|
Go
Vote! |
 |
|

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

|
|
| |
|
Blogroll |
 |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Today's
Topics |
 |
| |
|
Thursday, January 31, 2008
|
The 2008 Presidential Candidates...
posted by
Dookie The Webmaster
2:43 PM
What will they look like in four years?
We've all seen how the Presidency can age someone. Here is a fast forward look as to what the Presidential Candidates might look like four years into the future.
Mitt Romney:

John Edwards:

Rudy Giuliani:

John McCain:

Barack Obama:

Mike Huckabee:

Ron Paul:

Hillary Clinton:

Credit: HolyJuan
Permalink
::
0 comments
::
|
|
Montel Got Kicked Off FauxNews for Talking Troops
posted by
Wally
1:07 PM
And those sonsabitches brag about how they support the troops? Way to go Montel - talk about what's really important. Show these liars and propagandists for what they are.
Montel Williams turned the question on live television when he choose to focus on the solders dying in Iraq rather than the passing of Heath Ledger. Montel did not return for a further segment.
Permalink
::
0 comments
::
|
|
After 7 years of Bush, should we feel safer yet?
posted by
Wally
12:46 PM
US military not adequately prepared for homeland attack, report says
The U.S. military isn't ready for a catastrophic attack on the country, and National Guard forces don't have the equipment or training they need for the job, according to a report.
Even fewer Army National Guard units are combat-ready today than were nearly a year ago when the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves determined that 88 percent of the units were not prepared for the fight, the panel says in a new report released Thursday.
The commission's 400-page report concludes that the nation "does not have sufficient trained, ready forces available" to respond to a chemical, biological or nuclear weapons incident, "an appalling gap that places the nation and its citizens at greater risk."
"Right now we don't have the forces we need, we don't have them trained, we don't have the equipment," commission Chairman Arnold Punaro said in an interview with The Associated Press. "Even though there is a lot going on in this area, we need to do a lot more.... There's a lot of things in the pipeline, but in the world we live in - you're either ready or you're not." Maybe this is why we don't hear Gee Dubya saying "Bring 'em on" much lately.
Mission Accomplished
Permalink
::
1 comments
::
|
|
Hillary's past comes a knockin'
posted by
Dookie The Webmaster
10:38 AM
Clinton Remained Silent As Wal-Mart Fought Unions
In six years as a member of the Wal-Mart board of directors, between 1986 and 1992, Hillary Clinton remained silent as the world's largest retailer waged a major campaign against labor unions seeking to represent store workers.
Clinton has been endorsed for president by more than a dozen unions, according to her campaign Web site, which omits any reference to her role at Wal-Mart in its detailed biography of her.
Wal-Mart's anti-union efforts were headed by one of Clinton's fellow board members, John Tate, a Wal-Mart executive vice president who also served on the board with Clinton for four of her six years.
Tate was fond of repeating, as he did at a managers meeting in 2004 after his retirement, what he said was his favorite phrase, "Labor unions are nothing but blood-sucking parasites living off the productive labor of people who work for a living."
......
The tapes show Clinton in the role of a loyal company woman. "I'm always proud of Wal-Mart and what we do and the way we do it better than anybody else," she said at a June 1990 stockholders meeting.
Video & story here
Permalink
::
2 comments
::
|
|
Now THIS is how you support the troops
posted by
Wally
7:59 AM
A couple of South Carolina Democrats are talking about a simple, inexpensive, common sense way to show that they support our troops. Buy them a beer. Or at least allow them to buy their own.COLUMBIA, S.C. - A state lawmaker wants to give members of the armed forces younger than 21 the right to buy alcohol even though it's in stark contrast to the military's efforts to diminish underage drinking and related accidents.
"I really don't think it should create a problem for the military. It might even enhance their morale," Rep. Fletcher Smith said Wednesday.
"It's absurd that people serving in the military are trained to kill on the battlefield but at the same time couldn't come back home and have a beer," the Greenville Democrat said. "If you're old enough to get training in the U.S. military, you should be old enough to get a beer. That training really matures a person."
