Gotta love seeing those Republican, culture of life values at work.
Republicans in the House of Representatives overturned a recently enacted law that required safety trigger locks on all guns purchased within the United States.
Of course! Silly me! Why on earth should we want safety trigger locks on guns? And the more guns on the street, the better! Right, Charles Heston?
House votes to overturn mandatory gun locks
Republicans are continuing to show who they really are. And their words and actions suggest that they care more about their political viability and interests, than they care about America.
Responding to the New York Times article that disclosed information about a Treasury Department banking surveillance program, House Speaker Denny Hastert said "loose lips kill Americans."
Well let's talk about loose lips, Speaker Hastert.
Let's talk about the loose lips (within the Bush Administration) that revealed the identity of Valerie Plame, a covert CIA operative with unofficial cover. Let's talk about the fact that the CIA had to do a damage assessment to ascertain the damage to national security as a result of her outing.
And the outing of Valerie Plame damaged the United States' ability to counter nuclear proliferation abroad. Why? Because Plame was working on issues of weapons of mass destruction relative to Iran.
What's more, its been reported that while he was CIA Director, Porter Goss refused to give to investigator Patrick Fitzgerald a damage assessment that had been done by George Tenet, detailing how many people were murdered, and the full extent of damage to national security, as a result of Plame's outing.
It's also curious that Fox News' Brian Kilmeade is now advocating a U.S. "Office of Censorship" in the wake of the New York Times banking surveillance story, but conservatives failed to advocate for such an office after Republican Robert Novak used his column to blow Valerie Plame's identity.
In other words, as far as Republicans are concerned, you have your good leaks and your bad leaks. And in their world, it's ok to leak the identity of a covert CIA operative for purely political purposes.
But because Republicans do not want a transparent government, it's not ok for new outlets to keep the American public informed about how its government works.
Hastert: ‘Loose lips’ kill Americans
Outed CIA officer was working on Iran, intelligence sources say
So check out this headline from the Associated Press (AP) today:
Bush promotes war, candidate in Missouri
George Bush, a guy who admitted to his professor at Harvard Business School that he used his father's name and connections to avoid going to Vietnam, is getting off on this war; on sending our men and women to die for a lie.
Just the very idea of a president "promoting" war sickens me, but that is exactly what Bush is doing. How about promoting peace, prosperity and stability?
And here's an oldie but goodie:
"I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office, in foreign-policy matters, with war on my mind."
-GWB 2/8/2004 on Meet The Press
One other note to Bushie and his fellow war hawks: "stay the course" is NOT a policy! So just what is your policy in Iraq? Accusing the Democrats of waving the "white flag of surrender" is not a policy either. So just what is our Commander-in-Chief's policy on Iraq?
Bush promotes war, candidate in Missouri
And link to Meet the Press transcript of Bush saying he's the "war president": http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618/
These are the types of values we should expect and embrance in our elected leaders.
Senate Democrats say they are prepared to block pay raises for members of Congress, until the minimum wage is increased.
Of course as I've already discussed here on the blog, last week the Republicans showed us who they really are, and who they are for. They blocked an increase of the minimum wage, and lowered the estate tax for the richest of the rich in our country.
And Democrats say they are going to block pay raises for themselves and other members of Congress, until the minimum wage is increased.
The last time the minimum wage was increased, was almost 10 years ago.
Democrats vow to block pay raises until minimum wage increased
On yesterday the Democratic Policy Committee held a hearing to examine the manipulation of intelligence in the lead-up to the Iraq war.
There was only one Republican lawmaker in attendance: Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina. Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as former Secretary of State Colin Powell's Chief of Staff, testified during the hearing.
And Rep. Jones asked Mr. Wilkerson to explain how a small group of people within the Bush Administration were able to gain so much influence, that they trumped the professionals within the intelligence community.
Mr. Wilkerson responded: "Three words: the Vice-President."
Watch the video here, courtesy of Think Progress:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/26/wilkerson-vp
If you thought no one in this country was above the law, including the President of the United States, well, think again, friends!
If George Bush doesn't care for a particular aspect of a bill that he's just signed into law, he simply declares himself King and says, via a "signing statement," that he's not obligated to follow the law.
Bush has used signing statements 750 times to declare himself exempt from the laws of our land.
For example, he signed John McCain's anti-torture bill (banning the torture of detainees), and added a signing statement onto the bill, saying he did not feel compelled to follow it.
When Bush signed the re-authorization of the Patriot Act, he attached a signing statement saying he did not feel bound to follow a provision of the Act, which provided for congressional oversight of FBI searches for terrorists.
The problem is not that Bush issues signing statements. Presidential signing statements have been around for a long time now, and many Presidents have used them. The problem is what Bush says in his signing statements.
Past Presidents have used signing statements to simply wax poetic on the legislation they are signing. For example, they'll use a signing statement to thank the sponsors and co-sponsors of the bill they are signing. They might even use signing statements to state reservations about portions of the bill. They don't declare themselves exempt from it. And thereinlies the problem with Bush's signing statements.
What's also interesting is that Bush has yet to issue a single veto. He has never vetoed legislation sent to him by the Congress. He simply declares himself exempt from following it.
If George Bush really believes we should torture detainees, then he needs to veto anti-torture legislation. If he believes that the executive branch should not be subject to oversight from the legislative branch, he needs to say so by issuing a veto of legislation that says the opposite.
And so one is compelled to ask: Is Bush afraid to let the American people know how he really feels about the hot-botton issues of our time? Is that what is behind these signing statements?
