Gonzales: "I Don't Recall" 74 Times

"I don't believe that you're involved in a conspiracy to fire somebody because they wouldn't prosecute a particular enemy of a politician or a friend of a politician," said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina. "But at the end of the day, you said something that struck me: that sometimes it just came down to these were not the right people at the right time. If I applied that standard to you, what would you say?"

Ouch. Not even Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, with perhaps the exception of Orrin Hatch, came to the defense of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. And could you blame them?

Gonzales said he takes full responsibility for the firings that he says were appropriate, but doesn't have a reason for firing the attorneys, except to say that it was recommended to him by his senior staff. He fired seven prosecutors and didn't even look at the paperwork for the reasons why until afterwards. Either he is lying or incompetent. Either way, he should be gone.

Meanwhile, it Backwardsland, Curious George continues to support Gonzo.

Q Dana, does Attorney General Gonzales's testimony on Capitol Hill have any bearing whatsoever on his job status?

MS. PERINO: As I've said many times, the President has full confidence in the Attorney General. The Attorney General looked forward to the hearing that is taking place right now. Of course, the President has not seen any of that testimony. As I told you, he's had a busy morning, and now we're on our way to Tipp City, Ohio. And I haven't seen any of the testimony, either. But clearly, we would hope that there were no preconceived notions, or canned talking points that the senators had in mind before they had this hearing. They said they wanted to get to the facts, and I'm sure that the Attorney General will be fully responsive to their request.

Q So is it fair to say that no matter what the testimony, no matter what the back-and-forth, that the President plans to stick with Attorney General Gonzales?

MS. PERINO: I think -- yes. I think the President has full confidence in the Attorney General and whenever that changes for any public servant, we'll let you know, and I see no indication of that.

Senator Durbin along with others asked whether he had conversations with Karl Rove regarding the attorneys in question. Why in the hell would the Attorney General of the United States be having a conversation with a political advisor, someone who has nothing to do with the Department of Justice? On that basis alone, Gonzo should go.

Senator Leahy questioning Gonzo. Now this is "Must see TV"!

Gonzales Postponed Until Thursday

The Senate Judiciary Committee postponed a hearing that had been scheduled for Tuesday in which [Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales was to appear to defend his actions in the dismissals.
Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is the committee’s chairman, and Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, its senior Republican, delayed the hearing until Thursday because of the shooting rampage at Virginia Tech.

Okay, the tragic event that happened at the Viginia Tech campus is definitely something that could be considered worth postponing Gonzo's hearing for a couple of days. But am I being callous, or am I the only one who is already tired of the minute to minute coverage of this story by every cable media news outlet on television? Is it that slow of a news day that Tucker Carlson is actually doing a remote from the V.Tech campus? Do I really need to know about the entire life of yet another disturbed teenager?

At the very least, I would like to hear someone, anyone say that due to the tragedy, the Gonzales hearing was postponed. But I heard nothing. I would like to think that as another media frenzy develops (there seems to be one every week), that someone is keeping their eye on the rest of the world.

Charlie Rangel: Bush Is A Fraud

Speaking today at the National Press Club, Rep. Charles Rangel was asked the following question:

"You have said that the Bush Administration's rationale for invading Iraq was the biggest fraud ever committed on the people of this country. How do you defend this strong statement?"

RANGEL: "Well, we've lost 3,500 Americans, 30,000 seriously wounded, hundreds of thousands of people who have died; and the reason we lost them is because the President made a decision to make an appeal to Congress for the authority to go to war; and the reasons that he gave was that they had weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam Hussein was directly connected to 9/11, and that he was also connected to al-Qaeda. None of those things turned out to be true.

Now we could say that the President wasn't intelligent enough to understand the intelligence reports. Or we could say, 'Give the guy a break, he's never left Texas except to visit Mexico, so how could he know?'. Or we should say that everybody who was around him at the time indicating that he should follow Osama bin Laden, that he insisted he wanted to get Saddam Hussein.

Now maybe in these nice, prestigious halls, I should find a word that's more sophisticated - but in Harlem, it's fraud."

The follow up question was if that is his position, why isn't Congress starting impeachment proceedings for Bush and Cheney? He simply said, "Because we don't have the votes." He also added that in his opinion, he didn't think it was a good idea to impeach a president during a time of war.

Say what you want about the guy, but it's nice to hear honest words for a change. It's nice to hear 'lie' instead of 'misspeak'. It's good to call out someone for what they are, instead of worrying you'll be misquoted or fear backlash from your comments. Good for you, Charlie.

Everyone Wants Timetables Except Chimpy & Darth

Six Iraqi Cabinet members are abandoning their posts at the command of Muqtada al-Sadr, who is blaming the Iraqi leadership's refusal to respond to demands for a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal.

