I am taking a much needed ski vacation.
I don't know what, if any, internet access I will have while I am away, or how much blogging I will want to do.
While you are here, check out the archives for lots of witty and inciteful posts going back for the year I have been doing this.
I will be back on Sunday 19 March, and back to regular blogging.
Hope to see you then.
Cheers,
David
about the fool we have for a President, so when he continues to blather on about the Dubai Ports World (DPW) deal that failed, you are left wondering...
Since 9/11 Bush has warned Americans that we need to be vigilant. We need to be on guard for those who may wish us harm. "You are either with us, or against us". Basically trying, for the past 4 year to keep the fear of God in us.
So, when a deal comes along that potentially puts a country in charge of some of the shipping ports in America from the Middle East, what the hell did Bush expect?
For those that worship at the altar of Bush, this is a moot point. Bush supports it, so therefore, it must be good. However, for the somewhat sentient portion of the Republican Party, the fear of Arabs, and the Middle East that Bush and his sycophants have been drilling into Americans since 9/11, the right-wing response to this deal is hardly unsurprising.
When Bush talks about the "broader message" America is sending to the Middle East, he needs only to look in the mirror to understand the xenophobic response most on the right exhibited.
Technorati Tags: Port Security
In the latest New Yorker, Michael Specter has a positively chilling story on how theoconservatives and Christianists have waged a quiet war against some critical vaccines, especially against Human papillomavirus or HPV. A vaccine exists against this virus that would drastically reduce the numbers of cervix cancer cases. The religious right opposes it as a mandatory childhood vaccination, because it removes a disincentive to having sex
[...]
These people would rather people die of AIDS and cancer than do anything to "encourage" sexuality. And they have the cojones to call the Democrats the "party of death."
In the first action of its kind, a federal jury found Thursday that a private security company bilked the U.S.-led government in Iraq out of millions of dollars.
Custer Battles, which has had offices in Virginia and Rhode Island, was found to have used shell companies, fake invoices and even stolen forklifts in an elaborate scheme to defraud the Coalition Provisional Authority that oversaw Iraq after the invasion.
Though a handful of other contractors involved in the reconstruction face criminal charges, the ruling marks the first time that a federal jury has ordered a contractor in Iraq to pay back purloined funds to the government.
After a three-week trial, the jury found Custer Battles responsible for 37 separate fraudulent acts, meaning that the firm could face payments and penalties totaling more than $10 million.
"There is an orgy of greed among contractors in Iraq, and the Bush administration is for all practical purposes participating in it," said Alan Grayson, lawyer for the whistle-blowers who filed the case. "They have done nothing to get the taxpayers' money back. They've done nothing to punish the wrongdoers."
Via Crooks and Liars we are treated to the most offensive campaign ad I have ever seen.
Just go watch, I cannot even begin to describe it.
Technorati Tags: Vernon+Robinson, Republican, North Carolina
Rather than allow Bush to face defeat on the DPW ports deal, Bill Frist threatens to stop ethics and lobbying reform.
``We've had a totally unrelated amendment injected, I believe, for partisan purposes,'' Frist said, referring to the ports provision submitted by Schumer, a New York Democrat.
Bloggers should be treated no different from talk radio," said Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald, a California Democrat. "Talk radio hosts have protections under the First Amendment. While I may disagree with their positions on the issues of the day, I will nonetheless fight for their right to speak their mind."
Millender-McDonald said she never intended for her vote in favor of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, better known as the McCain-Feingold law, to "squeeze out the voices of people expressing themselves on blogs on the Internet." Because the FEC's Democratic commissioners would not appeal a court order, that 2002 law is forcing the agency to act.
Bill Frist was apparently so incensed over the halting of the Dubai Ports World deal, that he turned his back to reporters
It is hard to be one of the few on the wrong side these days.
Technorati Tags: Frist, DPW
According to Senator John Warner, DPW will give up US port operations to a US company.
I wonder how long before the White House starts to spin this as their idea all along?
Technorati Tags: Port Security, DPW
It looks like Bush will have to put up or shut up on his threat to veto any legislation that blocks DPW from taking over management of ports.
As usual though, Senate Republicans don't want to be put on the record as they are trying to block Democrats demands for a roll call vote.
Of course, Frist being Bush's lapdog is trying to put a stop to this:
Senate Republican leaders were trying to block a vote on the ports deal through a procedural vote that could occur as early as Thursday. That tactic was likely to fail, which could prompt Republicans to temporarily pull the lobbying reform bill from the floor to avoid an immediate defeat on the ports measure.
But not common decency.
The backlash against Fred Phelps and his family church, Westboro Baptist, is growing as people become increasingly disgusted with Phelps' protesting of military funerals.
So much so, that many states are considering laws, or have already passed laws, that would forbid this disgraceful practice from occuring. In response Phelps stops his "God made IED's" nationwide tour of military funerals.
According to Phelps daughter, Shirley Phelps-Roper:
She also said the church is considering legal challenges to the laws. "We're waiting until all the legislatures are over to see what tattered shreds they've left the Constitution in," she said.
Molly Ivins on Washington Dems lack of message:
As usual, the Democrats have forty good issues on their side and want to run on thirty-nine of them. Here are three they should stick to:
1) Iraq is making terrorism worse; it’s a breeding ground. We need to extricate ourselves as soon as possible. We are not helping the Iraqis by staying.
2) Full public financing of campaigns so as to drive the moneylenders from the halls of Washington.
3) Single-payer health insurance.
Every Democrat I talk to is appalled at the sheer gutlessness and spinelessness of the Democratic performance. The party is still cringing at the thought of being called, ooh-ooh, “unpatriotic” by a bunch of rightwingers.
Take “unpatriotic” and shove it. How dare they do this to our country? “Unpatriotic”? These people have ruined the American military! Not to mention the economy, the middle class, and our reputation in the world. Everything they touch turns to dirt, including Medicare prescription drugs and hurricane relief.
This is not a time for a candidate who will offend no one; it is time for a candidate who takes clear stands and kicks ass.
Hot on the heels of the Media Matters report: If It's Sunday, It's Conservative, the Media Matters releases it's analysis of Chris Matthews' show, Hardball.
Employing the same methodology, Media Matters tallied all guests who appeared on Hardball during the first two months of 2006 and coded them based on party affiliation and ideology. (A list of the guests is here.) The data reflected in these charts show that the number of Republican/conservative guests has been significantly higher than the number of Democratic/progressive guests. In January, Republicans/conservatives led Democrats/progressives 55 to 38 -- a difference of 59 percent to 41 percent. By February, that advantage had increased: Republican/conservatives outnumbered Democrats/progressives 55 to 34, or 62 percent to 38 percent.
The case against Chris Matthews is simple: he is not neutral. He channels a right-leaning perspective. This wouldn't be an issue if he and his employers acknowledged it, but a viewer who doesn't have the time or resources to analyze Hardball's content may well assimilate the pro-GOP spin unwittingly. As I've written recently, it's the seemingly neutral reporters who do the most insidious damage to our public discourse, augmenting and magnifying the filth spewed by legions of liberal-haters like Limbaugh and Hannity.
When Tim Russert and Chris Matthews and their traditional media ilk peddle pro-GOP and anti-Dem storylines, they are doing so to an unsuspecting audience.
The harm done cannot be overstated.
"The denunciation of the young is a necessary part of the hygiene of older people, and greatly assists in the circulation of their blood."
--Logan Pearsall Smith
With all but one precinct reporting at this time, in Zapata county, it appears that Henry Cuellar will have won the Democratic primary for District 28. With no Republican opponent, Cuellar will win the general election. I'm not going to get into all the analysis of where the votes came from, etc.
However, I do want to respond to the issue of open primaries.
A number of people seem to have a real problem with the fact that Texas has an open primary. Texas does not require one to declare their party affiliation when they register to vote. The problem that many have, is that this system allows Republican supporters to vote for a Democratic candidate in the primaries. The problem with that, as many see it, is that in the case of Cuellar, Republicans have the ability to influence the Democratic party candidate choice for the General election, and vice versa. The theory being that since the primary election is supposed to be representative of the party in a state, it should be limited to those that self identify as a Democrat or Republican. That is all well and good.
Where my feelings start to diverge from those that oppose open primaries, is with voter participation, and voter involvement in the political process. Many people don't want to be associated with a particular party, Republican or Democrat, which you get many potential voters who then register as Independent.
The argument against open primaries, then focuses on those who will vote in one primary for a candidate they wouldn't otherwise vote for, in the hopes of setting up a battle between their preferred candidate, and a candidate who people feel will be the weaker candidate in the general election. Does that happen? Probably.
On the other hand, by not having to declare your party affiliation, and thus being limited to which primary one can vote in, more people can be persuaded to vote in the primaries, thus reducing the likelihood of that happening. It becomes a catch-22.
Which is the preferable solution?
Is it preferable to limit who can vote for a candidate in a primary, by forcing people to declare their party affiliation at registration time?
or
Is it preferable to risk people jumping into one primary to vote for a candidate they wont support in the general election, and get more people to participate in the electoral process earlier on?
Obviously the current system, and Texas is the epitome of how things have gotten out of hand, basically encourages groups like The Club for Growth, to come into an obscure district in South Texas and dump large amounts of cash, and drive Republican party supporters to one Democratic candidate over the other.
At the same time, looking at the Democratic primary votes for District 28:
1998: 37,171 votes cast
2002: 41,152 votes cast
2006: 44,744 votes cast
To me, the increasing participation in mid-term primaries, is a very positive trend.
