Oh Judy

I'm not really sure what to make of the whole Judith Miller/Scooter Libby thing. I'm inclined to believe Libby has done something shady since basically this whole case revolves around his shadiness to begin with. Putting that aside, it's Judith Miller you should be worried about.

Remember when Dick Cheney went on Meet the Press a few years ago and told Tim Russert about a story in the NYTIMES claiming Saddam was using aluminum tubes to process uranium? Cheney actually made it seem like the "liberal" NYTIMES had written an independent story, which allowed him to go on TV and use the story as a rationale for invading Iraq. It was his backup! It went something like this, "Well, Tim, if you saw the cover of the New York Times today, they're reporting that aluminum tubes used to process uranium were discovered in Iraq. It's an independent report..." Blah blah blah. You can read about it here.

The funny thing about this story is Judith Miller reported it. What's funnier is that Judith Miller was actually leading the US Military around Iraq at Ahamd Chalabi's request. You can read about that too, right here. Judith Miller was willing to say, or report, anything the Pentagon was feeding her so she could give herself, and the Times, a leg up.

All imbedded reporters had their material vetted through the Pentagon. So then you have Dick Cheney acting as if there's an independent report from the NYTIMES backing up his claims when in essence HE WROTE IT! But of course, Judith Miller would do her thing. She was the "it" girl for Cheney's Pentagon.

So what other reporter was closer to Cheney, Libby, Chalabi, or anyone in that cabal the last 4-5 years? I'm sure there's someone at FOX, but it's not suppposed to happen at the Times, and it did. Miller helped the Bush White House in it's Iraq PR campaign, and that's a fact.

Now she has been released from jail after agreeing to cooperate with the grand jury inquiry that I'm sure you've heard about.

My only point with regard to all of this is people are actually relying on Judith Miller to help pull the plug on the Cheney/Libby/Rove White House and scandal. Let me tell you something: that's not going to happen.

These people buttered her bread for the last 3-4 years. In fact, her going to jail has only made her more famous, and increased her future book sales, one she will certainly write. This issue increased her overall publicity for all the TV and radio shows she will surely be appearing on. In fact, if I had to bet, I'd say Judith Miller is about to take on a career change either at the NYTIMES or elsewhere, for now she is famous, and she has no one to thank but her own corrupt self, and Dick Cheney's office. Coincidentally, the same office that spilled the leak to begin with.

Good times.

(Not editing)

Chav Numero Uno

This guy is a trip.
 

Can You Stun Me?

Uhhh, no. I'm never stunned. Never surprised. Never moved when I read stories, or hear things so ridiculous that only result in me saying, "Obviously."

Tonight there were two, and the first, of course, is some ridiculous situation George W. Douche is trying to enact.

I came across an article in the WSJ about how Bush and others want the military to be the front line on all disasters. Of course this is the case since they don't have any answer to any problem unless they can drape a flag over it.

Here they are, calling for the military to be the first responders. God damn, the words "first responders," who knew they'd be so paramount in every discussion, and yet so ignored when it comes to keeping their lives afloat? I'll tell you who knew: every person whose head wasn't rammed directly up their own ass.

"How can you not pay the first responders...the first responders are risking their lives...the first responders...the first responders...uhhh, the first responders..." Yeah, it's all about the 'how we can use the first responders for political gain', and if anyone is really going to take advantage of that you can expect Mr. Bullhorn himself, or should we say, Mr. Foghorn, since he's lost in one, to be that guy.

Mr. Douche wants the military to assume the responsibility for disasters. No details have been given yet as to why that's so, but we can assume the reasons. The military is disciplined, for the most part, and since disasters wreak such havoc, discipline is certainly needed.

Here we've had one disaster, and one hurricance, so it's a perfect time to take advantage of the situation. Bush does so by acting as if he has a clue, and then suggesting the military play the lead role in responding to disasters. See? They will be the "first responders." First it was the underfunded firemen, then the police forces, and now it will be the miltary. We love the first responders, so lets make sure the military are the first responders!

Here's why Bush, and frankly, Karl Rove, have decided the military should respond first.

