George W. Bush and Larry Craig. Hmm, what do they have in common--other than an ambivalent sexuality? Very simple--neither one gives a damn about their Republican party.
The president brings out the veto pen to kill a bill that has widespread bipartisan support, a measure supported by 47 of 50 governors and radicals like Orrin Hatch. Fiscal conservatism? Please, more money falls off the back of supply planes in Iraq than this measure would have cost. There is no logical reason for the veto other than he wanted to do it and he doesn't give a damn about his party. That makes perfect sense, given that he feels he owes the party nothing. He did nothing with the party in terms of coming to prominence. He was the accidental empty suit who was the first spawn of a mediocre president and nothing else. He owes the party nothing, and is giving it nothing in return.
And Larry Craig? He is an embarrassment to the party and has angered even the Idaho GOP. He can do nothing as a legislator from now on, and he is a tremendous liability both locally and nationally. Does he care? No, like his president, "it's all about me."
Monday, October 08, 2007
How screwed up is our presidential selection system?
On how many levels is the process by which we choose our next president screwed up?
First of all--the "primaries."
Primaries have no explicit or implicit basis in the constitution. They are rooted in this rather bizarre "party" system we have now. The order of primaries is bound by nothing other than tradition.
With all due respect to the fine citizens of these states, WHY DO WE CARE ABOUT IOWA AND NEW HAMPSHIRE? These two states together have fewer people than live in metro Chicago, yet they can determine who leads the free world? Iowa farmers who think Steve Alford is a great guy and the inhabitants of Our Town get to decide? Also note that a primary vote is only a vote for delegates, who, in many states, have no obligation to do what the voters want.
Second--money. I don't really need to say more, we have a perverse system where fundraising, rather than positions, defines who wins. I get at least 10 calls a day from various candidates because I stupidly gave $50 to the DNC in '04 (and the "Do Not Call" list does not apply to political solicitations.) Money has grotesquely perverted what used to be "the democratic process."
And finally--"the electoral college." Yes, I know it is defined in the constitution, and I am loathe to amend the constitution to put the social policy du jour in place.
However, it is beyond clear that this vestige of an era when the vote was not universal and there was no national media no longer serves a defensible purpose. If a national candidate need not campaign in Texas or Illinois, the system is broken--period. Every vote counts, so--count them.
First of all--the "primaries."
Primaries have no explicit or implicit basis in the constitution. They are rooted in this rather bizarre "party" system we have now. The order of primaries is bound by nothing other than tradition.
With all due respect to the fine citizens of these states, WHY DO WE CARE ABOUT IOWA AND NEW HAMPSHIRE? These two states together have fewer people than live in metro Chicago, yet they can determine who leads the free world? Iowa farmers who think Steve Alford is a great guy and the inhabitants of Our Town get to decide? Also note that a primary vote is only a vote for delegates, who, in many states, have no obligation to do what the voters want.
Second--money. I don't really need to say more, we have a perverse system where fundraising, rather than positions, defines who wins. I get at least 10 calls a day from various candidates because I stupidly gave $50 to the DNC in '04 (and the "Do Not Call" list does not apply to political solicitations.) Money has grotesquely perverted what used to be "the democratic process."
And finally--"the electoral college." Yes, I know it is defined in the constitution, and I am loathe to amend the constitution to put the social policy du jour in place.
However, it is beyond clear that this vestige of an era when the vote was not universal and there was no national media no longer serves a defensible purpose. If a national candidate need not campaign in Texas or Illinois, the system is broken--period. Every vote counts, so--count them.
Thomas Jefferson on Blackwater
We're beyond being shocked at what this administration does, but the Blackwater revelations last week came close. We heard that this private army of mercenaries, hired by an ideological soulmate and close friend of the administration, has been killing Iraqis largely for sport, where drunken killers fire at random and face no legal consequences.
Mercenaries. Just think about it, what have we become? As Thomas Jefferson wrote of mercenaries 231 years ago,
Mercenaries. Just think about it, what have we become? As Thomas Jefferson wrote of mercenaries 231 years ago,
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.Indeed, this is "totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation."
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Who could have said such a thing?
"This defines Petraeus’s failure. Instead of obliging the president and the Congress to confront this fundamental contradiction -- are we or are we not at war? -- he chose instead to let them off the hook….
"Politically, it qualifies as a brilliant maneuver. The general’s relationships with official Washington remain intact. Yet he has broken faith with the soldiers he commands and the Army to which he has devoted his life. He has failed his country. History will not judge him kindly."
The title of this piece is "Sycophant Savior," and it also says that Petraeus "is a political general of the worst kind—one who indulges in the politics of accommodation that is Washington’s bread and butter but has thereby deferred a far more urgent political imperative, namely, bringing our military policies into harmony with our political purposes."
From MoveOn perhaps? Daily Kos? How about
(link)
"Politically, it qualifies as a brilliant maneuver. The general’s relationships with official Washington remain intact. Yet he has broken faith with the soldiers he commands and the Army to which he has devoted his life. He has failed his country. History will not judge him kindly."
The title of this piece is "Sycophant Savior," and it also says that Petraeus "is a political general of the worst kind—one who indulges in the politics of accommodation that is Washington’s bread and butter but has thereby deferred a far more urgent political imperative, namely, bringing our military policies into harmony with our political purposes."
From MoveOn perhaps? Daily Kos? How about
(link)
Monday, October 01, 2007
Now, that's truly special
C&L has this one, but I wanted to make sure that everyone read it. (Of course, our readership here is much larger than theirs...)
Movie critic/Wingnut Michael Medved is out with an essay on Townhall entitled "Six inconvenient truths about the U.S. and slavery". You could go read the drivel, and there are those, I'm sure, who would want to try to rebut his arguments. But really, folks, here's the key - he's arguing that slavery wasn't that bad. Slavery. You know, one person owning another. I don't care if it was slavery based on race, or gender, or religion - I think most of us could pretty well agree that slavery is on the list of no-no's, well, at least those of us who aren't evil.
The buried, racist heads of the evil wing of the GOP continue to sneak out of the sand and their vestigial eyes are blinking in the harsh light of reality. What possesses someone to write an essay like this? If you read any part of it (and then wipe the vomit off your keyboard), you see that he's upset that anyone (I think there's a straw man slave in here somewhere) says that the US doesn't have the moral authority to bomb brown people because slavery was legal in parts of the country 142 years ago. Personally, I don't think we have the moral authority to bomb brown people because I don't think anyone has the moral authority to bomb brown people, but maybe I need to take a closer look at things.
Oh, for crying out loud, I can't even get sarcastic about this idiocy.
Movie critic/Wingnut Michael Medved is out with an essay on Townhall entitled "Six inconvenient truths about the U.S. and slavery". You could go read the drivel, and there are those, I'm sure, who would want to try to rebut his arguments. But really, folks, here's the key - he's arguing that slavery wasn't that bad. Slavery. You know, one person owning another. I don't care if it was slavery based on race, or gender, or religion - I think most of us could pretty well agree that slavery is on the list of no-no's, well, at least those of us who aren't evil.
The buried, racist heads of the evil wing of the GOP continue to sneak out of the sand and their vestigial eyes are blinking in the harsh light of reality. What possesses someone to write an essay like this? If you read any part of it (and then wipe the vomit off your keyboard), you see that he's upset that anyone (I think there's a straw man slave in here somewhere) says that the US doesn't have the moral authority to bomb brown people because slavery was legal in parts of the country 142 years ago. Personally, I don't think we have the moral authority to bomb brown people because I don't think anyone has the moral authority to bomb brown people, but maybe I need to take a closer look at things.
Oh, for crying out loud, I can't even get sarcastic about this idiocy.
Just a suggestion
Under Harry Truman, the name of the "War Department" was changed to the Department of defense.
I think we should change it back.
I think we should change it back.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Question and Answer Time
Chimpy McDumbass, January 11, 2000 - "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"
The Giggling Murderer, September 26, 2007 - "As yesterday's positive report card shows, childrens do learn when standards are high and results are measured."
The Giggling Murderer, September 26, 2007 - "As yesterday's positive report card shows, childrens do learn when standards are high and results are measured."
Thursday, September 27, 2007
On Bill O'Reilly
At first glance, this is just fun. We can enjoy watching a Fox News blowhole makes some idiotic and racially ridiculous remarks, and then tries to bluster his way out of his self-inflicted head shot.
If you look a little deeper, though, you may see something more disturbing.
Bill O'Reilly is a jerk, a blowhard, a sexual bully, hypocrite, and an arrogant self-promoter who never let the facts get in the way of one of his silly tantrums.
But is he a racist? Well, what he is not, I presume, is the simple, evil, ugly racist, the vile creature that can drag a man to death behind a pickup truck or burn crosses on a family's yard. That kind of racism is vulgar, simple--and obvious.
O'Reilly, though, demonstrates a much more subtle, and I fear pervasive form of racism. It is the prejudice of ignorance and the bigotry of low expectations. Admittedly, Bill is not the sharpest knife in the drawer and a rather repulsive person, but what is shocking is not what he said, but what he thought about it. He thought he was sharing some kind of enlightening observation with his audience, that black people are, what do you know, just like "us."
This is the racism that allows many to say, "I'm no bigot," but would shudder at having a black boss, neighbor or son-in-law. This is the racism that allows home buyers and real estate agents, without saying a word between them, to only visit houses in certain parts of town.
It isn't shocking that Bill O'Reilly said that Sylvia'a Restaurant and its patrons were like any other. What is shocking and sad is how many Americans would, like Bill, be surprised at such an obvious "revelation."
If you look a little deeper, though, you may see something more disturbing.
Bill O'Reilly is a jerk, a blowhard, a sexual bully, hypocrite, and an arrogant self-promoter who never let the facts get in the way of one of his silly tantrums.
But is he a racist? Well, what he is not, I presume, is the simple, evil, ugly racist, the vile creature that can drag a man to death behind a pickup truck or burn crosses on a family's yard. That kind of racism is vulgar, simple--and obvious.
O'Reilly, though, demonstrates a much more subtle, and I fear pervasive form of racism. It is the prejudice of ignorance and the bigotry of low expectations. Admittedly, Bill is not the sharpest knife in the drawer and a rather repulsive person, but what is shocking is not what he said, but what he thought about it. He thought he was sharing some kind of enlightening observation with his audience, that black people are, what do you know, just like "us."
This is the racism that allows many to say, "I'm no bigot," but would shudder at having a black boss, neighbor or son-in-law. This is the racism that allows home buyers and real estate agents, without saying a word between them, to only visit houses in certain parts of town.
It isn't shocking that Bill O'Reilly said that Sylvia'a Restaurant and its patrons were like any other. What is shocking and sad is how many Americans would, like Bill, be surprised at such an obvious "revelation."
Solidarity
The student editor of the Colorado State University newspaper is taking some serious heat for a controversial headline he wrote recently. In the interest of supporting our fellow Americans in advocating for freedom of speech and in telling the truth, we here at The Thinker would like to join CSU in saying:
FUCK BUSH.
That is all.
FUCK BUSH.
That is all.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
The Wrath of Khangress
The Senate still can't get it's collective thumb out of it's ass about Iraq - the GOP killed James Webb's amendment to require that troops stay home at least as long as they're in the field (the RNC considers it disrespectful to the troops to do such a horrible thing) -- but they can make sure that no wacky leftists can say mean things about generals without feeling the lash from an angry bunch of do-nothing bastards. I can be glad that neither of my senators joined the moronity, but 77 senators did.
Here lies: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
B: December 15, 1791
D: September 20, 2007
Here lies: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
B: December 15, 1791
D: September 20, 2007
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
A Sun-Times Dumbass
I usually read the Chicago Tribune letters, but this is a classic from The Bright One beheaded two people while slaughtering them was railroaded by the white establishment.
Good work, Bill, and
Yep, William. It is "white America." That damned "white America" has been after O.J. ever since he nearlyGot O.J.?
White America can finally re-hang the banner "Mission Accomplished" on the deck of the aircraft carrier. The threat of terrorism exists no more. Our troops can finally come home, Osama bin Laden can come out of hiding and 9/11 can finally be put behind us. Why? Because they got O.J.
William L. Bowman, Loop
Good work, Bill, and
Politics Makes Strange Stall-Fellows
State of Minnesota, Plaintiff v. Larry Edwin Craig, Defendant
MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF AMICI CURIAE
MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF AMICI CURIAE
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
AND AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION OF MINNESOTA IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT..
