Unsurprising
Published by Human Head on Friday, June 15, 2007 at 3:05 PM.Think Progress » Giuliani Signals Support For Second Escalation Of U.S. Forces To Iraq
Again, unsurprising.In an interview this week with Bloomberg TV, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani declard that he would consider increasing U.S. troop levels to Iraq, beyond the tens of thousands of soldiers ordered to Iraq in January as part of President Bush’s escalation policy.
More to my point--how fucked is it that we seem to be at a place, generally, where this ridiculousness is par for the course?
New Fees and Fines
Published by Human Head on at 2:59 PM.Bush renews immigration push after Republicans relent (2nd Roundup) - US
In a key move to break the impasse, Bush on Thursday backed a Republican amendment to use new fees and fines for tighter border enforcement. The plan would provide 4.4 billion dollars up front for border security, the White House said.Because, you see, all of the money that we currently
I want to know just what these new fees and fines are.
Another example for the pile
Published by Human Head on at 1:36 PM....that You, not the sanctioned elites, will be going green. Further giving and service is heavily encouraged and will soon be demanded. Further suffering is required and will also be demanded.
How dare You point out the SUV's?
This whole problem is, after all, Your fault.
New York's Bloomberg takes SUV to green car event - US
How dare You point out the SUV's?
This whole problem is, after all, Your fault.
New York's Bloomberg takes SUV to green car event - US
He [Bloomberg] arrived at a green car initiative on Thursday at the American Museum of Natural History in a small motorcade of fuel-guzzling sport utility vehicles. After the event, the mayor told Reuters part of his trip was by subway.
The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same
Published by Pokerwolf on at 10:33 AM.
DoD braces for a fight with Pelosi - TheHill.com
It's nice that the Democrats have fulfilled all of the things they promised their voters when they "won" Congress, isn't it?
It's rare at the moment, but I bet it won't be if this bullshit is allowed.
Pentagon officials are bracing for a fight with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) over her desire to allow lawmakers’ adult children to tag along on taxpayer-funded travel for free.
Pelosi wants them to be able to fill the role of lawmakers’ spouses when the latter are unable to make a trip because of health issues or work commitments.
"It has been longstanding policy that, in the absence of a congressional spouse, the adult child of a member of Congress may accompany the member on official U.S. government travel abroad for protocol reasons and without reimbursing the U.S.
Treasury," Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami said. "Speaker Pelosi believes that a modern policy must reflect the professional responsibilities or health realities that might prevent a spouse from participating, and instead permit an adult child to fulfill the protocol needs of the official trip."
It's nice that the Democrats have fulfilled all of the things they promised their voters when they "won" Congress, isn't it?
Public Citizen filed a complaint with the IRS last year, saying that family members who receive free travel by accompanying lawmakers should pay taxes on the travel’s value. The complaint focused on privately sponsored travel, but Holman said it should apply to taxpayer-funded travel as well.
"I don’t see any difference," Holman said.
In its first week with a Democratic majority this year, the House passed what Pelosi called "the toughest congressional ethics reform in history." It forbade gifts and travel from lobbyists and banned travel on corporate jets. It did not address publicly funded travel such as codels.
Lawmakers’ children currently can travel gratis if they get a waiver, termed an "invitation," from the secretary of defense, according to Dan Stanley, a former assistant secretary for legislative affairs at the Pentagon. He said it was rare for a lawmaker to travel with his or her children.
It's rare at the moment, but I bet it won't be if this bullshit is allowed.
The Warming Insurgency
Published by Human Head on Thursday, June 14, 2007 at 8:57 PM.We first saw it in '98 and kicked its ass then (Global Warming I).
Now it's back, and it's pissed. Gird your loins for Global Warming II-CO2's Revenge. Also, pay a global carbon tax ASAP. It's the only way we can stop this resurgence of a terrorist sun launching solar flares (most likely manufactured in Iran).
We beat it a decade ago. Let's do it again.
Think Progress » 2007: Hottest year ever thus far.
Now it's back, and it's pissed. Gird your loins for Global Warming II-CO2's Revenge. Also, pay a global carbon tax ASAP. It's the only way we can stop this resurgence of a terrorist sun launching solar flares (most likely manufactured in Iran).
We beat it a decade ago. Let's do it again.
Think Progress » 2007: Hottest year ever thus far.
“The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported today that ‘the global surface temperature for the combined January-May period tied with 1998″ as the warmest January-May ever recorded.
Breaking Newz! Stop The Pressuz!
Published by BG on at 8:50 PM.'Obama Girl' Site Registered Through GoDaddy | NewsBusters.org
By now you may have heard about "Obama Girl," an attractive young woman dancing and singing a tune about having a "crush" on the Democratic presidential hopeful. It's all the rage on the cable news nets this afternoon. Doing some digging around the Internet, however, I was unable to find who exactly is behind the viral video phenomenon, but I did find it was registered through GoDaddy.com, the Web site registrar made a household name for its racy TV ads.
I'm not sure what this is supposed to imply, but damned if Newsbusters can't find some connection between two big titty bitches if they dig hard enough!
Powered by ScribeFire.
No one coulda seen this coming.
Published by Human Head on at 8:33 PM.The Blotter
A terrorist watch list compiled by the FBI has apparently swelled to include more than half a million names.My guess is, Iran is so very clever, it's most likely that they are sneaking armor-piercing SQL commands across the firewall to do harm to America's databases by swelling them to the point of bursting.
Privacy and civil liberties advocates say the list is growing uncontrollably, threatening its usefulness in the war on terror.
The bureau says the number of names on its terrorist watch list is classified.
If that's not "most likely" and "difficult not to believe", I just don't know what is.
Now look what the Dems and virulent bloggers did!
Published by Human Head on at 8:11 PM.They made Rove's pet cry. He now feels so terrible, he doesn't even have the strength to fix another election. He's been relegated to a Fred Thompson staff position for chissakes.
All he wanted to do was love and serveKarl the country.
Think Progress » Griffin ‘chokes up’ recalling time as U.S. attorney.
All he wanted to do was love and serve
Think Progress » Griffin ‘chokes up’ recalling time as U.S. attorney.
Speaking publicly for the first time about his time as U.S. attorney, Karl Rove-protege Tim Griffin said today that public service is “not worth it” and that “his experience as U.S. attorney had not been worth the criticism he and his wife have endured.” Griffin reportedly “became emotional several times, choking up as he detailed his political and legal career.”
LOLREFLUBLICANS
Published by BG on at 6:16 PM.State GOP goes outside the U.S. to hire top aide
The California Republican Party has decided no American is qualified to take one of its most crucial positions -- state deputy political director -- and has hired a Canadian for the job through a coveted H-1B visa, a program favored by Silicon Valley tech firms that is under fire for displacing skilled American workers.
Well, I suppose if your leader is an Austrian, being open to immigrants is probably the way to go, right?
Via: The Carpetbagger Report
Powered by ScribeFire.
How to Unmask a Covert CIA Agent for Political Gain, Obfuscate the Truth, and Make Sure No One Goes to Jail
Published by BG on at 2:56 PM.There are a lot of arguments surrounding the Scooter Libby perjury/obstruction conviction, and most of them are largely bunk. For example, the thought that the investigation should have stopped at Armitage when there were clearly other reporters (Judy Miller, for one) who received leaks from other sources is particularly glaring. It remains inarguable though, that despite having access to top defense lawyers for his case, it was ruled that Scooter Libby perjured himself and obstructed justice to the satisfaction of a jury.
