Media in Trouble: All the news thats UNfit to print!: July 2005

"The information of the people at large can alone make them safe, as they are the sole depositary of our political and religious freedom." --Thomas Jefferson 1810

Friday, July 29, 2005

Republicans are Anti-American and Anti-Soldier

Paul Hackett is the first Iraq War 2 veteran to run for Federal Office. He is running in a special election to fill a vacancy in the House of Representatives. This has been around the sphere for some time now garnering support and apparently raising as much as $340,000 from the "we have the power" netroots supporters. Now this has sparked the attention of the Republican National Congressional Committee and well this is what their spokesman had to say
We have no concern that she will lose,' Forti said. 'She will not lose.'

What prompted the committee's entry into the Schmidt-Hackett race was a comment made by Hackett in a USA Today article published Thursday. Hackett, talking about his service as a marine in Iraq, is quoted as saying, 'I've said I don't like the son-of-a-b--- that lives in the White House. But I'd put my life on the line for him.'

Because Hackett said that, Forti said, 'we decided to bury him.'"

Bury Him!?!?

Now some centrist DLC democrats have been saying that we on the left burned ourselves in the sixties when we hated on soldiers returning from vietnam while we were tripping on acid mushrooms and bad pot. I don't think anyone who does that is defensible but hey have you ever seen a soldier on weed?

Either way, where is the outrage on the Democratic side of this? This is a soldier, the first and one of the few Democrats (if the right is to be believed) who has served and luckily survived Operation Iraqi Freedom. He came back and said, I want to make a difference. Now he is wanting to serve in the nations most Representative body of Government. This is his American dream and for all that talk about supporting the troops and putting magnetic ribbons on your SUV and support the troops this and support the troops that.

Hippies were a movement without any real political support, there weren't any tie died t-shirts in the halls of Congress. Nor did they recieved any funding from the DCCC.

But this is a bonified Republican Congressional Campaign Commitee that is pushing money into a campaign not to discuss issues but to smear a soldier.

IOKIYAR! Democrats please bring this up on the next Sunday Talk circuit. Really, this is anti-americanism and anti-soldierism at its finest and finally from the mouths of party leaders that have been crapping on vets and the military (shutting down bases and such) the whole time they have been in power.


Gems from Dems

Reading this article about SHAFTA CAFTA regarding the republican strong arming and deal making to get this Crappy (with a capital C) bill passed we get some great quotes from the loosers. First we hear from the DCCC mouth Burton about how pissed off he was that Rep. Chuck Taylor (R-NC) didn't cast a vote:
He seemed to find time to vote for procedural motions and legislation that had nothing to do with North Carolina,' said Bill Burton, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, 'but he couldn't seem to figure out how to squeeze in the time to vote against a trade deal that could cost North Carolina thousands of jobs.

Hey Burton you seemed to find time to talk to newspapers about a vote that had nothing to do with the passing of CAFTA but you couldn't seem to figure out how to squeeze the time in to strong arm the 15 democrats that voted FOR a trade deal that could cost the United States of America thousands of jobs. Not to mention a possible future democratic majority.

Then of course Nancy Pelosi came to the mic:
"Once again, the floor of the House of Representatives resembled the set of 'Let's Make a Deal,' " Ms. Pelosi said Thursday.

Hey Nancy, if you would use the same tactics once in a while the "Let's Make a Deal" mentality could actually spell some victories for you instead of losses like CAFTA.

The Democrats are constantly being usurped of any potential platform in this congress. First bankruptcy, a champion bill for the credit card industry. Then Class Action a champion bill for all negligent corporations. Then the energy bill passes, a champion bill for big oil company replete with free tax dollar giveaways to the very corporations already getting rich off of the energy crisis this country is going through. And finally CAFTA, the bill that will give corporations a free ride to transport any textile, sugar, and other farming jobs directly to Central America where labor is cheap and thus more cost effective. The savings as we have seen wtih the Chinese trade agreement, will not be passed onto consumers but to CEO's and their big bonus butressed bank accounts in Switzerland.

At a time when The Hammer and The Hastert were weakened enough to have 27 deffectors from the party, Democrats would be wise to get their own members to vote with the party, and stop whinning about Republicans not voting against theirs.


Thursday, July 28, 2005

Use the Freeper Strategy Dems!

In prouncing about the web searching for juicy tidbits on Doug Forrester I came across this freeper post from way back in 2002. Describing why Republicans can't win in a Democratic state.

It really is worth a read but you must prepare for it by reversing some words. Switch Conservatives for liberals, and Republicans for Democrats.

It is funny fodder for the current tug-o-war happening since Hillary said "can't we all just get along." Appeasing the centrist DLCers while they were pushing CAFTA through and undermining Democratic ideals.

Yes ignore the left thats what Democrat centrists are saying. These are the same folks who have led the Democrats into defeat since Clinton was in the White House.

Ironically, the same has happened here in the great state of New Jersey. Where Republicans are the embattled party in a super Smurfy blue state. So I thought it was great to see a freeper try and describe Doug's loss in 2002 saying that they were too centrist!

HA HA! You almost have to agree with them.


CAFTA wins 217-215 US looses

CAFTA passed. Sad news for the US farmers and other workers. Well its a good thing the Democrats stood together on this one huh! Not a single Democrat v....
The House vote, supposed to take 15 minutes, dragged on for an hour as negotiations swirled around the floor among GOP leaders and rank-and-file members reluctant to vote for the agreement. In the end, 27 Republicans voted against CAFTA, while 15 Democrats supported it.

Wha? You mean 15 Democrats could have turned the tide on this one, but decided big business is best suited for representation than say the American worker and voter?

OK folks here is the list, you know what to do if you are a constitutent who happens to read this blog:

Melissa Bean (IL)
Jim Cooper (TN)
Henry Cuellar (TX)
Norm Dicks (WA)
Ruben Hinojosa (TX)
William Jefferson (LA)
Jim Matheson (UT)
Greg Meeks (NY)
Dennis Moore (KS)
Jim Moran (VA)
Solomon Ortiz (TX)
Ike Skelton (MO)
Vic Snyder (AR)
John Tanner (TN)
Ed Towns (NY)

Sirota has more. He also has more information about why CAFTA is the SHAFTA.

Congratulations Democrats. You just blew your best opportunity to claim victory for American Workers, and you blew it.


Man On Dog

Last night I finally got a round to watching the Dick Santorum interview on the Daily Show. This was a bit contested in the sphere as many people thought 1 why the hell did John even allow this to happen, and B why was he so damned soft on the guy.

Lucky me, this morning over coffee, American Morning's Soledad interviewed Man on Dog (transcript not yet available) while I was spending quality time with my cup of joe, fiance', cat and dog. This is a special time for me since it is nice to sit back relax and hope that CNN will actually let me know what is going on in the world.

Soledad being a working mom (of twins no less) took Santorum a bit to task regarding his statements about feminism is to blame for mom's having to work to make ends meet.

There was nothin cute or new about watching Santorum squirm and try and state his gastly opinions.

What I just can't get out of my mind whenever I see this guy hocking his book on TV I only hear the subtext of the interview. I hear something like this everytime Santorum opens his mouth:

"Well, I am in deep shit when it comes to my campagn this comming year because of my stupid opinions. So if I am on my way out, I might as well write my wingnutty ideas in a book and make some money off of my short tenure in the Senate. Sine my ideas are so nutty every reporter will take some issue with some other issue in the book, as such I can call them crazy moonbats of the vast left wing conspiracy. So thanks Soledad, I really could give a rat's ass if you agree or disagree with me, the fact is that I just used you and your network to sell more books for me and my publisher, and every book counts towards that bonus I get if I sell so many thousand copies."

John Stewart is also part of the book pimping crowd (probably not directly under his control, if all those episodes of the Larry Sanders show are any indication of reality). As such, perhaps he should just stop having people on simply because they want to sell books.