UNION OF MINNESOTA IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT..
http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/freespeech/craig_v_minnesota_acluamicus.pdf
Ladies and Gentlemen - your Republican Party in action
I am as annoyed as anyone that the Democrats in Congress haven't been more effective at doing, well, anything, but there is the unfortunate reality that the GOP is still stuck in lockstep mode and would rather go down on the USS Chimptanic than pretend they're Americans. Specifically, after bitching for years anytime the Democrats utilized the filibuster (remember the whole discussion about the "nuclear option"?), they can't help themselves, and filibuster everything so that every vote essentially has a 60 vote requirement to pass. Of course, it's more civilized than that, so the Senate just has a cloture vote to end debate and proceed to a real vote, and unless the cloture vote gets 60, the bill or amendment stalls. Counting Bernie Sanders (I-VT), but not Joe Lieberman (Jackass-CT), the Dems have 50 votes, and that's unfortunately not enough.
Case in point: Arlen Specter, one of the more moderate Republicans, introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008. The amendment would strike the staggeringly offensive portion of the Military Commissions Act, passed last year, which revoked the Great Writ of Habeus Corpus for those detained by the US. This really should be a no-brainer, except for those who think that anyone arrested is guilty by default and, as such, gives up all their human and civil rights. Hey - who thinks that way? Republicans!
In the cloture vote yesterday, the amendment got 56 votes, including 6 Republicans (but not Fascist Joe), so of course it failed. I'm sure the whiny brat who plays President would have had a temper tantrum, and might have even pulled out the old veto pad, so it might not have mattered (unless they could get 67 votes).
Sigh.
Of course, they're consistent, these Republicans who claim to love America but hate everything the country once stood for. The other vote yesterday was about granting congressional representation to the US citizens living in the District of Columbia (and giving one more seat to Utah). And it failed. No taxation without representation, indeed.
Case in point: Arlen Specter, one of the more moderate Republicans, introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008. The amendment would strike the staggeringly offensive portion of the Military Commissions Act, passed last year, which revoked the Great Writ of Habeus Corpus for those detained by the US. This really should be a no-brainer, except for those who think that anyone arrested is guilty by default and, as such, gives up all their human and civil rights. Hey - who thinks that way? Republicans!
In the cloture vote yesterday, the amendment got 56 votes, including 6 Republicans (but not Fascist Joe), so of course it failed. I'm sure the whiny brat who plays President would have had a temper tantrum, and might have even pulled out the old veto pad, so it might not have mattered (unless they could get 67 votes).
Sigh.
Of course, they're consistent, these Republicans who claim to love America but hate everything the country once stood for. The other vote yesterday was about granting congressional representation to the US citizens living in the District of Columbia (and giving one more seat to Utah). And it failed. No taxation without representation, indeed.
Monday, September 17, 2007
For once he told the truth...
It was refreshing, wasn't it, that for the first time, the president actually told the truth about Iraq?
He said "In the life of all free nations, there come moments that decide the direction of a country and reveal the character of its people. We are now at such a moment. "
How true. The moment here was to decide--should the U.S. resume its role as a decent and honorable member of the community of nations or continue its course as a rogue outlaw nation occupying and destroying sovereign states?
The answer? The latter of course, as he offers Iraq "an enduring relationship with America." An enduring relationship of occupation, war and death.
He said "In the life of all free nations, there come moments that decide the direction of a country and reveal the character of its people. We are now at such a moment. "
How true. The moment here was to decide--should the U.S. resume its role as a decent and honorable member of the community of nations or continue its course as a rogue outlaw nation occupying and destroying sovereign states?
The answer? The latter of course, as he offers Iraq "an enduring relationship with America." An enduring relationship of occupation, war and death.
Friday, September 14, 2007
President Jabberwock
There was a book lying near Alice on the table, and while she sat watching the White King (for she was still a little anxious about him, and had the ink all ready to throw over him, in case he fainted again), she turned over the leaves, to find some part that she could read, ` -- for it's all in some language I don't know,' she said to herself.
It was like this.
She puzzled over this for some time, but at last a bright thought struck her. `Why, it's a Looking-glass book, of course! And if I hold it up to a glass, the words will all go the right way again!"
It was like this.
"In the life of all free nations, there come moments that decide the direction of a country and reveal the character of its people. We are now at such a moment."
"In Iraq, an ally of the United States is fighting for its survival. Terrorists and extremists who are at war with us around the world are seeking to topple Iraq's government, dominate the region, and attack us here at home. If Iraq's young democracy can turn back these enemies, it will mean a more hopeful Middle East and a more secure America."
"The success of a free Iraq is critical to the security of the United States. A free Iraq will deny al Qaeda a safe haven. A free Iraq will counter the destructive ambitions of Iran. A free Iraq will marginalize extremists, unleash the talent of its people, and be an anchor of stability in the region. A free Iraq will set an example for people across the Middle East. A free Iraq will be our partner in the fight against terror -- and that will make us safer here at home."
She puzzled over this for some time, but at last a bright thought struck her. `Why, it's a Looking-glass book, of course! And if I hold it up to a glass, the words will all go the right way again!"
If I could banish one phrase..
Let's assume I could forever banish just one phrase from the lexicon of the Great Miscommunicator. What should it be? Hard work? Makin' progress? Freedom? Folks? September THE Eleventh? All good candidates, but no, the winner is:
"Young Democracy."
I cannot stand the sound of that obnoxious phrase. Iraq is not a "democracy." It never has been and never will be. The same holds for Afghanistan. Neither are even functional states, let alone democratic states. These governments lack the attributes of sovereignty and statehood. We do not see the emergence of relatively permanent and impersonal political institutions, and most certainly no fundamental transfer of loyalty from tribe, faction, religion or locality to the new state, and it will never happen.
Elections do not make a democracy. In Iraq, the so-called "elections" were nothing more than an ethnic census. Democracy is organic. It emerges not from staged elections but from the commitment and desire of a people with a respect for and an understanding of both the positive and negative aspects of "demos kratous."
These aren't young democracies. That is an old lie.
"Young Democracy."
I cannot stand the sound of that obnoxious phrase. Iraq is not a "democracy." It never has been and never will be. The same holds for Afghanistan. Neither are even functional states, let alone democratic states. These governments lack the attributes of sovereignty and statehood. We do not see the emergence of relatively permanent and impersonal political institutions, and most certainly no fundamental transfer of loyalty from tribe, faction, religion or locality to the new state, and it will never happen.
Elections do not make a democracy. In Iraq, the so-called "elections" were nothing more than an ethnic census. Democracy is organic. It emerges not from staged elections but from the commitment and desire of a people with a respect for and an understanding of both the positive and negative aspects of "demos kratous."
These aren't young democracies. That is an old lie.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Is neo-conservative a synonym of sociopath?
I heard an interview with Norman Podhoretz, long-time neocon (and Rudy Giuliani's "foreign policy" advisor, be afraid, be very very afraid!) Norm was in on the Project for the New American Century, in the late 70s and the 80s, he was advocating an attack on the Soviet Union and was one of the loudest cheerleaders for the Iraq debacle. Now, he says it would be "unconscionable" NOT to bomb Iran.
What was remarkable was when the interviewer asked him about being wrong on attacking the USSR and on Iraq, and why should we believe him now, Norm calmly stated that he had been right all along. We wouldn't be in the mess we're in if we'd nuked the Russians, and Iraq is a glorious triumph.
This was a mental illness stew, sociopathy, delusions, paranoia, you name it, he had it.
What was remarkable was when the interviewer asked him about being wrong on attacking the USSR and on Iraq, and why should we believe him now, Norm calmly stated that he had been right all along. We wouldn't be in the mess we're in if we'd nuked the Russians, and Iraq is a glorious triumph.
This was a mental illness stew, sociopathy, delusions, paranoia, you name it, he had it.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Tinfoil Hat Time?
I may have to borrow this guy's hat
but is anyone else feeling a "bomb Iran" vibe? There is a lot of chatter in the foreign press, and the president's proxies are everywhere and all mentioning Iran. This will be a disaster that will be Iraq squared.
but is anyone else feeling a "bomb Iran" vibe? There is a lot of chatter in the foreign press, and the president's proxies are everywhere and all mentioning Iran. This will be a disaster that will be Iraq squared.
Thought for the day
From a true liberal:
The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Oh What a Beautiful Morning!
I feel a spring in my step, the birds are making a happy sound, a fresh song drifts on the wind, and all seems right with the world today. Why you ask? Oh, isn't it obvious? It's
THE PETRAEUS REPORT!
Yes, Gen. Petraeus has spoken, he has show us the way, he has come down from the mountain to lead us to goodness and light.
You see, car bombs don't kill people, they stimulate demand in the new car market. And surely it is obvious to anyone that whether someone was killed in sectarian violence can be determined by the location of the bullet wound. It is also apparent that the president's surge-ilicious plan has calmed violence across the country rather than resulting in a de facto ethnic cleansing from mass population displacements.
I just bet that those of who who thought that Gen. Petraeus would sell his soul for a fourth star and serve up the president's tired old talking points in spreading the gospel of truth and glorious success in Iraq are feeling just a little bit silly this morning, aren't you?
THE PETRAEUS REPORT!
Yes, Gen. Petraeus has spoken, he has show us the way, he has come down from the mountain to lead us to goodness and light.
You see, car bombs don't kill people, they stimulate demand in the new car market. And surely it is obvious to anyone that whether someone was killed in sectarian violence can be determined by the location of the bullet wound. It is also apparent that the president's surge-ilicious plan has calmed violence across the country rather than resulting in a de facto ethnic cleansing from mass population displacements.
I just bet that those of who who thought that Gen. Petraeus would sell his soul for a fourth star and serve up the president's tired old talking points in spreading the gospel of truth and glorious success in Iraq are feeling just a little bit silly this morning, aren't you?
Monday, September 10, 2007
Manifest Injustice?
So Tappy McWidestance is going through with trying to withdraw his guilty plea. Under the court rules of Minnesota, that can be done as necessary to avoid "manifest injustice." Manifest injustice? Please.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
A step forward
Maybe he listened after all...
When I saw Senator Durbin this summer, I asked him about why he continued to vote to fund the war in Iraq. He gave me an answer about opposing the war, but wanting to support the troops in the field.
This morning, I see this from him:
The No. 2 Democrat in the U.S. Senate said on Friday he could no longer vote for funding the war in Iraq unless restrictions were attached that would begin winding down American involvement there.
"This Congress can't give President (George W.) Bush another blank check for Iraq," said Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin, who has always opposed the war but until now voted to fund it.
"I can't support an open-ended appropriation which allows this president to continue this failed policy," he said in a speech at the left-leaning Center for National Policy.
Durbin, from Illinois, said he and Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin were working on limits that could be attached to the next war funding bill, such as limiting troops to conducting counterterrorism operations and training Iraqi security forces.
It's progress.
When I saw Senator Durbin this summer, I asked him about why he continued to vote to fund the war in Iraq. He gave me an answer about opposing the war, but wanting to support the troops in the field.
This morning, I see this from him:
The No. 2 Democrat in the U.S. Senate said on Friday he could no longer vote for funding the war in Iraq unless restrictions were attached that would begin winding down American involvement there.
"This Congress can't give President (George W.) Bush another blank check for Iraq," said Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin, who has always opposed the war but until now voted to fund it.
"I can't support an open-ended appropriation which allows this president to continue this failed policy," he said in a speech at the left-leaning Center for National Policy.
Durbin, from Illinois, said he and Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin were working on limits that could be attached to the next war funding bill, such as limiting troops to conducting counterterrorism operations and training Iraqi security forces.
It's progress.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Tell us something we didn't know, Sid.
"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."
"Bush insisted it was simply what Saddam wanted him to think. "The president had no interest in the intelligence," said the CIA officer. The other officer said, "Bush didn't give a fuck about the intelligence. He had his mind made up." (link)
"Bush insisted it was simply what Saddam wanted him to think. "The president had no interest in the intelligence," said the CIA officer. The other officer said, "Bush didn't give a fuck about the intelligence. He had his mind made up." (link)
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
The world according to der Chimpenfuhrer
Leader of the free whirl breezes by
Misha Schubert - The Age (from Australia)
September 6, 2007
George Bush is a man who likes a short sentence. Which is not to say the President of the United States reduces ideas to bite-sized chunks. Or maybe it is.
Either way, during the course of his first 24 hours in Sydney, there were plenty of efficient exclamations. Like the exchange on the tarmac as Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile inquired how things were going in Iraq. "We're kicking ass," he declared. In a similarly thrifty oratory bent yesterday, he telegraphed his lunch order — "I'm a meat guy". Then he buttered up his host — "I admire your courage" — and insisted he was not playing a double game by hinting at moves to start cutting US troop numbers in Iraq: "Whatever you do, don't call me cute."
He also managed to remain gracious in the face of further niggling about the inconvenience to the people of inner Sydney. At a joint press conference with John Howard, Bush played comic to the PM's straight man. He grinned. He winked. He made eye contact with journalists as he argued that the Iraq war could be won. He joked around, and congratulated the PM on "your … like … grandfatherhood".
But there were a few faint hints of impatience. As Howard's opening statement dragged on, Bush pursed his lips and shifted his weight from foot to foot.