So, the Democratic Congress wants a timetable, the Iraqis want a timetable. EVERYONE WANTS A TIMETABLE!... except Chimpy and Darth Cheney.

The Commander in Thief has the gall to ask Democratic leaders of Congress for a meeting regarding Iraq, only to insist it is not a negotaition, it is not a compromise, nothing will change his position. Then why have the damned meeting?!

To the credit of Congressional leaders, they declined the meeting. "What the president invited us to do was come to his office so that we could accept without any discussion the bill that he wants," Pelosi said at a news conference in San Francisco. "That's not worthy of the concerns of the American people, and I join with Senator Reid in rejecting an invitation of that kind."

Where Have All The Bees Gone?

Months ago, there were reports of bee colonies with Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). It seems that CCD occurs "when a hive's inhabitants suddenly disappear, leaving only queens, eggs and a few immature workers... The vanished bees are never found, but thought to die singly far from home. The parasites, wildlife and other bees that normally raid the honey and pollen left behind when a colony dies, refuse to go anywhere near the abandoned hives."

Theories of what causes CCD have ranged from global warming to mites and pesticides. Now a new study is causing scientists to claim that radiation from mobile phones may be the problem for bees.

In the U.S., 60 % of the West Coast commercial bee population has been lost and 70% has been lost on the East Coast. But the problem has reached global proportions. CCD has since spread to Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece. And last week John Chapple, one of London's biggest bee-keepers, announced that 23 of his 40 hives have been abruptly abandoned.

It's a little more alarming than trivial because most of the world's crops depend on bee pollination, exposing the delicate balance that we take for granted. Albert Einstein once said that if the bees disappeared, "man would have only four years of life left".

Imus and Free Speech

I've just heard someone try to make the Imus issue a free speech debate. This is not a free speech issue.

US Constitution - Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Imus was not fired by the government.To my knowledge, there was no complaint that the FCC responded to that caused Imus' dismissal. If there were complaints, I didn't hear one word mentioned about it during the media feeding frenzy on Imus' comments regarding the Rutgers Women's Basketball team.

Imus was fired by the private corporation he worked for; that corporation has the right to tell him what he can and cannot say. Sponsors have the right to pull their advertising if they feel they may be harmed by what an on air personality says on his program which they support with their advertising dollars.

The free speech that was apparent on this issue were the protests and calls for Imus' firing. The air waves are public and the public responded. Was it sensationalized? Yes. Was it blown out of proportion? Perhaps. Is there a double standard? Definitely, but that doesn't make the comments made by Imus any less hateful, any less racial, any less sexually degrading to the people on the receiving end. Others have been fired for racially motivated comments, and for this there cannot be a double standard. Firing Imus, whose program was in the top 10 in the country as far as revenue was concerned, showed us that CBS had the guts to do the right thing, in my opinion, regardless of how it was going to affect them financially. Imus was bringing in $15 million annually.

If this is truly where we are headed as a community (and I think it's a good thing) then there has to be continued scrutiny on the truly hateful on air personalities that make a living spewing their hate-filled rhetoric. This cannot end with Imus. Let's keep an eye on the Rush Limbaughs, the Mike Savages, the Glenn Becks, and the Melanie Morgans of the airwaves.

Imus Fired

CBS fired Don Imus from his radio show Thursday, the final blow for the broadcaster who called the Rutgers women’s basketball team “nappy-headed hos.”

Imus initially was suspended for two weeks for calling the Rutgers women’s basketball team “nappy-headed hos” on the air last week, but outrage continued to grow and advertisers bolted from his programs.

The Lost E-Mails

Just when you though it was safe to go back into the Department of Justice... WATERGATE REDUX!

So the 3000+ pages of documents and e-mails that the White House provided as part of their "generous offer" were filled with redacted pages, blocked out information, etc. etc. ... we all know that by now. We now learn that the White House "is being accused of improperly trying to hide e-mails about government business by using unofficial e-mail accounts.
Congressional investigators say they found communications on one account from top White House aides about official matters, like the December firings of eight U.S. attorneys.
Those e-mails were discovered on a Republican National Committee e-mail domain called gwb43.com. That domain is not part of the official White House communication system."

GWB43... what a creative name! Especially for an e-mail system that no one is supposed to know about. These guys are soooooooo smart. Of course, the White House is defending its position by saying that the outside e-mail account was used for separating government business from political campaign work.

The Presidential Records Act, passed during the Nixon administration, requires the preservation of all official records of and about the president.

And here's the kicker: a chain of e-mails "...illustrated the type of exchange taking place on the account. The e-mails began with a February 2003 message from [from now-imprisoned lobbyist Jack] Abramoff to Susan Ralston, the former executive assistant to President Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove.

In the chain, Abramoff advised Ralston that an upcoming Interior Department gaming compact with a Louisiana Indian tribe would be "an anathema to our supporters down there."

