6/2/07
Some Humour from Up North
Canadian musicians and satirists Bowser and Blue:
I have seen these guys live in Montreal where they are very popular. They do a kindof combination of standup and music. They cover Canadian politics for the most part, but they also poke fun at a lot of other things. I think they are hilarious.
Another example of their humour (and probably their most popular song in Canada) filmed at the "Just for Laughs" comedy festival in Montreal:
Hope it made you laugh! :)
BigTurd Called ctblogger What?
OMG! No questions about whether this guy is a bigoted Xenophobe, and outright racist... He is.
Via ctblogger at HatCity Blog:
At some point, Comcast has to see the light, enforce their policy, and remove Tom Bennett. Here's another letter sent to Dave King.Hi DaveThis type of speech IS NOT protected under F.C.C. regulations NOR is it protected under the rules and regulations of Comcast. In fact, as the writer of the letter states, it might even be illegal.
I called you recently about Tom Bennett's show on Comcast. In our conversation you agreed that much of what he says is objectionable but protected under the First Amendment.
However, on the May 18 show he clearly violates the Comcast regulation:
No material which incites violent or harmful acts on other persons. In at least three instances on May 18, he says that undocumented immigrants should be "shot" or "killed." This is not an abstraction; he says "those people at Kennedy Avenue." What will you do if someone, like the caller he said could join him and his co-hosts to make an "army" of four, followed through and went to Kennedy Park and killed someone? Would you say that Comcast bore no responsibility?
He has defended his use of profanity, racist, sexist and anti-gay hate speech, and personal attacks by saying viewers can always turn to another channel. Actually that is a reasonable defense when the content of the show is merely disgusting or offensive. This defense won't work here; he is calling for killing people which is a clear violation of your policy and may even be illegal. What does your Corporate Counsel have to say about this?
You cannot allow this to continue. I don't know how you justified renewing his contract until August 2007. He can be as disgusting as he wants but he can't advocate killing people. Get rid of him now.
PUBLIC access belongs to the PUBLIC. Tom Bennett's profanity and indecent language must come to an end and it needs to be done now.
What will it take for Comcast to act...an immigrant getting shot from a person who was incited by Bennett, John McGowan, and Bones' call for people to shoot and murder members of the immigrant community on the street?
With each passing day, more and more Comcast consumers are expressing their outrage with many considering canceling their service and switching to AT&T or dish, and even an editorial has been written on Bennett.
Please keep the pressure on Comcast and tell them to do the right thing.
Dave King: Head Coordinator, Comcast Public Access
Phone: 203-792-1265
Email: Dave_King@cable.comcast.com
Candiann Roswell, Public Access Coordinator
Phone: 203-792-1265
Email: Candiann_Roswell2@cable.comcast.com
When emailing Comcast, please cc: HatCityBLOG (hatcityblog@yahoo.com) so we can place your message on the site (privacy will be honored).
6/1/07
Immigration Xenophobes Cut'n'Running from Republicans
The coalition of fools that carried many republicans into power over the years is starting to show more signs of crumbling as the Xenophobe faction are closing their wallets to the RNC as they sqwawk over immigration:
The RNC is deluded if they think that immigration policy is the only reason they are losing support...
The Republican National Committee, hit by a grass-roots donors' rebellion over President Bush's immigration policy, has fired all 65 of its telephone solicitors, Ralph Z. Hallow will report Friday in The Washington Times.
Faced with an estimated 40 percent fall-off in small-donor contributions and aging phone-bank equipment that the RNC said would cost too much to update, Anne Hathaway, the committee's chief of staff, summoned the solicitations staff last week and told them they were out of work, effective immediately, the fired staffers told The Times.
The RNC is deluded if they think that immigration policy is the only reason they are losing support...
THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!The Conservative parrot, err party, is dead...Pardon the lengthy introduction, but The Dead Parrot Sketch is one of Monty Python’s most important contributions to the humor of western civilization. Or not. I suppose it depends on whether you like Monty Python.
Be that as it may, the sketch is also instructive regarding the imminent demise of what we used to call “The Grand Old Party” which became the nickname of Republicans back in the day when “The Grand Army of the Republic” – Union veterans of the Civil War – pretty much ran the party. Those 400,000 or so veterans elected every Republican president from Grant to McKinley. Their endorsement carried huge weight with a grateful electorate who recognized the veteran’s sacrifices and honored them even beyond the effective life of the GAR.
Now the party is run by cynical hacks and jackanapes who, despite all evidence to the contrary, insist that the parrot isn’t dead, it’s just resting. The plumage may still be pretty. But maggots have already begun to eat away at the insides.What political conservatives and on-the-ground Republicans must understand at this point is that they are not breaking with the White House on immigration. They are not resisting, fighting and thereby setting down a historical marker—”At this point the break became final.” That’s not what’s happening. What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them. What President Bush is doing, and has been doing for some time, is sundering a great political coalition. This is sad, and it holds implications not only for one political party but for the American future.The White House doesn’t need its traditional supporters anymore, because its problems are way beyond being solved by the base. And the people in the administration don’t even much like the base. Desperate straits have left them liberated, and they are acting out their disdain. Leading Democrats often think their base is slightly mad but at least their heart is in the right place. This White House thinks its base is stupid and that its heart is in the wrong place.
Peggy Noonan is not some turncoat, traitorous, weak kneed Republican pantywaist. She helped put Ronald Reagan’s ideas and thoughts to some of the most beautiful rhetorical music of 20th century politics. But she, along with many of us, are tired and dispirited. We have seen the Republican party run into the ground and then stepped on by an Administration and a President who have gone beyond taking most of us for granted and instead have declared war upon those who have sustained his presidency in the face of the most vicious and determined opposition to his policies. We have been slapped in the face, kicked in the teeth, stabbed in the back. And the smug, self-righteous mountebanks who are taking the party with them to oblivion could care less.
In fact, given all that has transpired since the 2004 election (which coincided with the last time the Bushies even paid lip service to the base) one could say that this President has seemed most determined to destroy the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Reagan leaving behind only a charred husk for the rest of us to live with. They have decided that Götterdämmerung is in order; if they can’t prevail, then they will destroy what is left of the grand coalition that changed the face of America and the world in the 1980’s and in a fit of either pique or ignorance, leave it for the next crew to cobble together something else.
I will say that it didn’t take much to destroy what was left of that coalition. Since the end of the cold war – the single uniting expedient of the Republican party for more than 30 years – the GOP has been adrift. Uniting against Clinton was fairly easy although that unity was a mile wide and an inch deep. It was based on the absolute worst of political bargains; the cold, calculus of how to get power and keep it. So for ten years Republicans played the special interest game, feeding the lobbyists a steady diet of earmarks and favors, reaping huge amounts of campaign contributions in return, while selling out their basic principles of smaller, less intrusive government and fiscal discipline.
And now, there’s precious little left. No ideology. Little loyalty. Less desire to help this gang of cynical galoots maintain what power and position they have remaining. Witness the news [about the firings of phonebankers] from the Republican National Committee.
Not dead. Just resting.
The real danger, of course, is that come November next year GOP candidates simply won’t be able to compete in the 70 or so seats in the House that the Democrats are licking their chops to see change hands. With little available help from the national party and a base that will not only sit on their wallets but probably sit on their hands come election day, the chances are growing that a truly remarkable collapse will occur, an historic implosion that, like a tidal wave, will change the political contours of the country once it recedes.
5/31/07
Bush and the GOP Fucking with the Soldiers
And it is all political.
I still get the occasional call from recruiters, but lately those calls have been fewer and farther between. I have repeatedly and respectively told them over and over again that while I support the troops, and I even considered reenlisting for Afghanistan, that I cannot reenlist because I am against the illegal invasion of Iraq. In other words:
I am a war protester.
I tell them that I am doing everything I can to end the war in Iraq and then I thank the recruiter for their service to their country. You see I question the legality of the war in Iraq, and more importantly, I question the rational for having gone to Iraq to begin with.
It was all a pack of lies.
I am lucky, as I am a veteran that has long since passed my separation date (in 2001) and received my official honorable discharge in 2005. There are many veterans and soldiers that risk serious harassment and possibly even charges if they question the logic of the Iraq war, never mind protest it.
Here are 2 examples of this.
Part 1
Here is a man that served his country honorably and separated from the service. Unfortunately for him, and I don't know if he knew this, when you initially separate from the services you are still bound contractually for a total of 8 years service. Suppose you get out after a typical four year stint, you are still not officially discharged for another 4 years.
When I separated in 2001 I was still bound by many rules and regulations that the Army could have nailed me with. Up until around mid 2005, if I had worn any Army uniform (even one of the Army PT uniform T-shirts I wear so often to this day) to a protest, or political activity of any sort I would have been in the same deep shit this soldier is in now.