As a partisan Democrat, the thought of Republicans mucking around with our primaries is certainly not desirable, as is Democrats mucking around with Republican primaries. But, as a Liberal I am heartened by the increasing participation of voters in a majority Hispanic district.
I'm not even going to touch the issue of potential fraud, except to say that the system in place in district 28 is optical scan ballots, according to the Texas Secretary of State. That means there is a paper ballot.
So, which is better?
Technorati Tags: Texas, Ciro Rodriguez, Henry Cuellar, Democratic Primary,
How else can you describe the Republican Party's attitude towards Americans?
Yesterday, they are outraged that President Bush ordered spying on Americans.
Today, it's ok that President Bush ordered spying on Americans. And we are supposed to accept that? Republicans are aiding and abeting the White House's law breaking. Why is that acceptable?
The Cult of Bush indeed.
Technorati Tags: Authoritarian Cultists, Domestic Spying
Bush has been pushing for Congress to grant him line item veto power for the past couple of days.
I wonder if it is because of things like this?
A U.S. lawmaker said on Tuesday he would try to block a controversial deal for a Dubai company to manage facilities at U.S. ports by attaching an amendment to a must-pass spending bill for the Iraq war and hurricane relief.
The move by House of Representatives Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis, a California Republican, could set up a showdown with President George W. Bush, who has threatened to veto any legislation blocking the ports deal.
Lewis said he was crafting an amendment to be part of an emergency spending package for $70 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and $19.8 billion for Gulf Coast hurricane relief.
Tweety is now channeling Ann Coulter?
You know, one-sided, to some extent liberal propaganda. Because you know there Communists – I’m sorry…there were Communists in the government…I could go through the whole list – Elizabeth Bentley, Harry Dexter White, and of course Alger Hiss – there’s a whole gaggle of them.
And the biggest nonsense of this sort of revisionist history is that there wasn’t a Communist threat and that McCarthy was just a drunken fool. Well, he may have been a drunk – he certainly was – and he may have been unable to shoot straight, but there were lots of targets there. He just didn’t hit any.
The link I gave below is for the Cuellar/Rodriguez primary race.
This is the link to the Texas Secretary of State Elections page, in which you can look at the results of all of the primaries in Texas, Republican and Democrat.
Tom DeLay is fighting off 3 challengers. While it is not likely that he will lose this race, it should give a guage as to how strong his support will be going into November against Nick Lampson.
If you haven't voted yet, in the primary, you have until 8:00. For those of you not in Texas who may want to keep an eye on the results, remember that El Paso is in the Mountain time zone.
The polls don't close until 8:00pm, but you can go here to see the results of the Democratic primary.
The hot contested primary is between Ciro Rodriguez and Henry Cuellar. There is no Republican contender, so the winner of the primary is the presumtive winner of the general election.
The power of the consensus narrative in journalism is all but impermeable to reason or evidence. The right understands this and the left does not. That’s why the right worries little about nuance or getting the details straight; it’s the story that matters. Once you’ve defined the story, journalists struggle to make the facts fit the narrative rather than vice-versa.
Why else would Tom DeLay, who is being investigated for too close ties to lobbyists, be spending primary election day with lobbyists?
Rep. Tom DeLay, whose association with lobbyist Jack Abramoff has left him politically vulnerable, is spending Texas' primary night Tuesday at a fundraiser hosted by two Washington lobbyists.
DeLay faces three opponents in the Republican primary. For the first time in the 22 years he's held office, he is up against a serious challenge after being forced out of his job as House majority leader amid corruption and campaign finance scandals.
The fundraiser is being held by lobbyists Bill Paxon and Susan Molinari, both former members of Congress from New York. The event will raise money for DeLay's re-election campaign.
Did you?
Today, March 7 is primary day here in Texas. If you haven't gone out to vote for your favorite candidates in the primary, what are you waiting for?
First it was the bill passed in South Dakota which bans all abortions except where the life of the mother is in danger.
Next, the Mississippi Governor says he wants to follow suit.
Now, Tennessee steps up with a broadside of its own:
House Bill 3199 and its companion Senate Bill 3402 were introduced on 2/16. The text of the bill states: "it is an offense for a physician to knowingly perform an abortion on a woman who is eighteen (18) years of age or older unless the physician has received from the woman a signed statement indicating that the woman has notified the man by whom she is pregnant that she intends to have an abortion."
The bill provides exceptions if the woman signs a statement saying the pregnancy is a result of rape and has been reported to law enforcement, is unable "after diligent effort" to notify or identify the man (in which case she must file written notice with the Department of Children's Services to be placed on the department's putative father registry), and in the case of medical emergencies when the life of the woman is at risk. Penalties are a Class A misdemeanor punishable by a $5,000 fine for the physician and a $2,000 fine for the woman.
A person listed on the registry and entitled to notice of pending adoption or termination proceedings under subdivision (e)(3) shall have thirty (30) days from the receipt of such notice to file a complaint for parentage or to intervene in the adoption proceedings or termination of parental rights proceedings for the purpose of establishing a claim to parentage of the child or to present a defense to the termination or adoption case.
A few right-wing blogs really took offense at my Christ-o-fascism post about the Missouri legislature considering a resolution pushing Christianity as the states "official" majority religion.
I am not going to link to them, let's just say that their entire critique of my statement, was that I, and Liberals in general, wanted to deny Christians their due.
It is odd then that a few religious leaders in Missouri aren't too happy with this plan either:
Some religious leaders on Friday blasted a proposed Missouri House resolution that supports prayer in schools and recognizes a "Christian God," saying legislators are pushing Christianity as a state religion.
"It's an atrocity," said the Rev. Timothy L. Carson, senior minister at Webster Groves Christian Church. "Thomas Jefferson would be rolling in his grave. It's indicative of a movement within one segment of activist Christianity that wants to dominate the rest with their views."
[...]
The Rev. David M. Greenhaw, president of Eden Theological Seminary in St. Louis, said he found the resolution "offensive as a Christian. I don't want the state defining my Christianity."
In fact, dozens of resolutions filed in the past two years have died or been withdrawn. At least two of those were similar to this year's religious resolution. One would have supported the motto "In God We Trust" for use in public buildings.
It is long past time for the Christians in America who don't wish to see their religion perverted into some sort of Fascist theocracy to stand up and be counted.
Unless of course, that is the desired outcome.
What kind of spending is unnecessary? In Bush’s view, programs that assist disabled children. The President’s budget will eliminate Medicaid reimbursements for schoolchildren with disabilities, denying them “access to medical services they need to fully participate in school and learn to their greatest abilities.” It cuts funding for medical equipment on buses, transportation to medical appointments, and the administrative costs of identifying children with special medical and learning needs.
If schools are no longer able to seek reimbursement for these services, costs will shift to districts and states already grappling with fiscal constraints. But those who will be most affected are the children and students with disabilities who have already been hurt by January’s drastic Medicaid cuts.
The Washington Post writes yet another hit piece on Democrats. This time focusing on message planning:
News about GOP political corruption, inept hurricane response and chaos in Iraq has lifted Democrats' hopes of winning control of Congress this fall. But seizing the opportunity has not been easy, as they found when they tried to unveil an agenda of their own.
Via Musgrave must go we are pointed to another photograph from the Colorado Republican party even that Rep. Musgrave hosted.
The event was described as a GOP political event, and as has been highlighted, that contravenes federal law, and the UCMJ.
Is the GOP going to start using the military for its own purposes? Do those purposes extend beyond campaigning and fundraising?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Technorati Tags: Marilyn Musgrave,GOP
For those not following the Governor's race here in Texas, one of the candidates running is Kinky Friedman.
Today Reuters has an article on his campaign:
The line of well-dressed young executives stretches down a hallway, past a table of Kinky Friedman talking action figures and straight up to the candidate for Texas governor in the black cowboy hat.
"I'll sign anything," country singer and mystery novelist Kinky Friedman assures the crowd arriving for a downtown luncheon speech as they snap up Kinky T-shirts, bumper stickers and posters sold to finance his independent -- and decidedly nontraditional -- bid for governor.
With a blizzard of one-liners, a campaign slogan of "Why the Hell Not?" and an eclectic blend of policy ideas from all sides of the ideological divide, the former frontman for the band Kinky Friedman and the Texas Jewboys says he wants to "change the world one governor at a time."
Former GOP Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham was sentenced Friday to eight years and four months in federal prison for taking $2.4 million in bribes from at least three defense contractors.
The sentence is the highest ever for a former member of Congress, prosecutor Jason Forge said. Cunningham was taken into custody after sentencing, he said.
It's tough to run for the Senate when people think you're running for cover, but that's where the notorious mistress of Florida's 2000 recount finds herself these days.
Rep. Katherine Harris - elected to a House seat two years after overseeing the controversial recount that put President Bush into office - is trying to move up to the Senate and unseat Democrat Bill Nelson.
But her campaign has foundered, most recently amid revelations she unknowingly took $32,000 in illegal donations from a military contractor that bribed former Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham (R-Calif.) Cunningham was sentenced to eight years in prison Friday.
"The whole secret of life is to be interested in one thing profoundly and in a thousand things well."
--Horace Wapole
Do you see anyone that cares?
Atrios points us to this Think Progress post.
To summarize, John Hinderaker of Powerline (a.k.a. Assrocket) posted a list of 5 false claims about the Iraq war, in response to Jack Murtha's appearance on Face the Nation, Sunday.
