Fucking Oppressive Xenophobes News

Is this your idea of fair and balanced?

Stormfront.org's top logo boasts "White Pride Worldwide" and features a town hall radio discussion with former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. But a FOX News affiliate ran a story promoting it as "a web site with everything from dating advice and homemaking threads, to discussion boards that focus on news that white activists want to know."

FOX's coverage hasn't gone unnoticed; on a Nov. 9 comment on the site's forums, Senior Moderator James Kelso writes, "Thanks to all for the positive assessments of this Stormfront.org interview with Fox TV. The Fox TV Carolina staff was very professional and made it easy for...me. One detail that I forgot (until just yesterday) was to unmoderate our new Stormfront Member, FOXSC, so that Fox could post more easily on Stormfront. We've also got Fox5News and Fox-News as Stormfront Members." So much for "fair and balanced."

Source for this is The Progress Report

Don't ever let the words "White Pride" sway you. This is just another codeword for extreme racism. To describe a white supremescist website as anything but a bunch of radical, racist, hatemongers is to deny reality.

The reality about their their coverage of that website?

FOX = Fucking Oppressive Xenphobes

Don't ever let Billy-bung O'liely tell you otherwise.

The same station that tries to outrage its viewers with fake wars on Christmas also brings you their propaganda, support, and promotion of racism.

Go figure, eh?


For Justice - Day 5 Roe v Wade

So far in the 12 Days of Justice daily series you have learned that:

Todays diary for Day 5 will be a short and to the point explanation of Judge Alito's views concerning women and abortion rights. It will deal with his radical and demeaning views from the perspective of his positions revealed in certain abortion cases, memos, applications, and discussions of Roe v Wade.

[Updated]: to reflect many edits! Please check the bottom to cross-post easily.

Join me in the back alley to get a clear view of Alito.

In 1985 Alito made crystal clear his position concerning Roe v Wade.

Alito's name does not appear on any briefs the Reagan Solicitor General's office filed in abortion-related cases. However, just a few months before Alito wrote his DOJ application letter touting his contribution to cases in which the government argued that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion," the Solicitor General's office had filed a brief in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists on that very subject. The brief urged that "this Court should overrule" Roe v. Wade. The Court rejected the Solicitor General's arguments, with only two justices agreeing that Roe should be overturned.

T. R. Goldman at law.com Offers this opinion of the upcoming battle:

If Alito's jurisprudential views match those on the Thornburgh brief -- and at least in 1985, Alito indicated that they do -- then the job application provides the Judiciary Committee with the type of window into a future justice's thinking that, since the failed nomination of Robert Bork, has become almost nonexistent.

This is a nomination demanding to be "Borked" into nonexistence. But this still does not give a clear picture of his views on women's rights. Please consider taking and using any or all parts of the following letter and using it to contact your Senators concerning this nomination. Feel free to adapt and edit this letter, or you can just say how you feel about this in your own words. All we ask is that you take action before it is too late.

What does Samuel Alito think about women and abortion rights?

In Judge Alito's 1992 dissent in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Alito argued that a law requiring a woman in certain circumstances to notify her spouse before seeking an abortion did not pose an undue burden on a woman's right to choose. Alito asserted that if parental notification requirements were constitutional, as the Supreme Court had previously held, then spousal notification requirements must be permissible as well. (Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).)

Alito's colleagues on the Third Circuit and a 5-4 Supreme Court majority disagreed. Writing for that Supreme Court majority, Sandra Day O'Connor firmly rejected Alito's troubling logic:

"A State may not give to a man the kind of dominion over his wife that parents exercise over their children."

(Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) at 898.)

Sandra Day O'Connor was correct in rejecting Alito's view of women as subservient to men and less than equal in the eyes of the law.

In a 1985 memo Alito had advised the Reagan Administration that it should attempt to undermine Roe v. Wade. Alito urged the administration to file a friend-of-the-court brief in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and argued that this brief could promote "the goals of bringing about the eventual overturning of Roe v. Wade, and in the meantime, of mitigating its effects."

Alito wanted the administration to "make clear" that it "disagree[d] with Roe v. Wade," but argued that the most effective long-term strategy of persuading the Supreme Court to overturn this groundbreaking precedent was to chip away at it slowly through extremely restrictive state laws. Overturning Roe v Wade would most certainly result in a return to the days of dangerous "illegal" abortions.

Is this the kind of nomination that sounds like a moderate? This candidate is not representative of my views, nor of mainstream America.

Alito clearly has no problem with forcing his radical ideals on women.

I strongly urge you to vote against this horrible nomination because no woman should be forced by anyone to have to resort to using a coat hanger to perform a back alley abortion. When you consider that Alito's warped views would be replacing the moderate voice of Sandra Day O'Connor there should be no doubt that Alito's nomination must be stopped.


Some suggested contacts and petitions:

Your senators

The Judiciary Committee

Your representatives


Campus Progress "Stop Alito's America"

PFAW "Save the Court"

Planned Parenthood Anti-Alito Petition

Naral Anti-Alito Petition

Rolling Justice

Plan B Petition

Sending a FAX via the Web (For those of us that don't have a fax machine at home.)

Again, feel free to copy and paste any and all of the information or images you will see put up over the next couple of weeks by the Anti-Alito Brigade into Blogs and letters as we hold Alito's feet to the fire. Even if you only participate on a few of the days it can help make a difference. There are so many issues where Samuel Alito's views and allegiances are just flat out wrong for a SCOTUS nomination.

Note: Tommorrow's actions and reason's are still being worked on today. Feel free to check it out at Booman Tribune  (Just look for the "Justice" diaries) and any help or participation of any kind you can provide will be greatly appreciated. This is another action brought to you by the group that brought you "Operation Yellow Feather" which was a very successful cross blog protest. These actions are designed to help bring the "Left Blogosphere Think Tank" together on our many shared issues.

Watch for Alice's diaries on the "separation of church and state/religious freedom" for days 6 and 7... On two different days because we want to keep them twice as separated!

Actions for: Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4

HTML code to cross post this in a txt file
Click to open, copy and paste vigorously all over the net! Please!


12 Days of Justice - Day 2

There are many reasons to be wary of the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

12 Days of Justice - Day 2

Regarding Alito's positions on age discrimination & FMLA.

by AP

My own "copper coinage" (I have someone to thank for that phrase): States have rights; people don't. This warped concept is as antebellum as it is evil. Don't be fooled because Alito's bright enough not to snarl; he's as wingnut as they come ... only quieter.

Anyway, please take this letter and adapt as you will. Feel free to use all or in part.

We want to you to become active in this... So don't be shy to use your cut and past skills on this. Call your senators. Call the Judiciary Committee. Email, write letters, and tell your friends. Alito must not be approved to take a seat on the Supreme Court.

Over the next 12 days the Anti-Alito Brigade will be bringing you many of those reasons, and also some actions that you might consider to help stop this horrible nomination. The main intention of this nomination is to try and tip the balance of power away from the legislative branch and towards the President.

More importantly, Alito is an activist judge that will legislate from the bench on many of the issues that all progressives hold dear to their heart.

X-Posted at: Booman Tribune, My Left Wing, My Left Nutmeg, Political Cortex

Front Paged at: Dembloggers, ePluribus Media

Dear Senator,

I strongly urge you to vote against the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court. Appointing Judge Alito will threaten the fundamental rights and basic legal protections for working Americans of all ages. Two areas of particular concern include the rights found under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)--rights that Judge Alito apparently does not believe are granted to Americans or should be exercised by Americans.

FMLA helps millions of adults balance workplace and family responsibilities by giving eligible workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for life events such as the birth of a child or to care for a parent, child or spouse with a serious illness. The ADEA protects employees and job applicants 40 years of age and older from discrimination based on age. These laws are essential in an age of heightened rhetoric regarding "family values" that are ostensibly held so dear by social conservatives In an age of pension instability and decline of retiree health benefits for older workers, such protections are imperative.

Hostile to the very concept of discrimination.

A recent Knight Ridder article examining Judge Alito's record describes him as being "particularly rigid in employment discrimination cases" and that he has "... seldom found merit in a bias claim."  Is he really so myopic as to believe that discrimination either does not exist or deserves no remedy?  His rulings strongly imply that he doesn't even support the right of individuals to present evidence that discrimination exists.

