The illegal immigration issue

The Gun Toting Liberal has a really good post about the illegal immigration problem. Here's an excerpt but you should read his whole post because he makes a lot of good points.

I can’t believe so many “liberals” are in favor of the “guest worker” ideas being currently debated on Capitol Hill right now. Well, actually I can. I admit, I once (not so long ago; last week even) thought that the President’s proposals for a guest worker program sounded like a pretty damned good idea. It’s natural, after all, because… we Liberals CARE about people. People first, then prosperity will always follow… it’s inevitable.

But the more I ponder it, the more I am beginning to believe that the right wing is trying to further a horrid system where indebted, low-paid Mexican citizens come here to work their asses off for our corporations for less than a living wage to better aid them in reaching a highly profitable bottom line that helps further drive the nail into the coffin of our middle class here; nothing more, nothing less.

One of the main reasons why americans don't want to do the jobs the illegals are currently doing is because those jobs are paying very low wages and no health care benefits. Big business loves the idea of Bush's amnesty program because they love the idea of cheap labor. Cutting down on the flow of illegal immigrants passing into this country and severly punishing employers who hire illegal immigrants will go a long way in relieving the burden on the middle class in this country.

This song sums it up nicely

BushWhacked

The trash bin of History

Way back during the 2000 campaign, President Bush talked of restoring honor and dignity back to the White House. That statement seems so ironic now considering all of the scandals involving the Bush administration. Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinski when compared with all of Bush's indiscretions with the US Constitution doesn't seem as such a big deal. Clinton never lied about matters of war as Bush has. With the release of those British memos the Bush defenders can no longer claim that President Bush didn't lie about Iraq without looking like the Kool Aid drinking partisans that many of them are.

Why aren't all of the Republicans who voted to impeach President Clinton for lying about an affair calling for the impeachment of President Bush for lying to Congress and the american people? Even if you set aside the Iraq issue, there still is the matter of Bush's illegal spying on american citizens. In that case it's pretty clear cut that President Bush broke the law. There is also the matter of Bush allowing the use of torture on detainees. I'm sure i could come up with many more impeachable offenses committed by the Bush administration. What this shows is the hypocrisy of the Republicans who impeached Clinton. They're all for the rule of law when it involves a Democrat but when it's one of their own they look the other way.

While i believe President Bush clearly deserves to be impeached, the reality is that it is a long shot at best. I know i've previously posted that the Democrats should begin impeachment procedings the day they're sworn in if they regain control of both the House and Senate. The problem is they'll have a tough enough time dealing with the mess Bush and the Republican controlled Congress have created. Our troops will still be bogged down in Iraq. Impeaching Bush would probably rally the hardcore Republican base as they'll whine that it's only retaliation for Clinton's impeachment. You know Fox News and conservative talk radio will be crying foul 24/7. Instead i think we should let history be the judge of President Bush. I truly think he'll go down as our worst president ever. He belongs in the trash bin of history.

More proof Bush lied

Yet another memo shows that Bush was going to war with Iraq even if there were no WMDs. The New York Times has the whole memo. Here's an excerpt from the NY Times article:

In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.

But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.

The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.

You'll recall Bush's response to a question recently from Helen Thomas asking him about the reasons we went to war with Iraq. Here's the question and Bush's response from Whitehouse.gov:

Q I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet -- your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth -- what was your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?

THE PRESIDENT: I think your premise -- in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist -- is that -- I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect --

Q Everything --

THE PRESIDENT: Hold on for a second, please.

Q -- everything I've heard --

THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, excuse me. No President wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it's just simply not true. My attitude about the defense of this country changed on September the 11th. We -- when we got attacked, I vowed then and there to use every asset at my disposal to protect the American people. Our foreign policy changed on that day, Helen. You know, we used to think we were secure because of oceans and previous diplomacy. But we realized on September the 11th, 2001, that killers could destroy innocent life. And I'm never going to forget it. And I'm never going to forget the vow I made to the American people that we will do everything in our power to protect our people.

Part of that meant to make sure that we didn't allow people to provide safe haven to an enemy. And that's why I went into Iraq -- hold on for a second --

Q They didn't do anything to you, or to our country.

THE PRESIDENT: Look -- excuse me for a second, please. Excuse me for a second. They did. The Taliban provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That's where al Qaeda trained --

Q I'm talking about Iraq --

THE PRESIDENT: Helen, excuse me. That's where -- Afghanistan provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That's where they trained. That's where they plotted. That's where they planned the attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans.