Let me apologize first for ranting before getting to this obviously simplistic point, but I just had to. I've had a few.

If the military becomes the first responders to disasters every Conservative politician will have an opportunity to push for more military spending! That's right! Every time a liberal, or any other who is against this idea of 50% of all our tax dollars going to the military, complains that it's too much, a Republican now has the chance to say, "Our military NEEDS TO BE FUNDED! When we have disasters like we had with Katrina our military picks of the pieces! How dare you You are against funding the military and OUR FIRST RESPONDERS! WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?!?!"

Yeah, yeah, yeah, sounds ridiculous, but it's so on point it's scary. It will happen if the miltary takes the lead role, which they shouldn't.

It's also another way to maintain a huge military force when there's no wars. Disasters RARELY happen. There will be another in California in the form of an earthquake sometime soon, but it won't be that bad. But a disaster like Katrina, 30 years, minimum. By that time we'll have forgotten, and the same thing will happen. Yet, Katrina will still be a reason to fund THE MILITARY.

These people have no answers to anything except "the military." Big government is bad. Big military is good. Making planes and weapons no one will ever use or see be big important. I talk like caveman because they have brain like caveman.

It's just another way to justify more spending on the military, regardless of the benefits.

It's a way to get planes built in Kansas, missiles in New York, Ships in South Carolina. You name it. More money so conservatives, who hate government spending, can continue to take in the money of the blue states. Good times.

How about FUNDING FEMA? How about FUNDING EDUCATION? How about making people capable to avoid disasters? How about giving people jobs, and lives, so they can buy home owners insurance? How about these things? No, no, no.

We will cut estate taxes. We will speed up tax cuts. We will fund the military. We will fold all agencies into Homeland Security and then cut that and claim it's government waste. That's what we'll do.

Caveman say, "Fund military. Me hate helping. Me hate affirmativee thing."

"Me dumb. You liberal. Me hate jew, uhh, you. Me bad. Uhh, my bad."

So then it goes on.

Today I read how OMB Director Bolton is discussing ways to cut the budget so we can afford Katrina relief. You can't find the article! Google it! It's in the Wall St. Journal, but nowhere else.

Here's the gist:

"Caveman Bolton, John Davis, Washington Post. Do you think they'll cut taxes to pay for Katina?"

"Me thinks no. Me peoples no like that. Stop growth."

"Mr. Bolton, Bill Webber, New York Times. What about Transportation? Will they cut some funding there?"

"Me think no again. No support. No."

"Uhh, Mr. Bolton, Cal Anderson, LA Times. What are you going to cut?"

"Me thinks cut Medicaid and Medicare, and maybe Fannie Mac and Mae. Me know poor and nigger no vote. Me thinks that will happen. Me know elections coming, so me thinks poor cuts good."

"But Mr. Bolton, the people in Louisiana will be heavily affected by those types of cuts, yet you are claiming we are trying to pay for their revival."

"Me not understand question. Please no ask again."

So there's that aspect of Washington, and the Bush Presidency.

Now, the other thing.

Well, I just realized that writing about the other thing could get me into more hot water than I am willing to get into right now. Unless, of course, there are two hot chicks making out in a hot tub with beers. Then I'd get in. But there's not. There's just my bed, and my remote control...

Latahs.

Why Oh Why

I watched the debate for Governor last week on NJ's own cable network. Goddamn was that awful. I mean, Jon Corzine is hardly a smooth speaker, and Doug Forrester is a vacuum salesman. That guy is really a piece of garbage. It's so obvious.

Anyway, both men talked about how important it is for Atlantic City to be the Vegas of the East. Puhhhlease. When's the last time either of these guys went to Vegas? Better, when's the last time either visited A.C! That place is a dump.

Here's the solution to A.C., no joke, and it's drastic: Kick all of the professional sports teams out of New Jersey and legalize sports gambling! That's right.

I cannot give any revenue numbers, or analyze financial tradeoeffs between the loss of revenue for the NJ Sports and Expo Authority, but I'd guess A.C. would win out. You'd be putting so many bookies out of business, and you'd attract so many more people for major events like the Superbowl, Final Four, all playoffs, boxing matches, Ultimate Fighting Events, you name it. Granted, you couldn't bet on Seton Hall or Rutgers, but, uhhh, enough said...

