Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Bush supporters arguements against NY Times debunked

Courtesy of Glenn Greenwald:
The clear rationale underlying the arguments of Bush supporters needs to be highlighted. They believe that the Bush administration ought to be allowed to act in complete secrecy, with no oversight of any kind. George Bush is Good and the administration wants nothing other than to stop The Terrorists from killing us. There is no need for oversight over what they are doing because we can trust our political officials to do good on their own. We don't need any courts or any Congress or any media serving as a "watchdog" over the Bush administration. There is no reason to distrust what they do. We should -- and must -- let them act in total secrecy for our own good, for our protection. And anyone who prevents them from acting in total secrecy is not merely an enemy of the Bush administration, but of the United States, i.e., is a traitor.....

Somehow i can't imagine these people crying for the New York Times editor to be tried for treason would feel the same way had this been a Democratic administration. No way in hell would they give a Democrat President their complete and unquestioned trust nor should they. These attacks on the press are the equivalent to attacks on our Democracy and will only lead this country further towards fascism. It's beyond me how many of these Bush supporters are so willing and eager to give up their rights. It's as if they've forgotten the abuses of the Nixon administration. If Nixon had the political climate we have today he would never have resigned. In fact Woodward and Bernstein most likely would have been tried for treason.

Treason at the New York Times

From Matthew Yglesias at Prospect.org:
NONE DARE CALL IT BULLSHIT. I never, ever, ever watch prime time cable news because it makes me want to kill extremely large numbers of people. Tragically, I walked through the door yesterday and my roommate already had Hardball on. There were two people debating the issue of . . . whether or not The New York Times should be brought up on charges of treason. Seriously. Treason. For publishing an article in a newspaper. Treason. And there was Chris Matthews happily presiding over the whole thing as if this was a serious conversation that people should be having. This all taking place on a network that, allegedly, does journalism.

This person posting in the comments section summed things up pretty well:

"I don't want to sound hyperbolic, but modern American conservatism really is sliding into fascist territory by the day."

What you said is hardly hyperbolic...it's more like an understatement. Frankly, the American right wing has been sliding into fascist territory for the past quarter-century. They're well inside it now.

In a healthy democracy, for example, the screeds of Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh would not be given a platform in the mass media, outside of public access channels. Also, the very idea that an arrogant, ignorant, incurious dolt like George W. Bush would run for President would be treated by the media in the same manner as Lyndon Larouche's campaigns.

And Tweety Pie Matthews would be a star on QVC.

I fear that American democracy is dead, murdered on 12/12/2000, although it had been very sick since the early 80s.

Posted by: monchie b. monchum | June 27, 2006 11:20 AM

Sunday, June 25, 2006

Liberal doesn't have to be a dirty word

I always wondered why liberals have let right wingers redefine liberalism. If President Kennedy hadn't already given this speech it would have been a great speech for a Democrat to give at the next Democratic convention. Here's a portion of the speech then Senator John F. Kennedy gave on September 14, 1960 at the New York Liberal Party nomination. This is taken from turnleft.com:
What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my view -- I hope for all time -- two nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility.

Some election advice for Senator Santorum

Courtesy of Tom Ferrick Jr. of the Philadephia Inquirer:
To: Sen. Santorum

From: Your Campaign Advisory Group

Re: Tactics & Strategy

As you know, the election is just over four months away and our private tracking polls confirm recent public polls. You are trailing Robert P. Casey (RPC) by mid-double digits.

Clearly, something must be done to make up the deficit in the next 120 days, lest you suffer defeat in the General Election (GE).

How to catch up with RPC and win the GE? We suggest a two-pronged strategy.

One is to saturate the airwaves with commercials presenting the "Rick Santorum Story." These will be sepia-tinted-family-oriented 30-second spots that remind voters that you are, at heart, a sweet guy.

