October 10, 2007 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The Basham and Cornell Radio Show broadcasts weekday mornings at 8 a.m. Pacific (11 a.m. Eastern) on AM 1230 KLAV in Las Vegas. All shows are simulcast on the Internet (and archived) and can be listened to at BASHAM & CORNELL RADIO
Email: show@bashamandcornell.com
On Thursday October 11, 2007, former Nixon counsel, John Dean will make his 3rd appearance on the Basham and Cornell Radio Show at 8 am Pacific Time on AM 1230 KLAV in Las Vegas. And we have him for the entire hour. First time he was with us, we discussed his then new book “Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush.” Second appearance - his new book was titled “Conservatives Without Conscience.”
When he makes his 3rd appearance with us, we will be discussing his latest book, “Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches.”
John Dean has become one of the most trenchant and respected commentators on the current state of American politics and one of the most outspoken and perceptive critics of the administration of George W. Bush in his New York Times bestsellers Conservatives Without Conscience and Worse Than Watergate.
In his eighth book, Dean takes the broadest and deepest view yet of the dysfunctional chaos and institutional damage that the Republican Party and its core conservatives have inflicted on the federal government. He assesses the state of all three branches of government, tracing their decline through the presidencies of Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II.
Unlike most political commentary, which is concerned with policy, Dean looks instead at process— making the case that the 2008 presidential race must confront these fundamental problems as well. Finally, he addresses the question that he is so often asked at his speaking engagements: What, if anything, can and should politically moderate citizens do to combat the extremism, authoritarianism, incompetence, and increasing focus on divisive wedge issues of so many of today’s conservative politicians?
With the Democrats now in control of both the House and Senate, the stakes for the 2008 presidential election have never been higher. This is a book for anyone who wants to return government to the spirit of the Constitution.
Several points I want to bring up:
1. Iraqi PM's Office finds that Blackwater Committed "Deliberate Murder" in spraying bullets at civllians and killing a mother and child, among eleven others.
2. Bruce Springsteen on 60 Minutes, said silence is unpatriotic — it is unpatriotic NOT to speak out against the Bush administration forits ruinous policies such as illegal wiretapping, torture, voter suppression, and the immoral Iraq war.
3. I believe conservatism as an ideology is over — or at least unraveling. I don't see how any true Christian can ever vote Republican again, at least in the Party’s current “neo-incarnation,” with sociopaths running the asylum.
But still, I have hope that the good conservatives will wake up. This is an article I wrote for a magazine:
Good Conservatives are Liberals at Heart
One of the definitions of ‘liberal’ in the dictionary is “not conservative”. The word liberal also has several other definitions, all including similar qualities, including “marked by generosity and open-handedness, bounteous, broad-minded, unbigoted, tolerant.” Those qualities sound like the kind of qualities most of us would like to see in our children. Now, I wonder which of these qualities Coulter objects to? Does she dislike “generosity” or open-handedness — or is it the broad-minded part that bothers her? Of is it the “tolerance” concept to which she objects?
Following the dictionary definition of liberal as “not conservative,” in other words, the opposite — then it seems a liberal is marked by generosity and a conservative is marked by stinginess. If a liberal is broad-minded, it follows that a conservative is narrow-minded. If it is liberal to be tolerant, then it must be conservative to be intolerant.
Going by the dictionary definitions of these words, I would like for my family to be known as liberals, and surely not the opposite. The dictionary definition of conservative is basically “disposed to maintaining existing views” which is why conservatives of long ago were opposed to freeing the slaves, the right of women to vote or to become lawyers and professionals — as well as the rights of Blacks to vote and the Civil Rights Act.
I’ve always been taught that Jesus was generous, tolerant and broad-minded, which fits the definition of liberal. He washed the feet of the lepers, hung out with the moral outcasts and sinners — who were so transformed by his loving acceptance, they desired to "sin no more." In summing up, based on those qualities of character, it seems to me undeniably that Jesus was a bleeding heart liberal.
My conservative friends may disagree with the label, but not the spirit. We must never allow words to get in the way of communication.
Again, I would like to believe that good conservatives are really liberals at heart. To paraphrase Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, “Hath not a conservative eyes, hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Are they not fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer that a liberal is? If you prick them, do they not bleed? If you tickle them, do they not laugh? If you poison them, do they not die? If you wrong them, shall they not revenge? If we are like you and the rest, we will resemble you in that.”
We are not children of a lesser God; we are all children of the same God.
*********
America has an embarrassing history of dropping bombs on people, but always assuming everyone knows we’re really still the good guys. This is how an abusive lover acts. We should play hard to get with Iraq. When in a love-hate relationship, it often takes leaving to really win. Unless we leave Iraq, we don’t give the Iraqis a chance to miss us, to pick up the pieces, to take responsibility, to grow up and to solve their own problems. It’s a basic spiritual law, an unflinching principle that when you let go of pushing too hard, the very thing you want comes to you. It’s arrogant to think the Iraqis don’t have their own higher power and their own ability to find their way.
This is how I used to act with an ex-boyfriend. I’d try to control him like a dictator, but secretly the guy thought I was a wacko. I only pushed him away. Trying to control people never works because it’s fear-based behavior. People are never interested when you push yourselves on them. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Staying in Iraq is causing nothing but an increase in grenades and bombs being lobbed at us. We are the problem. We are the common denominator in all this chaos. We must remove ourselves. Of course our President may have ulterior motives. He’s not telling us why we’re really there. There’s no transparency in this administration.
But I really believe in a power greater than ourselves and I know we're going to be all right. God did not give us a spirit of fear. Thank God for the Twelve Steps, where I learned to at least see my part in a conflict and to say I’m sorry. In the words of Stuart Smalley, “It's easier to wear slippers than to carpet the whole world.”
*************
"No problem can be solved at the same level it was created on." – Albert Einstein
What I've discovered is that the solution to any material problem is never at the level of the problem. It is always above the problem or challenge. It is always by “letting go” and looking away from the problem, never by fighting it on its level. It is always a spiritual solution.
No human power can relieve alcoholism. More alcohol cannot cure it. Nor can therapy, psychoanalysis or dissecting the brain heal the "dis-ease" of alcoholism.
No military power can solve this conflict in Iraq. We can’t fight fire with fire; we need to go above the problem and approach it from a diplomatic or spiritual solution. This is what Bush doesn’t understand. Fighting ones enemies never resolves anything, as the Great Peacemaker said. More military might only escalates the conflict. All great spiritual leaders know that what Christ taught creates peace: a soft answer turns away wrath. Withdraw our energy from the situation and the situation will solve itself. We must take care of our own side of the street.
From my friend Carl's blog at wwwsimplyleftbehind.blogspot.com:
"Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things – every one. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, ‘Liberal,’ as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won’t work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor." -- Matt Santos, The West Wing
Lydia this is a BRILLIANT article...........EVERY single facet and word is just so powerful and so "right on".......For far TOO LONG Conservative lies and rhetoric has gone completely unchallenged, and we KNOW that lies repeated over and over by sociopaths are very often taken or thought to be true......its time these people are challenged and their riddiculous lies refuted with sound unassailable logic that exposes them for the raving, deceptive lying lunatics they are and makes them look foolish.......to the point where they become reluctant and fearful to open their mouths and spew lies and deceptions again for fear of being humiliated and exposed as fools.
ReplyDeleteIts our RESPONSIBILITY to insure that truth and goodness winout over the powers of misrule and greed.
Seriously though this is definately one of your best pieces.........THIS is the type of stuff we NEED to see and SHOULD be seeing from Congress and our Presidential candidates.
BTW, I like the picture too! :D
ReplyDeleteExcellent Article Lydia.
ReplyDeleteCheck out this post by Sumo:
ReplyDeleteSumo Mewrriment
The Iraqi prime minister's office said Sunday that the government's investigation had determined that Blackwater USA private security guards who shot Iraqi civilians three weeks ago in a Baghdad square sprayed gunfire in nearly every direction, committed "deliberate murder" and should be punished accordingly.
ReplyDeleteThis is what conservatism brings.
Sen. Larry Craig has been chosen for induction into the Idaho Hall of Fame, despite his well-publicized arrest and guilty plea in an airport sex sting, officials said.
ReplyDeleteThe nonprofit Idaho Hall of Fame Association picked Craig in March, months before he pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct after a Minneapolis airport police officer accused him of soliciting sex in the men's restroom, the organization's board chairman said.
Hall of Fame for what: Stall Stalking?
Phony Pelosi:
ReplyDeleteSpeaker Nancy Pelosi appeared on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace and slammed President Bush for vetoing the expansion of the children's healthcare program known as SCHIP. Speaker Pelosi made a critical point about how much the Iraq war is diverting American resources from important domestic priorities, pointing out that the cost of insuring ten million children for one year under SCHIP equaled the cost of funding the Iraq war for forty days.
Isn't this the same war you continue to fund Pandering Pelosi?
Janessa Gans, a visiting political science professor at Principia College who served as a US official in Iraq from 2003 to 2005, opened fire on the private security contractor Blackwater in Saturday's edition of the Los Angeles Times.
ReplyDelete"When the Iraqi government last month demanded the expulsion of Blackwater USA, the private security firm, I had one reaction: It's about time," she begins in an editorial.
Gans says she witnessed firsthand "over-the-top zeal" of the behemoth US mercenary force.
"We would careen around corners, jump road dividers, reach speeds in excess of 100 mph and often cross over to the wrong side of the street, oncoming traffic be damned," she writes. "I began to wonder whether my meetings, intended to further U.S. policy goals and improve the lives of Iraqis, were doing more harm than good. With our drivers honking at, cutting off, pelting with water bottles (a favorite tactic) and menacing with weapons anyone in their way, how many enemies were we creating?"
Gans describes a particularly "infuriating" incident where the lead Chevy Suburban in her convoy allegedly crashed into a sedan ferrying an older man, a young woman and three children.
"As we approached at typical breakneck speed, the Blackwater driver honked furiously and motioned to the side, as if they should pull over," she pens. "The kids in the back seat looked back in horror, mouths agape at the sight of the heavily armored Suburbans driven by large, armed men in dark sunglasses. The poor Iraqi driver frantically searched for a means of escape, but there was none. So the lead Blackwater vehicle smashed heedlessly into the car, pushing it into the barrier. We zoomed by too quickly to notice if anyone was hurt."
"Where do you all expect them to go?" she allegedly cried. "It was an old guy and a family, for goodness' sake. Was it necessary for them to destroy their poor old car?"
"Ma'am, we've been trained to view anyone as a potential threat," she says the driver, who she did not identify, replied. "You don't know who they might use as decoys or what the risks are. Terrorists could be disguised as anyone."
"Well, if they weren't terrorists before, they certainly are now!" she says she replied.
This is conservatism at it's finest.
(Reuters) - Six years after the September 11 attacks in the United States, the "war on terror" is failing and instead fuelling an increase in support for extremist Islamist movements, a British think-tank said on Monday.
ReplyDeleteA report by the Oxford Research Group (ORG) said a "fundamental re-think is required" if the global terrorist network is to be rendered ineffective.
"If the al Qaeda movement is to be countered, then the roots of its support must be understood and systematically undercut," said Paul Rogers, the report's author and professor of global peace studies at Bradford University in northern England.
"Combined with conventional policing and security measures, al Qaeda can be contained and minimized but this will require a change in policy at every level."
He described the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq as a "disastrous mistake" which had helped establish a "most valued jihadist combat training zone" for al Qaeda supporters.
The report -- Alternatives to the War on Terror -- recommended the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq coupled with intensive diplomatic engagement in the region, including with Iran and Syria.
The massive U.S. embassy under construction in Baghdad could cost $144 million more than projected and will open months behind schedule because of poor planning, shoddy workmanship, internal disputes and last-minute changes sought by State Department officials, according to U.S. officials and a department document provided to Congress.
ReplyDeleteThe embassy, which will be the largest U.S. diplomatic mission in the world, was budgeted at $592 million. The core project was supposed to have been completed by last month, but the timetable has slipped so much that the State Department has sought and received permission from the Iraqi government to allow about 2,000 non-Iraqi construction employees to stay in the country until March.
Wasteful spending: Another example of conservatism.
Lydia great post! Absolutely wonderful! However, one of the quotes you used made me wonder - Don't you think Stuart Smalley would make a great Senator for Minnesota?
ReplyDelete:)
On Oct. 8, 1982, all labor organizations in Poland, including Solidarity, were banned.
ReplyDeleteInteresting both the Kremlin and Ronald Reagan were fighting the rights of workers to organize for the ability to earn a living wage.
It seems both Reagan and the Kremlin were successful if you look at how good the results were for the moneyed ruling class in both countries, and how poorly the rest of the citizens have fared in comparison.
Seems they both had the same underlying desires of exploitation of the people for the benefit of the small uber-rich in both societies.
I wonder why a communist and capitalist could have almost the exact same goal in mind, maybe because they really ain't that different when you look deep into their actions; both want power and wealth for the few ruling class, and exploitation of the rest.
Makes voltron and freedom fan's arguments look ridicules claiming they were so different doesn't it? After all if Reagan and the Kremlin were acting to achieve the very same goals then the followers of Karl Marx and Milton Freedman were just frauds claiming to follow some ideology, but actually just using the deluded fooles who followed them to exploit everyone not already in their special inner circle.
That kool-aid must be quite powerful f it can do that … whether in Moscow and Russia or Washington and America.
I feel like we are living in Orwell's 1984 with these doublethinking double talking thugs in power.
ReplyDeleteTo the Neo Cons
Peace is best achieved by perpetual war
Freedom is best brought about by implementing a police state that destroys freedoms and liberties
Democracy is best achieved by implementing an authoritarian fascist dictatorship.
Prosperity is best achieved by mortgaging the future via unsustainable debt and reckless credit creation.
Strength is best achieved by squandering our resouces till we are weak.
Helping the Poor and sick is best achieved by giving more money to the wealthy.
Safety is best achieved by inspiring the world to hate us.
Nuking anothing country pre-emptively is wrong if iran or another country does it but OK if the Neo Cons do it.
Aiding an insurgency by supplying weapons used to kill a sovreign countrys soldiers isa terrorist act and a war crime if Iran allegedly does it but perfectly acceptable if we do the same to the Russians in Afghanistan.
Good quote from Bruce Springsteen.
ReplyDeleteI think conservatism is dead, simply because the original ideas (individualism, limited government) are no longer practiced by the people who preach it. They've done a complete 180 and yet they're still spitting out the same slogans and platitudes.
Who Hijacked Our Country
Britain will withdraw nearly half its troops in Iraq beginning next spring, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Monday, leaving a contingent of 2,500 soldiers in the highly unpopular war.
ReplyDeleteIf Britain can do it, why can't the U.S?
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was confronted head-on Saturday over the issue of medical marijuana.
ReplyDeleteFollowing a campaign appearance in Dover, New Hampshire, a member of the audience, Clayton Holton, told Romney he has muscular dystrophy and said five of his doctors say he is "living proof medical marijuana works."
Romney won't buck the conservative line of desiring pain and suffering.
An associate editor and columnist for the Washington Post says that until George W. Bush and others in his administration endure the "harsh" treatment to which terrorism suspects are subjected, then Bush "will be remembered as the president who tried to justify torture."
ReplyDeleteSaying his proposal is a "serious" alternative to Jonathan Swift's "modest proposal," the Post's Eugene Robinson says Bush should endure the same detainee treatment he authorized, which "international conventions deem torture."
"My proposal on torture is serious," Robinson wrote on a washingtonpost.com discussion board Sunday. "Let me know if you agree: Bush administration officials who claim the "harsh" interrogation techniques being used on terrorism suspects are not torture should have to undergo those same techniques. Personally. Repeatedly."
Say it again!
The number of Americans who see the media as too conservative has grown by 64 percent since September of 2001, while the larger proportion of those who see it as too liberal has stagnated over the same period, according to a new Gallup poll.
ReplyDeleteAbout one in five respondents in a recent survey -- 18 percent -- see the media as being too conservative a 63.6 percent increase over the 11 percent who saw conservative bias six years ago, Gallup found. Perceptions of conservative bias have increased steadily since 2001 and were slightly higher last year, when 19 percent said the media favored the right wing.
The Conservative Media: Helping to Destroy AMERICA!
The Measure vetoed last week by President Bush to provide millions of children with affordable health coverage would cost what the Pentagon spends every 40 days in Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said today.
ReplyDeleteAppearing on the program Fox News Sunday, moderator Chris Wallace asked Pelosi if she would compromise with the president if she failed to round up enough votes to override his veto.
Bush and Conservatives hate poor children, but love war!
Eight U.S troops were killed in Iraq over the weekend.
ReplyDeleteAnother example of the conservative agenda.
Lydia--
ReplyDeleteThis was a great post. As you are probably well aware, every person who describes themselves as Christian, are not necessarily so. I would go as far as to say, TRUE Christians are a small minority in this country. Jesus, Himself, said, "Take heed that no man deceive you". He also gave good advice on how to identify deceivers. "You shall know them by their fruits".
Jesus never advocated, condoned, or supported war or capital punishment; conversely, He preached against them.
While 84% of Americans are self-described Christians, there are at least 30% who strongly support war. There is also a high percentage who believe in 'limited war'. War is war. It's like the old saw about being a 'little pregnant'. So, if Jesus, the Christ, taught against war and capital punishment, and you support these things, can you legitimately call yourself Christian? Logic would say no.
Larry--
The Hall of Fame category was Toe Tapping.<;)>
Larry said...
ReplyDeleteBritain will withdraw nearly half its troops in Iraq beginning next spring, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Monday, leaving a contingent of 2,500 soldiers in the highly unpopular war.
If Britain can do it, why can't the U.S?"
I wonder if Bush will pull his demogoggery on Brown and the Brits and tell them that they dont care about keeping their citizens safe and arent trying to "WIN" in Iraq, and want to "SURRENDER" instead.........what ever the hell that gobbldygook means?
I'm willing to bet one thing that fear mongering BS wont play to the british like it it did here for so long.
Great post, Lydia. And a lot of great comments too. How did this country let these people take it over? It is amazing to me.
ReplyDeleteThere was a good op-ed piece recently by, of all people, David Brooks, talking about the real conservatives who believed in limited government and keeping their noses out of other people's business, and how the neo-cons were the antithesis of this philosophy. We can only hope that people are finally seeing through them.
Mike, thank you for your kind words at top of page. And thank you Larry and Robert.
ReplyDeleteYes Robert - Stuart Smalley is running for Senate!
Maui Girl and Brother Tim - thank you also. Just saw your comments.
ReplyDeleteBrother Tim, I agree. "Just a little" war doesn't work. It's the principle of 'blessing those who persecute us" and loving our enemies" that is so transformative.
But as G. K. Chesterton said: “It is not that Christianity has been tried and failed. It is that it has never been tried.”
Excellent article, Lydia.
ReplyDeleteOne part of it reminded me of my favorite line to use to a pretend-Christian who keeps trying to "save" me is "God already saved me, so you can stop trying now."
Interesting:
ReplyDeleteSecret Service shot at car of agent said protecting Ahmadinejad
Who loves ya? Bloggers on the right rank righties they hate
ReplyDeleteThe gang over at Right Wing News (via memeorandum) asked 225 right-of-center bloggers to vote for their "Least Favorite People on the Right." RWN got 45 responses.
The person with the least right-wing stuff: Texas Rep. Ron Paul, with 23 shots punches to the head.
(Earlier today our next-of-center-door neighbors at the On Politics blog wrote about the GOP presidential candidate's hissing match with the New Hampshire Union Leader over his libertarian views on foreign policy.)
A distant second: former right guardian Pat Buchanan, with 18 daggers. He barely beat out Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who claimed third place with 17 love-me-nots. The fourth least fav was a tie: 13 shin kicks each for Idaho Sen. Larry "Footsie" Craig and radio Rasputin Michael Savage.
The full list follows:
Ranking is on the left, er, the other side of right, and the number of top votes for each person is, naturally, on the far right:
18) Ted Stevens (4)
18) Olympia Snowe (4)
18) Mel Martinez (4)
18) Sean Hannity (4)
18) Lincoln Chafee (4)
17) Bill O'Reilly (5)
14) Lindsey Graham (6)
14) George W. Bush (6)
14) Mitt Romney (6)
12) Arnold Schwarzenegger (9)
12) Rudy Giuliani (9)
8) Andrew Sullivan (11)
8) Chuck Hagel (11)
8) James Dobson (11)
8) Ann Coulter (11)
6) Arlen Specter (12)
6) Pat Robertson (12)
4) Larry Craig (13)
4) Michael Savage (13)
3) John McCain (17)
2) Pat Buchanan (18)
1) Ron Paul (23)
Democrat John Edwards tried to make light of Hillary Rodham Clinton's big lead in national polls Monday, saying that four years ago it looked as if Howard Dean might run away with the nomination.
ReplyDeleteEdwards, campaigning in the state that will hold leadoff caucuses in January, said his organization is much stronger than at this point in 2004 when he eventually won a surprise second-place finish.
