http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18831132/
Olbermann bases his remarks on the supposed mandate that Democrats were elected in November to get us out of Iraq.
Let me say this again for the gazillionth time: THERE WAS NO MANDATE. There was a cyclical vote against the status quo. If there was a mandate, Lieberman would have lost.
Idiots.
Bush administration officials, stung by complaints from Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius that National Guard heavy equipment needed by tornado-stricken Greensburg, Kan., is in Iraq, are putting out word that she was two days late at the disaster scene because she was attending a jazz festival in New Orleans.
Sebelius was in New Orleans with her family when the tornado hit that Friday evening. But she was notified that night about the tornado, and she and her staff in Kansas immediately began trying to assess the damage. When the scope of the disaster became clear, they began making arrangements for her return.
Sebelius didn’t attend any of the jazz festival and left her family in New Orleans, flying back Saturday afternoon using a plane arranged by Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco. Sebelius didn’t go to Greensburg until Sunday, Corcoran said, because Kansas National Guard Maj. Gen. Tod Bunting told her it would be best to wait until then. That way she wouldn’t disrupt ongoing rescue efforts.
Could be...
...the Democrats' apparent plan to wait out the clock on the Bush Administration is an utterly dangerous thing to do --
...not because Bush is dangerous, but because a future President with at least twice his current approval ratings
...and all of Bush's acquired powers and asserted (without effective contet) precedents
...will be tempted to do everything we always feared Bush would do the Republic ---
...and do it to the sound of madly cheering crowds.
And that is enough support, plus the power concentrated in Bush's hands, to allow Bush...
to have his war and fund it, too....
...to commit high crimes and misdemeanors, and to delegate them, too...
...to refuse summons, to produce evidence and testimony, to lie blatantly and cheerfully under oath, knowing that no one dare call the least of them out for it...
...to destroy in plain sight evidence of the greatest, most systematic destruction of our national security infrastructure since the British sailed up the Potomac and burned Washington DC to the ground and shelled every major port city on the Eastern Seaboard, to boot.
No, I take that back; it is in fact much worse. We used to have some idea of what secrets were compromised.
The WSJ is critical of the NYT article quoted in the last post. Here's why....
Channeling Justice O'Connor
Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court decided an employment discrimination case in favor of the defendant. Plaintiff Lilly Ledbetter showed that she had received a series of raises smaller than those her male colleagues got, but the question before the court was whether she acted soon enough. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires aggrieved employees to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 180 days "after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred."
At issue in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. is whether the 180-day clock starts ticking anew each time an employee claiming a wage disparity receives a paycheck. The court ruled 5-4 that it does not--that the "alleged unlawful employment practice" consists of the setting of pay rates, not the actual payment. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the decision, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg the dissent.
A couple of things struck us about the way Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times covered this decision. First is the insidious blurring of the legislative and judicial functions:
Title VII's prohibition of workplace discrimination applies not just to pay but also to specific actions like refusal to hire or promote, denial of a desired transfer and dismissal. Justice Ginsburg argued in her dissenting opinion that while these "singular discrete acts" are readily apparent to an employee who can then make a timely complaint, pay discrimination often presents a more ambiguous picture. She said the court should treat a pay claim as it treated a claim for a "hostile work environment" in a 2002 decision, permitting a charge to be filed "based on the cumulative effect of individual acts."
In response, Justice Alito dismissed this as a "policy argument" with "no support in the statute." . . .
In her opinion, Justice Ginsburg invited Congress to overturn the decision, as it did 15 years ago with a series of Supreme Court rulings on civil rights.
"Overturn" is Greenhouse's word, not Ginsburg's, and Greenhouse should know better. Higher courts can overturn the decisions of lower courts, and courts can overturn their own precedents. But the Supreme Court is the final word on the interpretation of federal law. What Ginsburg actually urged Congress to do is enact a new law.
The distinction between making and interpreting laws is fundamental to America's system of separation of powers. It is a distinction that has been blurred in recent decades by a Supreme Court determined to act as a sort of hyperlegislature--most notably in the area of abortion, where the court has conjured literally from nothing (i.e., from a constitution that is silent on the topic) a nearly unlimited right to abort a pregnancy, coupled with an elaborate scheme for determining what regulations on abortion pose an "undue burden."
The liberal left in America--of which Greenhouse is a part--isn't much interested in the separation of powers; by and large it is concerned only with outcomes: Abortion on demand, by any means necessary! Greenhouse's reference to Congress "overturning" a Supreme Court decision--as if the legislature were an ultrasupreme court--shows how deeply internalized this unconcern for the legislative-judicial distinction has become.
This passage from the Greenhouse piece, meanwhile, is just funny:
As with an abortion ruling last month, this decision showed the impact of Justice Alito's presence on the court. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whom he succeeded, would almost certainly have voted the other way, bringing the opposite outcome.
Really? Wouldn't Justice O'Connor have carefully weighed the arguments on both sides and come to a conclusion on the merits? Is it really Greenhouse's view that O'Connor would adhere to some sort of party line instead?
Thanks, all of you who voted for Bush.
This is disgusting
Greenwald commentary
Monday May 28, 2007 13:05 EST
The genius investigators in the right-wing blogosphere -- who serve as our Watchdogs over the Corrupt "MSM" -- made a major, major discovery this weekend. Last Wednesday, former CIA agent Larry Johnson published a Memo (.pdf) sent from the U.S. Mission in Iraq which advised troops and other military personnel in Iraq of a "theater-wide delay in food delivery" which would likely limit the available food supply.
As has been true for the last four years, right-wing bloggers simply shut their eyes and refused to believe that any news reflecting poorly on the Leader's War could be real. Just as was true for news reports of civil war and a growing Iraqi insurgency, this Memo just had to be a fake, so they declared it to be such. ....(see article for more)
Salon commentary
The whole "support the troops" meme has become a terrible problem for Democrats. Even though, as Glenn Greenwald has argued in Salon, cutting off funding doesn't mean soldiers will have their guns and bullets and armor taken away in the middle of a battle, Americans have been convinced that it does.
What's she president of again?
Yesterday on Fox News’s Your World With Neil Cavuto, Leslee Unruh, president of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse, argued that this pill a “pesticide” that will make women “like men.” She called it an “attack on children and families,” ending the segment with shouts of, “I want more babies. More babies. We love babies.”
Ok, now I'm really pissed.
Here's how it is expected to work today in a process only Dick Cheney could love (though you never know - it could change at the last minute). Every bill comes to the House floor with what is known as a "rule" that sets the terms of the debate over the legislation in question. House members first vote to approve this parliamentary rule, and then vote on the legislation. Today, however, Democrats are planning to essentially include the Iraq blank check bill IN the rule itself, by making sure the underlying bill the rule brings to the floor includes no timelines for withdrawal, and that the rule only allows amendments that fund the war with no restrictions - blank check amendments that House Democratic leaders know Republicans will have the votes to pass.
This means that when the public goes to look for the real vote on the Iraq supplemental bill, the public won't find that. All we will find is a complex parliamentary procedure vote, which was the real vote. Democratic lawmakers, of course, will use the Memorial Day recess to tell their angry constituents they really are using all of their power to end the war, that they voted against the Republican blank check amendment which the rule deliberately propels, and that the vote on the rule - which was the real vote for war - wasn't really the important vote, when, in fact, they know very well it is the biggest vote on the war since original 2002 authorization for the invasion. It is a devious, deliberately confusing cherry on top of the manure sundae being served up to the American public, which voted Democrats into office on the premise that they would use their congressional majority to end the war.
No wonder the Dems are being idiots. They're taking lessons from the experts.
What does seem clear is that one of the principal factors accounting for the reluctance of Democrats to advocate de-funding is that the standard corruption that infects our political discourse has rendered the de-funding option truly radioactive. Republicans and the media have propagated -- and Democrats have frequently affirmed -- the proposition that to de-fund a war is to endanger the "troops in the field."
This unbelievably irrational, even stupid, concept has arisen and has now taken root -- that to cut off funds for the war means that, one day, our troops are going to be in the middle of a vicious fire-fight and suddenly they will run out of bullets -- or run out of gas or armor -- because Nancy Pelosi refused to pay for the things they need to protect themselves, and so they are going to find themselves in the middle of the Iraq war with no supplies and no money to pay for what they need. That is just one of those grossly distorting, idiotic myths the media allows to become immovably lodged in our political discourse and which infects our political analysis and prevents any sort of rational examination of our options.
That is why virtually all political figures run away as fast and desperately as possible from the idea of de-funding a war -- it's as though they have to strongly repudiate de-funding options because de-funding has become tantamount to "endangering our troops" (notwithstanding the fact that Congress has de-funded wars in the past and it is obviously done in coordination with the military and over a scheduled time frame so as to avoid "endangering the troops").