They are designed to draw back into your tent defectors among independent voters and moderate Republicans who, for some reason, consider you a "hairy-knuckled, mean-spirited, right-wing troglodyte," as one target voter put it in our focus groups.

These TV spots have tested well in the same focus groups. We call this the "Cuddles Initiative."

Your recent statements against Hepatitis B can go a long way toward lessening concerns among these voters that you are - again quoting our focus group - a "heartless, harsh, judgmental twit."

Why not Skippy?

It is also essential that you continue your attacks on RPC. Referring to him, in the diminutive, as "Bobby" is crucial.

Our opposition research has yet to turn up the "smoking gun" we can employ against RPC.

But there are obvious avenues of attack. For instance, an exhaustive search of the record has uncovered no public statements by RPC on Hepatitis B. Accordingly, we are preparing a radio ad. Partial text:

"Hepatitis B is a disease that afflicts many Asian Americans and African Americans. Rick Santorum is against Hepatitis B. Yet Bobby Casey remains silent. What have you got to hide, Bobby? Why won't you condemn this life-threatening disease...?"

However, these actions alone will not defeat RPC in the GE.

The other portion of our two-pronged strategy calls for you to rally your conservative base. Disheartened by the war, disillusioned with President Bush's administration, your core constituency is in danger of staying home on election day.

They need to be energized with heavy doses of high-protein, red-meat issue mongering. We call this portion the "Cleaver Initiative."

Your recent visit to Geno's Steaks to stand behind Joe Vento's neo-Know Nothing initiative against immigrants is a good first step. Though, as your campaign advisers, we were dismayed that you failed to use the line we had crafted for you to quip:

No hablo

"Spanish? We don't speak no stinkin' Spanish!"

It would have drawn a laugh and made the point.

Your efforts to tack to the right may be impeded by the fact that you don't have much room left.

Your assertion last week that there are, in fact, WMDs in Iraq, while false, cements your standing among Warrior Conservatives, who feared the president was going defeat-monkey on them.

But what of the Moralist Conservatives? Your creds are high, but they need a feeding, lest some be tempted to defect to RPC.

Abortion is a no-gainer, but we do see an opening with homophobia.

We propose that you offer a constitutional amendment to ban gay dating on "slippery slope" grounds, namely that it could lead to gay engagement and gay marriage.

The news release would have you say: "We need to nip this in the bud on a national level before we are confronted with a wave of gay engagement showers and gay bridal registries."

Among moderates/independents, you could take a softer line, saying: "I'm just trying to prevent a tragic epidemic of gay divorce."

These steps, we are convinced, will help you defeat RPC in the GE.

Otherwise, you will be DOA.

Santorum is toast in November. He's become a joke and an embarrassment to Pennsylvania. It would't surprise me if Santorum ratcheted up the gay bashing because that's all he's really got left. Fortunately that doesn't play as well in Pennsylvania as it would in one of the red states.

Friday, June 23, 2006

Specter, At&T chief clash over phone spying

From the Western Star:
A Senate hearing intended to explore the consumer impact of a proposed AT&T-BellSouth merger instead turned into a contentious face-off over phone privacy Thursday.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., asked AT&T Inc. chairman and chief executive Ed Whitacre whether his company had turned over phone records to any law enforcement agency. The question stemmed from his concerns about a report last month in the newspaper USA Today involving the National Security Agency's (NSA) use of phone records.

"The privacy of our customers is utmost (in importance) and we follow the law," Whitacre replied.

The senator repeatedly asked for a fuller explanation, but Whitacre only said again and again that "we follow the law."

Specter, appearing increasingly impatient, said, "I think that answer is contemptuous of this committee."

Suggesting more hearings would follow, he told Whitacre, "you and I will talk about this further."

Earlier this month, Specter reached a deal with Vice President Dick Cheney to head off a possible confrontation between the Senate and administration over the issue.

Cheney, a key player in overseeing NSA surveillance efforts, promised the White House would consider supporting Specter's legislation to place a domestic surveillance program under the watch of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a special federal court.

