Daily Dissent

Good Night, and Good Luck

2006-03-02T11:09:00.000-05:00

Thanks for the flattery and kind words. I am speechless.

This site has been a labor of love, and I'm sorry to have to put it to rest. I have not given up the fight, but at this time my focus is required elsewhere. For those looking for a new blog to frequent, check out a smaller (less trafficked), but great blog: Blah 3. My all time fave though is Eschaton, not just for the posts themselves, but the comments, where a wealth of timely info and wit can be found.

Take care all...

Daily Dissent Closing Shop

2006-03-01T09:57:00.000-05:00

Gang, I'm sorry to announce this but after discussions with Dionysus, we've decided to pull the plug on Daily Dissent. It's not because of tickets to Gitmo or Men in Black SUVs.

I finally found a job again, but it's a long drive and work plus 3 or 4 hours of road time will leave me no time to post regularly. I live alone so everything that needs to be done gets done by me. Much as I love doing this, I'm not skipping supper for it - and I have to cook, eat it and clean up - after I get home from work.

So, since Dionysus is still dealing with the issues he has, and I'm going to have no time left any more to do any regular posting on Daily Dissent, we've decided to pull the site. I'm sorry folks. I just won't have the time to do justice to the effort. I'll miss you.

The site will be closed in about a week. Comments are welcome, or you can send an e-mail to Dionysus using the link on the page. Post links to your homepages and I'll try to comment on them sometimes.

Working with Dionysus on Daily Dissent has been my honor, my privelege, and my duty. And remember, a bad week for Bush is a good week for America.

Bush Sinks to New Low

2006-02-28T11:29:00.000-05:00

Bet you're thinking he sold Jenna to a Saudi prince as a harem girl, right? Well, if he did I haven't found out about that one yet. No, this is just a new poll result.

Seems the boy-king wannabe is down to a 34% job approval rating. I just wonder, what will they pull out of Rove's ass now to bring his numbers back up? I hope it's not another terrorist attack.

And I wonder too, just how low he has to go before his own party starts to mumble the I-word? At this rate, there will be Republicans leaving Washington next fall faster than poor folk were leaving New Orleans.

And They're Off and Running!

2006-02-28T10:51:00.000-05:00

Only one day into the week, and by last evening it looked like a bad week brewing for Bushie again. You know, when you screw up as constantly as he does, it's only a matter of time until the peasants turn on you with torches and pitchforks. So here's the Monday evening run-down.

After playing tough with the democratically elected Hamas government of Palestine and cutting off funding, the EU is stepping in to provide money to close that gap and keep the Palestinian people from starvation - and the total is 150% of what we've been giving. Guess he lost on THAT gunslinger stance. So now he's stuck with having pushed for Democratic elections, and then trying to punish the Palestinians for electing a government Bush didn't want. But the punishment failed because the EU stepped in. Looking kind of stupid, huh? No duh.

Democrats are still after the illegal domestic spying issue. They just aren't giving up. This thing is apparently getting way more traction than the stonewalling efforts of the administration anticipated. And that is a good thing. Spying on citzens without probable cause is NOT OK in a democratic society.

The lawmakers said the surveillance of terrorists must be done within the bounds of U.S. law, but complained that their efforts to get answers to legal and factual questions about the program have been stymied — "generally based on the feeblest of excuses."

"If the effort to prevent vigorous and appropriate investigation succeeds, we fear the inexorable conclusion will be that these executive branch agencies hold themselves above the law and accountable to no one," wrote the lawmakers"

And the governors of ALL 50 states are jumping on Georgie about his plans to cut the funds for the National Guard. Maybe he's afraid the governors might use a strong Guard to resist martial law?

"We're getting ready for tsunamis. We're getting ready for earthquakes. We're getting ready for forest fires," said Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire of Washington state. "Cut all that back and I think you're left with a really troublesome situation."

And speaking of governors, they're also busting King George's chops on the issue of illegal imigration. But let's face it - illegal immigration is merely a symptom of a much more serious issue - LACK OF BORDER SECURITY. If an uneducated Mexican farmer can manage to sneak in, how many educated terrorists with a support network can get in?

And, the governors are telling the MSM that Bush's cock-ups are hurting the party at home. Everybody's home. Funny, either they aren't telling Bush directly, or they did and got no response, so they're now going public. But it was only a matter of time until Bush hurt the GOP - or should I say until the GOP realized Bush was hurting it.

So it looks like Bush is set to have another 'triple Tanquery straight up' week. And that is a good week in the making for us, my friends.

Drug and Insurance Industries in Trouble?

2006-02-28T10:37:00.000-05:00

You would think the drug and insurance businesses were in deep doo-doo lately if you pay attention to everything going on to help them rape America. The new Medicare program is one of those things. But here's one you might have missed.

There has been a rush lately of government-funded studies trashing vitamins and supplements. Why? Well, as more and more Americans lose their health insurance or are forced to drop it due to the skyrocketing costs, more and more of us turn to 'alternative' health methods and means. Like vitamins and supplements, like alternative medicine, holistic living, etc. It's costing the drug business and the insurance business billions.

So, as a service to our readers, I'm writing this post to tell you that there are information sources out there that are good places to find out whether or not these studies the feds are funding are worth paying attention to or not. As it turns out, most are actually constructed to provide negative data on the supplement studied - such as doses way to small to have any measurable effect.

I like the Life Extension Foundation as one of my primary sources of health information. Not only do they profile their board (doctors, biologists, bio-chemists, etc.) in every issue of their monthly magazine, but the information they provide is detailed and quite specific. If they have an issue with the results of a study, they tell you why. If they like the results, they tell you why. Check it out. Don't let your health decisions be led by Bush's efforts to use our government to help his funding sources make even more money - at the expense of your health.

Ducking a Bitch Slap

2006-02-28T10:08:00.000-05:00

Our boy Chimpy Bush has agreed to a second review of the inane Ports deal- after saying just last week that he would NOT reconsider the deal.

Schumer said Monday he is skeptical of the review panel's ability to evaluate the deal, saying the panel has been more focused on economic development rather than national security.

Now, while the AP thinks it's an opportunity to "sidestep a battle with members of his own party and to tone down bipartisan criticism of the deal", I have a different view of the reason behind the second review. My thinking is that Bush was about to be bitch slapped by a bi-partisan Congress on this one. He'd offered to veto legislation, and they essentially said 'bring that weak shit on'. And of course, if they dig into the deal (which may now happen), it could look even worse for our Chimperor, so he's trying to avoid any serious problems by buying time.

And it does already. The Coast Guard weighed in on this one yesterday, saying that they had issues.

"There are many intelligence gaps, concerning the potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist operations, that precludes an overall threat assessment" of the potential merger, the unclassified Coast Guard intelligence assessment said.

"The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities," the assessment said.

Of course, they were told 'trust me' by the administration so they shut up. But that admission that they were unable to do a full threat analysis has only poured gasoline on the fire in Congress.

Under the agreement congressional GOP leaders negotiated over the weekend, the Bush administration agreed to the company's request for a highly unusual 45-day national security review of its business deal.

But a bipartisan group of senators on Monday introduced a bill anyway that would delay the deal and give Congress an opportunity to block the takeover. Separately, Democrats introduced legislation that would prohibit companies owned by foreign governments from controlling operations at U.S. ports.

Not looking good for King George IV... but it could get worse. A lawsuit filed in Britain could kill the deal too - remember that the company selling the operations is British. This whole thing could be outside of Bush's ability to control it at all. Something he can't control or buy - what a shock that will be to him.

Bush Giving Aid to the Enemy

2006-02-26T08:02:00.000-05:00

Who said six? All week long the news is that the Dubai company buying management of our ports was buying into only six of them. It's really 21.

The Bush administration has approved the takeover of British-owned Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to DP World, a deal set to go forward March 2 unless Congress intervenes.

P&O is the parent company of P&O Ports North America, which leases terminals for the import and export and loading and unloading and security of cargo in 21 ports, 11 on the East Coast, ranging from Portland, Maine to Miami, Florida, and 10 on the Gulf Coast, from Gulfport, Miss., to Corpus Christi, Texas, according to the company's Web site.

Also, I've been trying to confirm my own belief that we move military equipment and personnel thru these ports. I found this:

Few Americans are aware of the volume of cargo that is shipped from ports located along the U.S. Gulf Coast from Brownsville, Texas, to Cape Sable, Florida. Some of these ports serve as major Department of Defense transportation nodes for overseas deployment of Army cargo. Two of these nodes are strategic ports located in Texas--the Port of Beaumont and the Port of Corpus Christi. (Designation as a strategic port means that the port management will give priority to military cargo during a contingency.) Almost 40 percent of the Army cargo deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom flows through these two ports.

Although both the Port of Beaumont and the Port of Corpus Christi are container capable, petroleum and break-bulk products constitute most of the cargo shipped from those locations. The Port of Beaumont is home to one of the Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command's (SDDC's) port-handling battalions, the 842d Transportation Battalion.

And then there is this, from the American Association of Port Authorities.

In addition to moving cargo that enhances our daily lives, public ports serve another critical function during wartime. The Department of Defense designates two dozen ports to support the mobilization, deployment and resupply of U.S. forces during major conflicts. Commercial port facilities routinely ship military cargo and many U.S. ports host major naval installations.

For example, U.S. public ports and their commercial partners have been instrumental in assisting the deployment of troops and material for Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom since the conflicts began there in early 2003. The Military Sealift Command (MSC) and the Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC) use public ports to preposition mobility forces and assets and provide global surface deployment command, together with control and distribution operations, to meet national security objectives in peace and war.

According to the 2003 annual report of the U.S. Transportation Command, in the two years after Operation Enduring Freedom began, the MSC team provided vital ocean survey and instrumentation information to war fighters, in addition to sending more than 261 million gallons of fuel and delivering 95,000 tons of ammunition and 23 million square feet of vehicles, aircraft and rolling stock to U.S. forces in ports throughout the Middle East and the world.

Can we really afford to let a company, located in the heart of 'The War Against Terror', have access to the information about how and when we move our military and it's supplies, and where it's going? Can we really afford to have a troop ship blown out of the water? Is Bush working for Zarqawi now?

Who Runs Port Security?

2006-02-25T13:33:00.000-05:00

pResident Bush spent three days this week trying to tell the nation that the ports deal with the UAE was not to be worried about because they don't handle security. But a writer for the Associated Press disagrees.

The terminal operator is responsible for security at its own terminal and the area within the port where cargo is loaded, unloaded or transferred, according to the Homeland Security Department.

UAE-based Dubai Ports World would operate some of the terminals at a half-dozen of the nation's largest seaports: Baltimore, Philadelphia, Miami, New Orleans, Houston, and Newark, N.J.

So, seems like Bush lied - again.

Did Wolfowitz Approve Torture Methods?

2006-02-25T13:23:00.000-05:00

Without the allegation ever making headlines, the Pentagon has decided to publicly deny that Paul Wolfowitz had anything to do with approving the torture techniques used at GITMO. That seems suspiciously strange in and of itself - denying allegations before they're news, and thereby making them into news.

In one email, an FBI official whose name was blacked out suggested talking to the bureau's Behavioral Assessment Unit about what he indicated were two specific examples of abuse.

In a reply the following day, a second unidentified FBI official cautioned that there was a distinction between "allegations of abuse and the use of techniques which fall outside of FBI/DOJ training and policy."

"As it relates to (redacted) and (redacted) the techniques employed against them in the interrogation process were, based on numerous inquiries I made, in addition to my personal review of the DoD interrogation plans, approved by the Deputy Secretary of Defense."

So, the questions remain - in spite of denials, is Wolfowitz the demon behind the torture directives? If the denial is in fact true, why are the FBI officials who wrote these memos not identified? Is it to avoid them being served with subpoenas over the issue? Why hide their identities if there is nothing here?

Even Homeland Security Opposed Ports Deal

2006-02-25T11:31:00.000-05:00

Amazing isn't it? DHS, run by Bush pocket puppet Chertoff, actually opposed this deal made by the Bushies to hand over our ports operations to the UAE. I didn't think Chertoff would oppose anything Bush wanted to do - but then the fact that DHS rolled over on this one sort of proves I'm right about that.

The Homeland Security Department objected at first to a United Arab Emirates company's taking over significant operations at six U.S. ports. It was the lone protest among members of the government committee that eventually approved the deal without dissent.

The department's early objections were settled later in the government's review of the $6.8 billion deal after Dubai-owned DP World agreed to a series of security restrictions.
-x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x-
The administration approved the ports deal on Jan. 17 after DP World agreed during secret negotiations to cooperate with law enforcement investigations in the future and make other concessions.

Some lawmakers have challenged the adequacy of a classified intelligence assessment crucial to assuring the administration that the deal was proper. The report was assembled during four weeks in November by analysts working for the director of national intelligence.

The report concluded that U.S. spy agencies were "unable to locate any derogatory information on the company," according to a person familiar with the document. This person spoke only on condition of anonymity because the report was classified.

Secret negotiations? Of course they were secret. Bush was hoping to slide this one thru - selling our security to the enemies home team. Like everything else he wants to keep secret - it's a dirty deal for America, made by Bush, so it's "classified".

And since when is national security handed out merely because you couldn't locate any bad information about a company? Like it couldn't be a shell company? Like they would have claimed corporate responsibility for 9-11? As if they would put out an annual report with picutres of terrorists on the board? Crikey! Is anybody running this shop, or is it looters selling it all off to anybody for any price?

Ab Fab Iraq Policy

2006-02-25T10:43:00.000-05:00

Just absolutely fabulous. That's about all you can say about Bush's handling of his ego-based Iraq war after you read this little piece by Doug Thompson.

"The civil war has started and the U.S. planners had better get used to it," says retired Marine and military affairs expert H. Thomas Hayden, now a writer for Military.Com. "Shiites have always planned to align themselves with Iran but the Pentagon dominated planners in the Administration have never understood the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite and the great religious gulf between them that has existed for almost a thousand years."
-x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x-
Pentagon professionals have long warned President Bush that if civil war erupts in Iraq the U.S. will have to admit failure in its efforts to create a stable, democratic government. As he has with most warnings from those who fight wars for a living, Bush ignored the advice.

What's left to say?

Ports Deal Includes Sale of Frist and Hastert?

2006-02-25T10:35:00.000-05:00

Apparently, overnight, Dennis Hastert and Bill Frist have been bought up by the UAE as well as the shipping port operatons, and it looks like Bush negotiated the deal.

As you might recall, Frist made the headlines by opposing this deal just 3 days ago. Now he's the White House yard lamb.

A Dubai company's offer to delay taking control of terminal operations at six U.S. ports, combined with aggressive White House lobbying, has tempered a rush by congressional GOP leaders for quick action next week to blockthe $6.8 billion transaction, which has triggered a political furor.

Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) will meet with House GOP leaders Tuesday to discuss the chamber's next move, while aides to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said he will wait to be briefed by the company before taking a stand. Both Hastert and Frist had issued strong statements earlier raising concerns about national security in the wake of Dubai Ports World's acquisition of the London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. and its terminal operations at six major U.S. ports, including those in New York and Baltimore.

Frankly, I think it's stupid to hand over operation of our ports to any company not entirely owned and based in the states. There's too much going in and out and too much information available about those cargoes for it to be safe to let anyone else, even an ally, control it. We move military goods and maybe even personnel thru those places.

But once again, the GOP proves by it's example that money talks, and bullshit walks.

What's Your Ground?

2006-02-25T10:25:00.000-05:00

Last year Florida enacted a self-defense law commonly called the Stand Your Ground Law. This bill permits citizens to use deadly force to protect themselves and others in cases of clear life-endangering threats. 21 more states are now considering such legislation.

These new measures would push the boundaries beyond the self-defense measures
already on the books. Twelve states already allow citizens to shoot intruders in their homes, and 38 states permit concealed weapons in public places. The "Stand Your Ground" laws would allow people to defend themselves with deadly force even in public places when they perceive a life-threatening situation for themselves or others, and they would not be held accountable in criminal or civil court even if bystanders are injured.

Proponents say this puts the rights in the hands of the endangered citizens, not the criminals. Critics say it will lead to shoot-outs.

Nostradamnthem says if you aren't prepared and willing to defend yourself, you've chosen by default to be a victim - law or no law. But that business about no accountability for injuring bystanders will have to be re-defined, as will the legal and public understandings of when you feel threatened enough to use force.

What do you say?

Better and Better

2006-02-24T18:15:00.000-05:00

The fight over management of our Ports is just providing no end of fun, and it's moving faster than the events at the winter olympics. It's literally a case of everyone expecting Bush to actually deliver on his promises of protecting the nation from terror while he's selling the opportunity for destruction to the enemy. This is what's happened in the last few hours.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has filed a lawsuit asking to stop the takeover of port operations. Bob Dole was hired by the UAE to defend the deal, and the Treasury Department (run by a Bush crony) has declined to produce details of even how the arab company was supposedly vetted for security - making one question if it was even done at all.

And predictably, the Democrats are seeing this whole thing as an opportunity to make Bush eat crow. Of course, given the lack of spinal material in the party, one really has to wonder if this will materialize. A few invitations to buy into the Carlyle Group will probably shut them all up.

And also predictably, Bush is sticking his chin out and trying to look tough on this. Apparently he doesn't realize that by sending Condi to the UAE to buy time, and the UAE agreeing to delay the deal for the investigation, he's already lost the 'tough' position - except for those brain-dead mullet heads who still support him.

The president's national security adviser said the White House would keep trying to persuade lawmakers — there's more time since the company offered to delay its takeover — but the administration wouldn't reconsider its approval.

Ri-ighhhhht. Bush claims to have not even known about the deal before somebody started yelling about it. But he immediately offered to veto any legislation to delay it, and is still saying he won't reconsider his approval, no matter what.