When an associate notified him that his e-mail had been forwarded to another White House aide, Abramoff replied, "Dammit. It was sent to Susan on her RNC pager and was not supposed to go into the WH (White House) system."

"Now we are learning that the 'off book' communications they were having about these actions, by using Republican political email addresses, have not been preserved," Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said on the Senate floor.
He added, "Like the famous 18-minute gap in the Nixon White House tapes, it appears likely that key documentation has been erased or misplaced. This sounds like the Administration's version of 'the dog ate my homework.'"

Leahy also vehemently said that he doesn't believe the e-mails were lost, deleted, or misplaced. "You can't erase e-mails. Not today. They've gone through too many servers. They can't say they've been lost."

Vote For Me - I Don't Care What You Think

I wasn’t going to blog about this because it’s now a four day old story and hopefully everyone knows about it. My cynical side unfortunately thinks that more people probably know who the father of Anna Nicole’s baby is than what John McCain had to say in a 60 Minutes interview. After going back and reading my previous posts however, I thought it best to comment on it and bring this McCain chapter to a close, albeit temporarily.

It seems that the Straight Talk Express has rolled off the highway yet again and admitted as much. John McCain, one of the Republican contenders for the Presidential Primary basically said he doesn't really care about the wants of the American people his struggling campaign is desparate for. Seems like the Bush "my way or the highway" attitude we so love.

PELLEY: I wonder, at what point do you stop doing what you think is right and you start doing what the majority of the American people want?

MCCAIN: Well again, I disagree with what the majority of the American people want.

Dead man walking. With that one sentence, McCain killed any hope of a Presidential run.

But there’s more. Mr. Straight Talk was then asked about certain comments that he made regarding the safety in Baghdad after his "safe stroll" though Baghdad's Shorja marketplace:

PELLEY: Before you came on this trip, you mentioned in an interview that General Petraeus sometimes goes into Baghdad in an unarmored Humvee, and that there were neighborhoods that you could walk throughout without being concerned for your safety.

MCCAIN: There is no unarmored Humvees -- obviously, that's the case. I'm trying to make the point over and over and over again that we are making progress. And there are signs of progress, that it's long, and it's hard and it's tough. To take one sentence of mine out of 1,000 -- you know, life isn't fair. But the fact is that's my message.

PELLEY: You were a little annoyed with yourself, I think, having said that.

MCCAIN: Oh, sure. But look, as long as you are as open to the media as I am, of course I'm going to misspeak. I have done it on numerous occasions, and I probably will in the future. I regret that when I divert attention to something that I've said from my message. But, you know, that's just life, and I'm happy, frankly, with the way that I operate. Otherwise, it'd be a lot less fun.

Substitute the word “lie” for the word “misspeak” and it’s all too clear. And he's happy with the way he operates? Sure, he'll lie if he can get away with it. If he gets caught, well, oops, heh heh, you got me.

And that line about “life isn’t fair” surely fits now, not for McCain but for 21 shopkeepers of the very market Mr. Straight Talk strolled through that were executed the day after his neighborhood walk. I haven’t heard very much about that in the liberal media. But I suppose "that's just life", right Maverick?

All aboard the Straight Jacket Express.

Imus' Apology and the FOX News Spin

Radio talk show host Don Imus has been suspended for making racially insensitive comments regarding the Rutgers University Women’s Basketball team, the Cinderella story of this year’s NCAA Women’s Tournament, reaching the finals but losing to Tennessee.

IMUS: So, I watched the basketball game last night between -- a little bit of Rutgers and Tennessee, the women's final.

ROSENBERG: Yeah, Tennessee won last night -- seventh championship for [Tennessee coach] Pat Summitt, I-Man. They beat Rutgers by 13 points.

IMUS: That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and --

McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos.

IMUS: That's some nappy-headed hos there. I'm gonna tell you that now, man, that's some -- woo. And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, like -- kinda like -- I don't know.

The fact that Imus and his sidekicks have been making comments like this for years is not the point. What I find bizarre is that 1) its taken this long for Imus to fall out of the frying pan and into the fire and 2) the “punishment” is a two week suspension.

Two weeks? That is tantamount to a slap on the wrist. Many have been fired for comments less reprehensible. Imus has apologized and being a former listener, his apology sounded genuine to my ears. He definitely seemed embarrassed and humiliated. Many are still calling for his firing, including Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Imus did make an appearance on Al Sharpton’s radio show. Here is his apology...

and part of the Sharpton interview.

Unfortunately, our decent, fair and balanced friends at FOX News took the opportunity to show how maligned conservatives are in the “liberal media” world, claiming that if this had been a conservative talk show host, he or she would have been skewered, but since Imus “leans left” it’s not a big deal. Conservatives are treated differently.

