Two days in the life of BushCo

04.06.06

[Libby] further testified that he at first advised the Vice President that he could not have this conversation with reporter Miller because of the classified nature of the NIE. [Libby] testified that the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE. [Libby] testified that he also spoke to David Addington, then Counsel to the Vice President, whom defendant considered to be an expert in national security law, and Mr. Addington opined that Presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document.

04.07.06

WASHINGTON -- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told lawmakers Thursday that warrantless spying on purely domestic phone calls between Americans on U.S. soil is an option in the war against terror.

"I'm not going to rule it out," he said in a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee.

Seriously, what explanation is necessary, at this point? Intelligence can be leaked to reporters for purely political reasons, and the Executive Branch believes it has the inherent right to ignore the Constitution.

ITMFA

File under "G"

For "Gee, y'think?"

"I am sorry that this misunderstanding happened at all, and I regret its escalation, and I apologize...there should not have been any physical contact in this incident.'' -- Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), 04.06.06

And only a week after the fact. Smashing.

For future reference, Cindy, an apology's worth is inversely proportional to the amount of finger-pointing and recrimination that preceeded it. You do the math.

Journalists finally do their duty for the soldiers who did the same

Almost 6,700 Britons have needed hospital treatment in Iraq since the invasion three years ago - almost as many as the total number of British troops still stationed there. About 4,000 were sufficiently injured or ill to be sent home to Britain.

The figures include soldiers and civilians injured in accidents or taken ill, or who have suffered psychological problems, as well as those injured in fighting. They were posted on the Ministry of Defence website yesterday, on the day that MPs dispersed for their Easter break, after months of criticism directed at the Government for refusing to give details about the "forgotten" British casualties.

After The Independent printed this story last week, I was once again impressed at how the U.K. outlets continue to set an example of a press that does its job instead of wringing its hands over it. In the U.S., the press--along with most everyone else--has forgotten that "casualties" refers to both the dead and the wounded. With all the stories about soldiers surviving catastrophic injuries in greater numbers than ever before, it stands to reason that the ranks of the injured were also growing appreciably. Not surprisingly, like his British lapdog counterpart, El Presidente has also managed to hide those numbers numbers from wide release.

Unlike Britain, however, if our media outlets demanded details about the "forgotten casualties" they--not the government--would be the ones facing criticism. For not reporting the so-called good news, for undermining morale...or for whatever other excuse of the week the administration and its apologists use to put the media in bed with the enemy.

In short order, however, the L.A. Times helped redeem the press on this side of the pond with this must-read series on the servicemen and women wounded in Iraq and the amazing medical personnel who treat them. Whether tragic or inspiring, every story is powerful and, most importantly, long-overdue for the telling. For each one of these 17,400+ soldiers, the sacrifice is life changing and, as such, deserves--demands--to be remembered, not quietly shuffled aside specifically to avoid doing so.

Be forewarned, the articles are accompanied by some graphic images, which, in my opinion, is only appropriate. For these troops, the "cost of the war" isn't an abstract concept, but a painful, human reality...as it should be for us all.

Quote of the day

"This whole incident was instigated by the inappropriate touching and stopping of me, a female black congresswoman." -- Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) after striking the Capitol Police officer who stopped her for bypassing security without showing identification

"That's right. I prefer to judge people, not by the color of their skin, but on the content of their character...and you seem bat-shit insane." -- Jon Stewart on Cynthia McKinney

I applaud the Dems for "keeping their distance" from McKinney, but they really ought to go further and openly stress the need for an apology. It's an obvious step and one that needs to be taken as soon as possible. That might be embarrassing for McKinney, but that's exactly what she should be.

Embarrassed by her astonishing sense of entitlement.

Embarrassed by her inexcusably childish behavior.

And, most of all, embarrassed by the disservice she has done to legitimate victims of racism everywhere, by falling over herself to immediatle play the race card and blame others for her own mistake(s).

Contrary to McKinney's (and her attorney's) claims, this has nothing to do with being black, female, and a congresswoman. To the contrary, "this whole incident," is traceable, not to sex, color, or creed, but to a more universal condition that transcends all of the above:

Asshole.

It's the most egalitarian standing in the world. Anyone can be one and, last week, McKinney seemed quite eager to prove it. Hopefully she'll be just as eager to put aside the hubris that got her into this and exhibit some of the remorse that will get her out. If not, the rest of the Dems--and, more importantly, her constituents--need to make her "distance" permanent.

Schooled in journalism

The freed American hostage Jill Carroll arrived home after 83 days of captivity in Iraq yesterday - to a barrage of criticism from Right-wingers who accused her of showing too much sympathy for her kidnappers.

...Miss Carroll has been under sustained assault from some on the pro-war Right. Bloggers and hosts on the country's influential talk radio stations have attacked her for stating that she had not been threatened during her confinement.

Others attacked her for wearing Muslim dress and the news channel CNN carried an interview suggesting that she was suffering from "Stockholm Syndrome", in which victims begin to sympathise with their captors. One blogger called for Miss Carroll to be arrested for treason.

The terrorists holding her brought members of the Iraqi Islamic Party, a Sunni group, to see her. The Sunnis persuaded her to give a taped interview, which Miss Carroll said she was afraid to refuse.

"Fearing retribution from my captors, I did not speak freely," she said. "Out of fear, I said I had not been threatened. In fact I was threatened many times."

Miss Carroll's captivity has been more widely reported than that of any other American hostage but received considerably less attention than comparable dramas in Britain or Italy. Unlike most Europeans, Americans are convinced that they are at war with a relentless and inhumane enemy.

Miss Carroll's first videotape appeared to contradict that widely-held view and provoked much of the criticism. The attacks were also stoked by a widespread suspicion among supporters of the war, from the White House downwards, that reporters from "the liberal media" are effectively allying itself with the insurgents.

President George W Bush and his senior officials have strongly implied that, by reporting terrorist "spectaculars" in Iraq while ignoring progress elsewhere in the country, the media have undermined public support at home.

Finally. Not only is the far-right deservedly called out for their indefensible attacks on Jill Carroll, but the dots are connected back to the source: the White House-supported obsession with blaming the media for the public's objection to the disasterous mismanagement of the Iraq War. Of course, such startling directness comes with a catch.

It's from The Daily Telegraph...in London.

Is there any more fitting testament to the pathetic state of the American media, than seeing a newspaper on the other side of the ocean show more concern for the reprehensible abuse heaped onto an American reporter--than any news outlet on these shores? Aside from a handful of editorials, when domestic stories even bother to address the issue, they simply mention Carroll's disavowal of some of the statements she made. As for the accusations of her complicity with her kidnappers, being paid, or "carrying Habib's baby?"

Like they never even happened.

So frightened are they of being labeled "liberal," or "biased," traditional media outlets are now giving a free pass to treatment as abhorrent as this. Consider that: it now takes a flaming, Bush-hating liberal to object to the suggestion a hostage was willingly sexually servicing her captors. The press has so completely internalized the radical right's GOP's (same difference, these days) claim that all criticism is partisan, that they're incapable of taking a stand even for the sake of what used to be common decency.

Yet another one of BushCo's gifts to public discourse in "America."

Wonder if Kafka ever thought about sequels?

How does it feel to wake up and discover you're an albatross?

Exclusive: Tom DeLay Says He Will Give Up His Seat

Posted Monday, Apr. 03, 2006

Rep. Tom DeLay, whose iron hold on the House Republicans melted as a lobbying corruption scandal engulfed the Capitol, told TIME that he will not seek reelection and will leave Congress within months. Taking defiant swipes at "the left" and the press, he said he feels "liberated" and vowed to pursue an aggressive speaking and organizing campaign aimed at promoting foster care, Republican candidates and a closer connection between religion and government.

"I'm going to announce tomorrow that I'm not running for reelection and that I'm going to leave Congress," DeLay, who turns 59 on Saturday, said during a 90-minute interview on Monday. "I'm very much at peace with it." "...This had become a referendum on me," he said. "So it's better for me to step aside and let it be a referendum on ideas, Republican values and what's important for this district."