I like the Giants, but they're the New York Giants. The Jets, whatever. They're from Long Island. The Nets? No one cares. The Devils? Some care, me being one of them, but considering they've threatened to move 20 times it's only a matter of time before they do. I don't need them to be here.

Currently the state is discussing a new stadium for the Jets and Giants. This is the wrong call, clearly.

There may be other factors which do not allow for sports gambling to be legalized, but I have no idea what they are. If they want to fix A.C. this is the way to go. Nothing else will work. Not the cheap winter hotel rooms, and certainly not the 7 tooth whore that grabbed my crotch at the Trump Plaza.

Lets Play a Game

Can you guess what Congressman has taken more money from Tom Delay's Political Action Committee than any other?

A Texan? Nope.

A Kansan? Nope.

A Floridian? Nope.

A Congressman named Mike Ferguson from right here in Central Jersey? You bet your ass.

On Point

From Kevin Drum to Brad Delong to Spence to Me to you all.

Hey Now

I know this is a HUGE STORY. One you can't escape if you tried.

ON THE FACING page today we publish a letter that a U.S. Army captain sent to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), expressing his frustration at the absence of clear standards governing how the military should treat detainees. In the letter (which did not come to us from the captain or the senator), Capt. Ian Fishback expresses his view, based on service in Iraq and Afghanistan, that this "confusion contributed to a wide range of abuses including death threats, beatings, broken bones, murder, exposure to elements, extreme forced physical exertion, hostage-taking, stripping, sleep deprivation and degrading treatment."

How can it be that an officer of the United States armed services, concerned about detainee mistreatment that he has personally witnessed, could struggle in vain for 17 months to learn the standards of humane treatment the military is applying? The answer to this question appears starkly in the written responses to questions from senators by Timothy E. Flanigan, President Bush's nominee to serve as deputy attorney general: The Bush administration has no standards for humane treatment of detainees. Capt. Fishback is looking for something that doesn't exist.

Mr. Flanigan was Alberto R. Gonzales's deputy when the attorney general served as White House counsel during Mr. Bush's first term, and he was therefore deeply involved in forming policy on matters related to detainees. Like Mr. Gonzales, he has piously repeated the administration's insistence that it does not engage in torture. Yet, also following the administration's disgraceful line, he has refused to say that conduct just short of torture -- which is banned by treaty and is a stain on American honor -- is either illegal or improper when inflicted on foreigners overseas.

Mr. Bush has promised that all detainees will be treated humanely. Yet, when asked how he would define humane treatment, Mr. Flanigan declared that he does "not believe that the term 'inhumane' treatment is susceptible to a succinct definition." Did the White House provide any guidance as to its meaning? "I am not aware of any guidance provided by the White House specifically related to the meaning of humane treatment."

Mr. Flanigan could not even bring himself to declare particularly barbaric interrogation tactics either legally or morally off-limits. Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) asked him about "waterboarding," mock executions, physical beatings and painful stress positions. Mr. Flanigan responded: "Whether a particular interrogation technique is lawful depends on the facts and circumstances," and without knowing these, "it would be inappropriate for me to speculate about the legality of the techniques you describe." And he reiterated that "inhumane" can't be coherently defined.

All of which is to say that anything short of outright torture goes -- or, at least, that nothing is absolutely forbidden. The Senate Judiciary Committee is likely to report Mr. Flanigan's nomination to the floor as early as tomorrow. Having only recently confirmed Mr. Gonzales despite his similar refusal to be pinned down, the committee isn't likely to draw the line at Mr. Flanigan. Still, it is an odious thing that the top two law enforcement officers of the United States will both be people who resort to evasive legalisms in response to simple questions about uncivilized conduct. Capt. Fishback should not have to be pleading with senators, as he is now doing, to give "clear standards of conduct that reflect the ideals [soldiers] risk their lives for."

These are the people Bush CONTINUES to appoint. Nice country, really.

You should send this to every person you know. It's the only way shit gets done since these things don't register a blip on the evening news.