For his part, Specter agreed to indefinitely postpone subpoenas or public hearings into the issue. But Thursday, with the phone executives present, he said he couldn't resist "raising an issue which is very much on my mind and on the minds of many people."

Specter is part of the problem because when push comes to shove he always backs down. The only way any thorough investigations of the Bush administration will be done is if the Democrats get subpoena power by winning back the House and/or Senate in November. Then maybe we'll get some oversight of the Bush administration.

Only right wing singers can express political opinions?

Soledad O'Brien interviewed Bruce Springsteen and one of the questions put to him was about singers expressing political opinions. Here's the transcript taken from Think Progress:
O’BRIEN: In 2004 you came out very strongly in support of John Kerry and performed with him - your fellow guitarist, I think is how you introduced him to the crowd. And some people gave you a lot of flack for being a musician who took a political stand. I remember…

SPRINGSTEEN: Yeah, they should let Ann Coulter do it instead.

O’BRIEN: There is a whole school of thought, as you well know, that says that musicians – I mean you see it with the Dixie Chicks - you know, go play your music and stop.

SPRINGSTEEN: Well, if you turn it on, present company included, the idiots rambling on on cable television on any given night of the week, and you’re saying that musicians shouldn’t speak up? It’s insane. It’s funny.

O’BRIEN: As a musician though, I’d be curious to know if there is a concern that you start talking about politics, you came out at one point and said, I think in USA Today listen, the country would be better off if George Bush were replaced as President. Is there a worry where you start getting political and you could alienate your audience?

SPRINGSTEEN: Well that’s called common sense. I don’t even see that as politics at this point. So I mean that’s, you know, you can get me started, I’ll be glad to go. […] You don’t take a country like the United States into a major war on circumstantial evidence. You lose your job for that. That’s my opinion, and I have no problem voicing it. And some people like it and some people boo ya, you know?

I guess it's ok for musicians to get political as long as they express a right wing view. I mean right wing musicians such as Toby Keith and Charlie Daniels can express pro Bush opinions and write songs about "ragheads" and yet if Springsteen or the Dixie Chicks write songs critical of President Bush or publicly criticize the President you'd have sworn they joined Al Qaeda.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Will Bush pardon Scooter Libby?

Talking Points Memo has a post about how Joe DiGenova is floating a trial balloon by stating that he thinks Bush will pardon Scooter Libby. As Josh at Talking Points Memo has pointed out, this is being done to put the idea in the public consciousness so when the pardon actually does happen it won't be such a big deal. I really hope Bush does pardon Libby, it will only be another mark on his already atrocious record. If the Democrats were smart they'd go on all of the news shows and say that if Bush had any integrity, he'd promise not to pardon Libby either before a trial starts or after the trial if Libby is convicted. They should force Bush to go on the record as to whether or not he's going to pardon Libby.

Monday, June 19, 2006

More Republican family values

From themonitor.com:
A young girl featured in a controversial television ad during the 2000 presidential campaign testified this week that the man who developed the commercial molested her for years and forced her to watch pornography and use sex toys.

The girl, now 15, told jurors Carey Lee Cramer — a 44-year-old political consultant who gained national notoriety when he released an anti-Al Gore ad showing a young girl picking daisy petals and ending in a nuclear blast — began molesting her in the third grade, when she lived in Mercedes with him, his then-wife and her younger brother.

The ad in which she and another girl were featured was a remake of one Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson’s campaign used against Republican Barry Goldwater in 1964.

Anyone who votes Republican because they're the "family values" party is a fool. Most of these Republican politicians and those with influence in the party only pretend to care about family values in order to get the red staters to vote for them. I really wish that more conservative voters would be aware of that come November when Republicans will be bringing up the values issue.

Saturday, June 17, 2006

Lame lieberman campaign ad

Really Lame.

