Well, whaddya know

Jean Schmidt and Tom Noe -- two peas in a pod.

Anyone have "Ohio-2-envy" yet? I do.

Of course, it's all bullshit...Ken Blackwell will truck in his rigged voting machines, Democratic voters will be questioned on Tuesday, and that harpy Jean Schmidt will go to the House, where she'll fellate Tom DeLay regularly. (Now there's a nauseating thought.)

But here's who the good people of the Ohio 2nd district will be getting from their rigged election (courtesy of Swing State Project).

Just wondering: Sunday edition

It seems to me that while the Bill of Rights serves to codify rights that people inherently have, while acknowledging in the 9th Amendment that other rights exist that may not be covered therein, Republicans have decided that the Bill of Rights is there to take rights away.

First they supported a Constitutional Amendment to BAN flag burning. Most conservatives support an Amendment BANNING gay marriage. Now, Rick Santorum, the wingnuts' favorite poster boy, says on This Weak that he favors one BANNING abortion. Presumably he'd also like one BANNING contraception, since he thinks Griswold vs. Connecticut was poorly reasoned.

Isn't using the Constitution to forbid things flying in the face of a Bill of RIGHTS?

More heartland values

It's not that I enjoy picking on Missouri; I really don't. Some of my favorite film writers are from Missouri. One of Mr. Brilliant's oldest childhood friends lives in Missouri.

But when a state has a couple of nimrods like Blunt père et fils in high-level positions, and when said nimrods insist on being such unbelievable idiots, it's kind of hard not to.

Here, via Waveflux (who posts under the "It's ok to knock your own team" rule) and Feministe, is what Show-me State Governor Matt Blunt regards as a high priority in a state that is elminating Medicaid coverage for its poor:

Tucked within Missouri Senate Bill 280, now awaiting Governor Matt Blunt's signature, is a single sentence that's sure to have repercussions at poolside chaises and in steamy backseats across the state: "The written informed consent of a minor's parent or legal guardian... must be obtained prior to providing body waxing on or near the genitalia."
If Blunt signs the bill -- which he's fully expected to do -- budding bikini-wearers interested in ripping the pubic hair from their nether-regions will have to convince Mom or Dad to sign off.

"That's so a child under the age of eighteen can’t go in and do a complete Brazilian wax without parental consent,” explains Darla Fox, executive director of the Missouri State Board of Cosmetology, which proposed the law.

“Twelve- and thirteen-year-old little girls think they’re eighteen and nineteen in this day and age,” Fox continues. “Sometimes they can become very rebellious, and if they think this is something that their folks can come unglued about, that’s what they’re going to do.”

The hair-removal method, “the barest form of erotic shaving,” gained prominence in the mid-’90s as skimpy thongs made their way into wardrobes. Rather than simply trim the hair escaping from the cloth triangle, women (and men) started paying to have it waxed off. The added bonus is increased sensitivity. And, in a culture where some teens don’t consider oral sex to be sex at all, a good waxing can double the pleasure.

“We use a wax substance specifically made for [Brazilian waxing],” says Chris Duello, marketing director for The Face & The Body, a Clayton day spa that offers the procedure for $60. “It tends to be very sticky. The wax is applied carefully where you want to remove the hair, and then a piece of cloth, usually a muslin, is applied to that, and it’s smoothed in the direction of the hair growth.”

With one stern rip and a few days of healing, the pubic area and butt crack are as fresh as the morning dew and remain so for a couple of months.

Has it ever occurred to anyone that perhaps some girls are maybe a tad more hirsute in the nether quarters than some of their peers and don't want to wear boy-leg swimsuits to cover it up?

God, adults have such dirty minds.

Grinding up the poor for dog food

Since the 101st Fighting Keyboarders and their like won't fight Bush's war, and the children of the Republicrat DLC won't sign up, and even the kids in the manufacturing-decimated heartland red states would rather take their chances at Wal-Mart, the bodies to be fed into the meat grinder have to come from somewhere.

So they're coming from far-reaching U.S. territories, where there isn't even Wal-Mart as an alternative:

From Pago Pago in American Samoa to Yap in Micronesia, 4,000 miles to the west, Army recruiters are scouring the Pacific, looking for high school graduates to enlist at a time when the Iraq war is turning off many candidates in the States.

The Army has found fertile ground in the poverty pockets of the Pacific. The per capita income is $8,000 in American Samoa, $12,500 in the Northern Marianas and $21,000 in Guam, all United States territories. In the Marshalls and Micronesia, former trust territories, per capita incomes are about $2,000.

The Army minimum signing bonus is $5,000. Starting pay for a private first class is $17,472. Education benefits can be as much as $70,000.

"You can't beat recruiting here in the Marianas, in Micronesia," said First Sgt. Olympio Magofna, who grew up on Saipan and oversees Pacific recruiting for the Army from his base in Guam. "In the states, they are really hurting," he said. "But over here, I can afford go play golf every other day."

Here, where "America starts its day," the Army recruiting station in Guam has 4 of the Army's top 12 "producers." While small in real terms, enlistments from Guam, Saipan, and American Samoa are the nation's highest per capita. Saipan, with a population of about 60,000 American citizens and green card holders, has 245 soldiers in Iraq.

[American Samoa, population of 67,000, has lost six soldiers in Iraq, most recently Staff Sgt. Frank F. Tiai of Pago Pago on July 17. Guam has lost three. Saipan has lost one.]

"I see yellow ribbons everywhere," Staff Sgt. Levi Suiaunoa said by telephone from the Army recruiting station in Pago Pago, capital of the territory. " 'Come home safely' signs almost litter the streets."

Despite the casualties, poverty and patriotism fuel enlistments.

"I buried at least one myself, but it hasn't stopped the number of recruits going in," said the Rev. J. Quinn Weitzel, bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Samoa-Pago Pago. "They still feel like they want to do something special for the United States."

Now, the patriotism of these kids is admirable, but once again, I have to ask: Does patriotism involve mindlessly supporting every ill-advised move a delusional president makes? Now that the talk is of invading Iran ASAP, how much insanity should Americans support before we finally say, "Enough!"?

Once again, a misguided war is being fought by America's poorest kids. It doesn't matter if there's a draft that exempts anyone wealthy enough to afford college, or an "all-volunteer" military that attracts kids who have no other options. The bottom line is that war is the Bush Administration's anti-poverty program. Don't bring the poor up out of poverty, just kill off their children so they can't reproduce.

Is THAT what America stands for?

Progress

This one's for Tata, who always chastises me when I miss Friday Cat Blogging.

In addition to our blogiversary, another milestone was reached in the Brilliant household yesterday. For the first time since she came to live with us on December 24, 2000, Miss Jenny allowed me to clip the claws on one of her front paws.



This is a truly amazing feat. Here's a cat who spent the first three days with us crouched behind the toilet, then the next three months huddled under a chair, emerging only to eat and use the litter box. She'd been a stray for over a year, came into the Ramapo-Bergen Animal Refuge with a litter of kittens, was in isolation for 10 months before she was even able to be with the "general population", and lived in a cage another three months before we brought her home. We knew that this was a very sweet cat under all the fear, because there was no aggression in her fear; just sheer terror.

She's been with us over four years now, and every day she still makes progress. When a cat like this starts to come around, it's an amazing feat. I'm not sure I'd want to do this again, certainly not right after losing a beloved cat of 15 years, but there's something gratifying about it. The last milestones are being able to pick her up and to clip her front claws. Yesterday I managed to get one paw. I don't know if she'll let me do it again, but I felt an amazing sense of accomplishment.

These days setting small goals has to suffice.

I also tend to forget my own birthday

Today is July 31, 2005, which means that yesterday, B@B celebrated its first blogiversary. Yes, it's been a full year of raging left-wing rants by Yours Truly.

I started B@B last year because I needed a place to vent my general disgust at the direction the country was taking, and because I already knew in my heart that we were in for four more years of George W. Bush, despite John Kerry's good debate performance the night before my first blog post. I started B@B because there's only so much ranting to which Mr. Brilliant should have to listen. Even the most selectively deaf spouse can only tune out so much. Some wives nag; I rant about sociopolitics.

While we're still not in the top tier of blogs, or even the second, third, or fourth tiers, I'm happy with the progress we've made. About 200 people visit here every day, which is chump traffic in blogtopia, but 1400 visits a week ain't chopped liver either. It's a bigger audience than just Mr. Brilliant and our two cats, which is what I had before. And the cats really don't care, as long as kibble is delivered into their bowls on time.

Some of our readers go off to our sibling sites, Mixed Reviews (for movie reviews) and Modern Fabulousity (where my partner in movie review crime covers the cultural beat. We've been blogrolled by some of the blogs I respect most, and we're listed at Liberal Oasis, which ain't chopped liver either. And perhaps the biggest thrill of all is our mention on Air America's Morning Sedition on June 28, a moment which will forever go down in history as My Moment of Truly Pathetic Geek-Ass Glory. Not bad for a 50-year-old Jewish broad from the suburbs of Jersey.

So it's off to another year of ranting and raving here at B@B. It's got the potential to be a roller-coaster of a year -- for the world, for the nation, and for me personally. I look forward to us all shutting our eyes tightly and screaming in unison as the little carny-ride car we're in continues to careen out of control.

Then we'll go for pizza.