Whether or not you agree with the degree of justice done in this instance isn't relevant to the argument Libby's attorneys are focusing on for their appeal. Ed Brayton at Dispatches From The Culture Wars wrote yesterday about a bipartisan amicus brief filed on Libby's behalf earlier this week:
Dispatches from the Culture Wars: Brief Controversy in Libby Case
The distinction is this: if he was operating in his investigation under the granted powers of a principal officer, then he should have been confirmed by the Senate to hold those powers. If not, he was operating unconstitutionally. There is an obvious moral answer to the question of whether DOJ appointees should be vested with powers reserved in the constitution for those that must receive nomination and confirmation by congress, and that answer should be clear to anyone no matter what side of the ballot you choose to mark.
Now, I don't pretend to be a constitutional scholar, and I don't pretend to try and tell you that Ed's breakdown of Libby's appeal strategy will or won't pass muster. All I am saying is this: this smells really funny all of a sudden.
Yes, it reeked before, I'll grant you that. But with all the grasping at straws ("No one ever said 'covert under IIPA!' Free Scooter!") that has taken place since the perjury/obstruction allegations were leveled, why does this come up now? Why was this brief fired out after the conviction and just before the hearing as to whether or not Libby remains free pending appeal?
The difficulty with that question lies with the signatories on the amici curiae (PDF) (I've always wanted to use that term correctly in a blog post) filed on this issue. They represent a left-to-right representation of the political spectrum, and certainly cannot be assigned a "neocon" tag or GOP-loyalist accusation. While it seems that the brief was filed specifically to keep Scooter out of jail pending appeal, and while that seems to be a partisan issue on the surface, it's really a little more complicated than that.
But only a little.
If this issue of constitutionality is the basis for appeal, and if it really does represent any sort of positive chance for Scooter Libby to get his conviction overturned, then he shouldn't go to jail pending that appeal. As much as I think he's a despicable toadie who stood as a firewall between a despicable action and the actors who executed it, it is from within the canon of long-standing American ideals that this thought arises. It's not a new ideal. It's a long standing legal principle which any reasonable person should get behind: so long as there's a valid appeal, the appellant should remain free to wage that appeal in the courts. It really is that simple.
Again, why is the constitutionality of Patrick Fitzgerald's appointment as Special Prosecutor being challenged now? Why wasn't someone smart enough at the beginning to recognize that this was (going to be) a problem? I'm not smart enough to parse the argument to determine whether the problem was in the appointment or in the assumption of power by Fitzgerald that ran extra-constitutionally to that appointment, nor do I want to assume or speculate as to which of those two issues is at the root of this argument. All I know, is that if it's the former which lies behind the appeal, then it's going to smell an awful lot like a setup. With a single party in power controlling both branches that mattered in this issue, it won't be a long leap of conspiracy to believe that the DOJ (under the Executive Branch) "mistakenly" gave a Special Prosecutor extra-constitutional authority, only to have the challenge card played at the absolute last minute possible before the only real prosecution to arise from the case occurs.
Here, then, is the sketch of your conspiracy theory timeline:
1) Cheney asks Libby, Rove and Armitage to leak Valerie Wilson's covert status to discredit Joe Wilson's debunking of the Niger yellow cake debacle.
2) The leak eventually gets traced back to the White House, and public pressure demands a grand jury investigation.
3) The DOJ, filled with "loyal Bushies*," is brought in to conduct the investigation, but given explicit instructions to construct a house of cards. In other words, give the appearance of legitimacy to the investigation, but make sure the logistics of setting it up are able to be effectively challenged in court at a later date.
4) Have everyone interviewed from the WH by the Special Prosecutor play dumb, but have one guy lie and obfuscate, thereby clouding the IIPA-prosecutable "intent to disclose" narrow reading of the applicable law. When the prosecutor can't get a story straight, but knows he found a perjurer, he'll drop everything to get that handled.
5) Have the perjury trial take place. If Libby wins, you don't play your constitutional challenge card you swiped from the deck. If he loses? You play the card.
6) Get a sympathetic judge on the DC circuit to hear the appeal and overturn the conviction.
7) Since now the lack of constitutional authority by the Special Prosecutor has been established, this essentially voids any and all responsibility any of the leakers may have had (although they weren't forced to take responsibility anyway), and essentially frees the perjurer on a technicality.
8) Crack a big bottle of champagne and drink heavily at how clever you were to get away with your lies. Don't forget to spill a little on the shredded remains of the constitution sitting in charred embers on the floor of your office.
*#3 is really a stretch, especially knowing what we do now about James Comey who made the Fitzgerald appointment. This is where the conspiracy theory falls apart entirely, I think. Still a fun thought exercise though. (Do JFK next! Do JFK next!)
I don't know whether Scooter Libby gets out of jail free with this appeal or not. All I know is that whenever something big like this gets tossed on a technicality, it bears asking why the people who were responsible for putting it together didn't understand how to keep it constitutional in the first place. So do I think Scooter goes free? Yup. Do I think the reason he might go free is legit? Yup. Do I put it past this administration to have put all this together so it would fall apart at their demand later? Nope, not in a million years.
Whether or not you agree with the degree of justice done in this instance isn't relevant to the argument Libby's attorneys are focusing on for their appeal. Ed Brayton at Dispatches From The Culture Wars wrote yesterday about a bipartisan amicus brief filed on Libby's behalf earlier this week:
Dispatches from the Culture Wars: Brief Controversy in Libby Case
The reasoning revolves around a highly technical matter of constitutional law, whether the position of special prosecutor is an "inferior officer" under Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution or whether he is a "principal officer." There is no doubt that Fitzgerald held an "inferior office" as the US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, but under the law he cannot be elevated to a position as a "principal officer" without a separate Senate nomination and confirmation.
So the question is whether the office of Special Prosecutor that he was appointed to is inferior or principal. It also revolves around the differences between a special prosecutor and an independent prosecutor. The key difference is that an independent prosecutor is required by law to follow all DOJ procedures, while a special prosecutor is explicitly exempted from them (or at least Fitzgerald was, in this case). That suggests that his appointment may constitute a principal office rather than an inferior one.
The distinction is this: if he was operating in his investigation under the granted powers of a principal officer, then he should have been confirmed by the Senate to hold those powers. If not, he was operating unconstitutionally. There is an obvious moral answer to the question of whether DOJ appointees should be vested with powers reserved in the constitution for those that must receive nomination and confirmation by congress, and that answer should be clear to anyone no matter what side of the ballot you choose to mark.
Now, I don't pretend to be a constitutional scholar, and I don't pretend to try and tell you that Ed's breakdown of Libby's appeal strategy will or won't pass muster. All I am saying is this: this smells really funny all of a sudden.
Yes, it reeked before, I'll grant you that. But with all the grasping at straws ("No one ever said 'covert under IIPA!' Free Scooter!") that has taken place since the perjury/obstruction allegations were leveled, why does this come up now? Why was this brief fired out after the conviction and just before the hearing as to whether or not Libby remains free pending appeal?
The difficulty with that question lies with the signatories on the amici curiae (PDF) (I've always wanted to use that term correctly in a blog post) filed on this issue. They represent a left-to-right representation of the political spectrum, and certainly cannot be assigned a "neocon" tag or GOP-loyalist accusation. While it seems that the brief was filed specifically to keep Scooter out of jail pending appeal, and while that seems to be a partisan issue on the surface, it's really a little more complicated than that.
But only a little.
If this issue of constitutionality is the basis for appeal, and if it really does represent any sort of positive chance for Scooter Libby to get his conviction overturned, then he shouldn't go to jail pending that appeal. As much as I think he's a despicable toadie who stood as a firewall between a despicable action and the actors who executed it, it is from within the canon of long-standing American ideals that this thought arises. It's not a new ideal. It's a long standing legal principle which any reasonable person should get behind: so long as there's a valid appeal, the appellant should remain free to wage that appeal in the courts. It really is that simple.