The rest of the day was a giddy social whirl. A bit of local rump at a lunchtime barbecue with the troops, and an hour of mountain biking in the North Shore suburb of St Ives. By nightfall, it was back onto a pleasure cruiser for a trip across the harbour to sign the visitors book at Admiralty House and dine with the Howards at Kirribilli House. Janette Howard greeted Bush at the door, thanking him for bringing rain.
And Bush owned the second killer line of the day, as he drew US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice into a photo to make up the foursome. "You can be my date," he purred, an invitation most straight men would kill to issue.
Posted without comment. For now.
Misha Schubert - The Age (from Australia)
September 6, 2007
George Bush is a man who likes a short sentence. Which is not to say the President of the United States reduces ideas to bite-sized chunks. Or maybe it is.
Either way, during the course of his first 24 hours in Sydney, there were plenty of efficient exclamations. Like the exchange on the tarmac as Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile inquired how things were going in Iraq. "We're kicking ass," he declared. In a similarly thrifty oratory bent yesterday, he telegraphed his lunch order — "I'm a meat guy". Then he buttered up his host — "I admire your courage" — and insisted he was not playing a double game by hinting at moves to start cutting US troop numbers in Iraq: "Whatever you do, don't call me cute."
He also managed to remain gracious in the face of further niggling about the inconvenience to the people of inner Sydney. At a joint press conference with John Howard, Bush played comic to the PM's straight man. He grinned. He winked. He made eye contact with journalists as he argued that the Iraq war could be won. He joked around, and congratulated the PM on "your … like … grandfatherhood".
But there were a few faint hints of impatience. As Howard's opening statement dragged on, Bush pursed his lips and shifted his weight from foot to foot.
The rest of the day was a giddy social whirl. A bit of local rump at a lunchtime barbecue with the troops, and an hour of mountain biking in the North Shore suburb of St Ives. By nightfall, it was back onto a pleasure cruiser for a trip across the harbour to sign the visitors book at Admiralty House and dine with the Howards at Kirribilli House. Janette Howard greeted Bush at the door, thanking him for bringing rain.
And Bush owned the second killer line of the day, as he drew US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice into a photo to make up the foursome. "You can be my date," he purred, an invitation most straight men would kill to issue.
Posted without comment. For now.
Larry Craig--the gift that keeps on giving
I'm somewhat baffled by Tappy McWidestance's position here. I know that a Republican like him would rather be considered a child killer or a Klansman rather than being gay, but it seems like a very difficult road, both politically and legally.
From a political standpoint, his party sees him as toxic. They don't need him to "clear his name" to hold the seat, Idaho is as safely red on a statewide basis as any state in the union. he can't credibly speak on any of his pet "family" issues, and he is an obvious gift that keeps on giving to Senate democrats who, while unable to touch Idaho, can use his presence in the Senate as a bludgeon in swing state campaigns.
And legally? Judgment has been entered in the case. It is VERY difficult to withdraw a guilty plea after entry of judgment. That might happen in those cases where informed consent was absent (the drunken public defender who couldn't explain the consequences, the mentally challenged defendant who didn't understand the nature of his admission, but a college-educated United States senator? That is a tough sell.
His team is mumbling about "constitutional" questions. Talk about another tough sell. He was properly advised of his Miranda rights, and there was no unreasonable search or seizure involved. I doubt that tapping and hand waving is protected "speech" when it relates to the solicitation of lewd conduct. if so, then you could go back and unwind every solicitation conviction on record. I also don't see any entrapment defense, when at least according to the police report, Craig was the instigator.
Another consideration is that this probably wasn't the good senator's first foray into this seamy world. Now that people beyond the flyover states know his name, there are stories to be told--and money to be made.
The clincher, though, would be that any withdrawal of the guilty plea could result in a trial, a tawdry public spectacle of the kind that muni court has never seen before. In open court, all bets are off, and the evidence is in, evidence that went away with a plea to a lesser charge. THAT could be fun.
From a political standpoint, his party sees him as toxic. They don't need him to "clear his name" to hold the seat, Idaho is as safely red on a statewide basis as any state in the union. he can't credibly speak on any of his pet "family" issues, and he is an obvious gift that keeps on giving to Senate democrats who, while unable to touch Idaho, can use his presence in the Senate as a bludgeon in swing state campaigns.
And legally? Judgment has been entered in the case. It is VERY difficult to withdraw a guilty plea after entry of judgment. That might happen in those cases where informed consent was absent (the drunken public defender who couldn't explain the consequences, the mentally challenged defendant who didn't understand the nature of his admission, but a college-educated United States senator? That is a tough sell.
His team is mumbling about "constitutional" questions. Talk about another tough sell. He was properly advised of his Miranda rights, and there was no unreasonable search or seizure involved. I doubt that tapping and hand waving is protected "speech" when it relates to the solicitation of lewd conduct. if so, then you could go back and unwind every solicitation conviction on record. I also don't see any entrapment defense, when at least according to the police report, Craig was the instigator.
Another consideration is that this probably wasn't the good senator's first foray into this seamy world. Now that people beyond the flyover states know his name, there are stories to be told--and money to be made.
The clincher, though, would be that any withdrawal of the guilty plea could result in a trial, a tawdry public spectacle of the kind that muni court has never seen before. In open court, all bets are off, and the evidence is in, evidence that went away with a plea to a lesser charge. THAT could be fun.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Separated at birth?
I enjoyed seeing Appalachian State defeat Michigan on Saturday. My one question--why is Davy Jones from Pirates of the Caribbean on their logo?
My Trip to the ER
One of the great unreported epidemics in America today involves tragic eggplant accidents. I sliced a dime-sized patch through two layers of skin off the left index finger last evening in the kitchen. Normally, I don't head for the hospital on such occasions--not because I'm a tough it out sort, but because I am an abject afraid of needles coward. This time, though, Peg was in the kitchen when it happened. She saw the gusher open and wouldn't take no for an answer. Luckily, the hospital is three blocks away.
I was seen fairly quickly because my hand was wrapped in a visibly reddening kitchen towel (nothing serious, but quite a bleeder. They actually glued the darn thing shut!) I also thought, though, as I looked around, that my insurance card indicating that I was fully covered might have speeded the triage process.
What struck me, though, were the people waiting in the ER. The room was quite crowded, mostly Hispanic, with a few elderly world-weary poor white people sprinkled in (in other words, not reflective of the community served by this particular hospital). I gathered that many of these people had been there for hours. They were in the ER not because of an emergency, but because by law they could not be turned away. For many of these people, this was their only access to a physician. They utilized the ER out of necessity in a grossly inefficient allocation of medical resources that seems out of place in a nation of plenty.
I was seen fairly quickly because my hand was wrapped in a visibly reddening kitchen towel (nothing serious, but quite a bleeder. They actually glued the darn thing shut!) I also thought, though, as I looked around, that my insurance card indicating that I was fully covered might have speeded the triage process.
What struck me, though, were the people waiting in the ER. The room was quite crowded, mostly Hispanic, with a few elderly world-weary poor white people sprinkled in (in other words, not reflective of the community served by this particular hospital). I gathered that many of these people had been there for hours. They were in the ER not because of an emergency, but because by law they could not be turned away. For many of these people, this was their only access to a physician. They utilized the ER out of necessity in a grossly inefficient allocation of medical resources that seems out of place in a nation of plenty.
Monday, September 03, 2007
Coming next summer to an airport near you...
Think the Minneapolis airport will hire extra security when THE GOP CONVENTION comes to town???
Thursday, August 30, 2007
The Right and Senator Toe Tappy
I have been amazed to read and hear the responses of the right-wing blowholes to the embarrassing and way too damned funny story of our favorite creepy senator. They definitely had the talking points down, even though they were complete bull. Every damned one of them said the same ridiculous thing--those honorable Republicans drum the disgraced out of the corps, while Democrats embrace them.
They cite--Gerry Studds? First of all, he's dead now, and his alleged wrongdoing took place before 1983. Going back a quarter century to find a member of Congress who acted improperly as a person in a position of responsibility but committed no crime? I am NOT defending what Rep. Studds did, (as the parent of a 16-year old the "legal" distinction isn't all that comforting) but if that's the best you've got...
And then Barney Frank, for something someone did WHILE HE WASN'T HOME. Frank was reprimanded by the House, but that was it. I seem to remember the GOP-controlled House changing its rules to allow a criminal like Tom Delay to stay in his leadership position. It is so pathetic. And of course, try and get through an hour of right wing talk and not hear "CLINTON!"
They cite--Gerry Studds? First of all, he's dead now, and his alleged wrongdoing took place before 1983. Going back a quarter century to find a member of Congress who acted improperly as a person in a position of responsibility but committed no crime? I am NOT defending what Rep. Studds did, (as the parent of a 16-year old the "legal" distinction isn't all that comforting) but if that's the best you've got...
And then Barney Frank, for something someone did WHILE HE WASN'T HOME. Frank was reprimanded by the House, but that was it. I seem to remember the GOP-controlled House changing its rules to allow a criminal like Tom Delay to stay in his leadership position. It is so pathetic. And of course, try and get through an hour of right wing talk and not hear "CLINTON!"
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Voices from a different era
My father on the Senator Craig thing:
Happy Anniversary
Peter posted this a year ago, and it's still as true today as it was then.
I wish I had something profound to say, but the words just get strangled by the hatred, disgust and contempt I feel when I see this.
I wish I had something profound to say, but the words just get strangled by the hatred, disgust and contempt I feel when I see this.
The Bravery of Being Out of Range
The President, beating the drums for war
The other strain of radicalism in the Middle East is Shia extremism, supported and embodied by the regime that sits in Tehran. Iran has long been a source of trouble in the region. It is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. Iran backs Hezbollah who are trying to undermine the democratic government of Lebanon. Iran funds terrorist groups like Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which murder the innocent, and target Israel, and destabilize the Palestinian territories. Iran is sending arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan, which could be used to attack American and NATO troops. Iran has arrested visiting American scholars who have committed no crimes and pose no threat to their regime. And Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.
You have a natural tendency
To squeeze off a shot
You're good fun at parties
You wear the right masks
You're old but you still
Like a laugh in the locker room
You can't abide change
You're at home on the range
Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere. And that is why the United States is rallying friends and allies around the world to isolate the regime, to impose economic sanctions. We will confront this danger before it is too late.
You opened your suitcase
Behind the old workings
To show off the magnum
You deafened the canyon
A comfort a friend
Only upstaged in the end
By the Uzi machine gun
I want our fellow citizens to consider what would happen if these forces of radicalism and extremism are allowed to drive us out of the Middle East. The region would be dramatically transformed in a way that could imperil the civilized world. Extremists of all strains would be emboldened by the knowledge that they forced America to retreat. Terrorists could have more safe havens to conduct attacks on Americans and our friends and allies. Iran could conclude that we were weak -- and could not stop them from gaining nuclear weapons. And once Iran had nuclear weapons, it would set off a nuclear arms race in the region.
Does the recoil remind you
Remind you of sex
Old man what the hell you gonna kill next
Old timer who you gonna kill next
Extremists would control a key part of the world's energy supply, could blackmail and sabotage the global economy. They could use billions of dollars of oil revenues to buy weapons and pursue their deadly ambitions. Our allies in the region would be under greater siege by the enemies of freedom. Early movements toward democracy in the region would be violently reversed. This scenario would be a disaster for the people of the Middle East, a danger to our friends and allies, and a direct threat to American peace and security. This is what the extremists plan. For the sake of our own security, we'll pursue our enemies, we'll persevere and we will prevail.
I looked over Jordan and what did I see
Saw a U.S. Marine in a pile of debris
I swam in your pools
And lay under your palm trees
I looked in the eyes of the Indian
Who lay on the Federal Building steps
In the short-term, we're using all elements of American power to protect the American people by taking the fight to the enemy. Our troops are carrying out operations day by day to bring the terrorists to justice. We're keeping the pressure on them. We're forcing them to move. Our law enforcement and intelligence professionals are working to cut off terrorist financing and disrupt their networks. Our diplomats are rallying our friends and allies throughout the region to share intelligence and to tighten security and to rout out the extremists hiding in their midst. Every day we work to protect the American people. Our strategy is this: We will fight them over there so we do not have to face them in the United States of America.
And through the range finder over the hill
I saw the frontline boys popping their pills
Sick of the mess they find
On their desert stage
And the bravery of being out of range
Yeah the question is vexed
Shia extremists, backed by Iran, are training Iraqis to carry out attacks on our forces and the Iraqi people. Members of the Qods Force of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps are supplying extremist groups with funding and weapons, including sophisticated IEDs. And with the assistance of Hezbollah, they've provided training for these violent forces inside of Iraq. Recently, coalition forces seized 240-millimeter rockets that had been manufactured in Iran this year and that had been provided to Iraqi extremist groups by Iranian agents. The attacks on our bases and our troops by Iranian-supplied munitions have increased in the last few months -- despite pledges by Iran to help stabilize the security situation in Iraq.