If there is anything more degrading it is the knowledge that on most of these shows, if you have a book and the publisher has a deal with the network, you will interview so and so. Not because the book is factual, interesting, or a pillar of great literature of our time, but more because your producers get paid to push the book.

Payola? Maybe? It isn't like this doesn't happen in other forms of media or anything.


Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Iraqi's are Anti-American!

Or so their Prime Minister says so
"Iraq's transitional prime minister called Wednesday for a speedy withdrawal of U.S. troops and the top U.S. commander here said he believed a 'fairly substantial' pullout could begin next spring and summer.

Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari said at a joint news conference with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that the time has arrived to plan a coordinated transition from American to Iraqi military control throughout the country.

Asked how soon a U.S. withdrawal should happen, he said no exact timetable had been set. 'But we confirm and we desire speed in that regard,' he said, speaking through a translator. 'And this fast pace has two aspects.'"

So how many more people need to say it. Get OUT OF IRAQ!


More Juicy Treason Morsels - Eye on Novak

From WaPo
"Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.

In a column published Oct. 1, 2003, Novak wrote that the CIA official he spoke to "asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause 'difficulties' if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name."

Okay Novak. You have worked in Washington for how long? And you still don't know that if CIA says something shouldn't be said, than it shouldn't be said? Novak is above the CIA folks! Thanks Bob for keeping our national security below your interests. This from a man who was all about pushing the wingnut messages.

The article also discusses the mysteriousness of Judy Miller's involvement. I have said this before and I will say it again. I think Judy Miller is CIA. Conspiracy? Well what the hell else do you make of all of this? Anything seems possible at this point.


Calling All West Virginians

Rep. Mollohan has a chance to take Delay by the collar and drag him about the floor of the Ethics committee. So give the dude a call. Here is the info.


Tuesday, July 26, 2005

Not Nate!

Sunday's Six Feet Under was a knockout. Definitely must see TV.


Yet Another Reason...

to not believe a word that the US military tells the press regarding anything that is going on in Iraq. Much less the death toll of Iraqis.


Friday, July 22, 2005


Let me do this in Portuguese For dos nossos amigos no New York Times:
"Among those asked if he had seen the memo was Ari Fleischer, then the White House press secretary, who was on Air Force One with Mr. Bush and Mr. Powell during the Africa trip. Mr. Fleischer told the grand jury that he never saw the document, a person familiar with the testimony said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the prosecutor's admonitions about not disclosing what is said to the grand jury.

Mr. Fleischer's role has been scrutinized by investigators, in part because his telephone log showed a call on the day after Mr. Wilson's article appeared from Mr. Novak, the columnist who, on July 14, 2003, was the first to report Ms. Wilson's identity.

In his column, Mr. Novak referred to her by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, which she had used when first employed by the C.I.A. Mr. Fleischer has told the grand jury that he did not return Mr. Novak's call, a person familiar with the testimony said."

Also yet anothe reason I think Cooper is being a schmuck by obfuscating and saying i don;t know what this is about:
In addition to ferreting out the original leak, the grand jury is examining the truthfulness of its witnesses, comparing each account with previous testimony. One apparent area of interest is the conflicting accounts given by Mr. Rove and Matthew Cooper, a Time magazine correspondent who has said he spoke to Mr. Rove about Ms. Wilson, about why they spoke on July 11, 2003.

Mr. Rove, said a source familiar with his testimony, told prosecutors that the conversation began under the pretext of discussing welfare reform.

But Mr. Cooper said he had no record or memory of actually talking to Mr. Rove about welfare reform, instead only discussing the Wilson case in their brief chat. The grand jury focused on that apparent discrepancy, Mr. Cooper wrote in an account in Time this week.

Though to Coop's credit he is constantly saying that he was writting a report called The War on Wilson when he called Rove. Which happens to be an interesting piece worth your time.


Operation Yellow Ellephant Potential Theme Song

Thanks to Country Joe & the Fish OYE may get its very own theme song. Here is my letter to the General:
HI General JC!


Yeah, come on all of you, big strong men,
Uncle Sam needs your help again.
He's got himself in a terrible jam
Way down yonder in Vietnam
So put down your books and pick up a gun,
We're gonna have a whole lotta fun.

And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam;
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

Well, come on generals, let's move fast;
Your big chance has come at last.
Gotta go out and get those reds —
The only good commie is the one who's dead
And you know that peace can only be won
When we've blown 'em all to kingdom come.

And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam;
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.


Well, come on Wall Street, don't move slow,
Why man, this is war au-go-go.
There's plenty good money to be made
By supplying the Army with the tools of the trade,
Just hope and pray that if they drop the bomb,
They drop it on the Viet Cong.

And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam.
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

Well, come on mothers throughout the land,
Pack your boys off to Vietnam.
Come on fathers, don't hesitate,
Send 'em off before it's too late.
Be the first one on your block
To have your boy come home in a box.

And it's one, two, three
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam.
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

Sample Audio really from amazon:

I think I found a theme song for Operation Yeller Ellerfant. It's an oldie but goodie and with a few relevant changes to the veitnam references it can easily be adapted to the current situation in Iraq. Thank you Country Joe and the Fish!

Plus it’s a call to arms.

Heterosexually yours,

Now this song was played at Woodstock whom my sources say is a better version than the hokey crap Amazon has on their site. Either way the song didn't get much hooplah or airtime back then. However, swap Vietnam and commie refferences with Iraq and arab refferences and you have a Tancredo screed!

Or at the very least you would have a rather crazy Frenchman's song!

Ps. Thanks to the Gster for the tip


Self Correcting Blogosphere /Treasongate update

Dick Keil of Bloomberg says Libby and Rove were not on the trip to Africa (as I had said yesterday). That doesn't necessarily disqualify that they had seen the memo. Now, I saw Dick Keil and his buddy Bill Roberts on Monday's Charlie Rose. Along for the ride was Matt Cooper on the show. I couldn't believe that Cooper a man who was willing to go to jail for this case, was less enlightening than the two Bloomberg reporters were in terms of the details of the case. Cooper and Judy Miller's obfuscation in this case is just deplorable. At first they spun this successfully into a "protecting the source" issue. But the source committed a crime, and there is no excuse for that.

Anyway I digress. The new report I highlighted brings to light some more he said she said issues with the case.

Two top White House aides have given accounts to a special prosecutor about how reporters first told them the identity of a CIA agent that are at odds with what the reporters have said, according to people familiar with the case.

Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, told special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that he first learned from NBC News reporter Tim Russert of the identity of Central Intelligence Agency operative Valerie Plame, the wife of former ambassador and Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson, one person said. Russert has testified before a federal grand jury that he didn't tell Libby of Plame's identity, the person said.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove told Fitzgerald that he first learned the identity of the CIA agent from syndicated columnist Robert Novak, according a person familiar with the matter. Novak, who was first to report Plame's name and connection to Wilson, has given a somewhat different version to the special prosecutor, the person said.

Both Novak and Russert have apparently testified to the contrary of whatever Libby and Rove said in their testimony. So who lied? Let us use Occam's razor on this one.

Novak and Russert have much more to loose by lying to the prosecutor here. They are both "just reporters" Russ has a family and we all know how much he loves them and would miss them if he had to worry about dropping the soap daily. Novak is an old man bitter and pissed that every job he had at CNN is blowing in the wind now. He doesn't want to rot in a jail cell helping guys like Russert pick up the soap!

Libby and Rove however, were in charge of a political smear campagn against Wilson. Getting revenge for his insolance towards the beloved President War Criminal. Therefore, if I were on the grand jury I would have to take all of this into account on deciding who is lying. Either way, if Keil and Roberts are right, perhaps its time for Timmeh and Bobbeh to get back into that GJ room.