Think Progress demonstrated how each claim was false.
Hinderaker responded in the only way he knows how, when cornered.
With insults:
One of the dimmest of the dimwitted left-wing web sites has tried to respond to this post… Sadly, I think a great many liberals are this stupid. Worse, I think that many liberals–like the proprietor of the hate site…are so far gone in hatred of President Bush that everything they say and do is said and done in bad faith. Like Jack Murtha, they have lost any ability to distinguish truth from fiction, and any desire to do so.
In a flashback to last month, the Washington Post repeats the canard that inside the Beltway Dems are opposed to dean:
Democratic congressional leaders aren't happy with the way Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean is spending money. At a private meeting last month, they let him know.
Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) challenged the former Vermont governor during a session in Pelosi's office, according to Democratic sources. The leaders complained about Dean's priorities -- funding organizers for state parties in strongly Republican states such as Mississippi -- rather than targeting states with crucial races this fall.
The Bush administration is going on the offensive to try and stop leaks. Not that it is likely to work, as that is generally how things are done in Washington. However, rather than try and seek out the leakers internally, they are attacking journalists:
The Bush administration, seeking to limit leaks of classified information, has launched initiatives targeting journalists and their possible government sources. The efforts include several FBI probes, a polygraph investigation inside the CIA and a warning from the Justice Department that reporters could be prosecuted under espionage laws.
"I write down everything I want to remember. That way, instead of spending a lot of time trying to remember what it is I wrote down, I spend the time looking for the paper I wrote it down on."
--Beryl Pfizer
I guess that offending people just comes natural for the Bush Administration:
Hindu priests who look after the memorial of Indian independence leader Mohandas Gandhi conducted a purification ceremony at the shrine after a visit from President Bush. But it wasn't the president who offended them, it was the sniffer-dogs who scoured the area ahead of his visit.
[...]
Letting dogs into the memorial also drew sharp protest from Hindu politicians and Gandhi's great grandson, Tushar Gandhi, who called the incident a "national shame," the Press Trust of India news agency reported.
Notice the person standing next to Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO). Fro those that don't know, that is a Marine uniform, and the individual wearing it is Marine Sergeant Brandon Forsyth.
The event was a Republican Party fundraiser.
As Josh Marshall points out, the fact that Sgt. Forsyth attended in uniform, violates both federal law, and UCMJ regulations. Additionally the regulations state that Sgt. Forsyth is supposed to only attend as a spectator, and not in uniform.
Some might say, Sgt. Forsyth is free to support whomever he wants. And I agree, however, to support Musgrave, and the Colorado GOP as a Marine and not as a citizen, communicates the message that the Military has chosen sides.
As Josh again points out the White House and the RNC have indicated that they will start using uniformed military personnel at event, in violation of both the UCMJ and federal law. That the Bush administration is willing to break the law to further their goals should not be news to anyone, but that the military is allowing itself to be used in this manner is setting a very frightening tone.
Is the White House advocating the military taking over the country? Is the White House encouraging a military coup?
Honestly, I doubt it, but that is the image they want to project.
Technorati Tags: Military, GOP, Musgrave
Voting for 2005 Koufax is now open.
I am up for Best New Blog. Go check out each of the blogs in each of the categories, then vote.
Technorati Tags: Koufax Awards
"Bureaucrats write memoranda both because they appear to be busy when they are writing and because the memos, once written, immediately become proof that they were busy."
--Charles Peters
Today Wal-Mart gained a bit of sanity, and decided to carry Plan-B at all of its pharmacies:
In a major turnaround, Wal-Mart will begin stocking Plan B contraceptives -- commonly referred to as the "morning-after pill" -- at all of its pharmacies, the company said Friday.
"We expected more states to require us to sell emergency contraceptives in the months ahead," said Ron Chumiuk, vice president of Pharmacy for Wal-Mart, in a statement.
"Because of this, and the fact that this is an FDA-approved product, we feel it is difficult to justify being the country's only major pharmacy chain not selling it."
I haven't written too much about Lieberman, mainly because I live in Texas, which has its own problems. However, it is nice to see that the problem for Democrats that is Joe Lieberman, is getting wider play.
Joe Lieberman is a real issue for Democrats, not the least of which is that Connecticut Republicans are going to endorse Lieberman over his primary opponent, Ned Lamont.
Being in Texas I hear a lot about how if Democrats would field canidates like Lieberman, then Democrats would gain a lot of support from Republicans. The problem with this plan, is that Democrats, on their own, have substantial support across the country. If only they could articulate a coherent plan.
In a few cases, this is actually happening, and with Lieberman's opponent that is happening. What needs to happen, is people taking on Lieberman in effective manner.
When a viable opponent to a DINO such as Lieberman comes along, they need to be supported.
Here's to 2006.
Technorati Tags: Lieberman, Lamont, Ct-Sen
"Tradition is what you resort to when you don't have the time or the money to do it right."
--Kurt Herbert Alder
Atrios points us to this article (reg. req'd.):
Missouri legislators in Jefferson City considered a bill that would name Christianity the state's official "majority" religion.
House Concurrent Resolution 13 has is pending in the state legislature.
Many Missouri residents had not heard about the bill until Thursday.
Karen Aroesty of the Anti-defamation league, along with other watch-groups, began a letter writing and email campaign to stop the resolution.
The resolution would recognize "a Christian god," and it would not protect minority religions, but "protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs.
The resolution also recognizes that, "a greater power exists," and only Christianity receives what the resolution calls, "justified recognition."
State representative David Sater of Cassville in southwestern Missouri, sponsored the resolution, but he has refused to talk about it on camera or over the phone.
KMOV also contacted Gov. Matt Blunt's office to see where he stands on the resolution, but he has yet to respond.
People For the American Way has set up a FOIA request letter page.
Just go fill out the form, print it off, and mail it in.
And wait.
Since we now know the NSA is spying on Americans, wouldn't it be a good idea to know what they know about you?
Technorati Tags: FOIA, PFAW
Repeatedly we have been told that Bush and his supporters hated the way Clinton and Gore and Kerry parsed. You know, "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is".
Over at Powerline, Assrocket parses so much over the revelations that Bush was made aware of potential problems before Katrina hit, I kept looking for that same quote.
For example:
Let's take that apart. The AP says the transcripts show that Bush was "worried" about the levees failing. But the quote they cite is after Katrina hit, and after levee failures had been reported. This obviously has nothing to do with what was anticipated before the fact. What, then, is the AP's basis for saying that "federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees..."? Here is the only support for that claim in the article:
But this has nothing to do with the levees breaching; it has to do with them being overtopped--a much less dangerous threat. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, there has been endless discussion about the difference between breaching and overtopping. If these AP reporters, Margaret Ebrahim and John Solomon, really don't know the difference, they have no business reporting on Katrina.
"The truth is always a compound of two half- truths, and you never reach it, because there is always something more to say."
--Tom Stoppard
"If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying it can't be done."
--Peter Ustinov
Today in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, the issue of The Daily Show comes to the fore.
When Jon Stewart hosts the Academy Awards on Sunday, he’ll be center stage in front of TV’s most mainstream audience.
No more hiding in the wasteland of late-night cable. No more playing the underdog. After this, he’ll be firmly entrenched as a mainstream name in comedy.
Which is great, of course, for his career as a comedian. But how will it affect his role as a newsman?
Don’t laugh. American culture, it seems, can’t decide whether to classify Stewart as a comedian or a journalist.
Stewart’s late-night newscast parody, The Daily Show, airs four nights a week in a time slot that makes it an alternative to local newscasts. Big-name media figures like Ted Koppel and Bill Moyers have indicated they respect his opinions and take him seriously.
Frankly what else would you call the anti-abortion movement?
Especially when this happens":
A Suffolk (Virginia) woman who lost her unborn baby after suffering a bullet wound to the abdomen was arrested yesterday and charged with shooting herself to “illegally induce an abortion.”
Glenn Greenwald points us to the Survey-USA 50 state survey on the public's attitude towards the domestic spying scandal.
(1) There is a truly amazing 50-state survey (h/t Markos) on the views of Americans regarding the NSA scandal -- and specifically their beliefs about whether George Bush broke the law. In 37 out of 50 states -- including numerous pure red states -- a plurality believe that it is "clear" that Bush broke the law. The best state for Bush is Oklahoma, where only 42% believe that he clearly did not break the law - the highest number of any state which believes that.
Nearly one in 10 American soldiers who served in Iraq were diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, most after witnessing death or participating in combat, a study said on Tuesday.
Mental health screening of veterans showed 21,620 out of 222,620 returning from Iraq and assessed over the year ending April 30, 2004, suffered from post-traumatic stress -- a disorder that can lead to nightmares, flashbacks and delusional thinking.
Think Progress points us to a New York Times poll which shows that 72% of US soldiers want out of Iraq.
I actually don't find this number too surprising. Mainly because most soldiers really don't want to be in a war zone. It is kind of a no brainer there. Secondly, a timetable for withdraw shouldn't be based on troop morale. While it is definitely a concern, troop morale is a strong indicator of their fighting effectiveness, what should be of primary concern is that the leadership, both military and civilian understand what is the drag on morale of the fighting units. Is it lack of equipment, poor condition of equipment, lack of a clear objective or goal, etc. These conditions all contribute to unit cohesiveness, the ability to perform each mission effectively, relations with the civilian population in their area of operations. Battle fatigue is also a genuine concern, and the compressed timetables for rotating in and out of the theater of battle is a huge contributing factor to the fighting effectiveness of the units.
