The Turd Baron of the Bushwaffe gets fitted for his parachute

AP has the dance:

Bush said in June 2004 that he would fire anyone in his administration shown to have leaked information that exposed the identity of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. On Monday, however, he added the qualifier that it would have be shown that a crime was committed.

Asked at a June 10, 2004, news conference if he stood by his pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked Plame's name, Bush answered, "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts."

"...It's best people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions. I don't know all the facts. I want to know all the facts," Bush said Monday. "I would like this to end as quickly as possible. If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

I'd say "unbelieveable," but was there really any doubt we'd soon see the groundwork for giving the Blossom an out? Hopefully the press corps still has some spine left over from last week, but it certainly wasn't apparent judging by the way they gave Dubs a pass on his equivocating. At least the AP was on the stick and pointed out the backpedaling. The "straight shooter" rep, so carefully cultivated during the '04 con-game campaign, takes yet another hit.

Rove...Rove...Rove...

A full week, and what else is there to say? (other than that Scooter Libby needs to be taken out to the woodshed, too.  Any doubts on which of those jokers gets thrown under the bus?)

 

You said it, Turd Blossom.

 

If you said it and knew what you were doing, you're a spiteful, nigh-traitorous ass.

 

If you said it and didn't think to ask, you're an utterly dull-witted, incompetant ass.

 

Either way, you shouldn't be trusted to run a hot dog cart.

Isn't it ironic...don'tcha think?

Why'd we go into Iraq?

They had Weapons of Mass Destruction.

To reduce the threat of terrorism.

To free the Iraqi people, facilitating stability in the region through the spread of democracy in the face of despotic regimes.

Having not only failed to find WMD, but succeeded in turning the country into a summer camp for urban terrorists-in training, we were left with the third rationale...until this morning.

Iraq signs military pact with Iran

BAGHDAD - Iraq signed a military pact with Iran on Wednesday in a breakthrough with a former foe, but al Qaeda said it would kill Egypt's kidnapped envoy and attack more diplomats to stop the government winning international support.

Defense Minister Saadoun al-Dulaimi signed a pact in Tehran agreeing to accept Iranian military training and other cooperation with the country Iraq fought for a decade under ousted leader Saddam Hussein.

Responding to the suggestion that the thaw in ties with Iran would anger Washington, Dulaimi said: "Nobody can dictate to Iraq its relations with other countries." (Courtesy of Reuters)

Un. Real.

Evidently, this is what happens when strategy emerges from the Bizarro-world that is the Bush White House. Is it really possible, with even the most cursory of planning, to have a situation stray so fantastically far from its stated aims? Someone must've tripped over a black cat, fallen underneath a ladder, and broken the mirrors he was carrying, all while trying to open his umbrella indoors to garner that kind of luck.

First, "last throes" were steadily spiking violence and body counts. Then, "fighting terrorism" resulted in the creation of a training ground for new converts. Now "combatting oppression with Democracy" has managed to heal the rift between Iraq and a decades-old adversary and charter member of the Axis of Evil. A right, bang-up job, here, gentlemen.

Exactly how much pressure is the blooming Iraqi democracy going to put on the government of a neighbor that's helping it get its military back on its feet? How supportive is it going to be of the U.S. hardline stance against its new ally? No thinktank necessary on this one.

Falling short in achieving a stated objective is acceptable. Things happen; unpredictable variables can arise. But to have your efforts not only fail, but achieve results that are the polar opposite of what was desired? It's like Sherman salting the fields and Johnny Reb ending up with bumper crops...of Popeye-grade spinach.

At this rate, we're better off pretending North Korea doesn't even exist for the next four years. Christ knows what will happen if we turn our energies towards them.

Dozens dead...hundreds injured...one great opportunity to stay 'on message' (or, "Yet another reason FOX blows")

Thanks to Media Matters for spotting it (and none to FOX "News" for voicing it):

KILMEADE: And he [British PM Tony Blair] made the statement, clearly shaken, but clearly determined. This is his second address in the last hour. First to the people of London, and now at the G8 summit, where their topic Number 1 --believe it or not-- was global warming, the second was African aid. And that was the first time since 9-11 when they should know, and they do know now, that terrorism should be Number 1. But it's important for them all to be together. I think that works to our advantage, in the Western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together, just 500 miles from where the attacks have happened.