From www.boortz.com
One of the ideas I present in that chapter is a 10th Amendment Commission.
You are aware of what the 10th Amendment to our U.S. Constitution says, aren't you? Maybe that's a bit of a stretch, considering the fact that over 50% of Americans cannot name a single cabinet department.
Here you go ... the entire text of the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.
Isn't that beautiful? This is the Amendment our founding fathers placed in the Constitution to limit the centralization of power in a federal government. The Constitution grants specific powers to the federal government, and then reserves the rest of those powers for us and our local governments.
Do any of you actually believe that our politicians have paid any attention whatsoever to the 10th Amendment over the course of the last fifty years? You're right. They haven't. We are approaching the point where virtually all government power is concentrated in Washington D.C. State and local governments must constantly consult with the federal government and plow through federal rules and regulations before they can so much as set a speed limit or build a sidewalk. This is not as it was supposed to be.
So ... how about someone out there campaigning on the idea of a 10th Amendment Commission. Tell the voters that as soon as you are in power you'll appoint a panel of local and federal elected officials, along with representatives from the business community and private civic groups, to form this commission for the purpose of studying and making recommendations on ways to return the power of governance to the local level, where our founding fathers wanted it to be.
Terrorism
It starts:
Stop it, stop it right now. Stop pretending Islamicists - or environmentalists or animal rights activists (which are, ridiculously, federal law enforcement and non-governmental terrorism-watchers' next most obsessive concern) - are the only imminent terrorist threats to our nation. We now know that students at Liberty University were ready to napalm protesters at Jerry Falwell's funeral. One of the suspects is a soldier at Fort Benning. [UPDATE: Falwell gave the kid a scholarship.]
That's what Melanie Morgan seems to think...
Last night on Fox News’s Hannity and Colmes, Morgan accused PBS of "censorship," saying that the network "has a blatant anti-conservative bias. They don-t want to hear a proud pro American, pro-troop point of view. They've clearly demonstrated that in the past. I think PBS should be ashamed of itself." When Alan Colmes told Morgan, "I really think they should allow rude, interruptive guests like yourself on PBS," Morgan said, "I agree."
Here's an interesting analysis.
...these two measures only hint of what could be if the transpartisan coalition coalesces into a genuine movement. Using the Internet to transform government by making it far more transparent and enabling vastly greater citizen participation can unite people across the ideological spectrum.
What if their energies are focused on breaking the career politicians’ stranglehold? Coburn-Obama and the OpenHouse Project encourage change at the margins. Term limiting Congress would fundamentally shift power back to the people.
Iran may be pushing more and more aid to insurgents and other anti-Western groups.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2085195,00.html
Yet another ultra-low cost air carrier tests the waters.
I wish these guys all the luck in the world but none of these firms succeed over time. I remember Air Atlanta which was a totally kick-ass low-cost carrier years ago who were undone by the airline unions. People Express. Others.....
Slate reports that the American Center for Voting Rights has silently closed up shop.
With no notice and little comment, ACVR—the only prominent nongovernmental organization claiming that voter fraud is a major problem, a problem warranting strict rules such as voter-ID laws—simply stopped appearing at government panels and conferences. Its Web domain name has suddenly expired, its reports are all gone (except where they have been preserved by its opponents), and its general counsel, Mark "Thor" Hearne, has cleansed his résumé of affiliation with the group. Hearne won't speak to the press about ACVR's demise. No other group has taken up the "voter fraud" mantra....
Consisting of little more than a post-office box and some staffers who wrote reports and gave helpful quotes about the pervasive problems of voter fraud to the press, the group identified Democratic cities as hot spots for voter fraud, then pushed the line that "election integrity" required making it harder for people to vote. The group issued reports (PDF) on areas in the country of special concern, areas that coincidentally tended to be presidential battleground states...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273875,00.html
Here's how it begins:
Filmmaker Michael Moore's brilliant and uplifting new documentary, "Sicko," deals with the failings of the U.S. healthcare system, both real and perceived. But this time around, the controversial documentarian seems to be letting the subject matter do the talking, and in the process shows a new maturity.
Unlike many of his previous films ("Roger and Me," "Bowling for Columbine," "Fahrenheit 9-11"), "Sicko" works because in this one there are no confrontations. Moore smartly lets very articulate average Americans tell their personal horror stories at the hands of insurance companies. The film never talks down or baits the audience
Bob Geldof and Roger Daltrey don't want anything to do with Al Gore's Live Earth Global Warming concert. Not because they don't care - they don't see the point. Interesting reading here.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/zito/s_508486.html
This is a take on Fred Thompson's short video response to Michael Moore's debate challenge.
To me, Thompson and Mike Bloomberg are the 800-lbs gorillas of 2008.
Fred Thompson is a down-home, extremely well-known and likable celebrity who would be the odds-on favorite for President should he get through the GOP nomination race (is there any doubt?).
Bloomberg is a quintessential independent with deep, deep pockets and appeal to most moderates, social liberals, and some political conservatives.
If either one of these two gets into the race, Hillary and Obama are going to be crapping bricks. It'll be 1992 all over again except this time, Ross Perot is sane and loaded for bear.
Comments?
UPDATE
The is Thompson's response to willing a Pajama Media poll for President. You can't help but like this guy.
So, I hear you all have been talking about me.
It seems that I ought to respond, at least briefly, to all those who have expressed confidence in me — both here and in other forums. I do not take that confidence lightly.
The Pajamas Media poll is certainly good news, especially when, for a lot of politicians, encouragement to run from three relatives and an unemployed campaign consultant is considered an unstoppable groundswell. When people are saying nice things about me, I try to remember the proverb that compares flattery to a net at your feet. To be sure, the Pajamas poll results are very flattering, so let me return the favor and throw a net at your feet.
Whether or not the Internet can elect any particular candidate in any particular race, it’s clear that all of you and our many friends across the blogosphere and the Web are part of a true information revolution. That’s why so much of my effort has been focused on talking to Americans through this medium. By empowering individuals and building communities, the Internet provides a way of going around the inside-the-beltway crowd to reach people in numbers unheard of not that long ago.
I believe this direct communication and discussion is going to have an enormous impact on our political process. Our nation is facing unprecedented threats, and the challenges of globalization. We have a 70-plus trillion dollar entitlement shortfall and a government that is not effective in important ways.
To solve our problems, we have to realize that our country is pretty evenly divided along party lines. With close numbers in the House and the Senate, there will be no real reform without real bipartisanship. Too often, what we are seeing isn’t an effort to find solutions, but rather insults and purely partisan politics. There are many good and responsible people in government who are willing to work together – but the level of bipartisanship needed for real progress can only be achieved when politicians perceive that the American people demand it.
I talked about this a bit a couple of weeks ago out in California. I talked about how I’d recently run across an old clipping of a Thomas Sowell editorial. In it, he pointed out that Wendell Willkie received the largest vote of any Republican for President when he lost to Franklin Roosevelt in 1940. After the election, though, he never let partisanship turn him into an enemy of the administration. Instead of trashing the president, he served as Roosevelt’s emissary to Winston Churchill.
In the same editorial, Sowell also told a story about Churchill. When British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain died, early in the Second World War, Churchill delivered his eulogy. Though Chamberlain had turned a deaf ear, for years, to all of Churchill’s warnings that could have prevented that war, Churchill praised him. “He acted with perfect sincerity,” Churchill said. “However the fates may play, we march always in the ranks of honor when we have done our best.”
Compare that magnanimity to what is going on in Washington and much of the Internet today. Sowell asks us, “In this day and time, can’t we have a responsible adult discussion of issues while the nation’s fate hangs in the balance in its most dangerous hour?”
That’s the question. If the answer is going to be “yes,” it will be due in large part to sites like this one. So thank you for all you’ve done here and for all the encouragement you’ve given me. Hopefully, we’ll continue this conversation.
Might as well get the response posted, because I'm sure the original op-ed is going to gleefully show up here soon...
2. Kmiec then attacks Senator Specter for suggesting that the hospital incident has an air of the Saturday Night Massacre about it -- "the comparison to Watergate is wholly inapt," writes Kmiec, because "Watergate involved a real crime."
Well, this case involves a "real crime," too -- systematic violations of a very important federal statute designed to protect Americans from wiretapping by their government, 18 U.S.C. 1809. But that's not really the central point for these purposes, because Specter's obvious reference was simply to the remarkable parallel in that the President and his closest aides had so egregiously departed from institutional legal norms that the entire top echelon of the Justice Department was prepared to resign in a manner that would signal to the public that something was greviously awry within the Administration. Attorney General Richardson and DAG Ruckelshaus did not resign in October 1973 because they concluded there had been a "burglary for purposes of political dirty tricks," in Kmiec's words. The burglary was an old story. They resigned because the President insisted that they fire prosecutor Archibald Cox when Cox subpoened Nixon's tapes. In other words, Nixon was trying to subvert the established procedures of the Justice Department. As were Bush and Gonzales.