DeLay's fall has been stunningly swift, one of the most brutal and decisive in American history. He had to give up his title of Majority Leader, the No. 2 spot in the House Republican leadership, in September when a Texas grand jury indicted him on charges of trying to evade the state's election law.

...The surprise decision was based on the sort of ruthless calculation that had once given him unchallenged dominance of House Republicans and their wealthy friends in Washington's lobbying community: he realized he might lose in this November's election. DeLay got a scare in a Republican primary last month, and a recent poll taken by his campaign gave him a roughly 50-50 shot of winning, in an election season when Republicans need every seat they can hang onto to avoid a Democratic takeover of the House.

As much as I've enjoyed watching karma catch up with this well-scrubbed thug, it's too bad his arrogance couldn't have held out another few months. However entertaining his pathetic attempt to play the martyr has been, he really deserved to get run out a rail by the people.

As he nailed himself to the cross for the cameras, my favorite part was the bit where he lamented the fact that the campaign had become about him. Unclear on the concept much, Hammer?

The election had become a referendum on you? No kidding. Last time I checked, that's precisely what an election is: the people's opportunity to voice their support for, or opposition to how an official has done his job. Apparently in DeLay-land, the electorate should be more concerned with empty pontification about alleged "values" than with how their representative conducted himself in the office they entrusted to him.

Good luck to you, Tom. Maybe if you spend enough of your new-found free time letting the Freepers, Little Green Fascists, and RedHaters fellate you over your "noble" withdrawal in the face of the leftist consipracy, you might actually start to believe your own bullshit.

Your conservative blogosphere at work

I was going to gloss this post "Douchebags of the Week" or "Today in Cowardly Bastard-dom," or some other equally (and quite deservedly) vulgar expression of my contempt for these folks. But that might've conveyed the impression that the douchbags in question are somehow unique, or their level of cowardly bastard-dom is rare.

Neither is the case.

No sooner was Christian Science Monitor reporter, Jill Carroll, released from captivity in Iraq, then the brain trust at Little Green Footballs took issue with how she conducted herself after reaching safety. (Thanks to the folks at LGFWatch for continuing to shine the light on these feces-flingers and saving the rest of us from sullying our browsers by giving them even one additional hit).

#2 Ward Cleaver 3/30/2006 08:50AM PST

She's probably coming home with a suitcase full of cash (her kickback) and a dose of the clap.

#14 Kragar (proud to be kafir) 3/30/2006 08:58AM PST

When asked how she felt about her captors, Jill went on record as saying: He never calls, he never writes.

16 Earth to Satan 3/30/2006 09:00AM PST

I've been watching this traitor bitch fawn all over her captors this morning. "Nice furniture, safe, nice clothes, they NEVER threatened me". I'm very glad you were so comforatble while working to undermine our efforts in Iraq. Now, wipe that muslim DNA from your face and confess to pre-planning this?

137 yehoshua 3/30/2006 12:13PM PST

This just in: Jill Carroll has just announced impending nuptials with Osama Bin Laden

Clearly, Ms. Carroll's remarks didn't contain quite enough "Ay-rab" and "rag-head" punctuated invective for their taste. Probably had to console themselves with Don Imus' comparably braindead toadies pulling their heads from their asses long enough to opine on "Taliban Jill" being a suicide bomber and the likelihood that she's "carrying Habib's baby."

This is your far-right wing, America. This is who is being courted and whose sensibilities, such as they are, are being appealed to by the Limbaughs, Hannitys and O'Reillys of the world. When you hear Dems, lefties, progressives--any non-Bushista, really--being smeared as unamerican, think about the target audience. Is that the sort of "American" you want to be? Is that the patriotic benchmark we're to aspire to?

Because if it is, we're not in the war against terror...we've already lost it.

Your liberal media at work

Just an observation, here. These are all snippets from a 03/20/06 article in the (increasingly Washington Times-like) Washington Post:

"While it is a Republican refrain that Democrats criticize Bush but have no positive vision..."

"Their goal is to concentrate less on the kind of positive message they have challenged the Democrats to produce..."

"Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (R-N.Y.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, chided the Democrats last Thursday for not producing an agenda..."

"Blunt said it is more important for Democrats to produce a governing agenda because Republicans have a record to run on..."

Believe it or not, the title of the article was "GOP struggles to define its message for 2006 elections." Yet, throughout, the "Dems have no agenda" bit is dutifully rehashed again and again. Fast forward to this week's Democratic national security proposal which received scant attention (completely absent from the NYT) except for stenographic repetition of factually challenged GOP criticisms.

If this is "liberal bias," I'd hate to see what happens when the media turns against you.

Running on the border

Well, until gay marriage/adoption gets elevated--once again--to the greatest menace the country's seen since the Civil War (after all, it's still early, yet), it looks like immigration is the grandstand du jour for this election cycle. As usual, if you squint into the distance you can see the boat...and by just how far all of our politicians have missed it.

Make no mistake, illegal immigration is a serious problem requiring an equally serious solution. However, instead of a solution, all we're treated to, are our duly elected gasbags burying the needle on the pompous-o-meter with endless bloviations about "guest-workers" versus "strict enforcement" and what does or doesn't constitute "amnesty." Meanwhile, the talking heads on TV perpetuate this embarrassing (un)intellectual circle-jerk by droning on about the complexity of the problem and how difficult it will be to figure out. Airtime filling, contemplative chin-stroking aside, it comes down to one word, and one word only.

Jobs.

Water follows the lay of the land. The ready availability of jobs is what makes--and keeps--the U.S. the immigration equivalent of a flood plain. The solution that nobody wants to figure out, is to bite the bullet and go after those businesses that are breaking the law (just as much as those that are actually crossing the borders) and providing the employment that not only keeps illegals here, but serves to draw more to the country.

You think the answer is to make illegal immigration a felony?

G'head, hero.

Casting that vote feel good? Hope so, 'cause that sort of psychological comfort is the only good that can come from locking the barn door after the horses are gone.

In case anyone forgot, our prisons are packed to the gills as it is. A massive influx of immigration convictons requiring jail time will demand the construction of more prisons, the hiring of more guards, not to mention the tax dollars to house, clothe, feed, and care for the prisoners for 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, whatever the case. All until they're deported and are free to try again--alongside those that continue to try every day.

Because of the JOBS.

Images of lazy, deadbeat immigrants make for good campaign fodder. (Hell, it's nothing more than "Welfare Queens" 2.0; give 'em credit for recycling). But the crux of the issue isn't about taking advantage of welfare or health care; it's about paying jobs, money, and extended families. For example, the Mexican economy receives $17 billion (USD) annually from Mexicans living (both legally and not) abroad. That's a little more than it makes from all of its oil exports, and almost twice what it makes from tourism. Almost one in five adults in Mexico receives money from abroad, and $13 billion of that comes from the U.S.

Immigrants aren't coming here to use the safety net of our welfare system as a hammock, they're coming for real paychecks to send home. To broaden the picture further:

Last May the Inter-American Development Bank published results from a survey by the Multilateral Investments Fund that reported remittances totaling US$30 billion will be sent to Latin America this year from the U.S., where around 16 million Latin Americans live.

The real kicker there is tucked away in the middle:

"reported remittances"

One can only guess how much goes unreported.

We clearly see the "why" behind the tide of illegal immigration. And, just as clearly, that "why" points out the "what" that we need to do to fix it. The only thing left is to have the courage to deal with it head-on.

And that means politicians--from both parties--have to suck it up and, for once, separate what's good for the country from what's good for their re-election war chests.

Street Teachers

Whatever your take on the myriad problems of illegal immigration, you have to be impressed with the demonstrations seen this week in cities all over the country. In this day and age of photo ops, soundbites, and handpicked, carefully screened "town halls," there's something singularly unique about so many everyday people--not just activists--getting out and speaking their minds over a cause they feel so strongly about. Sure, there are there are undoubtedly young people whose participation stemmed more from their poor preparation for an algebra test than any substantive concern about the immigration debate. But on the vast scale we witnessed, such cynical dismissals just don't hold up.

500,000 in Los Angeles, alone.

This is what people do when they care. This is what people do when they're angry. This is what people do when they've decided that they will not stay silent one moment longer. When it comes to the so-called "American Spirit," what could exemplify it better?