VARNEY: It puts the Number 1 issue right back on the front burner right at the point where all these world leaders are meeting. It takes global warming off the front burner. It takes African aid off the front burner. It sticks terrorism and the fight on the war on terror, right up front all over again.

KILMEADE: Yeah.

Whew. For a minute there, it looked like this administration was going to have to address (on the world stage, at that) issues on which the vast majority of our citizens know it to be completely full of shit. Thankfully, for the sake of the entire Western World (apparently), it's able to return focus to a stronger topic--one where only about half our citizens know it to be full of shit.

That was a close one, wasn't it, Brian?

Just when I think FOX's bootlicking can't get any more despicable (following their oh-so-obedient regurgitation of the continued Bush/Rove rhetorical rape of the 9/11 dead) they come out with something like this while bodies are still being pulled from the Underground. People are dead, a nation is in mourning, and all Brian Kilmeade sees is a soapbox for making withering comments about how utterly foolish it is to devote time to addressing the environment or crises in developing nations. His air of condescention is positively staggering.

"Believe it or not, they were going to address such-and-such."

As if to say, "Now, hopefully you silly people understand what we knew all along."

What everyone should understand is what sort of crass, opportunistic shilling is being passed off as jounalism by the FOXagandists.

O'Connor, my Connor...

We miss you already, Sandra D.

From the NYT:

For her part, Justice O'Connor voted in each case with the group that found the (Ten Commandments) displays unconstitutional, a surprising development given her past voting record. She explained herself in a concurring opinion in the Kentucky case, McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union, No. 03-1693, which was decided with a majority opinion by Justice David H. Souter.

"It is true that many Americans find the Commandments in accord with their personal beliefs," Justice O'Connor said in her concurring opinion. "But we do not count heads before enforcing the First Amendment."

Justice O'Connor said the country had worked well, when compared with nations gripped by religious violence, by keeping religion "a matter for the individual conscience, not for the prosecutor or bureaucrat." She added: "Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?"

Imagine that: respect for both sides while focusing on the law. If the absence of that isn't an "extraordinary circumstance," I don't know what is.

Sandy, Sandy, Sandy, I can't let you go. Life is crazy, Sandy, baby

Last November, whenever I talked to someone who was undecided on the election (few as there were) and he/she asked me what crucial difference had me voting for John Kerry, I consistently answed with two words: Supreme Court. Positions on terrorism, Iraq, the economy, and the environment, aside, the SCOTUS vacancies expected in the next four years would shape this country for decades to come, and in ways that would directly affect the daily life of its citizens. High court appointees not being the most intuitive of x-factors, my suddenly gravely serious insistances were most often met with, "You really think so?"

Now, nine months later, like some jurisprudential Rosemary's Baby, what should emerge from the womb of our constitutional legal system? Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement in advance of the (even more) expected departures of William Rehnquist (b. 1924) and John Paul Stevens (b. 1920).

This could make the John Bolton nomination look like a garden party.

Said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) while making the rounds of the morning shows, "The president is going to choose a conservative," but added, "I don't think he's going to choose a right-wing conservative."

And you don't think that...why, Senator?

"Moderation" and "compromise" have hardly been hallmarks of this administration. The axiom of "My way or the highway," on the other hand, has. One need only look so far as the aforementioned Bolton debacle, where, rather than risk the impression of "giving in" to his opponents' requests, the president steadfastly refuses to provide information even though to do so would, in all likelihood, get him the up-or-down vote he demands. Beyond that, we saw our Uniter-Not-Divider-in Chief use his re-election, not to broaden the cooperation that got 95% of his judicial nominees approved, but to drive the Senate to the brink of implosion by ramming through the handful that lacked that support.

For all of our sakes, I hope Sen. Hatch is right is his assessment of the situation, but there's definitely an ill-wind blowing when we're already seeing things like this emanating from the radical Christians who make up the president's base:

"Although we applaud her decision to step down and care for her ailing husband, her 'swing-vote' status on the Supreme Court over the issues of abortion and homosexual rights wrought more havoc upon our nation than our foreign enemies ever have." --Rev. Benham of Operation Save America

Yep, another fundy calling judges a greater danger than terrorists.