From his NYT article on Truthout...
"What we need to realize is that the infamous "Bush bubble," the administration's no-reality zone, extends a long way beyond the White House. Millions of Americans believe that patriotic torturers are keeping us safe, that there's a vast Islamic axis of evil, that victory in Iraq is just around the corner, that Bush appointees are doing a heckuva job - and that news reports contradicting these beliefs reflect liberal media bias."
...
I agree with his conclusion and further wonder if true conservatives will ever have control of the Republican Party again?
-dta
Firedoglake sets it out nicely.
The President sent his men to Ashcroft’s hospital room to make an illegal end run around the Justice Department and its acting Attorney General. Acting AG Comey and the Department’s Office of Legal Counsel — whose interpretations were binding throughout the Executive Branch — had determined and told the White House that the President’s warrantless surveillance program was unlawful. The President and his men knew that continuing the program was unlawful, but instead of obeying the law, they tried to end run the DoJ’s findings.
Having designated Comey as acting AG, the seriously ill Ashcroft had no legal authority to reverse the DoJ’s determination and approve the illegal spying program. The President and his men undoubtedly knew this, but they ignored that legality, too.
Unwilling to obey the law, the President’s apparently ordered Card and Gonzales to extract an illegal signoff on a program DoJ had declared unlawful. If they failed to compel that signoff, they were prepared to continue their unlawful program without it — as they had already done.
IT DOESN'T much matter whether President Bush was the one who phoned Attorney General John D. Ashcroft's hospital room before the Wednesday Night Ambush in 2004. It matters enormously, however, whether the president was willing to have his White House aides try to strong-arm the gravely ill attorney general into overruling the Justice Department's legal views. It matters enormously whether the president, once that mission failed, was willing nonetheless to proceed with a program whose legality had been called into question by the Justice Department.
I should have gone with my first instincts on this. I knew somethng smelled. You guys say I call you liars; no. Rather your sources frequently are.
Dishonest libs strike again:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010084
Key excerpts:
Democrats and former Deputy Attorney General James Comey put on quite a Senate show Tuesday over the National Security Agency's wiretapping program. With New York's Chuck Schumer directing, the players staged a full length docudrama to create the impression that the Bush Administration broke the law in reauthorizing the program to eavesdrop on al Qaeda.
Senate hearings can be boring, so we'll assume the press corps dozed through select parts. That would explain why no one reported on the discussion as Senator Arlen Specter questioned Mr. Comey on how the great covert operation actually went down. News stories have suggested a pattern of White House misdeeds to accomplish an ultimately illegal end. The transcript tells a different story.
...
What's really going on here is a different form of political theater: Democrats are trying to whip up an aura of "illegality" to create the political leverage to strip a Republican President of his surveillance authority in wartime. They've tried to do this since the program was revealed, and back in 2006 Russ Feingold compared it to Watergate. But unfortunately for the Democrats, wiretapping aimed at America's terrorist enemies is politically popular.
So, rather than arguing the legal merits, Democrats are spinning a yarn about shady deeds perpetrated in a hospital room at night. They are using half-truths to achieve a partisan goal that is dangerous policy, and they shouldn't get away with it.
The former CIA Station Chief in charge of going after Bin Laden recently wrote a book about why the West is losing the war on terror. Slate provides excerpts.
Page 8: The fundamental flaw in our thinking about Bin Laden is that "Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than what we do." Muslims are bothered by our modernity, democracy, and sexuality, but they are rarely spurred to action unless American forces encroach on their lands. It's American foreign policy that enrages Osama and al-Qaida, not American culture and society.
Page 11-13: How is the United States threatening Muslim lands? The post-9/11 crackdowns on Muslim charities have effectively ended tithing, which is one of the five pillars of Islam; our casual denunciations of "jihad" sneer at a central tenet of the Muslim faith. America supports corrupt anti-Muslim governments in Uzbekistan and China, "apostate" governments in the Middle East, and the new Christian state of East Timor. And, above all, it continues to house occupying forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Page 127-33: More evidence for Osama's coherence: His taped addresses display a remarkable consistency in theme and tone. Bin Laden almost always defines American-led forces as the primary enemy, emphasizes the centrality of al-Qaida as an incendiary force, and exhorts young Muslim men to join the fight. The last plank has subtly changed since 9/11. Before, Osama would shame young men into enlisting; now, he smothers them with encouragement and suggests that jihad is a natural stop on the path to manhood. Scheuer says this shows al-Qaida is having no trouble recruiting new charges.
Page 22-25: America's response to 9/11 was a "complete disaster." After Bin Laden's daring attacks on the USS Cole and the embassies in East Africa, we should have had a "next-day" attack plan ready for future strikes. Such an attack could have decapitated al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan on Sept. 12. Instead we waited more than three weeks to invade Afghanistan, and Bin Laden and key operatives had time to escape.
Page 217-8: Al-Qaida's "terrorist training camps" were anything but. The majority of the rank-and-file were paramilitary troops trained to fight their "corrupt" native governments. The bona fide terrorists—suicide bombers, assassins, et al.—made up a small portion of the camps, much like special forces do on an Army base. So while the United States was fixating on terrorists, it ignored the huge, well-trained Islamist armies the camps were producing.
Page 182: The United States tapped Mongolian troops for occupation duty in Iraq, despite the historical enmity between the nations. The infamous Mongol general Hulagu Khan, grandson of Genghis Khan, sacked Baghdad in 1258, slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Muslims, and remains one of Iraq's most despised villains.
Dead on, Al. http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1622015,00.html
"So the remedy for what ails our democracy is not simply better education (as important as that is) or civic education (as important as that can be), but the re-establishment of a genuine democratic discourse in which individuals can participate in a meaningful way—a conversation of democracy in which meritorious ideas and opinions from individuals do, in fact, evoke a meaningful response. "
How true.
These thoughts are my own (gasp!) but perhaps someone could explain to me the following paradoxes.
That's just off the top of my head. If I thought real long and hard I'd probably have had 10 more. So how is liberal thinking different from schizophrenia? I dunno.
Tom Sowell describes well the current culture of hate. And it ain't the right hating. Highlights are mine. And I expect another deafening silence because there's little to argue about.
The Anger Of The LeftBy Thomas Sowell
That people on the political left have a certain set of opinions, just as people do in other parts of the ideological spectrum, is not surprising. What is surprising, however, is how often the opinions of those on the left are accompanied by hostility and even hatred.
Particular issues can arouse passions here and there for anyone with any political views. But, for many on the left, indignation is not a sometime thing. It is a way of life.
How often have you seen conservatives or libertarians take to the streets, shouting angry slogans? How often have conservative students on campus shouted down a visiting speaker or rioted to prevent the visitor from speaking at all?
The source of the anger of liberals, "progressives" or radicals is by no means readily apparent. The targets of their anger have included people who are non-confrontational or even genial, such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
It is hard to think of a time when Karl Rove or Dick Cheney has even raised his voice but they are hated like the devil incarnate.
There doesn't even have to be any identifiable individual to arouse the ire of the left. "Tax cuts for the rich" is more than a political slogan. It is incitement to anger.
All sorts of people can have all sorts of beliefs about what tax rates are best from various points of view. But how can people work themselves into a lather over the fact that some taxpayers are able to keep more of the money they earned, instead of turning it over to politicians to dispense in ways calculated to get themselves re-elected?
The angry left has no time to spend even considering the argument that what they call "tax cuts for the rich" are in fact tax cuts for the economy.
Nor is the idea new that tax cuts can sometimes spur economic growth, resulting in more jobs for workers and higher earnings for business, leading to more tax revenue for the government.
A highly regarded economist once observed that "taxation may be so high as to defeat its object," so that sometimes "a reduction of taxation will run a better chance, than an increase, of balancing the Budget."Who said that? Milton Friedman? Arthur Laffer? No. It was said in 1933 by John Maynard Keynes, a liberal icon.
Lower tax rates have led to higher tax revenues many times, both before and since Keynes' statement -- the Kennedy tax cuts in the 1960s, the Reagan tax cuts in the 1980s, and the recent Bush tax cuts that have led to record high tax revenues this April.
Budget deficits have often resulted from runaway spending but seldom from reduced tax rates.
Those on the other side may have different arguments. However, the question here is not why the left has different arguments, but why there is such anger.
Often it is an exercise in futility even to seek to find a principle behind the anger. For example, the left's obsession with the high incomes of corporate executives never seems to extend to equally high -- or higher -- incomes of professional athletes, entertainers, or best-selling authors like Danielle Steel.