Apparently so: he was the sole dissent in Glass v. Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO). Glass, a 23-year PECO employee, sued for racial and age discrimination after being denied several promotions, even though during that period he earned two engineering degrees and had only one negative job evaluation. During the trial, PECO claimed that the sole negative job evaluation was the reason that Glass failed to be promoted. When Glass attempted to present evidence to refute that claim, the trial judge refused his motion.  The decision was reversed on appeal with Alito offering the sole dissent, claiming that the trial judge's decision was "harmless."  Incredibly, he further stated his belief that Glass presenting his side of the story could cause "substantial unfair prejudice." Evidently, providing evidence in a case one has filed is itself prejudicial.

Ignoring evidence of blatant age discrimination.

In Keller v. Orix Credit Alliance, Inc., Judge Alito denied a former employee the right to present to a jury his claim under the ADEA despite providing evidence in the form of a statement by the person who fired him: "If you are getting too old for the job, maybe you should hire one or two young bankers."

Views so radical that he does not believe that Congress even had the authority to enact FMLA.

In Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, Judge Alito held that Congress did not have the authority to give state employees the right to sue their employers for damages from violations of the FMLA's unpaid leave provisions. Judge Alito even held that FMLA "creates a substantive entitlement to sick leave."  The Supreme Court later ruled on a similar case that state employees did, in fact, have those rights under FMLA. That 6-3 opinion was written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

Supreme Court decisions have real consequences for real people.

Judge Alito's record of opposing basic legal protections for Americans is clear and unambiguous: It is replete with examples of weakening the rights and protections that millions of Americans depend upon. Americans deserve a Supreme Court justice that will rule in a fair manner, not an ideologue who will use his life-long appointment to push a narrow agenda that would winnow away basic rights. His type of extremist judicial philosophy has no place on the Supreme Court. For these reasons, I strongly urge you to vote against this nomination.



Some suggested contacts & petitions:

Your senators

The Judiciary Committee

Your representatives

Campus Progress "Stop Alito's America"

PFAW "Save the Court"

Planned Parenthood Anti-Alito Petition

Naral Anti-Alito Petition

Plan B Petition

Sending a FAX via the Web (For those of us that don't have a fax machine at home.)

Feel free to copy and paste any and all of the information or images you will see put up over the next couple of weeks into Blogs and letters as we hold Alito's feet to the fire. Even if you only participate on a few of the days it can help make a difference. There are so many issues where Samuel Alito's views and allegiances are just flat out wrong for a SCOTUS nomination.

Note: Tommorrow's actions and reason's are still being worked on today. Feel free to check it out at Booman Tribune  (Just look for the "Justice" diaries) and any help or participation of any kind you can provide will be greatly appreciated. This is another action brought to you by the group that brought you "Operation Yellow Feather" which was a very successful cross blog protest. These actions are designed to help bring the "Left Blogosphere Think Tank" together on our many shared issues.

Actions for: Day 1


12 Days of Justice

There are many reasons to be wary of the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

Over the next 12 days the Anti-Alito Brigade will be bringing you many of those reasons, and also some actions that you might consider to help stop this horrible nomination.

The main intention of this nomination is to try and tip the balance of power away from the legislative branch and towards the President.

Alito is an activist judge that will legislate from the bench on many of the issues that all progressives hold dear to their heart.

Our intention is that everyone across the Left Blogosphere participates in this any way that they can. Write a few letters, send Emails, send Faxes, and make some phonecalls to your Senators and Reps. (I know Reps don't vote on this, BUT they can provide more pressure on this issue to those that do vote on Alito! Besides, it is fun to piss them off... lol)

Taken from Tampopo's BooTrib diary:

December 12, 2005

You should be very wary of Judge Samuel Alito. Perhaps afraid is more accurate.

Judge Samuel Alito does not respect the primary role of the Legislative branch of our government. Therefore, he should not be considered acceptable to any member of Congress, particularly true Conservatives, regardless of his opinions on other matters held dear.

Judge Alito is a threat to your role in the structure of our government. You practice the art of politicking, balancing constituents' concerns and needs with those of our society as a whole. Legislation is challenged in court, as it should be when the interpretation of a law is in question. Judge Alito's record suggests he is not a "strict constructionist" of the Constitution.

Norm Ornstein, of the prestigious American Enterprise Institute, has recognized the danger Judge Alito represents. In his article, "Judge Alito Doesn't Show Congress Enough Deference," Ornstein states:

  [Supreme Court Justice John] Roberts respects Congress and its constitutional primacy; Alito shows serious signs that he does not...

  ...Roberts is a very conservative guy, and a strict constructionist -- one who means it. He understands that Congress is the branch the framers set up in Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution. It is not coincidence that Article 1 is twice as long as Article II, which created the executive branch, and almost four times as long as Article III, which established the judiciary. Judges should bend over doubly and triply backward before overturning a Congressional statute, especially if it is clear that Congress acted carefully and deliberatively...

The court case that has Mr. Ornstein turning such a critical eye on Judge Alito is from 1996, "United States v Rybar." This case involved a challenge to Congress's right to regulate the possession or transfer of machine guns.

From Mr. Ornstein,

  Congress had passed the law in a reasonable and deliberate fashion. A genuine practitioner of judicial restraint would have allowed them a wide enough berth to do so. Alito's colleagues did just that. But Alito used his own logic to call for its overturn, arguing that the possession of machine guns by private individuals had no economic activity associated with it, and that no real evidence existed that private possession of guns increased crime in a way that affected commerce -- and thus Congress had no right to regulate it. That kind of judicial reasoning often is referred to as reflecting the "Constitution in Exile."

  Whatever it is, it's not judicial restraint.

In response to Alito's opinion, the majority said, "Nothing in Lopez (an earlier Supreme Court case) requires either Congress or the Executive to play Show and Tell with the federal courts at the peril of invalidation of a Congressional statute."

Mr. Ornstein's final sentence is a caution to you,

  Whatever else it does with Judge Alito at the confirmation hearings, the Senate needs to hold his feet to the fire on this larger issue of deference to the legislative branch.

Don't let Judge Alito's opinions on single issues distract you from the danger he presents to our nation's Constitutional foundation. Reject his nomination and encourage your colleagues to do the same.

Three groups to contact:

Your senators

The Judiciary Committee

And your representatives

Feel free to lift the image here or any of the others over at Booman Tribune, and feel free to copy and paste any and all of the information you will see put up over the next couple of weeks into Blogs and letters as we hold Alito's feet to the fire.

Even if you only participate on a few of the days it can help make a difference. There are so many issues where Samuel Alito's views and allegiances are just flat out wrong for a SCOTUS nomination.

Note: Tommorrow's actions and reason's are still being worked on today. Feel free to check it out at Booman Tribune (Just look for the "Justice" diaries) and any help or participation of any kind you can provide will be greatly appreciated. This is another action brought to you by the group that brought you "Operation Yellow Feather" which was a very successful cross blog protest. These actions are designed to help bring the "Left Blogosphere Think Tank" together on our many shared issues.

X-posted at My Left Wing, Booman Tribune , My Left Nutmeg, Political Cortex

And also Front Paged or posted by Cedwyn at: Dembloggers, ePluribus Media,   MyDD, and TPM Cafe reader Blogs as well as by shermanesqe at Street Prophets and C&J


Coulter Feeling Like an Outkast in Connecticut

bzbb wrote up an interesting diary on Cindy Sheehan's visit to Uconn the other day. Given that it is crunch time for students across the nation I thought that I would give bzbb a little cover before coming back with a promissed diary on Anne Coulter's visit to Uconn. (Good luck in your exams, and essay efforts!)

Needless to say, Coulter wasted very little time going from zero to stupid:

STORRS, Connecticut (AP) -- Conservative columnist Ann Coulter cut short a speech at the University of Connecticut amid boos and jeers, and decided to hold a question-and-answer session instead.

"I love to engage in repartee with people who are stupider than I am," Coulter told the crowd of 2,600 Wednesday.

