in Iraq."...

No Leadership

Permalink :: 1 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Here we go again.... Just change the "Q" to an "N"
posted by Wally
9:57 AM

Fox analyst: Germany's actions leave us 'no choice' but to bomb Iran
According to Fox News, advisers are telling the White House that diplomacy has failed to stop Iran's nuclear program, and as a result officials are making plans to attack Iran as early as next summer.

"A recent decision by German officials to withhold support for any new sanctions against Iran has pushed a broad spectrum of officials in Washington to develop potential scenarios for a military attack on the Islamic regime," Fox reported on Tuesday.

Lt. Gen. (ret.) Thomas McInerney told Fox, "Since Germany has backed out of helping economically, we do not have any other choice. ... They've forced us into the military option."
Excuse me? No other choice? "Forced us"? Has the United States become so powerless, such a pussy nation that we're going to let "old Europe" force us to do something that utterly stupid, futile, and against our national interests? I thought we were the only remaining superpower and we could do whatever the hell we wanted. At least that's how Bush has been acting the last 6 years.

Sorry to inturrupt your fantasy General, but we have plenty of choices. If the choice is another "shock and awe" on Iran, the responsibility lies not with Iran, and not with Russia, and certainly not with Germany. The responsibility rests squarely in the Oval Office (and the Congress and the American people, if they or we allow such a thing to happen), and no amount of finger-pointing will ever change that.

McInerney went on to discuss some of these military options:
"The one I favor the most, of course, is an air campaign," he continued. "Forty-eight hours duration, hitting 2500 aimed points to take out their nuclear facilities, their air defense facilities, their air force, their navy, their Shahab-3 retaliatory missiles, and finally their command and control. And then let the Iranian people take their country back."

McInerney described such a bombing campaign as "easy" and spoke enthusiastically of the weaponry involved, including "a new massive ordnance penetrator that's 30,000 pounds, that really penetrates ... Ahmadinejad has nothing in Iran that we can't penetrate."
"Easy"? Is he insane? Easy for who? Forty eight hours? Then what? Let the looting begin again?

We've all seen this movie before, and the ending sucks.

Bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb-Iran

Permalink :: 3 comments :: Post a Comment
 

We won't be cute....
posted by Wally
8:23 AM

We won't be patronized. And we will not be denied our future.



Whatever your feelings about the organization that made the video (and as a life-long tree-hugger, even mine are mixed), the kid makes a point. In my opinion, he makes it well.

Permalink :: 4 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Coincidence? 2 soldiers who wrote NY Times Op-ed critical of Pentagon killed in accident in Iraq
posted by Wally
7:57 AM

What a coincidence. Three weeks ago, 7 soldiers serving in Iraq co-authored an editorial article in the New York Times titled The War As We Saw It. The article was highly critical of the Pentagon, and of the policies regarding Iraqi occupation and the wisdom of continuing it.

Monday, two of the authors of that article were killed in a truck accident in Iraq.
They were not killed in combat, nor on a daring mission. They died when the five-ton cargo truck in which they were riding overturned.

The victims, Staff Sgt. Yance T. Gray, 26, and Sgt. Omar Mora, 28, were among the authors of "The War as We Saw It," in which they expressed doubts about reports of progress.

"As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day," the soldiers wrote.

(snip)

While the seven soldiers were composing their article, one of them, Staff Sgt. Jeremy A. Murphy, was shot in the head. He was flown to a military hospital in the United States and is expected to survive.
So, of the 7, one of them shot in the head, two killed in a truck accident. If I was the other 4, I would be watching my back and being VERY careful. It's bad enough that they have to spend their days and nights worrying about IED's, roadside ambushes and mortar attacks. With 3 of the 7 gone, it might be hard for them not to wonder....

Heroes

EDIT:
(affix tin-foil hat firmly in place)
Is it time to add a new word to the military lexicon? Were these guys "Tillmanned"?
(place tin-foil hat safely back on shelf)

Permalink :: 1 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Even your boss thinks you're an idiot.
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
7:51 AM

Luckily for Petraeus, he has Commander Cuckoo Bananas in his corner.

Fallon Derided Petraeus, Opposed the Surge

In sharp contrast to the lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus's superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.

Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ass-kissing little chickenshit" and added, "I hate people like that", the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.

That extraordinarily contentious start of Fallon's mission to Baghdad led to more meetings marked by acute tension between the two commanders. Fallon went on develop his own alternative to Petraeus's recommendation for continued high levels of U.S. troops in Iraq during the summer.

The enmity between the two commanders became public knowledge when the Washington Post reported Sep. 9 on intense conflict within the administration over Iraq. The story quoted a senior official as saying that referring to "bad relations" between them is "the understatement of the century".

Chickenshit!

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

You know it's bad when Nixon's guy can't stomach the corruption
posted by Wally
7:38 AM

Broken Government
"I never thought that the GOP posed a threat to the well-being of our nation. But these days, I no longer recognize my old party."

John Dean was White House Council to President Richard Nixon. Remember Nixon? In those innocent halcyon days before Dubya, Nixon set the standard as the worst president ever. A President so morally and ethically (and legally) corrupt that even his own party told him to either leave or be kicked out. As Nixon's Council, John Dean knows corruption and failed government when he sees it. He sees it now. More of it than even he can stand.
In almost four decades of involvement in national politics, much of them as a card-carrying Republican, I was never concerned that the GOP posed a threat to the well-being of our nation. Indeed, the idea would never have occurred to me, for in my experience the system took care of excesses, as it certainly did in the case of the president for whom I worked. But in recent years the system has changed, and is no longer self-correcting. Most of that change has come from Republicans, and much of it is based on their remarkably confrontational attitude, an attitude that has clearly worked for them. For example, I cannot imagine any Democratic president keeping cabinet officers as Bush has done with his secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, and attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, men whom both Democrats and Republicans judged to be incompetent. Evidence that the system has changed is also apparent when a president can deliberately and openly violate the law -- as, for example, simply brushing aside serious statutory prohibitions against torture and electronic surveillance -- without any serious consequences. Similarly, but on a lesser scale, Alberto Gonzales faced no consequences when he politicized the Department of Justice as never before, allowing his aides to violate the prohibitions regarding hiring career civil servants based on their party affiliation, and then gave false public statements and testimony about the matter. When the Senate sought to pass a resolution expressing "no confidence" in the attorney general, the Republicans blocked it with a filibuster. The fact that Bush's Justice Department has become yet another political instrument should give Americans pause. This body was created by Congress to represent the interests of the people of the United States, not the Republican Party, but since the system of law no longer takes account when officials act outside the law (not to mention the Constitution), Republicans do so and get away with it.