Belated but still beloved

Independence, n. Freedom from control or influence of another or others.

Surrounded as we are by the now-constant exploitation of certain images, not to mention words, like "patriot," and "freedom," on (or just after) this day of legitimate flag-waving, it's good to remember what we're really celebrating, and how simple an idea it is.

To be sure, taking "independence" to an extreme would mean total lawlessness, something which, I have no doubts, many conservative ideologues believe to be their opponents' goal and driving force. So let's preclude any accusations of advocating anarchy with just one more word: "undue."

Freedom from undue control or influence of another or others.

Now what is or isn't "due," is, undoubtedly, a source for more debate, but it's a step in the right direction, and at the very least, something to think about when the public discourse turns to rights, freedoms, and what constitutes American/Unamerican.

When labels like that are being thrown about, from one end of the political spectrum to the other, ask yourself this: who is working to guarantee what people can do and who is working to dictate what people can't?

With their bodies.

With their loved ones.

With their ideas.

Who among us is standing up for real independence?

con artist, deceiver, deluder, dissimulator, equivocator, fabler, fabricator, fabulist, falsifier, fibber, jive turkey, maligner, misleader, perjurer

(Truthfully, though...who isn't secretly down with "jive turkey?")

Gracias, Cable News Network:

A Republican congressman from North Carolina told CNN on Wednesday that the "evidence is clear" that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.

"Saddam Hussein and people like him were very much involved in 9/11," Rep. Robin Hayes said.

Told no investigation had ever found evidence to link Saddam and 9/11, Hayes responded, "I'm sorry, but you must have looked in the wrong places."

Gracias, Will Bunch at Attytood:

HAYES: He gave us a very good explanation of what the war is about. It's winning the war against terror and people that would kill us, innocent women and children. This is about a military action against ruthless, brutal killers who have no conscience whatsoever.

COSTELLO: Well, we understand that.

HAYES: It's about destroying us.

COSTELLO: But that's not what it started out, when the United States invaded Iraq. It's changed, hasn't it?

HAYES: I don't think it's changed at all. It's very clear that terrorists are connected to what Saddam Hussein was all about. And that again faces up to the most severe threat going forward...

COSTELLO: But there is no...

HAYES: We have to do a good job explaining...

COSTELLO: ... evidence that Saddam Hussein was connected in any way to al Qaeda.

HAYES: Ma'am, I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. There's evidence everywhere. We get access to it, unfortunately others don't. But the evidence is very clear.

COSTELLO: What evidence is there?

HAYES: The connection between individuals who were connected to Saddam Hussein, folks who worked for him, we've seen it time and time again. But the issue is where are we now. Nobody disputes 9/11. They would do that again if not prevented. Preventing 9/11 wherever it might happen in America, winning the war overseas, not bringing it here to our shores, is the issue in that regard.

COSTELLO: Well, are you saying that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11?

HAYES: I'm saying that Saddam Hussein -- and I think you're losing track of what we're trying to talk about here -- Saddam Hussein and people like him were very much involved in 9/11. Did he make the phone call and say...

COSTELLO: There's no evidence of that.

HAYES: Well, I'm sorry, you haven't looked in the right places.

COSTELLO: I must not have, because I know of no evidence connecting Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda. And, also, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And many people writing to us this morning wanted the president to explain those things.

A bullshit-slinging apologist shill, by any other name...

And I was wondering how bad it has to get to call a liar "a liar."

Because raping altar boys is a central plank in the bleeding heart platform

From Sen. Dick Santorum's take on the church sex abuse debacle on Catholic Online:

"While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm."

Damn those devious lefty pied pipers and the millieu of permisiveness they spread, helping lead conservative Catholic clerics into a life of kiddie raping.

Any bets on what would befall Harry Reid or Howard Dean if he discussed some racist incident by saying "it's no surprise that Montgomery (or Jackson, or Birmingham), a seat of academic, political, and cultural conservatism in America, lies at the center of the storm?"

