-777

Market down. Bill fails. Market tanks. House Republicans cry and blame Pelosi for their hurt feelings and their failure to get enough Republican votes. McCain takes credit for the passage of the bill before it passes, then blames Obama when his own party doesn't support him. Can a script like this be written in Hollywood and be accepted??



Note - Sorry for the light posting. We have a new member of the family. Her name is Sadie. Pictures will be posted soon.

Defending Obama On FISA

I woke up Friday morning to an e-mail in my box from the Obama campaign. It was a two and a half minute video of Barack Obama and his announcement that he was foregoing public funding for the campaign.

"Join me and declare your independence from this broken system, and let's build the first general election campaign that's truly funded by the American people."

So I gladly donated for a second time to Senator Obama's campaign. I spent the rest of the morning writing a rebuttal to an Obama smear e-mail and taking great joy in sending it to every schmoe that ever e-mailed me crap like that and giggled as I imagined their faces as they read. On my way to work, I felt good for the first time in a while, sending some cash to Obama and fighting the lies. I actually felt a spring in my step.

Then I got to work and read this: House Passes New Steny Hoyer/FISA Bill. KAPOW!

It took me a couple of minutes to regain my breath, and just as I was starting to feel better, I read this: Obama on FISA - "It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people."

KABOOOOOM!!!! Kicked in the balls!

Still seeing stars, I decided to take a deep breath, count to ten, and try to sort this all out. Steny Fuckin' Hoyer... that's where the anger needs to be directed. Hoyer and Nancy "impeachment is off the table" Pelosi.

Think about it. It's been barely two weeks since Hillary Clinton suspended her campaign and endorsed Barack Obama. The most recent polls show Obama leading McCain in swing states, rewriting the fucking electoral map by the minute. No scandal du jour to speak of - Rev. Wright is forgotten, and guest preacher Father Michael Pfleger's Hillary rant was the last straw that caused Obama to actually sever ties with Trinity United Church of Christ. Even Michelle Obama co-hosted The View to improve her image and show the world that she's always been proud of her country. A hard stance on the "compromised" FISA bill voted in the House would fan the flames of dying embers.

He's stuck between a rock and a hard place and it's the House Democrats who put him there. The worst part of the whole thing is that it always seems like the Democrats in Congress don't know what the fuck they are doing. Maybe because they really don't. They are so petrified of being perceived as soft on national security that they capitulate to the whims of a lame duck president who made us less safe in the first place; and they don't realize that the capitulation itself is what truly makes them look weak. It makes the Republicans look like they were right all along.

Let's take a step back and realize that through it all, Barack Obama is a politician. And at this point in time, it's not wise to come out in harsher tones than is necessary regarding a crap FISA bill that still has to pass through the Senate.

Unfortunately, before you can say "telecom immunity", the liberal blogosphere goes apeshit and acts as if Barack Obama just ran over their dog. Twice. Atrios calls Obama "Wanker of the Day." Digby is "tempted to say this is a Sistah Soljah moment." It's understandable to a point. But why trash our own Democratic nominee and likely next President of the United States before we've gotten him out of the wrapper?

Here's John Cole's reaction to the liberal freakout entitled "Things I Learned Today":

Obama can not snap his fingers and magically change the minds of hundreds of Democrats elected by people other than Barack Obama, and because of it, he does not deserve the votes of the netroots.

Also, compromise means getting everything you want, not just shifting the debate and working to remove portions of a bill that you find objectionable. Compromise to the netroots is much like George Bush’s definition of compromise. Who would have thunk it.

Additionally, Obama apparently hates the Constitution.

The last thing I learned today is that the ideal candidate goes down with the ship. It does not matter if that candidate was right on the issue all along, did everything he could to win the fight, but that he must go down with the ship. It does not matter if the fight is already over and the battle lost, real candidates try to maximize the loss by inflicting political pain on themselves.

You all make me cranky. Enjoy President McCain, whiners.

And he makes a good point. Is Senator Obama supposed to slit his own throat with a FISA tantrum to satisfy his loyal base, damn the consequences? Don't forget that he also said this in his statement: "It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses."

And is he the only Senator opposed to this bill? Did everyone forget the existence of Russ Feingold? Or Chris Dodd? Filibuster away. My hope is that Harry "Poopy Pants" Reid will get all flustered because nothing else is getting done in the meantime and table the bill. And if they are able to strip the retroactive immunity from the bill, then Mensa Man will veto it anyway and at least the Dems can say they tried, but Georgie doesn't care enough about national security and too much about the corporations that did his evil bidding in the first place.

