Hmmm

A reader of Josh Marshall's asked why there were so many terror warnings right before the 2004 election, but there hasn't been one in 18 months. Why is that?

Good Thing for Republicans

They don't follow polls.

PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF!

This guy is the greatest.

Sen. Rick Santorum on Thursday withdrew his affiliation from the Christian-rights law center that defended a school district's policy mandating the teaching of "intelligent design."

Santorum, the Senate's No. 3 Republican who is facing a tough re-election challenge next year, earlier praised the Dover Area School District for "attempting to teach the controversy of evolution."

But the day after a federal judge ruled the district's policy on intelligent design unconstitutional, Santorum told The Philadelphia Inquirer he was troubled by testimony indicating religion motivated some board members to adopt the policy.

That's rich.

Can't wait til this guy is not a senator, which is less than a year away.

I Should Read First

Before making my arguments because apparently Tom Daschle made the same one:

The use of warrantless wiretaps on American citizens was never discussed when Congress authorized the White House to use force against al-Qaida after the Sept. 11 attacks, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said Friday.

In an article on the op-ed page of The Washington Post, Daschle also wrote that Congress explicitly denied a White House request for war-making authority in the United States.

"This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas ... but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens," Daschle wrote.

"The Bush administration now argues those powers were inherently contained in the resolution adopted by Congress but at the time, the administration clearly felt they weren't or it wouldn't have tried to insert the additional language," the South Dakota Democrat wrote.

You can read the whole thing here.

Flicks

It's the weekend, so maybe you'll get out and see a movie. If I may suggest, do not see King Kong or Brokeback Mountain.

Saw Kong last night and in a word: Blew.

It's not a movie for kids because of the violence and gore, and not a flick for adults because it's just too simple and boring. Granted, the effects were amazing, but I'm so past the point of a movie getting me all worked up because of that factor. Every movie has great effects. Kong did look great, but you get over that really quick.

As for Brokeback, this was just another boring ass, simplistic story, that's getting props solely because two straight men decided to stretch their own boundaries by acting like they'd stretch their own assholes.

Heath Ledger did a pretty good job in his act but he didn't really have to act since being a gay cowboy takes nothing more than living a normal life, but then later boning a dude instead of gal.

I'm pretty open about most things, and I wasn't even turned away by the sex scenes (which were harmless), but this movie was just weak.

Yet, of course, and I'll be the first to admit it, will ride the wave of their own version of know-it-all liberal extremism, and will hand this film awards. Then again, there are so few good movies out there I'm not sure what should be winning awards these days. I mean, afterall, a Shawn of the Dead does not come out every year.

Wiretaps

Last night I attended my friend's parent's Christmas Party in Northern Jersey. Great times. These people bring in cheeses and hams the likes of which you don't see often. I ate much.

After the eating I was obliged to say hello to my other friend's parents for it is through him that I'm there in the first place. His mom is aware of my political leanings, and I hers. She's one of these "The New York Times and ACLU should be Shut Down" types. Sorta scary, but it is what it is. She actually brought up the ACLU twice in the 5 minutes we spoke.

We get into the discussion about the illegality, or from her perspective, the legality of the wiretaps. She asks me, "Do you know why they're not going to go after Bush for the wiretaps?"

"Please, tell me why?"

"Because Golden Boy allowed them too!"

"Who?"

"You know, Golden Boy. Clinton!"

I told her I didn't know about this, but just the way she even brought him up was so absurd. There was true hatred for him, and it's just plain sad. Yet, folks like these can stand there and defend a liar like Bush, but Clinton, hatred.

Being that I didn't know what she was talking about I really couldn't defend Clinton, nor did I care to. I'm past the point where Republicans can defend their actions by holding them up against the actions of a man they found to be illegitimate. Their standard has become the person they despise. Apparently, they don't aspire to reach greater heights.

I told her I found it hard to believe Clinton's administration would put into practice what the Bush administration did, but that I could see them arguing for expanded powers, like all White House's do. But again, without knowing the details of what she was saying I couldn' really talk about it. She too did not know the details for it was something she heard on the radio, of course...Nevertheless, this didn't stop her from making the claim "nothing will get done because Golden Boy did it too."

Well, this morning I looked into exactly what she was talking about and low and behold I came across a column by BYRON YORK! SHOCKING! But even York cannot seem to make the case Republicans, like the one I was talking with, wish was true. But it being the holiday season, maybe you'll get your wish yet.

It seems Clinton did appeal for the "inherent authority" to conduct wiretaps without FISA Court approval. Guess what? THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE. He, like Bush, had the authority to do so. No one is arguing against that. In a case dealing with national security the President not only has the authority, but the responsibility to make sure he does everything within his power to stop the country from imminent harm. The key word here being 'imminent.' That's what this debate is about.