The Problem with Presidential Signing Statements: Their Use and Misuse by the Bush Administration
Mr. OxyContin, Rush Limbaugh, has been detained at Palm Beach International Airport on possible possession of illegal prescription drugs.
I've said before and I'll say it again to our conservative friends.
If you're listening to a talk radio guy who needs a special device to hear his callers, because he's taken in so much OxyContin that it's made him halfway deaf...then you might want to re-think where you're getting your "news" and talking points.
Is the United States Congress preparing to declare George W. Bush above the law?
That's the signal coming from Sen. Arlen Specter, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Specter says that Congress and the White House are close to an agreement that would write Bush's illegal warrantless domestic spy program into law.
Previously, BushCo. has said they were not looking for Congress' blessing on the warrantless spy program. In fact, back in March, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Congress didn't need to act on the program.
But Sen. Specter and others have said Bush's warrantless spy program makes end runs around a 1978 law that requires the government to get approval from the FISA court before spying on Americans.
The very idea that the United States Congress would retroactively write George Bush's illegal behavior into law is very disturbing, to say the least.
Of course, in our system of checks and balances, the United States Congress has oversight of the executive branch.
And if they were to retroactively write the warrantless spy program into law, they would be rewarding George Bush for his disreguard for our Constitution. They would be rewarding his illegal behavior.
When Presidents break laws, we consider impeachment proceedings against them. We don't retroactively write their illegality into law.
On today's episode of Fox News Sunday, the issue of amnesty for those who have killed American troops in Iraq came up.
For me, the idea of offering amnesty for those who have killed our troops, WHILE they are still in Iraq, is troubling, to say the least.
But Fox (or Faux) News' Brit Hume says this is no big deal, it's not "worth much." What's not "worth much" Brit? The lives of our American troops aren't "worth much" to you?
Speaking of the amnesty that is being proposed by the new Iraqi government, Hume said "This is not a serious policy issue. This is a political issue and it’s mostly a political issue in the United States and in my judgement its not worth much."
Watch the video, courtesy of Crooks and Liars: http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/06/25/brit-hume-amnesty-for-killing-americans-is-no-big-deal/#more-8263
Facism, enter stage right!
Representative Peter King of New York continues to push a facist agenda.
In filmaker Alexander Pelosi's documentary about the 2004 election, Rep. King was caught on camera at a White House event (before November 2004 even rolled around) saying "It's already over. The election's over. we won." When Pelosi asks him how he knows that, he responds "It's all over but the counting, and we'll take care of the counting."
Now, he is calling for the prosecution of the New York Times because they dare to report to the American people, on how our government works.
The New York Times was the first news publication to report on the secret government collection of bankng records of Americans and others.
But apparently Rep. King doesn't believe that Americans have a right to know how their government works. And anyone who attempts to keep America informed about their government is "treasonous."
He said "I am asking the Attorney General to begin an investigation and prosecution of The New York Times _ the reporters, the editors and the publisher. We're at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous."
He also accused the Times of being "pompous, arrogant, and more concerned about a left-wing elitist agenda than it is about the security of the American people."
Not only do his remarks border on facism, but they are downight disengenous as well.
Republicans baselessly continue to advance the theory that the New York Times is some lefty, commie newspaper, when in fact it was the New York Times that allowed one of its reporters, Judith Miller, to carry the false WMD water for the Bush Administration, in the lead-up to the Iraq war.
And if the New York Times is such a lefty outfit, why did Cheney's former Chief of Staff, the indicted Scotter Libby, send Judith Miller a coded message which could be interpreted as 'We must stick together. We are on the same page.'
Here is a portion of the note Scotter Libby wrote to Judith Miller, while she was in jail for refusing to reveal her sources in the CIA leak investigation:
“You went into jail in the summer. It is fall now. You will have stories to cover—Iraqi elections and suicide bombers, biological threats and the Iranian nuclear program. Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them. Come back to work—-and life. Until then, you will remain in my thoughts and prayers.”
“With admiration, Scooter Libby.”
What's more, Rep. King talks about the "arrogance" of the New York Times, but let's talk about the arrogance of George Bush, who feels he is not accountable to the American people.
He told the Washington Post in January 2005: "Well, we had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 election."
And it is precisely because George Bush does not believe he is accountable to the American people, that we must be especially aware of how our government is operating, supposedly in our name.
NY lawmaker seeks criminal probe of NY Times
Lawyer Casts Blame on Reporter for Time in Jail (includes text of Scotter Libby letter to Judith Miller)
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/2004votefraud.html (web site that discusses Peter King's comments about Election 2004 being "all over but the counting, and we'll take care of the counting."
Required reading courtesy of the Washington Post today.
Tyler Drumheller, a former CIA aide, says that warnings about frabricated information on weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq were ignored.
Shortly before then Secretary of State Colin Powell prepared to give his presentation to the United Nations, making the Bush Administration's case for war in Iraq, Drumheller reviewed a classified draft of Secretary Powell's speech, to look for any errors.
And one error in particular stood out at him. There was a line in Powell's speech, about mobile labs built in Iraq, for germ warfare.
Drumheller says he instantly recognized the source of that fabricated information. He says it was an Iraqi defector who was suspected of being mentally unstable, and a liar. (The defector went by the code name of "Curveball"). Drumheller took his pen and removed the paragraph about the mobile labs from Powell's speech.
Somehow, the information made its way back into Powell's speech. Drumheller was surprised when he heard Powell utter them during his presentation to the U.N.