IMBB#17: Green tea and almond cookies

Tea. n A clump of dead leaves steeped in hot water to create an aromatic drink.Of course not!As this month's host of IMBB, Clement, points out, tea is embedded with ritual. The Japanese are famous for their highly ritualised green tea ceremony. The English elegantly partake in a Devonshire tea of scones with jam and cream (altho' the way I pile on the cream negates any sense of dignity). And in

IMBB#17: Green tea and almond cookies

Tea. n A clump of dead leaves steeped in hot water to create an aromatic drink.Of course not!As this month's host of IMBB, Clement, points out, tea is embedded with ritual. The Japanese are famous for their highly ritualised green tea ceremony. The English elegantly partake in a Devonshire tea of scones with jam and cream (altho' the way I pile on the cream negates any sense of dignity). And in

Going to a military funeral is the same as service in Iraq

Thus spake Jean Schmidt on Hardball last night. Good Lord, what a Bush-bot she is. The tape with the Republican talking points is in place and working well. Crooks and Liars has the video, and it's priceless. David Gregory plays, well, hardball with her, in a way that Tweety hasn't done since the Bush Administration took office. Note especially how she yells at Gregory when he strikes a chord she can't defend.

Ken Blackwell had better get those rigged Diebold machines in place for Tuesday's special election. He may need them.

Because these days laughing yourself into a coronary is good for the soul

Props to ShakesSis for pointing us to this gustatorial journey through the almost literal bowels of Processed Food Hell.

(When this becomes a book, I want a Goddamn autographed copy....)

Completely safe sex for conservatives

The virtual blowjob:

It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.

Didn't they impeach a president for getting a blowjob? I guess it doesn't count when you use your blog as a dental dam.

So is Bush incompetent, or does he just WANT to keep people afraid?

John Aravosis points out that it took Tony Blair a week to catch all four suspects in last week's failed London bombing -- and Bush has captured NO 9/11 suspects in almost four years (Zacarias Moussaoui was captured BEFORE 9/11, and the Administration wouldn't allow the FBI to confiscate his laptop).

In case you needed further proof that 9/11 was allowed to happen for the Bush Administration's political gain.

Either that, or the whole bunch of them are blithering idiots.

Take yer pick. Those are the only choices.

The Grey Lady fellates the Bush Administration

I guess this is part of the Times' attempts to appeal to red state America.

Richard Stevenson dutifully repeats the White House talking points:

His problems remain many, and include the relentless violence in Iraq, the leak investigation that has ensnared some of his top aides and poll numbers that suggest substantial dissatisfaction with both his foreign and domestic policies. But President Bush has still had a pretty good July, showing how his own doggedness and a Republican majority in Congress have consistently allowed him to push his agenda forward even when the political winds are in his face.

[snip]

The House narrowly approved a new trade deal with Central American nations early on Thursday morning, the final hurdle for a pact that was one of the administration's top economic priorities this year.

[snip]

The House and Senate were wrapping up work Thursday on an energy bill that more or less conforms to what Mr. Bush has sought. And the two chambers were moving toward final passage of a transportation bill that contained enough pork to please lawmakers as they headed home, but with a price tag acceptable to the White House.

Even as the legislative wheels turned in Mr. Bush's direction, the White House was watching with satisfaction as the president's choice to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, Judge John G. Roberts, continued to win support from all wings of the Republican Party while leaving Democrats with little that might threaten his confirmation.

Then we get the obligatory quote from a DINO of no importance whatsoever:

"You can disagree with the merits of individual things, but there's a lot that's been done," said John B. Breaux, the former Democratic senator from Louisiana who often worked across party lines.

Now the money quote:

The president's record over the past few weeks, combined with generally good economic news and word that the budget deficit is shrinking, suggests that Mr. Bush has hardly lapsed into the lame-duck status that Democrats had been hoping to assign him.

Uh...doesn't this belong on the op-ed page? Does anyone really think that people in Springfield, Missouri (sorry, shimes) are going to start reading the New York Times simply because of this kind of journalistic blowjob?

Why Republicans want to control your sex life

...because their ashamed of their own, shall we say, unusual sexual proclivities.

This one involves the manager of Paul Hackett's opponent's campaign. Oh, it's a good one. Go check it out.

Now, as we all know, what consenting adults want to do with other consenting adults in private is their own business, and as long as it doesn't involve penetrating my cat, I really don't give a rat's ass. But remember -- this is the family values crowd, the ones who rely on the no-sex Christians to deliver elections to them.

Now it may be that ALL of the Bible-thumpers are aficionados of somewhat unusual sexual practices, and are miserably ashamed of themselves, and that's why they want to control the lives of others. But if that's the case, then let them come clean with it.

But even if you want to say that it's none of our business, here's the deal: This is a House race in which the Republicans are putting out "stealth attackers" like Eric Minimyer to question Paul Hackett's military service BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOTHING ON HIM. They made the rules. If they object to such tactics coming from our side, let them stop it on theirs.

(Posted in solidarity with Annatopia, Swing State Project, Steve Gilliard, and the entire population of Blogtopia.)

They musta used alien mind control

Boy, that Al-Qaeda sure is all-powerful.

Fox News wingnut-bot:

IT WOULDN'T BE OUT OF THE QUESTION FOR THEM TO PICK ON SOMEONE WHO MAY NOT BE MIDDLE EASTERN BUT WHO MAY LOOK MIDDLE EASTERN. SAY, SOMEONE WHO IS FROM SOUTH AMERICA, SOMEONE WHO IS FROM CENTRAL AMERICA, AND, SAY, YOU KNOW, WE KNOW THEY'RE RACIAL PROFILING US, SO WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO GET SOME PUBLIC OPINION ON OUR SIDE. LET'S DRESS THIS GUY UP, TELL HIM TO ACT SUSPICIOUS, AND IF THE POLICE APPROACH HIM, TELL HIM TO RUN AWAY, AND WHEN THE POLICE CATCH HIM, THEN HE APPEARS TO BE INNOCENT, SO, YOU KNOW, IN ESSENCE, THEY START SENDING OUT DECOYS. THEY CAN DO ALL KIND OF THINGS WHEN THEY KNOW THAT YOUR NET -- THAT YOU HAVE CAST A NET THAT'S THAT NARROW.

Gee whiz, what did they do, hypnotize the guy to get him to do their bidding? How can we fight such an enemy? [/sarcasm]

(from Crooks and Liars)

Christians don't know jack about the Bible they revere

Considering that so many Christians seem to regard this country as a Christian nation, they don't seem to know much about the book they claim to study so avidly:

Only 40 percent of Americans can name more than four of the Ten Commandments, and a scant half can cite any of the four authors of the Gospels. Twelve percent believe Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife. This failure to recall the specifics of our Christian heritage may be further evidence of our nation’s educational decline, but it probably doesn’t matter all that much in spiritual or political terms. Here is a statistic that does matter: Three quarters of Americans believe the Bible teaches that “God helps those who help themselves.” That is, three out of four Americans believe that this uber-American idea, a notion at the core of our current individualist politics and culture, which was in fact uttered by Ben Franklin, actually appears in Holy Scripture. The thing is, not only is Franklin’s wisdom not biblical; it’s counter-biblical. Few ideas could be further from the gospel message, with its radical summons to love of neighbor. On this essential matter, most Americans—most American Christians—are simply wrong...

Maybe that's why Judge Roy Moore wants the 10 Commandments posted everywhere -- not so that the heathen unwashed can see them, but so the idiots who want a Christian theocracy can remember them.

Naah.

Bush nominees sure have bad memories

Maybe it's Creutzfelt-Jacob disease from all the beef they consume, but Bush's nominees to high posts sure have bad memories. First it was John Roberts not remembering that he was a member of the Federalist Society, and now it's John the Walrus Bolton not remembering that he was interviewed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee investigation into pre-war intelligence:

The State Department reversed itself on Thursday night and acknowledged that President Bush's U.N. ambassador nominee gave Congress inaccurate information about an investigation he was involved in.

The acknowledgment came after the State Department had earlier insisted nominee John Bolton's "answer was truthful" when he said he had not been questioned or provided information to jury or government investigations in the past five years.

When Mr. Bolton completed his form during the Senate confirmation process he did not recall being interviewed by the State Department inspector general. Therefore his form as submitted was inaccurate in this regard and he will correct the form," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

Earlier, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware said he had information Bolton was interviewed as part of a State Department-CIA joint investigation on intelligence lapses that led to the Bush administration's pre-Iraq war claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger.

Biden, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said that should have been noted on the questionnaire, for which nominees swear out affidavits stating the information is true and accurate.

"It now appears that Mr. Bolton's answers may not meet that standard," Biden wrote in a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Again, let's apply the Clinton standard: If this were CLINTON's nominee to represent the U.S. at the United Nations, cries of "deceit" and "lying" would resound throughout the land. So why is it OK if it's a Republican?

Vote Republican or Die

That's essentially the sentiment in the Republican-controlled Senate, which voted yesterday to cut up to 13% of the nation's airport security screeners:

The House voted to cut 2,000 screeners in the budget that takes effect Oct. 1, Blank told a Capitol Hill hearing.

Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees Homeland Security funding, disputed Blank's figures and said the House is not cutting any screeners but is cutting unnecessary management costs.

Airport directors predicted enormous lines if 6,000 screeners are cut as air travel hits record levels.

"There's no one who's going to get through a checkpoint in 10 minutes," William DeCota, aviation director at Kennedy, LaGuardia and Newark airports, said afterward.

Ben DeCosta, manager of Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, said the TSA told him Tuesday that the airport would lose several hundred screeners under the Senate plan.

"I'm concerned that the lines would be over an hour and would go around the building, through baggage claim, out the door and down the sidewalks," DeCosta said.

Blank told the panel that "very crowded airport lobbies are a security threat" because so many people could be an inviting target for terrorists.

The Senate slashed 6,000 screeners after rejecting an administration proposal to add a $3 fee to airline tickets to help pay for aviation security. Earlier this month, Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., called the cuts "very unfortunate" and blamed them on a budgetary misunderstanding about the process for raising fees.

The House plan cut 5% from the administration's proposal for screeners but added $40 million to buy automated luggage-scanning machines that require far fewer screeners to operate than are needed to handle manual machines now in many airports.