More tonight on Charlie Rose via Pincus (WaPo reporter also shedding lots of light on this)!


Thursday, July 21, 2005

Open letter to the Leftwingers

I addressed this to Michael in NY over at Americablog who wrote this piece. I saw the report that put out and it inflamed me that this would now be the official number. 25,000 iraqi's dead. The study is based on media reports of deaths. So in essence, someone took a calculator and did a lexis search for "iraqi dead". Not to dis, They were one of the first links in my blogroll. They do a fine job of reporting how many deaths according to media reports there have been.

My contention with that number is that it is gotten from media reports. Well, I sent this over to Michael lets see if he does anything about it:
Dear Michael in NY,

I read your piece. Frankly I don't think that the left is winning the war on the war on Iraq because nobody on the left is telling the story the way it should be told. Frankly, 1700 deaths is nothing compared to vietnam. While we on the left can all agree that every life counts, the argument becomes disingenuous if we are the abortion party and the other side thinks abortions count as killings.

This is a war on rhetoric. And that war can only be won using rhetorical spin filled arguments that the right cannot contradict. The death toll in Iraq is a perfect example of how we have been loosin this rhetorical war.

The right hates the media. and the 25,000 number is based on media reports of iraqi deaths. Since the media is stuck in the green zone or if they are embedded they dont really have a chance to count bodies they refer to government agents to tell them these figures. The government in this case is the US Army Generals and we know how well we can trust them to tell us the truth about the situation in Iraq, let alone about casualties resulting from our bombs! So keeping the official number of Iraqi deaths according to the US Army is in their best interest.

Thus we should not believe media accounts of Iraqi death tolls if they are based in whole or in part on Army General's telling the media how many folks have died. Granted it would be much harder for the military to forget to mention an American death because eventually that would get out in the press. The family would get irate etc. I digress.

You must be aware that there is a scietific study that was reported by The Lancet. Way back in September that estimated the Iraqi tolla t over 100,000 lives. This number was reached through scientific means, and by asking Iraqi families how many folks died. In fact:
"We were shocked at the magnitude but we're quite sure that the estimate of 100,000 is a conservative estimate," said Dr. Gilbert Burnham of the Johns Hopkins study team.
This to me is a much more reliable number than whatever reports. The reason is because of how these numbers are gotten.

Now there is a major difference between 25,000 and 121,000. And it is in the left's rhetorical interest to report the higher number all the time. It really baffles me that a whole anti-war movement isn't using scientifically gotten data to support their anti-war case. Instead the bloggers who spend much of their time deconstructing media lies, chooses a report based on media reports to make its case about how many Iraqi's have died.

I don't know about you Michael, but this needs to change. It needs to change among all the elements on the left and in the anti-war movement. It just simply makes no sense in trying to make a case against a war to use the lowest numbers you can find to build that case. So far the only person taking the Lancet's report seriously to this day is John McLaughlin where he proudly puts the graphic up every Sunday repeatedly with the citation directly below it.

So if its good enough for the guy who says "Bye Bye" Why shouldn't it be good enough for the rest of us in bloglandia?

It would be nice to see some big bloggers do something about the narrative on the left about how many people this war has claimed and Iraqis count too and perhaps one day when it is all over someone will come to the conclusion for what it is. This war is a genocide in the making.

And NO I don't wear a tinfoil hat. I just hate disinformation.


Look blogs and the left wing bloviators myself included are part of a political movement. And part of any political movement is spin. If the left can't spin better than the right, then we loose its that simple. Here is a basic simple scientific review of data from deaths in Iraq that trumps every single media report out there. Yet the left who is often so content in bashing the media for their lies, goes along with the lies on this one.

Ho Hum!



A Piper Is Doon!

He gave her all she had captain!


CNN - The Most UNprivate Name in News

I was watching CNN this morning and Miles O'Brian (is he Soledad's husband?) was speculating with Nic Robertson in London about the "incidents" this morning. The whole time there was a split screen where one side was the so-called-journalist's head, and the right had a blown up LIVE shot of the streets in London.

Now this would be all fun and dandy had it been CNN cameras. However, it wasn't. CNN was taping directly into London's Closed Circuit cameras, installed years ago as a crime deterent, and broadcasting them live throughout the world. You go to see Londoners walking to work, riding their bikes, and you knew exactly where everyone was because they labeled the street corner the camera was on. Right on the screen there. World wide!

Now I wonder how Londoners feel about not only Interpol watching them, but as CNN's motto goes, "the world is watching." And we know what intersection your at too!

Here is a link to the video. However, since I don't have an upgraded version of WMP, I can't see it so I don't know if what I am highlighting is on there.


Word Games

Just a thought, but I remember the term for the type of judge Bush wanted was "Strict Constructionist". Now somehow it has become "Originalist". Looks like the focus groups have been hard at work for Bushie. NTY has kisswrite up of Roberts. I am unconvinced.

Looks like the dems aren't really gonna fight this battle. I wonder if the bloggers will. Again, I am unconvinced.


Costco not Wal-Mart

This is why I shop at Cosco and not Sam's Club or Walmart:
"But not everyone is happy with Costco's business strategy. Some Wall Street analysts assert that Mr. Sinegal is overly generous not only to Costco's customers but to its workers as well.

Costco's average pay, for example, is $17 an hour, 42 percent higher than its fiercest rival, Sam's Club. And Costco's health plan makes those at many other retailers look Scroogish. One analyst, Bill Dreher of Deutsche Bank, complained last year that at Costco 'it's better to be an employee or a customer than a shareholder.'

Mr. Sinegal begs to differ. He rejects Wall Street's assumption that to succeed in discount retailing, companies must pay poorly and skimp on benefits, or must ratchet up prices to meet Wall Street's profit demands.

Good wages and benefits are why Costco has extremely low rates of turnover and theft by employees, he said. And Costco's customers, who are more affluent than other warehouse store shoppers, stay loyal because they like that low prices do not come at the workers' expense. 'This is not altruistic,' he said. 'This is good business.'"

It is also why Wall Street is killing the American worker.


Smoking Gun Memo Part Deux

First there was the Downing Street Memo! Now there is this memo. Which was supposedly the source of the information regarding Valerie Wilson. This memo was supposedly read on Air Force one en route to Africa. Among those aboard were Rove, Libby and most everyone else in the White House staff including Colin Powell and the President! So what did the memo highlight? WHy is it perhaps a smoking gun? I don;t know but Pincus et allia wrote:
"A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked '(S)' for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials."

Honestly I think we have a new deep throat if they are sharing these memos with Pincus and friends. I think that Deep Throat is Colin Powell. He's on the ouside, he's lookin' in, he can see through them, see their true colors. Err, eh, you see Colin was forced to lie to the UN, that pretty much took him out of contention for any future in politics because the way this war is being lost fought from start to some future finish, no politician worth his salt would ever say anything but, Powell legitimized it by going to the UN. So I think Powell has said, why am I letting this white rich fuck of a guy slip away with every single lie and potential lie he will make to bury this country into the ground?

So I think the sources which are gonna be talking about this memo and any other memos that talk about Rovegate, will be none other than Colin Powell.

That's my theory.

But don't let it distract you. This memo is perhaps the source of the original information on Valerie Plame. The info referring to Valerie was marked S for secret, which anyone with classified clearance is supposed to know that S is CIA speak for DON"T TELL ANYBODY WITHOUT CLEARANCE ABOUT THIS!


Wednesday, July 20, 2005

John G.

First words and thoughts on John G. Roberts. If abortion is your issue, then John G is NOT your man. Straight from the horse's mouth:
“[w]e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be
overruled…. [T]he Court’s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to
an abortion… finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution"

So much for the no litmus test rule.

UPDATE: Indi Judi has more.