The false information about the mobile labs supposedly used for germ warfare, also made its way into George Bush's State of the Union speech, along with those "16 words" that the Administration KNEW were a lie, about Iraq supposedly wanting enriched uranium from Africa.
So the next time you hear a Bush apologist say that "everyone thought" Sadaam Hussein had WMDs, know that they are not telling the truth. Know that there were those within the intelligence community who sounded the alarm about false information.
Warnings on WMD 'Fabricator' Were Ignored, Ex-CIA Aide Says
Well just cry me a river, won't you Dick?
Dick Cheney says he's offended that the media actually has, imagine this, the ordacity to report on the inner workings of our government.
He's referring to a report disclosed in news organizations this week, that our government has been examining the banking records of Americans and other citizens in a huge international database.
The secretive financial tracking program was reported on by the New York Times and other news outlets.
In response, Dick Cheney said "What I find most disturbing about these stories is the fact that some of the news media take it upon themselves to disclose vital national security programs, thereby making it more difficult for us to prevent future attacks against the American people. That offends me."
Of course it offends you, Dick. After all, it's not like the American people have the right to know how their government works! Imagine that! 
And excuse me Dick. Wasn't it just this week that your boss was lecturing the international community on "non-transparent regimes." Your boss said "It should make people nervous when non-transparent regimes who have announced they have nuclear warheads, fire missiles. This is not the way you conduct business in the world."
With all the super-secretive data-mining that's been going on under BushCo., it's apparent that the United States is fast becoming one of those "non-transparent regimes" that Bushie has been lecturing about.
Cheney Assails Press on Report on Bank Data
Europeans Back Bush on Iran, North Korea
The White House has responded to a new videotape from Al Qaeda's number two in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, by saying the video is part of the terrorist organization's "propaganda war."
A White House official said "This tape reminds us that Zawahiri and the Al-Qaeda leadership continue to wage a propaganda war and attempt to spread a corrupt ideology of violence and hatred."
Well, that is indeed true. I have no qualms at all with that statement.
However, before BushCo. goes around lecturing anyone else (even the evil b&stards in Al Qaeda) about propaganda, let's just remind them that George W. Bush had himself admitted that he propagandizes the American people. He admits that he sells propaganda to us.
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."-- George W. Bush
Al-Qaeda video part of 'propaganda war'
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050524-3.html (White House transcript of event where George Bush talks of the need "to kind of catapult the propaganda."
The Democrats have truly been handed a gift from the Republican Party.
If they are smart, they will use it.
This week, the Republican Party showed the American people just whose side they are on.
The Republican-led Senate defeated a Democratic measure to increase the minimum to $7.25, from the current $5.15. The minimum wage has not been raised in 9 years.
So what did they do after defeating the minimum wage bill? Republicans then turned their attention to helping the insanely rich. Republicans in the House of Representatives passed a measure to lower the estate tax (taxes paid on inherited estates).
Congratulations are in order for former Vice President (and President-Elect) Al Gore.
His movie on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth," has won a special award from the Humanitas Prize, which recognizes and gives honor to screenwriting which assists in "liberate, enrich and unify society."
This is an honor truly deserved for him.
Al Gore's documentary wins special award
You might call it "cutting and running." Yesterday, Republicans in the House of Representatives delayed the re-authorization of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, after several members of their party raised objections to some of the provisions in the Act.
Specifically, some Republicans take issue with a long-standing provision in the Voting Rights Act that calls for the federal oversight of certain states' election laws.
Under the Act, there are nine states with a history of racial discrimination, that must receive approval from the Justice Department or a federal judge before implementing changes to their election laws. And some Southern Republicans say this is unfair; that these states should not be subject to federal oversight of their election laws, simply because of their racist past.
But events over recent years prove that this provision in the Act is still important; more important now than ever, in fact!
The Georgia Voter ID Law is a good example.
Last year, under the guise of "voter fraud" (which really isn't a huge problem in this country), the state of Georgia attempted to implement a voter ID requirement, that would have required voters to show a government-issued ID in order to cast a ballot. Georgia voters who don't have a driver's license, would have had to purchase a government-issued photo ID.
Georgia is one of the states covered under the Voting Rights Act, and thus their voter ID measure had to go to the Justice Department for approval. Career lawyers in the Civil Rights Division, Voting Rights Section recommended that DOJ oppose the voter ID measure, saying it would due particular harm to Georgia's African-American voters. (Their decision was based on documents that the state of Georgia had provided, showing that tens of thousands of Georgians did not have a driver's license or other ID required). However, the career lawyers were overruled by political appointees within DOJ. A federal judge ended up striking down the Georgia Voter ID Law, saying it was tantamount to an unconstitutional poll tax. Republicans in Georgia have said they will attempt to re-write the meausure and make the ID cards free for taking.
Had Georgia not been subject to federal oversight, they would have implemented an illegal poll tax.
There was also the case of a Texas re-districting plan (spearheaded by then House Majority Leader Tom Delay) which came before the Justice Department. Career lawyers found that Delay's redistricting plan violated the Voting Rights Act because it would have unfairly diluted African-American and Hispanic voting power. But once again, they were overruled by top officials in DOJ (read: the politicos).
What's more, former and current career lawyers within the Justice Department say that the politicos have wielded unusual influence in some of the highly charged cases that have come before them, like the Delay redistricting plan. And they say that over the past five years (read: on BushCo's watch) many of the decisions made have benefitted Republicans.