Old man what the hell you gonna kill next
Old timer who you gonna kill next
Some say Iran's leaders are not aware of what members of their own regime are doing. Others say Iran's leaders are actively seeking to provoke the West. Either way, they cannot escape responsibility for aiding attacks against coalition forces and the murder of innocent Iraqis. The Iranian regime must halt these actions. And until it does, I will take actions necessary to protect our troops. I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities.
Hey bartender over here
Two more shots
And two more beers
Sir turn up the TV sound
The war has started on the ground
For all those who ask whether the fight in Iraq is worth it, imagine an Iraq where militia groups backed by Iran control large parts of the country. Imagine an Iraq where al Qaeda has established sanctuaries to safely plot future attacks on targets all over the world, including America. We've seen what these enemies will do when American forces are actively engaged in Iraq. And we can envision what they would do if we -- if they were emboldened by American forces in retreat.
Just love those laser guided bombs
They're really great
For righting wrongs
You hit the target
And win the game
From bars 3,000 miles away
3,000 miles away
The challenge in Iraq comes down to this: Either the forces of extremism succeed, or the forces of freedom succeed. Either our enemies advance their interests in Iraq, or we advance our interests. The most important and immediate way to counter the ambitions of al Qaeda and Iran and other forces of instability and terror is to win the fight in Iraq.
We play the game
With the bravery of being out of range
We zap and maim
With the bravery of being out of range
We strafe the train
With the bravery of being out of range
We gained terrain
With the bravery of being out of range
With the bravery of being out of range
We play the game
With the bravery of being out of range
"The Bravery of Being Out of Range", Roger Waters, 1992
The other strain of radicalism in the Middle East is Shia extremism, supported and embodied by the regime that sits in Tehran. Iran has long been a source of trouble in the region. It is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. Iran backs Hezbollah who are trying to undermine the democratic government of Lebanon. Iran funds terrorist groups like Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which murder the innocent, and target Israel, and destabilize the Palestinian territories. Iran is sending arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan, which could be used to attack American and NATO troops. Iran has arrested visiting American scholars who have committed no crimes and pose no threat to their regime. And Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.
You have a natural tendency
To squeeze off a shot
You're good fun at parties
You wear the right masks
You're old but you still
Like a laugh in the locker room
You can't abide change
You're at home on the range
Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere. And that is why the United States is rallying friends and allies around the world to isolate the regime, to impose economic sanctions. We will confront this danger before it is too late.
You opened your suitcase
Behind the old workings
To show off the magnum
You deafened the canyon
A comfort a friend
Only upstaged in the end
By the Uzi machine gun
I want our fellow citizens to consider what would happen if these forces of radicalism and extremism are allowed to drive us out of the Middle East. The region would be dramatically transformed in a way that could imperil the civilized world. Extremists of all strains would be emboldened by the knowledge that they forced America to retreat. Terrorists could have more safe havens to conduct attacks on Americans and our friends and allies. Iran could conclude that we were weak -- and could not stop them from gaining nuclear weapons. And once Iran had nuclear weapons, it would set off a nuclear arms race in the region.
Does the recoil remind you
Remind you of sex
Old man what the hell you gonna kill next
Old timer who you gonna kill next
Extremists would control a key part of the world's energy supply, could blackmail and sabotage the global economy. They could use billions of dollars of oil revenues to buy weapons and pursue their deadly ambitions. Our allies in the region would be under greater siege by the enemies of freedom. Early movements toward democracy in the region would be violently reversed. This scenario would be a disaster for the people of the Middle East, a danger to our friends and allies, and a direct threat to American peace and security. This is what the extremists plan. For the sake of our own security, we'll pursue our enemies, we'll persevere and we will prevail.
I looked over Jordan and what did I see
Saw a U.S. Marine in a pile of debris
I swam in your pools
And lay under your palm trees
I looked in the eyes of the Indian
Who lay on the Federal Building steps
In the short-term, we're using all elements of American power to protect the American people by taking the fight to the enemy. Our troops are carrying out operations day by day to bring the terrorists to justice. We're keeping the pressure on them. We're forcing them to move. Our law enforcement and intelligence professionals are working to cut off terrorist financing and disrupt their networks. Our diplomats are rallying our friends and allies throughout the region to share intelligence and to tighten security and to rout out the extremists hiding in their midst. Every day we work to protect the American people. Our strategy is this: We will fight them over there so we do not have to face them in the United States of America.
And through the range finder over the hill
I saw the frontline boys popping their pills
Sick of the mess they find
On their desert stage
And the bravery of being out of range
Yeah the question is vexed
Shia extremists, backed by Iran, are training Iraqis to carry out attacks on our forces and the Iraqi people. Members of the Qods Force of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps are supplying extremist groups with funding and weapons, including sophisticated IEDs. And with the assistance of Hezbollah, they've provided training for these violent forces inside of Iraq. Recently, coalition forces seized 240-millimeter rockets that had been manufactured in Iran this year and that had been provided to Iraqi extremist groups by Iranian agents. The attacks on our bases and our troops by Iranian-supplied munitions have increased in the last few months -- despite pledges by Iran to help stabilize the security situation in Iraq.
Old man what the hell you gonna kill next
Old timer who you gonna kill next
Some say Iran's leaders are not aware of what members of their own regime are doing. Others say Iran's leaders are actively seeking to provoke the West. Either way, they cannot escape responsibility for aiding attacks against coalition forces and the murder of innocent Iraqis. The Iranian regime must halt these actions. And until it does, I will take actions necessary to protect our troops. I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities.
Hey bartender over here
Two more shots
And two more beers
Sir turn up the TV sound
The war has started on the ground
For all those who ask whether the fight in Iraq is worth it, imagine an Iraq where militia groups backed by Iran control large parts of the country. Imagine an Iraq where al Qaeda has established sanctuaries to safely plot future attacks on targets all over the world, including America. We've seen what these enemies will do when American forces are actively engaged in Iraq. And we can envision what they would do if we -- if they were emboldened by American forces in retreat.
Just love those laser guided bombs
They're really great
For righting wrongs
You hit the target
And win the game
From bars 3,000 miles away
3,000 miles away
The challenge in Iraq comes down to this: Either the forces of extremism succeed, or the forces of freedom succeed. Either our enemies advance their interests in Iraq, or we advance our interests. The most important and immediate way to counter the ambitions of al Qaeda and Iran and other forces of instability and terror is to win the fight in Iraq.
We play the game
With the bravery of being out of range
We zap and maim
With the bravery of being out of range
We strafe the train
With the bravery of being out of range
We gained terrain
With the bravery of being out of range
With the bravery of being out of range
We play the game
With the bravery of being out of range
"The Bravery of Being Out of Range", Roger Waters, 1992
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Tim Johnson to run again
South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson, who has been absent from work since December because of a brain hemorrhage has announced that he will run for re-election in 2008.
Is it wrong to point out that regardless of what brain damage he may have suffered, he'll still be more functional than, well, every Republican in Congress?
Is it wrong to point out that regardless of what brain damage he may have suffered, he'll still be more functional than, well, every Republican in Congress?
Monday, August 27, 2007
He died for what?
From the AP:
My prayers are with the family, and to them--see this senator and president for what they are.
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - A police officer died Monday after crashing his motorcycle while riding in a motorcade for President Bush's visit to the city for a fundraiser for Sen. Pete Domenici. After the crash, Rio Rancho Officer Germaine Casey was rushed to an Albuquerque hospital, where he was pronounced dead.He died taking the president on a political trip to support a senator who was one of the key players in the reprehensible U.S. attorney firing SCANDAL.
My prayers are with the family, and to them--see this senator and president for what they are.
Retard America
I heard on the Bill Press radio show this morning that a grand totoal of SEVEN PERCENT of Americans could name our first four presidents in the proper order. OK, the first is a gimmee, the second was his veep and nos. 3 and 4 wrote the Declaration of Independence and the constitution! Not that tough????
Meanwhile, in Afghanistan (remember Afghanistan?)
h/t TPM:
The production of opium in Afghanistan has "soared to frightening record levels," according to a report from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) released in Kabul Monday.
Production levels of opium, from which the class A drug heroin is manufactured, are expected to reach 8,200 tons in 2007, up from 6,100 tons in 2006.
The amount of land used for the production of opium has also increased to 193,000 hectares from 165,000 in 2006, the report said.
Afghanistan is now responsible for 93 per cent of global opium production, according to the UNODC.
"The amount of Afghan land used for growing opium is now larger than the combined total under coca cultivation in Latin America - Colombia, Peru and Bolivia.
"No other country has produced narcotics on such a deadly scale since China in the 19th century," the report said.
The UNODC report highlighted differences between the relatively drug-free north and the "lawless" south of the country, where 80 per cent of the opium poppies were now being grown.
Opium production rose by 48 per cent in Helmand alone, the most volatile area of the country where the rebel Taliban are strong, making the province the world's biggest source of illegal drugs, the UNODC report said.
The province of 2.5 million people was producing more drugs than Colombia, the report said.
The Taliban was using funds from drug production to finance its insurgency.
Pay no attention to the terrorist behind the curtain.
The production of opium in Afghanistan has "soared to frightening record levels," according to a report from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) released in Kabul Monday.
Production levels of opium, from which the class A drug heroin is manufactured, are expected to reach 8,200 tons in 2007, up from 6,100 tons in 2006.
The amount of land used for the production of opium has also increased to 193,000 hectares from 165,000 in 2006, the report said.
Afghanistan is now responsible for 93 per cent of global opium production, according to the UNODC.
"The amount of Afghan land used for growing opium is now larger than the combined total under coca cultivation in Latin America - Colombia, Peru and Bolivia.
"No other country has produced narcotics on such a deadly scale since China in the 19th century," the report said.
The UNODC report highlighted differences between the relatively drug-free north and the "lawless" south of the country, where 80 per cent of the opium poppies were now being grown.
Opium production rose by 48 per cent in Helmand alone, the most volatile area of the country where the rebel Taliban are strong, making the province the world's biggest source of illegal drugs, the UNODC report said.
The province of 2.5 million people was producing more drugs than Colombia, the report said.
The Taliban was using funds from drug production to finance its insurgency.
Pay no attention to the terrorist behind the curtain.
We have a winner!
From TPM:
“Alberto Gonzales is the first Attorney General who thought the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth were three different things."
-- Rahm Emanuel, in a just-released statement on Gonzo's resignation.
“Alberto Gonzales is the first Attorney General who thought the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth were three different things."
-- Rahm Emanuel, in a just-released statement on Gonzo's resignation.
...Another one bites the dust
Alberto Gonzales...gone.
First Turd Blossom, now Torture Boy. Is there no one else who will stand with the king until his last days? We know Tony Snow won't - after all, he only makes $168,000 per year, and that's barely a living wage.
The reports are that they'll nominate Michael "Hurricanes? Who cares about hurricanes - I only manage national disasters, and if no brown people are carrying bombs, it's not a disaster" Chertoff to replace him. I can only hope that the Dems grow a spine for that confirmation hearing.
Update: As usual, Glenn Greenwald has an excellent take on the situation.
First Turd Blossom, now Torture Boy. Is there no one else who will stand with the king until his last days? We know Tony Snow won't - after all, he only makes $168,000 per year, and that's barely a living wage.
The reports are that they'll nominate Michael "Hurricanes? Who cares about hurricanes - I only manage national disasters, and if no brown people are carrying bombs, it's not a disaster" Chertoff to replace him. I can only hope that the Dems grow a spine for that confirmation hearing.
Update: As usual, Glenn Greenwald has an excellent take on the situation.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Dandelion Whine
Frequent Thinking or Sitting commenter Bradley Bury has finally up and started his own blog, mysteriously titled Dandelion Whine.
Give him a look!
Give him a look!
So--what have we learned? (Hint: Sociopathic and delusional are both correct)
We saw the Dick Cheney 1994 quagmire talk. Largely ignored by the network news, the tape shows Dick Cheney talking about a quagmire and the value of American life balanced against the removal of Saddam Hussein.
Should we be shocked by his hypocrisy? No. We should be frightened by his sociopathy. He was lying then, not giving a damn about "American lives." He was lying because he knew what he wanted to do, but knew he couldn't sell it a dozen years ago. he entertained delusions of the GOP presidential nod in 1996, so he had to hide his malevolent true self. See how effortlessly he lies, an indicator of the sociopath.
And then his stooge drags out Viet Nam. Beyond the laughably obvious fact that no man ever is less qualified than George W. Bush to bring up that tragic conflict, could he have gotten it more wrong?