Before cutting off her speech after about 15 minutes, Coulter called Bill Clinton an "executive buffoon" who won the presidency only because Ross Perot took 19 percent of the vote.

Yep! Right into her GOP talking points without a moment to spare.

I said "Darling, you sound like a prostitute pursing"

feel the love down below...

It is pretty darn obvious that protesters left her feeling a little bit like an outkast in Connecticut:

Coulter's appearance prompted protests from several student groups. About 100 people rallied outside the auditorium where she spoke, saying she spread a message of intolerance.

"We encourage diverse opinion at UConn, but this is blatant hate speech," said Eric Knudsen, a 19-year-old sophomore journalism and social welfare major who heads campus group Students Against Hate.

It wasn't the first time Coulter has had trouble at a university speech. In October 2004, two men ran onstage and threw custard pies as she was giving a speech at the University of Arizona.

I know you'd like to thank your shit don't stank
But lean a little bit closer
See that roses really smell like boo-boo

Of course there were some there that were disgusted by this showing, but more likely because this is typically a republican type of reaction to a liberal:

UConn junior Kareem Mohni, 20, said he was disgusted by his peers' reaction to Coulter.

"It really appalled me that we're not able to come together as a group and listen to a different view in a respectful environment," Mohni said.

Get used to this type of reaction to people that spread hatred and spew thoughts that are designed to specifically divide America Kareem.

Aggressive Progressives don't put up with this kind of crap.

Don't you be looking at me crazy like ya want to
The game is over A.C. baby won't you
Just quit the contemplating cause
I'll box you in your muthafuckin mouth

(Posted originally at My Left Nutmeg)


Nancy Johnson's Junk in the Trunk

It seems that Nancy Johnson's political career has a lot of junk in the trunk...

Deroy Murdock on Medicare on National Review Online:

"This fiscal malpractice has not bought the White House even political dividends. An August 25-26, 2003 Gallup poll found 40 percent of adults approved of the president's handling of Medicare while 48 percent disapproved. After the benefit's adoption, a March 26-28, 2004 Gallup survey saw 35 percent approve of Bush on Medicare, while disapproval climbed to 55 percent. What a bargain: Each one-point drop in Bush's Medicare approval rating cost Americans $44.5 billion.

The GOP Congress should dump the drug benefit. They should spare taxpayers this absurdly expensive new project whose true costs were concealed by an administration that sacrificed integrity and fiscal responsibility on an altar of blind ambition.

Instead, Republicans should develop a modest plan for poor seniors who lack coverage, rather than any American over 65, including multimillionaires and those who already have drug insurance.

The Medicare drug benefit has metastasized from bad policy to bad politics and now to scandal and possible criminality. This law begs to be euthanized. The GOP should pulls its plug. As for the perpetrators of this colossal public fraud, the Justice Department should fit them for orange jumpsuits."

And this is the legislation she was was so proud of and pinning her 2006 re-election hopes on? Well now, If that ain't an elephant passing some serious gas on to the voters?

Careful now!

Never stand behind an elephant that is full of it... You never know when it is going to take its next dump on YOU!

Chris Murphy flushes Johnson's Crap

So... What does Democrat hopeful Chris Murphy have to say about all of this?

Drug Benefit will be a problem for Johnson in 2006

Nancy Johnson's biggest legislative effort in years - the drug benefit bill - seems to be falling drastically short of doing what it promised - helping seniors afford their perscriptions. The NY Times explains why this bill will be an albatross around the necks of Republicans in 2006, Johnson in particular.

Already, many Democratic strategists argue that the new program - because of its complicated structure and gaps in coverage - could be much more of a problem than an asset for Republicans next year. Some Democratic challengers are already using the issue on the campaign trail, like Christopher S. Murphy, who hopes to unseat Representative Nancy L. Johnson of Connecticut, a senior Republican who played an important role in writing the law.

"Seniors, frustrated with the complexity of the drug benefit, are realizing that it was constructed to help the insurance industry and the drug industry," said Mr. Murphy, a state senator, in a common Democratic refrain. "It's more helpful to those industries than to a lot of seniors."

Read the rest of the story here.

Anyone that has tried to wade through Johnson's "signature legislation", either for themselves or a relative in need of medication, understands what a pile of hooey it is, and they are also begining to realize just how much more it is going to cost the people in need as well as all other taxpayers more than Johnson lied, err, said it would.

Johnson's rolling in it...
Dirty money that is!

Not only does she take drug industry money out the ying-yang in order to finance her campaign efforts, but Johnson also takes dirty money from Tom Delay.

You can feel free to stand behind Johnson if you want to... But don't say I didn't warn you.

She is full of it!


Email Bill O'Reilly about his telling the enemy to attack San Francisco!

I sent an Email to Bill O'Liely concerning his starting an enemy list... You know: The web sites that "smear" O'Liely on a regular basis because they point out his lies and propaganda.

Here is mine:

You can add this US Army Veteran to your enemy list you fuckwad of a falafel boy. With so many proud and informed Americans it is certain to be a long list of people that see right through your twisted far-right-wingnut propaganda.

Drinking Liberally in New Milford
The only Blogger guarenteed to be plastered all over the internet! But I still can't get drunk enough to start thinking Bill O'Liely holds a reasonable or intelligent point of view... Thank God for that!

You can add my friends to your list too:
Booman Tribune
European Trib
Crooks and Liars

I made sure to add recommendations for a few more sites to add to his enemy list. I know C&L has been asking people to reccommend him for that list:

I hope I make it on his list. I encourage everyone to email his site and ask that C&L be included on that list.
I urge you to send your Emails with your own Blogs and websites to make the point. Nothing like letting the Faux news viewers know we are out here! lol

Operation Flying Monkees

Crooks and Liars has the latest on the presidents Veterans Day speech to rally the flying monkees:

TDS on the Speech

Stewart started Monday off with a look back at President Bush's speech to our troops on V-Day.

Click to see video at C&L...

You knew there had to be a talking head montage thrown in for good measure. Jon offers President Bush a simpler name to call the radicals since he gets so tongue tied. The end clip that TDS uses highlights the fact that Bush really makes about as much sense as Bert Lahr.


Your Tax Dollars at Work

Take a good hard look at republican politicics:

DSL | 56K
Windows Media
DSL | 56K
DSL | 56K

Did you wretch? Or does the insanity of it make you feel at all?

US Forces 'Used Chemical Weapons' during Assault on City of Fallujah

By Peter Popham
The Independent UK

Tuesday 08 November 2005

Powerful new evidence emerged yesterday that the United States dropped massive quantities of white phosphorus on the Iraqi city of Fallujah during the attack on the city in November 2004, killing insurgents and civilians with the appalling burns that are the signature of this weapon.

Ever since the assault, which went unreported by any Western journalists, rumours have swirled that the Americans used chemical weapons on the city.

On 10 November last year, the Islam Online website wrote: "US troops are reportedly using chemical weapons and poisonous gas in its large-scale offensive on the Iraqi resistance bastion of Fallujah, a grim reminder of Saddam Hussein's alleged gassing of the Kurds in 1988."

Are you as proud of all of this as Bush is? If you are then you are one sick fuck.


Wondering what DeLay's phone records might lead to?

More phone records, of course!
Democrats question timing of 2002 GOP donations

Rep. Tom DeLay's political action committee, Americans for a Republican Majority, gave $5,000 to the state Republican Party on Nov. 1, 2002, four days before the election in which Republican John Sununu won his Senate seat by defeating former Democratic Gov. Jeanne Shaheen.

Four days earlier, the state party received $5,000 each from two Indian tribes represented by Jack Abramoff, a lobbyist with close ties to DeLay. Together, the three donations nearly equal the $15,600 Republicans paid a telemarketing firm to make repeated hang-up calls to the Democratic phone banks.

DeLay recently stepped down as House majority leader after being indicted in Texas on conspiracy and money laundering charges. Abramoff also has been charged in an ongoing federal corruption and fraud investigation.

"It just so happens that the money came into New Hampshire just a matter of days before the phone jamming. Is it just a coincidence? I don't know, but that's a question I'd like to get an answer to," said Democratic Party Chairwoman Kathy Sullivan, who argues that the tribes would have no reason to spend money in New Hampshire. "What you have here is the sound of two scandals colliding."