(snip)

As I was writing this closing section an old friend from the Nixon White House called. Now retired, he is a lifelong Republican who told me that he voted for Bush and Cheney twice, because he knows them both personally. He asked how my new book was coming, and when I told him the title, he remarked, "I'll say the government's broken." After we discussed it, he asked how I planned to end the book, since the election was still a good distance away. I told him I was contemplating ending midsentence and immediately fading to black -- the way HBO did in the final episode of the Sopranos, but that I would settle for a nice quote from him, on the record. He explained that he constantly has to bite his tongue, and the reason he does not speak out more is because one of his sons is in an important (nonpolitical) government post, and we both know that Republicans will seek revenge wherever they can find it. How about an off-the-record comment? I asked. That he agreed to.

"Just tell your readers that you have a source who knows a lot about the Republican party from long experience, that he knows all the key movers and shakers, and he has a bit of advice: People should not vote for any Republican, because they're dangerous, dishonest and self-serving. While I once believed that Governor George Wallace had it right, that there was not a dime's worth of difference in the parties; that is not longer true. I have come to realize the Democrats really do care about people who most need help from government; Republicans care most about those who will only get richer because of government help. The government is truly broken, particularly in dealing with national security, and another four years, and heaven forbid not eight years, under the Republicans, and our grandchildren will have to build a new government, because the one we have will be unrecognizable and unworkable."

These comments summed up our current situation -- and our possible future -- as eloquently as anything I could have wished.
This, from a lifelong Republican and high ranking member of Nixon's staff.


Broken Government

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Wednesday, September 12, 2007
NO TRUTH, NO CONSEQUENCES
posted by Wally
1:51 PM

On the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, Keith Olbermann reviews the fates of the Bush administration officials who were so wrong about 9/11, so wrong about Iraq, and so complicit in driving us into this senseless war.

Permalink :: 1 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Bush does the Troop "Hokey Pokey" in Iraq - put 30,000 in, take 30,000 out.... and calls it a "draw-down"
posted by Wally
7:19 AM

In his speech to the nation Thursday night Bush is expected, as Patraeus suggested in his testimony, to call for "drawing down" troops from Iraq, bringing home 30,000 of them over the course of the next year.

I don't know if this is supposed to placate those of us who want a "real" pull-out of troops, but even the 28%'ers are smart enough to figure out that putting in 30,000 and then taking out 30,000 isn't a "draw-down", it's a wash. Well, maybe not the 28%'ers - they're the ones who still think they're getting a great deal when Walmart marks up prices 40% and then has a 25% off sale.
The president will say he understands Americans' deep concerns. Bush will continue by saying that, after hearing from Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, he has decided to reduce the U.S. military presence but not abandon Iraq to chaos.

Bush will place more conditions on reductions than his general did, insisting that conditions on the ground must warrant cuts and that events could change the plan.
"Reduce the U.S. military presence"? Excuse me? If that is "reducing the U.S. military presence" then taking $20 out of your pocket and then putting it back in (over the course of a year) will make you richer. Wow, who could have known it was that easy. Maybe I'll write a book about that. And sell it to Republicans.

At least there is some comfort in knowing that the Dem leadership isn't buying it.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Bush appears poised to bring the country back to where it was before the election that put Democrats in control of Congress -- with 130,000 troops in Iraq. "Please. It's an insult to the intelligence of the American people that that is a new direction in Iraq," she said.
Not that I expect them to do anything about it, but at least they're smart enough to do the simple arithmatic to see that this is not the wonderful new idea that Bush is trying to sell to us.

Please

Permalink :: 2 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Caption This
posted by Wally
6:51 AM

Use the "Post a Comment" link to submit your caption of Dubya at the APEC summit.


Permalink :: 7 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Tuesday, September 11, 2007
They couldn't say it if it wasn't true...
posted by Wally
12:53 PM

... just like the Bush administration


Bush Rages Over...Laura's Secret Divorce Diary

PRESIDENT Bush hit the roof over a secret diary that troubled first lady Laura has kept documenting their White House years, GLOBE has learned in a world exclusive. And insiders reveal he fears if the tell-all is published it will destroy his legacy and reveal the painful truth about their turbulent marriage - including his boozing, their bitter fights and relationship with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Don't even start with the "I can't believe you posted a story from the Globe. Don't you know that's all b.s...."crap. Of course it's b.s. It's the freaking Globe. But after seeing it while waiting in line to pay for groceries yesterday, and looking down at the package of bologna in my cart, I couldn't help but think that the Globe has at least as much credibility as the Bush administration, and as General Patraeus' testimony to Congress.

Since Patraeus made the front page yesterday, I felt it was only fair and balanced that I post the Globe today.

Plus, I couldn't help but laugh when I tried to imagine what would be in Laura's diary about her hubby.

Even his marriage is a miserable failure

Permalink :: 1 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Bush stops lying to mark the 6th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks
posted by Wally
10:46 AM

In remembrance of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Bush's Cabinet all stopped lying.
They all observed a moment of silence at 8:46 a.m., Tuesday - the exact moment in 2001 when terrorists slammed the first jetliner into the World Trade Center in New York.

The president stood with Laura Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife Lynne on the South Lawn during the simple ceremony that has been repeated each year since the attack. Dressed in dark suits, the four of them bowed their heads as a member of the Honor Guard stood nearby, holding an American flag.

Bush stood sternly as the Marine band played "God Bless America." Mrs. Bush then took his arm and they walked inside along with the Cheneys.
And the lying resumed.

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

K.O. ko's Bill-o
posted by Wally
9:25 AM

Maybe people are starting to "get it"

By "it", I mean the simple fact that Bill-o is an arrogant, clueless, pompous, self-righteous bloviated gasbag for Bush and the neo-cons, just like the vulgar Pigboy Rush Limbaugh, and cares nothing whatsoever for either regular working class Americans, the United States of America as a nation, and least of all for the truth.

Friday night, enough people picked up their remotes and switched over to MSNBC for a dose of Keith Olbermann's "Countdown" to push KO over The O'Reilly Factor in prime time ratings, just in time for Falafel-Bill's 58th birthday.




Finally, Americans giving a "real" journalist the attention and credit he deserves, and getting the news and information that the nation needs.

Congratulations Keith. And Thank You.

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Patraeus: "I wrote this testimony myself", totally independent of the President - and after this, I'm going directly to Fox News
posted by Wally
8:39 AM

In his opening statements to Congress on Monday, General David Patraeus made it imminently clear that all the questions of his credibility and independence, and all the accusations of collusion with the White House were unjustified. In defiance of reports by the Los Angeles Times that the Patraeus report would be written by the White House, and that he would simply be blurting out talking points in order to defend and extend the war (much like Colin Powell did to get us into the war), he was very clear in stating that:
"I wrote this testimony myself. It has not been cleared by, nor shared with, anyone in the Pentagon, the White House, or Congress."
Remember when Powell speaking to the U.N. Security Council on Feb 3, 2003 in the run-up to the war clearly and firmly stated:
My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources.
We all saw how much truth was in his "factual" testimony. So we know that high ranking generals loyal to Bush will lie, even about lying. Powell knew he was lying when he said that, and Patraeus knew he was lying when he made his statements about his "independence" too.

How do we know this? Because immediately after the congressional hearings, both Patraeus and ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crockett are hopping in a limo and heading to a more friendly venue. They'll be giving an exclusive one hour interview with Brit Hume.