The "I didn't know" story sounds like a blatant lie to me. And of course the Bush love of complete secrecy has to make one wonder what is hidden about this deal - like the price paid to Bush to get it approved with normal restrictions removed. And maybe the way the materials for the next attack on US soil will be smuggled in.

(Why do you folks in the intel business permit this guy to keep screwing up everything you work to protect? Or are you sold out now too and working to protect Bush, and not the American people?)

Stay tuned. The weekend starts now, but this won't go entirely silent, even if it does get subdued somewhat. But no worries mate, by Monday it'll be the issue on fire again.

Did Bush Forget an Appointment?

2006-02-24T18:05:00.000-05:00

One would think that Bush must have forgotten to stuff a crony at the top of the IRS. They've been investigating churches for violating their tax exempt status with political action. And suprise, suprise, a lot of them are guilty.

Let's see here. The 'born-again' killer pResident has the support of the born-again religious right-wing fascists. Those people are making no bones about supporting Bush, trashing anyone against him and trying to raise money for him - like that nut case in Colorado. So guess who got rapped on this? Bush's support is my suspicion. Of course, you noticed that the link doesn't provide the names of the guilty parties, didn't you? It's pretty sure bet that DeLay's 'Family' organization was one of them. And we can make some guesses as to the rest, can't we?

Among the prohibited activities, the examiners found that charities and churches had distributed printed material supporting a preferred candidate and assembled improper voter guides or candidate ratings.

Religious leaders had used the pulpit to endorse or oppose a particular candidate, and some groups had shown preferential treatment to candidates by letting them speak at functions.

Other charities and churches had made improper cash contributions to a candidate's political campaign.

The IRS said the cases covered "the full spectrum" of political viewpoints.

So they apparently found somebody who spoke directly against Bush as well. Equal opportunity.

Six and a Half Billion

2006-02-24T17:56:00.000-05:00

Tomorrow (Saturday) the earth's population will reach an estimated 6.5 billion human earthlings. In six more years, 7 billion. But hey, not to worry.

With George Bush in office, we'll drown most of those as a result of oceans rising due to global warming and the associated climate changes and flooding - that is the ones that don't die in the world war he's working up to. A few days of "nuk-u-lar" exchange in the Middle East and here should pretty much cut down about a half billion or so, especially after the fallout hits China, too. And of course a few nukes in the six cities where he's handing over control of the ports will pretty much decimate our small 300 million population and leave us oh, several million less. So don't worry about population 'explosion' - it's under control.

Ex-PORT-ing Cartoons

2006-02-24T17:21:00.000-05:00

Just for grins, here are some 'toons based on the recent port deal. Seems all the cartoonists agree with me - it's a fuck-up. So, at the risk of having somebody offer a price for my head, I'm providing the link. Enjoy.

Oh, and why not provide links to your favorite port-o-toons too? Have at it.

A Third Bad Week for Bonzo

2006-02-24T14:13:00.000-05:00

Thankfully our pResident is having yet another bad week. Maybe things are starting to go against him. Here's the rundown.

We've already covered the Ports sale biz, and the 'alternative energy' staffing cuts with the cover-up that followed, and covered the impending Iraqi civil war he precipitated on Monday. But you ain't seen nothing yet, as they say.

In the Woe on Terror, Georgie took a beating this week. Human Rights First released a report alleging over a hundred deaths of prisoners held by our forces in Iraq. 34 of those were suspected or confirmed homicides, 8 to 12 were died as a result of torture. Then, a committee of British MPs (Members of Parliament, not military police) released a statement that they are convinced that our Guantanamo prison actually hurts us in the war on terror. And a Federal Judge (Jed S. Rakoff) has ordered the government to release the identies of all the prisoners held in Guantanamo. This will work hard against the secret detentions policy of the White House, and help to ensure our freedoms under the Constitution aren't gutted by power crazed officials who would sell their own people in order to gain control.

In the on-going saga of the illegal domestic spying program that Bush now paints as only 'international', news came out Monday that the White House has quietly begun to fold it's cards on that one, and will provide some more information about the program to the Congress. They haven't agreed to quit spying on you as yet, but they are trying to duck the confrontation as they know it's not a winner for them. And to make things worse, we find out on Wednesday that USAF General Michael Hayden had planned to brief the House Committee on Intelligence but that the briefing was killed by White House Staffer Andy Card.

But wait. There is more. Democrats are publicly stating that as Americans learn more about Bush's new Medicare program they will like it less and less. There's a no-brainer. The administration was also caught RE-classifying already de-classified security related documents that have been public for years, much of it already published even by the federal government. It's an attitude of secrecy that can only indicate that we'd BETTER find out what these guys are doing, because if they work that hard to keep things secret they must be up to something not good for America. And, in a transparent white-wash attempt, the White House had to release it's own version of the What Went Wrong During Katrina report - because the one from Congress was too critical for Bush to bear. It's enough to make a man drink. Some more.

Hang in there. We're still going.

The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law released the "Protecting Minority Voters: The Voting Rights Act, 1982-2005" report, which basically says that if you're a minority voter you're probably getting screwed at the polls. (Surprised?) Get your copy of the report here if you want to read it.

Also, orders for durable goods (manufacturing orders) fell by the largest amount in 5 & 1/2 years. (Let's see, subtract 5 & 1/2 years from today and you're back just after Bush was handed the White House by the Repuglican Supreme Court.)

But the one I like best is the study of voting issues in Florida during the last presidential election which shows that Bush may NOT have been elected President at all. We all know it didn't happen the first time, but apparently it didn't happen the second time either.

An examination of Palm Beach County's electronic voting machine records from the 2004 election found possible tampering and tens of thousands of malfunctions and errors, a watchdog group said Thursday.

Bev Harris, founder of BlackBoxVoting.org, said the findings call into question the outcome of the presidential race. But county officials and the maker of the electronic voting machines strongly disputed that and took issue with the findings.

All in all, must have been a bad week for the Chimperor. And folks, a bad week for Bush is a good week for America. Raise your glass.

Be Careful About Drawing Lines in the Sand

2006-02-24T12:52:00.000-05:00

So, early this week the Bushies told the Iraqis that "the United States would not be willing to support crucial public institutions plagued by sectarian agendas". Basically, they're saying to the Iraqis that we'd cut off the money if they didn't quit playing games and establish a government so we could go home.

And the next thing that happens is a big BOOM at the Shiite shrine in Samarra. Then, predictably, murderous responses from both sides. Now, Thursday evening NPR reported that Bush has ordered US officials to avoid the term 'civil war' (I'm still looking for that link folks). But apparently Civil War in Iraq is a good possibility, or maybe even probability.

So the timing seems suspicious, doesn't it? If the Sunnis or the terrorists wanted to bomb that shrine, they've had several years to do it, so why now, within two days of Bush threatening to cut funding if the sectarian fighting didn't stop? Is this Bush's way of getting out of Iraq - by instigating a civil war? He must have known that demand would result in increased sectarian terror events. Or is it a means of justifying keeping our troops there forever as an occupation force to 'protect the Iraqi people'? I'm betting it was his 'exit strategy'.

They don't know yet who actually did the bombing either - were they simply terrorists playing the obvious card handed out by Bush when he threatened to cut funding (sure it was the ambassador who said it, but he's not in a position to make that call, only his boss can, and that is Condi Rice and hers is Bush), or were they people who are actually working for Bush in some way (mercenaries perhaps)? Another 'Aw Shit' for the boy wonder. Does he even have one 'Attaboy' left?

Ex-PORT-ing National Security

2006-02-24T09:37:00.000-05:00

Well, we all know the story on the ports deal by now, don't we? Management of six of our shipping ports was sold to an arab company from the UAE by the by the Brits who had the contract. (Our allies sold our shipping to our enemies?) This did not go down well.

First, there was a general announcement of displeasure in Congress - on both sides. Then Senator Frist starts resisting by suggesting legislation to hold up the deal while it's investigated by Congress, and two GOP governors of states where these ports are located threaten to block the deal. So the cowboy-chimp calls for a show-down (that there boy really loves to start a fight, don't he?) and says he'll veto any legislation - as if he'd ever vetoed anything before (he hasn't yet and apparently can't spell 'Vetoed'). And just like the last terror alert, nobody was scared.

The next day we're told that Bush didn't know about the ports deal until after it was approved. (Covering his ass because his veto threat didn't scare anyone. How can our Chief Executive not know about something that involves national security? And can you believe he actually threatened to veto legislation over something he didn't even know about, and therefore couldn't possibly have known the details involved?) And Bush actually tried to cover up the mess by saying that the UAE is an ally of the US.

(Let's review our allies. It's common knowledge that Near and Middle Eastern governments may say they are allies of the US, but still harbor terrorists and have terrorist sympathizers in the government and the security and intelligence forces. The UAE may be an ally, but why were some of the 9-11 hijackers funded with UAE money? Yemen is an ally, but a prison break that implies complicity of authorities with terrorists calls that into question. Saudi Arabia is an ally, but 17 of the 19 hijackers on 9-11 were Saudi, as is Osama Bin Laden. Pakistan is an ally, but Osama is ruputedly hiding in that country for 3 years now, and the Paki scientist who gave the nuke technology to Iran illegally is not even in jail. These allies are not to be trusted. Either they only appear to be allies because they want to sell oil, or they are not capable of securing their own countries and therefore CANNOT be depended on to help protect America. Can we really afford to have nations doing less than Bush does to stop terror managing ANY piece of turf in America?)

Then we find out that the deal made is less restrictive than it should have been. The company won't even have to keep copies of the shipping records on US soil, but they did have to promise to give them to us if we request them. Yeah, right. Like they won't have an employee somewhere willing to sell or give up all that information about port operations, shipping schedules, destinations and cargoes to the terrorists. (Now who is limp on defense against terror, Dum-bya?) And for once even our Senators are concerned about the risks. As well they should be. Don't we move military equipment and supplies out of these ports?

So basically, all Bush did is piss off everybody on this one, including his own party. Even Tom DeLay is opposed to this sell-out by Bush (will miracles never cease - DeLay opposing a sell-out?). The end result is that he packed Condi Rice off to Dubai to clean up the mess, and today the UAE is willing to delay the deal to save his ass.

But America still has a few questions George. Why didn't you know about this deal, given that it involves national security at such a high level? Why are so soft on the possibilities of terrorism when money is concerned? How are you going to paint the Democrats as soft on terror after this trick? Did you really sell out our safety for money? Didn't you just lose all of your "political capital" by negating your own fear tactics? And just whom will you blame when a dirty bomb actually does go off in one of these ports?

Bush's Energy Plan

2006-02-24T08:59:00.000-05:00

So we all heard the BS in the SOTU address about alternative energy, followed the next week by the cuts to the energy research lab that were proposed in Bush's budget. Apparently, that was a little embarassing, as the Chimperor himself put on his boots and loped out to Colorado to do some public 'speech-ifying'.

First, he blames the staff cuts on a "Mix-up". Yet another institutional failure of his executive leadership. Then, we find out that the money was restored just in advance of the speech, an attempt to cover the poop with the carpet obviously.

So, here's the program:

The White House says Bush is providing that leadership. They say he wants to invest more in zero-emission, coal-fired plants, as well as support solar and wind research, promote cars that run on hydrogen, encourage more nuclear power plant construction and fund work to produce ethanol — not just from corn, but from wood chips and switch grass.

Notice what our pResident thinks is an alternative energy policy - INVEST in coal-fired plants, SUPPORT solar and wind, and PROMOTE hydrogen cars. Only one of those words involves any money, and the other two are done with more 'speech-ifying'. OK, granted he also said fund ethanol, but that is only something to mix with oil, not a true alternative fuel - at least not today. And the coal fired plants, even if they are in 'truthiness' zero-emissions, still involve environmental destruction to get the coal.

But here's an idea. San Francisco is investigating the possibility of turning dog poop into methane for power. Fart fermentation to power the city. It's a concept, and with all of the hot air and bullshit Bush emits, maybe HE could power Washington if it could only be captured.

Fristing

2006-02-24T08:43:00.000-05:00

What's up with Bill Frist these days? Last week our Senator was singing the Bush song about the budget cuts and defending the illegal domestic spying agenda. This week he's at the head of the line to oppose the ports deal.

One week he looks like he's sucking up, and the next it seems he's challenging Bush to hit him on the chin.

American Justice

2006-02-18T12:45:00.000-05:00

Because of an obvious conflict of interest, the Democrats asked Attorney General Alberto Torture Gonzales to recuse himself from the Abramoff investigations. After all, it's reasonable to think that a guy (Gonzo) who's boss (Bush) is heavily financed by a bagman (Abramoff) might be tempted to keep any information about that connection between the accused and his boss quiet, or even 'throw' the investigation.

But of course, with divine insight, Gonzales says he's not going to step aside because he's above any conflict of interest. Speaking for the National Republican Committee, Tracy Schmitt (is she related to Jean?) said

"Considering 28 of the 31 Democrats have received Abramoff-affiliated funds themselves, it appears their hypocrisy has exceeded even their partisanship,"

Well speaking of partisanship and conflicts of interest, it seems that the Bush White House is using the Justice Department to defend DeLay's illegal (by definition) gerrymandering of the voting districts in Texas, and the Bush-packed Supreme Court has approved of that team.

And as to the allegation of hyprocisy exceeding partisanship, that is partisan-shit. You can find info on who received how much from Jack Abramoff here, and a nice spreadsheet with a couple of sort options here. I copied and pasted that spreadsheet myself to do a little additional analysis - just basic stuff mind you.

Jack spread the jack all over town, but let's be specific. There are 197 Republican recipients on that list, 99 Democrats - a two to one ratio. The Repugs received $2.58 million, the Dems $1.12 million - again a two to one ratio. Now, if the ratios of numbers in Congress were 2:1 that would be more or less equal per capita donations on each side. But those numbers in Congress aren't 2:1. They are much closer to 1:1.

And guess what? 20 Dems received over $10k, 45 Republicans did. The largest donation to any Dem recipient? A hair under $300k, while the largest to a Repug recipient was $450k. See a pattern? A ratio roughly approaching 2:1 no matter how you slice it. Makes me wonder what the plan was behind it all.

I'll fix you, you UN you!

2006-02-18T12:27:00.000-05:00

George 'TWAT' Bush hasn't given two shits about the people in Darfur since he was a Viet Nam deserter. In fact, the Chimperor still thinks 'darfur' is whatcha call the hairy stuff on his little dog. But this week that seems to have changed.

Following by TWO DAYS on the UN Human Rights Commission condemnation of our little torture and interrogation prison in Guantanamo, George discovers Darfur as a theatre in the war on terror, and calls for more troops.

"The strategy was to encourage African Union troops to try to bring some sense of security to these poor people that are being herded out of their villages and terribly mistreated," Bush told a friendly, invitation-only audience of about 500 inside a Port of Tampa cruise ship terminal.

"Terribly mistreated"? Yeah, I'd say that shot in the back as you run from mounted gunmen while carrying your child away is mistreated all right. So why, George of the Jungle, did it take you six years to notice?

Oh, that's right. Sudan, where Darfur is located, is on the UN Human Rights Council. (An oxymoron in itself, given THAT member.) So the idea is that you want to mess with Sudan's genocide program because they're messing with yours, is that it? "Don't mess with me or you're gonna get trouble", huh George? Paybacks are a bitch, and you're going to teach them that, is that it?

C'mon, mr. pResident, let's talk 'truthiness' here. You never gave a crap about the people in Darfur and you don't now. You're only using it as a political play to get even with the UN. We know it, and so does every thinking person on earth - which may be why your audience was 'invitation only' - so you could sort out the thinking people and keep them away.

Whass'abi Kyoto?

2006-02-18T12:18:00.000-05:00

While George Bush still lives in a fantasy world where the earth doesn't get any warmer as a result of human activities and heat pollution, the ice sheet in Greenland is disappearing faster than scientists previously thought. Much faster. And presumably, so is the Antarctic ice and the polar (north) ice sheet.

The comprehensive analysis found that the amount of ice dumped into the Atlantic Ocean has doubled in the last five years.

If the Greenland ice sheet melted completely, it would raise global sea levels by about 7m.

Greenland's contribution to global sea level rise today is two to three times greater than it was in 1996.

And that's just Greenland. This earth is going to get a lot more crowded when the oceans rise by some 21 feet. Just imagine how little dirt will be left when all the ice melts.

Frist Back in the Kennel

2006-02-18T12:13:00.000-05:00

Senator Bill Frist has refused to permit any debate on the budget cuts unless the bill extends tax breaks for the wealthy. Remember how he was the first to break with Bush over stem cells, and a month later was the suject of an insider trading investigation about the handling of his 'blind trust'?

Well, now he's back in the kennel barking the Bush tune again. I suppose we'll see soon that the investigation was dropped for lack of evidence or something like that.

Bonzo's 2nd Bad Week

2006-02-18T10:59:00.000-05:00

Well folks, its' been another bang-up week for our Chimperor Bonzo. Here's my little summary. Please do fill in whatever you think I may have missed.

We start off with our VP Dick "Torture" Cheney shooting his hunting partner, and hiding the fact from the public and his boss, and the associated lies. It's like a microcosm of the GOP Middle East policy - trigger happy liars ignoring any collateral damages they might do and then lying about the entire thing. He was finally forced (did Bush actually TELL Cheney to do this?) to admit it on TV. At some point Cheney said that he'd tried to hide the incident because he knew it would get out and he 'didn't have a press person' there. So in the absence of a paid liar, Jabba the Dick decided to say nothing. Of course, there are still a lot of questions about the story and the the details that were already refuted.

Meanwhile, Dick lets out of the bag that HE is now qualified to declassify any classified information he wants to - by order of pResident Bush just before the time when Scooter Libby revealed the name of Ambassador Wilson's wife as a CIA agent. Sounds like Bush wrote that order just to cover somebody's ass. But what about the statute that makes it a felony to reveal the identity of a CIA agent? Does an executive order about declassifying rights protect the Dick from felony charges?