Rogers said he was "pushing TSA to install next-generation technologies" that would improve bomb detection in luggage, speed up screening and cut personnel costs.

Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., criticized the administration for not seeking more money to meet airport demand for automated luggage scanners. "There is a chance here for major savings," Dicks said.

TSA's Blank said increased air travel is generating more fees for airports, which "are sitting on some cash that they can invest" in security.

Blank testified the same day the TSA announced its annual redistribution of screeners at the 441 airports where it provides security. Airports will gradually lose or gain screeners in coming months.


The big winners: Las Vegas' McCarran International Airport, Houston's Intercontinental and Los Angeles International Airport, which opened seven new security lanes this month to alleviate some of the longest lines in the USA. "It will be a great help," LAX spokesman Tom Winfrey said.

Big losers: New York's Kennedy, Pittsburgh and Portland, Ore.

Hmmmm....let's see...New York? Voted for Kerry. Pittsburgh, PA? Voted for Kerry. Oregon? Voted for Kerry.

Just another example of a pattern in which Republicans are punishing the states that didn't vote for them.

FUBAR

OMG:

Space shuttle Discovery escaped damage from the potentially deadly chunk of foam that broke off from the fuel tank during liftoff, but may have been struck in the wing by a much smaller piece, NASA said Thursday.

Even if the small foam fragment did hit, engineers believe the impact caused no damage of concern, said deputy shuttle program manager Wayne Hale.

"This is the closest to a potential hit that we have out of all the data we've got," Hale said at an evening press conference. That's why it generated "a great deal of interest," he added.

Despite the latest development, officials said Discovery still looks safe to fly home in a week, but stressed it will be another few days before the space agency can conclusively give the shuttle a clean bill of health.

The mostly welcome news came after Mission Control received stunningly detailed photographs of Discovery taken by the crew aboard the international space station. The shuttle executed an unprecedented backflip to bare its belly to the cameras before docking with the space station.

NASA wanted to make sure Discovery did not suffer the kind of mortal wound that brought down Columbia in 2003.

"Everything we know at this point in time, I don't see anything that would keep us from being able to re-enter," said Steve Poulos, manager of the orbiter project office.

I put these reassurances right up there with "the radiation leak is contained", "there will be no layoffs", and "Of course you'll be able to afford the payments."

I know that there's going to be a whole bunch of praying going on when that bird comes back down.

Fuckers. They put these astronauts' lives at risk without fixing the problems that destroyed the last ones.

I'm old enough to remember John Glenn's adventures in space, the first space walks, the first moon landing. When on earth did NASA turn into General Motors?

Minamyer backs down

Eric Minamyer has backed off his slander of Ohio House candidate Paul Hackett:

From the internet I learned that Hackett’s CO was Col. John R. Ballard, commander of the Marine 4th Civil Affairs Group. The unit description of personnel is "Total personnel include 38 Marine and 4 Navy officers and 85 Marine and 1 Navy enlisted." http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6453/cag.html gives a complete description of the unit. One could surmise he was one of the lawyers, but I cannot say for sure.

On Channel 12, Hackett stated that he was in command of a convoy on October 21, 2004 that was attacked by two IEDs (impovised explosive devices). He shows a picture of the convoy marines taken after the attack. That counts as combat.

As promised, I will not edit his response. The video can be viewed at (http://www.wkrc.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=96C30F6C-0A12-4F07-A09C-AD1615D9C891)

The questions I asked in my email were:

Did Paul Hackett lead marines in combat?

Yes on October 21, 2004.

Did Paul Hackett command marines at all, if so who?

Yes, at least on that date. The marines are in a picture he shows on the news report.

Was Paul Hackett in combat?

Yes, on October 21, 2004 traveling from Ramadi to Fallujah.


What were Paul Hackett’s duties in Iraq?

While he did not respond completely he did serve in a convoy on that date. From another posting of a news report he interacted with an Arab reporter over the issue of ID badges for people in Fallujah so he had duties involving issuing IDs to civilians or at least talking to the reporter about it. His unit is comprised of among other things lawyers. Since he is a lawyer he may have served in one of those assignments, but I cannot say for certain. As I have said before all marines are also riflemen..

Was he part of Division Staff and to whom did he report?

See above.

I therefore correct my earlier incorrect opinion that he was not in combat, which was based solely on a lack of a reply.

While I'll give Minamyer credit for retracting his slander of Hackett's military service, he's still a putz for questioning it in the first place. Anyone outside of the Green Zone in Iraq is in constant danger, whether in active combat or not. This is no ordinary war, and it's reprehensible for him to be questioning Hackett's service. Minamyer states in his comments that "questioning is not smearing", but he's wrong -- this kind of questioning is the very nature of the Karl Rove methodology of campaign attacks -- attack the opposition's strength. His pleas of innocence mean nothing.

(via Swing State Project)

You can put lipstick on a pig, but....

...he's still an arrogant, spoiled, rich, overindulged fratboy asshole.

And this is God's anointed president?

Give me one reason why this man is deserving of respect. And "Because he's the president" doesn't count.

Local TV affiliate covers Swiftboating of Paul Hackett

WKRC video here.

Off to drop 20 more bucks into the Hackett campaign pushkeh.

Flying Fish and Chips, Pyrmont

I've been the pitiful victim of constant overtures on the gastronomic joys of Flying Fish.Friends have waxed lyrical about the Sri Lankan snapper curry, others have raved on about the divine seafood degustation, and head chef Peter Kuruvita seems to be forever popping up in the pages of Good Living.So when we found ourselves heading back to the car after last month's Growers Markets at Pyrmont,

Flying Fish and Chips, Pyrmont

I've been the pitiful victim of constant overtures on the gastronomic joys of Flying Fish.Friends have waxed lyrical about the Sri Lankan snapper curry, others have raved on about the divine seafood degustation, and head chef Peter Kuruvita seems to be forever popping up in the pages of Good Living.So when we found ourselves heading back to the car after last month's Growers Markets at Pyrmont,

Bill Maher is a sexist pig, but that doesn't mean he's always wrong

Crooks and Liars has video from Bill Maher's appearance on The Tonight Show. Recently on his HBO show, Maher has seemed to be kowtowing to the right, but here he's back on his game.

Exhibit A as to why Catholicism doesn't want to ordain women

Because nuns like Sister Liguori Rossner aren't mindless lackeys to the Church, but are unafraid to speak truth to power:

As a teacher for the Diocese of Pittsburgh for 14 years, one important lesson I learned was that no matter what I said to the child, whatever the parents said superseded my message. What parents say and how they live sends a message stronger than any teacher's voice no matter what the issue.

Sen. Rick Santorum and his wife have taught their children a powerful lesson on civic responsibility by refusing to pay any tuition money to the Penn Hills School District for their children who attended the Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School ("Penn Hills Loses Bid to Charge Santorum," July 12). Released from that payment on a technicality shows that even an upstanding, moral gentleman like Sen. Santorum teaches his children the following lessons:

1) Take advantage of the system whenever you can.

2) The little guy pays while the rich and powerful guy gets away with it.

3) As a Catholic, you have no obligation to pay your share to the common good in spite of Catholic social doctrine.

Finally, I am shocked that our religious leaders who see Sen. Santorum as some sort of faith-and-morals hero have not spoken up on this issue at all.

Jon Stewart, call your office.

Just wondering

If I go apply for a job, I have to provide information about my past experience, and if I am being considered seriously, I often have to take a drug test and undergo a full background check, including a credit check. I'll be judged not just for my skills, but also for how I'll "fit in" to the environment. And all this is for a job in which I would have no guarantee of continued employment.

So why should a Supreme Court nominee be exempt from having to provide any information whatsoever about his qualifications and views for a job that's a lifetime appointment?

An animal is most dangerous when it's cornered

And George W. Bush, the self-appointed God's Chosen Leader of Our Nation, the self-styled Messiah of All That's Virtuous, is cornered:

President Bush's job-approval ratings have dropped to their lowest level ever, a new poll revealed yesterday.
The Quinnipiac University poll found 53% of voters disapprove of the job Bush is doing, while just 41% approve.

This compares to a 50%-to-44% disapproval rating in a May 25 Quinnipiac poll. Bush's highest rating came in a Dec. 11, 2001, poll, when 83% approved of how he was doing his job.

If you figure that Bush's base -- the wingnuts who would approve of him even if he were caught on film sodomizing 25 infants, then cooking them in wine sauce and enjoying his meal with fava beans and a nice chianti -- constitutes about 25-28%, only 13% of the "squishy middle" still approve of his job as president. I would guess that many of those are probably so invested in the concept that the presidency is bigger than the man that they simply can't or won't fathom the botch job this guy has made not just of the U.S., but of the entire world.

By contrast, Bill Clinton had a 66% approval rating IN THE IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH of the release of his videotaped testimony before Ken Starr's grand jury, and only 32% believed he should be impeached. After the House voted to impeach, Clinton's approval rating jumped to 73%.

The fact is this: George W. Bush has only had favorable approval ratings when he's been able to make Americans afraid -- in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, and when Americans believed he was telling the truth about Iraq. Lost in the shuffle of all his macho posturing after 9/11 is the fact that his approval ratings were hovering at around 50% in August 2001, and his presidency was already foundering.

No wonder he chose to ignore the August 6, 2001 PDB that warned very clearly that SOME kind of attack on the U.S. was imminent.

So right now this incompetent ninny, who still thinks he was anointed by God, is getting ready to spend the month of August at his "ranch" in Crawford. I wonder what kind of warnings he's going to ignore this year. After all, it worked for him once, didn't it?