"Does the media report that there are ZERO deaths at Gitmo, before launching into another 'The guard touched the Koran, so that's torture' story? No."

I don't often discuss everyday or overheard views, usually adhering to the "opinions are like assholes," school. Then I ran across this chestnut in a message board I frequent. I shall repeat (since I had to read it a few times before I believed it, either):

"Does the media report that there are ZERO deaths at Gitmo, before launching into another 'the guard touched the Koran, so that's torture' story? No."

This particular sentiment was the coup de grâce of a trifecta of allegations about the bias of the mainstream media, and how they didn't report on "good" news out of Iraq or Afghanistan. Now, unless I'm missing something, his point appears to be that not killing the prisoners in our custody is some of the "good" we're doing that's being marginalized by the MSM.

Say, huh?

Isn't that a bit like making someone employee of the month just because he/she didn't steal from the till? Last I checked, prisoners were usually expected to survive their incarceration. That's not a reason to give credit where credit is due, that's people doing their damn job. If the absence of murder in U.S.-run detention centers becomes what's newsworthy, then we're in some pretty dire straits.

The worst part of this is, if one person feels this way, it's a sure thing that any number of others concur. This is the type of person that's been cultivated through the "support for troops = support for leadership" propaganda. Through fear. Through denouncing dissent. Through labeling different philosophies as all but traitorous.

The presence of bad news gets explained away by the apologists while the lack of good news is blamed on the media conspiracies they conjure out of the ether. And otherwise decent Americans are left convinced that refraining from killing unarmed prisoners is an exercise in restraint worth a hearty clap on the back.

The bar isn't even set low, anymore; it's been thrown in the dirt.

You called down the thunder, well, now you've got it.

"But if the peoples of that region gain the right of self-government, and find hopes to replace their hatreds, then the security of all free nations will be strengthened." -- George W. Bush, 05/07/2005

"Freedom is worth fighting for, dying for, and standing for -- and the advance of freedom leads to peace. And now we must apply that lesson in our own time. In Iran, the demand for democracy is strong and broad....The regime in Teheran must heed the democratic demands of the Iranian people, or lose its last claim to legitimacy." -- George W. Bush, 11/06/2003

"Iran is ruled by men who suppress liberty at home and spread terror across the world...Power is in the hands of an unelected few who have retained power through an electoral process that ignores the basic requirements of democracy. The June 17th presidential elections are sadly consistent with this oppressive record." -- George W. Bush, 06/16/2005

Democracy good. Freedom good. Everyone will be safer. Our Iranian brothers and sisters will surely be emboldened knowing the U.S. stands shoulder-to-shoulder with them on the march for freedom.

"I say to Bush: `Thank you.' He motivated people to vote in retaliation." --Iranian Intelligence Minister Ali Yunesi, 06/19/2005, on the surprise hardline turnout that propelled ultraconservative Tehran Mayor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, into a two way runoff with moderate Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjanion on 06/24/2005

Uh-oh.

"Ultra-conservative Tehran mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad swept to a stunning landslide victory in presidential elections on Saturday and immediately vowed to turn Iran into a strong and exemplary Islamic state." -- Reuters, 06/25/2005

And this is what Bush doesn't seem to understand about democracy and freedom. Just beacause you give people a choice, doesn't mean they'll choose what you want them to. Now are W. and his statements the reasons the hardliners prevailed? No. Economics and dissatisfaction with the current leadership's progress help push many into the Ahmadinejad camp. But it would be ridiculous to think the barbs had no effect. If criticism can be branded as disloyalty here, how can anyone think that the Iranian people might be any less personally invested in their system and motivated to register their repudiation at the ballot box? "We'll show him," translates in any language.

It will be very interesting to see how this helps shape our ongoing dealings (or lack thereof) with Iran. Any "regime change" options in the playbook have taken a serious blow to their viability. Though by no means perfect, there certainly appears to be more legitimacy to the elections in Iran than those in Iraq. This time around, we won't have an iron-fisted despot, we'll have a leader installed by his people. Which is exactly what we want (allegedly) throughout the world. No opportunity for evolving rationales, here.