While I believe that the Iraq war is wrong, and the US needs to either withdraw, or redeploy elsewhere, whether or not the soldiers want to be there is a red herring. This is a distraction from the real issue of the Iraq war. Why are we there, and why do we continue to prosecute this war with no clear objective, and no definable goals.
If the leadership were to actually focus on those issues, and ensure that the soldiers are made aware of those goals, then the morale would improve measurably. Ensuring adequate equipment that is in good repair, and of sufficient capability to protect them should also be a priority.
What we need to focus on is ensuring that the leadership does everything that is necessary to a) support the troops in the field (and not empty platitudes), b) figure out how to get them out of there as quickly and safely as possible, c) care for veterans physically, psychologically, and economically when they return.
Technorati Tags: Iraq War, Troop Morale
"The wisdom of the wise, and the experience of ages, may be preserved by quotation."
--Benjamin Disraeli
Recently I wrote about a proposal by FIA President Max Mosley to change the engine regulations in Formula One racing from a set engine displacement/horsepower rating, to one based on fuel consumption.
Lately Mosley has been making comments about how a possible oil crisis could impact motorsport, and Formula One specifically. First off, it is important to note, that motorsport in general does not consume significan amounts of oil. Certainly one race car does consume more than does the average persons car. However, the number of street cars far out number the number of race cars. However, as Mosley notes, governments can see Formula One as a convenient target.
What this debate can spur, however, is the move to a) even more fuel efficient engines, and even more important b) the development of alternative sources of energy for cars.
The budget of a Formula One team is in the hundreds of millions of dollars, all focused on two or three cars (admittedly cars that get completely rebuilt often), but if some of that money is devoted to those two goals, and the manufacturers who support the teams get behind a program, those advancements would get the needed momentum to be translated into consumer autos. That research has trickled down in the form of composite material use, and increased engine durability and performance without sacrificing fuel efficiency, that is being implemented in the consumer space. It is a small leap to use advancements in alternative fuels, and fuel delivery systems that get developed in the motorsport arena, and pass those down to the consumer space.
It just takes the right incentive to do so.
Technorati Tags: Formula One, F1, Oil
The Rude Pundit speak on the upcoming Right Wing smear attempt of Liberals over the impending Iraq Civil war:
So let's just say it up front here: over here in Liberalburg, we weren't happy when Ronald Reagan was cozying up to Saddam Hussein back in the 1980s. We weren't happy that the United States was backing a brutal, murderous, raping thug, giving him weapons and such. We weren't happy with the first Persian Gulf War. We weren't happy with sanctions that decimated the poorest people in Iraq. We weren't happy that the President wouldn't allow weapons inspectors to finish their work.
We weren't happy with this war to start with, saying, for instance, that a civil war was the inevitable outcome. We're not happy to be proven right. We're not happy, simply, when people are dying for no good cause, with no good outcome on the horizon, and no good way out. Frankly, oh, dear, sweet right wing, on the whole, we'd've rather been wrong and had tens of thousands of people not killed, tens of thousands of America soldiers not wounded. We'd've eaten the crow and, trust us, wonderful, fair right wing, you'd've shoved our faces in the plate of that black bird.
I held off on reporting about the DeLay prompted IRS audit of a Texas based non-profit, Texans for Public Justice, until I could see a final report.
Needless to say, what was the anticpated result, was the actual result:
The Internal Revenue Service recently audited the books of a Texas nonprofit group that was critical of campaign spending by former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) after receiving a request for the audit from one of DeLay's political allies in the House.
The lawmaker, House Ways and Means Committee member Sam Johnson (R-Tex.), was in turn responding to a complaint about the group, Texans for Public Justice, from Barnaby W. Zall, a Washington lawyer close to DeLay and his fundraising apparatus, according to IRS documents.
[...]
The IRS sent two auditors last year to comb the 2003 books of Texans for Public Justice and an affiliated foundation that collected donations for the organization. No tax violations were found, according to a letter the IRS sent the group.
The latest CBS News poll finds President Bush's approval rating has fallen to an all-time low of 34 percent, while pessimism about the Iraq war has risen to a new high.
[...]
In a separate poll, two out of three Americans said they do not think President Bush has responded adequately to the needs of Katrina victims. Only 32 percent approve of the way President Bush is responding to those needs, a drop of 12 points from last September’s poll, taken just two weeks after the storm made landfall.
Unlike Chicago, which said no to Republicans for the RNC, 11 cities are interested in the DNC:
The DNC initially sent out letters to more than 30 cities, giving them an overview and finding out their level of interest.
The 11 cities that said they were interested: Anaheim, Calif.; Dallas; Denver; Detroit; Las Vegas; Minneapolis; New Orleans; New York; Orlando, Fla.; Phoenix and San Antonio.
Apparently not the Coast Guard:
Citing broad gaps in U.S. intelligence, the Coast Guard cautioned the Bush administration that it was unable to determine whether a United Arab Emirates-owned company might support terrorist operations, a Senate panel said Monday.
The surprise disclosure came during a hearing on Dubai-owned DP World's plans to take over significant operations at six leading U.S. ports. The port operations are now handled by London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company.
"There are many intelligence gaps, concerning the potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist operations, that precludes an overall threat assessment of the potential" merger," an undated Coast Guard intelligence assessment says.
"The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities," the document says.
Mary Beth Harrell is running to unseat John Carter from the 31st Congressional District here in Texas. I have written about her in the past, and she has been using the internet, fairly effectively, to spread the word about her campaign. The Texas Tuesdays project was created to help spread the word about Democratic candidates running in Texas, as well as provide a central location to get information.
Today Harrell has written a post about her visit to the local VA hospital on Valentines day:
Recently, I was privileged to be at our local VA hospital on Valentine’s Day for their annual tribute to our veterans. Carter was also invited but didn’t show.
Carter’s office did send a rep who told us Carter must be real busy because he wouldn't normally miss the chance to spend the afternoon with Miss Texas who was touring the VA hospital.... It seems he missed the point.
So, I was surprised last Thursday when John Carter managed to make time in his busy schedule to show up at yet another press conference for Travis County Defendant, Tom DeLay, and once again voice his support for his hero and mentor.
Carter actually compared DeLay to a World War I lieutenant fearlessly leading his men in battle.
"Drawing on my fine command of the English language, I said nothing."
--Robert Benchley
E.J. Dionne points out the obvious hypocrisy in the Bush supporters continued claim that a foreign government owned company should manage ports in the US:
Republicans and conservatives would be aghast at the idea of our government owning a company that operated so many of our ports. That would be -- just imagine! -- socialism. But Dubai Ports World is, well, a socialist operation, a state-owned company in the United Arab Emirates. Why is it bad for the federal government to own our port operations, but okay for a foreign government?
"I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."
Via Holden at First Draft we learn that Tom DeLay ain't doin' so hot:
Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, is trailing his potential Democratic opponent, former Rep. Nick Lampson, in fundraising and cash in the bank, according to new financial reports that covered the first six weeks of the year.
DeLay, who faces three contenders in the March 7 Republican primary for the 22nd Congressional District seat, raised $154,712 and spent $304,795 between Jan. 1 and Feb. 15, the time span covered in the reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. The lawmaker reported having about $1.3 million in the bank.
We are supposed to believe that DPW actually requested this review?
However, if you rely on the media for information, that is the conclusion you are left with.
Technorati Tags: DPW, Port Security
Over the past year, I have been looking at the Republicans in Washington, shaking my head, and wondering what the hell is going on.
Well, February's issue of Texas Monthly (paid sub. req.), we can see by what is playing out in the Texas legislature, in a rather public manner, what is probably happening in Washington, in a more private setting.
AT SOME POINT, YOU’D THINK the state’s Republican leadership would be ashamed of the mess it’s made of things. The laundry list includes the school finance debacle; Tom DeLay’s fund-raising activities in the 2002 election; the midcycle congressional redistricting, another DeLay-inspired adventure, which now faces review by the U.S. Supreme Court amid revelations that the fix was in when the Department of Justice gave the plan its blessing; the continual sniping and snubbing by and among the governor, the lieutenant governor, and the Speaker; and the current campaign by the party hierarchy to defeat legislators who have dared to suggest, by their votes, that the leadership is on the wrong track. The common flaw uniting these embarrassments is a desire for power that exceeds a desire for policy—and a complete lack of shame. There is no sense of restraint. There is no impulse to govern. There is only the desire for more power.
The two-thirds rule may seem like an anachronism in these days of intense partisan politics. But if none of its obvious advantages—civility, consensus, fairness—cut any sway with Republicans, they should consider this: If they continue to govern without shame, they will only hasten the day when they are out of power. Then they will dearly regret that they did away with the minority’s ability to temper the passions of the majority.
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it."
--Voltaire
Abortion measure could mean big legal battle.
This is exactly what the anti-Abortion crowd wants. They want a big public fight on their hands pitting the abortion rights crowd against the anti-abortion crowd. With a majority of the public nationwide supporting Roe v Wade, and wanting the Supreme Court to uphold it, the only way this issue will be resolved is if this battle goes all the way to the top.
I have no expectation that if Roe is upheld, that the challenges will stop. The justices that vote to uphold will be painted as activist judges who have no respect for the rule of law (this despite Roe being the current law of the land), but it will be a major setback.
If the anti-Abortion crowd prevails then the issue reverts to the state, and a state-by-state battle will ensue.