The Bush Administration gave the greenlight to conduct surveillance by going around the law and the FISA Court without actually proving their was an imminent threat. They even notified members of Congress of their intent to do so, which means they were aware of their plans to do just that. There was no reason to notify Congress of an act that's inherent to the President if they believed they had such rights (and you know they did). Makes no sense. Plus, these Congressional members were not allowed to speak out because doing so would be a breach of national security. So again, all this gets back to WHY DID THEY DO IT?

No one is arguing against prerogative, inherent powers, or our desire to have our leaders protect us. We are questioning why this administration felt the need, again, to go above the law. Simply, I know they don't believe their are any checks on their powers during the "War on Terror", but we know the dangers in that.

Golden Boy aside, we will find out why they did it, and someone will be made to account.

He should be impeached for violating the Constitution. I think Golden Boy was, and I even believe some said what he did was "a threat to National Security." Amazing what these people can convince themselves.

Disturbing

I'm sure at least a few of you saw the 60 Minutes episode documenting the use of rendition. Rendition is the process of taking a prisoner out of his/her country, sending that person to another country, and interrogating said person abroad instead of his/her home country. The United States does this because certain tactics which are illegal here may not be in Egypt, Pakistan, or wherever.

What bothers me most about the CBS report isn't so much that rendition is practiced. On some level it's probably useful and necessary, but it's the way it's been carried out as reported in this story that's so shameful.

Khaled el-Masri was born in Kuwait, but he now lives in Germany with his wife and four children. He became a German citizen 10 years ago. He told 60 Minutes he was on vacation in Macedonia last year when Macedonian police, apparently acting on a tip, took him off a bus, held him for three weeks, then took him to the Skopje airport where he believes he was abducted by the CIA.

He was later taken to Afghani prison. Upon realizing immediately he was the wrong person, they held him anyway, and later left him broke on the side of a road in Albania. He eventually made it back to Germany.

The most bothersome part of all of this is after realizing a mistake was made, instead of returning him with an apology and maybe a financial gift of some sort we chose to drop him off, probably hoping he'd just die.

Rendition is a questionable policy, so these types of things will happen. It seems our government would rather let an innocent man die without his family ever knowing what happened to him than admit to a mistake, and that's horrible.

People who know about this story, especially military families, should find this practice disgusting. We treat ever American life as if it's the MOST sacred of all lives. We've killed countless innocent Iraqis (about 25,000), and over 2,100 Americans have been killed. We talk about the sanctity of life, but does the military really care? The CIA? They were going to leave an innocent man to die because of a mistake they made. That's top notch.

Meanwhile, Elsewhere...

How's it playing in Peoria?
It's really a good question. Sometimes, living in this partial liberal bubble you start to think that everyone just agrees with Bush.

Hello Boca Raton!

The town Mariano Puerta will be residing as a tennis instructor for the rest of his life:

LONDON: The tennis career of Argentina’s Mariano Puerta lay in tatters yesterday after he was banned for a record eight years after a positive drugs test.

The International Tennis Federation (ITF) said its independent Anti-Doping Tribunal had ruled that 27-year-old Puerta tested positive for the banned stimulant etilefrine after his French Open final defeat by Spain’s Rafael Nadal in June.

“In accordance with the Wada World Anti-Doping Code it therefore imposed an eight-year suspension from competition, commencing June 5, 2005,” the ITF said in a statement on its official website.

No tennis player had previously been banned for more than two years.

It was Puerta’s second doping offence and the unprecedented length of the ban effectively ends his career, although it fell short of the lifetime ban which could have been imposed under the rules.

It's nice to see a sport that takes itself seriously.

Thank God For...

The Government's anti-smoking campaign:

WASHINGTON -- America's teens are smoking less and popping pain pills more.

The lure of the family medicine cabinet helped nearly one in 10 high school seniors try out prescription pain-killers last year, even as their generation continued turning away, at least slightly, from smoking and many other drugs.

But wait, CIGARETTES ARE THE GATEWAY DRUG!!!!!

Ruh Roh

I can't wait for this to peak:

Former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, facing trial on fraud charges Jan. 9 in Florida, is negotiating a possible deal with the Justice Department, in which he would agree to plead guilty and cooperate in the wide-ranging political corruption investigation focused on his dealings with members of Congress and executive branch officials, people familiar with the talks said last night.

Abramoff would provide testimony about numerous members of Congress and their staffs if he and the Justice Department reach an agreement, the sources said. Negotiations have been ongoing for several months, people knowledgeable about the discussions said, but pressure is mounting because of the pending trial.

The Christmas present to end all gifts. When Delay and Ney are in cuffs I'll literally eat shit and grin.