In January of this year, the Washington Post reported that the Voting Rights Section had lost approximately a third of its three dozen lawyers within nine months. The remaining staff have been forbidden from making recommendations in major voting rights cases, and have been affored very little input on hiring and policy decisions.
The Georgia voter ID measure and the Texas redistricting plan are just two of the many examples of why we need continued federal oversight of certain states' election laws. And we need a Justice Department that is committed to keeping politics out of its voting decisions, and respects the professional opinions of its career lawyers.
House delays renewal of Voting Rights Act
Politics Alleged In Voting Cases
Justice Officials Are Accused of Influence
I really do feel sorry for the Republicans still holding out hope that we'll find weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. Really, it would be so much easier for you to join us in the reality-based community.
Senator Rick Santorum and Rep. Peter Hoekstra joined forces on yesterday to announce that “we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.”
Hold on, my dear friends from Free Republic. Before you get breathless with anticipation....you should know that Fox New's Jim Angle contacted the Pentagon, who quickly debunked Santorum and Hoekstra's claims that the WMDs have finally been found!
A Pentagon official said that the munitions Santorum and Hoekstra were referring to are “not the WMD’s for which this country went to war.”
From Think Progress:
So much for supporting the troops and their families.
The Pentagon admits it waited nine months before telling the families of 2 U.S. soldiers, that their loved ones were killed by Iraqi troops.
Army Spc. Patrick R. McCaffrey and 2nd Lt. Andre D. Tyson were shot by Iraqi civil defense officers. Their families were just notified how how they died.
McCaffrey's mother Nadia says that Iraqi forces training with our American soldiers had fired on them twice before the incident that killed her son. She says her son had informed his superiors.
Meanwhile, Tyson's grandmother says "They never tell the family the truth. You know how politics is."
This is a matter of common decency. The family members of soldiers killed in combat deserve to know the truth (and expeditiously so) about how their loved one died.
They don't deserve to be strung along, and kept waiting for the truth.
But this Pentagon knows it has an unpopular war on its hands, and they can't go out there and make the case that everything is coming up roses in Iraq when the very people that we are training to take control of their country, are turning on our troops.
Pentagon waited months to tell families 2 soldiers killed by Iraqis
Definitely required reading for today.
The Washington Post is examining the widening gap between the rich and the poor in our nation's metropolitan areas. According to a Brookings Institution study, middle-class neighborhoods are steadily declining, giving way to neighborhoods segregated by income. In the United States' largest 100 metro areas, middle-income neighborhoods have decreased from 58% in 1970, to 41% in 2000.
Michael Jackson once sang "I always feel like somebody's watching me." Perhaps the so-called King of Pop was on to something.
Salon.com is carrying an exclusive story that suggests a collaboration between the National Security Agency (NSA) and phone company giant AT&T, to possbily spy on Americans' internet activity.
Two former employees of AT&T say that since 2002, AT&T has maintained a secretive,highly secure room in St. Louis. And they say that government work is being conducted in this room. Only government officials and AT&T employees with top-secret security clearance are permitted to enter the room.
And according to the former AT&T employees, their supervisors told them that those inside the room were "monitoring network traffic" and that a "government agency" was using the room.
So if the government is indeed monitoring the internet activity of Americans, I would simply ask: why?
Why does the National Security Agency need to know if I go to the Google search engine to try to find one of Rachel Ray's recipes? Why do they need to know if I look for information on migraines?
Gee, we should could have used this enthusiasm by the government on September 10, 2001, when the NSA intercepted Al Qaeda communication that said "the match begins tomorrow" and "tomorrow is zero hour." They didn't bother translating the intercepted communication until September 12, one day after the 9/11 attacks.
So author Ron Suskind has a new book out called The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11.
And he talks about Bush's reaction upon receiving the now-famous August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) entitled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US."
Remind you, this was during the "summer of threat" when former CIA director George Tenet says that he was running around with his hair "on fire."
So you would expect that, given the nature of the August 6 PDB, George W. Bush would have galvanized into action. Ask the tough questions of his national security team. Perhaps you'd expect him to reach out to then-White House Counter-terrorism Chief Richard Clarke, who in January 2001 had asked for an "urgent and important" principles-level meeting to discuss the threat form Al Qaeda.
Just what was George Bush's reaction, then, to the August 6 PDB entitled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US."
He looked at the CIA briefer going over the PDB, and simply told him "All right. You've covered your ass, now."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901211.html?sub=AR
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/06/20/911pdb/index.html
Sometimes (many times, in fact) the far-right neo-cons just make my job on this blog so much easier!
Bill O'Reilly says that if he were President of Iraq, he would run the country just like Sadaam did.
Transcript courtesy of Media Matters:
O'REILLY: So because -- what you have here now is a tipping point in history. A tipping point in history. So you have to win the Iraq situation. Now, to me, they're not fighting it hard enough. See, if I'm president, I've got probably another 50-60,000 with orders to shoot on sight anybody violating curfews. Shoot 'em on sight. That's me. President O'Reilly, curfew in Ramadi, 7 o'clock at night. You're on the street, you're dead. I shoot you right between the eyes. OK?
That's how I'd run that country -- just like Saddam ran it. Saddam didn't have explosions. He didn't have bombers, did he? Because if you got out of line, you're dead.
Now, is that the kind of country I want for Iraq? No. But you have to have that for a few months to stabilize the situation so the Iraqi government can get organized, can get security in place and get the structure going. So, any area that is giving you trouble, you have a 7-to-7 curfew. And you can't come out of your house. That's it. And if you do, we shoot you. That's how you control it. All right?