Technorati Tags: Abortion Rights, South Dakota
... before I was for it:
Frist said Republicans trust the Bush administration and think its determination that the port deal doesn't threaten American security is "in all likelihood absolutely the right one."
Because George Bush cannot be wrong:
Moving toward a deal that could allow President Bush and congressional GOP leaders to save face and avert a prolonged confrontation, GOP officials said today that they were discussing the idea of having Dubai Ports World seek a new review of its acquisition of a British company's operation that runs several key U.S. ports.
They are everywhere, and some don't even know they are traitors:
One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. . . .
Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. . . . .
[Bush] will certainly face the current development as military leaders are expected to do: They are called upon to acknowledge a tactical setback, but to insist on the survival of strategic policies. Yes, but within their own counsels, different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat. . . .
Zero Iraqi Army batallions are able to operate without US support.
I thought there were 100 batallions ready to go?
Technorati Tags: Iraq Army
Or what it should be.
Again, something I have written about before, but is finally being picked up in other, more listened to circles, Glenn Greenwald points out this Rasmussen poll, which shows Democrats are perceived as being very strong on those issues in which Bush has, up till now, held strongly favorable views from the public:
Friday February 24, 2006--Forty-four percent (44%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Fifty-four percent (54%) disapprove.Worse (for Bush followers), of the paltry 44% who approve of Bush's performance, only 23% strongly approve, as contrasted with the 38% who strongly disapprove. That means that not only do far more Americans disapprove of his performance than approve, but the disapproval is more intense and more strongly felt than is the approval.
There will be a temptation on the part of Democrats to simply sit back and watch all of this fratricide take place. And that would not be an unreasonable strategy. There is an old courtroom adage which advises that one ought to not get in the way when the other side is self-destructing. When one's adversary in a courtroom is digging himself a deeper and deeper hole with the judge, the last thing you want to do is interfere.
But now is not the time for passivity. Democrats need to step up the aggression now more than ever and take advantage of this wobbly, weakened President. Now is exactly when the Democrats need not fear anything. Americans have abandoned Bush. They no longer trust anything about him - not his integrity, his veracity or his competence. Not even his ability to protect them. And he will not even have Congressional Republicans to protect him, as they will be looking for ways to distance themselves as much as possible.
The absolute worst thing the Democrats could do now is follow the advice of the chronic loser Beltway consultants who excessively calculate every step and drain the life, principle and passion out of everything they touch. More than anything else, what accounted for Bush's popularity in the past (which is where his popularity lies) was the fact that he projected firm, resolute conviction about things that he espoused. It's time for Democrats to demonstrate that attribute as well. Taking an emphatic stand for the principle that the President does not have the right to break the law would be a good place to start.
A segment about escalating sectarian violence in Iraq on the February 23 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto featured onscreen captions that read: " 'Upside' To Civil War?" and "All-Out Civil War in Iraq: Could It Be a Good Thing?"
This afternoon, Terry Jeffery — the editor of Human Events who is paid by CNN to provide political analysis — was asked about the bombing of a Shiite shrine in Iraq. Jeffery said the bombings — part of a wave of violence that have left 200 people dead in the last 24 hours — is evidence that the Bush strategy is working.
Sunday's Guests?
Rep. Peter King (R-NY), Sen. John Warner (R-VA), and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA)
How about that bias.
Technorati Tags: Meet the Press, GOP
"Sometimes when you look in his eyes you get the feeling that someone else is driving."
--David Letterman
Ted Rall adresses Ann Coulter:
My utterances occasionally spark controversy but I've got nothing on Ann Coulter. The star Republican pundit, who has spewed more racist, offensive and defamatory slurs in a week than Louis Farrakhan and Pat Robertson have in their whole lives combined, has turned slander and threats of violence into a cottage industry.
[...]
As far as I can tell, no one has ever sued Coulter for slander or libel. That may change. My attorney tells me I have an actionable claim on two counts, for both the CPAC speech and the column. It wouldn't be an open-and-shut case, but there are precedents in my favor. Readers of my Rallblog have pledged nearly $9000 if I file such a lawsuit, but it would take several times that amount to keep fighting until I get my day in court. A deep-pocketed angel would make the difference, but there, alas, is the root of the trouble with the American left.
Courtesy of Charles Krauthammer.
Krauthammer starts out with the threat of a nuke coming in through one of the ports managed by P&O. Then goes on to accuse the Democrats of being racists, while ignoring Republicans rank racism on Arabs managing the ports.
Then Krauthammer goes into Bush Cultism:
It's a fairly close call. I can sympathize with the president's stubbornness in sticking to the deal. He is responsible for our foreign relations, and believes, not unreasonably, that it would harm our broader national interest to reject and humiliate a moderate Middle Eastern ally by pulling the contract just because a company is run by Arabs.
This contract should have been stopped at an earlier stage, but at this point doing so would cause too much damage to our relations with moderate Arab states. There are no very good options. The best exit strategy is this: (1) Allow the contract to go through; (2) give it heightened scrutiny by assigning a team of U.S. government agents to work inside the company at least for the first few years to make sure security is tight and information closely held; (3) have the team report every six months to both the executive and a select congressional committee.
No doubt by now most of you have heard about the bill working its way through the South Dakota legislature that effectively bans all abortion, in all cases.
The purpose of this bill is merely to have it challenged, and sent to the Supreme Court as a test of the new line up for the purposes of overturning Roe v Wade.
Jane Hamsher takes on the closely related issue of in vitro fertilization.
The problem with IVF is that more embryos are created than are needed so that if one implantation does not occur, there are others to try again. However, what the fundies who use IVF to reproduce are unwilling to address this blatant hypocrisy.
As Jane says, IVF/Abortion, Abortion/IVF.
Two sides of the same coin.
Technorati Tags: In Vitro Fertilization, Abortion Rights, South Dakota
You'd think this was a third world country:
Angela Jaster was wearing a turtleneck when she fell and broke her arm and so for days, she didn't change her shirt because she couldn't raise her arm.
[...]
For the poor in New Orleans' crumbling health care system, tents have replaced buildings and plastic has replaced walls as the temporary appears to have become permanent.
The ones it hurts the most are people like Angela Jaster, a 51-year-old social worker who suffered an excruciating, yet not life-threatening, injury.
Patients in imminent danger are quickly shipped off by ambulance to one of the seven private emergency rooms in the area.
It's those who are not quite at death's door who end up waiting, often as long as six hours, to be seen. If their ailments cannot be treated with a prescription, they are referred to a hospital elsewhere. Often, those hospitals are far away.
In Jaster's case, the doctors X-rayed her arm inside a tent where images of broken limbs hung like posters. But with no orthopedist on call, she was given an appointment at a hospital a 1 1/2-hour's drive away to get a cast.
"I don't have a car. The bus leaves in the evening, they can only see me in the morning - and there's no vacancies in the hotels," said Jaster, who a month after her fall has run out of options and says she plans to let the break heal on its own, treating the pain with nothing more than ibuprofen, a non-prescription painkiller.
Hers is a medical problem treatable in two visits: One to apply the cast and a second to take it off. Those with long-term health problems requiring multiple hospital visits are among the worst off.
"If you have cancer, my advice is move. If you need dialysis, go. Get out of here. If you have any major illness and are uninsured, we cannot possibly accommodate your needs. You will die sooner if you stay here," said Dr. Peter DeBlieux, the head of emergency services for what remains of Charity Hospital.
He summed up the situation on a hurried morning outside one of the tents, as dozens of tired patients waited to be seen in metal chairs nearby, some holding their chests, others wincing under the pain of a swollen gum or infected limb.
"It's very frustrating that I can't provide the type of care our mission calls for," he said, referring to the founding of the hospital, originally called 'L'Hopital des Pauvres de la Charite," French for the Hospital of the Poor of Charity.
Before the hurricane, Charity Hospital prided itself on treating trauma victims within the "golden hour," the ideal time in which to get treatment. Now, with the nearest Level 1 trauma center located in Shreveport, 340 miles away, "the golden hour has become the golden four hours," said DeBlieux.
Via Americablog we learn that the concerns over the DPW deal are helping the enemy?
If the furor over the port deal should go on, Mr. England said, it would give enemies of the United States aid and comfort: "They want us to become distrustful, they want us to become paranoid and isolationist."
The Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing on the DPW port deal today. Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt asserted:
Kimmitt assured the Senate panel that process of approving the decision was not ``rushed.'' He said the committee reviewing the purchase spent 90 days on the matter. Still, ``We're open to suggestions on how we can improve communication on pending cases,'' he said.
P&O gets better offer from Dubai group
LONDON - A Middle Eastern investor seeking to buy a British ports operator has boosted, yet again, the price that it is willing to pay. On January 26, Dubai Ports World (DPW) responded to a newly heightened $6.4 billion offer for Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O), from Singapore's PSA International Pte., by offering $6.97 billion, the Guardian reported on January 27.
DPW's all-cash offer came only hours after the 169-year-old P&O, the fourth-largest port manager, had accepted that offer from PSA, which is owned by Singapore's state investment company Temasek Holdings Pte., the second-largest port operator in the world. A DPW spokesman said that its latest offer marked a 71-percent premium to P&O's share price on October 27, the last day before rumors of a takeover battle for the British company became public.
"Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful."
--Samuel Johnson
Nice to see I am not the only person who noticed that Bush called the federal government "my government":
Here's how W is defending the Dubai decision: "The more people learn about the transaction that has been scrutinized and approved by my government, the more they'll be comforted..."