Amazing.

And yet...disheartening, all the same.

Why haven't we seen this sooner? Between dying, spying, and lying, has there really been nothing over the past five years that warrants this type of action? More than once this week, I've heard individuals--each, doubtlessly, believing that he was the first to show such rapier-like wit--say that we'd solve the immigration problem by fencing in the protesters and checking for green cards. What those deep thinkers fail to see, is that the people thronging the streets aren't the problem, they're a solution. One that shows all of America what it really means to care about this country and the value of your place in it.

The smattering of deaf ears aside, here's to the lesson not coming too late.

There's "Democracy," and then there's "Democracy"

And we sure do like us some "Democracy," dont we? The other stuff, not so much:

Shiites Say U.S. Is Pressuring Iraqi Leader to Step Aside
By EDWARD WONG
Published: March 28, 2006

Senior Shiite politicians said today that the American ambassador has told Shiite officials to inform the Iraqi prime minister that President Bush does not want him to remain the country's leader in the next government.

It is the first time the Americans have directly intervened in the furious debate over the country's top job, the politicians said, and it is inflaming tensions between the Americans and some Shiite leaders.

The ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, told the head of the main Shiite political bloc at a meeting last Saturday to pass a "personal message from President Bush" on to the prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, who the Shiites insist should stay in his post for four more years, said Redha Jowad Taki, a Shiite politician and member of Parliament who was at the meeting.

Ambassador Khalilzad said that President Bush "doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept" Mr. Jaafari to be the next prime minister, according to Mr. Taki, a senior aide to Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, the head of the Shiite bloc. It was the first "clear and direct message" from the Americans on the issue of the candidate for prime minister, Mr. Taki said.

So much for the purple-fingered perfection of the political science project we call "Iraq."

Once again, it appears that El Presidente didn't realize that "the will of the people" doesn't necessarily mean the will of HIS people. First, the Palestinians put their trust in Hamas. Then, the Afghan goverment comes within a hairsbreadth of putting an official stamp on executing people for apostasy. And, every time, we're left, alone, sweating bullets on the world stage trying to do some sort of majority rule mambo.

This is what happens when the architects of your foreign policy seek their inspiration from an Incredible Hulk comic book.

"Democracy good! Other stuff bad! Uncle Sam smash!"

Obviously, there are international developments that we're obligated to weigh in on, negatively . We can probably all agree that, popular support or not, a terrorist organization ascending to regional political power in the Middle East is not a good thing. That said, by hitching our national wagon to the sort of Crayola-penned, absolutist rhetoric that we have, we're consistently caught in glaring reversals when the world turns out to be more Dostoyevsky than Dick & Jane.

Or My Pet Goat, for that matter.

Does anyone think that things are going so well for the U.S. that we can afford to invite charges of hypocrisy through careless--and emphatic--posturing that doesn't even rise to the level of "dumbed down?" We're fighting for our global reputation, as it is. The sooner we realize that sloganeering and policy-making aren't interchangeable, the better.

The most dangerous thing in South Dakota

...and the Evangeliban's worst nightmare: A woman with an education, an opinion, and the power to back them up:

South Dakota's abortion law

Tim Giago (Nanwica Kciji) 3/20/2006
© 2006 Native American Journalists Foundation, Inc.

When Governor Mike Rounds signed HB 1215 into law it effectively banned all abortions in the state with the exception that it did allow saving the mother's life. There were, however, no exceptions for victims of rape or incest. His actions, and the comments of State Senators like Bill Napoli of Rapid City, SD, set of a maelstrom of protests within the state.

Napoli suggested that if it was a case of "simple rape," there should be no thoughts of ending a pregnancy. Letters by the hundreds appeared in local newspapers, mostly written by women, challenging Napoli's description of rape as "simple." He has yet to explain satisfactorily what he meant by "simple rape."

The President of the Oglala Sioux Tribe on the Pine Ridge Reservation, Cecilia Fire Thunder, was incensed. A former nurse and healthcare giver she was very angry that a state body made up mostly of white males, would make such a stupid law against women.

"To me, it is now a question of sovereignty," she said to me last week. "I will personally establish a Planned Parenthood clinic on my own land which is within the boundaries of the Pine Ridge Reservation where the State of South Dakota has absolutely no jurisdiction."

Damn straight.

Recuse me?

Today, the SCOTUS began hearing arguments in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the case challenging the legitimacy of the military tribunal system for adjudicating the detainees being held in the "war on terror." Chief Justice John Roberts is recused from the case owing to a prior ruling he made, but, interestingly, Antonin Scalia was front and center for the March 28th session. Interesting, because of these comments Scalia made back on March 8:

Scalia dismissed the idea that the detainees have rights under the U.S. Constitution or international conventions, adding he was "astounded" at the "hypocritical" reaction in Europe to Gitmo. "War is war, and it has never been the case that when you captured a combatant you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts," he says on a tape of the talk reviewed by NEWSWEEK. "Give me a break." Challenged by one audience member about whether the Gitmo detainees don't have protections under the Geneva or human-rights conventions, Scalia shot back: "If he was captured by my army on a battlefield, that is where he belongs. I had a son on that battlefield and they were shooting at my son and I'm not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it's crazy."

Nothing like making explicit, public denials of rights that might be held by detainees, mere weeks away from being asked to determine whether or not the military tribunal system abrogates such rights. After that little off-topic aside, does it come as any surprise, whatsoever, that it was Scalia who "provid(ed) the only clearcut signs of unstinting support for the federal government's arguments?"

Remember the good old days, a few months back, when we were told, over and over, how inappropriate it would be for a nominee to comment on issues that might come before him/her on the court? Virtually overnight, the so-called "Ginsburg Doctrine" became the cornerstone of our judicial system. They never mentioned its underpublicized, post-confirmation corollary that makes it no big deal for a sitting justice to openly make up his mind before hearing word one of the relevant arguments. Clearly, in this climate, the Scalia Doctrine has legs.

Bottom line, wearing that robe is a hell of a gig. In addition to rock-solid job security and being oh-so-slimming, to boot, it apparently comes with the freedom from having to uphold even the pretense of anything resembling impartiality.

Good show, your "honor."

Son of Quote of the Day

Saw this and just couldn't resist.

(Tom Tancredo, R-CO) has positioned himself as the loudest, angriest voice against the estimated 11 million illegal aliens now living in the United States. They are "a scourge that threatens the very future of our nation," he says. He laments "the cult of multiculturalism," and worries about America's becoming a "Tower of Babel." If Republican presidential candidates don't put the problem atop the agenda in 2008, he says he'll run himself, just to force the front runners to talk about it...If the Republicans lose the election because he's too tough on the issue, he says, "So be it."

And, in case you forgot:

"When we conduct this debate it must be done in a civil way...No one should play on people's fears or try to pit neighbors against each other." -- George W. Bush

Not to steal Jon Stewart's schtick, but, "Mmmm, me likey GOP cannibalism."

Quote of the Day

"No one should play on people's fears or try to pit neighbors against each other." -- George Bush, on the raging immigration debate, 03/27/06

Pot, meet kettle.

Prez sez: "In case you missed it the first time..."

"Piss off."

Bush shuns Patriot Act requirement

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff
03/24/2006

WASHINGTON -- When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers.

Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9, calling it ''a piece of legislation that's vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people." But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a ''signing statement," an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.

In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties."

Wonder of wonders. Just like with the torture amendment, all that wrangling and debate over hashing out a "compromise" on the oversight provisions for the PATRIOT Act turned out to be just another dog and pony show. After all was said and done and the Congress finished playing "democracy," Dear Leader just dusted off his generalissimo's uniform and, once again, went banana Republican dictator.

"Nice law. I'll obey it if, and when, I feel like it."

For those that believe his little crossed fingers tricks aren't that capricious, think about this: what does the President do that couldn't be considered part of the "deliberative process of the executive?" There is no standard for withholding information other than his say-so and, based on that and that alone, the laws don't apply.

And no one has said anything.