You have already read how he has been pilloried by historians and military experts. A feeble claim that we can't leave because bad things would happen is pathetic and tragic, as are attempts to glom onto difficult decisions made by previous presidents when faced with real crises. For the love of God, at least Viet Nam was a "war," as misbegotten as it was. There was an objective and an identiafiable enemy, even if that objective ran counter to U.S. interests and the "enemy" was no real threat. At least it was not an ethereal shadow boxing match with no logical objective or endgame.
Note the absurdity of even pundits such as George Will, who defines "victory" as the establishment of "a stable society under a tolerable regime." Hmm, what is that odd smell of eggs? Oh that's right, it is the odious, sulphuric smell of a shattered Humpty Dumpty that no king's men or horses can fix. George, if you will recall, there was a "stable" society living under a "tolerable" if odious regime. You embraced pushing Humpty off that wall.
For the depth and breadth of this delusional absurdity, take a gander at this perverse White House "fact sheet," that gives us
The Wehmacht, the Imperial Army, the Red Army--and a few thousand guys in caves. God help us.
Should we be shocked by his hypocrisy? No. We should be frightened by his sociopathy. He was lying then, not giving a damn about "American lives." He was lying because he knew what he wanted to do, but knew he couldn't sell it a dozen years ago. he entertained delusions of the GOP presidential nod in 1996, so he had to hide his malevolent true self. See how effortlessly he lies, an indicator of the sociopath.
And then his stooge drags out Viet Nam. Beyond the laughably obvious fact that no man ever is less qualified than George W. Bush to bring up that tragic conflict, could he have gotten it more wrong?
You have already read how he has been pilloried by historians and military experts. A feeble claim that we can't leave because bad things would happen is pathetic and tragic, as are attempts to glom onto difficult decisions made by previous presidents when faced with real crises. For the love of God, at least Viet Nam was a "war," as misbegotten as it was. There was an objective and an identiafiable enemy, even if that objective ran counter to U.S. interests and the "enemy" was no real threat. At least it was not an ethereal shadow boxing match with no logical objective or endgame.
Note the absurdity of even pundits such as George Will, who defines "victory" as the establishment of "a stable society under a tolerable regime." Hmm, what is that odd smell of eggs? Oh that's right, it is the odious, sulphuric smell of a shattered Humpty Dumpty that no king's men or horses can fix. George, if you will recall, there was a "stable" society living under a "tolerable" if odious regime. You embraced pushing Humpty off that wall.
For the depth and breadth of this delusional absurdity, take a gander at this perverse White House "fact sheet," that gives us
Today, The Violent Islamic Extremists Who Fight Us In Iraq Are As Certain Of Their Cause As The Nazis, Imperial Japanese, And Soviet Communists Were Of Theirs – And They Are Destined For The Same Fate. So long as we remain true to our ideals, we will defeat the extremists in Iraq and help that country's people stand up a functioning democracy in the heart of the Middle East, which will make America safer and more secure.
The Wehmacht, the Imperial Army, the Red Army--and a few thousand guys in caves. God help us.
The Dumbass Hall of Fame
We have two inductees this time.
The first is Mr. Michael Sanderman of Chicago. Mikey, holding his crayon firmly and mouthing the words as he scribbles, gave us this masterpiece:
Mikey, let's start with your patently obvious ignorance of American history. The American Revolution did not spring from any desire to "abolish unfair taxation." While "no taxation without representation" was a common shibboleth, what concern there was about taxation sprung from the issue about WHO should be the taxing body (Parliament or colonial assemblies), not the particular taxes themselves. Beyond that, the taxation issue was really just that, a shibboleth, a pithy slogan designed to appeal to the masses. General warrants, allowing unlimited searches, were far more offensive than taxes. So Mikey, please spare us the history "lesson."
And "unfair?" How? Taxes have been used to shape policy going back even before the days of the tariff. How are cigarette taxes possibly unfair?
But Mikey is a mere piker compared to the incredibly dimwitted Susan J. Venecek of Elkhorn, Wisconsin:
Let's dismiss the "Blame Bill Clinton" nonsense as not even worthy of comment. But "things worth fighting for?" Propping up a Shi'a regime with no popular support or perception of legitimacy? Taking different sides in different locales in the midst of a sectarian civil war? And how is this the "fight of our lives?"
So, Mikey, Little Suzie:
The first is Mr. Michael Sanderman of Chicago. Mikey, holding his crayon firmly and mouthing the words as he scribbles, gave us this masterpiece:
Here are just a few thoughts concerning all those cigarette taxes that everybody likes except for smokers. Among the many ideals our forefathers fought and died for was the abolishment of unfair taxation. The Boston Tea Party might be the best example of this. Have all those ideals become just pretty words on a pretty piece of paper? Where has everyone’s sense of fair play gone? Where have all the lawyer do-gooders gone? Where have all those tax dollars gone? How could anyone in his or her wildest imagination think that the cigarette tax is a fair tax?Wow, where to begin.
Mikey, let's start with your patently obvious ignorance of American history. The American Revolution did not spring from any desire to "abolish unfair taxation." While "no taxation without representation" was a common shibboleth, what concern there was about taxation sprung from the issue about WHO should be the taxing body (Parliament or colonial assemblies), not the particular taxes themselves. Beyond that, the taxation issue was really just that, a shibboleth, a pithy slogan designed to appeal to the masses. General warrants, allowing unlimited searches, were far more offensive than taxes. So Mikey, please spare us the history "lesson."
And "unfair?" How? Taxes have been used to shape policy going back even before the days of the tariff. How are cigarette taxes possibly unfair?
But Mikey is a mere piker compared to the incredibly dimwitted Susan J. Venecek of Elkhorn, Wisconsin:
I am a Republican and I am not pro-war. The candidates are not "pro-war." Republicans, however, do realize that there are things worth fighting for. They realize right now that we are in the fight of our lives and it's going to last for a long while. Possibly if this had been realized during the administration of the sex-crazed buffoon, Bill Clinton, we wouldn't be in the position we are right now. Mr. Dugan simply exhibits the usual liberal stupidity and ignorance. Not to mention the general slack-jawed "I don't get it" liberal idiocy.So many talking points, so little time....
Let's dismiss the "Blame Bill Clinton" nonsense as not even worthy of comment. But "things worth fighting for?" Propping up a Shi'a regime with no popular support or perception of legitimacy? Taking different sides in different locales in the midst of a sectarian civil war? And how is this the "fight of our lives?"
So, Mikey, Little Suzie:
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Wow, they're stupid
Ari Fleischer, back from the dead to be an idiot: "That’s like saying we never should have gone into Germany cause after all it’s just the Japanese who attacked at Pearl Harbor."
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
A sign that he, as usual, has exactly zero idea what the hell is going on
Headline: "Bush will invoke Vietnam in support of Iraq plans"
Sure, because if I'm going to say - hey, we need to do X because of Y, I'm going to make sure that Y is the biggest failure I can get my hands on. Of course, he'll just feed on the neocon delusion that the only thing wrong with the Vietnam War was that the damned dirty hippies made the good, red-blooded Americans stop before they were done kicking yellow tail. It's sad, too, the way the entire Asian continent went communist the day the war ended, but those of us who hate America and want the terrorists to win know that was for the best.
Sure, because if I'm going to say - hey, we need to do X because of Y, I'm going to make sure that Y is the biggest failure I can get my hands on. Of course, he'll just feed on the neocon delusion that the only thing wrong with the Vietnam War was that the damned dirty hippies made the good, red-blooded Americans stop before they were done kicking yellow tail. It's sad, too, the way the entire Asian continent went communist the day the war ended, but those of us who hate America and want the terrorists to win know that was for the best.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
On immigration
They deported Elvira. Finally. And I say, nice job.
Elvira Arellano-an illegal immigrant who claimed "sanctuary" in a north side church, and had been there for over a year. The "minister" of this church was an "activist" with somehat of a shady background, "Slim" Coleman.
She lived in the church for a year, claiming "sanctuary" and generally making a scene, exploting and not educating her young son, who was born here. She was arrested and deported after leaving the church to attend an LA rally.
First of all, she was not your typical illegal immigrant. She had committed a crime (forged documents) and actively sought out the press. She used her young son as a prop while failing to be a parent to him. She openly defied law enforcement, and I say good riddance.
On that note, I once again posit the question of what is the purpose of our immigration laws? Assume two young men. Both are skilled contractors and garage door installers. Both are fluent in English and have achieved the same level of education. Anders, from Copenhagen, can be here in six months. Pedro, from Guadalajara, gets in the back of a line that begins in 1994.
Does that make sense?
Elvira Arellano-an illegal immigrant who claimed "sanctuary" in a north side church, and had been there for over a year. The "minister" of this church was an "activist" with somehat of a shady background, "Slim" Coleman.
She lived in the church for a year, claiming "sanctuary" and generally making a scene, exploting and not educating her young son, who was born here. She was arrested and deported after leaving the church to attend an LA rally.
First of all, she was not your typical illegal immigrant. She had committed a crime (forged documents) and actively sought out the press. She used her young son as a prop while failing to be a parent to him. She openly defied law enforcement, and I say good riddance.
On that note, I once again posit the question of what is the purpose of our immigration laws? Assume two young men. Both are skilled contractors and garage door installers. Both are fluent in English and have achieved the same level of education. Anders, from Copenhagen, can be here in six months. Pedro, from Guadalajara, gets in the back of a line that begins in 1994.
Does that make sense?
Cheney Version 1.0
I apologize for my absence. BURIED at work and the home wireless has been a bit fussy....
You all know by now of the 1994 version of Dick Cheney, where he as the ex-Secretary of Defense said all the bad things that would happen from going into Iraq, and said the "quagmire" word.
My response is--"Well duh." Cheney was reciting what any college sophomore who had taken a Middle Eastern history class would spit back as the first grossly obvious paragraph in a blue book exam.
But what changed? Certainly not what Dick Cheney knew about the Middle East--I doubt that had changed since birth. No, what changed, as Der Chimpenfuher inartfully puts it, September the 11th.
Cheney 1994? He still considered himself to be a potential 1996 GOP candidate, so of course he was mouthing the centrist line. centrist why? He WANTED this mid-east adventure, he just knew he couldn't sell it. His 1994 piece wasn't hypocrisy, it was A LIE. Then comes gift-wrapped some hijacked planes (comspiracy theories for another time) and frustrated Mr. Potter gets the presidency he feels he deserves. He can now sell the war he always wanted to a stupid frightened nation. He was able to sell it, and millions bought it.
Sigh.....
You all know by now of the 1994 version of Dick Cheney, where he as the ex-Secretary of Defense said all the bad things that would happen from going into Iraq, and said the "quagmire" word.
My response is--"Well duh." Cheney was reciting what any college sophomore who had taken a Middle Eastern history class would spit back as the first grossly obvious paragraph in a blue book exam.
But what changed? Certainly not what Dick Cheney knew about the Middle East--I doubt that had changed since birth. No, what changed, as Der Chimpenfuher inartfully puts it, September the 11th.
Cheney 1994? He still considered himself to be a potential 1996 GOP candidate, so of course he was mouthing the centrist line. centrist why? He WANTED this mid-east adventure, he just knew he couldn't sell it. His 1994 piece wasn't hypocrisy, it was A LIE. Then comes gift-wrapped some hijacked planes (comspiracy theories for another time) and frustrated Mr. Potter gets the presidency he feels he deserves. He can now sell the war he always wanted to a stupid frightened nation. He was able to sell it, and millions bought it.
Sigh.....
Thursday, August 16, 2007
In memoriam
I found out today that a good friend of mine was killed in a car accident while traveling in Moscow. She was bright and witty and well-spoken - a professor who specialized in British literature. She also browsed our little blog here from time to time and marched as one of the "Billionaires for Bush," a satirical group which pointed out the gross inequities in Bush's financial plans. She was 34.
Goodbye Lana, you will be missed.
Goodbye Lana, you will be missed.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
What do you think?
From The Onion:
Congress Approves Surveillance Measures
The Democratic-controlled House passed a bill that will allow wide-ranging domestic and foreign eavesdropping that would be authorized by a secret court. What do you think?
Ed Albaugh, Elevator Repairman
"You won't need to eavesdrop to hear this: I voted for you assholes because you said you were against shit like this."
Congress Approves Surveillance Measures
The Democratic-controlled House passed a bill that will allow wide-ranging domestic and foreign eavesdropping that would be authorized by a secret court. What do you think?
Ed Albaugh, Elevator Repairman
"You won't need to eavesdrop to hear this: I voted for you assholes because you said you were against shit like this."
Hey Steve, did you ever notice that Dennis spelled backwards is "Sinned"?
Taking his rubber stamp and going home - Dennis Hastert, not seeking re-election in 2008.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Hat tip to David Corn--and F. Scott Fitzgerald
In his column today, David Corn of The Nation makes a nice literary reference to W and Rove, conjuring up this one from The Great Gatsby:
It was all very careless and confused. They were careless people, Tom and Daisy -- they smashed up things and then retreated into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made ....