Again, why is the constitutionality of Patrick Fitzgerald's appointment as Special Prosecutor being challenged now? Why wasn't someone smart enough at the beginning to recognize that this was (going to be) a problem? I'm not smart enough to parse the argument to determine whether the problem was in the appointment or in the assumption of power by Fitzgerald that ran extra-constitutionally to that appointment, nor do I want to assume or speculate as to which of those two issues is at the root of this argument. All I know, is that if it's the former which lies behind the appeal, then it's going to smell an awful lot like a setup. With a single party in power controlling both branches that mattered in this issue, it won't be a long leap of conspiracy to believe that the DOJ (under the Executive Branch) "mistakenly" gave a Special Prosecutor extra-constitutional authority, only to have the challenge card played at the absolute last minute possible before the only real prosecution to arise from the case occurs.
Here, then, is the sketch of your conspiracy theory timeline:
1) Cheney asks Libby, Rove and Armitage to leak Valerie Wilson's covert status to discredit Joe Wilson's debunking of the Niger yellow cake debacle.
2) The leak eventually gets traced back to the White House, and public pressure demands a grand jury investigation.
3) The DOJ, filled with "loyal Bushies*," is brought in to conduct the investigation, but given explicit instructions to construct a house of cards. In other words, give the appearance of legitimacy to the investigation, but make sure the logistics of setting it up are able to be effectively challenged in court at a later date.
4) Have everyone interviewed from the WH by the Special Prosecutor play dumb, but have one guy lie and obfuscate, thereby clouding the IIPA-prosecutable "intent to disclose" narrow reading of the applicable law. When the prosecutor can't get a story straight, but knows he found a perjurer, he'll drop everything to get that handled.
5) Have the perjury trial take place. If Libby wins, you don't play your constitutional challenge card you swiped from the deck. If he loses? You play the card.
6) Get a sympathetic judge on the DC circuit to hear the appeal and overturn the conviction.
7) Since now the lack of constitutional authority by the Special Prosecutor has been established, this essentially voids any and all responsibility any of the leakers may have had (although they weren't forced to take responsibility anyway), and essentially frees the perjurer on a technicality.
8) Crack a big bottle of champagne and drink heavily at how clever you were to get away with your lies. Don't forget to spill a little on the shredded remains of the constitution sitting in charred embers on the floor of your office.
*#3 is really a stretch, especially knowing what we do now about James Comey who made the Fitzgerald appointment. This is where the conspiracy theory falls apart entirely, I think. Still a fun thought exercise though. (Do JFK next! Do JFK next!)
I don't know whether Scooter Libby gets out of jail free with this appeal or not. All I know is that whenever something big like this gets tossed on a technicality, it bears asking why the people who were responsible for putting it together didn't understand how to keep it constitutional in the first place. So do I think Scooter goes free? Yup. Do I think the reason he might go free is legit? Yup. Do I put it past this administration to have put all this together so it would fall apart at their demand later? Nope, not in a million years.
Powered by ScribeFire.
What She Said
Published by BG on at 12:39 PM.Reverse the erosion - Karen J. Mathis, President of the American Bar Association @ Law.com
Advocates who suggest we compromise our civil liberties in the name of national security like to think there are no mistakes, no innocents who are being wrongly caught in law enforcement's net. But such errors do occur, and without review by a fair and impartial court, they cannot be corrected.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Of Course, If You're Not Doing Anything Illegal, You Have Nothing To Worry About
Published by BG on at 12:37 PM.WP: FBI finds it overstepped in collecting data - washingtonpost.com Highlights - MSNBC.com
FBI officials said the results confirmed what agency supervisors and outside critics feared, namely that many agents did not understand or follow the required legal procedures and paperwork requirements when collecting personal information with one of the most sensitive and powerful intelligence-gathering tools of the post-Sept. 11 era -- the National Security Letter, or NSL.
Such letters are uniformly secret and amount to nonnegotiable demands for personal information -- demands that are not reviewed in advance by a judge. After the 2001 terrorist attacks, Congress substantially eased the rules for issuing NSLs, requiring only that the bureau certify that the records are "sought for" or "relevant to" an investigation "to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities."
The change -- combined with national anxiety about another domestic terrorist event -- led to an explosive growth in the use of the letters.
Sorry America, all this data we've been collecting on you and your neighbor? Let's just chalk that up to a misunderstanding of procedure and paperwork. We're really not trying to spy on you, it's just happening by accident. Our bad! We promise we'll do better from now on, honest!
Again and again it bears repeating - any time the government legalizes breaking through your expectation of privacy or restricting your civil liberties, they'll do it, they'll abuse it, and they'll chalk it all up to the crazy people who want to do you harm.
Powered by ScribeFire.
A Novel Theory
Published by BG on at 12:16 PM.Cliff Schecter - The Truth About Hillary
(...F)rom the way (Russ Douthat at The Atlantic and many on the Right talk about the Senator from New York, it often seems that there's some special reason why social conservatives should fear her above any other Democrat. This, in spite of the fact that it's pretty clear that Hillary would be the most rightward nominee to emerge from the Democratic primaries.
Have you ever wondered that maybe it's not the spectre of socialism or the projection of militant feminism that's really the big concern? Maybe that's just a smokescreen. Maybe they fear a "centrist Democrat" in the wake of eight years of neoconservative failure. Maybe they know that Hillary Clinton as President will actually be appealing to some centrist Republicans after GWB's reign, and that they're better off facing a true Progressive in the general than they are a middle-of-the-road type who isn't totally unappealing (compared to her competition) to big business.
Hillary Clinton is not an extreme liberal, no matter what the religious right or the right-wing noise machine tries to tell you. She likely represents the left's best chance at building from the center out, which will invariably attract attention and support on the more agreeable of her policies from some on the right. Obviously, the health care thing is ambitious, but European nations have socialized health care without socializing bread lines and providing government-issue olive drab to the population, so what exactly is the slippery slope here?
Demonizing Hillary as the Uber-Feminazi Antichrist Abortionist Lesbian Who Will End Capitalism As We Know It is entirely disingenuous to what she will likely do if elected to office, so why does the right keep trying to tar and feather her with that rhetoric?
Powered by ScribeFire.
The Most Unbelieveable Thing I've Read Today
Published by BG on at 11:08 AM.Adbusters : The Magazine - #71 Beginnings of Sorrow / The American Left's Silly Victim Complex
What makes the American left silly? Things that in a vacuum should be logical impossibilities are frighteningly common in lefty political scenes. The word “oppression” escaping, for any reason, the mouths of kids whose parents are paying 20 grand for them to go to private colleges. Academics in Priuses using the word “Amerika.” Ebonics, Fanetiks, and other such insane institutional manifestations of white guilt. Combat berets. Combat berets in conjunction with designer coffees. Combat berets in conjunction with designer coffees consumed at leisure in between conversational comparisons of America to Nazi Germany.
We all know where this stuff comes from. Anyone who’s ever been to a lefty political meeting knows the deal – the problem is the “spirit of inclusiveness” stretched to the limits of absurdity. The post-sixties dogma that everyone’s viewpoint is legitimate, everyone‘s choice about anything (lifestyle, gender, ethnicity, even class) is valid, that’s now so totally ingrained that at every single meeting, every time some yutz gets up and starts rambling about anything, no matter how ridiculous, no one ever tells him to shut the fuck up. Next thing you know, you’ve got guys on stilts wearing mime makeup and Cat-in-the-Hat striped top-hats leading a half-million people at an anti-war rally. Why is that guy there? Because no one told him that war is a matter of life and death and that he should leave his fucking stilts at home.
I can't pretend that's not funny, if not more than a little absurd. It's a fairly long piece, but I thought I'd give you at least a small taste of what's got me all agog this morning. Clear some time, it's a rollicking, if not stereotypical view of liberals as either "dirty fucking hippies" or "effete coastal academic elites." I'm not really sure the author can decide which of those horses to ride.