For a moment, set aside the "trust-me" part of this, and focus instead on the "my government" bit.
If he'd said "my administration," I wouldn't have blinked.
"My cabinet" would also have raised no hackles. If he really wanted to use the word "government," then how about these pronouns as antecedents for "people": "their government" or "our government."
But no, he said "my government." I don't think that's just a garden variety Bushism, a trivial malapropism. I think it goes right to his understanding of who he is, and who we are. It's not a Freudian slip; it's an Orwellian siren, an anti-democratic red alert.
I and a few others have written about this in the past, and finally some more people are picking up on the theme. Framing the message:
If there is one thing Republicans are good at, even better at than creating deficits or cutting rich people's taxes, it is defining their opponents. Many people in America who might be considered "liberal," if you ask them a series of questions about their beliefs, will never own up to the word, preferring to call themselves "independents" or "moderates." Because, for the last 25 years, the right has made "liberal" seem as welcome as "rapist."
[...]
But this upcoming election season, if the Dems really want to fight fire with fire, there's a ready-made narrative that fits the GOP like a custom-made glove. Republicans: You can't trust them.
You can't trust them to run a country, you can't trust them to live up to their claims of "smaller government," you can't trust them to fund their promises of a secure nation or to rebuild New York after Sept. 11 or New Orleans after Katrina. You can't trust them to get you into a war or out of one. And you certainly can't trust Dick Cheney with a gun.
2008 might be a while off. But if Democrats were smart for a change, they'd start framing their opponents now. It's not as if the narrative doesn't fit.
Via Atrios:
BORGER: Here's one explanation. The president and his senior staff couldn't brief Congress because they didn't know. That's because the panel that makes these calls, the Committee on Foreign Investments, is not run by the high-level Cabinet members listed on its Web site. Those guys usually rubber-stamp decisions made by staffers. Richard Perle is a Bush ally who sat on the panel during the Reagan years.
Mr. RICHARD PERLE (Former Assistant Secretary of Defense): The committee almost never met. And when it deliberated, which it did from time to time, it was usually at a pretty low bureaucratic level.
BORGER: So, is it a joke?
Mr. PERLE: I think it's a bit of a joke if we were serious about scrutinizing foreign ownership and foreign control, particularly since 9/11.
The new bankruptcy law has done more harm than good:
- A new law making it harder to erase debts in bankruptcy has failed to stop abuses and has stymied people who have legitimate reasons to file, a group representing bankruptcy attorneys contended Wednesday.
A report released by the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys was based on an analysis of 61,335 people who have gone to credit counseling agencies, the required first step before filing bankruptcy under the law that took effect on Oct. 17.
Of the 61,335, 97 percent were unable to repay any debts and 79 percent had gotten into financial trouble because of job loss, huge medical expenses or the death of a spouse, the report said.
Of the port deal with DPW?
Seeing as at least two members of the Bush administration have business dealings with DPW, and probably stand to gain financially from the deal, one has to wonder why the compressed time frame.
Bush didn't know about the deal, Rumsfeld didn't know about the deal.
Scott Shields:
Essentially, these conditions weren't so much about protecting Americans from potential wrongdoing by a foreign power, but rather protecting a foreign power from accountability to Americans. It's incredible. And I'm left wondering who in the administration was involved in setting the parameters of this agreement. For example, what level of involvement did Treasury Secretary John Snow or Maritime Secretary David Sanborn, both of whom have a special interest in seeing the deal approved, have in hammering out the details?
The Republican ideal of Bush as vigilant protector is laughable. Their man behind the curtain is napping on the job.
One of the things that hasn't been too clear, is what is the time frame that this has been going on. Well, we now know that there was supposed to be a mandated 45 day inspection period for the US Government to review the deal before it could even be considered.
That didn't happen. In fact is was just two weeks ago that DPW outbid PSA for P&O.
PSA is, like DPW a state owned corporation. PSA is based in Singapore.
We are operating on a very compressed time schedule here.
No wonder no one knew of the deal.
Technorati Tags: DPW, PSA, Port Security
Shiite Muslims attacked dozens of Sunni mosques across Iraq on Wednesday in retaliation for the devastating bombing of one of Shiite Islam's holiest sites, the Askariya shrine in Samarra
At least 19 people were killed in the wave of unrest, according to the Iraqi Islamic Party, the country's largest Sunni political group.
The violence prompted fears among U.S. and Iraqi officials that the country's religious tensions could plunge the country into civil war
Unlike the Right where it is an anti-Arab bias, and much of the left who see this as a political opportunity to stick it to Bush and his National Security smokescreen, my opposition is primarily driven by corporate ownership of such a vital piece of American infrastructure. The Nation's John Nichols sums up my reasons pretty well:
The problem with the Bush administration's support for a move by a United Arab Emirates-based firm to take over operation of six major American ports -- as well as the shipment of military equipment through two additional ports -- is not that the corporation in question is Arab owned.
The problem is that Dubai Ports World is a corporation. It happens to be a corporation that is owned by the government of the the United Arab Emirates, or UAE, a nation that served as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of 9-11 attacks, and that has stirred broad concern. But, even if the sale of operational control of the ports to this firm did not raise security alarm bells, it would be a bad idea.
Ports are essential pieces of the infrastructure of the United States, and they are best run by public authorities that are accountable to elected officials and the people those officials represent. While traditional port authorities still exist, they are increasing marginalized as privatization schemes have allowed corporations -- often with tough anti-union attitudes and even tougher bottom lines -- to take charge of more and more of the basic operations at the nation's ports.
Raw Story has a link to the report that Louise Slaughter had drawn up that shows the level to which the Republican Party has been bought and sold by lobbyists in Washington. I will probably spend the next few days reading through it, but John Byrne provides a synopsis at Raw Story:
*14.2 million American seniors (including millions of our sickest and most vulnerable seniors) are stuck in a complicated, expensive, and inefficient Medicare prescription drug program because the Republican Congress and the Bush Administration allowed lobbyists from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries to design this program.
*60 million American families who heat their homes with natural gas and 8 million families who heat with heating oil are paying higher bills this winter, even though the Republican Congress recently passed their "national energy plan" into law. Although this plan gives the energy industry billions in new tax breaks and subsidies, it doesn't lower prices for consumers or make our country more energy independent.
*The 150,000 U.S. troops currently deployed in Iraq may not have the equipment they need because of waste, fraud and cronyism by the Republican Congress and the Department of Defense. While Halliburton and other companies with Republican connections get their contracts, our soldiers still don't have the body armor and armored vehicles they need to fight the war.
*750,000 households in the Gulf region are still displaced today, more than 5 months after Hurricane Katrina hit that region, at least in part because the political hacks the Bush Administration put in charge of crucial homeland security functions were not adequately prepared to prepare for or respond to this disaster.
*More than 10 million students and their families will have larger student loans to repay because House Republicans, led by new Majority Leader John Boehner working hand-in-hand with his commercial loan industry allies, cut $12 billion from the student loan program in the recent reconciliation bill and shifted the costs on to students and their families.
"There is no abstract art. You must always start with something. Afterward you can remove all traces of reality."
--Pablo Picasso
Chris Bowers at MyDD has received an advanced copy of a report that will be released today, detailing the level of corruption that the Republican Party has throughout its ranks.
He lists a part of the index which lists each member of Congress whose involvement in questionable practices is detailed in the entire report.
It should make for a very interesting read.
Technorati Tags: GOP, Culture of Corruption
Today, the Austin American-Statesman issued endorsements for the March 7 primaries
First, is Ted Ankrum for District 10, which covers central Austin east to Houston. He is in a race with three other Democrats. This is not a race I have looked at closely, as I am not in that district, so I don't know if this is the best choice or not.
The other, is one that is important, and one primary where I am willing to endorse one Democrat over the other.
Ciro Rodriguez:
District 28
U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo has managed in his freshman year to alienate his colleagues so that some of them have broken with tradition in supporting his opponent, Ciro Rodriguez.
Rodriguez represented the district effectively from 1998 until he surrendered the seat to Cuellar two years ago. The sprawling district, which stretches from the border to Central Texas, needs Rodriguez again. Cuellar, 50, a former Texas House member and former Texas secretary of state, has run into a buzzsaw in Washington, which works — for bad or ill — along partisan lines. Any representative held in low esteem by his party's leadership isn't going to get any meaningful committee assignments. Without committee assignments to speak of, the House member might as well stay home.
Rodriguez, 59, on the other hand, served effectively on committees of importance to the district, including the House Armed Services Committee.
Cuellar serves on the budget and agriculture committees, but his prospects for anything better aren't good.
Rodriguez is the better choice in this Democratic primary rematch.
The real problem with this deal, other than a foreign company controlling the ports of the United States, is that DPW is controlled by the government of the UAE. This isn't a private business interest.
When foreign governments get involved in this sort of thing, this becomes a real concern:
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.) said last night that he will convene his panel today for a public briefing to be led by Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert M. Kimmitt and five other administration officials involved in the security review of the deal. Warner was briefed yesterday by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The senator said he was satisfied that proper procedures were followed on the deal.
But he said he would withhold judgment on the deal's national security implications until after today's briefing. The United Arab Emirates provides docking rights for more U.S. Navy ships than any other nation in the region, Warner noted. He added: "If they say they have not been treated fairly in this, we run the risk of them pulling back some of that support at a critical time of the war."