Clinton now leads in Iowa as well as nationally, according to the latest polling. The Des Moines Register on Sunday had her at 29 percent in the state, up from 21 percent previously, with Edwards at 23 percent, down from 29. Barack Obama was at 22.
Asked about a belief among some that a Clinton nomination is inevitable, Edwards brushed the idea aside.
"I lived through the inevitability of Howard Dean," he said.
Dean, now chairman of the Democratic National Committee, was the front-runner in polls and fundraising in the 2004 election cycle before finishing third in the Iowa caucuses behind John Kerry and Edwards.
"I know that what happens, from my experience in 2004, is people look much more intensely at you as a candidate the closer you get to the caucus," he said. "A lot of the celebrity fades away. So, I think as a practical matter, that bodes well."
Edwards has increased the intensity of his criticism of Clinton in recent days, and his wife was asked about that in an interview on National Public Radio's "All Things Considered."
When Edwards was a boy, said Elizabeth Edwards, his father told him that if he was in a fight and had to hit back, "aim for the nose; you sort of get more bang for your buck there."
"So you have to aim for their vulnerability and make them understand that there is a cost associated with attacking you," Mrs. Edwards said. "You're not going to lay down. You're strong enough not only to take it but to hit back. It gives you an opportunity, I think, when you're fighting on even ground to redirect the conversation to something more productive for voters."
And Hillary is a Repug!
More ou Bush's great economy:
ReplyDeleteNumber of Homeless Families Rises:
Data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development suggests there about 750,000 homeless in the nation on any given night, with about 40 percent of those members of homeless families, said Philip Mangano, director of the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness.
heck of a job georgie, destroyed a country, lost an American City and increased homelessness in America, you must be celebrating tonite eh son?
Where does a candidate go to find “wise counsel and invaluable experience” for his campaign? Fred Thompson has turned to his mentor, to the vice-president’s daughter, and to a former Virginia senator whose defeat last fall contributed to the Democratic takeover of the Senate.
ReplyDeleteOn Monday, Mr. Thompson appointed Howard Baker, who is regarded as Tennessee’s political dean; Elizabeth Cheney, the vice president’s daughter who has worked for the State Department on Middle Eastern policy; and George Allen, the former senator from Virginia, to his “National Campaign Leadership Team.”
Mr. Baker will serve as the campaign’s honorary chairman, while Ms. Cheney and Mr. Allen will join former Senator Spencer Abraham as campaign co-chairs.
Mr. Thompson, a Republican presidential hopeful and former senator from Tennessee, often refers to Mr. Baker as his political hero. Mr. Thompson’s first big break came as a 30-year-old small-town lawyer, when Mr. Baker chose him over more accomplished candidates as the Senate Watergate committee’s Republican counsel.
But why Mr. Allen, who lost his re-election bid last year after he used the insulting slang term “macaca” to refer to a young man at a campaign event? His loss in the midterm election last year helped deliver the Senate to the Democrats.
Some strategists said Mr. Allen’s appointment was tactical.
“Right now, the play is to the base,”said Jack Burkman, a Republican strategist and lobbyist, and Mr. Allen “remains very popular with the base.” The macaca incident “did not change the impression of Allen at all” among his conservative followers, Mr. Burkman said.
Ms. Cheney, whose father is Vice President Dick Cheney, was until recently principal deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs. Her foreign policy credentials can only help Mr. Thompson, and her family ties can help him build a bridge to the current administration, said Keith Harper, founder of the Web site FredHeads.com.
Gotta get those worn out neocons off the unemployment rolls.
If they used the money wasted on Iraq for the homeless, and poor, that problem would be solved.
ReplyDeleteBorn with a silver spoon in his mouth. Sent to the best schools. Allowed to go AWOL during his time in the National Guard. Through the help of family and several uber-rich friends, took control of, and gained much wealth from, several business… which he also manages to run into the ground.
ReplyDeleteIn 2000, with the help of friends in ‘low’ places and a suspect court, he somehow manages to become president of the United States.
I’m not even going to start listing all of his failures from that point on. But one of those failures… and it’s a big one… is starting an illegal and immoral war. A war that has, to date, taken the lives of many of our troops and countless others of Iraqis.
He also recently vetoed legislation that would have increased health coverage to our American young; children who otherwise can’t afford to see a doctor.
Silver Spoon in his Hand and a Silver Foot in his Mouth!
Wonder why the Secret Service was shooting at that car Clif?
ReplyDeleteDemocrats are positioned to bolster their Senate majority in next year’s elections, which would give them more clout regardless who succeeds President George W. Bush in the White House.
ReplyDeleteWith Republicans dogged by retirements, scandals and the Iraq war, there’s an outside chance Democrats will gain as many as nine seats in the 100-member Senate in the November 2008 elections, which would give them a pivotal 60.
That is the number of votes needed to clear Republican procedural roadblocks, which have been used to thwart the Democrats’ efforts to force a change in Bush’s policy on the Iraq war, particularly plans to withdraw U.S. troops.
Not if Pelosi and Reid continue as Bush's enablers!
My my my…… 10 months and 799 U.S. lives later here we are. There will be no reconciliation. There will continue to be a civil war with Shiite versus Sunni and we can guess who the winner will be. GET US OUT NOW!!!
ReplyDeleteFor much of this year, the U.S. military strategy in Iraq has sought to reduce violence so that politicians could bring about national reconciliation, but several top Iraqi leaders say they have lost faith in that broad goal.
Iraqi leaders argue that sectarian animosity is entrenched in the structure of their government. Instead of reconciliation, they now stress alternative and perhaps more attainable goals: streamlining the government bureaucracy, placing experienced technocrats in positions of authority and improving the dismal record of providing basic services.
“I don’t think there is something called reconciliation, and there will be no reconciliation as such,” said Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih, a Kurd. “To me, it is a very inaccurate term. This is a struggle about power.”
It's a struggle betweena maniacal monkey and a maniacal wimpish version of himself.
Check out our friend Naj's latest post:
ReplyDeleteNeoresistance
Earl has two new posts up that will make you think:
ReplyDeleteEarl's Place
Larry, you said, "With Republicans dogged by retirements, scandals and the Iraq war, there’s an outside chance Democrats will gain as many as nine seats in the 100-member Senate in the November 2008 elections, which would give them a pivotal 60."
ReplyDeleteUh, wouldn't they actually need ten to make it to 60? I was under the assumption they only have 50 now. Joe LIEberman doesn't count.
Good point Robert, and I wonder about Harry Reid.
ReplyDeleteCar bombs across Iraq, including at least one near the Polish embassy in Baghdad, killed 20 people and wounded dozens on Monday, police said.
ReplyDeleteA suicide truck bomber slammed into a police station building in Dijlah, 130 kilometers (80 miles) north of Baghdad in early afternoon, killing nine people, including three policemen, and wounding 26, mostly civilians.
The explosion also destroyed over 20 shops in the area and some 10 cars nearby, Dijlah security official Abdul Wahab Ahmed said.
In Baghdad, a 2 p.m. (11:00 GMT) blast near the Polish embassy in the downtown Shiite-controlled Karradah district killed two persons and wounded five. All the victims were Iraqis, the police said.
Looks like that "surge" is working the same as always.
Excellent post, I hope and pray that the Conservative movement is over and ending..and that repugs are thinking over WHO they are...I loved what you wrote and great Einstein quote....
ReplyDeleteand I do hope that we as a nation find our Humanity again...
I hope that the repugs do realize that the Bush Administration has ruined their party, I have noticed when cspan shows their events the turnouts are not great....
( this is enigma4ever from Watergate Summer, but I have a post up about Humanity..it is about the Death of Carol Gotham at the Arizona airport..it is actually posted at the Cosmic Messege, at http://cosmiqe.blogspot.com/, or you can scroll my blogroll...thanks...)
Eeeeeks Correction**** I said her name wrong..Carol Gotbaum..( this is why I should not blog and discuss Batman with my son at the same time..so sorry).....
ReplyDeleteEnigma you can talk Batman and blog here anytime.
ReplyDeleteI think Lydia is absolutely right, Bush and Cheney have brought about the death of Conservatism............and ignited a Progressive movement.
ReplyDeleteThink about it, Lydia and Doug have started a Progressive radio show, Progressives are starting to Blog, there are grassroots organizations forming, taking the Presidency and getting MORE of a majority in the Senate and House is the first step.........I can see Constitutional Amendments, and the Media broken up and regulated and controlled to insure truth and diversity of opinion.
Look at this Blog for an Example, most of us were NEVER political people till the Neo Con thugs came to power, I wasnt, I know Worfeus, Bartlebe and Clif werent either these Neo Con fools created us, they ignited the spark of a the Progressive Movement while destroying the Conservative Movement.
Much of what the Conserrvatives did to gain power and influence, I think you will start seeing Progressives do.
The problem I see with your senario MIke is people like Pelosi and Reid, by their enabling, are keeping the conservative groanings alive, just barely.
ReplyDeleteIraqi authorities want the U.S. government to sever all contracts in Iraq with Blackwater USA within six months. They also want the firm to pay $8 million in compensation to families of each of the 17 people killed when its guards sprayed a traffic circle with heavy machine gun fire last month.
ReplyDeleteThe demands _ part of an Iraqi government report examined by The Associated Press _ also called on U.S. authorities to hand over the Blackwater security agents involved in the Sept. 16 shootings to face possible trial in Iraqi courts.
The tone of the Iraqi report appears to signal further strains between the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the White House over the deaths in Nisoor Square _ which have prompted a series of U.S. and Iraqi probes and raised questions over the use of private security contractors to guard U.S. diplomats and other officials.
Al-Maliki ordered the investigation by his defense minister and other top security and police officials on Sept. 22. The findings _ which were translated from Arabic by AP _ mark the most definitive Iraqi positions and contentions about the shootings last month.
Top NewsTop Posts
Living Now: David Allen: Is Thinking Interrupting Your Sleep?
Business: Hale "Bonddad" Stewart: Powerline: Economic Hacks
Entertainment: James Boyce: In Praise Of Springsteen - UPDATED: With Video
Politics: Dennis Perrin: Hitchens Weeps
Media: Brian Williams: Live From The White House...With Feeling
Media: Looking In The Mirror, Right-Wing Bloggers Name Wingers They Hate
Business: China's Richest Person Is 26 Year-Old Woman
Politics: Obama, Clinton Battle Over Iran
Living Now: The ABC's Of Being A Model
Entertainment: Demi Moore Denies Reports Of Plastic Surgery Body Makeover
The report also highlights the differences in death tolls and accounts that have complicated efforts to piece together the chain of events as one Blackwater-protected convoy raced back toward Baghdad's Green Zone after a nearby bombing, while a second backup team in four gun trucks sped into the square as a backup team.
The Iraqi investigation _ first outlined Thursday by The Associated Press _ charges the four Blackwater vehicles called to the square began shooting without provocation. Blackwater contends its employees came under fire first.
The government, at the conclusion of its investigation, said 17 Iraqis died. Initial reports put the toll at 11.
It said the compensation _ totaling $136 million _ was so high "because Blackwater uses employees who disrespect the rights of Iraqi citizens even though they are guests in this country."
The U.S. military pays compensation money to the families of civilians killed in battles or to cover property damage, but at far lower amounts.
The United States has not made conclusive findings about the shooting, though there are multiple investigations under way and Congress has opened inquiries into the role of private security contractors. Last week, the FBI took over a State Department investigation, raising the prospect that it could be referred to the Justice Department for prosecution.
The Iraqi government report said its courts were to proper venue in which to bring charges.
It said Blackwater's license to operate in Iraq expired on June 2, 2006, meaning it had no immunity from prosecution under Iraqi laws set down after the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003.
The government report also challenged the claim that a decree in June 2004 by then-Iraqi administrator L. Paul Bremer granted Blackwater immunity from legal action in incidents such as the one in Nisoor Square. The report said the Blackwater guards could be charged under a criminal code from 1969.
U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo said the diplomatic mission would have no comment on the report. Iraq's Interior Ministry spokesman, Abdul-Karim Khalaf, said the document was in American hands.
The report found that Blackwater guards also had killed 21 Iraqi civilians and wounded 27 in previous shootings since it took over security for U.S. diplomats in Baghdad after the U.S. invasion. The Iraqi government did not say whether it would try to prosecute in those cases.
The State Department has counted 56 shooting incidents involving Blackwater guards in Iraq this year.
Bush's private army gone wild.
and Hillary ? I think at times she is enabling too..I don't see her taking a stand on issues that matter ...ahem...Iraq...healthcare..(sorry but her plan is not the best)...okay I could go on...but there are Dems that have not fought hard enough for the Progressives- they try to tow a middle-of-the -line approach....
ReplyDeleteAs you know, I am no fan of Reed and Pelosi either..........i'm hoping they get beat by REAL Prpgrssives or Independents or both the Dems and Repugs fracture into several parties so we have REAL choices.
ReplyDeleteBut I can FEEL there is a wave of change coming and the status quo wont be acceptable much longer.........the 2012 election will be just as important as 2008, possibly more.
Senate news: Domenici to retire, and Craig isn't leaving -- yet
ReplyDeleteThe Hill newspaper reports that Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., will run for the Senate seat Sen. Pete Domenici is vacating. Domenici plans to announce his retirement in Albuquerque today at 6 p.m. ET. His health is a major reason, the AP reports.
The Hill notes that Wilson "faces the same U.S. Attorney scandal baggage that would have affected Domenici’s re-election campaign. Fired U.S. attorney David Iglesias said both lawmakers pressured him to be more aggressive with his corruption cases during the 2006 campaign."
New York Sen. Charles Schumer, chairman of the Democrats' Senate campaign committee, called New Mexico "a state where Democrats have a long history of winning elections, and with a deep bench of talented Democratic candidates, we look forward to fielding a nominee who will wage a successful campaign." Democrats already are looking at open seats in Virginia, Colorado and elsewhere in hopes of padding their thin majority.
Among Democratic names in the mix: Rep. Tom Udall and Gov. Bill Richardson. Richardson is running for the Democratic presidential nomination and his campaign says that's his entire focus. However, as Time's Swampland blog notes, the filing deadline for the June Senate primary is Feb. 8 -- three days after a rash of primaries that will likely lock in nominees for both parties.
Update at 3:15 p.m. ET: Richardson doesn't rule out a Senate run, depending on how things go. The AP examines timing and viability issues, and says the filing deadline is Feb. 12.
Update at 4:55 p.m. ET: In other Senate news, embattled Idaho Republican Larry Craig lost his bid to withdraw a plea of guilty to disorderly conduct in connection with a sex-sting operation in Minneapolis. He said today on his website that he won't resign. He also said he won't run for re-election next year.
Posted by Jill Lawrence at 02:15 PM/ET, October 04, 2007 in Democrats, Republicans, Senate | Permalink
and Larry- those Blackwater numbers that you put up- we also know those are the numbers that have been reported to Blackwater by Blackwater....JimWebb explained it very very well to Joe Scarboroguh...( footage is over on Crooks&liars..)
ReplyDeleteEnigma,
ReplyDeleteThe Dems think they can lay in the weeds and allow this to continue with no repercussions.
They may be fooling themselves.
You hear Domineci is gone........New Mexico will become Democratic!
ReplyDeleteEnigma,
ReplyDeleteYou're right. Those numbers are as phony as the U.S death tolls that are underreported.
Mike:
ReplyDeleteHe probably is really leaving because they are closing in on his scandal.
The following story was written by Mark Twain in protest of the US miliary actions in the Phillipines against the indigenous people there, (sorta like we did to the Vietnamese(1954-1975), and are doing to the Iraqis(1991-present) ....
ReplyDeleteThe War Prayer
by Mark Twain
It was a time of great and exalting excitement. The country was up in arms, the war was on, in every breast burned the holy fire of patriotism; the drums were beating, the bands playing, the toy pistols popping, the bunched firecrackers hissing and spluttering; on every hand and far down the receding and fading spread of roofs and balconies a fluttering wilderness of flags flashed in the sun; daily the young volunteers marched down the wide avenue gay and fine in their new uniforms, the proud fathers and mothers and sisters and sweethearts cheering them with voices choked with happy emotion as they swung by; nightly the packed mass meetings listened, panting, to patriot oratory which stirred the deepest deeps of their hearts, and which they interrupted at briefest intervals with cyclones of applause, the tears running down their cheeks the while; in the churches the pastors preached devotion to flag and country, and invoked the God of Battles beseeching His aid in our good cause in outpourings of fervid eloquence which moved every listener. It was indeed a glad and gracious time, and the half dozen rash spirits that ventured to disapprove of the war and cast a doubt upon its righteousness straightway got such a stern and angry warning that for their personal safety's sake they quickly shrank out of sight and offended no more in that way.
Sunday morning came -- next day the battalions would leave for the front; the church was filled; the volunteers were there, their young faces alight with martial dreams -- visions of the stern advance, the gathering momentum, the rushing charge, the flashing sabers, the flight of the foe, the tumult, the enveloping smoke, the fierce pursuit, the surrender! Then home from the war, bronzed heroes, welcomed, adored, submerged in golden seas of glory! With the volunteers sat their dear ones, proud, happy, and envied by the neighbors and friends who had no sons and brothers to send forth to the field of honor, there to win for the flag, or, failing, die the noblest of noble deaths. The service proceeded; a war chapter from the Old Testament was read; the first prayer was said; it was followed by an organ burst that shook the building, and with one impulse the house rose, with glowing eyes and beating hearts, and poured out that tremendous invocation
*God the all-terrible! Thou who ordainest! Thunder thy clarion and lightning thy sword!*
Then came the "long" prayer. None could remember the like of it for passionate pleading and moving and beautiful language. The burden of its supplication was, that an ever-merciful and benignant Father of us all would watch over our noble young soldiers, and aid, comfort, and encourage them in their patriotic work; bless them, shield them in the day of battle and the hour of peril, bear them in His mighty hand, make them strong and confident, invincible in the bloody onset; help them to crush the foe, grant to them and to their flag and country imperishable honor and glory --
An aged stranger entered and moved with slow and noiseless step up the main aisle, his eyes fixed upon the minister, his long body clothed in a robe that reached to his feet, his head bare, his white hair descending in a frothy cataract to his shoulders, his seamy face unnaturally pale, pale even to ghastliness. With all eyes following him and wondering, he made his silent way; without pausing, he ascended to the preacher's side and stood there waiting. With shut lids the preacher, unconscious of his presence, continued with his moving prayer, and at last finished it with the words, uttered in fervent appeal, "Bless our arms, grant us the victory, O Lord our God, Father and Protector of our land and flag!"
The stranger touched his arm, motioned him to step aside -- which the startled minister did -- and took his place. During some moments he surveyed the spellbound audience with solemn eyes, in which burned an uncanny light; then in a deep voice he said:
"I come from the Throne -- bearing a message from Almighty God!" The words smote the house with a shock; if the stranger perceived it he gave no attention. "He has heard the prayer of His servant your shepherd, and will grant it if such shall be your desire after I, His messenger, shall have explained to you its import -- that is to say, its full import. For it is like unto many of the prayers of men, in that it asks for more than he who utters it is aware of -- except he pause and think.
"God's servant and yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two -- one uttered, the other not. Both have reached the ear of Him Who heareth all supplications, the spoken and the unspoken. Ponder this -- keep it in mind. If you would beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke a curse upon a neighbor at the same time. If you pray for the blessing of rain upon your crop which needs it, by that act you are possibly praying for a curse upon some neighbor's crop which may not need rain and can be injured by it.
"You have heard your servant's prayer -- the uttered part of it. I am commissioned of God to put into words the other part of it -- that part which the pastor -- and also you in your hearts -- fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant that it was so! You heard these words: 'Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!' That is sufficient. the *whole* of the uttered prayer is compact into those pregnant words. Elaborations were not necessary. When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for many unmentioned results which follow victory--*must* follow it, cannot help but follow it. Upon the listening spirit of God fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!
"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle -- be Thou near them! With them -- in spirit -- we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it -- for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.
(*After a pause.*) "Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of the Most High waits!"
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.
Twain apparently dictated it around 1904-05; it was rejected by his publisher, and was found after his death among his unpublished manuscripts.
It was first published in 1923 in Albert Bigelow Paine's anthology, Europe and Elsewhere.
The story is in response to a particular war, namely the Philippine-American War of 1899-1902, which Twain opposed.
he story has een used as part of the efforts to end the illegal war in Vietnam, and must be revived to try to end the illegal war in Iraq, hopefully someday this story can be put to rest because the US stops praying for death and destruction of so many people just to obtain victory, (and the wealth of other nations which comes with it).
May it be so
amen
Pelosi and Reid arent Dems........they are spineless worms!
ReplyDeleteGood one Clif and one that still fits today.
ReplyDeletePelosi and Reid are closet Repugs that can't muster the guts to admit they are enablers like Lieberman.