Powered by ScribeFire.
He Didn't Ask It, But I Wish He Would Have...
Published by BG on at 10:38 AM.Jim Wallis: Questions That Weren't Asked During the Sojourners Candidates Forum - The Huffington Post
The command "be not afraid" appears more times in the Bible than any other, and yet U.S. foreign policy seems to be driven by fear, primarily of terrorist attacks. Our leaders seek to justify the most important decisions in foreign policy with dire warnings of impending attacks. Have we let fear push out wisdom and prudence as the primary virtues of foreign policy? Should the biblical command "be not afraid" have a role in foreign policy decision-making?
Powered by ScribeFire.
Huh, that's strange
Published by Human Head on at 2:54 AM.Bush Chides GOP Critics of Immigration Plan - washingtonpost.com
TIME--
Enter Magritte--
Bush insists it does not because the illegal immigrants would have to pay for their actions first. "This bill is not an amnesty bill," he said in his speech here. "If you want to scare the American people, what you say is 'The bill's an amnesty bill.' It's not an amnesty bill. That's empty political rhetoric trying to frighten our fellow citizens."
TIME--
Enter Magritte--
I Think Human Head Has Found His Candidate
Published by BG on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 at 6:17 PM.Don Cordell For President
In 2008 Elect “Independent” Don Cordell For President, of the “United States of America” our,“America the Beautiful” OR, You “will be” “Citizens” of The: UNITED NATION’S, “NEW WORLD ORDER” That’s what this is all about, the “New World Order”. The destruction of America, to convert us to: the “New World Order”. Wake up citizens while you still have America. “Had enough of Amnesty for Illegal’s See #1 NOW”
(I know there is a lot to this website, but I figure I only have ONE chance to get your attention. If you love America, read all of this presentation, the future of your country has never been at more risk, than it is “right now”. You won’t believe what I’m telling you, until you actually search more on the Internet for yourself and see what I’m trying to tell you, is so. If we don’t stop our present politicians, we will lose our country. Believe me.)
That's PokerChamp at 80 years old in that last paragraph right there. I swear to god this has to be a joke.
(via Metafilter)
Powered by ScribeFire.
There. I Just Saved You Three Minutes
Published by BG on at 3:27 PM.The Gavel » Blog Archive » Pelosi and Reid Call on President to Listen to the Will of the American People on Iraq
June 13, 2007
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
Blah blah blah mincing words demanding your action in the face of congressional capitulation blah blah blah.
Sincerely,
Harry Reid
Majority Leader
Nancy Pelosi
Speaker
Powered by ScribeFire.
A frank word from an Iran-Contra mechanic
Published by Human Head on at 3:16 PM.TPMmuckraker June 13, 2007 01:37 PM
“It’s pretty clear there is a fairly substantial flow of weapons (into Afghanistan),” he said. “I haven’t seen intelligence specifically to this effect, but I would say given the qualities we’re seeing, it’s difficult to believe it is associated with smuggling or the drug business or that it is taking place without the knowledge of the Iranian government.”
That's Honest Bob Gates. Of Iran-Contra fame.
How much longer before "imminent danger" from "those who would do us harm"?
Not much longer, I suppose. The blood-soaked choir is setting up for the finale.
Powered by ScribeFire.
I Can't Believe Laura Lets Him Out Dressed Like This
Published by BG on at 2:53 PM.al-Marri Getting Charged is Akin to Social Suicide?
Published by BG on at 12:56 PM.I've had this Andrew McCarthy (not that Andrew McCarthy) op-ed from The National Review open in my browser all morning, and every time I try to understand his broader points, a little piece of my soul dies inside. I am not a lawyer, and I'm strictly amateur when it comes to dissecting circuit court opinions, but I think I know what McCarthy is lamenting here - and I couldn't disagree more:
Andrew C. McCarthy on Enemy Combatants & Ali Saleh Kalah al-Marri on National Review Online
Just looking at the language in play in that last paragraph, the enemy of the American people is America's courts, who choose the benefit of an alien over the benefit of all people. That's a pleasant way to start your polemic, isn't it? Why is the Right so quick to blame America? McCarthy also sets up the assertion that the President, by virtue of his constitutional powers, the AUMF granted by congress, and the fact that he's the only nationally elected figure, must be given clear egress into whatever territory he feels best when prosecuting his war.
This case revolves around this guy:
Of course he didn't rebut it. The entire case is built around arguing the rights due to a so-called "enemy combatant" pulled off the streets of the US. Whether or not you believe the guy is potentially dangerous is irrelevant to the idea of due process and habeus corpus. Can and should the government declare someone an "enemy combatant," a title for which there is no due process or oversight, and throw them in prison indefinitely without charging them with a crime? That's what's at the heart of this matter.
Take off your partisan glasses for a second and understand this fundamental point: no one on the Left is sympathetic to those that would cause us harm. Personally, I don't have enough information to say, "He's a bad guy," or "He's not a bad guy," (and neither do you, most likely) so I'll keep that much out of it. What I do believe is this: if our government had proof he was a truly bad guy, charge him with conspiracy, throw him in a cell, throw away the key. If our government didn't have proof, deport him. Send him back home and keep an eye on him. What is fundamental to our society, however, is the due process of challenging our imprisonment. This is what separates us from a fascist dictatorship.
al-Marri was here with clean paperwork. He didn't ride over in a cargo container as a sleeper agent under cover of night. He was here legally, walking our streets. The immigration reform a scenario like this (if the allegations against him are more true than false) suggests are mind-boggling, but beyond the point. Can and should the government yank a legal immigrant or a citizen off the streets and throw them in jail?
I love that last paragraph. If a Clinton appointee does something, it's illegitimate "judicial activism." Beautiful.
No, that's a specious connection at best. The court was interceding on behalf of a legal immigrant. That the legal immigrant was an (alleged) al Qaeda "combatant" isn't relevant to the decision.
UPDATE - That's what happens when you're trying to make your 1PM meeting and get this done at the same time. It is a relevant point that he is challenging his detention, and it is a relevant point to that detention (as the Patriot Act will show) that he's a "declared enemy combatant" ("But was he a declared enemy combatant under the IIPA?!?! Why hasn't anyone from the CIA said this out loud?!?!" - er, sorry. Having Scooter flashbacks.). It's not that the courts are choosing to advocate specifically for al Qaeda, which is what the author is half-insinuating here. It's whether there should be legal standing for legal citizens who are enemy combatants. That's what I meant.
Gasp! Just you wait! Even those filthy undeserving migrant workers will be demanding we don't throw them in jail without charging them with a crime! The nerve of these aliens! Jumping ahead:
I haven't read the decision yet, but will do so later. Glenn Greenwald puts this idea in perspective. He states that the Patriot Act provides "a very clear legal framework for the detention of suspected terrorists inside the U.S. -- namely, it allows temporary detention but requires due process be accorded to the accused suspect." In other words, the court didn't just invent this idea of due process for so-called "enemy combatants" out of whole cloth. They had a law to work with. Quoting from the decision Greenwald does:
But no provision of the Patriot Act allows for unlimited indefinite detention (of enemy combatants)
McCarthy blames this on a pre-9/11 mentality, and asserts that the Article II powers of the President (i.e., the unitary "commander-in-chief") should not be limited:
I'm enjoying how he invokes FISA here, which is the same court thepresident commander-in-chief circumvented for the NSA program mentioned above.
Oh, and a court already struck down the warrantless wiretapping too, lest we forget. One of my favorite quotes from the Hon. Anna Diggs Taylor:
"We must first note that the Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution. There are no hereditary Kings in America and no power not created by the Constitution. So all "inherent power" must derive from that Constitution."
Anyway...