Thursday, June 15, 2006

What's in store for MSNBC?

Now that Dan Abrams has been put in charge of MSNBC i have to wonder what direction the network is going to take. There is already a dispute between Keith Olbermann and Rita Cosby to be dealt with over an email Olbermann sent to a fan. I really hope that Dan Abrams and Keith Olbermann can get along because Keith's show is the best thing going on MSNBC. I think it'll be a big mistake for Abrams to continue to make MSNBC into another Fox News. That hasn't worked so far. One thing i'd really like to see is MSNBC have live news casts on weekends and to stop showing those damn prison shows.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

The A-Team sent on mission in Iraq

This is one of those times when a picture really is worth a thousand words.


From Yahoo News: White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, left, and White House Counselor Dan Barlett, ride in a military helicopter wearing helmets and flak jackets for a trip from Baghdad International Airport to U.S. Embassy in the Greenzone.


Tuesday, June 13, 2006

Rove won't be prosecuted

From MSNBC:
Top White House aide Karl Rove has been told by prosecutors he won’t be charged with any crimes in the investigation into leak of a CIA officer's identity, his lawyer said Tuesday.

Attorney Robert Luskin said that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald informed him of the decision on Monday, ending months of speculation about the fate of one of President Bush’s closest advisers. Rove testified five times before a grand jury.

Fitzgerald has already secured a criminal indictment against Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

This isn't good for the Democrats chances of winning back Congress in November. Rove will now be able to practice his dirty politics without the distraction of an indictment hanging over his head. I can hear the Bush supporters laughing already.

Monday, June 12, 2006

Marine lawyer says Haditha killings were lawful

From Yahoo News:
The lawyer for a Marine being investigated in the deaths of two dozen civilians in Haditha, Iraq, described the event as "tragic," but denied innocent people were killed intentionally and said troops followed military rules of engagement.

No one has been charged in the Haditha case, which centers on allegations that a small number of Marines from Camp Pendleton's 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment killed 24 Iraqi civilians, including unarmed women and children, on Nov. 19 after a roadside bomb killed a fellow Marine.

Lawyer Neal A. Puckett said Sunday that Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, 26, told him several civilians were killed after the bombing when his squad pursued insurgents firing at them from inside a house.

Puckett quoted the sergeant as describing a house-to-house search that went wrong and resulted in unintended civilian deaths. Wuterich denied allegations of an intentional massacre, Puckett said.

"(It was) certainly a tragic result and (Wuterich) understands that it's tragic and he feels extremely badly about the fact that innocent civilians were killed," Puckett told The Associated Press in a telephone interview from Alexandria, Va. "But he was following what he understood to be the rules of engagement and standard protocol."

An investigation has been examining whether Marines tried to cover up the shootings and whether commanders were negligent in failing to investigate the deaths when they were reported.

Wuterich's version of events differs from some accounts of Haditha residents. They have said that innocent civilians were executed, including some who pleaded for their lives.

The Marines cleared the rooms in the way they had been trained, Puckett said.

"Everything happened very fast," Puckett said. "There's no preparation, there's no deliberation involved, it's just a quick reaction time, shooting and neutralizing any threat that might be in there. And in these cases it turns out after the fact that there weren't threats in that room."

The Washington Post, the first to speak with Puckett about Wuterich, reported that lawyers for two other Marines involved in the incident said Wuterich's account was consistent with what their clients have told them.

Puckett said it was possible none of the Marines would be charged with murder and instead some commanders could be charged with dereliction of duty for failing to properly investigate the incident at the time.

He added Wuterich remained at Camp Pendleton and had been promoted to staff sergeant since the incident.

I can't believe that it is justified to go into civilian homes and just start shooting women and children. You also have to take into consideration that these are well trained marines. They are trained to make instant judgements as to who is a threat. This lawyer wants people to believe that the marines just went in shooting indiscriminently. That is not how they are trained. I'm fairly certain that forensics as well as the video evidence will determine what actually happened at Haditha. For example, they'd be able to determine if the women and children were shot at close range. The US military needs to get to the bottom of this and if innocent civilians were purposely killed, those responsible need to be severely punished.