I also saw a threat in Iraq. I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That's why I went to the Security Council; that's why it was important to pass 1441, which was unanimously passed. And the world said, disarm, disclose, or face serious consequences --

Q -- go to war --

THE PRESIDENT: -- and therefore, we worked with the world, we worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did, and the world is safer for it.

If President Bush holds another press conference i sure hope that the reporters grill him over his obvious lies.

Dixie Chicks newest song

Atrios posted a link to the Dixie Chicks website. Their latest song plays when you go to their site and they have the lyrics posted as well. I was never a fan of the Dixie Chicks. There was a time when they were all the rage and i use to wonder to myself what the hell is the big deal about the Dixie Chicks? Admittedly i'm not much of a fan of country music though these past few years i've become a fan of Martina McBride. Ironically, the one song i did like by the Dixie Chicks called Traveling Soldier came out around the time of their controversial comments about President Bush. I always thought they got a bum rap over that, so much so that when their newest cd comes out on May 23 i'm going to buy it. It will be my first Dixie Chicks cd. I view it as my little way of thumbing my nose at all the intollerant bastards that threw away their Dixie Chicks cd's and the wingnut owned radio stations that stopped playing their songs.

Ben Domenech resigns

From the Washington Post:

In the past 24 hours, we learned of allegations that Ben Domenech plagiarized material that appeared under his byline in various publications prior to washingtonpost.com contracting with him to write a blog that launched Tuesday.

An investigation into these allegations was ongoing, and in the interim, Domenech has resigned, effective immediately.

When we hired Domenech, we were not aware of any allegations that he had plagiarized any of his past writings. In any cases where allegations such as these are made, we will continue to investigate those charges thoroughly in order to maintain our journalistic integrity.

Plagiarism is perhaps the most serious offense that a writer can commit or be accused of. Washingtonpost.com will do everything in its power to verify that its news and opinion content is sourced completely and accurately at all times.

We appreciate the speed and thoroughness with which our readers and media outlets surfaced these allegations. Despite the turn this has taken, we believe this event, among other things, testifies to the positive and powerful role that the Internet can play in the the practice of journalism.

We also remain committed to representing a broad spectrum of ideas and ideologies in our Opinions area.

Jim Brady
Executive Editor, washingtonpost.com

Broad spectrum of ideas and ideologies? I don't think having a wingnut blog titled Red America and no liberal blog to add some balance is representing a broad spectrum of ideas and idealogies. I'm sure the search is already on to find another right wing partisan hack to replace Ben Domenech. They'll probably vet the next one much more than they did Domenech so it may take awhile. The sad thing is the only lesson those running the Washington Post will take from this is to make sure they don't hire someone who's a plagiarist. The real lesson should be not to placate those on the extreme right in this country by giving in to their cries of liberal bias. That was what was behind this whole idea of theirs to hire a right wing blogger. It couldn't have been any more obvious when they named the blog Red America.

If the Post wants to have a right wing blog they need to be fair and balance it with a liberal blog. If they insist on just having the views of a small minority in this country represented and not the views of those in the the mainstream then they are just setting themselves up for further embarrassment. The Washington Posts' credibility is at an all time low. It's time for them to get back to being an organization that is respected and places a high value on journalistic integrity. Hiring right wing hacks like Ben Domenech isn't the way to go about doing that.

Controversy growing over new Washington Post blog

I'm sure most liberal blog readers are now aware of the controversy over the Washington Post's hiring of right wing Republican Ben Domenech to run their new blog titled Red America. Check out some of the comments over at the Washington Post. I wonder how long before they remove all the negative comments? As if we needed more proof that the "liberal media" is nothing more than a myth, made up by the right wing in order to move the media even more to the right. George W. Bush's presidency is a direct result of what happens when the media is afraid to do their jobs because they don't want to be labeled as having a liberal bias.

Tillman's family continues to demand answers

From the NY Times:

Patrick K. Tillman stood outside his law office here, staring intently at a yellow house across the street, just over 70 yards away. That, he recalled, is how far away his eldest son, Pat, who gave up a successful N.F.L. career to become an Army Ranger, was standing from his fellow Rangers when they shot him dead in Afghanistan almost two years ago.

"I could hit that house with a rock," Mr. Tillman said. "You can see every last detail on that place, everything, and you're telling me they couldn't see Pat?"

"There is so much nonstandard conduct, both before and after Pat was killed, that you have to start to wonder," Mr. Tillman said. "How much effort would you put into hiding an accident? Why do you need to hide an accident?"

An examination by The New York Times of more than 2,000 pages of documents from three previous Army administrative reviews reveals shifting testimony, the destruction of obvious evidence in the case and a series of contradictions about the distances, the lighting conditions and other details surrounding the shooting.