So Unfair

How all the bad things happen to the good people of the world.

CNN & Thoughts

I want to give CNN some credit for at least trying to flesh out for the public how people like Michael Brown and David Safavian got their jobs, and why it matters (btw, the Safavian thing blows away Brown's, IMO). It's convoluted political stuff for only the most tuned in, so I think CNN deserves props by attempting to help people recognize just how corrupt the situation, and Bush people are.

Every President makes political appointments, but as pointed out on CNN by their guests, no President has ever done it so well. And by so well they mean so in the image of the President himself.

Where the President failed, as pointed out by the same guests, is there are so many people who are unqualified for the positions they've been given, especially important positions. If Clinton, or Bush Sr. made an important appointment the likelihood is the person was on some level qualified; not just a fundraiser, or buddy of a fundraiser. These guys were smart. They could vet for themselves.

There's a few things to look at here when analyzing why this happens to George W. Bush, and not others. I'll start with the aspect CNN, or any other network would never mention.

Bush is easy to manipulate. Because Joe Allbaugh, Bush's Chief of Staff in Texas, and later on his first FEMA director, has the President's ear, you should not be surprised when things like this happen. As we've been told time and time again Bush trusts his advisors, so when one of his main advisors puts one of his own forward Bush just goes on "faith."

Now lets pretend for one second that Bush is an honest guy who does put his faith in his manipulative friends, he still lacks the intelligence to do things on his own, and THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

Okay, so Joe Allbaugh, or David Safavian, or so many others lie and cheat, and Bush doesn't, does that mean he's not responsible? People elected this guy as the overseer of his government. That was his thing! He was going to trust his people, and oversee. Well, look what has happened.

Here's another aspect that's so obvious which again gets back to Bush's own intelligence. I know, beating Bush's intelligence into the ground is like shooting fish in a barrel (which I'm sure he's done), but it's just so important to point out, especially now.

Lets continue to pretend that Bush is the honest overseer, assumedly appointing people his so called friends are putting forward. I imagine a coversation could go something like this:

Allbaugh: Mr. President, I got a guy who I'm bringing in to assist me. He's a good, honest, Christian man, and an attorney. He worked with the Saudis, and dealt with the Horse industry. He's efficient, and doesn't like waste.

Bush: Sounds like a good man, Joe.

Allbaugh: Well, I'm going to bring him in because he has really done a lot for me over the years. I've know him since college. We were roommates.

Bush: Joe, I trust you, and if you trust him that's good enough for me. He works for you now (slaps him on the back).

Okay, all well and good. Totally feasible, give or take a few details, but that's the general idea. Now that this guy is in place, and Allbaugh leaves to go make some money on the War in Iraq, Brown is the last guy standing at FEMA.

Now lets assume Bush met Brown face to face. Do you think that'd be enough for Bush to decide whether or not he was qualified? Think about it, as bad as Brown is as a FEMA Director, the guy is a lawyer, and has had other jobs in life. He's even run for office on his own. Whatever you may think of Michael Brown you have to know he's at LEAST smarter than George W. Bush, but not dumb enough to come off that way.

Bush is giving positions to people who are smarter than him, and that's why ANYONE CAN GET A JOB OVER THERE! Get it? All of these people, no matter who it is, are going to be more accomplished, and more intelligent than Bush. Combine this with the fact that one of Bush's friends or cronies is bringing this person to the table there's little chance he/she will be rejected. Get it? Bush is not smart enough to know whether someone else is smart enough, or qualified enough for the job. Afterall, he's running the United States and he has NO QUALIFICATIONS! Yeah, yeah, tell me about Texas and all of that crap, but then throw in all the failures and the connections, which clearly outweigh any qualification he may have had.

For anyone not to see just how much more important it is to have the smartest person in control of the White House at times like these, and periods before these, is just ridiculous. When it comes to war you know people who have a clue will be running things. When it comes to judges you at least know the person has to have accomplished something. When it comes to cabinet positions, same thing generally applies. But when it comes to political appointees we have the most easy to manipulate puppet sitting on top of a keg of dynamite flipping a zippo.