So chill, people, or I will hide your Firebird keys. Direct your anger at the cowards who voted for the bill.

My other thought (initially, while I was still angry) was that both sides are knee deep in shit (would that be so surprising?) and this is a way for the whole thing to go away. Immunity equals the end of getting the bottom of things and finding out the truth. If there are Democratic hands that are as dirty as Republican ones, then the bill will pass. And that would make me very sad indeed.

And I started the day with a spring in my step.

Democratic Backbone? Not In This Congress

This is depressing. House leaders stalled the FISA bill giving retroactive immunity to telecoms passed by the Senate under the guise of civil liberties and the rule of law, giving a glimpse of hope for the few remaining Democratic eternal optimists that finally the party would make good on promises made after the 2006 election.

But like a sadistic master dangling a treat in front a his loyal but stupid dog, it looks like they'll pull the treat of the defense of the Constitution once again, giving the White House everything they wanted in the first place, and as Glenn Greenwald notes, putting themselves in the worst possible position by picking a fight on a highly volitile issue that has gotten a lot of media attention, only to capitulate and give the Republicans more fodder.

...No rational person who has watched Congressional Democrats since they took over Congress could possibly have expected them to do anything but what they always do: namely, whatever they're told to do by the White House.

...what is somewhat baffling in all of this is just how politically stupid and self-destructive their behavior is. If the plan all along was to give Bush everything he wanted, as it obviously was, why not just do it at the beginning? Instead, they picked a very dramatic fight that received substantial media attention. They exposed their freshmen and other swing-district members to attack ads. They caused their base and their allies to spend substantial energy and resources defending them from these attacks.

And now, after picking this fight and letting it rage for weeks, they are going to do what they always do -- just meekly give in to the President, yet again generating a tidal wave of headlines trumpeting how they bowed, surrendered, caved in, and lost to the President. They're going to cast the appearance that they engaged this battle and once again got crushed, that they ran away in fear because of the fear-mongering ads that were run and the attacks from the President. They further demoralize their own base and increase the contempt in which their base justifiably holds them (if that's possible). It's almost as though they purposely picked the path that imposed on themselves all of the political costs with no benefits.

...Even with their ultimate, total compliance with the President's orders, they're still going to be attacked as having Made Us Less Safe -- by waiting weeks to capitulate, rather than doing so immediately ...It was a loss for them on every level.

And so here we find the American people (at least the Democratic ones) laying on the ground, dejected, demoralized and feeling like fools for allowing Lucy to pull the football away as we tried to kick it yet again.

What do we do now? Better Democrats. The gang of losers in the Congress are so used to giving in time and time again that they don't know how to win. How many times does the GOP minority leadership have to fuck them in the ass until they get the picture that the have to fight fire with fire? There is no negotiating with these cretinous bastards. You don't bring a knife to a gun fight. What was that line that Malone (Sean Connery) says in The Untouchables? "They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue."

This is the only way the Republicans know, and if you give an inch they'll take a mile. But the weak, flawed Democrats in Congress have just gotten so used to atomic wedgie after atomic wedgie, so used to being stuffed in a locker after having their milk money stolen time and again, that they know no other way to act even when they are in the majority.

The worst part is that if they really and truly cared about the rule of law, about defending the Constitution as they say they do, the separate votes they plan to cast on the FISA and immunity to cover their own asses would never take place. But please pay attention to those Democrats that will vote "yea" on immunity and put them on your sHit List of the Democrats we must replace in Congress. That list is getting longer and longer all the time.

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.

Bush Vetoes SCHIP Again

Mr. Compassionate Conservative once again vetoed a bill that would make possible the inclusion of 5 million children to obtain health insurance.

Bush issued his veto on Wednesday, saying "our nation's goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage - not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage."

This statement of course has no basis in fact. The State Children's Health Insurance Plan is available to those who make too high an annual income to receive Medicaid but not enough income to afford to pay for a private insurance policy. SCHIP is not free. It is a discounted plan, with participants paying low cost premiums. But President Bush would have you believe that it is a substitute for private insurance and that the Congress is trying to expand a program to those who already have private coverage as a step toward that evil concept we call socialism. Of course, Bush and the rest of the elected members of government already receive government funded health care. If it's so bad for the rest of us, why doesn't he switch to private insurance? He can certainly afford it.