Now, a special program note: Tomorrow night at 9 pm eastern on the Fox News Channel, Brit will have an exclusive interview with General David Patraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker about the state of the Iraq war and their testimony to Congress. Please be sure to watch.
Yeah, you bet Chris. I'll be sure to tune in for that, because there's nothing I love more than government sanctioned propaganda.

Permalink :: 2 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Happy Rudy Giuliani Day!
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
7:35 AM

A.K.A. September the 11th.

I'm still free. How about you?

Permalink :: 1 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Monday, September 10, 2007
Delusions of Adequacy: Rummy calls Afghanistan a "Big Success"
posted by Wally
2:34 PM

If Afghanistan is what these guys call a "Big Success", that explains a lot about Bush and Patraeus's ideas about the "progress" in Iraq.

Ann Coulter said it was going "swimmingly". Bush assumed it was such an overwhelming success that he all but abandoned it - pulling out most of our troops and leaving a skeleton crew to secure the entire country. Now Rummy is patting himself on the back for the results in Afghanistan.
"In Afghanistan, 28 million people are free. They have their own president, they have their own parliament. Improved a lot on the streets," Rumsfeld says in the October issue of GQ magazine.

Rumsfeld said the Department of Defense and the U.S. military are not responsible for any failures (in Iraq) or in Afghanistan.

He said the refusal of Turkey, a NATO ally, to allow U.S. troops to cross its border into Iraq at the outset of the war, gave would-be insurgents "free play for a good period of time. I mean, there's a dozen things like that."
Typical Rummy. Blame it on Turkey. Or France. Or anyone but himself. It's never his fault, or Bush's fault, or any of the neo-con's fault. If not for Turkey, I'm sure Iraq would be just as grand of a success as Afghanistan.

As for Afghanistan, the only other people besides Rumsfeld who are happy about how that turned out are the Taliban (who now control most of the country), Al Qaeda (who once again have a safe haven there), and the poppy growers and heroin dealers and users (who are profiting from the chaos). All of these groups were in serious trouble - all but routed - before George and "the Don" decided to pull the plug on Afghanistan and divert our attention and our troops to Iraq.

It "could have been" a great success indeed had we stayed. By now, Afghanistan could have been everything that Rummy says it is. Here in the U.S. we could have nearly 4,000 fewer dead soldiers, the blood of 100's of 1,000's fewer dead and wounded Iraqi civilians on our hands, a half trillian more dollars to spend on things here at home, and the respect (instead of the scorn) of the international community.

Yes Donald, it "could have been" a big success. But it wasn't. You were winning the game, and you, as coach, walked your team off the field at halftime. By doing so, you turned a "big success" into a massive failure. And that, in very large part, is directly and personally your fault. Congratulations. May you burn in hell.

Big Success

Permalink :: 1 comments :: Post a Comment
 

I wish I could withdraw you
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
1:11 PM

Craig files papers to withdraw guilty plea

Sen. Larry Craig filed papers today seeking to withdraw his guilty plea in an airport sex sting, arguing that he entered the plea under stress caused by media inquiries into his sexuality.

Craig, an Idaho Republican, pleaded guilty in August to disorderly conduct following his June arrest in a sting operation in a men's bathroom at the Minneapolis airport. A police report alleged that Craig had solicited sex from a male officer at the airport, which the senator has denied.

In a "state of intense anxiety" following his arrest, Craig "felt compelled to grasp the lifeline offered to him by the police officer" and plead guilty in hopes the matter would not be made public, said the court papers filed in Hennepin County District Court.

The filing said Craig's "panic" drove him to accept the plea rather than seeking the advice of an attorney. As a result, Craig's guilty plea was not "knowingly and understandingly made," and the evidence against him insufficient to support the plea.

Tap Tap Tap

Permalink :: 2 comments :: Post a Comment
 

If this is true, then why all the excitement whenever they kill another "# 3"?
posted by Wally
10:45 AM

Dualing quotes from the DHS in today's news:

President George W. Bush's homeland security adviser said on Sunday al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is "virtually impotent" and can do little more than send videotaped messages.

"This is a man on the run in a cave who is virtually impotent other than his ability to get these messages out," Townsend said on CNN's "Late Edition." "It is propaganda.

"Based on our experience, we have never seen bin Laden use a tape to trigger any operational activity."
Reuters

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

Bush, attending a summit of Pacific Rim leaders in Sydney, Australia, said: "The tape is a reminder about the dangerous world in which we live, and it's a reminder that we must work together to protect our people against these extremists who murder the innocent in order to achieve their political objectives."

The Homeland Security Department was continuing to analyze the video to see if it includes any coded messages, department spokesman Russ Knocke said.
Faux
So which is it? Is Osama a scary guy who continues to threaten us, or is he an impotent propagandist? If the latter is true, and therefore the number one guy in Al Qaeda is so impotent and harmless, then why is the Bush administration always so vocal about bragging every time they kill or capture another # 3 in the organization? And why have they consistently used Bin Laden's videotapes to go on all the talking head (ahem) "news" shows to pump up the fear level and wave the terror flag? And why are they always analyzing them for "coded messages"?

Maybe he's not so impotent after all? Maybe this "impotence" thing is just another Republican projection of their own faults and flaws onto others - kind of like when people like Larry Craig were lambasting Clinton for his extra-marital adventures.

Permalink :: 1 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Petraeus Set To Lie To Congress Today
posted by Wally
7:59 AM

Today's the big day we've all been waiting for, when Gen. Patraeus stands before Congress and issues the Iraq Progress Report that the White House has meticulously prepared for him, just like they did for Colin Powell in the days leading up to the war. I'm sure we can look forward to hearing all about how great everything is going in Iraq, with children playing in the streets and bunnies and rainbows everywhere, all because of George's exquisitely planned and executed "surge".
In their long-awaited report to Congress, Petraeus and Crocker will say the buildup of 30,000 troops, which brings the U.S. total to nearly 170,000, is working better than any previous effort to quell the insurgency and restore stability, according to the officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were discussing internal deliberations.
Guardian
Better than any previous effort? Wow, that's quite a strong statement, considering the only other "previous effort" was "staying the course" - which, really, is all the "surge" was about, but with a few more American targets in Iraq. Either way, it's not working, in spite of whatever the White House General Patraeus says.

MediaMatters has a great breakdown on the myths and falsehoods being presented, and the truths about how Patraeus will betray us.

Lest anyone claim that General Patraeus is independent and unbiased and trustworthy, be warned that he is no foreigner to blowing smoke up our nation's proverbial ass. In this Sept 26, 2004 editorial he wrote for the NY Times, he talked about the difficulties, and bragged about the progress being made, "18 months after entering Iraq, I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up." You have to read the whole thing to get the full rah rah effect. It would be well to do so before reading/hearing today's speech to see if he uses the same phrases exactly, or just the same sentiment. Remember, he was saying this in September of 2004 - three frikking years ago. What has changed since then? I mean, what has changed for the better.