Grab Your Diary, 28 July - 22 August

SATURDAY 30 JULY 2005Organic Expo 2005Browse and sample organic food and wine at the first ever Organic Expo in Sydney. Free seminar presenters include Kylie Kwong and Stephanie Alexander.Where: Bayside Banquet Hall, Sydney Convention Centre, Darling HarbourTickets: $10 (Students $8, kids under 14 years are free)Orange Grove MarketsOrange Grove Public School, Perry Street, Leichhardt8am-1pm,

Grab Your Diary, 28 July - 22 August

SATURDAY 30 JULY 2005Organic Expo 2005Browse and sample organic food and wine at the first ever Organic Expo in Sydney. Free seminar presenters include Kylie Kwong and Stephanie Alexander.Where: Bayside Banquet Hall, Sydney Convention Centre, Darling HarbourTickets: $10 (Students $8, kids under 14 years are free)Orange Grove MarketsOrange Grove Public School, Perry Street, Leichhardt8am-1pm,

Another reason to support Paul Hackett

Sayeth Digby:

Hackett apparently got off the plane from Iraq and was so disgusted by the Terri Schiavo circus that he decided to run for congress. You've just gotta love a Democrat like that.

This is a real "Dean Democrat", a real grassroots, netroots Democrat -- the kind the DLC hates.

Note to Hillary: THIS is the kind of candidate we want in 2008. NOT YOU AND YOUR DLC HACKS.

The swiftboating of Paul Hackett continues

Eric Minamyer was just the beginning. Swing State Project gives us the birdseye lowdown on the kind of coordinated effort is underway in Ohio to smear Paul Hackett's military service:

A local conservaitve radio host started by questioning Paul Hackett's service to country. Scott Sloan of WLW 700 AM in Cincinnati went off on some insane rant about the real level Paul's patriotism regarding the war in Iraq and claimed Hackett was using his service for "political purposes."

[snip]

A few days ago, an Army Private First Class was burried in Fairfield, Ohio. Within 24 hours, a number of flags were burned and tossed into a pile infront of his mother and father-in law's home. As you can imagine, this incident has led to a lot of press and sadness for the family.

The same host above, Scott Sloan, attempted to tie Paul Hackett to the flag burning incident. He said that it was people like Paul Hackett that allow things like this to happen.

[snip]

Last night, a number of people in the district began receiving robo-calls talking shit (for lack of a better word) about Paul Hackett. Of course, they hit on the standard themes, choice, equal rights, and yes, Iraq.

You know, it's OK to attack Hackett on the issues. It's OK to question his inexperience. But this kind of smear on his military record is just unconscionable.

Every time I hear of a Swiftboating of this guy, I'm going to kick in another $20. Who's with me?.

Chopsticks in Chinatown sweet conclusion: Emperors Garden and Passionflower, Haymarket

There is no such thing as too much dessert.Besides, we needed a little pick-me-up after an entire day of photographing, shopping, snacking and er, eating.After a quick whip-around the Emperor's Garden bakery--tray in one hand, tongs in the other--Saffron is keen to have an Emperor's Puff, a gastronomic urge I am obliged to help satisfy.It's not hard to see why any foodie wouldn't be addicted. A

Chopsticks in Chinatown sweet conclusion: Emperors Garden and Passionflower, Haymarket

There is no such thing as too much dessert.Besides, we needed a little pick-me-up after an entire day of photographing, shopping, snacking and er, eating.After a quick whip-around the Emperor's Garden bakery--tray in one hand, tongs in the other--Saffron is keen to have an Emperor's Puff, a gastronomic urge I am obliged to help satisfy.It's not hard to see why any foodie wouldn't be addicted. A

Chopsticks in Chinatown, Part IV: Thai Kee Supermarket, Haymarket

I love supermarkets.Some people spend their weekends at the art gallery. Others go hiking. Whereas I'm quite happy to browse through the aisles of a supermarket for hoooouuuuurrrrrs.Of course when you're in an 'ethnic' supermarket, there are even more things to examine and scrutinise.Saffron, Pinkcocoa, Shin Chan and I headed to Thai Kee supermarket in Chinatown's Market City after a morning of

Chopsticks in Chinatown, Part IV: Thai Kee Supermarket, Haymarket

I love supermarkets.Some people spend their weekends at the art gallery. Others go hiking. Whereas I'm quite happy to browse through the aisles of a supermarket for hoooouuuuurrrrrs.Of course when you're in an 'ethnic' supermarket, there are even more things to examine and scrutinise.Saffron, Pinkcocoa, Shin Chan and I headed to Thai Kee supermarket in Chinatown's Market City after a morning of

Americans still can't face how their leaders have screwed up

USA Today:

Most Americans don't believe the United States will succeed in winning the war in Iraq or establishing a stable democracy there, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.
But an ambivalent public also says sending troops to Iraq wasn't a mistake, a sign that most people aren't yet ready to give up on the war.

"There's a lot of conflicting impulses here," says Andrew Kohut, director of the non-partisan Pew Research Center. A Pew poll last week also showed crosscurrents in attitudes toward the Iraq war. "People are giving bleak assessments on the one hand, and on the other hand (they're) saying maybe it was still the right thing to do."

[snip]

For the first time, a majority of Americans, 51%, say the Bush administration deliberately misled the public about whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction — the reason Bush emphasized in making the case for invading. The administration's credibility on the issue has been steadily eroding since 2003.

By 58%-37%, a majority say the United States won't be able to establish a stable, democratic government in Iraq.

About one-third, 32%, say the United States can't win the war in Iraq. Another 21% say the United States could win the war, but they don't think it will. Just 43% predict a victory.

Still, on the question that tests fundamental attitudes toward the war — was it a mistake to send U.S. troops? — the public's view has rebounded. By 53%-46%, those surveyed say it wasn't a mistake, the strongest support for the war since just after the Iraqi elections in January.

I think Kohut is misreading the public here. Those 53% who say the war wasn't a mistake (and I'd want to know what the exact questions was) may not be saying that the war was the right thing to do, but may instead be reflecting the inability or unwillingness of Americans to face the incredible fuckup that the Iraq war is.

When the threat of terrorist attack is once again at the forefront of people's minds in the aftermath of the London attacks, people need to believe that their leaders are on the ball; that they know what they're doing. It's a child's need to trust that daddy will take care of them.

If people start facing just HOW big of a botch job this Administration has made of everything it touches, well, where does THAT leave them in terms of dealing with their fears? It's far easier to trust; to rely on the notions of Inherent American Goodness in justifying a policy for which there IS no justification.

In fact, this Administration may have realized that there is a "threshhold of heinousness" and once you go beyond that threshhold, you can do whatever you want, no matter how ghastly, and the public will go along with it because no one wants to face that the country is being run by the kind of people who would lie to Americans and then send their children to die in a war based on that lie. Because if that's the case, what on earth can we do?

Here's why there are no hard and fast rules about tough questions

As the dozen or so regular readers of this blog know, I was appalled at the efforts of opportunistic politicians to inject themselves into the Terri Schiavo case. When it's not our immediate family, and all we know is what we see in press accounts, we tend to rely on both the available information and on our "gut" to sort out how we feel about such high-profile life-and-death situations.

I also happen to believe that there should NEVER be any time in a woman's life when she ceases to be a human being and becomes simply a vessel for a fetus. Laws that would take away a woman's autonomy over her own body just because she's pregnant would do exactly that, and that's why I oppose such laws with every fiber of my being.

But every now and then, you read about a case that would seem to fly in the face of everything you believe, and yet you think, "Well, I think this is OK."

The case of Susan Torres is such a case.

For the pro-life movement, the center of gravity these days isn't the Supreme Court, but the Virginia Hospital Center just across the Potomac River from the Capitol. That is where 26-year-old Susan Torres lies, brain-dead, her body fighting melanoma. The hope is that she will stay alive until her unborn daughter, Cecilia, can be delivered in August.

[snip]

Torres was 15 weeks pregnant when she collapsed from a brain tumor May 7. Her family was never torn about what to do. Everyone understood that Susan was already gone. The Roman Catholic church they attend has no quarrel with the family's decision to remove Torres from life support once the child is born. And no one is threatening to sue to keep her alive.

[snip]

Jason quit his job as a salesman to be with his wife and their 2-year-old son, Peter. Doctors say his little sister has a good chance of survival now that she's beyond 26 weeks. People from Baghdad to New Zealand have sent thousands of letters and more than $400,000 to help pay the medical bills.

Now, if there was ever a case of a woman's body being used as simply a vessel, here it is. And yet, this seems OK to me. First of all, it's clear that this was a wanted pregnancy, which makes all the difference in the world. In 2003, Jeb Bush (it's always Jeb Bush, isn't it?) attempted to have a guardian appointed for the fetus in a case in which a severely retarded 22-year-old woman was pregnant as the result of a rape. The woman's guardian wanted an abortion to be performed (which was the guardian's prerogative in that role), and just as he did repeatedly in the Schiavo case, Jebbie stepped in.

The Torres case is completely different. Here we have a woman with a WANTED pregnancy, who tragically collapsed in her 17th week of pregnancy with metastasized stage four melanoma. The family is under no illusions about whether she's brain-dead, and plans to remove life support after the baby is born -- something with which not even the Catholic Church has a problem. "Susan Torres" is no longer inhabiting that body any more than "Terri Schiavo" was inhabiting hers. Yes, the body IS being used as a vessel, but if it no longer houses the person, and when the person DID inhabit the body, said person wanted said baby.

My "gut" tells me that even though on the surface, this flies in the face of everything I believe, this is OK...not that anyone asked me.

But what both the Torres and Schiavo cases -- and the thousands of different situations Americans face every day in dealing with life and death issues -- have in common is their own individuality. Both are further proof that with Big Issues and Decisions such as abortion and life-or-death issues, the place to deal with them is in the family, NOT in the halls of Congress.