ReplyDeleteHe's leaving because of Dementia Larry.............maybe thats a problem affecting the entire repug party.........they sure seem demented and out of touch with reality to me.
ReplyDeleteI assumed he was getting out before they nailed him for the attorney scandal.
ReplyDeleteTwain and Orwell were smart men who wrote material that is timeless and applicable to any age.........they recognized evil and they regognized the tactics it repeatedly uses to seize power and wage war.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure the attorney scandal entered intpo the decision.
ReplyDeleteIf Twain and Orwell were alive today, they would be labeled as helping terrorists and thrown in prison.
ReplyDeleteMark Twain couldn't get the story published in his time either, he left it in his papers and it was only published
ReplyDeleteAFTER HIS DEATH ....
can you imagine Twain on a No FLY list...man he would be ripping....
ReplyDeleteThanks to Clif for posting the Twain..
and larry yes, i agree with you abou the DEMs..totally...
gotta go walk the dog...be back..
Isn't it strange how these guys knew the future and wrote about it as if it were tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteLarry said...
ReplyDeleteIsn't it strange how these guys knew the future and wrote about it as if it were tomorrow."
Like I said their writings are timeless, just like the US Constitution and The Golden Rule.............the repugs call it quaint...........I think the repugs are gonna be quaint in a few years.
In fact 50 years from now children might ask Whats a repug? just like children today ask what a whig is as that party also went extinct for being out of touch with the will of the people.
Larry, Samuel Clements saw the hypocrissy of the USA during the 19th century, how they claimed to be for "democracy" while enslaving people of African decent in the USA and murdering the Indians for their land and he wrote about it as, (Mark Twain). Of course Eric Arthur Blair lived thru WW1 and WW2, he wrote about it as, (George Orwell), enuf said there.
ReplyDeleteIn hope the little emperor that the Repugs defended with their last breath, is the very one to completely destroy the Republican party.
ReplyDeleteThe Repugs would fry Orwell and Twain today, ruin their lives and discredit their brilliance.
ReplyDeleteThink Progress:
ReplyDeleteTwo weeks ago, the Democratic radio address was delivered by a 12-year old Maryland boy named Graeme Frost. Graeme told his story of being involved in a severe car accident three years ago, and having received access to medical care because of the Children’s Health Insurance Program. He said:
If it weren’t for CHIP, I might not be here today. … We got the help we needed because we had health insurance for us through the CHIP program. But there are millions of kids out there who don’t have CHIP, and they wouldn’t get the care that my sister and I did if they got hurt. … I just hope the President will listen to my story and help other kids to be as lucky as me.
The right-wing immediately condemned Democrats for daring to put a human face on the SCHIP program at a time when Bush was proposing a “diminishment of the number of children covered.” Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) — who has posed with children to advance his own political agenda — claimed Graeme was being used “as a human shield.”
Conservatives have more recently turned their targets on young Graeme Frost himself. A poster at the Free Republic propagated information alleging that Frost was actually a rich kid being pampered by the government. Among other bits of information, the post by the Freeper “icwhatudo” asserts that Graeme and his sister Gemma attend wealthy schools that cost “nearly $40,000 per year for tuition” and live in a well-off home.
The smear attack against Graeme has taken firm hold in the right-wing blogosphere. The National Review, Michelle Malkin, Wizbang, Powerline, and the Weekly Standard blog have all launched assaults on the Frost family. The story is slowly working its way into traditional media outlets as well.
Here are the facts that the right-wing distorted in order to attack young Graeme:
1) Graeme has a scholarship to a private school. The school costs $15K a year, but the family only pays $500 a year.
2) His sister Gemma attends another private school to help her with the brain injuries that occurred due to her accident. The school costs $23,000 a year, but the state pays the entire cost.
3) They bought their “lavish house” sixteen years ago for $55,000 at a time when the neighborhood was less than safe.
4) Last year, the Frost’s made $45,000 combined. Over the past few years they have made no more than $50,000 combined.
5) The state of Maryland has found them eligible to participate in the CHIP program.
Desperate to defend Bush’s decision to cut off millions of children from health care, the right wing has stooped to launching baseless and uninformed attacks against a 12 year old child and his family.
Right wing bloggers have been harassing the Frosts, calling their home numerous times to get information about their private lives. Compassionate conservatism indeed.
That's conservatism: Destroy a sick child.
More than a thousand Iraqis marched in west Baghdad on Saturday in a rare public demonstration to protest against a wall they say the U.S. military is planning to erect around their neighborhood. Carrying an Iraqi national flag and banners condemning the wall the marchers in the predominantly Shi’ite district of al-Washash chanted ‘No, no to the wall. No, no to America.’”
ReplyDeleteDidn't Bush once say the U.S would leave Iraq when the Iraqi's said they wanted that?
Larry the reichwing are just scared little bedwetters. So it doesn't suprise me they would attack a 12 year old child one bit.
ReplyDeleteIf they were really adults and all grown up, they would have gone and fought the war they cheer lead for.
Instead they try to smear a 12 year old child and his family.
I know of several co-workers on CHIP, it is a great program that helps the working class get medical care, and the Reich Wing wants to deny medical care to Children and think Soldiers Dont DESERVE a 3.5% pay increase.............yeah might cut into their big lavish tax cuts or Blackwaters bloated $200,000 to $400,000 salaries.
ReplyDeleteDid you know many Blackwater employees make double what even their head shill General Petraeus makes.
The Blackwater money is all tax free also, which is a double bonus for those murderers.
ReplyDeleteCrooks and Liars:
ReplyDeleteAnother Republican elected official– a pal of David Diapers Vitter no less– caught toe-tappin’ in the boys room! And he wants wanted to be a state senator too! Yesterday’s Times-Picayune painted another dismal picture of another Republican pervert who trawls from public restroom to public restroom looking for… love? Well, looking for something. Joey DiFatta is the chairman of St. Bernard Parish Council and a prominent Republican leader (until 2004 on the GOP state party Executive Committee). He just withdrew from his state senate race, after his arrests for lewd behavior in a public restroom were made public. Read more…
From the Times-Picayune article it appears DiFatta may have been Larry “Super Tuber” Craig’s mentor:
The report said DiFatta slid his foot into the deputy’s stall and tapped the deputy’s foot. In the report, Conley noted that such activity is common among men to indicate a willingness to participate in sex.
The deputy inside the stall, Detective Wayne Couvillion, responded by tapping his foot, and DiFatta reached under the partition and began to rub the deputy’s leg, the report states.
Larry any American citizen who is outside the US for a total of 330 calander days during a tax year gets a free pass from the IRS, the Blackwater uncontrolled cowboys are just taking advantage of that IRS code, just like the oil expats in saudi arabia have done for decades. ( and US Mercs in Africa did during the 70's and 80's while opposing the USSR mercs.)
ReplyDeleteClif that means that Halliburton employees get the same break then I would assume.
ReplyDeleteYes larry, and US military soldiers also do not pay taxes during their deployments tothe combat zones ......
ReplyDeleteI can see the soldiers not paying taxes, but Halliburton and Blackwater are there because they want to be, not out of force like the soldiers.
ReplyDeleteLarry the tax code goes back for decades, people I know who returned to Kuwait post Desert Storm made hundreds of thousands of dollars in pay and paid no taxes because they were over there for a couple of years helping Kuwait deal with the mine fields and unexpolded ordnace.
ReplyDeleteThe law applies to every American Citizen, and the Halliburton, Blackwater, ETC contractors are just benefiting from it.
Thanks for clarifying it, I thought Bush made a special exception for Halliburton and Blackwater.
ReplyDeleteNo Larry but I'm sure he made sure everyone who has gone to Iraq for thr GOP qualified in some way, like the GOP operatives who screwed everthing up so bad initially, in 2003-2004.
ReplyDeleteTax cuts for incompetents
should have been tha signing statements title.
Clif:
ReplyDeleteThose from Halliburton and Blackwater are making a killing there, provided they get out alive.
More costs to the government, and a gain for corporations.
Larry that was the whole idea of privatizing the government services, because if a "private" in a merc army can make $600 a day, think how much the bosses and owners are pigging out at the PUBLIC TROUGH.
ReplyDeleteIt was never about saving any tax payer anything, but enriching the reichwing campaign donators to the GOPers, and sealing tax money to undercut the governments ability to actually do much to help the poor and middle class in their ever sinkng ecomonic condition.
Bet ole milty the fraud freidman wouldn't like this;
ReplyDeleteEven CATO libertarians say energy deregulation does not work
In an Op-Ed that was published in the Wall Street Journal last month (and is available in full to non-subscribers on CATO's website) two CATO economists specialised in deregulation and energy markets provide a breath of fresh air in the debates on energy.
Their point is to criticize the poorly thought out deregulation in various US States over the past 15 years, and they explain clearly how energy markets work (something which is rare enough in the mainstream media), and what the consequences of various bits of deregulation are on market behavior and thus on electricity prices.
So Reagan and Frfeidman were full of bovine feces after all. Too bad so man had to pay too much and suffer for the reichwing fraud they foisted.
A retired lieutenant commander in the Navy Reserve who served with the Navy's Supervisor of Salvage questioned in a little-noticed editorial Sunday why six active nuclear armed cruise missiles were being transferred to an active bomber base that "just happens to be the staging area for Middle Eastern operations."
ReplyDelete"The United States also does not transport nuclear weapons meant for elimination attached to their launch vehicles under the wings of a combat aircraft," Navy veteran Robert Stormer wrote in the Texas-based Star-Telegram. "The procedure is to separate the warhead from the missile, encase the warhead and transport it by military cargo aircraft to a repository -- not an operational bomber base that just happens to be the staging area for Middle Eastern operations."
Six nuclear W80 nuclear-armed cruise missiles were flown to Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana where they sat for ten hours undetected.
"Press reports initially cited the Air Force mistake of flying nuclear weapons over the United States in violation of Air Force standing orders and international treaties, while completely missing the more important major issues, such as how six nuclear cruise missiles got loose to begin with," writes Stormer.
"Let me be very clear here: We are not talking about paintball cartridges or pellet gun ammo. We are talking nuclear weapons."
Stormer doesn't buy reports that the missiles were simply lost. The title of his piece is "Nuke transportation story has explosive implications."
"There is a strict chain of custody for all such weapons," he said. "Nuclear weapons handling is spelled out in great detail in Air Force regulations, to the credit of that service. Every person who orders the movement of these weapons, handles them, breaks seals or moves any nuclear weapon must sign off for tracking purposes."
"All security forces assigned are authorized "to use deadly force to protect the weapons from any threat. Nor does anyone quickly move a 1-ton cruise missile -- or forget about six of them, as reported by some news outlets, especially cruise missiles loaded with high explosives.
"This is about how six nuclear advanced cruise missiles got out of their bunkers and onto a combat aircraft without notice of the wing commander, squadron commander, munitions maintenance squadron (MMS), the B-52H's crew chief and command pilot and onto another Air Force base tarmac without notice of that air base's chain of command -- for 10 hours."
At the end of his editorial, he poses the following questions.
The questions that must be answered:
1 Why, and for what ostensible purpose, were these nuclear weapons taken to Barksdale?
2 How long was it before the error was discovered?
3 How many mistakes and errors were made, and how many needed to be made, for this to happen?
4 How many and which security protocols were overlooked?
5 How many and which safety procedures were bypassed or ignored?
6 How many other nuclear command and control non-observations of procedure have there been?
7 What is Congress going to do to better oversee U.S. nuclear command and control?
8 How does this incident relate to concern for reliability of control over nuclear weapons and nuclear materials in Russia, Pakistan and elsewhere?
9 Does the Bush administration, as some news reports suggest, have plans to attack Iran with nuclear weapons?
10 If this was an accident, have we degraded our military to a point where we are now making critical mistakes with our nuclear arsenal? If so, how do we correct this?
The US Army will need three or four years to recover from the strains of repeated deployments to Iraq even with a planned drawdown of US forces next year, the service's chief said Monday.
ReplyDeleteGeneral George Casey said the army is "out of balance" after six years of warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq, and facing unpredictable demands in an era of "persistent conflict."
"Out of balance is not broken, it's not hollow," he said. "But we're forced by the current demands on the force to do more in the current time frame at the expense of sustaining the all-volunteer force and building bridges for the future."
"We know where we need to go and it's going to take three or four years and a substantial amount of resources to put ourselves back in balance," he told reporters at an annual army conference.
Strains on the army intensified earlier this year when President George W. Bush decided to buildup US force levels in Iraq as part of an effort to bring spiraling sectarian violence under control.
To meet the demand for more troops, the army had to extend combat tours of units in Iraq to 15 months from 12 months.
Otherwise, it would have had to send in units that had less than a year to rest and train between combat deployments.
George W Bush:Destroying the U.S military.
(Reuters) - Two car bombs killed 14 people and wounded 30 in the northern Iraqi town of Baiji on Tuesday, police said, marking an increase in attacks as the holy Muslim month of Ramadan draws to an end.
ReplyDeleteAl Qaeda in Iraq had vowed to ramp up attacks during the fasting month, specifically to target government officials and tribal leaders who have decided to work with U.S. forces to fight the Sunni Islamist group.
Baiji's police chief, Colonel Saad Nifous, was wounded in an attack on his home that killed four of his bodyguards and wounded another seven, police said.
The second bomb in Baiji, 180 km (110 miles) north of the capital, targeted a mosque, killing 10 civilians and wounding 22 people. A police source in the town said a tribal leader who was working with U.S. troops to combat al Qaeda was the target.
Car and roadside bombs on Monday killed at least 21 people across Iraq.
Bush's "surge" at work.
It's the first trial of its kind. A man is facing a judge and jury for violating Orlando's ban on feeding the homeless. Eric Montanez, 22, was caught feeding a group in Lake Eola Park earlier this year. The prosecution told Eyewitness News their case rests on video taken of Montanez feeding the homeless, breaking Orlando's feeding ban.
ReplyDelete"There are a lot better things for law enforcement to be doing in this town, but this was an outrage," said George Crossley of the ACLU.
Montanez and a small group of supporters marched from Lake Eola Park to the Orange County on Monday morning.
"We're ready to take this on," Montanez said.
Montanez and the group he's involved with, Food Not Bombs, returned to Lake Eola just after sunrise to once again violate the ordinance that has him on trial. Food Not Bombs volunteers served breakfast to about 100 Montanez supporters, most of them homeless. They will serve breakfast, lunch and dinner during what they're calling a three-day "ladle fest," not a protest.
"Me personally, I think that's discriminating for one," said Lamont Robinson, a homeless man.
"We're out here trying to survive from day to day life and this gentleman over here is helping us," said Melvin Moore, a homeless man.
In April, Montanez was arrested for violating the city ordinance that bans mass feeding in one area. His attorney will argue that the law is a violation of civil rights and say Montanez did nothing wrong, because every feeding that he participated in was done at a public park.
"The law itself should be illegal. Feeding people should not be criminalized. Being poor should not be criminalized," Montanez said.
This is conservatism!
More than 100,000 Costa Ricans, some dressed as skeletons, protested a U.S. trade pact on Sunday they say will flood their country with cheap farm goods and cause job losses.
ReplyDeleteChanting "No to the free-trade pact!" and "Costa Rica is not for sale!" demonstrators filled one of San Jose's main boulevards to show their opposition against the Central American Free Trade Agreement with the United States.
"The trade deal is putting at risk our workers' rights. We need an accord with the United States, but not this way," said Juan Chacon, a 50-year-old computer technician.
In the searing heat, some protesters wore masks of U.S. President George W. Bush and handed out fake dollar bills, lampooning U.S. trade policies.
A small contingent of pro-trade demonstrators turned out at the rally. A plane pulled a banner across the skyline reading: "Yes to the free-trade accord, for the benefit of the nation!" The drone of the plane's engine drowned out some of the protest speeches.
A government official told Reuters that more than 100,000 people turned out for the demonstration, a huge protest in a country of 4 million.
Stop Free Trade Now!
I saw the Springsteen piece on 60 Minutes. I am sure he will be branded as anti-American. But, god, just look at the music he's written Anti-American?!
ReplyDeleteLarry said...
ReplyDeleteA retired lieutenant commander in the Navy Reserve who served with the Navy's Supervisor of Salvage questioned in a little-noticed editorial Sunday why six active nuclear armed cruise missiles were being transferred to an active bomber base that "just happens to be the staging area for Middle Eastern operations."
"The United States also does not transport nuclear weapons meant for elimination attached to their launch vehicles under the wings of a combat aircraft," Navy veteran Robert Stormer wrote in the Texas-based Star-Telegram. "The procedure is to separate the warhead from the missile, encase the warhead and transport it by military cargo aircraft to a repository -- not an operational bomber base that just happens to be the staging area for Middle Eastern operations."
Six nuclear W80 nuclear-armed cruise missiles were flown to Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana where they sat for ten hours undetected.
"Press reports initially cited the Air Force mistake of flying nuclear weapons over the United States in violation of Air Force standing orders and international treaties, while completely missing the more important major issues, such as how six nuclear cruise missiles got loose to begin with," writes Stormer.
"Let me be very clear here: We are not talking about paintball cartridges or pellet gun ammo. We are talking nuclear weapons."
Stormer doesn't buy reports that the missiles were simply lost. The title of his piece is "Nuke transportation story has explosive implications."
"There is a strict chain of custody for all such weapons," he said. "Nuclear weapons handling is spelled out in great detail in Air Force regulations, to the credit of that service. Every person who orders the movement of these weapons, handles them, breaks seals or moves any nuclear weapon must sign off for tracking purposes."
"All security forces assigned are authorized "to use deadly force to protect the weapons from any threat. Nor does anyone quickly move a 1-ton cruise missile -- or forget about six of them, as reported by some news outlets, especially cruise missiles loaded with high explosives.
"This is about how six nuclear advanced cruise missiles got out of their bunkers and onto a combat aircraft without notice of the wing commander, squadron commander, munitions maintenance squadron (MMS), the B-52H's crew chief and command pilot and onto another Air Force base tarmac without notice of that air base's chain of command -- for 10 hours."
At the end of his editorial, he poses the following questions.
The questions that must be answered:
1 Why, and for what ostensible purpose, were these nuclear weapons taken to Barksdale?
2 How long was it before the error was discovered?
3 How many mistakes and errors were made, and how many needed to be made, for this to happen?
4 How many and which security protocols were overlooked?
5 How many and which safety procedures were bypassed or ignored?
6 How many other nuclear command and control non-observations of procedure have there been?
7 What is Congress going to do to better oversee U.S. nuclear command and control?
8 How does this incident relate to concern for reliability of control over nuclear weapons and nuclear materials in Russia, Pakistan and elsewhere?
9 Does the Bush administration, as some news reports suggest, have plans to attack Iran with nuclear weapons?
10 If this was an accident, have we degraded our military to a point where we are now making critical mistakes with our nuclear arsenal? If so, how do we correct this?
4:33 AM"
This like MANY other things if investigated SHOULD likely lead to impeachment.
The repugs are SOOOOO out of touch with the will of the people they are debating eliminating the tax on capital gains for the wealthy and making Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy permanent, along with tortyure and perpetual war in Iraq.
ReplyDeleteThey need to be drummed out of power.
The repugs are crowing about how ONLY repugs and their tax cutting policies can "properly" run the economy...........if thats the case why has the stock market averaged 9% gains under the repugs and 15%-16% gains under the Democrats.
ReplyDeleteIf the repugs want to go on record and show that much disdain for the working class that they feel working income should be taxed........yet capital gains from the wealthys investments some how "DESERVES" to be tax free then all the power to them.......cause this just might be one of the most lopsided thumpings in history.
ReplyDeleteRepugs are COMPLETELY out of touch with the American people they can spend a trillion on an unneccessary war based on lies yet quibble about spending millions or billions on health care, education or crumbling infrastructure that poses safety hazzards.
God did not give us a spirit of fear.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely right, and that's why true Christians shouldn't be voting for those Republicans who continue to use fear to manipulate people.
I don't think conservatism as a philosophy is over, and please, I hope it's not.
ReplyDeleteI DO hope NEOconservatism is over as a philosophy.
Conservatives serve a useful purpose in any political culture: they force us to take a second look at programs, policies and ideologies that might not be good ideas in the first place.
Conservatives, yes, DO stand in the way of progress, but look: important programs like Social Security, Medicare, Clean Air and Water get passed anyway.
Maybe it's not a perfect society, but no more than marching in lockstep under posters of Der Busher would I want to march lockstep under posters of ANYONE.
As for God and fear...ever read Genesis, Lyd? We are taught to fear: Fear Him.
That's the God of conservatism, but he's also the Father, so anyway you slice it, we're born of and to fear.
It is only when we acknowledge that fear and overcome it that we can progress.
Larry said...
ReplyDeleteRichard Roberts is accused of illegal involvement in a local political campaign and lavish spending at donors' expense, including numerous home remodeling projects, use of the university jet for his daughter's senior trip to the Bahamas, and a red Mercedes convertible and a Lexus SUV for his wife, Lindsay.
