Just because they say it doesn't mean it's true

This week, Mike Huckabee, Arkansas' mental midget of a governor, was in a snit because the state supreme court refused to allow discrimination against gay foster parents. He huffed and puffed that the court lacked concern for "what's good for (the) children needing foster care." Mouthbreather Mike's basis for opining that gay parents aren't "good" for children in the foster care system?

Little more than his own say so.

In applying such airtight logic, Huckabee follows in the rich GOP tradition of trying to manufacture truth through repetition. Of course, this only works if they have the complicity of the dutiful stenographers posing as journalists in the nation's newsrooms. Unfortunately, more often than not, they're all too willing to oblige rather than risk not being included with the kewl kidz and invited to all the great cocktail parties. Though Huckabee was the latest, it's really been a banner week for this garbage.

On the NYT's story that divulged no operational knowledge, and actually fell far short of other already published information:

President Bush said Monday it was "disgraceful" that the news media had disclosed a secret CIA-Treasury program to track millions of financial records in search of terrorist suspects. The White House accused The New York Times of breaking a long tradition of keeping wartime secrets.

"The fact that a newspaper disclosed it makes it harder to win this war on terror," Bush said, leaning forward and jabbing his finger during a brief question-and-answer session with reporters in the Roosevelt Room. -- 06/27/06

Since he can't lead, El Presidente begins to campaign:

"There's a group in the opposition party who are willing to retreat before the mission is done," he said. "They're willing to wave the white flag of surrender. And if they succeed, the United States will be worse off, and the world will be worse off." -- George Bush, 06/28/06

And finally, responding to the SCOTUS' stunning realization that they're a co-equal branch of government:

White House counselor Dan Bartlett says the administration's task now is to determine how to design military tribunals that will pass constitutional muster. Bartlett says Bush could portray any lawmaker who objects to legislation as supporting the release of dangerous terrorists. -- 06/30/06

The same thing is missing in every case: anything bearing even the slightest resemblance to a fact supporting the slanderous assertion in question.

How was the war on terror compromised?

Who wants to wave the white flag of surrender?

Who supports releasing terrorists and how does not nodding dumbly at whatever the Bushistas recommend signify that?

Time and again, ridiculous assertions like these are met with unconditional acceptance, and repeated ad nauseum. In an all-too-rare display of journalistic spine, the Today show's Matt Lauer called out Dan Barlett, Bush toadie extraordinaire, on those flag-waving surrender monkeys that his boss is hallucinating about:

LAUER: The white flag of surrender — that’s a very dramatic and harsh expression to use against the Democrats. Have you heard any Democrats calling for the white flag of surrender?

BARTLETT: Well, I have heard a lot of Democrats call this President a liar, saying we’ve gone into Iraq for the wrong reasons, saying that he’s incomptent. So there is a lot of heated rhetoric in Washington. But what we see in the heart wrenching developments, when we see our 2 soldiers lose their lives in such a horrific way, is that we’re up against a very determined enemy. This is an epic struggle in which we have to be committed to winning.

Don't seem to hear a name, there, Dan...

What about "biased" and "baseless" is unclear to you, Mike?

Apparently, Arkansas has the best foster care system in the country; one so glutted with parents that there isn't a single child in need of a home.

Ark. governor seeks gay-foster-parent ban

ANDREW DEMILLO
Associated Press

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said Friday he hopes the Legislature considers reimposing a ban on gay foster parents, struck down a day earlier by the state Supreme Court.

"I'm very disappointed that the court seems more interested in what's good for gay couples than what's good for children needing foster care," Huckabee said through his spokeswoman Alice Stewart.

The state Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a lower court decision that threw out a ban on homosexuals serving as foster parents. Four people sued after the policy was put in effect in 1999. The state Child Welfare Board dropped the policy after losing a court fight in 2004.

Arkansas Health and Human Services spokeswoman Julie Munsell said the four who successfully challenged the policy have not applied to be foster parents.

Thursday's court ruling left open the possibility that legislators could enact a ban by law or possibly give a state board authority to do so.

But Rita Sklar, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Arkansas, said the court ruling itself could make legislation difficult to pass. She cited language in the ruling that said there was no connection between homosexuality and a child's welfare.

In the unanimous ruling, the court said testimony in the state's appeal demonstrated that "the driving force behind adoption of the regulations was not to promote the health, safety and welfare of foster children but rather based upon the board's views of morality and its bias against homosexuals."