Mr. No Child Left Behind would also try to make you think that the $35 billion that Congress allocated over five years is fiscally irresponsible and that his economic conservatism was a main reason for rejecting the bill. This is a strange reason when you consider that $7 billion pays for approximately 2-3 weeks for the occupation in Iraq.

The fact is that at the current funding levels, some participants currently covered by SCHIP would have to be dropped.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said the House will take up the extension question Thursday in a bill that also will make adjustments to Medicare.

"We'll obviously need to put additional money" into the children's health insurance program, Hoyer said, because several states say they will have to remove recipients from their rolls if the current funding level continues into next year.

As far as raising taxes is concerned, "What a sad day that the president would say that rather than insuring [millions of] children, 'I don't want to raise the cigarette tax,' " said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

In 2006, an estimated 20.8% (45.3 million) of U.S. adults were current cigarette smokers; of these, 80.1% (36.3 million) smoked every day according to the Center for Disease Control. I, for one, would not be affected by this tobacco tax increase, and neither would 80% of the US population. If a 61 cent per pack tax deters people from smoking and become healthier in the process, so be it.

Why do cigarette smokers feel discrimiated against for a tobacco tax? Do drinkers feel discrimination on an alcohol tax? Or drivers on a gas tax? If you don't drink or don't drive, there is an automatic savings. Should I feel angry that the non-drinker doesn't pay tax on my glass of wine or bottle of beer? Is Bush is worried about the smoker that is against a tobacco tax , or is it the tobacco lobby?

One more question: if Bush was so proud of this veto, why did he sign it in private?

...such votes are uncomfortable for GOP lawmakers. It is a popular program with the public, making some Republicans wary of sticking with Bush on such an issue with the 2008 elections looming. Of the 43 million people nationwide who lack health insurance, more than 6 million are under 18 years old. That's more than 9 percent of all children.

Bush said the bill "moves our country's health care system in the wrong direction." If we aren't currently moving in the wrong direction, what the hell does Mensa Man have in store for us?

Democratic Cojones

Let's See If It Holds...

Senate Republicans on Friday blocked a $50 billion bill by Democrats that would have paid for several months of combat but also would have ordered troop withdrawals from Iraq to begin within 30 days. The measure, narrowly passed this week by the House, also would have set a goal of ending combat in December 2008.

Now, Democratic leaders say they won't send President Bush a war spending bill this year. They calculate the military has enough money to run through mid-February.

...Sen. Christopher Dodd was the lone Democrat opposing [the bill] because he said it did not go far enough to end the war. Other Democrats, including Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, said they too opposed the bill as too soft but that they supported advancing debate.

Now let's see if Reid and Pelosi will have the Democratic balls to stick to their plan of not bringing up any legislation to fund the occupation before the new year. I seriously hope they realize that they should finally side with the 76% of the population that rejects President Bush, his folly and the Republican agenda.

The Impeachment of Dick Cheney

The squad car turned onto the quiet street. The dispatcher had gotten a call of a possible domestic disturbance on First Street, unusual for that part of the neighborhood a few years ago, but it was becoming more and more frequent over the past year. The dispatcher answered the call and then the caller hung up after dispatch heard yelling in the background. Officer Kay exited the car and approached the large house. “Nice place,” he thought. “I wonder what’s going on in here.”

There were lights on inside, but all seemed eerily calm. He knocked on the door and waited a seemingly long while before knocking again. A few seconds later, the door cracked open a bit.

A small lady was on the other side. Through the opening Kay could see that she was visibly upset. She had a bruise on her right cheek and a small cut over her right eye.

“Ma’am, we received a call from this house. Are you okay?”

“Yes,” replied the obviously beaten woman. “I... I just tripped and fell down the stairs. It happens a lot… I’m a klutz. … I called 911 myself thinking I might need an ambulance,” said Nancy as her eyes welled up with tears, “but I’m okay now. It’s not as bad as I thought.”

“Well is anyone in the house with you? Do you need medical attention?”

Just then, Kay heard a voice coming from inside the house. “Who the hell’s at the door?!”
“Here we go…” Kay thought.

He heard steps coming toward the door and it forcefully swung completely open, Nancy visibly flinching as it whizzed by her.