I thought i may have gone too far when the last time i posted about Pat Tillman i asked if it was possible that Pat Tillman was killed for his political beliefs. Now i'm beginning to think that was not such a bold statement after reading the latest New York Times article.

Bush's real approval rating

I came across a link to this blog post from bartcop.com. Here's an excerpt:

The party affiliation question is directly related to your views on the President. If you like the guy, you’ll say you approve of him and identify yourself as a Republican. Conversely, if you think Bush is dumb as a stump then you’ll identify yourself as a Dem or Independent.

But lets looks a little closer at those numbers. Lets see… 1018 people were polled and 34% sayed they approved. That’s a total of 347 people. But, lets consider the fact that during the height of Watergate, even Nixon had 25% approval. So, no matter who is President, I contend 25% of the people polled are gonna approve of them. 25% of 1018 is 255. That means of the 347 who approved of Bush 255 would’ve approved of him no matter what. Lets throw those 255 out of our sample of 1018. That leaves 763 total people polled. Of those 763, 92 approved (347-255) that is a whopping 12% approval rating!

He makes a good point. There is a percentage of people out there that approve of President Bush simply because he has an "R" next to his name and no matter how much he screws up they'll continue to support him. If the Democrats would show some courage they'd go on all of the news shows and hammer that point home. In many ways President Bush is even worse than Nixon.

Bush and Barry Bonds

Jim the crazy liberal has a list of comparisons between President Bush and Barry Bonds over at his blog. The comparisons are eerie. When it comes to arrogance, it'd be hard to tell who was more arrogant, Bonds or Bush. At least Bonds is only ruining the image of baseball. Bush is ruining or i should say has ruined america's image.

Yet another reason Lieberman must go

There a proposed bill in Connecticut that would require state hospitals to provide emergency contraceptives to rape victims who are determined to be ovulating at the time they're attacked. It should be of no surprise that Senator Joe Lieberman is against this proposed bill. What is shocking to hear are the callous words coming from someone in the Democratic party. Here's what Lieberman had to say. From the Huffington Post via the New Haven Register:

This fight isn't exclusively being drawn along party lines.U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, who often takes a conservative line on social issues, is facing a liberal Democratic primary challenge from wealthy Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont. But that hasn't stopped Lieberman from supporting the approach of the Catholic hospitals when it comes to contraceptives for rape victims.

Lieberman said he believes hospitals that refuse to give contraceptives to rape victims for "principled reasons" shouldn't be forced to do so. "In Connecticut, it shouldn't take more than a short ride to get to another hospital," he said.

The only person who needs to take a short ride is Joe Lieberman. He can take a short ride on a plane from Washington back to Connecticut and let someone who represents the true values of the Democratic party take his place. If the Democrats can just rid themselves of the Joe Liebermans they'd be much better off. The Republicans wouldn't be able to say "look, if Joe Leiberman, a Democrat approves of our policies then they mustn't be extreme". The reality is that guys like Joe Lieberman allow the Republicans to put a moderate face on their extreme policies even though most Democrats realize that Lieberman is just as extreme as the extremists he supports. The Republican enablers in the Democratic party must be thrown out.

Former neocon denounces neoconservatism

From the NY Times:

America at the Crossroads" serves up a powerful indictment of the Bush administration's war in Iraq and the role that neoconservative ideas — concerning preventive war, benevolent hegemony and unilateral action — played in shaping the decision to go to war, its implementation and its aftermath. These arguments are made all the more devastating by the fact that the author, Francis Fukuyama, was once a star neoconservative theorist himself, who studied with or was associated with leading neoconservative luminaries like Paul D. Wolfowitz, William Kristol, Albert Wohlstetter and Allan Bloom, and whose best-selling 1992 book, "The End of History and the Last Man," was celebrated (and denounced) as a classic neoconservative text on the end of the cold war and the global march of liberal democracy.

Mr. Fukuyama predicts that "one of the consequences of a perceived failure in Iraq will be the discrediting of the entire neoconservative agenda and a restoration of the authority of foreign policy realists." He writes that "neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something that I can no longer support." In its place, he calls for a "realistic Wilsonianism" that would involve "a dramatic demilitarization of American foreign policy and re-emphasis on other types of policy instruments," the jettisoning of incendiary rhetoric about a global war on terrorism and the promotion of political and economic development abroad through "soft power" ("our ability to set an example, to train and educate, to support with advice and often money").

The ability of the current Bush administration "to fix the problems it created for itself in its first four years will be limited," Mr. Fukuyama writes near the end of this tough-minded and edifying book. "Repairing American credibility will not be a matter of better public relations; it will require a new team and new policies."