Ich bin ein patriot...

"What we've seen from Democrat leaders is a growing pattern of jumping at any chance to point the finger at our own troops, bending over backwards to promote the interests of terror-camp detainees while dragging our military's honored reputation through the mud." -- Rep. Deborah Pryce, (R-OH)

"(It) is just inconceivable and truly incorrigible that in the midst of the war, that the Democratic leaders would be conducting guerrilla warfare on American troops." -- Rep. Joe Wilson, (R-SC)

"Has there ever been a more revealing moment this year? Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals." -- Karl Rove, Chief political advisor to George W. Bush

"Naturally, the common people don't want war...That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." -- Hermann Goering, at Nuremberg in 1946.

Ours included.

Lest I leave myself open to Durbin-ing, let us be clear that I don't think Deborah Price is a Nazi. Neither is Joe Wilson. Even Karl Rove, despite being an insufferable, unscrupulous, power-mad shitheel, is not a Nazi. It still doesn't make the efforts they are clearly putting forth any less despicable or deserving of condemnation.

The message is clear: dissent is not only unamerican, but those who express it are actively aiding our enemies. Certain individuals have felt this way as long as there have been conflicts and people who disagree with them. However, though nothing new, these sentiments are being met with something else: official sanction and approval.

"Rove," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "was talking about the different philosophies and our different approaches when it comes to winning the war on terrorism."

Andy Card, White House chief of staff: "Karl Rove's speech was a speech that I think reflected some of the rhetoric that a lot of people feel."

"Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman, speaking in Puerto Rico, said there was no need to apologize because 'what Karl Rove said is true.'"

We 're not dealing with Nazis, but it's something that the American people should find very nearly as frightening.

The Greatest American...race-baiting ratings whore

Oprah Winfry is everywhere. Televisions, newsstands, even one of the top 25 finishers in the Discovery Channel's nationwide "Greatest American" balloting. Apparently she was also at a Parisian Hermes boutique late last week.

After closing time.

While they were allegedly preparing some type of in-store PR event.

And was turned away resulting in "one of the most humiliating moments of her life."

Obviously aware of the substantial influence Ms. Winfry possesses, Hermes and their CEO dutifully apologized publicly for the situation. CNN carried the official reaction from the Oprah camp:

Harpo Productions spokeswoman Michelle McIntyre said Winfrey "will discuss her 'crash moment' when her show returns from hiatus in September."

"Crash" is a film dealing with race relations. The phrase "crash moment" refers to situations where a party feels discriminated against on the basis of skin color.

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

First off, I'm really not sure why this would necessarily make the cover of Us Weekly, let alone one of the top stories on the front page of CNN.com. But "her 'crash moment?'" This isn't about race, it's about a celebrity getting her panties in a twist over not receiving the 'celebrity treatment' she so obviously feels entitled to. (Note to Ms. Winfry: when normal people show up at a store after close, 95% of the time the employees won't acknowledge your presence at the door, let alone let you inside to shop).

It's pathetic that this self-important douchebag wields enough power that the company and its higher-ups feel the need to kow-tow to her for fear of the public relations damage she can cause, at will. What's worse is that she wastes her considerable juice pushing bullshit like this and manufacturing careers for the likes of Dr. Phil.

The only apologies should be the ones from Oprah to every individual whose legitimate suffering due to racism is cheapened by this odious publicity stunt of an "incident." And this is the type of person Americans are ranking among individuals such as Edison, Jefferson, and King. Very interesting that, despite the myriad of woes racism causes, Oprah's story can wait until she returns from hiatus in September. She might be humiliated, but she can certainly hold off on addressing things until she can use it to boost her ratings. Maybe she could bring on James Cameron, 91, the only known survivor of a lynching. Perhaps they could compare "crash moments."

Are you so much of a fucking loser, you can't tell when you've won?

(Regards to RR and QT)

Heads, you get your way. Tails, your opponents look like garbage.

Doesn't get much more win/win than that. After a bitter, protracted battle, who could look a proposition like that in the eye, and say, "You know what, forget that?"

Three guesses.