It was all very careless and confused. They were careless people, Tom and Daisy -- they smashed up things and then retreated into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made ....
Monday, August 13, 2007
Congrats, Varmint Hunter!
So Mitt, our favorite varmint hunter who equates his kids crossing Iowa in an RV with military service and then says that he "misspoke," "wins" the Iowa "straw poll," edging people you've never heard of.
Let's see--the Iowa "straw poll" costs $35 to participate in (it is a fundraiser for the Iowa GOP), you have to be there in person in Ames andEva Braun Laura Ingraham is the moderator, and we have what the Iowa GOP says is "the most important event on the 2007 calendar for the Republican candidates seeking the Republican nomination for President." Seriously.
I am torn on this. I look around and see debacle after debacle, I remember the Family Guy line of the "two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change," and think we can't lose, and then one word comes to mind--Diebold.
Let's see--the Iowa "straw poll" costs $35 to participate in (it is a fundraiser for the Iowa GOP), you have to be there in person in Ames and
I am torn on this. I look around and see debacle after debacle, I remember the Family Guy line of the "two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change," and think we can't lose, and then one word comes to mind--Diebold.
On the Turd, Part Deux
I really have been struggling to get my head around this one.
First of all, with all due respect to my family--NOBODY wants to spend more time with their family! (and read about Rove's family, odd this comes when a kid is leaving for college)
Der Chimpenfuhrer will protect him to his dying breath, trying to promote a narrowly-drawn privilege crafted by the courts for national security purposes into allowing Goodfellas in Washington.
Rove and Bush are already toxic for GOP hopefuls.
My only thought? We all know the media is (are) lazy and stupid. Note how quickly so many reports seized on the New York Times (you know, the LIBERAL NYT, the paper that let Judy Miller cheerlead us into war) piece by Brookings Institute writers Michael O’Hanlon and Ken Pollack (Ken Pollack, who wrote The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq--yeah, he's a good source) Note a teeny presidential approval rating bump. Note America's short attention span.
But still-I don't get it.
First of all, with all due respect to my family--NOBODY wants to spend more time with their family! (and read about Rove's family, odd this comes when a kid is leaving for college)
Der Chimpenfuhrer will protect him to his dying breath, trying to promote a narrowly-drawn privilege crafted by the courts for national security purposes into allowing Goodfellas in Washington.
Rove and Bush are already toxic for GOP hopefuls.
My only thought? We all know the media is (are) lazy and stupid. Note how quickly so many reports seized on the New York Times (you know, the LIBERAL NYT, the paper that let Judy Miller cheerlead us into war) piece by Brookings Institute writers Michael O’Hanlon and Ken Pollack (Ken Pollack, who wrote The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq--yeah, he's a good source) Note a teeny presidential approval rating bump. Note America's short attention span.
But still-I don't get it.
Taking an early lead
I haven't talked much about the 2008 Presidential election yet, because it's too damned early. I have my opinions, of course, but I'm in no rush to get hip-deep in that race yet.
On the other hand, one sure way to win my support is to insult Karl Rove. John Edwards' statement about Rove's announced resignation:
"Goodbye, good riddance.”
h/t CNN.com's Political Ticker
On the other hand, one sure way to win my support is to insult Karl Rove. John Edwards' statement about Rove's announced resignation:
"Goodbye, good riddance.”
h/t CNN.com's Political Ticker
Turd Blossom to resign
Anyone who believes he'll just fade into that Good Night is welcome to continue living in the land of make-believe, but Karl Rove is resigning at the end of August.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Der Chimpenfuhrer on Accountability
THE PRESIDENT: Lewis Libby was held accountable. He was declared guilty by a jury and he's paid a high price for it.
Al Gonzales -- implicit in your questions is that Al Gonzales did something wrong. I haven't seen Congress say he's done anything wrong. As a matter of fact, I believe, David, we're watching a political exercise. I mean, this is a man who has testified, he's sent thousands of papers up there. There's no proof of wrong. Why would I hold somebody accountable who has done nothing wrong? I mean, frankly, I think that's a typical Washington, D.C. assumption -- not to be accusatory, I know you're a kind, open-minded fellow, but you suggested holding the Attorney General accountable for something he did wrong.
Move along, nothing to see here...
Al Gonzales -- implicit in your questions is that Al Gonzales did something wrong. I haven't seen Congress say he's done anything wrong. As a matter of fact, I believe, David, we're watching a political exercise. I mean, this is a man who has testified, he's sent thousands of papers up there. There's no proof of wrong. Why would I hold somebody accountable who has done nothing wrong? I mean, frankly, I think that's a typical Washington, D.C. assumption -- not to be accusatory, I know you're a kind, open-minded fellow, but you suggested holding the Attorney General accountable for something he did wrong.
Move along, nothing to see here...
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
On the road
So I'm spending a week or so out in the greater Seattle area, which is why I've been quiet on the latest attacks on our civil liberties. I find vacation to be a useful thing - I get far less worked up about the horrible things that go on than I do when I'm at home (of course, there will be something new next week, so I've got that going for me).
A couple of days ago I took a trip to a cute little town in the San Juan Islands, and since I wasn't feeling well that day, I visited a number of places that regularly have graffiti on the walls. All except one had profoundly anti-Bush graffiti, and the one that didn't had something saying "F___ the GOP". It was enough to make an ill drmagoo feel a little better about the world.
A couple of days ago I took a trip to a cute little town in the San Juan Islands, and since I wasn't feeling well that day, I visited a number of places that regularly have graffiti on the walls. All except one had profoundly anti-Bush graffiti, and the one that didn't had something saying "F___ the GOP". It was enough to make an ill drmagoo feel a little better about the world.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
On the comments below
If you read colonial history, you will find that one of the driving forces behind revolution was the concept of the "general warrant." These odious documents authorized the king's agents to search anyone at any time for any reason.
Taxes? Hardly. A popular shibboleth, granted, but colonial leaders knew that 1) the taxes levied were consumption taxes, which individuals could control and avoid, 2) the colonists were taxed far less than inhabitants of the home islands and 3) representation wouldn't have changed a damn thing.
But the searches? Those were VERY real and incredibly offensive to both revolutionary leader and the everyday blacksmith. In the view of the framers, such interferences with privacy justified what we now call "regime change." [Editor's note: another key concern was the tendency of European princes to make war for sport. To deal with that, the framers gave warmaking powers to Congress and required a war expenditure vote AT LEAST every two years, thanks for ignoring that part, folks.]
On this bill, Geoffrey Stone of the University of Chicago Law School [Editor's note: Yours truly was admitted to the U of C Law School, but 1) I couldn't afford it and 2) there is an underground tunnel from the law school to the law dorm. I never would have seen the sun!] said that the
So, if Mrs. Pete goes to Europe (as she always does) and calls me, our conversation is now fair game. Thanks guys.
Taxes? Hardly. A popular shibboleth, granted, but colonial leaders knew that 1) the taxes levied were consumption taxes, which individuals could control and avoid, 2) the colonists were taxed far less than inhabitants of the home islands and 3) representation wouldn't have changed a damn thing.
But the searches? Those were VERY real and incredibly offensive to both revolutionary leader and the everyday blacksmith. In the view of the framers, such interferences with privacy justified what we now call "regime change." [Editor's note: another key concern was the tendency of European princes to make war for sport. To deal with that, the framers gave warmaking powers to Congress and required a war expenditure vote AT LEAST every two years, thanks for ignoring that part, folks.]
On this bill, Geoffrey Stone of the University of Chicago Law School [Editor's note: Yours truly was admitted to the U of C Law School, but 1) I couldn't afford it and 2) there is an underground tunnel from the law school to the law dorm. I never would have seen the sun!] said that the
amendment authorizes the government to wiretap or intercept any international communication, even if one of the participants is an American citizen on American soil, as long as the intercept is undertaken for foreign intelligence purposes and is "directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United StatesThink about that. Gone is "probable cause," that must be found by a judge. Now it is the ATTORNEY GENERAL who REASONABLY BELIEVES that the intercept is for "FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PURPOSES." And those are WHAT?
So, if Mrs. Pete goes to Europe (as she always does) and calls me, our conversation is now fair game. Thanks guys.
Monday, August 06, 2007
I hate Will Rogers
Or at least that "I belong to no organized political party" line because it is so damned accurate.
Question #1 for the Democratic leadership: You have a rogue administration that has shamelessly broken statutory law and flouted constitutional guarantees of privacy and personal security in the name of "terrorism." Why on earth do you give him MORE power?????
Question #1 for the Democratic leadership: You have a rogue administration that has shamelessly broken statutory law and flouted constitutional guarantees of privacy and personal security in the name of "terrorism." Why on earth do you give him MORE power?????
Saturday, August 04, 2007
The Republican YouTube Debate
It looks like that stellar cast of GOP presidential hopefuls isn't warming to the idea of their own YouTube debate. You know those questions from...ummm...people?
Well, I want them to be comfortable in the format, so I have suggested some questions that would put them at ease:
1) Should we kill all the brown people or just the A-rabs?
2) How would you help Jesus to stop boys from kissing?
3) Which one of you is the most Reagan-y?
4) On global warming, is the earth warmer than when the Lord God created Adam in Eden 6000 years ago? And if it is, doesn't God want it that way?
Please add your own...
Well, I want them to be comfortable in the format, so I have suggested some questions that would put them at ease:
1) Should we kill all the brown people or just the A-rabs?
2) How would you help Jesus to stop boys from kissing?
3) Which one of you is the most Reagan-y?
4) On global warming, is the earth warmer than when the Lord God created Adam in Eden 6000 years ago? And if it is, doesn't God want it that way?
Please add your own...
Thursday, August 02, 2007
He knows where the bodies are buried...
Alberto Gonzalez will never voluntarily give up his position, and Chimpy will never ask him to step down. There are two inter-related reasons (actually hundreds, but two I'll write about):
1) Fredo knows WAAY too much about the inner workings/dark side of GWB (remember DUIs and jury duty?), and knows that he himself is a parasitic little worm that has no value other than where he sits. Gonzalez doesn't want to go out in at least official disgrace, and he knows that Chimpy has his back.
2) Der Chimpenfuhrer cannot risk appointing a new AG. He couldn't get another crony confirmed, and the Senate would demand someone with at least a modicum of integrity. Those pesky types tend to investigate, you know, impeachable offenses?
AG for Life Fredo. All hail.
1) Fredo knows WAAY too much about the inner workings/dark side of GWB (remember DUIs and jury duty?), and knows that he himself is a parasitic little worm that has no value other than where he sits. Gonzalez doesn't want to go out in at least official disgrace, and he knows that Chimpy has his back.
2) Der Chimpenfuhrer cannot risk appointing a new AG. He couldn't get another crony confirmed, and the Senate would demand someone with at least a modicum of integrity. Those pesky types tend to investigate, you know, impeachable offenses?
AG for Life Fredo. All hail.
Wut?
So, we here at The Thinker just got an entirely unsolicited email from some guy who runs a political blog, asking us to vote for his blog for some award, and offering to trade links. On his blog, he interviews some woman who admires James Inhofe.
Thanks, but no.
Thanks, but no.
Stupid quotes from stupid people
From Salon's War Room: Asked today about a new Congressional Budget Office report that puts the price tag of the war on Iraq at more than $1 trillion, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said: "Well, if you take a look at what happened on September 11th, 2001, it's estimated that the aftershocks of that could have cost up to $1 trillion."
First of all, what "aftershocks"? Secondly, your boss still hasn't gotten around to do anything with the whole in the ground, so we have no idea what it will cost. Third, and I can't stress this enough - the response to an attack that cost us a vast amount of money was to spend a vast amount of money on a totally irrelevant and illegal war? There wasn't anything better that could have been done with that money?
First of all, what "aftershocks"? Secondly, your boss still hasn't gotten around to do anything with the whole in the ground, so we have no idea what it will cost. Third, and I can't stress this enough - the response to an attack that cost us a vast amount of money was to spend a vast amount of money on a totally irrelevant and illegal war? There wasn't anything better that could have been done with that money?
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
While on that topic...
Ah, the Wall Street Journal editorial page...
Not long ago they brought back one of their favorites, law professor, authoritarian, author of the Bush administration's torture memo (and as Glenn Greenwald accurately states, "the most partisan and intellectually dishonest lawyer in the country"--think about that...) John Yoo. They needed to dredge up SOMEONE who would defend the ridiculous administration claims of "executive privilege," so who? John Yoo.
The afore-mentioned Glenn Greenwald is all over the shocking hypocrisy of John Yoo. He was against executive privilege (insert "Bill Clinton"here) before he was for it, saying that Clinton could fairly be impeached for refusing subpoenas and then lo and behold in 2007, secrecy is the key to the survival of the republic.