Unfortunately for Kokesh, and even though he had separated from the military with an honorable discharge, that is not the one that counts. He is 3 weeks away from his second, the real, honorable discharge that you need to end your 8 years of service. Kokesh faces the very real possibility that he could lose all of his benefits, have to repay the thousands of dollars he earned and used for school and, the worst of all, he could have some sort of "Less than honorable" discharge tag added to his service records. That can be the kiss of death on many job applications.
This sucks in so many ways because you can be god-damned certain that if he had been at a rally supporting the war they would not be fucking with him right now. Just think how many times bush (Mission Accomplished!) and the GOPeeons have used these soldiers as props themselves.
Part 2
I am not going to comment on this soldiers situation beyond saying that I share many of the same questions this soldier is asking, as do millions of other Americans. The difference? I have an honorable discharge securely in my files already. He doesn't.
After 20 years in service the military is fucking with him. Not for any public statement he has made, or any public action he has ever taken, but simply because he has questions that have never really been answered thoroughly and honestly and he mentioned it in an Email to other soldiers.
They are, no doubt, the people with the eyes directly on the objective. As close to the situation as anyone can get and they can add to the debate with legitimate concerns that should always be considered. Both tactical and/or political considerations.
I still get the occasional call from recruiters, but lately those calls have been fewer and farther between. I have repeatedly and respectively told them over and over again that while I support the troops, and I even considered reenlisting for Afghanistan, that I cannot reenlist because I am against the illegal invasion of Iraq. In other words:
I am a war protester.
I tell them that I am doing everything I can to end the war in Iraq and then I thank the recruiter for their service to their country. You see I question the legality of the war in Iraq, and more importantly, I question the rational for having gone to Iraq to begin with.
It was all a pack of lies.
I am lucky, as I am a veteran that has long since passed my separation date (in 2001) and received my official honorable discharge in 2005. There are many veterans and soldiers that risk serious harassment and possibly even charges if they question the logic of the Iraq war, never mind protest it.
Here are 2 examples of this.
Part 1
Marine veteran faces hearing on discharge
status for wearing uniform at protest rally
An Iraq war veteran is scheduled to appear before a military panel Monday for wearing his uniform during an anti-war protest.
Marine Corporal Adam Kokesh was photographed with several other veterans wearing their fatigues while attending a protest last month marking the forth anniversary of the war. After superiors spotted his picture in The Washington Post, Kokesh was told he might have violated a rule that prohibits troops from wearing uniforms without authorization.
Kokesh finishes up his reserve commitment in less than three weeks. The military panel will decide whether to change his discharge status from "honorable" to "other than honorable."
Here is a man that served his country honorably and separated from the service. Unfortunately for him, and I don't know if he knew this, when you initially separate from the services you are still bound contractually for a total of 8 years service. Suppose you get out after a typical four year stint, you are still not officially discharged for another 4 years.
When I separated in 2001 I was still bound by many rules and regulations that the Army could have nailed me with. Up until around mid 2005, if I had worn any Army uniform (even one of the Army PT uniform T-shirts I wear so often to this day) to a protest, or political activity of any sort I would have been in the same deep shit this soldier is in now.
Unfortunately for Kokesh, and even though he had separated from the military with an honorable discharge, that is not the one that counts. He is 3 weeks away from his second, the real, honorable discharge that you need to end your 8 years of service. Kokesh faces the very real possibility that he could lose all of his benefits, have to repay the thousands of dollars he earned and used for school and, the worst of all, he could have some sort of "Less than honorable" discharge tag added to his service records. That can be the kiss of death on many job applications.
This sucks in so many ways because you can be god-damned certain that if he had been at a rally supporting the war they would not be fucking with him right now. Just think how many times bush (Mission Accomplished!) and the GOPeeons have used these soldiers as props themselves.
The video conveys the impression that somewhere in Iraq, a soldier is having his mission and Christmas tarnished by weak-willed Democrats. Here is a frame from the ad and the actual picture of the soldier, taken two years ago. As shown below, the soldier was really watching How the Grinch Stole Christmas.The doctored photo of a soldier as GOP political prop
Bush has distorted images of U.S. soldiers before. During the 2004 campaign, he got into trouble when one of his ads, titled "Whatever It Takes," doctored the images of soldiers. The ad showed a crowd of soldiers listening to the president. But some of the faces appeared several times in several different places within the same crowd shot, the result of an attempt to increase the number of soldiers appearing to listen to Mr. Bush.What neither party has done—until now—is inject the idea that the other party is undermining our troops overseas. The RNC is pimping a mute and unnamed soldier not just to defend the Iraq war but to imply that Democrats are white-handkerchief-waving cowards who want the United States to lose.
The absurdity that all of these soldiers can be freely politicized by the President and the GOP but have no right to a voice of their own...
Part 2
I am not going to comment on this soldiers situation beyond saying that I share many of the same questions this soldier is asking, as do millions of other Americans. The difference? I have an honorable discharge securely in my files already. He doesn't.
After 20 years in service the military is fucking with him. Not for any public statement he has made, or any public action he has ever taken, but simply because he has questions that have never really been answered thoroughly and honestly and he mentioned it in an Email to other soldiers.
Since joining the Army in 1987, he had risen to the rank of sergeant first class, serving in both Gulf Wars, Bosnia, Rwanda, and Korea. He ended up with shrapnel scars and a Purple Heart and, back in the U.S. after his last tour in Iraq, a job as intelligence analyst at Fort Sam Houston.
He couldn’t have foreseen that one e-mail could derail his career and put him on his way out of the Army. One e-mail, speculating about events that millions of people have questioned for the last six years, was all it took.
Sgt. Buswell wants to know: What really happened on 9/11? And he said so in his e-mail. In the few paragraphs of that August 2006 message — a reply not to someone outside the service, but to other soldiers — Buswell wrote that he thought the official report of what happened that day at the Pentagon, and in the Pennsylvania crash of United Airlines Flight 93, was full of errors and unanswered questions.
“Who really benefited from what happened that day?” he asked rhetorically. Not “Arabs,” but “the Military Industrial Complex,” Buswell concluded. “We must demand a new, independent investigation.”
For voicing those opinions in an e-mail to 38 people on the San Antonio Army base, Buswell was stripped of his security clearance, fired from his job, demoted, and ordered to undergo a mental health exam. (Via Raw Story: Read on!)
I am a firm believer that as long as soldiers bear the responsibility of performing their duties honorably, duties that he or she must perform under the most hazardous and strenuous of conditions imaginable, they should be allowed to represent their personal and political views and beliefs whether they are in or out of uniform. They should be given the option of not showing up to some presidential propaganda effort if they do not want to be a propaganda prop. They should be allowed to voice their views publicly on the wars that they have to fight. In or out of uniform AND without fear of reprisals.
They are, no doubt, the people with the eyes directly on the objective. As close to the situation as anyone can get and they can add to the debate with legitimate concerns that should always be considered. Both tactical and/or political considerations.
Pre-war National Intelligence Council documents
From Cho's ePluribusMedia mailbag:
I know how many of you just love to dig through stuff like this! heh
Pre-war National Intelligence Council documents available online
Kid Oakland sends us a request to try to let more people know that these documents are available and can be searched. Here's the link to his blog and the larger story for context: Kid Oakland's blog.
For a flavor of what Kid O sees as the importance:Washington Post writers Walter Pincus and Karen De Young detailed last Saturday that new pre-war documents released by a Senate Intelligence Panel show that the consensus view of US intelligence agencies was that a US invasion of Iraq would "be likely to spark violent sectarian divides and provide al-Qaeda with new opportunities in Iraq and Afghanistan" and "'result in a surge of political Islam and increased funding for terrorist groups" in the Muslim world."
Those two documents, Principal Challenges in Post Saddam Iraq and Regional Consequences of Regime Change in Iraq, are now available online in their public, yet redacted, and in places, poorly photocopied, versions posted within a PDF published by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at their website. For a direct link to download the pdf, click here.
Again, Kid Oakland gives his full explanation of the importance and why he hopes folks in the "blogosphere" start searching and reviewing these documents on his blog k / o politics and culture.
I know how many of you just love to dig through stuff like this! heh
The Future's So Bright... Joe Has Gotta Wear Shades
The Courant picks up the McLatchy article that has been buzzing in the Connecticut and national Blogosphere the last couple of days:
As for Lieberman's McCain like view of the situation on the ground:
Note to those with no snarkometers: This is a badly doctored photo.
The future's so bright... He's got to wear shades.
"He looks just like me," he said. "I didn't want to come back. ... We're waiting to get blown up."