Forget the fact about how he appoints so many people to represent his image. I don't even think that's true. In some high profile cases I'm sure it is, like Faith Based Initiatives, or something, but overall you have so many appointees who are getting gigs from people who only care about moving up, regardless of who gets screwed. They all work to get each other more connections, and more cash. It's the ultimate fraternity of scum.

Again, all Presidents do it to some degree, but no one who has ever been this dumb has had the chance. That's the Bush Difference.

I highly suggest reading TIME MAGAZINE'S COVERAGE OF THIS.

He Learned From the Best

How not to take responsiblity:

The former head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency admitted today that he had made mistakes in responding to Hurricane Katrina. But he strongly defended the agency and himself, and asserted that the disaster had been compounded by internal Louisiana politics.

The former FEMA chief, Michael D. Brown, told a special House committee that much of the criticism of the agency has been misguided and unfair, that he himself has been maligned in news reports, and that bickering between Gov. Kathleen Blanco of Louisiana and Mayor C. Ray Nagin of New Orleans had made the situation worse.

"The response of the government at all levels to Hurricane Katrina has come under come criticism," Mr. Brown said. "Some of it's valid, and I'll tell you some of it is just not valid."

"It's my belief that FEMA did a good job in the Gulf states," Mr. Brown said at one point. "We could do things better. We could improve them."

He said much of the criticism of FEMA has sprung from misunderstandings about its capabilities and true mission - "FEMA doesn't own fire trucks, we don't own ambulances, we don't own search-and-rescue equipment" - and that he had advised New Orleans residents on Sunday news shows, as the hurricane was closing in, to get out of town, even though the governor and mayor had not yet decided on evacuating the city.

"I very strongly personally regret that I was unable to persuade Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin to sit down, get over their differences and work together," Mr. Brown said. "I just couldn't pull that off."

At one point Mr. Brown testified, "My biggest mistake was not recognizing by Saturday that Louisiana was dysfunctional."

Governor Blanco disputed much of Mr. Brown's testimony today, declaring that his assertion that she had somehow delayed evacuating New Orleans "clearly demonstrates the appalling degree to which Mr. Brown is either out of touch with the truth or reality."

So Mr. Brown was fired why? I mean, if President Bush thinks he did a good job then why is he fired? Bush doesn't follows polls, right? That's what we're told? So why was this guy fired if, afterall, he did things right?

Or, maybe he's the guy who has no job and can lie endlessly in order to protect the only people who can get him a job in the future?

As they used to say on those NFL commercials: YOU MAKE THE CALL!

I Know

I've posted it before, and you've seen it before, but it's just TOOOO GOOOOD!

Nothing Like Second!

No one does a better job than the United States of capturing the "second most important" person when it comes to terrorists. We're always capturing Zarqawi's second in command, or Zawahiri's second in charge for the Egyptian region, or Hamas' second in command.

"Hey, I know you said you wanted us to get U2 for the festival, but we couldn't do it. Instead, we got Styx. It's all good, right?"

We never seem to capture the top guy. You know why? Because the second in command guy is a total bullshit guy! Yeah, that's why! The guy we're capturing is just another guy who replaced the last guy. He has the same abilities as anyone else: loyalty, discipline, ability to create bombs, desire to kill.

Oh yeah, we caught Saddam Hussein and his sons. We also used our entire armed forces to do it, and put gazillion dollar bounties on their heads. And thank god we did capture them when we did or else Iraq would really be a problem.

How come when these people do get captured it's always in tandem with our forces and not soleoy the newly trained Iraqis or Afghanis? Maybe someone wants a little credit? And maybe these armies aren't capable of doing anything on their own, still?

That combination sounds about right.

Countdown to full on Civil War: 250 Days

Best Thing Possible

Seriously, losing Pennington is the best thing that could have happened for the Jets. Now they can at least get past the fantasy that Chad is/was a good quarterback. Time to move on and find yourself a guy who can win.

When You're a Jet You're a Jet

Well, once again the Jets season is pretty much over before it even begins. This is a "Superbowl team!" I was told. Now that Chad Pennington's career is for the most part over, and Jay Fiedler is out 2 months, the Jets bring in the man who Pennington was drafted to replace: Vince Testaverde. How sad.