First of all, calling Imus left wing is way off the mark. What left winger has Mary Matalin, Joe Lieberman and Ann Coulter on as regular guests? But they are right about one thing: conservatives do get treated differently.

Has anyone called for the firing of John Gibson?

GIBSON: “Do your duty. Make more babies. That's a lesson drawn out of two interesting stories over the last couple of days.
First, a story yesterday that half of the kids in this country under five years old are minorities. By far, the greatest number are Hispanic. You know what that means? Twenty-five years and the majority of the population is Hispanic. Why is that? Well, Hispanics are having more kids than others. Notably, the ones Hispanics call "gabachos" -- white people -- are having fewer.”

I’m sure the resignation of Glenn Beck is coming soon, isn’t it?

BECK (to Rep. Keith Ellison): “And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, ‘Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.’"

How about the King of the Swine, Rush Limbaugh?

LIMBAUGH: "Hey, Barack Obama has picked up another endorsement: Halfrican American actress Halle Berry. "As a Halfrican American, I am honored to have Ms. Berry's support, as well as the support of other Halfrican Americans," Obama said.
He didn't say it, but ..."

Yes, I suppose FOX News is right. Limbaugh and Beck and Gibson and Coulter and Hannity and on and on and on, don't really fall under the same standards. They are so poorly treated.

Here’s Dan Abrams subbing in for Joe Scarborough attacking FOX News for their spin on the Imus suspension.

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.

Bush The Deceitful

An abuse of power to the Nth degree.

President Bush has appointed Sam Fox as Ambassador to Belgium. If you don't know who Sam Fox is, he was Chimpy's nominee for said appointment back in January. During his Senate Confirmation Hearing in February however, he hit a bit of a snag when questions arose on why he donated $50,000 to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. You remember them, don't you? They're the lying scumbags who smeared John Kerry during his Presidential campaign in 2004.

So there is Sam Fox, sweating in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, answering questions asked by... John Kerry, who is on the committee. Chickens coming back to roost anyone?

Well, knowing Fox didn't have the votes was just a bit too much to take for Curious George and on March 28th (just seven days ago) he withdrew Fox's nomination. So now what does this sneaky, evil, criminal son-of-a-bitch do? He waits for Congress to go on a one week recess and then APPOINTS SAM FOX Ambassador to Belgium!

"We view the recess appointment of Mr. Fox as a clear abuse of the President's recess appointment power," three Democratic senators wrote in a letter to the Government Accountability Office, Congress' auditing agency.

Apparently Bush thinks that this is a dictatorship, not a democracy. Talk about brass balls! The Democratic senators were outraged, and asked the Government Accountability Office Thursday, "If the U.S. Senate defeats the nomination of Mr. Fox, would Mr. Fox's recess appointment continue through the current session of Congress, or would it be terminated?"

But that's a longshot as Bush had done this before with the 2002 blocked nomination of Otto Reich as assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere Affairs. Senator Chris Dodd blocked that nomination and the Chimp-Man gave Reich the job as a recess appointment. The GAO then cited the US Constitution in Bush's favor. Ironic isn't it?

And to add insult to injury, of course Connecticut Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, (The "I" must stand for "imbecile") the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney "hailed the appointment." Why wouldn't they? It's just another end-around to subvert the checks and balances of the Constitution that Bush hides behind when it's in his favor, but disregards when it is not.

Our Cat Murray

Murray, our feline son, fell ill a few weeks ago. We originally thought it was an infection caused by bad teeth. Our vet took good care of him and Murray had three teeth pulled! Guess he takes after his dad when it comes to cavities. After a week of antibiotics, we thought he was on the way to recovery, but this past weekend he didn't look right, stopped eating and wasn't his normal self.

We went back to the vet and x-rays revealed a large mass behind his heart and a small one in front. Blood tests showed liver and pituitary damage. Murray had cancer.

After thinking about what we should do and speaking with the doctor, we decided that Murray had suffered enough and we should put him down. We made an appointment with the vet last evening, one of the most difficult things I've ever had to do. Murray, however, had his own plans.

He hated being kooked up in his pet carrier and despised the ride to the vet. After two trips in the last two weeks, he beat us to the punch and passed away peacefully at home a few hours before his last trip, a couple of months before his 7th birthday.

Murray was a very "talkative" cat and sometimes sounded like a baby when he meowed. He also liked wet cat food. We only fed him dry food, but he would dump a mouthful of food into the water dish, watch intently as he waited for it to sink, then scoop it out and eat it with his paws.

He would then proceed to track one wet paw around the house. What a nutty cat. He wasn't normally a nuzzly cat, but was a loud purrer and buried his head into your chin when you picked him up. He didn't need to be all over you but enjoyed being in the same room with you. As long as you were within eyesight, he was cool. As he got a little older, he became more affectionate and liked watching Keith Olbermann at night with his dad, lying on dad's legs which rested on the coffee table. The problem was, he was so damned heavy, dad's feet would fall asleep.