He Said She Said

As suspected the Rove Ordeal has become a matter of who said she said he said that we did this and said that to her and his cousin and who's wife was employed where at what time etc. All this could easily be addressed in the future.

How? What crazily mighty idea could this be?

Record it. Tape record everything that happens on the White House phones. Use he provisions provided within the PATRIOT Act on these folks. If you are calling from the White House, those calls need to be recorded. Many investment companies have implimented such systems, I mean this movie is full of taped telephone calls from Enron's employees.

What about National Security conversations? Well those can still be classified, but in the event that said telephone conversations occured with a reporte than perhaps National Security isn't much of a priority for that phone call, so it should be subpoenable.

If a conversation is criminal these days, than we the people deserve that much oversight on everyone in washington. Any and all public buildings where government business is being performed daily, those telephone calls all need to be recorded.

Just think of the millions of dollars that could have been saved in this investigation, and the mountain of evidence that could have been provided to the Grand Jury if something as simple as recordings were available.

So Democrats, here is yet another legislative idea for your idea starved party. Record all telephone conversations initiated or recieved on government owned (that means we the people's tax dollars paid for it) telephones.



Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Shorter Joscelyn

Osama Bin Laden calls a jihad after American's bomb muslims. Since Saddam dispatched a guy who met with Bin Laden. And, since we cannot be sure that this meeting had anything to do with Osama's America hating, even though the 9/11 commision has found no collaborative operational relationship between Saddam and Osama. We here at the Daily Standard still think its important to let you all know that Saddam Blew up the World Trade Center from his golden toilet in the East wing of his Baghdad palace. He was having phone sex with Osama Bin Laden at the time.

Please disregard all government reports stating anything to the contrary. And don't forget, we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. Even though on 9/11 we didn't really have a chance to fight them over here cuz they blew themselves up too fast.

(I thought the Standard was populated by folks who believe that democratization was the truest justification for the war in Iraq, why are they hashing out these old lies?)

UPDATE: Also noteworthy is this quote from the enlightened beings at Powerline:
reports of a relationship between Saddam and bin Laden continued until the eve of the war in Iraq.

Yes because up until the eve of war with Iraq practically every newspaper would print the false justification for the war as the justification of the war.


Back to the Animal

Boy it has been a while since I read Washington Monthly. I used to read it along with Atrios daily. However, something along the way (perhaps the inclination to read massive quantities of blogs to see what is really going on started taking away from the Political Animal time I had. Since mostly everything that Kevin Drum loads up onto the site is pretty dead on, it usually gets talked about on other blogs. However, this post by guest Michael Hiltzik reminds me of why the Animal is so damned good. Its the writting. Plain and simple, Kevin Drum writes great stuff, and anybody he lets take a brain dump on the site must pass through a vetting process that far surpasses that of the White House, cuz every single person on there writes excellently.

So I think its about time I get back to reading the Animal on the daily . Even if some of the stuff gets repeated around the sphere, its probably gonna be more fun to read, if not more informative and insightful than anywhere else.

However, to begin, you all should read the Hiltzik piece. Cuz ultimately, regardless of outcome of rove/plame/reporter gate, this ideda about anonymous sources needs to be debated and perhaps refurbished a bit. Honestly, Hiltzik gets it right when he says:
What’s the case for offering the subject of news coverage blanket anonymity to discuss his own actions and motivations? Shouldn’t it be presumed that he will seize the opportunity to spin, insulated from the consequences, rather than to provide you with useful information (i.e., news)?

As the Instapunk would put it, heh Indeed!


Wass Goin' On MIT?

I don't usually get too personal on this blog for the simple reasons that I don't trust the interenets and the UNPATRIOTIC act. There are many other reasons not to trust the Internets and blogging of personal details.

Either way, I guess this is an exception and since I have already told most of the rest of my family and friends I guess its OK to tell the world now.

I got engaged about 2 weeks ago. There was some foreshadowing of this announcement from this post. Either way if you want the squishy details of it you can email me. Or leave comments and I can email you. But the main details were that we got engaged in Acadia National Park at Long Pond on Isle au Haut, on July 3rd, 2005. It was about as picturesque a moment as I could have imagined to ask my darlin' to marry me.

So that's it. I'm on that slippery slope of wedding mania. I now get to plan the type of party that I absolutely abhore attending. YEAY! The joys of familial politics, await me! My family is enormous and both myself and the fiance' want a small wedding. That means politically, I will have to somehow pull a W with this one. Cutting an invitee list down to a number below 100 in my case is like asking George Bush to personally address a crowd of anti-abortionists. While a move like that would and should have been politically expedient, perhaps I should take a page from Bush and have folks call into the wedding by phone. Like some kind of strange teleconference.

Either way, the party will be kick ass, and it will be in the National Park in Maine. So the food and scenery are sure to be excellent.

In other news, Sgt. Pepper's Amber Ale has been bottled. In 4 weeks I will be able to know how I did with my first homebrewed batch of beer. However, even if it tastes like Sgt. Pepper's Bowel Movement Ale, I will not be dismayed. I am hooked on homebrewin! It's a glorious way of saving money and doing something the hard way. However, the rewards are enormous. I reccomend anyone to get a beer or winemaking kit and get goin in the wonderful world of fermentation. It ain't that hard, and if anything it tests your patience.

Ok folks thats about it, back to all things political!


Monday, July 18, 2005

Elucidate and Illustrate, do not Obfuscate

Mehlman was on lots of Sunday talk shows including Press the Meat and as usual the Republican Mantra of Message Management and Media Obfuscation (or R MOMMAMO) was in full effect. Lie, Obfuscate, Repeat. Mostly, though not necessarily, in that order. The neato words used repeatedly were exonerate, implicate, and vindicate (or EIV). Namely Mehlman's oft used quote was:
...The information exonerates and vindicates, it does not implicate...

Let's see:

exonerate v : pronounce not guilty of criminal charges

implicate - v 1: bring into intimate and incriminating connection

vin·di·cate - 1. To clear of accusation, blame, suspicion, or doubt with supporting arguments or proof: “Our society permits people to sue for libel so that they may vindicate their reputations” (Irving R. Kaufman).
2. To provide justification or support for: vindicate one's claim.
3. To justify or prove the worth of, especially in light of later developments.
4. To defend, maintain, or insist on the recognition of (one's rights, for example).
5. To exact revenge for; avenge.

The information Mehlman is talking about is this report whose source is "someone who has been officially briefed on the matter." Lots of chatter about who may be leaking all this info to the press in the first place. Not that it matters what information Mehlman is reffering to because him and all the Republican operatives, accolites, appologists, and servants in the blogosphere, are the only ones who will believe it. The rest of us know that if a Republican is Obfuscating, Smearing/Lieing and Repeating, know that this is only something you do when you don't have enough evidence to support your claims (see Republicans on Sunday Talk the months leading to Invasion of Iraq for more examples). This tactic has worked for quite sometime, it has won President War Criminal a second term, it helped forge a case for war, and even helped laud Bush for every positive acheivement in the history of the world including events that have yet to occur.

However, the defense of Rove has more holes in it than a Hum V in the Green Zone. For one, Matt Cooper himself has said that Karl knew the info was classified. OK Republicans will say he said no such thing. They are right, Karl said "the information will be declassified soon." Which in no way means that he knew the information was classified. He just knew the information would be declassified soon.

This is an important thing to pan out. Just because you expect something to be declassified does not mean that you know for sure that it indeed is classified. Take a dog for example. You can say he will be neutered in a week, that doesn't mean that he isn't already neutered. You just know that the dog in question will be considered neutered within a weeks time. He may already be neutered, you just don't know about it until someone tells you for sure.

So classified information is a lot like a dog's scrotum.