Quote of the Day

This is almost enough to make me wish I lived in Paul Hackett's district:

"The only way I know how to support the troops is by going over there...All the chicken hawks back here who said, 'Oh, Iraq is talking bad about us. They're going to threaten us' -- look, if you really believe that, you leave your wife and three kids and go sign up for the Army or Marines and go over there and fight. Otherwise, shut your mouth."

The way things ought to be

Add Driftglass to your list of daily must-read blogs:

consider how any other Administration would have acted and history would have unfolded if the fix hadn’t been in. If the decisions to invade and loot Iraq weren’t already primed and armed and waiting for a trigger.

Any trigger.

Consider what the world would have looked like if we weren’t in the hands of sociopaths and criminals who don’t give a shit what happens to America, but instead, in the care of men who genuinely wanted to do what was best for their country.

In that world where Joe Wilson comes back from abroad to save the Bush Administration from lying in the State of the Union, at the UN, and generally flushing its credibility down the shitter.

Where he would have been quietly thanked and feted. Maybe even decorated.

If the Bush Administration had ever been even slightly interested in the facts or the truth or the good of the country, having been shown to be wrong, and having been spared the embarrassment of butt-scooting (I know how fond some of you are of that phrase :-) that grotesque error all over the planet, Bush would have taken the Lestrade role.

Having made such a big deal of retaining and then listening to the experts he hires, Bush would have been appreciative of a delicate job well done...and he would have won himself an ally instead of making an enemy.

Bush would have told Wilson, “... if you come down tomorrow, there’s not man, from the oldest Cabinet Member to the youngest staffer, who wouldn’t be glad to shake you by the hand.”

Instead, they and their toadies went after his wife like the gangsters that they are. Then they went after him. Then they went after anyone who called them on their thuggish behavior. And the only explanation for this behaviour, now that every other alternative has been eliminated, is that they are desperately covering up a crime. And the magnitude of their desperation tells us that it was a Big One. Probably several, commited by several people, acting in concert.

More Republican smears

The answer to the question is "No, there ARE no depths below which the Republican won't stoop to smear anyone who stands in the way of their unchecked power."

Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran, is running for Congress in in Ohio in a special election against Tom DeLay lackey Jean Schmidt to fill the seat being vacated by Rob Portman.

It's a Republican district, but Hackett, an appealing and articulate candidate, has raised a shitload of money, while his opponent is in debt and has had to defend herself against ethical lapses, including campaign donations from Tom DeLay.

Hackett, a Marine reservist, served a seven month tour with the 1st Marine Division, serving as a Civil Affairs officer in Ramadi, and taking part in the Fallujah campaign and subsequent reconstruction.

So what does Schmidt's campaign do? What any red-blooded chickenhawk Republican would: have one of her mindless, grinning bulldogs attack Hackett's service record. Schmidt adviser Eric Minamyer:

I understand that Hackett did not participate in combat at all. It is still dangerous over there as I can personally attest. Let’s just not act as though we led marines in combat if we did not, okay…

I have asked the question time and again, what role did he actually play?

Given all the opportunities he has had to say “I served in combat” one fair conclusion is that he did not.

Here is Hackett's mention of his service at his web site. I don't see anything about claims of leading marines into combat, do you?

This kind of hairsplitting about whether one military function constitutes combat or not is about as disingenuous as a party that gives lip service to "supporting the troops" can get. Is Minamyer attacking EVERYONE that hasn't taken part in outright combat? Insurgents are all over Iraq. Taking a PISS is taking your life into your hands. ANYONE can find him or herself in a firefight at any given time there. Smearing Hackett's -- or anyone else's -- military service while equivocating support for Bush and support for the troops is about as cheap and low as you can get.

I don't live in Ohio, but I'm going to go give Hackett's campaign some shekels. Who's with me?

THIS is what Lori Piestewa died for??

Who's running this war, Rick Santorum?

A chapter of Iraq's draft constitution obtained by The Associated Press gives Islam a major role in Iraqi civil law, raising concerns that women could lose rights in marriage, divorce and inheritance.

[snip]

Most worrying for women's groups has been the section on civil rights in the draft constitution, which some feel would significantly roll back women's rights under a 1959 civil law enacted by a secular regime.

In the copy obtained by AP on Monday, Article 19 of the second chapter says "the followers of any religion or sect are free to choose their civil status according to their religious or sectarian beliefs."

Shiite Muslim leaders have pushed for a stronger role for Islam in civil law but women's groups argue that could base legal interpretations on stricter religious lines that are less favorable toward women.

Committee members said Monday they had taken account of women's concerns, but said they were not planning to make changes since the National Assembly will have final say on the wording.

In the common tongue, this is called a "lie"

...or sometimes, "horseshit".

From the Pentagon's Department of Just Making Shit Up:

The U.S. military expressed regret Monday for issuing news releases about two separate attacks in Iraq that included almost identical quotes attributed to an unidentified Iraqi.

In both statements, the military quoted an Iraqi calling the attackers "enemies of humanity" and vowing to "take the fight to the terrorists," the latter an expression President Bush frequently has used in speeches.

In the first news release, issued after a July 13 Baghdad bombing that killed mostly youngsters, an unidentified Iraqi spoke of terrorists attacking "the children."

In the second release, sent out after an attack Sunday near a police station in the capital, an unidentified Iraqi referred to strikes on "the ISF," or Iraqi Security Forces.

Task Force Baghdad with the Army's 3rd Infantry Division released both statements.

After the media contacted officials Sunday on the similarities, the military reissued the latest release without the quote.

"Task Force Baghdad Public Affairs regrets the confusion regarding two press releases issued in support of our operations July 24," said a statement Monday.

Although not referring to the quote in Sunday's release, it said there was "a draft press release which, due to an administrative error, was mistakenly issued on behalf of the 3rd Infantry Division."

Lt. Col. Clifford Kent, spokesman for the 3rd Infantry Division, also spoke Sunday of an "administrative error."

Kent did not explain why the quote apparently was changed to apply to the latest attack.

It would be pathetic if it weren't so disgusting.

The Bush Administration smears again

Isn't it funny how whenever the Bush Administration and its apologists are under siege, instead of defending itself and its record, they resort to smearing the messenger?

The problem is that in smearing the likes of Joe Wilson and former CIA agent Larry Johnson, they're not dealing with wussy-ass Democrats. These aren't guys who are going to lie down and weep because Karl Rove's minions call them names.

Salon reports:

When presented with information that challenges their narrative, the Bush administration and its allies immediately attempt to discredit the source of the information. It is their default setting. Paul O'Neill was disgruntled and marginal, they said. Richard Clarke had been demoted; therefore he was disgruntled and was not "in the loop." (Plus, maybe he was a racist.) Joseph Wilson, we've been told, is a pathological liar whose career was in the toilet, while his wife Valerie Plame is a limelight-seeking CIA diva.

Now there's a new target: Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and a classmate of Plame's in 1985 at the agency training facility known as "the Farm." Johnson has become an outspoken critic of right-wing efforts to paint Plame as a glorified secretary whose identity was not a secret. He and 10 other former CIA analysts wrote a letter to Congress arguing that the identities of all undercover agents -- even those with "mere" desk jobs -- should be protected. He echoed this sentiment in the Democrats' weekly radio address on Sunday.

Naturally, it was only a matter of time before someone took a shot at him. The problem, though, is that there isn't any dirt to throw at Johnson, a registered Republican who entered the CIA with a letter of recommendation from Senator Orin Hatch, R-Utah. So in a new Weekly Standard piece titled "Meet Larry Johnson," the best that Gary Schmitt, director of the neoconservative Project for a New American Century, could muster was to accuse Johnson of having a "pre-9/11 mindset." Schmitt points to an Op-Ed that Johnson published in The New York Times on July 10, 2001, called "The Declining Terrorist Threat," in which he argued that fears of terrorist attacks in the U.S. were overblown.

We read Johnson's piece and, we'll admit, it does make him look foolish. But there's a good reason why Johnson's argument suffered from a pre-9/11 mindset. Namely, he wrote it before 9/11. To show that Johnson still suffers from a pre-9/11 mindset, what Schmitt needed to do was find an example of Johnson clinging to reactionary views after 9/11. But he was unable to provide one.

It's worth remembering what The Weekly Standard and the Project for a New American Century were talking about prior to 9/11. It wasn't the threat posed by Islamic terrorists. It was the need to invade Iraq. Furthermore, no organization had a mindset that was more doggedly pre-9/11 in the year leading up to 9/11 than the Bush administration itself, as sources from Richard Clarke to Bob Woodward have attested.

Given that the Bush Administration ignored the 8/6/01 Presidential Daily Briefing that said clearly "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.", they have nothing to say to Larry Johnson about a pre-9/11 mindset.

Look for the Administration to call Johnson a child molester any day now. That seems to be their modus operandi when dealing with REAL tough guys who cross them. (see also: Scott Ritter, who turned out to be right about everything.)

Has Jon Stewart sold out?

Lately I find myself WATCHING Keith Olbermann's Countdown and recording The Daily Show to watch later. Maybe it's that Ed Helms and Samantha Bee just aren't as proficient in the kind of deadpan skewering that make Stephen Colbert and used to make Beth Littleford so perfect in the kind of "asshole" segments that surround the incisive political commentary. Or maybe it's because for every spot-on, deadly skewering Jon Stewart does of the likes of Bernard Goldberg, there's an episode of fellatio such as that he gave Rick Santorum last night.

Last week Stewart so calmly and sneakily eviscerated Goldberg's claim that celebrities are ruining America that Goldberg didn't know what hit him. But when the creepily smooth-faced, helmet-headed Little Ricky came on last night, Stewart collapsed as if he was interviewing God. Is Stewart running for President as a DLC Democrat or something, that he's afraid to alienate the Christofascist zombies who are going to buy Santorum's book?