New torture photos were released for Abu Ghraib. A witness in the Yemen prison break says he told the prison guards about the tunnel before the break, and makes it appear that we can't even trust our allies in TWAT (The War Against Terror). The UN Human Rights Commission has called for the closing of our Guantanamo prison camp due to torture and rights violations. This was based entirely on the documentation we did let them see, as our government refused to permit them to talk to any of the prisoners. And several Republican Senators took on Condi Rice over the US policies in the Mid-east as she addressed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In the arena of illegal domestic spying, a federal judge has ordered the administration to produce the required documentation for a lawsuit over the issue. Senator Rockefeller picks up on the issue of whether or not NSA is spying outside of their legal authority. And the Busheviks make a deal with Senator Pat Roberts (who announced it). They painted it as "stopped the investigation" to make it look like a 'win' for the dirty-white White House, but in fact it's an attempt to avoid a Constitutional showdown with Congress over the issue. Bush was trying to steamroll them and the public on this, and it didn't go down as hoped - he was headed for impeachment over it and would NOT have won. So they came up with this deal to 'provide legal oversight' on the spying, in hopes of diverting the impeachment direction and of keeping up the spying. How else are you going to keep tabs on everybody who disagrees with you?

In other news, the indictment of yet another Ohio Repug has Bush traveling to that state to spread the manure and try to keep it under GOP control.

Jack Abramoff's sentencing in Florida may be delayed because he is cooperating with the investigation into the Bush corruption ring so well. And the longer Jack talks, the more damage he will do to Bush.

Nancy Peolosi has called for an ethics investigation over the GOP practice of passing different versions of a law in the Senate from those passed in the House, and then Bush signing the bill into law based on the Senate version. An unconstitutional practice to be sure as the House didn't vote on the issue passed by the Senate - in this case the Budget Bill.

And, our Fearless Leader has now sold the rights to operate our nations shipping ports (remember, protect our ports and borders?) to an Arab company. Now, given that we know for years that there are terrorist sympathizers in the governments of most middle eastern countries (Pakistan comes to mind, along with the Yemen prison break), why would any 'protect the nation' president want to just hand over the operation of our ports to ANY arab company? It's a guarantee that we will have nuclear weapons smuggled in, since the foxes will be guarding the gates to the henhouse. Protect the nation, indeed. Thanks for nuttin' Mr. George 'TWAT' Bush.

So, although it was pretty much all presented with a softball attitude, I think it all adds up to bad news for Bush. And THIS is only since my posting of the Bad News news at half-time on Wednesday. Overall, I'd say it's another bad week for Bush, and that my people is a good week for America.

Diane Wilson

2006-02-16T11:55:00.000-05:00

I noticed this story about Diane Wilson, who was jailed as a result of a protest at a Cheney speech. It's a fair example of how dissenters are treated by this administration.

Be sure to click thru to the letter she sent to the sheriff, or just click here for it. It's amazing that people are still treated this way in America. Civil rights apparently only exist outside of a jail house. Remember that, Jack, Tom, Scooter, Karl, Dick and George. You're all going to see the inside pretty soon.

Liberal Media - Hell!

2006-02-16T09:38:00.000-05:00

Over on Salon, Peter Daou shreds the myth of the 'liberal media'. And he's providing examples of how the media really has a Right-Wing bias, choosing words to soft-pedal the bad news for the administration, removing things from on-line postings, etc. For example:

++ ISSUE: Cheney shooting incident --- NARRATIVE: Bush strong, Dems weak --- EXAMPLE: CNN's Bruce Morton used the VP's shooting to repeat the tired GOP spin that Republicans are tougher than Democrats, and specifically tougher than war hero John Kerry. Morton commented that Bush and Cheney are avid hunters, and contrasted the observation with 2004 Bush campaign talking points by saying Sen. John Kerry "spent time posing with guns" two years ago, and that "voters probably saw more of him pursuing exotic sports, windsurfing and so on." The truth is Kerry has been hunting since the age of 12. As Media Matters points out, "Morton's jab echoed language Cheney used during the 2004 campaign to attack Kerry as effete and elitist."

++ ISSUE: Cheney shooting incident --- NARRATIVE: Bush and Cheney are infallible --- EXAMPLE: Jane Hamsher notes that CBS News ran a provocative news item on Monday, explaining that "Texas authorities are complaining that the Secret Service barred them from speaking to Cheney after the incident." For reasons that are still unexplained, CBS has scrubbed the report from its website without explanation.

As I recall, it was Lyndon Johnson's administration who first labeled the media 'left-wing' and 'liberal', because the anti-war movement was strong and got coverage. America didn't like the Viet Nam fiasco and the newspapers and TV reported that. (Yes, kiddies, there was once a time without the internet....) And Johnson's administration labeled them all as 'liberals' because they opposed the Viet Nam war.

The label has stuck, although modern right-wing whack jobs no longer even know what "liberal" really means. One of them wrote my local paper last week complaining about the "liberal fascists". Um, the Fascists were and are in favor of total control of the state and it's citizens by the government. To them you're no more than a tool of production to be used for the benefit of the state (which is thedictator and totalitarian government in power). So how can you have a "liberal fascist"? Correct answer - NOT POSSIBLE. The first word implies freedoms, the second implies totalitarianism - polar opposites.

So, check it out. Then find your own examples of the Right-wing Bias, and link them here. I will periodically collect and post them, and you and your friends can find some more and link them on that post, and so on. Let's become warriors against the right-wing bias in the MSM, and expose their Bush suck-up reporting.

Enough to make a guy drink...

2006-02-15T13:28:00.000-05:00

Looks like Bush's week is headed to the dumper again. Here's a sampler so far, and its only half-time.

Three associates of Jack Abramoff say he was bragging about his close ties to the White House. But didn't Bush say he didn't know the guy?

According to one of the three former associates, frequently Abramoff's cell phone would ring and the lobbyist would tell the associate that the White House was calling. To prove that he wasn't making up what he was telling the associate, Abramoff occasionally would hold up the phone so that the associate could see the incoming call was indeed a White House phone number.

And on the same tack, yet another GOP guy has been hit with corruption charges. Tom Noe, is accused of stealing millions from the Ohio Workers' Compensation investment program that he managed.

Howard Dean is taking on the White House and calling for Cheney's resignation if in fact it is determined that he instructed Scooter Libby to leak confidential information for political purposes. I don't know why it wouldn't be, as Libby has supposedly already told this to the prosecutors. My question is if Cheney ordered the leaking of national secrets, why settle for resignation? Shouldn't he be prosecuted?

And now there is a Republican Congressman, Peter Hoekstra, saying that the illegal domestic spying program may be of no value because of the news about it. But not because Bush essentially told the Congress and the nation that he was in charge, he was going to do this and we could all go fuck ourselves if we didn't like it. No, Hoekstra is still defending Bush on this one - it's only valueless because Al-Qaeda will have already changed their tactics. However, Bush is now challenging Congress and the Constitution over an issue that is bankrupt.

Meantime, Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the eavesdropping program should not continue "unabated without any review."

The intelligence committees of Congress should demand to know, in secret session, what the administration is doing, said Biden. He said he supports a proposal by the committee chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., to have the FISA court review the eavesdropping program and decide whether it is legal.

"We cannot say to a president, 'Mr. President, whatever you want to do, under any circumstances, tap anything, and you don't even have to tell us what you're doing.' That is bizarre," Biden said on ABC's "This Week."

Still no real Katrina response

2006-02-15T13:12:00.000-05:00

This is turning into a bad week for the Bushies as well, and Katrina may be thanked for it.

Victims are being turned out of their hotels, while the trailers supposed to provide homes for them sit by the thousands in 'holding' areas. And as soon as Michael Brown finished testifying to Congress, Chertoff comes up with a big reforms package for DHS. Why did he have to be slapped in the face with Brown's testimony before he decided something needed to change? And since his reforms package is apparently a response to Brown's testimony two days earlier, how well thought through can the reforms be?

Overall, the House report said, the federal government's response to Katrina was marked by "fecklessness, flailing and organizational paralysis."

"Our investigation revealed that Katrina was a national failure, an abdication of the most solemn obligation to provide for the common welfare," said a summary of the scathing report obtained Sunday by The Associated Press.

But the White House rushes to it's own defense of course.

"I reject outright the suggestion that President Bush was anything less than fully involved," said White House homeland security adviser Frances Fragos Townsend.

'Scuse me, Franny, but wasn't he on vacation drying out in Crawford? Didn't it take him like, 4 days, to get to New Orleans to see what was going on? And if Bush was fully involved, then Bush is to blame because he's 'the boss' who's management was a total failure.

Well, at least a group of Senators is sounding off on the matter, not all of them Democrats, and none of them happy about what they heard last week. So maybe we'll have another bad week for Bush. And that will be a good week for America.

Money for nothing, and your oil for free

2006-02-15T13:03:00.000-05:00

That is, if your stock is held by Carlyle Group.

Buried in Bush's budget is a plan that would give US energy companies $65 Billion dollars of gas and oil out of our own reserves, free of the royalties that they would normally have to pay to the federal government. This represents another shortfall in the federal incomes of $7 Billion dollars.

So Bush is giving his cronies a $7 Billion windfall profit, but you can be damned sure it won't be taxed. All that will happen is that the extra cash will go to line the pockets of Bush, Cheney and their Carlyle Group cronies. That easy $7 Billion will NOT reduce the cost of your heating oil, nor the price of gas at the pump either.

But we will be paying for this for decades, along with Bush's ego-wars, while we have to whittle away through higher taxes in the future at the deficit that Bush has created from a surplus just 5 years ago. Isn't it funny how what's good for Bush is bad for America?

Screwing the Vets Again

2006-02-15T12:58:00.000-05:00

One more once, the White House tries to stick it to our veterans by cutting any benefits they might be getting. Saying that they are trying to make sure our veterans get the benefits they deserve, the Bush administration is cutting those benefits in yet another program.

Does it sound like Bush thinks the vets don't deserve benefits to you? It sure does to me.

Cheney shoots friend

2006-02-15T12:16:00.000-05:00

By now you've all heard about Torturosaurus Dick Cheney shooting his friend and hunting partner because a quail came between them. And you've heard the bit about the old guy having a heart attack from a disloged pellet in his heart. So, just to be sure you're not news deprived, here is my selection for the summary.

Questions here about the delay in revealing the shooting. That subject is still not addressed, in spite of the hard time Scott McClellan got at the Monday press gaggle, regardless of his best lies and evasions. And even more questions brought up in this video from Countdown. (Sorry that link isn't direct, you'll have to click on the video link for "Duck, it's Dick" because I haven't learnt as yet how to post the direct to the video link.) Questions like, why drive this guy further to a country hospital than the short distance to the city hospital? If Whittington dies, could Cheney be charged with Negligent Homicide? And others.

Meanwhile, there is some humor to be found in it all, here, and on Amazon. And Cheney will do a damage control liar's interview on TV, to be found on FOX of course. Cheney doing an interview? Must be some serious shit still covered up if he's getting pushed into the public eye like that. I wonder what Whittington did to deserve a personal blast from the VP? He's allegedly tied to Abramoff, but that by itself shouldn't warrant a personally delivered blast in the face.

What a reflection on Cheney's attitude toward the world, eh? In such a hurry to pull the trigger on his target that he can't see the collateral damage it will cause. Reminiscent of his and Bush's attempts to dominate the world by force like Iraq, isn't it? And, in a reflection on the pursuit of Osama - there's no word on the quail, so it apparently escaped. Dick will no doubt say "I'm not concerned about the quail, I don't think about the quail, I'm busy protecting the people". HA

Bad Time for Bonzo

2006-02-11T10:24:00.000-05:00

As if there wasn't enough bad news to trouble the Chimperor in the news about the additional Repugs caught out with Abramoff money, or the intelligence community protesting his lies, or the Katrina storm that won't go away, there are several other items of ill favor for our dictator wanna-be. A sampling is below.

A federal judge is considering ordering the Bush administration to produce records pertaining to the illegal domestic spying program within a 20 day deadline, as it appears they are dragging their heels on it. Strange, but the lawsuit which requests these documents didn't seem to make any MSM news sources - or at least I don't remember seeing it. But the Bushies have been sued, and may have to produce the documentation.

The U. S. Trade Deficit is at an all-time high. But of course, under Bush-onomics it's the fourth year in a row that it's reached a record high. Higher and higher.

The new Bush budget may be in danger simply because of the cuts it proposes - during an election year. So the Chimperor will get to blame that failure on Congress, of course. Planned that way? Nahhhh....

And, of course, the polls show approval ratings for Bush stuck in the toilet. I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you.

Yes, dear readers, a bad week for Bush. But that's a good week for America.

Katrina Still Rumbling

2006-02-11T10:03:00.000-05:00

Not surprising that the Katrina failure is still under investigation, but some of the details are surprising. Here, for example, I find out from BBC that Katrina survivors held a protest march in Washington DC. But so far I've not seen this on any domestic MSM source. Why? Maybe the US MSM is still afraid of Bush? Or maybe suffering black folks just isn't 'news' anymore? However, if you search you can find domestic reports about the tens of thousands of trailers promised to the Katrina survivors that are held up in holding areas due to mis-management -which we can't even blame that on Michael Brown because he was gone before this program got messed up.

And Michael "Heckuva Job" Brownie, is now practically turning state's evidence against the Bush administration. Comparing his newer testimony before Congress with the older, it seems that he's no longer trying to protect the Busheviks. He got used, abused, and tossed to the curb, so now he's not singing from the Bush Hymnal.

"... Brown told senators he dealt directly with White House officials the day of the Aug. 29 storm, including chief of staff Andrew Card and deputy chief of staff Joe Hagin.

He also said officials from the Department of Homeland Security were getting regular briefings that day. Administration officials have said they did not realize the severe damage Katrina had caused until after the storm had passed.

Under oath, Brown told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that he could not explain why his appeals failed to produce a faster response.

"I expected them to cut every piece of red tape, do everything they could ... that I didn't want to hear anybody say that we couldn't do everything they humanly could to respond to this," Brown said about a video conference with administration officials — in which President Bush briefly participated — the day before Katrina hit. "Because I knew in my gut this was the bad one."

Gosh Mike, could you be in any worse trouble if you had simply taken charge and done what needed to be done without authorizations from the frigging White House? Cutting every piece of red tape, doing everything they could - that's what we ALL expected from our federal government.

Bad News For Bush

2006-02-11T09:31:00.000-05:00

Bad news for George Bush is good news for America. Now he's claiming that he wakes up every day thinking about another attack on the US. I guess if we aren't scared enough by the 'cry wolf' strategy of the White House, we're supposed to accept the domestic spying progam simply because our pResident is scared enough by his own strategy. How can he lead us if he's so fearful? He created the very shadow that has him cringing.

Yet, even while he's making the pitch for why spying is good for us, we have current and former intelligence professionals so outraged by his 'stopped an attack on LA' lie that they're calling and e-mailing the desk at Capitol Hill Blue to tell the world that it's a lie. An outright falsehood, not even a mistake.

"The President has cheapened the entire intelligence community by dragging us into his fantasy world," says a longtime field operative of the Central Intelligence Agency. "He is basing this absurd claim on the same discredited informant who told us Al Qaeda would attack selected financial institutions in New York and Washington."

Within hours of the President’s speech Thursday claiming his administration had prevented a major attack, sources who said they were current and retired intelligence pros from the CIA, NSA, FBI and military contacted Capitol Hill Blue with angry comments disputing the President’s remarks.

“He’s full of shit,” said one sharply-worded email.

In addition, the former head of Near East Intelligence from 2000 to 2005, Paul Pillar, has come out in Foreign Affairs journal describing the manipulation of intelligence 'pre-Iraq' to build the case. Now, we all know it happened, but Mr. Pillar is naming names and specifying details and methods. Interesting reading, and for those with less time, there is a shorter BBC version here.

I had been wondering how long the career intelligence and security folks who really protect this nation would put up with a buffoon like Bush fucking up everything they've risked their lives for during their careers. Maybe this is the beginning of a 'mutiny' in which they will reveal the details of all of Bush's dirty dealings and secret programs, and of course the failures to manage or to perform associated with each and every one of them. He may think he's got a lid on things, but if these folks are called as witnesses in future impeachment or treason hearings, they'll produce documentation he didn't even know existed. In truth, all they really need to do is keep leaking all of his dirty laundry and nasty failures to the public - there are enough of them. We can only hope they're all getting fed up and ready to do something to protect from Bush what they dedicated their lives to.

Long Arm of the Jack

2006-02-11T09:20:00.000-05:00

The longer the Abramoff scandal goes on, the more people it ensnares. It amazes me just how many people got sucked into his web just because there was a lot of ready cash in the casino business. Here now, we have Sen. Harry Reid implicated. But of course, as the Bushies get excited about the ability to point a finger at Reid, we find 3 more Repuglikans snared too.

And to Bush's statements that he doesn't know the man, even if he did have his picture taken with him, Abramoff supplies the editor of the Washingtonian magazine with an e-mail stating that he had talked to Bush nearly a dozen times.

Bush "joked with me about a bunch of things, including details of my kids," Abramoff recalled of his contacts with the president.
x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---
On Thursday, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said that "what the president said still stands."

Abramoff's e-mail states that Bush "has one of the best memories of any politician I have ever met." The e-mail said that Bush's ability to recall is one of his "trademarks, though of course he can't recall that he has a great memory!"

The e-mail adds, "Perhaps he has forgotten everything. Who knows."

Forgotten everything? Perhaps he's no longer mentally capable of fulfilling the duties of office.

Cracks in the Foundation

2006-02-10T09:39:00.000-05:00

Looks like some of the sheep are awakening. Even opposing their self-annointed shepherd - George Bush - on the global warming issue.