The other problem facing operatives in charge of exonerating and vindicating and not implicating Rove, is that pesky fact that he called Cooper before Novak published the evil column. So before the idea that Val was CIA was made public and as such declassified, Rove had actually passed that info to Matt Cooper, presumeably someone who does not have security clearance for classified information. Otherwise, Matt Cooper could have easily just looked up Valerie's name his damned self and figured out that she was CIA. Besides that if Matt Cooper or Bob Novak had access to classified info to begin with, then perhaps this case would have been closed by now. But these were lowly journalists. And if they did have security clearance and access to classified documents, perhaps an even larger question of national security should be asked.

In conclusion, I don't know what information Ken Mehlman has that exonerates and vindicates yet does not implicate Karl Rove. However when it comes to questions from the press, it would be nice if Republicans would Elucidate and Illustrate, not Obfuscate.


Friday, July 15, 2005

BREAKING NEWS: Another Republican Drops Rove!

From about 8:56 PM on PBS Now, Brancaccio asks Rove should he stay or should he go?

Whitman SAYS! (video here official video and transcripts to come):

Interesting question!

Seems to me when you said his wife is CIA, you are kind of pushing people in one direction.
He may decide that he should step down on his own. Because this is gonna become a real issue for the President. Because the president said he would fire anyone who had leaked.

And while Karl may not have actually leaked the name, he appears to have led everyone to her.

So I think it depends on how much legs it gets, and it looks as if it's not gonna get away.

TIVO unofficial transcript.


UPDATE: Video link broken! Thanks Ralph!

Also: This is a quote from a Frontline Interview with Whitman not so long ago!


OK in the original flury of getting the story out I didn't quite make the political implications clear enough.

SO Forrester (current republican running against Senator John Corzine for Governor of NJ) has Rove money. Forrester also would like to get an endorsement from as many home state republicans as possible. An old Governor would look pretty good ei?

So Whitman a moderate (hey I don't like her) Republican in quotes, Which served a couple of terms as Governor. She can't hug Forrester if he has her previously denounced Rove money can she?

Sign the petition!


Corzine Teles Bloggers

Also blogworthy was that I was on a couple of Conference Calls with some high level folks. First I was on a conference call with Senator Harry Reid. it was a strange, yet well organized propaganda dump re: SCOTUS. It was nice but very one sided and the three questions they chose out of a pool of questions (that I had no imnput on whatsoever) were rather message friendly.

Then just yesterday Corzine came on the line with the lot of us NJ bloggers for Corzine. Professor Kim has a nice round up of the details of the conversation.

The beauty of it was that it was not once sided, it wasn't Corzine's way of dumping some messages or stumping us about. He was real human. It started out with all us bloggers waiting for him since he was voting on that hugely important Homeland Security bill. So it was pretty neato dorito sharing thoughts about other newsworthy things with other NJ bloggers. We talked Rove and shared link ideas (which I lazily have not blogged on any).

So the gaggle finally begun and Corzine was on the stump. He went on for a few minutes then opened it way up to questions. He allowed us the blogging few to ask him the larger than life Senator questions about his campagn his stances and other issues.

I got a question in about his environmental stance. His answer was largely the Democratic line and talked a bunch about weaning us off terrorist linked oil. He also said there was a bit of a contention regarding a nuke plant in Jersey. However, he isn't for "shooting from the hip" on that decision. I even got a follow-up question in when Corzine talked about alternative fuels.

I asked him if biodiesel was on his list of alternative fuels being considered. Shockingly, Corzine said what amounted to a not realy type answer. However, he said he was open to ideas and that we should call or email with those ideas. I got a final ", the fuel of the future" comment in and the questions continued.

Corzine continued and was eventually interupted by Michael Chertoff (head of DHS) whom perhaps was calling in response to Corzine zinging him on his plan to get more local and less federal with our transit security.

So the gaggle ended. The virtual news conference complete with virtual reporters came to a close. However, planting the biodiesel word in Senator Corzine's ear after introducing myself as Jorge from Media In Trouble well, that was a bit special. I had a direct line to a Senator and formated my question as a reporter would.

All this without a fedora.

So folks, since Senator Corzine doesn't know much about biodiesel, I will be sending him some information via his blog and perhaps via email.

Any ideas would be appreciated.


Watergate Q & A

Bill in Comments asks a pertinent question demanding an answer:
I have perhaps a dumb question. Impeachment hearings, or any hearings at all (see the hearings recently held by the dems in the senate basement) cannot be called unless by the majority party in either the house or the senate? If this is true, how did they get the Watergate process started? Didn't the republicans carry both houses with the Nixon landslide over McGovern in 72? Please enlighten us!

I wouldn't call it a dumb question sir. However, great political Impeachments always occur with some political power. A bit of reserach into the Senate historical website lets us know that the 70's were Democratic majorities in the Senate. What more, after the Impeachment, they actually gained seats (which was also the case with the Republican adventure over Bubba's BJ). So you see Impeachments are great politcal ventures that lead to Senate majorities. I did't research the House mainly because I didn't need to.

For it was the late great Senator Ervin that begain the Watergate Hearings. Senator Ervin was also the man who brought down Joe McCarthy.

So you see the Watergate hearings originated in the Senate.

The Dems have no such political power. Since the Republicans are marching along lockstep like a bunch of lemmings, well there isn't much hope.

The next time we have a chance to take the Senate will be in 2006. Where fine examples of Republicans such as these:

Allen, George
Burns, Conrad
Chafee, Lincoln
DeWine, Mike
Ensign, John
Frist, Bill
Hatch, Orrin
Hutchison, Kay
Kyl, Jon
Lott, Trent
Lugar, Richard
Santorum, Rick
Snowe, Olympia
Talent, James
Thomas, Craig

Will be running for reelection. Most of those on the list are set to keep their seats. Although, if the right gets pissed off enough, they can try to get "real" republicans in the seats of Chafee, DeWine, and Snowe. It is doubtful.

As for the House, in the interest of space we like to this wiki 2006 may be the year. Hopefully the dems can take control.

Thanks for the challenge. I hope this answers your queries exhaustatively! Thanks for reading Bill! Try and talk some sense into Steve willya?!


High Crimes and Misinformation

Bigger than Rove, is the news that Washington Leaks don't only blow covers of CIA agents, but as AMERICAblog nicely summarizes for us, they blow Al-Quaeda mole covers as well. Turns out there was a mole (remember that guy Kahn that was arrested by Pakistan, and that terror alert which somehow involved brick city?) that was outed by a Washington Official. That mole had already helped capture the first cell that was plotting to bomb london. The plot seemingly was kept alive in order to catch other Al-Quaeda folks. It was working until the Washington Official leaked his name to the press.

So London's bombing was avoidable, had it not been for that leak in Washington.

While we're on the topic of leaks, today the Republican talking point was pushed into the pages of the NY Times. A paper that cannot possibly stop publishing bullshit even when one if its own reporters is behind bars. Liberal Oasis and Talk Left help us cut through the crap.

However, the tip off that Fox news has alredy asked the question "but who gave Rove the info?" is a major hint. This is nothing but spin served up by someone collaborating with Rove his lawyer or at the very least someone sympathetic to Rove.

However, the big question is still out there. First and foremost the question has always been, who told Novak. And if the report is true (unlikely) that Novak told Rove, then Who told Novak is still the age old question. The question never really went away. And this still does not take the heat off of Rove. We know that Rove perpetuated the leak to another reporter Matt Cooper. The chronology is important here.
The previously undisclosed telephone conversation, which took place on July 8, 2003, was initiated by Mr. Novak, the person who has been briefed on the matter said.

Six days later, Mr. Novak's syndicated column reported that two senior administration officials had told him that Mr. Wilson's "wife had suggested sending him" to Africa. That column was the first instance in which Ms. Wilson was publicly identified as a C.I.A. operative.