She is accused of dropping tens of thousands of dollars on clothes, awarding nonacademic scholarships to friends of her children and sending scores of text messages on university-issued cell phones to people described in the lawsuit as "underage males."
I hope she's at least as hot as Mrs Dean Wormer in Animal House...
Kathy said...
ReplyDeleteGod did not give us a spirit of fear.
Absolutely right, and that's why true Christians shouldn't be voting for those Republicans who continue to use fear to manipulate people."
I couldnt agree more..........Fear mongering is ALL the repugs have left they've become the party of war mongering, fear mongering,greed, corruption, lies, fascism and are CLEARLY anti-freedom.
Carl, dualism is the root of all our troubles. Consider this: "fear in the Bible" means "awe." To fear God means to be in awe of God, according to most bible scholars (not fundamentalists of course.)
ReplyDeleteAlso, consider the possibility that we are not born to fear. Most people believe we are born of "sin," but this is why they can't make progress. Most Catholics and evangelicals don't believe they can heal themselves or others, as Christ specifically taught and commanded us to do.
Believing that evil has any real power, or believing in a real devil -- keeps people stuck. This is also why they stay stuck in literal, primitive interpretations of the Bible. And this is why they have thrown away the lost art of healing, Christ's healing power, which he commanded us all to do.
'Fighting our enemies" only makes them larger. And by enemies, Christ wasn't just referring to territorial enemies, but to our own worries and fears. Worrying and being in fear are our biggest enemies. Lack of faith in God's healing power is our biggest enemy.
We are all equipped to heal physical, emotional, mental wounds -- but we are mired in archaic beliefs in "evil" being as powerful as God, good. How ridiculous. Why are we giving so much power to fear, evil or error? Christ healed by seeing man through God's eyes. I experience healings like this everyday, huge physical healings -- but I'm shy to talk about them because I am surrounded by so many nay-sayer with so little faith.
Why did the Catholic Church abandon Christ's healing miracles? Because they were too narrow minded to believe in the miracles and to believe the secret -- that there is no opposing force.
Fear is an illusion, a dream. So is the Adam story.
Genesis ONE, is the only account of creation that is real. Man is made in God's image.
Then man falls into a deep sleep (the illusion of sin, sickness and death.)
"The parent of all human discord was the Adam-dream, the deep sleep, in which originated the delusion that life and intelligence proceeded from and passed into matter."
We are spiritual, not material. There is no power in evil or in matter. The minute you realize this is a "thought" universe, the faster healings occur.
Anyway, you might try it before scoffing at it. I personally have experienced miracles that would seem supernatural -- simply by changing my consciousness, my thoughts, and viewing a catastrophe, broken bone or suicidal depression differently.
Lately I've been so full of gratitude, that colors and flowers, and good luck started popping up everywhere.
The only thing that shifted was my attitude. I started counting my blessings, and being grateful for every single thing. I started looking for how I could be of "love and service" to my family, my kids, my friends... instead of grumbling and being impatient, I took time and time started to expand. If you are really grateful, and fully in the present moment, then time actually seems to stand still. A beautiful Monarch butterfly came over and sat right next to me. Then God really started showing off...
Kathy - thank you for this quote.
ReplyDelete"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." 2 Timothy 1:7
Not over, Lydia. What passes for "conservatism" today never goes away. As long as there is hatred, bigotry, and ignorance, this brand of lunacy will be with us on the Earth.
ReplyDeleteWhat you see now is a Jesusistan form of "conservatism" that is every bit as vile as Muslim Brotherhood "Islam." For 30 years, they have worked quietly to take most of the apparatchik positions in the Republican Party. Pat Robertson devised a strategy of herding his flock to the polls no matter what the election was being held for, no matter how small or insignificant the position. The people who Pat thus installed in those low-down positions almost 30 years ago have quietly climbed the ladder, all the while being replaced at the bottom by more of Pat's shills.
What you see right now are the Fascist right-wing "religious" fringe of wingtards at the high water mark of their power. They've infiltrated Gopperdom from top to bottom. Der Rovesmarschall recognized it years ago, probably about the same time Lee Atwater caught it. With the installation of their trained monkey in the Oval Office, they've finally shown all of America what it is they're all about. As a result, they are going to cripple (and quite possibly destroy) the Republican Party, but they won't go away. Dobson is already talking about throwing his weight behind a third-party candidate, since it appears that even within the Republican Party the zealot wingtards are still a minority. Giuliani's nomination will cause a split along the lines of Strom Thurmond's "States rights" schism against the dems in 1948, or George Wallace's in 1968. When this happens, they'll start over, looking for a way to infiltrate the highest echelons of power again.
I will point out to you that in 1948, it was Thurmond's "States Rights." In 1968, it was Wallace. In 1988, Atwater co-opted it with "Willie Horton." They are due for another trick of some sort to try to hold on-or to destroy their own power base. It isn't like they haven't done it before.
Bush Leaks Sink America’s Security. DUH!!
ReplyDeleteby Larry Johnson
The third time can be a charm or an out. When it comes to the Bush Administration’s mishandling of security information the jury is in–throw the bums in jail. Today’s news detailed in Leslie’s post below describes how the Bush Administration’s eagerness to brief Faux News resulted in blowing a private sector operation to track Al Qaeda. But this ain’t the first time. And on what basis can any reasonable person believe that Bush and company actually give a rat’s ass about protecting classified info or punishing those who compromise secrets?
Valerie Plame Wilson anyone? The Bush Administration tossed around her name and the identity of her cover company–Brewster Jennings–as part of a deliberate strategy to discredit her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, for having the audacity to tell the American people the truth about the lies George W. Bush told in ginning up a case for war in Iraq. Security be damned. They had some politicking to do.
But they did not stop to rest on their laurels. Hell no! The Presidential campaign beckoned. On the eve of the Republican presidential convention in 2004, the Bush Administration compromised a key Al Qaeda operative who was helping the Brits and us track Al Qaeda’s computer activities. As I wrote back in 2005:
I also seem to recall that the Bush White House used leaks in the midst of the 2004 Presidential campagin to burnish the President’s image and keep Americans on edge. Remember the name of Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan? His name was leaked to the New York Times in August of 2004 while Khan was still cooperating with Pakistani, CIA, and British authorities as part of a sting operation against Osama bin Laden’s network. On the eve of the Republican convention, unnamed senior NSC officials told New York Times reporters that Mr Khan was being used to send e-mails to al-Qaida members as part of a coordinated effort to identify and dismantle terrorist networks. Just because this leak destroyed the secret program’s effectiveness was no big deal because he helped remind Americans that George Bush was the only one who could keep us safe.
And now the Bin Laden tape. At some point the American people must acknowledge that if this pack of buffoons in the White House cared half as much about tracking down and eliminating terrorists as they do about sharing secrets with the media there would be no war on terrorism. Bin Laden and his buddy, Dr. Zawahiri, would be dead or in jail.
But that is not the case. These clowns use classified and sensitive information to satisfy cheap political objectives and, in the process, are putting American lives at risk and undermining the ability of our intelligence officers to recruit spies and assure them we can keep secrets. Impeachment anyone?
*******************************
But Dolty boy, Tiny the Liar, et al and their sock puppets will claim we are "soft on terra" if we don't support Bush while he UNDERMINES the efforts to actually get Bin forgotten.
The howling echo camber of the reichwing will attack people for decrying stupidity of Bush-Cheney as usual. (and enable them to continue to weaken this country by dismantling the constitution and destroying the military in their illegal wars of agression for oil and obscene profits for their corporate cronyies.)
Fred Thompson has made much of his role 30 years ago as a young Senate lawyer helping to lead the investigation of the Watergate scandal and President Richard Nixon.
ReplyDeleteBut a much different, less valiant picture of Thompson emerges from listening to the White House audiotapes made at the time, as President Nixon plotted strategy with his aides in the Oval Office.
Thompson's job on the Watergate committee was to lead the Republican side of the investigation. He was appointed by his mentor, Sen. Howard Baker of Tennessee, who is now co-chair of Thompson's 2008 presidential bid.
Photos: Nixon on Tape: Thompson 'Dumb as Hell'
When Nixon's aide H.R. Haldeman told Nixon of Thompson's appointment, Nixon was less than impressed.
"Baker has appointed Fred Thompson as minority counsel," Haldeman is heard saying on one tape.
"Oh sh--, that kid," Nixon responds.
"I guess so," Haldeman replies.
Nixon worried that Thompson's Democratic counterpart, Sam Dash, would outsmart Thompson.
"Well, Dash is too smart for that kid," Nixon says on another tape from March 16, 1973. The existence of the tapes were publicly revealed by a question from Thompson at a Watergate hearing and led to the president's resignation. They are preserved at the National Archives in College Park, Md.
"Sure. Runs circles around him," agrees an aide, John Dean.
THE BLOTTER RECOMMENDS
Good Morning America Video The Fred Thompson Files
Blotter Fred Thompson Ends Fund That Paid $178,000 to Son
Click Here for Full Blotter Coverage.
As the investigation picked up speed, Nixon grew increasingly concerned about whether Thompson could stand up to the Democrats.
In this May 1973 recording, he shared his concern with then-chief of staff Alexander Haig.
"He's talking to Fred Thompson. I said you're not --," Haig begins.
"Oh sh--, he's dumb as hell. Fred Thompson," Nixon interjects. "Who is he? He won't say anything."
In another conversation some weeks later, Nixon and his advisers were still describing Thompson as not very smart but at least beginning to play ball.
"Our approach is now, we've got a pretty good rapport with Fred Thompson. He came through fine for us this morning," White House counsel Fred Buzhardt says on a tape from June 6.
"He isn't very smart, is he?" Nixon asks.
"Not extremely so, but --," Buzhardt says, interrupted by the president.
"But he's friendly," Nixon says.
"But he's, he's friendly," Buzhardt echoes.
The New Ronald Reagan: Not Very Smart!
Car bombs and other violence around Iraq claimed at least 57 lives today as insurgents followed through on threats of escalated violence during the holy month of Ramadan, while police in Baghdad said at least two women were killed in a shooting involving a private security company.
ReplyDeleteLooks like that "surge" is still working.
The Supreme Court today declined to hear the case of a German citizen who said he was kidnapped, imprisoned and tortured by the CIA.
ReplyDeleteA federal district court judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit had earlier dismissed the case brought by Khaled El-Masri, agreeing with the government that the case could not go forward without exposing state secrets. The Supreme Court denied review without comment.
Masri, who is of Lebanese descent, has said he was detained by Macedonian police on Dec. 31, 2003, and handed over to the CIA a few weeks later. He said he was taken to a secret CIA-run prison in Afghanistan and physically abused before he was flown back to the Balkans without explanation in May 2004 and dumped on a hillside in Albania.
German officials said they were later informed privately by their U.S. counterparts that Masri was detained in a case of mistaken identity, apparently confused with a terrorism suspect of a similar name. U.S. officials have not publicly admitted any guilt or responsibility in the case.
The Supreme Court: Enablers of Hate!
The economy took center stage in Tuesday's GOP presidential debate, but the candidates seemed tone deaf on how to help the middle class.
ReplyDeleteThe debate in Dearborn, Mich., was also the first for actor and former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson, a latecomer to the Republican fray.
Thompson at least acknowledged that the nation has some significant economic problems. That came as a surprise to the other candidates, who love to say low taxes, with a sprinkle of free trade, are the answer to economic prosperity.
Newscaster Maria Bartiromo, one of the moderators of the debate, which was sponsored by the CNBC, MSNBC and The Wall Street Journal, cited a survey that said two-thirds (read lower and middle classes) of the populace believes the economy is in recession.
She asked what the candidates would do to solve the problem. None of them understand that wages remain stagnant in America, and the middle class require better jobs.
The filthy rich can't understand the plight of the working poor.
Another example of conservatism at it's ultimate.
A growing number of people say the economy is the nation's top problem, with the less educated among the most worried, an Associated Press-Ipsos poll showed Tuesday.
ReplyDeleteYet even with a credit crunch and soft housing market, economic angst remains well behind war and domestic issues among the public's chief concerns, according to survey results.
Given an open-ended opportunity to name the major problem facing the U.S., 15 percent volunteered the economy. That was six percentage points more than named it when the AP-Ipsos poll last asked the question in July.
"They talk about a big surge in Iraq; well, there hasn't been a big surge over here," said Sadruddin El-Amin, 55, a truck driver in Hanahan, S.C., who named the economy as the top problem. "The job market isn't getting any better, not for the working class."
Twenty-two percent of those with a high school education or less named the economy as the country's worst problem, compared to eight percent with college degrees. In addition, 20 percent of minorities cited the economy as the top issue, compared to nine percent who did so in July. There was no real difference between Republicans and Democrats, with just under a fifth of each naming the economy as biggest worry.
Foreign affairs was considered the top problem by 42 percent, down from 49 percent in July.
Within that category, concern over the Iraq war and other conflicts was named most frequently — by 30 percent — and showed little change since the summer, while fewer people chose immigration as the top issue. Democrats were nearly twice as likely as Republicans to mention war as the primary concern.
Domestic issues were named by 33 percent in this month's poll, about the same as the 29 percent who cited them in July. That included eight percent who named morality as the major problem, up from two percent in the earlier survey.
The poll was taken Oct. 1-3 and involved telephone interviews with 499 adults. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points.
Bush is doing another bang up job if you are into duds.
Larry it is a little after 10pm, tuesday, please come and see me- I think someone who says they are you on my blog...I don't think it was you.thanks.
ReplyDeleteIt just means dolt, you make JOKES while the poorer Americans suffer from the economic mess Bush has created.
ReplyDeleteHeck of a job Moron.
CLIF: Okay , I have no idea what you are talking about. ...I don't think anyone is making jokes or is a dolt....or a moron. I actually was here earlier when you posted the Larry Johnson article. It is a good article.......I think you just came over to my blog...and you are right there was no "winner of the repug debate", because we as american people have been losing for years....
ReplyDeleteYes, there was some joking over on my blog-but nothing that was out of line, we were sharing some humor- but my blog has verycaring people that hang out there...good folks that are very worried about the condition of this country and the mess that it is in...
Dolt is what I call Voltron, and he was making a joke about the less educated poor reconizing how bad it was for them, you weren't here in 2005-2006 during the more interesting times.
ReplyDeleteClif...thank you for expaining...I have not been called a 'Dolt" since I as 11 , with braces, bandaids and really thick glasses....the bookworm era..just wanted to make sure I had not done something foolish already....phew....
ReplyDeleteAre the repugs delusional or just pathological liars that will say and do anything to get elected....................those hippocritical fools were talking about.....cough cough fiscal responsibility and restriaint and cutting taxes.
ReplyDeleteright now the way they have run our country into the ground by destroying our military, neglecting infrastructure, and with the coming social security and health care crisises it will be a feat not to have to raise taxes...........yet with all the hippocritical BS about fiscal responsibility and tax cuts the repugs STILL support borrowing money we dont have, running up record deficits and wasting a trillion dollars to support a senseless war based on lies that has no hope.........does that sound like fiscal responsibility to you??????
Bush can WASTE a TRILLION dollars but cant spend mere millions or billions to help Children get medical coverage..........it boggles the mind!
Lydia,
ReplyDeleteI'm happy that you have experienced such joy through your new found attitude. That works for you, and who am I to deny that truth of yours.
Sadly, you may be the exception.
I, too, have experienced miracles. Hell, I create them, most of the time I've seen them.
But I'm a fighter, and always have been and always will be.
Fear is inborn in all of us. You speak of awe rather than fear, but God Himself was pretty precise on the point that he was to be feared ("Vengeance is mine" leaps to mind, as well as Moses on the mountaintop) not held in wonder.
It is how we overcome that fear that determines the quality of life we lead. You brushed past it with love. That worked, and your life is better for it.
I've battled it and overcame it, and in so doing, I've revealed an inner divinity with enormous power to do right. This year has challenged me in so many ways, and yet I conquer more of life as I go.
Fear is, as Herbert put it, a mindkiller, on that I think we can agree.
But fear was put into us in Eden, after we ate of the Tree. It's clear God intended to punish us for disobedience, which is not what a wondrous God would do.
You and I could go off-blog and into email, and spend decades talking about this, I'm sure.
I've often thought of the OT God as a child, and Jesus as the Father who comes along to clean up His mess.
(There was an old Star Trek episode that all but wrote that story for me: The Squire of Gothos)
The child, truly, is the father of the man.
Beautifully done, Lydia. Sadly, it does not always follow party lines.
ReplyDeleteThere's a special word to describe what a liberal politician becomes after being elected.
Conservative
ReplyDeleteclif said...
ReplyDeleteDolt is what I call Voltron, and he was making a joke about the less educated poor reconizing how bad it was for them, you weren't here in 2005-2006 during the more interesting times.
They were interesting indeed.
ReplyDeleteGonzales Hires a Top Gun
ReplyDeleteStill under investigation by Congress and Justice Department lawyers who once worked for him, the former attorney general has turned to a leading Washington attorney to help him beat the rap.
Web exclusive
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
Updated: 12:12 p.m. MT Oct 10, 2007
Oct. 10, 2007 - No sooner did Alberto Gonzales resign as attorney general last month than he retained a high-powered Washington criminal-defense lawyer to represent him in continuing inquiries by Congress and the Justice Department.
Gonzales’s choice of counsel, George Terwilliger—a partner at White & Case—is ironic if not surprising. A former deputy attorney general under the first President Bush, who later helped oversee GOP lawyers in the epic Florida recount battle of 2000, Terwilliger had been a White House finalist to replace Gonzales—only to be aced out at the last minute by retired federal judge Michael Mukasey.
The top concern for Gonzales, and now Terwilliger, is the expanding investigation by Glenn Fine, the Justice Department’s fiercely independent inspector general, according to three legal sources familiar with the matter who declined to speak publicly about ongoing investigations. Originally, Fine's internal Justice probe—conducted in conjunction with lawyers from the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility—focused on the mass dismissal of U.S. attorneys late last year. The investigation has since broadened to include, among other matters, charges that Gonzales lied to Congress about the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program and the circumstances surrounding his late-night March 10, 2004, visit to the hospital room of then attorney general John Ashcroft. At the same time, Congress is continuing to pursue more documents on harsh CIA interrogation techniques approved by Gonzales.
Fine’s investigators, who received high-level security clearances, have been interviewing key players involved in the now-famous bedside confrontation in Ashcroft's hospital room, according to the legal sources. During the visit that evening, Gonzales, then White House counsel, sought to persuade an ailing and heavily medicated Ashcroft to overrule department lawyers who had refused to sign off on classified surveillance activities ordered by President Bush because of concerns about their legality. A rash of senior Justice Department officials—including then deputy attorney general James Comey and FBI Director Robert Mueller—threatened to resign over the incident.
Yet when Gonzales appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee in February 2006, he testified that "there has not been any serious disagreement" about the president’s surveillance program. He did acknowledge disputes about "other intelligence activities" that he declined to identify.
One former administration official close to Gonzales’s team (who, like others interviewed for this story, requested anonymity in talking about an ongoing probe) said the former attorney general is concerned that Fine may end up making a criminal referral to the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department—or even seek the appointment of a special counsel to determine if Gonzales made false statements to Congress.
The former official—who did not believe such action was warranted—said that Gonzales's camp is increasingly worried that Fine might feel compelled to make such a move to avoid any suggestion that he was protecting his former boss and to reassert his independence. That would subject Gonzales to the unusual situation of being subject to a formal criminal investigation by the very department he used to head. “That is certainly one possible outcome of this,” said the former official.
Terwilliger, who recently began discussions with Fine’s investigators, confirmed to NEWSWEEK that he is representing Gonzales. But in an e-mail exchange, he declined to discuss any of the particular allegations against his client.
“We have been engaged to assist Judge Gonzales in his continued effort to provide assistance to the Department of Justice as it examines the Department’s role in various programs and operations to combat the terrorist threat,” Terwilliger wrote. “An unbiased assessment of the facts will show that Judge Gonzales, while holding high public office during a time of great peril, worked to help maintain the safety and security of the American people and acted always with the intent and commitment to honor the rule of law.”
The stakes for Gonzales were ratcheted up last week when Jack Goldsmith, the former assistant attorney general in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the dispute. Goldsmith, a key player who was present when Gonzales and Andy Card, White House chief of staff at the time, showed up at Ashcroft’s bedside. Goldsmith made clear that he, like others in the room, believed that the hospital meeting was indeed about the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP).
Asked by Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer what he made of the statement by Gonzales “that there was no serious internal dissent about the TSP,” Goldsmith replied: “I would just say there were … enormous disagreements about many aspects related to the TSP.” Goldsmith added, however, that “there is a technical interpretation of what he [Gonzales] said that is true … but it’s very difficult to talk about it” in an unclassified setting.