“Oh… good evening, officer. Kin a help ya?” said a man of considerable size. He stunk of cheap whiskey and seemed agitated, sweat beaded on his forehead and he looked disheveled in his stained Ohio State tee shirt. He seemed to trip on himself a bit at the door as he reached into his pocket for a cigarette. Kay knew what he was in for.

He had seen this all before. An obviously battered spouse. A belligerent, overbearing man who pushed his compromising wife to the edge time and time again, and shoved her around if she dared talked back. He’d seen these types of cowards before.

Unfortunately, Kay’s hands were tied. The law prevented him from doing anything unless Nancy filed a complaint.

“Sir, we received a call and...”

“Yeah, she can be a bit of a klutz. She fell down a coupla’ steps. She’s alright now though, ain’tcha honey?” He put his arm around her and squeezed her in closer.

“Well, sir, I’ll need your name for the record, just to verify that we made the call.”

“John. And this is my wife, Nancy,” said the drunk with a scrape on his knuckle. Nancy stared down at the floor. She dared not look Kay in the eye. If she did, he would be able to see all the pain, all the frustration in her.

“And how long have you been living here?”

“Just about a year now,” Nancy said, still staring at the floor. John whipped his head around and looked at her with daggers in his eyes. How dare she speak. He squeezed her tighter.

“Nancy, can I speak with you a moment?” Kay stared at John as he said this to look for a reaction. John inched forward but immediately realized he’d better behave. If he did, it would all go away.

Kay took Nancy down the walkway. “Look Nancy, I know what’s going on. But I can’t help you unless you tell me. You need to take the first step. I’ll ask you again: Is everything alright? Will everything be alright once I leave?”

Nancy stood there. She didn’t say a word. She thought perhaps she could finally get out of this relationship. She’d tried to be compromising in hopes that John would see how good a person she is. Maybe the kindness would be reciprocated.
But it never worked that way. John would take and take and take. He would never give anything. He wasn’t built for it. He’d been like this his entire life and an old biting dog doesn't like muzzles.
Maybe this time she could call John out on his cowardice. Maybe this time, John would see that she wasn’t going to stand for it anymore. She wasn’t going to sit there and take his crap anymore.

“No, I’m fine… I fell.”

Kay gave Nancy a business card and told her to call him if there was any problem. She looked back at the door and saw John standing there, arms folded across his chest, watching her every move. She slowly took the card. Kay watched as Nancy slowly turned back up the walkway heading towards her front door.

“Goodnight, officer,” John said with a shit-eating grin on his face. “Thanks for stoppin’ by. Nice to know we got the city’s finest watchin’ our back.” The business card was snatched out of Nancy’s hand before the door was shut.

And that’s how the resolution to impeach Dick Cheney ended in the House of Representatives.


From BOB CESCA:

If only the Democrats were attentive enough to the people to realize that a majority of Americans, including a majority of independent voters, support the impeachment of Dick Cheney, they would've treated the resolution with a little more respect. If they acknowledged their mandate and discarded their predictably impotent political habits, they would have had the mettle to at least debate the resolution and entered into the record their collective objections to the vice president's malfeasance, as well as forced into the record the Republican Party's inexplicable support for the man's attempt to undermine their authority. History demands this.

Instead, by engaging in such an awkwardly amateurish fire drill on the floor of the House, [Steny] Hoyer managed to inject his misguided capitulation into the national debate. He might not know this, but there exists cable news and internet blogs, both thirsting for material. Now, millions of people know that the House Democrats dropped their short pants and stumbled away from the task of holding the vice president accountable -- their trousers bunched around their ankles restricting normal locomotion -- simply because the Republicans dared them to act.

And so in trying to avoid a so-called public embarrassment, they publicly embarrassed themselves anyway.

Here is another video from Brave New Films summarizing the resolution to impeach Cheney. Watch it and then honestly tell yourself that he doesn't warrant impeachment.

More from CESCA:

When the Democrats acquiesce on torture or impeachment or anything that might reunite them with their balls, they're only succeeding in begging the right's aggression. There won't be any favors returned from the Bush/Cheney right wing. I don't think the Democrats fully understand who they're dealing with. And if they do, well then, how dare they play along. How dare they patronize us with 'I'm against this but I'm voting for it because I'm smart and important and you wouldn't understand anyway.'

You stand up and vote NO on torture, Senator Schumer. You allow a debate about impeaching the vice president, Congressman Hoyer. And you sure as shit don't vote to support the administration's Iran policy, Senator Clinton.

In other words, compromising with the White House won't make the president go all limp and soupy -- it will in fact make him louder and more petulant next time around...