I wonder how long it will be before the GJ in NH takes action against DeLay and Abramoff?

"Drop the Gavel" on DeLay and Abramoff!


Rejecting the Bush Policy of Spreading "FREE DUMB"

Before he was (s)elected to office in the 2000 elections the preznit had been quoted as saying:

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. . . . "

Something that rings true amongst most Americans, right?

In his ascendency speach following his second installment to the throne, refered to by some Americans as the "Diebold Debachle" (which was preceded by the highly partisan "Scotus Appointment" era) the preznit, much to the worry of many alarmed Americans and even some in the media, made dozens of references to his one and only reason left to have blundered into Iraq that had not been completely debunked as a minor justification to go to war in Iraq:

"America, in this young century, proclaims liberty throughout all the world, and to all the inhabitants thereof. Renewed in our strength - tested, but not weary - we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom."

Are you weary yet?

The internet is littered with articles showing strong concern for the preznits huge change in policy towards supporting nation building. Alarm bells sounded off in every corner of America after that infamous speach.

The echoing ring of these bells has grown since then, and poll after poll has shown that America is in total disagreement with bush's policies, especially concerning spreading freedom, and the direction of the country lately. Zogby's impeachment question showed a serious faultering of any support for the bush regime's mis-direction by a large portion of those polled.

My message to you Mr bush:
"We are beyond weary!"

Today a poll on the direction of bush's foreign policy of "Spreading Democracy" through the use of force has been shown to be against the wishes of an overwhelmingly large majority of Americans:

America Rejects Using Military Force to Promote Democracy; Rejects Democratization as Rationale for Iraq War
WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 U.S. Newswire

A new poll finds a majority of Americans reject the idea of using military force to promote democracy. Only 35 percent favored using military force to overthrow dictators. Less than one in five favored the US threatening to use military force if countries do not institute democratic reforms.

The effort to promote democracy in
Iraq is generating little enthusiasm.

(emaphasis mine)

The bold part is clearly an understatement. Not only is bush polling badly across the board with all Americans, but even his support from conservative republicans is dismal, to say the least:

Seventy-four percent (including 60 percent of Republicans) said that the goal of overthrowing Iraq's authoritarian government and establishing democracy was not a good enough reason to go to war. Seventy-two percent said that the experience has made them feel worse about the possibility of using military force to bring about democracy in the future. Sixty-four percent (65 percent of Republicans) are ready to accept an Iraqi constitution that does not fully meet democratic standards, and once the constitution is ratified 57 percent want to start withdrawing troops.

Given the large shift in Americans' views, don't you think it is time for America to make a serious change in the way we treat Middle-East politics, and start to fix the problems created by Bush and the neocon's agenda?

It is Time to bring the soldiers home.

Nobody wants to spread your "FREE DUMB" Mr. Bush... Not anymore.

Bush's Crash and Burn Policy on Iraq

Recently the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-faisal, has been heard pushing a message of the imminent failures in Iraq in the hopes that the bush admin. will hear what they are saying. Saudi worries are evidenced by al-faisal's recent quote in the NY Times:

"There is no dynamic now pulling the nation together," he said in a meeting with reporters at the Saudi Embassy here. "All the dynamics are pulling the country apart."

It is pretty darn obvious that the Saudies are concerned with the "seemingly" incompetent actions taken by the bush admin, and the influence that Iran is gaining over parts of Iraq as a result of this perceived incompetence.

But is this not a direct result of the real neocon agenda that is succeeding at ripping apart Iraq through Civil War?

It just happens that some of the parts that may break off are gaining strong Iranian influences.

Taken from the Timesonline:

Tougher language is being heard in the Arab world, where Iran has been a foe from the time of the Persians. Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi Foreign Minister, said: "We fought a war together to keep Iran out of Iraq after Iraq was driven out of Kuwait. Now we are handing the whole country over to Iran without reason."


Under the provisions of Iraq's federal constitution, which will go before a referendum on October 15, provinces will be allowed to create regional authorities. That has given rise to fears that the Shias in the south, with the support of Iran, will seek to create a mini Shia Islamic state, as Mr al-Hakim has already stated he wants.

I think the reasoning behind their message to the bush admin. becomes pretty darn clear when you read what the Saudi Foreign minister says up there.

They are freaking about Iranian influence that has resulted from the tensions created by the US.

Taken from the Timesonline:


Badr Brigades

A Shia militia force of 12,000 trained by Iran's Revolutionary Guards and blamed for a spate of recent killings of Sunni Muslims. Thought to control several cities in southern Iraq

Islamic Dawaa Party

Shia party that has strong links to Iran. Its leader, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the present Prime Minister, has vowed to improve ties between the two neighbours

Mahdi Army

Received arms and volunteers from Iran during its battle against US and British troops last year. Ahmed al-Fartusi, its commander in Basra, was arrested by British forces last weekend

Mujahidin for Islamic Revolution in Iraq

Tehran-backed militia blamed for the murder of six British Royal Military Police soldiers in Majar el-Kabir in 2003

Thar Allah (Vengeance of God)

Iranian-backed terror group blamed for killing former members of the ruling Baath party and enforcing strict Islamic law

Jamaat al-Fudalah (Group of the Virtuous)

Paramilitary group that imposes Islamic rules on Shia areas; attacks shops selling alcohol and music

Al-Fadilah (Morality)

Secret political movement financed by Iran. Thought to have many members among provincial officials

Al-Quawaid al-Islamiya (Islamic Bases)

Iranian-backed Islamic movement that uses force to impose Islamic law

From a Saudi perspective... Things aren't quite what they'd hoped for, huh?

Never mind that seems like civil war, and possibly what the bushies were trying for.

This only magnifies that point:


The western media has laboured hard in portraying the "Sunni community" as the major source of delay in the drafting process. The Bush administration has habitually presented events in Iraq as sectarian and ethnically biased; this presentation is not arbitrary or due to "misunderstanding" as some have claimed.

More truthfully, differing visions of Iraq are what delayed and essentially prevented the constitutional process from achieving consensual support. On the one hand we have an American-endorsed vision that proposes dividing Iraq up and we have the view of the opposition, which accepts nothing less than a unified Iraq.

In the autumn of 2004 the RAND Corporation, an American research company, published a research brief for the United States Navy arguing "cleavages within the Muslim world pose challenges and opportunities ... for US interests and strategy".

"I am making an appeal to all Iraqi citizens. Please do not divide yourselves anymore than you already have, and by dividing you empower the occupation and their agendas for your natural resources."

The RAND study highlights current divisions in the Muslim world between the Sunni and Shia, as well as between Arabs and non-Arabs as crucial to US interests.

The ethnic and sectarian federalism that has been proposed in Iraq fits well into this divisive framework. This insight into the strategic thinking of US thinktanks provides a contextual background to any assessment of US involvement in the Arab and Muslim world.

Here is a link to Rand's article U.S. Strategy in the Muslim World After 9/11 (the one refered to in the Al Jazeera article).

In the entire Rand article there is one little sentence that sums up "what might happen?" if the US policy fails hidden inside the pages of optimism..

Beyond these long-term factors, certain catalytic events have shifted the political environment in the Muslim world toward radicalism. Major events include the Iranian revolution, the Afghan war with the Soviets, the Gulf War of 1991, and the global war on terrorism after September 11. The Iraq war and the removal of Saddam Hussein have surely had an effect on the Muslim world, but the long-term implications remain to be seen. A stable, pluralistic, and democratic Iraq would challenge anti-Western views in the Middle East and would undermine extremist arguments. On the other hand, if Iraq reverts to authoritarianism or fragments into ethnic enclaves, then U.S. credibility would diminish and radical groups would have greater opportunities to take hold.

And, golly gee... Is it ever happening.

But what if that was the bushies intention all along?

You can read almost any of Dahr Jamail's "Iraqi Dispatches" to get the true sense of how they are constantly creating more problems amongst the different Iraqi groups. At times it is almost like they are doing it all on purpose:

The failed siege of Fallujah

Thus, rather than improving security and stability in Fallujah and Iraq, the siege of Fallujah has accomplished nothing more than devastating the city and spreading the Iraqi resistance into other cities, such as Qaim, Beji, Baquba, Mosul, Ramadi, Latifiya and many areas of Baghdad.