If the reason for the anger is a feeling that corporate CEOs are overpaid for their contributions, then there should be even more anger at people who get even more money for doing absolutely nothing, because they have inherited fortunes.
Yet how often has the left gotten worked up into high dudgeon over those who inherited the Rockefeller, Roosevelt or Kennedy fortunes? Even spoiled heirs like Paris Hilton don't really seem to set them off.
If it is hard to find a principle behind what angers the left, it is not equally hard to find an attitude.
Their greatest anger seems to be directed at people and things that thwart or undermine the social vision of the left, the political melodrama starring the left as saviors of the poor, the environment, and other busybody tasks that they have taken on.
It seems to be the threat to their egos that they hate. And nothing is more of a threat to their desire to run other people's lives than the free market and its defenders.
From opinionjournal.com (by the way, operated by the Wall Street Journal so not inclined to allow the insane hyperbole allowed by Kos). Of course, I don't expect comment because it's contrary to your weltpolitik so you'll do the "see/hear/speak no evil" crap.
In his Sept. 11, 2000, column the late Bob Bartley argued that the press tends to deal in stereotypes, which arise "out of a tension between the ideal of objectivity and the reality of a liberal background and environment." We were reminded of this observation when we saw a piece posted on the BBC Web site yesterday, which exemplifies just how blind journalists can be to their own prejudices--even when the stories they are reporting run counter to those prejudices.
The headline: "US Detainee 'Mentally Tortured.' " The lead paragraph:
A Pakistani-born US resident detained at Guantanamo Bay has said he was "mentally tortured" there, according to a transcript released by the Pentagon.
It is true that the detainee, Majid Khan, claims to have been "mentally tortured." It is also true that the press stereotypes Guantanamo as a place where wicked Americans commit unspeakable atrocities against innocent terrorists. But if you read the BBC story to the end, you discover that Khan's claims actually refute the press's stereotype:
Mr Khan complained about how US guards had taken away pictures of his daughter, given him new glasses with the wrong prescription, shaved his beard off, forcibly fed him when he went on hunger strike, and denied him the opportunity for recreation. . . .
Later, Mr Khan produced a list of further examples of psychological torture, which included the provision of "cheap, branded, unscented soap," the prison newsletter, noisy fans and half-inflated balls in the recreation room that "hardly bounce."
The poor dear has half-inflated balls! Oh, the humanity! None of the inconveniences Khan describes even remotely qualify as torture, yet the Beeb accepts his characterization at face value. The stereotype prevails even though the facts make clear that it is false. This is journalism?
I was just reading a diary entitled "Matthews Loses It over Right Wing Talking Points " where Chris Matthews went ballistic on some Georgia congressman. Typical Kos reaction of "hee hee, haw haw" and blithering idiocy.
One of the quotes from Matthews was:
Matthews: Yea, but..no no no no no. I won't let you get away with that. That's not a fair comparison. We do not have a war in South Korea. There's no German that's fired on an American since 1945....
A very, very simple fact check would have found this to be inaccurate. There were attacks by SS-organized insurgents, known as Werewolves, as late as 1947. In fact, the Allies were scared to death - far more than warranted - of the potential for a Nazi resurgence led by these guys.
Not a single Kos commenter bothered to interject this fact. They'd rather spew the same litany of venom than check to ensure that Matthews was correct.
And you wonder why I get upset?
...is that he makes Ashcroft look good.
...The sick man was John Ashcroft, who was in the hospital with acute pancreatitis. Hours before his hospitalization, Ashcroft and Comey had decided not to reauthorize the president's secret, controversial, domestic-surveillance program.
The night after the Justice Department told the White House, Comey received a phone call. The president's chief of staff, Andy Card, and then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales were on their way to Ashcroft's hospital room.
"I told my security detail that I needed to get to George Washington Hospital immediately," Comey testified. "They turned on the emergency equipment and drove very quickly to the hospital. I got out of the car and literally ran up the stairs."
The room was dark. Mrs. Ashcroft was standing by the bed. Comey said that Ashcroft, in his sixth day in intensive care, was not in good shape. He was unfocused, disoriented.
"And it was only a matter of minutes that the door opened and in walked Mr. Gonzales, carrying an envelope, and Mr. Card," Comey said. "They came over and stood by the bed, greeted the attorney general very briefly, and then Mr. Gonzales began to discuss why they were there — to seek his approval for a matter."
Then, Ashcroft did something that stunned Comey. He lifted his head off the pillow and explained in strong, detailed terms why he would not sign the paper.
"And as he laid back down, he said, 'But that doesn't matter because I'm not the attorney general. There is the attorney general.' And he pointed to me," Comey testified. "I was just to his left. The two men did not acknowledge me. They turned and walked from the room."
Or at least, 56 of them do. That's got to be at least 20%, right?
Twenty-five years ago we, like you, graduated from Harvard Law School....
...it has been with dismay that we have watched your cavalier handling of our freedoms time and time again. When it has been important that legal boundaries hold unbridled government power in check, you have instead used pretextual rationales and strained readings to justify an ever-expanding executive authority....
...Your failure to stand for the rule of law, particularly when faced with a President who makes the aggrandized claim of being a unitary executive, takes this country down a dangerous path....
We call on you and the President to relent from this reckless path, and begin to restore respect for the rule of law we all learned to love so many years ago.
Michael Moore challenged Fred Thompson to a health-care debate. Here is Fred's response. Funny as hell.
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=611
Whatever happened to the right to confront one's accusers in court?
Padilla's lawyers are raising questions about the document. They say it was delivered to the government by an anonymous Afghan citizen who drove up to a Central Intelligence Agency officer in December 2001 and handed him a number of documents that the Afghani said were recovered from an abandoned house once occupied by "Arabs."
According to a forensic expert for the defense, the data form was filled out using two different kinds of ink that are typically not found outside North America. The form was completed at different times with three different types of handwriting, according to the defense expert.
The suggestion is that someone else might have signed Padilla's name or somehow tampered with the form to help shore up the government's case.
Prosecutors dispute such allegations. They say they will call the CIA officer to testify. But they refuse to reveal his identity to defense lawyers. And in a highly unusual request, they've asked the judge to allow the CIA officer to don a "light disguise" while on the witness stand.
"This witness has been working for the CIA since 1991. The government has a duty to protect his identity," Assistant US Attorney Stephanie Pell told Judge Cooke in a recent pretrial hearing.
Padilla's lawyers disagreed. "For us to do our job, we have to know who this person is. We have to investigate," said Assistant Federal Public Defender Orlando do Campo. "We oppose the disguise. It is silly and disrespectful of this court."
Well, that's what the State Department says....
Paul Brinkley, a deputy undersecretary of defense, has been called a Stalinist by U.S. diplomats in Iraq. One has accused him of helping insurgents build better bombs. The State Department has even taken the unusual step of enlisting the CIA to dispute the validity of Brinkley's work.
His transgression? To begin reopening dozens of government-owned factories in Iraq.
Brinkley and his colleagues at the Pentagon believe that rehabilitating shuttered, state-run enterprises could reduce violence by employing tens of thousands of Iraqis. Officials at State counter that the initiative is antithetical to free-market reforms the United States should promote in Iraq.
The bureaucratic knife fight over the best way to revive Iraq's moribund economy illustrates how the two principal players in the reconstruction of Iraq -- the departments of Defense and State -- remain at odds over basic economic and political measures. The bickering has hamstrung initiatives to promote stability four years after Saddam Hussein's fall.
Under pressure from Congress to demonstrate progress on the ground, the military often favors immediate solutions aimed at quelling violence. That has prompted objections from some at State who question the long-term consequences of that expeditious approach.
If this was my kids' school I would shortly be a very wealthy man, as would a lucky attorney or two. Or in jail for assault.
Finally, I wonder why this was at an Australian news site?
From the Australian...
Children left crying in gunman drill
By staff writers
May 14, 2007
TEACHERS at a Tennessee school who staged a mock attack by a gunman on a school trip left children crying under tables in dark room thinking they were going to die.
The mock attack last Thursday night was meant to be a "learning experience and lasted five minutes" during a week-long trip to a state park, said Scales Elementary School assistant principal Don Bartch, who led the trip.
"We got together and discussed what we would have done in a real situation," he said.
On the last night of the trip, the teachers told the 69 students there was a gunman on the loose.
They were told to lie on the floor or hide under tables and stay quiet. A teacher, disguised in a hooded sweatshirt, even pulled on a locked door, the Associated Press reported.
When the lights went out, about 20 children began crying, said 11-year-old Shay Naylor.
"At first I thought I was going to die. We flipped out," she said.
Parents of the children, who were all about 11 years old, were outraged over the drill- especially as it came in the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting.