"If a man is old enough to defend his country and die for his country," he shouldn't be told he's too young for a beer, said Rep. Grady Brown, D-Bishopville. This is an idea we at dubyaD40 can really get behind, and have been advocating for years. These men and women out their risking their asses to defend us. Whether you (or they) agree with the conflict that the government sent them to fight or not, they go out and are willing to take a bullet to do thier duty and serve their country. What right do we have to tell them they're not "adult" enough to have a beer?
Cheers!
Permalink
::
2 comments
::
|
|
But Dubya said the Surge is Working?
posted by
Wally
7:26 AM
Did he use these two reports as evidence? Suicides Among Active-Duty Soldiers Reach Record High
Suicides among active-duty soldiers in 2007 reached their highest level since the Army began keeping such records in 1980, according to a draft internal study obtained by The Washington Post. Last year, 121 soldiers took their own lives, nearly 20 percent more than in 2006.
At the same time, the number of attempted suicides or self-inflicted injuries in the Army has jumped sixfold since the Iraq war began. Last year, about 2,100 soldiers injured themselves or attempted suicide, compared with about 350 in 2002, according to the U.S. Army Medical Command Suicide Prevention Action Plan.
The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have placed severe stress on the Army, caused in part by repeated and lengthened deployments. Historically, suicide rates tend to decrease when soldiers are in conflicts overseas, but that trend has reversed in recent years. From a suicide rate of 9.8 per 100,000 active-duty soldiers in 2001 -- the lowest rate on record -- the Army reached an all-time high of 17.5 suicides per 100,000 active-duty soldiers in 2006. Remember how the Republicans were squealing about how the military was broken and morale at an all time low back in 2001 after 8 years of Democratic Presidency? Looks like Bush and the Republicans did a "heck of a job" fixing that problem. That a great plan Dubya had - raising morale by giving those bored soldiers something to do - starting a couple of wars and sending them overseas to keep them busy and out of trouble.
It's working as well as anything else he and the Republicans have done in the past 7 years. What's that term again? Oh yeah - Miserable Failure.
Another sign of the the startling progress that's been made in Iraq comes from this report.Million Iraqis dead since invasion
A new study estimates that more than 1 million Iraqis have died because of the war in Iraq since the US-led invasion of the country in 2003.
Data compiled by London-based Opinion Research Business (ORB) and its research partner in Iraq, the Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society Studies (IIACSS) reveals a fifth of Iraqi households lost at least one family member between March 2003 and August 2007 due to the conflict.
"We now estimate that the death toll between March 2003 and August 2007 is likely to have been in the order of 1,033,000," ORB said in a statement.
The margin of error for the survey was 1.7 per cent, making the estimated range between 946,000 and 1.12 million fatalities. Mission Accomplished!
Everything Bush touches turns to death and destruction. Can we end this occupation and bring our troops home now? Haven't we done enough damage yet?
Permalink
::
0 comments
::
|
|
|
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
|
Willard loses by a whisker
posted by
Wally
9:42 AM
Yesterday in the Florida GOP primary, John McCain edged out Willard "Mitt" Romney to become the solid front-runner in the Republican primary race.
John "StayPuft" McCain - 36%
Willard "Mitt" Romney - 31% When asked to comment, Romney simply said "Rats!"
Meanwhile, Rudy 9ui11iani's campaign - in honor of the terrorist attack he can't stop talking about - collapsed and crumbled like a pair of plane-stricken burning skyscrapers. With Rudy gone, the GOP race comes down to a battle between.....
Rats -vs- Sweets
Permalink
::
0 comments
::
|
|
Giuliani drops out to spend more time with 9/11,
posted by
Dookie The Webmaster
9:20 AM
Giuliani to Drop Out, Endorse McCain
 ABC News' Jake Tapper and Rick Klein Report: Rudy Giuliani will board a plane to California on Wednesday morning, as planned. But, sources tell ABC News, once there, instead of participating in the GOP debate, he will drop out of the presidential race and endorse Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
Giuliani came down to greet supporters at the Loews Portofino Bay Hotel in Orlando. Responding to a friendly cheer from the audience, Giuliani laughed and quoted "that famous philosopher Yogi Berra, 'It's not over until it's over.'"
But it appeared over.
"Like most Americans, I love competition. I don't back down. . . but there must always be a purpose," Giuliani told supporters as his poor third-place showing became clear on the widescreen TVs. "Elections are about a lot more than candidates."
9/11
Permalink
::