It could easily be argued now that the siege of Fallujah accomplished the exact opposite of its stated goals - rather than bringing increased security and stability, it has inflamed tempers, deepened sectarian rifts and spurred the Iraqi resistance into levels of attack rarely seen prior to the siege.


U.S. Claims Over Siege Challenged

He said continuing violations by U.S. soldiers had provoked people into confronting the occupying forces. He said troops had been raiding homes, sending women into the streets without their hijabs and entering areas where women sleep.

"The fighters are just local people who refuse to be treated like dogs," he said. "Nobody wants the Americans here."


This is our Guernica

Two US attempts were made to destroy this symbol of defiance last year. The first, in April, fizzled out after Iraqi politicians, including many who supported the invasion of their country, condemned the use of air strikes to terrorise an entire city.


One thing is certain: the attack on Falluja has done nothing to still the insurgency against the US-British occupation nor produced the death of al-Zarqawi - any more than the invasion of Afghanistan achieved the capture or death of Osama bin Laden. Thousands of bereaved and homeless Falluja families have a new reason to hate the US and its allies.


This decade's unforgettable monument to brutality and overkill is Falluja, a text-book case of how not to handle an insurgency, and a reminder that unpopular occupations will always degenerate into desperation and atrocity.


Sects and Solidarity in Iraq

The spokesman's point is clear: After decades of repression, now is the time for the Shiites to have power, no matter the price. "Most of the Sunnis are accepted by us, but there are those among them who don't want the Shia in the government, nor the Kurds. Some Sunnis will either kill us or make us slaves. We accept these elections now," says Asadi, pulling the abaya close over his shoulders. "But many Shias and Kurds believe dividing the country is the only real solution."


With Shiite domination in the National Assembly, they will have much power in writing Iraq's new constitution. Will this lopsided dynamic provoke a violent reaction from the Sunni-dominated insurgency? If it does, will the Shiite militias, like the Badr Organization, the armed wing of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), strike back, igniting a civil war?


When examining the statements of some political and religious leaders from both communities, one gets the sense that civil war is indeed imminent. Sheik Asadi's venom toward the Sunni is matched by that of some of his Sunni counterparts toward the Shiites. But Western media outlets, focusing on the sensational, have played up the potential for civil war, muting the voices of Sunni and Shiite leaders who are skeptical of such predictions and united against partition.

That last part in bold is the kicker... The media is "playing up the potential for civil war" and bushies policies only inflame the situation.

We see this every day as one seemingly incompetent decision follows another.

It makes it all pretty darn clear what the Saudies see as a problem. They cannot believe that the Bush administration is truely this incompetenet. The Saudis believe that the US is trying to create civil war in the hopes of ripping the country apart.

Perhaps the Bush admin. wants to divide the country up and, per usual, the media is only helping them along. And maybe neocons want Iraq to descend into civil war which will, theoretically, make each part more manageable for America.

Either that or they are completely incompetent and clueless as to how much the US forces continued presence there, and their actions based on Bush policies, are the cause of most of the problems in Iraq.

Based on what ex-CIA officer Larry Johnson has to say about it all I have come to the conclusion that the Bush administration is really just that incompetent:

How do I know? Foreign officials with the job of tracking and fighting aspiring terrorists tell me so. During the last year I have provided briefings on terrorist trends to senior leaders from Pakistan, Kuwait, Yemen, Tunisia, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, and Mali. Although they come from different countries they convey the same message—what the hell are you doing?

Our friends and allies naively believe that we have a plan and know what we are doing. Nonetheless, they also tell me that just as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 created Bin Laden and his ilk that our invasion of Iraq is creating the next generation of terrorists. They see that their societies are becoming more anti-U.S. than pro. They see a new generation of idealistic youth falling under the conviction that God (Allah) is calling them to fight the infidel. They are genuinely afraid that we have lit a fuze on a bomb that will detonate in the next few years unless we demonstrate we are in control.

We have all seen the resulting chaos from neocon theory thus far. Regardless of what the Bush administration and the neocon's "supposed" real plans are or were, the results aren't pretty. They have failed miserably in every aspect and every step of the way.

Just ignore the thousands that had to die to create this chaos. And ignore the fact that it leaves Iranians with more influence in the region. And ignore that this is creating more instability in the Middle-East, even amongst our few allies there.


Sirotablog: GOP proposes cuts to military health care

Who do the bush admin. and republicans that love them want to screw more than anyone else on this earth? Well, other than the people living in the lands with the oil neocons think they should own...

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, President Bush and Republicans in Congress have refused to consider rolling back the $336 billion in new tax cuts that the richest 1 percent are slated to get over the next five years. They say we need to pay for reconstruction not by asking the wealthiest to sacrifice just a little bit, but by massive cuts to spending. And now we see what that means: The Navy Times today reports that those cuts "include trimming military quality-of-life programs, including health care." This, while troops are in battle.

The Republicans have put their cutting efforts in military terms, calling it "Operation Offset" - a further insult to the men and women in uniform they are now trying to screw over. The specifics are ugly. They are, for instance, asking troops to "accept reduced health care benefits for their families." Additionally, "the stateside system of elementary and secondary schools for military family members could be closed." In the past, this idea "has faced strong opposition from parents of children attending the schools because public schools [in and around bases] are seen as offering lower-quality education."

How can an honest republican that has any sense of morality look at what bush does everyday without gagging from what they see?


Son of Florida Gov. Bush Arrested - Yahoo! News

Ok... So here is a Friday night dump...
Son of Florida Gov. Bush Arrested - Yahoo! News:
AUSTIN, Texas - The youngest son of Florida Gov.
Jeb Bush was arrested early Friday and charged with public intoxication and resisting arrest, law enforcement officials said.

John Ellis Bush, 21, was arrested by agents of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission at 2:30 a.m. on a corner of Austin's Sixth Street bar district, said commission spokesman Roger Wade.

The nephew of President Bush was released on $2,500 bond for the resisting arrest charge, and on a personal recognizance bond for the public intoxication charge, officials said."

Hmmm... The media is asleep at the wheel on this one. Why wasn't this reported early in the day?

Need a mugshot?


Republican Rep: "We Finally Cleaned Up Public Housing In New Orleans. We Couldn't Do It, But God Did"...

House Republican campaign chief Reynolds touts chance to market conservative social-policy solutions;

Well tweedledum: It is "Conservative war policy" that has made it impossible to implement any humane social policy in NOLA. Nevermind the heaping piles of incompetent fedral officials appointed by the endless-vacationing bush.

America has had it with bankrupt, corrupt, and incompetent "Conservative policies". There is no aspect of conservative policy that has succeeded by this Neocon admin., and those who support it.

Though they have succeeded in creating the largest bureaucracy ever, along with the huge deficit that you have encouraged.

Rep. Baker of Baton Rouge is overheard telling lobbyists: "We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn't do it, but God did."

Yes... We are sure you only meant to think this, but not say it out loud. Thinking would be politically OK, but say it out loud would flippant, huh?

I was thinking more like: Totally and completely devoid of compassion as you salivate at the prospect of kickbacks from corrupt contractors.

Don't worry, bush won't allow it! (To happen to you, that is)... No, they want all of those gifts coming to themselves, guarenteeing maximum profits to their buddies by suppressing any chance of a local making a decent living.

It is sad that the WINDBAGS OF WAR in the GOP still think they know anything, when it has been proven over and over, ad nauseam, that they know nothing about anything except garbage talking points. OH yes, and making a buck at the people's expense.


Debunking Katrina: With the Consent of the Governed

Here is the truth:

Debunking Katrina: With the Consent of the Governed

by DuctapeFatwa
Fri Sep 9th, 2005 at 09:31:11 PM EDT

We must be fair and balanced. The first debunking efforts were undertaken under the most inauspicious conditions. Officials were only accorded one side of a TV screen to explain to Americans that the live feeds taking place on the other side of the screen showed not truth but rumors, reports unconfirmed by authorities.