In an interview with The Australian, former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage predicts that the Iraqi government may soon ask the United States to leave Iraq.
From The Australian:
"The British used to make a big deal of walking around in their berets in the south," he said. "Now they won't even go to the latrines without their helmets. The south has got much rougher, it's mainly Shia on Shia violence."
Mr Armitage said much of the violence came from differences over how the Islamic religion should be interpreted.
And he said he believed the Iraqis would soon ask the US to leave their country.
Well of course they are going to be asked to leave. Because in Iraq, our troops have become the target. We, the professed "liberators," have become the target of those we claimed to have wanted to liberate.
And as I mentioned on here recently, the Iraqi Vice President has asked George Bush to provide a timetable for withdrawal. (http://progressiveminds.bloghi.com/2006/06/15/iraqi-vice-president-to-bush-give-us-a-timeline-for-withdrawal.html)
If we are truly the nation of laws that we profess to be, then that means NO ONE is above the law, including our government (whether it be at the federal, state or local level).
But it seems that certain people haven't gotten the memo yet.
Today we learned that several federal and local law enforcement agencies circumvented the law to obtain the personal phone records of American citizens. Instead of obtaining the information via subpoenas and warrants, they used private data brokers to get the phone records.
So who within BushCo. was in on the act? The Department of Homeland Security, the Justice Department and the U.S. Marshal service all used private data brokers to gather the phone records of American citizens.
AP: Police got phone data from brokers
If the GOP is really the Party that wants to promote a culture of life, what explains their obsession with guns?
It turns out Bush's Brain, Karl Rove, was given the gift of a $2,073 shot-gun by the owner of the South Texas ranch where Dick Cheney accidentally shot a hunting companion.
If the Republicans are so eager to pick up guns, perhaps they could fight the REAL war on terror by going over to Afghanistan and trying to find the guy who's responsible for the attacks on our country on 9/11.
That's right, I forget. They prefer for other people to do the real fighting.
Tariq al-Hashimi, Vice President of Iraq, has asked Bushie to give him a timelime for withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq. The request came during a meeting with Bush in Iraq on Tuesday. The President of Iraq, President Jalal Talabani, supports this request for a withdrawal timeline.
Of course, Bushie has consistently rejected any calls from here within the United States, for a timelime for withdrawal from Iraq.
Now that the people of Iraq are speaking up in favor of a timeline, how long will it be before the Bush apologists call them unpatriotic and say they hate us for our freedoms?
Top Sunni asked Bush for pullout timeline
During his daily press briefing, White House Press Secretary Tony had this to say about the fact that as of today, the United States has lost 2,500 service men and women in Iraq:
"It's a number, and every time there's one of these 500 benchmarks people want something. The President would like the war to be over now. Everybody would like the war to be over now. And the one thing that we saw in Iraq this week is further testimony to the quality of the men and the women who are doing that, and the dedication and determination to try to ensure that the people of Iraq really do live in a free, effective democracy of their own creation and design."
Is that all they are to you, Tony? "A number?" There are people behind those numbers. People who gave unselfishly of themselves to serve their country. And they deserved better from their Commander-in-Chief.
And you are darn right, Tony, that "people want something."
We want a clear exit strategy for Iraq. And even though it would be belatedly, we want a plan to win the peace.
Now here's what we don't want. We don't want Iraq to become the 51st state.
And if George W. Bush really wanted this war over with now, then he needs to demonstrate that. Don't just talk about it, be about it.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060615-4.html
Paging Dr. Frist! Where's Sen. Bill Frist, M.D., when you really need him?
A hospital has given a Dallas, Texas mother two weeks to find another facility that is willing to take her 11-month old son who is currently on life support. The mother and the hospital disagree over whether it would be futile to continue life support for the 11 month old boy.
The ethics board at the hospital, has agreed with the baby's doctor, that it would be futile to continue him on life support. His mom disagrees.
This battle is largely a result of a law that George W. Bush signed into law when he was Governor of Texas. The law allows hospitals in Texas to discontinue life support against the wishes of the patient's family members, but they must give the family 10 days notice of their intention to discontinue life support, in order to allow the family to find another facility willing to take their loved one.
And that's a demonstration of family values how, W? To tell a family that doctors can discontinue their loved one's life support without their permission?
So back to my original question: When will Bill Frist step up to the plate on this one? He inserted himself into the Terri Schiavo case, essentially calling Michael Schiavo a bad husband for trying to execute his wife's stated wishes. I guess he thought he knew more than Michael Schiavo, what was better for Terri.
Will he rise up to support this mother trying to keep her son on life support?
Mom fights to keep baby on life support
Is the United States Congress finally getting a clue? Are they finally waking up to the fact that they have an oversight function respective to the Executive Branch?
The United States Senate voted 98-to-0 to force BushCo. to acutually start submitting, imagine this, a BUDGET for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, instead of trying to fund the wars through emergency bills.
Six years into this failed Administration, and the Congress just now decides to start exercising its responsibility?
Better late than never, I guess.
Speaking about Iraq during a press conference today, George Bush said:
"And democracy causes you to respond to the people's needs. Tyrants don't have to. They don't have -- sometimes they may have to, but they always have got kind of an interesting way of helping suppress dissent. This elected government is going to have to respond to the people, and that's a big change."
So by his own definition, George Bush is a tyrant.
In January 2005, on the heels of his second coronation, he was asked by the Washington Post why no one in the Administration was held accountable for the missteps in Iraq, and he responded that their moment of accountability had passed.