0 comments
::
|
|
Damn.
posted by
Dookie The Webmaster
8:41 AM
Thanks for getting your message out John. It's too bad you couldn't have stayed in longer.
Edwards is dropping out
"Democrat John Edwards is exiting the presidential race Wednesday, ending a scrappy underdog bid in which he steered his rivals toward progressive ideals while grappling with family hardship that roused voter's sympathies but never diverted his campaign," the Associated Press reports.
The wire service says "the two-time White House candidate notified a close circle of senior advisers that he planned to make the announcement at a 1 p.m. ET event in New Orleans that had been billed as a speech on poverty, according to two of his advisers. The decision came after Edwards lost the four states to hold nominating contests so far to rivals who stole the spotlight from the beginning -- Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama."
Update at 9:18 a.m. ET: A source within the Edwards campaign with direct knowledge of the candidate's plans has confirmed for us that the AP report is correct.
Update at 9:30 a.m. ET: ABC News' Political Radar blog writes that "news of a decision to drop out of the race ends speculation that Edwards was aiming to be a kingmaker at the convention by collecting a significant amount of delegates to be able to have a say in who would become his party's nominee. ... Edwards has not publicly said who he will throw his support behind, though he has had private conversations with both Clinton and Obama in recent days."
Edwards has at least 26 delegates for the Democratic National Convention. It takes 2,025 to get the party's nomination.
Update at 9:40 a.m. ET: No endorsement expected:
The AP adds that, "the former North Carolina senator will not immediately endorse either candidate in what is now a two-person race for the Democratic nomination, said one adviser, who spoke on condition of anonymity in advance of the announcement." USA TODAY's Kathy Kiely reports she also has been told that by a campaign aide with knowledge of what Edwards will do.
GObama?
Permalink
::
2 comments
::
|
|
Lawmakers near immunity fight, extend spy bill
posted by
Wally
7:45 AM
Amid a high-stakes battle over whether to grant telephone companies immunity, the U.S. House of Representatives agreed on Tuesday to extend for 15 days an expiring anti-terror surveillance law.
Bush and Republicans have pushed for passage of a bill that would replace a surveillance law, set to expire on Friday, that expanded the power of U.S. authorities last August to track suspected enemy targets without a court order.
The new measure would tighten controls on these expanded powers. It would also grant retroactive immunity from lawsuits to any telecommunication company that participated in Bush's warrantless domestic spying program, begun shortly after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.
With the Senate tied up in knots over the legislation, Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said, "The main issue is whether we have retroactive immunity to phone companies. That's what it all boils down to." Reuters Our good friend Nancy put the immunity issue into perfect perspective. To paraphrase what she said, "Bush and the Republicans are pushing for retroactive immunity for the telecomm companies, saying they should be immune from lawsuits and prosecution because they were just doing what the government told them to do. Meantime, soldiers like Lynndie England are rotting in prison for doing the exact same thing - doing what the government told them."
The big difference is, in Lynndie's case, since she was in the military, if she had refused to carry out her orders, she would have gotten into trouble anyway for insubordination. Damned if she did, damned if she didn't. The telecomm companies have no such dilemma.
It's simple. If they broke the law, they should face the consequences - and don't even try to tell me that they aren't fully aware of the nuances and subtleties of the law. Dookie and I both work for the phone company, as does my wife. When it comes to things like this, they don't blow their noses without consulting with a team of lawyers. They walked into this full well knowing they were violating the Constitution and breaking the law, and they did it anyway.
If Cheney walked up to you and told you to shoot an old man in the face, and you did it, it's a safe bet you wouldn't get away with it. In this case, Cheney and Bush are telling the phone companies to shoot us all in the face, and some of them have been listening to them.
Call and/or write your Congress-critters and tell them NO Immunity for Phone Companies!
Permalink
::
1 comments
::
|
|
Caption This
posted by
Wally
7:32 AM
Use the "Post a Comment" link to submit your caption of Dubya at a "slave house" on Goree Island in Senegal in 2003.