It's ashame that it's taken the deaths of over two thousand of our troops and thousands of Iraqi civilians for many to realize that neoconservatism is flawed. Yet that doesn't stop the Bush administration from beating the war drum over Iran. From Yahoo News:

While blaming sectarian violence on the "enemies of freedom" in Iraq, Bush also pointed the finger at Iran, saying some of the homemade bombs wreaking havoc in Iraq had been traced to its eastern neighbor.
Locked in a test of wills with Iran over its nuclear ambitions, Bush said: "Coalition forces have seized IEDs (improvised explosive devices) and components that were clearly produced in Iran."

Bush is beginning to sound like he did before he invaded Iraq. Surely the american people will not fall for that again? To quote President Bush, "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

Senator McCain sucking up to President Bush

Atrios has an interesting post about how Senator McCain is sucking up to President Bush at a time when most Republicans are desperately trying to distance themselves from him. I'm losing more respect for John McCain by the day. The man so desperately wants to be President that he's willing to suck up to the man responsible for smearing his military service and his family. He's now in danger of losing his maverick tag which i never really bought into like the main stream media has.

The problem for McCain is that the exreme right wingnuts aren't all that crazy about him. He thinks by continually praising President Bush that it will endear him to Bush's base. It ain't going to happen. There are already Republicans who plan to run in 08 who have more credibility with Bush's right wing base. My guess is that McCain has made some sort of deal with President Bush for supporting Bush during the 2004 Presidential elections. Bush needed McCain to put a moderate face on his extreme right wing administration. Bush has probably promised McCain that he would throw his support to McCain when he runs in 08. The problem is that President Bush is so unpopular with both Democrats and Republicans that an endorsement from him will be the kiss of death. Senator McCain may regret his strategy of attaching himself at the hip to President Bush.

Scarborough, "I’m embarrassed right now to be a Republican."

When Joe Scarborough distances himself from the Republican party you know the tide is turning. From MSNBC:

SCARBOROUGH: There is no—hold on one second, Katrina. I’ll let you talk in a second. I’ve just got to say this, thought, because I think you’ve touched on an important point, Karen.

The lack of leadership in Washington, D.C., is sickening. If you look at what Republicans did—promised to do in 1994, when they took control of Congress, and see, how they’ve been acting over the past three or four years, the biggest debt and deficit ever. They are irresponsible and reckless on so many levels. I’m embarrassed right now to be a Republican. It’s a disgrace because of the lack of leadership.

On a related note to my last post about Faith Hill and Tim McGraw critizing President Bush's handling of hurricane Katrina, Scarborough had on Republican strategist and shill Jack Burkman. Here's an excerpt of what he had to say about Hill's and McGraws comments:

JACK BURKMAN, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: You know, Joe—I’ll tell you, I’m surprised. I’m somewhat surprised that everybody’s taking this so seriously.

I mean, if you look at those comments, and particularly Tim McGraw’s comments, they sound like somebody with a ninth grade education. I mean, he’s almost trying to play the race card, but he’s too inarticulate to even figure out what he wants to say.

I mean, these two, I think, are too stupid to figure out that if they have any interest in a political career, the Christian conservative base could be a natural ally.

To his credit, Joe Scarborough actually defended their criticism of the President:

SCARBOROUGH: You know what, Jack? You know what, Jack? They—hold on a second. Hold on a second, everybody.

Jack, if they had talked about Iraq, I might agree with you, but in the case of Katrina, they just went home. They went to Mississippi like I went to Mississippi. They went to Louisiana like I went to Louisiana. And if you go down there, you ask the question, what the hell has happened with our country? Why have these people been forgotten? And Jack, they have been forgotten.

SCARBOROUGH: We’re talking about the cleanup. Listen, I’ve been bashing Blanco and Nagin, but you know what? The buck stops at the White House.

Peter Cooper, a music critic was also on and he blasted Jack Burkman for his comments about Faith Hill and Tim McGraw being stupid:

COOPER: Well, and it’s the fastest selling tour of this year, period. First of all, to our buddy on the show here, I’m not sure that calling them dumb hillbillies is the way you want to win this argument.

BURKMAN: Well, they are. They are.

SCARBOROUGH: Peter...

Listen, I mean, Jack, I think that was way over the line. Peter, go ahead.

COOPER: OK. These are people—in the first place they are already selling tickets, as the Dixie Chicks had when they sold out the tour that happened after that furor.