All those Senators who trumpeted their compromise as a victory for civil rights and oversight just got slapped square in the face. El Presidente used them and then proceeded to neuter them--again--dismissing the notion that he was bound by their laws. And, true to form, they responded with cowed and cowardly silence. As CNN noted, only a handful of Senators stood up and voted against the "compromise" bill that the President later decided to ignore anyway: Jim Jeffords, I-Vermont, and Feingold (D-WI), Byrd (D-WV) and seven other Senate Democrats: Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Carl Levin of Michigan, Patty Murray of Washington and Ron Wyden of Oregon. The integrity that they showed is only further magnified when compared to the other 90 members' meek acceptance of their own marginalization.

This week sees two major initiatives: Judiciary Committee hearings on Bush's illegal spying program, and Feingold's censure motion. Sadly, humiliation and trivialization at the hands of the executive branch has yet to inspire any more passion in the Senate for either.

I love a good anniversary party

No, it wasn't a St. Patrick's hangover that kept me on the sidelines. I've actually been just too darn busy celebrating the progress we've seen in Iraq over the past three years. Think about that. It's already been three years of tollin' the bell of freedom for our brothers and sisters in Baghdad. Why, it seems as if it were just yesterday that Donnie Rumsfeld was telling us,

"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." (Feb. 7, 2003)

Yet here we are, thirty-six months of progress later. Those magnificent folks at Think Progress--there's that magical word again--were kind enough to sum up those years with the headlines about El Presidente's reactions to the ever-improving situation in the Gulf:

"Bush Goes on Offensive To Explain War Strategy: Speeches to Combat Public Pessimism [Washington Post,03/11/06]

“Bush supporters cite Iraq speeches as start of rebound” [AP, 12/13/05]

“Bush vows victory, not retreat; Speech gives strategy for winning Iraq war, rejects exit timetable” [Toledo Blade, 12/1/05]

“Bush Goes on the Offensive Against Critics of War in Iraq” [Los Angeles Times, 11/12/05]

“In Speech, Bush To Get Specific On Iraq Strategy” [Boston Globe, 6/28/05]

“President spotlights Iraq war successes; Bush plans summer offensive to tout progress against insurgency” [Fresno Bee, 6/19/05]

“Bush to define Iraq strategy in major speeches” [Washington Times, 5/22/04]

In what must be a world record for amount of polish applied to a turd, never has so much definition, specification, and explanation amounted to so pathetically little. For all the (relentlessly redundant) speechifying, our soldiers are still dying, their civilians are still dying, we're no closer to leaving, and the American people are less convinced than ever. And Dear Leader still thinks the real problem lies in how he's saying it. Once again, it seems, we're left with a familiar choice: doltish ignorance or utter insanity.

Can we really sleep better either way?

House GOP: We disagreed with the President before we agreed with him

Joe at A-blog spotted this newest fiction being pushed by the GOP stenographers at the WaPo:

"President Bush's troubles with congressional Republicans, which erupted during the backlash to the Dubai seaport deal, are rooted in policy frustrations and personal resentments that GOP lawmakers say stretch back to the opening days of the administration.

For years, the Bush White House and its allies on Capitol Hill seemed like one of the most unified teams Washington had ever seen, passing most of Bush's agenda with little dissent. Privately, however, many lawmakers felt underappreciated, ignored and sometimes bullied by what they regarded as a White House intent on running government with little input from them. Often it was to pass items -- an expanded federal role in education under the No Child Left Behind law and an expensive prescription drug benefit under Medicare -- that left conservatives deeply uneasy."

You were being asked to support bills and proposals that left you "deeply uneasy?" Granted, I don't have the benefit of years of political study or time spent as a statesman, but here's an idea: Vote "no."

Don't do something you don't agree with. Radical, isn't it?

You had your chance, but--time and again, according to the story you're going with now--you voted against your better judgement. That's no isolated mistake for people to look past. Far from it. What you've engaged in, is a five-year pattern of callow subservience and surrender. Now, you own it. All of it. Every last "yea" you used to sell out the principles your party allegedly stands for, the American people, even the Constitution, itself.

No Child Left Behind.

Prescription Drug Bill.

The Bankruptcy Bill.

The seas of red ink in the budget.

The tax giveaways to the wealthiest of the wealthy.

The abdication of oversight of the Executive Branch.

The unforgivable silence as the President claims to the right to ignore the laws you do pass, when and how he sees fit.

None of these things happened in a vacuum. Your votes are on record, which means that these are YOUR policies, now. El Presidente isn't able to create his own laws. At least not yet. The way this Congress has veritably sprinted down the road to irrelevancy, however, makes one wonder if they'd even bat an eye if he did.

Operation: Snorer

"Major show of force"

"Largest air assault since 2003"

"Airborn sweep of insurgent resistance"

"US leads huge airborne assault"

"US/Iraqi forces continue major offensive"

Yes, this is what we heard about "Operation: Swarmer," conjuring all sorts of images of sorties and gunships and F-16s. Troops seeking out the insurgents where they live, on their turf, and rooting them out of their entrenched positions.

Too bad it wasn't remotely close to the truth.

CNN, MSNBC, and Faux News worked themselves into a lather with "Breaking Story"-style coverage, graphics, the whole nine yards. And for what? 47 low level suspects that we've already started to release, and 6 weapons caches, consisting of only about 300 total pieces of equipment. Word play about air power managed to turn a minor search mission into Operation: Overlord 2, The Next Day.

And why? The BBC got it spot-on, right off the bat:

"The reasons for it being given such high-profile publicity are clearly open to speculation.

The operation came at a time when support at home for President Bush and his campaign in Iraq is running very low, and when the international media were preparing to focus on the third anniversary of the war, just three days later."

Open to speculation? Once you've started a war under false pretenses, the notion of using a simple PR blitz as a fig leaf for your 1000 day debacle is hardly a reach.

The Evangeliban: sex is worse than (other peoples') death

From The New Yorker, as noted by Sully:

"Religious conservatives are unapologetic; not only do they believe that mass use of an HPV vaccine or the availability of emergency contraception will encourage adolescents to engage in unacceptable sexual behavior; some have even stated that they would feel similarly about an H.I.V. vaccine, if one became available. 'We would have to look at that closely,' Reginald Finger, an evangelical Christian and a former medical adviser to the conservative political organization Focus on the Family, said. 'With any vaccine for H.I.V., disinhibition' - a medical term for the absence of fear - 'would certainly be a factor, and it is something we will have to pay attention to with a great deal of care.' Finger sits on the Centers for Disease Control's Immunization Committee, which makes those recommendations."

This is how determined the "Christian" fudamentalists are to force their views upon everyone else. When considering a vaccine that would prevent an illness that's killed 25 million people in the last 20+ years, the effect such a treatment would have on people's attitudes towards sex would "certainly be a factor" in deciding how to proceed. In their minds, people being more likely to have sex is a legitimate cost to be weighed against the benefit of saving millions of lives. And, as the article shows, these aren't just isolated crackpots; they're crackpots with real power to effect--and inflict--their agenda on all of us.

If a preventative cure for cancer were discovered, can anyone imagine wasting even a moment contemplating the influence it might have on smoking habits before making it immediately available? What about cirrhosis of the liver? Or any other affliction correlated with some sort of behavior? It would be laughable. But that dirty, dirty sex-shul innercourse? THAT still needs proper "consequences." Because Jesus says so.

Such are the priorities of these theocons: to make their piousness policy and, thus, their so-called "morality" mandatory--even if it kills you.

Abject Cowardice: The Mike Rounds Story

Once again, gracias to EKO for the picture that speaks a thousand words. The bottom line is: nothing's gone, only gone underground. Make no mistake about it, South Dakotans, this is exactly what your representatives (and, by extension, you) voted for.

Apparently, though, that responsibility flow chart stops just short of your governor's office:

Opponents, who say they intend to make a court challenge, also have talked in recent days about circulating petitions and placing the issue on the South Dakota ballot in November...If that happened, a loud and rowdy campaign could be expected. Rounds wouldn't be among those making the noise, he said.

"I would not actively campaign either way on this particular issue at this stage of the game," the governor said.

Asked about the lack of an exception for victims of rape or incest, Rounds said, "I did not write this bill." Another time during the questions and answers, he said "This isn't my bill.''