Permalink
::
2 comments
::
|
|
|
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
|
Supporting the Troops: Army tried to stop VA from helping disabled Ft. Drum soldiers file for benefits
posted by
Wally
1:59 PM
Army officials in upstate New York instructed representatives from the Department of Veterans Affairs not to help disabled soldiers at Fort Drum Army base with their military disability paperwork last year. That paperwork can be crucial because it helps determine whether soldiers will get annual disability payments and health care after they're discharged.
Now soldiers at Fort Drum say they feel betrayed by the institutions that are supposed to support them. The soldiers want to know why the Army would want to stop them from getting help with their disability paperwork and why the VA - whose mission is to help veterans - would agree to the Army's request.
One disabled soldier, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he fears retaliation from the military, says it feels like a slap in the face.
"To be tossed aside like a worn-out pair of boots is pretty disheartening," the soldier says. "I always believed the Army would take care of me if I did the best I could, and I've done that."
"Worn-out boots"
Permalink
::
1 comments
::
|
|
We went to war twice for WHAT?!
posted by
Wally
8:11 AM
Iraq invaded Kuwait, and drew us into the first Gulf War, because of an insult. Also, Saddam thought that Bin Laden was a threat to him and his regime. And the WMD's were destroyed in the '90's.
The man who knew Saddam better than any other American is FBI agent George Piro. Over the course of months spent with Saddan while he was in prison, Piro interrogated him, got to know him, and in a strange way befriended him in order to gain his trust and get him to open up. In so doing, he was able to find out the answers about some troubling questions about such things as WMD's, connections with Al Qaeda, etc.
He talked with "60 Minutes" about what he learned. Much of what he had to say is disturbing, to say the least. To me, it's infuriating - not at Saddam - he's just a run of the mill megaolomaniacal sadistic evil dictator. That's what you expect from someone like that. What infuriates me is how the Bush administration reacted, and what they've done to our nation in the process.
Below are some key points. You can read the full story at the link above, or watch the video by clicking on the image below.
What caused the first Gulf War? What caused Saddam to invade Kuwait? What was the reason for spending 7 Billions dollars and mobilizing 500,000 troops and marching across Kuwait to push Saddam back behind his own borders? What started the war that cost the region $676 Billion in 1990-91? It was all triggered by a personal insult.
From the 60 Minutes interview:"What really triggered it for him, according to Saddam, was he had sent his foreign minister to Kuwait to meet with the Emir Al Sabah, the former leader of Kuwait, to try to resolve some of these issues. And the Emir told the foreign minister of Iraq that he would not stop doing what he was doing until he turned every Iraqi woman into a $10 prostitute. And that really sealed it for him, to invade Kuwait. He wanted to punish, he told me, Emir Al Sabah, for saying that," Piro explains. He could have responded with a "so's your mother" joke, but no, he had to start a fucking war. What an asshole.
What about those WMD's that Dubya, and Unca Dick, and Colin Powell kept trying to scare the shit out of us with in order to drag us into the second Gulf War?"He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq," Piro says. Okay, so the WMD's were, as anyone paying attention suspected, as the inspectors tried to tell us, a non-issue, trumped up as an excuse to invade. But there were the ties to bin Laden, right? Right?"He considered him to be a fanatic. And as such was very wary of him. He told me, 'You can't really trust fanatics,'" Piro says.
Piro says Saddam thought that Bin Laden was a threat to him and his regime. So... tell me again... why did we just blow 4 years, 4,000 American lives, half a Trillion dollars, 100's of 1,000's of Iraqi civilian's lives, and the reputation of America? What the fuck are we doing over there?
Permalink
::
3 comments
::
|
|
W's SotU speech full of new exciting ideas, like "War and Taxes" - oh, and hints of "let's invade Iran"
posted by
Wally
7:27 AM
Who would have thought, after 7 years of his Presidency, that Dubya could keep coming up with fresh and inspiring ideas like he proposed last night? Who could have predicted that he would have focused on such innovative proposals for his last year in office - something you never hear from the Republicans - as "war on terror" and "lower taxes".
Well, okay. Everyone. He delivered just what everyone has come to expect from him. Not much. Bush, Facing Woes in '08, Focuses on War and Taxes
Facing an unstable economy and an unfinished war, President Bush used his final State of the Union address Monday night to call for quick passage of his tax rebate package, patience in Iraq and a modest concluding agenda that includes $300 million in scholarship money for low-income children in struggling schools.