Here's a guy who says that ALL two-parent families could live on just Daddy's salary if they just cut back their spending. Here's a guy who equates homosexuality with bestiality (for all that he tried to soften his stance on that last night, though he made clear that only CHASTE homosexuality is OK). Here's a guy who, for all his talk of marriage, believes that my marriage, and the marriages of millions of Americans (including many Republicans) isn't important because it has not produced children. And to that end, he not only opposes abortion under any circumstances, but also says that Griswold v. Connecticut, which legalized contraception, was bad law.

If ever a wingnut deserved the full Jon Stewart treatment, it's Rick Santorum. So why did Stewart cave?

The Monday White House Weenie Roast

From today's gaggle...

On John Roberts not remembering being a member of the Federalist Society (what, was he wacked out on coke at the time?):

Q It was reported, as you know, that he was in the Federalist Society, which is an important legal group in the conservative -- on the conservative side. Then the White House said, no, it was not the case. And now it appears that he was part of the leadership group. What is the real story here?

MR. McCLELLAN: He has no memory of ever joining or paying dues to the Federalist Society. He has no recollection of that. He has participated in events and panel discussions. He's given speeches at Federalist Society forums. But he doesn't have any recollection of ever paying dues or joining the organization.

Q Isn't that kind of a simple thing to nail down, prior to now?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, David, he's answered this over the last few years the issue has come up, and he certainly has participated in some of the events that they've sponsored or that they've hosted. But he just doesn't have any memory of ever paying any dues to the organization.

[snip]

Q Specifically on the issue David raised a minute ago, and, more broadly, is the White House committed to doing everything it can to releasing documents to clear up any confusion about Judge Roberts' past, his history, his involvement?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, it's all speculative at this point. There haven't been any requests made. But the Attorney General and Senator Thompson I think addressed our -- addressed those issues yesterday and made clear what our views are.

Q But will the White House work to get to the bottom of whether he belonged to the Federalist Society, to release to the public everything that can be known about Judge Roberts?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that we've -- that we've already addressed it. He has no recollection of ever joining the Federalist Society. But I think what's important for the American people to know is that he is someone who is highly qualified for this position, and he is someone who will make decisions based on the law and based on our Constitution, and not try to make law from the bench. He is someone who is viewed as impartial and open-minded and fair. And that's the type of judge that he has been for the last couple years and that he will be once he's on the Supreme Court.

Q But it sounds like you're suggesting the White House is not committed to releasing whatever documents it feels are --

MR. McCLELLAN: There haven't been any requests made of us, Jessica, so it's all speculative at this point.

Again: If he's that big a birdbrain, he has no business being a Supreme Court Justice. You'd think the Bush Administration could find a jurist who could remember where his own ass is, wouldn't you? Well, maybe not.

On Rove-a-palooza:

Q On the leak investigation, does President Bush feel that it was appropriate for there to be an 11 or 12-hour time gap from the time that Chief of Staff Andy Card was notified that an investigation was underway to the time that staff here at the White House, including him --

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the President has said that -- and the President directed the White House at the beginning of the investigation to cooperate fully with those overseeing the investigation. And that is exactly what we have done, and that's what we did in that context, as well. If you will recall, back on October 1st of 2003, these questions came up and I addressed it at that time. So you might want to go back and look at that discussion during that briefing.

Q But in the spirit of cooperation, and you had indicted on October 1, 2003, that the reason that the Justice Department was asked, is it okay to wait until the morning, and the answer was that it was okay, but in the spirit of cooperation, why did the notification not go out until 11 or 12 hours later?

MR. McCLELLAN: I talked about that in that briefing, and addressed all those questions at that time. And the President has made it clear that we should cooperate fully with the investigation. That's what we have done, that's what we continue to do.

[snip]

Q Yes, Scott, can you assure us that Andrew Card did not speak to either -- or did not tell the President or Karl Rove or Scooter Libby or anybody else about the Justice Department investigation?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, again, those questions came up back in October of 2003 and I addressed them at the time.

Q May I ask one follow-up?

MR. McCLELLAN: You may. Go ahead.

Q I know that none of you are speaking about this because it's an ongoing investigation. Can you explain why Alberto Gonzales would go on TV yesterday and do that, and talk about it?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, what he said was already said from this podium back in October of 2003, and I don't think he got into commenting in any substantive way on the discussion. But the President has said that we will be glad to talk about this once the investigation has come to a conclusion, but not until then. And there have certainly been preferences expressed to the White House that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing.

Of course, meanwhile, Senators like Pat Roberts (R-Kansas, and no relation to the memory-challenged Supreme Court nominee) are trying to pre-emptively exonerate Rove, Libby, and everyone else involved in the treasonous revelation of the identity of a NOC CIA operative by making such things no longer a crime.

Why does Pat Roberts think our national security is a joke? Why does Pat Roberts support treason? Why does Pat Roberts hate America?

Do NOT mess with Joe Wilson

The soft-bellied wingnuts simply LOVE making fun of Joe Wilson. They present him as some kind of girlie-man house-husband who got the Niger gig through his wife. They make fun of him because of his too-long full head of 1970's disco hair and his nice suits and his overall hubba-hubba middle-aged hotness (though he DOES look awfully tired these days, doesn't he?).

But Stephen Crockett and Athenae at First Draft remind the 101st Fighting Keyboarders and the rest of the vulgar pigboys that it's a bad idea to mess with this guy, because behind the soft-spoken demeanor and the hair beats the heart of one badass muthafucka:

The freepi and their "grown up" minders aren't just smearing any old political opponent. They're taking on a genuine American hero of the kind they'd be lionizing if he hadn't uncovered a truth that was inconvenient to their worldview. From one of my favorite books, Live From Baghdad:

"Jesus, this place is surreal. This morning Wilson turned up at the briefing wearing a noose around his neck. I told him he was the best dressed man in Baghdad." What prompted Joe to go off the deep end was a note delivered to Western embassies by the Iraqi government reminding diplomats that anyone sheltering foreigners was subject to hanging. Baghdad had also asked for the names of nondiplomats who had sought refuge in the [ambassador's] residence.

There's a reason this has gone as far as it has. Joe Wilson's faced down Saddam Hussein. Compared to THAT, what are the 101st Fighting Keyboarders?

Shorter Six Feet Under

Nate: I want to feel the presence of God.
God: All right, sir. Feel THIS, bitch!

(Hat tip: Television Without Pity)

Can we please stop calling it "Plamegate"?

All Valerie Plame Wilson did was go to work every day and put her life on the line trying to keep WMD out of the hands of terrorists. This is not a scandal. Blowing her cover for cheap political gain is the scandal, and this is not something she, nor her husband, perpetrated.

So please call it "Treasongate", "Rove-a-palooza", or whatever you like. But please....no more "Plamegate", OK?

Here's what Karl Rove and the rest of the Bushistas hath wrought

USA Today op-ed by the Wilsons' neighbor (emphases mine):

Obviously, the identification of Valerie meant an end to her decades-long career. It also meant the country had lost an essential part of the services provided by someone who was an expert on weapons of mass destruction.

Much more than that, it meant — along with the danger faced by Valerie's secret sources because of her exposure — the Wilson family was in danger. There is no shortage of crazies in the world who blame the CIA for their problems. What a tragedy that the Wilson kids cannot play in their yard without their parents having some degree of worry because of this episode.

So I was more than a little surprised that after Valerie was outed, the CIA did not (and never has) posted security at their house. Some neighbors are so jittery that they have called the police reporting people lurking in the bushes. One report produced a squad of police in our house as we arrived home, having entered through a back door inadvertently left unlocked.

Beyond the physical danger, Valerie's privacy is over. My quiet, demure and, as we all now know, secretive neighbor has every aspect of her life exposed and her name plastered on newspapers, magazines and TV literally thousands of times a day.

Two years following the Wilson op-ed and the Novak column, we know that Joe was right — there was no basis for the administration's claims regarding Iraq's nuclear plans. After Joe's op-ed appeared, White House officials admitted they were wrong to include the claim in the president's State of the Union. The White House has never retracted that retraction. We know that but for Joe's whistle-blowing, the administration would not have admitted that it was wrong to use the nuclear scare as a ground for war.

And we also now know that the only reason Valerie Wilson was mentioned was because, as Time magazine put it, the administration had declared "war on Wilson" for his whistle-blowing. The outing of Valerie seemed intended to send a not-so-subtle message to other potential critics, "Mess with us, and we'll mess with your family."

Now do those sound like the tactics of the leadership in a free democracy? Or do they sound like tactics we've seen in mob movies?

And why on earth is anyone defending this bunch as "moral men"?

So are they in cahoots with Al Qaeda, or just this incompetent?

I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

WaPo:

The back-to-back nature of the deadly attacks in Egypt and London, as well as similarities in the methods used, suggests that the al Qaeda leadership may have given the orders for both operations and is a clear sign that Osama bin Laden and his deputies remain in control of the network, according to interviews with counterterrorism analysts and government officials in Europe and the Middle East.

Investigators on Saturday said that they believed the details of the bombing plots in Egypt and Britain -- the deadliest terrorist strikes in each country's history -- were organized locally by groups working independently of each other. In Sharm el-Sheikh, where the death toll rose to 88 people, attention centered on an al Qaeda affiliate blamed for a similar attack last October at Taba, another Red Sea resort. In London, where 52 bystanders were killed in the subway and on a bus, police have identified three of the four presumed suicide bombers as British natives with suspected connections to Pakistani radicals.