Bull. Shit.

Or, more accurately, "chickenshit."

If the president's attempt at handwashing was ridiculous, Rounds' is patently offensive. His spineless responses showcase a pathetic, new low in avoiding responsibility in a political era absolutely rife with such contortions. While he obviously lacks the courage of his convictions, what's equally clear are his choices as an executive.

It's one or the other: If you disagree, you veto the bill and let the legislature try to override. If you support it, you say so and sign on the line. What you do not do, is stand there, like the lone toddler in a room with a broken vase, mumbling, "it wasn't me."

Time to grow up, "Mike."

Callous Ignorance: The South Dakota Legislature Story

(Graphic courtesy EKO in the comments at Kos)

The repugnance of this bill has been well-known since its proposal in the state legislature. However, it wasn't until being signed into law that its breathtaking cruelty was revealed to be matched only by its stupidity.

CHICAGO (AFP) - The governor of the US state of South Dakota signed a near blanket ban on abortion, including in rape cases, launching a major challenge to a landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling that made the procedure legal.

The bill signed by Republican Governor Mike Rounds makes it illegal to terminate a pregnancy except in rare cases when it may be necessary to save the mother's life.

It grants no allowances for women who have been raped or are victims of incest. It provides for criminal charges against doctors who perform abortion. It also prohibits the sale of emergency contraception and asserts that life begins at fertilization.

Rounds described the law as a "direct challenge" to the Roe versus Wade decision of 1973, in which the US Supreme Court ruled that bans on abortion violated a woman's constitutional right to privacy.

Tacking on the prohibition of emergency contraception was a nice touch. Considering some types of EC are virtually identical to otherwise readily available birth control pills, how do you propose banning the sale of one, but not the other? Certainly, it won't be long before how many/what type to take in order to achieve the same effect becomes common knowledge, like this. Anyone think that people who believe rape victims should be denied abortions would even blink at outlawing these legal drugs as a result?

As bad as that is, the assertion that life begins at fertilization really shows you the type of deep thinking that went into this nasty piece of legislation. By that virtue, every clinic and hospital that does fertility therapy will need to be carefully policed, lest they illegally dispose of any blastulae who, according to the law, have already begun their lives.

Felonious defrosting: coming soon, to a viciously backward state legislature near you.

El Presidente remembers he's supposed to be "conservative"

And resurrects the push for a Line Item Veto.

Clinton actually got the holy grail of budget politics passed back in 1996, only to have the SCOTUS toss it on constitutional grounds two years later. Seems they had a little problem with the President being able to arbitrarily change bills that had already been passed by Congress, not to mention with Congress for conferring such a power. Be that as it may, Dear Leader thinks he's found away around that particular thicket.

But White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the Bush proposal would differ from that 1996 law, which allowed the president to pencil out specific spending items only after a bill was passed by Congress.

Under the Bush proposal, the president would identify areas in a spending bill he considered wasteful and then send the package back to Congress. Congress would have 10 days to hold an up or down vote on the package.

Leaving aside the obvious likelihood of Generalissimo Bush using this as another tool to exact petty vengeance against those who cross him...any guesses on how many legislators are actually going to vote to uphold a veto knowing that their pet project might be the next one on the chopping block? Anyone think the folks on the Hill don't have a pretty long memory for such slights? Only the hopelessly naive or the abysmally ignorant could believe that home state/district self-preservation isn't going to kick in when it comes time to go on the record for pissing in the other guy's pool.

As is par for the course with this administration, we're left with two equally pathetic choices: Either the President honestly can't see that state-level politics doom this initiative before it starts, or he just doesn't care and is going ahead, anyway, to regain some of the conservative street cred he lost with his drunken sailor spending.

Moron or lip-servicing opportunist.

Which do you prefer steering the ship of state?

S.D. "Rapists' Rights" abortion bill too much for the Preznit

Recently, the South Dakota state legislature passed a bill that would result in the most draconian anti-abortion statute in the country:

PIERRE, S.D. - Gov. Mike Rounds said he is inclined to sign a bill that would ban nearly all abortions in South Dakota, making it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman's life.

The ban, including in cases of rape or incest, was approved Friday by South Dakota lawmakers, setting up a deliberate frontal assault on Roe v. Wade at a time when some activists see the U.S. Supreme Court as more willing than ever to overturn the 33-year-old decision.

In the aftermath of the legislature's principled stand to make sure rapists can see the fruit of their assaults carried to term, El Presidente weighed in:

Asked about the provisions in the state law, Bush replied, "Well, that, of course, is a state law, but my position has always been three exceptions: rape, incest and the life of the mother."

I guess that's what they mean when they talk about "compassionate conservatism."

First, his claim of deference to "state law" is as pathetic as it is conditional, extending only until it becomes inconvenient for pushing the Evangeliban's radical right social agenda. You'll notice that "state law" enjoys no such support when it differs from his views on the right to die, drug legalization/medicinal use statutes, or same sex marriage. Clearly, the judgement of state legislatures can only be trusted as far as it falls in line with his conservative constituency.

Secondly, his attempt to separate himself from the "uterus-as-eminent-domain" set is a sham.

These were the voters he courted.

These were the people he promised the courts to.

These were the people whom he tried to appease after the Miers nomination.

George Bush owns this abominable measure as surely as if he'd penned it himself.

Just call him "Mary Kay"

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Dubai Ports World's $6.85 billion acquisition of Britain's P&O will close on Friday or Monday, despite an additional 45-day review by the U.S. government in response to security concerns, a U.S. Treasury Department official said on Thursday.

"My understanding is that the deal will not close today," Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt told a Senate panel. "Although they had announced March 2 as the closing date ... that deal will not now close until tomorrow or Monday."

Looks like, in addition to his war of choice that bears new, rotten fruit almost daily, George Bush's legacy will be that of the "Cosmetic President." Detainee treatment bills you don't intend to honor, prisoner abuse investigations that discipline next to no one, now a "review" that won't start until the deal it focuses on is already done and in the books. So much window dressing, so little time.

Surveying the land from under the sand

"At least 60 people were killed in Baghdad on Tuesday in the latest in a series of deadly attacks following the bombing of a major Shi'ite mosque last week.

Asked what Washington would do if civil war broke out in Iraq, Bush told ABC News: 'I don't buy your premise that there's going to be a civil war.'"

So much for the ebbing sectarian strife.

60+ today.

1,300 since last week.

Scores of mosques attacked, tit for tat. Car bombs, angry mobs, people being--literally--executed by the busload...and El Presidente doesn't "buy the premise" of a civil war. Well, he didn't bother planning for his war, so why start now, right?

It's almost impressive, in a way, to see how wildly he swings between apocalyptic fear-mongering and willful obliviousness, growing further and further detached from reality with every pass. Those who disagree with him are providing aid and comfort for our enemies, but those who recognize the seeds of civil war in Iraq are just alarmists reading tea leaves.

That sort of worldview--such as it is--is testament to the man's colossal ego and sense of personal infallibility. Nothing is a problem unless he deems it as such. You need only look at his approach to contentious issues such as the PATRIOT Act, illegal wiretaps and, now, the UAE port sale and disintegrating situation in Iraq. None of the additional time these topics has received has been about review and mutual compromise, it's about giving him a chance to explain why he's been right all along. When he speaks publicly, every speech he gives drips with condescention: the smirking, monosyllabic, lean-over-the-podium-to-break-it-down-for-the-ignorant-masses style that's become his trademark. Rather than demand better, his so-called "base" obligingly (and stupidly) lives down to his perceptions, mistaking patronizing for "folksy" or "down-to-earth," and flocking to it, accordingly.

They got the president they deserved, all right...and unfortunately, dragged us all along for the ride.

So...

Is this winning?

Pentagon: Iraqi troops downgraded

No Iraqi battalion capable of fighting without U.S. support

Friday, February 24, 2006; Posted: 8:29 p.m. EST (01:29 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The only Iraqi battalion capable of fighting without U.S. support has been downgraded to a level requiring them to fight with American troops backing them up, the Pentagon said Friday.

The battalion, made up of 700 to 800 Iraqi Army soldiers, has repeatedly been offered by the U.S. as an example of the growing independence of the Iraqi military.