Being raised by homosexuals doesn't cause academic problems or gender identity problems, as the state had argued, the Supreme Court said.

Mike Huckabee is a pig.

Shrink the pool of eligible foster parents just to codify your animosity towards gays and lesbians into law. Tells you all you need to know, really. There is good news, though:

"Huckabee is leaving office in 2007 because of term limits."

'07 can't come soon enough for the children in Arkansas.

The Boy King gets spanked

Supreme Court Rejects Guantanamo War Crimes Trials
In 5-3 Decision, Justices Rebuke Bush's Anti-Terror Policy

By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 29, 2006; 10:44 AM

The Supreme Court today delivered a stunning rebuke to the Bush administration over its plans to try Guantanamo detainees before military commissions, ruling that the commissions are unconstitutional.

In a 5-3 decision, the court said the trials were not authorized under U.S. law or the Geneva Conventions. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion in the case, called Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. recused himself from the case.

The ruling, which overturned a federal appeals court decision in which Roberts had participated, represented a defeat for President Bush, who had ordered military trials for detainees at the Guantanamo Bay naval base. About 450 detainees captured in the war on terrorism are currently held at the U.S. naval base in Cuba.

The case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a 36-year-old Yemeni with links to al-Qaeda, was considered a key test of the judiciary's power during wartime and carried the potential to make a lasting impact on American law. It challenged the very legality of the military commissions established by President Bush to try terrorism suspects.

The case raised core constitutional principles of separation of powers as well as fundamental issues of individual rights. Specifically, the questions concerned:

** The power of Congress and the executive to strip the federal courts and the Supreme Court of jurisdiction.

** The authority of the executive to lock up individuals under claims of wartime power, without benefit of traditional protections such as a jury trial, the right to cross-examine one's accusers and the right to judicial appeal.

** The applicability of international treaties -- specifically the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war -- to the government's treatment of those it deems "enemy combatants."

Looks like The Decider made a few decisions he shouldn't have. All things being equal, this could be quite important, especially the point about the application of the Geneva conventions. SCOTUSblog has the goods:

Even more importantly for present purposes, the Court held that Common Article 3 of Geneva applies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda. That is the HUGE part of today's ruling. The commissions are the least of it. This basically resolves the debate about interrogation techniques, because Common Article 3 provides that detained persons "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely," and that "[t]o this end," certain specified acts "are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever"—including "cruel treatment and torture," and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." This standard, not limited to the restrictions of the due process clause, is much more restrictive than even the McCain Amendment.

This almost certainly means that the CIA's interrogation regime is unlawful, and indeed, that many techniques the Administation has been using, such as waterboarding and hypothermia (and others) violate the War Crimes Act (because violations of Common Article 3 are deemed war crimes).

Of course, as I said, that's assuming all things are equal. Unfortunately, with a junta administration as focused on secrecy and unilateral power as this one is, "equal" is precisely what things are not. In El Presidente's estimation, the balance of powers set forth in the Constitution is little more than an outmoded suggestion that's to be adhered to only insofar as it's convenient at the time.

Th' fock, Obama?

Obama: Democrats Must Court Evangelicals

By DAVID ESPO
The Associated Press
Wednesday, June 28, 2006; 6:09 PM

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Barack Obama chastised fellow Democrats on Wednesday for failing to "acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people," and said the party must compete for the support of evangelicals and other churchgoing Americans.

"Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation. Context matters," the Illinois Democrat said in remarks to a conference of Call to Renewal, a faith-based movement to overcome poverty.

"It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase `under God,'" he said. "Having voluntary student prayer groups using school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats."

Obama is beginning to look positively Lieberman-esque in his willingness to throw the Democratic party under the bus--falsely, I might add--in order to stand out. The GOP has enough of their minions repeating the "Democrats don't relate to the faithful" canard without him regurgitating it as truth. The only way the Dems "failed to acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of Americans" was by refusing to cast their lot with the hateful initiatives being pushed by Hastert and Frist on behalf of the Dobsons of the world.

The rhetoric is really unvelieveable. Obama's choice to connect his criticisms to the Pledge flap is as dishonest as it gets. The efforts to remove "under god" and the associated allegations of so-called oppression were the furthest thing from a Democratic party issue. Karl Rove himself, couldn't have crafted that straw man any better.