Funny thing - I had to find this on BBC news because it's not on MSM sites as yet. But who cares? It's still bad news for Bush, and that means it's good news for America.

McLibby

2006-02-10T07:06:00.000-05:00

Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, told a grand jury he was "authorized by his superiors" to disclose classified information from an intelligence report to reporters, according to the special prosecutor in the CIA leak case.

Would you like fries with that?

WMD-istraction

2006-02-10T06:52:00.000-05:00

Shortly after 9/11, al Qaeda began planning to use shoe bombers to hijack a commercial airplane and fly it into the tallest building in Los Angeles, California, President Bush said Thursday

I can't help but wonder, if true, why wouldn't this have been made public in October 2004?

Plan for the long war....

2006-02-09T14:27:00.000-05:00

The Quadrennial Defense Review Report was released earlier this week. 113 pages, but not too difficult a read, because it's laid out like a sales brochure for 20-acre mini ranchettes in the Nevada desert. Maybe it is a sales brochure. Read it and see what you can find.

Switcheroo!

2006-02-09T14:11:00.000-05:00

Our pResident has just told an audience how the war on terror prevented an attack in Los Angeles by the very guy who organized 9-11, Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

The president filled in details on Thursday.

He said that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks who was captured in 2003, had already begun planning the West Coast operation in October, just after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. One of Mohammed's key planners was Hambali, the alleged operations chief of the al-Qaida related terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah. Instead of recruiting Arab hijackers, Hambali found Southeast Asian men who would be less likely to arouse suspicion and who were sent to meet with Osama Bin Laden, Bush said.

Funny, I always thought Bush told us that Osama planned the 9-11 attack, but notice that part about "Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks who was captured". Didn't we invade Afghanistan to get Osama Bin Laden because he was the guy behind the attacks? Didn't we invade Iraq partly because Saddam Hussein had 'supported' Osama Bin Laden - the guy behind the attacks? Didn't Bush say he was going to get Bin Laden for blowing up the WTC? Didn't he say he could bring him in at the time and place of his choosing?

But now, we have two things going on here. One, a switch from Osama to Khalid Mohammed. Hell, Condi Rice and Rummy will be repeating this bullshit before the week is over, and today is Thursday. And two, he was CAPTURED! So what is the real deal here? Why switch from Osama to Sheik Mohammed? Because we CAUGHT Khalid Mohammed, and Bush can't catch or kill Bin Laden and doesn't want to have to face that fact any more, so he's trying to make it go away, THATS WHY! By painting Khalid Mohammed as the bad guy now Bush can claim that he's actually done something about 9-11 besides tell lies and make fuck-ups. He's hoping to paint himself as a hero, instead of the braying jackass he really is.

Just pay attention and watch the spinners do their work. It'll be pathetic, but funny too.

Dr. Evil Rewarded by the Team

2006-02-09T14:01:00.000-05:00

Tom DeLay has been rewarded with a seat on the House Appropriations Committee, as well as a seat on the Justice Committee. As you will recall, Tom is the guy behind the K-Street Project, and apparently the brains behind the Abramoff bribery, kick-backs and buy-a-representative (and possibly a president) graft scandal. Ironic, isn't it? The very guy who masterminded the biggest government corruption carnival of the last hundred years, is now given a much bigger pile of money to sit on, and some amount of contol over prosecution of criminals like himself and his stooge Abramoff. He'll have control of federal purse strings and can now reward his friends with much larger piles of money than Abramoff could carry in his trench coat, as well as having some level of ability to protect Abramoff and the dirty Republicans.

And the pathetically corrupt GOP wants us to think they're 'cleaning up'?

Congress Making Own Wiki Changes

2006-02-09T13:32:00.000-05:00

The problem with an 'open' encyclopedia like Wikipedia is that the very hooligans and corrupt politicians who deserve to have their names sullied publicly have access to the thing and can write about how sainted they are. Some MoC's have caught on and have been found to have their staffers get onto Wikipedia and 'clean up' the information on them - removing unkept campaign promises, removing voting records, changing statements about military service, etc. Hell, if Wiki can't stop them, we'll have Kerry listed as a deserter and Bush as a war hero.

You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet, heh-heh.

2006-02-09T13:22:00.000-05:00

NSA spying is peanuts compared to ADVISE, which will track everything you do and buy, including your comments here. (Of course the Pentagon is already doing that via DARPA, but this is Homeland Securitat.) If you didn't feel violated yet, you will soon enough.

Pay cash, wear sunglasses, go completely Carmen San Diego. Why make it easy for them?

Brownie Points

2006-02-09T12:36:00.000-05:00

"Unless there is specific direction otherwise from the president, including an assurance the president will provide a legal defense to Mr. Brown if he refuses to testify as to these matters, Mr. Brown will testify if asked about particular communications," the lawyer wrote.

Brown's desire "is that all facts be made public."

Interesting times, indeed.

Coretta's Funeral

2006-02-08T10:58:00.000-05:00

Doug Thompson reviews Coretta King's funeral and some of the speakers. A regular Bush-bash. Sorry I missed it.

George W. Bush’s pathetic attempt to turn Coretta Scott King’s funeral into a politically-advantageous photo op fell flatter than his State of the Union speech Tuesday – a textbook example of just how out of touch the President has become with the American people.

Question

2006-02-08T09:32:00.000-05:00

If a free people elect a pResident who then claims and assumes the powers of a banana republic dictator, is that nation still 'free'?

Bipartisan Bush Budget Bashing

2006-02-07T10:53:00.000-05:00

Seems that the Chimperor may be offending even his own flying monkeys with the new budget proposals. He's cutting funding to education and medical care (among other things), the very issues that will get the Rabid Right voted out of office next fall. And he's meeting with resistance over it, even from his own party.

Not that I think the Republicans in general give a runny crap about any working people. I suspect they think we're all cattle, or just unprocessed Soylent Green. They certainly care more about the health of their investment portfolios than they do about the health of the nation, the Constitution, or the people they allegedly serve.

But they do care about the votes, which surprises me given the Repug corruption in the voting machine agenda. Apparently it's not completely controlled as yet. And caring about the votes means that they don't want to have to go back to doing divorce law, insurance cases and pro bono legal aid. (OH God, no. Not legal aid, with all those smelly poor working folks coming into the office!) So wanting to stay in office might just translate into votes against the Bush agenda. The entire GOP Rabid Right pillaging effort may be cut short because the Chimperor can't control himself, and is setting the party to fighting among themselves as a result.

They've already started to self-destruct. It's going to be a fun thing to watch.

Gonzo Asserts Bush Might Be Above the Law

2006-02-07T10:21:00.000-05:00

As I read these accounts of Gonzo's testimony before Congress, I'm repeatedly kicked in my happy place by some of the things Gonzo says to justify Bush's attempted takeover of the US Government as his private litter-box. Here's the most recent:

"The president and the Justice Department have a constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws," said Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the committee's top Democrat. "Nobody is above the law, not even the president of the United States."
--x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., asked if the Bush administration had issued "any other secret order or directive" that would be prohibited by law. Said Gonzales: "The president has not authorized any conduct that I'm aware of that is in contravention of law."

Duh. Of course Gonzales wouldn't be aware of anything 'in contravention of law'. The way this bozo reads the law, torture is legal, invading nations that haven't attacked us is legal, detaining citizens without probable cause is legal, secret detention of citizens without access to family or legal representation and without charges is legal, and spying on citizens in violation of standing federal statutes is legal. So what COULD Bush do that Gonzales would consider 'in contravention of law'?

Maybe Sen. Feinstein's question should have stopped at "any other secret order or directive", period. I submit that Gonzales would try to justify Bush naming himself 'President for Life' if that's what Bush wanted to do. Gonzales is not an Attorney General, he's a Bush pocket puppet.

McCain Sold for How Much?

2006-02-07T10:06:00.000-05:00

After months of posturing about reforms, formerly respected and still war hero John McCain seems to have sold out to the Rabid Right and is now attacking Barack Obama for 'partisan' posturing on the supposedly -bi-partisan reform committee. Seems to me that McCain has been selling out his 'political capital' as a war hero by sucking up to the Bushies faster than Bush's wars suck up tax dollars, and I just have to wonder why.

Maybe he's fishing for a 'Bush-blessing' as the next presidential candidate?

Gonzo Says Washington Authorized Electronic Surveillance

2006-02-07T09:55:00.000-05:00

Yesterday our AG Alberto Torture Gonzales told Congress that Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt had all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale than Bush is using to spy on us. And nobody in Congress seemed to think it odd that George Washington authorized ELECTRONIC spying.

The clip courtesy of Crooks and Liars. Listen to the liar here.

GOP Mutating Over Stem Cells

2006-02-06T16:40:00.000-05:00

We're beginning to see the GOP tearing itself apart like a monster than can't stop eating everything and eventually blows itself up from it's unsatiable appetite. Aside from the budget, Iraq mismanagement and theft and lies, illegal spying on citizens, and corruption, we can now add Stem Cells to the list of GOP diseases. The battle lines are being drawn within the party.

The issue has divided Republicans, pitting former first lady Nancy Reagan against President Bush and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., against religious conservatives.

Reagan and others argue that the research offers scientific promise that could cure diseases such as Alzheimer's that her late husband, former President Reagan, suffered from for years. Anti-abortion conservatives contend that the research destroys days-old fertilized embryos and amounts to the taking of human life.

Frist angered conservatives last year when he reversed course to support expanded government-funded research on embryonic stem cells. In August 2001, Bush imposed restrictions on public funding for newly developed embryonic stem cell lines.

The sooner these power mad, cash crazed, vote stealing people haters get their little 'cosa nostra' broken up, the better for the rest of us. May God grant that they all someday need the very medical technology that they are trying to destroy.

A Million Votes Against Bush?

2006-02-06T16:30:00.000-05:00

Louisana is going to send directions for absentee voting to nearly a million voters displaced by Hurricane Katrina. There will be additional voters in other gulf states who've been displaced too.

I would venture to suggest that those votes can already be counted - by the Democrats.

Illegal Spying Hearings

2006-02-06T15:57:00.000-05:00

Even Senator Arlen Spectator is unhappy about the Bush / Gonzales program to spy on Americans in violation of the law. The hearings are happening today.

The top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, predicted that the committee would have to subpoena the administration to obtain internal documents that lay out the legal basis for the program. Justice Department officials have declined, citing in part the confidential nature of legal communications.
--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--
Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., was expected to press Gonzales on why, during Gonzales' confirmation hearings last year to be attorney general, he dismissed as "hypothetical" a situation in which the government conducted warrantless eavesdropping. The NSA program was long in place by then, and Gonzales was White House counsel.
--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--
The Washington Post, citing unnamed sources, reported Sunday that the program involves computers sifting through hundreds of thousands of communications to select for human review. The program has resulted in thousands of conversations in which someone in the U.S. has been at least briefly monitored, the Post said.

The Post report said that nearly all of them were quickly dismissed as insignificant and that perhaps no more than 10 solid leads a year have been pursued with further domestic surveillance, usually with a court warrant.

But Gen. Michael Hayden, the No. 2 intelligence official in the government, said it was "not true" that "we somehow grab the content of communications and then use the content of the communications to determine which of the communications we really want to listen to."

"When NSA goes after the content of a communication under this authorization from the president, the NSA has already established its reasons for being interested in that specific communication," Hayden said on "Fox News Sunday."

But General, that means you have probable cause, so why not just spy and report it to the FISA court?

(Senator Edward M.) Kennedy said the eavesdropping program could actually weaken national security, raising the prospect that terror suspects could go free if courts rule evidence collected from such surveillance to be tainted.

"We're taking a risk with national security which I think is unwise," Kennedy said.

"We don't believe prosecutions are going to be jeopardized because of this program," Gonzales told Kennedy.

I think the important thing about Gonzo's defense of this program is what it indicates about the Bushevik attempt to take over the national government with George Bush as dictator. He already has the power under the Patriot Act to make you disappear. Now he's fishing for reasons.

GOP Sweep in Ought Six?

2006-02-06T15:45:00.000-05:00

Well, we're already starting with the stories about all of the potential 'glitches' to come as a result of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 disaster. This is the deal where the feds help buy / force local voting boards to install new electronic voting machines controlled by Diebold software. Diebold's president had promised to 'deliver the election' in 2004, and damned if Bush didn't win.

The software does not provide for any audit capability, and federal courts have upheld the intellectual property rights of Diebold to prevent any examination of the software. In essence, that means that it could easily be simple - for every five votes cast, show 3 for the GOP and 2 for the Democrats. Literally, with no rights to look at it, the situation could be that bad. And Bush controlled courts have refused to permit any audit of the software by election commissions to ensure that it is accurately counting our votes.

But that is not addressed in the list of woes. Those are much blander in tone, but just as dangerous to the voting public:

Linda Lamone, administrator of the Maryland Board of Elections and president of the National Association of State Election Directors, says widespread worries about glitches include:

• Is there enough time to educate voters and poll workers, many of them older and not proficient with computers, before Election Day?

• Will there be adequate tech support from voting-machine manufacturers?

• How will the 25 states that require a paper backup for their computerized machines handle that - and which record will be the official one for any recount?

So, is this story on the level, or is it 'planting seeds' for the voting hijack in November?

Wilkerson interview

2006-02-06T15:29:00.000-05:00

On a comment from one of our readers, I found a link to a where Colin Powell's former Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson admits having participated in a hoax on the American people and Congress, and the rest of the world, regarding Iraq WMD intelligence. This is the short version, but it has a link to the full interview text, here.

To be fair to Wilkerson, he didn't do it intentionally. In fact, he claims it was the result of mistakes.

I have to believe that. Otherwise I have to believe some rather nefarious things about some fairly highly placed people in the intelligence community and perhaps elsewhere.
+++++++++++++++++++++
So we have a significant problem in this nation with our intelligence community. And, by the way, I don't think it's fixed in any way. Yet. This administration has really done nothing to fix it. And-- so I-- I'm familiar with intelligence failure.

However, this particular one seems to me to warrant a lot more investigation than it has to this point warranted. And I take in the recognition the Robb Silberman commission, the 9/11 commission and a host of other lesser-- investigations that have attempted to look at this. And the phase two investigation now going on in the Congress, which I think as long as the Republicans control the Congress will not be a-- an investigation that reveals very much. But I think we really need to take a hard look at how not just the intelligence failures I've enumerated occurred, but how this particular one did. Because it could turn out to be one of the worst in our history.
++++++++++++++++++++
I'm worried and I would rather have the discussion and debate in the process we've designed than I would a dictate from a dumb strongman.

I wonder. Just how what will it take before Congress will admit they were lied to and decide to do something about it?

Leaner Times Ahead

2006-02-05T09:33:00.000-05:00

Bush's new budget will cut spending on domestic programs, but of course heavily increase military spending.

"Every year of my presidency, we've reduced the growth of non-security discretionary spending, and last year you passed bills that cut this spending," Bush said last week. "This year my budget will cut it again."
++++++++++++++++++++++
The Pentagon would receive a nearly 5 percent increase in its budget, to $439.3 billion, defense officials said, with an additional $120 billion earmarked for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those war funds would be spread over both the current budget year and fiscal 2007, which begins Oct. 1.

I wonder. Is there any way we can force an independent psychiatric exam on this guy?

Muslims - Outrage, or Outrageous?

2006-02-04T14:30:00.000-05:00

OK. I can't ignore it. You've all heard about the furor in the Muslim world about the cartoons depicting Mohammed. You've heard about the boycotts of European goods, burning of European embassies in several countries and the death threats. Here is a link thru Yahoo to information about these cartoons in case you haven't been connected in the last week or so. You can even find the cartoons on line if you search a bit.

I will not state my thoughts here (partly because I'm still trying to comprehend it all and to 'see through' the media coverage), but I will invite all of our readers to do so. Pro or con - have at it. Just try to avoid the insults and stick to 'fair argument', OK? Maybe we can all learn a little something if we try.

No Cuts to the Guard?

2006-02-04T14:03:00.000-05:00

It looks as if both houses of the Senate are resisting Bush's plan to make cuts to the National Guard - in advance of his proposal no less.

Added Rep. John Murtha D-Pa.: "You can mark my words. They're not going to cut the National Guard."

His point is that lawmakers will not allow it, even though Congress is controlled by Bush's own Republican Party.

In fact, a bipartisan group of 75 senators said in a letter Thursday to the president that they "strongly oppose these proposals."

From the Capitol to statehouses, Republicans and Democrats are making the argument that the country's ability to defend itself would suffer under the Pentagon's plan, given reservists' major roles in Iraq and hurricane recovery.

The restructuring also will run into this political reality: Lawmakers are fiercely protective of citizen-soldier units that bring jobs and pride to their hometowns.

Fights over other Pentagon proposals are brewing and could prove a tough sell for Bush, especially because budget pressures from the wars, hurricane recovery and federal deficits are forcing even the military to live with smaller spending increases than it might like.

75 Senators! Must feel good for those Republican guys to finally stand up to the boss, eh?

Competitive America

2006-02-04T13:57:00.000-05:00

Here's an interesting little story about our pResident's plan to keep America competitive in the world.

"If we ensure that America's children succeed in life, they will ensure that America succeeds in the world," Bush said.

Rep. George Miller of California, the senior Democrat on the House Education committee, applauds Bush's emphasis on competitiveness. But he said the Republican-controlled Congress this week passed a bill that cuts $12 billion from the federal student aid programs.

Somebody explain how cutting $12 Billion from student aid funding will help our children to succeed in life, please.

Rummie Suprise

2006-02-04T13:42:00.000-05:00

Apparently the Busheviks learned from the way the world reacted to the US instigation of the war in Iraq, and have now designated the Sec'y of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to mouth the D-word (diplomacy). But of course, they still have formerly respected and now known to be a Bush pocket-pet Senator John McCain leaving "all options on the table" and making vague 'mushroom cloud' threats. We all heard that 'all options' crap before Bush invaded Iraq. What it really means is that we're saying the D-word, but we're picking the targets already. Keep your K-Y handy, America, or you'll get done dry.