No. 2, there’s a long history in country music of people speaking out for what they believe in. I talked to Willie Nelson tonight. He said that not only did Faith have a right to say that; she had an obligation. People who are in the spotlight and have a microphone and a voice can say things that the man on the street may not—doesn’t have a microphone to use. Willie thought it was an obligation. Now, he’s a country icon.

Johnny Cash spoke out. He’s a country icon. Merle Haggard has spoken out on both sides of the political fence, you know, at different times in his career. He’s a country icon.

It’s not like country music is a rock solid conservative, only people who vote Republican kind of thing. It’s music. We don’t pat our foot to politics, you know?

SCARBOROUGH: No doubt about it, Peter. Thank God for that. Thank you so much, Peter.

It was nice to see Jack Burkman smacked down.

Faith Hill, Tim McGraw acting like the Dixie Chicks

From wreg.com:

NASHVILLE, Tenn. Country music couple Tim McGraw and Faith Hill today vented their frustrations with the federal government's cleanup efforts along the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Hill, who grew up in Jackson, Mississippi, said the government response has been embarrassing and humiliating to the country.

McGraw, a native of Delhi, Louisiana, directly criticized President Bush, saying he doesn't understand why the president is not giving jobs to the victims and staying on top of it until it's done.

Both the singers have spent time in the devastated areas helping with relief efforts and raising money for victims.

Yesterday Bush criticized Congress' earlier diversion of levee-rebuilding money to non-New Orleans-related projects, saying lawmakers "shortchanged the process" of restoring the city.

I wonder if the wingnuts will start burning their Faith Hill and Tim McGraw cd's. The wingnuts don't respond well to criticism of their hero, President Bush. Just ask the Dixie Chicks about that. With Bush's approval ratings at an all time low, you gotta figure even the country music/nascar crowd are no longer supporting him so maybe there won't be a backlash. Even Toby Keith has been awfully quiet. I guess we won't be seeing photoshopped images of Faith Hill or Tim McGraw next to Saddam at Toby's shows.

More proof that Chris Matthews is biased

There are two stories out today dealing with Chris Matthews. Media Matters has done a study which concluded that there is a bias in favor of conservatives on Matthews show Hardball. Here's an excerpt:

Summary: A Media Matters study of guests on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews shows that Republican and conservative guests have dominated Hardball during the first two months of 2006.

Notwithstanding Matthews's Democratic roots (former speechwriter to President Jimmy Carter, aide to several Democratic members of Congress), during a 2003 episode of Hardball, Matthews told Republican pollster Frank Luntz, "I'm more conservative than people think I am. ... By the way, I voted for [President George W.] Bush. ... I like to surprise people." Matthews's praise for Bush has at times been effusive; in 2005, he said that Bush "glimmers" with a "kind of sunny nobility"; that "[e]verybody sort of likes the president, except for the real whack-jobs"; and that, if he succeeds in creating a democracy in Iraq, Bush "belongs on Mount Rushmore."

Even further evidence can be found of Matthews bias at Rawstory.com in which they have an article listing speeches Chris Matthews has given to major conservative trade associations since 2001. Here's an excerpt from that article:

Matthews is listed at a speaking bureau known to command hefty fees. While it can't be proven whether Matthews has taken money from the groups, speaking fees are a regular practice for large trade organizations who invite big-name media stars to speak to their memberships. Such fees typically run in the five-figure range, and occasionally exceed $50,000 per engagement.

Among the groups included: the International Franchise Association; the National Association of Chain Drug Stores; the National Association of Convenience Stores; the American Hospital Association; the Consumer Healthcare Products Association; the National Venture Capitalists Association; the Mortgage Bankers Association; the Credit Union National Association; the American Society of Association Executives; and the International Health and Racquet & Sportsclub Association.

The report, available here, notes that these associations have given heavily to conservative candidates for public office.

Peter Daou over at The Huffington Post has an excellent article titled "The case against Chris Matthews". He does an very good job of explaining why "journalists" like Chris Matthews and Tim Russert are bad for our democracy. Check it out.

Bush trashed at conservative forum

Courtesy of the Washington Post:

If the ancient political wisdom is correct that a charge unanswered is a charge agreed to, the Bush White House pleaded guilty yesterday at the Cato Institute to some extraordinary allegations.

"We did ask a few members of the Bush economic team to come," explained David Boaz, the think tank's executive vice president, as he moderated a discussion between two prominent conservatives about President Bush. "We didn't get that."

Now why would the administration pass up such an invitation?

Well, it could have been because of the first speaker, former Reagan aide Bruce Bartlett. Author of the new book "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy," Bartlett called the administration "unconscionable," "irresponsible," "vindictive" and "inept."