CNN has a breaking alert banner that says Bush will use his first veto on any bill to stop the DPW port management deal.
That sure shows us where Bush's priorities lie.
Update: Via Drudge:
Bush called reports at about 2.30 aboard Air Force One to issue a very strong defense of port deal... MORE... He said he would veto any legislation to hold up deal and warned the United States was sending 'mixed signals' by going after a company from the Middle East when nothing was said when a British company was in charge... Lawmakers, he said, must 'step up and explain why a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard.' Bush was very forceful when he delivered the statement... 'I don't view it as a political fight,' Bush said.... MORE... MORE...
Beyond the obvious concerns of outsourcing port security to a foreign company, it now turns out that the company was chosen because of administration ties:
The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.
One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's container port.
Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.
The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.
How trustworthy of a Senator are you when you will lie to your supporters face:
Nobody denies that [Saddam Hussein] was supporting al-Qaeda…Well, I shouldn’t say nobody. Nobody with brains.
The first abortion case to be taken by the new Supreme Court: Late term abortions.
Will the Alito/Roberts team begin the process of criminalizing abortion?
I am willing to say yes.
Hopefully I will be proven wrong.
Technorati Tags: Alito, Roberts, Supreme Court, Abortion Rights
New York Times Columnist Nick Kristof called out Bill O'Reilly for the criticism he has been lobbing at Kristof over his writing about Darfur, Sudan. Kristof's response was that O'Reilly needs to go there, and see for himself what Darfur is like, before telling his listeners that Kristof doesn't know.
O'Reilly's cowardly response: "I do three hours of daily news analysis on TV and radio. There's no way I can go to Africa."
In response Kristof started some fund raising to ensure that O'Reilly could go to Africa and still do his show remotely. Kristof has pledges of $727,568 if O'Reilly goes.
I am willing to bet that O'Reilly is too cowardly to take Kristof up on his challenge.
Technorati Tags: Kristof, O'Reilly, Darfur
Bush orders unclassified information classified:
Under existing guidelines, government documents are supposed to be declassified after 25 years unless there is a particular reason to keep them secret.
Some historians say the program is removing material that can do no conceivable harm to national security and note that some of the documents have been published by the government, the Times said.
Critics say it is part of a marked trend toward greater secrecy under the Bush administration, which has increased the pace of classifying documents, slowed declassification and discouraged the release of some material under the Freedom of Information Act, the paper said.
Via Atrios we are pointed to this post by Matt Stoller at MyDD:
I'm not trying to prove this Republican, Nick Danger, wrong. He is self-evidently lying when he says that 'virtually everyone hired by media companies is a partisan Democrat'. I am trying to say that these people mean what they say. They hate reporters, blindly. You as reporters can't do a good enough job to satisfy them, because they are after obediance and not truth. They hate you. They hate what you stand for. They will rejoice in your downfall. They will lie to you because you don't matter to them. You have no legitimacy.
I'm not making this up. Just read Redstate. And you should start to figure out a better way to defend yourself from their dripping hatred, because the 'I'm neutral' line sure isn't working.
We could go on and on about what is wrong with the Bush administrations plan to allow DPW to take over US Port operations, but I really don't think that the debate needs to go any further than whether or not we allow a foreign operator to manage U.S. Military shipments
Technorati Tags: Port Security, Think Progress, Military Shipments
Digby offers his 2¢ on the debate that was going on between Matt Stoller of MyDD.com, and William Buetler of Hotline Blogometer and the Washington Examiner:
It's not "left" and "right" or "liberal," "moderate," or "conservative" that animates the grassroots. We argue some amongst ourselves on policy, of course, but that's not the rap on the establishment. It's the desire that our representatives wake up and recognise that we are in a new political era in which these designations take second place to "Democrat." That's the environment we are in whether we like it or not --- a country sharply divided by party, not ideology.
The Democratic party did everything it could to alleviate the culture war and the partisanship in the 90's by electing southern moderates to the white house and helping the Republicans pass a lot of legislation born of major compromise of Democratic principles. Nothing was good enough. The culture war raged, not on the basis of policy --- there was much in Bill Clinton's policies for a Republican to love. It was based purely on the tribal instincts of the culture warriors who insisted that liberals not only be marginalized (fair enough in politics) but that they be annihilated. They gave no quarter unless public opinion absolutely forced them to.
The grassroots believe that after all that, after moving to the right, after offering to compromise, after allowing our "red state Democrats" to run with the other side who then treated them with nothing but bad faith, now is the time for politicans to make a choice. Submit to them or stand with the resistence.
I am not going to claim I know enough about the issues surrounding the Bush Administrations selection of Dubai Ports World, based in Dubai, UAE, to manage US ports. However, I do find it telling that the Bush administration would choose a foreign company. However, as is par for the Bush course, there is plenty of secrecy and a refusal on the part of the administration to be forthcoming.
Technorati Tags: Port Security
Glenn Greenwald has a good post up on the Domestic Spying Scandal.
The short version is that Republicans in Congress are the ones who are standing up to Karl Rove. Not the Democrats.
What is missing from this whole equation is any real effort on the part of Democrats to push all of this forward. Imagine where things would be -- how bad things would be for the White House -- if Democrats hadn't decided early on that this is an issue they should run away and hide from, rather than pursue with relentless aggression. Anyone who speaks with even the most liberal advocacy groups, supposedly left-wing pundits, Democratics consultants, etc. will tell you that they all still think this is a scandal which Democrats should just let go. That, of course, is the type of fear-driven, principle-less advice that has led Democrats to three straight defeats.
Clearly, the Administration knows better, and Congressional Republicans do not seem nearly as inclined to give the White House a free pass on breaking the law. Hopefully, Democrats will start to recognize the highly destructive, potentially fatal weapon which has fallen into their lap.
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth."
--Umberto Eco
In an effort to reassure Americans that President Bush isn't interested in spying on Americans, for spying's sake, Bush created a group to oversee the spying program to ensure it doesn't infringe on American's Constitutional guarantees:
For Americans troubled by the prospect of federal agents eavesdropping on their phone conversations or combing through their Internet records, there is good news: A little-known board exists in the White House whose purpose is to ensure that privacy and civil liberties are protected in the fight against terrorism.
Someday, it might actually meet.
Initially proposed by the bipartisan commission that investigated the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board was created by the intelligence overhaul that President Bush signed into law in December 2004.
More than a year later, it exists only on paper.
Foot-dragging, debate over its budget and powers, and concern over the qualifications of some of its members — one was treasurer of Bush's first campaign for Texas governor — has kept the board from doing a single day of work.
Atrios makes a point that has kind of bothered me about the Olympics coverage for the past few years. Despite have multiple channels NBC's coverage of the Olympics is atrocious. Over the years the coverage of the actual events has declined, even as their ability to broadcast such events as increased.
At the same time, it appears that the hostility towards the Winter Olympics has increased as well. From various bloggers, to Bill Maher and Bryant Gumbel comparing the Winter Olympics to an RNC convention. Why is it? Is it because America cannot field a strong team in events which Americans don't participate in? Is it, as Bryant Gumbel says, because people don't like to see a bunch of white people competing against more white people? What is it?
Some of it is this pseudo-intellectual rejection of sport as a pursuit for the less intelligent among us. Some of it is the way sports figures are elevated to the status of role model, just for being an athelete. And even more of it is a bias against sports that Americans don't excel at.
People train for years to reach the top of their chosen discipline, and a bunch of people who don't sit around and tell them they don't participate in a "real sport" because, frankly, they don't understand what is involved in training for, and being successful at that event.
Let me make a suggestion to anyone who feels that Winter Sports aren't a "real sport".
Try it, and tell me how easy it is.
Technorati Tags: Olympics, NBC, Torino
There have been a number of posts around the blogosphere about Deborah Howell's screed against Dana Milbank, in addition to mine below.
See: firedoglake, Crooks and Liars, and MyDD for some examples.
After reading these, and their respective authors take on this column, it has become obvious that Deborah Howell does not see herself as the Washington Post's Ombudsman, but as a Washington Post Columnist. By continuing to attack her for abdicating her role as Ombudsman and picking apart the content of her column the risk going forward is that she ends up becoming a legitimate voice in the conversation. Her column was, under the guise of the Ombudsman, a broadside against liberal bloggers, and the fight she ignited with her repeating of the Republican lie that Democrats were recipients of Abramoff's largess, and compounded by her less than tepid pseudo-correction, and the WashingtonPost.com's idiotic response to being called out. You can see from some of the responses from the right just how Howell's comments played. Pretty much exactly as I would have predicted. "Liberal Media personality gets smackdown".
So, how should we regard Howell, and her columns, and her role as WaPo's Ombudsman?
It is clear that barring a few personalities, the entire editorial preference for the paper is to become increasingly conservative in its slant. The paper itself is sliding into the Authoritarian Cultism that Glenn Greenwald wrote about last week. The only thing that can be taken away from Howell's latest column, is the "taking out to the woodshed" that Milbank supposedly suffered, was probably a not so subtle reminder that the paper wants to become a conservative mouthpiece.
Technorati Tags: Dana Milbank, Deborah Howell, Washington Post
Pat Robertson is like a double-edged sword. He manages to piss off both sides with this ramblings. His over the top comments get people on the left worked up, because he is the most visible face of the religious right, and many members of the religious right get all fretful as his insane pronouncements get more and more over-the-top.
However, what gets lost in this fretting and outrage, is that Pat Robertson makes this pronouncements to get attention. He does this to get people all up in arms, and then those that continue to support his brand of Christian Fundamentalism send him more money.