What has really changed? According to the Iraqi people (you know, the people "on the ground"), not much. If anything, things have gotten worse.
About 70% of Iraqis believe security has deteriorated in the area covered by the US military "surge" of the past six months, an opinion poll suggests.

The survey by the BBC, ABC News and NHK of more than 2,000 people across Iraq also suggests that nearly 60% see attacks on US-led forces as justified.
Likewise, the Government Accountability Office has stated in their September 4th report that:
the average number of daily attacks against civilians remained about the same over the last six months.

While overall attacks declined in July compared with June, levels of violence remain high. Enemy initiated attacks have increased around major religious and political events, including Ramadan and elections.5 For 2007, Ramadan is scheduled to begin in mid-September.

The August 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq6 (NIE) also reports that the level of overall violence in Iraq, including attacks on and casualties among civilians, remains high....Levels of insurgent and sectarian violence will remain high over the next 6 to 12 months.
What does the good general suggest we do in the face of this conflicting data? "Patraeus has recommended that decisions on the contentious issue of reducing the main body of the American troops in Iraq be put off for six months", of course. Because we all know that "the next 6 months are the most important" in determining how things are going in Iraq. Just stay the course and wait another Friedman Unit before making a decision on what to do.

And then another F.U. after that, and Iraq will be the next President's problem and little Georgie can wipe the blood off his hands and go back to Crawford, having successfully never followed through on anything to completion - having successfully never been held accountable for any of his failures or crimes - leaving the mess for someone else to clean up.

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Half a brain? Vote Republican.
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
7:38 AM

Something we all knew:

Brain study finds political divide

Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work.

In a simple experiment reported todayin the journal Nature Neuroscience, scientists at New York University and UCLA show that political orientation is related to differences in how the brain processes information.

Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences. The latest study found those traits are not confined to political situations but also influence everyday decisions.

The results show "there are two cognitive styles -- a liberal style and a conservative style," said UCLA neurologist Dr. Marco Iacoboni, who was not connected to the latest research.

Participants were college students whose politics ranged from "very liberal" to "very conservative." They were instructed to tap a keyboard when an M appeared on a computer monitor and to refrain from tapping when they saw a W.

M appeared four times more frequently than W, conditioning participants to press a key in knee-jerk fashion whenever they saw a letter.

Each participant was wired to an electroencephalograph that recorded activity in the anterior cingulate cortex, the part of the brain that detects conflicts between a habitual tendency (pressing a key) and a more appropriate response (not pressing the key). Liberals had more brain activity and made fewer mistakes than conservatives when they saw a W, researchers said. Liberals and conservatives were equally accurate in recognizing M.

W

Permalink :: 1 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Caption This
posted by Wally
6:37 AM

Use the "Post a Comment" link to submit your caption of Dubya "workin' hard" in Hawaii, puckering up for a smooch from Hawaii's Governor Linda Lingle.


Permalink :: 2 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Sunday, September 9, 2007
The power of deflection
posted by Clyde
5:54 AM

Frank Rich: As the Iraqis Stand Down, We'll Stand Up

It will be all 9/11 all the time this week, as the White House yet again synchronizes its drumbeating for the Iraq war with the anniversary of an attack that had nothing to do with Iraq. Ignore that fog and focus instead on another date whose anniversary passed yesterday without notice: Sept. 8, 2002. What happened on that Sunday five years ago is the Rosetta Stone for the administration's latest scam.

That was the morning when the Bush White House officially rolled out its fraudulent case for the war. The four horsemen of the apocalypse - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and Rice - were dispatched en masse to the Washington talk shows, where they eagerly pointed to a front-page New York Times article amplifying subsequently debunked administration claims that Saddam had sought to buy aluminum tubes meant for nuclear weapons. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," said Condoleezza Rice on CNN, introducing a sales pitch concocted by a White House speechwriter.

What followed was an epic propaganda onslaught of distorted intelligence, fake news, credulous and erroneous reporting by bona fide journalists, presidential playacting and Congressional fecklessness. Much of it had been plotted that summer of 2002 by the then-secret White House Iraq Group (WHIG), a small task force of administration brass charged with the Iraq con job.

Today the spirit of WHIG lives. In the stay-the-surge propaganda offensive that crests with this week's Congressional testimony of Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, history is repeating itself in almost every particular. Even the specter of imminent "nuclear holocaust" has been rebooted in President Bush's arsenal of rhetorical scare tactics.

(link)

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

If you can't win it, steal it!
posted by Clyde
5:30 AM

Ala. lawyer to be questioned by House panel investigators

Attorneys for a congres­sional committee will ques­tion an Alabama lawyer un­der oath next week about her claims that a Republican campaign operative talked about White House influ­ence over the investigation of former Alabama Demo­cratic Gov. Don Siegelman.

Rainsville attorney Jill Simpson, who was a cam­paign worker for Republi­can Bob Riley when he de­feated Siegelman in 2002, will be interviewed private­ly Sept. 14 by two staff attor­neys in the office of the House Judiciary Committee in Washington, Simpson's attorney, Priscilla Duncan, said Friday.

Duncan said she had been talking to committee staff members for several weeks to set up the interview.

In a letter to Duncan, House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., said the interview with Simpson would be un­der oath and would be tran­scribed. Conyers said the transcript would be confi­dential initially and that a decision on releasing it would be made later by Re­publican and Democratic committee leaders.

(link)

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Saturday, September 8, 2007
Why do they let him out in public?
posted by Clyde
6:23 AM

It's frigging embarrassing!

Bush: OPEC or APEC

President Bush had a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day at the Sydney Opera House.

He'd only reached the third sentence of Friday's speech to business leaders, on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, when he committed his first gaffe.

"Thank you for being such a fine host for the OPEC summit," Bush said to Australian Prime Minister John Howard.

Oops. That would be APEC, the annual meeting of leaders from 21 Pacific Rim nations, not OPEC, the cartel of 12 major oil producers.

(link)

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Stop me if you've heard this before
posted by Clyde
6:02 AM

He was just in time to help George's poll numbers in 2001, then he comes out in time for the 2004 election and now he shows up in time for the Iraq's lack of progress report.

Bush Says Bin Laden Tape Shows Importance of Resolve

President George W. Bush described a video allegedly featuring al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden as "a reminder of the dangerous world in which we live.''

"It's important that we show resolve, determination to protect ourselves and deny al-Qaeda safe haven,'' Bush said following a meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe at an Asia-Pacific economic conference in Sydney.

"I found it interesting that, on the tape, Iraq was mentioned, which is a reminder that Iraq is a part of this war against extremists,'' Bush said.

The 26-minute video features no new threats of a terrorist attack, and contains rambling criticism of democracy and the Iraq war, according to a transcript.

(link)

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Friday, September 7, 2007
4. Count 'em. 4
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
1:52 PM

Fred's on a roll!