Mr. Bush devoted relatively little of his 53 minute speech to the economy, the issue that is the top concern of voters during this election year. He spent far more time talking about the issue that has been his own primary concern, Iraq. Most, if not all of what he said was the same old hashed over crap we've heard from him every year. An hour long nation-wide "yawn".
But not all of it. At one point he said something that made Mrs. Wally and I both sit up with a big WTF moment. It was another rehash of old crap, but it was pretty ominous rehash. Our message to the people of Iran is clear. We have no quarrel with you. We have respect your traditions and your history. We look forward to the day when you have your freedom.
Our message to the leaders of Iran is also clear. Verifiably suspend your nuclear enrichment so negotiations can begin. And to rejoin the community of nations, come clean about your nuclear intentions and past actions. Stop your oppression at home. Cease your support for terror abroad. To me, this sounds eerily similar to this little ditty from the State of the Union 5 years ago: And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country. One other thing that struck me from his speech last night. In Afghanistan, America, our 25 NATO allies and 15 partner nations are helping the Afghan people defend their freedom and rebuild their country.
Thanks to the courage of these military and civilian personnel, a nation that was once a safe haven for al Qaeda is now a young democracy where boys and girls are going to school. New roads and hospitals are being built. And people are looking to the future with new hope.
These successes must continue. So we're adding 3,200 Marines to our forces in Afghanistan, where they will fight the terrorists and train the Afghan army and police. If things are going so great in Afghanistan, why the hell are we sending MORE troops there? If such great progress has been made (it hasn't), and if there is so much hope for the future (there isn't), then our job should be done there, right?
If the Warmonger in Chief hadn't pulled our troops out of Afghanistan and sent them into Iraq, he probably would have been able to stand there honestly and proudly and rightfully brag about what a great job he did rebuilding Afghanistan and freeing the Afghan people. But he didn't. So he can't. Once again, he's lying.
Nothing new to see hear. Same old thing.
Transcript at CNN
Permalink
::
1 comments
::
|
|
|
Monday, January 28, 2008
|
$19 Billion in Congressional earmarks: Bad. $70 Billion in Iraq earmarks: Critical
posted by
Wally
11:05 AM
No wonder dubya is threatening vetoes and issuing executive orders to cut (or ignore) the $19 billion in earmarks in this year's budget. He needs that money - plus another 51 Billion on top of it - to play with his toy soldiers in Irag.
Bush to ask for $70 billion in partial 2009 war funding
The Bush administration will ask Congress next week for $70 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and other related operations for part of the 2009 fiscal year, the Pentagon said on Monday.
The funding would be in addition to the administration's request for the regular Pentagon budget which is to be presented next week.
Since the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, Congress has approved $691 billion to pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and such related activities as Iraq reconstruction, the Congressional Budget Office said last week.
Of the total, the CBO estimated that $440 billion had been spent on the war in Iraq. That $70,000,000,000.00 (look at all those zeroes) comes to another $233.33 for every man, woman, and child in America. For "partially" funding one year of his catastrophic invasion and occupation. We'd be better off taking $233 one dollar bills and lighting them on fire. At least that way they'll help keep us warm, which could come in handy since "In 2007, according to the Labor Department, gasoline and home heating prices rose 29.4 percent."
Remember, every dollar spent blowing things up and killing people in Iraq means another dollar that can't be spent on things like improving education, providing healthcare to poor kids, securing the future of Social Security. Another 70 Billion dollars that won't be spent taking care of the REAL threats to America, like fixing the crumbling roads and dangerous bridges, taking steps to prevent disasters like Katrina and cleaning up after they occur, protecting the environment, protecting the Civil Liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, etc, etc, etc.
What will the Democratic leadership in congress say about it? If history is any indication, they'll talk tough and threaten to impose non-binding timelines and benchmarks - and then they'll give Chimpy McWarhardon yet another blank check, just like they always do.
Your tax dollars at work
Permalink
::
1 comments
::
|
|
For those keeping score at home
posted by
Wally
9:19 AM
In Saturday's South Carolina primary, Obama beat the top two Republican candidates. Combined.
In last week's Republican primary, McCain got 147,283 votes and Huckabee got 132,440, for a total of 279,723 votes. In Saturday's Democratic primary, Obama got 295,091. You could have thrown 9iu11iani and Hunter into the tally for good measure, and Obama alone still would have beat their total.