Jets management has few options, but here's what I would do. First I'd find out what the Chargers want for backup QB Philip Rivers. Chances are you'll have to give up a first round pick, and the Chargers need major help in the defensive backfield. Extra draft picks would help them find a shutdown corner. This would make them a dominant team for a while. Why not do it? Drew Brees is the real deal, and Rivers is going to walk after next season. Don't forget that Rivers was the #1 pick in the draft over Manning and Roethlisberger. I believe he's every bit as good as either of them.

Rivers isn't a rookie, and the Jets are built to win now. For them to go into the draft and get a QB would set the team back at least 2-3 years. Rivers should play all season, and by next season he'd be ready. You can pay him with the money you were supposed to pay Pennington after you cut him.

This brings us to the other solution: Brett Favre. At least find out what it'd take to get him. The Packers are not trying to win anymore, and if Favre wanted to go they'd let him out. It would cost you at least next year's first, and maybe the one after that. Assuming you can get a QB in the 2nd round of the following two drafts at least you'd have Favre to groom him.

Face it, Chad Pennington's career is over. Does anyone want to begin this process again? If the Jets don't take on drastic measures to win within 2 years they are going to set the franchise back at least 5-6.

Why Is This Normal?

So this weekend Hamas was marching through the streets of Gaza with a truck full of explosives. It went off, and many people in the area were killed or injured. This was a reason for Hamas to launch missiles at the Israelis who had nothing to do with it. However, Hamas needs to blame someone for their incredible stupidity, so they claim Israel blew up the truck. Didn't happen.

However, in retaliation, Israel did fire missiles into Gaza, and apparently hit a school. Now I'm sure they did hit a school, but I'm equally confident that the school is used to make missiles. That's what they do. So yes, while they did hit a school, is it their fault? I mean, what's worse than building missiles inside a school where children goto every day?

Now there's no proof the school is the site of where the missiles were being built, or kept, but think about logically. The Israelis obviously have informants within Gaza telling them the exact location of where these things are being done. If the Israelis were blowing up schools without proof there was activity there it'd be disastrous for them in the PR department. I'm going to go out on a limb and say they nailed their target. Besides, although Palestinians mentioned that it was a school, they didn't deny that it was also a place missiles were built/stored.

Why is it normal for these people to parade the streets with weapons, attack, and then complain when hit back? Did Israel now just leave Gaza? Why do the Palestinian not take up arms against their own? If they did that they'd be more secure, and moving toward peace.

How come this is never spoken about? And where's our fearless leader during all of this?

Opportunity Lost

After reading this the other day I just thought to myself: What a great place for a stray missile to land.

He (Bush) had familiar faces around: the secretary of homeland security, Michael Chertoff; the two senators from Texas, Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn; Representative Tom Delay of Texas; and Mr. Bush's successor as governor, Rick Perry.

This article focuses on how Bush and Co. have tried to take advantage of the latest disasters. Seeking that 9/11-megaphone-on-top-of-ashes moment.

Seriously, it really was so easy for Bush at another time. He had the Ground Zero moment, he had the aircraft carrier moment, he had the scripted Town Hall meetings where questions like, "Mr. President, how is it you show such resolve when most Americans seem so worried?" were popping up. But now the curtain is pulled back and people are aware of just how inept he is.

If you read this article and think about how Bush is traveling from location to location overseeing the operations you have to ask yourself, "What's he doing when he gets there? What does he know? How does he help the situation? Do we feel better that he's there? What does he add to any situation he oversees? Resolve? What other President when in his home state isn't allowed to goto his own home because he's been there so much it'd look bad? What does that tell you?"

Any other President would have input into these situations. Any other President would have had a better response than Bush. Any other President would have appointed more competent individuals. That's why the slogan was, "Anyone But Bush."

Clowns, folks, we're dealing with clowns.

2 Things

The kind of educational issues conservatives fight for, which of course slow down progress, and the kind of educational issues they fight against, which advance progress.

Smart people.