I know that he loved us, maybe even more than he loved pasta (but that's a close race). He will be sorely missed by his mom and dad and his brother Chester (from the same litter), but it's a relief to know that he's no longer in pain.

Take care of your pets. You never know how long you're going to have them.

NY Times: McCain Wrong On Security

This can't be right. John "Straight Talk" McCain is apparently stretching the truth just a teensy bit regarding the safe streets in Baghdad. But... but I thought he shopped... I thought he was in a safe neighborhood and that according to him, there are plenty of safe neighborhoods.

Well, why don't we talk to the Iraqi merchants?

NY Times:

“What are they talking about?” Ali Jassim Faiyad, the owner of an electrical appliances shop in the market, said Monday. “The security procedures were abnormal!”

“They paralyzed the market when they came,” Mr. Faiyad said during an interview in his shop on Monday. “This was only for the media.” He added, “This will not change anything.”

“They asked about our conditions, and we told them the situation was bad,” said Aboud Sharif Kadhoury, 63, who peddles prayer rugs at a sidewalk stand. He said he sold a small prayer rug worth less than $1 to a member of the Congressional delegation. (The official paid $20 and told Mr. Kadhoury to keep the change, the vendor said.)
Mr. Kadhoury said he lost more than $2,000 worth of merchandise in the triple bombing in February. “I was hit in the head and back with shrapnel,” he recalled.

“This area here is very dangerous,” continued Mr. Youssef, who lost his shop in the February attack. “They cannot secure it.”

“Every time the government announces anything — that the electricity is good or the water supply is good — the insurgents come to attack it immediately,” said Abu Samer, 49, who would give only his nickname out of concern for his safety.

But wait a minute! I thought John McCain, Mr. Straight Talk, one of the Republicans running for the Presidential primary said it was safe. How can this be? How can he be wrong? He was there himself, wasn't he?

Mr. McCain was asked about a comment he made on a radio program in which he said that he could walk freely through certain areas of Baghdad.
“I just came from one,” he replied sharply. “Things are better and there are encouraging signs.” He added, “Never have I been able to go out into the city as I was today.”

Well I guess that statement is true. I don't know of many people that can claim that they go shopping wearing body armor, with 100 armed troops watching their back, and helicopter support overhead.
How misguided can this freak be? Doesn't he know there are these new inventions called CAMERAS out there in the real world that can record and take images of his "safe shopping stroll" through the streets of Baghdad?! Here's one:

McCain, you miserable, good-for-nothing, idiot. Stop wasting taxpayer dollars on photo op trips to Iraq. You are so desperate to claim this lost war is working, you'll do or say anything in your zealous run for the presidency to achieve your goal. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately for us), you are as out of touch with reality as are the 30% of the population that still support the Chimp in Chief. How in the hell do you think you can even come close to winning an election when you are at odds with 70% of the American people?!

Go home, Maverick. Stop embarrassing us... Just go home.

The Maverick Takes a Stroll

John McCain sure shut people up today when he took a leisurely stroll down a Baghdad street. The streets that he claims are safe for Americans to walk down.

By the way, the street market he shopped for about an hour was a three minute drive outside the Green Zone, he wore body armor and was accompanied by a contingent of 100 armed soldiers, three Blackhawk helicoptors and two Apache gunships.

Way to go, Maverick! You sure showed us. All aboard the Straight Talk Express!

David Hicks and the Problem with Gitmo

On March 30 2007, David Hicks was convicted of "providing material support for terrorism", marking the first conviction at a U.S. war-crimes trial since World War II. Hicks has been he only detainee who has been formally charged under a new military tribunal system. Prosecutors say they plan to charge as many as 80 of the 385 men now held at Guantanamo on suspicion of links to al-Qaeda or the Taliban.

There are a few problems with this, in my opinion:

1 - David Hicks was sent to Guantanamo in 2002... five years ago. FIVE YEARS AGO, with no charges filed against him.

2 - In 2004, Hicks was charged with conspiracy, attempted murder and aiding the enemy - to which he pleaded not guilty - the charges were subsequently dropped after a US Supreme Court ruled that the system of military tribunals was unlawful. Yet he stayed locked up in Gitmo.

3 - Originally assigned three lawyers, two of his three attorneys were removed from representing him. Hicks' civilian attorney was removed because he refused to sign a statement agreeing to abide by military rules that had not yet been drafted and another attorney was removed because she supposedly did not have the correct credentials for the commission. That left Hicks with only one attorney, his military attorney, Dan Mori. Although Mori has been doing an exemplary job for Hicks, there was a little cloud hanging over Mori: the prosecuting attorney has suggested that Mori should be brought up on charges of misconduct for his zealous defense of Hicks.