Williams wasn't sure if he'd say how he really felt. But if he could, he'd ask about body armor.
"I don't want him to snap his fingers to get things fixed," Williams said, referring to Lieberman. "But he has influence."
Next to him, Spec. Will Hedin, 21, of Chester, Conn., thought about what he was going to say.
"We're not making any progress," Hedin said, as he recalled a comrade who was shot by a sniper last week. "It just seems like we drive around and wait to get shot at."
But as he waited two chairs down from where Lieberman would sit, Hedin said he'd never voice his true feelings to the senator.
"I think I'd be a private if I did," he joked. "It's just more troops, more targets."
As for Lieberman's McCain like view of the situation on the ground:
Then Lieberman walked in, wearing a pair of sunglasses newly purchased from an Iraqi market that the military had taken him to in southeast Baghdad.
Note to those with no snarkometers: This is a badly doctored photo.The future's so bright... He's got to wear shades.
5/30/07
What To Expect From a Thompson Primary Run?
Just more of the same that you get from any GOP candidate these days... Lies, broken laws and MORE LIES! Mark Kleiman at HuffPo gets this one started:
As we can all figure out by now, because of the Fitzmas gift that keeps on giving, all of Thompson's speech up there is 100% pure bush crack:
If you like rough rides than Libby is your man, Freddy m'boy! About the only thing Thompson got right in his speech to the Council for National Policy was the fact that he and Libby are friends. But Thompson takes his Libby loving a little more seriously than many of the other 2008 GOP candidates that are doomed to failure.
That little quote above is straight off of the front page of Libby's official "Defend the Traitor" page. There is little wonder why this little nugget buried in Dan Froomkin's Libby article the other day about Plameologist extrordinaire Marcy Wheeler might become relavent as people start looking for a better picture of 2008 candidates:
All of this is may seem like small potatoes, as far as Griffin's involvement in the GONEzales saga, but there are likely more important reasons why Griffin is leaving his government job. In light of the politicization of DoJ and USAs by the bush administration, old stories of Tim Griffin's involvement in "CAGING" (illegally purging voter rolls) suddenly start to look like blockbuster stories to the average American:
Yep, those incriminating Tim Griffin Emails. Tim Griffin is nothing more than a mini-me version of Karl Rove with a law degree. And thompson wants this piece of Republican junk to work on his campaign? It should be interesting as Fred Thompson tries to explain why one of his campaign workers might be found guilty of taking away Black soldiers right to vote in 2004.
Go ahead and run Thompson. We're just getting ready for you over here with a nice warm welcome to reality... Expect lot's more of this as you continue to open your big gaping piehole along the way.
But Thompson's real vulnerability is going to come from his speech to the Council for National Policy , which Fitzgerald's sentencing memorandum in the Libby case shows to be a mostly a pack of lies.Thompson said:
As you may recall, for some inexplicable reason, the CIA sent the husband of one of its employees to Niger on a sensitive mission. She had suggested it. He came back to the U.S. and proceeded to publicly blast the administration. Naturally, everyone wanted to know "who is this guy?" and "why was he sent to Niger?" Just as naturally, the fact that he was married to Valerie Plame at the CIA was leaked.Having virtually guaranteed that Ms. Plame's identity would be ultimately disclosed by using her, shall we say, "politically active" husband, the CIA then demanded that this leak of her name be investigated by the Justice Department for a possible violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
The Justice Department, bowing to political and media pressure, appointed a Special Counsel to investigate the leak and promised that the Justice Department would exercise no supervision over him whatsoever -- a status even the Attorney General does not have.
The only problem with this little scenario was that there was no violation of the law, by anyone, and everybody -- the CIA, the Justice Department and the Special Counsel knew it. Ms. Plame was not a "covered person" under the statute and it was obvious from the outset.
Furthermore, Justice and the Special Counsel knew who leaked Plames's name and it wasn't Scooter Libby. But the Beltway machinery was well oiled and geared up so the Special Counsel spent the next two years moving heaven and earth to come up with something, anything. Finally he came up with some inconsistent recollections by Scooter Libby, who had been up to his ears studying National Intelligence Estimates. But he worked for Dick Cheney, so that apparently was enough for the special counsel.
I didn't know Scooter Libby, but I did know something about this intersection of law, politics, special counsels and intelligence. And it was obvious to me that what was happening was not right. So I called him to see what I could do to help, and along the way we became friends. You know the rest of the story: a D.C. jury convicted him.
As we can all figure out by now, because of the Fitzmas gift that keeps on giving, all of Thompson's speech up there is 100% pure bush crack:
Removing any doubt about the status of Valerie Plame when Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Dick Armitage started leaking her name out to the press, the CIA releases an unclassified summary of her employment history:An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003.
The summary is part of an attachment to Fitzgerald's memorandum to the court supporting his recommendation that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former top aide, spend 2-1/2 to 3 years in prison for obstructing the CIA leak investigation.
Just trying to make it easy reading for those of you that might hate PDFs as much as I do!Dan Froomkin spells it out for those of you that don't understand how serious the leak of Valerie Plame's identity by Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Dick Armitage is:
Two suggestions:In Friday's eminently readable court filing, Fitzgerald quotes the Libby defense calling his prosecution "unwarranted, unjust, and motivated by politics." In responding to that charge, the special counsel evidently felt obliged to put Libby's crime in context. And that context is Dick Cheney.
Libby's lies, Fitzgerald wrote, "made impossible an accurate evaluation of the role that Mr. Libby and those with whom he worked played in the disclosure of information regarding Ms. Wilson's CIA employment and about the motivations for their actions."
It was established at trial that it was Cheney himself who first told Libby about Plame's identity as a CIA agent, in the course of complaining about criticisms of the administration's run-up to war leveled by her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson. And, as Fitzgerald notes: "The evidence at trial further established that when the investigation began, Mr. Libby kept the Vice President apprised of his shifting accounts of how he claimed to have learned about Ms. Wilson's CIA employment."
The investigation, Fitzgerald writes, "was necessary to determine whether there was concerted action by any combination of the officials known to have disclosed the information about Ms. Plame to the media as anonymous sources, and also whether any of those who were involved acted at the direction of others. This was particularly important in light of Mr. Libby's statement to the FBI that he may have discussed Ms. Wilson's employment with reporters at the specific direction of the Vice President." (My italics.)
Not clear on the concept yet? Fitzgerald adds: "To accept the argument that Mr. Libby's prosecution is the inappropriate product of an investigation that should have been closed at an early stage, one must accept the proposition that the investigation should have been closed after at least three high-ranking government officials were identified as having disclosed to reporters classified information about covert agent Valerie Wilson, where the account of one of them was directly contradicted by other witnesses, where there was reason to believe that some of the relevant activity may have been coordinated, and where there was an indication from Mr. Libby himself that his disclosures to the press may have been personally sanctioned by the Vice President." (My italics.)
- Scooter Libby should buy a few years supply of "soap on a rope"
- cheney should put a fresh battery in his pacemaker.
It's going to be a rough ride for both of them.
If you like rough rides than Libby is your man, Freddy m'boy! About the only thing Thompson got right in his speech to the Council for National Policy was the fact that he and Libby are friends. But Thompson takes his Libby loving a little more seriously than many of the other 2008 GOP candidates that are doomed to failure.
Former Senator Fred Thompson, a member of the Advisory Committee for the Libby Legal Defense Trust has graciously offered to host another fundraiser for the Libby Legal Defense Trust. We will be providing additional details in the coming days.
That little quote above is straight off of the front page of Libby's official "Defend the Traitor" page. There is little wonder why this little nugget buried in Dan Froomkin's Libby article the other day about Plameologist extrordinaire Marcy Wheeler might become relavent as people start looking for a better picture of 2008 candidates:
You have to wonder if Thompson stepped up and sent an embarrassing letter in support of Libby to the judge. Unfortunately for Thompson, he seems to want to surround himself with many of the same bush players that are getting caught up in investigations:Nexthurrah blogger Marcy Wheeler blogs at the Guardian about how Libby's "defense team solicited his friends and associates to write letters to the judge arguing that Libby deserves a reduced sentence. Last Friday, Libby's lawyer Bill Jeffress submitted a filing opposing the release of those letters to the public. In it, he writes: 'Given the extraordinary media scrutiny here, if any case presents the possibility that these letters, once released, would be published on the internet and their authors discussed, even mocked, by bloggers, it is this case.' "
Concludes Wheeler: "Jeffress' invocation of bloggers is a cheap attempt to dismiss precisely what bloggers bring: an appropriate scrutiny of the motivations and actions of those who lied us into war and outed Valerie Plame."
Plan B?