Goldsmith's testimony echoed that of former deputy attorney general Comey and FBI Director Mueller. Like Goldsmith, Mueller has testified that he considered the hospital dispute to be about the Terrorist Surveillance Program—and his own contemporaneous notes indicated as much. But Gonzales's defenders have repeatedly said he was being extremely careful in his testimony because the underlying issues involved in the dispute—the particulars of the program that Goldsmith and others at Justice thought were in violation of the law—remain so highly classified that it was impossible for him to speak candidly. They and others have also suggested that, in part because of the Justice rebellion, aspects of the program were modified before its existence was publicly acknowledged by the White House. Therefore, they say, Gonzales was telling the truth when he said that there were no disagreements about the TSP "that the president has confirmed."
In recent days, the White House—seeking to gain a speedy confirmation for Mukasey and to win passage of new surveillance legislation from the Democratic-controlled Congress—has hinted that it may finally share key legal documents about the program with Capitol Hill. In a letter to the leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, White House lawyer Emmet Flood said the White House “has agreed to assemble” a stack of materials relating to the program, including “all legal opinions” by the Office of Legal Counsel—a category that would include the memo Goldsmith wrote in 2004 that triggered the hospital room incident. Noting that these documents include “extraordinarily sensitive national security information,” Flood pointedly did not commit to turning over any of this material—only to continue talking to congressional leaders about them.
But the Democrats appear to be running out of patience. Their version of proposed new surveillance legislation, unveiled yesterday by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, contains a striking provision that would require Fine’s office to do a full audit of all surveillance activities undertaken by the Bush administration since September 11, 2001—and then prepare a public, declassified report to be delivered to Congress six months after the law is passed. In a conference call with reporters Tuesday afternoon to discuss the Democratic bill, a Justice official said that this one of the provisions the administration has “concerns” about.
© 2007 Newsweek, Inc. | Subscribe to Newsweek
Looks like the guilty are lawyering up.............i'm sure Gonzo is banking on a pardon.............I know its "WISHFUL THINKING" but wouldnt it be a hoot if Bush got impeached and his pardon NEVER came.
ReplyDeleteFormer President Jimmy Carter said Wednesday he is convinced the United States engages in torture that clearly breaches international law and told CNN President Bush creates his own definition of human rights to escape violating them.
ReplyDelete"I don't think it. I know it, certainly." the former president told CNN's Wolf Blitzer when asked if he thinks the United States commits torture.
We all know Bush tortures!
For years, George Steinbrenner and right wing nutcases running the New York Yankees have subtly and overtly attempted to turn a nonpolitical sporting event such as watching a baseball game at Yankees stadium into a 1930s style German propaganda event to promote right wing politicians, right wing views on religion, and right wing views on Iraq. It’s no longer take me out to the ballgame and as a Yankee fan, I find it disgusting.
ReplyDeleteThe most frequent use of mixing politics and baseball at Yankee stadium is Steinbrenner’s promotion of right wing extremist Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani gets a front row, unimpeded view of Yankee games because these seats are given to him by Steinbrenner. Then Yankee stadium officials and the networks try to plaster Rudy Giuliani’s face all over the big screen and the television. This amounts to millions of dollars of free advertising, something quite beneficial when you are running for President.
But Steinbrenner overplayed his hand. Giuliani got roundly booed at Yankee Stadium and this will play out on the campaign trail.
New Yorkers know a Mobster when they see one.
One might think it would be great to have Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) as a neighbor (imagine the block parties!). But the Speaker apparently is not making herself popular in her high-dollar 'hood, telling reporters on Tuesday that protesters have taken up residence outside her house and are driving the natives wild.
ReplyDelete"I've had four or five months of people sitting outside my home, going into my garden in San Francisco and angering my neighbors," Pelosi said at a gathering sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor.
Pelosi added that the squatters have engaged in decidedly non-neighborly behavior like hanging their clothes from the trees; moving in sofas, chairs and other "permanent living facilities"; and, oddly, building a large Buddha on the sidewalk in front of her home. "You can just imagine my neighbors' reactions to all of this," she said. "And if they were poor, and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they'd be arrested for loitering, but because they have 'impeach Bush' across their chest, it's the First Amendment."
Do your job Pelosi and they will go away!
By a nearly two-to-one margin, Republican voters believe free trade is bad for the U.S. economy, a shift in opinion that mirrors Democratic views and suggests trade deals could face high hurdles under a new president.
ReplyDeleteWhen did they care what the people thought?
Lydia
ReplyDeleteThere is a conservative politician whose blog I write and comment on because he is against Neocons and what they have done to his party and I have found that more often than not we agree.
Check out this Al Gore article:
ReplyDeleteBlue Herald
Larry,
ReplyDeleteGot the link. A million thanks.
Post up. I nailed Speaker Botox and gave you a H/T.
I am so over this elitist prig!
Christopher:
ReplyDeleteLook under my original comment on this. Mirth posted a different link to the entire story.
It was something.
Check out this post on the Constitution at:
ReplyDeleteLiberally Mirth
If you find this interesting join the reading club!
ReplyDeleteI HIGHLY recommend this book!
Thanks Naj,
ReplyDeleteI hadn't seen this one but will get it.
...... all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most easily (and) adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men.
ReplyDeleteAs democracy is perfected, the office represents, more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal.
On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
-- H.L. Mencken July 26, 1920, wrote in The Baltimore Sun: " .
And we ended up with George W Bush to prove his point ...... Ronald W Reagan just wasn't good enough to prove that point.
Clif that was written in 1920 but it is as if written today.
ReplyDelete87 members of House pledge not to fund war. TPM notes that 87 members of the House “have now added their names to a letter to the President pledging not to vote for any more funding for the war and only to vote for supplementals that fully fund withdrawal.” In July, 70 House members signed onto a similar letter. “Now more than 15 new members have added their names to the letter…another significant step forward.” The letter reads:
ReplyDeleteDear Mr. President:
Seventy House Members wrote in July to inform you that they will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of our troops out of Iraq before you leave office.
Now you are requesting an additional $45 billion to sustain your escalation of U.S. military operations in Iraq through next April, on top of the $145 billion you requested for military operations during FY08 in Iraq and Afghanistan. Accordingly, even more of us are writing anew to underscore our opposition to appropriating any additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq other than a time-bound, safe redeployment as stipulated above.
Are we to believe that Pelosi will allow this?
Note to corrupt GOPers everywhere;
ReplyDeletetake a hint;
On Oct. 10, 1973, Vice President Spiro T. Agnew pleaded no contest to one count of federal income tax evasion and resigned his office.
Why don't you follow suit and give us our country back.
Naj said...
ReplyDeleteIf you find this interesting join the reading club!
I HIGHLY recommend this book!"
I think i'm going to order a copy of that book.
Jimmy Carter Calls Cheney a 'Disaster'
ReplyDeleteAP
Posted: 2007-10-10 16:55:05
WASHINGTON (Oct. 10) - Former President Jimmy Carter on Wednesday denounced Vice President Dick Cheney as a "disaster" for the country and a "militant" who has had an excessive influence in setting foreign policy.
Cheney has been on the wrong side of the debate on many issues, including an internal White House discussion over Syria in which the vice president is thought to be pushing a tough approach, Carter said.
"He's a militant who avoided any service of his own in the military and he has been most forceful in the last 10 years or more in fulfilling some of his more ancient commitments that the United States has a right to inject its power through military means in other parts of the world," Carter told the BBC in an interview to air later on Wednesday.
"You know he's been a disaster for our country," Carter said. "I think he's been overly persuasive on President George Bush and quite often he's prevailed."
Asked to comment on Carter's remarks, Megan Mitchell, a spokeswoman for the Republican vice president, said, "We're not going to engage in this type of rhetoric."
Carter, a Democrat who was president from 1977 to 1981 and won the 2002 Nobel Peace prize for his charitable work, is a strong critic of the Iraq war and has often been outspoken in his criticism of President George W. Bush .
In a newspaper interview in May, Carter called the Bush administration the "worst in history" in international relations.
Carter did have kind words in the BBC interview for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice .
"I'm filled with admiration for Condoleezza Rice in standing up to (Cheney) which she did even when she was in the White House under President George W. Bush ," Carter said, referring to Rice's former role as White House national security adviser.
"Now secretary of state, her influence is obviously greater than it was then and I hope she prevails," Carter added.
Former Nixon counsel John Dean is our guest for an entire hour tomorrow (Thursday) morning at 8 AM
ReplyDeleteOr listen in the archives later at: BashamandCornell.com
Lydia, I do so enjoy your entries about liberals and our values. And since I'm a Christian, I especially enjoy when you add religion to the discussion. Because not only are good conservatives liberal at heart, but Christians are at their best when they follow the example of the greatest liberal of them all, Jesus Christ.
ReplyDeleteI also appreciate Carl for reminding us of what liberals have done for this country.
ButtG,
ReplyDeleteI'd like to take credit for it, but I ripped it off from The West Wing.
Lydia Cornell said...
ReplyDeleteFormer Nixon counsel John Dean is our guest for an entire hour tomorrow (Thursday) morning at 8 AM
Or listen in the archives later at: BashamandCornell.com"
Lydia, I loved his book, it was Great, I was hoping you could ask him about Cheneys obsession with attacking Iran and if he thinks Cheney wants to use that as the catalyst to declare martial law.
Did anyone see Lynn Cheney on Jon Stewart last night?
ReplyDeleteShe condemns him and Colbert and others all the time, but it doesn't seem to keep her from going on their shows to sell her crappy book.
After all the horrible (but true) things Jon Stewarts said about her husband, you'd think she'd have the class to not come on his show.
ReplyDeleteBut there she was, yacking about her crappy book and waving like a prom queen.
John Deans a smart guy.
ReplyDeletechildren killed in U.S. raid in Iraq
ReplyDeleteBy STEVEN R. HURST,
Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 3 minutes ago
BAGHDAD - A U.S. attack killed 19 insurgents and 15 civilians, including nine children, northwest of the capital Thursday
Sorry, correction.
ReplyDelete9 children killed in U.S. raid in Iraq
By STEVEN R. HURST,
Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 3 minutes ago
BAGHDAD - A U.S. attack killed 19 insurgents and 15 civilians, including nine children, northwest of the capital Thursday
I can't understand why the Iraqi's don't like us.
ReplyDelete:|
IMPORTANT
ReplyDeleteStop the Democracy Fund, it HARMS Iranians who are fighting Ahmadinejad
Larry,
ReplyDeleteAre you around???
I found the source of this Pelosi bon mot:
“I do not see the connection between torture and impeachment.”
Speaker Botox said it on the Ed Schultz program! ROFLMAO!
Say bye-bye to the polar bears(except for those in a zoo) cause the north pole is soon to e a open sea during the summer time.
ReplyDelete(I hope santa can swim)
The big melt: lessons from the Arctic summer of 2007
The Arctic sea ice is disintegrating "100 years ahead of schedule", having dropped 22% this year below the previous minimum low, and it may completely disappear as early as the northern summer of 2013. This is far beyond the predictions of the International Panel on Climate Change and is an example of global warming impacts happening at lower temperature increases and more quickly than projected. What are the lessons from the Arctic summer of 2007?
Executive summary
• Climate change impacts are happening at lower temperature increases and more quickly than projected.
• The Arctic's floating sea ice is headed towards rapid summer disintegration as early as 2013, a century ahead of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projections.
• The rapid loss of Arctic sea ice will speed up the disintegration of the Greenland ice sheet, and a rise in sea levels by even as much as 5 metres[over 26 feet} by the turn of this century is possible.
• The Antarctic ice shelf reacts far more sensitively to warming temperatures than previously believed.
• Long-term climate sensitivity (including "slow" feedbacks such as carbon cycle feedbacks which are starting to operate) may be double the IPCC standard.
• A doubling of climate sensitivity would mean we passed the widely accepted 2°C threshold of "dangerous anthropogenic interference" with the climate four decades ago, and would require us to find the means to engineer a rapid drawdown of current atmospheric greenhouse gas.
• Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are now growing more rapidly than "business-as-usual", the most pessimistic of the IPCC scenarios.
• Temperatures are now within ≈1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years.
• We must choose targets and take actions that can actually solve the problem in a timely manner.
• The object of policy-relevant advice must be to avoid unacceptable outcomes and seemingly extreme or alarming possibilities, not to determine just the apparently most
likely outcome.
• The 2°C warming cap is a political compromise; with the speed of change now in the climate system and the positive feedbacks that 2°C will trigger, it looms for perhaps billions of people and millions of species as a death sentence.
• To allow the reestablishment and long-term security of the Arctic summer sea ice it is likely to be necessary to bring global warming back to a level at or below 0.5°C (a long-term precautionary warming cap) and for the level of atmospheric greenhouse gases at equilibrium to be brought down to or below a long-term precautionary cap of 320 ppm CO2e.
• The IPCC suffers from a scientific reticence and in many key areas the IPCC process has been so deficient as to be an unreliable and dangerously misleading basis for policy-making.
Download full report (warning large PDF file)
thanks Clif for that sad, disturbing report on the fate of the polar bears....
ReplyDeleteI can't wait to hear the John Dean Interview...thanks for the heads up ( execept I will need to hear the rebroadcast)
I am looking forward to hearing what John Dean has to say as well...........he is a smart man!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteLydia, I am new to your blog, but I love it, and it feels like a parallel to my thoughts. come visit my blog at some point, which I think you'll appreciate.
ReplyDeletewww.myspace.com/SkyNelson
keep writing!
sky
Sky - thank you! I love your site and your music and politics.
ReplyDeleteFor some reason, I can't leave a message for you at MySpace -- my computer locks up even after I log in.
I have 2 MySpace pages but never open them because my computer freezes.
Will try again later.
xo
Yesterday 9 kids got killed in a US attack, plus 6 civillians, likely their parents.
ReplyDeleteToday 2 kids got blown up.
But hey, they're just Iraqi kids, right?
I'd like to thank Presidet-Elect Gore for all his tireless work on the environment and congratulate him on the Nobel Peace Prize.
ReplyDeleteIsn't it funny how the truly great men in America are villified here, but recognized every place else?
For Lydia;
ReplyDeleteThe bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me, nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer"
Albert Einstein
Worf, they were going by those Geneva conventions you used to harp on:
ReplyDelete"7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.
Enigma4ever - thank you, you have a great blog.
ReplyDeleteClif wasn't talking to you, but to Volt.
Clif - thank you for posting those important articles.
Naj - thank you for posting this website and STOP THE DEMOCRACY FUND, which harms Iranians.
Dolt your arguement of what the war criminals in charge of this illegal war are doing is based on their dishonest telling of the story,
ReplyDeleteOtherwise, how come only women and chldren were killed?
Oh right because as usual they missed the "target"and only killed Iraqi women and children who don't count according to neo-cons, reichwing trolls and idiots like Anny Tranny.
You DONT know what actually happened (as usual)but with so much of what the "command" has said over the last four years which has turned out to be blatently false, and how poorly things have turned out with the command screeching all is well, and things are going fine, and the not to be forgotten, the insurgency is in it'slast throes,
You actually still believe them at all?
Damn tha kool-aid really lasts don't it son, or are you that clueless?
Like this general who actually WAS there unlike YOU dolt;
ReplyDeleteEx-general: Iraq `nightmare' for US
The U.S. mission in Iraq is a "nightmare with no end in sight" because of political misjudgments after the fall of Saddam Hussein that continue today, a former chief of U.S.-led forces said Friday.
Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who commanded coalition troops for a year beginning June 2003, cast a wide net of blame for both political and military shortcomings in Iraq that helped open the way for the insurgency — such as disbanding the Saddam-era military and failing to cement ties with tribal leaders and quickly establish civilian government after Saddam was toppled.
He called current strategies — including the deployment of 30,000 additional forces earlier this year — a "desperate attempt" to make up for years of misguided policies in Iraq.
"There is no question that America is living a nightmare with no end in sight," Sanchez told a group of journalists covering military affairs.
Sanchez avoided pointing his criticism at any single official or agency, but it appeared a broad indictment of White House policies and a lack of leadership in the Pentagon to oppose them. Such assessments — even by former Pentagon brass — are not new, but they have added resonance as debates over war strategy dominate the presidential campaign.
Sanchez went on to offer a pessimistic view on the current U.S. strategy against extremists will make lasting gains, but said a full-scale withdrawal also was not an option.
"The American military finds itself in an intractable situation ... America has no choice but to continue our efforts in Iraq," said Sanchez, who works as a consultant training U.S. generals.
He is the guy who Petraeus is currently doing the job,
Too bad e couldn't beas honest back then when Bush, Rove andheney were telling him what to say,
I wonder how HONEST Petraeus will become AFTER he retires?
Westmoreland never could get honest, but hopefully Petraeus has a little more character then Westmoreland and can search his soul like Gen Shanchez seems to have done.
Larry--
ReplyDeleteE-mail me. I've got something for you.
timodonnell49@hotmail.com
Larry--
ReplyDeleteE-mail me. I've got something for you.
timodonnell49@hotmail.com
Mike looks like we are getting closer to the rebirth of the "gilded age" Bush wanted to produce,
ReplyDeleteGap between rich, poor seen growing
The income gap between the wealthiest and poorest Americans grew to its widest level since the 1920s, according to a report published Friday.
Citing Internal Revenue Service data, the Wall Street Journal reported that the wealthiest 1 percent of all Americans earned 21.2 percent of all the nation's income in 2005, up from the previous high of 20.8 percent in 2000.
Conversely, the bottom half of working Americans earned just 12.8 percent of all the nation's income, down from 13.4 percent in 2004 and slightly lower than 13 percent in 2000.
While the IRS data only dates back as far as 1986, academic experts told the paper that the last time the rich had this large of a share of income was during the 1920s.
clif said...
ReplyDeleteMike looks like we are getting closer to the rebirth of the "gilded age" Bush wanted to produce,
Gap between rich, poor seen growing
The income gap between the wealthiest and poorest Americans grew to its widest level since the 1920s, according to a report published Friday.
Citing Internal Revenue Service data, the Wall Street Journal reported that the wealthiest 1 percent of all Americans earned 21.2 percent of all the nation's income in 2005, up from the previous high of 20.8 percent in 2000.
Conversely, the bottom half of working Americans earned just 12.8 percent of all the nation's income, down from 13.4 percent in 2004 and slightly lower than 13 percent in 2000.
While the IRS data only dates back as far as 1986, academic experts told the paper that the last time the rich had this large of a share of income was during the 1920s."
And we all know what happened as a result of that.........the Great Depression and the demise of the repug party for generations..............how does that old saying go............those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it!!!!!!!!!
Half of US senators are millionaires
ReplyDeleteThe superrich are gobbling up an ever larger piece of the economic pie, and the poor are seeing their share of earnings shrink: new IRS data shows the top 1 percent of Americans are claiming a larger share of national income than at any time since before the Great Depression.
The top percentile of wealthy Americans earned 21.2 percent of all income in 2005, up from 19 percent in 2004, according to new Internal Revenue Service data published in the Wall Street Journal Friday.
Americans in the bottom 50 percent of wage earners saw their share of income shrink to 12.8 percent in 2005, down from 13.4 percent.
"Scholars attribute rising inequality to several factors," the Journal reports, "including technological change that favors those with more skills, and globalization and advances in communications that enlarge the rewards available to 'superstar' performers whether in business, sports or entertainment."
The data could cause problems to President Bush and Republican presidential candidates, who have played up low unemployment and a strong economy since 2003, crediting Bush's tax cuts for contributing to both. In an interview with the Journal, Bush downplayed the significance of the income gap, saying more education is the answer to narrowing it.
"First of all, our society has had income inequality for a long time. Secondly, skills gaps yield income gaps," Bush told the Journal. "And what needs to be done about the inequality of income is to make sure people have got good education, starting with young kids. That's why No Child Left Behind is such an important component of making sure that America is competitive in the 21st century."
The Journal notes that many Americans fear the economy is entering a recession, and the IRS data show income for the median earner fell 2 percent between 2000 and 2005 to $30,881. Earnings for the top 1 percent grew to $364,657 -- a 3 percent uptick.
Scholarly research suggests that top earners did not have such a large share of total income since the 1920s, the Journal reported.
The Journal reports that a recent stock boom likely contributed to higher earnings among those in the top income bracket, with hedge fund managers and Wall Street attorneys seeing their incomes skyrocket in recent years.
Another prominent pool or wealthy Americans gathers regularly on Capitol Hill to write the nation's laws. The Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign spending and politicians' wealth, says more than a third of Congress members are millionaires, with at least half the Senate falling into the millionaires club.
Forbes reported that last year's incoming class of new Senators did "little to shake the Senate's image as a millionaires club," with half of the newly elected members having seven- eight- or nine-figure personal fortunes.
Freshman Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) is worth between $64 million and $236 million, and newly elected Sen. Claire McCaskill's (D-MO) fortune is between $13 million and $29 million. R
Roll Call estimates Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) is the chamber's richest member with an estimated net worth of $750 million; another Democrat, Wisconsin Sen. Herb Kohl, is among the chamber's richest with between $220 million and $234 million in personal assets.