More beautiful logic here. They're "walking battlefields," and we need the flexibility to use our military on legal residents of the United States whenever the hell we think we've found a "terrorist." Funny, but I'd think if the CIA or FBI or Topeka Sherrif's Office knew about something insidious going down, they'd have little to no problem getting that warrant they need to bust down the door and perp walk a bunch of legal residents down to the station.
The Patriot Act gives you (essentially) 187 days to charge someone incarcerated in this manner. Then, even if you have to gin up fake charges, from the day you arraign the guy you could probably have another six months or so to get the info you need. If you can't get the intelligence you need in a year's time, then you're obviously not doing something right.
Change the law if you don't like it, but let's try to do this with the transparent debate we need. Civil liberties are the crucial linchpin that separates our society from fascist dictatorships. When our underlying right to be accused by our jailer is broken for some, it's a slippery slope that leads the rest of us to worry about our own freedoms.
How about instead of showing the world our biceps during the day while we hide under our blankets and quiver in fear at night, we let everyone know what it is that we stand for - and then do our best to back that up without letting the spectre of terrorism tarnish everything that's good about our society.
Charge the guy or deport him. If he's as bad as you say he is, surely you have evidence to back that up.
Andrew C. McCarthy on Enemy Combatants & Ali Saleh Kalah al-Marri on National Review Online
Strike another blow for lawfare: The use of the American people’s courts as a weapon against the American people in a war prosecuted by the president — the only public official elected by all Americans — under an authorization for the use of military force overwhelmingly passed by the American people’s representatives in congress. And all for the benefit of an alien sent here to attack us.
Just looking at the language in play in that last paragraph, the enemy of the American people is America's courts, who choose the benefit of an alien over the benefit of all people. That's a pleasant way to start your polemic, isn't it? Why is the Right so quick to blame America? McCarthy also sets up the assertion that the President, by virtue of his constitutional powers, the AUMF granted by congress, and the fact that he's the only nationally elected figure, must be given clear egress into whatever territory he feels best when prosecuting his war.
This case revolves around this guy:
Ali Saleh Kalah al-Marri is an al-Qaeda-trained terrorist embedded here by the terror network, right before 9/11, as a “sleeper” operative to sabotage the United States — by committing acts of terror and using his techno-skills to disrupt the economy by computer hacking. President Bush thus designated al-Marri as an unlawful enemy combatant in the war on terror, and the government proffered this and other information to a federal judge — a presentation al-Marri did not rebut.
Of course he didn't rebut it. The entire case is built around arguing the rights due to a so-called "enemy combatant" pulled off the streets of the US. Whether or not you believe the guy is potentially dangerous is irrelevant to the idea of due process and habeus corpus. Can and should the government declare someone an "enemy combatant," a title for which there is no due process or oversight, and throw them in prison indefinitely without charging them with a crime? That's what's at the heart of this matter.
Despite all this; despite the fact that the nation remains at war; despite the fact that Osama bin Laden, Ayman Zawahiri, and other assorted Qaeda mouthpieces continue to promise the organization is planning devastating attacks against our homeland; and despite the fact that, as we catastrophically saw less than six years ago, such attacks cannot occur absent the machinations of terrorists, like al-Marri, planted inside our country; a federal court Monday intervened on the enemy’s behalf.
Take off your partisan glasses for a second and understand this fundamental point: no one on the Left is sympathetic to those that would cause us harm. Personally, I don't have enough information to say, "He's a bad guy," or "He's not a bad guy," (and neither do you, most likely) so I'll keep that much out of it. What I do believe is this: if our government had proof he was a truly bad guy, charge him with conspiracy, throw him in a cell, throw away the key. If our government didn't have proof, deport him. Send him back home and keep an eye on him. What is fundamental to our society, however, is the due process of challenging our imprisonment. This is what separates us from a fascist dictatorship.
Specifically, a divided panel of the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Virginia ruled that the commander-in-chief may not detain a terrorist operative as an unlawful enemy combatant if that operative has managed to enter the United States and is present here lawfully...
al-Marri was here with clean paperwork. He didn't ride over in a cargo container as a sleeper agent under cover of night. He was here legally, walking our streets. The immigration reform a scenario like this (if the allegations against him are more true than false) suggests are mind-boggling, but beyond the point. Can and should the government yank a legal immigrant or a citizen off the streets and throw them in jail?
Instead, the majority ruled that al-Marri, a national of Qatar here on a student visa, must either be given a full-blown trial in the civilian-justice system or be released...
As the federal courts once again loom large in a presidential campaign, it is worth observing that this decision was written by Judge Diana Gribbon Motz, a Clinton appointee. It was joined by Judge Roger Gregory, originally nominated by President Clinton, but blocked by Republicans and finally appointed by President Bush in 2001 as an olive branch to Democrats — who quickly confirmed him before proceeding to block Bush nominees anyway. District Judge Henry E. Hudson of the Eastern District of Virginia, appointed by President Bush in 2002, dissented.
I love that last paragraph. If a Clinton appointee does something, it's illegitimate "judicial activism." Beautiful.
The ruling has several troubling aspects. The major ones involve the jurisdiction of federal courts — i.e., the degree to which they may intercede on behalf of al Qaeda combatants in the future — and the panel’s assessment of our current threat environment, which reflects classic September-10th thinking.
No, that's a specious connection at best. The court was interceding on behalf of a legal immigrant. That the legal immigrant was an (alleged) al Qaeda "combatant" isn't relevant to the decision.
UPDATE - That's what happens when you're trying to make your 1PM meeting and get this done at the same time. It is a relevant point that he is challenging his detention, and it is a relevant point to that detention (as the Patriot Act will show) that he's a "declared enemy combatant" ("But was he a declared enemy combatant under the IIPA?!?! Why hasn't anyone from the CIA said this out loud?!?!" - er, sorry. Having Scooter flashbacks.). It's not that the courts are choosing to advocate specifically for al Qaeda, which is what the author is half-insinuating here. It's whether there should be legal standing for legal citizens who are enemy combatants. That's what I meant.
Although it did not conclusively rule on the issue (finding a technical path around it), Judges Motz and Gregory transparently indicated their inclination for finding that any alien who is lawfully present inside the United States is entitled to all the rights and privileges of the Constitution — just as if he were an American citizen.
Gasp! Just you wait! Even those filthy undeserving migrant workers will be demanding we don't throw them in jail without charging them with a crime! The nerve of these aliens! Jumping ahead:
(T)he court astoundingly reasoned that because al Qaeda is a sub-sovereign, transnational terror network — i.e., it is neither a traditional sovereign enemy like Germany during WWII, nor an extension or militia belonging to a nation-state, like the German saboteurs captured inside the U.S. during WWII — its operatives inside the United States must be considered civilians, not enemy combatants, at least in the absence of traditional “battlefield” conditions of capture. As civilians, the judges held, they must either be tried in the civilian courts for terrorist crimes, or be released.
I haven't read the decision yet, but will do so later. Glenn Greenwald puts this idea in perspective. He states that the Patriot Act provides "a very clear legal framework for the detention of suspected terrorists inside the U.S. -- namely, it allows temporary detention but requires due process be accorded to the accused suspect." In other words, the court didn't just invent this idea of due process for so-called "enemy combatants" out of whole cloth. They had a law to work with. Quoting from the decision Greenwald does:
But no provision of the Patriot Act allows for unlimited indefinite detention (of enemy combatants)
McCarthy blames this on a pre-9/11 mentality, and asserts that the Article II powers of the President (i.e., the unitary "commander-in-chief") should not be limited:
(Asserting a "terrorist" has rights to be tried in civilian courts) is simply a preposterous assessment of our present threat conditions, to say nothing of the law. To being with, the president’s commander-in-chief authority is premised on preserving the national security of the United States against foreign threats; it is plainly triggered when a threat is foreign; there is no requirement that the foreign threat come in the form of a nation state. The president’s job is to protect Americans, and Americans are just as dead whether they are killed by al Qaeda or Iran. There is nothing new about that commonsense reality; the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which has risen to national attention since revelation of the NSA’s Terrorist Surveillance Program, has always recognized that a “foreign power” — the kind for which FISA permits wiretapping and physical searches — can be either a national state or an international terrorist organization.