I'm suprised that Rummie is even suggesting diplomacy. I always thought that diplomacy was handled by the "Diplomats" at the Dept. of State, and that the Sec'y of Defense and the Pentagon got up when the diplomats failed. Boy, was I dumb, huh? That Constitutional style of thinking is just so 'pre-911'. Nowadays its just all about marketing the agenda, period.

And McCain. People used to respect him. Now he just appears to be another dog-on-a-leash for the Bushies. It's starting to look like he might be sucking up for an endorsement in 2008, isn't it? Too bad. Another formerly decent statesman war hero turned pointless politician.

Economic Stats SNAFU?

2006-02-04T10:18:00.000-05:00

An article in Business Week magazine is running a story about how the economy is really stronger than we think it is, due to the particular statistics being collected and used for reporting. The gist of it is that there are 'modern economy' things going on that aren't counted by the 50 year-old data used by the federal agencies that do the reporting.

Well, don't be. Because the economy you thought you knew -- the one all those government statistics purport to measure and make rational and understandable -- actually may be on a stronger footing than you think. Then again, it could be much more volatile than before, with bigger booms and deeper busts. If true, that has major implications for policymakers -- not least Ben Bernanke, who on Feb. 1 succeeded Alan Greenspan as chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Everyone knows the U.S. is well down the road to becoming a knowledge economy, one driven by ideas and innovation. What you may not realize is that the government's decades-old system of number collection and crunching captures investments in equipment, buildings, and software, but for the most part misses the growing portion of GDP that is generating the cool, game-changing ideas. "As we've become a more knowledge-based economy," says University of Maryland economist Charles R. Hulten, "our statistics have not shifted to capture the effects."

The statistical wizards at the Bureau of Economic Analysis in Washington can whip up a spreadsheet showing how much the railroads spend on furniture ($39 million in 2004, to be exact). But they have no way of tracking the billions of dollars companies spend each year on innovation and product design, brand-building, employee training, or any of the other intangible investments required to compete in today's global economy. That means that the resources put into creating such world-beating innovations as the anticancer drug Avastin, inhaled insulin, Starbuck's , exchange-traded funds, and yes, even the iPod, don't show up in the official numbers.

First, I'm not sure that I consider R&D to be 'productive' economic activity, or domestic product (as in GDP - Gross Domestic Product) - so much goes down the drain as dollars that DID NOT produce anything. I guess it depends on your definition of 'product'. Second, I don't see design efforts or brand-recognition or training as appropriate economic indicators or 'product' either. You can't really sell your brand familiarity to another company. Those are things you do to stay in place. You have to run faster to get ahead. Besides, we now have such a lopsided non-'free market' economy due to special interest legislation that once a company reaches a large enough size, it can dominate the market in any way it wants and the lobbyists will ensure that Congress supports that monoploy or oligarchy power thru legislation. Look at drugs or insurance as examples.

And funds trading? That IS NOT economic activity. Just go back to when Enron went bust and people were asking what actually happened to their pension monies. The economists and Wall Street pillagers all said 'What're you talking about? That wasn't real money. The value of the stock disappeared, and so did the value of the investment'. But real people paid for those shares with real wages earned. If it can evaporate because it 'didn't really exist', then how can something that doesn't exist be counted as economic activity?

And last, I really don't see 'more volatile' as a benefit either. My state has had to cut programs because the slack economy sucked all the income out of the state's investments - yours probably did too - and that was even before the Busheviks started cutting funding for all the federally mandated programs. How is that kind of volatility helping us?

So actually, I suspect this article is a trial balloon for the Bushies to see if they can't get some kind of higher approval rating for King George's economic stupidities. They're trying out an idea, to be blunt about it. I believe that the real health of the economy is the financial health of the working citizens - all of us. Are you any better off the last 5 years? Did your 401k nearly tank and not fully recover yet?

But here is the real meat of the issue: If we know we aren't collecting all the right numbers, but we don't know yet what all the right numbers should be, how do we know the news won't really be WORSE than we think it is? What if they only pick new indicators that will look positive in order to paint a rosy picture?

I Made a Mistake

2006-02-03T16:03:00.000-05:00

Recently I posted Bush's State of the Union speech with my rebuttal comments inserted. Well, I was way wrong on one of them. How many times have I commented here that in order to actually understand what a Bush Repug is saying you have to think of EVERY possible meaning, and pick the most evil? At least a dozen times I know. Well, I failed in one instance to follow my own rule of thumb. Here it is.

Part of the speech was:

A hopeful society has institutions of science and medicine that do not cut ethical corners, and that recognize the matchless value of every life. Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research: human cloning in all its forms, creating or implanting embryos for experiments, creating human-animal hybrids, and buying, selling, or patenting human embryos. Human life is a gift from our Creator -- and that gift should never be discarded, devalued or put up for sale. (Applause.)

(By the way, the "applause" is actually in the text of the speech from the White House.gov page, so I assume it's in there as an audience queue-up. I'm surprised we didn't see the little "Applaud Now" signs lit up somewhere.)

My comment said that I expected Bush had left out stem cells, but would have it added to legislation on the sly as they have done with a lot of the things passed during his reign.

But that was not correct. Using the 'worst possible interpretation' theory, it's clear that stem cells are already included. "Human cloning in all it's forms" covers stem cells because to grow enough to do anything, like distribute them to medical research labs, you are cloning human stem cells. That is one of the forms, although we're supposed to think from his choice of words that he meant growing identical versions of people for organ harvesting or something.

"embryos for experiments" could mean stem cells too, as to the fundamentalists, any fertilized ovum is an embryo, although I believe that science calls it a blastula until it actually develops an organ structure. But that would cover stem cells also. This was supposed to make you think of mutated babies or some equally unacceptable thing that has nothing whatsoever to do with stem cells.

Human-animal hybrids is supposed to make you think "Island of Dr. Moreau" or some other such sci-fi thing, but again, using any ANIMAL stem cell would fit under this category in any legislation he proposed.

And last, "buying, selling, or patenting human embryos" is clearly designed to stop the use of stem cells when you consider that the original lines came from embryos.

So the result it that by using terms that made any rational person think HE was being reasonable by trying to limit science fiction horrors, Bush basically promised his brain-dead fundamentalist base that he would stop stem cell usage and research, and even outlined the basic forms of the legislation he intends to use. I got fooled, and I believe NOTHING this lying drunk says. Imagine what happened to the central part of the population who simply WANT to believe their presidend is reasonable and haven't yet come to the realization that he is a hateful, power-mad dictator wannabe who is nuts enough to think he talks to God and that God tells him to kill people.

DO NOT fall for it folks. Use this explanation as freely as you have to in order to have your friends ready to oppose this promised legislation. Bush also said that "Human life is a gift from our Creator", and it's obvious that he's going to try to make sure that nobody ever gets a chance for a better or longer one thru medical research into stem cell possibilities.

George "I Spy" Bush

2006-02-02T12:49:00.000-05:00

It seems today that the Bush White House is stonewalling the Senate on providing any information about the domestic spying felony - that's the NSA spying on citizens program Bush started in violation of federal law, in case it wasn't clear. This story in in the New York Times.

I've said here before that I'd be happy enough (enough being the operative word) about the program if Bush would simply let Congress review it and TELL US that it was only being used against terrorist suspects, and those with some kind of probably cause. I've said that refusing to do so only implies to me that the program really is spying on citizens, probably DISSENTING citizens, and that claims to the contrary are bald-faced lies. (OK, I didn't write "bald-faced" before, but I did now and I mean it.)

But this isn't happening, because Bush is going back to his tactic #3 (after Ignore it, and then Lie About It) which is STONEWALL ON IT.

The administration has already drawn fire from Democrats in the last week for refusing to release internal documents on Hurricane Katrina as well as material related to the lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

And there were other notable walls put up by these usurpers. Remember the Enron / Cheney meetings when they refused to provide even Cheney's appointment schedule? How about the 9-11 Commission, when they stonewalled on appointing a commission, and have since stonewalled on implementing any of the recommendations? Or the stonewalling that occurred and continues about the phony Iraq WMDs, and the subsequent Valerie Plame identity felony?

Stonewalling is a tactic in the playbook for these bastards, and our stupid folks in Congress haven't realized yet that it will happen EVERY time. (Or maybe they do realize that and just don't know what to do about it?) Whazzup, my Congress?

Libby E-mails "Missing"

2006-02-02T12:35:00.000-05:00

Remember how Nixon managed to 'lose' several minutes of an Oval Office tape recording? It was later found that his secretary had been ordered to delete that portion. Well, then this should sound familiar.

Some of the White House e-mails are supposedly 'missing' due to an archival failure. These e-mails may be related to the Libby prosecution - at least they fit into the timeframe for the felony. Of course, until they are found on the server somewhere, Fitzgerald is forced to admit that as of now there is no 'evidence' that they contained any evidence.

Funny thing, is I found it on Fox News. That means I'm unable to tell if they are gloating or not. But it's also here on Capitol Hill Blue, which is where I found it first. Strange that something on CHB, which is openly opposed to Bush, would be found so quickly on Fox, which is a Bush worshipping station. But that is the case. It's 12:43 p.m. as I write, and these are the only two items I could find via Google that were more then 'preliminary' or 'glossing over the subject' in length.

"Bottom line: Accidents happen and there could be a benign explanation, but this is highly irregular and invites suspicion," said Steve Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists government secrecy project.

Yeah, huh? You'd think that guys who worked for Nixon (Cheney) and studied the Nixon presidency (Bush) would know better than to try that same old used up excuse of "the e-mails went missing somehow, you explain it". I'm suprised they aren't trying to blame the dog for eating them.

Bush vs. Voter Rights

2006-02-02T12:21:00.000-05:00

Well, our pResident is now coming out in support of the gerrymandering that occured in Texas under DeLay's direction, according the the Washington Post. The effect of the 'redistricting' was to break up minority dominated districts and replace those with new districts in which the Blacks and / or Hispanics are the minority - effectively making them districts that could be counted on to vote Republican.

Justice Department lawyers initially recommended rejecting Texas's plan, saying it would harm black and Hispanic voters, but were overruled by senior Justice officials. The legal standards used in the lawyers' analysis, however, were different from those at issue in the current case, which focuses on a separate section of the Voting Rights Act.

The Bush administration's 35-page friend-of-the-court brief does not address the constitutional issues, focusing instead on the Voting Rights Act. As amended by Congress in 1982 and interpreted by the court, Section 2 of the act prohibits states from diluting the voting power of cohesive minority groups.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
But the administration's brief argues that the Dallas-Fort Worth district is legal because blacks alone did not make up a majority of the voters in the old district, so the plan did not deprive a single minority group of control it once had. The administration also argues that the number of majority-Hispanic districts in the plan is sufficient.

So now the Busheviks are claiming the districts weren't 'cohesive' because the demographics of those districts was mixed. Essentially folks, they're saying that even where you are the majority, if you don't live in a 100% minority ghetto, you shouldn't be able to elect the representatives you want.

Give to the Wealthy...

2006-02-02T10:52:00.000-05:00

Steal from the poor:

The House yesterday narrowly approved a contentious budget-cutting package that would save nearly $40 billion over five years by imposing substantial changes on programs including Medicaid, welfare, child support and student lending. [...]
Recipients of Medicaid can expect to face higher co-payments and deductibles, especially on expensive prescription drugs and emergency room visits for non-emergency care. More affluent seniors will find it far more difficult to qualify for Medicaid-covered nursing care.
College students could face higher interest rates when their banks get squeezed by the federal government. And some cotton farmers will find support payments nicked.

Rinse, wash, and repeat.

Grover Norquist on Domestic Spying

2006-02-02T08:52:00.000-05:00

Pass this one on to any Republicans (and any other Bush supporting types) you may know:

Norquist said one of his main concerns is that, once the government becomes so intrusive, there is no way to prevent continued erosion of individual rights.
"Even if you believed an angel was making these decisions, and that's not what I'm saying, at some point the person in the White House will change," he said. "Hillary Clinton might be making these decisions."

Oil Addiction

2006-02-02T08:42:00.000-05:00

Hold that thought:

One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally.
What the president meant, they said in a conference call with reporters, was that alternative fuels could displace an amount of oil imports equivalent to most of what America is expected to import from the Middle East in 2025.
But America still would import oil from the Middle East, because that's where the greatest oil supplies are.

Oh, what a kidder...

Republican Favoritism

2006-02-01T22:34:00.000-05:00

I haven't even found this posted here in the States, but it's on BBC and that is credible enough for me. Cindy Sheehan was arrested last night for her T-shirt, but the wife of Republican Rep. Bill Young was merely ordered out of the gallery for her 'Support the Troops' T-shirt. And there was another guest ejected too, reasons so far unknown.

Maybe this is why the Capitol Police Chief has apologized to Cindy Sheehan and asked the US Attorney's office to drop charges? It would certainly make for a pretty clear-cut discrimination case if they hadn't. But this IS the Bush administration. Let's just wait and see if the Gonzo attorney's office drops charges or not.

Another talking head....

2006-02-01T15:23:00.000-05:00

Tired yet of all the talking heads droning on about the State of the Union speech, each with his own axe to grind? Well, my version is below, in case you're interested in my thoughts about the subject.

Synopsis: 30% probable lies, 50% unsubstantiated political drivel, 20% proposals which will never be funded. I wasted another perfectly good hour when I could have been listening to Tommy and Ray on Car Talk.

STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT
http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/index.html Copied at 11:59, Jan. 31, 2006 (in case it changes later)
United States CapitolWashington, D.C.
9:12 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, members of the Supreme Court and diplomatic corps, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens: Today our nation lost a beloved, graceful, courageous woman who called America to its founding ideals and carried on a noble dream. Tonight we are comforted by the hope of a glad reunion with the husband who was taken so long ago, and we are grateful for the good life of Coretta Scott King. (Applause.)

A homily to Mrs. King. Nice, but most likely only to suck in the black minority of the US. Remember New Orleans.

Every time I'm invited to this rostrum, I'm humbled by the privilege, and mindful of the history we've seen together. We have gathered under this Capitol dome in moments of national mourning and national achievement. We have served America through one of the most consequential periods of our history -- and it has been my honor to serve with you.
In a system of two parties, two chambers, and two elected branches, there will always be differences and debate. But even tough debates can be conducted in a civil tone, and our differences cannot be allowed to harden into anger. To confront the great issues before us, we must act in a spirit of goodwill and respect for one another -- and I will do my part. Tonight the state of our Union is strong -- and together we will make it stronger. (Applause.)

Since when does this administration give a crap about the two party system? He must be weaker than we realize if he’s acknowledging the opposition and asking for ‘goodwill and respect’. He’s never given either before, and neither has his party. They’re losing the public and they know it.
In this decisive year, you and I will make choices that determine both the future and the character of our country. We will choose to act confidently in pursuing the enemies of freedom -- or retreat from our duties in the hope of an easier life. We will choose to build our prosperity by leading the world economy -- or shut ourselves off from trade and opportunity. In a complex and challenging time, the road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting -- yet it ends in danger and decline. The only way to protect our people, the only way to secure the peace, the only way to control our destiny is by our leadership -- so the United States of America will continue to lead. (Applause.)

There are lots of critics of your policies, but just WHO is advocating isolation or protectionism? Nobody that I’ve heard of. This is a plain attempt to paint every issue as white and black, with your agenda as the white one.
Abroad, our nation is committed to an historic, long-term goal -- we seek the end of tyranny in our world. Some dismiss that goal as misguided idealism. In reality, the future security of America depends on it. On September the 11th, 2001, we found that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state 7,000 miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country. Dictatorships shelter terrorists, and feed resentment and radicalism, and seek weapons of mass destruction. Democracies replace resentment with hope, respect the rights of their citizens and their neighbors, and join the fight against terror. Every step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer -- so we will act boldly in freedom's cause. (Applause.)

Our nation has NOT committed to that goal. Your administration may be. I don’t know of anyone saying it’s misguided idealism. I do know people who think it’s a desire for world conquest. Failed and oppressive state? The 9-11 terrorists were almost all from Saudi Arabia. What would your Saudi business partners (in the Carlyle Group) say to your allegation that theirs is a failed and oppressive state? Or your allegation that they are a dictatorship? Furthermore, your ‘act boldly’ involved lies to the UN, to the US Congress, andthe nation, and violations of international law. Boldly maybe, but apparently not legally.

Far from being a hopeless dream, the advance of freedom is the great story of our time. In 1945, there were about two dozen lonely democracies in the world. Today, there are 122. And we're writing a new chapter in the story of self-government -- with women lining up to vote in Afghanistan, and millions of Iraqis marking their liberty with purple ink, and men and women from Lebanon to Egypt debating the rights of individuals and the necessity of freedom. At the start of 2006, more than half the people of our world live in democratic nations. And we do not forget the other half -- in places like Syria and Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and Iran -- because the demands of justice, and the peace of this world, require their freedom, as well. (Applause.)

Every damned American with a brain wants the world to be free. But you are painting fantasies here. Women in Afghanistan were threatened with death for voting, and Egypt elected guys you don’t approve of. This new chapter you’re writing is not as rosy as you say it is, Pollyana.

No one can deny the success of freedom, but some men rage and fight against it. And one of the main sources of reaction and opposition is radical Islam -- the perversion by a few of a noble faith into an ideology of terror and death. Terrorists like bin Laden are serious about mass murder -- and all of us must take their declared intentions seriously. They seek to impose a heartless system of totalitarian control throughout the Middle East, and arm themselves with weapons of mass murder.

Yeah, right. So it’s your job to stop them, you’ve had 5 years, and accomplished NOTHING. Why?