Let's have some more fun with fuzzy math, just for kicks. Adding up the total votes we get:
GOP: 442,918 - or 45% of the total vote Dems: 530,322 - or 55% of the total vote What's that 10% difference called again? Oh yeah.
Landslide.
Or at least serious ass-kicking. You might expect these kinds of numbers in California, but this was South Carolina.
Permalink
::
2 comments
::
|
|
After 7 years, he finally decides pork is bad?
posted by
Wally
8:30 AM
For the first 6 years of his presidency, Dubya couldn't seem to find his veto pen. Nor could he find the "fiscal conservatism" that he kept talking about. While the Republicans in Congress were dropping a billion here and a billion there into the budget at the last minute, or in the middle of the night, behind closed doors, he never seemed to see a problem with "earmarks". Just ask Ted Stevens (R-AK) about his "bridge to nowhere" for a perfect example of wasteful pork that Dubya thought was just a dandy idea.
Suddenly, with the Dems in charge, he's turned 180 degrees. When the GOP was in charge of Congress, he unquestioningly signed anything and everything they put in front of him. Now that the Dems are in charge, the opposite is the case - no matter how much they compromise, there is practically nothing they can do that he doesn't just reject outright, simply because they are Democrats and he is a Republican.
Now, in an extension of this childish game, he is trying to essentially revive the "line-item veto" - which was struck down by the Supreme Court - by issuing an "executive order".
President George W. Bush will begin "unprecedented steps" to trim billions of dollars earmarked by lawmakers for pet projects, a White House spokesman said.
Bush will issue an executive order tomorrow directing federal agencies to ignore any earmarks included only in committee reports, not in the text of legislation. These steps are unprecedented because they are unconstitutional. Budgeting and funding the government is the responsibility of the Congress, not the President. By issuing this executive order, Bush is overstepping the bounds set by the Constitution that he took an oath to "defend and uphold". He is trying to sidestep the Constitution, again, by turning a signing statement into a line item veto.
Granted, we at DubyaD40 are not against cutting wasteful pork. In fact, we think it's a great idea. We're just pointing out the blatant abuse of power that Dubya is attempting, as well as the standard issue hypocricy to which we've become so accustomed.
Congress approved more than 11,700 earmarks valued at a total of more than $19 billion for the fiscal 2008 spending year, according to the Office of Management and Budget. That's a lot of pork, but we wonder why Dubya didn't take issue with the 2005 budget, which, according to the Office of Management and Budget, contained "13,492 earmarks totaling $18,938,657,000". I wonder what that's worth in 2008 dollars, after inflation.
Oh, and by the way, in the 2008 budget that's making George throw a hissy fit, "About 40 percent of the money was for items requested by Republicans."
So much for fiscal conservatism.
EDIT: I've posted these before, but I couldn't resist doing it again to help illustrate the hypocricy of what Bush is saying.