Against seemingly impossible odds, George Bush has managed to turn the John Bolton nomination into even more of a debacle than it already was. From the AP:

President Bush faces a politically thorny situation — and stark choices — now that Senate Democrats twice have blocked John Bolton's confirmation as U.N. ambassador.

The president could withdraw the nomination, authorize further concessions to Democrats over access to information they seek or bypass lawmakers altogether by appointing the former State Department official to the job temporarily without the Senate's OK.

But any of those options could leave the president appearing weak as he confronts sagging poll numbers and fights to stave off a lame-duck label just six months into his final term.

At a White House news conference Monday, the president left open the possibility of circumventing the Senate when he sidestepped a question on whether he would appoint Bolton to the ambassador's post when Congress leaves Washington for a July 4 recess.

"It's time for the Senate to give him an up-or-down vote. Now," the president said.

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

Now let's keep in mind a couple things: 1.) If there's a vote, there are enough Republicans to rubber stamp the choice and pass the nomination. 2.) The Democrats are on record as saying the intelligence intercepts and Syria information are what they need to move forward. If they renege at this stage, they leave themselves open to absolute crucifixion running up to the '06 off-year elections. The Repubs rallying cry is already "obstruction;" this would be an unrebuttable case in point. The far-right couldn't hope for anything more in their wheelhouse.

Heads, we win. Tails, you lose. Simple as that.

Easy choice? Apparently not. Instead, Bush and Condi float the spectre of installing a deeply divisive nominee with a recess appointment. Not only would it be an imperious end-run around the Senate, dissolving all pretense of bipartisanship, but it would leave the White House open to the "what are they hiding" question. And for what? Little more that the opportunity to flex and pose, smirking, and say, "When ah say 'no,' ah mean 'no,' heh-heh."

As if that weren't enough, after Reverend Sen. Bill Frist rightly concedes that a further cloture vote would be pointless, Bush again folds the winning hand he's been dealt, opting, instead to yank Fristy's choke-chain: (Again from the AP)

Reversing field after a meeting with President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said he will continue pushing for a floor vote on John R. Bolton for U.N. ambassador.

Frist switched his position after initially saying Tuesday that negotiations with Democrats to get a vote on Bolton had been exhausted.

Talking to reporters in the White House driveway after he joined other GOP lawmakers for a luncheon with Bush, Frist said: "The president made it very clear that he expects an up-or-down vote."

Just over an hour earlier, Frist said he wouldn't schedule another vote on Bolton's nomination and said that Bush must decide the next move.

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

Holy. Shit.

Rather than move forward, he just sawed his Majority leader off at the knees. In public. Not a hothead freshman Senator, nor an outspoken young turk trying to make a name in the House. The number...one...guy, with his own White House ambitions. Forced to fall on his sword and look like a complete jackass who was utterly out of the loop.

Disaster to unmitigated disaster.

The only way Bolton loses is if something in the requested information drives more Republicans from the fold. That, and unchecked Executive ego are the only things that can explain Bush's course of action, so far. There's simply no other way it makes sense. Hope it's worth it to him.

Annie are you OK? So, Annie are you Ok? Are you OK Annie?

"I believe justice has been done today. I can't tell you how good it feels."

"I'm trembling, this is so important."

"It's vindication day."

And, far and away, my favorite:

"This proves that justice can prevail in America."

What could have possibly had this sort of restorative effect on people's faith in the system? Was this about the Downing Street memo(s) finally getting the attention the deserve? Holding accountable the abusive servicepeople that gave our armed forces a bad name? One of the precious few states that care more for committed relationships than their gender makeup?

The event that had one observer "feeling like (he) was reborn:"

Michael Jackson's acquittal.

Yes, for some, a multi-millionaire's acquittal is the barometer of the health of the American judicial system. CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, New York Times, L.A. Times,...hell, even the Moonies' Washington Times has this crap as top headline above the (virtual) fold. At least Google news has this filed away two-thirds of the way where it belongs: in entertainment news, lest we forget why anyone knows this strange, strange man in the first place. He entertains people. Or at least he used to.

He's neither a leader of men, nor a healer of the sick, nor a champion of the powerless.

He sings and dances. That's it.