Their aim is to seize power in Iraq, and use it as a safe haven to launch attacks against America and the world. Lacking the military strength to challenge us directly, the terrorists have chosen the weapon of fear. When they murder children at a school in Beslan, or blow up commuters in London, or behead a bound captive, the terrorists hope these horrors will break our will, allowing the violent to inherit the Earth. But they have miscalculated: We love our freedom, and we will fight to keep it. (Applause.)

With respect, it was YOU, Mr. President who chose Iraq as the battlefield, and you had to lie to get that. Further, it was not Islamist terrorists in Beslan, but anti-Russian terrorists. And you are more famous for ‘playing the fear card’ to support your bogus administration than the jihadis are.

However, you are right about one thing sir. The American people do love our freedom, and we WILL fight to keep it – against any enemy - external enemies, or internal enemies who would subvert our Constitution from inside our government.

In a time of testing, we cannot find security by abandoning our commitments and retreating within our borders. If we were to leave these vicious attackers alone, they would not leave us alone. They would simply move the battlefield to our own shores. There is no peace in retreat. And there is no honor in retreat. By allowing radical Islam to work its will -- by leaving an assaulted world to fend for itself -- we would signal to all that we no longer believe in our own ideals, or even in our own courage. But our enemies and our friends can be certain: The United States will not retreat from the world, and we will never surrender to evil. (Applause.)

What are you smoking these days? What commitments are you talking about? Do you mean the phony promises you made about keeping up the war on terror that you started and somehow can’t win?

And as far as the terrorists moving the battlefield to our shores – if you actually did ANYTHING to protect our borders or our ports, they might not have the ability to bring the battle here – but YOU cut funding for those programs, didn’t you?

America rejects the false comfort of isolationism. We are the nation that saved liberty in Europe, and liberated death camps, and helped raise up democracies, and faced down an evil empire. Once again, we accept the call of history to deliver the oppressed and move this world toward peace. We remain on the offensive against terror networks. We have killed or captured many of their leaders -- and for the others, their day will come.

Their day will come? You said two weeks ago via Scott McClellan that you could end this war at the time and place of your choosing. So why do you choose to not end it yet?

We remain on the offensive in Afghanistan, where a fine President and a National Assembly are fighting terror while building the institutions of a new democracy. We're on the offensive in Iraq, with a clear plan for victory. First, we're helping Iraqis build an inclusive government, so that old resentments will be eased and the insurgency will be marginalized.
Second, we're continuing reconstruction efforts, and helping the Iraqi government to fight corruption and build a modern economy, so all Iraqis can experience the benefits of freedom. And, third, we're striking terrorist targets while we train Iraqi forces that are increasingly capable of defeating the enemy. Iraqis are showing their courage every day, and we are proud to be their allies in the cause of freedom. (Applause.)

First, your Iraqi inclusive government is not stopping the approaching civil war along religious sect lines. Second, your reconstruction funds have largely disappeared into the pockets of your no-bid subcontractors and campaign operatives, without audit and without accountability, so how does this help the Iraqi people? Third, so far all you’ve done is lie about the ability and capability and willingness of the Iraqis to pick up the fight, so why should we believe you tonight?

Our work in Iraq is difficult because our enemy is brutal. But that brutality has not stopped the dramatic progress of a new democracy. In less than three years, the nation has gone from dictatorship to liberation, to sovereignty, to a constitution, to national elections. At the same time, our coalition has been relentless in shutting off terrorist infiltration, clearing out insurgent strongholds, and turning over territory to Iraqi security forces. I am confident in our plan for victory; I am confident in the will of the Iraqi people; I am confident in the skill and spirit of our military. Fellow citizens, we are in this fight to win, and we are winning. (Applause.)

Coalition? You mean those who haven't walked out on you yet? Relentless? Sure, our soldiers are tough guys who do try to complete their missions. But we don’t seem to be very successful do we? You’re the Commander in Chief – tell us where you’re failing.

The road of victory is the road that will take our troops home. As we make progress on the ground, and Iraqi forces increasingly take the lead, we should be able to further decrease our troop levels -- but those decisions will be made by our military commanders, not by politicians in Washington, D.C. (Applause.)

Liar. You will tell the military what you want them to do, just as you told them how to attack Iraq in spite of their advice that it couldn’t be done successfully as planned. You’re simply trying to make the dissenters in Congress and among the citizens look bad for opposing your failures.

Our coalition has learned from our experience in Iraq. We've adjusted our military tactics and changed our approach to reconstruction. Along the way, we have benefitted from responsible criticism and counsel offered by members of Congress of both parties. In the coming year, I will continue to reach out and seek your good advice. Yet, there is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success, and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure. (Applause.) Hindsight alone is not wisdom, and second-guessing is not a strategy. (Applause.)

Essentially, you’re saying that anyone who disagrees is wrong, that you will not pay any attention. And really, WHAT does that last sentence mean? It’s like ‘do you walk to work or carry your lunch’? Two non-sequiturs in a row. Is that worse than a double negative, or just nonsense? Hindsight is definitely a path to wisdom, if you’re willing to admit that you may have been wrong. And the rest is just ‘out there’ somewhere, even if it does sound good. What the heck IS that supposed to mean?

With so much in the balance, those of us in public office have a duty to speak with candor. A sudden withdrawal of our forces from Iraq would abandon our Iraqi allies to death and prison, would put men like bin Laden and Zarqawi in charge of a strategic country, and show that a pledge from America means little. Members of Congress, however we feel about the decisions and debates of the past, our nation has only one option: We must keep our word, defeat our enemies, and stand behind the American military in this vital mission. (Applause.)

Speak with candor? Can you do that when you’re lying? Iraq is only a ‘strategic country’ because you invaded it based on lies and violations of international law. And if we have only one option, isn’t it about time our Commander in Chief stopped fucking around and started to win that war he started? Why did you start this war in the first place if you’re not man enough to win it?

Our men and women in uniform are making sacrifices -- and showing a sense of duty stronger than all fear. They know what it's like to fight house to house in a maze of streets, to wear heavy gear in the desert heat, to see a comrade killed by a roadside bomb. And those who know the costs also know the stakes. Marine Staff Sergeant Dan Clay was killed last month fighting in Fallujah. He left behind a letter to his family, but his words could just as well be addressed to every American. Here is what Dan wrote: "I know what honor is. … It has been an honor to protect and serve all of you. I faced death with the secure knowledge that you would not have to…. Never falter! Don't hesitate to honor and support those of us who have the honor of protecting that which is worth protecting."
Staff Sergeant Dan Clay's wife, Lisa, and his mom and dad, Sara Jo and Bud, are with us this evening. Welcome. (Applause.)

Yeah, here we go. Play the sympathy card by sucking in the family of some poor schmuck who died believing your lies, and putting them in front of the nation on TV. You pathetic marionette.

Our nation is grateful to the fallen, who live in the memory of our country. We're grateful to all who volunteer to wear our nation's uniform -- and as we honor our brave troops, let us never forget the sacrifices of America's military families. (Applause.)
Our offensive against terror involves more than military action. Ultimately, the only way to defeat the terrorists is to defeat their dark vision of hatred and fear by offering the hopeful alternative of political freedom and peaceful change. So the United States of America supports democratic reform across the broader Middle East. Elections are vital, but they are only the beginning. Raising up a democracy requires the rule of law, and protection of minorities, and strong, accountable institutions that last longer than a single vote.
The great people of Egypt have voted in a multi-party presidential election -- and now their government should open paths of peaceful opposition that will reduce the appeal of radicalism. The Palestinian people have voted in elections. And now the leaders of Hamas must recognize Israel, disarm, reject terrorism, and work for lasting peace. (Applause.) Saudi Arabia has taken the first steps of reform -- now it can offer its people a better future by pressing forward with those efforts. Democracies in the Middle East will not look like our own, because they will reflect the traditions of their own citizens. Yet liberty is the future of every nation in the Middle East, because liberty is the right and hope of all humanity. (Applause.)

YOU say they hate us for our freedom. So how ill we defeat them by offering them freedom and peace? And you talk about Palestine and how Hamas MUST recognize those things that constitute your agenda. But Palestinians didn’t vote as you wanted them to, and you threatened to cut off the aid to the starving refugees for it. What if Hamas doesn’t do as you say they must?

The same is true of Iran, a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people. The regime in that country sponsors terrorists in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon -- and that must come to an end. (Applause.) The Iranian government is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions, and the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons. (Applause.) America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats.

But, wasn’t the Iranian regime elected by the Iranian people? Is the regime not legitimate when freely elected if you don’t like them Mr. Bush? That is what you’re saying, isn’t it?

Tonight, let me speak directly to the citizens of Iran: America respects you, and we respect your country. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom. And our nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran. (Applause.)

Mr. Bush, if you really respected Iranians' right to choose, you’d be talking with their government and trying to find some kind of common ground instead of drawing lines in the sand and posturing for war.

To overcome dangers in our world, we must also take the offensive by encouraging economic progress, and fighting disease, and spreading hope in hopeless lands. Isolationism would not only tie our hands in fighting enemies, it would keep us from helping our friends in desperate need. We show compassion abroad because Americans believe in the God-given dignity and worth of a villager with HIV/AIDS, or an infant with malaria, or a refugee fleeing genocide, or a young girl sold into slavery. We also show compassion abroad because regions overwhelmed by poverty, corruption, and despair are sources of terrorism, and organized crime, and human trafficking, and the drug trade.

This is no doubt the reason you have ignored genocide in Darfur.
In recent years, you and I have taken unprecedented action to fight AIDS and malaria, expand the education of girls, and reward developing nations that are moving forward with economic and political reform. For people everywhere, the United States is a partner for a better life. Short-changing these efforts would increase the suffering and chaos of our world, undercut our long-term security, and dull the conscience of our country. I urge members of Congress to serve the interests of America by showing the compassion of America.

What does this mean? I really mean it – what are you talking about? You've made promises of aid along these lines and then not come up with the money, or cut the funding. So just what is this crap about?

Our country must also remain on the offensive against terrorism here at home. The enemy has not lost the desire or capability to attack us. Fortunately, this nation has superb professionals in law enforcement, intelligence, the military, and homeland security. These men and women are dedicating their lives, protecting us all, and they deserve our support and our thanks. (Applause.) They also deserve the same tools they already use to fight drug trafficking and organized crime -- so I ask you to reauthorize the Patriot Act. (Applause.)
It is said that prior to the attacks of September the 11th, our government failed to connect the dots of the conspiracy. We now know that two of the hijackers in the United States placed telephone calls to al Qaeda operatives overseas. But we did not know about their plans until it was too late. So to prevent another attack –- based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute -- I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al Qaeda operatives and affiliates to and from America. Previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have, and federal courts have approved the use of that authority. Appropriate members of Congress have been kept informed. The terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again. (Applause.)

I have read the Patriot Act and honestly cannot see how it helps to fight drug trafficking and organized crime, so that excuse is bogus. What the Patriot Act does in Section 106 (f) is give you the power of some banana republic dictator, and THAT is why you want it re-authorized.

We didn’t know about the Al Qaeda plans in time because your administration ignored the indications about the attack and how it would be conducted, and information about the terrorists themselves. If that had not happened, you might have used FISA to listen to their conversations.

Also your assertion that your are given the authority to spy on citizens by The Constitution and by statute are only that – assertions. Untried, untested, unapproved and in all likelihood unconstitutional. You claim it’s only Al Qaeda operative you're spying on – the FBI said differently. I think you’re lying again. Further, you have refused to provide any details to Congress that would permit them to verify that the spying is only against Al Qaeda as you allege, so it is entirely reasonable to suspect that you’re not only lying about that but actually spying heavily on dissenting citizens.

In all these areas -- from the disruption of terror networks, to victory in Iraq, to the spread of freedom and hope in troubled regions -- we need the support of our friends and allies. To draw that support, we must always be clear in our principles and willing to act. The only alternative to American leadership is a dramatically more dangerous and anxious world. Yet we also choose to lead because it is a privilege to serve the values that gave us birth. American leaders -- from Roosevelt to Truman to Kennedy to Reagan -- rejected isolation and retreat, because they knew that America is always more secure when freedom is on the march.

So, if America doesn’t try to control the world (leadership) and the behavior of all its nations, we’re threatened? Do you have ANY CLUE yet as to how much work and expense that would be? It’s just not feasible. There aren’t enough of us. China might manage it, because there are in fact a lot of Chinese, but not that many Americans. I would suggest that the bigger threat is to destroy ourselves trying to control the world rather than to adapt to it.

Our own generation is in a long war against a determined enemy -- a war that will be fought by Presidents of both parties, who will need steady bipartisan support from the Congress. And tonight I ask for yours. Together, let us protect our country, support the men and women who defend us, and lead this world toward freedom. (Applause.)

Repeat. You said you could win the war any time, at the time and place of your choosing. What are you waiting for?

Here at home, America also has a great opportunity: We will build the prosperity of our country by strengthening our economic leadership in the world.

By exporting our jobs?

Our economy is healthy and vigorous, and growing faster than other major industrialized nations. In the last two-and-a-half years, America has created 4.6 million new jobs -- more than Japan and the European Union combined. (Applause.) Even in the face of higher energy prices and natural disasters, the American people have turned in an economic performance that is the envy of the world.

American companies have done that. But her citizens are actually not gaining wages as fast as inflation eats them. The working families are losing ground, and your recent bankruptcy legislation will ensure that they can never regain it.

The American economy is preeminent, but we cannot afford to be complacent. In a dynamic world economy, we are seeing new competitors, like China and India, and this creates uncertainty, which makes it easier to feed people's fears. So we're seeing some old temptations return. Protectionists want to escape competition, pretending that we can keep our high standard of living while walling off our economy. Others say that the government needs to take a larger role in directing the economy, centralizing more power in Washington and increasing taxes. We hear claims that immigrants are somehow bad for the economy -- even though this economy could not function without them. (Applause.) All these are forms of economic retreat, and they lead in the same direction -- toward a stagnant and second-rate economy.

So you’re admitting we can’t keep our standard of living with any economic policies you have? You’re also saying that the folks who object to tax cuts for your rich friends that don’t touch the rest of us is a good idea, right?

And what’s this about immigrants? Most of the people I know only object to ILLEGAL immigrants – and that only because they 1) use services paid for by taxes on working citizens, but don’t pay those taxes themselves, and 2) represent the utter failure of your administration to protect the nation from terrorists by controlling who gets across the borders.

All of those things, by the way, are the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the United States. You, Mr. Bush. What are you doing about it?

Tonight I will set out a better path: an agenda for a nation that competes with confidence; an agenda that will raise standards of living and generate new jobs. Americans should not fear our economic future, because we intend to shape it.

I see your lips moving, but all I can hear is Blah, blah, blah.
Keeping America competitive begins with keeping our economy growing. And our economy grows when Americans have more of their own money to spend, save, and invest. In the last five years, the tax relief you passed has left $880 billion in the hands of American workers, investors, small businesses, and families -- and they have used it to help produce more than four years of uninterrupted economic growth. (Applause.) Yet the tax relief is set to expire in the next few years. If we do nothing, American families will face a massive tax increase they do not expect and will not welcome.

Most of that tax relief (about 90%) was left in the hands of the richest 10%, while the rest of us worry about paying our rising energy bills, finance charges, and the Billion a day for Iraq. Furthermore your giddy girl-at-the-mall spending has already doomed Americans to a tax bill they will not welcome, and it will cripple the finances of most families. Thank you Mr. Bush.

Because America needs more than a temporary expansion, we need more than temporary tax relief. I urge the Congress to act responsibly, and make the tax cuts permanent. (Applause.)

Actually, we’re all going to be paying higher taxes as soon as you’re gone just to pay the debt you’ve created from the surplus you inherited. We do still have a Balanced Budget law here. It’s just that you and your party choose to violate it.

Keeping America competitive requires us to be good stewards of tax dollars. Every year of my presidency, we've reduced the growth of non-security discretionary spending, and last year you passed bills that cut this spending. This year my budget will cut it again, and reduce or eliminate more than 140 programs that are performing poorly or not fulfilling essential priorities. By passing these reforms, we will save the American taxpayer another $14 billion next year, and stay on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009. (Applause.)
I am pleased that members of Congress are working on earmark reform, because the federal budget has too many special interest projects. (Applause.) And we can tackle this problem together, if you pass the line-item veto. (Applause.)

So, cutting more social programs while you escalate your war against the world, are you?

And that bit about the line-item veto – will you trade getting that for a law ending your ‘signing statements’ exempting yourself from laws passed by Congress?

We must also confront the larger challenge of mandatory spending, or entitlements. This year, the first of about 78 million baby boomers turn 60, including two of my Dad's favorite people -- me and President Clinton. (Laughter.) This milestone is more than a personal crisis -- (laughter) -- it is a national challenge. The retirement of the baby boom generation will put unprecedented strains on the federal government. By 2030, spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid alone will be almost 60 percent of the entire federal budget. And that will present future Congresses with impossible choices -- staggering tax increases, immense deficits, or deep cuts in every category of spending.

Seems like no problem if we just use that Billion-a-day you’re blowing in Iraq.

Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security -- (applause) -- yet the rising cost of entitlements is a problem that is not going away. (Applause.) And every year we fail to act, the situation gets worse.

If you’d just quit raiding the social security funds to pay general fund obligations, there wouldn’t be a problem.

So tonight, I ask you to join me in creating a commission to examine the full impact of baby boom retirements on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This commission should include members of Congress of both parties, and offer bipartisan solutions. We need to put aside partisan politics and work together and get this problem solved. (Applause.)

Good idea. Social security should be increased to where everyone gets a decent standard of living from it. It needs beefed up significantly.

Keeping America competitive requires us to open more markets for all that Americans make and grow. One out of every five factory jobs in America is related to global trade, and we want people everywhere to buy American. With open markets and a level playing field, no one can out-produce or out-compete the American worker. (Applause.)