The conversation with Mr. Novak took place three days before Mr. Rove spoke with Matthew Cooper, a Time magazine reporter, whose e-mail message about their brief talk reignited the issue. In the message, whose contents were reported by Newsweek this week, Mr. Cooper told his bureau chief that Mr. Rove had talked about Ms. Wilson, although not by name.

So I am sure the wingers are going nuts over Novak is the bad guy (so willing they are to out one of their finest foot soldiers in the war on truth). But rember, when Rove told Cooper, it was not yet public that Valerie Plame was CIA.

So Rove if I can cut through the crap in this article so can most anybody else.

Chronology is important.

And the New York Times, should know better than to publish this Republican talking point. What about Judy? I mean she's a rotting in jail over this case, the least you would do as an organization is get some serious reporting down to the bottom of this story to get the public's attention to the facts. Not this disinformation. Obviously comming from a friend of Karl's at best, or a criminal (as Talk Left suggests) at worse.

So this NYT is a classic case of "don't believe everything you read." Now when is British Intel gonna start their investigation on who leaked the mole that could have helped them save over 50 of their citizens lives, millions (if not billions) in damage, and the undelible stain on their national security?

MI5 it is obvious we aren't capable of dealing with anything but the political truth in this country, perhaps you guys could come over and beat some sense into this countries cowardly leakers leaders.


Thursday, July 14, 2005

Better Tasting?

Call me crazy, but I don't see a difference in taste between these Doritos and any previous versions.

Doritos have always tasted great to me. And I can't possibly see them ever tasting any better.


Good Blogger Good Blogger

I guess it didn't eat it after all.

Strange how these internets work. The post went into blogger limbo land. Just so folks don't think im insane, blogger gives you a big 100% ok publish screen when you publish. Yesterday it cycled around the 0% mark for about 15 minutes. Then I hit the back button thinking all that work would still be there.

It was not, so I thought it ate it, lo and behold it majically appears after I publish another post saying blogger ate the post.

Thanks for the mid fuck blogger!

I am just happy that all that work didn't dissapear after all!! Thanks blogger limboland president for saving a post!


Why Rove is a Big Deal!

I wrote this enormous piece yesterday regarding a bit of a timeline to the entire controversy and what happened with Plame and Wilson and Rovegate. Then blogger ate it. Dammit! It really was a great piece. In any case, since many of my friends (even the really smart ones who keep up with everything) asked me what the big deal about the story was, I wanted to have a dumbed down version of the entire story. Like I said, blogger ate it. Luckily, Daniel Schorr sumarized things quite nicely on NPR. The big deal is that you have the top political advisor and bestest friend to the President, outing an undercover agent simply for political retribution because her husband called the President out on a lie.

Now this is not the reason the press is pissed off. They are pissed off because they feel Scottie Doo lied to them. And realy that doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things.

But again, the major question here, and it really is the fear of us who know better, is wether they will stop short of Impeachment. The President himself has played dumb on whether or not he knew who the leaker was. WHo can possibly buy this arguement? Acording to an old Atrios sugestion:

With Bush consulting with a lawyer it's a good time to consider what possible legal difficulties he could be confronted with. Now, obviously if as Capitol Hill Blue claims (they aren't a trustworthy source, BTW), one of the grand jury witnesses has claimed Bush had prior knowledge of the leak then he would be in seriously deep doodoo.

But, let's assume for now that isn't the case (or, at least that there isn't actually such a witness). If after the fact he knew who did it, then he would be likely be guilty of being an accessory after the fact for actively covering it up, depending on how his public statements, etc... diverge from the facts.

And, even if not guilty of being an accessory, he could still face charges of "misprision of a felony" - of knowing about it and not coming forward.

So, the point is -- if at any time, before or after, the president knew the identity of the leakers then, to quote Michael Kinsley, "Ha. Ha. Ha."


Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Rove 101, Dumbed Down

Ok I have had to hash this out many a time, so I decided it is time for a recap. Granted I will give the media kudos for actually pulling a Gipetto and nailing some legs onto this story (David Gregory, your so dreamy!). However, the media can only go so far in terms of educating the public on a story this large. Most people still don't understand Watergate (I barely get it, and if it weren't for Deep Throat showing his decrepid face, I would have been even more in the dark).

Since I tend to see this story crystal clear, yet the clearest it gets on CNN is mud, let's do a short recap on the Rove/Plame/Bush Gate. Cuz many of my friends (even the really smart ones) have asked me "What is the big deal with Rove?"

Since they are the only loyal readers I have, I feel obligated as a card carrying member of Blogopolis to essplain.

Ok way back in 2003 before the war but when President War Criminal was starting to talk smack about Iraq's WMDs, Joe Wilson (once the US ambassador to Iraq under Bush Sr.) was sent to Niger to find out if Saddam had been shopping for enriched Uranium.

He found none.

President WC still told the American people in a state of the Union address that in fact Saddam DID go shopping for yellowcake in Niger. So Joe wrote this piece in the NYTimes oped page saying Bush is a liar on the Niger Yellow Cake story.

President WC hates liars. So Karl Rove talked to Bob Novak and said, hey Joe's mission is shit because his wife over at CIA reccomended him for the job! So how can you trust a nepotist's report? That was basically the gist of Novak's column.

This is when the story gets muddied up. Cuz Novak, Judy Miller, Matt Cooper, and even Big Tim Russert and lots of other reporters were roped into an investigation. This investigation was commented on by President WC and Scottie Doo durin this time. They basically said that anyone responsible would be fired.

Ok apparently, the prosecutor was able to find all these reporters (some of which didn't talk or write about the case) through phone records from the White House.

Now what has occured inside that court house has been rather hush hush until very recently. Presumeably, Novak said it was Rove cuz he was subpoenaed as well. Mind you the whole purpose of this grand jury federal investigation is to determine if the leak in and of itself was a crime. Due to the way the law was written, its a little tough to convict someone over it.

Lots of tangents must stay focused! Ok, presumeably when Rove was on the stand he said he wasn't the leak otherwise this case would have been closed a long time ago. For all we know Novak (who has been terribly silent the entire time) gave up all kinds of info at the first calling. What we do know is that it came down to Judy Miller and Matt Cooper. Judy fro NYTimes, and Matt from Time magazine. Now Judy and Matt fought this all the way to the Supreme Court which after being denied a hearing at that level, Judy went to jail because she didn't want to blab about who her source was.

Matt Cooper got bailed out of jail in the nick of time by his bosses at Time. They released some emails to the prosecutor and based on a waiver form that Rove signed a while back as well, Cooper felt it was OK to testify.

Granted I have sped up the clock on this whole thing quite a bit. Remember this investigation has been going on for a long time.

So here we are. Time leaked one of Cooper's emails to Newsweek. Now we know for sure that Rove was at least one of the people who leaked to at least Matt Cooper the (who actually did write about Plame being Wilson's wife) the Plame info.

The legalese is wether or not Rove knew Plame was undercover CIA or just plain CIA. This piece at TPM cafe pretty much clears the air on that one. Basically, yes everyone knew she was undercover. She was also working on WMD, which is why she had a chance to reccomend her husband for a WMD fact finding mission to Niger, however, as the TPM piece states, she didn't have authority to solely OK Wilson for the job.

So yes Valerie Plame was undercover at the time. Did Rove know she was UC? That will probably be the question that will incriminate Karl. Either that OR, Karl was subponead in the past. If Karl said in the past that he wasn't the leak, and that now we find out that indeed he was the leak. Karl purguring himself will also be incriminating.

Now to answer everyone's final question. Why is this such a big deal? At a time when this countries President was trumping up WMD data, he was caught in a lie by Joe Wilson. Incidentally had Wilson's warnings been heeded, we could have discounted that whole mushroom cloud that Saddam was totally uncapable of making. We probably could have avoided this quagmire of a war. So the President's right hand man decided to take political revenge on Joe by endangering his wife and making her and any of her international spies completely irrelevant to this nation's WMD intelligence gathering machine. So a whole division of people were rendered useless in terms of intelligence gathering (like the kind we really needed before the war and before 9/11) at best, and placed in extreme danger at worse. Picture mullahs realizing the guy they have been talking to about their was in cohoots with American spies!