It might also have had something to do with speaker No. 2, conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan. Author of the forthcoming "The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It; How to Get It Back," Sullivan called Bush "reckless" and "a socialist," and accused him of betraying "almost every principle conservatism has ever stood for."

Nor was moderator Boaz a voice of moderation. He blamed Bush for "a 48 percent increase in spending in just six years," a "federalization of public schools" and "the biggest entitlement since LBJ."

"If Bush were running today against Bill Clinton, I'd vote for Clinton," Bartlett served.

"You have to understand the people in this administration have no principles," Sullivan volleyed. "Any principles that get in the way of the electoral map have to be dispensed with."

Unchallenged, the Bartlett-Sullivan tag team continued. "The entire intellectual game has been given away by the Republican president," said Sullivan. "He's a socialist in so many respects, a Christian socialist."

Bartlett argued that Richard Nixon "is the model for everything Bush is doing."

Sullivan said Karl Rove's political strategy is "pathetic."

Bartlett said that "the administration lies about budget numbers."

"He is not a responsible human being; he is a phenomenally reckless human being," Sullivan proclaimed. "There is a level of recklessness involved that is beyond any ideology."

This is what many of us on the left have been saying about Bush for over 5 years now. It's ashame that it's taken conservatives so long to come to the same conclusions.

Chris Matthews exhumes McCarthy

I'm beginning to think that Chris Matthews is doing all he can to get a job at Fox News. Hell, with the statements he's been making lately he may be gunning for Bill O'reilly's or Sean Hannity's job. His latest outrageous statement occurred when he appeared on a local Philadelphia radio show. From pnionline.com:

"You know, one-sided, to some extent liberal propaganda. Because you know there Communists – I’m sorry…there were Communists in the government…I could go through the whole list – Elizabeth Bentley, Harry Dexter White, and of course Alger Hiss – there’s a whole gaggle of them.

And the biggest nonsense of this sort of revisionist history is that there wasn’t a Communist threat and that McCarthy was just a drunken fool. Well, he may have been a drunk – he certainly was – and he may have been unable to shoot straight, but there were lots of targets there. He just didn’t hit any."

It's really sad how wingnuts like Ann Coulter and Michele Malkin are rewriting history and now you have "journalists" like Chris Matthews actively promoting their propaganda. I know with all the posts i've done on Chris Matthews that it seems that i'm fixated on him but like i've previously said, there are people listening to him that will fall for that propaganda and that's very bad for our Democracy. Read the post at pnionline.com, it debunks Matthews comments.

Sheriff's Deputy Charged in Man's Shooting After Car Chase

From the New York Times:

A sheriff's deputy in San Bernardino County whose videotaped shooting of a man poised to surrender drew national attention has been charged with attempted voluntary manslaughter.

The deputy, Ivory Webb, who remains on paid administrative leave, is widely expected to surrender in court on Wednesday, said Michael A. Ramos, the San Bernardino district attorney, who announced the charges today.

Mr. Ramos said he concluded that Deputy Webb acted unreasonably on Jan. 29 when he shot the man, Elio Carrion, 21, an Air Force security officer who had recently returned from duty in Iraq, three times after a car chase in Chino.

Mr. Ramos said the charges, which carry a maximum penalty of 181/2 years in prison, include special filings that say Deputy Webb's actions were worsened by causing serious injury to Mr. Carrion and using a firearm.

I posted about this shooting awhile back. I'm glad to see that charges were brought because after seeing that video, any reasonable person could see that the deputy acted improperly. He's lucky that the guy he shot didn't die because he would have been brought up on homicide charges. I know that the sheriff's deputy is innocent until proven guilty but that video speaks for itself. If i was the guy that was shot i'd consider myself pretty damn lucky to be alive because it was obvious that the cop was shooting to kill. Let's hope justice is served in this case.

It's blame it on the media time

Iraq is right on the verge of turning into another Vietnam. There are already signs that the Bush administration is going to scapegoat the media on this. Rumsfeld has come out and criticized the media for exaggerating how bad things are in Iraq. I guarantee you that if we lose in Iraq that the right wingers will try and put the blame on the news media just as they argued that Vietnam could have been won had it not been for all the negative news stories. What surprises me is that Rumsfeld is still playing the same games he's been playing since day one. The only people who believe Rumsfelds' rosey scenarios are the small percentage of people who put absolute faith in President Bush because they, like Bush, believe he was chosen by God to be president.