..."Shut him up or shut him down!" That's what the American people are expecting. Any failure on that score leaves the Democrats in this pathetic ass-up submissive posture. When it comes down to choice of nuance versus aggression, the answer has to be aggression. Take on those bastards with the fury and tenacity these historically imperative issues demand.

We don't expect hand-holding and mutual masturbation between the Bush Republican White House and the Democratic Congress. No one has ever assumed the president would compromise on anything anyway. But we assumed -- perhaps wrongly -- that the Democrats would stick him. We expected a fight, and that's why we voted for Democrats a year ago yesterday. And if they should ever decide to collectively stand up and fight, we will gladly elect more of them a year from now.

It took me a few days to wrap my head around what the hell happened in the House of Representatives on Tuesday. If the Republicans wanted a fight, if they wanted to attempt to "embarrass" the Democratic Party by forcing a debate on Kucinich's resolution to impeach Cheney, then the leadership should have gone to the coat check room where they usually leave their collective scrotum at the door, strapped it back on and said, "You wanna throw down?! Let's go! Game on, brohim!"

But the Rethuglicans know the battered wife game. They wrote the book on it. They dared the Dems knowing they would flinch. And flinch they did. It's times like these that I feel like changing my party affiliation to Independent.

And what embarrassment would they have saved? A July poll showed that 54% of Americans favored impeachment of Cheney (including 17% of Republicans)... and that was in July! Four months ago! It's got to be riding at 60%+ now.

What is an embarrassment to me is that the Democrats fold like a house of cards time and time again. It's an embarrassment to me that Nancy Pelosi says impeachment is off the table when it's not her choice, but a duty that the Constitution dictates. It's an embarrassment to me when a Senate Nominating Committee with a Democratic majority would allow Michael Mukasey to be approved as the next Attorney General after hemming and hawing on torture and that Harry Reid would allow a simple majority vote for his confirmation after a five hour debate.

It's an embarrassment to me that they don't fight. That's why they were elected, but they've gotten so used to being the red-headed stepchild, they've forgotten that they have fists, that they have strength, that they have the backing of the American people. Stop worrying about what your cocktail guests in Washington will think, and start worrying what your constituents back home will think. Because if you don't, you won't need to worry what will be said about you at the next dinner party. You'll be cleaning out your desks in November 2008.

Not only do we have to vote Democratic in the general election, but we have to be wary of who we're voting for in the Democratic Primary elections as well.

Not only have to vote Democratic, we must vote for the better Democrat.

Cheney Is Insane

I know that the above statement is probably not a surprise to anyone, but it seems to me that anyone who would continue to assert that Iraq was linked to Al-Qaeda five years after the start of the invasion of Iraq, when even the President has said there is no evidence of a link between Hussein and September 11th, has either got to be certifiably insane, an insidious, compulsive liar or both. My bet is on both.

On Thursday, Vice President Darth Cheney, speaking on the Rush Limbaugh show (of course) said "that al-Qaeda was operating in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion led by U.S. forces and that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading the Iraqi branch of al-Qaeda. Others in al-Qaeda planned the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
'He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the al-Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June,' Cheney told radio host Rush Limbaugh during an interview. 'As I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq.'

Yet on that very day, THAT VERY DAY, the Pentagon declassified a report that shows "interrogations of the deposed Iraqi leader and two of his former aides as well as seized Iraqi documents confirmed that the terrorist organization and the Saddam government were not working together before the invasion."

But that doesn't matter to Cheney as he spews his lies on the Limbaugh show. They wouldn't want to lose the 30% base that is basically the audience still listening to the drug-addicted, child molester. At this point, wouldn't it be fair to say that Cheney (who actually has a lower approval rating than Bush if that's possible) can't be taken on his word for ANYTHING?

In that same interview, he maligned Speaker Nancy Pelosi for taking a trip to Syria, calling it "bad behavior on her part." Of course, he would never mention the fact that Pelosi was actually there to reinforce Bush administration policies and goals regarding Syria, and this is according to Republican Rep. David Hobson who accompanied her on the trip! But although five of the eleven politicians who have visited Syria in the past five days have been Republican, no mention or criticism of their trip has been apparent.