If Obama wants to inspire greater outreach to "the faithful," there are far more constructive ways to do it than tearing down his own party by legitimizing the GOP's fallacious smears.

One step forward, two steps back

I suppose I should've known it was too good to be true.

House GOP to focus on abortion, guns

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent

WASHINGTON - House Republicans intend to hold votes this summer and fall touching on abortion, guns, religion and other priority issues for social conservatives, part of an attempt to improve the party's prospects in the midterm elections.

The "American Values Agenda" also includes a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage — which already has failed in the Senate — a prohibition on human cloning and possibly votes on several popular tax cuts.

"Radical courts have attempted to gut our religious freedom and redefine the value system on which America was built. We hope to restore some of those basic values through passing this legislative agenda and renewing our country's commitment to faith, freedom and life," Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said Tuesday.

The priorities are part of competing attempts by the two parties to appeal to target voters in the fall campaign, with control of the House and Senate at stake. It's unclear how many of these bills might clear Congress and reach President Bush's desk, given the controversy many will cause and the relatively short time remaining before the two-year Congress ends. (More)

I was stunned to see two consecutive articles actually calling out the GOP on their bald-faced legislative stunts designed to rally the Far Right and the Evangeliban. The traditional media was rousing from its slumber. (Or, alternately, the Republican schemes were growing too transparent even for their formerly willing patsies in the stenography journalism trade).

And then they threw in that last paragraph.

Whatever is happening, everybody's all about pandering all the time. Republicans are pushing a gay marriage ban, a flag burning amendment, a bill that mandates telling women that an abortion "will cause the unborn child pain," and further legislation about the Ten Commandments and the Pledge of Allegiance.

The Dems' attempts to "curry favor?" Legislation to raise the minimum wage for the first time in EIGHT YEARS, and a measure to add direct price negotiation to the administration's disasterous Medicare prescription drug plan.

THOSE are your (presumably equivalent) "competing plans to appeal to target voters."

"Balanced coverage" - 1, Honest reporting - 0

Where does one begin?

Flag amendment fails by single vote

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The narrow defeat of a proposal to ban flag desecration marks the second time in a month Senate Republicans have lost bids to amend the Constitution in ways designed to inspire social conservatives to vote in the midterm elections.

The 66-34 tally on the flag amendment Tuesday was one less than the two-thirds, or 67 votes, required to send it to the states for ratification. The House cleared the two-thirds threshold last year, 286-130.

Sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the amendment read: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

A proposed amendment earlier this month to ban gay marriage suffered a more decisive defeat, killed on a test vote.

Winning isn't the only goal for those measures or other social policy proposals congressional Republicans will bring up this year in an effort to energize their base of voters.

House Republicans intend to hold votes this summer and fall touching on abortion, guns, religion and other priority issues for social conservatives, part of an attempt to improve the party's prospects in the midterm elections.

The "American Values Agenda" also includes the gay marriage amendment, a prohibition on human cloning and possibly votes on several popular tax cuts.

The flag amendment's cliffhanger defeat a week before Independence Day represented Congress' response to Supreme Court rulings in 1989 and 1990 that burning and other desecration of the flag are protected as free speech by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Thankfully, once again, the far right's pathetic pandering goes down to defeat. Unfortunately, it shouldn't have been anywhere near this close. A constitutional amendment that would serve to curtail the Bill of Rights came within a vote of advancing to the ratification stage thanks to so-called Democrats who thought the best way to represent their constituents would be to cast their lot with the Republican cheerleading team.

Despicable.

The 'yea' votes that were cast on this measure are a blot on the record of each and every one of those 66 senators, regardless of what side of the aisle they sit on.

The real positive that came out of this shameless display is the reporting that we're finally seeing. Though long, LONG overdue, the dog and pony show is being called out for exactly what it is: "an attempt to improve the party's prospects in midterm elections."

No benefit to the people.

No solution to any of the nation's problems.

Just a sop to the base.

Why do the Iraqis want to cut and run?

From The Times in the UK:

 

"The Iraqi Government will announce a sweeping peace plan as early as Sunday in a last-ditch effort to end the Sunni insurgency that has taken the country to the brink of civil war.
 
The 28-point package for national reconciliation will offer Iraqi resistance groups inclusion in the political process and an amnesty for their prisoners if they renounce violence and lay down their arms, The Times can reveal.
 