The Post: In Iraq, there's been a steady stream of surprises. We weren't welcomed as liberators, as Vice President Cheney had talked about. We haven't found the weapons of mass destruction as predicted. The postwar process hasn't gone as well as some had hoped. Why hasn't anyone been held accountable, either through firings or demotions, for what some people see as mistakes or misjudgments?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 election. And the American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me, for which I'm grateful.
In other words, Bush was saying that because the election had passed, he was no longer accountable to the American people. He didn't have to respond to them anymore.
Democrats, take heed.
Robert Redford with the comment of the day:
"Democrats need to regain the courage that's lost with political compromises over the last few years. They've got to get it together. If they don't, it will not only be a tragedy for them, but a tragedy for the country."
"Republicans are not about substance, they're about strategy, and they're good at it."
"Democrats could learn a lot from the Republicans about strategy."
Redford To Democrats: Show More Courage
Not much of a shocker here...but still an interesting read.
A survey by the Pew Research Group found that people in European and Muslim countries view the United States' policy in Iraq as a bigger threat to global peace, even more so than Iran's nuclear ambitions.
The survey results found that the United States has lost much of the goodwill it generated in the aftermath of its enormous response to the 2004 tsunami and that our reputation continues to decline over the prosecution of the war on terror. (Which is strange to me, because if we were actually prosecuting the war on terror, then we would be focusing like a laser beam on the main person responsible for the attacks on us on 9/11. Instead we are faced with a 'President' who says he doesn't spend much time on Osama; he doesn't know or care where he is).
Here's a breakdown by country:
- In India, goodwill towards the U.S. fell from 71% to 56%
- In Spain, goodwill towards the U.S. dropped from 41% to 23%
- In Turkey, goodwill towards the U.S. went from 23% to 12%
What's more, a majority of people in 10 of the 14 countries (excluding the U.S.) surveyed said the Iraq war has made the world less safe, not more safe. Gee, ya think? We took a country that was not known for being a haven for terrorists, and turned it into a terrorist state.
You can't win hearts and minds when you start a war based on lies, and have a foreign policy based on arrogance and a with-us-or-against-us mindset.
What is up with Jim Moran?
He gave the Arlington Sun Gazzette a peek into how he would run a House Appropriations Subcommittee if the Democrats re-take the house this year.
He said "When I become chairman
Memo to Jim: We have a name for that. It's called pork.
And if the Democrats want to demonstrate that they are the truly fiscal responsible party, these comments certainly don't help.
Moran: Democratic Majority Means More Money for 8th District
I think those of us who are progressive/left of center need better spokespeople.
Listening to Larry King tonight, I'm disappointed in those who are speaking up in support of the Jersey Girls.
Of course I agree with them.
But they are not making some of the arguments that need to be made.
- They failed to note that not one of the Jersey Girls has tried to prevent Ann Coulter from responding to them. Conservative David Horowitz is on there basically making the same point Ann Coulter has: that the Jersey Girls have used their grief to make a political point and prevent anyone from responding.
But I did not hear Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) or the others on the panel say that no one has tried to preclude Coulter from responding.
- And when Horowitz and the other right-wingers on the panel talk about the Jersey Girls cutting ads for John Kerry, not once did any of the panelists on the left step up to say that the Republicans put up their own widows (i.e. Deena Burnett) to go out there and support Bush and the Iraq war. They failed to mention Deena Burnett's appearance at a "You Don't Speak For Me, Cindy" rally in Crawford, Texas, invoking her husband's name by saying he would have supported the Iraq war. They failed to mention that she spoke at the 2004 Republican Convention.
Nor did they mention Bush trotting out Tammy Pruett, a mother with 4 sons serving in Iraq, to be the anti-Cindy Sheehan. And of course they failed to mention that the most vocal of the Jersey Girls, Kristen Breitweiser, is actually a Republican who voted for Bush in 2000.
They just aren't making the arguments that need to be made. I'm really disappointed.
It was really disheartening to watch. I amost felt like the girlfriend waiting expectantly for her boyfriend to propose, and feeling let down when it doesn't happen.
The supporters of the Jersey Girls really missed some opportunities tonight to factually correct the record for Ann Coulter.
For years, Bush has treated Republican lawmakers "like pesky younger siblings, ignoring their ideas and calling on them only to promote his legislation on Capitol Hill." But with his poll numbers in the toilet, George Bush has apparently decided to try a little diplomacy on Capitol Hill.
And just what does the Bush doctrine of diplomacy include? Cocktail parties!
In order to get his failed agenda pushed through Congress, Bush has taken to inviting Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill to intimate cocktail parties on the Truman Balcony, even though he usually doesn't have any intention on taking the advice they have to offer him.
Apparently we have a bunch of groupie lawmakers on Capitol Hill who think that 15 minutes alone with the President and First Lady, sipping on cocktails on the Truman Balcony, means Bush really cares about their opinions; that he's really interested in what they have to say.
NOT!
If Bush were really interested in diplomacy and reaching out, maybe he should try reaching out to people like Cindy Sheehan, and finally answer her one question: for what noble cause did Casey Sheehan die.
Or perhaps he would invite Kristen Breitweiser to meet with him, not for cocktails, but for a serious discussion about implementing the recommendations from the 9/11 Commission.
But that's just me.
As Agenda Falters, Bush Tries a More Personal Approach in Dealing With Congress
Are Congressional Republicans trying to make Iraq the 51st state? That's what it sounds like to me.