"The children were in that room in the dark, begging for their lives, because they thought there was someone with a gun after them," said Brandy Cole, whose son went on the trip.
School principal Catherine Stephens said the situation "involved poor judgment" but would not say whether the staff would face discipline.
It's looking increasingly likely that Michael Bloomberg, NYC mayor, will run for President as an independent. I, for one, would freaking love that. The guy has a seriously impressive resume as a mayor, businessman, and philanthropist.
What does the rest of the gang think?
This has to rank as one of the more humorous crash-and-burn gaffes by a politician as of late.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18630174/
Jacob Sullum at Reason opines that with this bill, "justice for all" is neither just nor for all.
Excerpts:
The federal hate crime bill is unnecessary, unjust, and unconstitutional.
"Hate crimes have no place in America," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi boldly declared last week, "no place in a nation where we pledge every morning ‘with liberty and justice for all.'" Pelosi was urging her colleagues to approve a bill aimed at violence motivated by hostility toward members of certain designated groups.
According to Pelosi, then, the "justice for all" mentioned in the Pledge of Allegiance means equal opportunity to be a crime victim. It certainly does not mean equality before the law, which the hate crime bill sacrifices by treating perpetrators of the same crime differently because they hold different beliefs.
...it's not a stretch to say that hate crime laws, by their very nature, punish people for their opinions. A mugger who robs a Jew because he's well-dressed is punished less severely than a mugger who robs a Jew based on the belief that Jews get their money only by cheating Christians. A thug who beats an old lady in a wheelchair just for fun is punished less severely than a thug who does so because he believes disabled people are leeches.
...
The hate crime bill, which authorizes federal prosecution whenever the Justice Department perceives a bigoted motive and believes the perpetrator has not been punished severely enough, continues the unfortunate tendency to federalize crimes that are properly the business of state and local governments, just so legislators like Nancy Pelosi can show they care. Although the Bush administration claims to be concerned about this trend, the details of its objections to the bill (not to mention its history of supporting unconstitutional expansions of the federal government) suggest otherwise.
Here's a comment made on Kos recently from someone who was appointed at the Department of Justice -- by Bush Sr.
This is so far outside what has happened at DOJ during previous administrations, both Democratic and Republican, that it sickens me. I was hired at DOJ in the administration of Bush's father, and there was never so much as a hint of political intereference. I know people who are Democrats, Republicans, independents, and pretty much apolitical who were hired then, as well as in the Clinton administration.
I retired a year and a half ago, and although I was in a part of DOJ that generally attracts little political interest, the atmosphere had already changed, especially from what I heard about the areas of DOJ that attracted more political interest. But even then, it would have been difficult to believe that things were this bad.
The truly mind-boggling thing is that people who should have known better put this wet-behind-the ears zealot in a responsible position to begin with, and then proceeded to let her exercise hitherto unprecedented power while she occupied that position. And if we hadn't elected a Democratic Congresss this past November, none of this would have yet come to light (or if it had, it would have been quietly swept under the rug).
There is this way of running a public agency, and then there is the way that Joseph Curran ran the Maryland Attorney General's office, where I briefly worked as a lawyer. His entire professional staff theoretically served at his pleasure, but his hiring decisions were totally non-political. My time in that office coincided with one of his reelection campaigns, and when he announced, he called all of the attorneys together for a meeting, at which he gave the following instructions:
1. None of us were to donate any money to his campaign;
2. None of us were to volunteer to work on his campaign, or to have any contact with his campaign office, the sole exception being the person who did his scheduling, and then only to assure that scheduling for campaign events and official events didn't conflict; and finally,
3. That if we wanted to help his campaign, the way to do so was to do as good a job as possible serving the interests of the people of Maryland.
THAT'S the way a public agency should be run, and it's pretty much the way DOJ was run until this sorry excuse of an administration. The political appointees during the administration of Bush's father were certainly largely Republicans, but they were overwhelmingly Republicans who understood that, once they took their oath of office as government officials, they were serving the people of the United States, not the narrow interests of the Republican Party. And the same is true of the political appointees in the Clinton administration, who overwhelmingly realized that, while they were Democrats, as public officials, they were serving the interests of the people of the United States, rather than the narrow interests of the Democratic Party.
The last few years have been a sad time for the Department of Justics, and for the United States. But hopefully, this will prove to be a temporary aberration and contary to Mr. Comey's prediction, the genie will be able to be put back into the bottle.
Before everyone runs around screaming that the government is coming after Michael Moore unfairly, let's look at the actual law as compared to the letter OFAC sent Moore:
The following is the letter of the law from 31 C.F.R. 515.420(c) on the reporting requirements upon return from an unlicensed trip to Cuba. Do you see anything in the letter OFAC sent to Moore that he is being asked for anything above and beyond this? On the contrary, it appears that they may be even asking for a bit less.
(c) Unless otherwise authorized pursuant to this part, any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who has traveled to Cuba shall be presumed to have engaged in travel-related
transactions prohibited by § 515.201. This presumption may be rebutted by a statement signed by the traveler providing specific supporting documentation showing that no transactions
were engaged in by the traveler or on the traveler’s behalf by other persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction or showing that the traveler was fully hosted by a third party not subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States and that payments made on the traveler’s behalf \were not in exchange for services provided to Cuba or any national thereof. The statement should
address the circumstances of the travel and explain how it was possible for the
traveler to avoid entering into travel related transactions such as payments
for meals, lodging, transportation, bunkering of vessels, visas, entry or exit
fees, and gratuities. If applicable, the statement should state what party hosted the travel and why. The statement must provide a day-to-day account of financial transactions waived
or entered into on behalf of the traveler by the host, including but not limited
to visa fees, room and board, local or international transportation costs,
and Cuban airport departure taxes. In the case of pleasure craft calling at
Cuban marinas, the statement must also address related refueling costs,
mooring fees, club membership fees, provisions, cruising permits, local land
transportation, and departure fees. Travelers fully hosted by a person or
persons not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States must also provide an original signed statement from their sponsor or host, specific to that traveler, confirming that the travel was fully hosted and the reasons for the travel.
Now, this comes from the OFAC licensing guidelines for journalists:
2) journalism by journalists regularly employed in that
capacity by a news reporting organization, including supporting
broadcast or technical personnel
He clearly does not meet these requirements. He makes documentaries (and I'm being charitible with the phrase). He does not work for a news reporting organization.
The end result will probably be a civil fine. Well worth the price for the huge publicity from this artificial controversy.
Sheldon Whitehouse, a former U.S. Attorney now serving in Congress, writes an eloquent op-ed about the many reasons Gonzales needs to go.
Edit: Whitehouse is from RI, where I used to live.
So it seems that in response to an OFAC letter to detail his Cuba trip, Moore claims himself a victim of a Bush administration investigation and writes a pithy comment back to the Treasure Secretary. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/11/93540/9491 He insinuates that this is timed to coincide with the Cannes film festival to detract from (inferred) his message. The letter sent to Moore from OFAC is on SmokingGun.com but I don't have a precise link. It fits into the standard formset of bureaucratic letters and isn't, per se, persecution.
As someone who has jumped through these hoops on travel to Cuba, I feel uniquely qualified in our little group to comment.
Essentially, Moore broke the law. It doesn't matter why. I disagree with the whole embargo laws but the law is the law and one doesn't break it flagrantly on "principle".
His letter campaign is just deflective bullshit.
Wow, looks hard. Someone can win a prize, though.
Here's the link.
Didn't I make these same points the other day? I must have been reading "GOP talking points" that didn't exist yet. Kudlow is making some very good points, especially in the economic arena. Read, digest, and think.
Some excerpts:
Consider this: When the appropriate time comes for a gradual troop withdrawal from Iraq, the voting public is far more likely to want a tough-on-defense president to negotiate the event. Go all the way back to the Korean War. Voters selected Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower to negotiate withdrawal, rather than the much more liberal Adlai Stevenson. Or recall that in 1968 voters chose the tough-minded Richard Nixon to manage a pullout from South Vietnam, rather than the fuzzy-thinking Hubert Humphrey.
...
Non-withheld income taxes -- read cap-gains, dividends and income from small owner-operated businesses -- hit a record high of $49 billion on April 24. So far this year, this tax-collection category has shot up 30 percent, while withheld income-tax collections at lower tax rates have jumped 17.5 percent.
In other words, the Laffer curve is working: Lower tax rates lead to higher tax revenues through a growing economy and a larger income base. By removing pro-growth tax cuts, the Democratic budget will actually slow the economy, diminish revenue growth and increase the out-year budget gap.
Ignoring all this, in addition to the reality of a 4.5 percent unemployment rate and Dow 13,000, is a Democratic triumph of liberal ideology over objective empirical analysis.