To be sure, he's certainly donated time and money to worthy causes over the years. But that's not why people flew here from Iceland, France, Germany and god knows how many other countries. They came here in thrall of his celebrity, not his good deeds, and are now celebrating as if something important has been won.

Oh well, Chris Rock is still waiting for his O.J. prize; I figure these folks' MJ prize will be similarly tardy in its arrival.

I think I hear another glass of jesus juice calling my name...

You'd think if anyone would know how to say "dissemble"...

From The Times in the UK:

MINISTERS were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal.

This was required because, even if ministers decided Britain should not take part in an invasion, the American military would be using British bases. This would automatically make Britain complicit in any illegal US action.

The document said the only way the allies could justify military action was to place Saddam Hussein in a position where he ignored or rejected a United Nations ultimatum ordering him to co-operate with the weapons inspectors. But it warned this would be difficult.

“It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject,” the document says. But if he accepted it and did not attack the allies, they would be “most unlikely” to obtain the legal justification they needed.

The suggestions that the allies use the UN to justify war contradicts claims by Blair and Bush, repeated during their Washington summit last week, that they turned to the UN in order to avoid having to go to war. The attack on Iraq finally began in March 2003.

From yesterday's WaPo:

Flanked by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, Bush said that "federal terrorism investigations have resulted in charges against more than 400 suspects, and more than half of those charged have been convicted."

Those statistics have been used repeatedly by Bush and other administration officials, including Gonzales and his predecessor, John D. Ashcroft, to characterize the government's efforts against terrorism.

An analysis of the Justice Department's own list of terrorism prosecutions by The Washington Post shows that 39 people -- not 200, as officials have implied -- were convicted of crimes related to terrorism or national security. Most of the others were convicted of relatively minor crimes such as making false statements and violating immigration law -- and had nothing to do with terrorism, the analysis shows. For the entire list, the median sentence was just 11 months.

and God bless The Daily Show...

Governor Bush on Global Warming in 2000: "I think it's an issue we need to take very seriously, but I don't think we know the solution to global warming yet. And I don't think we've got all the facts before we make decisions."

President Bush on Global Warming in 2005: "We want to know more about it. It's easier to solve a problem when you know a lot about it."

FYI: The jury's in.

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

And people continue to object any time this man is called a liar.

"How can you justify that," the apologists whine, "three review commissions have never found anything regarding misrepresenting the intelligence."

As if that's the only point a lie could've occurred in the last four and a half years.

As if the commissions were even allowed to glance in that direction...

"The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has dropped its previous plan to review how U.S. policymakers used Iraq intelligence, and the president's commission on intelligence did not look into the subject because it was not authorized to do so by its charter, Laurence H. Silberman, the co-chairman, told reporters last month."

No one in private life can exaggerate, feign ignorance, or "disassemble" so consistently and not be called out for exactly what he/she is: a liar. But again, the MSM and the individuals comprising it are so cowed by the Republican noise machine that they hesitate to call a spade a spade for fear of rebuke. Anything less than fawning adoration and the kool-aid quaffers mount up on their oh-so-high horses and make pronouncements of "namecalling," being "anti-Bush," and "slander."

Note to the horsemen of the apologists: it's only slander if the accuser is lying.

hypoc-ri-SY, hypoc-ri-SY, no escaping that for thee...

(Apologies to Mel Brooks and Gene Wilder)

All week, the Republican noise machine has been hammering Howard Dean for characterizing them as "pretty much a white, Christian party," that "(has) the agenda of the conservative Christians." As noted in the WaPo:

Republicans accused Dean of trying to divide Americans by religion and faith. Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia called the comments "Howard Dean's games of division and hate."

Now I can't say I approve of Dean's strategy; personally I think such things will backfire (even if they are nothing more than an in-kind response to what has worked so well for the other side). But to hear the Repubs attack anyone as "divisive" borders on the absurd. We're talking about people who've managed to turn gay bashing into an art form, riding a wave of revulsion and bigotry into the highest offices in the land. (Aided by their puppetmasters Dobson and Perkins and their minions at Focus on the Family and the FRC) We're talking about people whose leadership actively participates with those who tried to spin their opponents in the latest judicial debate as being "against people of faith."