They deleted language from an Iraq war funding bill that would have prohibited permanent basing of U.S. military facilities in Iraq.
Under the original funding bill that passed the House of Representatives, the Pentagon would have been prohibited from spending any money to enter into a military basing rights agreement with Iraq. The Senate also included similar language in its bill, saying that the Pentagon could not use the next batch of war funds to "establish permanent United States military bases in Iraq, or to exercise United States control over the oil infrastructure or oil resources of Iraq."
But Republican staffers removed the language from the bills.
And yet they wonder why we are having such a hard time winning the hearts and minds. Maybe it would be easier to win the hearts and minds if the Iraqi people had a sense that we didn't want to have a permanent presence in their country.
We are well on our way to making Iraq the 51st state.
For all the mano-a-man bravado that he tries to show, George W. Bush is really a coward at heart.
Michael Brown, former Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), says that shortly before he was forced out of FEMA, he received an email from a high-ranking White House official. The email expressed George Bush's relief that Brown was taking the brunt of the blame for the federal government's slow response to Hurricane Katrina, as opposed to him or Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.
On September 25, Michael Brown received an email from a top White House official that read:
"I did hear of one reference to you, at the Cabinet meeting yesterday. I wasn't there, but I heard someone commented that the press was sure beating up on Mike Brown, to which the president replied, 'I'd rather they beat up on him than me or Chertoff.' "
Additionally, it says:
"Congratulations on doing a great job of diverting hostile fire away from the leader."
1. I know I've talked about it before here on the blog, and now a Census Bureau survey confirms the ethnic cleansing in New Orleans. The first Census Bureau estimates since Hurricane Katrina, show that New Orleans is now a wealthier and whiter city post-Katrina.
The survey shows that New Orleans become 73% white after Katrina, up from 59% before the storm.
Census outlines face of today's New Orleans
2. CNN's Soledad O'Brien talked to Michael Berg, whose son Nicholas was needlessly and brutally beheaded by terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. And in this interview, you really see the power of forgiveness. Michael Berg makes a very valid point that violence just begats violence, and he takes no pleasure in the killing of the terrorist who beheaded his son. This is a must read interview!
Appears as though the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Europe make one heck of a tag team.
Swiss Senator Dick Marty says that 14 European countries tag teamed with the CIA in what he referred to as a "spider's web" of human rights abuses, in which the European countries helped the CIA transfer terror suspects to illegal detention facilities. His report was made to Europe's top human rights body.
As Amnesty International noted in their press release regarding the report, these renditions include: "'disappearances', arbitrary detention, illegal transfers and torture or other ill-treatment."
Marty says he thus far cannot confirm the existence of secret CIA detention centers (Duh! That's why they are "secret" Marty!). But he also noted that Euopean governments "did not seem particularly eager to establish" the facts regarding these renditions (I wonder why?)
Now, I can almost here some of our friends on the right making the point (as they've done before) that why should we care how so-called terror suspects are treated during detention?
Well, the answer is simple. Torture is ineffective as an intelligence tool. If you torture a member of Al Qaeda who was captured in the heat of the battle in Afghanistan, the chances are you aren't going to get valid information from that person, on possible plans for the next attack.
As Sen. John McCain (who was tortured himself in Vietnam) has pointed out: "Subjecting prisoners to abuse leads to bad intelligence because under torture a detainee will tell his interrogator anything to make the pain stop."
Probe of CIA prisons implicates EU nations
Europe colluded in CIA prisoner "spider's web"
Amnesty International Applauds Council of Europe's Call on European Countries to Stop Renditions
U.S. military investigators have concluded that the April 29 murder of an Iraqi civilian in the town of Hamdaniya was premeditated; planned out by a group of Marines.
They believe the marines entered Hamdaniya in search of an insurgent, and, having failed to find said insurgent, removed an unarmed civilian from his home and shot him.
What's more, the Marines are believed to have planted a shovel and AK-47 rifle at the scene of the murder, to make it look as though the man they shot had been attempting to dig a hole for a roadside bomb, and thus was killed in an exchange of gunshots.
I know I've asked it before (almost ad naseum) but I believe it bears repeating. How is it that we have tortured and murdered the very people that we said we were going into Iraq to liberate?
Those "core values" at work, huh?
Official: Marines Believed to Plan Killing
Sen. Arlen Specter, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, says Dick Cheney is impeding his Committe's investigation into the National Security Agency's (NSA's) data mining of private telephone records.
Specter wrote a three page letter to Cheney, in which he says Cheney lobbied members of the Senate Judiciary Committee behind his back, and precluded the nation's telephone companies from testifying before the Committee.
In the letter he wrote: "I was surprised, to say the least, that you sought to influence, really determine, the action of the committee without calling me first." He further wrote "there is no doubt the NSA (surveillance) program violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act."
Even though Arlen Specter is rightfully taking the Administration to task, I get the sense that it's not necessarily his purest of motives. The line that stood out for me in his letter was "I was surprised, to say the least, that you sought to influence, really determine, the action of the committee without calling me first." So Specter has a problem just because Cheney didn't give him a call?
Dick Cheney, as a member of the executive branch, should not be trying to control an investigation that is being conducted by the Senate Judiciary Committe, which, of course, is in our legislative branch. Who cares that Cheney didn't call Specter? The fact is that Cheney should not be running interference on the Judiciary Committee at all, regardless of who he did or did not call.
And you also see the arrogance of the Administration in their response to Specter. Jennifer Mayfield, a spokeswoman for Cheney, said "We do not need any legislation to carry out the terrorist-surveillance program." Read: We could care less what the Senate Judiciary Committe thinks of our domestic spy program. We're going to do it anyway.