The Wall Street Journal reports (sub. req.) that Timothy Griffin, the former aide to Karl Rove who became one of the most controversial figures in the U.S. attorney firing scandal, is in talks with Fred Thompson's presidential campaign:
Backers look for Fred Thompson to use a June 2 speech to Virginia Republicans to step closer toward the race. Thompson allies have had discussions with Tim Griffin, the Arkansas U.S. attorney and Rove protégé, about taking a top job with the campaign.Griffin, of course, was installed as the U.S. attorney for Little Rock last year. Emails from Kyle Sampson have shown that the Justice Department and White House were plotting to use a little noticed provision in the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization Bill to keep Griffin in place throughout Bush's term without the need for Senate confirmation. Alberto Gonzales has somewhat unconvincingly disavowed the plan.
All of this is may seem like small potatoes, as far as Griffin's involvement in the GONEzales saga, but there are likely more important reasons why Griffin is leaving his government job. In light of the politicization of DoJ and USAs by the bush administration, old stories of Tim Griffin's involvement in "CAGING" (illegally purging voter rolls) suddenly start to look like blockbuster stories to the average American:
Greg Palast joins Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!Greg Palast exposes true intent, cover up and criminal acts of Bush administration's US Attorney scandal. In summary, it's about wrongfully charging Democrats with made up crimes in order to influence the outcome of elections. In other words, it's about stealing elections or subverting our democracy. Just more evidence of the Bush administration's stated goal of turning America into a one-party state. Which comes pretty close to meeting the definition of treason.
Did he say treason? SNAP! I thought he said that...
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
It should get interesting as Palast will now turn over to Conyers the many RNC Emails that they accidentally sent to him.
Yep, those incriminating Tim Griffin Emails. Tim Griffin is nothing more than a mini-me version of Karl Rove with a law degree. And thompson wants this piece of Republican junk to work on his campaign? It should be interesting as Fred Thompson tries to explain why one of his campaign workers might be found guilty of taking away Black soldiers right to vote in 2004.
Go ahead and run Thompson. We're just getting ready for you over here with a nice warm welcome to reality... Expect lot's more of this as you continue to open your big gaping piehole along the way.
Mad Conservative Disease
Campaign For America's Future catches a story on Mad Cow Disease:
It is pretty darn obvious that it ain't your parent's GOP anymore. They are all stark raving lunatics. Mad Conservative Disease is running rampant through the ranks of the Hamburger party.
Offered without comment. What is there possibly to say?
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration said Tuesday it will fight to keep meatpackers from testing all their animals for mad cow disease.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture tests less than 1 percent of slaughtered cows for the disease, which can be fatal to humans who eat tainted beef. But Arkansas City-based Creekstone Farms Premium Beef wants to test all of its cows.
Larger meat companies feared that move because, if Creekstone tested its meat and advertised it as safe, they might have to perform the expensive test, too.
A federal judge ruled in March that such tests must be allowed. The ruling was to take effect Friday, but the Agriculture Department said Tuesday it would appeal -- effectively delaying the testing until the court challenge plays out.
Mad cow disease is linked to more than 150 human deaths worldwide, mostly in Britain.
There have been three cases of mad cow disease identified in cattle in the U.S. The first, in December 2003 in Washington state, was in a cow that had been imported from Canada. The second, in 2005, was in a Texas-born cow. The third was confirmed last year in an Alabama cow.
The Agriculture Department argued that widespread testing could lead to a false positive that would harm the meat industry. U.S. District Judge James Robertson noted that Creekstone sought to use the same test the government relies on and said the government didn't have the authority to restrict it.
Oh, all right. One small comment. First, observe the contempt for liberty. When E. coli conservatives say self-regulation is preferable to government, they're even lying about that. Second, observe the contempt for small business. When a small company want to - voluntarily! - hold its product to a higher standard, the government blocks it, in part because bigger companies have to be protected from the competition, in part because a theoretical threat to the bottom line (false positives) trumps protection against a deadly disease.
There's your conservatism, America: not extremism in defense of liberty. State socialism in defense of Mad Cow.
It is pretty darn obvious that it ain't your parent's GOP anymore. They are all stark raving lunatics. Mad Conservative Disease is running rampant through the ranks of the Hamburger party.
I have a better idea...
Via Nicole Belle @ Crooks and Liars:
I think it would be more effective, and certainly get his attention a lot quicker, if we just pelted him with boiling hot tea bags every time we see him. Yeah, yeah I know! The local FBI just loves to waste their time, and our tax dollars, watching jokers like me. Nevermind that it would be a waste of a perfectly good tea bag.
On Friday, Nevada MoveOn members got this action alert:
And MoveOn members came through…and better yet, it did not escape the notice of the media... (read on)Last night, Sen. Harry Reid gave George W. Bush a blank check for endless war in Iraq–supporting the same bill that just days earlier Reid called "weak tea."
Reid needs to know we're disappointed–we expect stronger leadership from him, not weakness.
Can you send Harry Reid a bag of "weak tea" and a letter telling him your opinion of last night's vote?
I think it would be more effective, and certainly get his attention a lot quicker, if we just pelted him with boiling hot tea bags every time we see him. Yeah, yeah I know! The local FBI just loves to waste their time, and our tax dollars, watching jokers like me. Nevermind that it would be a waste of a perfectly good tea bag.
5/29/07
Fitzgerald files Libby Papers: Hints at Cheney Involvement
Removing any doubt about the status of Valerie Plame when Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Dick Armitage started leaking her name out to the press, the CIA releases an unclassified summary of her employment history:
Just trying to make it easy reading for those of you that might hate PDFs as much as I do!
It's going to be a rough ride for both of them.
And I would be unrealistic if I didn't point out the FACT that what this all adds up to is that the 3 people that admitted to the leaking, Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Dick Armitage, did in fact provide aid and comfort to the enemy, whether purposefully or not, by taking down a CIA operative that was serving in Counter Proliferation Duties (CPD) under Non official Cover (NOC), pretty much as dangerous as it can get working for the CIA.
I may just have to start a Technorati tag called "Republican Terrorists" with how many of them there are out there to keep track of... That is a sad statement about the state of the Republican party today.
An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003.
The summary is part of an attachment to Fitzgerald's memorandum to the court supporting his recommendation that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former top aide, spend 2-1/2 to 3 years in prison for obstructing the CIA leak investigation.
Just trying to make it easy reading for those of you that might hate PDFs as much as I do!
Dan Froomkin spells it out for those of you that don't understand how serious the leak of Valerie Plame's identity by Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Dick Armitage is:
Two suggestions:In Friday's eminently readable court filing, Fitzgerald quotes the Libby defense calling his prosecution "unwarranted, unjust, and motivated by politics." In responding to that charge, the special counsel evidently felt obliged to put Libby's crime in context. And that context is Dick Cheney.
Libby's lies, Fitzgerald wrote, "made impossible an accurate evaluation of the role that Mr. Libby and those with whom he worked played in the disclosure of information regarding Ms. Wilson's CIA employment and about the motivations for their actions."
It was established at trial that it was Cheney himself who first told Libby about Plame's identity as a CIA agent, in the course of complaining about criticisms of the administration's run-up to war leveled by her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson. And, as Fitzgerald notes: "The evidence at trial further established that when the investigation began, Mr. Libby kept the Vice President apprised of his shifting accounts of how he claimed to have learned about Ms. Wilson's CIA employment."
The investigation, Fitzgerald writes, "was necessary to determine whether there was concerted action by any combination of the officials known to have disclosed the information about Ms. Plame to the media as anonymous sources, and also whether any of those who were involved acted at the direction of others. This was particularly important in light of Mr. Libby's statement to the FBI that he may have discussed Ms. Wilson's employment with reporters at the specific direction of the Vice President." (My italics.)
Not clear on the concept yet? Fitzgerald adds: "To accept the argument that Mr. Libby's prosecution is the inappropriate product of an investigation that should have been closed at an early stage, one must accept the proposition that the investigation should have been closed after at least three high-ranking government officials were identified as having disclosed to reporters classified information about covert agent Valerie Wilson, where the account of one of them was directly contradicted by other witnesses, where there was reason to believe that some of the relevant activity may have been coordinated, and where there was an indication from Mr. Libby himself that his disclosures to the press may have been personally sanctioned by the Vice President." (My italics.)
- Scooter Libby should buy a few years supply of "soap on a rope"
- cheney should put a fresh battery in his pacemaker.
It's going to be a rough ride for both of them.
And I would be unrealistic if I didn't point out the FACT that what this all adds up to is that the 3 people that admitted to the leaking, Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Dick Armitage, did in fact provide aid and comfort to the enemy, whether purposefully or not, by taking down a CIA operative that was serving in Counter Proliferation Duties (CPD) under Non official Cover (NOC), pretty much as dangerous as it can get working for the CIA.