And they fail to notice the rest of us.
The U.S. mission in Iraq is a "nightmare with no end in sight" because of political misjudgments after the fall of Saddam Hussein that continue today, a former chief of U.S.-led forces said Friday.
ReplyDeleteRetired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who commanded coalition troops for a year beginning June 2003, cast a wide net of blame for both political and military shortcomings in Iraq that helped open the way for the insurgency — such as disbanding the Saddam-era military and failing to cement ties with tribal leaders and quickly establish civilian government after Saddam was toppled.
He called current strategies — including the deployment of 30,000 additional forces earlier this year — a "desperate attempt" to make up for years of misguided policies in Iraq.
"There is no question that America is living a nightmare with no end in sight," Sanchez told a group of journalists covering military affairs.
Sanchez avoided pointing his criticism at any single official or agency, but it appeared a broad indictment of White House policies and a lack of leadership in the Pentagon to oppose them. Such assessments — even by former Pentagon brass — are not new, but they have added resonance as debates over war strategy dominate the presidential campaign.
Sanchez went on to offer a pessimistic view on the current U.S. strategy against extremists will make lasting gains, but said a full-scale withdrawal also was not an option.
"The American military finds itself in an intractable situation ... America has no choice but to continue our efforts in Iraq," said Sanchez, who works as a consultant training U.S. generals.
True words from another general who also enabled Bush to pursue war.
The following members of Congress have voted against SCHIP, which provides high-quality health coverage to more than six million children whose families would otherwise be unable to afford insurance. Radio ads will air on local radio stations in their congressional districts.
ReplyDeleteRep. Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida
Rep. Joseph Knollenberg, Michigan
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, Michigan,
Rep. Tim Walberg, Michigan
Rep. Steve Chabot, Ohio
Rep. Gene Taylor, Mississippi
Rep. Michelle Bachmann, Minnesota
Rep. Sam Graves, Missouri
Rep. Thelma Drake, Virginia
Rep. John Peterson, Pennsylvania
Here's proof. Republicans hate poor children.
Newsweek:
ReplyDeleteThe colonel was furious. “Can you believe it? They actually drew their weapons on U.S. soldiers.” He was describing a 2006 car accident, in which an SUV full of Blackwater operatives had crashed into a U.S. Army Humvee on a street in Baghdad’s Green Zone. The colonel, who was involved in a follow-up investigation and spoke on the condition he not be named, said the Blackwater guards disarmed the U.S. Army soldiers and made them lie on the ground at gunpoint until they could disentangle the SUV. His account was confirmed by the head of another private security company. Asked to address this and other allegations in this story, Blackwater spokesperson Anne Tyrrell said, “This type of gossip has led to many soap operas in the press.” Read more…
As if being trapped in the middle of a bloody civil war by their civilian leadership hasn’t been humiliating enough for our troops, we find out they also have to protect themselves from high-paid thugs from Blackwater — in the Green Zone, no less.
Bush and Blackwater hate the U.S troops.
During the October 8 edition of CNBC's The Big Idea, host Donny Deutsch asked right-wing pundit Ann Coulter: "If you had your way ... and your dreams, which are genuine, came true ... what would this country look like?" Coulter responded, "It would look like New York City during the [2004] Republican National Convention. In fact, that's what I think heaven is going to look like." She described the convention as follows: "People were happy. They're Christian. They're tolerant. They defend America." Deutsch then asked, "It would be better if we were all Christian?" to which Coulter responded, "Yes." Later in the discussion, Deutsch said to her: "[Y]ou said we should throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians," and Coulter again replied, "Yes." When pressed by Deutsch regarding whether she wanted to be like "the head of Iran" and "wipe Israel off the Earth," Coulter stated: "No, we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say. ... That's what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws."
ReplyDeleteAfter a commercial break, Deutsch said that "Ann said she wanted to explain her last comment," and asked her, "So you don't think that was offensive?" Coulter responded: "No. I'm sorry. It is not intended to be. I don't think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to live up to all the laws. What Christians believe -- this is just a statement of what the New Testament is -- is that that's why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament. You don't believe our testament." Coulter later said: "We consider ourselves perfected Christians. For me to say that for you to become a Christian is to become a perfected Christian is not offensive at all."
An October 4 report on National Public Radio's Morning Edition about evangelical Christian support for Israel featured Gershom Gorenberg, an author and associate scholar at Boston University's Center for Millennial Studies, as saying that many evangelical Christians want Jews to convert to Christianity. "That vision is one in which the Jews eventually disappear," Gorenberg said. "And if you say that at the end of days, in a perfected world there aren't going to be any more Jews, what you're saying is that right now, you don't accept the legitimacy of Judaism."
Coulter's comments about religion were noted by the blog WhiteHouser.
Coulter also asserted during the interview: "I give all of these speeches at megachurches across America, and the one thing that's really striking about it is how utterly, completely diverse they are, and completely un-self-consciously. You walk past a mixed-race couple in New York, and it's like they have a chip on their shoulder. They're just waiting for somebody to say something, as if anybody would." She went on to state that "there was an entire Seinfeld episode about Elaine and her boyfriend dating because they wanted to be a mixed-race couple" and that "I think that's reflective of what's going on in the culture."
As Media Matters for America documented, Coulter has been interviewed at least 194 times on at least 13 individual programs on MSNBC, CNBC, and NBC since April 28, 1997 -- apparently her first appearance on the network. Media Matters also noted that Coulter, when interviewed by Deutsch on the July 26, 2006, edition of The Big Idea, said that former President Bill Clinton exhibits "some level of latent homosexuality." Earlier that day, MSNBC had hyped the interview as "must-see TV."
From the October 8 edition of CNBC's The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch:
DEUTSCH: Let me ask you a question. We're going to get off strengths and weakness for a second. If you had your way, and all of your -- forget that any of them --
COULTER: I like this.
DEUTSCH: -- are calculated marketing teases, and your dreams, which are genuine, came true having to do with immigration, having to do with women's -- with abortion -- what would this country look like?
COULTER: It would look like New York City during the Republican National Convention. In fact, that's what I think heaven is going to look like.
DEUTSCH: And what did that look like?
COULTER: Happy, joyful Republicans in the greatest city in the world.
DEUTSCH: No, no, no, no, but I'm talking about this country. You don't want to make this country -- it's not about Republicans. I'm saying, what would the fabric of this country look like? Forget that the Republicans would be running the show.
COULTER: Well, everyone would root for America, the Democratic Party would look like [Sen.] Joe Lieberman [I-CT], the Republican Party would look like [Rep.] Duncan Hunter [R-CA] --
DEUTSCH: No, no, no, I don't want -- I'm not talking about politically the landscape. What would our -- would we be safer? Would people be happier? Would they be more --
COULTER: We would be a lot safer.
DEUTSCH: Would there be more tolerance? Would there be -- would women be happier, would the races get along better? The Ann Coulter subscription -- prescription. What -- tell me what would be different in our fabric of country, because --
COULTER: Well, all of those things.
DEUTSCH: -- I can give -- I can give you an argument there would be more divisiveness, that there would be more hate --
COULTER: Oh, no.
DEUTSCH: -- that there would be a bigger difference between the rich and the poor, a lot of other -- tell me what -- why this would be a better world? Let's give you -- I'm going to give you -- say this is your show.
COULTER: Well, OK, take the Republican National Convention. People were happy. They're Christian. They're tolerant. They defend America, they --
DEUTSCH: Christian -- so we should be Christian? It would be better if we were all Christian?
COULTER: Yes.
DEUTSCH: We should all be Christian?
COULTER: Yes. Would you like to come to church with me, Donny?
DEUTSCH: So I should not be a Jew, I should be a Christian, and this would be a better place?
COULTER: Well, you could be a practicing Jew, but you're not.
DEUTSCH: I actually am. That's not true. I really am. But -- so we would be better if we were - if people -- if there were no Jews, no Buddhists --
COULTER: Whenever I'm harangued by --
DEUTSCH: -- in this country? You can't believe that.
COULTER: -- you know, liberals on diversity --
DEUTSCH: Here you go again.
COULTER: No, it's true. I give all of these speeches at megachurches across America, and the one thing that's really striking about it is how utterly, completely diverse they are, and completely unself-consciously. You walk past a mixed-race couple in New York, and it's like they have a chip on their shoulder. They're just waiting for somebody to say something, as if anybody would. And --
DEUTSCH: I don't agree with that. I don't agree with that at all. Maybe you have the chip looking at them. I see a lot of interracial couples, and I don't see any more or less chips there either way. That's erroneous.
COULTER: No. In fact, there was an entire Seinfeld episode about Elaine and her boyfriend dating because they wanted to be a mixed-race couple, so you're lying.
DEUTSCH: Oh, because of some Seinfeld episode? OK.
COULTER: But yeah, I think that's reflective of what's going on in the culture, but it is completely striking that at these huge megachurches -- the idea that, you know, the more Christian you are, the less tolerant you would be is preposterous.
DEUTSCH: That isn't what I said, but you said I should not -- we should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians, then, or --
COULTER: Yeah.
DEUTSCH: Really?
COULTER: Well, it's a lot easier. It's kind of a fast track.
DEUTSCH: Really?
COULTER: Yeah. You have to obey.
DEUTSCH: You can't possibly believe that.
COULTER: Yes.
DEUTSCH: You can't possibly -- you're too educated, you can't -- you're like my friend in --
COULTER: Do you know what Christianity is? We believe your religion, but you have to obey.
DEUTSCH: No, no, no, but I mean --
COULTER: We have the fast-track program.
DEUTSCH: Why don't I put you with the head of Iran? I mean, come on. You can't believe that.
COULTER: The head of Iran is not a Christian.
DEUTSCH: No, but in fact, "Let's wipe Israel" --
COULTER: I don't know if you've been paying attention.
DEUTSCH: "Let's wipe Israel off the earth." I mean, what, no Jews?
COULTER: No, we think -- we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.
DEUTSCH: Wow, you didn't really say that, did you?
COULTER: Yes. That is what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws. We know we're all sinners --
DEUTSCH: In my old days, I would have argued -- when you say something absurd like that, there's no --
COULTER: What's absurd?
DEUTSCH: Jews are going to be perfected. I'm going to go off and try to perfect myself --
COULTER: Well, that's what the New Testament says.
DEUTSCH: Ann Coulter, author of If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans, and if Ann Coulter had any brains, she would not say Jews need to be perfected. I'm offended by that personally. And we'll have more Big Idea when we come back.
[...]
DEUTSCH: Welcome back to The Big Idea. During the break, Ann said she wanted to explain her last comment. So I'm going to give her a chance. So you don't think that was offensive?
COULTER: No. I'm sorry. It is not intended to be. I don't think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to, you know, live up to all the laws. What Christians believe -- this is just a statement of what the New Testament is -- is that that's why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament. You don't believe our testament.
DEUTSCH: You said -- your exact words were, "Jews need to be perfected." Those are the words out of your mouth.
COULTER: No, I'm saying that's what a Christian is.
DEUTSCH: But that's what you said -- don't you see how hateful, how anti-Semitic --
COULTER: No!
DEUTSCH: How do you not see? You're an educated woman. How do you not see that?
COULTER: That isn't hateful at all.
DEUTSCH: But that's even a scarier thought. OK --
COULTER: No, no, no, no, no. I don't want you being offended by this. This is what Christians consider themselves, because our testament is the continuation of your testament. You know that. So we think Jews go to heaven. I mean, [Rev. Jerry] Falwell himself said that, but you have to follow laws. Ours is "Christ died for our sins." We consider ourselves perfected Christians. For me to say that for you to become a Christian is to become a perfected Christian is not offensive at all.
During the October 8 edition of CNBC's The Big Idea, host Donny Deutsch asked right-wing pundit Ann Coulter: "If you had your way ... and your dreams, which are genuine, came true ... what would this country look like?" Coulter responded, "It would look like New York City during the [2004] Republican National Convention. In fact, that's what I think heaven is going to look like." She described the convention as follows: "People were happy. They're Christian. They're tolerant. They defend America." Deutsch then asked, "It would be better if we were all Christian?" to which Coulter responded, "Yes." Later in the discussion, Deutsch said to her: "[Y]ou said we should throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians," and Coulter again replied, "Yes." When pressed by Deutsch regarding whether she wanted to be like "the head of Iran" and "wipe Israel off the Earth," Coulter stated: "No, we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say. ... That's what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws."
ReplyDeleteAfter a commercial break, Deutsch said that "Ann said she wanted to explain her last comment," and asked her, "So you don't think that was offensive?" Coulter responded: "No. I'm sorry. It is not intended to be. I don't think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to live up to all the laws. What Christians believe -- this is just a statement of what the New Testament is -- is that that's why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament. You don't believe our testament." Coulter later said: "We consider ourselves perfected Christians. For me to say that for you to become a Christian is to become a perfected Christian is not offensive at all."
An October 4 report on National Public Radio's Morning Edition about evangelical Christian support for Israel featured Gershom Gorenberg, an author and associate scholar at Boston University's Center for Millennial Studies, as saying that many evangelical Christians want Jews to convert to Christianity. "That vision is one in which the Jews eventually disappear," Gorenberg said. "And if you say that at the end of days, in a perfected world there aren't going to be any more Jews, what you're saying is that right now, you don't accept the legitimacy of Judaism."
Coulter's comments about religion were noted by the blog WhiteHouser.
Coulter also asserted during the interview: "I give all of these speeches at megachurches across America, and the one thing that's really striking about it is how utterly, completely diverse they are, and completely un-self-consciously. You walk past a mixed-race couple in New York, and it's like they have a chip on their shoulder. They're just waiting for somebody to say something, as if anybody would." She went on to state that "there was an entire Seinfeld episode about Elaine and her boyfriend dating because they wanted to be a mixed-race couple" and that "I think that's reflective of what's going on in the culture."
As Media Matters for America documented, Coulter has been interviewed at least 194 times on at least 13 individual programs on MSNBC, CNBC, and NBC since April 28, 1997 -- apparently her first appearance on the network. Media Matters also noted that Coulter, when interviewed by Deutsch on the July 26, 2006, edition of The Big Idea, said that former President Bill Clinton exhibits "some level of latent homosexuality." Earlier that day, MSNBC had hyped the interview as "must-see TV."
The witch is now espousing the morals of Falwell.
From the October 8 edition of CNBC's The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch:
ReplyDeleteDEUTSCH: Let me ask you a question. We're going to get off strengths and weakness for a second. If you had your way, and all of your -- forget that any of them --
COULTER: I like this.
DEUTSCH: -- are calculated marketing teases, and your dreams, which are genuine, came true having to do with immigration, having to do with women's -- with abortion -- what would this country look like?
COULTER: It would look like New York City during the Republican National Convention. In fact, that's what I think heaven is going to look like.
DEUTSCH: And what did that look like?
COULTER: Happy, joyful Republicans in the greatest city in the world.
DEUTSCH: No, no, no, no, but I'm talking about this country. You don't want to make this country -- it's not about Republicans. I'm saying, what would the fabric of this country look like? Forget that the Republicans would be running the show.
COULTER: Well, everyone would root for America, the Democratic Party would look like [Sen.] Joe Lieberman [I-CT], the Republican Party would look like [Rep.] Duncan Hunter [R-CA] --
DEUTSCH: No, no, no, I don't want -- I'm not talking about politically the landscape. What would our -- would we be safer? Would people be happier? Would they be more --
COULTER: We would be a lot safer.
DEUTSCH: Would there be more tolerance? Would there be -- would women be happier, would the races get along better? The Ann Coulter subscription -- prescription. What -- tell me what would be different in our fabric of country, because --
COULTER: Well, all of those things.
DEUTSCH: -- I can give -- I can give you an argument there would be more divisiveness, that there would be more hate --
COULTER: Oh, no.
DEUTSCH: -- that there would be a bigger difference between the rich and the poor, a lot of other -- tell me what -- why this would be a better world? Let's give you -- I'm going to give you -- say this is your show.
COULTER: Well, OK, take the Republican National Convention. People were happy. They're Christian. They're tolerant. They defend America, they --
DEUTSCH: Christian -- so we should be Christian? It would be better if we were all Christian?
COULTER: Yes.
DEUTSCH: We should all be Christian?
COULTER: Yes. Would you like to come to church with me, Donny?
DEUTSCH: So I should not be a Jew, I should be a Christian, and this would be a better place?
COULTER: Well, you could be a practicing Jew, but you're not.
DEUTSCH: I actually am. That's not true. I really am. But -- so we would be better if we were - if people -- if there were no Jews, no Buddhists --
COULTER: Whenever I'm harangued by --
DEUTSCH: -- in this country? You can't believe that.
COULTER: -- you know, liberals on diversity --
DEUTSCH: Here you go again.
COULTER: No, it's true. I give all of these speeches at megachurches across America, and the one thing that's really striking about it is how utterly, completely diverse they are, and completely unself-consciously. You walk past a mixed-race couple in New York, and it's like they have a chip on their shoulder. They're just waiting for somebody to say something, as if anybody would. And --
DEUTSCH: I don't agree with that. I don't agree with that at all. Maybe you have the chip looking at them. I see a lot of interracial couples, and I don't see any more or less chips there either way. That's erroneous.
COULTER: No. In fact, there was an entire Seinfeld episode about Elaine and her boyfriend dating because they wanted to be a mixed-race couple, so you're lying.
DEUTSCH: Oh, because of some Seinfeld episode? OK.
COULTER: But yeah, I think that's reflective of what's going on in the culture, but it is completely striking that at these huge megachurches -- the idea that, you know, the more Christian you are, the less tolerant you would be is preposterous.
DEUTSCH: That isn't what I said, but you said I should not -- we should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians, then, or --
COULTER: Yeah.
DEUTSCH: Really?
COULTER: Well, it's a lot easier. It's kind of a fast track.
DEUTSCH: Really?
COULTER: Yeah. You have to obey.
DEUTSCH: You can't possibly believe that.
COULTER: Yes.
DEUTSCH: You can't possibly -- you're too educated, you can't -- you're like my friend in --
COULTER: Do you know what Christianity is? We believe your religion, but you have to obey.
DEUTSCH: No, no, no, but I mean --
COULTER: We have the fast-track program.
DEUTSCH: Why don't I put you with the head of Iran? I mean, come on. You can't believe that.
COULTER: The head of Iran is not a Christian.
DEUTSCH: No, but in fact, "Let's wipe Israel" --
COULTER: I don't know if you've been paying attention.
DEUTSCH: "Let's wipe Israel off the earth." I mean, what, no Jews?
COULTER: No, we think -- we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.
DEUTSCH: Wow, you didn't really say that, did you?
COULTER: Yes. That is what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws. We know we're all sinners --
DEUTSCH: In my old days, I would have argued -- when you say something absurd like that, there's no --
COULTER: What's absurd?
DEUTSCH: Jews are going to be perfected. I'm going to go off and try to perfect myself --
COULTER: Well, that's what the New Testament says.
DEUTSCH: Ann Coulter, author of If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans, and if Ann Coulter had any brains, she would not say Jews need to be perfected. I'm offended by that personally. And we'll have more Big Idea when we come back.
The tongue of a bitch, the eyes of evil!
Just like I said last year, Ann Coulter is becoming irrelevant, which is WHY she is desperately shrilling and sceeching and becoming more outrageous and pathetic in her hate speak just to get noticed and get the attention she craves...........she is not that different than Britney Spears who will do ANYTHING to get the MSM and America to pay attention to her.
ReplyDeleteWhats truly pathetic is that the fact that this raving idiot and lunatic is still given a platform to preach her hatespeak and is still CONSIDERED credible and intelligent is beyond me.........Donny Imus had his show cancelled for doing FAR LESS than Coulter, which CLEARLY shows how firmly the Reich Wing has infected our Media and seized unfettered control of it.
Donny Deutche opposed her and stated he was appaled by what she said..............YET he still had her on his show and he still said she was an educated and intelligent woman and he still gave her that unwarranted illusion of credibility which she DOES NOT desserve...........Coulter is nothing more than a raving delusion fool preaching hatespeak, lies and delusional unsubstantiated biased Reich Wing BS and propaganda and why she is revered like she is something MORE than she is boggles my mind.