Diplomacy is not this administration's strong suit by a long shot, especially when most of the time they don't even consider it an option. So wouldn't a trip by an opposing party member extolling the Bush party line, and the Syrian government knowing that the Democrats aren't playing either, be advantageous to the administration? You'd think so, but since they are all crazy and live in Oppositeland, it completely makes sense to attack and smear. Just like this New York Post front page picture from March 31st, 2007.

God I hate these people.

Who's Emboldening the Enemy?

In a hypocritical turn of monumental proportions, Seymour Hersh's latest column in the New Yorker explains how the Chimp Administration's plan in the Middle East has shifted.

For all the Republican talk condemning Democrats (or anyone else for that matter) opposing troop escalation and the war in Iraq, Hersh states that "To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran.

The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda."

That's right, you read it correctly. The Bush Crime Family has secretly been supporting extremist Sunni groups to further their cause in Iran and Syria. Groups "sympathetic to Al Qaeda." The ones we're supposed to be fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. The ones that were responsible for 9/11 (if you believe the "official" story).

Meanwhile in another part of the world, Dearth Cheney continues to criticize opposition to the war in Iraq, particularly Nancy Pelosi, when saying the Congressional leaders' approach of attempting to revoke the Iraq War resolution would "validate the al-Qaeda strategy." Can you believe the lack of scruples in this war mongering, blood sucking troglodyte?

So the Democrats who want to end the war are siding with the terrorists, but the Bush Administration who are funding the terrorists are the patriots?! What kind of backward-ass policy is this?!

There's a special place in hell for bastards like these.

The Pelosi Plane Fiasco

I'm watching C-Span today and am amazed that the Republicans in the House, especially this little pissant Patrick McHenry from North Carolina, are whining about this story.

Republicans are taking issue with the size of the plane Pelosi would need to fly in to reach her hometown of San Francisco without refueling. There are three Air Force airplanes that have the fuel capacity to make the trip nonstop, with the largest being a C-32 plane, a military version of the Boeing 757-200.

This is in response to story in the Washington Times published February 1, entitled “Speaker pursues military flights,” which claimed that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) had been “pressing the Bush administration for routine access to military aircraft for domestic flights, such as trips back to her San Francisco district.” Former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) also used military aircraft to travel to his district. However, the Times reported, Pelosi is “demanding permanent access to a large military jet for herself, her staff, other Members and supporters.”

Here are the facts as checked by Think Progress:

1) The House Sergeant at Arms, not Pelosi, initiated inquiries into the use of military aircraft. House Sergeant at Arms Wilson Livingood, who has served in his position since 1995, released a statement today clarifying the facts. He writes, “In December 2006, I advised Speaker Pelosi that the US Air Force had made an airplane available to Speaker Hastert for security and communications purposes following September 11, 2001.” Additionally, Livingood writes, “I offered to call the U.S. Air Force and Department of Defense to seek clarification of the guidelines [which governed Speaker Hastert’s use of a plane].”

2) A larger plane was requested because Hastert’s plane required refueling to travel cross-country. The Washington Times says a larger plane was requested to accomodate Pelosi, “her staff, other Members and supporters.” That’s not true. In fact, the plane used by Speaker Hastert was too small for Pelosi since it “needs to refuel every 2,000 miles and could not make the nonstop haul to California. ‘The Air Force determined that [Pelosi’s] safety would be best ensured by using a plane that has the fuel capacity to go coast-to-coast,’” a Pelosi spokesperson said.

Well, guess what?

The White House on Thursday defended House Speaker Nancy Pelosi against Republican criticism that her desire to fly in an Air Force transport plane is an extravagance.
"This is a silly story and I think it's been unfair to the speaker," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

I especially love Barney Frank's comment, no doubt in reference to Shorty McHenry.

UPDATE: "The Pelosi smear: Stupid -- but kind of entertaining" by Eric Boehlert

Open Letter to Nancy Pelosi

Dear Speaker Pelosi,

I would like to congratulate you on your new position as Speaker of the House and know that you will serve it well.

You took the gavel in the spirit of “partnership, not partisanship”, and although your election for Speaker was secured, not one Republican representative voted in your favor. Not one of them offered an olive branch to you, in the spirit of partnership. I am not naïve enough to understand that the vote was purely political, but I thought it was still worth noting.

But the reason I am writing to you is of another matter.

In the lead up to the elections of November, I was receiving email after email from organization after organization asking for support of the Democratic Party in the upcoming elections, that the status quo was unacceptable, that “staying the course” was not an option for our current government as well as in Iraq. I received mailings from Rep. John Conyers regarding articles of impeachment drafted against President Bush in light of the faulty intelligence used to mislead the public, as well as misleading members of Congress, that Iraq posed a credible threat to the United States.