4 - He finally pleaded guilty to "providing material support for terrorism", a charge that wasn't a crime when he was arrested. Of course, ex post facto laws are unconstitutional, but that doesn't matter anymore, does it?

5 - As part of his plea bargain - yes, plea bargain - he'll be sent to Australia to serve nine months of the seven years he was sentenced to. The deal included a statement by Mr. Hicks that he “has never been illegally treated” while a captive, despite claims of beatings he had made in the past. It also included a promise not to pursue suits over the treatment he received while in detention and “not to communicate in any way with the media” for a year.

6 - Legal analysts saw the nine-month term as suspiciously accommodating of Australia's election season as the deal keeps Hicks out of the public arena until just after the vote expected by December.

I thought we didn't bargain with terrorists, that is of course unless we have nothing on the guy, torture him for five years, charge him with a crime that didn't exist when he was arrested, take away legal counsel and force him not to talk to the media for a year and refute his testimony of being tortured.

Don't misunderstand me. Following the 9/11 attacks, Hicks telephoned his father from Kandahar in Afghanistan, to tell him he was going to help the Taliban defend Kabul from the Northern Alliance. He was captured on 9 December 2001 near Kunduz in Afghanistan by the Northern Alliance.

The debate is not whether Hicks is innocent or guilty, or a patsy, or a sick man with Islamic delusions of grandeur. The question is whether or not he deserved a fair and speedy trial as dictated by the 6th Amendment of the Constitution. And if he did not, how long before we are next?

God, I hate these people.

Australian reporter Ray Martin's video report of February 18th: The Ghost of David Hicks

The Good Soldier

The testimony of Kyle Sampson on Tuesday was reported not to be a "smoking gun" in the US Attorney purge scandal, but it was hardly benign.

As Dana Milbank of the Washington Post reports, it looks as if Sampson was willing to fall on his sword, but after over seven hours of testimony, there were a few things that he couldn't be responsible for, even if he did try to take the blame.
Sampson admitted that Carol Lam, the prosecutor who nailed Randall Duke Cunningham, was never told of the Justice Department's disaffection with her performance on immigration prosecutions, the reason they claim she was fired.

He did say he "didn't remember" 122 times to different questions. Let me repeat that: ONE HUNDRED TWENTY TWO TIMES.

The hearing's strange procedural error also made it look like the Republicans were trying to stop the hearing, which they have the right to do under Senate rules. And as Think Progress reports, it seems they were objecting to having the hearing last for more than two hours, but after realizing how bad it looked to stop the procedure altogether, they quickly changed their minds and continued with the testimony.

Here's Chairman Sen. Leahy's statement regarding the "error": "Somebody here just asked me if this all could have just been all an accident, that we had this lack of concurrence by the Republicans to go forward. I grew up in a faith that believes in miracles, and it’s conceivable as an accident, I’ve been here 33 years and I’ve never seen it happen before. So maybe it was, but I suspect it was not.”

Sampson Testifies

Karl Sampson, former Chief of Staff for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, testified today before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Here is his opening statement courtesy of PoliticsTV.com:

Now, remember that Gonzo earlier stated that he was not involved "in the deliberations over whether or not United States Attorneys should resign... and that he had Kyle Sampson "coordinate a performance review of the Dept. of US Attorneys."

Well Kyle Sampson said this: “I don’t think the attorney general’s statement that he was not involved in any discussions about U.S. attorney removals is accurate... I think he’s recently clarified it. But I remember discussing with him this process of asking certain U.S. attorneys to resign, and I believe that he was present at the meeting on Nov. 27.”

The one constant phrase that's been used over and over again is that these US Attorneys were not fired for "improper reasons". Well how about we cut to the chase and they just let us know why they were fired? If the reasons were not improper and weren't performance related, then just let us know why. But they can't tell us - because the reasons were improper. They were politically motivated for something as simple as having a crony fill the vacancy, to something as tragic as anticipating the 2008 elections and perpetrate voter fraud and begin frivolous investigations against certain candidates to instigate voter doubt and begin smear campaigns against Democrats running for election.

And the truly terrifying part of this whole fiasco is that if these eight fired attorneys were forced to resign because they did not play ball, think about how many kept their jobs because they did play along and what they might have done!

Gonzo Must Go!

What in the world is happening here?!

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who previously stated that he "was not involved in any discussions" regarding the firings of US Federal Attorneys, did just that. "Documents released on Friday [March 23] showed Gonzales attended a November 27 meeting to discuss a plan to remove the U.S. attorneys, who were fired 10 days later."

Of course, Chimpy reaffirmed his support for Gonzo, which doesn't bode well if you care to remember The Decider's support of Donald Rumsfeld.

