Turdblossom's Nuggets of Wisdom

Karl Rove: Few events mobilize as many interest groups and set Washington atwitter as much as a Supreme Court vacancy. In the Bush White House, I served on a five-person committee charged with recommending nominees for Supreme Court vacancies. We had the opportunity to do so twice, though admittedly it took us three nominees.

We collected thick binders of background material on prospective nominees -- not just opinions, utterances and legal writings, but everything from college transcripts to tax-return summaries to charity dinner speeches. We had years to prepare, update and review this exhaustive research. It helped get Chief Justice John Roberts confirmed within three months.

Oh, Karl. Karl. Three words: HARRIET. FRIGGIN'. MIERS!

Rove writes an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal warning the Obama administration of all the hard work they'll need to do to make the right choice on their Supreme Court Justice nominee and completely undercuts his argument in the third sentence of his piece.

"We had the opportunity to do so twice, though admittedly it took us three nominees."

That's right, Karl. With all your vetting, research and months of background work, you still put up Harriet Miers as a pick for the Supreme Court of the United States. So please do us a favor and spare us all your wisdom, your experienced hand and your sagely advice that has found your "permanent Republican majority" where it is today.

T Minus 46 Days

"I think it's important to bring somebody from outside the system, the judicial system, somebody that hasn't been on the bench and, therefore, there's not a lot of opinions for people to look at."

- Discussing his nomination of Harriet Miers, Washington, DC, 2005

GOP Walks Out Of House - Dems Say Keep Walking

Today, House Minority Leader John Boehner accused the Democrats in the House of Representatives of "political stunts" in bringing to the floor a vote on a resolution to hold Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with subpoenas isued by the Judiciary Committee. Then he and his rat bastards colleagues pulled their political stunt and walked out of the chamber in a seemingly "impromptu" moment... to a waiting podium and microphones on the Senate steps.

All this under the guise of accusing the Dems of wasting valuable time instead of bending over and letting the Bush Crime Family fuck them again, and by using the fear card (the only card in their deck) to attempt to scare the American people yet again, with threats of terrorism and imminent attacks if the House didn't acquiesce and give telecom companies immunity in the latest FISA bill.

But who knew that finally, Nancy "Impeachment Is Off The Table" Pelosi would show more balls than Harry Reid and continue with the vote while the Rethuglicans froze their asses out on the Senate steps?

It's about fucking time you started showing you're in the majority, Nancy. Thank you!

And yet we have Chimpy saying he'd delay his trip to Africa so he can sign the legislation that the House must pass, then only to find out that the whole "walk out" backfired... so he decided to leave anyway.

To Mr. Bush I say this: Get a warrant, you fucking criminal. It's worked for 200 years.

And I say this to Boehner and the rest of the filthy pigs who walked out on their oath to defend the Constitution agaist ALL enemies, foreign and domestic: Keep walking you miserable motherfuckers. You are useless, obstructionist, do-nothing assholes with absolutely no regard for the rule of law, complete neglect for the system of checks and balances and you have spit in the face of Congressional oversight.

If we truly were in imminent danger as these Chicken Littles suggest, they why in the hell would Bush threaten to veto any legislation without telecom immunity attached and also deny an extension of the current law? The answer is because there is no imminent danger.

Here's Keith Olbermann with another amazing Special Comment, in which he calls Bush a liar and a facist! Incredible!

So, fuck off George. Fuck off, John "Boner". And fuck off, all you Republicans who walked out of the House of Representatives today.

Here's the "did not vote because God forbid we expose the administration for what it truly is and we can't do that because we are cowardly bastards, so we'd rather walk out and make believe we're doing it to protect the people" list. File it. Keep it. Highlight it. Do whatever you need to do to remember these names and do everything you can to vote them out of office when the time comes.

Here Come The Subpoenas

Snowstorm At It Again

"Evidently, [the President] wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.
... Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold -- the rule of law."

Reading this, one would think that it was written in response to George the Liar's assertion that presidential aides who fear testifying under oath would then be gun-shy to give candid advice to the President.

But no, that was written in 1998 by the current White House Press Secretary, Tony Snow. Yet, Snow continued to pound on the latest talking point, "show trial" regarding the current about the current pressure by Congress to have Karl Rove and Harriet Miers testify under oath regarding the US attorney firings.

Here is part of a Press briefing transcript:

Q: Presidential aides have testified in the past when there was evidence of impropriety. April mentioned Watergate. This is a case in which the White House is asserting that there is no evidence of impropriety and that nothing was done wrong. So how do you face the American public and say, we're telling you we didn't do anything wrong, but we won't let the top advisers to the President speak publicly about it?

MR. SNOW: No, because -- I thought this was a fact-finding mission, and not a ratings-finding mission.

What a punk. How does he sleep at night?

Meanwhile Bush had this to say: “We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants."

Someone should explain to this village idiot that Congress will ask questions regarding what they're trying to investigate, namely the true reason that these US attorneys were fired. First they tell us it is a normal thing, happens all the time. It does not. Then they claim it was poor performance. Well just a cursory look at their performance records tells you it was not. Now they claim executive privilege.

Executive privilege exists between the president and the person he is talking to, but the claim was that the president was never advised on these decisions on the attorney firings. If that is the case, as CNN's Ed Henry pointed out to the Snowman, then why is the White House claiming executive privilege if the President was not involved?

Snowjob's response: "That's an intriguing question."

God! This guy is an asshole of epic proportions.

And what honorable public servants is Chimpy possibly talking about, because from I've seen, there aren't any in this administration. The only honorable public servants we've seen lately are the ones that were fired.

Video courtesy of CrooksAndLiars.com

In George We Trust

"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." ~ John Adams, 1772

"After telling a bunch of different stories about why they fired the U.S. Attorneys, the Bush administration is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Congress and the American people deserve a straight answer. If Karl Rove plans to tell the truth, he has nothing to fear from being under oath like any other witness." ~ Senator Harry Reid, March 20, 2007

And yet after George the Liar has waived his mighty scepter, he is appalled that his subjects rejected an offer from the Child-King "to allow members of Congressional committees to hold private interviews with Karl Rove, the president’s senior adviser and deputy chief of staff and Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel" as long as they did not testify under oath.

How can Curious George and his administration stand there, lying day after day, in front of the American people and think that this generous offer is acceptable?

W. and his corrupt cronies have either never been truthful or never been correct on anything in the past six years in regards to the debacle in Iraq, or anything else for that matter. Illegal wiretaps, suspension of habeas corpus for "enemy combatants" at King George's discretion, rendition of prisoners to other countries for the purposes of torture, prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib, cherry picking faulty intelligence to drum up the case for an illegal pre-emptive strike on a country that had nothing to do with the attacks on our land. And the list goes on and on and on.

“I don’t accept his offer. It is not constructive, and it is not helpful to be telling the Senate how to do our investigation or to prejudge its outcome” said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Senator Leahy along with Senator Charles Schumer of New York are holding the administration's feet to the fire, but for how long? This is a game of chicken... or at least chicken vs. chickenhawk. I can only hope that the Democrats realize that they are in the driver's seat on this one and don't back down to King Liar and his minions. Why else would anyone suggest a private meeting with no transcripts and not testifying under oath unless they had the specific intention to mislead and lie?