It's also a recipe for Democratic disaster about a year and half from now.
From Neal Boortz. Yes, I am sure it'll inflame the weenies but if you want to take shots at it, try to do so factually and not with some bedwetters quasi-baseless opinions.
THE 2006 HERO OF THE YEAR
Jeff May is an Ojibwe Indian from Minnesota. Readers Digest named him the 2006 Hero of the Year. I had never heard of Jeff May until I opened a letter from a listener yesterday. My guess is that you have never heard of him either.
Here's the story.
About two years ago a young male wearing a black trench coat walked into the Red Lake Senior High School in northern Minnesota. He was carrying not one, not two, but three guns. He started shooting and killed eight people, injuring seven more .... then Jeff May took action. A teacher? No ... Jeff May was a sophomore at Red Lack. Sixteen years old, perhaps 15. (Can't nail down his exact age). Jeff was doing algebra problems with a pencil when the shooter entered his classroom. After May saw what was happening he rushed the gunman ... armed only with the pencil. He stabbed the shooter in the side with the pencil and the two started struggling. Jeff May was shot in the face. By this time the police showed up, and the shooter killed himself. Jeff May's teacher, Missy Dodds, says he saved many of his classmates lives, and hers. Other news reports put the number of lives that Jeff May saved at a dozen. After the incident he spent a lengthy time in physical, occupational and speech therapy for his injuries.
Was Jeff May a hot-shot student athlete at Red Lake? Not known. His pictures show him to be a slightly pudgy teenager. What you can't see in those pictures is a heart the size of a basketball.
Can you folks imagine this? Nothing like this could ever happen, right? Someone walks into a classroom blazing away with multiple guns, and a student -- a 16-year-old -- rushes him with a pencil? No .. this just has to be a work of Hollywood fiction. No teenager could possibly ever show such bravery.
But it's not, and he did.
What happened here? Hard to say. Maybe Jeff May was raised in a culture where self-defense was praised rather than condemned. Maybe he was raised in a home with a strong father.
Maybe his Ojimwe culture celebrates individualism.
Another question: Why haven't I heard of Jeff May before yesterday? We certainly get all of the gory details from every school shooting, and this Red Lake shooting in 2005 had been the worst since Columbine. Why wasn't Jeff May celebrated across this country? is it possible because his actions are politically incorrect in our current culture of government dependency?
And why is the idea of self-defense so unpopular with the left? Why, when someone acts to save their own life and the lives of others, do we invariably get some public official or politician warning us about the dangers of "taking the law into our own hands?"
Remember, please, the leftist war against individualism. Self-defense is a uniquely individualist pursuit. There you are, an individual person, using deadly force to protect ... yourself! Don't you know that in this age of big-government that this is a job for the police!
About 20 legislators in South Carolina have now introduced legislation that would allow anyone in South Carolina with a concealed weapons permit to carry that weapon on a government school or college campus. The only other state in the union with such a law is Utah. Get this passed in South Carolina and you will make South Carolina school grounds among the safest in the nation. Liberals, however, are going to scream bloody murder. They will fight tooth and nail to defeat this measure .. and my guess is that they'll probably succeed.
Why is it that liberals hate the idea of an armed citizen so much? They can read the statistics just like we can. If they care to research the matter, they will learn that people with concealed carry permits simply do not commit gun crimes! So, the liberal opposition to citizens carrying guns simply cannot be excused over fears for general public safety. The facts simply don't bear those fears out. There has to be something else at work here, and there is. Liberals don't like armed individuals because they are .... individuals. Carrying a gun for self-defense is, as I said, a uniquely individual pursuit. It's a loud statement by an individual citizen saying "I own my life, and I have the right to take deadly action to defend it." The liberal believes that your life belongs to government, and that it is the government's job to protect it.
Thank God Jeff May didn't buy it.
...why should the cellular companies get away with them?
This is kinda cool. Ignore the "Senate2006" in the URL. This asks you to score a number of issues and then shows you which candidates are closer to your worldview.
http://www.speakout.com/VoteMatch/Senate2006.asp
#1 for me: Bill Richardson. Huh!
Ah, the professionals come up with the best rants...
I wished my ears deceived me. How is it that people are saying they hope Lewis "Scooter" Libby, recently convicted on four felony counts, including perjury, will be pardoned, after a lengthy and expensive trial (paid for by our tax dollars, thank you very much) which followed a lengthy and expensive grand jury hearing (also paid for by our tax dollars). He had pricey attorneys and the full attention of the media, so it's not like his trial was conducted in a dirty little corner where the prosecution, judge, and jury got away with all kinds of moneyshines. He got the very best the American judicial system has to offer, and he was duly convicted.
Yet people are either wishing for a pardon or saying he will get one. Has our legal system become this much of a laughing stock? Or do we think our president is this contemptuous of it?
For those who want him to get one: why? Didn't the Nuremberg trials teach the world that just because someone is given an illegal order, it doesn't mean that the person who follows it is absolved of blame? Libby is an attorney. He lied under oath; he knew better than the average citizen what the penalties of perjury are. It doesn't matter who he lied for. He is a grown man and he is responsible for his own conduct. If he is asked to do something illegal, he is bound by law and as an officer of the court not to do it. If he breaks that law, he goes to jail. He does not get a "get out of jail free" card.
And if our president pardons him, he shows once again that he--the person most responsible to the law in this country--doesn't feel he is answerable to the law. And there's only one way to cure a president like that. Impeach him.
The Earth is round. Fact.
George Bush is the worst President ever and we're all gonna die! Opinion.
Hysterical rants from disgruntled former government employees: Opinion which some of you apparently confuse with facts.
Update:
Do a Google search on the guy's name who wrote this: Lars Thorwald.
Hahahaha....you've been had, Kos morons!
See, Gonz, it's not just us flaming liberals.
Up from Texas came a white-hatted cowboy.
Here came the anti-Clinton. Here came a man who promised to restore integrity to the White House. Here came a man who promised to be a uniter, not a divider. A man who promised to be campassionate, and not just conservative. A man who said we needed to be humble in our foreign policy. A man who, I was convinced, would help clear off the table after the last two years of scandal and filth. A man who would paint the walls white again.
Here came George W. Bush.
I had voted Democratic, twice, for the same man. And that man had lied to me and angered me in a way that I never could have imagined about a politician. I didn't just walk back to the Red folds of the Republican flag, I fucking ran....
*snip*
Does anyone remember--in what seems like a thousand years ago--the spy plane incident over China crisis? This was in early 2001, shortly after the President took office. That was handled so inexpertly that it couldn't have been chalked up to mere this-is-my-first-day-on-the-job-so-I-don't-know-where-the-toner-is inexperience. Bush and his team almost jostled that incident into Cuba in October II: Electric Boogaloo, until Colin Powell got in there and got his hands dirty.
That was the last Bush foreign policy success of any measure, and still it planted a seed of doubt in my mind.
Think about the magnitude of what I just wrote: The last real Bush foreign policy success was in 2001, and even then it made people scratch their chins and wonder, Gee, I don't know.....
The rest of 2001 was pretty much vacation time for Bush, but then we got to August 2001, when Bush made his address to the nation on his stem cell research decision.
I watched that address live with my then-fiancee-now-wife, who was also a Republican. After the President detailed in an almost too-painful-to-watch manner the ham-handed decision that pleased no one and did even less to promote scientific research and asked God to bless the United States and signed off, we cut off the TV and sat in silence. Neither said anything, but our looks spoke volumes. We may have elected an idiot, our eyes said. I think we both got drunk that night....
*snip*
I don't need to catalogue the astonishingly perfect series of missteps, bad decisions, stupid moves, acts of jaw-dropping incredulity that followed over the next three years after September 11. But here are just some of the lilypads, in no particular order, that carried this here frog from one bank of opinion about the President to the other:
No Child Left Behind. 6.2% unemployment. Privitazation of Social Security. Cutting the NIH budget. Appointing Elmer Gantry to the FDA. Removing Whitman from the EPA. Withdrawing support for Kyoto. Clear Skies Initiative. NSA wiretaps. Iraq. Going to war with the army you have, not the army you want. Chalabi. Yellowcake. Iran. Heckuva Job, Brownie. Stay the Course. My Pet Goat.
I could go on and on, but there were many other, graver, more dangerous things that convinced me not only had I made a mistake--a massive, egrgious, horrible mistake--but that the man was more than just a bad president. There were things that convinced me that he cared less about the law than Clinton ever did. There were things he did that made lying about sex under oath seem like littering in the park.
Declaring the Geneva Accords a quaint set of norms that had no application to detainees, only a relative handful of whom had even the slightest connection to al Qaeda, the rest of whom had done nothing wrong. This brought us on par with our internment of the Japanese.