State of War

I just read this piece by Josh Marshall, and it made me realize just how ridiculous this country is right now. George Bush and Dick Cheney justify illegal actions by claiming we're operating during a "state of war."

Just what war are they talking about here? I haven't heard Bush mention Afghanistan in God knows how long. Can it be The War on Terror, aka, TWOT. If that's the war than it would have been perfectly legal for Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton to operate illegal wiretaps outside the FISA court during the "War on Drugs." Would it have been legal for either of these Presidents to wiretap someone who was operating a drug deal which was about to go down? I mean, drugs kill, so under the Bush rationale it would have. But this FISA court was created for exactly these situations.

Maybe we are talking about the War in Iraq? If that's the war we're talking about then operating illegal wiretaps makes NO SENSE since there were no threatening terrorists in Iraq who had anything to do with national security here in the "homeland." For Bush or Cheney to even mention Iraq and this policy initiative in the same paragraph is deceitful.

No one is claiming there's not a time when the President of the United States needs to take action above and beyond the laws of Congress and the Constitution, and may even be required to do so. This case clearly doesn't lend itself to such actions, and I think Josh makes that point clear. This was a well thought out extra-legal decision which actually had interal White House legal backing. It was not a "David Palmer" moment to say the least.

Once again it all comes back to these people believing they're above the law, and most of all, above all of us. They are our parents, making decisions for the rest of us, forgetting that they are our stewards. The laws do not apply to them. In almost every instance when their hands are caught in the cookie jar they seek an alternative legal explanation for why things were, or can be, done.

Again, I want to know what war has made it legal for them to break the law. Congress authorized a War in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq cannot be that war, and Afghanistan is a war we're hardly fighting. Assuming they never declare an end to Afghanistan they can operate in any fashion they see necessary at home or abroad? That's what I'm gathering.

Congress didn't authorize TWOT; it just became the label of today's struggle. You can't create a simple label and say it allows us to disregard the Constitution. It's fucking retarded, and our dumbass media just rolls along.

What's Impeachable?

I mean, aside from the OBVIOUS, what is? If not this spy case, and nothing else before it, then seriously, what is?

One of the 11 judges on a special court overseeing government surveillance has quit the panel, to show his displeasure over President George W. Bush's secret authorization of certain types of domestic spying.

The Washington Post reported that U.S. District Judge James Robertson is concerned about legal problems with Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program that sidestepped warrants.

The report said Robertson is deeply concerned that the program may have tainted the work of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The newspaper quoted two of Robertson's associates.

The Bridge President

Had George Bush really stopped a terrorist plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge you would have heard about it.

Thoughts from friends:

that's the whole point. the court has rejected hardly any requests to spy, but at least there are checks, and accountability. why he decides he needs to go above the law to do it is what the problem is. these people feel they are answerable to no one, so they can do as they please. the court hasn't hindered them in anyway from conducting wiretaps, so it's not an issue as to whether it's going to be done or not, it's a matter of this president thinking he's above the law, and at the same time trying to paint law abiding people as traitors for disagreeing with him.

Weinish
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah OK, you guys are probably right on this, I change my opinion

Woods
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress authorized you to change your opinion.

Jack
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long live Benjamin Franklin:

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

I think Weinish hit it dead on. It is the notion that the executive branch is not subject to review that is the real problem.

narmy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coming out of lurk mode b/c I'm pissed at the Wiretap rhetoric I need to comment.

My dad recently told me he believes in "any means necessary" to avoid another 9/11. Primary focus is that 9/11 killed his retirement investments and he can't afford to see that happen again at the age of 60. I wonder how many Americans think of the war on terror as a means to secure economic viability. Last I checked our economy in the long term looks horrible (how many trillion in debt?)

This is what scares me the most about GWB and the quote above from our ol' friend Mr. Nazi Goering. Smart governments can take advantage of our fear to slip by measures that compromise our liberties b/c right now the compromise doesn't affect us on a daily basis...how many of us are going to get wiretapped under the circumstances. The problem is the policy put in place now for a narrow group may affect us down the road and the "slippery slope" is a huge concern in this arena. Exactly what happened in Nazi Germany. Some people were horded then others who didn't expect they would be in a class of persons to be persecuted. Repeat/Rinse.

I hardly call what GWB is doing is allowing a dialogue. In fact, he
advised people about the subject, e.g. Rockefeller, who was not
permitted to talk to ANYONE about it. Typical problem: GWB and his
regime can say: "We discussed it" but the truth is there is no
meaningful dialogue allowed on the subject to ensure that it is
addressed by those designated in government to address it. This is
playing by their own rules with some twisted rhetoric to create
soundbites and create an appearance of propriety. Plain and simple.
>
I simply don't buy into any means necessary to protect us from the war
on terror. There is no way to quantify if this stuff is effective or
not. Without keeping tabs and having accountability we'll always hear:
we're at war against terrorists, so we do have to do X, Y and Z. ANd if you
disagree, you're unpatriotic.