Lydia, check this out:
ReplyDeletePW Reviews 2004 April #3
Website: http://www.cahners.com
Syndicated columnist and NPR commentator Dionne (Why Americans Hate Politics) outlines a sound plan for a Democratic takeover of the White House in 2004. He first criticizes Bush's "compassionate conservatism," arguing that most of it, the tax cuts, for example, was much more conservative than compassionate. Indeed, he says that President Bush's administration was floundering until the September 11 terrorist attacks, which gave it a focus in policy and the mid-term 2002 elections. The newfound focus on homeland security not only gave the administration some momentum, it also put the Democrats on the defensive: unwilling to appear soft on security, he argues, they kept relatively quiet. As a result, Democrats were "complicit in the strategy" propagated by the White House and big losers in 2002. Dionne proposes a two-pronged solution: First, Democrats must develop think tanks and talk radio outlets similar to those used by the right because these sow the seeds of new ideas. The Democrats' solution of relying on the "grass roots" only splinters the party into special interests. Second, Democrats must reframe arguments into the middle ground so that the party is seen as being for both government and individualism, for free trade, but with environmental and labor protections. The new liberal Air America Radio network may be one test of Dionne's theories. Beyond that, Democrats may hope that fallout from Iraq and the economy will accomplish their goal without enacting Dionne's solid ideas, which could have more long-term effects. Dionne proffers perhaps the most cogent analysis to date of why Democrats have lost the battle to the right, and how they might regain control of the debate. Agent, Robert Barnett of Williams & Connolly. (June 2) Copyright 2004 Reed Business Information.
Table of Contents
Excerpt
Demand
In particular, check out this part:
ReplyDeleteDionne proposes a two-pronged solution: First, Democrats must develop think tanks and talk radio outlets similar to those used by the right because these sow the seeds of new ideas.
Alarmed by slipping support for free trade even among Republicans, President Bush is arguing that protectionism will cut Americans out of chances for more - and better - jobs.
ReplyDeleteBush has launched a blitz on behalf of pending free trade pacts with four nations. He continued the push Saturday in his weekly radio address.
"More exports support better and higher-paying jobs," the president said. "And to keep our economy expanding, we need to keep expanding trade."
His radio address followed a speech on trade he delivered Friday in Miami. Bush also granted interviews this week to business-oriented news organizations.
Since Democrats took control of Congress in January, it has not approved any free trade agreements that the administration has negotiated, and it has allowed Bush's authority to negotiate future deals under expedited procedures to expire.
Before lawmakers now are agreements with Peru and Panama, considered likely to pass, and with Colombia and South Korea, both seen as precarious. The deal with Colombia is in trouble over human rights issues and there is strong opposition to the South Korea agreement because of barriers erected by Seoul to keep out U.S. autos and beef.
The administration already has reached agreement with Democrats to include tougher language on protecting worker rights and the environment. But critics say five consecutive years of record U.S. trade deficits have played a major role in the loss of more than 3 million manufacturing jobs since Bush took office in 2001.
"I know many Americans feel uneasy about new competition and worry that trade will cost jobs," Bush said. "So the federal government is providing substantial funding for trade adjustment assistance that helps Americans make the transition from one job to the next. We are working to improve federal job-training programs. And we are providing strong support for America's community colleges, where people of any age can go to learn new skills for a better, high-paying career."
He said the deals would level the playing field for American businesses and farmers, many of which now face high tariffs on exported products while other countries enjoy relatively open access to U.S. markets. And he argued that freer trade with allies serves "America's security and moral interests" around the globe.
"Expanding trade will help our economy grow," Bush said. "So I call on Congress to act quickly and get these agreements to my desk."
What an idiot: Saying keeping jobs in the U.S will cause the U.S to lose jobs.
The Army made its recruiting goal last year despite an increasingly unpopular war by turning to people convicted of serious crimes.
ReplyDeleteRecruiters signed up people who had committed such felonies as arson, burglary, aggravated assault, breaking and entering and driving while intoxicated.
The Army Recruiting Command said "moral" waivers for 1,620 felons were approved in the 2007 federal fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30. That was far above the 2006 mark of 1,002.
The Army called giving waivers "the right thing to do" for those who want to serve. But a former Vietnam-era combat commander warned the service has cut a Faustian bargain it has made in the past and came to regret.
Recruiting felons for the military: I bet they are all Republican felons.
Three former Oral Roberts University professors have amended their lawsuit against the school, and have included an internal report detailing allegations against ORU President Richard Roberts, his wife and others.
ReplyDeleteThe new suit adds a new defendant to the case -- the ORU regents -- and two new allegation, negligence and civil conspiracy.
Oral Roberts University officials, including President Richard Roberts, declined to comment after hours on Friday because they had not seen the amended lawsuit, a spokesman said.
The new suit includes a new allegation that Richard Roberts and ORU gave ''a convicted sexual deviant unrestricted access to the students of the university.''
The suit doesn't identify the person, but says that prior to his association with the school he had confessed to crimes in Tulsa, Tulsa County and Payne County.
''All three allegations of sexually-deviant conduct resulted in convictions,'' the suit says.
The person was hired at the direct personal instruction and under the supervision of Richard Roberts, the suit says.
The person, identified as a ''Mentor'' for ORU students, ''confessed to the facts regarding exposing himself to a fifteen year old boy in a school locker room,'' the suit says.
The suit also alleges that three days after the original lawsuit was filed earlier this month, the school's financial comptroller, a 26-year ORU employee, was fired.
''Within hours of this loyal employee's unceremonious removal from his office, witnesses have reported that voluminous materials and documents were shredded and destroyed....''
The new suit also includes a copy of a report one of the fired professors allegedly gave to ORU officials shortly before he was fired. The report says it is a Scandal Vulnerability Assessment and was prepared by Stephanie Cantees, Richard Roberts' sister-in-law and the community and governmental liaison for the Oral Roberts Ministry.
The report, which purports to be prepared by Cantees, misspells her name.
Most of the elements of the Cantees report are similar to allegations in an early version of the former professors' lawsuits, but more details are added to several of the allegations, especially allegations involved Lindsay Roberts and an unnamed teen boy.
The report says that dead-bolt locks were installed on all bedroom doors at the Richard Roberts residence at the insistence of his oldest daughter.
''This was precipitated by Mrs. Roberts repeatedly moving into the home her 16 year old male 'friend,' which made her daughters uncomfortable,'' the assessment says.
The assessment also says: ''Mrs. Roberts has personally spent the night in the ORU guest house with an underage male on nine separate occasions.''
The report also says there are photos of Lindsay Roberts and an underaged male smoking at the president's residence, and 29 photos of her and an underage male alone in her sports car after midnight.
The assessment goes on to say a longtime employee was fired so the same underage male companion could have the position.
The assessment also gives details concerning an electronic message Richard Roberts allegedly ordered ORU employees to post on the Mabee Center electronic marquee for his daughter, Chloe.
The message read, ''Matt, I sorry. Love, Chloe,'' the assessment says.
Doesn't war lover John Hagee sit on their board?
5 U.S. soldiers died yesterday in Iraq, bringing the month’s total to 16. 84 have been wounded this month.
ReplyDeleteParty at the White House tonight!
Rep. Ralph Regula of Ohio, the second longest-serving Republican in the House, will announce Friday that he will retire rather than seek re-election to a 19th term next year, two GOP congressional sources told CNN Thursday.
ReplyDeleteRegula, 83, a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee and the senior Republican in the Ohio delegation, will make the announcement back home in his northeast Ohio district, the sources said.
Another neocon bites the dust!
Hey guys did you see where they found 5 different middle east countries that bush plans to attack
ReplyDeleteIsn't ts a pot calling the kettle back monment?
ReplyDeleteRice decries power-hungry chief executive with unchecked authority
The Russian government under Vladimir Putin has amassed so much central authority that the power-grab may undermine Moscow's commitment to democracy, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Saturday.
"In any country, if you don't have countervailing institutions, the power of any one president is problematic for democratic development," Rice told reporters after meeting with human-rights activists.
"I think there is too much concentration of power in the Kremlin. I have told the Russians that. Everybody has doubts about the full independence of the judiciary. There are clearly questions about the independence of the electronic media and there are, I think, questions about the strength of the Duma," said Rice, referring to the Russian parliament.
Somebody should tell the clueless Sec of State that Putin is just following the Bush-Cheney playbook for a total powergrab .... and she should be more worried about these problems in Washington and this country right about now.
The reichwing still doesn't understand why the Nobel Committee thought giving Al Gore the PEACE prize for fighting against Global Warming was a good idea;
ReplyDeletePeace may erode as the world warms, experts say
What does global warming have to do with global peace? The globe may find out sooner than we think, experts say.
"Climate change is and will be a significant threat to our national security and, in a larger sense, to life on Earth as we know it to be," retired Gen. Gordon Sullivan, former Army chief of staff, told a congressional panel last month.
It is about the security of nations in the short term, as policymakers figure out how to avert an energy crisis while reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, and in the long term, as they face the potential of dealing with millions of environmental refugees in search of food, water and shelter, advocates contend....
Nobel prize recognises climate crisis
In awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the committee has signalled its view that climate change is now one of global society's defining security issues.
Just look down the list of previous winners and the issues they represented.
Nuclear weapons, nuclear proliferation, the Middle East, North Korea, East Timor, Northern Ireland, Soviet break-up, the ending of South African apartheid, landmines, the Middle East again, South Asian rural poverty... all things which threatened to affect, and in many cases did affect, the well-being of citizens inside and outside the conflict zones.
Now the Nobel Foundation has added climate change to the list. And the conflation of the laureates is interesting.
and especially for dolty boy and the rest of the Global Warming deniers;
How science silenced the sceptics
The award of a Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and climate change scientists illustrates just how far the environmental movement has come in winning the global warming argument.
Ten years ago the idea that the world was warming up, with potentially disastrous consequences, was still hugely contested.
People who installed energy-saving lightbulbs or put on another jumper instead of turning up the thermostat were dismissed as part of the tree-hugging fringe movement.
But the science of climate change has advanced enormously in the past decade and gradually the sceptics have been silenced as their objections were answered.
Sceptics still exist, and many of them have good points to make, but it is they who have been pushed to the fringe of political and scientific debate.
The fringe of the debate and bachwash of American politics, I bet you clowns didn't think this was possible in 2004 did you fooles? (and speaking of bets, when is Tiny the Liar gonna pay up?)
BTW anybody who thinks Global Warming doesn't impact the earth;
ReplyDeletecompare these two pictures;
artic ice in 1978
taken on Oct 26 1978
artic ice in 2007
taken on Oct 10 2007
The effects of Global Warming on the Polar ice cap over a thirty year time frame.
Say good bye to the polar bears, and everything else that depends on polar ice in the north.
Because if current trends don't change (and things don't look good for that) the summer ice melt will result in NO ice approx Sept 2030 .... and No ice means no more polar bears.
Clif,
ReplyDelete"Global Warming" is no longer chic. You're supposed to use the term "Climate change".
That way you can take credit for being right whether it's unusually warm OR cold and whether there are too many hurricanes or none at all.
The Role of the Greenhouse Effect
ReplyDeleteFrom an historical perspective, global warming has saved us, at least temporarily, from an Icehouse Climate, although humans can hardly take the credit.
Science is clear on what controls cycles of climate change. Global warming (and cooling) cycles are controlled primarily by:
* 1) Cyclical variations in the sun's energy output
* 2) Eccentricities in Earth's orbit
* 3) The influence of plate tectonics on the distribution of continents and oceans
* 4) The so-called "greenhouse effect," caused by atmospheric gases such as gaseous water vapor (not droplets), carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxides, which help to trap radiant heat which might otherwise escape into space.
The "greenhouse effect" actually is a bit player in global climate (although without it's benefits the average temperature of the Earth would be minus 18° C). Human's did not cause the greenhouse effect, but critics maintain human additions to atmospheric greenhouse gases may cause global temperatures to rise too much.
Generally understood, but rarely publicized is the fact that 95% of the greenhouse effect is due solely to natural water vapor. Of the remaining 5%, only 0.2% to 0.3% of the greenhouse effect (depending on whose numbers you use) is due to emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases from human sources. If we are in fact in a global warming crisis, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have an undetectable effect on global climate. However, significant efforts to limit the emission of greenhouse gases in the United States are currently underway.
Carbon Dioxide from all coal burning worldwide comprises only 0.013% of the greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere.
Volt - where did you get this article?
ReplyDeleteAnd Volt, why are you and the reicht so opposed to conservation issues, to "conserving" the earth?
ReplyDeleteAfter all, you call yourselves conservatives ...
but you are so blinded by your hatred of conservation, healthy air, healing, peace, tolerance, equality, love, civility and environmentalists you can't even agree that CONSERVATION of natural resources is a good thing!!
Any idiot - even if he never watches TV or reads newspapers, knows we are manufacturing too many plastics. Any idiot can walk into any grocery store and think, "this is capitalism to excess, capitalism run amuck."
Before I even took sides or became political (an offshoot of my spiritual and ehtical values) I was deeply concerned by the excess of predatory advertising, and downright meanspirited ads directed towards women, trying to make us feel inadequate -- never young enough or thin enough or pretty enough.
Haven't you been overwhelmed by too many fast-food restautants, plastic food, microwaves, bottled sport drinks, snacks, etc.
And we wonder why the cancer rate is skyrocketing in this country.
Companies like Coca Cola sell caramel colored water with caffeine and a bone -thinner like sodium benzoate -- and CALL IT unpatriotic not to drink coke. Now it's full of corn-syrup sweetner.
And corporate dairy farms are truly disgusting toxic dumps.
Why Volt -- are you so opposed to clean air, clean fuel, lower prices, clean national parks and plentiful natural resources?
Why can't we agree on something so fundamentally important to our children's survival?
By Joe Gandelman
ReplyDeleteOnce upon a time, there was a phrase that truly was cringe-worthy. It was as trite as when someone would say (as if it was profound) “we don’t want to sit around singing Kumbaya.”
The phrase is “they’re just being Good Germans.” It’s a phrase that was hideously overused during the Vietnam War (for those of us who remember) and now in the Iraq war….which has shaped up as this generation’s Vietnam war.
But New York Times columnist Frank Rich has now made it legitimate again in a column that is that asks readers to stop and see how far the United States has come — or fallen. His use of the words “Gestapo tactics” and “Good Germans” will be red flags to some, but he’s clearly speaking about a descent of long-held American values here and not just throwing lash-out adjectives around.
And, indeed, if you look at Point A as where we were X number of years ago in terms of American steadfast values and Point B where we are now, there is a perceptible shift – not one that has come with any big announcement, but via a series of teeny baby steps taken as if no steps were taken at all.
The thrust of his piece is at its end:
Our moral trajectory over the Bush years could not be better dramatized than it was by a reunion of an elite group of two dozen World War II veterans in Washington this month. They were participants in a top-secret operation to interrogate some 4,000 Nazi prisoners of war. Until now, they have kept silent, but America’s recent record prompted them to talk to The Washington Post.
“We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture,” said Henry Kolm, 90, an M.I.T. physicist whose interrogation of Rudolf Hess, Hitler’s deputy, took place over a chessboard. George Frenkel, 87, recalled that he “never laid hands on anyone” in his many interrogations, adding, “I’m proud to say I never compromised my humanity.”
Our humanity has been compromised by those who use Gestapo tactics in our war. The longer we stand idly by while they do so, the more we resemble those “good Germans” who professed ignorance of their own Gestapo. It’s up to us to wake up our somnambulant Congress to challenge administration policy every day. Let the war’s last supporters filibuster all night if they want to. There is nothing left to lose except whatever remains of our country’s good name.
The beginning is where he also notes a common administration response and the reason he felt this column’s time had come:
“BUSH lies” doesn’t cut it anymore. It’s time to confront the darker reality that we are lying to ourselves.
Ten days ago The Times unearthed yet another round of secret Department of Justice memos countenancing torture. President Bush gave his standard response: “This government does not torture people.” Of course, it all depends on what the meaning of “torture” is. The whole point of these memos is to repeatedly recalibrate the definition so Mr. Bush can keep pleading innocent.
And that has been a modus operandi not just of the administration, but going back to Mr. Bush’s 2000 Presidential campaign.
When he ran against Arizona Senator John McCain, who was widely seen then as a reformer, Mr. Bush reformulated his campaign at one time and appeared behind signs that said he was “reformer with results.” But after Mr. Bush was elected, it turned out some of those reforms were not such great reforms after all.
Administration environmental policies have been given names to sound like great environmental policies, but check with any number of prestigious, independent environmental organizations and they’ll tell you that the administration is considered to have one of the poorest records on environmental issues. Similarly, the administration insists it is not saying Saddam Hussein was involved with 911 but it has repeatedly suggested just that even as it denied it was doing so.
It’s the use of language to recast and deny. But if previous definitions were used or not shifted and tossed away, it is clear on several fronts that this administration has made many significant shifts which claiming it was doing no such thing. Rich writes:
By any legal standards except those rubber-stamped by Alberto Gonzales, we are practicing torture, and we have known we are doing so ever since photographic proof emerged from Abu Ghraib more than three years ago. As Andrew Sullivan, once a Bush cheerleader, observed last weekend in The Sunday Times of London, America’s “enhanced interrogation” techniques have a grotesque provenance: “Verschärfte Vernehmung, enhanced or intensified interrogation, was the exact term innovated by the Gestapo to describe what became known as the ‘third degree.’ It left no marks. It included hypothermia, stress positions and long-time sleep deprivation.”
Still, the drill remains the same. The administration gives its alibi (Abu Ghraib was just a few bad apples). A few members of Congress squawk. The debate is labeled “politics.” We turn the page.
There has been scarcely more response to the similarly recurrent story of apparent war crimes committed by our contractors in Iraq. Call me cynical, but when Laura Bush spoke up last week about the human rights atrocities in Burma, it seemed less an act of selfless humanitarianism than another administration maneuver to change the subject from its own abuses.
Laura Bush’s comments and motivations? That’s up for debate and no one — Rich included — can say they know she was trying to change a subject. Perhaps this happened: perhaps she WAS outraged by it. Rich almost undermines his argument by falling into the discredit-you-opponents trap.
But the larger issue in America is that our goal posts keep changing.
And how can they change so easily?
Once upon a time there were people in both parties who were staunch partisans but had ideals that they would not toss away just to win an election or cling to power.
These ideas were steadfast and were the reason WHY they belonged to X or Y party — and the reason they were so proud to be Americans.
Those of us who have spent years of our lives overseas (in my case India, Bangladesh, Spain and covering parts of Mexico) often ran into heated criticisms and outright denunciations of the United States but we also know that the United States has long been a country considered by many in the world to be perhaps a CUT ABOVE the rest due to certain values.
These values have also been a selling point for the United States abroad. But now some of the values are falling by the wayside and, as Rich notes, many Americans really don’t seem to care.
We are now in an era when politics to many seems to be less about policy and fundamental values than defending your own party’s political players, no matter what they do.
Longtime principles are tossed out as quickly as used Kleenex. The mental adjustments are made (this MUST be right because the administration says so and because this or that talk show host or blog says so). Old values become inoperative and the new values (or non-values) are rationalized and quickly become the norm.
What’s the solution? Congress? Congress can only be part of it. And clamoring for one political party to do something about it won’t cut it, either.
It’s about Americans who are now willing to let a government or party change the rules of the game or throw away longstanding ideals and values and just go along with it. It’s about whether politics means more than just making sure your side gets in and stays in.
They used to say about conservative icon Barry Goldwater: “He’d rather be right than be President.”
Politicos of both parties seems as if they’d all rather be president — and worry about being right later on.
But so do many Americans. Torture? Many who insist what’s going on now isn’t torture KNOW in their hearts it is torture but that’s not what “their team” says so they’ll insist it isn’t and go after those who say it is.
It’s not about Americans being “Good Germans.”
It’s about Americans being bad — and negligent — trustees of long held, long cherished values.
Values that generations of American died to protect — and to perpetuate.
–Newsbusters:
ReplyDeleteIt’s not as if Frank Rich has a deep and abiding hatred of his nation’s leadership, or contempt for his fellow Americans. It’s just that he accuses the Bush administration of using tactics worthy of the Gestapo — the Nazi secret police headed by Heinrich Himmler — and his fellow Americans of being like citizens of Hitler’s Germany who turned a blind eye to the atrocities in their midst.
….I believe that when the history of this war is written, it will be seen that our nation waged it in accordance with some of the highest ethical standards ever observed in a major conflict. Yet Frank Rich paints our government as adopting Nazi tactics, and average Americans as akin to passive supporters of Hitler’s regime. Were it not ever-so-gauche to do so, you might call that unpatriotic.
–Michael van der Galien:
All the exaggerations aside, I’m with American liberals on this one: I won’t compare anyone to Hitler - because Hitler was truly evil, not someone who simply went a bit too far in his desire to protect his people - but the treatment of prisoners is truly embarrassing to the US. Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, etc. have done great damage to America’s image and rightfully so. Personally I don’t understand why this hasn’t caused more outrage in the US than it has done. This is one of the major weaknesses of Bush and this is one of the errors the US has made. Enhanced interrogations techniques shouldn’t be used. Not only do experts point out that they’re not all that effective, it’s also inhumane to use them. Even the worst criminals in human history should be treated in line with human rights. All of them should have a fair trial, all of them should be treated humanely.
–The Heretik (who always has incredible original graphics on his posts):
Good Americans, we don’t torture. So our leaders say. But if we believe that, more than the dignity of a detainee’s body is lost. The bones of our civilization are broken and our morality evaporates. We have acted better when things were far worse.