Then there was the extraordinary rendition programs that echoed Stalinist gulags. Abu Ghraib, which bore the strong whiff of the Hanoi Hilton, except we were Ho Chi Minh. The NSA wiretaps that take us out of any good historical analogy and right into the realm of Philip K. Dick....
Did you all know that Mitt Romney's wife has MS??? I just found out today. I guess they keep it pretty quiet.
Not that Romney is my first choice but look at it this way: Edwards has to make cancer a campaign issue while Romney keeps his medical travails private.
That speaks volumes.
Here's the official criminal complaint.
Notice a couple of things?
Page 8, Opening statement to Attachment B. The agent specifically says that "I have not necessarily included each and every fact known by the government concerning this investigation." So how would any blogger know precisely what investigative techniques were used except those used to obtain the complaint?
Page 18, number 39. FBI obtains and uses a cell phone call log. That was one of the complaints when the Dems cried about wiretapping; the obtaining of call logs without a warrant.
In closing, it's so nice when leftists post propaganda for political purposes while deliberately obfuscating or ignoring the facts. I would say nice try, but using an important event like the thwarting of a terror plot and then lying about it for political brownie points makes me more want to barf on you folks.
Update: I think the really important thing here is to give credit where credit is due. The FBI did a great job pursuing this case and deserves high praise for their professionalism.
Good thing we had warrantless wiretapping and military prisons to stop this.
Sorry, what?
First, it’s worth noting that today’s success was due to intelligence gathering and law-enforcement efforts — the very techniques the Bush White House has consistently ridiculed as ineffective in counterterrorism. For that matter, as Steve M. noted, "[A]pparently no warrantless wiretapping led to these arrests, no torture of suspects in overseas prisons, nothing liberals have objected to in the Patriot Act. Remember that when you’re told that these arrests prove that we can’t trust liberals and Democrats."
Heh. From Ann Coulter
Excerpts:
Someone needs to tell the Democrats to stop talking about their families. I know they're trying to demonstrate their "family values," but using actual, live human beings to illustrate the freakish ideas of the Democratic base just makes normal people uncomfortable.
When Chris Dodd was asked about gay marriage, he said he always thinks of his little daughters -- aged 2 and 5 -- and imagines them turning out to be lesbians, saying he would want them treated equally.
To prove his bona fides to the environmentalist nuts, Obama said: "We've also been working to install lightbulbs that last longer and save energy. And that's something that I'm trying to teach my daughters, 8-year-old Malia and 5-year-old Sasha."
So we finally have an answer to the question: What do Democrats teach their daughters? Is it:
(a) integrity
(b) character
(c) the importance of always telling the truth
No! The answer is: (d) They teach their daughters to use low-energy lightbulbs. This is so important that it apparently bears mentioning during a debate under high-intensity TV studio lights.
...
The not-visibly-insane Democrats all claim they'll get rough with the terrorists, but they can't even face Brit Hume.
In case you missed this profile in Democrat machismo, the Democratic presidential candidates are refusing to participate in a debate hosted by Fox News Channel because the hosts are "biased." But they'll face down Mahmoud Ahmadinejad!
At this, even Hillary Clinton was thinking, "Come on, guys -- let's grow a pair."
...
Of course, it took Obama less time to remember an American ally than it took John Edwards to remember Jesus. Edwards was asked who his "moral leader" was -- and he was stuck for an answer.
I had time to shout "Jesus" at the TV 20 times, exhaust myself, and have a sandwich before Edwards finally coughed up "mah lowrd." Even then it appeared that Edwards was not actually naming the Savior but exclaiming, "Mah lowrd, that's a tough question!"
Edwards then put "mah lowrd" (assuming that was his answer) on a par with other moral leaders such as his father -- who had embarrassed him so as a child -- and his wife. (When he mentioned his spouse as a "moral leader," Hillary visibly tensed for fear that she might be asked the same question.)
In fairness to Edwards, asking a trial lawyer to name his favorite moral leader is like asking the president of Iran to name his favorite Jew.
This is an off-shoot from another conversation. If Gore had been President in 2001, what would have happened differently? I found the most analytical answer here:
Excerpts:
Question: Would President Al Gore have been as militarily aggressive as George Bush?
Answer: Probably more militarily aggressive. Why?
Because Gore's natural opponents (the Republicans) would be goading him and calling him a weak leader unless he was VERY aggressive militarily, while Bush's natural opponents (the Democrats) are restraining him by goading him and calling him a cowboy (and other things).
George W. Bush with Russian President Vladimir Putin
Question: Would President Al Gore have ordered an invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11, as Bush did?
Answer: What other response was possible? Of course Gore would have invaded Afghanistan.
Question: Would President Al Gore have ordered an invasion of Iraq?
Answer: The answer has to be "almost certainly." The Clinton administration had a stated policy goal of removing Saddam Hussein from power, and Al Gore would have inherited that goal.
In fact, Gore would almost certainly have invaded Iraq much sooner than Bush did. In early 2002, Republicans were strongly urging Bush to invade Iraq, and Democrats were urging caution. The Democrats won out in the sense that they forced Bush to delay an invasion for a year.
If Gore were President, then both Republicans and Democrats would have been in favor of an invasion, and any delay by Gore would have been attacked by the Republicans as indicating Gore's weakness in foreign policy. Thus, Gore would have been pressured to invade more quickly than Bush.
I'm linking to a Free Republic post. :-)
According to my calendar, just four months from now we will be marking the sixth anniversary of the biggest terrorist attack in history and the worst attack of any kind on American soil.
The mastermind of and inspiration for that attack is Osama bin Laden.
Yet, he still has not been captured or killed.
If there is one man in this world I do not want to see die of natural causes, it is bin Laden. And I think most Americans would agree with that.
Nevertheless, our top elected officials, including President Bush, demonstrate no particular concern about finding bin Laden. With all of the resources of the U.S. intelligence agencies, our spy satellites, our military infrastructure and our special forces, we have either been unable to find the perpetrator of this mass murder or unwilling.
Now a leading Republican presidential candidate affirms that we have better things to do with our time and energies than catch bin Laden.
Mitt Romney, the flip-flopping former governor of Massachusetts, says the U.S. would only be slightly safer if bin Laden were caught because another terrorist would rise to fill his shoes.
"It's not worth moving heaven and earth, spending billions of dollars, just trying to catch one person," he explained.
Well, for starters, there would be no need to move heaven, because bin Laden is not there and never will be. I have that on good authority. So all we really have to do is move earth. In my opinion, we should move as much earth as we need to find bin Laden. Then we should cover him up in that earth as quickly as possible.
See previous post for link. Heh
1.
HILLARY CLINTON
Pro: Known commodity; strong fundraiser.
Con: Polarizing; unlikely to woo those already opposed to her.
2.
BARACK OBAMA
Pro: Articulate; resembles foxy actor Blair Underwood.
Con: L.A. Law was kind of overrated now that you think about it.
3.
JOHN EDWARDS
Pro: Has strong appeal to working-class voters.
Con: As a resident of two Americas, he must raise twice as much money and spend twice as much time campaigning.
4.
BILL RICHARDSON
Pro: Appeals to all Latino voters with the last name "Richardson."
Con: New Mexico is legally part of Mexico; therefore, he's constitutionally ineligible.
5.
JOE BIDEN
Pro: Technically still running for president.
Con: Dude. Come on.
6.
DICK CHENEYIN AN ELABORATE LATEX DISGUISETHAT TAKES FIVE HOURS TO APPLY
Pro: Trojan horse, my friend. Trojan fucking horse.
Con: Ruse would be so exciting that he would surely drop dead of a massive stroke about a month before Iowa.
7.
OPTIMUS PRIME
Pro: Size; power; ability to emit short-range optic blasts.
Con: Potential attack ad: "Sometimes Optimus Prime is a robot, other times a truck. Which is it, Mr. Prime? America deserves a leader that doesn't transform whenever it's convenient."
8.
ROSS PEROT
Pro: Hilarity.
Con: None.
9.
DENNIS KUCINICH
Pro: Solid anti-war stance; adorable; strong to the finich.
Con: Election laws limit magical pixies to only one term in office.
10.
JIMMY CARTER
Pro: Nobel Prize winner; available; just as good at not knowing what the hell to do about Iran as anyone else.
Con: Judging by photos, approximately 415 years old.
11.
ALLEN IVERSON
Pro: Instant offense.
Con: Selfish with the ball; may have lost a step.
12.
IRA GLASS
Pro: Thoughtful; self-effacing; like many Americans, enjoys cable television.
Con: At present, no budget line item exists for moody introspective music to underscore every statement president makes in order to make it sound more poignant.
13.
BONO
Pro: Knowledgeable about global health issues; everyone seems to like him; Joshua Tree album.