The Government will promise a finite, UN-approved timeline for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq; a halt to US operations against insurgent strongholds; an end to human rights violations, including those by coalition troops; and compensation for victims of attacks by terrorists or Iraqi and coalition forces."

 

Looks like the days of dealing with Iraq by playing politics in lieu of crafting workable policy may be at an end, no thanks to anyone in the U.S.

 

Apparently, the Iraqi government has no interest in waiting for us to finish a "debate" on its country that consists of sanctimonious, catchphrase-laden, election year posturing while its people are being kidnapped, executed, and blown up in the streets.  (I wonder if they know they're "surrendering," "embracing defeat," and "leaving the country to the terrorists?") 

 

This sort of initiative is what can happen when leadership doesn't stand by, content in its willful obliviousness to the real-life consequences of its clearly failed policies.  It's thoroughly embarrassing to see this going on, when, time and again, the American people accept swaggering and sloganeering instead of demanding action and governance.  We reap what we sow, however, and eventually, so does BushCo. 

 

Insurgent amnesty

 

An end to coalition human rights violations

 

Compensation for coalition attacks

 

The points discussed are nothing if not a humiliating--and much deserved--repudiation of the course that El Presidente is so determined to stay, an unequivocal "fuck you very much," to the architects of this disaster and their supporters in the 82nd Chairborne.  Unfortunately, the congressional Dems are as unlikely to see the writing on the wall as the Bushistas.  The American people, the Iraqi people, and now the official Iraqi government all want some sort of timetable for getting the hell out.  Not sure how much more cover people need to stand with Kerry, Feingold and the rest who voted for a reasonable timetable of redeployment and withdrawal.

 

Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), co-sponsor
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Sen. James Jeffords (I-VT)
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), co-sponsor
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) 

 

Power to the Sheeple

U.S. gun owners accuse U.N. of July 4 conspiracy

By Irwin Arieff

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Americans mistakenly worried the United Nations is plotting to take away their guns on July 4 -- U.S. Independence Day -- are flooding the world body with angry letters and postcards, the chairman of a U.N. conference on the illegal small arms trade said on Wednesday.

"I myself have received over 100,000 letters from the U.S. public, criticising me personally, saying, 'You are having this conference on the 4th of July, you are not going to get our guns on that day,'" said Prasad Kariyawasam, Sri Lanka's U.N. ambassador.

"That is a total misconception as far as we are concerned," Kariyawasam told reporters ahead of the two-week meeting opening on Monday.

For one, July 4 is a holiday at U.N. headquarters and the world body's staff will be watching a fireworks display from the U.N. lawn rather than attending any meetings, he said.

For another, the U.N. conference will look only at illegal arms and "does not in any way address legal possession," a matter left to national governments to regulate rather than the United Nations, he added.

The campaign is largely the work of the U.S. National Rifle Association, whose executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, warns on an NRA Web site ( http://www.stopungunban.org/ ) of a July 4 plot "to finalise a U.N. treaty that would strip all citizens of all nations of their right to self-protection."

Kariyawasam said, "The U.N. conference will not negotiate any treaty to prohibit citizens of any country from possessing firearms or to interfere with the legal trade in small arms and light weapons." (continued)

So let's review: The same UN that couldn't stop us from waging a unilateral, preemptive war on the other side of the globe is going to curtail gun sales within the U.S.? What, other than Wayne LaPierre's paranoid rantings, makes them think that the UN could influence our domestic gun laws, even if it wanted to?

Confronted--again--with reality frustratingly biased against them, the usual mouthpieces swing into action with another "reinforce through repetition" campaign making ranting and fact interchangeable. Now even if one of their drones is stirred from his usual somnambulant state by the obvious contradiction in meassage, and looks up "UN gun ownership," "UN gun control," etc., the first thing he finds is a dutiful regurgitation of LaPierre's Chicken Little routine courtesy of wingnutdaily.

Once again, the far right has no problem assuming whatever side of an argument suits it at the time. The ineffectual, do-nothing entity that can't accomplish anything regarding terrorism, Iran, North Korea, etc., now is an imminent threat to individual rights in the most powerful country in the world...and, based on no evidence whatsoever, 100,000+ Americans fall, obediently, into slackjawed lockstep, nodding slowly.

And these are the folks who fancy themselves armed defenders of freedom...

The amnesty tapdance begins

This is getting better by the minute, don't you think?