–TMV coblogger Pete Abel at his excellent blog Central Sanity:
Rich seems to suggest that “the war’s last supporters” are synonymous with those who would excuse and/or enable torture. That implication is neither fair nor accurate.
Among others, I both condemn torture and support the mission to stabilize Iraq. I agree wholeheartedly with those like Rich and Andrew Sullivan who have rejected the Administration’s repeated attempts to liberalize definitions of what does and does not constitute torture. I further believe American leaders and citizens must take the moral high ground on these subjects, consistently, without wavering. And we do just that when we both stand against torture and advocate the prevention of the massacre in Iraq that would be prompted by a too-soon withdrawal of American forces.
–Rhymes With Right:
Frank Rich can be officially dismissed as a serious commentator on the war (not that he ever really credibility) after this column today…..This is the classic reductio ad Hitlerum intended to cut off all debate or discussion — and as such, as per common application of Godwin’s Law, Mr. Rich loses.
–The American Street:
Not all of us will be guilty of benign neglect. I believe the majority of the citizenry still stands for the rule of law and wants to restore legitimacy to our government and restore our nation’s values to one of clear, unbending principles.
I don’t care what party you belong to. Are you with the good of humanity or are you against it? There is no neutral position, no escape. Answer the question of whether our America, our democracy will exist. Or whether you surrender it and create an inferior second rate country in its place.
–Flopping Aces shows Al Qaeda photos of terrorist torture techniques and writes:
Frank Rich, the always hyperventilating liberal, is at it again today in this column inside the New York Times. As usual with most of the far left he calls Bush another Hitler, and the CIA his Gestapo. This time he also calls those Americans who do nothing about the Bush Administration’s use of interrogation techniques “good Germans.”
….These are the same kind of liberals who believe putting panties on one head is “torture”, and Mr. Rich also obviously believes sleep deprivation is “torture” because he can cite cases where the Germans used that technique also. Well whoopdidoo…..Do these liberals really believe that a hard core al-Qaeda agent is just going to sit down and tell us everything because we were super nice to them? Gave them some cookies and warm milk? It appears they do.
–Say Anything:
Op-ed columnist Frank Rich’s article entitled,”The Good ‘Germans’ Among Us” makes me want to bury my head in shame for what my country has done in Iraq. If this article does not move you, nothing will.
–Arkansas Politics Blog:
When I started to read Frank Rich’s latest piece my skin got cold. He was comparing my country and my fellow Americans to the good Germans…the Germans that turned a blind eye and professed ignorance of there Gestapo and what was happening in their country. And as I got further into what Rich was saying I realized he was right. The damage this administration has done to our country is stunning and as Rich explains, we all have to share in what has happened to this once great country. I will add, that there is no other country on this earth, that when we set our hearts and minds to fixing something…we can do it. The question is…are we willing?
–Sister Toldjah:
Rich is another in a long list of liberals whose perspective doesn’t extend beyond the inauguration of President Bush in January 2001. It almost makes me wish that time machines actually existed, time machines that could accommodate a large number of people, so we could encourage the numerous liberal columnists, journalists, and “scholars,” among other deluded lefties, who have asserted for years that this administration is essentially a modern day American version of Nazi Germany and that our troops are supposedly merely mindless followers, to travel back to that time period in history, and have them attempt to report from the front lines what they’re observing about Hitler’s regime.
That is, of course, assuming they wouldn’t be discovered first by the Gestapo.
The Blackwater Gestapo: The Bush Army of Choice!
That’s all Internet traffic, foreign and domestic, data and voice. And the decision to do this was taken, not because of 9/11, but as soon as Bush took office. As was the decision to ignore the rule of law. So much for the idea that the extremely benevolent and trustworthy Bush administration was reacting to 9/11, and just wants “surgical” surveillance* to keep us safe from terrorists, eh? Could this program be Spencer Ackerman’s “Project X”?
ReplyDeleteAnd in May 2006, a lawsuit filed against Verizon for allegedly turning over call records to the NSA alleged that AT&T began building a spying facility for the NSA just days after President Bush was inaugurated. That lawsuit is one of 50 that were consolidated and moved to a San Francisco federal district court, where the suits sit in limbo waiting for the 9th Circuit Appeals court to decide whether the suits can proceed without endangering national security.
The project was described in the ATT sales division documents as calling for the construction of a facility to store and retain data gathered by the NSA from its domestic and foreign intelligence operations but was to be in actuality a duplicate ATT Network Operations Center for the use and possession of the NSA that would give the NSA direct, unlimited, unrestricted and unfettered access to all call information and internet and digital traffic on ATTÌs long distance network. […]
The NSA program was initially conceived at least one year prior to 2001 but had been called off; it was reinstated within 11 days of the entry into office of defendant George W. Bush.
An ATT Solutions logbook reviewed by counsel confirms the Pioneer-Groundbreaker project start date of February 1, 2001.
The allegations in that case come from unnamed AT&T insiders, who have never stepped forward or provided any documentation to the courts. But Carl Mayer, one of the attorneys in the case, stands by the allegations in the lawsuit.
“All we can say is, we told you so,” Mayer said.
Mayer says the issue of when the call records program started - a program that unlike the admitted warrantless wiretapping, the administration has never confirmed nor denied - should play a role in the upcoming confirmation hearings of Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey.
Mukasey will have to “come clean on when this program started,” Mayer said. “The entire rationale was that it was necessitated by 9/11.”
Well, yes, Tooliani operative Mukasey should indeed be asked about all this. Hey, here’s an idea: Leader Nance could write Mukasey a Sternly Worded Letter!
And this does explain why the telcos are lobbying so hard for retroactive immunity, doesn’t it?
And now that we can be totally sure that Iraq was for oil—even in the absence of the suppressed records of the Cheney energy task force—and we know that massive warrantless surveillance was the order of the day immediately after Bush took office, it looks like what “changed” after 9/11 wasn’t “everything,” but just the catapult Bush used for the propaganda. Eh?
UPDATE Here’s WaPo’s Ellen Nakashima and Dan Eggen. They focus on the court filings from which the Wired story above is derived. They get the pre-9/11 nature of the program:
Nacchio’s account, which places the NSA proposal at a meeting on Feb. 27, 2001, suggests that the Bush administration was seeking to enlist telecommunications firms in programs without court oversight before the terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon. The Sept. 11 attacks have been cited by the government as the main impetus for its warrantless surveillance efforts.
Right. All this crap about protecting the American people was and is just propaganda; 9/11 was just the icing on the cake for the criminal Bush regime. They were secretly working to destroy the Fourth Amendment, and the Constitution from the start—right after they seized power in Bush v. Gore. Tell me again why we live under a legitimate government?
Now, Eggen and Nakashima are framing this in terms of “phone records,” not “all call information and internet and digital traffic”, as Wired has it:
In a statement released after the story was published, Nacchio attorney Herbert Stern said that in fall 2001, Qwest was approached to give the government access to the private phone records of Qwest customers. At the time, Nacchio was chairman of the president’s National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee.
But they do have the money quote:
“Mr. Nacchio made inquiry as to whether a warrant or other legal process had been secured in support of that request,” Stern said. “When he learned that no such authority had been granted and that there was a disinclination on the part of the authorities to use any legal process, including the Special Court which had been established to handle such matters, Mr. Nacchio concluded that these requests violated the privacy requirements of the Telecommunications Act.”
A “disinclination.” Nice. So Nacchio turned down the request. The consequences: The so-called Justice Department sued him for insider trading—Nacchio had sold his stock at a high on the expectation that the contract would go through because who would have fucking thought the request would be illegal. (This is America!) And, cleverly, the so-called Justice Department then gamed the system of security clearances and got the judge to suppress any defense based on the request because of the “state secrets” privilege.*
So, Nacchio wasn’t a total, total greedhead. And all the other telco CEOs were, apparently. What a re-assuring portrait of the integrity and benign intentions of our ruling class.
And it looks like the multiple nature of the surveillance programs is causing a lot of confusion. “Call records” implies only voice but, as Wired says (and they’ve got the technical expertise) what we have long believed: that it’s voice and data, with domestic data the real prize; just like 9/11, the foreign intelligence aspect is just a cover for the real goal. We’ve always thought that ratfucking was the important part, but now I’m thinking that espionage for favored corporations could also play a role. Marcy has an excellent timeline.
Another Bush lie and coverup!
Political analysts expect that Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize win will increase the pressure on him to run for president.
ReplyDeleteOle Danbolt Mjos, chairman of the Nobel committee, displays a picture of Al Gore in Oslo, Norway, on Friday.
But those who know him well predict he'll resist the pressure and stay out of the race.
The former vice president and the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won the honor early Friday for their work in drawing attention to global climate change.
Gore gave no hint of any political plans when he made a statement to reporters Friday.
"I will be doing everything I can to try to understand how to best use the honor and recognition of this award as a way of speeding up the change in awareness and the change in urgency," he said. "I'm going back to work right now. This is just the beginning."
Gore left the room without answering reporters' questions, including a shout of "Are you running for president?"
One source, who has been involved in Gore's political campaigns, told CNN that he won't get into the race for the Democratic presidential nomination because he doesn't want to battle Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. Gore would have given serious consideration to a run if Clinton's campaign had run into problems, the source said, but he has concluded her momentum is unstoppable.
"If she faltered, I think Democrats would probably turn to Al Gore because their argument is, 'Of course he's electable -- he's been elected,' " said CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider. But Schneider said he thought Gore's response would be that he had no interest in running.
A Gore adviser made a similar prediction to Slate.com's John Dickerson. "The view this morning is this will be energy he can just channel back into this cause he cares so much about," said Dickerson, a CNN political analyst.
Time magazine's Eric Pooley, who has reported extensively on Gore and his environmental efforts, makes the same prediction, but for a different reason.
Don't Miss
Gore shares Nobel Peace Prize with U.N. panel
TIME.com: Gore wins the Nobel. But will he run?
Your e-mails: Readers sound off
In Depth: Election Center 2008
"Running for president would mean returning to a role he'd already transcended," Pooley wrote on Time's Web site. "He'd turn into -- again -- just another politician, when a lot of people thought he might be something better than that."
Former President Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize winner in 2002, said on NBC's "Today" show Friday that he considered Gore the most qualified person to be president and that he hoped the Nobel Prize "might lead him to consider another political event."
"I've called Al Gore and urged him to run for president so many times," Carter said on "Today." "He finally told me the last time, 'President Carter, please do not call me any more.' "
While the war, immigration and federal spending priorities defy solutions, conservative lawmakers clamed victory Thursday on one front:
ReplyDeleteThey have compelled the architect of the U.S. Capitol to remove a ban on using the word ''God'' in the framed certificates that mark honorary American flags flown over the Capitol.
''Today, we won a great victory for American traditions, religious freedoms and freedom of expression,'' said Rep. Michael Turner, an Ohio Republican.
Turner and 160 fellow lawmakers demanded that the ban be lifted in a letter Turner sent to Stephen T. Ayers, acting architect of the Capitol.
''When one of our services or policies doesn't effectively serve members of Congress or the American public, it needs to be changed immediately,'' Ayers said in a statement.
Wow the neocons have really been doing the work of the people, just the wrong work for the wrong people.
The 10 Dumbest Votes in the U.S. House
ReplyDeletePart of my job at the Club for Growth is to research the votes taken in the U.S. House. Over time, I've come across some of the dumbest votes you can imagine, so for the heck of it I thought I'd collect ten of them and post them on the blog. Now, to be sure, these aren't the only dumb votes out there. There are scores of dumb votes taken every year, but these particular votes struck me as monuments to dumbness. And I also don't claim these to be absolute. If I did this same exercise tomorrow, I could come up with 10 completely different votes that I would consider the most dumb-gusting.
One more thing - these votes are dumb for different reasons. The vote result might be what's dumb. Or the topic of the vote. Or the circumstances surrounding the vote. No matter what...they are all dumb.
In no particular order:
MOHAIR SUBSIDIES (Roll Call 383, 2000) - Offered by then-Rep. Mark Sanford, this vote sought to defund all mohair subsidies. Pray tell, what exactly is mohair? Webster's dictionary says it's, "a fabric or yarn made wholly or in part of the long silky hair of the Angora goat." From 1995 to 2005, taxpayers have been on the hook for $40 million on mohair subsidies. For more information, don't ask the Mohair Council of America, the leading special interest group defending and receiving the subsidies. Their website has all the friendliness of a tumor. But the House still sided with them. The vote failed, 166-255.
CONGRESSIONAL PAY RAISE (Roll Call 580, 2007) - Where else but in Congress can a person give himself a raise? Worse still, if you had a 27% approval rating, do you think you'd deserve a raise? Well, in Congress, you would and it would be automatic! Back in 1989, they voted to put the pay raise on auto pilot, but thankfully, every year a House member offers a motion asking that the House decline the pay raise. The vote to kill this procedural maneuver almost always wins and it is always a bipartisan affair.
FREE MONEY FOR CRIMINALS! (Roll Call 224, 2007) - Earlier this year, the House passed a bill that would give assistance (read: free money and loans) to small businesses in natural disaster areas. As part of that bill, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) offered a motion to send the bill back to committee with instructions that language be include which would prohibit giving this free money to convicted felons. Seems reasonable, right? Well, "reasonable" doesn't sell in the U.S. House. The motion failed, 204-218.
VIAGRA SUBSIDIES (Roll Call 312, 2005) - Did you know that Viagra used to be subsidized through Medicaid and Medicare? Rep. Steve King (R-IA) offered an amendment to remove the subsidy in 2005. According to the New York Times, "Mr. King said it was wrong to tell taxpayers that "we're going to take the money you earned on overtime to pay for Grandpa's Viagra." Thankfully, the House sided with King, but 121 members still wanted to keep it up (the subsidies, that is).
CLINTON'S BIRTH PLACE (Roll Call 23, 2006) - This vote was to designate Bill Clinton's birth home in Hope, Arkansas as a national historic site. To be fair, this isn't ridiculously offensive. It arguably pays respect to the office and not to the man. That's probably why it passed, 409-12. But I liked Rep. Lynn Westmoreland's response after the vote was taken. In opposition to the bill, he said, "President Clinton says we don’t need tax cuts for wealthy people such as him. Well, if he has spare money, maybe he can help the taxpayers out by fully funding the maintenance to keep his birthplace open to the public. He could also solicit donations. There are many options in the private sector that would avoid adding another obligation on taxpayers."
CRIMINALIZE PRICE-GOUGING (Roll Call 115, 2006 and Roll Call 404, 2007) - These two votes aren't dumb because of the issue (well kinda), but because of the explicit flip-flop done by most of the Republicans involved. In 2006, while in the majority and under public pressure from high gas prices ahead of the election, the GOP voted with the Democrats to pass a bill that would criminalize price gouging (even though nobody knows how to define "price gouging"). However, now that they are in the minority with the election behind them, most Republicans voted to oppose criminalization. Well, at least they're moving in the right direction.
VOTES UNDER SUSPENSION - According to House procedures, the Committee on Rules establishes how a bill is managed on the floor. There are closed rules and open rules and modified rules that dictate how bills will be offered, how many amendments will be allowed, and how much time will be spent on debate. However, when bills are assumed to be non-controversial with bipartisan support, the House will sometimes "suspend" the rules and vote on the bills in an expeditious manner. Because of this, a 2/3rd super majority is required for passage. But that's usually a low hurdle. To get an idea of the really dumb votes that get passed under suspension, go here. If you want to get a weekly list, go here.
PORK, PORK, PORK (Roll Call 636, 2007) - This year, the House voted on 50 separate amendments that would have defunded several different pork projects. These amendments included some doozies. My favorite was the vote on the $1 million pork project for the "Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure" in Johnstown, PA. What's especially dumb about this project is that, prior to the vote, nobody could confirm the existence of the Center! Here's a video of the debate. In the end, the House happily handed the mysterious "Center" one million smackeroos with a vote of 326-98! To view the other 49 amendments and how every House member voted on them, see the Club's RePORK Card.
YOUR HOUSE? NO, MY HOUSE! (Roll Call 350, 2005) - Remember that disastrous Supreme Court decision which said the 5th Amendment didn't really mean what it says? In Kelo v. City of New London, the Court essentially held that it was okay in certain circumstances to take private property from one person and give it to another person. Rep. Scott Garrett sought to restrict this newly realized lever of government power by disallowing its application in an appropriations bill. Thankfully, his amendment passed, but there were still 189 congressmen who voted against it. When those 'NO' voters realized that their reflexive big government response was not popular with the American public, they were lucky enough to vote on a subsequent bill the placed similar restrictions on eminent domain abuse. But, alas, the second vote didn't unring the bell of their original vote.
TICK TOCK THEY DON'T STOP - As mentioned before, the Committee on Rules establishes how a bill is managed on the floor, including how long the voting machines remain open. Large, important bills usually have a 15-minute window in which every member can vote. However, in 2003 the GOP-controlled House left the window open for almost 3 hours on the massive Medicare drug bill so that they could twist some arms. As one member recalled, "I saw a woman, a member of the House, a lady, crying when they came around her, trying to get her to change her votes. It was ugly." But don't think for a minute that the Democrats are without guilt. During the Agriculture appropriations debate earlier this year, a GOP motion was being voted on. The electronic scoreboard said 215-213 when the Democrat member in charge gaveled the vote. The Republicans clearly won, but the Democrats maintained that the motion failed.
Thousands are dying in Iraq, thousands lose their jobs in America each week, thousands see their home go into foreclosure each week and this is all the Congress can get done!
Think Progress:
ReplyDeleteEnrollment in Medicaid, the public health insurance program for our most vulnerable population, declined in 2006 for the first time in nearly a decade. A new report by the Kaiser Family Foundation finds that enrollment growth among the elderly and disabled was 40 percent less in 2006 than it was in 2005. Additionally, the number of children and parents enrolled in Medicaid decreased by 113 percent during this same period.
While this decline is in part due to two positive factors — an improved economy and low unemployment — another factor is at play: the conservatives’ cumbersome new regulation requiring proof of citizenship and identity when applying for Medicaid coverage.
This law was enacted in large part to prevent undocumented immigrants from enrolling in public programs such as Medicaid illegally even though evidence showed that illegal enrollment of undocumented immigrants into the program is not a problem.
What the law has done, however, is caused a drop in enrollment of eligible individuals. Reports are showing that the new rules have “contributed to slower enrollment growth in fiscal year 2007 and caused significant delays in processing applications and increased the administrative burdens placed on states” and individuals. For example:
– Child Medicaid enrollment in Virginia has declined by 4.3 percent among white children.
– Child Medicaid enrollment in Virginia has declined by 5.0 percent for African-American children.
Conservatives and President Bush have claimed to want to “help millions of Americans enjoy better care, new choices, and healthier lives.” But instead, the government has increased barriers for U.S. citizens to attain health insurance, signaling that its priorities are not in line with what is best for the American people.
AP:
ReplyDeleteTurkey, which is a key supply route to U.S. troops in Iraq, recalled its ambassador to Washington on Thursday and warned of serious repercussions if Congress labels the killing of Armenians by Turks a century ago as genocide.
Ordered after a House committee endorsed the genocide measure, the summons of the ambassador for consultations was a further sign of the deteriorating relations between two longtime allies and the potential for new turmoil in an already troubled region.
Top International stories
U.S., Iraqis Discuss Blackwater's StatusObstacles Stall Rice's Mideast DiplomacyBomb Targets Iraqi Worshippers, 9 KilledRelated Topics
Turkey United States George W Bush Robert M Gates Senate House of Representatives Nabi | NABI
Egeman Bagis, an aide to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, told Turkish media that Turkey a conduit for many of the supplies shipped to American bases in both Iraq and Afghanistan might have to "cut logistical support to the U.S."
Analysts also have speculated the resolution could make Turkey more inclined to send troops into northern Iraq to hunt Turkish Kurd rebels, a move opposed by the U.S. because it would disrupt one of the few relatively stable and peaceful Iraqi areas.
"There are steps that we will take," Turkey's prime minister told reporters, but without elaboration. It also wasn't clear if he meant his government would act immediately or wait to see what happens to the resolution in Congress.
He declined to answer questions about whether Turkey might shut down Incirlik air base in southern Turkey, a major cargo hub for U.S. and allied military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Turkey's Mediterranean port of Iskenderun is also used to ferry goods to American troops.
"You don't talk about such things, you just do them," Erdogan said.
The measure before Congress is just a nonbinding resolution without the force of law, but the debate has incensed Turkey's government.
The relationship between the two NATO allies, whose troops fought together in the Korean War in 1950-53, have stumbled in the past. They hit a low in 2003, when Turkey's parliament refused to allow U.S. forces use their country as a staging ground for the invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.
But while the threat of repercussions against the U.S. is appealing for many Turks, the country's leaders know such a move could hurt Turkey's standing as a reliable ally of the West and its ambitions to be a mediator on the international stage.
Bush is making more enemies over his upcoming World War III.
The "club for growth" has generally been a good friend to the moronic monkey.
ReplyDelete