Permalink
::
0 comments
::
|
|
Just in time for the State of the Union tonight. The SOTU Drinking Game 2008
posted by
Wally
7:54 AM
 "He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." -- U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section III "Madame Speaker, the President of the United States..." The general rules of this game are no different from any other drinking game. A drink is either a shot or a good gulp from a beer (or cider). Different events call for different numbers of drinks and all you do is watch the speech and play along. If all goes well, you'll be unconscious by the time they show the other party's response.
GAME TIME This year, President Bush's State of the Union address is scheduled for Monday, January 28, 2008 at 9pm (Eastern). It should be broadcast on all major networks and cable news/political networks. For online coverage, go to http://www.c-span.org/executive/stateoftheunion.asp.
Permalink
::
0 comments
::
|
|
Caption This
posted by
Wally
7:35 AM
Use the "Post a Comment" link to submit your caption

Permalink
::
1 comments
::
|
|
|
Sunday, January 27, 2008
|
The death of the neo-con agenda
posted by
Clyde
6:36 AM
Democrats come out in South Carolina
The South Carolina Democratic Party broke its own turnout record in Saturday's presidential primary and eclipsed the number of ballots cast by residents in the Republican primary the week before.
With 99 percent of precincts reporting, more than 532,000 votes had been tabulated in Barack Obama's commanding victory here. The returns easily eclipsed the 280,000 people who voted in the Democratic primary in 2004.
Democratic officials characterized the record-breaking vote as a sign that the party is resurgent in South Carolina.
"Even in this reddest of all states, Democrats can win," state party Chairwoman Carol Fowler said. "I hope it indicates Democrats are getting a new lease on life."
(YeeHaa!)
Permalink
::
0 comments
::
|
|
One-sided Support
posted by
Clyde
6:12 AM
Pakistan Rebuffs Secret U.S. Plea for C.I.A. Buildup
The top two American intelligence officials traveled secretly to Pakistan early this month to press President Pervez Musharraf to allow the Central Intelligence Agency greater latitude to operate in the tribal territories where Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other militant groups are all active, according to several officials who have been briefed on the visit.
But in the unannounced meetings on Jan. 9 with the two American officials - Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, and Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the C.I.A. director - Mr. Musharraf rebuffed proposals to expand any American combat presence in Pakistan, either through unilateral covert C.I.A. missions or by joint operations with Pakistani security forces.
Instead, Pakistan and the United States are discussing a series of other joint efforts, including increasing the number and scope of missions by armed Predator surveillance aircraft over the tribal areas, and identifying ways that the United States can speed information about people suspected of being militants to Pakistani security forces, officials said.
American and Pakistani officials have questioned each other in recent months about the quality and time lines of information that the United States has given to Pakistan to use in focusing on those extremists. American officials have complained that the Pakistanis are not seriously pursuing Al Qaeda in the region.
(Link)
Permalink
::
0 comments
::
|
|
Don't you have to do something worthwhile to be modest?
posted by
Clyde
6:02 AM
Bush plans modest final State of the Union speech
Beginning his final year in office with low approval ratings, a Democratic Congress and a nation fixated on choosing his successor, President Bush is preparing a State of the Union speech for Monday that will accentuate unfinished business and lay out modest goals.
In his radio address Saturday, Bush said he would use his speech to urge congressional action to stimulate the economy and to authorize a warrantless wiretapping program that provides legal immunity for telephone companies that cooperated with administration surveillance efforts before laws were changed.
White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said Bush's speech would be "focused on the future" rather than providing a review of the president's seven years in office and would "reflect the president's mind set that he is going to sprint to the finish."
But the central policy measures Bush plans to highlight, according to senior aides, are issues that have already run into major objections: extending the eavesdropping legislation; perpetuating the 2001 and '03 tax cuts, and renewing the 2002 overhaul of education programs encompassed in the No Child Left Behind law, among others.
(Link)
Permalink
::
0 comments
::
|
|
|
Saturday, January 26, 2008
|
Hurry up to Baghdad and wait for healthcare!
posted by
Clyde
7:33 AM
TBI task force identifies shortfalls in care
An Army report on the cause, diagnosis and treatment of traumatic brain injuries among soldiers and Marines who have been in combat cited a number of gaps in services and care for those suffering TBI.
One in five soldiers and Marines returning from Iraq and Afghanistan may have suffered mild TBI, the task force estimated, and some may not be aware they need treatment.
"Many of the mild cases are overlooked," Brig. Gen. Donald Bradshaw, commander of the Southeast Regional Medical Command and chairman of the TBI Task Force, said Jan. 17 at a press conference to release the report.
The task force of 17 medical professionals, writers and researchers from the Army, Marine Corps and Air Force conducted a review of policies governing TBI patient care, including diagnosis, education, research and case management.
(About F'ing Time!)
Permalink
::
0 comments
::
|
|
Wiretapping + NSA + Dubya = Nervous Yet?
posted by
Clyde
7:18 AM
Bush Order Expands Network Monitoring
President Bush signed a directive this month that expands the intelligence community's role in monitoring Internet traffic to protect against a rising number of attacks on federal agencies' computer systems.
The directive, whose content is classified, authorizes the intelligence agencies, in particular the National Security Agency, to monitor the computer networks of all federal agencies -- including ones they have not previously monitored. (What government agency isn't monitored - Sounds like a loophole to me)
Until now, the government's efforts to protect itself from cyber-attacks -- which run the gamut from hackers to organized crime to foreign governments trying to steal sensitive data -- have been piecemeal. Under the new initiative, a task force headed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) will coordinate efforts to identify the source of cyber-attacks against government computer systems. As part of that effort, the Department of Homeland Security will work to protect the systems and the Pentagon will devise strategies for counterattacks against the intruders.
There has been a string of attacks on networks at the State, Commerce, Defense and Homeland Security departments in the past year and a half. U.S. officials and cyber-security experts have said Chinese Web sites were involved in several of the biggest attacks back to 2005, including some at the country's nuclear-energy labs and large defense contractors.
(1 inch = 1 mile)
Permalink
::
0 comments
::
|
|
|
Friday, January 25, 2008
|
Top Ten Barack Obama Campaign Promises
posted by
Dookie The Webmaster
8:17 AM
Permalink
::
0 comments
::
|
|
Caption This
posted by
Wally
8:07 AM
Use the "Post a Comment" link to submit your caption of Dubya talking about his economic stimulus package with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