I'm enjoying how he invokes FISA here, which is the same court the
Oh, and a court already struck down the warrantless wiretapping too, lest we forget. One of my favorite quotes from the Hon. Anna Diggs Taylor:
"We must first note that the Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution. There are no hereditary Kings in America and no power not created by the Constitution. So all "inherent power" must derive from that Constitution."
Anyway...
Terrorists like Atta and al-Marri are walking “battlefields.” They can create a “battlefield” by acting. Any other conclusion would require the United States to endure a planned terrorist attack before the executive branch could intervene militarily.
More beautiful logic here. They're "walking battlefields," and we need the flexibility to use our military on legal residents of the United States whenever the hell we think we've found a "terrorist." Funny, but I'd think if the CIA or FBI or Topeka Sherrif's Office knew about something insidious going down, they'd have little to no problem getting that warrant they need to bust down the door and perp walk a bunch of legal residents down to the station.
Finally, the laws and customs of war, older than the United States, permit the detention of enemy combatants for the duration of hostilities in order to collect intelligence and deplete the enemy’s resources.
The Patriot Act gives you (essentially) 187 days to charge someone incarcerated in this manner. Then, even if you have to gin up fake charges, from the day you arraign the guy you could probably have another six months or so to get the info you need. If you can't get the intelligence you need in a year's time, then you're obviously not doing something right.
If these venerable standards are to be tossed aside, and our only alternative in self-defense is to try enemy combatants in the civilian justice system while the war is underway, we will then have to choose between either providing our enemies with discovery that will be extremely useful to them or releasing them to return to the jihad.
That’s not self-defense. That’s suicide. This decision must be reversed.
Change the law if you don't like it, but let's try to do this with the transparent debate we need. Civil liberties are the crucial linchpin that separates our society from fascist dictatorships. When our underlying right to be accused by our jailer is broken for some, it's a slippery slope that leads the rest of us to worry about our own freedoms.
How about instead of showing the world our biceps during the day while we hide under our blankets and quiver in fear at night, we let everyone know what it is that we stand for - and then do our best to back that up without letting the spectre of terrorism tarnish everything that's good about our society.
Charge the guy or deport him. If he's as bad as you say he is, surely you have evidence to back that up.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Allegedly, Definitely, Whatever - Let's Hope Our Media's Paying Attention This Time
Published by BG on at 11:37 AM.Pokerwolf mentions the "irrefutable proof" that Iran is supplying arms to the Taliban, and is right to be naturally skeptical. This is, after all, the administration who told you mushroom clouds would pop up in Topeka because of aluminum tubes, and that the only thing holding Saddam back from attacking America was their failed attempts to acquire yellow cake.
That was Iraq, and making the case through the press for war. This is Iran, and it's also about making our case for war. That being said, this wouldn't be the first time we weren't playing completely above-board in our Iranian relations, but I'm not talking about the difference in opinion on maritime boundaries. Just to show you that we're a country that will do any damn thing we feel like, and try to pin it on someone else if it's convenient or advantageous to do so, I give you this :
Blackwater The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army : Melbourne Indymedia
I'm not attempting to make a statement about the value of an OBL assassination. I'm just saying that it wouldn't be the first time we've thought about lying to the rest of the world about responsibility in order to accomplish ulterior goals. Stuff like this (which happened during the Clinton years, mind you - if you think I'm a Clinton apologista, you're wrong) is why I'm naturally inclined to distrust a box of guns or an 81MM mortar shell produced at a press conference when it comes to a moral justification for more war.
Demand more proof from your leaders before they throw another 3,000 American bodies on a Middle Eastern funeral pyre.
That was Iraq, and making the case through the press for war. This is Iran, and it's also about making our case for war. That being said, this wouldn't be the first time we weren't playing completely above-board in our Iranian relations, but I'm not talking about the difference in opinion on maritime boundaries. Just to show you that we're a country that will do any damn thing we feel like, and try to pin it on someone else if it's convenient or advantageous to do so, I give you this :
Blackwater The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army : Melbourne Indymedia
(O)ne of (CIA veteran J. Cofer) Black's operatives in Sudan actually cooked up a plot to kill bin Laden and toss his body over the fence at the Iranian embassy to make it seem like the Iranians had killed bin Laden.
I'm not attempting to make a statement about the value of an OBL assassination. I'm just saying that it wouldn't be the first time we've thought about lying to the rest of the world about responsibility in order to accomplish ulterior goals. Stuff like this (which happened during the Clinton years, mind you - if you think I'm a Clinton apologista, you're wrong) is why I'm naturally inclined to distrust a box of guns or an 81MM mortar shell produced at a press conference when it comes to a moral justification for more war.
Demand more proof from your leaders before they throw another 3,000 American bodies on a Middle Eastern funeral pyre.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Iran, Allegedly Definitly Factually
Published by StB
on at 11:27 AM.
BG's comments about weapons flowing from Iran into the hands of the Taliban were interesting. It is true that there is no hands on proof that these weapons were intended for the Taliban. But let's take a look at the bigger picture and you see how it would appear that that is exactly what is happening.
First, NATO officials say they have intercepted at least two shipments of weapons coming from Iran to Afghanistan's Helmand province.
Washington Post:
Going to the Helmand province. What makes the Helmand province so
special? Maybe that is where the Taliban is?
The
Jametown Foundation> Helmand Province and the Afghan Insurgency
So, these known Iranian weapons are going to the province where the Taliban is based. Sure they could be going to the local sportsman's group in their gaming quests of hunting jackalopes, but why would you need C-4?
But wait, the Iran leadership of Shiites would never be friends of the Sunni Taliban you say?
There is a saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". It is a philosophy that the United States has appeared to embrace in the past. It is something they are embracing in Iraq right now. Few probably are aware of how those insurgents who fought alongside Al Qaeda have now turned against al Qaeda and are being supported by US troops.
Bill Roggio>1920 Revolution Brigades turns on al Qaeda in Diyala
See that. A prominent insurgent group has turned on al Qaeda and have an agreement with the U.S. It is not that far fetched for two groups to put aside their differences to fight for one common goal. So if we put one and one together, we should be able to see exactly what is happening here.
Exactly what proof do you need? Video of a guy wearing a Taliban shirt receiving an Iranian rifle? All it takes is a reasonable person to figure this all out.
*Just saw that PokerWolf had a response going at the same time I was wrapping one up. Thanks for the title!
First, NATO officials say they have intercepted at least two shipments of weapons coming from Iran to Afghanistan's Helmand province.
Washington Post:
In Afghanistan, British forces have intercepted at least two arms shipments
from Iran to Afghanistan's Helmand province since late April, the officials
said. Such shipments reflect an unlikely liaison between two historic
rivals,
the Shiite theocrats in Iran and the Sunni Taliban in Afghanistan,
they
said.
....
The intercepted shipments to Afghanistan
included 107mm mortars,
rocket-propelled grenades, C-4 explosives and small
arms, identical to shipments
to Iraqi militias around Basra in March,
according to the U.S. and European
sources, who track arms movements. The
C-4 explosives in both shipments have
fake U.S. markings, a common deceptive
tactic, the sources added.
Going to the Helmand province. What makes the Helmand province so
special? Maybe that is where the Taliban is?