Chris Matthews still bashing Democrats

Chris Matthews is back in full shill mode. Mathews used his interview with House Majority Leader John Boehner to label Hillary Clinton a socialist. Lest anyone think that Matthews isn't partial to Republicans, he made this statement about John Boehner going into a commercial break: "We’ll be right back with House Majority Leader John Boehner. You can see this man’s greatness." Think Progress has the video cip and transcript.

I should mention for the 20 or so visitors i get daily to this blog to check out an Open Letter to Chris Matthews just in case no one has clicked on the banner ad for the site. The blog lists all of the advertisers who advertise during Chris Matthews Hardball show and has all of their contact info. I suggest if Matthews negative comments about Democrats and high praise for Republicans angers you, that you contact the advertisers listed on the Open Letter to Chris Matthews blog. If enough people complain, the advertisers will listen. Please remember that this is not about censoring Chris Matthews, it's about making him be true to the premise of his show, which is to ask the tough questions of both sides. The facts are, Chris Matthews has shown that's he's not impartial on his show. He repeatedly puts forth the Republican talking points as if they're fact and unfairly smears the Democrats. Republican shills who go around pretending to be journalists are part of a problem that must not be ignored. That is one of the main reasons an incompetent like GW Bush got elected President. We don't need any more incompetent people in Congress or the White House so please take action.

Some people have too much time on their hands

I came across this story via atrios. Looks like lawmakers in Tennessee have too much time on their hands. I'm reminded of HL Mencken’s definition of Puritanism as “The haunting fear that someone somewhere is having a good time”. It certainly applies in this case. Jesus's General has a very funny satirical reply to these Tennessee lawmakers.

Army to open criminal probe of Tillman death

From CNN:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Pentagon has directed the Army to open a criminal investigation into the death of former NFL star Pat Tillman, CNN learned on Saturday.

An inspector general ordered the Army Criminal Investigative Division to determine if Tillman's death resulted from negligent homicide, sources said.

Initial reports after his death said Tillman, 27, was shot and killed by Taliban forces during an ambush on April 22, 2004. An investigation later revealed that fellow soldiers shot Tillman, thinking he was part of an enemy force firing at them.

Tillman's family demanded to know why his uniform and body armor were burned a day after he was killed and why they were not immediately told he might have been killed by fellow soldiers.

A 2005 report from Brig. Gen. Gary Jones contained sworn statements from soldiers involved in the incident who said they burned the items because they had taken pictures of the scene, walked around and knew how Tillman had been killed.

Initially, Tillman's blood-covered uniform and armor were said to have been destroyed because they were considered a biohazard.

Jones' report said the soldiers reasoned "they knew in their heart of hearts what had happened, and we were not going to lie about it. So we weren't thinking about proof or anything."

Two years before his death, Tillman walked away from a $3.6 million contract with the NFL's Arizona Cardinals to serve in the military. He was posthumously awarded a Silver Star.

Tillman was a member of A Company, 2nd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment based at Fort Lewis, Washington. His brother, Kevin, trained with him and served in the same unit.

I always thought there was a lot of suspicion concerning Pat Tillman's death. Could he have been killed for his political beliefs?

Blogger upsets Senator Leiberman associate

Howie Klein, a blogger who recently submitted a blog entry to the Huffington Post calling Senator Joe Leiberman a homophobe because of his far right voting record on gay issues has drawn the ire of a Leiberman associate. After the Huffington Post received a letter from someone identified as a Leiberman affiliate asking Klein to retract his statements or back them up, Klein has responded by backing up his statements. Check out Kleins blog here.

Bill O'reilly at it again

Crooks and Liars has the latest in the Bill O'reilly/Keith Olbermann feud. Actually i shouldn't call it a feud. O'reilly tries to get Keith Olbermann's show off the air and Olbermann makes fun of Bill O'reilly. O'reilly is now threatening to get Fox News security and the police after anyone who calls into his radio show and mentions Keith Olbermann's name. Rumor has it that some people who called into his show were already contacted by Fox's security people. How long before O'reilly ends up being sued for harrassment? O'reilly deserves what he gets for all of the bullying he's done to his guests over the years. You'd think he'd learnt his lesson when he tried to sue Al Franken for putting his picture on the cover of his book. The only thing O'reilly achieved was to increase Al Frankens book sales. I have the feeling Keith Olbermann's ratings have been on the rise these past couple of weeks. O'reilly is coming across as the bully he is. He can dish it out but he can't take it.

Fair and balanced? I don't think so

Proof that no matter how much President Bush screws up he'll always have the Fox News Channel to shill for him. Is it any wonder why Dick Cheney ran to Fox when he needed to defend himself for shooting a guy in the face?

Did Nancy Grace use her dead husband to further her career?