All for political revenge.

Now since phone records were the chief tool in rounding up people in to testify in this case, it strikes me odd that this needs to stop at Rove (as much as the media and Democrats would like it to). One reason as Digby points out, is that there was a flurry of phone calls after Novak ran his piece which could have been folks planning a cover up story. You know "this is our story and we are sticking to it" type of stuff.

Now since the President and Karl are buddies (remember Karl created Bush) it wouldn't be beyond me that the President knew about all of this stuff. I mean one of those post-leak phone calls had to be to the President, which if they are subpoenaing people based on those records, the President should also be subpoenaed.

And if President WC lies under oath, well that and a blow job gets you a ticket on the Impeachment subway.

So yes, the facts are Rove has committed a major political and legal fumble and hopefully he will go to jail. Because substantively, he placed political revenge above national security, and intelligence gathering missions. Hopefully the technicalities of the law itself won't legally exhonerate him. And since I don't expect the same media blitz outside of this court room that we had for Michael Jackson, and I all those legal analysts don't want to be on CNN anymore. I don't expect the general public to completely understand what is happening under their very aruban-missing-teenager-obsessed noses.

So the press will not make the link between Rove and the President. However, I think that is the natural progression of things. If some Democrats got behind this one a bit their political future would be in much better shape.

So the dumbed down version once more, the president who vowed to keep WMD out of evildoers hands under his watch, allowed his right hand man to destroy any efforts Valerie Plame was dilligently working on to try and find WMDs wherever they exhisted.

That my friends is called putting national security at a major risk. And that is why Karl Rove is a big deal. This may be bigger than Clinton's BJ.



Get this an actual bonifide, really common sense solution to a terrible problem in Afghanistan that affects the countries entire economy and can actually fix Afghanistan for quite sometime right in today's New York Times.


Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Begging The Question

Who amongst the superstar White House Press Corps will ask the real question in the whole Rove affair?

"Given that we now know Karl Rove was the leak, and given that Karl Rove is President Bush's top advisor and personal friend.

Did the President know Karl Rove was the leak all this time? If so will the President be called into the Grand Jury?"

Anyone, Anyone?


Pundit in the makin!

Trusty Readers! Remember not too long ago (I think it was actually yesterday) I predicted a 3 point bounce in President War Criminal's approval ratings from da terra.

Und Now via Daily Kos

I was only off by 1 point!
Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?

Not too shabby! Washington Punditos, Look out!


Public Service Announcement

Always check the pockets of your dirty laundry before washing it.

There is nothing worse than finding out a pen was on the loose inside your laundry load.

Unless of course you like the idea of having to buy a whole new wardrobe!


Monday, July 11, 2005

Quick Poll!

Anybody want to go to this surely lively thing?

I think if enough of us go, we can get some national attention payed to the reality of the situation!
We need to Impeach this guy. This guy has commited more crimes than any previously impeached or assasinated President. Perhaps more crimes than all of those put together! Certiainly more than burglary, attempted murder, and falacio. This guy has invaded a foreign sovereign nation in order to pilfer the American Tax Payer and pass on those moneys to their friends!

This is major "enemy foreign or domestic" shite here folks.

Putting a certain person, not to mention all that persons business contacts lives at risk in order to be able to put a lid on the guy yelling "the emperor has no clothes." With all the developments from DowningStreet, to Iraq, and London. The guy you were getting political revenge with wreckless disregard should have not only been allowed to speak, but perhaps a microphone should have been provided this gentleman.

Instead all promises have been broken, American Tax Dollars shifted to oligarchs and domsetic policies are non-exhistent at best.

Yeah this demonstration just may be worth a day off. Bloggers Unite lets March September 24th!

cp Daily Kos


Lexus Liberals?

Finally, the limousine liberal has something to drive. Once thought a dying breed, the limousine liberal has rendered itself quasi endagered. On the terrorist watchlist if you would. No longer. Some brilliant Marketing MBA intern figured it out!

A hybrid Lexus! Fantastic, plus his buddy who does bong hits with him basically every other night discussing the economical underpinnings revolving around Atlantic City, figured that it needs to look like an SUV!

Briallance in action folks. Most liberals are pissed off that they can't buy hybrid cars. Why you ask? Because they have all been brave enough to move into the country. And by country I mean every lot is marked by large geological structures and age old trees, not any type of human engineering. Now most of those areas get either snowy or muddy. Now try getting around all that road hazard (conveniently road appropriations are doled out proportionate to the ammount of political power a state's representative has, ie. dem blue states is gonna be fulla potholes dis winta) with a car that looks like Mork showed up on your front lawn, don't hold your breath for Mindy.

Either that or another option was the more aesthetically pleasing Honda Civic, equally suited for blue state road hazards. So ill suited in fact that the best thing a Honda is good for is putting on a Rice Burner Reemus Exhaust (I appologize if that comment is offensive to Asians, it truly is not my intent) and listening to your muffler out sound your speaker system that you have just had installed with the 16" kickers occupying your entire useable trunkspace. So out with the Civic.

The Ford? Shit its made in America, how anti-American is that. Propping up another corporation thats in the Republican pockets? Hell NO. Besides all that being bullshit, Fords are not the best made cars and that is no mystery, plus Ford's hybrid is not that great for a hybrid. 36 city/31 highway is something my mini can do better than, granted with less storage. So out with the Escape.

But Lexus is a real luxury car, comfy and apparently useful. They highlight the tax break on the website. Liberals love getting money out of the government's war spending hands. Plus I am sure it comes with a DVD player so the one who escaped abortion, can watch those Baby Beethoven videos. Sure the mileage is weaker than the Ford at 31 city/ 27 hwy. But still better than most other SUV's.

Baby Beethoven? Or Exploding Firestones?

Yeah Libs, go for it. The Lexus is the what limousine liberals should be driving. Particularly the ones that get on Hannity and Colmes pushing for Mercury Standards whilest driving Gas Guzzler SUV's. Bob Kennedy, Trade in the Expedition for the Lexus. I don't think you will miss the clunker.

Of course, my personal prefference is a VW Golf TDI. You can still put a reemus exhaust on it, system it up, its got plenty of room for outdoor activities, it gets 50+ mpg gas, and it can run on 100% biodiesel. That means you can fry a bloomin onion and drive to the store to get more! Creating no fumeage, also generating a whole lot more domestic reasons to grow and buy corn (ie. farmers like it), and its your contribution to the take no more oil from the Saudi Torturers!



I know this seems a bit nasty, but I predict President War Criminal gets a 3 point bounce in approvals from the all terror all the time coverage.

If not Someone named Dennis should run for office. Name recognition alone will do wonders for ya.


Operation Yellow Elephant

in case you didn't know about this yet. I think this is a great idear. Operation Yellow Elephant is on.

It is a serious armed forces recruitment effort being spearheaded by a few leftist America haters like yours truly.

so I will blogroll them. If anything for the shits and giggles that Jesus General pops on there from time to time.


Questions yes, Answers No!

I shall just put the entire gaggle here, read it, its fun (emphasis all mine of course). I am sure someone will put the video up soon. Let the Stonewall Begin!
Press Secretary McClellan asked 5 times about involvement of Karl Rove in Valerie Plame CIA agent outing claims that he "would not comment on an ongoing investigation"... Performance reminiscient to some in attendance of Nixon secretary Ron Ziegler...

QUESTION: Scott, can I ask you this: Did Karl Rove commit a crime?

MCCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to a ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it other than: We're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing.

QUESTION: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003, when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliot Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this"?