This is an Administration that has demonstrated it has no respect at all for the fact that we have 3 separate but co-equal branches of government, and that the legislative branch has been given oversight responsibility of the executive branch.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, had the comment of the day: "Why don't we just recess for the rest of the year, pass a resolution which a Republican-controlled Congress could easily pass, and just simply say: We'll have no more hearings and Vice President Cheney will just tell the nation what laws we'll have. He'll let us know what laws will be followed and which laws will not be followed."
Specter accuses Cheney of interfering with surveillance investigation
Republicans talk a good game about "compassionate conservatism" and Christian values, but their actions and legislative votes prove otherwise.
On a party-line vote, The House Appropriations Labor-HHS Subcommittee approved a bill that would cut funding for health research, school aid and social services for the poor.
Under the bill, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) would face cuts, including its programs that conduct research into child development, alcohol and drug abuse, mental health and general medicine.
As well, the bill would cut grants that help schools recruit, hire and train teachers in order to meet mandates under the No Child Left Behind Act (which, coincidentally, is one of the so-called hallmarks of Bushie's presidency). It also cuts safe and drug free school grants.
But the Republicans on the Committee somehow (surprise!) found funding for their pet projects back home, including grants for their local hospitals and clinics, and research funding for colleges and universities in their districts.
House panel cuts health research budget
I really do hate to give Ann Coulter's new book any play, but I can't help but comment on her recent hate-mongering diatribe.
In her latest book (Godless: The Church of Liberalism), Coulter takes aim at some 9/11 widows (specifically the "Jersey Girls") who lobbied for the creation of the 9/11 Commission and have criticized the Bush Administration's actions before and in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks.
She accuses the widows of acting as though 9/11 "only happened to them" and writes "I've never seen people enjoying their husband's deaths so much." She also refers to them as the "Witches of East Brunswick."
Coulter made an appearance on NBC's Today Show on yesterday to promote her book, and Matt Lauer read the following passage from the book:
"These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation, and acted as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently denouncing Bush was an important part of their closure process. These broads are millionaires lionized on tv and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-a-razzies. I’ve never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much."
On the Today show, Coulter asserted that the Jersey Girls were "using their political grief to make a political point while preventing anyone from responding" and took them to task for cutting commercials for Sen. John Kerry during the 2004 campaign.
She referred to what she called "the left's doctrine of infallability" and cited others like Cindy Sheehan.
For the record, I don't think anyone on the left has ever said that supporters of George Bush should not criticize the Jersey Girls simply because they are grieving widows.
I think any rationale human being would conclude that if someone has a policy or political disagreement with the Jersey Girls, they are more than welcome to speak about it. However, Ann Coulter, you shouldn't use your disagreements to personally attack them as "self-obsessed" widows who are "enjoying their husband's deaths."
What's more, Ann Coulter conveniently left out some key facts.
In citing the Jersey Girls as an example of "the left's doctrine of infallability," she failed to note that the most vocal of the group, Kristen Breitweiser, is a Republican who voted for George W. Bush in the 2000 election.
When they gathered at the National Press Club to explain their endorsement of Sen. Kerry, Mrs. Breitweiser said: "In the three years since 9/11, I could never have imagined I would be here today, disappointed in the person I voted for, for president."
When she was asked if her support of Kerry meant she was no longer a Republican, she said no. She told writer Mary Jacoby "I'm not a Democrat!" (Gee, that Kristen Breitweiser is one crazy liberal, isn't she Ann?)
Kristen Breitweiser was also asked by Newsweek magazine why she wouldn't be voting again for George W. Bush the second time around:
NEWSWEEK: You supported Bush in 2000. Why are you changing your vote this year?
Kristen Breitweiser: The predominant reason is because I don’t feel President Bush has done everything he could do to make us safer in the three years since 9/11. I’ve personally spent the last three years fighting to try to fix the problems that plague our intelligence apparatus, so we would not be so vulnerable to Al Qaeda the next time around. And during the three years, our largest adversary was the administration. Because of that, I can’t in good conscience vote for President Bush.
Ann Coulter also failed to note that Republicans have used grieving widows and mothers to make their political points.
For example, at the 2004 Republican Convention, they trotted out Deena Burnett, whose husband was killed on Flight 93.
Also, when George Bush went looking for the "anti-Cindy Sheehan" he found it in Tammy Pruett, a mother with four sons serving in Iraq. ( I talked about Tammy Pruett and Cindy Sheehan here http://progressiveminds.bloghi.com/2005/08/25/mom-against-mom.html). Tammy Pruett didn't know Cindy Sheehan's reality because she had not lost one of her sons in Iraq, but she spoke out in support of George Bush and the war in Iraq by saying "I know that if something happens to one of the boys, they would leave this world doing what they believe, what they think is right for our country. And I guess you couldn't ask for a better way of life than giving it for something that you believe in."
But I don't hear Ann Coulter talking about the right's "doctrine of infallability."
So to Ann Coulter, I say: Do you have to agree with what the Jersey Girls have said regarding 9/11 and Bush? No, of course not. But do you need to respec their right to say it without attacking them personally? Absolutely!!
"President Bush thwarted our attempts at every turn"
Clinton slams Coulter's 'vicious' put-down of some 9/11 widows
And watch Ann Coulter's hate-filled diatribe on the Today show by going here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12065856/) and scrolling down to the section "Tuesday's videos."