I came across this story via The Countdown with Keith Olbermann. This was reported in the New York Observer:

Every crime-fighting superhero has a creation story. Nancy Grace, the prosecutor turned breakout star at CNN Headline News, has a particularly moving one. As she tells it, in the summer of 1980, she was a 19-year-old college student in small-town Georgia, engaged to Keith Griffin, a star third baseman for the Valdosta State University Blazers. The wedding was a few months away.

Then, one August morning, a stranger—a 24-year-old thug with a history of being on the wrong side of the law—accosted Griffin outside a convenience store. He shot him five times in the head and back, stole $35 from his wallet, and left him dead.

Police soon tracked down the killer, and a new phase of suffering began for Ms. Grace. The suspect brazenly denied any involvement. At trial, Ms. Grace testified, then waited as jury deliberations dragged on for three days. The district attorney asked her if she wanted the death penalty, and in a moment of youthful weakness, she said no. The verdict came back guilty—life in prison—and a string of appeals ensued.

For Nancy Grace, the ordeal she describes felt nothing like justice. And so the Shakespeare-loving teen set out to change the justice system: first as a bulldog prosecutor, then as a Court TV and CNN anchor, crusader for victims’ rights and professional vilifier of the criminal-defense industry.

Her message, delivered with a crackling blend of folksiness and wrath, has made her a hit on two cable networks. Defense attorneys are pigs—morally comparable, she said in a Feb. 20 interview with USA Today, to “guards at Auschwitz.” Her latest show, Nancy Grace, celebrated its first anniversary on CNN’s Headline News Network that week; in one year, its viewership has tripled, to 606,000 a night.

Because of what happened in Georgia, Ms. Grace has said over and over, she knows firsthand how the system favors hardened criminals over victims. It is the foundation of her judicial philosophy, her motivation in life, her casus belli.

And much of it isn’t true.

Read the rest of the article here. Let me go on record as saying i can't stand Nancy Grace. As admirable as it is to have someone fighting for victim's rights i think she's bad for our justice system. What she does is prejudice juries by going on the air and proclaiming anyone and everyone charged with a crime guilty to the millions of viewers that watch her show. If there was a Fox News type show that catered to prosecutors her show would be it. She's like a female Bill O'reilly, very abrasive and someone who will shout down anyone with an opposing viewpoint.

Video shows Bush was warned that levees could breach before Katrina hit

Americablog has a good post on this. Aside from the fact that it shows Bush to be a compulsive liar i was surprised by this statement:

A top hurricane expert voiced "grave concerns" about the levees and then-Federal Emergency Management Agency chief Michael Brown told the president and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff that he feared there weren't enough disaster teams to help evacuees at the Superdome.

I saw the video on the NBC nightly news and i must say i think that just maybe Michael Brown was scapegoated by both sides in this whole thing. Sure he made lots of mistakes but in that video that was aired he seemed like a guy who knew what he was talking about as well as someone who was showing some concern. That's more than i can say about President Bush who as usual looked like he didn't really give a shit. If anything this is going to shift the focus back on President Bush and his response to hurricane Katrina. It's also going to make it much more difficult for Bush to continue to blame Michael Brown for his administrations failures on Katrina.

San Francisco leaders call for Bush's impeachment

Courtesy of Yahoo News:

San Francisco's elected leaders passed a resolution calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, local officials said.

Members of the city's board of supervisors accused Bush and Cheney of tricking the country into war, sanctioning torture, spying on citizens and bungling the response to Hurricane Katrina.

The resolution asked the US Congress to conduct a complete investigation of the administration's purported transgressions and hold offenders accountable with criminal prosecution or impeachment.

California state Democratic leaders should make the mission a top priority and use rallies, petitions, letter-writing, door-to-door campaigns and whatever other legitimate tactics are necessary, the resolution said.

The resolution passed with a 7-3 vote and was not binding on the state's representatives in Congress.

The stance was expected to do more to reinforce San Francisco's reputation as an offbeat liberal stronghold than to threaten Bush's hold on the presidency.

I don't get that last sentence. What is so offbeat about wanting to impeach a president who's responsible for the deaths of over 2000 american troops as well as the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent iraqis? This is a president who's administraton approved of the use of torture and has admitted to breaking the law by illegally spying on US citizens. Why the press is still shilling for this guy is beyond me. If the Democrats had a spine and there were honest Republicans there would already be impeachment proceedings. Leaders of every major city in every state should be calling for the impeachment of this president. This really pisses me off. I hope the Democrats take back both houses of Congress so they can start impeachment proceeding the second they're sworn in or at least start issuing the subpoenas.