Maliki Aide Who Discussed Amnesty Leaves Job
Premier Disavows Remarks

By Ellen Knickmeyer and Jonathan Finer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, June 16, 2006; Page A22

BAGHDAD, June 15 -- Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's office on Thursday accepted the resignation of an aide who had told a reporter that Maliki was considering a limited amnesty that would likely include guerrillas who had attacked U.S. troops, the aide said.

The Maliki aide who resigned, Adnan Ali al-Kadhimi, stood by his account of amnesty considerations, reported Thursday by The Washington Post. Kadhimi said Maliki had indicated the same position less directly in public. "The prime minister himself has said that he is ready to give amnesty to the so-called resistance, provided they have not been involved in killing Iraqis," Kadhimi said Thursday.

Maliki's office issued a statement earlier Thursday saying, "Mr. Adnan Kadhimi doesn't represent the Iraqi government in this issue, and Mr. Kadhimi is not an advisor or spokesman for the prime minister."

Given al Maliki's earlier statements about troops killing civilians, and the carefully vague maneuvering going on now, this looks like far less of a "disavowal," than it does a gentle distancing to avoid the embarrassment of this coming out a day after El Presidente's ambush visit to the Green Zone.

Now that the adviser mentioned in the original article fell/was thrown onto his own sword and is "resigning" his position, it'll be interesting is to see if this elicits a similar shift from folks like Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Ted Stevens (R-AK) who fell over themselves to enthusiastically endorse amnesty for troop-killing insurgents on the Senate floor.

"I really believe we ought to try to find some way to encourage that country to demonstrate to those people who have been opposed to what we're trying to do, that it's worthwhile for them and their children to come forward and support this democracy. And if that's amnesty, I'm for it. I'd be for it." - Sen. Ted Stevens

"...might it not just be as useful an exercise to be trying to pass a resolution commending the Iraqi government for the position that they've taken today with regard to this discussion of Amnesty?" - Sen. Mitch McConnell

The pirouettes that these guys are doing on individuals who, 36 hours ago, were "terrorists" are hilarious. There are officially no limits when it comes to spinning events to manufacture "progress" in the disaster they've helped to create, even if it means commending efforts to wipe the slate for people who've killed U.S. soldiers.

Wonder how that figures into the last three years of the GOP's self-righteous bloviation about "supporting the troops?"

Amnesty for those who "only" killed U.S. troops. Bravo, BushCo...

From today's WaPo:

Iraq Amnesty Plan May Cover Attacks On U.S. Military

By Ellen Knickmeyer and Jonathan Finer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, June 15, 2006; Page A01

BAGHDAD, June 14 -- Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Wednesday proposed a limited amnesty to help end the Sunni Arab insurgency as part of a national reconciliation plan that Maliki said would be released within days. The plan is likely to include pardons for those who had attacked only U.S. troops, a top adviser said.

Maliki's declaration of openness to talks with some members of Sunni armed factions, and the prospect of pardons, are concessions that previous, interim governments had avoided. The statements marked the first time a leader from Iraq's governing Shiite religious parties has publicly embraced national reconciliation, welcomed dialogue with armed groups and proposed a limited amnesty.

Reconciliation could include an amnesty for those "who weren't involved in the shedding of Iraqi blood," Maliki told reporters at a Baghdad news conference. "Also, it includes talks with the armed men who opposed the political process and now want to turn back to political activity."

...The Arab League on Wednesday postponed a reconciliation conference for Iraq that had been set for August. Adnan Ali al-Kadhimi, a top adviser to Maliki, said the conference was delayed in part so Iraq could decide who might be eligible for any amnesty. It was not clear how the government would verify which insurgents have been responsible for which types of attacks.

"The government has in mind somehow to do reconciliation, and one way to do it is to offer an amnesty, but not a sort of unconditional amnesty," Kadhimi said in a telephone interview. "We can see if somehow those who are so-called resistance can be accepted if they have not been involved in any kind of criminal behavior, such as killing innocent people or damaging infrastructure, and even infrastructure if it is minor will be pardoned."

His aide, Khadimi, provided further clarification later in the piece:

Asked about clemency for those who attacked U.S. troops, he said: "That's an area where we can see a green line. There's some sort of preliminary understanding between us and the MNF-I," the U.S.-led Multi-National Force-Iraq, "that there is a patriotic feeling among the Iraqi youth and the belief that those attacks are legitimate acts of resistance and defending their homeland. These people will be pardoned definitely, I believe."