Once the war began, President Bush would roll out seemingly endless reasons for our pre-emptive strike and invasion of Iraq to suit his needs. We now know that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. We now know that there was no attempt to buy yellowcake from Niger. We now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction despite fears of not wanting “the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” We now know that the aluminum tubes seen in satellite pictures were not intended for missiles to resume a nuclear weapons program. We know all of this. We know that this administration has used the fear of the American people to their advantage in invoking September 11th over and over again.

Yet after all of this, less than 24 hours after the Democratic Party regained control of the House and Senate in an incredible victory that echoed the voice of the people for change, you said, “Impeachment is off the table.”

When President Clinton was impeached by Congress, led by a Republican majority, we all heard the same thing. It wasn’t what he did that was offensive; it was because he broke the law by perjuring himself. The chants of “Rule of law!” were painfully heard. And President Clinton was impeached by nine votes in the House.

After six years of our system of checks and balances being kicked aside, I say to you Speaker Pelosi, that impeachment is not a choice. It is a Constitutional duty. Pursuing articles of impeachment is not about revenge or “getting even.” It is about restoring the rule of law. It is about accountability, and accountability transcends politics.

In his long awaited speech to the nation last night regarding his plans for a “New Way Forward” in Iraq, President Bush gave us some of the same rhetoric that we have wearily heard again and again. After weeks of consultation, with military commanders in the field, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, and countless others, including the American people who oppose a “surge” of troops in Iraq, and all the while our men and women in uniform continued to die day after day, the President once again disregarded what the experts had to say and decided to do what we all knew he was planning on doing all along.

I applaud your stance in opposing escalation of the war, and of Senator Kennedy’s proposed legislation of Congressional approval for additional funds and additional troops to be deployed to Iraq. But there was something in the President’s speech last evening that frankly scared me:

“Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”

Is this to mean that instead of trying to contain the war to Iraq, will we possibly be trying to fight on two or three fronts and stretch our military beyond its limits? This has to be stopped in its tracks before it begins. It is confirmation that the President is detached from the reality of what is happening in the region. The only thing that will continue to “embolden our enemies” is the continued deployment of US troops and our consistent occupation of Iraq.

In November, the pendulum swung to the Democratic side of Congress. As history has shown, it is only a matter of time before it swings back. I hope that when the high crimes and misdemeanors of this administration come to light after all the hearings and investigations, that you, as Speaker of the House, will take steps toward the appropriate actions demanded by the Constitution of the United States; that you will begin criminal proceedings on those responsible for their actions, and those responsible for the United States losing face on the world stage. There is much to repair to make this country great again. There is much to repair to gain the trust of our allies around the world again.

In the past six years under the Bush Administration, Patriot Acts I and II have passed that have eroded Constitutional rights; the Iraq war continues to inflict death and destruction on a country that had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001; the response to Hurricane Katrina was an incredible debacle that continues to leave thousands homeless in Louisiana, as well as Mississippi and Alabama; the leak of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative for political gain endangered her life as well as those who worked with her in the field, and caused us to lose vital intelligence sources in that region; the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was ignored to conduct illegal wiretapping without a warrant; and most recently President Bush’s latest signing statement of December 20, 2006, attached to a postal reform bill, claims federal officials can open US Mail without a warrant, in direct opposition to that very same bill that was passed by the House and Senate. And this short list only scratches the surface.

If these aren’t impeachable offenses, what are?

For the well being of the country and its citizens, the integrity of Congress and the survival of the Constitution of the United States, if after all the hearings and investigations you find that it is warranted, I pray that you will not hesitate. Please do not exclude impeachment from your plans “on the table”.

Open Letter to Bush from Pelosi & Reid

Speaker Nancy Pelosi & Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (God! I love saying that) have written an open letter to President Bush regarding his plan to send more troops to Iraq.

Excerpt: Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake. They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution. Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain. And it would undermine our efforts to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq.

From the Houston Chronicle: The prospect of increasing troop levels has been greeted with so much hostility that some lawmakers are questioning whether Bush is serious.

Virtually the only prominent voices advocating the surge option are Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., and some neoconservative scholars.

What a surprise... Looks like that 51/49 fragile Democratic Senate majority really is a 50/50 split with Lieberman in the fold. Mark my words.