Let's look at what Yoo wrote on the law, though. He shamelessly cites Barenblatt v. U.S. (a House Un-American Activities Committee case, by the way) and says that "The Supreme Court held in 1959 that, `Since Congress may only investigate into those areas in which it may potentially legislate or appropriate, it cannot inquire into matters which are within the exclusive province of one or the other branches of the Government.'"
Excuse me, they didn't HOLD that. The opinion said that IN DICTA. It's not a HOLDING. Beyond that, Congress may certainly "legislate" on voter caging matters, and WELL beyond legislating, they certainly are constitutionally empowered to ACT--on impeachment.
Not long ago they brought back one of their favorites, law professor, authoritarian, author of the Bush administration's torture memo (and as Glenn Greenwald accurately states, "the most partisan and intellectually dishonest lawyer in the country"--think about that...) John Yoo. They needed to dredge up SOMEONE who would defend the ridiculous administration claims of "executive privilege," so who? John Yoo.
The afore-mentioned Glenn Greenwald is all over the shocking hypocrisy of John Yoo. He was against executive privilege (insert "Bill Clinton"here) before he was for it, saying that Clinton could fairly be impeached for refusing subpoenas and then lo and behold in 2007, secrecy is the key to the survival of the republic.
Let's look at what Yoo wrote on the law, though. He shamelessly cites Barenblatt v. U.S. (a House Un-American Activities Committee case, by the way) and says that "The Supreme Court held in 1959 that, `Since Congress may only investigate into those areas in which it may potentially legislate or appropriate, it cannot inquire into matters which are within the exclusive province of one or the other branches of the Government.'"
Excuse me, they didn't HOLD that. The opinion said that IN DICTA. It's not a HOLDING. Beyond that, Congress may certainly "legislate" on voter caging matters, and WELL beyond legislating, they certainly are constitutionally empowered to ACT--on impeachment.
RIP Wall Street Journal
Sorry, been one poor correspondent....
It looks like Rupert Murdoch has squared away control of the Wall Street Journal. It has always been a bizarre paper, with rock-solid business reporting on one side, and bat-crazy editorial page screed writers on the other. It was always my theory that the news group never even told editorial where the Christmas party was. Now, that the paper will be Fox-ified, what do you think stays..rock-solid business reporting or bat-crazy editorial page screed writers? The Murdoch virus can't help but infect the newsroom, and the paper is history.
It looks like Rupert Murdoch has squared away control of the Wall Street Journal. It has always been a bizarre paper, with rock-solid business reporting on one side, and bat-crazy editorial page screed writers on the other. It was always my theory that the news group never even told editorial where the Christmas party was. Now, that the paper will be Fox-ified, what do you think stays..rock-solid business reporting or bat-crazy editorial page screed writers? The Murdoch virus can't help but infect the newsroom, and the paper is history.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Oh, for crying out loud
I would be willing to have a reasoned argument with anyone about the practicality of impeaching either President Bush or his puppeteer - not whether they deserve it, mind you, but whether pursuing it would accomplish anything. On the other hand, all politics aside, why does Alberto Gonzales still have a job? He's apparently unaware of virtually everything that has occurred under his watch in the Department of Justice. If I knew that little about the way my department functioned, I'd be fired. Even if you completely agree with everything the Decider has done, how is it a good thing for the country for the Department of Justice to have an Attorney General who is utterly clueless about, well, everything?
Note: A similar version of this was sent to Congressman Tim Johnson (IL-15)
Note: A similar version of this was sent to Congressman Tim Johnson (IL-15)
Friday, July 20, 2007
To us, he's the President of Pakistan
To the rest of the world, he's viewed as (from the first 'graph of a Financial Times story):
We've got a way with our good friends...until we don't need them any longer.
General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's US-backed military ruler, faced calls to resign yesterday after attacks by Islamist militants claimed at least 54 more lives, bringing the death toll since Saturday to 184.Yep, he's our "good friend".
We've got a way with our good friends...until we don't need them any longer.
Thanks for playing
Read these words carefully
President Bush signed an executive order Friday prohibiting cruel and inhuman treatment, including humiliation or denigration of religious beliefs, in the detention and interrogation of terrorism suspects.
NOW these things are bad?????
Music issues in Music City?
Shamelessly stolen from Love Boat crew member Em, who should post more here. And remember, this is the WHITE HOUSE transcript:
Q Mr. President, music is one of our largest exports the country has. Currently, every country in the world -- except China, Iran, North Korea, Rwanda and the United States -- pay a statutory royalty to the performing artists for radio and television air play. Would your administration consider changing our laws to align it with the rest of the world?
THE PRESIDENT: Help. (Laughter.) Maybe you've never had a President say this -- I have, like, no earthly idea what you're talking about. (Laughter and applause.) Sounds like we're keeping interesting company, you know? (Laughter.) Look, I'll give you the old classic: contact my office, will you? (Laughter.) I really don't -- I'm totally out of my lane. I like listening to country music, if that helps. (Laughter.)
I left the "laughter" lines in because you know they are laughing AT him. Hmmm, you visit a city known for its music industry and you KNOW NOTHING about a local concern?? Good work.
Q Mr. President, music is one of our largest exports the country has. Currently, every country in the world -- except China, Iran, North Korea, Rwanda and the United States -- pay a statutory royalty to the performing artists for radio and television air play. Would your administration consider changing our laws to align it with the rest of the world?
THE PRESIDENT: Help. (Laughter.) Maybe you've never had a President say this -- I have, like, no earthly idea what you're talking about. (Laughter and applause.) Sounds like we're keeping interesting company, you know? (Laughter.) Look, I'll give you the old classic: contact my office, will you? (Laughter.) I really don't -- I'm totally out of my lane. I like listening to country music, if that helps. (Laughter.)
I left the "laughter" lines in because you know they are laughing AT him. Hmmm, you visit a city known for its music industry and you KNOW NOTHING about a local concern?? Good work.
Bush: "I...AM...THE...LAW!"
Washington Post: Broader Privilege Claimed In Firings
White House Says Hill Can't Pursue Contempt Cases
It gets more clear every day. Impeach.
White House Says Hill Can't Pursue Contempt Cases
Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.
...
Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action."
But administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege. Officials pointed to a Justice Department legal opinion during the Reagan administration, which made the same argument in a case that was never resolved by the courts.
"A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case," said a senior official, who said his remarks reflect a consensus within the administration. "And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen."
The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly, added: "It has long been understood that, in circumstances like these, the constitutional prerogatives of the president would make it a futile and purely political act for Congress to refer contempt citations to U.S. attorneys."
...
[Always observant Representative Henry] Waxman added: "I suppose the next step would be just disbanding the Justice Department."
...
But Stanley Brand, who was the Democratic House counsel during the Burford case, said the administration's legal view "turns the constitutional enforcement process on its head. They are saying they will always place a claim of presidential privilege without any judicial determination above a congressional demand for evidence -- without any basis in law." Brand said the position is essentially telling Congress: "Because we control the enforcement process, we are going to thumb our nose at you."
Rozell, the George Mason professor and authority on executive privilege, said the administration's stance "is almost Nixonian in its scope and breadth of interpreting its power. Congress has no recourse at all, in the president's view. . . . It's allowing the executive to define the scope and limits of its own powers."
It gets more clear every day. Impeach.
Oh, wouldn't this be sad...Bwhahahahaha
From Think Progress:
Former House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert has indicated to a close former aide that it is likely he will not run for a 12th term from his northern Illinois district and may even resign from Congress before his present term concludes. That runs counter to widespread speculation on Capitol Hill that Hastert will continue in the House for another two years as a private member with no leadership responsibilities.
Former House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert has indicated to a close former aide that it is likely he will not run for a 12th term from his northern Illinois district and may even resign from Congress before his present term concludes. That runs counter to widespread speculation on Capitol Hill that Hastert will continue in the House for another two years as a private member with no leadership responsibilities.
Bonds
My main reaction to what Bonds is doing is sadness. Growing up a baseball fan, I'd never thought I'd see someone break Aaron's record, and I always envisioned it as something quite exciting. The cloud over Bonds (we know he cheated, but how much, for how long, and how much did it actually affect his play will never be known) diminishes the event, no matter what.
I don't condemn him as much as others do, because excluding him from the record books, etc, would require going back through history and doing the same to all of the myriad cheaters throughout the history of baseball - Gaylord Perry, Whitey Ford, every player in the 60's and 70's who took amphetamines, and so on and so on. That's not realistic (and we don't know who did what exactly).
I won't celebrate the accomplishment the same way I want to, and might if ARod gets there someday. If I had a vote, I'd still vote him and Sammy and McGwire into the HOF, although not with joy.
Barry Bonds will hopefully retire at the end of the year as the all-time HR leader (although there's an interesting article on Baseball Prospectus about how, in today's game, Babe Ruth's 714 are equivalent to over 1000 dingers). Rather than being perceived as the truly great player he was, however, his legacy will be that of doubt and anger and sadness.
I don't condemn him as much as others do, because excluding him from the record books, etc, would require going back through history and doing the same to all of the myriad cheaters throughout the history of baseball - Gaylord Perry, Whitey Ford, every player in the 60's and 70's who took amphetamines, and so on and so on. That's not realistic (and we don't know who did what exactly).
I won't celebrate the accomplishment the same way I want to, and might if ARod gets there someday. If I had a vote, I'd still vote him and Sammy and McGwire into the HOF, although not with joy.
Barry Bonds will hopefully retire at the end of the year as the all-time HR leader (although there's an interesting article on Baseball Prospectus about how, in today's game, Babe Ruth's 714 are equivalent to over 1000 dingers). Rather than being perceived as the truly great player he was, however, his legacy will be that of doubt and anger and sadness.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
A home run dumbass
Wow. Check this one out from a Sandeep Mehta of Naperville:
Bonds innocent until proven guilty
Can we all stop complaining about Barry Bonds? I know there's a strong chance that he took some kind of performance-enhancing drugs and maybe he did do it on purpose, but does it really deserve the type of vilification that Bonds has received? The fact of the matter is Bonds is an exception baseball player. He hit at least 30 home runs in every season between 1992 and 2004; since his rookie season he's never struck out over 100 times in any season; he's accumulated over 500 stolen bases; and he's batting almost .300 for his career. These are not numbers that can be accumulated by an average player on steroids. In addition, during the current season Bonds has received more walks than any other player in the league, evidence that pitchers still don't want to pitch to him even at the age of 43. And with all testing procedures in place and no suspicion of steroid use this year, Bonds still ranks among the top 25 in the majors with 17 homeruns.So before we all stand up and boo the man without mercy let’s consider what he has accomplished and whether the supposed crime fit the punishment.
With all those impressive years behind him, does he really deserve to be treated like a criminal every time he takes the field just because he is SUSPECTED of steroid use? There is no way of knowing if Bonds did purposely take steroids or how much they might have helped his numbers. Also, there are many others under suspicion of steroid use and none of them have come close to matching the numbers that Bonds has put up. With or without steroids, Bonds has been a tier above the rest in his abilities as a baseball player. Steroids did not create the numbers Bonds has put up. In my humble opinion instead of boos, this man deserves many more cheers and standing ovations.
Wow, that is staggering, on so many levels. I will let most of it stand on its own because of its obvious ridiculousness, but let's just note:
1) Bonds was a Hall of Famer before he started doing this. We know that. That compounds the tragedy and the farce of this.
2) He isn't SUSPECTED of using steroids. We KNOW he
did.
3) MLB and its testing is WAY behind the dopers.
4) On the #s, you think it was natural to go from 37 home runs in 1998 (when we had the Great Juicer Race) to 73 in 2001?
5) Besides that, he's just a miserable person.
Sandeep, look at his rookie card and him now, and
Bonds innocent until proven guilty
Can we all stop complaining about Barry Bonds? I know there's a strong chance that he took some kind of performance-enhancing drugs and maybe he did do it on purpose, but does it really deserve the type of vilification that Bonds has received? The fact of the matter is Bonds is an exception baseball player. He hit at least 30 home runs in every season between 1992 and 2004; since his rookie season he's never struck out over 100 times in any season; he's accumulated over 500 stolen bases; and he's batting almost .300 for his career. These are not numbers that can be accumulated by an average player on steroids. In addition, during the current season Bonds has received more walks than any other player in the league, evidence that pitchers still don't want to pitch to him even at the age of 43. And with all testing procedures in place and no suspicion of steroid use this year, Bonds still ranks among the top 25 in the majors with 17 homeruns.So before we all stand up and boo the man without mercy let’s consider what he has accomplished and whether the supposed crime fit the punishment.