Beginning with his recent forceful condemnation of the U.S. military's "habitual" attacks on civilians, it's becoming increasingly clear that Al-Maliki's strategy for consolidating support is built upon embracing the people's seething bitterness towards the U.S. Yes, the new PM is looking to be quite the politician, these days, and quite a familiar one, as well.

Hate mobilizes; latch onto that, and the votes will follow.

Where have we heard THAT tune played before?

It looks like the Rove playbook has finally received its Arabic translation. El Presidente has gays and immigrants, Al-Maliki has us. I couldn't think of a more appropriate development for Dear Leader's unnecessary war of choice and egotism. Good to see him finally showing that "uniter, not divider" side. In light of the "friendly democracy" stage of his bullshit story evolving rationale for this debacle, the irony is absolutely priceless.

Quote of the Day

"That the Democrats couldn't find someone to beat George Bush is staggering. It's like finding a normal person who'd lose in the Special Olympics." -- Lewis Black, "Red, White, and Screwed"

I'll believe she's human when I see the DNA results....

In the 2000 film, Way of the Gun, comedienne Sarah Silverman had a small role credited only as "Raving Bitch." No cool segue here, that just came to me for some reason.

You have to hand it to Ann Coulter; every time you think she's managed to drag punditry as far into the gutter as possible, she simply wipes her brow and keeps on clawing her way to new depths. (And, for the record, by "punditry," I absolutely mean the rhetorical equivalent of rolling, naked, in filth, and flinging her own feces while jibbering incoherently).

NBC's Today was kind enough to, once again, offer Coulter a national platform so she could vomit forth her "commentary" to as many people as possible. Morning viewers were treated to this insightful exchange with Matt Lauer:

LAUER: Do you believe everything in the book, or do you put some things in there just to cater to your base?

COULTER: No, of course, I believe everything.

LAUER. All right. On the 9-11 widows, and in particular a group that has been outspoken and critical of the administration: "These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks only happened to them." "[T]hey believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing Bush was an important part of their closure process."

And this part is the part I really need to talk to you about: "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, revelling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' death so much."

COULTER: Yes.

While the far right /GOP (same difference, after all) has consistently made the point that there can be no valid crticism of El Presidente--it all stems from "Bush-hating"--few have done so in such despicable fashion. Clearly, what's obvious to just about everyone else in the country, is that these women have far more important reasons to want answers about 9/11. Unfortunately, as logic often does, this presents quite the quandry for one-note jokes like Coulter.

Because she cannot refute the fact that the Jersey Girls cared far more about the goals and findings of the 9/11 commission than did George Bush, Coulter is left with the only club in the Right's bag: The critics are just spewing partisan hatred. As witless as this particular attack dog apologist is, even SHE realizes this is an impossible sell. Need proof? Shortly after the above exchange, Coulter tried to justify it, thussly:

"If they have a point to make about the 9-11 Commission, about how to fight the war on terrorism, how about sending in somebody we're allowed to respond to? No, no, no, we always have to respond to someone who just had a family member die."

Not surprisingly, Coulter hangs her explanation on an utterly false premise that she presents as fact. Even a grieving family member can have his/her arguments addressed on their merits. As noted, though, the only "response" Coulter has, is a baseless ad hominem attack. In this case, it's a more blatanly inappropriate strategy than, perhaps, ever before, and, as a result, it has her frothing in an impotent rage. Clearly, after four and a half years of this frustration, her taste for Dear Leader's shoe leather got the better of her and she decided that it was open season on terror widows.

She's the GOP's poster girl. We must make them own her and all of her venom.

Laugh to keep from crying

The first presidential headline following the (very much anticipated) defeat of the "Marriage Protection Amendment?"

"Bush says immigrants must learn English"

If, at first, you don't succeed, pander, pander again, eh? If the Pink Peril strikes out, the Brown Invaders are next up in the rotation. Looks like the friend 'o Dubya quoted in Newsweek was right: "I think it was purely political. I don't think he gives a s--t about it. He never talks about this stuff."

Once again, El Presidente is making it abundantly clear that, in his (non-reality based) world, "politics" and "governance" are not only interchangeable, but one in the same.

This amendment is just the tip of the iceberg.