Then Gonzo went on NBC to try and set the record straight when he said this:

GONZALES: "Let me try to be more precise about my involvement. When I said on March 13th that I wasn't involved, what I meant was that I had not been involved - was not involved - in the deliberations over whether or not United States Attorneys should resign... I had Kyle Sampson coordinate a performance review of the Dept. of US Attorneys... I was never focused on specific concerns about the US Attorneys as to whether or not they should be asked to resign... I depended on the people who knew about how these US Attorneys were performing... "

PETE WILLIAMS: "Given that, then how can you be certain that none of these US Attorneys were not put on the list for improper reasons?"

AG: "What I can say is this: I know the reason why I asked these US Attorneys to leave. And it was not for improper reasons... but just to be sure, I have asked for an internal review by the Office of Professional Responsibility working with the office of the Inspector General and of course the Congress is going to be doing it's own review because I want to know as well, if in fact there were improper reasons, we should know about it and there will be accountability."

WHAT?! So he knows the reason he fired the attorneys and it was NOT improper, but he's having reviews done to find out if it WAS improper. This guy is either completely incompetent or trying to wriggle out of a legal straight jacket. Here's more!

PW: "To put this question another way, if you didn't review their performance during this process then how can you be certain that they were fired for performance reasons?"

AG: "I -I - I've given - I've given the answer to the question, Pete. I know the reasons why I made the decision. Again, there's nothing in the documents to support the allegation that there was anything improper here..."

So now Sampson is being set up as the fall guy. Or perhaps it could be Monica Goodling, Gonzales' senior counsel and White House liaison, who "will refuse to answer questions at upcoming Senate hearings, citing Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination."

Well that doesn't sound good. Is she looking for immunity to then testify? The potential for taking the blame for the department's bungled response "is very real," [her attorney John]Dowd said. "One need look no further than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby," he said, a reference to the recent conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff in the CIA leak case.

Watch the Gonzo/NBC Interview here.

Tony Snow Has Cancer

CNN has just announced that Tony Snow, while undergoing surgery to remove a mass in his abdomen, was discovered to have cancer in his liver. Snow is a cancer survivor having overcome colon cancer two years ago.
Of course, we wish him well. Why would anyone of any party affiliation hope for anything other than a full recovery? I can't imagine that happening. Right? RIGHT?! ... Right?

Rush Limbaugh: "[M]ost people, when told a family member's been diagnosed with the kind of cancer Elizabeth Edwards has, they turn to God. The Edwards turned to the campaign. Their religion is politics and the quest for the White House."..."If you're [Sen.] Barack Obama [D-IL] or [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY], how do you now attack John Edwards?" Limbaugh added: "Not a problem for Hillary, the Clinton [inaudible] will find a way. But Barack, it's going to be a challenge."

Katie Couric: "Your decision to stay in this race has been analyzed, and quite frankly judged by a lot of people. And some say, what you're doing is courageous, others say it's callous. Some say, 'Isn't it wonderful they care for something greater than themselves?' And others say, 'It's a case of insatiable ambition.' ...Some people watching this would say, 'I would put my family first always, and my job second.' And you're doing the exact opposite. You're putting your work first, and your family second."

Well, some would say that this is a Karl Rove political move to steer the building media frenzy away from the Attorney firings scandal. Some would say that this is what happens when you make a deal with the Devil. Some would say that Snow's inner demons finally got the best of him as he continued to get up in front of the White House press corps day after day to defend the lying sons-of-bitches. After all, the mounting pressure and bile building up in his gut must have had some ill effect on his health over the course of the last year or so.

Some would say things like that. Not me. I hope he recovers.

Here Come The Subpoenas

Jeff Cohen's New Book

There's a great post on TruthDig.org along with an mp3 interview with Jeff Cohen on his new book, "Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media".

Cohen was the communications director for the 2004 Kucinich campaign, founder of Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting. His life in media includes being a "pundit" for CNN, FOX and producer with MSNBC.

Here's are exerpts from his book:

"What I found inside cable news was a drunken exuberance for sex, crime and celebrity stories, matched by a grim timidity and fear of offending the powers-that-be—especially if the powers-that-be are conservatives. The biggest fear is of doing anything that could get you, or your network, accused of being liberal."

*****************

"As I sat at my MSNBC desk watching Bush or a top associate carry on, I knew painfully well that my network would not be following the administration event with a critical view, no matter how dubious or manipulative were the official claims. To do so—to practice actual journalism—might prompt the dreaded charge of 'liberal bias.' "

*****************

"When Phil Donahue toughly interviewed big-name guests, MSNBC execs were petrified that the VIPs would be offended and not make return engagements. They’d complain that Phil was “badgering” the guests. “Access is everything in Washington,” Phil later told a reporter. “If you’re the executive producer at one of the big news shows and you piss off Karl Rove, you’re not going to get Condi or Rummy or any of those guests who would legitimize your show as a serious, important program.”