But intelligence officials and terrorist experts said they suspect that bin Laden or his lieutenants may have sponsored both operations from afar, as well as other explosions that have killed hundreds of people in Spain, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Morocco since 2002. The hallmarks in each case: multiple bombings aimed at unguarded, civilian targets that are designed to scare Westerners and rattle the economy.

The officials and analysts also said the recent attacks indicate that the nerve center of the original al Qaeda network remains alive and well, despite the fact that many leaders have been killed or captured since the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackings in the United States. Bin Laden may be in hiding, the officials and analysts said, and much is still unknown about the network. But they added that his organization remains fully capable of orchestrating attacks worldwide by recruiting local groups to do its bidding.

Now tell me again why anyone thinks George W. Bush's policies are doing a Goddamn thing about terrorism.

If Roberts' memory is this bad, he has no business being on the Court

So is he a liar, or cognitively impaired?

Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. has repeatedly said that he has no memory of belonging to the Federalist Society, but his name appears in the influential, conservative legal organization's 1997-1998 leadership directory.

Having served only two years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit after a long career as a government and private-sector lawyer, Roberts has not amassed much of a public paper record that would show his judicial philosophy. Working with the Federalist Society would provide some clue of his sympathies. The organization keeps its membership rolls secret, but many key policymakers in the Bush administration are acknowledged current or former members.

Roberts has burnished his legal image carefully. When news organizations have reported his membership in the society, he or others speaking on his behalf have sought corrections. Last week, the White House told news organizations that had reported his membership in the group that he had no memory of belonging. The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today and the Associated Press printed corrections.

Over the weekend, The Post obtained a copy of the Federalist Society Lawyers' Division Leadership Directory, 1997-1998. It lists Roberts, then a partner at the law firm Hogan & Hartson, as a member of the steering committee of the organization's Washington chapter and includes his firm's address and telephone number.

Yesterday, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Roberts "has no recollection of being a member of the Federalist Society, or its steering committee." Roberts has acknowledged taking part in some Federalist Society activities, Perino said.

I'm 50 -- exactly Roberts' age, and I remember perfectly well things I did in 1997-98. If he doesn't, then he's cognitively impaired and has no business being on the Court. If he's lying, he similarly has no business on the Court.

So which is it?

A Chronology of Lies about Iraq

It's all here.

I fail to understand how anyone still living on consensus reality can still believe in what this Administration has done.

Even some of the kool-aid drinkers are waking up...sort of

Conservative blogger Robert George admits that the John Bolton nomination is DOA:

John Bolton will never be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Whether he should be or not is no longer the question. Whether the "temperament" charges against him were fair or if he was just a victim of Chris Dodd's pro-Cuba fetish doesn't matter.

It is now politically impossible. On Friday, individual clouds that had been drifting around for months -- in some cases, years -- finally merged into a media perfect storm. It is now raging. Whether he knows it or not, Bolton has been thrown overboard as far more significant players start working overtime before the ship of state begins taking on water.

[snip]

But then consider what has become known -- and what new questions have arisen -- in the last 48 hours: Richard Keil of Bloomberg News reports that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald maybe looking at testimony of Karl Rove and Scooter Libby that could be in conflict with testimony given by various journalists.

That suddenly brings into sharp focus the possibility that Rove and Libby may be facing serious legal trouble. On top of that, the Times story Friday discusses the State Department memo that clearly identified Valerie Plame (Wilson) as being undercover with the CIA -- and whether former press secretary Ari Fleischer had access to it.

Then, as Josh Marshall points out, as part of her confirmation hearings for a State Department public relations position, Karen Hughes was, by law, obligated to answer a questionnaire, that among other things, asked whether there were any legal proceedings to which she might be a be part of: She admitted that she had testified before Fitzgerald's grand jury. Marshall points out, Bolton answered "no" on the questionnaire -- though, it turns out he also testified before the grand jury on the contents of the Plame memo.

If Bolton intentionally misled the Senate in his questionnaire, he's toast. End of story. But, that's relevant to the big picture.

The key is revealed in Clemons' latest post: He asserts that Bolton was a major source for NYT's Judith Miller, currently incarcerated for refusing to surrender a source's name to the Fitzgerald grand jury. Now, one has to toss in a couple of caveats here: Steve, of course, has to depend on an anonymous source that somehow "knows" that Bolton was an anonymous source for many of Miller's stories.

Still, bringing it all together: DC now has two major players potentially facing legal peril, a reporter in jail -- and the most contentious confirmation process ever for a nominee to the United Nations. But the link of Bolton to Miller -- and thus to the Plame-Rove story -- is what can turn a confusing, "silly summer season" story into Washington nuclear pyrotechnics.

The other new wild card? SCOTUS nominee John Roberts.

His existence makes it impossible for the White House to recess appoint Bolton: If that were to occur, with speculation of Bolton possibly deceiving the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on top of the fact that he might be the source that Miller is protecting, Democrats would go ballistic. Even Democrats supporting Roberts might be inclined to filibuster the nomination in protest.

There's no way the administration would let that occur. Many like Bolton and feel that he is important -- but not so important that they would let an appointment that could only last until January 2007 endanger a lifetime appointee to the Supreme Court and while mustering all other necessary resources on a legal-political fight involving the president and vice president's closest aides. Too much to handle all at once.

Now cozily nestled in George's entry is this notion of some kind of Giant Conspiracy of the Powerless (a.k.a. Congressional Democrats), but this post DOES give us a rather nice and concise picture of the various webs tying together all the filth surrounding the Bush Administration.

If it turns out that Rove is NOT lying that he heard about Valerie Plame Wilson from a journalist, my money's on Judy "Free Speech Martyr My Ass" Miller, and HER source being John Bolton.

It's a Big Ad

It's not like I normally push the joys of amber nectar, but this latest campaign by Carlton Draught is an endearing mix of Iron Chef melodrama with Aussie bloke larrikinism.EDIT 11.30pm 25 JUL 05: Apparently the ad was created by by George Patterson Partners and shot in New Zealand, using 300 actors and more than 20,000 computer-generated men. The director credit to the "Academy Award-winning

It's a Big Ad

It's not like I normally push the joys of amber nectar, but this latest campaign by Carlton Draught is an endearing mix of Iron Chef melodrama with Aussie bloke larrikinism.EDIT 11.30pm 25 JUL 05: Apparently the ad was created by by George Patterson Partners and shot in New Zealand, using 300 actors and more than 20,000 computer-generated men. The director credit to the "Academy Award-winning

Why is the Administration protecting terrorists?

Maybe the Administration really IS complicit in Islamic terrorism as a means of keeping Americans scared so they'll accept the Bushistas' creeping fascism. How else to explain this:

The Justice Department blocked efforts by its prosecutors in Seattle in 2002 to bring criminal charges against Haroon Aswat, according to federal law-enforcement officials who were involved in the case.

British authorities suspect Aswat of taking part in the July 7 London bombings, which killed 56 and prompted an intense worldwide manhunt for him.

But long before he surfaced as a suspect there, federal prosecutors in Seattle wanted to seek a grand-jury indictment for his involvement in a failed attempt to set up a terrorist-training camp in Bly, Ore., in late 1999. In early 2000, Aswat lived for a couple of months in central Seattle at the Dar-us-Salaam mosque.

A federal indictment of Aswat in 2002 would have resulted in an arrest warrant and his possible detention in Britain for extradition to the United States.

"It was really frustrating," said a former Justice Department official involved in the case. "Guys like that, you just want to sweep them up off the street."

[snip]

As law-enforcement officials in Seattle prepared to take that case to a federal grand jury here, they had hoped to indict Aswat, Ujaama, Abu Hamza and another associate, according to former and current law-enforcement officials with knowledge of the case.

But that plan was rejected by higher-level officials at Justice Department headquarters, who wanted most of the case to be handled by the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York City, according to sources involved with the case.

Ever since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Justice Department had funneled terrorism cases to its New York office, which had a lot of experience in that area. This frustrated law-enforcement officials in Seattle, who thought they also had a track record for handling terrorism prosecutions — such as that of Ahmed Ressam, trained by al-Qaida and arrested Dec. 14, 1999, in Port Angeles with the makings of a powerful bomb hidden in his rental car.


Justice Department supervisors in Washington, D.C., gave the Seattle office the go-ahead to seek an indictment against Ujaama only.

Ujaama was indicted by a Seattle grand jury in August 2002, charged with trying to set up the Bly camp and with aiding the Taliban. He pleaded guilty to aiding the Taliban and agreed to testify against Abu Hamza and others.

Aswat was not charged but was referred to in the indictment as "co-conspirator #2."

In May 2004, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft announced an 11-count indictment by a federal grand jury in New York against Abu Hamza, who allegedly sent Aswat to Oregon to scout out the proposed training camp. A department news release said "the indictment alleges that Abu Hamza was a terrorist facilitator with global reach — from aiding hostage takers in Yemen, to attempting to set up a jihad training camp in Oregon."

At the time, however, federal prosecutors chose not to indict Aswat for reasons that are not clear. Asked why Aswat wasn't indicted, a federal official in Seattle replied, "That's a great question."

So? Are they really that incompetent, or are they in on it?

(via Atrios)

Blogrolling in our time: Sunday Edition

A big brilliant blogroll welcome to Looking at the Stars. Because we who are inspired by Oscar Wilde quotes have to stick together.

Go read this poston the journalistic blowjob given to John Roberts by Jodi Wilgoren et al.

Ha!

What book are you? I am:

Incredibly witty and funny, you have a taste for irony in all that you see. It seems that life has put you in perpetually untenable situations, and your sense of humor is all that gets you through them. These experiences have also made you an ardent pacifist, though you present your message with tongue sewn into cheek. You could coin a phrase that replaces the word "paradox" for millions of people.

I can't argue with that.

Try it yourself, and let us know what book YOU are!