The question that needs to be asked, when debating whether or not to respond to the latest idiocy out of his mouth is, should we be ignoring Robertson into irrelevance, or continuing to give him relevance in order to give some of the religious right heartburn?
I personally would prefer it if he went away.
Technorati Tags: Pat Robertson, Religious Right
"Advertising may be described as the science of arresting the human intelligence long enough to get money from it."
--Unknown
You can read it here
I'll give you one guess, as to who is not on this list.
Technorati Tags: CNN, Media Whores
... for Dana Milbank's columns and appearances on Countdown?
Apparently so.
Dana Milbank can be controversial with readers. The Post reporter has his fans -- and I can be one of them -- but I think his appearance on MSNBC last week was a mistake in judgment.
He does sometimes cross the line into commentary -- in an Oct. 12 column, he counted how many times President Bush blinked during a television interview, and in a Nov. 3 column he frequently referred to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's rumpled clothes and personal awkwardness. Both columns seemed like put-downs. On Jan. 27, he wrote that President Bush gave a "Bourbonic performance" at a news conference.
But I loved his Feb. 1 column about watching Supreme Court justices decide whether to clap, sit or stand during the State of the Union address. And writing about a Jan. 25 hearing on lobbying reform, he followed quotations of senators with mentions of how much money they had received from lobbyists in recent years. Cleverly done.
Matt Stoller does a pretty good take down on the latest attack on liberal bloggers by the media.
This time, liberal bloggers are evil because they don't support Lieberman, or Cuellar, or whomever the Washington establishment Democrats support or whatever the point was.
I really have two things to add to this.
To those who are bound and determined to not listen to bloggers, or more importantly the rest of the Democratic party supporters, screw you.
The other thing, has to do with the amount of time liberal bloggers have been spending on hack journalism such as this. Most readers of blogs are smart enough to know just how much the media is desparately trying to stem the rise of blogs, because they cannot control the narrative. By spending time responding to thier attacks, we liberal bloggers are allowing them that measure of control.
Technorati Tags: Blogging, Liberals
Just a hint to those in the DNC:
Few adults in the United States are satisfied with the performance of the House of Representatives and the Senate, according to a poll by Harris Interactive. Only 25 per cent of respondents have a positive opinion of the current Congress, unchanged since January.
Polling Data
How would you rate the job the Congress is doing—excellent, pretty good, only fair, or poor?
Feb. 2006 Jan. 2006 Positive 25% 25% Negative 71% 72%
When Tom DeLay was the most powerful man in the House of Representatives, Congress and the president devoted $500 million over 10 years for an oil and gas project lawmakers expected to go to a firm in DeLay's hometown.
But just a month after the embattled former House majority leader announced he would not try to keep his leadership job, the Bush administration cut funding for the project from its 2007 budget, and announced in the fine print of its 1,220-page fiscal blueprint that it would seek legislation to kill the program outright.
Forevermore this is how the Bush Presidency will be defined:
Sad, isn't it.
From Josh via Atrios
Technorati Tags: Whittington, Cheney, Bush, Bush Legacy
That is what the RIAA is doing:
Why should you be allowed to make backups of CDs you've purchased when you can replace them? And why should CD backups be legal when users can already decided to purchase from (DRM-laden) services that do allow the limited copying of lossy music files? Here, again, we see the way in which the RIAA et al. would like to see contract law take over the domain of fair use. "Leave it up to DRM, you big dummies!"
"The enemy is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he's on."
--Joseph Heller
Believing that algebra was worthless knowledge. I mean, how would I ever use this meaningless stuff.
2x+4=A?
What's the point!
The only difference between me, and Richard Cohen?
I believed that when I was 12.
Via Pharyngula.
Technorati Tags: Algebra, Richard Cohen
Via Atrios we find that George Bush's support for the troops, doesn't extend to their paychecks:
Today, Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) led a 10-Senator effort to increase the pay for servicemembers. The President’s budget specifies a 2.2% increase – the smallest pay raise for our military since 1994.
“Our troops are sacrificing so much, in every corner of the world. Shortchanging them and the families who love them is a lousy way to say thanks,” said Kerry, who authored the letter.
“Our military deserves leadership that matches their service and patriotism. Getting our troops the pay raise they deserve is the very least we can do to show how much we value everything they do for us. I’m going to fight for a fair military pay raise until it becomes a reality, and I thank my colleagues who have joined me in doing so,” added Kerry.
Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter on Thursday denied any connection between special projects he gained for his state and a Washington lobbyist whose wife works in Specter's office. But his office also said it was sending the matter to the Senate ethics committee.
"To satisfy all conceivable concern, we are voluntarily forwarding this case" to the ethics committee, according to a statement from the Republican senator's chief of staff.
USA Today reported that Specter had helped secure nearly $50 million in federal funds over four years for groups that had hired the lobbyist husband of one of his aides.
In dismissing any connection, Specter told reporters in a telephone interview, "That would be a blatant conflict of interest, inappropriate, and I don't think that happened."
George Bush must think there is one, because what else would prompt this:
President Bush argued Thursday that the United States needs a health care system in which patients pay more directly for their care, because that will turn them into comparison shoppers whose interest in a good deal will drive costs down.
Bush said the current system, in which employers and insurance companies are the most involved in paying health care bills, makes individuals less engaged in the cost of the procedures they get.
Jim Wallis says it is time for liberal Christians to take their religion back from the Religious Right:
Jim Wallis - who has been consulted by US presidents as well as Tony Blair and Gordon Brown - yesterday urged liberal Christians to move the agenda from the right's focus of sexual morality to a less partisan approach.
The 57-year-old, of Washington DC, is a long-term campaigner for social justice and fighting poverty.
"We need a moral discourse in public life, and it is wrong for the left to leave it to the political right to define the issues," he said. "The left lacks respect and is too often disdainful and condescending in listening to people of faith.
"Religion does not have a monopoly of morality - the issue is not whether a person has a personal faith but whether they have a moral compass."
I haven't written too much lately about motorsports, because that really is not the focus of this blog. However, with the approach of the 2006 Formula One season, I have been keeping my eye on the various sites that cater to that crowd.
For the 2006 season, the size of the engine was reduced from V10s to V8s, and despite the reduction in engine size, the manufacturers have actually been able to increase the RPM's, and the horsepower of the engines.
Max Mosley, the FIA President has come up with a new plan, which I happen to like, which goes away from regulating the size/horsepower of the engines the teams run to limiting the amount of fuel a team can use in a race:
"All kinds of engines will be allowed to use," Mosley told Gazzetta dello Sport. "But each car will have the same amount of fuel that it may use. So the engine rule is based on the consumption of the engine. The winner of the race is the one that uses his fuel to the maximum."
Brit Hume knows for sure where America's priorities lie, when it comes to Dick Cheney shooting a 78 year old man in the face:
The Hume interview contained a pair of TiVo-worthy moments that left me wondering "Did I really hear that?" and reaching for the replay button.
TiVo Moment #1: After Cheney walked Hume through the specifics of the shooting, including a cataloguing of Whittington's injuries ("He was struck in the right side of his face, his neck and his upper torso on the right side of his body"), Hume inexplicably followed up with this jaw dropper: "And I take it you missed the bird?"
The VP has just painted a verbal picture of blasting his friend in the face and Brit is wondering about... the bird?!
Cheney thinks it is inherent in the power of the President and Vice-President to determine when something can be declassified?
Vice President Dick Cheney says he has the power to declassify government secrets, raising the possibility that he authorized his former chief of staff to pass along sensitive prewar data on Iraq to reporters.
Cheney coupled his statement in a TV interview Wednesday with an endorsement of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, his ex-aide. Libby is under indictment on charges of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI about disclosing the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame.
[...]
"I have certainly advocated declassification. I have participated in declassification decisions," Cheney said. Asked for details, he said, "I don't want to get into that. There's an executive order that specifies who has classification authority, and obviously it focuses first and foremost on the president, but also includes the vice president."
A Challenge to Rightwing Bloggers Who Blame the Media for the Cheney Mess: Prove it. One of the great absurdities of our time is the persistent notion that the traditional media skews left. Reporters buy into it, Democratic strategists and leaders buy into it, and rank and file rightwingers live by it. As I've written previously, the right controls all branches of government, talk radio is dominated by rightwing voices, there's a cable channel devoted to the rightwing perspective (and two others racing to do the same), there's a herd of rightwing pundits spewing anti-left venom across editorial pages, radio, television, the internet, etc., Bush's press conferences are cloying jokefests, and "neutral" journalists echo deep-seated pro-GOP myths.
As well he should. Afterall, he pulled the trigger.
The interesting thing is that Cheney confirmed, which others have noted elsewhere was removed from MSNBC.com, was that Cheney was drinking beer that day:
The Vice President also revealed that he had a beer at a picnic held earlier in the day at the ranch, at least four to five hours before the shooting.
Via The Carpetbagger we learn that Tom DeLay is feeling a bit of heat in the lead up to the Republican primary on March 7:
In Texas' 22nd District, former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R) routinely faces token opposition in Republican primaries. The challengers are never taken seriously; DeLay never deigns to even pretend they exist; and local Republican voters always dispatch the primary opposition at the polls easily.
But this year's different. DeLay's constituents may be conservative, but they are getting sick of him and his ethical scandals. Moreover, DeLay has a real primary opponent, Tom Campbell, whose campaign is generating serious attention.