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?

Is Gonzales A Victim?

I just heard this on an MSNBC bumper at 10:32am EDT and had to rewind to make sure I heard it corectly:

"Is the White house already looking for a replacement for Alberto Gonzales? How the US Attorneys controversy could claim another victim in the Bush Administration."

Uh, excuse me, but I thought "victim" had another definition. Let me look it up.

vic·tim [vik-tim] –noun
1. a person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency: a victim of an automobile accident.
2. a person who is deceived or cheated, as by his or her own emotions or ignorance, by the dishonesty of others, or by some impersonal agency: a victim of misplaced confidence; the victim of a swindler; a victim of an optical illusion.
3. a person or animal sacrificed or regarded as sacrificed: war victims.
4. a living creature sacrificed in religious rites.
[Origin: 1490–1500; <>

Okay, I did know the definition. Maybe number 3 fits Gonzo, but then he would be a victim OF the Bush Administration, not a victim IN the Bush Administration.

Here's another definition:

per·pe·trate [pur-pi-treyt] –verb (used with object), -trat·ed, -trat·ing.
1. to commit: to perpetrate a crime.
2. to present, execute, or do in a poor or tasteless manner: Who perpetrated this so-called comedy?
[Origin: 1540–50; <>

per·pe·tra·tor - noun
1. someone who perpetrates wrongdoing

Yeah, this one fits Gonzo better.

War in Iraq - 4th Anniversary

With the 4th anniversary of the official start of the War in Iraq, and as of this writing, 3,217 American soldiers dead, 32,544 wounded, approximately 650,000 Iraqi dead, and an estimated cost to date of almost $500 billion, I thought it would be fitting to go back and quote the thoughts of some of our fearless leaders in the war on terror.

*September 17, 2001-
President George W. Bush on Osama bin Laden: "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West… I recall, that said, 'Wanted, Dead or Alive.'"

* March 14, 2002-
Bush on Osama bin Laden: "I truly am not that concerned about him."

* Feb. 7, 2003-
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

* Feb. 27, 2003-
Rumsfeld: "What is, I think, reasonably certain is the idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far from the mark."

* March 4, 2003-
Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz: "The notion that it would take several hundred thousand American troops just seems outlandish."

* March 16, 2003-
Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months."

* April 23, 2003-
USAID Director Andrew Natsios: "In terms of the American taxpayers contribution, [$1.7 billion] is it for the US. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries and Iraqi oil revenues...The American part of this will be 1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this."

* May 1, 2003-
President Bush: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended."

* June 14, 2003-
Cheney: "...I think has been fairly significant success in terms of putting Iraq back together again and certainly wouldn't lead me to suggest or think that the strategy is flawed or needs to be changed."

* June 20, 2005-
Cheney: "The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."

Krugman: Don't Cry For Reagan

Today's NY Times opinion by Paul Krugman (password protected by TimesSelect unfortunately) is very telling of the modern conservative movement. He states that as conservatives long for the good ol' Reagan days, the realization is that given the chance, Reagan would have been what Bush is, had it not been for a Democratically controlled Congress.

Krugman quotes Johnathan Cohn's 1993 American Prospect article, in which "Changing just a few words in that article makes it read as if it were written in 2007."

KRUGMAN: "Thus, Mr. Cohn described how the Interior Department had been packed with opponents of environmental protection, who 'presided over a massive sell-off of federal lands to industry and developers' that 'deprived the department of several billion dollars in annual revenue.' Oil leases, anyone?

Meanwhile, privatization had run amok, because 'the ranks of public officials necessary to supervise contractors have been so thinned that the putative gains of contracting out have evaporated. Agencies have been left with the worst of both worlds — demoralized and disorganized public officials and unaccountable private contractors.' Holy Halliburton!"

Modern conservatism isn't what the party of Eisenhower once was, and that is what is misleading those who misunderstand the definition of conservatism. What you're seeing now is what could have happened in the 80's, had we not kept the system of checks and balances in place.

Falling To Earth

It is only matter of time before George the Liar and the rest of his corrupt administration is in such shambles that, in this writer's opinion, the White House of Cards will finish its collapse. Will the media feeding frenzy start then or will it just be more conservative spin?

With the calling of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' head (including increasing Republican members of Congress) in the wake of the ever growing federal attorney firings, the Chimp-Man threatening veto power with the latest Congress "transparency" bills, another protest march on the Pentagon, the moral musings and subsequent non-apology of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace, former CIA operative Valerie Plame's testimony this past Friday, and [INSERT SCANDAL HERE], it won't be much longer before more Rovian rats desert the sinking S.S. Moron and the abundance of subpeonas and indictments begins.