I may just have to start a Technorati tag called "Republican Terrorists" with how many of them there are out there to keep track of... That is a sad statement about the state of the Republican party today.
Bush Declares His Right to Dictatorial Powers
This is a long video (10 Mins.) from C-SPAN where they interview the author of one of those Swift Boat liar books, Gerome Corsi, that smeared Kerry in the runup to the 2004 elections and they discuss their shock at the announcement of bushies' latest power grab and the possibility of creating a dictatorship.
When swift boat liars are worried about the bush they love going against the Constitution... You know it is time to get out the frickin' tin foil.
When swift boat liars are worried about the bush they love going against the Constitution... You know it is time to get out the frickin' tin foil.
The Undisputed Queen of Blogtopia Speaks
Arianna Huffington, owner of THE BIGGEST POLITICAL BLOG in the Blogosphere, discusses growing pains:
Traffic graph comparison key of some of the major players in the Blogosphere via Alexa:
Huffington Post, Crooks and Liars, dailyKos, Talking Points Memo, and Firedoglake.
It appears that more recently BOTH Crooks and Liars and Huffpo has been outperforming dKos traffic wise, but the Huffington Post took over the number one spot not long after they started publishing online in 2005.
Another thing to notice is that HuffPo has added the number 4 Blog, TPM, to its stable of contributors, while John Amato of the currently number 2 Blog in Blogtopia has been a long time contributor over there. I know that Firedoglake writers, like Jane Hamsher, also participate at HuffPo, and there are probably a dozen Blogs that probably come in around their rankings. I included them since they help to demonstrate just how HUGE HuffPo has become because Firedoglake is pretty darn big on their own.
Arianna, by any standards, has long since surpassed everyone on the net and is undeniably the Queen of Blogtopia and the Blogging universe right now. The Huffington Post is fast becoming a force to be reckoned with by any journalistic standards.
A side note: There may be other BIG BLOGS that would figure in this comparison well so don't feel slighted if I didn't use yours as an example here. It is just that I am pretty sure that those are the lefty blogs I, and others, read the most in the national Blogosphere. Well... Except for Kos, who seems to have recently lost his fucking mind. And, of course, skippy coined Blogtopia! :)
It's still the same place, with the same address, the same mission, and the same attitude that has always made HuffPost such a great read. It's just that now there is much more of it to love. And to organize it all we've created five new sections: Media, Business, Entertainment, a culture and lifestyle section called Living Now, and a Politics section that will feature our political editor Tom Edsall and a shared-content partnership with Josh Marshall and Talking Points Memo. Plus, we've improved the design, navigation, and search function to help you find what you want more easily. The front page will continue to feature our signature group blog and breaking news stories, but it was clearly no longer big enough to contain all the great stories, blog posts, and features we wanted to share with you. So each new section will have its own "front page" with fresh editorial talent and a constantly growing list of bloggers.It is nice to hear that HuffPo is growing and improving. HuffPo has quickly grown to be the most read and linked political Blog on the net:
Traffic graph comparison key of some of the major players in the Blogosphere via Alexa:
Huffington Post, Crooks and Liars, dailyKos, Talking Points Memo, and Firedoglake.
It appears that more recently BOTH Crooks and Liars and Huffpo has been outperforming dKos traffic wise, but the Huffington Post took over the number one spot not long after they started publishing online in 2005.
Another thing to notice is that HuffPo has added the number 4 Blog, TPM, to its stable of contributors, while John Amato of the currently number 2 Blog in Blogtopia has been a long time contributor over there. I know that Firedoglake writers, like Jane Hamsher, also participate at HuffPo, and there are probably a dozen Blogs that probably come in around their rankings. I included them since they help to demonstrate just how HUGE HuffPo has become because Firedoglake is pretty darn big on their own.
Arianna, by any standards, has long since surpassed everyone on the net and is undeniably the Queen of Blogtopia and the Blogging universe right now. The Huffington Post is fast becoming a force to be reckoned with by any journalistic standards.
A side note: There may be other BIG BLOGS that would figure in this comparison well so don't feel slighted if I didn't use yours as an example here. It is just that I am pretty sure that those are the lefty blogs I, and others, read the most in the national Blogosphere. Well... Except for Kos, who seems to have recently lost his fucking mind. And, of course, skippy coined Blogtopia! :)
Obama Proposes Corporate Welfare for Insurance Giants
You can read it as Universal Healthcare:
I prefer to call it the CORPORATE WELFARE program that it really is.
What kind of lunatic thinks that handing more money over to the insurance companies that have caused most of the problems in the American Healthcare system is going to solve anything? Throwing money at the problem just makes it a bigger problem.
C'mon Obama! You can do better than this bush league proposal.
Think Single Payer...
Under Obama's proposal, everyone would be able to obtain health insurance, and the Illinois senator would create a National Health Insurance Exchange to monitor insurance companies in offering the coverage. In essence, Obama's plan retains the private insurance system but injects additional money into the system to pay for the expanded coverage.
Those who can't afford coverage would get a subsidy on a sliding scale depending on their income, and virtually all businesses would have to share in the cost of coverage for their workers.
I prefer to call it the CORPORATE WELFARE program that it really is.
What kind of lunatic thinks that handing more money over to the insurance companies that have caused most of the problems in the American Healthcare system is going to solve anything? Throwing money at the problem just makes it a bigger problem.
C'mon Obama! You can do better than this bush league proposal.
Think Single Payer...
5/27/07
Do YOU Support the Troops?
Staff Sergeant David Safstrom and Sergeant First Class David Moore on the situation in Iraq:
Go on and read the entire article for the views of other soldiers. No further comment necessary BUT I do have one question...
Do YOU support the troops?
[Now] on his third deployment in Iraq, he is no longer a believer in the mission. The pivotal moment came, he says, this past February when soldiers killed a man setting a roadside bomb. When they searched the bomber's body, they found identification showing him to be a sergeant in the Iraqi Army.
"I thought, 'What are we doing here? Why are we still here?' " said Safstrom, a member of Delta Company of the 1st Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry, 82nd Airborne Division. "We're helping guys that are trying to kill us. We help them in the day. They turn around at night and try to kill us."
snip
With few reliable surveys of soldiers' attitudes, it is impossible to simply extrapolate from the small number of soldiers in Delta Company. But in interviews with more than a dozen soldiers over a one-week period, most said they were disillusioned by repeated deployments, by what they saw as the abysmal performance of Iraqi security forces and by a conflict that they considered a civil war, one they had no ability to stop.
snip
"In 2003, 2004, 100 percent of the soldiers wanted to be here, to fight this war," said Sergeant First Class David Moore, a self-described "conservative Texas Republican" and platoon sergeant who strongly advocates an American withdrawal. "Now, 95 percent of my platoon agrees with me."
snip
But in Safstrom's view, the American presence is futile. "If we stayed here for 5, even 10 more years, the day we leave here these guys will go crazy," he said. "It would go straight into a civil war. That's how it feels, like we're putting a Band-Aid on this country until we leave here."
Go on and read the entire article for the views of other soldiers. No further comment necessary BUT I do have one question...
Do YOU support the troops?
Dem Cave Complete
Only slowly was this realisation of a capitulation suffused with the flush of passion, only with reflection did they make any personal application. "WE have surrendered!" came later; "in us America is defeated." Then they began to burn and tingle.
The War in the Air by Wells, H.G.
Last Wednesday tparty noted:
As Sirota writes, the Democratic leadership is planning to use parliamentary procedure to avoid the appearance of a real vote on this. And apparently the entire leadership is planning on voting for this "rule" that would essentially allow the supplemental to sail through without having to vote for it. CQ has more. Ask the reps below to vote against the rule.