Except that we don’t have open markets or a level playing field to deal with. There is too much pandering to corporate profits. A level playing field would actually mean no government support or favoritism laws to help, and you compete or lose out. Stocks (corporate equities) are supposed to be ‘investors taking the risk’ but we protect corporate profits so much to prevent investors (rich folks and investment corporations and Saudi princes) that there is no such thing as a level playing field.

Keeping America competitive requires an immigration system that upholds our laws, reflects our values, and serves the interests of our economy. Our nation needs orderly and secure borders. (Applause.) To meet this goal, we must have stronger immigration enforcement and border protection. (Applause.) And we must have a rational, humane guest worker program that rejects amnesty, allows temporary jobs for people who seek them legally, and reduces smuggling and crime at the border. (Applause.)

Glad you brought this up – orderly and secure borders. So just why do we have Mexican machine gun emplacements INSIDE the US protecting drug runners?

Keeping America competitive requires affordable health care. (Applause.) Our government has a responsibility to provide health care for the poor and the elderly, and we are meeting that responsibility. (Applause.) For all Americans -- for all Americans, we must confront the rising cost of care, strengthen the doctor-patient relationship, and help people afford the insurance coverage they need. (Applause.)

Meeting that responsibility in the lamest possible fashion. 42 Million Americans have no insurance and therefore no health care, and the number grows every year.

We will make wider use of electronic records and other health information technology, to help control costs and reduce dangerous medical errors. We will strengthen health savings accounts -- making sure individuals and small business employees can buy insurance with the same advantages that people working for big businesses now get. (Applause.) We will do more to make this coverage portable, so workers can switch jobs without having to worry about losing their health insurance. (Applause.) And because lawsuits are driving many good doctors out of practice -- leaving women in nearly 1,500 American counties without a single OB/GYN -- I ask the Congress to pass medical liability reform this year. (Applause.)

Electronic records? Legal cost controls for the most profitable industry in America? while the rest of us lose even the privacy of our bodies? Or just another source of data on citizens for the feds to tap into?

Medical errors are not caused by paper records – studies show them caused by human error. Things like cutting off the wrong leg, or hanging the wrong name at the end of the bed.

Health savings accounts are merely a way to prolong the insurance industry while they continue to price themselves out of their own market in search of greater profits. They still write down what they’ll pay on every claim submitted, for whatever reason they can make find. The one I had was actually going to cost me over $9000 a year before I saw the first benefit dollar. I cancelled it.

What’s more, studies have shown that lawsuit settlements are going down over the last 8 or so years, but costs of malpractice insurance have gone up about 800% over the same period. So it’s not lawsuits that are driving doctors out of practice, but the same insurance companies that cover the doctor’s patients.

Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable alternative energy sources -- and we are on the threshold of incredible advances.

And have been for like, 40 years.
So tonight, I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative -- a 22-percent increase in clean-energy research -- at the Department of Energy, to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas. To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants, revolutionary solar and wind technologies, and clean, safe nuclear energy. (Applause.)

If we see the same proportions spent on coal-fired plants, solar and wind, and nuclear that we’ve seen in the past, you can forget solar and wind. There won’t be enough spent on them to make any change, in spite of studies that indicate that just putting solar on top of all our federal buildings would dramatically cut the nation’s energy bill. But then, solar and wind power aren't really on your agenda are they? They're just here because they sound good in the heartland. It's the nukes and coal folks you're going to fund isn't it?

We must also change how we power our automobiles. We will increase our research in better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen. We'll also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks, or switch grass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years. (Applause.)

Who is going to do these things? Do you really expect a Republican Congress to pass any legislation that will hurt the current energy oligarchy? Do you expect it to be funded, even if the citizens force it to be passed? And does anyone think for a minute Mr. Bush that you wouldn’t cut the funding for it if it was passed?

Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025. (Applause.) By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy, and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past. (Applause.)
And to keep America competitive, one commitment is necessary above all: We must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity. Our greatest advantage in the world has always been our educated, hardworking, ambitious people -- and we're going to keep that edge. Tonight I announce an American Competitiveness Initiative, to encourage innovation throughout our economy, and to give our nation's children a firm grounding in math and science. (Applause.)
First, I propose to double the federal commitment to the most critical basic research programs in the physical sciences over the next 10 years. This funding will support the work of America's most creative minds as they explore promising areas such as nanotechnology, supercomputing, and alternative energy sources.

Doubling over 10 years averages 10% a year. You’ve been cutting education funds faster than that.

Second, I propose to make permanent the research and development tax credit -- (applause) -- to encourage bolder private-sector initiatives in technology. With more research in both the public and private sectors, we will improve our quality of life -- and ensure that America will lead the world in opportunity and innovation for decades to come. (Applause.)

This might even be a good idea, but you promise lots and deliver nothing. So forgive us if we don't hold our breath on this proposal.

Third, we need to encourage children to take more math and science, and to make sure those courses are rigorous enough to compete with other nations. We've made a good start in the early grades with the No Child Left Behind Act, which is raising standards and lifting test scores across our country. Tonight I propose to train 70,000 high school teachers to lead advanced-placement courses in math and science, bring 30,000 math and science professionals to teach in classrooms, and give early help to students who struggle with math, so they have a better chance at good, high-wage jobs. If we ensure that America's children succeed in life, they will ensure that America succeeds in the world. (Applause.)
Preparing our nation to compete in the world is a goal that all of us can share. I urge you to support the American Competitiveness Initiative, and together we will show the world what the American people can achieve.

YOU propose to train 70,000 high school teachers? Who is going to pay for this, and with what money? Will you put the war in Iraq on hold for several days to fund this?

And, um, shouldn’t we train our kids to read well and critically, to understand the issues and responsibilities of a democracy, to vote with some semblance of intellingence, instead of turning them into docile, servile corporate entry-level grunts? Educating ‘voters’ preserves freedom. Training employees preserves corporate profits. The two are not synonymous.

America is a great force for freedom and prosperity. Yet our greatness is not measured in power or luxuries, but by who we are and how we treat one another. So we strive to be a compassionate, decent, hopeful society.

Do you plan to provide job retraining for your party then?

In recent years, America has become a more hopeful nation. Violent crime rates have fallen to their lowest levels since the 1970s. Welfare cases have dropped by more than half over the past decade. Drug use among youth is down 19 percent since 2001. There are fewer abortions in America than at any point in the last three decades, and the number of children born to teenage mothers has been falling for a dozen years in a row. (Applause.)

Are you trying to take credit for these?

These gains are evidence of a quiet transformation -- a revolution of conscience, in which a rising generation is finding that a life of personal responsibility is a life of fulfillment. Government has played a role. Wise policies, such as welfare reform and drug education and support for abstinence and adoption have made a difference in the character of our country. And everyone here tonight, Democrat and Republican, has a right to be proud of this record. (Applause.)

Yup. You’re trying to tie these changes in our culture to your policies, even though the changes started way before you moved into the White House.

Yet many Americans, especially parents, still have deep concerns about the direction of our culture, and the health of our most basic institutions. They're concerned about unethical conduct by public officials, and discouraged by activist courts that try to redefine marriage. They worry about children in our society who need direction and love, and about fellow citizens still displaced by natural disaster, and about suffering caused by treatable diseases.
As we look at these challenges, we must never give in to the belief that America is in decline, or that our culture is doomed to unravel. The American people know better than that. We have proven the pessimists wrong before -- and we will do it again. (Applause.)
A hopeful society depends on courts that deliver equal justice under the law. The Supreme Court now has two superb new members -- new members on its bench: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito. (Applause.) I thank the Senate for confirming both of them. I will continue to nominate men and women who understand that judges must be servants of the law, and not legislate from the bench. (Applause.)

OK. So this was all about justifying your provincial, reactionary judge choices. We will all suffer for decades for that, thank you.

Today marks the official retirement of a very special American. For 24 years of faithful service to our nation, the United States is grateful to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. (Applause.)

Thanks Ms. O’Connor. The people will miss your level-headed approach to the law. And will miss it more as time goes on.

A hopeful society has institutions of science and medicine that do not cut ethical corners, and that recognize the matchless value of every life. Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research: human cloning in all its forms, creating or implanting embryos for experiments, creating human-animal hybrids, and buying, selling, or patenting human embryos. Human life is a gift from our Creator -- and that gift should never be discarded, devalued or put up for sale. (Applause.)

Sounds good, but watch out Congress. He’ll have stem cells slipped into the legislation prohibiting these things overnight the night before the vote, the same way you got the version of the Patriot Act that you had NOT examined.

A hopeful society expects elected officials to uphold the public trust. (Applause.) Honorable people in both parties are working on reforms to strengthen the ethical standards of Washington -- I support your efforts. Each of us has made a pledge to be worthy of public responsibility -- and that is a pledge we must never forget, never dismiss, and never betray. (Applause.)
As we renew the promise of our institutions, let us also show the character of America in our compassion and care for one another.
A hopeful society gives special attention to children who lack direction and love. Through the Helping America's Youth Initiative, we are encouraging caring adults to get involved in the life of a child -- and this good work is being led by our First Lady, Laura Bush. (Applause.) This year we will add resources to encourage young people to stay in school, so more of America's youth can raise their sights and achieve their dreams.
A hopeful society comes to the aid of fellow citizens in times of suffering and emergency -- and stays at it until they're back on their feet. So far the federal government has committed $85 billion to the people of the Gulf Coast and New Orleans. We're removing debris and repairing highways and rebuilding stronger levees. We're providing business loans and housing assistance. Yet as we meet these immediate needs, we must also address deeper challenges that existed before the storm arrived.

Committed $85 billion, but delivered exactly how much so far? It’s millions, right? And the screw-ups continue, by the way. You’re in charge, so why don’t you get that fixed?

In New Orleans and in other places, many of our fellow citizens have felt excluded from the promise of our country. The answer is not only temporary relief, but schools that teach every child, and job skills that bring upward mobility, and more opportunities to own a home and start a business. As we recover from a disaster, let us also work for the day when all Americans are protected by justice, equal in hope, and rich in opportunity. (Applause.)
A hopeful society acts boldly to fight diseases like HIV/AIDS, which can be prevented, and treated, and defeated. More than a million Americans live with HIV, and half of all AIDS cases occur among African Americans. I ask Congress to reform and reauthorize the Ryan White Act, and provide new funding to states, so we end the waiting lists for AIDS medicines in America. (Applause.) We will also lead a nationwide effort, working closely with African American churches and faith-based groups, to deliver rapid HIV tests to millions, end the stigma of AIDS, and come closer to the day when there are no new infections in America. (Applause.)

Katrina to Aids, did you notice? Glossing over a big failure of the administration to help Black folk and then move on to something that scares and affects those people. Its called a diversion. Bait and switch. No more will happen about Black Aids than happened about drowning Black grannies in New Orleans, but you want us to forget those grannies.

Fellow citizens, we've been called to leadership in a period of consequence. We've entered a great ideological conflict we did nothing to invite. We see great changes in science and commerce that will influence all our lives. Sometimes it can seem that history is turning in a wide arc, toward an unknown shore. Yet the destination of history is determined by human action, and every great movement of history comes to a point of choosing.
Lincoln could have accepted peace at the cost of disunity and continued slavery. Martin Luther King could have stopped at Birmingham or at Selma, and achieved only half a victory over segregation. The United States could have accepted the permanent division of Europe, and been complicit in the oppression of others. Today, having come far in our own historical journey, we must decide: Will we turn back, or finish well?

How dare you even try to compare yourself to Lincoln or King? They were good men who stood for what was good for the nation. You’re a dictator wannabe who stands only for what will further your world domination goals.

Before history is written down in books, it is written in courage. Like Americans before us, we will show that courage and we will finish well. We will lead freedom's advance. We will compete and excel in the global economy. We will renew the defining moral commitments of this land. And so we move forward -- optimistic about our country, faithful to its cause, and confident of the victories to come.
May God bless America. (Applause.)

God bless us one and all. With you in office, we need it and will continue to need it - for decades.

There's more...

They Hate Us for Our Freedoms

2006-01-31T22:06:00.000-05:00

Such as:

Peace activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested Tuesday in the House gallery after refusing to cover up a T-shirt bearing an anti-war slogan before President Bush's State of the Union address.
According to a blog post on Michael Moore's Web site attributed to Sheehan, the T-shirt said, "2,245 Dead. How many more?" -- a reference to the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq.

Unsurprisingly, the cable news pundits have yet to mention the arrest in the oh so thorough recap of the event...

The Mexican Border

2006-01-31T21:32:00.000-05:00

Via MSNBC's Scarborough Country January 30th transcript:

Is a dangerous South American gang planning attacks along the U.S.-Mexican border? Well, that‘s a shocking report from California and a newspaper that has obtained secret U.S. government documents. According to a captured member of a deadly drug cartel, there‘s a secret attack planned and it‘s a plan that calls for members of the gang to gather in Mexican border towns, and then attack the United States using the same route they use to smuggle drugs.

Read the rest...

It may not be Gospel, and should be taken with grains of salt, but it's being reported in the MSM. I believe some apologies are owed to Nostradamnthem.

A Hot Preview of the State of the Union Speech

2006-01-31T10:04:00.000-05:00

It took a lot of digging, but we finally found a video of Bush rehearsing his State of the Union address for tonight. Remember, you saw it here.

Alito Scalito

2006-01-31T09:14:00.000-05:00

We lost a battle yesterday. But, as Digby points out, there may be brighter days ahead.

Don't lose hope just yet...

DHS Hides Planned Mexican Invasion of US

2006-01-31T09:04:00.000-05:00

Monday night, Jan. 30. Scarborough Country. Sara Carter of the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin is interviewed, and she alleges that there are plans for a major invasion of the US by Mexican drug gangs in order to control the border, and that they plan to kill border and local police wholesale. What is really appalling is that Homeland Security knew and didn't even bother to tell - anyone.

That's right. Our 'friends' to the south have made plans to actually invade the southwest in order to wipe out local police and border security, using a drug gang called MS-13. It seems that Homeland Security also knew about this plan (she got the information from DHS documents!), and 'somehow' failed to notify any of the cops who were going to be attacked. It is also alleged that Mexican military units have been making armed incursions into our territory for several years at least, to support the drug runners. I have been unsuccessful at finding the video of the interview posted as yet, but I'll link it when I do. Meanwhile, here and here are a few of the details as published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin.

How does this happen? First, how does Mexico even THINK they dare attack us on our own soil? (Oh, yeah, our entire army is in Iraq, and so are the Guard units. Bush has cut funds to cops and border security. Result - no defense capability.) Second, why does Dept. of Homeland Security find out about this, and not even tell the locals to get ready? (They work for Bush, our 'chief executive', so ask him.) Why does it take an investigative reporter to find this out?

Here's my idea about why: DHS is under the conrol of Chertoff, who is one of Bush's pocket pets. Aggressive action to protect our border with Mexico would go against Bush's Guest Labor policy and his amnesty for illegals program. (Look what France got from their Guest Worker policy - 15 million muslims who now threaten civil war if France's secular laws are applied to them. Rioting, arson, murder. And look at Germany's problems with their millions of Gast-Arbiters. Same thing. Holland too.) It would also mean actually protecting the border so that Al-Qaeda couldn't be sending guys in wholesale as they are doing. It would result in that long fence that Pat Buchanan wanted, and make Bushie look bad for having failed to protect the border for 5 years. For his, you know, pre-9-11 thinkipating. But he'll be reading a book to some kindergarten class in Maine when it happens.

In other words, this military attack by Mexican gangs would work to support Bush's Keep America Afraid Agenda. It's a damned shame when the citizens can't depend on their government to keep them safe because it's not to the administration's advantage.

Global Warming Caused By - - - Chicken Farts?

2006-01-31T00:02:00.000-05:00

The Bush administration has cut a deal with the factory - farmers of the nation to avoid penalties for pollution if they report on OTHER far less likely pollutants. Apparently, Bush wants to blame global warming on animal farts again.

The Environmental Protection Agency has signed agreements with 2,681 animal feeding operations in the egg, chicken, turkey, dairy and hog industries. They would be exempt from having to pay potential fines of up to $27,500 a day for violations either in the past or over the next four years.
+++++++++++++++++++
Pollutants to be monitored include soot and volatile organic compounds, as required by the Clean Air Act, and ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, as required by Superfund's emergency reporting provision.

Yeah, those critters create a lot of soot with all those campfires they build to keep warm. But, let's see, no data on how much raw pig-shit gets into your water supply? No data on how much chicken shit is in your well water? And oh by the way, a pass on fines for permitting the water pollution, and no enforcement to make it stop?

Gosh, who needs a dirty bomb to kill us when we have the Bush administration to poison us first?

BINGO!

2006-01-30T11:04:00.000-05:00

Following a recently developed tradition, there are Bingo cards available to track all of the Chimperor's buzzword usage during the State of the Union address. Here are a few sources - print a bunch and invite all your friends to a party. Remember to drink or toke heavily, or both. It'll help make you immune to the lies.

A hundred choices here so find one you like. Codepink's version here (link near the Elephant's head). And the DNC's version of the card here near the 'step 3' icon (don't miss the Bingo Chips either - they're more properly called Bingo Chimps however). And that was just the first 3 listings on my Google search. It should be a good time. Our pResident is good for a laugh, if nothing else.

Frist Gets First Clue

2006-01-30T10:47:00.000-05:00

Senator Bill 'Insider Trading' Frist has told Meet the Press that he's learned that Americans don't want the government making 'end of life' decisions. DUH! This is the guy who pushed the Terry Schaivo support bill, against the advice of all the doctors providing care. Remember all that "Culture of Life" bull crap?

An autopsy later showed that Schiavo had suffered severe, irreversible brain damage and was blind.