Con: Too busy hugging everyone to actually execute the duties of office; no one likes the sound of "Vice President the Edge" or "Secretary of Health and Human Services Larry Mullen Jr."; the whole "Zoo TV" thing.
14.
AL GORE
Pro: Knows how to get to the White House, where to park, location of restrooms.
Con: Wants to accomplish something meaningful.
15.
WALTER MONDALE
Pro: Has spent last 22 years going over tape, reviewing mistakes, plotting, scheming, waiting, watching, preparing to pounce like a 79-year-old Minnesotan panther.
Con: None.
16.
JESUS CHRIST
Pro: Could draw some initial interest from the Christian right until they research his actual positions in a deeper way; likable; strong leadership qualities.
Con: Unkempt; pretty far left; messianic complex.
17.
THAT ONE GUY WHO SEEMED REALLY COOL
Pro: Remember? He was a senator or congressman or something? It was a while ago. He seemed super-smart but also normal. I saw him this one time.
Con: Crap, what was his name? Or was it a lady? Do you know who I'm talking about? Crap.
18.
ZOMBIE LYNDON JOHNSON
Pro: Could sway red-state voters as well as Fangoria crowd; '60s-era campus unrest has died down.
Con: Tendency to groan instead of talk could hurt chances in live debates; constant need to feed on fresh brains could limit campaigning.
19.
OPRAH WINFREY
Pro: Popular; influential; could rally the silent masses already violently opposed to Jonathan Franzen.
Con: May only exacerbate nationwide Maya Angelou plague that has decimated much of the nation.
20.
YOU
Pro: Gained valuable exposure as Time magazine's Person of the Year; seems to be Internet-savvy.
Con: Ever since the Time thing, you've been awfully smug.
Funny as hell. From McSweeneys
1.
RUDY GIULIANI
Pro: Unifying force after 9/11; articulate speaker.
Con: The whole "pro-choice, pro-gun-control, New Yorker, used to live with gay dudes, adultery" thing might hurt him with conservatives. A bit.
2.
JOHN MCCAIN
Pro: Comforting resemblance to character actor Gavin MacLeod.
Con: Murray from The Mary Tyler Moore Show lacked leadership qualities and Captain Stubing from Love Boat got a little goofy whenever Charo was a guest star, leaving executive branch vulnerable to Charo impersonators who are actually Al Qaeda operatives.
3.
MITT ROMNEY
Pro: Named after Mittens, the family cat, later shortening name to "Mitt." People love cats.
Con: Religious beliefs could create problems, as many Americans may not be ready to accept worshiper of ancient Egyptian god Ra.
4.
ZOMBIE RONALD REAGAN
Pro: Probably the most Reaganesque candidate available; if stoked with the brains of the living, should operate in an acceptable fashion.
Con: Long-dead eyes lack that magic twinkle; inhuman groans negatively impact "Great Communicator" status.
5.
FRED "TOMMY" THOMPSON
Pro: Diverse résumé includes stints as governor of Wisconsin, senator from Tennessee, cabinet secretary, and several TV acting gigs.
Con: Contractually bound to appear in all 319 Law & Order programs currently in production.
6.
MIKE HUCKABEE
Pro: Lost 110 pounds due to health concerns, potentially allowing him to serve as healthy example for overweight Americans.
Con: Those 110 pounds have reconstituted into a diminutive all-fat Democratic consultant who knows Huckabee's every moveI Heart Huckabees was pretty uneven-->.
7.
SAM BROWNBACK
Pro: Serves as a positive role model for ethnic brownbacks all over the country.
Con: Such an ethnicity does not technically exist; lacks the pen-gripping power of Kansas Senate predecessor Bob Dole.
8.
NEWT GINGRICH
Pro: Well known.
Con: See above.
9.
EDDIE VAN HALEN
Pro: I tell you what, he would bring the nations of the world together through ROCK! He'd be all deedly-deedly-deedly-DEE-DEE-DEE! on his guitar and the bosses of the other countries would be all, "Whoa! Let's stop fighting and start rocking!"
Con: Drunken wretched mess.
10.
DUNCAN HUNTER
Pro: Appears to be some sort of politician who wants to be president, I guess. That's all anyone in the entire nation knows about him, including himself and his family.
Con: Born with two last names, though this liability could be mitigated by teaming with Texas Representative Ron Paul, who is also running.
11.
ROBOTIC SUPER BEES
Pro: Programmed mandate to destroy enemies with unrelenting deadly force could be an advantage in contentious general-election fight and when facing down hostile nations or other bees.
Con: Murderous instinct less advantageous in delicate diplomatic negotiations and the parsing of complex tariff issues.
12.
BIGFOOT
Pro: Available; independent; tall.
Con: Elusive; smelly; once elected he could disappear into the woods around Camp David and we'd never see him again.
13.
YOUR MAMA
Pro: Strong personality; nurturer; kind; strict when she has to be; always shows up at soccer games or school plays; skilled at managing a busy family.
Con: Upon her election, nation would be instantly vulnerable to any number of verbal attacks about president being so fat, so ugly, so stupid, etc.
14.
OHIO STATE CENTER GREG ODEN
Pro: Size; soft hands; positive attitude; high basketball IQ; given America's recent losses abroad, nation is automatically eligible for first pick in upcoming draft, so he will be available.
Con: Once his rookie contract is up, Oden would be free to sign with any other nation on the planet for bigger money.
15.
KENNY LOGGINS
Pro: Is all right; therefore, no one needs to worry about him.
Con: Gonna take you right into the danger zone.
16.
CHUCK HAGEL
Pro: Could potentially deliver his home state of Nebraska to the Republicans.
Con: Risks losing votes of near-sighted supporters of Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, Heidegger, and Nietzsche who think the ballot says "Hegel."
17.
A HUGE BARREL OF OIL
Pro: Coveted; influential; beloved by business community; understood by allies and enemies alike.
Con: Unlikely to support biodiesel-fuel development in the Midwest, potentially hurting chances in Iowa primary; slick.
18.
A WOMAN OF SOME SORT
Pro: Could win support of other women.
Con: Women are not allowed to join the Republican Party.
19.
CHEERS
Pro: Pretty funny show to watch when there's nothing else on.
Con: Frustrated voters may want to be able to pick and choose which part of the show to vote for, preferring the Shelley Long years over the Kirstie Alley years or stocking up on mostly Lilith episodes, but it doesn't work like that. You have to vote for the whole show.
20.
OHIO
Pro: Could deliver crucial votes in Ohio.
Con: President would spend way too much time agonizing over the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame; sleeping arrangements in new White House, which would span hundreds of square miles, could get contentious.
Think about this.
Let's say that the Democrats succeed in getting a President elected in 2008. A phased withdrawal or immediate pull-out is authorized. The anti-war crowd continues to cry about about how they were instrumental in the pull-out and the end of the war.
A year later a 9-11 type of attack occurs here. Does it destroy Democratic credibility on security?
I'm not saying it would happen soom, but what would be the political fallout?
Wish I had a transcript, but instead, I'll have to just link to the Google Video. Note that the first five sentences out of Hannity's mouth all contain attacks on Anderson, rather than on the issue at hand.
Edited: and then he talks about soldiers whose families are in the audience, as if their service is relevant to whether Bush lied to obtain their service.
Here's what Kucinich says are the reasons to impeach Cheney, along with supporting documents.
Bob Kengle, Deputy Chief of the Voting Section, gives an inside view of the disintegration of the DoJ.
In short, I lost faith in the institution as it had become. This was not the result of just one individual, such as Brad Schlozman, although he certainly did his share and then some. Rather, it was the result of an institutional sabotage after which I concluded that as a supervisor I no longer could protect line attorneys from political appointees, keep the litigation I supervised focused on the law and the facts, ensure that attorneys place civil rights enforcement ahead of partisanship, or pursue cases based solely on merit.
Take two.
The Republican Party walks into the American People’s living rooms, and says, "We're the Family Value’s Party, and we'd like to represent you."
The American People say, "Sorry, but we’re a little leery of Family Values parties. They tend to be scams run by demagogues.”
Republican Party says, "But this is really special."
The American People says, "Okay, well what's the act?"
The Republican Party replies, "Well after the worst attack on American soil in history, we hijack the nation's grief and rage to plunge us into a war with entirely the wrong country.
“Then we let the actual terrorist responsible for the attack to sit in a comfy chair on the edge of the stage and laugh and laugh and laugh for the duration of the performance.
“The Mainstream Press then comes out, bends over and we take them violently and repeatedly from behind by jamming giant lies up their poop chutes, which come spurting out of their mouths the next day as 'authoritative reporting'. Then we cite our own regurgitated lies as independent ‘proof’ that we're right....