(Hat tip: ShakesSis)

It's déjà vu all over again

Remember the infamous 18-1/2 minutes missing from an audio tape recorded in Nixon's office?

How does a 12-hour gap sound?

I'm kind of sorry I missed Face the Nation today. George W. Bush's golf buddy, Bob Schieffer, has been pretty tough on his old friend of late, and today was no exception, as reported at the Huffington Post (emphases mine):

What did White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card learn from Alberto Gonzales and when did he learn it...and what did he do with that knowledge? This "whole new can of worms" (to quote CBS News' Bob Schieffer, on this morning's Face The Nation) is to me the breaking news question of the day. Why? Because on today's Face The Nation, Alberto Gonzales admitted that he called Andrew Card right after he was notified that the Justice Department had opened its investigation of the Plame leak...even though he formally notified The White House staff 12 hours later.

On Face The Nation, Gonzales said the Justice Department contacted him at 8pm and, after responding by saying something to the effect that everyone had gone home for the night, Gonzales asked if it would be okay if he waited until 8am the next day to notify The White House Staff to "preserve all records" etc. Gonzales got permission to do so, but then - again this is Gonzales speaking on Face The Nation - he said he contacted Andrew Card to informally tell him what had happened.

I wish you could have seen Bob Schieffer's face as he came back from commercial break to his next guest, Senator Joe Biden, who he then took up this issue with. Bob Schieffer said to Joe Biden (I'm paraphrasing here...I'll post the transcript when it's available) "You know, everyone in The White House has these BlackBerrys. And you have to wonder what sort of message Andrew Card emailed at 8pm to the other people in The White House...what sort of documents could have been shredded in those 12 hours." There was little Joe Biden needed to add to what Bob Schieffer said. But Watergate - and the famous 18 1/2 minute gap on the audio recording (remember Nixon's secretary, Rosemary Woods posing for a picture in which she tried to demonstrate how she could have accidentally erased those 18 1/2 minutes from the tape?) - suddenly became the "pink elephant" in the room. You could see it on Schieffer and Biden's faces.

This is what Frank Rich mentioned today as well -- that you can shred a hell of a lot of documents in 12 hours. This is called "obstruction of justice", for those tempted to justify anything the Bush Administration does.

Now, if these documents are on hard disks as well (and presumably they are), they can be retrieved easily enough by companies specializing in retrieving data -- unless the disks were low-level formatted or otherwise destroyed, which hardly seems likely. I just wonder if Patrick Fitzgerald's office is tech-savvy enough to realize this.

So it would seem that the sharks are closing in, wouldn't it? Except that as this savvy Buzzflash reader notes, it would be completely in character for Bush 43 to do a pre-emptive pardon of Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, or anyone else that Fitzgerald decides to indict, in order to avoid embarrassment, or possible exposure of impeachable crimes on his part -- because Bush 41 already did it:

Let's imagine for a moment that a member of the Bush Administration was pardoned by the president after being indicted for say, leaking a CIA undercover agent's name to the public. And let us also say for the purposes of this question that the Executive Clemency order was issued after the indictment was proffered but before the case was prosecuted. The very timing of this pardon would virtually steal the golden fleece of justice from American citizens before our Justice system could work its magic.

So then let's further imagine that the federal prosecutor had no choice but to challenge the legality of the executive branch's pre-empting the full and fair prosecution of the law.

Now, finally, here's the question to be posed to Judge Roberts...- "If the President issued this imaginary pardon BEFORE the conviction, and the resolution of this imaginary case came all the way down through the system to end up on your docket, how would you, as a Justice of the Supreme Court, likely rule?

"Bearing in mind, of course, that the subject being prosecuted might well be innocent. Or guilty. We'd never know for sure unless you issued a verdict against the President, finding it to be an abuse of power. Now for the purpose of this question, let's say that the pardoned subject was very close to the President himself, having been a member of his immediate Cabinet ever since the beginning of the first term in office. And because of his position, likely knew and could provide testimony against the very person who had actually cooked up this foul conspiracy and set it in motion in the first place.

"If only he could be compelled to testify. And that's the real twist to this whole puzzle we're asking you to solve. Let's say that due to strong loyalty and friendship, this person could not be compelled to reveal the source any other way than by being threatened with the possibility of prosecution and the resultant serious jail time for criminal conspiracy and obstruction of justice.

"Now wouldn't that be a fine kettle of fish if, by the sheer timing of his pardon, the President was allowed to protect himself, or perhaps shield some other guilty party in his Administration from prosecution for this most serious offense against homeland security?"

Now before you, dear reader, accuse me of a most fantastic flight of fancy that would never actually come to pass in the real world, let me explain. I didn't just pull this specter of an inopportunely timed pre-emptive pardon out of thin air.

In fact, I am only reframing an earlier case that actually set a legal precedent, which was pulled off by none other than George H.W. Bush. That's right, the father of our current president, and former head of the CIA successfully kept special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh from exacting justice for crimes committed during the Iran Contra illegal war which was secretly run out of the basement of Ronald Reagan's White House.

[snip]

Allowing former Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger and five others to skate away scot-free from their heinous actions likely did more harm than anyone ever thought possible.at the time. Besides making it possible for others higher up in that earlier Administration to avoid any threat of embarrassment or inconvenience that an indictment might have rendered, it also set a dangerous precedent and virtually guaranteed that there would be an escape plan for future White House Cabinet members as long as the President could be tied to the crime solely by the threat of their testimony.

All future Presidents could be virtually forced to shield his cabinet from prosecution. He would be required to protect himself from being tainted with the ever-standing threat of any- or- all being plea-bargained into (at the very least) tying him (or others in the Cabinet) with foreknowledge of virtually any crime.

The well-timed Presidential pardon is thus a program which provides Plausible Deniability Version 3.0 for the entire posse.

On Feb. 28, 2001, House of Representatives Judiciary Committee held hearings on the constitutional limits of the President with regards to the power of Executive Clemency. During those hearings, one member eloquently expressed his opinion that "Improperly exercised, the pardon is a travesty of justice—an act borne not of mercy, but of tyranny"

Besides pardoning his Secretary of Defense, Bush Sr. also ordered that the records produced as a result of the Iran Contra hearings be permanently sealed from public disclosure. Executive Order 12356 (also known as the "Weinberger Declaration") classified that material as "Top Secret" due to the probability that the material within would cause "exceptionally grave damage" to our national security. Yet his pardons weren't determined to pose a treasonous threat, because they were held to have only possibly protected him from prosecution.

I can't wait to see how the wingnuts justify such a pardon. 10 bucks says the words "at a time of war" are used, along with the ever-popular "9/11 changed everything."

Last I looked, though, 9/11 didn't allow presidents to protect their own crooked deeds, especially deeds that compromised national security.

Ribbet.

Hey, we put a ribbon magnet on the Hummer, what the heck do they want, anyway?

U.S. troops and their families are becoming justifiably tired of having to carry the whole weight of Bush's war on their shoulders while the folks at home refuse to sacrifice a damn thing:

The Bush administration's rallying call that America is a nation at war is increasingly ringing hollow to men and women in uniform, who argue in frustration that America is not a nation at war, but a nation with only its military at war.

From bases in Iraq and across the United States to the Pentagon and the military's war colleges, officers and enlisted personnel quietly raise a question for political leaders: if America is truly on a war footing, why is so little sacrifice asked of the nation at large?

There is no serious talk of a draft to share the burden of fighting across the broad citizenry, and neither Republicans nor Democrats are pressing for a tax increase to force Americans to cover the $5 billion a month in costs from Iraq, Afghanistan and new counterterrorism missions.

There are not even concerted efforts like the savings-bond drives or gasoline rationing that helped to unite the country behind its fighting forces in wars past.

"Nobody in America is asked to sacrifice, except us," said one officer just back from a yearlong tour in Iraq, voicing a frustration now drawing the attention of academic specialists in military sociology.

Members of the military who discussed their sense of frustration did so only when promised anonymity, as comments viewed as critical of the civilian leadership could end their careers. The sentiments were expressed in more than two dozen interviews and casual conversations with enlisted personnel, noncommissioned officers, midlevel officers, and general or flag officers in Iraq and in the United States.

Charles Moskos, a professor emeritus at Northwestern University specializing in military sociology, said: "My terminology for it is 'patriotism lite,' and that's what we're experiencing now in both political parties. The political leaders are afraid to ask the public for any real sacrifice, which doesn't speak too highly of the citizenry."

No, it doesn't. And when you have the 101st Fighting Keyboarders and the College Republicans giving lip service to supporting the troops, but of course the Jonah Goldbergs and the Nathan Taylors and the Ben Shapiro's have far more important things to do than actually ENLIST in the military, or even send a fucking USO care package. Why NOT just let the kids from the poor towns in the red states do it all.

But these armchair generals are simply following the lead of their own Fearless Leader, who when his country called him, found a cushy way out (Ann Coulter's claims that Bush was in more danger flying sorties over Texas than any soldier in Vietnam was notwithstanding).

These are the people who decry the "if it feels good, do it" society, and yet these are the people who advocate tax cuts for the wealthy at a time of war, who refuse to acknowledge our need to wean ourselves from fossil fuels while American young people are dying in an oil-rich country, who vote for Congressional representatives who vote to slash veterans benefits, and who refuse to put their own asses on the line to fight the war of the president they worship.

Every time a Jonah Goldberg says that he can't go to Iraq because he has a wife and baby at home, it's a slap in the face to every man stuck in Fallujah who couldn't be there when his child celebrated his first birthday.

If we are not willing to sacrifice anything at all in order to fight this war, then it's a war we have no business fighting. Period. And if this president of lies and deceit can't come up with a compelling reason why we're there, then he should get us the fuck out of there, and step down for fucking it up this badly.