The competence of the Iraqi military has been cited as a key factor in when U.S. troops will be able to return home.

"As we see more of these Iraqi forces in the lead, we will be able to continue with our stated strategy that says as Iraqi forces stand up, we will stand down," President Bush said last month.

The battalion, according to the Pentagon, was downgraded from "level one" to "level two" after a recent quarterly assessment of its capabilities.

Just wondering...

How much is it worth to look good?

If you're the preznit, about $5 million. From the NYT story:

On Tuesday, Bush plans to visit the Energy Department's National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo., to talk about speeding the development of biofuels

The lab, with a looming $28 million budget shortfall, had announced it was cutting its staff by 32 people, including eight researchers. But in advance of Bush's visit, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman over the weekend directed the transfer of $5 million to the private contractor that runs the lab, so the jobs can be saved.

The department ''has been informed that the NREL lab director will use these funds to immediately restore all of the jobs that were cut earlier this month due to budget shortfalls,'' the department said in a statement Monday.

Nice save.

Wonder what staffer, where, noticed that one of El Presidente's irresponsibly short-sighted budget cuts was stalled on the tracks of his latest empty photo op? We can probably just wait to see who gets appointed to the next vacancy atop a cabinet-level agency. In all likelihood, they're one and the same.

The pannicked urgency of the damage control efforts must've been something to behold. WE can't overcome bureaucracy while New Orleans drowns, but now, in a couple days--over the weekend, nonetheless--proposals are made and executed, red tape dissolves, and the vault doors swing wide.

All to keep Forrest from falling off the shrimp boat when the cameras are rolling.

Your government at work

(Belated; Blogger was pitching a fit this weekend)

As the Bushistas turn backflips to prevent anyone from getting getting close enough to evaluate the domestic espionage program that's legal in El Presidente's mind, a District judge ordered the Justice Dept. to honor the pesky Freedom of Information Act requests of citizens trying to do the oversight duty that their representatives have seen fit to abdicate. Seems someone with a sense of humor at the JD came upon this novel foot-dragging tactic:

"Routine FOIA requests are to be handled within 20 days while expedited requests have no set time limit under the law, prompting the Justice Department to take the position that the amount of time for expedited requests could be longer than that for the routine 20-day handling."

"Congress could not have intended to create the absurd situation" enabling the government to unilaterally exceed the standard 20-day period, Kennedy wrote.

Unfortunately, these days, we're saddled with a banana Republican Congress that goes out of its way to create absurd situations.

Abu Redux

SYDNEY (Reuters) - An Australian television station broadcast on Wednesday what it said were previously unpublished images of abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison, fuelling more Arab anger against the United States...Some of the newly broadcast pictures suggest further abuse such as killing, torture and sexual humiliation, Dateline said...The images were swiftly re-broadcast by Arab satellite television stations and several news organisations, including American ABC News television, showed them on their Web sites. They stirred up more anger among Arabs, already incensed by the publication on Sunday of images of British soldiers apparently beating Iraqi youths and by cartoons satirising the Prophet Mohammad printed in European papers this month.

"This is truly American ugliness that no other country in the world can compete with," journalist Saleh al-Humaidi told Reuters in Yemen.

"The Americans ought to apologise to mankind for their government's lie to the world that it is fighting for freedom and that it came to Iraq to save it from Saddam Hussein's oppression," he said.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the abuses at Abu Ghraib had already been fully investigated.

"The department believes that the release of all of these images will further inflame and cause unnecessary violence in the world," Whitman said.

"...In Abu Ghraib specifically, there have been more than 25 individuals -- officer and enlisted -- that have been held accountable for criminal acts and other failures."

Wonder if the boys at the Pentagon still think it was a good idea to stonewall and delay release of the rest of these Abu Graib photos? I mean, since their half-assed cover-up managed to keep the original media attention to a murmur, and all...

This should've been over almost two years ago. At least the "shocking revelation" portion, anyway. The government saw the effects, and could've gotten this out of the way all at once.

They chose not to, electing, instead, to keep this shoe waiting to drop. The people that would use this as an excuse for violence are despicable opportunists. That said, any so-called "inflaming" going on right now can be traced directly back to the decision-makers that buried this stuff, not the media. They made the call then, they need to own it now.

Hope it was worth it.

Congress prepares to pass King George his scepter

From the WaPo:

Congress appeared ready to launch an investigation into the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program last week, but an all-out White House lobbying campaign has dramatically slowed the effort and may kill it, key Republican and Democratic sources said yesterday...Lawmakers cite senators such as Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) to illustrate the administration's success in cooling congressional zeal for an investigation. On Dec. 20, she was among two Republicans and two Democrats who signed a letter expressing "our profound concern about recent revelations that the United States Government may have engaged in domestic electronic surveillance without appropriate legal authority." The letter urged the Senate's intelligence and judiciary committees to "jointly undertake an inquiry into the facts and law surrounding these allegations."

In an interview yesterday, Snowe said, "I'm not sure it's going to be essential or necessary" to conduct an inquiry "if we can address the legislative standpoint" that would provide oversight of the surveillance program. "We're learning a lot and we're going to learn more," she said.

From "profound concern," to doubting whether or not an inquiry is even needed. I wonder what she learned "a lot" of, that got her to the point where simply asking the questions is an unnecessary exercise? Surely, the fact that Karl Rove is making the rounds, giving "peptalks" to the Senators, reminding them of the consequences to their positions wouldn't have anything to do with it. And the fact that Snowe's running a re-election campaign for 2006 must also be one of those remarkable coincidences.

It has to be rough, setting out on the campaign trail without a spine.

At least Snowe gives lipservice to oversight. Her mewling attempt to hide her pathetically transparent reversal still puts her several steps above her fellow re-election seeker, Mike DeWine (R-OH). He stopped fellating the administration only long enough to write it a blank check:

He said he is drafting legislation that would "specifically authorize this program" by excluding it from the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which established a secret court to consider government requests for wiretap warrants in anti-terrorist investigations.

The administration would be required to brief regularly a small, bipartisan panel drawn from the House and Senate intelligence committees, DeWine said, and the surveillance program would require congressional reauthorization after five years to remain in place.

Spoken like a loyal Bushista. Nothing like "authorizing" something by codifying your decision to ignore the law. Only in El Presidente's "America" could a "we talk, you listen," briefing and an accountability moment that doesn't even occur every presidential term be called "oversight" with a straight face.

CPAC: The Temple of Bush

Perhaps the most telling aspect of CPAC is how it shows the GOP treating their own. Bob Barr, former Georgia rep was one of the featured speakers.

"Are we losing our lodestar, which is the Bill of Rights?" Barr beseeched the several hundred conservatives at the Omni Shoreham in Woodley Park. "Are we in danger of putting allegiance to party ahead of allegiance to principle?"

Barr answered in the affirmative. "Do we truly remain a society that believes that . . . every president must abide by the law of this country?" he posed. "I, as a conservative, say yes. I hope you as conservatives say yes."

But nobody said anything in the deathly quiet audience. Barr merited only polite applause when he finished, and one man, Richard Sorcinelli, booed him loudly. "I can't believe I'm in a conservative hall listening to him say [Bush] is off course trying to defend the United States," Sorcinelli fumed.

Sound familiar? It recalls the scorn heaped upon George Voinovich last year, when the Ohio senator found himself roundly vilified by so-called "republicans" as a coward and a traitor to his party for failing to support John Bolton's appointment to the United Nations. Nearly universally, the conservative and republican principles that have long been trumpeted by the GOP have been supplanted by unwavering allegiance to George Bush. (See Glenn Greenwald's must read piece and the follow-up over at Unclaimed Territory).

Small government.

Responsible spending.

Limited power.

All gone, apparently dismissed, along with any other belief/right/protection they find inconvenient. Perhaps all those things are "pre 9/11," too.

You hear it in conversations and see it in letters to the editor. It flows, unfiltered, online, from the shameful apologism of blogs like Powerlie to the venomous hostility of the posters at Little Green Fascists and redhate.org. Policy is right (and even legal) simply because El Presidente says it is. Critics are wrong (and, more often than not, "liberal") on no other basis than that they disagreed, in the first place. No other explanation or rebuttal is necessary. Conservative = Bush. Republican = Bush. Anything short of unwavering allegiance puts you on the other side and thus, completely unworthy of consideration.