Utah 'Fredheads' gather for SLC rally


A handful of Utah "Fredheads" - political activists supporting the late entry of Republican Fred Thompson into the presidential sweepstakes - gathered Thursday in Salt Lake City to kick off their campaign for the oldest fresh face in the race.

Just four Thompson supporters showed up at Utah Republican Party headquarters for the event, leaving dozens of untouched cookies and vegetable snacks provided in hopes a much bigger crowd would materialize.

Those present listened in on a live nationally broadcast conference call in which the new candidate thanked his supporters and told them he would be the candidate who wouldn't just give lip service to topics such as the war in Iraq.

4

Permalink :: 1 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Once a dumb b*tch, always a dumb b*tch
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
1:19 PM

"Mean Jean" Schmidt caught plagiarizing in newspaper

WASHINGTON - If Rep. Jean Schmidt's latest column on school bus safety looked familiar, there's a good reason why.

Six sentences from her column of last Tuesday appear to be cut and pasted in identical form from a column written in October 2005 by then-Ohio State Highway Patrol Col. Paul McClellan.

Lawmakers, including Schmidt, write and distribute weekly columns that some newspapers publish on the editorial pages. The columns also are listed on lawmaker Web sites.

For example, Schmidt's column says: "When exiting the bus, care should be taken to check that clothing with drawstrings and book bags with straps do not get caught in the handrails or doors. Additionally, students should never go back for anything left on the bus, and never bend down near or under the bus to pick something up that has fallen."

McClellan's column says: "When exiting the bus, care should be taken to check that clothing with drawstrings and book bags with straps do not get caught in the handrails or doors. Additionally, students should never go back for anything left on the bus, and never bend down near or under the bus to pick something up that has fallen."

Peat and Repeat

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Osama Bin Who?
posted by Wally
9:20 AM

Bin Laden 'to issue 9/11 video'
Osama Bin Laden is said to be preparing to release a video message to the American people to coincide with the sixth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

The announcement was made on an Islamist website, where al-Qaeda's media arm frequently posts messages.

US homeland security officials could not confirm the existence of a tape, and said there was "no credible information of an imminent threat".

Bin Laden has not been seen in a video since October 2004, when he threatened new attacks against the US on the eve of the presidential election.
But I wouldn't worry about Bin Laden if I were you. As the President said in his March 13, 2002 press conference "I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you.... And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."

Where's Osama?

Permalink :: 2 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Since when is DOJ more expert on communications than FCC?
posted by Wally
8:09 AM

Aside from the ability and desire to continue spying on us in every way possible, what reason or right does the Dept of Justice have to tell the FCC how to do it's job? What expertise does Justice bring to the table in the arena of communications that it should be able to tell the FCC how to rule on communications issues? Apparently, under the (ahem) leadership of Gonzo, the DOJ has decided that it has jurisdiction over every goddamn thing that ever existed and ever will exist, and that it's opinions overrule all others (including Congress and the Courts).

What now, you ask? DOJ doesn't like the idea of Net Neutrality. Apparently it's too much like "freedom" and "democracy" for their liking.

DoJ argues against net neutrality in FCC filing, says "trust us"
The Department of Justice's Antitrust Division has two words for all the network neutrality backers who believe that a bit of government regulation could go a long way towards keeping the Internet open: trust us. In comments just filed with the Federal Communications Commission, the top lawyers from the Antitrust Division called preemptive network neutrality regulations a bad idea, instead arguing for a free market system in which the DoJ would step in to correct any antitrust violations after they occur.

(snip)

The basic arguments that relate directly to net neutrality are twofold. One, the DoJ points out that there have so far been few real violations of the neutrality principle in the US. When egregious examples have come to light (rural telco Madison River was smacked down by the FCC when it began blocking VoIP calls), they have been handled quickly. Rather than lay down a "prophylactic" system of regulations, the DoJ believes it would be better to leave the market unregulated and deal with problems as they come up.

The second major argument is that network operators need to massively expand their capacity and consumers will be stuck paying the bill if network neutrality is enacted. "Several studies have noted," says the DoJ, "that prohibiting broadband providers from charging content providers directly would lead consumers shouldering a disproportionate share of the costs necessary to upgrade network infrastructure."

Left unexplained is exactly how a network infrastructure has been paid for over the last 15 years as Internet traffic as exploded. Here's a hint: it hasn't been done by forcing every website to pay every major network operator if said website wants to reach customers a little faster. It also hasn't been done by sticking consumers with the bill in its entirety, as the DoJ filing appears to indicate. Content providers do pay for access to the network; they pay vast sums of cash for bandwidth, in fact, and that money filters out to the ISPs that carry their traffic through peering and carriage arrangements.
My questions/suspicions are two fold: Questions: WTF reason or right does the DOJ have to say anything about net neutrality? Second, why do they want to mess with a business model that over it's entire history has grown exponentially, made a whole lot of people a whole lot of money, and continues to work perfectly well?

My suspicions are that getting rid of internet neutrality, and handing bigger chunks of the internet to a handful of humongo-corporations owned by friends of the government will might make it easier for the DOJ to monitor our porn web surfing and email. The internet is the last place that is even remotely close to truly "free" and after 6 years under the direction of the likes of Ashcroft and Fredo, the Dept of Justice doesn't like that idea one bit. Second, much of the money being made is by thousands or tens of thousands of small entrepreneurs, often operating on a shoe string, completely autonomous, beholden to no one. The government (especially the current administration) wants to see more money funneled to a handful of major corporations that it can control instead of being distributed among the unwashed masses.

The FCC wants to continue to study, in excruciating depth, this highly complex issue before issuing a ruling on a subject that is their primary expertise. The DOJ took a cursory look at it and decided it has all the answers. Who do you trust? The FCC? Or the Gonzo department?

Personally, I trust neither, but given the choice....?

Keep the Internet Neutral and Free

Permalink :: 3 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Survey says!
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
8:00 AM

Idaho lawmaker asks Craig to be clear

Idaho's senior Republican congressman called on Sen. Larry Craig on Thursday to make it clear he will leave his seat by Sept. 30, as GOP leaders sought to remove any doubt that the embattled senator will resign within weeks.

..........

Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, told The Associated Press that Craig should make his resignation unequivocal so that Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter, also a Republican, can choose a replacement.

"If there is no vacancy there, he really doesn't know what to do," Simpson said. "This can't go on for very long."

Simpson said Craig "needs to make it clear that he is going to resign at the end of the month, so that Butch can make a replacement."

Gay as a football bat

Permalink :: 1 comments :: Post a Comment
 

This is why the separation of powers is vital
posted by Wally
7:17 AM

Since Bush thinks he's king and can do whatever he wants, and since Congress doesn't have the sack to stand up to him and tell him no he can't, it's up to the courts to defend the Constitution and protect our rights. Yesterday, that happened, at least in small part.
A federal judge struck down controversial portions of the USA Patriot Act in a ruling that declared them unconstitutional yesterday, ordering the FBI to stop its wide use of a warrantless tactic for obtaining e-mail and telephone data from private companies for counterterrorism investigations.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in New York said the FBI's use of secret "national security letters" to demand such data violates the First Amendment and constitutional provisions on the separation of powers, because the FBI can impose indefinite gag orders on the companies and the courts have little opportunity to review the letters.