Via David Sirota's Working For A Change:
The Final Insult:
Dems Brag to Press About Deceiving the Public on Iraq
In case you believe the malarkey being spewed by the House Rules Committee about the rule vote yesterday not really being the vote to give President Bush a blank check, take a look at the Washington Post and the Associated Press today. I reported this at the beginning of the day yesterday and was then criticized by House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY). Now, though, it seems at least some major news organizations have caught on that I was exactly right. In the process, they are reporting what will be recorded in history as the final insult of it all: Democrats running to reporters bragging about their own brilliance in deceiving the public.Here's the Associated Press:
“In a highly unusual maneuver, House Democratic leaders crafted a procedure that allowed their rank and file to oppose money for the war, then step aside so Republicans could advance it.”Here's the Washington Post:
"Yesterday's vote to fund the war through September was a historical rarity: the passage of a bill opposed by the speaker of the House and a majority of the speaker's party. Two years ago to the day, then-Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) violated the "Hastert rule" -- that only bills supported by a majority of the majority can come up -- by bringing up legislation to allow federal funding for stem cell research. The majority of the Republican majority opposed the law. He voted against it, but he knew it would never become law over President Bush's signature...The North American Free Trade Agreement passed in 1993, over the objections of most Democrats, who were then in the majority. But NAFTA did have the support of then-Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.), as well as the Democratic president, Bill Clinton. In contrast, the Iraq funding bill was not only opposed by the majority of House Democrats, it was also ardently opposed by the speaker and even the lawmaker who drafted it, Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.). And it is destined to become law. 'To have the chairman and the speaker vote against a bill like this, I've never heard of it,' Hastert said."And here's the worst part of it all - Democrats are now bragging about it. Not only have they sent out a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee fundraising email attempting to confuse voters by claiming with a straight face that they really stood up to President Bush. But most insulting of all, they are actually running to reporters to pat themselves on the back for engineering a procedural pirouette designed to confuse the public. Here's the Post again:"But while protesters outside the Capitol condemned what they saw as a capitulation, Democrats inside were remarkably understanding of their speaker's contortions. Party leaders jury-rigged the votes yesterday to give all Democrats something to brag about...Democrats saw brilliance in the legerdemain. And with such contortions came more appreciation for the efforts Pelosi was making to fund the war in a fashion most palatable to angry Democrats. 'It was the responsible thing to do, and she's a responsible speaker,' said Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Calif.)."This is what we're dealing with folks. A party that runs to the press to brag about the brilliance of using their majority not to end the war, but to create a situation that makes it seem as if they oppose the war, while actually helping Republicans continue it.
Meanwhile in Iraq:
“Americans have opened nearly 1,000 new graves to bury U.S. troops killed in Iraq since Memorial Day a year ago. The figure is telling — and expected to rise in coming months. In the period from Memorial Day 2006 through Saturday, 980 soldiers and Marines died in Iraq, compared to 807 deaths in the previous year.”
Burning... Tingling... And...
MAD AS ALL HELL!
No one in the Blogosphere is buying the BS coming from these Democratic assholes in Congress. This is complete and total capitulation. Democrats in Congress know it, and we know it.
5/24/07
Impeach Cheney
If you believe in the Constitution than you must impeach Cheney. The grounds of the proposed impeachment are that the Vice President:
- fabricated a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction,
- purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and
- has threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, all in detriment to the national interest of the United States.
Supporting Documents for H Res 333
On April 24, 2007, U.S. House Representative Dennis Kucinich introduced H.Res. 333, calling for articles of impeachment to be sent to the U.S Senate with regards to Vice President Richard B. Cheney.
If you believe that Vice President Cheney should be impeached, then vote "Yes" here.
The one click form on this page will send your personal message to all your members of Congress, with your vote on the the question "Should Vice President Cheney be impeached?" At the same time it will send your personal comments only as a letter to the editor of your nearest local daily newspaper, if that option is selected below.
Nevermind the fact that both Cheney and Bush have attempted to subvert our Constitutionally guarenteed rights to privacy by breaking FISA laws, and have overseen a series of illegal efforts designed to delgitamize the Congress' right to advise and consent on too many issues based on their false and traitorous Neoconservative/Neoliberal theories of a "Unitary Executive".
This is a Democracy, not a kingdom, and impeachment is the only means left to secure the rights of the people.
Via Wikipedia:
The phrase "unitary executive" that was discussed in the Constitutional Convention referred merely to having a single individual fill the office of President, as proposed in the Virginia Plan, rather than have several executives or an executive council, as proposed in the New Jersey Plan and as promoted by Elbridge Gerry, Edmund Randolph, and George Mason; and that the Constitutional Convention debates show that the Founders' primary concern behind whether to have a single executive or an executive council was to choose the one that would ensure that the executive would be relatively weaker and more easily restrained by the legislature; that those who argued for a unitary executive advanced the argument because they considered that the best way to limit the executive’s power and keep it subordinate to the legislature, in opposition to arguments that a plural executive would support the executive’s independence; and the term "unitary executive" was thereby bound up with the intention of keeping executive power checked and restrained.
For example, James Wilson emphasized the advantage of greater accountability with a single chief executive:
"The executive power is better to be trusted when it has no screen. Sir, we have a responsibility in the person of our President; he cannot act improperly, and hide either his negligence or inattention; he cannot roll upon any other person the weight of his criminality; no appointment can take place without his nomination; and he is responsible for every nomination he makes... far from being above the laws, he is amenable to them in his private character as a citizen, and in his public character by impeachment."
IT IS WELL PAST TIME TO IMPEACH THESE FRAUDSTERS.
Classical Gas
Via C&L:
Via your local liberal brewery:
OR
In the warped GOP view it is good when companies force fuel consumption down by ripping you off with price gouging, BUT bad when the government forces fuel consumption down with a legitimate tax.
Either argument that these CONservative jokes want to make exposes their GOP talking points for the pure unadulterated BS that it always is.
As a side note: A little pat on the head of the few republicans that actually understand that even republicans need to a planet to live on even if they are all space cadets:
And in honour of these republicans speaking out on unnatural issues for the GOP... A little Classical Gas from down under:
The House, eager to do something about record high gasoline prices in advance of the Memorial Day weekend, voted narrowly Wednesday to approve stiff penalties for those found guilty of gasoline price gouging.
The bill directs the Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department to go after oil companies, traders or retail operators if they take “unfair advantage'' or charge “unconscionably excessive'' prices for gasoline and other fuels.
The White House called the measure a form of price controls that could result in fuel shortages. It said President Bush would be urged to veto the legislation should it pass Congress.
Via your local liberal brewery:
HMMMM? In the warped GOP view it is good when businesses rip you off, BUT bad when the government puts it aside, responsibly, for future needs.Rell and her hamburger party suggest dropping the 25 cent tax on gas:
Rell endorsed the idea several hours after Republican legislators introduced the measure at a press conference at the state Capitol complex. They vowed to force the Democrat-controlled legislature to vote on the issue, possibly in the next three days when the House is in session.
snip
"This is an irresponsible, half-baked scheme by the Republicans to appease the public with pennies, while costing the state over $120 million," Amann said. "Their annual sideshow is about as helpful to Connecticut drivers as the governor's press release last week calling for a national investigation into gasoline prices. It's embarrassing."
Amann said the legislature cannot guarantee that prices will drop at the pumps, because lawmakers do not control gasoline prices. Proponents of the measure said, however, that regardless of the price of gas, motorists would be paying 25 cents less per gallon.
Not only is Amann correct, but the fact is I can think of a lot better ways to spend excesses in government money that would benefit everyone. You can be damned certain that the price of gas would just go right back up shortly after they dropped the tax with distributors and oil companies soaking up even more excessive profits than they are already getting.
OR
In the warped GOP view it is good when companies force fuel consumption down by ripping you off with price gouging, BUT bad when the government forces fuel consumption down with a legitimate tax.
Either argument that these CONservative jokes want to make exposes their GOP talking points for the pure unadulterated BS that it always is.
As a side note: A little pat on the head of the few republicans that actually understand that even republicans need to a planet to live on even if they are all space cadets:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and fellow Republican Gov. Jodi Rell of Connecticut accused the U.S. government on Monday of "inaction and denial" on global warming."
It's bad enough that the federal government has yet to take the threat of global warming seriously, but it borders on malfeasance for it to block the efforts of states such as California and Connecticut that are trying to protect the public's health and welfare," the governors wrote in The Washington Post.
And in honour of these republicans speaking out on unnatural issues for the GOP... A little Classical Gas from down under:
5/23/07
All Out Propaganda Effort Again?
I was going to write a bit on this when I saw a Guardian story that smacked as pure junk meant to leak back to us, but a few minutes after I saw this link out from Crooks & Liars:
But I am willing to bet that the only verifiable sources that will come forward and push these crazy ideas as "credible" will turn out to be the same incompetent neocon children and bush stooges that sold us a pack of lies on Iraq to begin with. That is, if the media is complicit and/or gullible enough to use these liars as credible sources again.
Oh wait... The media are already recycling some of the same bush stooges to push failed policy on in to the never ending story for your children's children's participatory pleasure...
In the meantime bush is trying to hide the fact that he is increasing his Iraq ESCALATION.
I mean, It all looks like another round of whackamole to me:
Contrary to what Petraeus has been saying, my lying eyes are telling me this is whackamole revisited, and the troops on the ground aren't buying his rosy pictures of progress either:
So, even when there is "independent, verifiable and named sources backing it up," DON'T. FUCKING. BELIEVE. IT. Especially when all of it clearly makes no sense at all.