BTW - does anyone see GWB's allegation of an unpartiotic leak to the press on the subject the wiretaps as completely transparent and hypocritical? He couches the leak as a damaging to our safety yet when his cronies leak the name of Plame (a covert operative on the front lines for our country) there is no such allegation despite the clear "danger" it puts Plame in going forward? The guy is incredible and our country is full of people who look for whatever justification to suit their means.

Fah Cue
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I said, I'm willing to change my opinion, and can see the counter-point(s) pretty clearly when it comes to slippery slopes. (And yeah our economic forecast looks horrendous and so does environmental outlook, and the 2 are at odds which is even worse) However, since there is no way anyone ever is going to take a Counter-point, I'll play devil's advocate...

It's been said that this was used to 'dismantle' a plan to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. period.

Woods
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
listen, if they foiled a plan to blow up the brooklyn bridge they would have talked about it every second, every minute, every day, and it would have been in his campaign commercials.

"did you know that under the leadership of George W. Bush thousands of lives were save, and a nation's treasure spared? Elect John Kerry and we'll lose our monuments."

"George W. Bush, creating a bridge between everyone."

Weinish
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"you see in my administration, we care about bridges. We are bridge-savers. The American people want me protecting bridges and by golly thats what we are going to do, protect bridges. I'm a bridge President. Sadaam wanted to blow up bridges and we stopped him. We're fighting the war on Iraqi bridges, so we don't have to on American bridges.

My opponents want to see our bridges go to the terrorists. You know what I say to these bridge haters? Not on my watch."

GW 1st draft, next speech.

Dice

Loving This

Thin Lizzy, 76, Chicago.

Jailbreak!

Intelligent Judge

Stupid people:

A federal judge ruled today that a Pennsylvania school board's policy of teaching intelligent design in high school biology class is unconstitutional because intelligent design is clearly a religious idea that advances "a particular version of Christianity."

Opinion In the nation's first case to test the legal merits of intelligent design, Judge John E. Jones III dealt a stinging rebuke to advocates of teaching intelligent design as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools.

I'm sure this'll be the last we hear of this.

Heaven is a Truck

It got stuck...on the breeze...

Realists

So I had this interview today with a company on Wall St, and actually met with the CEO of the company. Very nice guy, to say the least.

We got to talking about politics since my resume usually brings that issue out. He's a "conservative" which according to him is "unlike this jackass we have for a President."

"I'm a Nixon conservative, who, mind you, was to the left of Bill Clinton, who I view as a moderate, or liberal Republican..."

It's nice when people aren't parrots, geese, sheep, and of course, jackasses.

In other news, I'll be back on the air at WCTC in mid-January, so WATCH OUT, NIGGA!

Too Funny

I know posting has been light, and I'll get back in the swing soon, but in the meantime you've got to watch this video.

Pure comedy.

What Happens When...

Iraq is ruled by overly religious groups who, like the rest of the reason, hate the United States? After we've spent billions of dollars creating a theocracy will it then be okay to call George Bush a fucking idiot during any conversation?

Yet, the early results gave strong hints of voting trends. Voters generally cast their ballots based on ethnic or religious allegiances, as in last January's elections for a transitional government. It has also become apparent that much of the electorate is staunchly religious, in a country that many experts had once proclaimed, before the American-led invasion, to have a large secular middle class.

The early results for Baghdad province, the most diverse region of the country, provided the strongest indication of the religious nature of the voting. With 89 percent of the ballots there counted, the main Shiite coalition, the United Iraqi Alliance, had won 1.4 million votes, or 59 percent of the total. The runner-up was the Iraqi Consensus Front, the main religious Sunni Arab coalition, with 19 percent of the votes. Mr. Allawi's secular coalition, the Iraqi List, came in third, at 14 percent.

Yeah, this is gonna work...

He Does

Bush has the authority to stick his fingers in your Grandma's ass crack! He does! Congress authorized this when they gave him the authority to goto war. There could be a bug up her ass, and he has the authority to get it.

Bush has the authority to piss all over you if you're lying in snow! He does! Congress authorized this when they gave him the authority to goto war. You could be a terrorist lying on top of a sheet of ice, and under that ice could be a dirty bomb. As Commander in Chief, he must melt the ice.

Bush has the authority to do anything because Congress authorized it. There are no laws, Congress authorized it.

Obviously

This is what I was thinking when I heard George Bush trying to label the media and/or politicians as traitors.