The secrecy provisions are "the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering, with an ominous free pass to the hijacking of constitutional values," Marrero wrote. His strongly worded 103-page opinion amounted to a rebuke of both the administration and Congress, which had revised the act in 2005 to take into account an earlier ruling by the judge on the same topic.

The ruling follows reports this year by Justice Department and FBI auditors that the FBI potentially violated privacy laws or bureau rules more than a thousand times while issuing NSLs in recent years -- violations that did not come to light quickly, partly because of the Patriot Act's secrecy rules.
The best way to protect our national interest is to protect the Constitution and all it stands for. By violating the basic rights outlined therein, the administration, the FBI, the DOJ, etc. are doing far more damage to this country than the terrorists they are allegedly protecting us from could ever hope to do. Thank you Justice Marrero. Helping to dismantle the "Patriot" act proves that you are more of a Patriot than any of the act's defenders will ever be.

The Patriot Act is NOT patriotic

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

APEC/OPEC? Australia/Austria? What's the difference?
posted by Wally
6:33 AM

Bush took his idiocy on the road this week, showing off his inability to speak, his ADD and inattention to such trivial details as what country he's visiting, his lack of knowledge of insignificant world events such as the major terrorist group (remember that war on terror thing that he's supposedly heading up?) in the region he's visiting, his clumsiness in finding his way around, and his inability to deal with pre-screened, less than fawning questions.

In short, he portrayed himself to the rest of the world in perfect character, as the clown we all know him to be.
He thanked Mr Howard for his introduction and for being such a "kind host" for the OPEC summit.

As if that was not enough though, Mr Bush also botched the host country's name, referring to Mr Howard's visit to Iraq in 2006 as a thank you to "the Austrian troops there".

Mr Bush also stumbled over his pronunciation of Jemaah Islamiah, the regional terror network, but had no trouble with its abbreviation - JI.

Upon finishing his speech, Mr Bush took the wrong way off-stage and, looking slightly perplexed, had to be redirected by Mr Howard to a centre-stage exit.
This is supposed to be the most powerful man in the world? This is the man that the Republicans have adored and defended for all these years as their hero? I suppose that's all you need to know about the GOP, isn't it?

R-etard

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Caption This
posted by Wally
6:19 AM

Use the "Post a Comment" link to submit your caption of bush and and Aborigine in Australia during the APEC summit.

Permalink :: 2 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Thursday, September 6, 2007
Dumb, Duh-Dumb Dumb Dumb
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
11:30 AM

Okay, you're the daughter of a gay Senator and appear on tv to defend your father's nongayness. The only problem? YOU HAVE A WARRANT OUT FOR YOUR ARREST!

Craig Bungling Continues

On "America's Most Wanted" television show, suspects often get identified after their pictures are aired. Such was the case when Larry Craig's daughter, Shea Suzanne Howell appeared on ABC.

Craig can add the arrest of his daughter to the list of unintended consequences he is racking up. This sad event proves that "no good deed goes unpunished."

After her national TV appearance, a GUARDIAN reader put two and two together and sent this little unsolicited nugget late Wednesday from the Ada Sheriff's warrant list:

"You would think the Boise police would go ahead and arrest the "stand up" character witness's Larry had with him Saturday!"

adasheriff.org warrants
HOWELL SHAE SUZANNE
2108 N FASTWATER AVE
BOISE, ID 10/11/70 M0615800 4/18/2007 1 M CONTEMPT OF COURT
$500 BOND


We checked with officials at the jail and according to their records the contempt of court warrant is active. It will be difficult for the coppers to ignore such a high profile wanted person-especially after she appeared on national television defending a U.S. senator. Chances are she may not have been aware of the warrant and until she became a television personality, few people (including the coppers) linked her name to Craig.

Not Contempt!

Permalink :: 1 comments :: Post a Comment
 

"Wide Stance" WILL RESIGN
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
10:45 AM

Spokesman says Craig all but certain to resign

Sen. Larry Craig has all but dropped any notion of trying to complete his term, and is focused on helping Idaho send a new senator to Washington within a few weeks, his top spokesman said Thursday.

"The most likely scenario, by far, is that by October there will be a new senator from Idaho," Craig spokesman Dan Whiting told the Associated Press.

The only circumstances in which Craig might try to complete his term, Whiting said, would require the overturning by Sept. 30 of his conviction for disorderly conduct in a men's room at the Minneapolis airport, as well as Senate GOP leaders' agreement to restore Craig's committee leaderships posts taken away this week.

Sits to pee

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Brownback
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
10:00 AM

His cunning plan of becoming president doesn't seem to be working:

Republican presidential hopeful, U.S.,Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan. during a speech at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, N.H., Tuesday, Sept. 4, 2007.
UPDATE: Further evidence of Brownback's support among Republican voters could be seen at Wednesday's RNC debate.
Brownback drew boos from the audience when he called for passage of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
Remember, that was a "Republican" audience that booed him and his views on gay marriage, not a bunch of Hollywood actor-types (you know, like Fred Thompson and Ronald Reagan and Aaahhnold).

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

"Nukes on a plane". That B-52 flight was no accident.
posted by Wally
8:38 AM

According to the "official" story as given in all news reports:
A B-52 bomber flew the length of the United States mistakenly loaded with as many as six nuclear armed cruise missiles, US military officials confirmed today.

The mix-up last week was only discovered after the aircraft landed at Barksdale air force base in Louisiana after making the three and a half hour journey from Minot Air Base in North Dakota.
We're calling "bullshit". The military does not "accidentally" load nukes onto a bomber. Hell, they don't "accidentally" load any weapons on a bomber - especially one that is flying across the US. So, what could be the real reason for this "mistake"?

Staging Nukes for Iran?
By Larry Johnson on Sep 5, 2007 in Current Affairs
Why the hubbub over a B-52 taking off from a B-52 base in Minot, North Dakota and subsequently landing at a B-52 base in Barksdale, Louisiana? That's like getting excited if you see a postal worker in uniform walking out of a post office. And how does someone watching a B-52 land identify the cruise missiles as nukes? It just does not make sense.

So I called a old friend and retired B-52 pilot and asked him. What he told me offers one compelling case of circumstantial evidence. My buddy, let's call him Jack D. Ripper, reminded me that the only times you put weapons on a plane is when they are on alert or if you are tasked to move the weapons to a specific site.

Then he told me something I had not heard before.

Barksdale Air Force Base is being used as a jumping off point for Middle East operations. Gee, why would we want cruise missile nukes at Barksdale Air Force Base. Can't imagine we would need to use them in Iraq. Why would we want to preposition nuclear weapons at a base conducting Middle East operations?

His final point was to observe that someone on the inside obviously leaked the info that the planes were carrying nukes. A B-52 landing at Barksdale is a non-event. A B-52 landing with nukes. That is something else.