[update]
Meanwhile, if you write any stories that actually make sense... The bush White House is sure to cut off your access:
The only thing absurd about this is how most of the MSM just repeats obvious lies and propaganda from the bush administration without checking any of the facts. And the ones that sell this bush propaganda repeatedly are the kind of assholes with access to that plane.
Oh, and just as they did four years ago, the press is still dutifully typing up and broadcasting BUSHCO warflogging propagandaTonight ABC have broken the story that Bush has authorized covert action against Iran. Quelle suprise! Who the f**k would ever have imagined that?The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.Now some who were paying attention already suspected that the Bush administration's neocons had been using groups like the MeK for proxy attacks on Iran, and that will doubtless continue. But I've bolded what was for me the "leap of the page" part of the story - the use of disinformation and propaganda. I've some immediate thoughts on this.
The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions.
..."Vice President Cheney helped to lead the side favoring a military strike," said former CIA official Riedel, "but I think they have come to the conclusion that a military strike has more downsides than upsides."
Firstly, as I understand it, the federal government is prohibited by law from planting propaganda in the U.S. media (but John Yoo's probably already written the classified finding that The Decider Guy can decide otherwise) however there is no such stricture on planting stories designed to mislead in the foreign media and then making sure those stories get attention here in the U.S. from the Republican noise machine of blogs and Benadorian mainstream media pundits.
Which brings today's Guardian dross about a supposed secret plan for Iran to aid both Sunni and Shia groups in Iraq to mount a summer offensive into sharper focus.
It seems that the incompetent bush administration thinks it can sell the narrative that the Iranians are supporting Sunni, Shia, and everything in between. Not only that, but apparently they are trying to sell you that Syrians are supporting both sides too:
Cable News as Propaganda Agents
Today's coverage of the violence in Lebanon reveals a remarkable degree of bias and stupidity. CNN and Fox News are the most egregious. All are busy pandering to neocons and supporters of Israel who tend to favor a Likudnic view of the world. Consider the following reported on CNN:
Smoke billowed Monday from a Palestinian refugee camp as Lebanese forces battled Islamic militants linked to al Qaeda for a second day near the northern city of Tripoli. The clashes have left dozens dead and wounded. The fighting was sparked Sunday when Lebanese Internal Security Forces raided a building in a neighborhood north of Tripoli, army sources said. Militants from Fatah al-Islam began shooting at the forces, who returned fire, triggering clashes in the vicinity of the Nahr al-Bared Palestinian refugee camp. . . .
Nayla Mouawad, Lebanese social affairs minister, said the militants have "Syrian allegiance and only take orders from Syria."If you are like George Bush you may not appreciate the fact that there are Sunni muslims and Shia muslims. Radical Sunnis and radical Shias dislike each other intensely. Each considers the other a heretic. So what the hell is the media up to? Let's ask Pat Lang, who posted some keen insights at Sic Semper Tyrannis:
The 24/7 news networks were hard at work today trying to make Syria responsible for the Sunni zealots in the camps. The statement was being made today that these groups were connected to AQ. No evidence was offered, but the assertion was repeatedly made based on the "possibility" that had supposedly been voiced by some nameless person in the Lebanese government. Various Lebanese were asked that question - "Is this Al-Qa'ida?" Nobody could be found who was willing to say that there was an organizational link to Al-Qa'ida, but the question was asked over and over again. This question was paired with another - "Is Syria controlling and "behind" this group?" Nobody could be found who would say that either, but the question was asked over and over again.
Now, think about it, folks Al-Qa'ida is a virulently anti-Shia Sunni group. Everyone "knows" how much Syria supports Hizbullah, a virulently anti-Sunni Shia group. So, which is it? Which side does the Syrian government support? Does the Syrian government support both at the same time? If you believe that, then you really are a sucker for propaganda.
Funny how the messages are coming out in an almost mirroring type of repetition meant to support the bush strorylines and supposed war plans. Anyways... Let's get back to the original post on the ridiculous idea of Iran supporting both their allies and their enemies:
Yep... The most important thing here is to consider the fucking sources. There is "no way to know whether the story is true or a propaganda plant without independent, verifiable and named sources backing it up."It also may explain why mainstream press and right wing bloggers are repeating as serious a claim by neocon Claude Moniquet that Iran is attempting to draw up plans to strike targets in Europe and has conducted reconnaissance of European nuclear power stations. Moniquet is head of the European Strategic Intelligence and Security Center, which is described by the AP as "independent" but is essentially a foreign adjunct of The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a neocon Washington group which counts among its members a virtual A to Z of prominent anti-Iranian figures such as Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, Charles Krauthammer, Frank Gaffney, James Woolsey and Newt Gingritch.
In fact, it explains a heck of a lot about the myriad of "anonymous officials" who have become sources for anti-Iranian stories, many of which have later turned out to be utterly false. And incidentally, explains the entire output of the daily Telegraph's shills-in-residence Con Coughlin and Phil Sherwell. The drums in the deep aren't being beaten by accident or individually but instead in a co-ordinated concerto.
In fact, this story should call into question every single story involving anonymous sources on Iran, whether it be about their nuclear program or about their alleged involvement in Iraq. There's simply no way to know whether the story is true or a propaganda plant without independent, verifiable and named sources backing it up.
Which oddly enough includes The Blotter's story itself.
Remarkably quickly, rightwing pundits have marched in lockstep with a single message about this revelation: blame the leak on the liberals and add that the leak makes an attack on Iran the only option left.The White House intended on using this plan to keep from having to use a military option to stop the mullahs from getting their hands on a nuclear weapon. In fact, ABC reports that Dick Cheney preferred the military option, but that Bush overruled him in favor of the covert action instead. As I have written repeatedly here, a military strike is a lousy choice given the terrain, battleground, and options for targets in Iran as well as the political situation on the ground.and Wizbang's Kim Priestly adds:
Thanks to the loose lips at Langley and ABC, that option may have to go back to the top of the list. Covert actions that appear on national television tend to lose the element of surprise, after all, and the Iranians can now take steps to block these actions...Someone in the CIA or in the larger "intelligence community" can't keep their mouths shut. Thanks to them, we may wind up with no other option against Iranian nuclear ambitions except the military strike.Prediction: at some point, the nutroots will accuse Cheney of ordering a member of his staff to leak the President's secret covert action to ABC in order to force the military strikes that Bush overruled.Given the speed with which the extreme Right has established message discipline and given the admission that the Bush administration was already conducting propaganda operations against Iran, I think that's a perfectly reasonable accusation to make. Interesting that Kim thought of it first. But we may never know what the truth is.
But I am willing to bet that the only verifiable sources that will come forward and push these crazy ideas as "credible" will turn out to be the same incompetent neocon children and bush stooges that sold us a pack of lies on Iraq to begin with. That is, if the media is complicit and/or gullible enough to use these liars as credible sources again.
Oh wait... The media are already recycling some of the same bush stooges to push failed policy on in to the never ending story for your children's children's participatory pleasure...
One of Homeland Security's favourite little propagandists, Frances Frago Townsend, pops up to spew out the right wing crack she has been inhaling during the bush smokescreen years:The White House, bush, cheney, and all of their regular stooges are throwing shit at the fan from everywhere, right now, and none of it is sticking anywhere because NONE OF IT MAKES ANY SENSE AT ALL. Unless you are trying to scare the American people into continuing the Iraq follies, and, maybe, are hoping to get more war in Syria and/or Iran.President Bush, trying to defend his war strategy, declassified intelligence Tuesday asserting that Osama bin Laden ordered a top lieutenant in early 2005 to form a terrorist cell that would conduct attacks outside Iraq _ and that the United States should be the top target.Frances Fragos Townsend, the White House homeland security adviser, said the intelligence bolsters the Bush administration’s contention that al-Qaida wants to use Iraq as a staging area to launch terrorist attacks around the world, including the United States.
OK... Stop right there and think about this for a moment. His war strategy has been to stop terrorists that want to attack the United States by attacking Iraq, a country that didn't have any Al Qaeda links at all until long after the US invaded Iraq.
And bush continues to waste our time in Iraq because Al Qaeda is planning to attack the USA everywhere BUT in Iraq.
Just want to make sure I am keeping this straight.She said that in the spring of 2005, bin Laden instructed Hamza Rabia, a senior operative, to brief al-Zarqawi on al-Qaida planning to attack sites outside Iraq, including the United States. She did not disclose where in the United States those attacks were being plotted
Townsend disclosed the information to The Associated Press and other news agencies in advance of Bush’s commencement speech Wednesday at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. Bush is expected to emphasize the continuing threat of terrorism and recount steps taken by his administration to prevent attacks.