The
Jametown Foundation> Helmand Province and the Afghan Insurgency
A desolate and largely lawless region with a population of just over oneEmphasis mine
million and a surface area of 23,058 square miles, the strategically-located
southwestern Afghan province of Helmand is emerging as the
center of the neo-Taliban and the broader Pashtun
insurgency.
So, these known Iranian weapons are going to the province where the Taliban is based. Sure they could be going to the local sportsman's group in their gaming quests of hunting jackalopes, but why would you need C-4?
But wait, the Iran leadership of Shiites would never be friends of the Sunni Taliban you say?
There is a saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". It is a philosophy that the United States has appeared to embrace in the past. It is something they are embracing in Iraq right now. Few probably are aware of how those insurgents who fought alongside Al Qaeda have now turned against al Qaeda and are being supported by US troops.
Bill Roggio>1920 Revolution Brigades turns on al Qaeda in Diyala
As the U.S. and Iraqi forces gear up to conduct a push into Diyala province, theEmphasis mine.
heart of al Qaeda's stronghold in Iraq, a prominent Sunni insurgent group has
turned on the terror group in the city of Buhriz. CNN reported the 1920
Revolution Brigade has battled with al Qaeda in the city and driven them out.
The 1920 Revolution Brigade and the U.S. have come to an
agreement that the armed groups will stay off the streets in the
daylight, while the U.S. Army is coordinating activities, establishing the Sunni
insurgents as local police forces and providing equipment such as radios.
See that. A prominent insurgent group has turned on al Qaeda and have an agreement with the U.S. It is not that far fetched for two groups to put aside their differences to fight for one common goal. So if we put one and one together, we should be able to see exactly what is happening here.
Exactly what proof do you need? Video of a guy wearing a Taliban shirt receiving an Iranian rifle? All it takes is a reasonable person to figure this all out.
*Just saw that PokerWolf had a response going at the same time I was wrapping one up. Thanks for the title!
Iran, Allegedly Definitely
Published by Pokerwolf
on at 10:39 AM.
U.S.: NATO Has Intercepted Iranian Arms - AP
Okay, fantastic! They have proof! What kind of proof do they have?
On one hand, this sort of thing has me infuriated. If they're going to state they have proof, they need to pony up some numbers or some other information.
On the other hand, they're smart as hell for saying it's "limited" and that it's not "a stubstancial difference" because then it's not a justifiable reason for trigger-happy politicians to start barking for an invasion of Iran. In this situation, there doesn't have to be a large shipment for Iran to be in the wrong. All NATO needs is one box of shipped arms for proof.
Here's the interesting bit, though:
Translation: "I don't know why they're doing it, but they are."
Well done, Mr. Burns. In this situation, NATO doesn't need a motive. All they need is proof.
PARIS (AP) -- NATO has intercepted Iranian weapons shipments to Afghanistan's Taliban insurgents, providing evidence Iran is violating international law to aid a group it once considered a bitter enemy, a senior U.S. diplomat said Wednesday.
"There's irrefutable evidence the Iranians are now doing this," Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said on CNN. "It's certainly coming from the government of Iran. It's coming from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard corps command, which is a basic unit of the Iranian government."
Okay, fantastic! They have proof! What kind of proof do they have?
Burns did not give details on the scope of the alleged Iranian shipments, although he appeared to indicate that they were limited. "I don't think it's made a substantial difference in the greater theater of the war," he said.
"It is not going to turn the tide against us, but it is very troublesome, it is illegal under international law ... and the Iranians need to stop it," Burns told the AP.
On one hand, this sort of thing has me infuriated. If they're going to state they have proof, they need to pony up some numbers or some other information.
On the other hand, they're smart as hell for saying it's "limited" and that it's not "a stubstancial difference" because then it's not a justifiable reason for trigger-happy politicians to start barking for an invasion of Iran. In this situation, there doesn't have to be a large shipment for Iran to be in the wrong. All NATO needs is one box of shipped arms for proof.
Here's the interesting bit, though:
Iran, which is also in a dispute with the West over its nuclear program, denies the Taliban accusation, calling it part of a broad anti-Iranian campaign. Tehran says it makes no sense that a Shiite-led government like itself would help the fundamentalist Sunni movement of the Taliban.
Burns acknowledged that it was "curious" that Iran would aid the Taliban.
"It's quite surprising," he told CNN. "The Iranians had said that they were the mortal enemies of the Taliban in 2001 and '02."
Translation: "I don't know why they're doing it, but they are."
Well done, Mr. Burns. In this situation, NATO doesn't need a motive. All they need is proof.
Christ, What an Asshole - Political Mudslinging Edition
Published by Pokerwolf on at 10:33 AM.
Cheers and Jeers: Wednesday - DailyKos
Here's Example A of "Why Verbosities Can't Get Paid a Shitload of Money". We actually discuss and debate political candidates and issues versus simply mocking the opposition.
Remember Kids, popular news media (including blogs, apparently) don't get paid to make you think.
Donning rose-colored glasses stolen borrowed from Republic party HQ, C&J asseses the noble opposition:
Mitt Romney: That jaw! Those FAA-approved shoulders! So tall! So presidential-looking! And thank goodness someone's willing to stand up to the arrogant, know-it-all truth and insist that Saddam rejected IAEA inspectors. Can we double Guantanamo now, daddy?
Rudy Giuliani: Tough! Steely! Take-charge hero of 9/11! He'd be a great hunter if he hunted! Messy divorces? Bernie Kerik? Megalomania? Water under the bridge. And if you make Lieberman your veep we may crap our pants with musketballs of joy. Now, tell us more about Iran nuke plans, daddy!
John McCain: Maverick's hittin' his stride? Straight Talk Express back on the tracks? Answer to immigration question at last debate puts him in driver's seat? Even nuke-ier on Iran than the cross-dresser? New slogan---"Iraq 4evuh, my friends"---has edgy, youthful ring to it. Can we sit on your lap and do pony rides, Granddad?
Sam Brownback: A sweet man who's simply getting overshadowed by his wealthier rivals. But he's a shoe-in to head the new Department of Womb Management. ("Ya keeps the baby or ya gets the lash!")
Mike Huckabee: Started off strong by scaring the fur off the Great Orange Satan's hindquarters, and had us in stitches by attributing 110lb weight loss to a stay at "a concentration camp held by the Democrat Party of Arkansas." Then, to nation's horror, turned heretic by forgetting Ronald Reagan's birthday. No more funds, governor, 'til you make Simi Valley pilgrimage and atone.
Tommy Thompson: Hate to break it to ya, son, but if you can’t control your bowels, you can't control the country.
Fred Thompson: Christ is risen.
Here's Example A of "Why Verbosities Can't Get Paid a Shitload of Money". We actually discuss and debate political candidates and issues versus simply mocking the opposition.
Remember Kids, popular news media (including blogs, apparently) don't get paid to make you think.
Let It Go Righties
Published by BG on at 9:35 AM.Andrew C. McCarthy on Enemy Combatants & Ali Saleh Kalah al-Marri on National Review Online
No, no... I'm not talking about the content of the article. Look instead at the ad in the banner. Here, I did a quick-and-dirty MSPaint job to capture what I'm talking about*.
*Since the whole banner wouldn't fit in my single picture, I took the ad from the right side and moved it closer to the NRO logo, then clipped the empty blue space to bring it closer to the URL. If you want to see the ad in its natural habitat, click the NRO link above. I just wanted to make sure if the ad rotates, that I got the pic I wanted to show.