Now maybe there is an innocent explanation for this? I can't think of one. What is certain is that the pilots of this plane did not just make a last minute decision to strap on some nukes and take them for a joy ride. We need some tough questions and clear answers. What the hell is going on? Did someone at Barksdale try to indirectly warn the American people that the Bush Administration is staging nukes for Iran? I don't know, but it is a question worth asking.
Either there is a far more nefarious purpose for strapping these nukes under the wing of the bomber, such as secretly prepping them for use in Iran (which should surprise no one, with this administration in charge), or the military personnel responsible for handling, tracking, and securing our nukes are completely incompetent. I'm not sure which of those scenarios is scarier. But somebody had better start asking the questions to find out which is true so that steps can be taken to correct the situation.

Permalink :: 4 comments :: Post a Comment
 

He knew it, we knew it. Ummm...WAR CRIMES anybody?
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
8:09 AM

Forget the outrage. It's not like our sackless leaders will impeach him or anything.

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction
Salon exclusive: Two former CIA officers say the president squelched top-secret intelligence, and a briefing by George Tenet, months before invading Iraq.

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.

On April 23, 2006, CBS's "60 Minutes" interviewed Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, who disclosed that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam's foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD. "We continued to validate him the whole way through," said Drumheller. "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy."

Now two former senior CIA officers have confirmed Drumheller's account to me and provided the background to the story of how the information that might have stopped the invasion of Iraq was twisted in order to justify it. They described what Tenet said to Bush about the lack of WMD, and how Bush responded, and noted that Tenet never shared Sabri's intelligence with then Secretary of State Colin Powell. According to the former officers, the intelligence was also never shared with the senior military planning the invasion, which required U.S. soldiers to receive medical shots against the ill effects of WMD and to wear protective uniforms in the desert.

Oil

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Book Wars
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
7:13 AM

New Bush Book to challenge Bill Clinton's "Giving"

Bill Clinton's "Giving" book on it's way to being a bestseller.

Not to be outdone, Dubya will be releasing his own book soon to counter President Clinton's message...

LOL

Permalink :: 2 comments :: Post a Comment
 

'Fred'erick's of Hollywood finally decides to run
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
6:33 AM

Fred Thompson announces bid for 2008 Presidency


(Fred Thompson and wife Charo)

Former Tennessee Senator told Jay Leno tonight he will run for the Republican nomination for president.

The announcement confirmed months of speculation that Thompson has been gearing up for a presidential run. On a conference call last week, Thompson told close associates he would make a major announcement this week. Campaign staffers said Thompson would officially enter the race via a webcast Thursday.

After the announcement Thompson discussed policy issues in detail.

He talked at length about the war on terror saying, "There is a global war going on. We are the main target." He wouldn't rule out military action against Iran and when asked about troops in Iraq he said, "We stay until we get the job done."

Cuchi-Cuchi

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Jungle Fever?
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
11:31 AM

Are the rumors still true? $10 bucks says he already boink'd her this week:

Bush: 'She (Condi) Can Be My Date'

Condoleezza Rice has been President Bush's foreign policy tutor, sports buddy, national security adviser and his secretary of state.

Bush came up with a new designation Wednesday at a dinner in his honor.

"She can be my date," the president said, reaching out his left hand to touch Rice's arm as they stood before the cameras at a dinner hosted by Prime Minister John Howard and his wife Janette at their residence, Kirribilli House .

First lady Laura Bush had stayed back in Washington, saying a pinched nerve prevented her from taking long flights.

"Pinched Nerve!"
FLASHBACK:

At a recent Washington, D.C. dinner party, New York magazine says Condoleeza Rice "was reportedly overheard saying, 'As I was telling my husb-' and then stopping herself abruptly, before saying, 'As I was telling President Bush.' Jaws dropped, but a guest says the slip by the unmarried politician, who spends weekends with the president and his wife, seemed more psychologically telling than incriminating. Nobody thinks Bush and Rice are actually an item."

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Stay Larry, stay!
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
10:16 AM

Craig reversal angers GOP colleagues

Just when Republicans thought things could not get much worse for their scandal-stained party, Idaho Sen. Larry Craig leaked word Tuesday night that he is reconsidering his abrupt plan to resign from the Senate in the wake of his arrest in a police sex sting operation.

Top Republican strategists were neither delighted nor amused by the senator's decision to rethink retirement after pleading guilty to disorderly conduct following his arrest in a Minnesota airport men's bathroom.

.....

A senior GOP Senate strategist said Republican leaders want him gone now and will press for him to keep his promise to resign. The strategist warned Craig is "losing any goodwill built up among his colleagues," adding, "He is simply a fish out of water, floundering right now to get his last gasp of political air."

"It simply defies reality," said a Senate GOP aide. "You can't make this up even if you are heavily medicated. The American people heard from Larry Craig that he would resign, and using the word 'intent' as a back door doesn't work with them."

Not out of the closet, or the Senate

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Snoop Dogg: F*ck Bill O'Reilly!
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
9:36 AM

(NSFW)

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

If you're guilty and you know it tap your foot
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
7:45 AM

Just when the Republicans thought this story was dying.....

Senator Larry Craig reconsidering resignation

Sen. Larry Craig is reconsidering his decision to resign after his arrest in a Minnesota airport sex sting and may still fight for his Senate seat, his spokesman said Tuesday evening.

"It's not such a foregone conclusion anymore, that the only thing he could do was resign," said Sidney Smith, Craig's spokesman in Idaho's capital.

"We're still preparing as if Senator Craig will resign Sept. 30, but the outcome of the legal case in Minnesota and the ethics investigation will have an impact on whether we're able to stay in the fight - and stay in the Senate."

NOT GAY!

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Fun with "Hot Tub" Tom
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
1:05 PM

You gotta love customer comments and customer tags associated with products on Amazon.com.

For example, Tom DeLay's new book, "No Retreat, No Surrender: One American's Fight"






Permalink :: 1 comments :: Post a Comment
 

"Because I ran out of money."
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
7:52 AM

Everything that's wrong with America can be summed up with Tony Snow. His resignation on Friday because he's running out of money should be a slap in the face to all of us "common folk." Here's a guy, as WH press secretary, making $168,000 a year. He and his ole lady had to take out a loan so he could have his fantasy job. Well, the loan money has run out and he has to start paying it back. I guess $168,000 doesn't cut it. Kinda sounds like the housing market doesn't it?

What a slap in our faces. I make less than half that, Tony. You don't see me quitting my job. Then again, I guess I can't go back to Faux News and whore for a $1 million dollars.

I hope this silver-spooned f*cktard doesn't get a publisher for his book. He can enjoy the crunch like everybody else:

Snow to resign as press secretary

Permalink :: 3 comments :: Post a Comment
 

For once, I have to agree with Rove
posted by Dookie The Webmaster
7:36 AM

Rove Advised Bush Against Picking Cheney As VP

Recently-departed White House adviser Karl Rove warned George W. Bush ahead of the 2000 election that picking Dick Cheney as his vice president would be a mistake, according to a new book set to hit bookstores Tuesday.