Now the incompetent little neocon child is thinking he can use this line of pure crack to continue to escalate this failure? And don't forget what kind of bush junk is trying to get you hooked on this bush crack...
Osama Bin Laden's capture was “a success that hasn’t occurred yet,” according to White House Homeland Security Adviser Frances Frago Townsend.As she explained to CNN's White House correspondent Ed Henry last night:
HENRY: You know, going back to September 2001, the president said, dead or alive, we're going to get him. Still don't have him. I know you are saying there's successes on the war on terror, and there have been. That's a failure.TOWNSEND: Well, I'm not sure -- it's a success that hasn't occurred yet. I don't know that I view that as a failure.
Well... Time travel is just another success that hasn't occurred yet. BUT as soon as it does let me be the first to travel back in time and slap Townsend silly for making an absurd a statement on what is clearly a bush FAILURE.Townsend is just an example of another Brownie "Heckuva job" comment waiting to come from bush after the next big disaster in the USA. Makes me wonder if we should have a color coded alert system for incompetent and idiot statements put up on the TV screen beside each of our own government employees.
You can watch Townsend throw out GOP talking point after talking point on Charlie Rose (Sept. 2006) about the successes in Afghanistan (even though the Taliban is on the rise again), on Bin Laden getting away at Torah Bora being a mistake only looking at it in retrospect (even though bush handed the military operation there to local friendlies of the Taliban, that was not a mistake in retrospect, that was failure on the spot), and how Iran is so tied into the GWOT now (setting the table for the future episodes of "Empire on the Rise"), and how Saudies are our friends (even though they ARE funding the insurgency)...
Just think of the usefulness of a warning like that up there flashing on the screen beside their faces each time they start spewing their right-wing-crack and how many of these past failures might have been avoided with a simple Right-Wing-Crack Warning System.
The fact that Townsend is a former Clintonian and helps set the table for MORE WAR now, while spewing GOP talking points so easily, just reinforces the need, IMHO, to obliterate all right-wing DLC leftovers from the Clinton era out of office along with the far-right-wing GOP.Just in case you wonder where this right-wing-freak's loyalties really lie now:Townsend is a former prosecutor who toiled for both Rudy Guiliani and Janet Reno. The Post points out that her husband, referred to in the piece only as "John," was "a classmate of Bush's at Andover and Yale." It adds that her position was occupied previously by "four-star generals who brought decades of experience to the fight," but that her greatest asset is "the president's ear" -- not to mention a contribution of the maximum $2,000 to the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign in March 2004, an unusual move from a National Security Council staffer, and generally regarded, as U.S. News and World Report put it, as "a pledge of loyalty.""A pledge of loyalty"??? How fucking republican of her.A little info on John Townsend for shits and giggles, 'cause you are curious, right?
The Bush Pledge:
"I want you to stand, raise your right hands," and recite "the Bush Pledge," said Florida state Sen. Ken Pruitt. The assembled mass of about 2,000 in this Treasure Coast town about an hour north of West Palm Beach dutifully rose, arms aloft, and repeated after Pruitt: "I care about freedom and liberty. I care about my family. I care about my country. Because I care, I promise to work hard to re-elect, re-elect George W. Bush as president of the United States."Mr. Townsend, 47, is a partner in the Washington law firm of Hughes Hubbard & Reed. He received undergraduate and law degrees from Yale University. He is the son of Vera N. Townsend of Austin, Tex., and the late Col. John D. Townsend. The bridegroom's father was retired from the United States Army.Just so's you know he is a Lawyer that does a lot of lawyering for the drug industry (IE: Pfizer, Merck), winning cases that keep drug prices artificially high for us.
Mr. and his Mrs. Townsend are both major players in a bush criminal world. Don't believe anything that either of them say.
In the meantime bush is trying to hide the fact that he is increasing his Iraq ESCALATION.
Now why would they need all of these troops there AND why are they trying to keep this quiet? It wouldn't be to provide more clandestine pressure on Iran, would it? And it couldn't be because the first escalation is not working, could it?President Bush is quietly implementing a second Iraq troop surge that would “nearly double the number of combat troops in Iraq this year.” According to the analysis of Pentagon redeployment numbers:
This “second surge” of troops in Iraq, which is being executed by extending tours for brigades already there and by deploying more units, could boost the number of combat troops to as many as 98,000 (from 52,500) by the end of this year. When support troops are included, the total number of U.S. troops in Iraq could increase from 162,000 now to more than 200,000 — the most ever — by the end of the year.
This escalation would bring the total number of brigades in Iraq to 28 by winter. In the current escalation, Bush ordered five brigades to accompany the 15 already stationed in Iraq.
While Bush proudly trumpeted the first escalation in January with a nationally televised address, he is reportedly keeping this one under wraps, not addressing it in any major public medium. “It doesn’t surprise me that they’re not talking about it. I think they would be very happy not to have any more attention paid to this,” said retired Army Maj. Gen. William Nash.
Five U.S. soldiers have died this month in Amiriya, victims of improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, and snipers. Since the arrival of additional troops in February, the square-mile area patrolled by 1st Lt. Schuyler Williamson's platoon and others from the 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry, has been the site of 300 IEDs buried in or alongside the road. An Army intelligence map uses small red blast symbols to mark bomb sites. The symbols obscure entire thoroughfares.
Soldiers here now openly declare pessimism for the mission's chances, unofficially referring to their splinter of heavily fortified land as "the Alamo."
"Sometimes," said Brendan Gallagher, the captain who oversees Williamson, "we like to comfort ourselves when we are taking a lot of IEDs and casualties by saying that the enemy is desperate, they are doing this because they are scared. But how many times can they actually be desperate? I sometimes worry that this period will end up going down here as their surge, not ours."
snip
Over the course of four recent days, his soldiers were struck repeatedly by IEDs, one of which blasted a hole through an Army medic's foot, requiring him to be sent home. The platoon was also attacked by snipers; a bullet ripped through the fingers of an Iraqi national police captain accompanying the Americans on a joint patrol.
Checkpoints operated by Iraqi police at two entry points into Khadra came under gunfire several times a day, and a desecrated corpse suspected to be that of an Iraqi policeman was found hanging May 15 from a lamppost in Amiriya.
I mean, It all looks like another round of whackamole to me:
A while back many of us were ripping on McCain for originally suggesting sending more troops and pointed out the fact that the Generals were telling the McCains and Lieberman's of the world that this could never work.McCain has repeatedly said that he would like to see another 20,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. As General Abizaid explained, McCain’s plan runs counter towards our goal in Iraq — specifically, the Iraqis taking responsibility for their own country. Abizaid said, “It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.”
Contrary to what Petraeus has been saying, my lying eyes are telling me this is whackamole revisited, and the troops on the ground aren't buying his rosy pictures of progress either:
Petraeus, the new commander managing the "surge" of troops in Iraq, will be the first to caution realism. "Sure we see improvements - major improvements," he said in our interview, "but we still have a long way to go."What tactics are working? "We got down at the people level and are staying," he said flatly. "Once the people know we are going to be around, then all kinds of things start to happen."
More intelligence, for example. Where once tactical units were "scraping" for intelligence information, they now have "information overload," the general said. "After our guys are in the neighborhood for four or five days, the people realize they're not going to just leave them like we did in the past. Then they begin to come in with so much information on the enemy that we can't process it fast enough."
You get the feeling that they are counting on the military, and the public being unable to process all of the information fast enough? Oh yeah! And never mind that the bulk of the intelligence being funneled at all of us, the military included, is very likely being cherry picked, filtered and distorted by all of the same neocons... Again.
So, even when there is "independent, verifiable and named sources backing it up," DON'T. FUCKING. BELIEVE. IT. Especially when all of it clearly makes no sense at all.
[update]
Meanwhile, if you write any stories that actually make sense... The bush White House is sure to cut off your access:
McClatchy's D.C. Bureau Claims It's Barred From Defense Secretary Plane“Staffers at McClatchy’s Washington, D.C., Bureau — one of the few major news outlets skeptical of intelligence reports during the run-up to the war in Iraq — claims it is now being punished for that coverage.”
Bureau Chief John Walcott and current and former McClatchy Pentagon correspondents say they have not been allowed on the Defense Secretary’s plane for at least three years, claiming the news company is being retaliated against for its reporting.
snip
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman called such assertions “absurd,” adding, “There is no basis of fact for that allegation. It is not true. There are always more people who would like to travel with the secretary than seats available.”
PBS’ Bill Moyers recently highlighted McClatchy’s excellent pre-war journalism. Watch it HERE.
The only thing absurd about this is how most of the MSM just repeats obvious lies and propaganda from the bush administration without checking any of the facts. And the ones that sell this bush propaganda repeatedly are the kind of assholes with access to that plane.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)