Monica Lewinsky. That's Monica Freaking Lewinsky. Her oral transgressions happened over ten years ago (just barely over - happy anniversary baby!), and still she's not going to be allowed to fade into the
Let it go. You got your dog-and-pony impeachment show and your LOLCLINTONZ jokes for the last eight years. Give a poor girl who was just trying to make a guy smile a break.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Dumbassery From the Comments at AlterNet
Published by BG on at 8:33 AM.Punctuation and spelling errors as they appear:
AlterNet: MediaCulture: Michael Savage and Bill O'Reilly Must Go
We are a rouge nation, what with the commingling of a resurgent blue state mentality with the former red state majority. See? Red and blue make purple, but before you get there you hit rouge. Also, the USA certainly has much biggest problems. Let's start with the metaphor that we're selling China the rope. To make your much biggest metaphor work, wouldn't China be the one selling us all the rope we need to do the job ourselves, but at a child slave labor discount? America loves a bargain, you know.
I do agree with that thing about Romney though. Thanks for spell-checking "shill."
AlterNet: MediaCulture: Michael Savage and Bill O'Reilly Must Go
Hypocrits. Posted by: douglashoyt on Jun 12, 2007 4:54 AM
The USA has much biggest problems than "gay marriage (something I support)."
The USA is rouge nation, invading without justification, and killing their citizens. Our economic industrial base is being shipped to our long time sworn enemy "Red" China. We are truly selling them the rope which will be used to hang us.
Romney is just another shill of the military industrial complex.
We are a rouge nation, what with the commingling of a resurgent blue state mentality with the former red state majority. See? Red and blue make purple, but before you get there you hit rouge. Also, the USA certainly has much biggest problems. Let's start with the metaphor that we're selling China the rope. To make your much biggest metaphor work, wouldn't China be the one selling us all the rope we need to do the job ourselves, but at a child slave labor discount? America loves a bargain, you know.
I do agree with that thing about Romney though. Thanks for spell-checking "shill."
Powered by ScribeFire.
Christ, What an Asshole - Testifying Today Edition
Published by BG on at 8:03 AM.TPMmuckraker June 12, 2007 05:21 PM
Not surprisingly, von Spakovsky delivered once at the Justice Department. As the former voting section attorneys argue in their letter, von Spakovsky attempted to force widespread purging of voter rolls based on a very restrictive reading of election law (which von Spakovsky knew inside and out, since he helped draft the Help America Vote Act). "For example," the lawyers write, "in one letter, he advocated for a policy keeping eligible citizens off the voter rolls for typos and other mistakes by election officials."
Not all eligible citizens, mind you. Just the ones unlikely to vote (R). Hans von Spakovsky today, one day only, in front of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Iran, Allegedly
Published by BG on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 at 1:40 PM.U.S.: Iran is arming Taliban - Focus on Afghanistan - MSNBC.com
A senior U.S. diplomat accused Iran on Tuesday of transferring weapons to Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan
Here we go again. A couple paragraphs later:
In an interview with The Associated Press on Monday, U.S. Army Gen. Dan McNeill said Taliban fighters are showing signs of better training, using combat techniques comparable to "an advanced Western military" in ambushes of U.S. Special Forces soldiers.
Of course, this guy didn't come out and make a connection with Iran. Just that the Taliban is getting more dangerous. Of course, if you need some validation in life, turn to your lapdog:
"In Afghanistan it is clear that the Taliban is receiving support, including arms from ... elements of the Iranian regime," British Prime Minister Tony Blair wrote in the May 31 edition of the Economist.
At bare minimum, some element of disbelief enters the picture at the very end of the article:
Iran, which is also in a dispute with the West over its nuclear program, denies the Taliban accusation, calling it part of a broad anti-Iranian campaign. Tehran says it makes no sense that a Shiite-led government like itself would help the fundamentalist Sunni movement of the Taliban.
Fantastic. No proof, just allegations. That's good enough for this President and even good enough for Joe Lieberman, who's now demanding war with Iran. Is there any reason at all to trust this administration? Go read how we were talking about Iraq then, compared to how we're talking about Iran in recent months, and tell me this morally void neocon agenda isn't overextending our military and putting us in another deeply wrong morass by attempting to engage Iran.
This chickenshit Congress has got to stop this chickenhawk President before it's too late.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Whaddya mean private armies aren't good?
Published by Human Head on at 11:15 AM.Truth drowned by Blackwater… « Scholars and Rogues
Following these gruesome deaths which were broadcast on worldwide television, the surviving family members looked to Blackwater for answers as to how and why their loved ones died. Blackwater not only refused to give the grieving families any information, but also callously stated that they would need to sue Blackwater to get it. Left with no alternative, in January 2005, the families filed suit against Blackwater, which is owned by the wealthy and politically-connected Erik Prince.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Okay, One More From The Politico - LOL
Published by BG on at 10:25 AM.Kucinich raises funds one dollar at a time - Politico.com
The steamroller that is Dennis Kucinich's presidential campaign rolled into Las Vegas on Saturday night for a fundraising dinner.
The exclusive $25-per-plate dinner for the long shot Democratic aspirant, at Tipps Thai Cuisine on Spring Mountain Road, had the potential, what with the silent auction and all, to raise thousands of dollars for the elfin peace candidate. Thousands. Probably not five figures, but definitely thousands.
Does the $25-per-plate include spring roll?
Powered by ScribeFire.
Getting All Wonky
Published by BG on at 10:21 AM.History could haunt McCain, Thompson bids - Politico.com
And since (the) passage (of McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform), opposition to the law among Republicans has spread beyond the activist groups hungry to run advertisements during campaign seasons.
In February, the California state party convened a training session for newly elected county treasurers in Sacramento to go over reporting requirements under McCain-Feingold. Many were shocked to discover they could face jail time if their records were incorrect. "They were coming out of their chairs yelling at the state treasurer," recalled one participant.
Hilarious. A group of Republican elected officials screaming in opposition to the rule of law, essentially flabbergasted that they themselves - good Republican soldiers - may be held accountable for the quote-unquote-mistakes made handling the trust placed upon them by their electorate.
Even from a new chorus, the song remains the same...
Powered by ScribeFire.
Tom DeLay Says...
Published by BG on at 10:10 AM.DeLay: AG scandal not about Gonzales - Politico.com
The thing you always need to remember when Democrat politicians talk is that they're lying.
And the thing you always need to remember when Republican politicians talk is that they're sponsored by Halliburton.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Your Libertarian Party Candidate for Congress
Published by BG on at 10:02 AM.Kevin Craig, quoted at Positive Liberty:
Positive Liberty » The Latest Looniness
Yeah, all those things I said about being a Libertarian? Um, well, I'm not for that kind of liberty.
Positive Liberty » The Latest Looniness
As a radical libertarian, I believe child molestation should be “legal.” Whatever you do in your bedroom is no business of jackbooted thugs from Washington D.C. But I’m also a Christian, and as a Christian libertarian, I believe I have the right to evict a child molester if he’s renting the bedroom from me. That could well be illegal under current “anti-discrimination” statutes, which prohibit landlords from “discrimination” against tenants based on “sexual preference.”
Yeah, all those things I said about being a Libertarian? Um, well, I'm not for that kind of liberty.
Powered by ScribeFire.
For and Against a Meaningless Vote
Published by BG on at 6:39 AM.War Room - Salon.com
Although Republican Sen. Arlen Specter said earlier today that there is "no confidence in the attorney general on this side of the aisle," Senate Republicans largely held together this afternoon in blocking an up-or-down vote on a resolution expressing the Senate's lack of confidence Alberto Gonzales.
Hooray! No one wins! Not that anyone would have anyway, with a virtually meaningless resolution on the table that the President was going to ignore anyway. That being said, the Republicans who moved to block the vote had to have their stomachs churning with this move. Gonzo's inept, and I think everyone gets that, but a vote that essentially supports the administration's (enjoy your "no no, that's not what we meant" spin) backing of this guy wasn't really what they wanted to do.
Whatever. Democrats got their week of news stories on the move to bring the meaningless vote, Republicans can now be accused of supporting the politicization of the DOJ under bumbling leaders