Friday, June 09, 2006

E-mail shows Bush glad FEMA took Katrina flak

From CNN:
The former emergency management chief who quit amid widespread criticism over his handling of the aftermath Hurricane Katrina said he received an e-mail before his resignation stating President Bush was glad to see the Oval Office had dodged most of the criticism.

Michael Brown, former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Friday that he received the e-mail five days before his resignation from a high-level White House official whom he declined to identify.

The e-mail stated that Bush was relieved that Brown -- and not Bush or Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff -- was bearing the brunt of the flack over the government's handling of Katrina.

The September 2005 e-mail reads: "I did hear of one reference to you, at the Cabinet meeting yesterday. I wasn't there, but I heard someone commented that the press was sure beating up on Mike Brown, to which the president replied, 'I'd rather they beat up on him than me or Chertoff.' "

The sender adds, "Congratulations on doing a great job of diverting hostile fire away from the leader."

This doesn't surprise me at all. This president does not accept responsiblity for his actions. I'll say one thing, Michael Brown's stock has gone up in my book. I don't care how loyal you are, no one wants to be the scapegoat when it involves being blamed for the deaths of thousands of american citizens.

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Ann Coulter strikes again

This time she's going after the 911 widows in her new book. Here's the video of her Today Show interview with Matt Lauer. Sometimes i wonder if Ann Coulter is this generations Andy Kaufman, and the jokes really on the right wingers who idolize her. More than likely she's just the hate filled nutcase that she portrays herself as.

Friday, June 02, 2006

Was the 2004 Election Stolen?


Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has a very detailed article at Rolling Stone charging that Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House. Here's a short excerpt:
But despite the media blackout, indications continued to emerge that something deeply troubling had taken place in 2004. Nearly half of the 6 million American voters living abroad(3) never received their ballots -- or received them too late to vote(4) -- after the Pentagon unaccountably shut down a state-of-the-art Web site used to file overseas registrations.(5) A consulting firm called Sproul & Associates, which was hired by the Republican National Committee to register voters in six battleground states,(6) was discovered shredding Democratic registrations.(7) In New Mexico, which was decided by 5,988 votes,(8) malfunctioning machines mysteriously failed to properly register a presidential vote on more than 20,000 ballots.(9) Nationwide, according to the federal commission charged with implementing election reforms, as many as 1 million ballots were spoiled by faulty voting equipment -- roughly one for every 100 cast.(10)

You would think the american people would be outraged by these revelations. Whenever i see these kinds of stories i have to wonder, will there ever again be another Democrat elected as President of the United States?

Olbermann hammers O'reilly over Malmedy comments

YouTube has the video up. Crooksandliars has the transcript.

Thursday, June 01, 2006

New Poll - Bush Worst President Since World War II

From E&P:
A new Quinnipiac Poll finds American voters selecting George W. Bush as easily the worst American president in the past 61 years, with fellow Republican Ronald Reagan picked as the best.

Bush was named by 34% of voters, followed by Richard Nixon at 17% and Bill Clinton at 16%, according to the Quinnipiac University national poll of over 1,500 voters released today. Leading the list for best President since 1945 is Ronald Reagan with 28%, and Clinton with 25%.

While Democrats and Republicans split widely on the "worst" choice, 35% independent voters picked Bush.

Among young voters, 42% listed Bush as worst, while Clinton "won" for worst among white Protestants.

The main reason cited by voters who disapprove of Bush is the war in Iraq -- listed by 43%. By 56% to 39% they say that that going to war in Iraq was the wrong thing to do. Nearly 6 in 10 want withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

From May 23 - 30, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,534 registered voters nationwide. The survey has a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percentage points.