We must understand that at this time, the only news coming from the theatre came from people on the ground in scratchy breaky phone calls, a handful of bloggers, and reporters operating without benefit of embedding or vetting.

So if there were those who may have believed those rumors regarding conditions and crimes in the shelter pits into which crowded those New Orleanians politically naive enough to believe that they and their families would be safer than on the roof, if there were those who may have lent credence to rumors of slow responses from various government agencies, before they are denounced as un American consider the difficulties under which their leaders were operating at the moment.

Things have turned the corner now, and only a handful of dead enders and the people who survived the experience believe these rumors now.

Loyal Americans understand that while conditions in dome and center may not have been luxurious, nor on the expressway, things were not all that bad, and of course there were no crimes, no one was prevented from escape, people were not really dying of heat stroke or thirst or lack of medicine. Those are just rumors. Like the rumors of the 1927 replay of the canal strategy that flooded the city's poor area to save the fine homes in the Garden District and the historic French Quarter, both seen as keepers by those who are already hard at work planning the new and improved New Orleans. All the old world charm without the pesky poor.

And after a few territorial squabbles, federal, state and local officials are at last on the same page, and working together to craft a reasonable death toll that while tragic, will not prove too disturbing to more sensitive viewers.

One of the most comforting steps taken in recent days is the President's vow to personally oversee an investigation into any possible glitches that may have taken place in the response to the disaster.

His advisors, including the formidable Mr. Rove, wasted no time in developing a strategy to reassure the more skittish segment of the American public that their government had things firmly in hand, and would keep it that way.

That, coming on the heels of not one, but two Presidential flyovers of the area, and even one touchdown visit to console local politicians.

The egalitarian nature of the nation, and the President's concern for the humblest of his subjects cannot be more clearly illustrated than these flyovers. The Presidential aircraft could be seen by those fortunate enough to have successfully made an opening in their roofs, those on the expressways, those outside the shelterpits, and we can only imagine how much the sight must have meant to them, as they sat there, gasping. For many it will have been the last sight they saw.

Is it any wonder that not even Kim Jung Il enjoys deeper affection from his people?

So the corner is turned, but there is still much hard work ahead. Popular pundit Michelle Malkin, thoughtful as usual, expressed the hope that potentially troublesome eyewitnesses would be excluded from any investigation, which should, she declared, be a private affair, unburdened by any media who might not have recovered completely from the rumors and unconfirmed reports they thought they saw.

The survivor diaspora will be most helpful in avoiding such an eventuality, as well as the tragic but inevitable passing of many of them, if not from effects of the original rumors, from the second wave of rumors of West Nile, hepatitis, and the kinder gentler cholera promised by corporate charity mavens.

After having written checks to the Red Cross to help their executives maintain the lifestyle to which they are accustomed, and thus proving their compassion to their poor brethren in need, and a few hours of volunteer work down at the shelter, where too often, Lord and Lady Bountiful are horrified and repulsed to learn that the less fortunate are not sufficiently schooled in the soft skills to demonstrate appropriate gratitude for having been allowed to escape with their lives, if not their health, or all their family members, right thinking Americans will soon be free to return their focus on the positive:

US gunmen continue to occupy and reduce the population in two countries openly, and the public can rest assured that covert operations are also taking place elsewhere, and on the storm front, now that the rumors have been debunked, yes, there was a hurricane, and quite a bit of property damage, but the good news is that both Halliburton and Bechtel, among others, will be putting their expertise to work to make it right, and Halliburton will be raising all its prices in October, good news for investors!

And God, speaking as he does, through Bush, as revealed by Bush himself, has issued an executive order empowering these fine wealth builders to shake off the burden of oppressive laws requiring the paying of prevailing wages, meaning that survivors who are still at large in the area will be able to obtain work which will provide them with dignity, and possibly up to a dollar or two above the minimum wage.

So all in all, yes there was a little wind, and sadly, a few lost their lives. But rumors of devastation and catastrophe, of genocide and slaveship hells, of rape and murder and mutilation, of thousands gasping their last on the asphalt of I-10, were just that- rumors, probably started by a certain element with an agenda.

Just a little wind, but everything is being made right now, with the consent of the governed.

Sad... But the truth.
(Ductapefatwa sure cuts to the bone in this sarcastic rant! Go Ducky, go!)


Pseudoconservative? Neocon? Same Idiots, Different "Phantom Enemy"

As you can see here, there is some doubt about bush's honesty amongst the Vets...

National Post:
"Bill Moyer, 73, wears a 'Bullshit Protector' flap over his ear while President George W. Bush addresses the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
(AP Photo/Douglas C. Pizac)"

Then again... You could have just asked me. As a Vet myself, well, I think that the few soldiers that make it home alive will be lucky if there any benefits left for them the way bush is messing with VA benefits, nevermind the fact that we should never have been in Iraq in the first place, or the fact that since we have been in Iraq bush and his pseudoconservative policy makers have messed it up almost every single way possible.

I know... You said pseudocon what???? If you don't remember McCarthyism and their insisting "there is a commie hiding behind every tree!" well, there is the tie in to the kind of administration we have in the White House right now. The modern day pseudoconservative's (neocon's) "Fear, fear, fear!" campaign is no different than the pseudoconservative driven McCarthy witch hunts...

As an independent, I feel pretty safe saying "Better dead than red!" If you are talking about GOP red that is.

Thank God I live in a blue state where the Dems are moderate liberals, and the GOP are flaming liberals, or at least pretend to be with the way they tax and spend. Needless to say, the budgeting skills of the GOP do show a preference for red ink...

Sad but true...

Does it surprise anyone that polls show bush support has dropped to %36? Talk about an unpopular idiot in the White House...


Why Didn't Judge Roberts Recuse Himself?

OK... So Roberts has a few problems... And, of course, those people, the kind that are rabid about ruining the Constitution by inserting religion into politics, are running around New Milford now with TWO FLAGS on their car because ONE FLAG hasn't been patriotic enough to gloss over their lies, corruption, and flat out anti-patriotic stupidity as they do idiotic things like run over memorials to fallen soldiers at Camp Casey.

Thank God there are many soldiers that are supporting the efforts of Cindy Sheehan! Count me as one, and my brother in-law, who leaves for Iraq in a month or so for his second tour, would be two.

Cindy had this to say about their move to a piece of property that will be a little bit safer than the ditch bush's secret service originally forced them into.
We are moving to a place that doesn't have much shade and I put out an appeal for tarps and a soldier from Ft. Hood brought some to us that he "borrowed" from Ft. Hood for us to use. I have had a lot of soldiers from Ft. Hood come out and tell me to keep it up and that I am doing a good thing. We are doing this to honor Casey and the other fallen heroes in their memories. But we are doing it FOR the people of Iraq and the other soldiers who are in harm's way right now. Right after we heard about the crosses last night, a Camp Casey volunteer found out that a pen pal she had in Iraq was KIA on August 12th. This has to stop, now. We will stop it.

As noble as Cindy Sheehan's cause is, that isn't what this blog is about. Susanhu has a little info on Roberts that might be worth knowing:

Why Didn't Judge Roberts Recuse Himself?

by susanhu
Thu Aug 18th, 2005 at 10:30:27 PM EDT

"Roberts was part of a three-judge panel that handed President Bush an important victory the week before he announced Roberts' nomination to the bench," reports Democracy Now!.

"The appeals court ruled in the Hamdan V. Rumsfeld case that the military tribunals of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, could proceed. The decision also found that Bush could deny terrorism captives prisoner-of-war status as outlined by the Geneva Conventions." Said Georgetown law professor David Luban today in today's DN! interview:

[Roberts] knew that he was on the three-judge panel as early as last December. The case was argued, the oral argument was April 7. Six days before ... he had an interview with Att'y Gen. Gonzales. [W]hile the case was deliberated, there's a gap between April 7, when the oral argument took place, and July 15, when the court issued the decision. He had numerous other interviews for the Supreme Court judgeship. [T]hat's the period of time in which he is deliberating and presumably discussing with the other judges on the panel what the ruling should be in the case.

Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights (see the blogroll on the left), said:

[M]y reaction [is] utter amazement ... [O]n April 1, a week before the argument, [Roberts met] with Gonzales, the Attorney General who was the architect of the entire policy that the Geneva Conventions shouldn't apply to [Guantanamo detainees], that they should use military commissions, and he’s meeting with this guy at the same time that he is sitting on a case that's going to determine whether or not the Geneva Conventions apply.

[A]t a minimum, as David's article clearly says in Slate, his impartiality might reasonably have been questioned [and Judge Roberts] should have disqualified himself. There's not any issue about it.

I would go further. It reminds me of a case when Ellsberg [Pentagon Papers] was on trial for espionage. During the trial President Nixon, briefly, but other people in his office, Ehrlichman and others, met with the trial judge to offer him to be the head of the F.B.I. [T]he outcry [was] huge. ...

Listen/watch/read all. Goodman also asks both men about the missing documents. Emphases mine.

I know this has to be just a bit of a conflict of interest here... But I have morals and values, so I don't count political CYA by bush as a good thing when it comes to crimes against humanity. If bush really wanted to cover his ass all he had to do was ask the White House GOP prostitute Jeff Gannon, or if he was in this town he could ask Jay Lewyn... Same diff...

I really ought to go and see what "4 on the floor 4 bush" Jay and all of his "GOP talking point brigade" have to say about all of this at "Jay Lewin - For the love of God CENSOR ME!"... But I have already read the GOP talking points, so why waste my time, huh?

Nevermind the fact that if Jay isn't feeling gay enough about what he says in this town, well, he just goes back and tries to change the wording of the town records... Can't afford to look too stupid...

How many flags for you and your GOP buddies Jay?
One or two?


A nod to the realities of the soldiers plight.


"In a departure from the norm in Kentucky -- one of the reddest of red states -- some of Comley's relatives, including a few sitting in the front pews, have spoken out strongly against the Bush administration and the war that took the 21-year-old Marine's life.
On Friday, Comley's grandmother, 80-year-old Geraldine Comley of Versailles, described herself in an interview as a former Republican stalwart who is "on a rampage" against the president and the war.

She said she would like nothing better than to join Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a fallen soldier who has been holding a peace vigil outside President Bush's ranch in Texas.

"When someone gets up and says 'My son died for our freedom,' or I get a sympathy card that says that, I can hardly bear it," Geraldine Comley said.

She said her view, developed before her grandson's death, is that Bush pushed for war because Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had tried to assassinate the first President Bush, and to get control of Mideast oil.

"And it irritates me no small amount that Dick Cheney, in the Vietnam War, said he had 'other priorities,'" Geraldine Comley said. "He didn't mind sending my grandson over there" to Iraq.""
Written by: Winter Patriot

My deepest and sincerest condolences to the Comley family in the loss of their son, and my thanks to Cindy Sheehan for faithfully representing the many who demand better leadership in this country.

Too late you stupid bushies...

Is there even one idiot on this earth that will believe this BS line coming from the pentagon and the White House?

Fearing backlash, Pentagon moves to block new Abu Ghraib photos - Yahoo! News:
Sat Aug 13, 3:50 PM ET

Pentagon has moved forcefully to block the release of new video evidence of prisoner abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, arguing it would help recruit new Islamist insurgents and endanger American lives."

Too late morons... The insurgents already know the truth about the torture the corrupt bush administration and the incompetent Petagon officials sanctioned.


Just who is it you are trying to protect there?
He further states that should the pictures become public, they will "endanger the lives and physical safety of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines in the United States Armed Forces presently serving in Iraq and

Americans aren't that stupid. We already know that the insurgents are quite aware of the torture.


We already know who you are trying to protect and who is really to blame.

Meanwhile, ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero insists the real reason the Pentagon is fighting the release of the new evidence is because it demonstrates "the failure of American leaders who placed our young men and women in compromising situations and are now seeking to blame them for it."


Typical Republican Answer...

These are exactly the kind of false patriots that wrap themselves in the flag or slap ribbons on their SUVs... And do nothing else to support the troops.
Parent-trap snares recruiters:

"Staff Sgt. Jason Rivera, 26, a Marine recruiter in Pittsburgh, went to the home of a high school student who had expressed interest in joining the Marine Reserve to talk to his parents.

It was a large home in a well-to-do suburb north of the city. Two American flags adorned the yard. The prospect's mom greeted him wearing an American flag T-shirt.

'I want you to know we support you,' she gushed.

Rivera soon reached the limits of her support.

'Military service isn't for our son. It isn't for our kind of people,' she told him"



Your kind of people should be bitch slapped all the way to hell. (These days, that would be the average Iraqi neighborhood..)

"Go bush! Go war! See my faded flag? Kill, kill, KILL! But we don't do that sort of lowly job ourselves... That is for the hired help. Our patriotic duty is just to vote for this. Oh yeah! And to slap a bumpersticker on our SUV."

Your kind sickens me.


Airman suspect in anti-Bush case

This anti-bush soldier might be in a little bit of trouble, huh?
BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Airman suspect in anti-Bush case:

A US air force reserve colonel may face charges of defacing cars bearing bumper stickers in support of President Bush.

Lieutenant Colonel Alexis Fecteau is suspected of painting obscenities on 12 parked cars at Denver International Airport over a six-month period.

Police allege he blacked out the stickers and then spray-painted expletives on the vehicles.

Allegedly, Lieutenant Colonel Fecteau is suspected of vandalising 12 cars at the airport.

Most of the soldiers I talk to don't like or appreciate the fake support of those little ribbons and bumper stickers, but I think this guy may have gone a little bit over the line legally.

Kudos to him for finding some way to vent his frustration on the idiot bumper sticker warriors of the GOP.

Like the stain the sticker leaves on your car will ever compare to the stain of a soldiers blood on the desert sands?

False patriots...
Every stinking hypocritical one of you!

With the disposable way some of you treat soldiers just to fill a tank of gas, can you blame a soldier for getting mad at you?

Rove's Treason, and the GOP Liars...

For those of you that keep sending me all of those "GOP talking point lies" in my Email (Are you listening Darrel?) and don't even have the decency to reply to my responses that tear up your lies line by line, instead trying to change the subject to another of your losing arguments...Well, here is a little post that deals with some of the BS you send out daily:

CLAIM: White House Can’t Comment While Investigation Is Ongoing
McClellan: “While that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it.”

FACT: White House Has Repeatedly Commented During the Ongoing Investigation
McClellan had previously cited that same investigation and then gone on to answer the questions as they pertained to Rove. For example, on October 1, 2003, he said, “There’s an investigation going on … you brought up Karl’s name. Let’s be very clear. I thought — I said it was a ridiculous suggestion, I said it’s simply not true that he was involved in leaking classified information, and — nor, did he condone that kind of activity.” Similarly, on October 10, 2003, McClellan said, “I think it’s important to keep in mind that this is an ongoing investigation.” But he then added with regard to a question about Rove’s involvement, “I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this.”

CLAIM: Rove Didn’t Leak The Name So He’s Not Guilty
Rove: “I didn’t know her name and didn’t leak her name.” Rove attorney Robert Luskin said “he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA.”

FACT: National Security Law Says Identifying Covert Agent Is Illegal
Rove at the very least identified Plame as “Wilson’s wife.” Under section 421 of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the disclosure of “any information identifying [a] covert agent” is illegal.

CLAIM: White House Didn’t Push The Story
Rove’s lawyer Robert Luskin claims Cooper manipulated what Rove said to him “in a pretty ugly fashion to make it seem like people in the White House were affirmatively reaching out to reporters to try to get them to report negative information about Plame.”

FACT: There Was An Organized Campaign To Push Leak Info
First, Robert Novak admitted: “I didn’t dig it out [Plame’s identity], it was given to me…. They [the White House] thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it.” Second, Rove told Chris Matthews that Plame’s identity was “fair game.” Third, Time magazine reported the orchestrated campaign against Wilson in October 2003: “In the days after Wilson’s essay appeared, government officials began to steer reporters away from Wilson’s conclusions.”