Frist, R-Tenn., said in the full Senate that he supported what he called "an opportunity to save Mrs. Schiavo's life." A heart surgeon, Frist had viewed video ordered by a court and taken by a board-certified neurologist who had concluded she was not in a persistent vegetative state.

So, Frist - a cardiac specialist - looked at a video and made a diagnosis contrary to the neurological specialists caring for Mrs. Schaivo. Now, he denies making a diagnosis (apparently it's a term somehow regulated by the AMA in such a way that he can deny making one), but he used that unmade diagnosis to muster up a law requiring further support in violation of the order to pull the plug on her. Thank God our courts didn't support that action.

His second-guessing of the experts for political purposes sounds a lot like Bush cooking intelligence and ignoring Pentagon advice about Iraq. Do we really want another 'fangers-in-his-ears, yelling Na, Na, Na I can't hear you' president? No, sugar, I don't think so!

Hagel on Domestic Spying

2006-01-30T10:40:00.000-05:00

Senator Chuck Hagel is urging the administration to try to justify it's Domestic Spying by the NSA.

Senator Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said he is looking forward to congressional hearings on the legal justification for the secretive National Security Agency program. He remains unconvinced that Bush could allow the program without fully consulting with the courts or Congress.
+++++++++++++++++++++
"If in fact the president does believe that our current laws are restricting him because of new technologies ... then he should come together with Congress and say we need to amend it," Hagel said on ABC's "This Week."
+++++++++++++++++++++
Added Hagel: "National security is more important than the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. And to use it to try and get someone elected will ultimately end up in defeat and disaster for that political party."

Trying to use it for controlling those who disagree with your policies will be a disaster too. A much bigger disaster than having 'the enemy' find out what you're doing.

Repugnant to Repugs

2006-01-30T10:29:00.000-05:00

It seems that Bush's apparent sale of the White House to Jack Abramoff is repugnant even to some members of his own party. Several are starting to demand that he come clean about it.

Even Senator Hagel, who thinks Bush is innocent of selling the White House, says Bush should come clean.

"Get it out. Get it out. Come on," Hagel said, adding the photos will eventually leak out anyway.

"I mean, disclosure is the real issue. Whether it's campaign finance issues, whether it's ethics issues, whether it's lobbying issues, disclosure is the best and most effective way to deal with all of these things," he said on ABC's "This Week."

But the joke du jour comes from Rep. Mike Pence:

"I think this president is a man of unimpeachable integrity," Pence said. "The American people have profound confidence in him. And as Abraham Lincoln said, `Give the people the facts and republican governance perhaps will be saved.'"

Really, does ANYONE believe that? Nostradamnthem says 'Give the people the facts and Republican governance will be ended for another 4o years'.

New GOP Campaign Funding method?

2006-01-30T10:18:00.000-05:00

Apparently, the reconstruction funds disappearing in Iraq without any records may be ending up in Republican campaign coffers.

Tens of millions of dollars in cash had gone in and out of the South-Central Region vault without any tracking of who deposited or withdrew the money, and why it was taken out," says a report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, which is in the midst of a series of audits for the Pentagon and State Department.

Much of the first audit reports deal with contracting in south-central Iraq, one of the country's least-hostile regions. Audits have yet to be released for the occupation authority's spending in the rest of Iraq.

The audits offer a window into the chaotic U.S.-led occupation of Iraq of 2003-04, when inexperienced American officials — including workers from President Bush's election campaign — organized a cash-intensive "hearts and minds" mission to rebuild Iraq's devastated economy.

Did you catch that - Bush's campaign stooges organized a cash give away worth billions that has NOTHING to do with a campaign. Political operatives on the take. What's the point of putting your party soldiers in charge of billions in cash if you can't profit a little by having it set up so that the program is unauditable? So that there are no signatures required to check out, oh say, $10 Million in cash? Every week. This is a new level of money-laundering that makes organized crime look like girl scouts.

Not Hillary, Maybe Cindy?

2006-01-30T10:08:00.000-05:00

Cindy Sheehan may challenge Sen. Diane Feinstein for her seat.

"She voted for the war. She continues to vote for the funding. She won't call for an immediate withdrawal of the troops," Sheehan told The Associated Press in an interview while attending the World Social Forum in Venezuela along with thousands of other anti-war and anti-globalization activists.

"I think our senator needs to be held accountable for her support of George Bush and his war policies," said Sheehan, whose 24-year-old soldier son Casey was killed in Iraq in 2004.

(Sen. Joe Liebermann is to be challenged in CT over his support of the war and support of the Bush Cult of Personality, too. What about your state? Is the next election going to be all about the war?)

If Bush thinks Hillary is 'formidable', what will he think of Senator Sheehan? Poor chimpy.

Climate Schmimate Nyuk, Nyuk, Nyuk

2006-01-30T09:43:00.000-05:00

So now we've gotten to where scientists tell us that we may be approaching a critical mass point in our global warming, and that it may well be irreversible no matter what we do when we get there. Probably within our lifetimes.

The debate has been intensifying because Earth is warming much faster than some researchers had predicted. James E. Hansen, who directs NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, last week confirmed that 2005 was the warmest year on record, surpassing 1998. Earth's average temperature has risen nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 30 years, he noted, and another increase of about 4 degrees over the next century would "imply changes that constitute
practically a different planet."

"It's not something you can adapt to," Hansen said in an interview. "We can't let it go on another 10 years like this. We've got to do something."

But meanwhile, the Bush ass-ministration is trying to silence the Director of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, because he is trying to warn us all that Bush's policies in this regard are insufficient.

James Hansen, director of the US space agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his forthcoming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard website and requests for media interviews, the New York Times reported Sunday.

"They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public," said Hansen, who told the paper he would ignore the restrictions.

That's right, Jimmy. Don't you dare contradict King George. You'll get your ears pinned back.

Promoting Democracy in the Middle East

2006-01-30T08:51:00.000-05:00

Well, Bush got in Palestine what he says he's been wanting in Iraq - a democratically elected government, chosen by popular vote. So why is he not happy? Well, apparently because the Palestinians didn't vote for the guys Bush wanted to see elected. Those guys were too crooked and corrupt to get elected. Sound familiar?

So what does Bush do? He immediately draws a line in the sand, saying he will not deal with or provide aid to known terrorists. How phony is that? It's not like Fatah isn't the party of Yassir Arafat the Terrorist. (Yessir, remember, Yasser was a terrorist! It's how Fatah came to represent Palestine in the first place. Its why whenever Israel said that they would negotiate if they could get 30 days of no attacks, then 2 weeks, then one week, then 3 days, - it NEVER happened. ) Not like the Fatah guys don't still all carry guns. So, without waiting to see if Hamas will be reasonable, or anything about how they will behave as a government, he sends Condi Rice around the world saying we won't provide any aid to the Palestinian people because of the government they elected, and we don't think anyone else should either.

Humanitarian help to the Palestinians, many of whom are poor and unemployed, is likely on a "case-by-case basis," Rice said Sunday. She indicated that the administration would follow through on aid promised to the current, U.S.-backed Palestinian government led by President Mahmoud Abbas.

And just how will they administrate a 'case by case' basis? Who will do that work and what will the standards be? Will we let kids go hungry because their uncle is in Hamas? Meanwhile, Hamas is saying the people need the money and they will permit audits of the spending to ensure it goes to aid, not fighting Israel.

Western donors funneled about $900 million into the Palestinian Authority in 2005 — including $400 million from the United States — to pay salaries and finance desperately needed infrastructure projects. Failure to pay the 137,000 people on the Palestinian Authority payroll could lead to massive layoffs and ignite violence in an area bristling with guns.

Some Palestinian officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the volatile situation, have cautioned that the Palestinian Authority could collapse if the outside support were to dry up.
**************************
"We in Hamas are ready to meet and have an open dialogue with the Quartet," he told a news conference in Gaza City. "We assure you that all the money will be spent under your supervision."

So just what is Bush going to do? Cut off aid and destabilitze the entire area, causing even more violence? (He promised already) Go back on what he said he'd do? (Unlikely. He can't think hard enough to change his mind) Provide the aid in some other fashion so he can support the terrorists and hope nobody finds out? (More likely)

It's not that I think terrorism is acceptable. By no means. Frankly, I think Arafat and even Nelson Mandela should have been hanged; and I'd play along with Hamas now, so that they would take a more public stance and we could find out who they ALL are - just in case. But I do think Bush has painted himself into a corner where Israel will be or feel attacked, and Bush will be forced to defend it by attacking Palestine - the second step toward Armageddon. What're your thoughts?

Progress toward Iraq's Civil War

2006-01-30T08:45:00.000-05:00

The fighting in Iraq between the religious groups just gets worse as time goes on.

"Mosques and houses are empty because clerics and ordinary men are being chased as if there was a sectarian cleansing in Baghdad," Adnan al-Dulaimi told reporters.

The Antichrist's work toward Armageddon progresses. Nice job, Mr. pResident.

FEMA refused help in NOLA

2006-01-30T08:37:00.000-05:00

As if everything we know about the federal response to Katrina wasn't bad enough, we now find out that FEMA stopped search and rescue operations after 3 days, and that they refused help offered by the Dept. of the Interior.

Responding to a questionnaire posed by investigators, Assistant Interior Secretary P. Lynn Scarlett said her agency offered to supply FEMA with 300 dump trucks and other vehicles, 300 boats, 11 aircraft and 400 law enforcement officers to help search and rescue efforts.

"Although the (Interior) Department possesses significant resources that could have improved initial and ongoing response, many of these resources were not effectively incorporated into the federal response for Hurricane Katrina," Scarlett wrote in the response, dated Nov. 7.

Scarlett added: "Although we attempted to provide these assets through the process established by the (response plan), we were unable to efficiently integrate and deploy those resources."

At one point, Scarlett's letter noted, FEMA asked the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to help with search and rescue in New Orleans, St. Bernard Parish and St. Tammany Parish "but never received task assignments."

The agency, part of the Interior Department, apparently went ahead anyway, according to the letter, which said that Fish and Wildlife helped rescue 4,500 people in the first week after Katrina.

Well, now we have some insight into why Bush has ordered the stonewalling on this particular investigation. You're doing a heck of a job, Chimpy.

Bush Picks Hillary?

2006-01-28T11:58:00.000-05:00

It got only a sentence in the article, but it was at least the first sentence, so it wouldn't be missed. Bush referred to Hillary Clinton as 'formidable'.

Now, we all know that Hillary has some folks who seem to love her and the ground she walks on. But we also know she gets damned little respect from anybody outside of New York City. So why would Bush call her formidable? Could it be that the Dems are so desperate for a candidate that might win that they would alienate their own voters to push her? They should grow some balls and stand up to the Bush team more loudly and more publicly.

I suspect that it's a part of the Rove strategizing - start way early to plant ideas that will result in Repuke victories - like appearing to give some 'respect' to Hillary Clinton. This statement might make some foolish people believe that the GOP fears her as a candidate, and that she might stand a chance against a Republican candidate in '08. But I don't know anyone who thinks she's any more than a Bush war suck-up wannabe. Running Hillary Clinton would be dangerous to America - it's a sure loss, and a sure continuation of the GOP dictatorship-to-come agenda. The only surer way for the Dems to lose is to run Ralph Nader as a Democrat.

Everybody who wants to see Hillary run, step forward.

Gay is OK in Washington Today

2006-01-28T11:51:00.000-05:00

As of Friday, the State of Washington has a gay rights law. But, it apparently doesn't permit marriage.

First introduced in the 1970s, the measure adds "sexual orientation" to a state law that bans discrimination in housing, employment and insurance, making Washington the 17th state passing a law covering gays and lesbians. It is the seventh to protect transgender people.
Sen. Bill Finkbeiner was the only Senate Republican to endorse the measure. Two Democrats voted against it.
"We don't choose who we love. The heart chooses who we will love," Finkbeiner said. "I don't believe that it is right for us to say ... that it's acceptable to discriminate against people because of that."
The bill was amended by Republicans on the House floor to say that it would not modify or change state marriage laws. A Senate amendment added a caveat saying the state does not endorse "any specific belief, practice, behavior, or orientation."

Now, a little humor

2006-01-28T11:43:00.000-05:00

Bush and Blair, lip-synching "Gay Bar". Not badly done, if I may say so. Laugh a little, while it's still legal.

Doug's on a roll....

2006-01-28T11:38:00.000-05:00

Captiol Hill Blue's Doug Thompson is on a roll about the dangers the Busheviks represent to America and to Liberty. It should be read, if only for the sake of being informed about reasons to be opposed to Bush and his junta.

I wish I could say that I disagree. I can't.

Excuses, more Excuses, and the Draft

2006-01-28T11:23:00.000-05:00

Bush defends spying on citizens, challenges Congress to do anything about it, and says that making the administration accountable for it's Katrina failures by providing information restricts his ability to work. Then he says he's 'transforming' the military, in response the the report that the Army is about to hit the wall. Well, if you can't recruit and can't retain, which is what is happening, then you have to DRAFT, right?

Asked if he would support efforts in Congress to spell out his authority to continue the eavesdropping program, Bush cited what he said was the extreme delicacy of the operation.

"But it's important for people to understand that this program is so sensitive and so important that if information gets out to how we run it or how we operate it, it'll help the enemy," he said. "Why tell the enemy what we're doing?"

"We'll listen to ideas. But I want to make sure that people understand that if the attempt to write law makes this program -- is likely to expose the nature of the program, I'll resist it," he said.

Um, excuse me. You're talking about it, so it's out there. You've already alleged (lied probably, like every other time your mouth opens) that you're only snooping on calls involving KNOWN Al-Qaeda folks going out of the country or coming into the country. You said that in your press conference. IF that is true, how much more can a law to restrict the spying to those folks damage your program? YOU already gave away the core of it - UNLESS YOU WERE LYING AGAIN.

Is that coffee I smell?

2006-01-28T11:17:00.000-05:00

Well, it seems that some of our Democrat leaders are growing some bone in the spinal area - or at least might be. We'll still have to see if it becomes solid in the future. They're actually trying out something other than just whining about the GOP bullying.

Check it out. I can't decide if I think it's for real, or a Washington anomaly of some kind. What's your call?

Disaster - Coming to Your Town Next

2006-01-28T11:07:00.000-05:00

Senator Harry Reid takes the administration to task in front of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and warns them that Bush team's inaction could make their city next on the catastrophe list.

Cities are at risk because the Bush administration is too preoccupied with its political problems to properly prepare for another natural disaster or terrorist attack, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid told mayors from around the country Friday.

"Any one of your cities and towns could be the next New Orleans," Reid said at a meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. "The federal government owes it to you and your citizens to be prepared the next time disaster strikes."

****************************

Reid said the poor choices of the administration and Republicans in Congress are also evident in steps securing the nation after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Efforts to spend more money for emergency workers in cities were rejected as well as efforts to restore money for extra police, he said.

But, if Bush makes the nation safe, then there can't be another attack, and how will he manage to keep up the fear factor without one? How will he justify (almost plausible excuse) cancelling elections and staying in office as the 'war chief' without some kind of 'terrorist' attack?

Slipping polls

2006-01-28T10:59:00.000-05:00

The new CBS-NYT poll shows slipping numbers for the Bush administration - on nearly all of it's agendas.

Seven in 10 said in the poll released Friday that they expect the deficit to grow larger by the end of his presidency. Four in 10 said they think health care will be worse, while half said they expect it will be about the same.
**************************
About half in the poll, 51 percent, said they expect seniors will pay more for prescription drugs by the end of the president's second term. A third said they will pay the same and the remainder said less.
*************************
Bush is viewed unfavorably by 48 percent and viewed favorably by 37 percent

It's getting serious for the Chimp in Charge. This is the highest 'unfavorable' I remember seeing, and it's 4 to 3 against. That makes it also the lowest 'favorable' I've seen. Can disgrace and defeat be far behind? Does Karma really pay back in one lifetime? My fingers are crossed....

Protecting Jack

2006-01-28T10:44:00.000-05:00

Senate Democrats want changes made to the prosecution of Jack Abramoff, following the announcement that the current prosecutor was nominated to a Federal Judgeship in New Jersey. Guess who nominates these guys - and it isn't Jack. Hint - who called Abramoff the administrations best friend back in 2004?

What better way to protect a guy you say you don't know, than to buy off the prosecutor with a promotion and leave control of the case in the hands of your pocket-pet Alberto 'Torture' Gonzales? Is there any reader here who believes that Gonzales would make an honest effort to prosecute the guy Bush called "this administration's best friend" in 2004? Any reason Gonzales, who rode to the AG job on his twisted legal opinions supporting anything Bush wanted to do, would ever want to jail the main money-man for the K-Street Project and all of the GOP bribery and pay-for access corruption? I - don't - THINK - so!

Web wars

2006-01-28T10:33:00.000-05:00

The US Pentagon has released a plan called the Information Operations Roadmap, which outlines the Pentagon's plan to develop war capabilities against the internet. This would include snooping, hacking, destruction of websites, running it's own propaganda blogs and collecting information on other bloggers and commentors.

US forces should be able to "disrupt or destroy the full spectrum of globally emerging communications systems, sensors, and weapons systems dependent on the electromagnetic spectrum".

Consider that for a moment.

The US military seeks the capability to knock out every telephone, every networked computer, every radar system on the planet.

Are these plans the pipe dreams of self-aggrandising bureaucrats? Or are they real?

The fact that the "Information Operations Roadmap" is approved by the Secretary of Defense suggests that these plans are taken very seriously indeed in the Pentagon.

Here is the story, from BBC Worldwide News. There is also a link to the .pdf version of the released document, but it is heavily redacted - perhaps as much as 20%. So even released, the real meat of it is just covered by big black blobs. But if you want to know what's up, read up.

American Pie

2006-01-27T16:46:00.000-05:00

Hermitage Capital's Bill Browder, has outlined six scenarios that could take oil up to a downright terrifying $262 a barrel.