With all those impressive years behind him, does he really deserve to be treated like a criminal every time he takes the field just because he is SUSPECTED of steroid use? There is no way of knowing if Bonds did purposely take steroids or how much they might have helped his numbers. Also, there are many others under suspicion of steroid use and none of them have come close to matching the numbers that Bonds has put up. With or without steroids, Bonds has been a tier above the rest in his abilities as a baseball player. Steroids did not create the numbers Bonds has put up. In my humble opinion instead of boos, this man deserves many more cheers and standing ovations.
Wow, that is staggering, on so many levels. I will let most of it stand on its own because of its obvious ridiculousness, but let's just note:
1) Bonds was a Hall of Famer before he started doing this. We know that. That compounds the tragedy and the farce of this.
2) He isn't SUSPECTED of using steroids. We KNOW he
did.
3) MLB and its testing is WAY behind the dopers.
4) On the #s, you think it was natural to go from 37 home runs in 1998 (when we had the Great Juicer Race) to 73 in 2001?
5) Besides that, he's just a miserable person.
Sandeep, look at his rookie card and him now, and
Plame lawsuit dismissed
A federal district judge dismissed Valerie Plame's civil suit for outing her against Cheney, Rove and Libby on "jurisdictional" grounds. I'm guessing, without having seen an opinion, that it is based on some form of sovereign immunity. As the repulsive Drudge would say---developing!
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Cruise Lines from Hell
A reporter for the Independent, a paper in Britain, recently took part in a cruise organized by the National Review, that bastion of hate and ignorance. Apparently, they do this every year, so if after reading the article, you want to share in the experience, you can.
It's a fascinating and terrifying read, and I'll post one sentence here just to give you a taste.
The familiar routine of the dinners – first the getting-to-know-you chit-chat, then some light conversational fascism – is accelerating.
h/t Glenn Greenwald
It's a fascinating and terrifying read, and I'll post one sentence here just to give you a taste.
The familiar routine of the dinners – first the getting-to-know-you chit-chat, then some light conversational fascism – is accelerating.
h/t Glenn Greenwald
Who let the dogs out?
The notion of a dogfight conjures up images of daring aviators in mortal combat, but no--AN NFL QUARTERBACK? Dogs?
You've heard by now that Falcons QB Michael Vick was indicted on charges connected to dogfighting.
I am a dog lover (I have the world's cutest, sweetest and dumbest Pomeranian, Gizzmo, who can't be housetrained for anything but I love him to death.) I have to wonder how anyone could subject dogs to such cruelty, not only the horrific fighting but HANGING or DROWNING those no longer needed? And who enjoys this, who bets on this? (I can't claim PETA perfection on animal gambling, nor would I want to, as I do enjoy 3 or 4 afternoons a summer at Arlington Park, and as Rousing knows, the most exciting two minutes in sports, but that is betting on who wins, not who survives!)
And again, an NFL quarterback???
You've heard by now that Falcons QB Michael Vick was indicted on charges connected to dogfighting.
I am a dog lover (I have the world's cutest, sweetest and dumbest Pomeranian, Gizzmo, who can't be housetrained for anything but I love him to death.) I have to wonder how anyone could subject dogs to such cruelty, not only the horrific fighting but HANGING or DROWNING those no longer needed? And who enjoys this, who bets on this? (I can't claim PETA perfection on animal gambling, nor would I want to, as I do enjoy 3 or 4 afternoons a summer at Arlington Park, and as Rousing knows, the most exciting two minutes in sports, but that is betting on who wins, not who survives!)
And again, an NFL quarterback???
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Vote for "None of the Above"
AP Poll: GOP pick is 'none of the above'
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 17 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - And the leading Republican presidential candidate is ... none of the above.
The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that nearly a quarter of Republicans are unwilling to back top-tier hopefuls Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain or Mitt Romney, and no one candidate has emerged as the clear front-runner among Christian evangelicals. Such dissatisfaction underscores the volatility of the 2008 GOP nomination fight.
In sharp contrast, the Democratic race remains static, with Hillary Rodham Clinton holding a sizable lead over Barack Obama. The New York senator, who is white, also outpaces her Illinois counterpart, who is black, among black and Hispanic Democrats, according to a combined sample of two months of polls.
A half year before voting begins, the survey shows the White House race is far more wide open on the Republican side than on the Democratic. The uneven enthusiasm about the fields also is reflected in fundraising in which Democrats outraised Republicans $80 million to $50 million from April through June, continuing a trend from the year's first three months.
"Democrats are reasonably comfortable with the range of choices. The Democratic attitude is that three or four of these guys would be fine," said David Redlawsk, a University of Iowa political scientist. "The Republicans don't have that; particularly among the conservatives there's a real split. They just don't see candidates who reflect their interests and who they also view as viable."
More Republicans have become apathetic about their top options over the past month.
A hefty 23 percent can't or won't say which candidate they would back, a jump from the 14 percent who took a pass in June.
Where's Richard Pryor when we need him?
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 17 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - And the leading Republican presidential candidate is ... none of the above.
The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that nearly a quarter of Republicans are unwilling to back top-tier hopefuls Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain or Mitt Romney, and no one candidate has emerged as the clear front-runner among Christian evangelicals. Such dissatisfaction underscores the volatility of the 2008 GOP nomination fight.
In sharp contrast, the Democratic race remains static, with Hillary Rodham Clinton holding a sizable lead over Barack Obama. The New York senator, who is white, also outpaces her Illinois counterpart, who is black, among black and Hispanic Democrats, according to a combined sample of two months of polls.
A half year before voting begins, the survey shows the White House race is far more wide open on the Republican side than on the Democratic. The uneven enthusiasm about the fields also is reflected in fundraising in which Democrats outraised Republicans $80 million to $50 million from April through June, continuing a trend from the year's first three months.
"Democrats are reasonably comfortable with the range of choices. The Democratic attitude is that three or four of these guys would be fine," said David Redlawsk, a University of Iowa political scientist. "The Republicans don't have that; particularly among the conservatives there's a real split. They just don't see candidates who reflect their interests and who they also view as viable."
More Republicans have become apathetic about their top options over the past month.
A hefty 23 percent can't or won't say which candidate they would back, a jump from the 14 percent who took a pass in June.
Where's Richard Pryor when we need him?
From the archives
I was browsing through some old posts, and I came across this comment from Schmidlap:
I see one last hope of knocking the evil fuckers down, but it may not be too solid.
The one thing that is really killing them right now is a vigorous, aggressive, non-politicized Justice Department. Fitz and the boyz are crawling up into each and every orifice, examining each rancid dingleberry. And because the evil cabal is the most gutless, chickenshit bunch of bastards on the planet, at the first sign of DoJ involvement, they are going hoarse from all the squealing they are doing on their "pals." The whole Ponzi scheme is collapsing.
But I say it may not be too solid for two reasons. One, Chimpy McGlowstick-in-Anus can just pardon everyone. Two, he can keep appointing cronies to head Justice and then nothing will really get done. Why Ashcroft recused himself at the beginning of the Plame investigation is one of the great mysteries of our time. You can be sure Abu Gonzalez is more of a team player than that and this breach of trust won't happen twice.
Prescient.
I see one last hope of knocking the evil fuckers down, but it may not be too solid.
The one thing that is really killing them right now is a vigorous, aggressive, non-politicized Justice Department. Fitz and the boyz are crawling up into each and every orifice, examining each rancid dingleberry. And because the evil cabal is the most gutless, chickenshit bunch of bastards on the planet, at the first sign of DoJ involvement, they are going hoarse from all the squealing they are doing on their "pals." The whole Ponzi scheme is collapsing.
But I say it may not be too solid for two reasons. One, Chimpy McGlowstick-in-Anus can just pardon everyone. Two, he can keep appointing cronies to head Justice and then nothing will really get done. Why Ashcroft recused himself at the beginning of the Plame investigation is one of the great mysteries of our time. You can be sure Abu Gonzalez is more of a team player than that and this breach of trust won't happen twice.
Prescient.
Why we must impeach
Tonight Harry Reid and the Democrats in the Senate are stepping up the pressure on the GOP by actually making them filibuster the Reid-Levin amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill. The Reid-Levin amendment would actually require a withdrawal of troops from Iraq in 120 days. It's a good idea, but, sadly, irrelevant. The best case scenarios are either that enough Republicans feel the pressure and either the amendment gets the 60 votes it needs to end the filibuster, or the GOP drops the whole idea of the filibuster and lets the amendment pass with a simple majority.
What if that happens? Well, President Bush has already made it clear he will veto any bill limiting his power to do whatever he wants in Iraq, so he'll veto this one.
Then what? Okay, let's say that the GOP finally sees what the rest of the country has seen, and we get the 67 votes we need to overturn the veto (and the same thing happens in the House). Yippie! Right?
Wrong. Two words - signing statements. President Bush will never allow something like Congress overturning a veto to stand in his way. The war will not stop while he is in office. There's precedence for this model of "governing": Richard Nixon.
From the Boston Globe:
In Iraq bills, a Vietnam echo: Legislating an end is a thorny quest
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | July 16, 2007
WASHINGTON -- In December 1970, Congress passed historic legislation revoking the 1964 Tonkin Gulf resolution, which had authorized military force in Vietnam, and banning the deployment of ground troops in Cambodia. War opponents hoped Congress was on the verge of forcing a quick end to the bloody quagmire in Indochina.
"The president, in our judgment, now lacks legitimate authority to keep on prosecuting the war," said Senator Frank Church , Democrat of Idaho, in a 1971 speech. "Under these circumstances, a great opportunity is presented to Congress -- the chance to fill this constitutional vacuum with a disengagement policy that could help unite the country again."
War opponents' hopes were dashed. Despite signing the bills, President Nixon said he had independent authority as commander in chief to keep combat in Vietnam going. For the next two years, Congress failed to agree on further restrictions, and nearly 3,000 more American soldiers died. Nixon finally ended the war on his own terms with a cease - fire agreement in January 1973.
Charlie Savage, you may recall, is the reporter who blew the lid off Bush's signing statements. He knows what he's talking about. Does anyone doubt that George Bush, controlled, err, advised as he is by Dick Cheney, would fail to follow the lead of Mr. "Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal."?
Not only have our President and Vice President wantonly and repeatedly violated the Constitution, but they continue to do so, ignoring the intent of the founders and any semblance of respect for the balance of power which has served our nation so well. How can we stop them - before more unnecessary deaths? Before an attack on Iran? Before our willful ignorance of the real threats to our nation lead to more terrorism on US soil? Before even more of our civil liberties get trampled?
George Bush will never listen to "reason" - he believes that he is guided by his God in this war. He must be removed from office - not in January 2009, but now.
Impeach.
What if that happens? Well, President Bush has already made it clear he will veto any bill limiting his power to do whatever he wants in Iraq, so he'll veto this one.
Then what? Okay, let's say that the GOP finally sees what the rest of the country has seen, and we get the 67 votes we need to overturn the veto (and the same thing happens in the House). Yippie! Right?
Wrong. Two words - signing statements. President Bush will never allow something like Congress overturning a veto to stand in his way. The war will not stop while he is in office. There's precedence for this model of "governing": Richard Nixon.
From the Boston Globe:
In Iraq bills, a Vietnam echo: Legislating an end is a thorny quest
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | July 16, 2007
WASHINGTON -- In December 1970, Congress passed historic legislation revoking the 1964 Tonkin Gulf resolution, which had authorized military force in Vietnam, and banning the deployment of ground troops in Cambodia. War opponents hoped Congress was on the verge of forcing a quick end to the bloody quagmire in Indochina.
"The president, in our judgment, now lacks legitimate authority to keep on prosecuting the war," said Senator Frank Church , Democrat of Idaho, in a 1971 speech. "Under these circumstances, a great opportunity is presented to Congress -- the chance to fill this constitutional vacuum with a disengagement policy that could help unite the country again."
War opponents' hopes were dashed. Despite signing the bills, President Nixon said he had independent authority as commander in chief to keep combat in Vietnam going. For the next two years, Congress failed to agree on further restrictions, and nearly 3,000 more American soldiers died. Nixon finally ended the war on his own terms with a cease - fire agreement in January 1973.
Charlie Savage, you may recall, is the reporter who blew the lid off Bush's signing statements. He knows what he's talking about. Does anyone doubt that George Bush, controlled, err, advised as he is by Dick Cheney, would fail to follow the lead of Mr. "Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal."?
Not only have our President and Vice President wantonly and repeatedly violated the Constitution, but they continue to do so, ignoring the intent of the founders and any semblance of respect for the balance of power which has served our nation so well. How can we stop them - before more unnecessary deaths? Before an attack on Iran? Before our willful ignorance of the real threats to our nation lead to more terrorism on US soil? Before even more of our civil liberties get trampled?
George Bush will never listen to "reason" - he believes that he is guided by his God in this war. He must be removed from office - not in January 2009, but now.
Impeach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
of you have sat, and perhaps thought, with us!