CLAIM: Conversation Was About Welfare Reform, So Rove Didn’t Do Anything Wrong
National Review’s Byron York: “According to Luskin, the fact that Rove did not call Cooper; that the original purpose of the call, as Cooper told Rove, was welfare reform.”

FACT: What They Spoke About Was Irrelevant
The original purpose of the conversation between Rove and Cooper is irrelevant. It has no bearing on the fact that Rove did identify a covert agent during that conversation.

CLAIM: Plame Wasn’t An Undercover Agent
Ed Rogers, former official under Reagan/Bush: “I think it is now a matter of established fact that Mrs. Plame was not a protected covert agent, and I don’t think there’s any meaningful investigation about that.”

FACT: Former CIA Officer Who Worked With Plame Verified She Was Undercover
Larry Johnson, former CIA officer: “Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985. All of my classmates were undercover–in other words, we told our family and friends that we were working for other overt U.S. Government agencies. We had official cover.”

CLAIM: Rove Was Trying To Correct A False Story
Rove attorney Luskin added, “What Karl was trying to do … was to warn Time away from publishing things that were going to be established as false.

FACT: Wilson Was Right, Bush Was Wrong
Bloomberg recently reported, “Two-year old assertions by former ambassador Joseph Wilson regarding Iraq and uranium, which lie at the heart of the controversy over who at the White House identified a covert U.S. operative, have held up in the face of attacks by supporters of presidential adviser Karl Rove.”

CLAIM: Wilson Lied About His Trip To Niger
Former Rove deputy Ken Mehlman: “What Joe Wilson alleged was that the vice president, then he said the CIA director sent him to Niger.” [CNN, 7/12/05]

FACT: Wilson Never Said Cheney Personally Sent Him To Niger
Bloomberg reported, “Wilson never said that Cheney sent him, only that the vice president’s office had questions about an intelligence report that referred to the sale of uranium yellowcake to Iraq from Niger. Wilson, in his New York Times article, said CIA officials were informed of Cheney’s questions. ‘The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president’s office,’ Wilson wrote.”

Posted by Faiz July 14, 2005 6:09 pm


Thanks to Faiz over at Think Progress for making this clear and concise post dealing with the BS.

As for you "GOP talking point" liars, well, if you continue to fill my inbox with your stupidity and lies than I will have no choice but to tear them up point-by-point right here on the Blog with your Email attached to your lies so everyone will know just how much of a liar, and just how stupid you truely are.

Anyone that has the nerve to call me "Sir" in an Email (a sign of respect) and fill out the rest of their Email with flat out lies taken straight from the "GOP talking points" hall of shame (showing a complete and utter disrespect to any person of logic) is a hypocrite and deserves all of the disrespect that is returned to them ten times over.

I don't play footsy under the table with the GOP like a Dem does... I am an independent, and for good reason... I will flat out call a spade a spade, and a liar a liar. (Got that Darrel?)

So, in the future, should you decide to send me lies and distorted facts as a response to something I write expect to become totally and completely embarrassed here in public.

I have absolutely no problem with being proven wrong in my opinions, BUT at least I show the proper courtesy of basing my opinions on facts.

Something that the "GOP talking point posters" avoid at all costs:

(OH yeah! And reality...)

Welcome to my world you semi-epsilon-moron-minus GOP talking point idiots. Ignore the khaki brown color of your posts? Why? Did the elephant crap all over you and your logic again?


Rep. Nancy Johnson's Scandal Plagued Legislation

It seems that Nancy Johnson's political career has a lot of junk in the trunk...
Deroy Murdock on Medicare on National Review Online:
"This fiscal malpractice has not bought the White House even political dividends. An August 25-26, 2003 Gallup poll found 40 percent of adults approved of the president's handling of Medicare while 48 percent disapproved. After the benefit's adoption, a March 26-28, 2004 Gallup survey saw 35 percent approve of Bush on Medicare, while disapproval climbed to 55 percent. What a bargain: Each one-point drop in Bush's Medicare approval rating cost Americans $44.5 billion.

The GOP Congress should dump the drug benefit. They should spare taxpayers this absurdly expensive new project whose true costs were concealed by an administration that sacrificed integrity and fiscal responsibility on an altar of blind ambition.

Instead, Republicans should develop a modest plan for poor seniors who lack coverage, rather than any American over 65, including multimillionaires and those who already have drug insurance.

The Medicare drug benefit has metastasized from bad policy to bad politics and now to scandal and possible criminality. This law begs to be euthanized. The GOP should pulls its plug. As for the perpetrators of this colossal public fraud, the Justice Department should fit them for orange jumpsuits."

And this is the legislation she was was so proud of and pinning her re-election hopes on? Well now, If that ain't an elephant passing some serious gas on to the voters?

Careful now!
Never stand behind an elephant that is full of it...
You never know when it is going to take its next dump on YOU!


Pigs on the Wing

While Juan Cole sets the record staright on the real issue of what is at the heart of the terror unleashed on London last week there is one very minor point he may have missed.
Salon.com News | "The time of revenge has come":

Blowback from Bush and Blair's incompetently pursued war on terror has hit London. When will the U.S. figure out how to fight smart?

By Juan Cole

July 8, 2005 | Credit for the horrific bombings of the London Underground and a double-decker bus on Thursday morning was immediately taken on a radical Muslim Web site by a 'secret group' of Qaida al-Jihad in Europe. By Thursday afternoon, as the casualty toll rose above 40 dead and 700 wounded, British Foreign Minister Jack Straw was saying, 'It has the hallmarks of an al-Qaida-related attack.' Although U.S. President George W. Bush maintains that al-Qaida strikes out at the industrialized democracies because of hatred for Western values, the statement said nothing of the sort. The attack, the terrorists proclaimed, was an act of sacred revenge for British 'massacres' in 'Afghanistan and Iraq,' and a punishment of the United Kingdom for its 'Zionism' (i.e., support of Israel). If they really are responsible, who is this group and what do they want?"

Don't you ever wonder where all of these web sites are coming from?
UK-based dissident denies link to website that carried al-Qaida claim

David Pallister - The Guardian
Saturday July 9, 2005

The claim of responsibility for the London attacks was first posted on one of the dozens of Islamic websites that are routinely monitored by western intelligence services.
The statement, under the name of the Secret Organisation of the al-Qaida Jihad in Europe, said: "The heroic mujahideen have carried out a blessed raid in London. Britain is now burning with fear, terror and panic in its northern, southern, eastern and western quarters."


...two Israeli groups devoted to exposing the network of jihadist sites claim that it is connected to the London-based Saudi dissident Saad al-Faqih. Mr Faqih, who is based in Willesden, north-west London, and runs the Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia (Mira), was designated by the US treasury last December as a supporter of al-Qaida. The UK Treasury followed suit by freezing Mr Faqih's assets.

Speaking in December 2004 before the assets were frozen, Mr Faqih ridiculed any idea that "millions of dollars" would be frozen. "I have no assets in the US and all I have in the UK is a current account with a few hundred pounds."

Well? At least someone out there is doing something about all of this by trying to freeze the assets of people that are involved...

But could we do more? Maybe...

It was posted on an Arabic website, al-qal3ah.com, which is registered by Qalaah Qalaah in Abu Dhabi and hosted by a server in Houston, Texas.

One would hope that they will deal with this Houston companies involvement in promoting terror? Maybe freezing all of their assets too...


When pigs can fly!

The server in Houston has intriguing connections. Everyone's Internet was founded by brothers Robert and Roy Marsh in 1998 and by 2002 had an income of more than $30m (now about £17m).

Roy Marsh counts among his friends President George Bush's former sister-in-law, Sharon Bush, and the president's navy secretary.

Everyone's Internet, which also hosts a number of pornographic sites, states: "We support the uncensored flow of information and ideas over the internet and do not actively monitor subscriber activity under normal circumstances."

I am sure that investigators will clear Roy of any wrongdoing AFTER they have completely gone through all of the porn on those houston servers owned by another bush family porn pal.

If you didn't care what happened to me,
And I didn't care for you
We would zig zag our way
Through the boredom and pain
Occasionally glancing up through the rain
Wondering which of the buggers to blame
And watching for pigs on the wing

Pink Floyd, Animals