QUESTION: Do you stand by that statement?

MCCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that, as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation, we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time as well.

QUESTION: Scott, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us, after having commented with that level of detail, and tell people watching this that somehow you've decided not to talk.

You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium or not?

MCCLELLAN: I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said. And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation...

QUESTION: (inaudible) when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate? MCCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish.

QUESTION: No, you're not finishing. You're not saying anything.

You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation. Was he involved or was he not? Because contrary to what you told the American people, he did indeed talk about his wife, didn't he?

MCCLELLAN: There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.

QUESTION: Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?

MCCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.

QUESTION: You're in a bad spot here, Scott...


... because after the investigation began -- after the criminal investigation was under way -- you said, October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby. As I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this," from that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began.

Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation.

MCCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization. And I think you are well aware of that.

We know each other very well. And it was after that period that the investigators had requested that we not get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation.

And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this. Because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States.

I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that.

QUESTION: So you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore and since then you haven't.

MCCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation and I'm just not going to respond to them. QUESTION: When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you pin down a date?

MCCLELLAN: Back in that time period.

QUESTION: Well, then the president commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?

MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.

QUESTION: Well, we are going to keep asking them.

When did the president learn that Karl Rove had had a conversation with a news reporter about the involvement of Joseph Wilson's wife in the decision to send him to Africa?

MCCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions.

QUESTION: When did the president learn that Karl Rove had been...

MCCLELLAN: I've responded to your questions.

QUESTION: After the investigation is completed, will you then be consistent with your word and the president's word that anybody who was involved will be let go?

MCCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be glad to talk about it at that point.

QUESTION: Can you walk us through why, given the fact that Rove's lawyer has spoken publicly about this, it is inconsistent with the investigation, that it compromises the investigation to talk about the involvement of Karl Rove, the deputy chief of staff, here?

MCCLELLAN: Well, those overseeing the investigation expressed a preference to us that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it's ongoing. And that was what they requested of the White House. And so I think in order to be helpful to that investigation, we are following their direction.

QUESTION: Scott, there's a difference between commenting on an investigation and taking an action...

MCCLELLAN: (inaudible)

QUESTION: Can I finish, please?

MCCLELLAN: I'll come back to you in a minute. QUESTION: Scott, (inaudible) president spoke about war on terrorism and, also, according to India Globe report there is bombings in London and also bombings in India. And at both places, Al Qaida was involved.

According to the India Globe and press reports, Pakistani television said that Osama bin Laden is now alive and they had spoken with him. And his group is (inaudible) terrorism around the globe is concerned.

Well, now, the major bombings after 9/11 took place in London and (inaudible) fighting against terrorism is concerned.

Where do we stand now? Really, where do we go from London as far as terrorism is concerned? How far can we go after Osama bin Laden now to catch him, because he's still in Pakistan?

MCCLELLAN: What occurred in London is a grim reminder that we are at war on terrorism. We are waging a comprehensive war on terrorism.

You heard the president talk earlier today to the FBI personnel and others who were at Quantico. And the president talked about our global war on terrorism. He talked about our strategy for taking the fight to the enemy, staying on the offensive, and working to spread freedom and democracy to defeat the ideology of hatred that terrorists espouse.

And the president pointed back to the 20th century. He pointed out that in World War II, freedom prevailed over fascism and Nazism. And in the Cold War, freedom prevailed over communism. MCCLELLAN: Freedom is a powerful force for defeating an ideology such as the one that the terrorists espouse. And that's why it's so important to continue working to advance freedom and democracy in the broader Middle East. And that's what we will continue to do.

And the president also talked about the great progress we've made at home to protect the home front.

The families and friends of those who lost their lives in London continue to be in our thoughts and prayers. We know what it's like to be attacked on our own soil.

And that's why the president made a decision that we were going to take the fight to the enemy to try to disrupt plots and prevent attacks from happening in the first place. And that's exactly what we are doing.

But we're also going to work with the free world to support the advance of freedom and democracy in a dangerous region of the world. For too long we ignored what was going on in the Middle East. We accepted and tolerated dictatorships in exchange for peace and stability, and we got neither.

As the president said, free nations are peaceful societies. And that's why it's so important that we continue to support the advance of freedom, because that's how you ultimately defeat the ideology of hatred and oppression that terrorists espouse.

QUESTION: Does the president continue to have confidence in Mr. Rove?

MCCLELLAN: Again, these are all questions coming up in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation. And you've heard my response on this.

QUESTION: So you're not going to respond as to whether or not the president has confidence in his deputy chief of staff?

MCCLELLAN: You're asking this question in the context of an ongoing investigation, and I would not read anything into it other then I'm simply going to comment on an ongoing investigation.

QUESTION: Has there been any change, or is there a plan for Mr. Rove's portfolio to be altered in any way?

MCCLELLAN: Again, you have my response to these questions.

Fact is, the press corps acted like a press corps. They did research, knew when people commented on things and were able to flip those back to Scottie DOO faster than he could manage. SCOTTIE DOOOOO - C - C- Ca- Can I finish


The Liberal Media

Must DIE


Rove Chatter

Rove is the source/leak/criminal.

Now there is lots to be discussed about this article and well I ain't gonna point to anylinks the left is pretty handy at dishing it out on Rove so really all you have to do is hit up Atrios for discussion points.

The big picture here is that it is no longer a mystery as to wether or not the leak was a crime. It is pretty explicit that Valerie Plame was undercover at the time of the leak. But that is besides the point. Once undercover it takes quite a while and quite a process to get out of cover. For not only is your life in danger should you be outed as a CIA agent, but your "assets" in other countries are also in danger. So blowing the cover of a currently under cover CIA agent is treason. That is a rather serious crime.

And anyone involved with this is supposed to go to jail. Any accesory to this crime should also go to jail. Now Judy Miller is already in jail. Rove really looks like he is on his way to jail, and if Rove is Bush's right hand man, best buddy and pal. I doubt the president can be completely ignorant of the whole situtation. Does that mean the President should be roped into this investigation? Only time will tell.

One thing that is bothersome is how secretive this whole thing is. I have heard and grandiose stories comming from grand juries in the past I just know I have. So it is commendable that they have been able to keep most things secret about the case itself. Particularly given the level of nervousness the media has over some of their own going to jail. Keep on prosecutin til ya find da truth.


Dixie Chicked

I can't believe we still have things like this still happening. However, if the state of this country is that people can't say what they think even if it is off the cuff and perhaps-I don't know-mostly wrong, then we aren't living in the land of the free home of the brave any more. That flag burning ammendment may actually get passed in such an environment.

There are plenty of other examples of this (O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity) but I will use the respectable Deep Throater, Bob Woodward. Bob was on Charlie Rose (whom only offers purchaseable transcripts) selling another book and he actually said that the terrorist attacks in London are further proof of the fly paper theory of Iraq. That may have been off the cuff, and it is most definitely wrong, and furthermore, it demonstrates Bob Woodward's political leanings at worse, and his lap dog qualities at best. Mind you this is the guy who discovered most of the impeachable offenses President War Criminal commited in the leadup to the war, without doing the right thing and calling them impeachable offenses.

I don't see him serving up an appology on a silver platter. How is it that a bombing in London by terrorists prove that us (which includes the British Army by the way) fighting them over there so that we can stop them from attacking us here (or in Britain for that matter).

So I think instead of pissing on celebrities for saying stupid shit or at the very least yet to be really discovered (remember the historians will probably prove Gyllenhaal right) is certainly an oft thing to do. Particularly when there are really important people who are saying stupid shit about stuff that has been recently proven to be false.

In other words, take all your Bob Woodward (and any other pundit passing for a journalist) books and burn them.

UPDATE: Welcome Daou Reporters! Y'all Come Back now Y'Hear?