Dear Leader doesn't give a shit about a lot of things, and Harry Reid not only called him out on it, but spelled out the list. In doing so, he wisely avoiding turning this into the dog and pony show the GOPers want to put on for their Evangeliban base: a pulpit-pounding debate on homosexuality. Instead, Reid framed this fight exactly how it should be: as the unconscionable waste of time that it is.

"...what is the United States Senate going to debate this week?

A new energy policy? NO.

Will we debate the raging war in Iraq? NO.

Will we address our staggering national debt? NO.

Will we address the seriousness of global warming –- NO.

Will we address the aging of America? NO.

Will we address America's education dilemma? NO.

Will we address rising crime statistics? NO.

Will we debate our country's trade imbalance? NO.

Will we debate Stem Cell Research? NO.

But what we will spend most of the week on is a constitutional amendment that will fail by a large margin, a constitutional amendment on Same Sex Marriage -- an effort that failed to pick up a simple majority, when we recently voted on it. Remember, an Amendment to our Constitution requires 67 votes...So for me it is clear the reason for this debate is to divide our society, to pit one against another. This is another one of the President's efforts to frighten, to distort, to distract, and to confuse America. It is this Administration's way of avoiding the tough, real problems that American citizens are confronted with each and every day."

Constitution protected from GOP gay-bashing amendment

Supporters lose in gay marriage ban vote

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Senate on Wednesday rejected a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, dealing an embarrassing defeat to President Bush and Republicans who hoped to use the measure to energize conservative voters on Election Day.

Supporters knew they wouldn't achieve the two-thirds vote needed to approve a constitutional amendment, but they had predicted a gain in votes over the last time the issue came up, in 2004. Instead, they lost one vote for the amendment in a procedural test tally that ended up 49-48...Supporters lost two key "yes" votes — one from Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., who has changed his mind since 2004, and another from Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., who did not vote this time because he was traveling with Bush.

...A majority of Americans define marriage as a union of a man and a woman, as the proposed amendment does, according to a poll out this week by ABC News. But an equal majority opposes amending the Constitution on this issue, the poll found.

...Democrats said the debate was a divisive political ploy.

"The Republican leadership is asking us to spend time writing bigotry into the Constitution," said Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2003. "A vote for it is a vote against civil unions, against domestic partnership, against all other efforts for states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law."

In response, Hatch fumed: "Does he really want to suggest that over half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?"

I doubt it, Orrin. Certainly some of them are. (Little Ricky "Man on Dog" Santorum comes leaping to mind.) The rest I wouldn't give enough credit to have the courage of even that odious conviction. No, the majority, I'd say, were motivated by more practical concerns, namely maintaining their position in the GOP's rubber-stamp brigade. DiFi had it pretty well correct:

"Why is it when Republicans are all for reducing the federal government's impact on people's lives until it comes to these stinging litmus test issues, whether gay marriage or end of life they suddenly want the federal government to intervene?" asked Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. "It makes no sense other than throwing red meat to a certain constituency."

For all the talk of "bigotry" being bandied about--and I'm as guilty as the next man--I've gotten to the point where I'm having serious doubts. The sort of hatred necessary to force second-class citizenry onto people whose actions have zero impact on you runs very deep, indeed. It's a core principle in how you approach your life and the world around it. At least, an honest-to-Jeezus bigot stands for something, no matter how reprehensible. The christianists being pandered to, THEY'RE the bigots. These GOPers (and our pols, in general) stand for their seats and precious little else.

Quote of the Day

A decent enough place to start back, no?

"Thomas Jefferson once said: 'Of course the people don't want war. But the people can be brought to the bidding of their leader. All you have to do is tell them they're being attacked and denounce the pacifists for somehow a lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.' I think that was Jefferson. Oh wait. That was Hermann Goering. Shoot." -- Jon Stewart, emceeing the Peabody Awards

This really needs to be on billboards from coast-to-coast.

Life gets Blogger-ed

Sometimes life throws us curves. Maybe even several in a row. And the cyber soapbox isn't exactly where we need to be.

In this context, to say that those things "show us what's really important" is inaccurate and needlessly melodramatic. I firmly believe--especially in light of the established media's recent track record--topical blogs are a valuable and, unfortunately, all-too-necessary part of the public discourse. No matter how small the voice, what's being discussed is very much "what's important" to all of us.

But, sometimes, you need to get your own house in order. To those who asked about this place (both of you), thanks for the thought during the hiatus.

We return to your regularly scheduled programming.

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.