CPAC: The gift that keeps on giving

And what Republican gathering would be complete without this classic from the "demonize a minority" section of the playbook:

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) spoke after Mehlman, and he promised that on June 5 he will bring to the floor a constitutional amendment to bar same-sex marriage, and pledged a May vote on eliminating the estate tax, items high on the conservative agenda.

Frist said the amendment is needed to protect the majority of Americans, whom he said oppose same-sex marriage, from "the whims of a few activist judges" who seek to "override the commonsense of the American people." He added, "When America's values are under attack, we need to act."

As soon as more than one "republican division" story is seen in the same news cycle, here comes Bill Frist rushing in to rally the base together to combat the Pink Peril. Apparently, punting on the racial epithet question wasn't enough to earn him his hate-monger merit badge, this week. Not while America needs protecting from the menace of more formalized, committed relationships, anyway. The mission to keeping civilly unionized homosexuals from running, door-to-door, dissolving straight marriages with their magic "irreconcilable difference dust" can only be addressed at the Constitutional level. The fact that pandering to ignorant prejudices = red state red meat is just a coincidental by-product, I'm sure.

And to get the two-fer, combining gay bashing with further tax cut largesse for the wealthiest Americans? Well, in case you didn't know it was an election year, you do now.

A GOP Primer: The (so-called) Conservative Political Action Conference

It's not often a topic as broad as "what's wrong with the GOP," can be brought into perfect, crystal-clear focus by one event. Last week's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) stripped away years of lies, spin artistry, and media-perpetuated myths to reveal the decayed reality behind the Republican's public facade. Not surprisingly, hatred was at the core of it all.

The GOoPers let their resident buffoon, Ann Coulter, get the crowd going with her customary venomous court jester routine, referring to Muslims--all in good fun, of course,--as "ragheads," snickering over the thought of killing Bill Clinton, and only warning conservative jurists of a terrorist threat to the Supreme Court.

High comedy, wouldn't you say? I can only assume she left the notecards for her immigration bit with all the "wetback" zingers, back stage.

Of course, the same audience that applauded and yukked it up over racial slurs was the very same group the Vice President of the United States was pandering to just two nights later. Maybe it's just me, but it seems that the Vice President's time would be reserved for valued supporters. If that's the case, it's a pretty interesting indicator of whom the GOP is valuing these days. If Deferment Dick's presence left any doubt as to who's being courted, the Rev. Frist erased it when he was asked for his opinion on Coulter's night at the Improv:

"I wasn't there, so I better not comment."

Think about that one for a second. The Senate majority leader wouldn't comment one way or the other on referring to Muslims as "ragheads." Apparently, in the distinguished gentleman from Tenessee's mind, either the appropriate reaction to racist comments isn't an obvious one, or he's concerned about the reaction to his weighing in on the matter.

Not sure which is worse.

Cheney's Got a Gun

Cheney's got a gun
Cheney's got a gun
It was all in good fun
Lost his huntin' buddy  in the sun
What did Whittington do?
After Cheney's last sip of brew?

They say when Cheney wasn't arrested
It was because he had no blame
The man, he had it comin'
Knew that Cheney got a gun
And didn't try to keep out of range

Cheney's got a gun
Cheney's got a gun
Quail season's just begun.
Everybody is on the run
Tell me now it's untrue
What did Whittington do?

He turned his back to look for birdies,
The man has got to be insane
In the brush that he was under,
Dick's white lightning-fueled blunder
Had him rolling on the ground in pain

Run away, Run away from the Chene,
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah

Run away, Run away from the Chene,
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah

Cheney's got a gun
Cheney's got a gun
Huntin' day was almost done
Everybody is on the run
What did Whittington do?
It's Cheney's last turkey shoot

He likes doing it easy
And "hunting" things straight from a cage
He said 'cause nobody believed me
I do not suffer E.D.
Whit'll never be the same

Run away, run away from the Chene
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
Run away, run away, run, run away
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah

Cheney's got a gun
Cheney's got a gun

"Brownie" putting El Presidente on notice?

After loyally stonewalling Congress for Dear Leader, Mike Brown 's tune appears to have changed not that the "president's prerogative" might not keep him out of the slam. From CNN:

In a February 6 letter to White House counsel Harriet Miers, (Michael) Brown's lawyer wrote that Brown continues to respect Bush and his "presidential prerogative" to get candid and confidential advice from top aides.

The letter from Andrew W. Lester also says Brown no longer can rely on being included in that protection because he is a private citizen. "Unless there is specific direction otherwise from the president, including an assurance the president will provide a legal defense to Mr. Brown if he refuses to testify as to these matters, Mr. Brown will testify if asked about particular communications," the lawyer wrote.

Looks like either the preznit s

hows some of that famous generosity toward dedicated toadies, or Brown throws him under the bus, exposing a disaster of incompetance with Executive fingerprints all over it.

Heckuva job, Brownie, heckuva job.

The Republican Culture of Corruption? Just a Lefty myth, of course.

WASHINGTON - Indicted Rep. Tom DeLay, forced to step down as the No. 2 Republican in the House, scored a soft landing Wednesday as GOP leaders rewarded him with a coveted seat on the Appropriations Committee...DeLay was able to rejoin the powerful Appropriations panel — he was a member until becoming majority leader in 2003 — because of a vacancy created after the resignation of Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif. Cunningham pleaded guilty in November to charges relating to accepting $2.4 million in bribes for government business and other favors.

"Republicans in Congress just can't seem to resist standing by their man," said Bill Burton, spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee."

Really, what else can you say?

No one knows 'class' like the GOPer Hood-and-Sheet brigade

Well, it's been a long day, trying to keep food down while listening to Righty Whitey, in all his various forms, bloviate indignantly over the unmitigated gall shown by Coretta Scott King's eulogizers when they chose to address issues of equality and social justice at her funeral. Apparently, these days, discussion of such matters constitutes "Bush Bashing." Though, it seems to me (as has been frequently observed), if those topics cannot be addressed without appearing critical of the president, that says far more about administration policy than anything else.

Within moments of the attendees giving Rev. Joseph Lowery a lengthy standing ovation for his comments on the Iraq War and domestic programs for the impoverished, the Wingnuts nearly had a hemorrhage as they furiously lectured on what is, and isn't, appropriate at a funeral. Instantly, they became the ultimate authorities on what constitutes "class."

"They had no class..."

"It was a classless display..."

"President Bush is the only one who showed any class..."

Nevermind that Rev. King, himself, famously took the opportunity to address larger issues at a funeral, and Mrs. King repeatedly used the platform offered by other occasions to do the same thing, Tuesday's service was an affront to common decency. And the backlash was as venomous as it was groundless. Where there weren't broad generalizations about "the Libruls," there was a seething animosity towards the civil rights movement, in general. Courtesy the pigs who wallow at redstate.com:

As to the movement: "If the truth be told, it was an extortion scam to enrich themselves. Mrs. King carried on this tradition. Anytime you wanted to use anything that was MLK, Jr. you had to pay Mrs. King...praise (her) for the loss of a husband and who had to raise her children by herself, but don't latch on to a myth and try to make it true."

And the service, itself: "I don't know the makeup of the King funeral attendees but you can bet a large portion were high profile Dems with an even higher concentration of race hustling poverty pimps."

Extortion scams and race hustling poverty pimps. Talk about class. I'm a little surprised they managed to discuss the Rev. Lowry's address without using the word "uppity."

Working for consensus, Generalissimo Bush-style

Maybe it's just me, but if I was looking at a situation where even people I considered allies were taking me to task over something I did, I would do everything in my power to fully explain myself in the hopes of regaining their confidence.