Permalink
::
4 comments
::
|
|
"Just forget what I said!"
posted by
Dookie The Webmaster
7:46 AM
Because Iraq was more important:
President Bush Says Usama Bin Laden May Not Be Captured During His Time in Office
 Capturing Usama bin Laden has been one of President Bush's top priorities during his time in office, but the president now seems to doubt the Al Qaeda mastermind will be found before his term ends next January.
Speaking about his goals for his last year in the White House, Bush tells FOX News in an exclusive interview to air this weekend that if U.S. military and intelligence knew where bin Laden was, they would have apprehended him already.
"If we could find the cave he is in, I promise you - he would be brought to justice or wherever he's hiding," he tells FOX News in "George W. Bush: Fighting to the Finish," a documentary scheduled to air Sunday, Jan. 27, at 8 p.m. ET.
...
"For the country, it's a matter of closure in many ways for those who suffered under the attacks," Bush said. "He's hiding. He's isolated. He's not out there leading any parades."
Dead or Alive?
Permalink
::
3 comments
::
|
|
Give it up for Dodd!
posted by
Clyde
6:48 AM
Filibuster Threatened Over Wiretap Law Senate Debates Competing BIlls Overseeing Surveillance Of Americans
A Senate filibuster is promised against a bill that would grant immunity from lawsuits against telecommunication companies that participated in the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens.
Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., reiterated his intent to block the Intelligence Committee's version of a renewed surveillance law known as FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) if it includes immunity.
The bill is S.2248. There is a competing FISA bill from the Judiciary Committee which does not grant immunity.
An amendment by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., which would have stripped immunity from the Judiciary Committee version, was tabled this afternoon, by a vote of 60-34.
(Link)
Permalink
::
0 comments
::
|
|
Now that's judicial activism!
posted by
Clyde
6:27 AM
Judge wants answers on CIA videotapes
A federal judge said Thursday that CIA interrogation videotapes may have been relevant to his court case and he gave the Bush administration three weeks to explain why they were destroyed in 2005 and say whether other evidence was also destroyed.
Several judges are considering wading into the dispute over the videos, but U.S. District Judge Richard W. Roberts was the first to order the administration to provide a written report on the matter.
The tapes showed harsh interrogation tactics used by CIA officers questioning al-Qaida suspects Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri in 2002. The Justice Department and Congress are investigating the destruction of the tapes.
When they were destroyed, the government was under various court orders to retain evidence relevant to terrorism suspects at U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. After it became public in December that the tapes had been destroyed, lawyers for several detainees went to court demanding to know more.
(Link)
Permalink
::
1 comments
::
|
|
And then there were three.
posted by
Wally
12:37 AM
Kucinich to Drop Bid and Focus on Re-election
Representative Dennis J. Kucinich has decided to end his long-shot presidential bid, thinning the Democratic field, and allowing him to focus on a contested race for re-election in his Ohio Congressional district.
Mr. Kucinich, who campaigned on a strong antiwar message, was never able to gain much traction in the polls. He was excluded from the recent Democratic debates in New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina as networks tightened the rules for participation. The televised debates had been the main venue for getting out his campaign's message.
Mr. Kucinich, a former mayor of Cleveland and a six-term congressman, has a tough primary fight on his hands in Ohio's 10th Congressional District. Four other Democrats are trying to defeat him on March 4.
One of his rivals, Joe Cimperman, a member of the Cleveland City Council, has been running commercials calling Mr. Kucinich a "part-time congressman" more interested in seeking higher office. And Mr. Kucinich recently posted an "urgent personal appeal" for contributions on his Congressional re-election Web site. Click on the link to his website above to help him out. If we can't have him as President, let's make damn sure we still have him fighting for us in Congress.
With Dennis gone, we're left with... The Mod Squad?
Permalink
::
1 comments
::
|
|
|
Thursday, January 24, 2008
|
Bush: Congress is so cute when they try to use that "separation of powers" thing
posted by
Wally
8:18 AM
It might be just a "god damn piece of paper" to Bush, but to most Americans, the Constitution actually means something. If only Congress felt the same way.
Once again, Bush is trying an end-run around the Constitution, and almost nobody is paying attention. This time, he's attempting to commit the U.S. into entering into a treaty with the Iraqi government - something that, according to the U.S. Constitution, must be ratified by Congress. Of course, it also says that only Congress can declare war - something they have yet to do in Iraq - so we see how much weight that damn peice of paper really carries over in the halls of the government allegedly outlined and defined by that same Constitution. President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki issued a joint letter in November. On the surface, the "Declaration of Principles" appears as a mutual "expression of friendship," as it has been characterized by administration officials.
The "Declaration of Principles" includes language that seems run-of-the-mill. The United States will help get Iraq into the World Trade Organization. The two countries will engage in scientific and cultural exchanges.
But it also includes a provision that promises to maintain the stability of Iraq's government from "internal and external threats." This sentence is raising alarms for some U.S. lawmakers.
Any such agreement would be considered a treaty by many legal experts. And under the U.S. Constitution, treaties have to be ratified by Congress.
"The declaration of principles would appear to commit the United States to keeping the elected Iraqi government in power against internal threats," says Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East analyst at the Congressional Research Service. "I leave it to the lawyers to determine whether that's the definition of a treaty or not but it certainly seems to be - is going to be - a hefty U.S. commitment to Iraq for a long time."
Such a hefty commitment would be unprecedented in the history of American foreign policy. Maybe Bush ignoring Congress and violating the Constitution has become so commonplace that it doesn't even raise an eyebrow anymore. But come on Congress. This is your job. Every single freaking one of you, just like Dubya, swore an oath of office to "defend the Constitution of the United States." Surprise us all and do your fucking job for a change. Stop letting this traitorous son of a bitch wipe his ass with our Constitution.
Full story at NPR
Permalink
::
1 comments
::
|
|
The Bush Legacy, in a nutshell
posted by
Wally
7:51 AM
The House Democratic Caucus put together this handy chart comparing the state of the nation at the beginning of Dubya's presidency to the state of the nation after 7 years with him in office.

Click the image for a larger version.
Permalink
::
2 comments
::
| | |