But such truths don't seem to rate with the increasingly timid MSM. Much safer to play their part as an echo chamber for the hypocritical bleating rather than call anyone out on it.

(And in case anyone was curious as to how much Dean's "hateful" characterizations reflect reality, I'd refer you to this passage from The Great Divide: Retro Vs. Metro America, by John Sperling: (Thanks to John at AMERICAblog)

"Of 3,643 Republicans serving in the state legislatures, only 44 are minorities, or 1.2 percent. In the Congress, with 274 of the 535 elected senators and representatives Republican, only five are minorities - three Cuban Americans from Florida, a Mexican American from Texas and a Native American senator originally elected as a Democrat.

'President Bush's home state leads the way. Texas, with a minority population of 47 percent, has 106 Republicans in the state legislature, but there are 0 blacks and 0 Hispanics among them,' Sperling writes. 'No major corporation doing business with the government could be so white without being subject to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) action!'"

Has America finally stopped hitting the 'snooze' button and woken up?

From today's WaPo:

Poll Finds Dimmer View of Iraq War

For the first time since the war in Iraq began, more than half of the American public believes the fight there has not made the United States safer, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

While the focus in Washington has shifted from the Iraq conflict to Social Security and other domestic matters, the survey found that Americans continue to rank Iraq second only to the economy in importance -- and that many are losing patience with the enterprise.

Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting -- in all three cases matching or exceeding the highest levels of pessimism yet recorded. More than four in 10 believe the U.S. presence in Iraq is becoming analogous to the experience in Vietnam.

Perhaps most ominous for President Bush, 52 percent said war in Iraq has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States, while 47 percent said it has. It was the first time a majority of Americans disagreed with the central notion Bush has offered to build support for war: that the fight there will make Americans safer from terrorists at home.

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

Guess thousands of casualties after "the end to major hostilities" is declared and 800+ after a government is elected tends to sour people on the assuraces coming from the sunshgine squad at 1600 Pennsylvania.

DEEEEtroit BasketBAAALLLL!

Pistons 88, Heat 82.

Local interest isn't usually a big topic (although when our jackass, frat-boy of a mayor, Kwame "Suge" Kilpatrick, runs for re-election in the fall, we'll just have to see). That being said...

Maybe not a classic, but a nail-biter of a game.

Officiating was suspect, but that's usually the case no matter who you're talking about.

My thing?

ESPN's online reports on the game:

Wade held scoreless during fourth quarter

Wade not his usual self, especially down stretch

And then three of SportsCenter's ten "plays of the day" devoted to Miami scoring plays.

Detroit efforts?

Zero.

I'm not one to jump on the "We get no respect" wagon, but the defending champions win on the road to defend the title and the big story is the injured Dwyane "Flop" "Flash" Wade?

Damn...

Quite literally "pissing in our ears and telling us it's raining"

Having seen Newsweek ground beneath the Executive bootheel, we now find out that the Quran wasn't flushed down a toilet, after all. It was used as one. And the official response from presidential mouthpiece, Scott "People died" McClellan?

"It is unfortunate that some have taken out of context a few isolated incidents by a few individuals."

I'm sure that will settle this whole situation right down.

And Rummy thinks Al-Jazeera is making us look bad.

For what it's worth, I have the utmost respect for our men and women in uniform; they're putting everything at risk for the rest of us and that sacrifice cannot be overestimated. Further, I also happen to agree with the executive shill, err, White House spokesman on the point that this is "a few individuals" that we're talking about. The vast majority of our armed forces have nothing to do with the incidents that we're seeing.

That being said, the aforementioned "incidents" are looking less and less "isolated" every day. These sort of things seem to be going on everywhere we're detaining people, and no matter who is allegedly running the show. By all accounts, various incdents have been occurring for 3+ years and only now are we seeing a push to establish any definitive set of rules for detention and detainees. While Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush are busy using Amnesty Interational as their own personal urinal, Arlen Specter calls on the government to take some responsibility and do what should've been done years ago.

A few bad apples aren't our problem, it's the BushCo farmers who are refusing to tend to the afflicted trees.