For the sake of argument, let's say that, as president, I, oh, I don't know...ordered that American citizens be subject to warrantless surveillance in a heretofore plainly illegal abuse of power. One based on the flimsiest of legal interpretations that would be generously described as "wishful thinking." I'd probably send a platoon of lawyers to all the relevant parties, ready to cite chapter and verse on every possible precedent for my actions. But that's just me. This is El Presidente's "America," where the only answer is to send in your hatchet man to rough some people up. From The Moonie Times' Insight on the News:

Rove counting heads on the Senate Judiciary Committee

The White House has been twisting arms to ensure that no Republican member votes against President Bush in the Senate Judiciary Committee�s investigation of the administration's unauthorized wiretapping.

Congressional sources said Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove has threatened to blacklist any Republican who votes against the president. The sources said the blacklist would mean a halt in any White House political or financial support of senators running for re-election in November.

"It's hardball all the way," a senior GOP congressional aide said.

The sources said the administration has been alarmed over the damage that could result from the Senate hearings, which began on Monday, Feb. 6. They said the defection of even a handful of Republican committee members could result in a determination that the president violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Such a determination could lead to impeachment proceedings.

Over the last few weeks, Mr. Rove has been calling in virtually every Republican on the Senate committee as well as the leadership in Congress. The sources said Mr. Rove's message has been that a vote against Mr. Bush would destroy GOP prospects in congressional elections.

"He's [Rove] lining them up one by one," another congressional source said.

Mr. Rove is leading the White House campaign to help the GOP in November�s congressional elections. The sources said the White House has offered to help loyalists with money and free publicity, such as appearances and photo-ops with the president.

Those deemed disloyal to Mr. Rove would appear on his blacklist. The sources said dozens of GOP members in the House and Senate are on that list.

So far, only a handful of GOP senators have questioned Mr. Rove's tactics.

Some have raised doubts about Mr. Rove's strategy of painting the Democrats, who have opposed unwarranted surveillance, as being dismissive of the threat posed by al Qaeda terrorists.

"Well, I didn't like what Mr. Rove said, because it frames terrorism and the issue of terrorism and everything that goes with it, whether it's the renewal of the Patriot Act or the NSA wiretapping, in a political context," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, Nebraska Republican.

After all, why explain when you can intimidate the principled and bribe the servile? Dear Leader will have to start strutting about in epaulettes and riding breeches for this administration to get any closer to whatever Central American junta it's styled after.

Babbling 'Berto's Big Day

For all the tough talk out of Arlen Specter, these hearings are shaping up to be a joke. Out of the gate, the GOPers on the committee close ranks to block an effort to have Gonzales give his testimony under oath. When Feingold presses on it, Snarlin' Arlen declares that, "This is really not a very good way to begin this hearing."

No shit.

What part is less good, the fact that the witness is an apparent perjurer or the fact that wanting such a man sworn in is treated as a nuisance? Not surprsingly, the "not good" continued when Gonzo was pressed on exactly what sort of harm Porter Goss and Dick Cheney were stridently--and vaguely--bleating about coming from this investigation.

Gonzales: "I think, based on my experience, it is true -- you would assume that the enemy is presuming that we are engaged in some kind of surveillance.

But if they're not reminded about it all the time in the newspapers and in stories, they sometimes forget."

They forget? Well then, I guess that means if El Presidente would only stop using terrorism and 9/11 as a club on EVERY policy initiative he has, there'd be even more careless slip-ups we could capitalize on, wouldn't there? Might just have to look into that one.

And from the stupefying to the stupid:

Gonzales: "President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale."

Word has it that Abe even engaged in a tricky bit of psychological warfare, orchestrating a Google-bombing campaign that caused gay porn to pop up as the number one hit everytime someone searched "Jefferson Davis" or "Robert E. Lee."

Operation: Lay the Groundwork, Part II

"The Iranian regime is today the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism." -- Donald Rumsfeld, 02/04/2006

Sound familiar?

"We clearly know that there were in the past and have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time," Rice said. "We know too that several of the (al Qaeda) detainees, in particular some high-ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to al Qaeda in chemical weapons development." -- Condoleezza Rice, 09/25/2002

"We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." -- George Bush, 10/07/2002

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida." -- State of the Union Address, 1/28/2003

Just two weeks ago, Rove crawled out from his hole to lay out the GOP's strategy for this year's elections: paper over the party's corruption and disregard for the law by making the war on terror the central issue. And now, all of a sudden, the rhetoric changes from Iran's "blackmailing the world," and threats to Israel, to it being the leading state sponsor of terrorism. Given the parties involved, to suggest that that shift is a coincidence is either hopelessly naive, or an insult to the listener's intelligence.

So does anyone really believe Rummy when he says, "We must continue to work together to seek a diplomatic solution to stopping the development of (Iran's) uranium enrichment program?"

Didn't think so.

Statistics

Percentage of people who:

Think country is on the wrong track: 57

Want warrants for citizens under terror investigation: 53

Are extremely/quite concerned warrantless wiretaps could be misused: 56

Approve of the job George Bush is doing as president: 39

Disapprove: 54

But remember: "Tonight the state of our Union is strong – and together we will make it stronger."

Damn Lies...

Administration backs off Bush's vow to reduce Mideast oil imports

By Kevin G. Hall
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally.

What the president meant, they said in a conference call with reporters, was that alternative fuels could displace an amount of oil imports equivalent to most of what America is expected to import from the Middle East in 2025.

But America still would import oil from the Middle East, because that's where the greatest oil supplies are.

The president's State of the Union reference to Mideast oil made headlines nationwide Wednesday because of his assertion that "America is addicted to oil" and his call to "break this addiction."

Bush vowed to fund research into better batteries for hybrid vehicles and more production of the alternative fuel ethanol, setting a lofty goal of replacing "more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025."

He pledged to "move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past."

Not exactly, though, it turns out.

"This was purely an example," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said.

He "didn't mean it literally?" Why not just come out and say he had his fingers crossed, why don't you? How about it, traditional conservatives, where does lying in the State of the Union rank with criminal invasion of privacy and drunken sailor-like fiscal policy on your list of government "do's?"

Lies...

Gonzales Is Challenged on Wiretaps

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 31, 2006; Page A07

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) charged yesterday that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales misled the Senate during his confirmation hearing a year ago when he appeared to try to avoid answering a question about whether the president could authorize warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens.

In a letter to the attorney general yesterday, Feingold demanded to know why Gonzales dismissed the senator's question about warrantless eavesdropping as a "hypothetical situation" during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in January 2005. At the hearing, Feingold asked Gonzales where the president's authority ends and whether Gonzales believed the president could, for example, act in contravention of existing criminal laws and spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant.

Gonzales said that it was impossible to answer such a hypothetical question but that it was "not the policy or the agenda of this president" to authorize actions that conflict with existing law. He added that he would hope to alert Congress if the president ever chose to authorize warrantless surveillance, according to a transcript of the hearing.

In fact, the president did secretly authorize the National Security Agency to begin warrantless monitoring of calls and e-mails between the United States and other nations soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The program, publicly revealed in media reports last month, was unknown to Feingold and his staff at the time Feingold questioned Gonzales, according to a staff member. Feingold's aides developed the 2005 questions based on privacy advocates' concerns about broad interpretations of executive power.

Gonzales was White House counsel at the time the program began and has since acknowledged his role in affirming the president's authority to launch the surveillance effort. Gonzales is scheduled to testify Monday before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the program's legal rationale.

"It now appears that the Attorney General was not being straight with the Judiciary Committee and he has some explaining to do," Feingold said in a statement yesterday.

A Justice Department spokesman said yesterday the department had not yet reviewed the Feingold letter and could not comment.

Just a "by the way" on this: During his confirmation hearings, 'Berto, here, was UNDER OATH. "Not being straight," Sen. Feingold? I always thought that taking that kind of liberty with the truth was called "perjury."

The Attorney General of the United States lies to Congress...and it rates page A-7. 'Course, in the WaPo, these days, when it comes to covering administration malfeasance--instead of their customary covering it up--that's the equivalent of a 25-point, front page headline above the fold.

(Honestly, I was pleasantly surprised by their decision to simply quote Gonzales and juxtapose it with what he actually knew at the time, rather than repeatedly framing it as a "democrats say..." situation. "Steno" Sue Schmidt and Deb Howell must've been out of the office, I guess...)