The Washington Post reported Monday that in the book -- "Dead Certain: The Presidency of George Bush" -- journalist Robert Draper reveals that Bush was intent on picking Cheney as his running mate, despite his warnings against it.

"Selecting Daddy's top foreign-policy guru ran counter to message. It was worse than a safe pick -- it was needy," Draper quotes Rove as saying.

Once he took office, the president "saw no harm in giving his VP unprecedented run of the place," Draper wrote.

Dick!

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Monday, September 3, 2007
Bush's life after retirement? Continue slacking, same as always
posted by Wally
9:29 AM

Bush's great ambition: wealthy boredom
Jimmy Carter has dedicated his life after the White House to conflict resolution around the world. Presidents George Bush the elder and Bill Clinton have campaigned together on behalf of communities devastated by Hurricane Katrina. So how does President George Bush junior imagine spending his retirement years?

"I can just envision getting in the car, getting bored, going down to the ranch," he says. He also has big plans for making money. "I'll give some speeches, to replenish the ol' coffers," says Mr Bush, who is already estimated to be worth $20m. "I don't know what my dad gets - it's more than 50-75 [thousand dollars a speech], and "Clinton's making a lot of money".

(snip)

It gets worse. Mr Bush reveals that whenever he feels depressed about the death toll in Iraq, he turns to God for comfort. "I've got God's shoulder to cry on, and I cry a lot," he says. "I'll bet I've shed more tears than you can count."

There is at least one point on which the president and his detractors will agree. In a moment of breathtaking candour, Mr Bush laments the fact that the media no longer listens to him. "I've been here too long," he says.

We can't disagree

Permalink :: 1 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Happy Labor Day
posted by Wally
8:33 AM

(and Happy Clyde's birthday too)

Permalink :: 1 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Caption This
posted by Wally
8:28 AM

Use the "Post a Comment" link to submit your caption of Bush on a surprise visit to Iraq

Permalink :: 5 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Sunday, September 2, 2007
How come this doesn't surprise me?
posted by Clyde
6:02 AM

Fake Photos Helped Lead U.S. to Invade Iraq

Add faked photos to the list of lies told by the Bush-Cheney Administration before its invasion of Iraq.

In a town hall meeting in Bloomsburg, Pa., this week, Rep. Paul Kanjorski, a 12-term congressman, said that shortly before Congress was scheduled to vote on authorizing military force against Iraq, top officials of the CIA showed select members of Congress three photographs it alleged were Iraqi Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), better known as drones. Kanjorski said he was told that the drones were capable of carrying nuclear, biological, or chemical agents, and could strike 1,000 miles inland of east coast or west coast cities.

Kanjorski said he and four or five other congressmen in the room were told there were 1,000 drones on freighters headed to the U.S. Both secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and President Bush wandered into and out of the briefing room, Kanjorski said.

(snip)

Several years later, Kanjorski said he learned that the pictures were "a god-damned lie," apparently taken by CIA photographers in the desert in the southwest of the U.S. The drone story itself had already been disproved, although not many major media carried that story.

(List of lies gets longer)

Permalink :: 2 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Bush cronies extend their purple fingers toward Iraq's elected government
posted by Clyde
5:29 AM

Some see 'coup' as Iraq's best hope

In the lobbies of luxury hotels and the apartments of exiles, an assortment of Iraqi politicians has been spending the summer vacation plotting a new Iraqi coup -- a non-violent, parliamentary coup to be sure, but a coup nonetheless, that would oust Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, declare a state of emergency and install a new government.

At the forefront of these efforts is former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, a secular Shiite who was Washington's first choice to lead Iraq after the U.S. occupation authority ended. He now is being presented by his followers as the best hope of saving Iraq from what they say is certain catastrophe.

But Allawi's is by no means the only name in circulation. Another former prime minister, two current vice presidents, a former planning minister, an Iraqi general from the old regime and an independent Sunni parliamentarian are among those being mentioned as potential alternatives.

"Everyone is desperate to be prime minister," said Saleh al-Mutlaq, a Sunni politician who has thrown his support behind Allawi but who has also been mentioned as a potential candidate. "Iraq is producing prime ministers."

(Saddam light)

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Dubya Dubya Dubya III is coming to a planet near you
posted by Clyde
5:16 AM

Pentagon 'three-day blitz' plan for Iran

THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for pinprick "strikes" against Iran's nuclear facilities. "They're about taking out the entire Iranian military," he said.

Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: "Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same." It was, he added, a "very legitimate strategic calculus".

(fightin over there)

Permalink :: 1 comments :: Post a Comment
 

Saturday, September 1, 2007
Just another Republican sex scandal
posted by Clyde
5:59 AM

Giuliani event aide quits over sex, theft charges

TALLAHASSEE -- An organizer for a Rudy Giuliani presidential event plans to step down amid revelations of his arrests for allegedly extorting an FSU student in a sex case and his conviction for dealing in stolen state computers.

Barry S. Edwards, 45, told The Miami Herald that the charges against him were ''old news'' --- and were 'unfounded' in the student sex case -- but he nevertheless thought it would be best to withdraw from the Pinellas County Republican Party fundraiser because ``I'm not relevant and I shouldn't be the story.''

(snip)

According to a Florida State University arrest affidavit: Edwards was first charged after a 19-year-old FSU political science intern claimed Edwards, then an adjunct professor, plied him with beers, trolled briefly for prostitutes, watched ''heterosexual'' pornography and then exhorted him to masturbate in a game.

The intern said Edwards threatened him with bad grades if he didn't ''get into it.'' He declined to press charges. Edwards said the claims were ''lies'' but he didn't ''want to revisit it.'' Edwards was fired from FSU.

(link)

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

No Child Left Behind hits Iraq
posted by Clyde
5:38 AM

Report: Baghdad education breaking down

The Institute for War & Peace Reporting, a British-based non-profit that provides training and practical assistance to local journalists in conflict zones, and distributes their articles, this week circulated a series of assessments of Iraq's schools, colleges and universities.

The news is almost all bad, although there are some bright spots, principally in the Kurdish north where the security situation is better and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein has meant that Kurds and Turkomen can at last get public education about their ethnic history and in their native tongue.

But elsewhere the educational situation is overwhelmingly bleak, something that bodes very ill for the future. In the Palestinian Territories and the South African townships during the struggle against apartheid, the breakdown of educational institutions helped fuel the rise of violent militias and street gangs.

The situation is especially bad in Baghdad, the institute's reporting shows. "Kidnappings of middle-class and wealthy students are common, and many teachers have been killed. Families escort their children to school and sometimes stay with them until the end of the day so they can take them home safely" reads one report about the capital's school system.

(link)

Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment
 

 

 

 Headlines & Comments

 
 True! by Daryl Cagle

See more TRUE cartoons by Daryl Cagle
 

Kansas City's own...
dubyaD40.com

Site Meter